Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajay Sharma & Ors. on 31 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. VIDHI GUPTA ANAND,
ACMM-01, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CR Cases - 1/2022
CNR No. DLCT12-000052-2022
FIR No.216/2020
PS Kamla Market
State Vs. Ajay Sharma & Ors.
CR Case No. : 1/2022
CNR No. : DLCT12-000052-2022
Date of commission of :
offence 07.09.2020
Date of institution of the case : 21.07.2022
Name of the complainant : ASI Sarvesh Kumar
PIS No. 28930901
Name of Accused persons, : 1) Ajay Sharma S/o Late Sh.
their parentage and Moti Lal Sharma r/o H. No.
addresses D-1576, Jahangirpuri, New
Delhi
2) Rajeev Yadav S/o Sh. B.
R. Yadav r/o H. No. WZ-155,
Shakurpur Village, New
Delhi
3) Sujeet @ Surjeet Singh
Pawar S/o Sh. Arjun Singh
r/o H. No. I-248, Prem
Nagar Kirari, New Delhi
4) Ajit Kumar Jha S/o Sh. B.
N. Jha r/o H. No.S-19,
Sharma Colony, Budh Vihar
Phase-2, New Delhi
5) Md. Sadik S/o Sh. Abdul
Hamid r/o H. No. 2427,
State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552
PS Kamla Market Page No. 1/36
Aijaz Building Balli
Maharan, Delhi-06
6) Dharmender S/o Sh. Ch.
Kale Ram Mandoi Prasad
r/o H. No. 14063/3, Motia
Khan, Delhi.
7) Lalitesh @ Lalit S/o Sh.
Om Prakash Sharma r/o H.
No. 1/3145, Ram Nagar
Extension, Shahdara, New
Delhi
8) Zakir S/o Mohd. Saeed
r/o H. No. B-140/1, Okhla,
New Delhi
9) Savita W/o Sh.
Bhupender Kumar r/o H.
No. 496, Sector-8, R. K.
Puram, New Delhi
10) Satya Prakash Sharma
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Sharma
r/o H. No. 30, Basant Gaon,
Vasant Vihar, South West,
Delhi
11) Manju W/o Sh. Rahul
Chauhan r/o H. No. 1177, R.
K. Puram Sector-7, New
Delhi
12) Deepa Malik W/o Sh.
Birender Malik r/o H. No.
548, Sector-9, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi
13) Jayanti Jha W/o Sh.
Ranjan Kumar Jha r/o H.
No. B-93, Type-4, South
Moti Bagh, Nanakpura, New
Delhi
14) Prem Chauhan S/o Sh.
Ram Dayal Chauhan r/o H.
State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552
PS Kamla Market Page No. 2/36
No. 5/200, Dakshin Puri
Extension, New Delhi
15) Pramila Tokas W/o Sh.
Dhiraj Kumar Tokas r/o H.
No. 248-F, Munirka, Delhi
16) Akash S/o Sh. Sushil
Kumar r/o H. No. 677,
Sector-2, R. K. Puram, New
Delhi
17) Vipin @ Dev Dutt S/o
Sh. Jai Parkash r/o H. No. S-
283/318, Shastri Market,
Moti Bagh, New Delhi
18) Sohan S/o Sh. Hari
Singh r/o H. No. 271,
Munirka, New Delhi
19) Ajay Kumar S/o Sh.
Ram Chander r/o H.No. A-
137, Basant Village, Delhi
20) Anita Singh W/o Sh.
Mahipal Singh r/o Village
Chill A-60 New Ashok
Nagar, Delhi
21) Yusuf S/o Mohd. Yunus
r/o Village H. No. S-244,
New Ashok Nagar, Delhi
22) Mahipal Singh @
Hakam Singh S/o Late Sh.
Jai Chand s/o Village Chill
A-60, New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi
23)Sultana Abad W/o Sh.
Abad Khan r/o H. No. 1972,
Kucha Chalan, Dariyaganj,
Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 188/269/270/34 IPC
State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552
PS Kamla Market Page No. 3/36
Plea of the Accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 31.03.2023
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide and dispose off a case filed u/s 188/269/270/34 IPC against Accused persons namely, Rajeev Yadav, Md. Sadik, Ajay Sharma, Ajit Jha, Pramila Tokas, Deepa Malik, Jayanti Jha, Sultana Abad, Savita, Vipin, Satya Prakash Sharma, Ajay Kumar, Dharmender, Sujeet@ Surjeet Singh Pawar, Lalit Sharma, Akash, Sohan, Mahipal Singh @ Hakam Singh, Yusuf, Zakir, Manju, Anita Singh and Prem Chauhan, vide FIR No. 216/2020, PS Kamla Market.
Brief facts of the case
2. The allegations of prosecution against Accused persons are that on 07.09.2020 at around 12:15 P.M. in front of Gate No. 5, Civic Center, Accused persons conducted a dharna (protest) for which they did not have permission from senior officers. Allegedly, announcements were made at the spot, through loudspeakers and posters, telling the protesters to stop the protest and maintain social distance as well as to wear a mask on account of on-going pandemic COVID-19, however, they continued to protest as it is. As per the Prosecution case, when the said persons did not comply with the COVID Protocols despite several requests in terms of the Order No. 9954- 10024/ACP-K.Market dated 01.09.2020 issued by ACP Kamla Market, they committed the offence under Section 188/269/34 State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 4/36 IPC and accordingly the present FIR was registered against them.
In a nutshell the Prosecution case is that the conduct of the Accused persons was such that they defied the orders of the senior police officers and also caused danger of spreading of the corona virus infection at a large scale.
