Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Ravinder Soni on 20 December, 2019

                                                                                                 CNR No. DLCT02­001834­17



                  IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR
               METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE­05, CENTRAL,
                      TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT02­001834­17
CIS No. 1027/17
State Vs. Ravinder Soni
FIR No. 220/16
PS. Nabi Karim
U/s. 160 IPC
                        JUDGMENT

1) The date of commission of offence : 07.10.16

2) The name of the complainant : HC Upender Singh

3) The name & parentage of accused : 1) Ravinder Soni S/o. Shri Seshnath, R/o. House No. A­594, Gali No. 3, Prem Nagar, Nabi Karim, Delhi

2) Yunus Ahmed (already convicted)

4) Offence complained of : 160 IPC

5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

6) Final order : Convicted

7) The date of such order : 20.12.2019 CIS No. 1027/17, State Vs. Ravinder Soni, FIR No. 220/16, PS. Nabi Karim, U/s. 160 IPC 1/5 CNR No. DLCT02­001834­17 Date of Institution : 24.01.2017 Judgment reserved on : 10.12.2019 Judgment announced on : 20.12.2019 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:

1) The case of prosecution against the accused is that on 07.10.16, at about 9.50 PM, near house no. 594, Gali No.3, Prem Nagar, Nabi Karim, he was found fighting with co­accused Yunus Ahmed (already convicted) at public place thereby disturbing the public peace.

2) After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. Accused Yunus Ahmed pleaded guilty and thus convicted. Accused Ravinder Soni pleaded not guilty when the notice u/s. 160 IPC was served upon him, after due compliance of section 207 Cr.PC. Accused Ravinder Soni claimed trial.

3) In support of its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses.

After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Ravinder Soni was recorded separately wherein he claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against him. Accused opted not to lead any DE.

4) I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. LAC Shri Aman Gaurav for accused. I have perused the record.

5) PW2 HC Neeraj proved the registration of present FIR as Ex. PW2/B and the endorsement on rukka vide DD No. 8­A as Ex. PW2/A.

6) PW1 Ct. Dinesh Kumar and PW3 HC Upender Singh deposed on the same lines that in the intervening night of 07/08.10.16 they were on CIS No. 1027/17, State Vs. Ravinder Soni, FIR No. 220/16, PS. Nabi Karim, U/s. 160 IPC 2/5 CNR No. DLCT02­001834­17 duty. They deposed that after receiving DD No. 42A and 44­A they went to the spot where they found two persons quarreling each other. They deposed that a loud noise was being raised which was disturbing the public peace. They identified the accused Ravinder Soni as one of the person who was fighting at the public place. The accused Yunus Ahmed was already convicted. The rukka was prepared and FIR got registered. Accused Ravinder Soni was arrested.

7) PW1 and PW3 supported the case of the prosecution by deposing on the lines of the rukka and by correctly identifying the accused. The accused Yunus Ahmed already pleaded guilty and he was already convicted. The testimony of PW1 and PW3 corroborates each other as to the fact of fighting at the public place and of disturbing the public peace.

8) It was argued that no independent public witness was examined in the present case and as such the case of the prosecution is weak. There is no such law that in every case there is requirement of independent public person. The factum of quarrel between the accused Ravinder Soni and the convict Yunus Ahmed specifically came in the testimony of PW1 and PW3. Both these witnesses sustained the test of cross examination and I found no reason to disbelieve their testimony. The absence of independent public persons as witnesses in the present case is of no benefit for the case of the accused.

9) It is pertinent to mention here that when the accused Ravinder Soni CIS No. 1027/17, State Vs. Ravinder Soni, FIR No. 220/16, PS. Nabi Karim, U/s. 160 IPC 3/5 CNR No. DLCT02­001834­17 was examined u/s. 313 Cr.PC, recorded as per section 281(1) Cr.PC he stated that convict Yunus Ahmed said something wrong to his son for which he went to Yunus Ahmed to warn him. He stated that convict Yunus Ahmed started raising his voice and thereafter they were taken to police station. This statement of the accused also corroborates the case of the prosecution as far as the same relates to the fighting at the public place and the disturbance of the public peace is concerned. If two persons fights in the public place then the persons residing nearby will suffer the loss of their peace and that what happened in the present case.

10) Ld. LAC argued that in the present case the complainant and the IO is the same person and thus it is against the law and the accused be acquitted on this ground only. Ld. LAC relied upon the judgment titled as Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab, bearing criminal appeal no. 1880/2011, decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 16.08.18 in which it was held that there will not be a fair investigation where the informant and the investigation officer will be the same person. In the case in hand the facts are different. The information regarding the present matter was received in the police station vide DD No. 42­A dated 07.10.16 referred by IO in his examination in chief. This DD entry is regarding a quarrel at house no. A­594, Nabi Karim. This reveals that he investigating officer and the police officials accompanying him came to know about the offence in question vide information from a third person. In these circumstances, CIS No. 1027/17, State Vs. Ravinder Soni, FIR No. 220/16, PS. Nabi Karim, U/s. 160 IPC 4/5 CNR No. DLCT02­001834­17 the investigating officer / PW3 or the official accompanying investigating officer (PW1) cannot be said to be the complainant in strict sense. Accordingly, the judgment of Mohan Lal (Supra) is of no benefit for the case of the accused.

11) All the ingredients of the offence of affray defined u/s. 159 IPC are proved on record and as such the accused Ravinder Soni is hereby convicted for the offence u/s. 160 IPC.

Copy of judgment supplied to the accused free of cost. Be heard on the point of sentence.

                                                                KAPIL                     by KAPIL KUMAR

                                                                KUMAR                     Date: 2019.12.20
                                                                                          15:49:16 +0530
           Announced in open court                                              (Kapil Kumar)
           on 20.12.2019                                                     MM­5/Central District
                                                                            Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi,

CIS No. 1027/17, State Vs. Ravinder Soni, FIR No. 220/16, PS. Nabi Karim, U/s. 160 IPC 5/5