Delhi District Court
State vs . Satyapal Tanwar, Etc. on 18 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON, MM-6 (C), TIS HAZARI
COURT, DELHI.
FIR No.197/2013
U/s. : 160 IPC
P.S. : Civil Lines
State Vs. Satyapal Tanwar, etc.
JUDGMENT
1. CIS number of the case : 297460-2016
2. CNR number of the case : DLCT02-003104-2013
3. The date of commission of offence : 08.08.2013
4. The name of the complainant : SI Nitin Pal Singh
5. The name & parentage of accused : (1) Satyapal Tanwar
persons S/o Sh. Ram Saran
R/o WZ-492, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-28.
(2) Naresh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan
R/o WZ-307, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-28.
(3) Sanjeev Chauhan
S/o Sh. B.S. Chauhan
R/o WZ-141, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-28.
At present residing at WZ-307,
Naraina Village, New Delhi-28.
(4) Ram Pal
S/o Sh. Ram Saran
R/o WZ-492, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-28.
FIR No.197/2013 State Vs. Satyapal Tanwar, etc. 1 of 9
PS Civil Lines
6. Offence under which notice has been : U/s 160 IPC
served
7. The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted of offence
U/s 160 IPC
Date of Institution : 31.10.2013
Judgment reserved on : 18.12.2018
Judgment announced on: 18.12.2018
STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as unfolded from the charge- sheet are that on 08.08.2013, at about 4:15 PM, at SDM Office Complex, 5 Shyamnath Marg, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, all four accused persons were found fighting with each other at the aforesaid place and thereby causing disturbance/ annoyance to the public. Thereby, all four accused persons committed the offences punishable u/s. 160 IPC and accordingly, charge-sheet was filed.
2. The copy of charge-sheet as well as its annexures were supplied to all four accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and notice for the offence U/s 160 IPC was served upon all four accused persons namely Satyapal Tanwar, Naresh Kumar, Sanjeev Chauhan and Rampal by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court vide order dated 29.04.2014 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution was thereafter given opportunity to prove the accusation against the accused and examined 5 witnesses. Relevant portion of testimony of witnesses is discussed hereinafter.
FIR No.197/2013 State Vs. Satyapal Tanwar, etc. 2 of 9 PS Civil Lines
4. PW-1 ASI Satyapal (Duty Officer) proved the present FIR as Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
5. PW-2 Ct. Sushil Kumar deposed that on 08.08.2013, on receipt of a call from duty officer, he reached at 5, Shyamnath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi, where four accused persons were quarreling with each other in the office of SDM. Ct. Pawan also reached there and he with the help of Ct. Pawan had separated all four accused persons with each other. During interrogation, they disclosed their name as Satyapal & Sanjeev but he does not remember the name of other two accused persons. IO also reached there, prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and after registration of FIR, he returned at the spot and handed over copy of FIR alongwith original rukka to the IO. One injured was taken to Aruna Asaf Ali hospital for medical examination, where he was medically examined and his MLC was prepared. Two accused persons namely Naresh and Sanjeev were arrested & personally searched vide memo proved as Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/C respectively. Thereafter, they were released on police bail. The third accused who was taken to the hospital had absconded from the hospital. Then, they returned to the PS. IO recorded his statement in this regard. All four accused persons were correctly identified by him.
6. PW-3 ASI Pawan deposed that on 08.08.2013, he was present at his beat. He came to know about the call regarding some quarrel, accordingly, he went to 5, Shamnath Marg, Civil Lines at SDM Office, where he found all four accused persons namely Satyapal, Naresh, Sanjeev and Rampal were fighting among themselves, created a lot of ruckus and were using unparliamentary words & abusing language against each other. In the meantime, Ct. Sushil also FIR No.197/2013 State Vs. Satyapal Tanwar, etc. 3 of 9 PS Civil Lines came to the spot and they were trying to control the situation by separating them. Thereafter, SI Nitin Pal Singh also came to the spot and they managed to control the situation by separating them. Accused Satyapal was trembling. Upon the same, SI Satyapal directed him to shift accused Satyapal to AAA hospital. Accordingly, he got the accused Satypal admitted there and thereafter, he came back to the spot. He came to know that accused Satyapal escaped from the hospital. They searched for accused Satyapal but could not find him.
