Delhi District Court
Metropolitan Magistrate vs Shankar Dev Nath & Anr.(27.09.2018) Pg ... on 27 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANJAL ANEJA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, SHAHDRA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State v. Shankar Dev Nath & Anr.
FIR No. 353/16
PS: Madhu Vihar
U/s 160/34 IPC
a. Computer ID No. of the case : 372/2017
b. Date of commission of offence : 18.06.2016
c. Date of institution of the case : 22.09.2016
d. Name of complainant : ASI Mool Chand
e. Name of accused : 1. Shankar Dev Nath
S/o Sh. Narayan Dev
Nath
R/o A-209, Gali no. 12,
Chander Vihar,
Mandawali, Delhi.
2. Gopi Bedi
S/o Jagmohan Bedi
R/o A-183, Gali no. 12,
Chander Vihar,
Mandawali, Delhi.
f. Offence complained of : U/s 160/34 IPC
g. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h. Arguments heard on : 24.09.2018
FIR No. 353/16 PS Madhu Vihar State V. Shankar Dev Nath & Anr.(27.09.2018) Pg No. 1/6
i. Final order : Convicted
j. Date of judgment : 27.09.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stating, the case as per prosecution is that on 18.06.2016 at about 11.15 p.m. at gali no. 12, Chander Vihar, Mandawali, Delhi, both the accused namely Shankar Dev Nath and Gopi Bedi committed an affray by grappling and abusing to each other in filthy language and were fighting with each other on a public place and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 160 IPC.
2. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed under Section 173 Cr.PC, copies were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC and on the basis of record, notice for the offence punishable U/s 160 IPC is framed against the accused on 30.08.2018, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case against the accused persons prosecution has examined Ct. Sukhram as PW-1 and IO/ASI Mool Chand as PW-2.
4. PW1 Ct. Sukhram deposed that on 18.06.2016, on receiving of DD no. 66B by the IO, he alongwith IO ASI Mool Chand reached at the spot i.e. Gali no. 12, Chander Vihar, Mandawali, Delhi where they found that two persons were abusing to each other on the main road in front of the gali and were in drunken condition. PW-1 further deposed FIR No. 353/16 PS Madhu Vihar State V. Shankar Dev Nath & Anr.(27.09.2018) Pg No. 2/6 that both the accused persons were also creating hindrance and annoyance for the persons and hindrance in traffic. PW-1 deposed that he alognwith IO apprehended both the accused persons who after interrogation revealed their names as Shankar Dev Nath and Gopi Bedi and thereafter, IO prepared rukka. PW-1 deposed that he get the FIR registered from PS on the basis of rukka and thereafter, handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. PW-1 further stated that IO arrested both the accused persons vide memos Ex. PW1/A & PW1/B and also conducted their personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/C & PW1/D. PW-1 correctly identified both the accused persons before the court.
In cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, PW-1 admitted that when they reached at the spot, several public persons had gathered at the spot. PW-1 further stated that IO request some public persons to join the investigation but none had agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. PW-1 denied to the suggestion that no such incident had taken place at the spot or accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case.
5. PW-2 ASI Mool Chand is the IO of the case and deposed the same facts of the case as deposed by PW-1 and stated that both the accused persons were fighting and abusing each other in filthy language and due to which they have cause obstruction on the public way and passersby were annoyed by this conduct of accused persons. PW-2 further stated that both the accused persons were smelling of alcohol and did not spot even after his intervention. PW-2 further supported the FIR No. 353/16 PS Madhu Vihar State V. Shankar Dev Nath & Anr.(27.09.2018) Pg No. 3/6 case of prosecution and exhibited the following documents such as rukka as Ex. PW2/A, site plan as Ex.PW2/B, bail related documents of accused persons as Ex PW2/C & Ex. PW2/D. PW-2 also correctly identified both the accused persons.
In cross-examination by ld. LAC for accused, PW-2 stated that people were gathered at the spot when they reached there but all public persons left the spot by refusing to join the investigation. PW-2 stated that he did not serve any notice upon said public persons. PW-2 stated that accused persons were not sent for medical examination and denied to the suggestion that he never visited the spot or accused persons were never found fighting and abusing in filthy language at the spot.
6. Accused vide his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. admitted the FIR as Ex. A1.
7. No other prosecution witness remains to be examined, hence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused persons were recorded wherein they stated that they were falsely implicated in the present case. They further stated that they do not want to lead defence evidence.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. LAC for the accused persons. I have gone through the entire record carefully. Now, the stage has been set to appreciate the evidence on record in the light of the following essential ingredients of the offence alleged to be FIR No. 353/16 PS Madhu Vihar State V. Shankar Dev Nath & Anr.(27.09.2018) Pg No. 4/6 committed by the accused.
9. Section 159 IPC defines Affray which states that when two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray. Section 160 IPC defines punishment for committing affray that whoever commits an affray, then he is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month or fine which may extend to Rs. 100/- or with both.
10. There are two witnesses examined by the prosecution, one is IO SI Mool Chand (PW-2) and other is accompanying Ct. Sukhram Pal (PW-1). Both these witnesses have supported the prosecution case by deposing that upon receiving DD no. 66B they went to the spot and found both the accused persons fighting and abusing in filthy language causing obstruction to public and passersby. Both the accused persons have also been correctly identified by the PWs.
11. From above discussion, it is clear that ingredients of above Section 159 IPC are complete as two persons i.e. both the accused persons were found fighting in public place thereby disturbing the public peace. The act committed by both the accused persons is sufficient to bring home the guilt upon them for the offence punishable under Section 160 IPC. Nothing has been stated in the statement recorded U/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. which could challenge the prosecution story. It is also not necessary that public witness may be available in every case.
FIR No. 353/16 PS Madhu Vihar State V. Shankar Dev Nath & Anr.(27.09.2018) Pg No. 5/6 There is no reason found on record to doubt the veracity of police witnesses in this case. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that no MLCs of accused persons were got conducted while even PWs deposed that the accused persons were drunk. In this regard it is observed that it may not have been necessary to get the MLC of accused persons as nothing is mentioned in the complaint/FIR as to the accused persons being in a drunken condition. It is noted that no question or suggestion have been put to PWs regarding the above aspect of accused persons being in a drunken condition. Thus, the contention raised by Ld. Counsel does not creates any doubt on the case of prosecution.
12. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid findings, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused Shankar Dev Nath and Gopi Bedi.
13. Accordingly, the accused Shankar Dev Nath and Gopi Bedi stand convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s 160 IPC.
14. Let the convicts be heard separately on the point of sentence. Digitally signed by PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
Directly Dictated on the 2018.09.27
16:22:00 +0530
Computer System and
Announced in the open (PRANJAL ANEJA)
Court on 27.09.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate-01
Shahdra District, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 353/16 PS Madhu Vihar State V. Shankar Dev Nath & Anr.(27.09.2018) Pg No. 6/6