Delhi District Court
State vs Rajiv Kumar And Others on 3 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEHA KHERIA, JMFC-02, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
DLNT02-001240-2014
State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and Ors.
Case No 5284811/2016
FIR No. 526/2013
PS: S.P. Badli
U/s : 188/171-B/171-E/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
ID number of the case : DLNT02-001240-2014
Date of commission of offence : 20.10.2013
Date of filing of the charge sheet : 16.10.2014
Name of the complainant : Vinod Kumar
Name of accused and address : (1) Rajiv Kumar S/o Sh. Ashok Poddar
R/o N-44/203, Sanjay Colony, Gali
No. 9, Samay Pur, Delhi.
(2). Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o H. No. F-14, Near Kaptan Chowk,
Bhagat Singh Park, Siraspur, Delhi
and
(3). Banti Pandey S/o Late Sh.
Bachchu Lal Pandey R/o N-44/113,
Sanjay Colony, Samay Pur, Badli,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 188/171-B/171-E/34 IPC
Charge framed : U/s 188/171-B/171-E/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 1/14
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 03.04.2025
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. Present case has been filed against accused persons namely 1)Rajiv Kumar 2)Raj Kumar and 3)Banti Pandey based on FIR No 526/2013 at PS Badli U/s 188/171B/171E/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter IPC).
2. Brief fact of the case as factual matrix emanating out from the present FIR is as follows:
Now the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was received on 20.10.2013 from control room that blankets have been stored in F-14 Bhagat Singh Park, Siraspur and at J-112 Gali No. 09 Sanjay Colony Samaypur for distribution among voters of the area.
Accordingly team of flying squad-3, Ac-5 Badli has raided the premises along with the local police. Team has recovered 60 blankets from F-14, Bhagat Singh Park and 14 blankets from Aman properties. J-112, Gali No.09 Sanjay Colony. A list of recipients of the blankets, area map and booklet of congress party have been recovered from possession of the occupants
3. After investigation and filing of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken of the offences. Summons were issued to the accused. Accused put in appearance in the Court. The copy of charge-sheet and annexed documents were FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 2/14 supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 23.05.2017 notice was framed against the accused persons U/s 188/171B/171E/34 IPC. Notice was read over and explained to the accused persons and accused persons were asked if they want to plead guilty to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was proceeded for recording of evidence of prosecution.
Prosecution Evidence
4. In order to substantiate the prosecution's case and to prove the culpability of the accused in the commission of the alleged offences, the prosecution examined 03 witnesses. Abridged testimony of the prosecution witness is reproduced herein under:-
PW1 Ct. Rahul deposed that on 20.10.2013, he was posted at PS S.P. Badli as constable and on that day he was on emergency duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am. On that day, he joined the investigation alongwith HC Jagat Singh and reached at the spot i.e. Aman Property, Gali no., 9, Sanjay Colony, Samaypur Badli, Delhi and met with Sr. Executive Magistrate Sh. Vinod Kumar and in the presence of Sh Vinod Kumar raid in the aforesaid office of Aman Property, Sanjay Colony was conducted and there they recovered 14 blankets and from F-14, Bhagat Singh Park, 60 blankets were recovered which were to be distributed during the General Election. Sr. Executive Magistrate Sh. Vinod Kumar gave his FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 3/14 written complaint to IO. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and sent him for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to the PS and got the present case registered. After getting the case registered, he reached back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. IO seized the aforesaid blankets vide seizure memo, which is Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. IO had also seized the area map and booklet of the congress party vide seizure memo, which is Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they returned to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana. IO arrested the accused Rajeev Kumar and Raj Kumar in his presence vide arrest and personal search memos, which are Ex.PWC1 to Ex.PWC/4 bearing his signature at point A. PW1 correctly identified accused Rajeev Kumar, Bunty and Raj Kumar. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
PW2 Vinod Kumar deposed that on 20.10.2013, he was posted as Senior Executive Magistrate at AC-5 Badli Constituency, Delhi. He was headed the Flying squad No. 3. He received a complaint from Control room that some persons were present for the purpose of distribution of blankets in the area J 112, Gali No. 09, Sanjay Colony, Samaipur, Delhi at Aman Properties. He along with his team and some police official reached there. Police Officials of PS SP Badli were also present there as they have also FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 4/14 received the similar call. Police Officials of PS SP Badli searched the aforesaid premises and found 14 blankets. They had also found list of recipients of blanket, area map and booklet of Congress Party from the possession of occupants Rajeev, Raj Kumar @ Raju and Bunty. Thereafter, Police Officials of PS SP Badli also searched with the help of local police at the house near Bhagat Singh Park and found 60 blankets there. Thereafter, he gave his written complaint to the police official, which is Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signature at point A. PW2 failed to identify the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons as he had been won over by the accused persons. PW2 correctly identified the photographs of the case property i.e. Blanket and the spot. PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
