Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajay Sharma & Anr. on 28 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Presided by: Mr. Vinod Joshi, DJS State Vs. Ajay Sharma & Anr. FIR No. 524/2013 PS. Geeta Colony U/s. 160 IPC JUDGMENT
1) CIS No. of the case : 2957/2016
2) The date of commission of offence: 07.12.2013
3) Name & parentage of the accused: (1) Ajay Sharma,
S/o Sh. Prem Nath
Sharma
(2) Pankaj Arora,
S/o Sh. Kashmere
Lal
5) Offence involved : 160 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquitted
8) The date of such order : 28.10.2022
Date of Institution : 02.06.2014
Judgment reserved on : 28.10.2022
Judgment announced on : 28.10.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
01. The present case was registered with the allegations that on 07.12.2013, at about 05:30 PM, on road at Bansi Chowk, 13 Block, Geeta Colony, Delhi, both the accused persons namely Ajay Sharma and Pankaj Arora were found disturbing the public FIR No. 524/13 State Vs Ajay Sharma & Anr. 1 of 7 peace by fighting in a public place and thereby they committed offence punishable under Section 160 IPC.
02. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s 160 IPC was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. A formal notice for commission of offence punishable u/s 160 IPC was framed against the accused persons by the Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
03. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined four witnesses.
04. PW-1 Ct. Mahender Singh deposed that on 07.12.2013, he was posted as Constable at PS Geeta Colony and was on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM. On that day, on receipt of a call, he along with SI Deepak left the PS and reached at spot i.e. Bansi Chowk near 13 Block and saw a crowd of public persons there. He along with SI Deepak had scattered the crowd and saw that three persons were fighting with each other and abusing each other and after seeing the police officials, one of the persons had fled away from the spot. SI Deepak tried to pacify the situation and rest of the two persons were adamant for their act and were constantly quarreling and fighting with each other. In the meanwhile, Beat Constable Virender also reached there and both the accused persons were apprehended. He further deposed that SI Deepak prepared a Rukka and handed over the same to him for getting the FIR registered through the Duty Officer. He further deposed that he returned to the spot back after sometime along with copy of FIR and rukka from the PS and FIR No. 524/13 State Vs Ajay Sharma & Anr. 2 of 7 handed over the same to the SI Deepak. Thereafter, he got conducted medical examination of both the accused persons from SDN Hospital and from there, he reached to the spot with the accused persons. SI Deepak arrested the accused persons vide memos Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. PW-1 Mahender Singh correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court.
05. PW-2 Duty Officer ASI Dharmender Sharma deposed that on 07.12.2013, he had received a rukka from Ct. Birender which was sent by SI Deepak. He further deposed that he made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW2/A and registered FIR no. 524/2013 on the basis of said rukka. He also proved the FIR Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that after the registration of case, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Birender for handing over the same to SI Deepak.
06. PW-3 Ct. Birender deposed that on 07.12.2013, he was posted as Constable at PS Geeta Colony. On that day, he was the beat constable of 06 Block and 13 Block, Geeta Colony, Delhi and during patrolling at about 06:00 PM, he reached at Bansi Chowk near 13 Block where SI Deepak and Mahender met him and he saw that SI Deepak and Ct. Mahender had already overpowered two persons. He further deposed that SI Deepak prepared a Tehrir and handed over the same to him for getting the FIR registered through the Duty Officer. He returned to the spot back after sometime along with copy of FIR and rukka from the PS and handed over the same to the SI Deepak. Thereafter, SI Deepak sent both the accused persons to the Hospital for medical examination along with Ct. Mahender and he along with SI Deepak made search for another accused, who had already FIR No. 524/13 State Vs Ajay Sharma & Anr. 3 of 7 escaped from the spot but he could not be found. PW3 Ct. Birender correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of both the accused persons.
07. PW-4 SI Deepak is the IO and he corroborated the testimony of PW3. He relied upon the contents of rukka Ex. PW4/A, of the site plan Ex. PW4/B, of the arrest and personal search memos of accused persons Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/D. All the witnesses have been cross-examined by the Ld Defence Counsel.
08. Thereafter, the accused persons has made separate statement on 04.06.2022 to the effect that they admit the factum of preparation of MLCs Ex. A1 and Ex. A2, without admitting the contents of the same. Accordingly, the PW Dr. Susheel Bansote was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses and upon completion of the prosecution evidence, joint statement of the accused persons under section 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the evidence surfaced against them and documents exhibited during the trial were put to them. The accused persons denied it's correctness and pleaded innocence. The accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence.
09. I have heard arguments on behalf of the State as well as arguments advanced by respective Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, and also perused the record.
10. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and FIR No. 524/13 State Vs Ajay Sharma & Anr. 4 of 7 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.
11. There are glaring contradictions in the versions put forward by PW1 Ct. Mahender and PW3 Ct. Birender. While PW1 Ct. Mahender during his testimony states that the rukka was handed over by SI Deepak to him for registration of FIR, on the other hand, PW3 Ct. Birender has also deposed that it was him to whom, SI Deepak had handed over the rukka for registration of FIR. PW2, on the other hand has stated that it was PW3 Ct. Birender who had brought the rukka for the registration of FIR.
12. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry of the police officials namely PW1 Ct. Mahender Singh and PW3 SI Deepak, who had allegedly gone to the spot on receipt of a call, has been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of the departure and arrival entry of the said police officials, the argument of the respective Ld. Defence Counsels that these police officials were not present at the spot and that the investigation was purportedly done at the FIR No. 524/13 State Vs Ajay Sharma & Anr. 5 of 7 spot by these police officials was in fact done in the PS after accused persons were wrongfully apprehended, cannot be ruled out. Regarding the significance of arrival and departure entry of the police officials the court places reliance on the decision of Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
12. In addition to the above, the place and time of alleged apprehension of the accused persons was such that with reasonable diligence the IO could have secured the testimony of independent public witnesses. Admittedly no public persons was made to join the investigation. PW4 SI Deepak has stated that he had asked the public persons to join the investigation but they refused to join the same and left the spot without disclosing their names and identities. This witness however, could not tell the name of any such persons nor could he give reasonable explanation for not issuing any notice or initiating any proceedings against such persons. When the case involves the testimony of only the police officials and the accused pleads false implication, it would not appear justified if a finding of guilt is given merely on the version of the police when the necessary procedural formalities, such as recording of arrival and departure entry, have not been conducted by the police.
13. As a sequence to the abovesaid discussion, the court is of a view that there have surfaced, serious shortcomings in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of which deserves to be given to the accused persons as far as the offence punishable u/s 160 IPC is concerned.
14. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the prosecution FIR No. 524/13 State Vs Ajay Sharma & Anr. 6 of 7 has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt qua the offence punishable u/s 160 IPC. Hence, accused persons namely Ajay Sharma, S/o Sh. Prem Nath Sharma and Pankaj Arora, S/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal Arora stand acquitted of the offence Under Sec. 160 of IPC. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court (VINOD JOSHI)
on 29 th day of October, 2022 MM-02(E)/KKD/Delhi
FIR No. 524/13 State Vs Ajay Sharma & Anr. 7 of 7