Delhi District Court
State vs Navdeep Kashyap on 30 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANAV JOSHI, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01, NEW DELHI, PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016
CNR No. DLND020071362016
STATE Vs. NAVDEEP KASHYAP
FIR No. 466/2014
PS IGI AIRPORT
U/S 186/509 IPC
1) The date of commission : 10.12.2014
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Constable Lalit
Kumar
3) The name & parentage of accused : Sh. Navdeep
Kashyap,
S/o Krishan Lal,
R/o A-49,
Defence Enclave,
Patiala Road,
Zirakpur,
Distt. Mohali,
Punjab.
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 186/509 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 30.06.2025
Date of Institution : 05.04.2016
Reserved for Judgment : 16.05.2025
Date of Decision : 30.06.2025
Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 1/17
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 10.11.2014, a complaint was received at Police Station IGI Airport from complainant Ct. Lalit Kumar. As per the complaint, the accused arrived on the intervening 09.12.2014 and 10.12.2014 from Amsterdam and stood in the queue for immigration clearance at counter No. 7-10. It is alleged that the accused jumped the queue and approached counter No.3 which was manned by G.S Chouhan and started shouting. It is further alleged that he also argued with Ct. Umed Singh in foul language at counter No. 4. It is also alleged that he also abused the complainant after he approached at counter No.5. It is alleged that the accused was in inebriated condition and could not be controlled. It is also alleged that he accused used bad language with Ms Sushma Sharma. The accused was taken to the office of AFRRO where he abused one lady Constable Kuldeep Kaur and abused her. It is alleged that the accused obstructed the immigration officials form discharging their duties. After completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed under section 186/509 IPC.
2. Upon filing of the present chargesheet, vide order dated 22.04.2016, cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned. After complying with the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C, arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 28.09.2019, charges for offences under sections 186/509 IPC were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence.
Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 2/173. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses. Prosecution examined HC Lalit Kumar as PW1 who deposed that on the intervening night of 09.11.2014 and 10.12.2014, he was performing duty as CO at counter No. 5 of immigration desk at arrivals. He further deposed that a pax namely Naveep Kashyap holding Indian Passport arrived from Amsterdam by Flight No. KLM 871. That he was in the queue in of front all passport holder at counter No. 7 & 8 and 9 & 10 in the arrivals of Immigration. That he jumped the queue and approached the counter No. 3 which was manned G.S. Chauhan and started shouting then he also started arguing with foul language with Ct. Umed Singh deployed at counter No. 4. That then he approached him and abused him. That he was uncontrolled. That in the meantime, being in-charge Sushma Sharma intervened with whom he also argued and used bad language. That he was not ready to get clearance done and very violent. That thereafter, pax was brought to FRRO office but despite that he did not calm down. That then, pax started altercation with lady constable Kuldeep Kaur and abused her in filthy words. That he used abusive language for all immigration staff in the presence of lady officials. That he did everything which obstructed the Govt. officials for performing their duties as well as used unparliamentarian language. He further deposed that he made complaint Ex. PW1/1 to SHO, PS IGI Airport. That he handed over the accused Navdeep Kashyap to the police. Upon a specific question as to why the date of incident on the complaint was 10.11.2014 when the date of incident has been mentioned on the FIR to be 10.12.2014, to which the witness deposed that the incident was of 10.12.2014 and due to typographical error Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 3/17 inadvertently, it was mentioned as 10.11.2014. The witness correctly identified the accused before the Court. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4. The prosecution examined HC Umed Singh as PW2 who deposed that on the intervening night of 09.12.2014 and 10.12.2014, he was posted as Constable at FRRO, Immigration, IGI Airport, New Delhi. That at around 01:30 a.m., when he was present at counter No.4, accused Navdeep had come to the counter from counter No.7/8. He further deposed that he saw the accused to be in drunken condition and he was also shouting. That he also saw that he was using filthy language while he was in the queue. Thereafter, accused left the queue and came at counter no.5 and started misbehaving with CO. That he informed the conduct of accused to AFRRO, however, at present he did not remember the name of the official of AFRRO and the official of AFRRO came at counter no.5. That the official of AFRRO tried to made the accused understand and he was taken in the office of AFRRO. That in the office of AFRRO, he personally requested the accused not to shout and use filthy language, but he did no stop and repeated the same conduct again as mentioned above. That on the instruction of senior officer, he informed the conduct of the accused to PS IGI Airport. That at around 03:00 am, police officials from PS IGI Airport came at the office of AFRRO where he informed all the incident to him. That thereafter, accused was taken to PS IGI Airport. The witness correctly identified the accused before the Court. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. The witness was also cross- examined by Ld. APP for the State as he did not disclose all facts mentioned in his previous statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 4/175. The prosecution examined Sh. HC Kuldeep Kaur as PW3 who deposed that on the intervening night of 09.12.2014 and 10.12.2014, he was posted as Constable at FRRO, Immigration, IGI Airport, New Delhi. That at around 01:30 a.m. accused Navdeep had come firstly to the counter no.7 and then to 8, 9 & 10. That she saw that the accused to be in drunken condition and he was also shouting. That she also saw that he was using filthy language while he was in the queue. That thereafter, accused left the queue and came firstly at counter no.3 and then to 4 & 5. That at counter no.5, where Ct. Lalit was present, accused Navdeep started misbehaving with him. That thereafter, Ct. Lalit informed the conduct of accused to I/C Wing, Inspector Sushma Sharma who came at counter no.5 and tried to stop such kind of conduct of the accused. That the AFRRO had also come to the spot and tried to made understood to the accused and he was taken in the office of AFRRO. That the official of AFRRO requested the accused not to shout and use filthy language, but he did not stop and repeated the same conduct again as mentioned above. Thereafter, the AFRRO contacted PS IGI Airport and informed all the incident. The witness correctly identified the accused before the Court. The witness was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. The witness was also cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State as she did not disclose all facts mentioned in his previous statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
6. The prosecution examined SI Arun Kumar as PW4 who deposed that on 30 12.2015, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS IGI Airport and on that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. That thereafter, he collected the Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 5/17 case file from MHC(R) of the PS and gone through the same. That thereafter, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court. That during inquiry of the case, he applied an application before the office of concerned ACP for obtaining complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC Mark A-1 and the same was collected by him and thereafter, he filed the same before Court 08 04.2019. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7. The prosecution examined Inspector Harkesh Gaba as PW5 who deposed that on 10.12.2014, he was posted as Sub- Inspector at PS IGI Airport. That on that day, at around 02:00 a.m, the Duty Officer informed him vide DD No.5A that some passengers were creating nuisance at arrival Wing of immigration, T-3, IGI Airport. That thereafter, he along with Ct. Ramdhan left for T-3. At Arrivan Wing of immigration where he met with CO Lalit Kumar, who informed him about the incident. That thereafter, he handed over to him a typed complaint along with pax Navdeep Kashyap. That thereafter, he along with pax and Ct. Ramdhan came to PS. That thereafter, the pax was sent for medical examination through Ct. Ramdhan. That at around 06:30 a.m., Ct Ramdhan along with pax came to PS after his medical examination. That thereafter, he prepared a rukka Ex. PW5/A on the basis of the complaint and got the FIR registered. That thereafter, the accused was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B and the accused was released on police bail. That during investigation of the case, on the same day, he went to place of incident and prepared site plan Ex. PW5/C at the instance of complainant. That during investigation of the case, he examined witnesses and recorded their statements U/s.161 Cr.PC. That during investigation of the case, he collected CCTV footage Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 6/17 mark A of the place of incident from concerned office. That thereafter, he got transferred from PS IGI Airport and he deposited the case file of the present case with MHC(R) of the PS. The witness correctly identified the accused before the Court. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. During the course of trial, admission denial under section 294 Cr.P.C. was also conducted, where the accused admitted the genuineness of the FIR AD1. Hence, the concerned witness was not examined.
9. After, completion of the prosecution on 24.10.2024, the prosecution evidence was closed and the case was fixed for recording of the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.
