Delhi District Court
State vs Sh. Rohit on 17 January, 2023
CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021
State v. Rohit
SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 17.01.2023
DLNE01-003350-2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
INDEX
Sl. HEADINGS Page Nos.
No.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2
2 The case set up by the Prosecution 2-4
3 Charges 4-5
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 5-12
5 Plea of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 12
6 Arguments of Defence & Prosecution 12-13
APPRECIATION OF LAW, FACTS AND EVIDENCE
7 Unlawful Assembly and Riots 13-14
8 Identification of accused Rohit 14-16
9 Conclusion and Decision 16
Page 1 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021
State v. Rohit
SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 17.01.2023
Sessions Case No. : 335/2021
Under Section : 147/148/380/427/436 IPC r/w.
Sec. 149 IPC and Sec. 188 IPC
Police Station : Gokalpuri
FIR No. : 125/2020
CNR No. : DLNE01-003350-2021
In the matter of: -
STATE
VERSUS
SH. ROHIT
S/o. Shri Ram Pratap,
R/o. H.No. C-21, 2nd Floor,
Gokalpuri, Delhi.
.....Accused
Complainants : 1. SH. RAFIQ AHMAD
S/o. Sh. Raj Bali,
R/o. C-161, Gali No.1, Chand
Bagh, Delhi.
2. SH. MOHAMMAD
S/o. Sh. Shahid Hussain,
R/o. C-247, Gokalpuri, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 11.01.2021
Date of reserving order : 09.01.2023
Date of pronouncement : 17.01.2023
Decision : Acquitted.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with by accused)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: -
1. Briefly stated, FIR in this case was registered on 04.03.2020 for offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/380/427 IPC, on the basis of a written complaint dated 01.03.2020 from one Rafiq Ahmed. In his complaint, Rafiq alleged that on 25.02.2020 at about 10:00 PM, the rioters broke open the locks of his mobile Page 2 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 shop located at B-45/1, Gokalpuri, Opposite Post Office and they looted as well as set the same on fire.
2. Thereafter, one another complaint dated 02.03.2020 of Sh.
Mohammad was also received in the PS. In his complaint, Mohammad alleged that his cloth shop in the name and style of M/s. Shamshad Cloth Emporium as well as adjoining garment shop in the name and style of M/s. Vaishnavi Boutique and Ladies Garments belonging to one Krishna, situated in C-423, Gokalpuri, Delhi, were looted and set on fire by the rioters on 25.02.2020 at about 08:00 PM. This complaint was also clubbed with this case.
3. Later on, Section 436 IPC was added in this case. Accused Rohit was initially arrested in another case FIR No. 148/20. During interrogation in that case, on the basis of his disclosure statement thereby admitting his involvement in the incidents which are subject matter of the FIR in this case, IO arrested him in this case.
4. Witnesses Shoaib and Irshad claimed to be eye witnesses in this case. IO examined beat officers of that area also, who also identified accused as part of riotous mob on 25.02.2020.
5. After completion of investigation, on 11.01.2021 a chargesheet was filed by IO/ASI Gajraj Singh before ld. CMM (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, against accused Rohit for offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/380/427/188/436 IPC. On 17.09.2021, ld. CMM (N/E) took cognizance of aforesaid offences, and the case was committed to the sessions court vide order dated 25.09.2021. Thereafter, on 12.09.2022, first Page 3 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 supplementary chargesheet along with certain documents, was filed by IO/ASI Gajraj before this court.
CHARGES: -
6. On 16.02.2022, charges were framed against accused Rohit for offences punishable under Section 147/148/380/427/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and 188 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charges were framed in following terms: -
"That on 25.02.2020 at B and C Block of Gokalpuri, shops belonging at Rafiq Ahmed S/o Sh. Raj Bali, R/o C-161, Chand Bagh, Gokalpuri, Delhi and Mohammad S/o Sh. Sahid Hussain R/o C-247, Gokalpuri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Gokalpuri, you alongwith your other associates (unidentified) from a particular community had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing riots by carrying stones, sticks, and other weapons of rioting and to create fear & insecurity in the minds of members of other community and by use of force or violence in prosecution of a common object of such assembly committed rioting and you, being members of the aforesaid unlawful assembly knew that offences were likely to be committed in prosecution of that common object of the assembly and thereby you alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed offences punishable under Section(s) 147/148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you being members of unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) broke open the locks of the shops of the complainants Rafiq Ahmad & Mohammad and committed mischief by fire or explosive substance by setting on fire those shops with the intent to destroy the same and as such, committed offence punishable under Section 436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC within my cognizance.
Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all being members of unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed mischief by causing wrongful loss and damage in the aforesaid shops of complainants Rafiq Ahmad & Mohammad and as such, committed offence punishable under Section 427 IPC read with Section 149 IPC within my cognizance.
Fourthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you being a member of unlawful assembly alongwith your other Page 4 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 associates (unidentified) committed theft in the above noted shops of complainants and as such, committed offence punishable under Section 380 IPC read with Section 149 IPC within my cognizance.
Fifthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you being members of unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) were resorting to violence and you being part of unlawful assembly having wooden rods, iron rods, stones, bricks etc. in your hands, indulged in the acts of rioting, stone pelting thereby frightened the victims/complainants and then looted and burnt the vehicles and houses of the complainants by the use of force and violence in prosecution of the common object of such assembly and in violation of the proclamation issued u/s 144 Cr. PC by the competent authority and you knew being members of the aforesaid unlawful assembly that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that common object and thereby you committed offence punishable under Section 188 IPC and within my cognizance."
DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: -
7. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions: -
Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties PW1/Sh. PW1 was one of the cited eye witnesses. He deposed Irshad that he had identified one Manoj. He did not support the case of prosecution to identify the accused as one of the rioters.
PW2/ASI On 04.03.2020, he was posted as Ex.PW2/A (copy Rakesh Duty Officer from 12 midnight of FIR) & Kumar till 8 AM. On that day, at about Ex.PW2/B 04:40 AM, PW2 received rukka (certificate u/s. from Insp. Vineet Kumar Pandey 65-B of I.E. Act) and registered FIR in the present case. PW2 made endorsement on the rukka from points X to X. PW2 identified his signature at point Y on the rukka.
PW2 also identified his signature at point A on FIR and his certificate under Section 65-B of I.E. Act, in support of aforesaid Page 5 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties FIR.
PW3/Sh. He is the first complainant in this Ex.PW3/A Rafiq case. PW3 submitted his (complaint of Ahmad complaint dated 01.03.2020 at PW3 dated PS. Police officials visited C-161 01.03.2020); and prepared site plan at the Ex.PW3/B (site instance of PW3. PW3 identified plan), his signature at point A on aforesaid complaint Ex.PW3/C (four dated 01.03.2020 and site plan. photographs clicked by PW3) PW3 had handed over four & photographs of his burnt shop to IO, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/D dated 14.03.2020. PW3 identified (seizure memo his signature at point A on the dated 14.03.2020 same. (Certificate under Section of photographs.) 65-B of I.E. Act dated 30.08.2022 issued by Rafiq Ahmad is Ex. A-14) On the point of identification of accused, he was of no support to the case of prosecution, as he was not present at the spot at the time of incident.
PW4/Sh. He is the second complainant in Ex.PW4/A Mohammad this case. PW4 submitted his (complaint of complaint dated 02.03.2020 at PW4 dated PS. Police officials visited C-247 02.03.2020); and prepared site plan at the Ex.PW4/B (site instance of PW4. PW4 identified plan), his signature at point A on aforesaid complaint dated Ex.PW4/C (7 02.03.2020 and site plan. photographs clicked by PW4) PW4 had handed over seven & photographs of his burnt shop to IO, which was seized vide memo. Ex.PW4/D PW4 identified his signature at (seizure memo of point A on the same. photographs.) Page 6 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties On the point of identification of accused, he was also of no support to the case of prosecution, as he was not present at the spot at the time of incident.
PW5/ HC He was beat constable of that area. As per testimony Shailendra of this witness, on 25.02.2020 he along with HC Singh Sachin Rana and other police team were on patrolling duty in the area of PS Gokalpuri. During patrolling, they reached near C-247, Gokulpuri at about 8 PM and found a mob was trying to break open the shutter of a cloth shop in the name and style of "Shamshad Cloth House" and most of the persons in that mob were carrying danda. On seeing police, the mob dispersed and went towards C-block. When they reached near the shop and were at a distance of about 20 metres from the mob, the mob started running away from that place. Some of the members were wearing helmet and some were covering their face with cloth. PW5 identified accused Rohit in that mob as he had not covered his face.
