Delhi District Court
3.Title State vs . Rakesh & Ors. on 12 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Sh SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA :
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
1.FIR No. 99/99
2.Unique Case ID No. Not alloted.
3.Title State Vs. Rakesh & Ors.
3(A).Name of complainant Dr. S. K. Garg, Principal Deen Dayal
Upadhyaya College, Delhi.
3(B).Name of accused 1. Rakesh Chaurasiya r/o Bholanath r/o B227, SBM Colony, karampura, Delhi.
2. Dilip Yadav s/o L. P. Yadav r/o B45, SBM Colony, Karampura, Delhi.
4.Date of institution of challan 25.04.2000
5. Date of receiving of judicial file in 11.11.2010 this court
6.Date of Reserving judgment Pronounced on the same day.
7.Date of pronouncement 12.09.2011
8.Date of commission of offence 19.02.1999
9.Offence complained of Under Section 427/506/34 IPC
10.Offence charged with Under Section 427/506/34 IPC
11.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
12.Final order Accused persons are acquitted for the offence U/sec 427/506/34 IPC.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that both the accused in furtherance of their common intention alongwith other unknown person (could not be identified) on 19.02.1999 at DDU college, committed mischief by destroying property of college and personal car of the staff of the college and on the said date, time and place both the accused in furtherance of their common intention also committed criminal intimidation by threatening to kill the Principal Sh S. K. Garg as well as the collage teachers.
2. Accordingly, the charge sheet was filed u/sec 173 CrPC before this court, and copies of the same alongwith relevant documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 cr.p.c and on the basis of the material on record, charge u/s 427/506/34 was framed against the accused persons on 21.11.2002 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused in total examined as many as five witnesses as follows : PW1 Dr. S. K. Garg Principal of DDU College PW2 R. S. Chaudhary witness of the occurrence.
PW3 Dr. R. Ganesh, Professor, Delhi University PW4 Ct. Ashutosh who join investigation with IO.
PW5 SI Karamvir Singh is the Investigating Officer PW1 Dr. S. K. Garg, Principal of DDU college deposed that on 19.02.1999, he was present in his college. On that day a referendum was to be hold for deciding the affiliation of the college student union to Delhi University student union. As to Delhi University students Union if absolute majority of the students vote in favour of it. All the preparation have been done the voting was to be hold between 10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon. Two observers professor Ravinder Ganesh and Dr. R. S. Chaudhary, Deputy Professor of DU had been deputed by the University as observers. At 10:00 AM, the group of students came and demanded that the decision be taken on the basis of simple majority of the students participating in voting which was denied by the observer. Such group of students kept coming 23 times and around 11:00AM a group of 5060 students including some outsiders entered in his office. They were pressing for their demands that the decision should be based on simple majority. During the discussion some student became intemperate and overturned the furniture in the adjoining room. With the intervention of the police these body were whisked. Both the accused alongwith 5060 students came to his office and they started arguments with the teachers and in the meantime other students got indulge in overturing of furniture and breaking of few windows.
PW2 Dr. R. S. Chaudhary deposed that on 19.02.1999 I was posted as Observer in DDU College, Karam Pura, Delhi. There was referendum for the DUSU affiliation. He was present in the Principal office around 10/11 AM, some students came in the office of Principal and some hot words exchanged between those students and staffs. The number of the students were 5060. He intervene the matter and pacify the same. Police came there on the same day. Later on, police did not recorded his statement. He can not recognize the students in the office of Principal who exchanged hot words with the staff.
PW3 Dr. R. Ganesh deposed that on 19.02.1999 he was working as observer for Delhi University for Election of DUSU conducted at DDU Collage. It was around 11/12 Noon, about 5060 students came while raising voice and started man handling with the staff. He was present inside the office of Principal. Some students surrounded the office. We pacify the matter. He do not know the reason why the matter cropped up. In his presence, police did not reached at the premises of DDU College. He did not made any statement to the police.
PW4 Ct. Ashutosh deposed that on 19.02.1999, he was posted as Constable at DDU College. At about 11 AM, he was present at the gate of DDU College alongwith SI N. C. Thakur. We heard a noise from inside the college, some students informed the police that students have surrounded the Principal Office. Police party immediately went to the Principal office and found a large gathering. The window glasses of the Principal office was damaged /broken. The Principal was graved by 50/60 students. We took out the Principal from the staff office and moved him to Principal room. He also received an elbow of some student and feel pain. He immediately went to PS due to severe pain. No person was apprehended or arrested in his presence. IO recoded his statement.
PW 5 SI Karamvir Singh is the investigating officer deposed that on 23.04.1999 he was posted as SI in PS Moti Nagar. On that day investigation of this case was handed over to him. He perused the file and file was complete so challan was prepared by then SHO Sh Mohan Lal. He has seen SI N. C. Thakur while signing and writing during the course of his duty and he identify his hand writing and signatures. He has seen the site plan and same has been prepared by SI N. C. Thakur. The same is EX PW 5/A which bears the signatures of N. C. Thakur at point A.
4. No other Prosecution witness was examined. Prosecution Evidence was closed and Statement of both the accused was recorded on 27.07.2011. Wherein the accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated. However, accused persons declined to lead evidence in their defence.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld. counsel for the accused persons and gone through the entire record carefully.
6. Here it would be appropriate to refer the case law reported as "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was observed as under: "In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 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".
7. Here it is observed that most material witness of the case i.e Principal PW1 Dr. S. K. Garg during his testimony has turned hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP, however despite the cross examination the witness failed to identify the accused person and failed to assign any role to the accused persons regarding the commission of the offence. The witness denied that the accused present in the court were the one's who instigated the mob of 5060 other persons to commit mischief or to intimidate himself and any other college staff. He volunteered that as it was a huge mob he can not identified and assigned any specific role to any individual member of that mob. He further deposed that he can not say whether the two accused persons facing trial have damage the property of the college. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons extended any threats to him. He also denied having told the names of the accused persons to the police. Thus, the witness has failed to support the statement to IO and he is not helpful for the case of the prosecution.
8. Here it is observed that another material witness of the case i.e PW2 Dr. R. S. Choudhary during his testimony has also turned hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP, however despite the cross examination the witness failed to identify the accused person and failed to assign any role to the accused persons regarding the commission of the offence. The witness denied that the accused present in the court were the onces who instigated the mob of 5060 other persons to commit mischief or to intimidate himself or any other college staff. This witness had even denied to have made statement mark X to the police. Thus, the witness has failed to support the statement to IO and he is not helpful for the case of the prosecution
9. Here it is observed that another material witness of the case i.e PW3 Dr. R. Ganesh, during his testimony has also turned hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP, however despite the cross examination the witness failed to identify the accused person and failed to assign any role to the accused persons regarding the commission of the offence. The witness specifically denied that the accused persons were even present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the witness has failed to support the statement to IO and he is also not helpful for the case of the prosecution.
10. The other witnessed examined by the prosecution i.e PW4 Ct. Ashutosh and PW5 SI Karam Bir are formal witness of investigation.
11. In view of the above discussion, none of the witness examined by the prosecution has supported the prosecution case and the, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts, the only plausible findings which can be given against the accused is that of not guilty.
Accordingly, the accused Rakesh and Dilip stands acquitted in the present case.
Their surety is discharged. Bail bonds cancelled.
Case property be forfeited to the state, to be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal or revision, if any.
File be consigned to records after due compliance.
Announced in the open (SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA)
court on 12.09.2011 Metropolitan Magistrate
Delhi.
It is certified that this judgment contains 8 pages and each page bears my
signature.
(Sunil Kumar Sharma)
Metropolitan Magistrate
Delhi