PW3 ASI Jagat deposed that on 20.10.2013, he was posted as PS SP Badli as HC. On that day, on receipt of DD no. 77B, he went to the spot ie. Office of Aman Properties at J-112, Gali no. 9, Sanjay Colony, Samay Pur, Delhi. Where nodal officer of Delhi police for election namely SI Sachin Mann and the team of flying squad-III AC-5 Badli which was headed by Sh. Vinod Kumar SEM were also present. 14 blankets, area map and booklet of Congress were found in the Office of Aman Properties at the above said address. Accused Rajeev Kumar and accused FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 5/14 Raj Kumar were also present there. Thereafter, they went to the house of accused Raj Kumar at F-14 near Kaptan Chowk, Bhagat Singh Park, Siras Pur Delhi. Where 60 blankets were found. He seized the 14 blankets vide seizure memo Ex.PWI/A bearing his signature at point B and I also seized the 60 blankets vide seizure memo Ex.PWI/B bearing his signature at point B. The area map and booklet of congress party were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PWI/C bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, they came back to the office of Aman Properties where a written complaint was given by Vinod Kumar SEM Badli, Delhi. The same is Ex.PW2/A. He prepared the tehrir the same is Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. The same was handed over to Ct. Rahul for registration of FIR. He went to the PS, got the FIR registered and came back to the spot after registration of FIR and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to him. He prepared the site plan, the same is Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point A. The caller of the DD entry 77B namely Rajesh S/o Sh. Suresh was called to the spot telephonically who came to the spot within 5-10 minutes and there he recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter, he arrested and personally searched accused Rajeev Kumar and Raj Kumar vide memos Ex.PW1/C-1 to Ex.PW1/C-4 all bearing his signatures at point B. Both accused persons were correctly identified by the witness. They searched for the other FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 6/14 accused Bunty Pandey who also found in the Sanjay Colony, Samay Pur and he was also personally searched and arrested the accused Bunty Pandey vide memos Ex PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D both bearing his signatures at point A. Accused Bunty Pandey was correctly identified by the witness. Accused persons were released on police bail. He recorded statement of SEM Vinod Kumar, Ct. Rahul, Ct. Naresh Kumar and supplementary statement of Ct. Rahul alongwith statement of Rajesh S/o Sh. Suresh. They came back to the PS, the flying team was left there, the case property was deposited with the MHCM. The case property was released on superdari later on. The office of Aman Properties was desealed as per the order of concerned court on 09.11.2013 vide punchnama Ex.PW3/E bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, after completing all the formalities, he filed the chargesheet before the court concerned. PW3 correctly identified four photographs of the case property and three photographs of the spot. PW3 was duly cross- examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed on 31.07.2024 Statement of Accused
6. Statement of the accused was recorded in terms of provisions of Section 281 read with Section 313 Cr.PC wherein, accused persons denied all the allegations made against them and stated that they have not committed any FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 7/14 offence.
7. Accused persons chose not to lead evidence in their defence. Hence, defence evidence was closed on 17.09.2024.
Final Arguments
8. Final arguments have been heard. I have also perused the material available on record.
It is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has been able to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed. Thus, the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused made following allegations:
a. That the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and the falsity and the improbability of the prosecution version is apparent on the face of it. b. That accused persons have been falsely implicated. Point of determination (Issue)
10. The main point of consideration as culled out from the charge framed is whether the accused persons namely 1)Rajiv Kumar 2)Raj Kumar and 3)Banti FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 8/14 Pandey are guilty of committing offence U/s 188/171B/171E/34 IPC. Now Court proceeds to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution because it is on the evidence of prosecution and its strength that the fate of this case depends.
11. It is a cardinal principle of law 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 case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
Appraisal of Evidence
12. Now the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was received from control room that blankets have been stored in F-14 Bhagat Singh Park, Siraspur and at J-112 Gali No. 09 Sanjay Colony Samaypur for distribution among voters of the area. Accordingly team of flying squad-3, Ac-5 Badli has raided the premises along with the local police. Team has recovered 60 blankets from F-14, Bhagat Singh Park and 14 blankets from Aman properties. J-112, Gali No.09 Sanjay Colony. A list of recipients of the blankets, area map and booklet of congress party have been recovered from possession of the occupants.