7. PW-4 Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed that on 08.08.2013, he was posted as SDM (HQ) at 5 Shyamnath Marg, Delhi. On that day, case titled as State Vs. Satyapal & Ors. U/s. 145 Cr.PC was before the court for adjudication. On that day, proceedings have been concluded and the draft proceedings were before the respective counsels of both the parties. The advocates were reading the documents and parties were about to sign. During the proceedings, there were some heated arguments between the advocates of both the parties. Accused persons namely Satyapal and Sanjeev Chauhan came to blows in the court room itself in his presence. Accused persons namely Naresh Kumar and Rampal were also present in the court in his chamber on that day. However, they were not involved in the arguments/ fight as aforesaid. All four accused persons were correctly identified by him in the court. In order to bring the situation under control, he called the police.
However, during cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he admitted that at the last para of the order Ex.PW4/A1, it is mentioned that contesting parties namely Sanjeev Chauhan, Rampal and Satyapal Tanwar came to blow in the court itself. As far as he remember, there was commotion in the court and his staff also joined to separate the accused persons and might be Rampal have also joined to support or save his brother later-on.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he admitted that FIR No.197/2013 State Vs. Satyapal Tanwar, etc. 4 of 9 PS Civil Lines there was directions from the Hon'ble High Court for completing the proceeding in one month. He also admitted that no violence or physical fight was entered into between accused persons prior to the present incident in question. He also admitted that there was no other persons present apart from accused persons, their Counsels and his staff members in his room on that day. He made a call at number 100 through his land line number of office. He could not say whether the attack was intended to be made on accused Satyapal for deferring the cross- examination, however, he does not know who attacked whom. He did not make any written complaint about the incident to any authority except to call the police.
8. PW-5 SI Nitin Pal Singh (Complainant as well as Investigating Officer) deposed that on 08.08.2013, on receipt of DD No.21A regarding quarrel at SDM Office, 5 Shyamnath Marg. The certified copy of the said DD proved as Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter, he reached at the spot and he found Ct. Sushil and Ct. Pawan, who were beat officers of the area. He also found all accused persons namely Satyapal, Naresh, Sanjeev and Rampal present at the spot. Ct. Pawan & Ct Sushil were pacifying and trying to control the aforesaid accused persons, who were fighting amongst each other and using abusive language. As accused Satyapal complained about his medical condition, he was sent to AAA Hospital for his treatment. Accused Satyapal left from the hospital during treatment without informing the police. Accused Rampal left the spot by taking advantage of crowd present due to fight between accused persons. He tried to search for accused Satypal and Rampal but could not find them. Accused Naresh and Sanjeev were apprehended at the spot. Thereafter, information was shared with SHO and on his instructions, tehrir Ex.PW5/B was prepared. He handed over the same to Ct. Sushil to get the FIR registered, who left the spot for PS. He also prepared the site plan proved as Ex.PW5/C. After sometime, Ct. Sushil came back to the spot alongwith original tehrir and copy of FIR and he handed over the FIR No.197/2013 State Vs. Satyapal Tanwar, etc. 5 of 9 PS Civil Lines same to him. Then, he arrested accused Sanjeev and Naresh vide memo proved as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively. Thereafter, they released on bail. Personal search of accused Sanjeev and Naresh was also got conducted vide memo proved as Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D respectively. Accused Satypal and Rampal were called to PS and they were arrested vide memo proved as Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/E respectively. Personal search of accused Rampal and Satyapal was also got conducted vide memo proved as Ex.PW5/F and Ex.PW5/G respectively. He recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and filed it in the court. All accused persons were correctly identified by him in the court that day.
Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
9. Statement of all four accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to them, which they denied in general, however, they stated that there was no quarrel/ fighting between themselves on 08.08.2013 in or outside the office of SDM. There were only heated arguments between the Counsels for both parties and they were not involved in that. They have been falsely implicated in the present matter and they have done no offence. However, they chose not to lead evidence in their defence. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
10. Final arguments on behalf of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsels for accused persons, during which, the defence argued that there was no affray committed by accused persons as alleged by the prosecution and there was only heated arguments between the Counsels before the SDM which is also reflected in the order-sheet of the day of incident proved by complainant as Ex.PW4/A1. Further, there were orders from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to SDM to dispose off the matter within one month, hence, in order to find some ground, he made this FIR No.197/2013 State Vs. Satyapal Tanwar, etc. 6 of 9 PS Civil Lines story of fight committed by accused persons in his Court and transferred the matter pending u/s. 145 Cr.PC before him on the next date of hearing in order to get rid of the same. He further argued that the complainant in the present matter is not the SDM in whose Office affray is alleged to have been committed by the accused persons and the Investigating Officer of the present matter is himself the complainant, which is against the rule of the law.
The entire record has been carefully perused.
11. The case of prosecution is based upon the complaint made by the IO himself, proved as Ex.PW1/B, wherein, it is stated that all the four accused persons were found fighting with each other by using unparliamentary language in the premises of SDM office, 5 Shyamnath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi. However, as per testimony of the SDM as PW-4, all the accused persons started fighting in his Court itself during the proceedings in case titled as "State Vs. Satyapal & Ors." U/s 145 Cr.PC and in order to bring the situation under control, he made a call to police, but no written complaint was given to police by the SDM.
12. Further, during his testimony, the then SDM Sh. Rajeev Kumar/PW-4 deposed that on 08.08.2013, during proceedings in case titled as "State Vs. Satyapal & Ors." U/s 145 Cr.PC, there were heated arguments between the Counsels of both the parties and accused Satyapal & Sanjeev came to blows in the Court itself. However, accused Naresh and Rampal were not involved in any argument or fight but during cross-examination by prosecution, he admitted that in the last para of order of his Court as SDM proved as Ex.PW4/A1, it is mentioned that accused Sanjeev, Rampal and Satyapal came to blows in the Court.
13. Furthermore, during his cross-examination by the defence, he FIR No.197/2013 State Vs. Satyapal Tanwar, etc. 7 of 9 PS Civil Lines admitted that there were directions from the Hon'ble High Court for completing the proceedings between the parties within one month and after 08.08.2013, he made a request to recuse himself from that matter. He also stated that he was present in his office on the day of incident till 6/6:30 PM and police officials of PS Civil Lines met him in his office & on asking about the incident, he explained the same to them. However, the IO/ PW-5 deposed during his cross-examination by defence that the SDM was not present at the spot when he reached there and his statement was recorded later-on. Even, PW-2 and PW-3 (police officials who reached at the spot) stated that they did not meet the SDM at the spot and they do not know whether the SDM was present at that time in the office or not. Hence, it remains unexplained that which police official/ officer met the SDM at the time of alleged incident and to whom, he narrated the said incident. He also admitted that he did not make any written complaint about the said incident to any authority.
14. Still further, there is contradiction and discrepancy in the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3. PW-3 has constant change in his stand. As per testimony of PW-2, PW-3 as well as PW-5, public had gathered at the spot, however, no statement of any public person has been recorded in the present matter for the best reasons known to the IO. Even, IO has admittedly neither inquired nor recorded statement of staff of the SDM, in whose presence, the accused persons committed afray in the SDM Court. The investigation has been mechanically done by the IO and he has taken no efforts to examine any independent witness.
15. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if FIR No.197/2013 State Vs. Satyapal Tanwar, etc. 8 of 9 PS Civil Lines any, must go in favour of the accused.
16. Under the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that in the present case the evidence on the record is not at all sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences, hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Accordingly, all four accused namely Satyapal Tanwar, Naresh Kumar, Sanjeev and Rampoal are acquitted for the offence U/s 160 IPC. SHEFALI Digitally signed by SHEFALI BARNALA Announced and dictated in the BARNALA TANDON Date: 2018.12.21 open Court today i.e. on 18.12.2018 TANDON 16:32:28 +0530 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM-06, Central, Tis Hazari Court Delhi All pages are duly signed.
FIR No.197/2013 State Vs. Satyapal Tanwar, etc. 9 of 9 PS Civil Lines