On same day, PW5 reached near mobile shop near a post office at 10 PM and saw the mobile shop being vandalized by the mob. PW5 along with other staff tried to disperse them from that place. Accused Rohit was also found present there and PW5 had seen him while running away from there. PW5 had also seen some of them carrying some of the articles from the shop.
On 03.06.2020, when IO ASI Gajraj was recording statement of PW5 in the PS, PW5 had identified accused Rohit before IO as the person involved in this case. HC Sachin was also present with PW5 at that time.
PW5 identified accused Rohit before the court correctly.
PW6/HC He was reader to SHO on 24.02.2020. On that day, Pradeep he pronounced order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the Page 7 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties area of PS Gokalpuri.
PW7/HC He was also beat constable of that area. As per Sachin testimony of this witness, on 25.02.2020, PW7 and Rana PW5/HC Shailendra were on patrolling duty from 8 AM at Gokulpuri, main market, to curb the riots. During patrolling, they reached D-Block at around 10-11 AM and found a mob vandalizing property no. D-1 and the gate thereof with danda etc. On seeing them, the mob fled away towards C-block. The gate as well as inner side of that property was on fire and PW7 tried to control the same, but could not do so. PW7 reached C block also and saw that a scooty parked in front of C-246 was burnt. Once again, the mob dispersed on seeing the police officials. PW7 had identified accused Rohit in aforesaid mob at property D-1 as well as at the place of burning of aforesaid scooty. PW7 knew accused Rohit, as he had seen him on several occasions near D Block Park, Gokalpuri as accused Rohit was having naked face on both the occasions.
On same day, at about 6-7 p.m., police officials heard noise coming from the side of C-block and they reached property no.C-50, Gokalpuri. They found this property in damaged condition, which was having 2 shops on the ground floor. One shop was of tailor and other was of boutique, which were not on fire. Once again, the mob dispersed on seeing the police officials and once again PW7 identified accused Rohit in this mob.
On same day, at about 8 PM, PW7 alongwith other police official reached near shop of Shamshad Cloth House in C-block, Gokalpuri. PW7 had seen that the shutter of the shop was already lifted to some extent and some persons from the mob had entered into the shop, while other were trying to lift the shutter more. The mob set the counter and other articles lying in this shop on fire and had also damaged that property and thereafter the mob fled away from that place. Once again, PW7 identified accused Rohit in this Page 8 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties mob.
PW7 also testified about reaching near mobile shop near a post office at 10 PM and seeing the mobile shop being vandalized by the mob. According to PW7, the counter of that shop was set on fire after taking it out from the shop. Once again, PW7 identified accused Rohit in the said mob. PW7 also identified accused Rohit before the court correctly.
PW8/ ASI On 04.03.2020, he was handed PW8/Article-1 Ram Dass over copy of FIR and complaint (Ash in polybag) of Rafiq with certificate u/s. 65-B I.E. Act for further investigation in this case.
PW8 visited B-45/1, Gokulpuri, in front of the post office and inspected the shop and prepared site plan Ex.PW3/B at the instance of complainant Rafiq and recorded his statement. PW8 identified his signature at circle X on this site plan.
On 14.03.2020, he called crime team consisting of SI Surender and ASI Mahavir and got inspected B-45/1. Photographs were also taken by ASI Mahavir.
PW8 had obtained SOC report from SI Surender, which is Ex.
A-5 (admitted document). PW8 had collected ash from that shop and seized it vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/D. PW8 identified his signature at circle X on the same.
PW8 had also seized some photographs, which were handed over to him by complainant Rafiq, vide this seizure memo.
Page 9 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties PW8 identified ash in polybag.
On 14.03.2020, as per directions of SHO, PW8 handed over this case file to MHC(R).