10. On 04.03.2025, the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused stated that he had requested the immigration officials for an early immigration clearance of his old aged parents but they refused and man handle him and beaten him due which he suffered multiple injuries. The accused opted for leading defence evidence.
11. The accused examined his father Sh. Krishan Lal as DW1 who deposed that on the intervening night of 09.12.2014 and 10.12.2014, he along with his wife and son Navdeep Kashyap returned from USA and were standing in the queue at the IGI Airport, New Delhi for immigration clearance. He further deposed that since he was operated of his heart twice and two stunts were inserted, his son came of the queue and went to make a request to the officer for early clearance. That his wife was also unable to stand for long as she was having knee problem and she was a patient of sugar and BP. That on this the counter officer of Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 7/17 immigration, took hold of Navdeep Kashyap and took him to a vacant or isolated room where some arguments between the two took place and he was not ready to exceed to the request of his son. That they wanted some sort of gratification for early clearance. That his son refused to do so and being agitated, he along with few other persons took him to the room and started beating and mishandling him. That he and his wife were sitting outside of the room but he did not come out of the room. That they could hear the cries of their son who was being given severe beatings. That on his persistent request, one of the officer took an apology letter from him and wanted to clear the matter but the other officers were bent upon to harass his son. That they were there at the airport for about 2-3 hours and later they called the police and their son was handed over to the police. That in the police station, they kept sitting for about 4-5 hours. That one officer Mr. Gaba asked them to wait as his son was detained. That the police authorities took him to the hospital for medical examination but he was disallowed to accompany his son. That their family was educated and he was retired Punjab Government and there was no kind of disrespect or misbehavior shown to any officer at the Airport. That they falsely implicated his son to harass him and showing misuse of their official power. That it happened also because his son did not agree to pay them illeal gratification. That none of the co-passenger made any complaint as no such incident took place. That there was also no complaint or grudge from any of the Airline Staff. That his son did not misbehave or flouted any of the rules regulation or decorum of the airport. That no filthy language or word was ever spoken by his son with any of the officials available at the Airport. That they Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 8/17 showed high respect to the officers. The witness was cross- examined by Ld. APP for the State.
12. This Court has also recalled the PW1/complainant by exercising powers under section 311 Cr.P.C and examined him under section 165 Indian Evidence Act. The complainant/PW1 was confronted with the CCTV footage. It was observed that PW1/Complainant did not specify the incident taking place from the footage available which was narrated by him in his earlier deposition. It was also observed that the witness evaded giving specific answers and was chanting mechanically that the accused was abusing and creating ruckus and that he was uncontrolled. No such thing as the accused creating ruckus and misbehaving with officials could be seen.
13. I have heard the arguments from Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused.
14. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kali Ram Vs. Himanchal Pradesh (1973 2 SCC 808) in para 23 and 25 which are reproduced as under:
" 23. Observations in a recent decision of this Court, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973 2 SCC 793) to which reference has been made during arguments were not intended to make a departure from the rule of the presumption of innocence Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 9/17 of the accused and his entitlement to the benefit of reasonable doubt in criminal cases. One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. There are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the guilt of the accused, but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which have to be present before the presumption can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist, the court can raise the statutory presumption and it would, in such an event, be for the accused to rebut the presumption. The onus even in such cases upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. Leaving aside the cases of statutory presumptions, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution cannot succeed...
xxxxxx
25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the 73 5 court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the, guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable : it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 10/17 also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh,(1974 2 SCC 227) a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the, court has to judge, the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."
15. The first charge against the accused is of section 186 IPC which provides for punishment for obstructing a public servant in discharge of his public functions. Section 186 IPC reads as under:
186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
This Court has examined the footage of the place of incident available on record. It is pertinent to mention that the footage has not been proved on record by the prosecution since the footage has not been proved as per the provisions of section 65A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act by furnishing a certificate as contemplated under section 65B of Evidence Act. The original DVR was also not brought nor any one from CISF was examined. Still, this Court has examined the footage and confronted the complainant/PW1 with the same. The necessity to confront the PW1/complainant with the footage arises because Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 11/17 the testimony of PW1 as well as PW3 about the details of the incident is quite vague. The entire testimony of both the PWs is filled with the phrases 'misbehaving', 'using filthy language' and 'bad language' and 'abusing in bad language' and 'obstruction of Govt. Officials' without specific details. Further, the presence of serious injuries on the accused as mentioned in his MLC without there being any explanation from the prosecution raised apprehensions about the prosecution story.
