Delhi District Court
State vs Sandeep Chauhan on 4 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITU RAJ
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01
KKD COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: : State v. Sandeep Chauhan
FIR NO. : 62/2018
P.S. : Gandhi Nagar
CNR-NO. : DLET020021182018
Date of commission of offence : 09.03.2018
Name of Informant/complainant : SI Manish
Name of accused : 1. Sandeep Chauhan
2. Sanjay Jain
Offence/s complained of : s. 160 IPC
Cognizance under section/s : s. 160 IPC
Charges framed under section/s : s. 160 IPC
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty
Date of hearing Final Arguments: : 04.12.2024
Date of pronouncement : 04.12.2024
Final Order : Acquittal
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP
For the Defence : Sh. Shubneet Gupta
Present : Pritu Raj
JMFC.- 01,
KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 62/18 State v. Sandeep Chauhan 1/5
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused Sanjay Jain is facing trial for offences s.160 IPC.
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the prosecution of the case is that on the date of incident, SI Manish reached 7125, Munna Lal Market, Gandhi Nagar upon receipt of DD No. 18A where he found two people who were guthamgutha with each other and were fighting each other. The SI along-with Ct. Rahul Nagar tried to pacify them but to no avail. They were somehow stopped and their names were ascertained, and they were arrayed as accused in the present case.
3. P.S Mayur Vihar registered an FIR in relation to the above incident having FIR no. 62/2018 on 09-03-2018 and, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet on 23.03.2018 against the aforementioned accused person u/s. 160 IPC. Cognizance was taken on the same date and provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied on 11-05-2018.
4. Charges s. 160 IPC were framed and read over to the accused, in Hindi, on 13- 11-2018 to which accused Sandeep Chauhan pleaded guilty whereas accused Sanjay Kumar Jain denied the incident and claimed to be tried. Accused Sandeep FIR No. 62/18 State v. Sandeep Chauhan 2/5 was convicted vide order dated 13-11-2018 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. The trial proceeded qua accused Sanjay Jain.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, exam- ined three witnesses in support of its case during the course of trial.
6. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed vide order dated 04-12-2024. All the incriminating evidence which had come in evidence against the accused persons were put to the accused persons vide. SA recorded under s. 313 Cr.P.C. on the same day wherein the accused chose not to lead DE.
7. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both sides and the matter was fixed for judgment vide. order dated 04-12-2024.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
8. The accused has been charged u/s 160 IPC which is the punishment for affray. The offence of 'affray' has been defined in s. 159 IPC as:
159. Affray.--When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to "commit an affray".
9. The requirements to be proved for an offence u/s 160 IPC are; firstly, fighting must be between two or more persons, secondly, fighting must take place in a public place, and thirdly, such fighting must also result in disturbance of public FIR No. 62/18 State v. Sandeep Chauhan 3/5 peace. In the absence of even one of these ingredients, it cannot be stated that there was either an affray or the accused facing the trial, should be held responsi- ble. (Selvaraj & Anr. Vs. The State , 2005 (1) MWN (Cr.) 107)
10. In the present case, a perusal of the testimony of all the three witnesses shows that neither of the witnesses have deposed anything about the public peace being disturbed. Their testimony is entirely silent on this essential aspect which needs to be proved for bringing home the prosecution u/s 160 IPC. In the absence of any such averment, the essential requirement of there being public peace being disturbed remains unproved.
11. There is another aspect to the matter. It is settled law that for the conviction for the offence of 'affray', it must be shown that two sides were fighting and passive submission to beating by the other side will not do. (In re. Ramakudumban & Ors., Crl. RC No. 106/1949 & Crl. RP No. 103/1949). In this regard, the testi- mony of the public witnesses are mutually contradictory. While PW-1 has averred that when his helper tried to intervene in the quarrel between the accused and one of this supplier, accused started assaulting him with fist and leg blows. There is nothing averred about the helper also indulging in a fight with the ac- cused. On the other hand, the testimony of PW-2 is totally averse to the testimony of PW-1 and he states that it was the helper i.e. Sandeep who was assaulting the accused Sanjay and not vice-versa. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding FIR No. 62/18 State v. Sandeep Chauhan 4/5 that owing to the mutually contradictory versions of the public witnesses arrayed by the prosecution, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt as the allega- tions remain unproved beyond all reasonable doubt.
DECISION
12. The accused Sanjay Kumar Jain is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable un- der Section 160 IPC.
Digitally signed
13. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. PRITU by PRITU RAJ Date:
2024.12.04 RAJ 17:46:33 +0530 Announced in open Court (PRITU RAJ) on 04th December, 2024 Judicial Magistrate-01 East, KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 62/18 State v. Sandeep Chauhan 5/5