PW9/ASI He was the next Investigating Ex.PW9/A Gjaraj Officer. On 19.03.2020, PW9 (Combined site Singh was assigned further plan dated investigation of the present case, 25.07.2022 which was registered on the prepared by complaint of Rafiq Ahmad. PW9);
On 20.03.2020 another complaint Ex.PW9/Article-
made by Mohammad was 1 (ash in the clubbed in the present case, as polybag lifted by the incident in that case was also PW9) related to same place and time.
On 01.04.2020, PW9 visited Shop no. C-243, Gokalpuri, Delhi and prepared site plan Ex.PW4/B at the instance of PW4. PW9 identified his signature at circle X on the same.
PW9 lifted ash from this shop, seized the same vide a seizure memo Ex.PW4/D and deposited in the malkhana. PW9 identified his signature circle X on the seizure memo. PW9 also identified ash in the polybag, which was lifted by him.
PW9 collected photographs of that shop taken by photographer Ct. Mohit (crime team), which are Ex.A-6 (Colly.) and the certificate of Ct. Mohit issued u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act is Ex.A-10 (admitted documents).
Subsequently, PW9 recorded statement of SI Surender and Ct.
Mohit (crime team officials).
Page 10 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties On 03.06.2020 on the identification of PW5/Ct.
Shailendra and PW7/HC Sachin Rana, PW9 arrested accused Rohit in the present case vide arrest memo Ex. A-7 (admitted document). Ct. Heera Lal was witness of arrest to this case.
Shoaib, who was complainant in FIR No. 148/20, had given statement of witnessing incidents of the present case and PW9 recorded his statement also. PW9 recorded statement of Ct. Heera Lal, HC Sachin Rana and Ct.
Shailender.
PW9 examined other witnesses also, collected complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., obtained certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act from Rafiq in respect of photographs given by him to ASI Ramdass as well as other other documents like FLS report etc. On 25.07.2022, he prepared a combined site plan of both the shops, which was filed along with supplementary chargesheet in this case. PW9 identified his signature at circle X on the same.
On conclusion of investigation PW9 prepared and filed chargesheet in this case.
Admitted documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC as Ex.A-1, certificates u/s 65B of I.E. Act as Ex.A-2, GD no.2A as Ex.A-3, finger print expert reports as Ex.A- 4 and Ex.A-5, photographs (6 in numbers) as Ex.A-6 (colly), arrest memo of accused Rohit as Ex.A-7, personal search memo of accused Rohit as Ex.A-8, prohibitory order u/s 144 Cr.PC as Ex.A-
Page 11 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties 9, certificate u/s 65B of I.E.Act as Ex.A-10. Photographs as Ex.A- 11 (colly. 4 pages); CDR of mobile no.9354443025 as Ex.A-12 (colly. 4 pages); copy of complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. as Ex.A-13; certificate under Section 65-B of I.E. Act as Ex.A-14; forwarding letter dated 09.03.2022 of FSL, Rohini as Ex.A-15; FSL report dated 08.03.2022 as Ex.A-16; acknowledgment of case acceptance in FSL dated 06.09.2021 as Ex.A-17; copy of relevant DD entries as Ex. A-18 and Ex.A-19.
PLEA OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.
8. Accused Rohit took plea in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was falsely implicated in this case by the investigating agency in order to work out the case. He challenged his identification by the witnesses in this case taking plea that they deposed falsely against him being interested to show that the case was solved. He denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. He did not lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
9. Sh. Vimal Kumar Singh, ld. counsel for accused Rohit argued that no public witness identified accused in the present case. He further argued that neither PW5 nor PW7 could tell description of cloth of accused worn by him nor did they mention his name in PS immediately, to record any DD entry. He further argued that interested witnesses have been planted against accused in the present case only to solve the case and accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
10. Per contra, Sh. R.C.S. Bhadoria, ld. Special PP for State along with Ms. Simran Chawla argued that PW3 and PW4 are the victims of the present case and case relates to their shops situated Page 12 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 at B-45/1 and C-247. He further argued that photo of C-247 are A-6 and certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act in support of the same is Ex. A-10. Thus, damage to the property of PW3 and PW4 are well established. He further argued that PW5 and PW7 were eye witnesses and they duly identified accused in the incidents of the present case.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY AND RIOT
11. PW1 was cited as one the eye witnesses of the incidents probed in this case. However, in his testimony before the court this witness could not remember the date, when he had seen the mob collecting near his house. Moreover, the places of incidents were in B and C block Gokalpuri. PW1 was resident of A-21, Gokalpuri and prosecution did not explain as to whether his house was in close proximity to places of incidents probed in this case. Therefore, his evidence is of no use to reach any conclusion.