13. Now, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for commission of offence u/s 188 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused persons knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 9/14 empowered to promulgate such order, they were to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeyed such direction and because of that disobedience accused caused or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person or it tend to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tend to cause a riot or affray.
14. Now, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for commission of offence u/s 171 B IPC, in the present case, prosecution has to prove that accused gave a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right. Whereas Section 171 E provided punishment for the offence committed u/s 171 B IPC.
15. After going through the evidence on record, court is of the considered opinion that allegations against accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cogent evidence to demonstrate that the accused has committed the offences for which he faced the trial. The prosecution has failed to prove the allegations on account of the following reasons:
Inconsistencies and Infirmities in the case of prosecution Ingredients of Section 188 IPC not made out: To prove the guilt of the accused persons u/s 188 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that accused persons knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 10/14 lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, they were to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeyed such direction and because of that disobedience accused caused or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person or it tend to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tend to cause a riot or affray.
However in the present case no order has been exhibited by the prosecution which had been promulgated by a public servant. Hence, there is nothing to determine which direction of public servant has been disobeyed by accused persons.
Hence, ingredients of Section 188 IPC not made out. Ingredients of Section 171 B r/w 171E not made out: It is the story of the prosecution that a complaint was received from control room that blankets have been stored in F-14 Bhagat Singh Park, Siraspur and at J-112 Gali No. 09 Sanjay Colony Samaypur for distribution among voters of the area. Accordingly team of flying squad-3, Ac-5 Badli has raided the premises along with the local police. Team has recovered 60 blankets from F-14, Bhagat Singh Park and 14 blankets from Aman properties. J-112, Gali No.09 Sanjay Colony. A list of recipients of the blankets, area map and booklet of congress party have been recovered from possession FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 11/14 of the occupants.
Now, to prove the guilt of the accused for commission of offence u/s 171 B IPC, in the present case, prosecution has to prove that accused gave a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right.
However, in the present case, prosecution has not brought anything on record to prove that accused persons were inducing anyone to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised such rights by giving gratification. Accused persons were not even found distributing blankets.
Further, merely possession of blankets, in itself does not prove the guilt of the accused.
Hence, ingredients of Section 171 B r/w 171 E IPC not made out.
Investigation is silent pertaining to receivers of alleged blanket: It is the story of the prosecution that on the alleged date f incident list of recipients of blankets was found from the possession of accused persons. However investigation is silent pertaining those receivers to whom blanket were distributed. Prosecution also has not examined any receivers of the blankets through which it can be determined whether accused FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 12/14 persons were actually inducing people to exercise their voter right. No independent public witness was joined in the investigation: It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100(4) of the Cr.PC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. PW2 Sh. Vinod Kumar Senior Executive Magistrate could not identify the accused persons: During examination-in-chief, PW2 Sh. Vinod Kumar who headed the flying squad No. 3 failed to identify the accused persons. Hence, a doubt is created in the mind of the Court. Inconsistency in the statement of PW3 ASI Jagat: During cross- examination PW3 admitted that accused persons were working as the property dealer. He admitted that the spot was not the office of Congress Party and that only one booklet of Congress Party was recovered from the office of accused. In view of the same, a doubt is created that whether accused persons were working for the Congress Party in inducing any person to exercise their electoral right. Otherwise they would have been in possession of multiple booklets of Congress Party which they must have been distributing with the blankets.
16. Therefore, looking at the above-stated chronology, reasonable FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 13/14 doubt regarding allegation of offence u/s 188/171B/171E/34 IPC is created in the mind of this court.
17. Thus, in light of the foregoing discussion, accused Rajiv Kumar, Raj Kumar and Banti Pandey are given benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of offences u/s 188/171-B/171-E/34 IPC. Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA KHERIA Date:
KHERIA 2025.04.03
17:27:36
+0530
Dictated directly into the computer (Dr. Neha Kheria)
and announced in the open Court, JMFC-02/North/Rohini
On 03rd April, 2025. Delhi/.03.04.2025
This judgment consists of 14 pages and all bear my signature. Digitally signed
NEHA by NEHA
KHERIA
KHERIA Date: 2025.04.03
17:27:31 +0530
(Dr. Neha Kheria)
JMFC-02/North/Rohini
Delhi/03.04.2025
FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Rajiv Kumar and ors. Page No. 14/14