Delhi District Court
State vs Jawed Khan on 20 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. APOORVA RANA, M.M-10,
DWARKA COURT (SOUTH WEST), NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLSW02-050080-2019
STATE Vs JAWED KHAN
FIR NO. 294/19
U/s: 283/290 IPC.
P.S: Kapashera
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 16606/2019 Date of commission of offence : 25.06.2019
Date of institution of the case : 25.09.2019
Name of the complainant : HC Surender
Singh
Name of accused and address : Jawed Khan
S/o Mr. Afak Khan
R/o H.No. 147/A-
3-47, Dhram Colony
Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 283/290 IPC. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Final order : Acquitted Date reserved for judgment : 15.12.2021 Date of judgment : 20.01.2022 Digitally signed by APOORVA APOORVA RANA RANA Date: 2022.01.20 15:43:25 +05'30' State Vs. Jawed Khan Page No.1 / 9
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused Jawed Khan, pursuant to charge sheet filed qua him under Sections 283/290 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC for short), subsequent to the investigation carried out at P.S:
Kapashera, in FIR no. 294/2019.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.06.2019, while on patrolling duty, the complainant and Ct. Ravinder reached near Fun & Food Village market, where, at shop number 1, Vikram market, old Gurgaon Road, they found that the accused had placed some motorcycles and an oil drum on the footpath, in front of his shop and was carrying out motorcycle repair work there, due to which inconvenience was being caused to the passers-by. That, despite various warnings, the accused paid no heed and continued carrying on his repair work. Accordingly, an FIR was registered qua the accused and after investigation, the police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable u/s 283/290 IPC.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. Notice of accusation for offence punishable u/s 283/290 IPC was served to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, the accused, vide his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, admitted the genuineness of the FIR in the present case and same was exhibited as, Ex. P/A/1.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
State Vs. Jawed Khan APOORVA Digitally signed by APOORVA RANA Page No.2 / 9 RANA Date: 2022.01.20 15:43:42 +05'30'
4. The prosecution, in support of the present case has examined two witnesses in total.
5. PW-1 was Ct. Ravinder, who deposed that on 25.06.2019, he was on patrolling duty with HC Surender. That at about 7:30 PM, when he reached near Fun & Food Village, at shop number 1, Vikram market, old Gurgaon Delhi Road, they found that the accused was repairing a motorcycle in front of his shop, on the footpath and had also placed an oil drum on the above said footpath, due to which inconvenience was being caused due to the passers-by. That HC Surender repeatedly asked the accused to not use the footpath for the said work, but in vain. That consequently, HC Surender took photographs of the place from his mobile phone, Ex. P1 (colly) and prepared a complaint and Tahrir, and gave it to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he returned to the spot and handed over the original Tahrir and copy of the FIR to IO HC Surender. That, thereafter, site plan. Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A, was prepared by IO HC Surender. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B, bearing his signatures at point A. The said witness finally deposed that the information regarding the arrest of the accused was given to his family members and the accused was given bail on the spot by the IO. The statement of the said witness was recorded by the IO.
6. PW-2 was the IO, HC Surender, who deposed on similar lines as PW1. He additionally deposed that he had prepared a complaint, Ex.PW 2/A, bearing his signatures at point State Vs. Jawed Khan APOORVA Digitally signed by APOORVA RANA Page No.3 / 9 RANA Date: 2022.01.20 15:44:04 +05'30' A and Tahrir, and had given it to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR. He also deposed that upon being granted bail, bail bonds were filled up by the accused and surety, which were exhibited as Ex.PW2/C, bearing his signatures at point A and A1. He finally deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct. Ravinder and filed the present chargesheet in the court, Ex.PW2/B, bearing his signatures at point A.
7. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, P.E was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
8. Statement of the accused u/s 281 Cr.P.C read with section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused further opted to not lead evidence in his defence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
9. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 283/290 IPC has been proved beyond doubt.
State Vs. Jawed Khan APOORVA Digitally signed by
APOORVA RANA Page No.4 / 9
RANA Date: 2022.01.20
15:44:21 +05'30'
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be given the benefit of doubt and is therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
11. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused have been heard. The evidence and documents on record have been carefully perused. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the present matter was listed for pronouncement of judgement on 23.12.2021, on which date accused failed to appear before the court and NBW was issued against him for 24.12.2021, on which date as well the accused did not appear and NBWs were issued afresh against the accused for today, i.e., 20.01.2022. Since, the accused has appeared today before the court, judgement is being pronounced as follows.
12. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused Jawed Khan has been indicted for the offence u/s 283/290 IPC. Section 283 IPC provides punishment for offence of causing danger, obstruction or injury to any person in any public way or public line of navigation, by doing any act, or by omitting to take order State Vs. Jawed Khan Page No.5 / 9 Digitally signed by APOORVA APOORVA RANA RANA Date: 2022.01.20 15:44:38 +05'30' with any property in possession of wrongdoer or under his charge. Section 290 IPC provides punishment for causing public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by Cr.P.C.
13. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
14. As per the version of the prosecution, the accused was repairing a motorcycle in front of his shop, on footpath, and an oil drum was also kept there due to which, obstruction was being caused to passers-by. Allegedly, the accused paid no heed to the warnings of the police officials to not carry out any the said work, and continued with his work. Reportedly, photographs of the spot were taken by the IO, however, the accused carrying out the work as alleged is nowhere visible. Not only that, even the shop of the accused cannot be seen in the photographs. More importantly, the said photographs appear to be a printout from WhatsApp mobile application (thus, an electronic document), which is unsupported by a certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and though, they have been marked as exhibits, the same are not admissible in evidence, in the absence of the aforesaid certificate (reliance placed on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1).
State Vs. Jawed Khan APOORVA Digitally signed by
APOORVA RANA Page No.6 / 9
RANA Date: 2022.01.20
15:44:58 +05'30'
15. Further, there is inconsistency in the versions of PW1 and PW2 as given by them, during their testimonies, as PW1 has stated that they had left the PS for patrolling on foot at around 5 PM, while PW2 has stated that they had left the PS at around 7:30 PM for patrolling, on government motorcycle. Additionally, section 283 of IPC requires an obstruction/danger/injury being caused to any person by the act/omission of the wrongdoer. In the present case, no such public person has been identified or made a witness to the case, to whom obstruction/danger/injury was caused by the act/omission of the accused. In fact, during his cross- examination, PW2 has admitted that stated that there was no complaint against the accused in the present matter. In the absence of the complaint from any public person, it is difficult to comprehend as to how the act of the accused was causing inconvenience to passers-by or causing public nuisance u/s 290 IPC, in general. Admittedly, despite their presence at the spot, the IO did not make any public person, a witness in the present case. It is further reflected that even the statements of the vendors/shop owners in the neighborhood of the shop of the accused were not recorded, which should have been done in the usual circumstances, especially when the investigating proceedings were reportedly conducted at the place where the accused was carrying out the alleged motorcycle repair work. Not only this, the IO did not even note down the names and addresses of the neighbouring shop owners / other public persons or serve any notice to them, upon their refusal to join investigation. All this creates a serious lapse on the part of the IO State Vs. Jawed Khan APOORVA Digitally signed by APOORVA RANA Page No.7 / 9 RANA Date: 2022.01.20 15:45:24 +05'30' in conducting a fair and proper investigation, and thus, gives rise to suspicion in the version of the prosecution story.
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the possibility that the IO had prepared all the documents in the police station itself and that being the complainant himself, he falsely implicated the accused for the aforesaid offence, cannot be ruled out.
17. The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the accused for offence u/s 283/290 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitling the accused person to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
18. Accordingly, this court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 283/290 IPC and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Jawed Khan is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 283/290 IPC.
Digitally signed by APOORVAAPOORVA RANA RANA Date: 2022.01.20 15:45:51 +05'30' State Vs. Jawed Khan Page No.8 / 9
19. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
Announced in the open court
through V.C. on 20.01.2022, in
presence of accused and Ld. LAC APOORVA Digitally signed by
APOORVA RANA
for the accused. RANA Date: 2022.01.20
15:46:17 +05'30'
(APOORVA RANA)
M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/20.01.2022
It is certified that this judgment contains 09 pages, all signed by the undersigned.
APOORVA Digitally signed by APOORVA
RANA
RANA Date: 2022.01.20 15:46:42
+05'30'
(APOORVA RANA)
M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/20.01.2022
State Vs. Jawed Khan Page No.9 / 9