Delhi District Court
State vs Arun Khanna Ors on 28 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs Arun Khanna & Ors.
FIR No.: 526/2015
U/s : 3 SC/ST Act
PS : Govindpuri
SC No. : 2521/2021
Brief Details Of The Case
FIR Number : 526/2015
Offence complained of : U/s 3 SC/ST Act
Date of Offence : 06.12.2014, 07.12.2014 &
03.02.2015
Name of the complainant : Shyam Sunder Singh
S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal
R/o H.No.65-C, DDA Flats, Pocket
A-11, Kalkaji Ext., New Delhi
Name of the accused : 1. Arun Khanna
S/o Sh. Gopal Kishan Khanna
R/o E-105, Masjid Mohd, GK-II,
New Delhi
2. Seema Khanna
W/o Sh. Arun Khanna
R/o E-105, Masjid Mohd, GK-II,
New Delhi
FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 1 of 70
3. Maya Devi
W/o Sh. Gopal Das Renwal
R/o A-501, D-11, OMAXE
Royal Residency Sector 44
Noida 201303
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Institution : 03.03.2016
Date of Arguments : 26.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.10.2025
Decision : All three accused persons
are acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Arun Khanna, Seema Khanna and Maya Devi, faced trial in this case, for committing offence punishable under Section 3 SC/ST Act.
2. Prosecution case, as per charge-sheet is that a complaint dated 04.02.2015 which was received at police station on 05.02.2015 Govindpuri, Delhi wherein it has been stated by the complainant that :
"मैं श्याम सुन्दर सिंह एक शांति प्रिय अनूसूचित जाति संबंधित वरि स्ट नागरिक हूँ व फ्लैट न० 65-C डी डी ए फ्लैट् स पाके ट A-11 कालकाजी एक्सटेंशन नई दिल्ली 110019 में रहता हूँ। महोदय श्री के ०के ० पाठक फ्लैट न० 39-D, पाके ट A-11 कालकाजी एक्सटेंशन में रहते है व एक व्यक्ति जिसका नाम अरुण खन्ना है वह FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 2 of 70 अपनी दूसरी पत्नी सीमा खन्ना के साथ E-105 (मस्जिद मोठ) जी० के पार्ट-2 में रहते है।
महोदय अरुण खन्ना व इनकी पत्नी सीमा खन्ना द्वारा श्री के ० के ० पाठक व इनके परिवार के सदस्यों पर लगातार, दुर्व्यवहार अत्याचार गाली गलोच व मारपीट की जाती है। महोदय अरुण खन्ना इसकी दूसरी पत्नी सीमा खन्ना द्वारा के ० के ० पाठक व इनके परिवार पर किए जा रहे अत्याचारों के बारे में साके त कोर्ट में मुकदमा दर्ज है। महोदय मैं श्री के ० के ० पाठक व उनके परिवार पर अरुण खन्ना व इनकी पत्नी सीमा खन्ना द्वारा किए जा रहे अत्याचारों दुर्व्यवहार पीट किए जाने का चश्मदीद गवाह हूँ। महोदय कल दिांक 3.2.15 को मैं अपने निवास स्थान से किसी जरूरी काम से बाहर जा रहा था। महोदय जैसे ही मैं पाके ट A-11 गेट न० 4 पर पहुँचा जो की बड़े पार्क के ठीक सामने है तो मैंने देखा कि माया नाम की महिला जो की इसी पाके ट A-11 के फ्लैट न० 56A में रहती है वह अरुण खन्ना व इनकी दूसरी पत्नी सीमा खन्ना के साथ पाके ट A-11 के गेट न० 4 पर खड़ी थी। महोदय जैसे ही में इनके पास पहुँचा इन तीनों ने मुझे घेर लिया मुझे गन्दी गन्दी गालियों देनी शुरु कर दी, मेरे साथ इन तीनों अरुण खन्ना, इनकी दूसरी पत्नी सीमा खन्ना व माया नाम की महिला ने मुझे मेरे अनूसूचित जाति से संबंधित होने के कारण चूहडे चमार जैसे अपशब्दों से अपमानित किया गया। मुझे इन तीनों ने धमकियां दी कि एले चुहडे चमार तूमने के ० के ० पाठक के हक में कोर्ट में गवाही दी तो हम अपने गुंडों द्वारा तुमको व तुम्हारे परिवार को जान से मरवा दें गे। महोदय इतना ही नहीं माया नाम की महिला व सीमा खन्ना दूसरी पत्नी अरुण खन्ना ने मुझे धमकियों दी कि एते चूहडे चमार हम अपने कपडे फाड़ कर तुम्हें झूठे के श में फं सा दें गी। तुम्हारी जमानत भी नहीं होने देगे व तुम चुहडे चमार सारी जिंदगी जेल में काटोगे।
महोदय इससे पहले दिनांक 26.10.14 को अरुण खन्ना इनकी पत्नी दूसरी सीमा खन्ना ने इनके गुडों के साथ मिल कर मेरे घर पर आकर जान लेवा हमला किया। मुझे इन्होने गन्दी गन्दी गालियों दी मुझे चूहडे , चमार जैसे अपशब्दो से अपमानित किया गया व इनके द्वारा धमकिया दी गयी कि यदि तुमने के ० के ० पाठक के हक में गवाही दी तो तुमको व FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 3 of 70 तुम्हारे परिवार को जान से मरवा दिया जायेगा। महोदय दनांक 3.2.15 को अरुण खन्ना इनकी दूसरी पत्नी सीमा खन्ना व माया नाम कि महिला द्वरा मेरे साथ गाली गलौच, दुर्व्यवहार, चुहडे चमार जैसे अपशब्दों से गेट न० 4 पर समय लगभग 6 बजे शाम को किया गया। महोदय दिनांक 26.10.2014 को सीमा खन्ना दूसरी पत्नी अरुण खन्ना, अरुण खन्ना व उनके आवांछित तत्वों द्वारा किए गये। अत्याचारों के बारे में मैनें 27.10.2014 को पावती पाकर इनको विरुद्ध थाना गोविन्दपुरी में अपनी शिकायत दर्ज करवा दी। जिसका डी डी न० 428 दिनांक 27.10.2014 कोमुझे दिया गया। महोदय दिनांक 7-12-2014 को इस माया नाम की महिला ने जब मैं पाके ट 11 के बीच में बने बड़े पार्क में सैर करने जा रहा था तो इस पार्क के गेट पर मुझे घेर लिया। मुझे इस माया नाम की महिला द्वरा गन्दी गन्दी गालीयों दी गई व मुझे चुहडे चमार जैसे अपशब्दो से अपमानित किया गया। महोदय इतना ही नहीं इस माया नाम की महिला ने मुझे कह दिया कि ए० चुहडे चमार यदि तुमने कोर्ट में अरुण खन्ना व उनकी दूसरी पत्नी सीमा खन्ना के विरुद्ध गवाही दी तथा के के पाठक के हक में गवाही देने से बाज नहीं आये ते मैं तुम्हे अपने कपडे फाड़कर झूठे के सों में फसवा दूँगी व तुम्हारी जमानत भी नहीं होने दूंगी व सारी जिन्दगी तुम जेल में काटोंगे। अतः महोदय इस माया नाम की महिला के विरुद्ध दिनांक 17.12.2014 को अपनी शिकायत पावती पाकर थाना गोविन्दपुरी में दर्ज करवाई जिसका डीडीन० 258 दिनांक 17.12.2012 मुझे दिया गया। इसके साथ साथ महोदय इस मया नाम की महिला के विरुद्ध अपनी शिकयार्ते पावती पाकार कमीशनर, आफ पुलिस, डिप्टी कमीशनकर ऑफ पुलिस (साऊथ ईस्ट डिस्ट्रीक) सरिता विहार, ए०सी०पी० कालकाजी के कार्यलयों में दर्ज कार्यवाही । परन्तू महोदय आजतक आरोपियों के विरुद्ध पुलिस द्वारा कोई भी कार्यवाही नहीं की गयी। महोदय पुलिस द्वारा इस मायो नाम की महिला के विरुद्ध कोई भी कार्यवाही किए जाने पर मैंने अपना पहला रिमाइं डर पावती पाकर दिनांक 2-2-15 को एस एच ओ थाना गोविन्दपुरी में अपनी शिकायत दर्ज करवाई। इसके साथ साथ इस माया नाम की आरोपी महिला के विरुद्ध कानूनी के अंतर्गत उचित कार्यवाही करने हेतू मैंने दिनांक 2-2-15 को पावती पाकर FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 4 of 70 कमिश्नर ऑफ पुलिस, पुलिस मुख्यालय, डिप्टी कमीशनर ऑफ पुलिस सरिता विहार ए०सी०पी० कालकाजी को भी अपनी शिकायतें दर्ज करवाई। महोदय कल दिनांक 3.2.15 को भी इन दोनों महिलाओ सीमा खन्ना दुसरी पत्नी अरुण खन्ना व माया नाम की महिलाओं ने मुझे धमकियां दी ए चुहडे चमार यदि तुमने कोर्ट में के के पाठक के हक में व अरुण खन्ना व इनकी दुसरी पत्नी सीना खन्ना के विरुद्ध गवाही दी तो हम किसी भी समय दोनों को अपने कपडे फाड कर तुम्हे झूठे के स में फसवा देगी और तुम्हारी जमानत भी नहीं हेने देगी। अतः महोदय आप से अनुरोध है कि इन दोनों महिलाओं के विरुद्ध कानून के अन्तर्गत कार्यवाही कर मुझे न्याय दिलाने की कृ पा करे । आपकी अति कृ पा होगी। "
3. Upon the aforesaid complaint dated 04.02.2015 for the incident dated 03.02.2015 FIR In the present matter was registered on 17.04.2015. During the course of investigation IO examined the complainant and caste certificate of the complainant also got verified. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant. Further, IO collected the CAF and CDR of complainant and accused persons and also recorded the statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Further, supplementary statement of complainant got recorded. Accused joined the investigation of the case.
4. After investigation chargesheet was filed U/s Section 3 SC/ST Act. Court took cognizance of the offence against accused persons. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded.
FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 5 of 70
5. Arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused persons was charged with offences punishable under Section 3 (x) of SC/ST Act to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence. During the course of final arguments it was observed that the charge framed against the accused persons on 18.11.2016 has been inadvertently mentioned as offence U/s 3 (x) of SC/ST Act 1989 whereas the language of the charge shows that the offence U/s 3 (1) (r) (s) of SC/ST is made out and accordingly, the arguments were heard considering the aforesaid offence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. Prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in support of its case: -
Sr. Name of the Witness Crux of deposition No.