12. Complainants in this case i.e. PW3 and PW4 were not present at the time of the respective incidents. Therefore, they were not expected to say anything about the incident. PW5 and PW7 were police officials on duty in the said area. They did depose about a mob of around 30-40 persons indulging into vandalism in the area of Gokalpuri. Both of them deposed about properties of PW3 and PW4 being vandalized and set ablaze by this mob. The given description of acts of this mob in the background of prevailing situation, do indicate about formation of unlawful assembly with a common object to vandalize and damage the properties. The photographs taken by official from crime team Page 13 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 i.e. Ex. PW4/C and Ex.A-6 (duly supported with certificate u/s 65B I.E. Act) leave no doubt that these properties were set ablaze. Hence, I find it sufficiently established that an unlawful assembly vandalized and set ablaze the properties of PW3 and PW4.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED ROHIT
13. As already noted herein above, PW1 did not help the prosecution in establishing presence of accused in the mob. Ld. Special P.P. relied upon the testimony of PW5 and PW7, to say that presence of accused in the mob behind the incidents, is well established. It is true that both these police officials claimed having seen accused in the mob at both the places of incident. However, they did not disclose their such knowledge prior to 03.06.2020 in the formal manner before anyone. It was only on 03.06.2020, when accused was called in the police station, that these two officials purportedly informed the IO that accused was present in the mob. PW7 in his cross examination claimed that prior to 03.06.2020, he did inform his senior officer about seeing accused in the mob. However, after making such claim, PW7 came up with only evasive answers. Firstly he claimed that he had informed Duty Officer, but he again changed his version to say that he did not remember as to whom he had given such information. He could not tell the time of giving such information. Thereafter, he retracted from his claim and said that he did not remember if he had informed any officer about seeing and identifying accused in the mob prior to 03.06.2020. both of these witnesses had admittedly not made any DD entry to record identifying accused in the mob. Both of them claimed identifying only one person in Page 14 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 the mob i.e. accused.
14. In the case of Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202, the Supreme Court while dealing with the aspect of identification of members of a mob, approved the test of consistent testimony by four witnesses as applied by High Court in that case. It was done as a rule of prudence. Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramlal Devappa Rathod, (2015) 15 SCC 77, dealt with the same question and reiterated the rule of prudence as laid down in the case of Masalti (supra), with some clarifications. The thrust of the court remained on the aspect of credibility and reliability of the evidence and precaution to be taken before reaching conclusion of guilt of an accused, who is prosecuted with aid of Section 149 IPC.
15. Coming back to the evidence of this case, I find that having knowledge of a person involved in the riot was not an ordinary information for PW5 and PW7. Subject to any exigency, such information should have been recorded in formal manner at the earliest possible time, in the police station. Prosecution record shows that one Shoaib had claimed having prepared video of riot of 24.02.2020, wherein accused was seen among rioters. He provided that video to another police officer and there is probably a different case at the instance of Shoaib. It is possible that on the basis of that video, after ascertaining particulars of accused, he would have been named and shown to be identified in other cases also, which related to same area, even though other incidents took place at different point of time. In the background of this possibility and rule of prudence mentioned in the above-
Page 15 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003350-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 335/2021, FIR No. 125/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 mentioned judgments, I find that on the basis of testimony of PW5 and PW7, assuming presence of accused in the mob behind the incidents probed in this case, will not be safe. Hence, accused is found entitled for benefit of doubt. CONCLUSION
16. My foregoing discussion and observations lead me to hold that prosecution though established the incident of riot, vandalism and arson, but it failed to prove presence of accused in the unlawful assembly responsible for such incidents, beyond reasonable doubts.
DECISION
17. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, accused Rohit is hereby acquitted of all the charges leveled Digitally signed against him in this case. by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2023.01.17 13:18:52 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 17.01.2023 ASJ-03 (North- East) (This order contains 16 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Page 16 of 16 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi