Delhi District Court
State vs Sagar on 8 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Anubhav Jain
State Vs. Prince Wadhwa & Ors.
FIR No.: 181/2022
PS: Anand Vihar
JUDGMENT
A Case Identification 8024/2022
Number
B Name of the Complainant SI Ramesh Chandra C Name of the accused 1. Prince s/o Kamal Kishor(acquitted) persons
2. Sagar s/o Ravi Nanda(convicted on plead of guilt on 20.04.2023).
3. Sunny Panwar @ Sullad s/o Vijay Singh(convicted on plead of guilt on 17.03.2023).
4. Ravi Kant Tiwari @ Manu Tiwari s/o Virender Tiwari(convicted on plead of guilt on 17.03.2023).
D Date of commission of the 20.02.2022 offences E Date of Institution of the 16.11.2022 case F Offences charged for Offence u/s 160 IPC G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty H Order Reserved on 15.01.2024 I Date of Pronouncement of 08.02.2024 judgment Digitally signed by ANUBHAV JAIN ANUBHAV Date:
JAIN 2024.02.08
17:17:06
+0530
FIR No. 181/2022 State Vs. Sagar & ors. Page No. 1/7
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose off the present case in which the accused persons herein namely Sagar, Prince, Sunny Panwar @ Sullad and Ravi Kant Tiwari @ Manu Tiwari have faced trial for the commission of offence u/s 160 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
2. In brief, the facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that on 20.02.2022, DD No. 63A regarding quarrel was received, upon which, ASI Ramesh Chand alongwith Ct. Rohtash reached at spot i.e. Vikas marg in front of Subway Restaurant, Hargovind Enclave. It is further stated that at the spot, they met accused Sagar and Prince, who informed the police officials that Sullad and Munna Tiwari had quarreled with them, after which they fled away from there.
It is further stated that IO tried to trace out Sullad and Munna Tiwari, however meanwhile, both Sagar and Prince also fled away from there. It is further the case of the prosecution that nearby people informed the police officials that all the four persons by fighting at public place disturbed the public peace. Upon the same, an FIR for the offence punishable U/s 160 IPC was registered.
During the course of investigation, IO prepared the site plan, recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested accused Sagar, Prince Wadhwa, Sunny Panwar @ Sullad and Ravikant Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable U/s 160 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV JAIN
JAIN Date:
2024.02.08
17:17:17
+0530
FIR No. 181/2022 State Vs. Sagar & ors. Page No. 2/7
3. Upon filing of charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken by Ld. Predecessor Court on 16.11.2022 and summons were issued upon all the accused persons.
4. Further, on 17.03.2023, accused Sunny Panwar @ Sullad and Ravi Kant Tiwari @ Manu Tiwari pleaded guilty and they are convicted for the offence u/s 160 IPC and were sentenced thereof. Further, on 20.04.2023, accused Sagar also pleaded guilty and he is convicted for offence u/s 160 IPC and was sentenced accordingly.
5. Further, on 28.08.2023, accused Prince Wadhwa was charged for the offence punishable u/s 160 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the following witnesses:-
PW-1/SI Ramesh Chand deposed that on 20.02.2022, he received DD no. 63A regarding quarrel Ex.PW1/A and he along with Ct. Rohtash went to the spot i.e. Vikas Marg, in front of Subway restaurant, Hargovind Enclave, where, accused Sagar and Prince met them and told them that Manu Tiwari and Sullad who used to reside at KKD village had quarreled with them. He further deposed that he asked both the said persons to come with him at PS, however they fled away from the spot. He further deposed that they searched for all the accused persons, however they could not be found, upon which, he came back to PS, prepared tehrir Ex.PW1/A and got the FIR registered. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Rohtash came back at the spot and he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B. He Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV JAIN JAIN Date:
2024.02.08 17:17:26 +0530 FIR No. 181/2022 State Vs. Sagar & ors. Page No. 3/7 further deposed that they went to house of accused Sagar & Prince but they were not present at their houses and he gave notice u/s 41 (A) Cr.PC to family members of accused Sagar & Prince. He further deposed that on 14.09.2022, accused Sagar came at the PS and he recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/C and released him. He further deposed that he came to know that accused Prince is in the jail and he took permission from the court to arrest accused Prince. Thereafter, he went to Rohini Jail, where he bound down accused Prince and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/D. Thereafter, on 29.09.2022, accused Sunny @ Sullard and Ravi Kant Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari came at PS and he bound down both of them and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F respectively. Witness correctly identified accused Prince in the court.
PW-2/HC Rohtash reiterated the facts as stated by PW-1 during the course of his testimony and same is not being reiterated herewith for the sake of brevity. Witness correctly identified accused Prince in the court.
7. Further, on 04.01.2024, vide statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC, accused Prince Wadhwa admitted FIR No. 181/2022 PS Anand Vihar and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act.
8. That after completion of PE, matter was listed for recording of statement of accused person u/s 313 Cr.PC. Statement of accused Prince Wadhwa was recorded separately u/s 313 Cr.PC on 04.01.2024, wherein, accused deposed that on the alleged date and time, while they were at Subway Restaurant, some persons came over there and started fighting and he and Sagar inverevened the same. He further deposed that Sagar received injuries and he also made police compliant. Further, it is alleged by the accused that Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV JAIN Date:
JAIN 2024.02.08
17:17:35
+0530
FIR No. 181/2022 State Vs. Sagar & ors. Page No. 4/7
he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. He further deposed that he does not wish to lead DE and matter was listed for final arguments.
9. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that the complainant as well as other witnesses have corroborated the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that from the documents so placed on record, the prosecution has able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence he is charged for.
10. On the other hand, it is contended by Ld. counsel for accused that there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident and on the bare testimony of police witnesses, accused cannot be convicted. It is further argued that the police officials has falsely implicated the accused in the present case. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be acquitted in the present case.
11. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused and perused the file carefully.
12. It is settled proposition of criminal law that burden lies upon prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused.
13. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Prince alongwith co-
accused persons(who are already convicted on their plea of guilt and
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV JAIN
JAIN Date:
FIR No. 181/2022 State Vs. Sagar & ors. Page No. 17:17:46
5/7 +0530
2024.02.08
sentenced in the present matter) were found fight in a public place with each other disturbing the public peace.
14. For the sake of convenience, this court deems it appropriate to reproduce in here relevant provisions of law, for which, the accused person is charged for:
159.Affray. - When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to "commit an affray".
160. Punishment for committing affray. - Whoever commits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with both.
15. For offence u/s 159 IPC(punishable u/s 160 IPC), it is for the proseuction to prove:
a. There are two or more persons;
b. That said persons were fighting at public place;
c. That due to said fighting, they were disturbing public peace.
16. Perusal of record reveals that information regarding fighting at public place was received by DD No. 63A on 20.02.2022 from mobile number 9999693834. The said information simply states "yaha par jhagda ho raha hai". The IO for the reasons best known to himself has never tried to search or interrogate the said caller. Apart from the same, prosecution has not even name or mention even a single pubic witness who could have depose that the Digitally signed by ANUBHAV JAIN ANUBHAV Date:
JAIN 2024.02.08
17:18:01
+0530
FIR No. 181/2022 State Vs. Sagar & ors. Page No. 6/7
said persons were fighting at a public place resulting into disturbance of public peace.
17. The only witnesses which are named and examined by the prosecution are police officials which were not even present at the spot at the alleged time of incident or has witnessed the said incident. The entire case of the prosecution is relied upon the DD entry or disclosure statement of accused(which has no evidentiary value).
18. Since, there is no witness examined by the prosuection who could have proved that accused persons were fighting with each other and due to said fighting, public peace was disturbed, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
19. In view of the law and facts discussed above, accused Prince Wadhwa is acquitted for the offence he is charged for.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV JAIN
JAIN Date: 2024.02.08
17:18:17 +0530
Announced in the Open Court (ANUBHAV JAIN)
on dated 08th February, 2024 ACMM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/
KARKARDOOMA COURTS/
DELHI/08.02.2024
FIR No. 181/2022 State Vs. Sagar & ors. Page No. 7/7