PW-1 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Nodal To prove the CAF and documents Officer, Bharti Airtel provided by him to the IO. He tendered Ltd.
the following documents in his evidence:
a) CAF with respect to Bajrang Prasad Ex.PW1/A
b) Copy of ID proof ie. election ID Ex.PW1/B
c) Call details of mobile number from FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 6 of 70 03.12.2014 to 03.02.2015 Ex.PW1/C
d) Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/D
e) Documents of call details with respect of mobile no.9971432630 from 02.12.2014 to 03.02.2015 Ex.PW1/E & CAF of the same Ex.PW1/F & copy of ID Ex.PW1/G
f) Call details with respect to mobile no.9971609008 from 06.12.2014 to 06.12.2014 Ex.PW1/H & CAF Ex.PW1/I The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-2 Sh. K.K. Pathak Eye witness to the incident dated
(eye witness) 07.12.2024.
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-3 Retd. SI Desh Raj Witness deposed regarding the different (deposed regarding stages of investigation conducted and complaints given by prove the following documents:
accused Maya Devi)
a) Copy of complainant of Smt. Maya Devi Ex.PW3/A
b) NCR on the complaint of Mst. Maya Devi No.526/15 PS Govindpuri, FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 7 of 70 ExPW3/B
c) Report on complaint of Smt. Maya Devi Ex.PW3/C The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-4 Sh. Suraj Kumar Eye witness to the incident dated
(eye witness) 06.12.2014.
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-5 SI Abhishek To prove the DD entry registered on
(deposed regarding DD 06.12.2024 and 07.12.2024 which were No.36A dated closed. He tendered the following 06.12.2014) documents in his evidence:
a) DD No.36A Mark Ex.PW5/A
b) DD No.39A recorded on 07.12.2014 in PS Mark Ex.PW5/B The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-6 ASI Sajivarghese Witness prove the record pertaining to FIR No.359/12, FIR No. 527/2015 and FIR No.528/15 & record of DD entries Nos. 36 & 37. He tendered the following documents in his evidence:
a) record of FIR No.359/12, 527/15 & FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 8 of 70 528/15 PS Govindpuri Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-7 Sh. Bir Singh To prove the caste certificate of
(proved the caste complainant/Shyam Sunder which was
certificate fo
issued vide no.73(A)/DC/CCS/HQ/June
complainant)
2015/2049.
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-8 Sh. Shyam Sunder To prove the material essentials of the
(complainant) offences alleged and her complaint she
tendered the following documents in
evidence :-
a) Complaint dated 04.02.2015
Ex.PW8/A
b) DD No.25B dated 17.12.2014
Ex.PW8/B
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-9 HC Rajender Prasad Witness deposed that he made
(he got the FIR endorsement on rukka vide Ex.PW9/A, registered in the present and registered computerized FIR vide matter) Ex.PW9/B and certificate 65B of Indian FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 9 of 70 Evidence Act Ex.PW9/C. This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW- 10 Sh. Bajrang Prasad To prove the material essentials of the
Aggarwal offences alleged.
(eye witness to the The witness has been duly cross-
incident dated examined.
06.12.2014)
PW-11 Sh. Dharmendra Kumar To prove the material essentials of the (eye witness to the offences alleged.
incident dated The witness has been duly cross-
07.12.2014) examined.
PW-12 Inspt. Raman Kumar To prove the various stages of Singh investigation being carried out by the (conducted the witness. He tendered the following preliminary investigation upon documents in his evidence:
receiving the complaint a) Enquiry report dated 11.03.2015 of the complainant in Ex.PW12/A February, 2015)
b) Endorsement Ex.PW12/B The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-13 ACP Jasbir Singh (IO) To prove the various stages of investigation being carried out by the FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 10 of 70 witness. He tendered the following documents in his evidence:
a) The endorsement of investigation being marked to him vide Ex.PW13/X
b) PCR call form Ex.PW13/A
c) Verification report of caste certificate of complainant Ex.PW13/B The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
7. Prosecution witnesses deposed regarding the offence in the present matter as follows:-
PW-1 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer Bharti Airtel Ltd. that the documents in respect of mobile phone no. 9718266858, as per the CAF was in the name of Bajrang Prasad, S/o Bhagwan Dass, R/o 65, Block 18, Dakshin Puri, Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi (eye witness PW10). Certified copy of CAF was Ex.PW1/A. The copy of ID proof i.e. election ID was Ex.PW1/B. The call details of this mobile number from 03.12.2014 to 03.02.2015 was Ex.PW1/C. The certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was Ex.PW1/D. He had also seen the documents of call details in respect of mobile no.9971432630 from 02.12.2014 to 03.02.2015. Same was Ex.PW1/E. The CAF in respect of this mobile number was Ex.PW1/F, which was in the name of Shyam Sunder Singh, S/o Kanhaiya Lal, R/o 65-C, DDA Flats, Pocket A-11, Kalkaji FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 11 of 70 Extension, New Delhi (complainant). Copy of the ID was Ex.PW1/G. He had also seen the documents of call details in respect of mobile no.9971609008 from 06.12.2014 to 06.12.2014. Same was Ex.PW1/H. The CAF in respect of this mobile number was Ex.PW1/I, which was in the name of Suraj Kumar, S/o Anil Singh, R/o 170, Tuglakabad Village, New Delhi. Copy of the ID was Ex.PW1/J. During cross examination on behalf of accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna PW1 deposed that it was correct that the Cell ID/Location Chart of the mobile phone no. 9718266858 from 03.12.2014 to 03.02.2015, 9971432630 from 02.12.2014 to 03.02.2015 and also mobile No. 9971609008 of 06.12.2014 was not placed on file by him. It was correct that from the Call details filed on record one cannot ascertain the location of witnesses/accused persons. He did not know how many mobile towers of Bharti Airtel were installed in and around Kalkaji Extension. A tower covers the range of 300 meters to 3 kilometers which depends upon the capacity of the said tower and the area where the tower was installed. He could not tell the capacity of towers installed in the area of Kalkaji Extension. He was not well versed with the Kalkaji Extension area.
PW-2 Sh. K.K. Pathak (eye witness) deposed that he was residing at the above address with his family and doing business of property dealing. On 07.12.2014 at about 4.00pm, he alongwith his wife Smt. Vibha Devi FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 12 of 70 were going for a walk in the nearby park. He found that Maya Devi and Shyam Sunder standing at the gate of the park. Maya Devi was abusing Sh. Shyam Sunder and saying "chuhre chamaar tere jaise ko main apne jute ke neeche rakhti hun". Shayam Sunder was a senior citizen. At that time, he was residing in new flats of Pocket A-11. In his presence, Maya Devi also stated that if Shyam Sunder would not understand her talk, she would tear her clothes and implicate him in a false case and she also stated that she would with the help of her gundas would finish the family members of Shyam Sunder. He knew Sh. Shyam Sunder Singh was belonging to a caste i.e. Khatik which is a scheduled caste. ACP Jasbir Singh called him in his office at Kalkaji and he had narrated all these facts to him. Witness correctly identified the accused Maya Devi.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Maya Devi PW-2 deposed that he was 10th class pass. He signed in English language. He was residing in this society by the name of Surya Apartments, for the last about 8-9 years. There was a Welfare Association of this society by the name of Surya Apartments Welfare Association. In the year 2014, he was authorized by the residents as "Sanghrakshak" of the Association. The Association was formed in the year 2014 for one year. Accused Maya Devi was appointed as President of the Welfare Association in the year 2014. Sh. Shyam Sunder was also residing in Surya Apartments in new flats in the year 2014. There may be other associations formed in the area of Kalkaji by other residents of such areas. He had no FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 13 of 70 documentary proof to show that post of Sanghrakshak was higher in rank to the post of President of Association. It was correct that there was a written document prepared for the purpose of Welfare Association and the powers of President and other office bearer of the Associations are defined in it. There was no document prepared by the Association to show that the Post of Sanghrakshak would be higher in rank from the President of Association. He deposed that since, accused Maya Devi had become President after a compromise in the case lodged by her on earlier President, so the residents had appointed him and one Sh. Ishwar Arora as Sanghrakshak to monitor the activities of President i.e. Maya Devi. There were two criminal cases on the basis of a cross case, lodged by Arun Khanna and his wife of Seema Khanna on account of some property matters. The incident had taken place at the gate of park and not at gate no.4. There was parking space near this gate and there was no shops or kiosk near the gate. He did not remember on which side of the gate of park, accused Maya Devi was standing. She was standing outside the gate of park. Police did not enquire from him about the place of accused Maya Devi when she was abusing Shyam Sunder. Accused Maya Devi and Shyam Sunder were standing against each other near the gate of park. One or two persons were also standing near the gate of the park at the time of incident. He did not remember if he had stated to police or police enquired from him if any other public person was standing at the park at the gate of the park. There was only one gate. Again said, there were two gates of the park, one for entry and one for FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 14 of 70 exit. He did not see if those gates are having numbers written on them. He further deposed that the distance between the house of Shyam Sunder and his house was about five minutes walk. House of Shyam Sunder was situated in different block. The house of Maya Devi was about 50 meters away from the gate of colony. It was correct there is a shop of dry clean as soon as one enters the gate. He voluntarily deposed that the said shop has been let on rent by Maya Devi. There was a small park between his house and house of Maya Devi. His house was in top floor of the building. In front of his flat, there was a flat of Shri Vivek Sood. His relations with Vivek Sood were cordial earlier but after he became a witness in this case, their relations were not good as Vivek Sood was on more friendly terms with accused Maya Devi. He had filed a defamation case against Vivek Sood. He had purchased the flat in which He was residing. He was a real estate agent. He had his office in RZ-146, Tughlakabad Extension. He met Shyam Sunder Singh for the first time about 5-7 years ago. Before the date of incident when Maya Devi was abusing Shyam Sunder Singh, he was not aware that he belongs to SC category. It was only after the incident that Shyam Sunder Singh told him that he belongs to SC community. Before the said incident, he used to often meet Shyam Sunder Singh in the park. He was giving statement as a witness against Maya Devi for the first time in this case. Before 2014, there was only one association of the residence of Surya Apartments. However, in their society two groups have emerged keeping their own guards in the colony. However, the Welfare Association was FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 15 of 70 one. He had become Chairman of the Welfare Association for the first time in 2014. Accused Maya Devi had helped him at that time to become Chairman of the association. Accused Maya Devi had become President of the association in 2014 itself but after 2-3 months, complaints were received from residents against her behaviour regarding collection of money so all the other office bearer of the association had resigned and he also distanced himself from her. He had no quarrel with Maya Devi. He had not noticed any social work done by Ms. Maya Devi after she became President of the association like development of park etc. He had no knowledge how many residents of Surya Apartment belongs to SC Community. He had also signed the representations made by residents against Maya Devi. He did not know what had been the fate of such representations given in PS Govindpuri. No complaint was made by him or other residents at any other forum or office except PS Govindpuri. On the date of incident, he along with his wife Smt. Vibha was going for evening walk in the nearby park. His wife had gone inside the park and he remained near the gate where the incident was taking place. His wife also heard the abuses and she then went inside the park. There was no office of Jal Board near the park. It was correct that there was a road between the wall of their colony and the office of Jal Board, which leads to main road towards Govindpuri police station. After hearing the abuses being hurled by Smt. Maya Devi, he also went inside the park. He had no knowledge that accused Maya Devi had family relations with Shyam Sunder Singh and they visit each other on social FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 16 of 70 occasions like marriage. Maya Devi was residing in the colony prior to his shifting there. He came to know that before he had shifted to this colony, Maya Devi had filed a case against one O P Arora which was settled by her after taking Rs.1.5 lacs. He often meet O P Arora in the park. He also meet him whenever he went to attend the meeting of the association. It was correct that the park may be in the area of acres. The incident had taken place at the gate of the park. Shyam Sunder was already present and the altercation was going on when he reached at the gate of the park. After the altercation he had a talk with Shyam Sunder. He voluntarily deposed that Shyam Sunder Singh was sweating and saying that he had never been mistreated like this in his life ever. During cross examination witness was shown a photograph and he was pointed towards a person in the photograph encircled A. After seeing the same he submits that this was not his photograph. Again said, that it was his photograph. He voluntarily deposed that Arun Khanna had misbehaved with his wife in vegetable market. His wife came to his office and started abusing him. The CCTV was installed in his office which was not functioning as there was no light and he was adjusting the electric wire with the danda in his hand which is shown in the photograph. The photograph is now taken on record as Ex.PW2/DA. The lady whose back is visible in this photograph was Ms. Seema Khanna. Shyam Sunder was a witness in his two cases, one was a complaint case and another was a police case FIR No. 711/14. The complaint case was with regard to manhandling with him in his office by Arun Khanna and he FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 17 of 70 had filed a criminal case against Arun Khanna which was presently in the court of Shri Harun Pratap, Ld. MM which was listed for hearing on 27.11.2017.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna PW2 deposed that he knew Arun Khanna for the last 15-20 years. He used to work as a estate agent in his office. It was correct that he had a dispute with accused Arun Khanna, which relates to a property which he had purchased along with Arun Khanna. They were involved as accused in two cross cases for the offence u/s 354 IPC. He had a civil suit also which was filed against him by Arun Khanna for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant Shyam Sunder reside in his society in pocket 11. He had an acquaintance with him being a co-resident of the society. He was not on friendly terms with him. It was correct that he had made a call at PCR on 06.12.2014 as Shyam Sunder had made a call to him stating that Arun Khanna and his wife had abused him. When he reached there, Arun Khanna had left the spot by that time. Then he had made a call at 100 number PCR as the police had not reached despite Shyam Sunder making a call at number 100. He did not recollect whether police had come or not as the incident was four years old and also he was a diabetic patient. He did not recollect whether he had stated while calling at 100 number PCR that a lady by the name of Seema had given a threat and left.
PW-3 Retd. SI Desh Raj deposed that on 06.12.2014, he was posted at FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 18 of 70 PS Govindpuri as Sub Inspector. A complaint was received in police station of one Maya Devi dated 06.12.2014 against K. K. Pathak and his family members regarding extending threat and using abusive language to her. Considering the contents of the complaint, he had lodged NCR vide no.526/15 dated 11.04.2015 and he had submitted a report to SHO in this regard. Said Maya Devi (accused) present in court today. Copy of the complaint of Smt. Maya Devi is Ex.PW3/A. The NCR made on the complaint of Smt. Maya Devi No.526/15 PS Govindpuri was Ex.PW3/B. His report on the complaint of Smt. Maya Devi was Ex.PW3/C. During cross examination on behalf of accused Maya Devi PW-3 deposed that the complaint Ex.PW3/A was received by SHO and it was marked to him. He had made enquiry with regard to this complaint, however, he did not record statement of any witness. During the enquiry, it had come to his knowledge that both the parties had some disturbances among them for quite some time. He had initiated the proceedings under section 107/150 Cr.P.C. against both the parties during the enquiry. He had initiated proceedings under section 107/150 Cr.P.C. as there were complaint and counter complaint of both the parties. He did not recollect that date when these proceedings were initiated.
PW-4 Sh. Suraj Kumar (eye witness) deposed that he was residing in Tughlakabad Village. He was engaged in the work of driving car. On 06.12.2014, at about 8-8.30 pm, he was going to take vegetables from FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 19 of 70 his house on his motorcycle towards Govindpuri, when he reached near Gate No. 5, Pocket 11, near Jal Board Office near the wall, he noticed some persons standing there and they were hurling abuses on each other. On seeing the commotion, he stopped there. He saw an old person was being abused by 3-4 persons. They were calling him "chure, chamar, main tumhe jaan se marwa dunga, mere pass bahut se paise hain, tum mujhe jante nahin ho". He intervened to resolve the quarrel but the accused persons continued to abuse the old man. After sometime, accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna left the spot in their car. Later on, he asked the name of said old man from him and he told that his name was Shyam Sunder Singh. He asked him why he was being abused. He told that he was a witness in the case of Ms. Preeti Pathak. He stated that the accused were threatening and abusing him as he was a witness in the case. The said old man namely Shyam Sunder Singh asked him whether he will depose about the incident if and ever it was required and he assured that he will depose the facts whenever required. He asked his name and address which he told him. He also gave him his mobile number as 9971609008. Thereafter, he left the spot.
During cross-examination on behalf fo accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna PW-4 deposed that he was 10th class pass. He could read and write Hindi language. Apart from present case, he has not a witness in any other case.
During cross-examination PW-4 was asked Court questions whether the FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 20 of 70 accused persons had remarked together " chude chamar, main tumhe jaan se marwa dunga, mere pass bahut se paise hai, tum mujhe jaante nahi ho" to which he replied no, accused persons had threatened so, one by one. Firstly, Seema Khanna had said so and thereafter, Arun Khanna had said. PW-4 was further asked whether he acquainted with accused persons or the complainant, prior to incident in question to which he replied no. PW-4 was again asked for how long he stayed at the scene of crime to which he replied that 5-7 minutes.
Further during cross examination PW-4 deposed that he became acquainted with Shyam Sunder and K.K. Pathak, after incident in question. He had gone alone to police station for giving his statement. He voluntarily deposed that at that time, Shyam Sunder was present in the police station. When his statement was recorded, Shyam sunder was not present at police station. There was light present at the spot of incident. Around 15/20 persons were present at the spot of incident. Govind Puri police station was located on the same road where incident in question had taken place, though at some distance. He did not remember whether Shyam Sunder had made call to police at 100 number. He talked to Shyam Sunder on the day of incident for 2-3 minutes only. He remained at the spot on the day of incident, for about 5-7 minutes. He did not purchase vegetable on the day of incident in question, prior to reaching at the spot. After watching the incident in question, he went to purchase vegetables. He purchased vegetables from the market, located near patrol-pump of Govind Puri. Transit camp area FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 21 of 70 is located at a distance of 300-400 meters approximately from the market from where he had purchased vegetables. He reached his home around 09.30pm on the day of incident in question. He had told police that on the day of incident in question, he was going to purchase vegetables from his house. Witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW4/D1 where it was not so recorded. Further, he had told police that he was going to market for purchasing vegetables on his motorcycle. Witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW4/D1 where it was not so recorded.
PW-5 SI Abhishek deposed that on 06.12.2014, he was posted at PS Govindpuri on emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. At about 9.00 pm, he was informed on telephone by Duty Officer regarding a call registered in police station about quarrel vide DD No.36A Mark PW5/A. Another call was also registered vide DD no.37A, which was marked to some other police official. He reached at the place of incident at Gate no. 4, Kalkaji Extension which was a residential colony. He met Shri K. K. Pathak along one Shyam Sunder. K. K. Pathak informed that one Mr. Arun Khanna and his wife Mrs. Seema Khanna had left after threatening them. He was already aware that there was an old litigation between Mr. K. K. Pathak and Shri Arun Khanna. Since no cognizable offence was disclosed in his opinion, so after pacifying them, he returned back to police station and filed the DD without further action. He had recorded DD entry in the police station on 07.12.2014 in this regard, which was FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 22 of 70 on record as Mark PW5/B. He did not meet the said Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna in connection with this case.
During cross examination PW-5 deposed that on 06.12.2014 when he reached at the spot i.e. gate No.4, Kalkaji Extension where complainant K.K.Pathak and Shyam Sunder met to him and told that they have been threatened by accused Seema Khanna and Arun Khanna. The complainant did not hand over him any written complaint at that time and he also did not tell anything except the above mentioned version. He did not remember whether on 06.12.2014 complainant and Shyam Sunder had told him about the words "Chura Chamar" or not. It was correct that complainant has not been stated to him that accused persons told the words like "Chura Chamar" on 06.12.2014. He did not know whether the FIR in this case was registered on the basis of DD Number which was marked PW5/B or not.
PW-6 ASI Sajivarghese deposed that he brought the record containing FIR No. 359/2012 u/s 324/34 IPC & Section 3 SC/ST Act PS Govindpuri; FIR No. 527/15 u/s 354/506 IPC PS Govindpuri and FIR No. 528/15 u/s 354/506 IPC PS Govindpuri. Copies of the said FIR are already on record. Same were Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C respectively. He had also brought DD register containing DD No. 36 and 37, both dated 06.12.2014 pertaining to PS Govindpuri. True copy of said DD entries were already on record and marked as Mark PW5/A. He had also brought DD entry register containing DD no.20 dated FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 23 of 70 07.12.2014 pertaining to PS Govindpuri. True copy of said DD entry was already on record and marked as Mark PW5/B. He could not bring the record pertaining to NCR No. 526/15 dated 11.04.2015 PS Govindpuri as the same was not traceable.
PW-7 Sh. Bir Singh, Sr. Assistant from the office of Deputy Commissioner Revenue deposed that he had been working in the said office since past two years. He produced the summoned record i.e. caste certificate of Shyam Sunder Singh. The said certificate was issued by his office in the name of Shyam Sunder Singh vide no. 73(A)/DC/CCS/ HQ/June 2015/2049 dated 23.11.1972. Copy of same was Ex. PW7/A bearing the signatures of the then SDM. As per certificate, caste of Shyam Sunder Singh was mentioned as 'Khatik'. The verification report about the certificate dated 01.06.2015 was Mark A. During cross examination PW7 deposed that they do not used to keep original of caste certificate. He voluntarily deposed that however, register of the same used to be maintained in their office mentioning the issuing record of the certificate. The said 'Khatik' used to fall under the schedule caste category. He did not know about the basis of maintaining the record of such category. He did not know said Shyam Sunder Singh personally. He was appearing as an official witness to produce the original register and he had deposed on the basis of official record.
FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 24 of 70 PW-8 Sh. Shyam Sunder (complainant) deposed that he belonged to Scheduled Caste community i.e. Khatik Caste and resides at the above mentioned address with his family members. On 6.12.2014 at about 8.30 PM I was returning from Batra Hospital to his above said residence and when he reached at Gate No.4 of Pocket A-11 then he saw that accused Arun Khanna his wife Seema Khanna alongwith two other persons were standing near the wall situated near Gate No.4 and 5 of Pocket A-11. On seeing him accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna started hurling abuses. They continuously uttered the words "Chure Chamar" and "Mujhe Chure Chamar Jaise Shabdo Se Apmanit Kis Gaya" . Thereafter accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna extended threats to him by saying that if he would give evidence in favour of Preeti Pathak then they would get him killed with the help of their Gundas. Thereafter both the accused persons further extended threats that "Tumhe Marvane Ke Baad, Hamare Paas Karodo Rupeye Hai, Police Ko Ham Kharid Lenge Aur Police Hamara Kuchh Nahi Bigad Payagi". Thereafter accused Seema Khanna again extended threats to him that "Preeti Pathak Ki Gavahi Dene Se Baaz Aa Jaao, Preeti Pathak Ki Gavahi Dene Se Baaz Nahi Aaya To Main Apne Kapde Phaad Ke Tumhe Jhuthe Caso Main Phansa Dungi, Saari Jindgi Jail Main Katoge". Thereafter the other unsocial elements accompanied by both accused persons had extended threats to stab him with knife. They also extended threats to him to get separated from the evidence of Preeti Pathak otherwise they would kill him and his family members. Then both accused persons and two of FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 25 of 70 their accomplices fled away from there in a car. Upon this he made call at 100 number to the police. Then he also made call to Mr. K.K.Pathak who came to the spot and he narrated him all the facts of above said incident. Thereafter he went to his house and Mr. K.K.Pathak also went to his house. He was a heart patient and undergoing treatment at Batra Hospital. On 7.12.2014 at about 4.00 PM due to his above said illness he used to walk in the Bada Park situated in the same locality. On the said day while he was going to take walk at the said park and reached near the gate of said Bade park then he saw one lady namely Maya Devi who was resident of said pocket was standing before him and she wrongfully restrained him way and started hurling filthy abuses i.e. "Saale Tu Chuda Chamar Hai, Behn Chod, Behan Ke lode etc." Thereafter due to his belonging to scheduled caste she abused him by the caste related words i.e. "Chude Chamar". Thereafter accused Maya Devi also extended threats by saying that, "Tu Apne Aaap Ko kya Samajhta Hai, Tere Jaise Chude Chamar Ko Main Apni Juti Ke Neeche Rakhti Hoin". Then she also extended threats that, "Tu Isi Pocket 11 Main Rehta Hai, Main Apne Kapde Phhad Ke Kabhi Bhi Tujhe Jhute Caso Main Phasa Ke Salakho Ke Peeche Bhijva Dungi, Teri Jamanat Bhi Nahi Ho Sakagi". Thereafter due to this and his illness he gone under depression. He went to the local doctor for his treatment where he get medical treatment but from that he could not get well and relief. Then he come to his house and slept. Then on next day on8.12.2014 due to all these atrocities he was forced to admitted in Batra Hospital, then at Batra Hospital he FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 26 of 70 remained admitted for 6 days. Thereafter on 13.12.2014 he was discharged from said Batra hospital and advised rest. On 17.12.2014 he made his complaint regarding above mentioned facts at PS Govind Puri. He made again complaint on dated 04.02.2015 to the DCP, ACP and SHO concerned and thereafter the case was got registered. His complaint dated 04.02.2015 was Ex.PW8/A. During investigation conducted by the IO i.e. ACP he handed over his caste certificate to him which was already Ex.PW7/A and seizure memo regarding the same was Ex.PW8/B. Caste certificate, was already Ex.PW7/A, the same was issued by SDM on 23.11.72. Whenever he come to the court the accused persons continues to insult him by words "Chude Chamar" and also hurl abuses in the court compound and outside the court premises. All the three accused persons used to extends threats by saying that, "Jo Case Chal Rahe Hain Hamare Khilaaf, Unko Vapis Le Lo, Nahi To Gundo Se Marva Denge".
The complaint dated 17.12.2014 was on the file. He had produced photocopy of complaint dated 17.12.2014 duly stamped by police station Govind Puri by DD no.25B dated 17.12.2014 was now Ex.PW8/B (colly) running into four pages.
During cross examination PW-8 was asked following court questions:-
"Court Q.1 What is your qualification and source of livelihood? Ans: I am post graduate and I am retired from National Fertilizer Limited in the year 2001. I am getting pension. Court Q.2 Prior to incident dated 06.12.2014, how were you acquainted FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 27 of 70 with accused persons?
Ans: I knew all accused persons prior to incident dated 06.12.2014. There was one person namely K.K. Pathak, who was a property dealer in Kalkaji area. I was acquainted with K.K. Pathak. In his office, accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna used to come and that is how I was acquainted with both the said accused persons. I was acquainted with accused Maya Devi as she used to reside in the same residential pocket, where I used to reside.
Court Q.3 Prior to incidents dated 06.12.2014 and 07.12.2014, whether you had cordial relations with all accused persons? Ans: I had no friendly relations with accused persons prior to incidents dated 06.12.2014 and 07.12.2014. Court Q.4 What was the reason of non-friendly relations with accused persons, prior to incidents dated 06.12.2014 & 07.12.2014? Give details? Ans: Prior to incidents dated 06.12.2014 and 07.12.2014, accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna had beaten and abused daughter of K.K. Pathak namely Preeti Pathak, in one gali in Tuglakabad Extension, which happened in 2014 only, few months prior to above mentioned incidents dates. I was one of the eye-witnesses in the said incident with Preeti Pathak. Due to said reason, accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna did not want me to depose against them, regarding the said incident and because of said reason, incident dated 06.12.2014 occurred. So far as accused Maya Devi is concerned, she used to demand illegal money from me for the purpose of running the association with regard to old flats in the FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 28 of 70 locality. I was resident of new flats in the said locality and did not give money to accused Maya Devi and therefore, my relations with her were not cordial.
Court Q.5 Whether any case was lodged with regard to incident which occurred with Preeti Pathak and whether you were called by any court for deposing in the said case?
Ans: I do not know as to whether any FIR was lodged in the said incident with Preeti Pathak. I do not know whether Preeti Pathak or her family members made complaint to the police regarding said incident. I did not file any complaint with the police regarding the said incident with Preeti Pathak. Till date, I have not received any summon from any court, for deposing regarding the incident which happened with Preeti Pathak. Court Q.6 Specify the names and details of persons, before whom incidents dated 06.12.2014 & 07.12.2014 had taken place. Ans: Suraj Kumar and Bajrang Prasad Agarwal were present when incident dated 06.12.2014 took place. Suraj Kumar was resident of nearby locality and I do not know as to what he used to do, professionally. I do not know the address of Bajrang Prasad Agarwal and also do not know about his profession. K.K. Pathak and Dharmender had witnessed the incident dated 07.12.2014. Dharmender used to do real estate business in Tuglakabad area.
Court Q.7 How were you acquainted with Suraj Kumar, Bajrang Prasad Agarwal and Dharmender?
Ans: All the said persons were present at the time of incident in FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 29 of 70 question. I asked them as to whether they had seen the said incidents. Those persons replied me affirmatively. I asked them as to whether they will become witness to the said incidents and will depose in the court, to which they replied affirmatively.
Court Q.8 Are you law graduate? Ans: No. Court Q.9 If you were not law graduate, on what basis you had asked Suraj Kumar, Bajrang Prasad Agarwal and Dharmender to become witness? Ans: I had enrolled myself in L.L.B. course in Evening classes in
Delhi University in the year 2001. I pursued the said course for about 1 ½ years and thereafter left it. Because of said fact, I knew about the need of witnesses.
Court Q.10 Whether accused Arun and Seema ever misbehaved with you in the office of K.K. Pathak?
Ans: No. Court Q.11 What was the amount, claimed by accused Maya Devi? Ans: Accused Maya Devi had demanded Rs.500/- approximately only once which I refused to give her.
Court Q.12 Specify the persons from whom accused Maya Devi had demanded money (chanda)?
Ans: I do not know the names of residents from whom accused Maya Devi had demanded money.
Court Q.13 What was the source of your information regarding accused FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 30 of 70 Maya Devi demanding money from local residents? Ans: In the park, where incident dated 07.12.2014 had taken place, local residents used to discuss that accused Maya Devi was demanding money from them. I do not know the names of the residents of the locality who used to discuss the same. I do not remember the date, month and year when said discussions had taken place in the park. Court Q.14 Whether Maya Devi has filed any case against you, on account of the fact that you did not give her money, as demanded by her?
Ans: I do not know.
Court Q.15 Whether accused Maya Devi has filed any case against any person, who had refused to give her money?
Ans: K.K. Pathak has told me that Maya Devi has filed one case against Member of Parliament from our area namely Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri, which was dismissed by the court recently. Besides that, accused Maya Devi has filed another case against one Sh. O.P. Arora and has received money from O.P. Arora. That case is now decided. Said facts are told to me by O.P. Arora only. O.P. Arora is President of RWA of Old flats of our locality. I do not know the details of cases, filed by accused Maya Devi against Ramesh Bidhuri and O.P. Arora.
Court Q.16 Whether accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna have filed any case against anybody till date?
Ans: As per my knowledge, accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna have filed case against K.K. Pathak. I do not know the details and number of cases, said accused persons have filed against K.K. Pathak.
FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 31 of 70 Court Q.17 How do you know K.K. Pathak?
Ans: K.K. Pathak, about 8/10 years back, approximately had taken old flat in our locality. He became member in the RWA of old flats. I am resident of new flat in the locality. He used to sit in the park of the locality and I used to go there. There in the park, I became acquainted with K.K. Pathak and that is how I know him.
Court Q.18 In the park, where exactly accused Maya Devi had abused you on 07.12.2014?
Ans: On the gate of the park.
Court Q.19 Where was accused Maya Devi was standing in the park? Ans: She was standing outside the park in front of the gate. There are two gates in the said park.
Court Q.20 Whether K.K. Pathak and his wife Smt. Vibha Devi intervened when accused Maya Devi abused you on 07.12.2014? Ans: No. They did not intervene. They were standing there only."
During cross examination PW-8 deposed that accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna were doing the work of property dealing with K.K. Pathak prior to this incident i.e. 06.12.2014. He did not know how many years they were working together in the business of property dealing. When K.K. Pathak purchased the flat in the same locality, he came to know that accused Seema and Arun Khanna were doing business of property dealing with K.K. Pathak. He belong to Khatik caste which was recognized as scheduled caste. It was correct that he had lodged FIR No.359/2012 under the provision of SC and ST Act, against Shaheen Akhtar. Police FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 32 of 70 did not take any action on the said FIR. He was never called by the court for recording of his statement in the said FIR. He called on 100 number on 06.12.2014. Police PCR reached at the spot. No inquiry was made by the police officials of PCR at the spot. They took him to the police station. No police official from P.S. Govind Puri had accompanied him to the spot on 06.12.2014. He could not produce the record regarding the fact that he was an eye-witness in the case which was going on between K.K. Pathak and accused Seema and Arun Khanna. He could not tell how many complaints he had filed against any person. He did not remember whether he had filed any other complaint except the present case or against Shaheen Akhtar. It was correct that he had filed another FIR bearing No.0104/2017 u/s 3 (1) of SC & ST Act against the present accused persons. As far as he remembered, he had not filed any complaint based on allegations of breach of provisions of SC & ST Act against any other person except accused persons in question. PW-9 HC Rajender Prasad deposed that on 17.04.2015 he was posted as HC at PS Govind Puri and was serving as duty officer. His duty hours were from 4.00 PM to 12 Night. At 7.02 PM Inspr. Raman Kumar came to duty officer room and he had produced a rukka of this case for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he registered the present FIR vide DD No.16A and he had also made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW9/A regarding registration of FIR on the said rukka. The FIR was registered computerized copy of which was Ex.PW9/B. After registration of FIR, the investigation was entrusted to ACP Jasbir Singh of Kalkaji FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 33 of 70 Subdivision and he had handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Inspr. Raman Kumar. He had also given certificate U/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act qua the said FIR which was Ex.PW9/C. PW-10 Sh. Bajrang Prasad Aggarwal (eye witness) deposed that he had completed his MBA in Finance & Marketing. He was employed in Insurance Company. He had a wife and two kids. On 06.12.2014 around 8.30 pm, when he was going by foot, for taking petrol in a bottle from Petrol Pump located at Govind Puri. When he reached near Pocket A-11, DDA Flats, Gate No. 5, Jal Board Office, Kalkaji, he found a public gathering there. He observed that accused Arun Khanna abusing another senior citizen person in filthy language. Accused Arun Khanna was also threatening other senior citizen man with dire consequences and was also using castiest remarks "chamar chuda" against him. At that time, accused Arun Khanna was accompanied with two men and accused Seema Khanna. He observed that accused Seema Khanna was threatening the said senior citizen man by saying that she will tear her clothes and will implicate that senior citizen man in false case. Both accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna were threatening that senior citizen man for withdrawing his evidence. I do not know, in what context those threats were advanced by said accused persons. He did not know about the presence of accused Maya Devi at the spot. He could not identify her and had seen accused Maya Devi only in the court when he had come for deposing in the court. Accused Arun Khanna and Seema FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 34 of 70 Khanna were not physically beaten the other senior citizen man. After sometime. Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna along-with two men went away from the spot in a car. He remained there and asked the said senior citizen man as to why he was abused by accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna. He told him that his name was Shyam Sunder and that he was a witness in a case pertaining to daughter of one K.K. Pathak and was threatened by said accused persons. He asked Shayam Sunder to talk to K.K. Pathak and ask him as to why he was being threatened. He asked me if he could help him and he assured him that he will help him. He was not told by Shyam Sunder about the details of his case pertaining to daughter of K.K. Pathak. Thereafter, he left the spot. Police had made enquiry from him regarding the said incident and his statement was recorded by ACP concerned in his office.
During cross examination PW10 was asked following Court questions:-
"Court Q.1: Apart from present case, in how many cases, you have deposed in the past as witness or will depose in future as a witness? Ans: Apart from present case, coincidentally I am witness in another matter in which K.K. Pathak and Vidhya Devi are complainants. In the said case, my testimony is already recorded. Apart from that case, I am not a witness in any case.
Court Q.2: Do you know Shyam Sunder, K.K Pathak and/ or family members of Shyam Sunder and K.K. Pathak ?
Ans: No. Court Q.3: How many persons approximately had gathered at the spot FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 35 of 70 on 06.12.2014?
Ans: Around 15-20 persons.
Court Q.4 : Which Scooty you were driving on the day of incident in question?
Ans: Eterno Scooter.
Court Q.5: Where did your Eterno Scooter broke down for which you wanted to take petrol in bottle?
Ans: At Aggarwal Sweets, Kalkaji, from where Petrol Pump, Kalkaji was located at a distance of about 2-3 Kms. It was Bharat Petroleum Petrol Pump.
Court Q.6: Did you tell the facts regarding you reaching at the spot as you wanted to purchase petrol from petrol pump located near the spot, to the police ?
Ans: Yes. I had my statement before signing the same. Court Observation:-
Statement of witness u/sec. 161 CrPC, does not mention the details of witness purchasing petrol as deposed by him today. Same will be appreciated at the time of judgment."
He had deposed in the Saket Court in the matter in which K.K Pathak and his wife Vidhya are complainants.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons witness was put certified copy of his deposition Ex.PW10/D-1 and witness admits the same to be correct. He further put copy of his statement u/sec. 161 CrPC Ex.PW10/D-2 and witness admits the same to be correct. He further FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 36 of 70 deposed that at the time of incident in question, he was residing at H. No. 18/65, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi. On the day of incident, he was coming after meeting his client at Kalkaji whose name is Mr. Ajay Singh. He did not know exactly his address but he was resident of DDA Flats, Kalkaji. It was dark at the time of incident in question. At the time of incident in question, he was carrying his mobile phone bearing no. 9718266858. He did not know about witness Suraj, who was cited by police in this PW-11 Sh. Dharmendra Kumar (eye witness) deposed that on 07.12.2014, he was going towards house of his brother i.e. Pocket A-11. At about 04:00 pm when he reached at the gate of Pocket A-11 where he had seen Maya Devi abusing to Shyam Sunder. Maya Devi Shyam Sunder ko 'chura chamar keh rahi thi aur ye keh rahi thi ki tere jaise aadmi to joote ki nok pr rakhti hu aur vo keh rahi thi jyada kuch karega toh apne kapde faad kar andar karwa dungi'. When he asked from Shyam Sunder as to why Maya Devi abusing him, she told him that she was demanding money, however, he was residing in other pocket. He was enquired by the police and his statement was recorded.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Maya Devi PW-11 deposed that in the year 2014, he was having work of textile/selling surplus cloth. The house of Tughalakabad where he was residing was his own. His family consist of his wife and his two children. There was no FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 37 of 70 criminal case pending against him. His brother namely Pradeep Mishra was residing at H.No.C-19 and he was his cousin brother. He was not knowing the accused persons prior to the incident. He was not knowing Shyam Sunder or K.K. Pathak prior to the incident but came to know about their names on the date of incident. It was correct that he was also a witness in FIR No.528/2015, PS Govindpuri. He was Mandal Adhyaksh for BJP from the year 2020 to the year 2023. The distance between the house of his brother and the place of incident is about 2-3 minutes by walk. He was walking when he saw the incident. He did not make any entry in the register of the gate on that day. He voluntariy deposed that the entry register was never filled by him and no one has ever asked him to do. He reach the house of his brother by crossing the park which was a shortcut. At the time of incident around 7-8 public persons were present in the park. He did not know any of the public persons personally. He was very near to the place when he heard the incident and saw the quarrel. He had only seen the incident while He was standing there and observed the same. He did not intervene in the matter. He remained at the spot for about 5-10 minutes. He did not know the caste of Shyam Sunder. Police had not reached the spot during his presence. His statement was recorded by the ACP after sometime of the incident. He did not remember the exact date when his statement was recorded. His statement was recorded in the ACP office. He did not visit the spot with the police after the incident. Statement of no other person was recorded in his presence by the ACP. He did not know what was the FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 38 of 70 amount or money, accused Maya Devi was asking for.
During cross examined on behalf of accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna PW-11 deposed that he had been residing at Tughlakabad Extension for past 25 years. He did not know if complainant Shyam Sunder and K.K. Pathak are neighbourers. He had met complainant Shyam Sunder on the gate of the park when the quarrel was taking place. He had met K.K. Pathak for the first time in the Court in the year 2015. He had met complainant for the first time during the aforesaid quarrel. He did not know person namely Bajrang Prasad Aggarwal @ V.P. Aggarwal. He was witness in one of the cases, wherein the complainant was K K Pathak. He did not remember the FIR No. of that matter today. He did not remember if the FIR No. of the aforesaid matter was FIR No.528/2015 PS Govindpuri. During cross examination photocopy of the statement of the witness recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., examination in chief, and cross examination in case FIR No.528/2015 PS Govindpuri was shown to the witness and after seeing the same the witness admits the same to be his statements. Aforesaid documents was Ex. PW11/D1 (Colly). He was never a witness in any other case filed by K.K. Pathak against accused persons. During cross examination witness was shown one copy of the color photograph and the witness submits that the person seen in the photograph was his picture and the photograph was Ex. PW11/D2. During cross examination PW-11 was again shown one copy of the color photograph and the witness submits that the person seen in FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 39 of 70 the photograph was his picture and the photograph was Ex. PW11/D3. During cross examination PW11 was against shown another copy of the color photograph and the witness submits that the person seen in the photograph was his picture and the photograph was Ex. PW11/D4.
PW-12 Inspt. Raman Kumar Singh (First IO) deposed that in the month of February, 2015, he was posted as Inspt. investigation PS Govindpuri, Delhi. He had received several complaints from complainant Sh. Shyam Sunder for preliminary enquiry as the contents of the complaint having ingredients of SC/ST Act in which a police officer having the rank of ACP is entitled for investigation etc. He prepared an enquiry report on 11.03.2015. Same was Ex.PW12/A and mark to SHO for further action. Same was mark to ACP and DCP for seeking approval for registration of case U/s SC/ST Act. On 17.04.2015, after getting approval later from DCP South East District, Delhi, he made an endorsement on the complaint of Sh. Shyam Sunder to register a case U/s 3 SC/ST Act and to mark the investigation of the case to Sh. Jasbir Singh, ACP Kalkaji, Delhi as per the order of DCP South East District, Delhi. His endorsement was Ex.PW12/B. The case U/s 3 SC/ST Act got registered against the accused persons and investigation was marked to ACP Jasbir Singh. On 20.04.2015, he had joined the investigation of this case alongwith IO ACP Jasbir Singh. On that day, complainant Shyam Sunder Singh produced a photocopy of caste certificate issued by DC Delhi. Same was already exhibited as PW7/A and the photocopy of FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 40 of 70 above said caste certificate of complainant seized by IO in my presence vide seizure memo already Ex.PW8/B. During cross-examination PW-12 deposed that the enquiry regarding complaints of the complainant marked to him. He made the conclusion on the basis of complaint that provision of Section 3 SC/ST Act made out and same was marked to SHO for approval from DCP.
PW-13 ACP Jasbir Singh (IO) deposed that on 17.04.2015, he was posted as ACP Sub Division Kalkajji Delhi. After registration of the case investigation of present case was marked to him. He received the case file alongwith FIR and approval of the DCP regarding assigning of case to him same was Ex.PW13/X. He call the complainant to join the investigation, who had joined the investigation and he enquired with him about his complaint and fact of the case. On 20.04.2015, complainant Shyam Sunder Singh had produced photocopy of his caste certificate. Same was already Ex.PW7/A. He had seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW8/B. He recorded the statement of complainant Shyam Sunder Singh. He made the enquiry from complainant who informed him about two incidents happened with him on dated 06.12.2014 and 07.12.2014. The complainant had produced two independent witnesses of incident happened on 06.12.2014 and two witnesses pertaining to the incident on 07.12.2014 before him who had seen the above said incident happened with complainant. He had made FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 41 of 70 enquiry from the witnesses and recorded their statements. He got verified the caste certificate of complainant from concerned authority and collected the verification report Ex.PW13/B. As per verification the caste certificate complainant was found genuine and issued from concerned authority. He collected the relevant CDR, CAF and location chart/cell ID chart of the complainant, accused and above said witnesses and same was placed in file. He also collected certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to above said CDRs. He had issued the notice to accused Seema Khanna, Arun Khanna and Maya Devi. The above said accused persons joined the investigation and he made interrogation with them. He searched the other independent witnesses but they could not be traced. He collected the copies of several complaints from the police station and placed in file. He also obtained PCR call form of 100 number which was Ex. PW13/A. He also collected the relevant copies of DD entries pertaining to the present case. He recorded the statement of the above witnesses. After completion of investigation he had prepared the charge sheet against above said accused persons and chargesheet filed without arrest of the accused persons in the Court as per direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar judgment.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-13 deposed that it was correct that the complaint filed in the present matter by the complainant which was already Ex.PW8/A was pertaining to different FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 42 of 70 incident of different dates. It was correct that the aforesaid complaint had mentioned regarding the incident dated 03.02.2015, 26.10.2014 & 07.12.2014. It was correct that the present FIR No.526/2015 was registered on 17.04.2015 and on the same day FIR No.527/2015 was registered at PS in which complainant Seema Khanna and in FIR No.528/2015 which was also registered on the same day the complainant is Vibha Devi. It was correct that one supplementary statement of complainant Shyam Sunder Singh was recorded in the present matter U/s 161 Cr.P.C. by which the complainant had mentioned some more incident of date 06.12.2014. He had not received any complaint from the complainant dated 07.12.2014 having DD No.8B for the alleged incident dated 06.12.2014. He voluntarily deposed that the complainant had only narrated the incident of 06.12.2014 to him which he had mentioned in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. During cross examination witness was shown one complaint of the complainant annexed with judicial file/chargesheet dated 28.04.2015 and after seeing the same, the witness submits that the same was provided to him by complainant during investigation and he had annexed the same with the chargesheet. The same was now Ex.PW13/D1. He voluntarily deposed that the investigation in the present matter was conducted upon the statement of the complainant Shyam Sunder Singh recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 20.04.2015. He could not comment if in the complaint Ex.PW13/D1 filed by the complainant with him had mentioned regarding the incident of 06.12.2014 any of the public witnesses. During cross examination FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 43 of 70 witness was shown shown DD entry no.36A and 37A Mark PW5/A and Mark PW5/B from judicial record. After seeing the same witness deposed that it was correct that a 100 number call was received at PS on 06.12.2014 vide DD entry no.36 by which the same was marked to SI Abhishek PW5 and upon receiving the same he had enquired about the matter and since the allegations were not substantiated the same was closed. It was correct that in document Mark-PW5/B the report was submitted by SI Abhishek Singh regarding disposal of call/DD No.36A since no cognizable offence was made out. DD No.37A was marked to HC Ved Prakash. During cross examination witness was further shown another document Ex.PW13/A which was a PCR Control Room document which was a situation report pertaining to calls received on 06.12.2014. The aforesaid calls were firstly received in Delhi Police Control Room and thereafter marked to concern police station and registered as DD No.36A and DD No.37A. It was correct that on the aforesaid document it was written from point A to A that " CALLER SHYAM SUNDER AUR K K PATHAK DONO KA CASE SEEMA NAAM KI LADY SEY CHAL REHA HAI, JOH YEHA, SEEMA DHAMKI DE KAR GAYI HAI, L/P SE SI ABHISHEK HAI ". He had not recorded the statement of HC Ved Prakash in the present matter who had visited the spot upon receiving DD No.37A made by caller Shyam Sunder Singh. He had not enquired about the matter from HC Ved Prakash regarding the enquiry conducted by him on 06.12.2014 after the call was received and marked to him. It was correct that the mobile FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 44 of 70 phone of witness Bajrang Prasad Aggarwal was found not available/not operational on the incident dated 06.12.2014 at the alleged time. It was correct that as per the SC/ST Act the caste certificate of the victim is required to be taken at the time of preliminary enquiry and only after verification the FIR was required to be registered, however, in the present matter, the preliminary enquiry was conducted by Inspt. Raman and he did not know if at that stage he had taken the caste certificate of the complainant before proceeding in the present matter. It was correct that during investigation he came to know that there were several cases civil of criminal nature pending between the K K Pathak and both accused Seema Khanna and Arun Khanna. He did not know if complainant Shyam Sunder Singh and witness K K Pathak were known to each other and were friends or they were immediate neighbours during the course of investigation. He came to know during investigation that complainant had filed one more case under SC/ST Act against some other person. It was correct that the present complaint was filed on 05.02.2015 dated 04.02.2015 and the FIR in the present matter was registered only on 17.04.2015. He did not know what is the status of other complaint filed by complainant under the SC/ST Act vide FIR No.359/2012 PS Govindpuri.
8. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to accused which he FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 45 of 70 denied and claimed that they are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter. They have never committed any offense towards the complainant and has never passed any castiest remarks upon the complainant.
9. After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
10. Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, I must mention here the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 46 of 70 technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
11. So, in the wake of above mentioned law, evidence brought on record, has to be read as a whole and has to be appreciated as a whole. Minor discrepancies over trivial matters and hyper technical approach while appreciating evidence, has to be avoided. It has to be seen whether shortcomings highlighted by accused, go to the root of the matter and if it so goes, then in that eventuality only evidence has to be discarded.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS
12. It has been argued on behalf of the accused persons that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter. It has been argued that the complainant and the accused persons were neighbourers FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 47 of 70 and did not have cordial relations and therefore, the complainant has falsely implicated them in the present matter. It has been argued that the present case is a glaring misuse of the SC/ST Act, engineered by complainant Shyam Sunder Singh at the instance of his close associate K.K. Pathak, with whom the accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna have longstanding property disputes and over 20 litigation pending. The complaint is not only belated by 71 days but also suffers from glaring contradictions, absence of independent corroboration, and suppression of contemporaneous police records. The entire prosecution is thus tainted with malice and aimed at harassment. It has been argued that the present complaint has been filed with delay as the alleged incident had taken place on 03.02.2025 and FIR was registered on 17.04.2015 after 71 days and complainant had not given any plausible explanation in this regard. It has also been argued that the delay in lodging FIR creates serious doubts about prosecution's truthfulness and Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment in case of Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393 in this regard. It has also been argued that the PCR & DD Entries of 06.12.2014 by both complainant and Pathak and K.K. Pathak records show that only "quarrel/threat," was advanced and no caste abuses were passed. It has been argued that the DD No.36A/37A entered by PW5 SI Abhishek also shows that the calls were closed as no cognizable offence was made out. It has been argued that aforesaid record demolishes the allegations of complainant and show that the same are false and fabricated. It has been argued that none of the witnesses of FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 48 of 70 the prosecution had demonstrated the allegations made by complainant to be truthful as PW1 Ajay Kumar (Nodal Officer, Airtel) who produced CDRs admitted, that the location cannot be fixed and the tower range is between 300m-3km, and therefore, the presence of the accused persons at the spot does not stand proved even though it is alleged that the complainant and other eye witnesses were present at spot as the call record pertaining to accused persons were never filed. It has further been argued that since no cell-ID charts filed, the CDR evidence is unreliable. It has also been argued that PW2 Sh. K.K. Pathak examined by the prosecution was an interested witness and his testimony was full of biasness and was motivated as he admitted that there were several litigation pending between him and the accused persons which were of civil and of criminal nature. It has been argued that the evidence of an interested witness must be scrutinized with caution and has relied upon the judgment in case of State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752. It has also been argued that PW3 SI Desh Raj has provided the record pertaining to the litigation which was pending between accused Maya Devi and the family of PW2 which is evident that PW2 was an interested witness and due to personal enmity with accused persons had deposed against accused persons, at the behest of complainant. It has been further argued that PW4 Sh. Suraj Kumar who was stated to be an eye witness also did not corroborate the version of the complainant and his statement was inconsistent and was of planted witness. It has further been argued that PW5 SI Abhishek was the formal witness who had recorded the DD FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 49 of 70 entry and closed the same as no cognizable offence was made out against accused persons on 06.12.2024 and 07.12.2014. It has also been argued that PW7 was a formal witness who proved the caste of the complainant. It has been argued that the complaint of the complainant Shyam Sunder Singh (PW-8) was full of contradiction and he did not testify regarding the alleged offence or the manner in which it was committed and did not eve disclose his caste. It has also been argued that PW10 Sh. Bajrang Prasad who has also been presented as an eye witness was a planted witness as the CDR shows that his phone was not operational when the incident occurred. Further, PW10 admitted being witness in another case of K.K. Pathak and therefore, deposed against the accused persons at the behest of complainant and his testimony was unreliable. It has been argued that PW11 Dharmendra Kumar was also known to the complainant prior to the incident and falsely supported the complainant and did not deposed truthfully. It has been argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record establishes false implication, motivated by property disputes and personal enmity and therefore, accused persons Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna are liable to be acquitted.
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED MAYA DEVI
13. It has been argued on behalf of accused Maya Devi that the complaint filed against her was false and fabricated. It has been argued that in order to prove the present case against the accused persons, the prosecution FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 50 of 70 has examined witnesses. In the light of the examination and cross examination of PWs, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused and also failed to prove that the accused Maya has humiliate the complainant with abusive remarks within the purview of 3 (1) (r) (s) SC/ST Act. The accused argued on the lines of other accused persons and stated that she is liable to be acquitted.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
14.It has been argued on behalf of complainant that the complainant is a senior citizen aged about 73 years and is suffering from prostate cancer and belongs to SC caste. It is submitted that the complainant was attacked by the accused persons and was threatened and even was attacked in such a manner that he could have lost his life. That during the course of the evidence the complainant has before the court stated each and every fact in which the the complainant had explained as to how he was attacked and tortured by the accused persons and the statement of the witness also confirms that accused was beaten and attacked by accused person. It has been argued that the accused persons were having criminal background and many cases were pending against them in saket district court and other courts and this itself clearly indicates that the accused persons are habitual involved in many serious criminals. It has been argued that the witnesses have deposed in favour of the complainant and more so that after the incident PCR came and Shyam Sunder Singh went to the Hospital Majidiya for his medical FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 51 of 70 treatment. That in the medical report of the complainant also it is submitted that the complainant had received injuries which is a clear evidence that the complainant was attacked by the accused persons. sons. That during the course of investigation also the other witnesses also confirm that the accused persons had attacked the complainant. That after that no FIR was registered hence the complainant had to run from pillar to post to get his FIR registered. That after lot efforts the present FIR got registered and therefore, there was no delay in registration of present FIR. It has been argued that from the evidences and statement of the complainant it is very clear that the accused persons have attacked the complainant with an intention to kill him as he is a senior citizen who is suffering from old age illness and if such a person is attacked then he can loose his life. It has been argued that the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
15.On the other hand it has been argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that the testimony of all the witnesses is corroborated in all nature and there is no contradiction and all the evidence placed on record by the prosecution substantiate the charge against the accused persons. It has also been argued that complainant PW8 has categorically mentioned the manner in which the incident occurred and even the other witnesses have categorically mentioned the offence committed by the accused persons and despite being cross-examined before this court stood by his version FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 52 of 70 and no contradiction can be pointed out even though he has been duly cross examined on behalf of the accused persons. It has also been argued that PW8 had been supported in his version by the remaining witnesses. It has also been argued that in view of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, the offence against the accused persons stand proved and the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
DECISION
16. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for accused persons, Ld. Counsel for complainant, Ld. Addl. PP for State and carefully perused the record and the chargesheet filed in the present matter.
THE LAW
17. The law pertaining the offence under SC& ST Act, 1989, has been discussed in the following judgment of Hon'ble higher courts. The judgment in the case of Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020)18 SCC 763, wherein, in 'para 11' it has been mentioned;
11."the next question falling for consideration is whether the conviction u/sec. 3 (2)(v) of the SC&ST Act (Prevention of Attoricties) Act, can be sustained ? The deceased belongs to "Khangar" caste and in a wordy altercation, the appellant accused is set to have called the deceased by his caste name "Khangar" and attacked him with an axe. Calling of the deceased by his caste name is FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 53 of 70 admittedly in the field when there was a certain quarrel regarding grazing of the buffaloes.
12. From the evidence and other material on record, there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to a scheduled caste. .........."
18. Further, in the case titled as Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttrakhand & Anr., (2020)10 SCC 710, wherein it has been held in 'para 15' that ;
"as per the FIR the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends), at the time of incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredients that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses, appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building.
Further, in 'para 18', therefore, offence under the Act, is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of the scheduled caste unless there is intention to humiliate a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 54 of 70 caste."
19. Further, it the case titled Puran Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr, 2022 SCC Online Delhi 695, wherein it has been stated "Legislative Intent Underlying the SC/ST Act ;
30. Since, quashing of the FIR wherein the offence has been stated to be committed under Section 3(1)(r) and (3)(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is in question, it is pertinent to refer to the legislative intent behind the said legislation. The intent can be gauged from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, which is mentioned hereunder: "Statement of Objects and Reasons.--Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons. 2. Because of the awareness created amongst the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through spread of education, etc. they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 55 of 70 rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Castes persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 have been found to be inadequate to check these crimes. A special legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 56 of 70 become necessary. The legislative intent has also been referred to by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein the Hon‟ble Court held as under:
"10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community."
32. The long title of the Act makes it evident that the Act is intended to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes communities to provide for Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for ensuring relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 57 of 70 conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied their civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out whenever a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations, and harassment.
33. The founding fathers of the Constitution were conscious of the harsh realities of the society and the discrimination that the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have been subjected to. At the time of independence, the lofty ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity were just utopian principles that were although guaranteed by law, but not present on ground. It was for the welfare of the downtrodden and vulnerable that the ameliorative and remedial measures were brought in to ensure that their civil rights are protected and equality in principle is adopted in practice.
34. One of the objectives of the Preamble of Constitution is "fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation". The Preamble did not originally contain the expression "fraternity" rather it was subsequently inserted by the Drafting Committee. It is relevant to refer to the explanation given by Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar for FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 58 of 70 the word "fraternity" wherein he stated that "fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians". In a country like ours with the vivid diversity and the plethora of fault lines, it is necessary to emphasise and re-emphasize that the unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of brotherhood.
35. As stated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, to achieve this ideal of fraternity, three provisions namely
- Articles 15, 17 and 24 were included in the Constitution of India. Despite these provisions being in place, the founding fathers of the Constitution expected the Legislature to enact effective measures to root out the caste-based discrimination in the society. First attempt by the Parliament to achieve that end was the enactment of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 wherein the burden of proof was fixed on the accused and not on the prosecution. Next came the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, that made provisions for outlawing and penalising the social practices associated with untouchability and disabilities. Subsequently, it was felt that the 1955 Act (which was amended in 1976) did not provide for sufficient deterrence to the 12 caste-based discriminatory practices against the FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 59 of 70 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities.
36. Finally, to plug in the loophole, and to ensure the rights which the Constitution has guaranteed to the people, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to prevent the commission of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. The Act has also for the first time laid down an expansive definition of "atrocity" to cover the multiple manners through which the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been humiliated, oppressed and downtrodden for centuries. In light of the aforesaid, it is important to reiterate that unless the provisions of the Act are enforced in their true letter and spirit, and the legislative intent underlying the Act is manifested, the vision of a society free of caste-based discrimination will only remain a distant dream. Principles as Enunciated in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES MADE OUT AGAINST ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER THE SC/ST ACT
20.In the present matter, accused persons have been facing trial for the FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 60 of 70 offence committed under the SC/ST Act and the prosecution in support of his case examined as many as thirteen witnesses.
TESTIMONY OF PUBLIC WITNESSES.
21.To prove the offence under the SC/ST Act prosecution examined PW2 K K Pathak, PW4 Suraj Kumar, PW8 Shyam Sunder, complainant, PW10 Bajrang Prasad Aggarwal and PW11 Dharmendra Kumar as witnesses. Primarily, the allegations of the complainant in his complaint mentioned regarding three incidents.
TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT BEING PW8
22.The complainant in his complaint Ex.PW8/A has discussed regarding the incidents dated 26.10.2014, 07.12.2014, and 03.02.2015. It has been alleged by the complainant that he has been suffering due to the acts of the accused persons and on 03.02.2015 at around 6 pm when he left his house and reached at Gate No.4 of the park situated at Pocket A - 11, he found accused Maya Devi alongwith accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna and at that time she started abusing the complainant by passing castiest remarks and uttered words choode, chammar, and insulted the dignity of complainant. Further, at that time, all the accused persons extended threats to the complainant and told him that he should not appear as a witness in case of K K Pathak and that he would be given beatings by the gundas. At that time, both accused persons namely Maya Devi and Seema Khanna also extended threats that they shall torn their FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 61 of 70 clothes and implicate the complainant in a false case. Further the complainant had disclosed that on 26.10.2014 accused Seema Khanna and Arun Khanna had came outside the house of complainant and tried to kill the complainant and abused him by passing castiest remarks and humiliated the complainant and again had extended threats. The complainant had also stated that for the incident dated 26.10.2014 he had filed his complaint before PS Govindpuri, Delhi on 27.10.2014 but no action was taken. The complainant further narrates that on 07.12.2014 when the complainant was in the park of Picket A 11, at that time accused Maya Devi had again abused him by calling him choode chammar and humiliated him due to him from scheduled caste category and even at that time she had extended threats that if complainant would deposed against accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna in the case of K K Pathak he would have to face dire consequences and that she would tear her clothes and implicate him in a false case. Further, that he had filed the complaint against accused Maya Devi at PS Govindpuri on 17.12.2014 but no action was taken and therefore, due to the aforesaid incident and on the incident dated 03.02.2015 he filed a written complaint with the police on 04.02.2015 and the FIR in the present matter was registered.
23.During the testimony of PW8 the witness deposes that on 06.12.2014 at around 8:30 pm when he reached at Gate No.4 of Pocket A 11 he found that accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna alongwith two other FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 62 of 70 persons were present and upon seeing the complainant they started hurling abuses and passed castiest remarks by calling him choode chammar. At that time both aforesaid accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna extended threats to the complainant that they shall get him killed if he deposed against them, and thereafter, the persons accompany aforesaid accused even threatening of stabbing with a knife. Thereafter, they ran away from the spot and he made a call at 100 number and thereafter, a 100 number call was also made by PW2 K K Pathak who had also reached at spot and complainant had narrated him the entire incident. The complainant also states that on 07.12.2014 at around 4 pm when he had again having a walk at park accused Maya Devi who was also residing in the same area abused him in filthy language and passed castiest remarks and extended threats that she would torn her cloth and implicate the complainant in a false case, and on 17.12.2014, he filed a complaint with PS Govindpuri. Further that he made a complaint again on 04.02.2015, upon which the FIR was registered.
24.If, the complaint of the complainant and the testimony of complainant is taken in to consideration there are glaring contradictions in both the aforesaid statements. Though the complainant in his complaint primarily talks about the incident dated 03.02.2015, the complainant does not even whisper about the incident dated 03.02.2015 in the testimony recorded before the Court. The complaint being PW8 deposes regarding the incident dated 26.10.2014, 06.12.2014 and 07.12.2014 extensively in the FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 63 of 70 complaint and also talks about the incident dated 03.02.2015, but during his statement recorded before the Court the complainant conveniently does not disclosed any incident dated 26.10.2014 or 07.12.2014. Interestingly, in all the incidents taken into consideration i.e. 26.10.2014, 06.12.2014, 07.12.2014, 03.02.2015, the complainant has identically allegations, at the same place and in front of same individuals repeatedly. The complainant claims that during all the aforesaid incidents, the accused persons either individually or together had committed the offence of same nature. Further, the complainant also claims that after the aforesaid incident he filed complaints before the police officials and DD entry were made but no action was taken. PW5 ASI Abhishek deposed before the court that on a 100 number call made on 06.12.2014 by the complainant, he visited the spot and since no cognizable offence was made out, he closed the call vide his report dated 07.12.2014. The IO in the present matter stated that on 06.12.2014, two calls were received and one was attended by PW5 ASI Abhishek vide DD No.36A and the other call was attended by one HC Ved Prakash but he had not examined the aforesaid witness and DD No.37A which was attended by HC Ved Prakash, no cognizable offence was made out, the same was closed. However, the complainant does not whisper regarding the calls made by him or that they were closed by the police officials and also does not disclosed that being aggrieved by the investigation carried out upon his aforesaid call for the incident dated 06.12.2014, he took any other steps.
FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 64 of 70
25.The complainant in all his wisdom has casted allegations upon all the accused persons narrating incidents of different dates, having same allegations, and had made sweeping statements without substantiating the same by any cogent evidence.
26.During the statement of PW8 recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. by PW13/IO ACP Jasbir Singh, the complainant mentioned about different incidents and also states that the complainant himself stated that he could produce two eye witnesses each for the incident dated 06.12.2014 and 07.12.2014, and therefore, the witnesses were examined. The complainant during his cross examination on behalf of the accused and during the court questions put to him was unable to substantiate the allegations against the accused and the testimony of complainant being full of contradiction was unreliable.
TESTIMONY OF OTHER PUBLIC WITNESSES
27.Apart from PW8 being complainant the prosecution has placed reliance of the testimony of PW2 K K Pathak being the eye witness of incident dated 07.12.2014, and PW4 Suraj Kumar also for incident dated 06.12.2014 and PW10 Bajrang Prasad Aggarwal for the incident dated 06.12.2014 and PW11 Dharmendra Kumar for the incident dated 07.12.2014. Among the aforesaid witnesses PW2 and PW11 were allegedly present when the incident dated 07.12.2014 occurred and FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 65 of 70 PW10 & PW11 were present at the same spot when the incident dated 06.12.2014 were occurred. However, if the testimony of aforesaid witnesses careful perused, there are several contradictions regarding the time of the incident, the place and the accused persons who were at the spot when the incident occurred as none of the aforesaid witnesses corroborate with the testimony of PW8. PW2 K K Pathak had deposed for the incident dated 07.12.2014 that the incident occurred at 4 pm and it was accused Maya Devi only who had abused the complainant and committed the offence, and that is when PW11 submits that the incident occurred outside the park and it was only accused Maya Devi who had abused the complainant and committed the offence but on the contrary PW8 complainant had deposed that on 07.12.2014 when the incident occurred accused Maya Devi abused him in filthy language but the words spoken and narrated by PW8 are completely different from the testimony recorded of PW2 and PW11. Therefore, there were several contradictions in the testimony of the complainant as compared to the other witnesses for the incident dated 07.12.2014. Further, for the incident dated 06.12.2014, the complainant relied upon the testimony of PW10 Bajrang Prasad Aggarwal and PW4 Suraj Kumar. PW4 has stated regarding the incident to have been committed on 06.12.2014 at 8:30 pm again outside the park and stated that the same was committed only by accused Arun Khanna and Seema Khanna that is when PW10 Bajrang Prasad Aggarwal has stated that incident occurred on 06.12.2014 at 8:30 pm and all three accused persons were present at spot and committed the FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 66 of 70 offence with complainant. In view of contradictions pointed above the testimony of public witnesses pertaining to incident dated 06.12.2014 and 07.12.2014 does not stand proved and they are not reliable witnesses.
28.Further, interestingly, all aforesaid eye witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant for the incident dated 06.12.2014 & 07.12.2014 have admitted to have known the accused persons prior to the incident and that they stood as witnesses against the accused persons. PW2 K K Pathak admitted that he had several cases against the accused persons namely Arun Khanna and Seema khanna and also PW4 Suraj Kumar stated that he was a witness in a case against the accused persons where he had deposed against them and therefore the testimony of aforesaid witnesses examined by prosecution seems to be of interested witnesses who already had enmity against accused persons, and therefore, false implication of the accused persons cannot be ruled out and therefore, the testimony of PW2, PW5, PW8, PW10 & PW11 are not reliable in nature and hence discarded.
TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES.
29.In the present matter prosecution has examined PW1 as Nodal officer for Airtel who did not depose the presence of accused persons at the spot when the aforesaid incident occurred. Further, PW7 Bir Singh was the person who proved the caste certificate of complainant and their FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 67 of 70 testimony being formal in nature did not substantiate the offence against the accused persons.
TESTIMONY OF POLICE WITNESSES.
30.The prosecution in the present matter examined PW3 SI Desh Raj who brought the record pertaining to cases filed by accused Maya Devi against the witness K K Pathak and shown that there was enmity between PW2 and accused mya Devi and therefor the false implication of the accused by the complainant could not be ruled out. Further, the prosecution examined SI Abhishek who deposed that for the incident dated 06.12.2014 DD No.36A was marked to him and the same was closed by his report dated 07.12.2014 as no cognizable offence was made out and the same shows that the complaint filed by the complainant were of false nature. Further PW6 ASI Sanjivarghese also deposed regarding several criminal cases pending between the parties, and HC Rajinder Prasad deposed regarding registration of FIR and PW12 Inspt. Raman Kumar Singh being police official who had conducted preliminary enquiry and for the reason that the allegation were pertaining for the offence under the SC/ST Act, got the FIR registered, which was subsequently marked to PW13 ACP Jasbir Singh. The aforesaid witnesses being the police officials deposed regarding the manner of investigation and again did not substantiate in any manner the allegations of the complainant which remained not proved.
FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 68 of 70
31.Further in the present matter, the present FIR was registered upon the allegations for the incident dated 03.02.2015, however, the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not even whisper about the incident dated 03.02.2015 and therefore, even the allegations pertaining to the incident dated0 3.02.2015 against the accused persons were not substantiated by the prosecution and the same do not get proved. Further, the allegations pertaining to passing of castiest remarks for the offence alleged are not made out against the accused persons since none of the public witnesses stated that the alleged incident occurred or that it occurred in a public place, within a public view.
32.In the wake of above mentioned appreciation and conclusion, I find that accused persons had been alleged by the complainant to have uttering castiest remarks against the complainant, however, none of the allegations pertaining to castiest remarks are corroborated with the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Further, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution gave contradictory statements and hence, were not reliable. During the course of arguments it has been argued on behalf of accused persons that the allegations against the accused persons of using castiest remarks are false and fabricated as the accused persons were not even aware about the caste of the complainant and that they had never used any castiest remarks against the complainant. In the present matter, it is admitted by the accused persons that the complainant was his neighbourer. However, none of the FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 69 of 70 witnesses had categorically deposed the exact language used against the complainant and the alleged castiest remarks differ in the testimony of all the witnesses of the prosecution and hence, were contradictory and not reliable. Further, all the accused persons have stated in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. regarding being falsely implicated as there was some quarrel between the complainant and the witnesses examined by the complainant for which they have stated that they were falsely implicated by the complainant. The aforesaid fact of quarrel and enmity between the parties have not been denied by the witnesses examined by the complainant. In view of the aforesaid, the aspect of false implication of accused persons cannot be ruled out and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
33. Based on testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it is seen that none of the allegations pertaining to passing of castiest remarks stand proved against any of the accused persons and therefore, all accused persons namely Arun Khanna, Seema Khanna and Maya Devi are acquitted for all the offence.
Digitally signed by SHEETAL SHEETAL CHAUDHARY Announced in open Court CHAUDHARY Date: 2025.10.28 Today 28.10.2025 16:35:44 +0530 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan] ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi 28.10.2025 FIR No.526/2015 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Arun Khanna & Ors. Page No. 70 of 70