16. When the footage was examined, it was observed that the accused approached the complainant/PW1 at counter No.5 and made some conversation. However, it did not appear that the accused was uncontrolled or was misbehaving. When PW1 was asked as to what the accused told him when he approached the counter, PW1 evaded giving answer and stated that the accused was abusing and was trying to flee without immigration check, which was not seen in the footage. In the accused could only be seen making some conversation with the officials but it appeared that the same was not taken by the officials in good spirit. What exactly happened and what was the conversation was not put forth by the eye witnesses PW1 and PW3. In the footage, Ms. Sushma Sharma was also seen to be making some sort of conversation with the accused, but she was not examined by the prosecution. It was also seen in the footage that shortly after the accused came to the counter, he was removed from the counter by 5-6 immigration officials and was taken to some other place of which no footage was furnished on record. No where it was seen that the accused prevented the complainant or any other official from performing his official duty. Further, it is not understandable as to who was obstructed Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 12/17 by the accused from discharging his official duty and most importantly, how the accused did so. Merely chanting a rant about official duties being prevented without explaining as to how the obstruction has taken place, will not lead to the commission of offence under section 186 IPC. Moreover, when the accused was removed by the immigration officials from the counters, it left no space for the accused to prevent anyone from discharging his duty. It is also pertinent to mention that PW3 herself was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State as she did not narrate the incident as per her previous statement. As already observed, PW1's testimony was left in shambles after he was confronted with the CCTV footage. This court has specifically observed that he was not giving answers to the questions and was evading giving specific answers of the questions put to him.
17. The accused was also charged with section 509 IPC. Section 509 IPC provides for punishment for insulting the modesty of a woman by words, act or gestures etc. Section 509 IPC reads as under:
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.--Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, 2[shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine."
In the present case, the allegation against the accused was that he hurled abuses to PW3. Whereas PW3 did not state any such thing in her testimony, PW1 stated that the accused 'abused her in filthy language'. First of all, PW3 could not be seen anywhere in the footage so her presence at the spot is Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 13/17 doubtful. Secondly, mere abuses are sufficient to attract section 509 IPC. In State of Punjab v. Major Singh 1966 Supp SCR 286, Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the contours of section 509 IPC as under:
"3. I would first observe that the offence does not, in my opinion, depend on the reaction of the woman subjected to the assault or use of criminal force. The words used in the section are that the act has to be done "intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty". This intention or knowledge is the ingredient of the offence and not the woman's feelings. It would follow that if the intention or knowledge was not proved, proof of the fact that the woman felt that her modesty had been outraged would not satisfy the necessary ingredient of the offence. Likewise, if the intention or knowledge was proved, the fact that the woman did not feel that her modesty had been outraged would be irrelevant, for the necessary ingredient would then have been proved. The sense of modesty in all women is of course not the same; it varies from woman to woman. In many cases, the woman's sense of modesty would not be known to others. If the test of the offence was the reaction of the woman, then it would have to be proved that the offender knew the standard of the modesty of the woman concerned, as otherwise, it could not be proved that he had intended to outrage "her"
modesty or knew it to be likely that his act would have that effect. This would be impossible to prove in the large majority of cases. Hence, in my opinion, the reaction of the woman would be irrelevant.