Trial Proceedings
3. After completion of investigation in this matter, chargesheet under Section 188/269/270/34 IPC was filed in the Court by IO against the aforesaid 23 Accused persons on 04.04.2022. Cognizance of the alleged offences was taken against all the Accused persons and they were summoned in the Court. After being admitted to bail, copies of the chargesheet and annexed documents under Section 207 Cr.PC were duly supplied to the Accused persons.
Later, after the orders of Ld. Revisionist Court dated 21.07.2022, the issue of cognizance with reference to the offence u/s 188 IPC was considered again by this Court after taking into account the complaint u/s 195 Cr. P.C. and accordingly, vide order dated 22.07.2022, cognizance was taken specifically for the offence u/s 188 IPC read with Section 195 Cr. P.C. The previous cognizance order with respect to the offence u/s 269/270 IPC had been upheld by the Ld. Revisionist Court and accordingly, no specific mention was made with respect to the said offences in the cognizance order dated 22.07.2022.
4. Thereafter, on 13.09.2022 and 20.09.2022, notices of accusation u/s 251 Cr.P.C. were served upon the Accused persons for the offences u/s 188/269/270/34 IPC, for violation of order of the ACP Kamla Market bearing number 9954-10024/ACP-
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 5/36 K.Market dated 01.09.2020 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In their plea of defence, Accused persons stated that this is a false case against them and no such protest as alleged by the Prosecution was ever conducted by them. Accordingly, the Accused persons pleaded their innocence.
5. Moving ahead with the trial, the matter was taken up for recording of Prosecution evidence. In order to establish its case against the Accused persons, Prosecution has examined seven witnesses i.e. SI Rakesh Kumar, Sh. Chiranji Lal Sharma, HC Satbir, Ct. Sumit, ASI Sarvesh Kumar, SI Jyotirmoy Pandey and IO/SI Sumit Kumar. The testimonies of the said witnesses is discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. 5.1 PW1 SI Rakesh Kumar: He was a formal witness being the Duty Officer in the concerned PS at the time of registration of FIR and accordingly, he exhibited on record the endorsement made on the rukka prepared by the IO i.e. Ex.PW1/A, FIR No. 216/2020, PS Kamla Market dated 07.09.2020 as available on record Ex.PW1/B, the FIR registered in the FIR register of the concerned PS i.e. Ex.PW1/C, the certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as present in the FIR register of the concerned PS as Ex.PW1/D and lastly, photocopy of the said certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/D1 (OSR).
5.2 PW2 Sh. Chiranji Lal Sharma: He was a summoned witness, being the Photographer present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident. He stated that on 07.09.2020, he was called by officials of PS Kamla Market to get videography done of dharna/protest held at Civic Centre, Gate No.5 and accordingly, State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 6/36 he had reached at the spot at around 09:00 A.M. and continued to stay at the said spot till about 05:00 P.M. He exhibited the pen drive containing the photographs along with its envelope as Ex.PW2/A1 and his certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to the same is Ex.PW2/A2.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that he started his videography at around 09:30 A.M. and continued till 03:00 - 03:30 P.M. He added that he remained at the spot till about 05:00 P.M. and till he remained there, the protest continued. 5.3 PW3 HC Satbir, No. 2462/C, ACP Office, Kamla Market, Delhi: He was a formal witness to the case and brought the required sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. issued by ACP, Kamla Maret as well as the prohibitory order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 9954-10024/ACP-K.Market dated 01.09.2020. He exhibited the sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. issued by ACP, Sub-Division, Kamla Market, Delhi in respect to the present case as Ex.PW3/A. The entry of the said document in the dispatch register of ACP office, Kamla Market, Delhi for the year 2020-2021 was exhibited as Ex.PW3/B (OSR) and its photocopy was taken on record, vide Ex. PW3/C. 5.4 PW4 Ct. Sumit, No. 1609/C, PS Kamla Market, Delhi:
He is one of the most important witnesses to the case being an eye witness to the entire incident.
He deposed that on 07.09.2020, at about 10:00 - 10:15 A.M., while he was on duty at Civic Centre, Gate No.5 along with HC Rati Ram, Ct. Aakash, W/Ct. Reena, W/Ct. Anju and other police staff, a protest started which had political people including MLA, MCD councilors, MCD employees etc. He State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 7/36 further deposed that the then SHO and ACP of their Police Station had given directions to the abovesaid persons that they were not allowed to gather due to COVID-19 guidelines and were also informed that as per the guidelines of ACP Kamla Market, Section 144 of Cr.PC was in force due to which public gatherings were barred. He further testified that the said persons did not follow the guidelines and continued to gather at the spot. He stated that IO ASI Sarvesh who was also present at the spot alongwith him on duty, detained 23 persons and prepared a tehrir on the basis of which, he went to the PS and got the FIR registered. He further deposed that thereafter, he returned to the spot and handed over the original tehrir alongwith the copy of FIR to ASI Sarvesh.
During his cross-examination he deposed that IO prepared the tehrir at about 04:00 P.M. and after registration of FIR, he returned back to the spot at about 04:40 P.M. He stated that the protest in question started at about 10.00 A.M. With respect to the identity of the Accused persons, PW4 specifically stated that he did not know the Accused persons by their names as he had not seen the Accused persons or met them before. He added that he had met the Accused persons for the first time at the protest only and thereafter, he never met the Accused persons during the course of investigation. Further, he stated that he remained with the Accused persons from the starting of the protest i.e. at about 10:00 A.M. and continued to stay with them till 5:30 P.M. With respect to the detention of Accused persons, he stated that they were detained by the IO at about 3:00 P.M. - 3:15 P.M. on 07.09.2020. He added that IO had State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 8/36 prepared documents with respect to the detention of the abovesaid Accused persons but they were not signed by him. He further affirmed that Accused persons were not got medically examined. Further, he stated that the concerned ACP had reached the spot immediately when the protest was started and stayed till 5:30 - 6:00 P.M. He again admitted that he cannot identify Accused persons by their names but only by their faces. It is also pertinent to note that PW4 has stated in his testimony that no IDs of the Accused persons were taken by the IO at the time of their detention.
5.5 PW5 ASI Sarvesh Kumar: He is also one of the prime prosecution witnesses in this matter as he was the first IO of this case and also, an eye witness. He deposed on the lines of PW4, however, with some discrepancies.
He deposed that on 07.09.2020 at about 9:00 A.M., he was on arrangement duty at gate no. 5, Civic Centre along with HC Ratti Ram, Ct. Akash, Ct. Sumit, W-Ct. Anju, W-Ct. Reena along with private photographer and at about 12:15 P.M., MCD Councilors along with some workers had come to the spot and started an agitation in front of Gate No. 5, Civic Centre. He further stated that he asked the said persons for the relevant permission regarding the said protest but they failed to show the same. He added that at that time, due to outbreak of COVID-19, the assembly of people was prohibited and some senior officers, present at the spot, asked the above said persons to leave the spot, on which, few people left the spot while others remained to continue there. He deposed that on the instructions of the said senior officials, 23 persons, who remained at the spot, were State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 9/36 detained with the help of police staff. Further, he stated that he made inquiries from the above said persons regarding their names and addresses and thereafter, prepared tehrir (Ex.PW- 5/A), upon which Ct. Sumit went to the PS and got the FIR registered. He further stated that Ct. Sumit after getting the FIR registered at the police station came back to the spot along with above said tehrir and copy of the FIR, whereafter investigation was started in the present case.
He stated that on 10.09.2020 he got transferred from the above said PS and handed over the case file to the then MHC (R) for further course of action.
It is pertinent to note that with respect to the identification of the Accused persons, apart from Accused Prem Chauhan, he could only identify the Accused persons by their faces and stated that he did not know their names.
During his cross-examination, he stated that people started gathering at the gate of Civic Centre at about 12:00 Noon and SHO/ACP also reached the gate of the Civic Centre at around same time. He stated that he had not called the photographer at the spot and the photographer was present at the spot from 9:00 A.M. itself at the instructions of the Police Station. He specifically stated that ACP Anil Kumar himself made announcements at around 12:15 P.M. with respect to the dispersal of the people as they were gathering without following COVID protocols. Further, he stated that the Accused persons were detained at around 12:30 P.M. Contrary to PW4, he stated that no documentation or any paper work was done with respect to the detention of the Accused persons. He also affirmed that no State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 10/36 medical examination of any of the Accused persons was done by him. He denied having any knowledge as to whether on the day of the incident any of the Accused persons were suffering from COVID or not. He admitted that he had not taken any document from any of the Accused persons for verification of their identity. Further, he stated that Accused persons were allowed to leave from the spot at around 3:00 P.M. He repeated that he cannot identify the Accused persons from their names and addresses, however, he can only identify them from their faces. 5.6 PW6 SI Jyotirmoy Pandey: He is the second IO of this case and took over the investigation of this case on 05.10.2020. His investigation was limited to procurement of video footage/ photographs from PW2 Photographer Sh. Chiranji Lal Sharma and recording his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. He never gave any notice to the Accused persons during his investigation and accordingly, he had never met them.
During his cross-examination, he specifically stated that he had not seen the contents of the pen drive, Ex.PW2/A, which was handed over to him by PW2 with respect to the present case. 5.7 PW7 IO/SI Sumit Kumar: He is the last witness presented in the Court by Prosecution to prove its case. He took over the investigation of this case as its IO on 15.01.2021. He deposed to have issued notices u/s 41A Cr. P.C. to the Accused persons mentioned in the FIR and exhibited the same as Ex.PW7/X1 to Ex.PW7/X23. He added that he never arrested the said 23 Accused persons but bound them vide pabandinamas, Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A23. He also deposed that he obtained permission u/s 195 Cr. P.C. from the then ACP in the present case State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 11/36 i.e.Ex.PW7/B. Lastly, he stated that upon completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and filed it before the Court.
An important aspect, which needs to be noted at this stage is that during his cross-examination, PW7 stated during his cross- examination that he had seen the videography of the incident in question before filing of the charge sheet. Most importantly, he specifically stated that he can identify the Accused persons in the videos, Ex.PW2/A1. Accordingly, during his testimony, videos of the incident, Ex.PW2/A1 were shown to him and he was asked to identify the Accused persons therein. After seeing the videos of the incident, witness was unable to identify even a single Accused person in them.
6. After examination of all the Prosecution witnesses, as mentioned above, Prosecution evidence was closed and statements of Accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C. whereby all incriminating evidence was put to the Accused persons.
Accused persons stated that they were falsely implicated in the present case and complaint of the ACP is based on wrongly presented facts to him. Most of the Accused persons stated that they have not been identified by their names and other credentials and witnesses have generally stated that they can identify the Accused through the face only.
Further, it was added by the Accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in the present matter in collusion with the opposite party on account of the political rivalry and not even a single video or photo has been proved on record by the State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 12/36 Prosecution pertaining to the incident in question in which Accused persons can be seen.
Accused Prem Chauhan additionally stated that he has been specifically identified by PW5 ASI Sarvesh in the Court as he was the leader of opposition in MCD having office at Civic Centre and due to the nature of his work, ASI Sarvesh used to meet him regularly even prior to the registration of this case. He added that he is a sitting councilor and therefore, easily identifiable by the police officials of his area.
Also, Accused Promila Tokas additionally stated that she is a sitting MLA from R. K. Puram and on account of her public work she is easily identifiable by face.
Lastly, all the Accused persons had stated that they are innocent.
7. Despite opportunity, none of the Accused persons led evidence in their defence. Accordingly, matter was taken up for final arguments.
Final Arguments
8. Ld. Counsel for the Accused persons as well as Ld. APP for the State addressed detailed arguments in support of their respective cases citing relevant authorities.
9. Ld. APP for the State argued for conviction of the Accused persons stating that the Prosecution case stands duly proved by the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses, whereby as many as seven witnesses have been examined, out of which PW4 Ct. Sumit and PW5 ASI Sarvesh are eye-witnesses, who have duly corroborated the prosecution case. Further, Ld. APP for the State argued that Prosecution witnesses have identified the Accused State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 13/36 persons by their faces and Accused Prem Chauhan has been specifically identified by PW5 ASI Sarvesh through his name as well as through his face.
Further, Ld. APP for the State argued that the Accused persons conducted a protest in violation of the COVID guidelines issued by the State, not only risking their own safety but the safety of innumerable innocent people by gathering together without maintaining social distancing and without wearing any masks. Ld. APP for the State vehemently put forward that the conduct of the Accused persons, amongst whom there is a sitting MLA and some Councilors, was highly irresponsible and dangerous for the people at large on account of widespread outbreak of COVID-19 and thus, they are liable to be punished for the same.
In view of the above submissions, Ld. APP for the State argued that Accused persons be held guilty for the offences u/s 188/269/270/34 IPC and they be given maximum punishment.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for the Accused persons strongly opposed the submissions of Ld. APP for the State stating that the entire case has been falsely made against the Accused persons, the basis of which is nothing but political agenda. Arguments on behalf of the defence were addressed in three parts by respective Ld. Counsel for the Accused persons. The same have been discussed in the following paragraphs. 10.1 Firstly, arguments were addressed by Sh. Rishi Pal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Accused Promila Tokas, Aakash and Manju. He referred to the testimonies of PW4 and PW5 and stated that despite being material eye-witnesses to the case, they have given State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 14/36 different statements, which questions the truthfulness of the Prosecution case. He made the following points before the Court seeking acquittal of the Accused persons:
(a) Despite being named in the testimonies of PW4 and PW5, HC Rati Ram, Ct. Aakash, W/Ct. Reena, W/Ct. Anju have not been made witnesses in the present case, which implies that they were never present at the spot of the alleged incident and this is a false case.
(b) PW4 has stated nothing about gathering of the people at the spot and has straight away stated that protest started at 10:00 A.M, however, PW5 has contradicted PW4 and stated in his testimony that people started gathering at the gate of Civic Centre at around 12:00 Noon and protest started at about 12:15 P.M. Hence, it is apparent that there is a clear mismatch between the versions of two eye witnesses to the case.
(c) It was argued that neither PW4 nor PW5 has been able to identify the Accused persons by their credentials and the Accused persons have been identified only by their faces, which is a vague identification and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of a criminal trial. With respect to the identification of Accused Prem Chauhan by ASI Sarvesh, it was argued that ASI Sarvesh knew Accused Prem Chauhan even prior to registration of this case as Accused Prem Chauhan was leader of opposition in Civic Centre and a well known face.
(d) Further, Ld. Counsel argued that no averment has been made by any of the Prosecution witnesses as to the efforts made to disperse the people in the crowd. Further, it was stated that no Prosecution witness could name even a single person, who had State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 15/36 been notified about the bar u/s 144 Cr.P.C. on gatherings on the date of the alleged incident.
(e) Also, it was stated that even though witnesses have stated that the ACP made announcements for the dispersal of the people, there is not even a single photo or video depicting the said announcements despite the fact that Photographer was present at the spot since 09:00 A.M. itself, which again questions the very averment of making of announcements by the ACP.
Hence, it was argued that one of the most important witnesses to the case was the ACP himself, since he had made the announcements and was an eye witness to the protest, however, he was never brought in the witness box. It was also specifically brought forward that neither the ACP nor the SHO can be seen even in a single video of the alleged incident even though prosecution witnesses have stated that they were present at the spot during the entire incident.
(f) Further, Ld. Counsel argued that no details have been mentioned by the Prosecution witnesses as to how were the Accused persons detained and on what basis. It was pointed out that the witnesses have admitted that the ID proofs of the Accused persons were not seen at the time of their alleged detention and thus, at no point of time was the identity of the Accused persons confirmed by the IO.
(g) Ld. Counsel also stated that nothing has been stated by any of the Prosecution witnesses as to how they came to know in advance that a protest is going to be carried out at Civic Centre on 07.09.2020. Thus, the presence of additional police force and a private photographer at the spot even prior to commission of State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 16/36 the alleged incident raises serious doubts in the Prosecution case and again shows that the Accused persons have been framed in this matter.
(h) With respect to tehrir, it was pointed out by Ld. Counsel that in the testimony of PW5, it has been stated that the Accused persons were allowed to leave at around 03:00 P.M. itself, however, tehrir was sent at the PS for registration of FIR at around 04:00 P.M. At the outset, it was argued that from the testimony of PW5 itself it comes forth that tehrir was written after the Accused persons had left without taking any IDs from them, which clearly implies that the Accused persons were implicated in this matter at whims and fancies of the IO.
(i) Coming to the testimony of PW7 SI Sumit Kumar, Ld. Counsel argued that the notices given to the Accused persons u/s 41A of Cr. P.C. i.e. Ex.PW7/X1 to Ex.PW7/X23 are defective as they are blank and in most of the notices nothing has been written as to when and where are the Accused persons required to appear.
(j) Lastly, it was argued by Ld. Counsel that it is crucial to note that despite the videos of the incident (Ex.PW2/A1) being played in the Court, PW7 could not even identify even a single Accused person in the same and hence, the entire Prosecution case is proved to be false.
Hence, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the Accused Persons namely, Promila Tokas, Aakash and Manju that this is proved to be a false case against the Accused persons filed only to malign their reputation.
10.2 In second place, arguments were addressed by Ld. Counsel State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 17/36 Sh. H. P. Sharma on behalf of all remaining Accused persons except Accused Ajay Sharma. He adopted the arguments already addressed on behalf of the Accused persons as mentioned above and made the following additional points:
(a) With respect to the identification of the Accused persons by their faces in the Court, he argued that the same is not admissible in the Court. It was further argued that the Accused persons were identified in the court by their faces as it was only the Accused persons, who were present in the Court at the time of the hearing and no pointing out of any of the Accused persons was ever done apart from Accused Prem Chauhan.
(b) With respect to Accused Prem Chauhan he stated that Accused Prem Chauhan has specifically stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he has been identified by ASI Sarvesh in the Court, as he was the leader of opposition in MCD having office at Room no.101, Civic Centre and due to the nature of his work, ASI Sarvesh used to meet him regularly even prior to the registration of this case. He also stated that he is still a sitting councilor and easily identifiable by the police officials of his area. In order to add weight to this statement of Accused Prem Chauhan u/s 313 Cr. P.C., Ld. Counsel relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Prem Chand Vs. State of Maharashtra (Cr.A. No. 211/2023 dated 03.03.2023), wherein it has been held that:
"16. The exercise under section 313 instead of being ritualistic ought to be realistic in the sense that it should be the means for securing the ends of justice; instead of an aimless effort, the means towards the end State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 18/36 should be purposeful. Indeed, it is optional for the Accused to explain the circumstances put to him under section 313, but the safeguard provided by it and the valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on the final outcome, which would in effect promote utility of the exercise rather than its futility."
(c) Further, in regard to Section 269 and 270 IPC, Ld. Counsel argued that no medical examination of any of the Accused persons was conducted by the IO and thus, it has not been proved on record that any of the Accused persons were suffering from COVID-19 and thus, no question arises of spreading of infection whether negligently or malignantly. Hence, it was argued that the Accused persons deserve to be acquitted for the said offences.
(d) With respect to Section 188 IPC, it was argued that neither any document nor any witness has been brought on record to prove that the order of imposition of Section 144 Cr.P.C. was widely publicized amongst people in general or amongst the Accused persons in particular. It was argued that no posters have been affixed and no banners have been put at any point of time to communicate the imposition of Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the concerned area and thus, Accused persons cannot be held liable for alleged offence u/s 188 IPC.
Concluding his submissions, Ld. Counsel Sh. H. P. Sharma prayed for honorable acquittal of the Accused persons. 10.3 Lastly, arguments were addressed on behalf of Accused Ajay Sharma by Ld. Counsel Ms. Alka Singh. Ld. Counsel stated State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 19/36 that she shall argue on law points and adopt the arguments on facts and evidence, as already addressed by Ld. Counsels for the remaining Accused persons.
(a) First and foremost Ld. Counsel for Accused Ajay Sharma argued on the issue of cognizance. Reading out the order of the Court dated 04.04.2022, she argued that cognizance has not been taken of the complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. and in view of the same, the cognizance itself is wrong and thus, on this ground itself the case is not maintainable. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court titled as Amitabh Choudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand (Cr. M.P.No.856/19 dated 25.03.2022).
(b) Further, it was argued that the alleged incident has taken place on 07.09.2020, i.e. the date on which the FIR has been registered and the complaint u/s 195 Cr. P.C. has been made on 14.12.2021 i.e. after expiry of more than one year of the incident and thus, the complaint was beyond limitation period and on this ground as well no case is made out against the Accused persons.
(c) In the end, Ld. Counsel argued that offences u/s 269 and 270 IPC are not made out against the Accused persons as neither any COVID-19 tests of Accused persons were conducted nor was it proved on record by any other means that Accused persons were suffering from COVID-19. In order to buttress her arguments, Ld. Counsel placed reliance on following judgments:
(i) Sidak Singh Sandhu Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and Another (CRM -M-19407-
2022 (O&M) dated 27.07.2022).
(ii) Noor Mohamed Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police (Crl. O.P. No. 7026 of 2022 and Crl. M. P. No. 3977 of 2022 dated State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552
PS Kamla Market Page No. 20/36
29.03.2022).
With the above submissions of Ld. Counsel for Accused Ajay Sharma, the arguments on behalf of all the Accused persons were concluded.
10.4 In rebuttal to the arguments of the defence, Ld. APP for the State argued that no medical examination of the Accused persons was conducted as they were never arrested in this matter. Further, Ld. APP argued that thrust of Section 269/270 IPC is on the knowledge of the Accused that with his act he is likely to spread infection and that is enough to secure his conviction. It was also argued that suggestion regarding the identification of Accused Prem Chauhan was never put to PW5 and therefore, at this stage the defence cannot claim that they knew each other prior to the case. Further, Ld. APP for the State put forward that police persons are trained in such a way that they can identify and memorize people by their faces and thus, the identification of the Accused persons by PW4 and PW5 is sufficient to prove the case against them. Also, it was submitted by Ld. APP for the State that Accused persons were allowed to leave the spot after recording of their names and addresses and thus, the sending of tehrir later is inconsequential to the authenticity of the Prosecution case. In regard to the notices u/s 41A Cr.P.C., Ld. APP for the State put forward that the same are not vague and contain the details of the case as well as the PS where the Accused has to appear. As far as the time difference between the testimonies of PW4 and PW5 is concerned, Ld. APP for the State argued that the witnesses can never be exact about the time and only an estimation of time can State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 21/36 be given. In regard to the video footage, Ex.PW2/A1, Ld. APP for the State clarified that it can be seen in the video that people were wearing masks and it was difficult to identify the Accused persons.
With these submissions, Ld. APP for the State concluded his arguments in rebuttal.
11. Submissions of Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. respective Counsels for the Accused persons have been heard in detail and record has been carefully perused. Appreciation of Evidence in the light of relevant law and brief reasons for the decision
12. This is a peculiar case involving as many as twenty three Accused persons for violating COVID-19 guidelines and allegedly, risking the lives of other people by conducting a protest in a group at a time when the contagious pandemic COVID-19 had hit the country. As already mentioned above, Accused persons have been booked and tried for the offences u/s 188/269/270/34 IPC.
13. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note that there are two cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence; one, that the Accused is deemed to be innocent unless proven guilty and two, that the Prosecution case has to stand on its own legs. Meaning thereby that the burden of proof is upon Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused persons by leading cogent and credible evidence. Moreover, in order to establish the guilt of the Accused, the evidence led by Prosecution has to be of sterling quality so much so that the guilt of the Accused is proved beyond all reasonable doubts and merely creating preponderance of State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 22/36 probabilities shall not suffice.
In the case at hand, Accused persons have not led any evidence in their defence, while Prosecution has brought as many as seven witnesses to prove its case including two eye-witnesses along with videos of the alleged incident. As to whether the said evidence brought by Prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the Accused persons or not shall be seen in the following pages.
14. The first charge levelled against the Accused persons is u/s 188 IPC which makes disobedience of an order promulgated by the Public Servant a punishable offence, more so, when the disobedience puts human life in danger. In order to get a clearer understanding of the provision, it is necessary to peruse the same. The same is reproduced below:-
"Section 188 - Disobedience to Order duly Promulgated by Public Servant -
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;
and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 23/36 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.--It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm."
Mere reading of the provision makes it clear that for completion of the offence u/s 188 IPC, knowledge of the Accused with respect to the order promulgated by the government servant is sufficient. Contrary to the general requirement of criminal offences, the guilty intention i.e. intention to produce harm is not a necessary pre-condition for completion of this offence. It follows as a natural corollary of the above discussion that in order to establish the commission of the offence u/s 188 IPC by the Accused, Prosecution must establish that either the Accused had personal knowledge of the government order or the same came to his knowledge through any other mode such as poster, banner, public announcement or personal communication at the spot.
In this regard, reference may be had to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi titled as Bhoop Singh Tyagi vs. State [2002 Cri L J 2872] which holds as under:
9. As already seen, a person booked under Section 188 IPC must have actual knowledge of public servant's order requiring him to do or abstain from doing some act. Acquiring or State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 24/36 gaining of such knowledge is a pre-requisite. Any proof of general notification promulgated by a public servant would not satisfy the requirement.
10. It is true that the knowledge of Accused could be presumed in certain circumstances but all the same a complaint/FIR must indicate, even though not in very express terms, that he had the knowledge of the order and had knowingly disobeyed it. Where the terms of complaint/FIR did not provides even as inkling in this regard, it cannot be said to make out or constitute an offence under Section 188 and in such a situation, it would warrant to be quashed.
15. Coming now to the case at hand, it is alleged that the Accused persons violated Order No. 9954-10024/ACP-K.Market dated 01.09.2020 issued by ACP Kamla Market which prohibited gathering of the people so as to contain the spread of COVID-19.
Thus, the first and foremost question which shall be decided herein is as to whether the Accused persons had knowledge that any such order issued by the ACP concerned is in force or not. 15.1. Interestingly, the Order No. 9954-10024/ACP-K.Market dated 01.09.2020 issued by ACP Kamla Market has not been exhibited on record by Prosecution, however, the same has been specifically mentioned in the testimony of PW3 to have been issued by the then ACP Sh.Pankaj Singh and thus, this court shall proceed further on merits.
15.2. As already mentioned above, knowledge of the Accused persons about the existence of any prohibition u/s 144 Cr.P.C. is a pre-requisite for completion of the offence u/s 188 IPC. Thus, it is incumbent upon prosecution to prove that the said prohibitory order was given wide publicity within the jurisdiction of PS State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 25/36 Kamla Market through posters/banners/public announcements so that people were well aware about the same. However, no such proof has been brought on record by Prosecution. Neither any photograph or any video depicting display of banners, posters, etc has been brought on record nor any public witness from the jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market has been brought to depose that indeed sufficient awareness was spread with respect to the prohibitory order.
15.3. It is apt at this stage to note that in the matter titled as In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident [(2012) 5 SCC 1], highlighting the necessity of publicity and announcements regarding the prohibition u/s 144 Cr.P.C. being in force, the Supreme Court of India had held as follows:
162. The Standing Order 309 contemplates that there should be display of banner indicating promulgation of Section 144 Cr.P.C., repeated use of Public Address system by a responsible officer-
appealing/advising the leaders and demonstrators to remain peaceful and come forward for memorandum, their deputation etc. or court arrest peacefully and requires such announcement to be videographed. It further contemplates that if the crowd does not follow the appeal and turns violent, then the assembly should be declared as unlawful on the PA System and the same should be videographed. Warning on PA system prior to use of any kind of force is to be ensured and also videographed. I find that there is hardly any compliance to these terms of this Standing Order.
295. The right to peacefully and lawfully assemble together and to freely express oneself coupled with the right to know about such expression is guaranteed under Article 19 of the State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 26/36 Constitution of India. Such a right is inherent and is also coupled with the right to freedom and liberty which have been conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It is essential to note from the above extract that not only repeated use of banners/public announcement system is necessary for communication to the crowd and dispersal of the same, but if the crowd does not follow the appeal and turns violent, then the assembly has to be declared as unlawful on the Public announcement System and the same should be videographed.
In the case at hand, videos of the alleged incident have been placed on record as Ex.PW2/A1. Upon perusal of the same, not even a single banner/poster or any kind of noticeable public announcement system can be seen. Even though it is stated by Prosecution witnesses that the concerned ACP himself made announcements of dispersal to the Accused persons, the same has neither been photographed nor videographed. As per the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses, the Photographer i.e. PW2 Charanji Lal Sharma was present at the spot of the alleged incident on 07.09.2020 since morning itself and continued to stay there till evening. It is questionable that despite the photographer being present at the spot, not even a single clear photo/video of the alleged public announcements have been taken. 15.4. Even though PW4 and PW5 have deposed that such announcements were made by the ACP, their testimonies suffer from several contradictions and discrepancies so much so that they cannot be relied upon as credible witnesses. While PW4 has State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 27/36 deposed that the Protest started at around 10:00 A.M., PW5 submits that the protest started at about 12:15 P.M. Further, while PW4 has deposed that Accused persons were detained at about 12:30 P.M., PW5 has deposed that they were detained at around 03:00-03:15 P.M. Interestingly, PW4 has stated that documents were prepared by the IO with respect to the detention of Accused persons but he had not signed the same, however, first IO of the case, PW5, has denied preparing any documents of detention of the Accused persons. Also, PW4 has stated that the Accused persons remained at the spot till 05:30 P.M.; on the contrary PW5 has stated that Accused persons were allowed to leave the spot at around 03:00 P.M. itself. Clearly, both the witnesses cannot be true at the same time and one of them is certainly deposing incorrectly before the court either because of his ignorance or because he was not present at the spot or because of other reasons best known to him Yet another important aspect to be noted is that PW5 has stated that he let the Accused persons go by around 03:00 P.M. itself and prepared the tehrir at around 04:00 P.M. This again questions the Prosecution case as admittedly, tehrir has been made in the absence of Accused persons.
Moreover, the notices u/s 41A Cr.P.C. as well as the Pabandinamas exhibited on record by PW7 appear to be half filled and apparently there are several essential details missing from the same. In several notices, the place and time where the Accused has to appear has not been mentioned. The acknowledgment of receipt to the notices have been appended to the notices itself and have not been given to the Accused persons.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552
PS Kamla Market Page No. 28/36
Several Pabandinamas are undated and Pabandinama
Ex.PW7/A1 does not even bear the signatures or details of the IO. The most noticeable aspect amongst other things is that the notices EX.PW7/X1 to PW7/X3 as well as Pabandinamas Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A23 have been issued on 28.08.2021 i.e. almost one year after the registration of FIR. This clearly implies that the notices and pabadinamas were prepared by the IO as a merely formality and not for the purpose of effective investigation.
The arguments of the Ld. APP that some time differences are bound to come in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and that the Police station was mentioned in the notices Ex.PW7/X1 to Ex.PW7/X23 which is sufficient detail, are not meritorious enough to cover the anomalies created by the police witnesses.
15.5. Further, it has been deposed that it was the ACP concerned who made the announcements regarding prohibitory order and dispersal of people in the presence of area SHO. Hence, two star eye-witnesses to the case could have been the area SHO and ACP themselves. However, to the utter dismay of Prosecution they have not even been cited in the list of witnesses. In the absence of proper videos of the announcements made and in the absence of public witnesses to the announcements, the best evidence in regard to the communication of order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. could have been the person who himself made the announcements and also witnessed the incident i.e. the ACP himself. To the detriment of the Prosecution Case, concerned ACP has not been brought in the dock for the reasons best known to the investigating agency and State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552
PS Kamla Market Page No. 29/36
Prosecution.
15.6. Further, there is no proof of any personal communication to any of the Accsued persons with respect to the prohibitory order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. There is no document showing that Accused persons were individually informed about the prohibition on gatherings. Neither any written receiving is there nor any photographs depicting any such communication is there. 15.7. From the above discussion, it comes forth that Prosecution has been unable to prove that the Accused persons had prior knowledge about any prohibitory order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. or that the same was brought to their knowledge on the spot but they refused to disperse.
16. Moving ahead, another important aspect which needs to be discussed here pertains to the identification of the Accused persons. In criminal trial, identification of the Accused by the witness in the court is the most clinching piece of evidence for Prosecution case. The identification of the Accused has to be distinct and accurate, rather than being vague and generic. In the case at hand, none of the eye-witnesses have identified Accused persons (apart from Accused Prem Chauhan) by their names and other details. No pointing out of the Accused persons by their names has been done and it has only been stated by the witnesses that they identify the Accused persons by their faces. Witnesses have specifically stated that they cannot identify Accused persons by their names. Merely facial identification, that too without assigning any specific role to the Accused in the incident, cannot be considered as proper identification, more so, because it has been admitted by the IO i.e. PW5 that no IDs of any of the State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 30/36 Accused persons was taken at the time of their detention and they were allowed to leave even prior to writing of the Tehrir. The explanation tendered by Ld. APP for the State that police personnel are trained in such a way that they can identify and memorize people by their faces may be true for investigation purposes but in court of law, guilt of an Accused cannot be based on the generic identification by the witness but it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Further, it is questionable that if the police witnesses' memory is such that they can identify faces of Accused persons, why can not they also remember their names.
Further, PW7 i.e. IO SI Sumit stated that he can identify the Accused persons in the videography of the incident Ex.PW2/A1. However, when the videos were played in the court and shown to him, he could not identify even a single Accused in the same, which has damaged the Prosecution case beyond repairs. Ld. APP for the State argued that lot of people were wearing masks at the time of alleged commission of the offence and hence, could not be identified by the IO. However, this again goes against Prosecution's own case as it is the case of Prosecution that Accused persons were conducting a protest without wearing masks.
It may be added here that even though Accused Prem Chauhan has been specifically identified by PW5, PW4 has been unable to point him out and none of his photos as a protestor on the day of the alleged incident has been brought on record.
The absence of the even a single Accused person from the videos of the incident Ex.PW2/A1 relied upon by Prosecution State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 31/36 creates a big dent in the Prosecution case and again questions the quality of relevant evidence brought on record.
17. Coming now to charge u/s 269/270 IPC, it may be mentioned here that presence of the Accused persons at the spot already stands disputed on account of lack of proper identification by the Prosecution Witnesses. However, being separate offences, section 269/270 IPC, also need to be delved upon.
First and foremost, the said provisions are reproduced below for a quick perusal.
Section 269 IPC provides as follows:
Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Section 270 IPC provides as follows:
Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason the believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
From a combined reading of the above two provisions, it comes forth that there must be an overt act negligently/malignantly on the part of the Accused which he knows is likely to spread disease dangerous to life. Knowledge of State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 32/36 the Accused with respect to spreading of infection can be attributed to him only when either he himself suffers from any contagious disease or when he knows about such infection on any person and continues to be in public gatherings with him.
In regard to section 269/270 IPC, in the judgement titled as Sidak Singh Sandhu vs Ut Chd And Anr. (Crm.M..19407/2022 dated 27.07.2022) relying upon a Bombay High Court judgment, it was held by Punjab and Haryana High Court as follows:
The relevant extract of the observation recorded by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is extracted as under:
14. To attract ingredients of Sections 269 and 270, the person must commit any act which he knows is likely to spread infection of any disease which is dangerous to life. It is not in dispute that the applicants had undergone COVID-19 test during their period of quarantine i.e. from 03.04.2020 and their test report for infection of COVID-19 was negative. It is also not disputed that they were kept in isolation from 24.03.2020 till 31.03.2020 under the supervision of Dr Khawaj, NMC Zonal Officer, Mominpura, Nagpur. There is no material on record to prove that applicants had indulged in any act which was likely to spread infection of COVID -19.
Therefore, from the material produced in the charge-sheet, there is no evidence to substantiate the fulfillment of ingredients of Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the case at hand, it is the case of Prosecution that Accused persons gathered and conducted a protest at the time of outbreak of COVID-19 and thus liable to be punished for the offence u/s 269/270 IPC. However, admittedly, medical examination of the Accused persons or for that matter, their State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 33/36 COVID tests were never got conducted by the IO. Thus, it has not been proved by Prosecution that any of the the Accused persons were suffering from COVID-19 or any other contagious disease which can put human life in danger.
Hence, on this aspect as well, Prosecution case suffers from infirmities beyond repairs.
18. Certain arguments were raised by Ld. Counsel for Accused Ajay Sharma on the issue of cognizance and limitation and consequent maintainability of the present case. The same are not being dealt with separately here as the issue of maintainability of the case stands settled with the cognizance orders of this court and more importantly from the order of Ld. Revisionist Court dated 21.07.2022.
19. In view of the discussion held above, there remains no scope of doubt that Prosecution has miserably failed to discharge its onus of proving the case against the Accused persons. Prosecution story could not be substantiated by the witnesses examined in the court; rather from the video footages brought on record, the entire prosecution case was over-turned. It was the duty of Prosecution to bring its best evidence in the court to prove its case, however, failing in performing its duty, Prosecution did not bring the most important witness i.e. the ACP concerned as a witness in the court. The most primary document which needed to be proved on record was the notification/order u/s 144 Cr.P.C., however, the same was not exhibited during Prosecution evidence.
20. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to a judgment titled as Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs. Union Of India & anr. [1991 AIR State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 34/36 1346] wherein it has been held that:
It is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the Court to prove a fact or the points in issue.
Clearly, the evidence brought by Prosecution was not its best to prove the present case against the Accused persons. Neither was it proved that Accused persons had knowledge about the prohibitory order dated 01.09.2020 nor it was proved that the same was communicated to them when the Protest began; rather Prosecution could not even prove the presence of Accused persons at the spot.
The only two eye-witnesses examined in the court, contradicted each other on several material aspects, putting their credibility under question.
It was not proved on record that any of the Accused persons were suffering from any kind of contagious disease and hence, the question of negligently or malignantly spreading any disease does not arise.
Overall, Prosecution could not prove any of the offences for which notice of accusation was served upon the Accused persons.
Conclusion
21. In view of the discussion held above as well the documents and evidence brought on record, Accused persons namely Rajeev Yadav, Md. Sadik, Ajay Sharma, Ajit Jha, Pramila Tokas, Deepa Malik, Jayanti Jha, Sultana Abad, Savita, Vipin, Satya Prakash Sharma, Ajay Kumar, Dharmender, Sujeet@ Surjeet Singh Pawar, Lalit Sharma, Akash, Sohan, Mahipal Singh @ Hakam State vs. Ajay Sharma & ors.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552 PS Kamla Market Page No. 35/36 Singh, Yusuf, Zakir, Manju, Anita Singh and Prem Chauhan are held not guilty for the offences u/s 188/269/270/34 IPC and thereby, acquitted for the same.
Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C. in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each as per rules.
Announced in the open Court, (Vidhi Gupta Anand) On st 31 March, 2023. ACMM-01/RADC/New Delhi This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.
FIR No.216/20 DL-00552
PS Kamla Market Page No. 36/36