Delhi District Court
State vs Vikram on 20 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI State Vs. : Vikram DD No : 04A dated 18.07.2016 U/s : 53/116 Delhi Police Act P.S. : Mangol Puri JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 3538/17 2. Date of commission of offence : 18.07.2016 3. Date of institution of the case : 18.07.2016 4. Name of the complainant : State 5. Name of accused, parentage & : Vikram S/o Sh. Shanti Prasad. 6. Offense complained or proved : Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act 7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Date on which order was reserved : 26.02.2024 9. Final order : Convicted 10. Date of final order : 20.03.2024
1. The case of the prosecution in brief can be stated as that on 17.03.2016, Addl. DCP (I) Outer District passed an externment order against Vikram S/o Sh. Shanti Prasad (hereinafter referred to as accused) however, despite such directions under Section 47 Delhi Police Act, the accused was found at H. No. C968, Mangolpuri, Delhi on 18.07.2016 at about 1:30 AM.
Cr. Case No.3538/2017 State Vs. Vikram 1 of 4 and thereby committed an offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act.
2. Kalandra under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act was filed against the accused. The cognizance for the commission of offence was accordingly taken and notice of accusation was framed against the accused under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Hence, this Court conducted trial.
3. For proving its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses.
4. HC Sunil was examined as PW1 who deposed that on 18.07.2016, while he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Birju and HC Dinesh, one secret informer told him that the accused who was on externment order dated 17.03.2016 u/s 47 DP Act was present at his home in Mangolpuri, Delhi and he can be apprehended if a raid is conducted at his house. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with HC Dinesh and Ct. Briju reached the H. No. C 968, Mangolpuri, Delhi and on opening the door of the house, the accused Vikram was found present sleeping on the roof and thereafter, he alongwith abovenamed police officials apprehended the accused. He deposed that thereafter, the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/B. During his cross−examination, PW1 admitted that no public persons/neighbours were joined in the investigation of the case. He denied that the accused was not arrested from his house or that he was falsely implicated in the present case.
5. HC Birju Singh was examined as PW2. He also deposed on same lines as that of PW1 and his entire testimony is not being reproduced to avoid repetition.
6. HC Dinesh was examined as PW3 who also deposed on the same lines as that of PW1 and PW2. He also deposed that after the arrest of accused, the kalandra U/s 53/116 D.P. Act Ex. PW3/A was prepared by him. During his cross examination, he also admitted that no public persons/neighbours were joined during the investigation of the case. He denied that the accused was not arrested from his house or that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. The accused also admitted the externment order dated 17.03.2016 passed by Addl. DCP O/D vide his statement U/s 294 Cr.PC. Same is Ex. AD1. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined in accordance with Section 281 r/w 313 Cr.P.C. The entire incriminating evidence was put to him who denied the same and stated to be innocent Cr. Case No.3538/2017 State Vs. Vikram 2 of 4 and to have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
8. Final arguments were heard.
9. Ld. APP for the State has argued that on the basis of the entire evidence brought on record, the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused be convicted. He further argued that on the basis of testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is established that accused violated the externment order.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the accused was apprehended from his house which is located in densily populated area but still no public persons or the neighbours who were dwelling in the vicinity were joined the investigation. He further argued that even site plan of the place of arrest was not prepared. He further argued that there are several inconsistencies and contradictions in the version of PW1, PW2 and PW3 which makes the story of prosecution doubtful. He further argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case and he had not acted in violation of the externment order issued against him. He further argued that in view of the above, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, accused be acquitted.
Applicable Law, Appraisal of Evidence and Findings.
11. To establish liability of the accused under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act, the prosecution need to prove firstly that the externment order was passed against the accused under Section 47 Delhi Police Act directing him to remove himself from Delhi for the period as specified in the order and secondly, that the accused was found present in Delhi in violation of the said externment order.
12. In the present case, vide statement U/s 294 Cr.PC dated 02.11.2023, the accused has not disputed the genuineness and correctness of the externment order no. 1062 1087/Ext.Addl.DCP(I)Outer District dated 17.03.2016 Ex.AD1 issued against accused Vikram for a period of 6 months. It is also not the case of accused that he was not aware of any such order. Accordingly, the first ingredient is established.
13. Further, the accused was apprehended on 18.07.2016 i.e. when the said externment was still applicable. Although, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that testimony of Cr. Case No.3538/2017 State Vs. Vikram 3 of 4 PW1, PW2 and PW3 cannot be relied upon as no public witnesses joined the investigation but it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi repeatedly that testimony of police officials should not be discarded merely because no public witness was present and that testimony of police officials should not always be looked upon with suspicion and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, even though defence was successful in pointing out some minor contradictions in the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3, however the careful analysis of the testimonies of all these PWs reflects that they were consistent in their testimonies and also corroborated each other in material particulars. There is nothing on record which raises any doubt as to the role of the witnesses or creates any suspicion regarding their testimony. The presence of accused in Delhi on the day of occurrence stood sufficiently established from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and accordingly, the burden of proof was upon him to furnish an explanation as to his presence in Delhi despite directions under Section 47 Delhi Police Act. The accused even though has narrated in his statement u/s 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC. that he was falsely implicated in the present case and that he was not arrested in the manner and from the place as stated by the prosecution witnesses but surprisingly, he did not lead any evidence to substantiate his said stance. Accordingly, second ingredient is also established.
14. In view of the above, it can be concluded that prosecution has been able to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act beyond reasonable doubts.
15. Accordingly, the accused Vikram is convicted of the offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act.
16. Let convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence.
17. Copy of this judgment be given, free of cost, to the convict.
Announced in the open court
on Day of 20th March, 2024 (Rishabh Kapoor)
MM-05 North West District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Cr. Case No.3538/2017 State Vs. Vikram 4 of 4