4. Intention and knowledge are of course states of mind. They are nonetheless facts which can be proved. They cannot be proved by direct evidence. They have to be inferred from the circumstances of each case. Such an inference, one way or the other, can only be made if a reasonable man would, on the facts of the case, make it. The question in each case must, in my opinion, be : will a reasonable man think that the act was done with the intention of outraging the modesty of the woman or with the knowledge that it was likely to do so? The test of the outrage of modesty must, therefore, be whether a reasonable man will think that the act of the offender was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. In considering the question, he must imagine the woman to be a reasonable woman and keep in view all circumstances concerning her, such as, her station and way of life and the known notions of modesty of such a woman. The expression "outrage her modesty" must be read with the words "intending to or knowing it to be likely that he will". So read, it would Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 14/17 appear that though the modesty to be considered is of the woman concerned, the word "her" was not used to indicate her reaction. Read all together, the words indicate an act done with the intention or knowledge that it was likely to outrage the woman's modesty, the emphasis being on the intention and knowledge."
In Abhijeet J.K. v. State of Kerala 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 703, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had observed that merely insulting a woman is different from outraging her modesty. The relevant observations read as under:
"10. There is distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of insulting the modesty of a woman. In order to attract Section 509 I.P.C, merely insulting a woman is not sufficient. Insult to the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 509 I.P.C. The crux of the offence is the intention to insult the modesty of a woman."
Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in Swapna Barman v. Subir Das 2003 SCC OnLine Gau 196 had observed that the insult should be directed towards the femininity of a woman to constitute an offence under Section 509 of IPC. The relevant observations read as under:
"10. Therefore, the minimum thing what is required is that there should be an act of intruding upon the privacy of such woman with the intention to insult her modesty. Learned Single Judge, has not disbelieved the petitioner/informant but was of the opinion that there should be precise abusive or insulting words in order to bring out the offence under section 509 of IPC and was of the opinion that in order to establish the offence the insult should be directed touching the femininity of the woman...
11. It may be observed on a careful reading of the language used in defining the offence under section 509 that the word „modesty‟ does not lead only to the contemplation of sexual relationship of an indecent character. The section includes indecency, but does not exclude all other acts falling short of downright indenency. In the instant case, the respondent, from the act of entering house-compound at mid-night and uttering petitioner's name in presence of her husband and coupling her name with his own name intended sufficient insult to disturb her modesty."Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 15/17
18. Applying the law as cited above to the facts of the case, it is quite clear that there is no case against the accused for the charge under section 509 IPC. The testimonies of eye witnesses are vague, devoid of any specific details and highly unreliable. Further, the allegations levelled could not be corroborated from the footage of the incident. The trustworthiness of the eye witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW3 as well as truthfulness of their testimonies is in serious doubt.
19. Further, this court, after examining the footage, has observed that when the accused allegedly came to the front of the counter breaking the queue, the CISF, which is responsible for security of the airport was not informed and the accused was not handed over to CISF. This court has also put these questions to PW1/complainant but no answer was given by PW1. He simply stated that it was not his duty to inform CISF and that at the relevant time, CISF was not available. Why the accused was detained, for how long he was detained, under what authority it was done so and how the accused sustained injuries on his body after he was detained, have been left unanswered as these facts were not investigated and the prosecution did not put forth complete facts before the court.
20. The prosecution has also alleged that the accused was under the influence of liquor at the time of incident but did not examine the medical officer or any other officer for that matter to prove the MLC of the accused.
21. It is also relevant to observe that though the investigating officer PW5 took CCTV footage and recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C but failed to Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 16/17 discharge his primary duty i.e. to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. He apparently relied on the versions of PW1 and PW3 as gospel truth without applying his mind independently. It was his duty to verify the facts alleged from the footage of incident and was required to inquire as to how the accused end up receiving injuries. It is quite strange that despite injuries are being mentioned on the MLC of the accused, nothing was mentioned either on the FIR or in the charge-sheet. In fact, all of the prosecution witnesses are silent on the injuries of the accused. It appears that the investigating officer conducted the investigation with a blind fold on his eyes.
22. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Navdeep Kashyap beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Navdeep Kashyap is acquitted of charges under section 186/509 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
PRANAV
PRANAV JOSHI
Announced in open Court JOSHI Date:
On this 30th Day of June, 2025 2025.06.30
16:54:54
+0530
(PRANAV JOSHI)
ACJM-01/NEW DELHI
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
Cr. Cases No. 55817/2016 State Vs Navdeep Kashyap Page No. 17/17