Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Chauhan on 17 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT ARORA
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. SANJAY CHAUHAN
FIR No.948/13
PS: Shakarpur
JUDGMENT:
A New Number of the case 9166/16
B Name of the Complainant HC Parmod Kumar
Name of the accused & his Sanjay Chauhan s/o Sh. S.D.S. C parentage and address Chauhan R/o A-23, Krishna Kunj, Laxmi Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi D Offence complained of : 3 D.P.D.P. Act Date of commission of 01.10.2013 E offence F Date of Institution 27.11.2014 G Offence charged 3 D.P.D.P. Act H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty I Order Reserved on 17.05.2019 J Date of pronouncement 17.05.2019 Final Order Acquitted of offence u/s 3 D.P.D.P. K Act BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION ALLEGATIONS
1. The story of the prosecution as per charge sheet is as under:-
FIR No.948/13 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.1 of 7
2. On 01.10.2013, PW2 ASI Pramod Kumar (Investigating officer) alongwith HC Jai Prakash (PW1) were on patrolling and when they reached at Priyadarshani Vihar Main Gate, they noticed that one huge poster was affixed on the electricity pole on which it was written "Sh. Vishawjit Bajaj ko Krishna Nagar, Jila congress committee ka upadhyaksh manonit kiye jane par hardik dhaynavad". The said poster was also having the photograph of Sh. Vishawjit Bajaj as well as of accused Sanjay Chauhan having photograph of other prominent leaders of congress party. IO took photographs of the poster and the same was later on removed and seized. As the same amounted to an offence u/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007 the present FIR was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. Accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act was framed against accused and read out to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
5. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has examined two witnesses in all. It is pertinent to note here that the printer Sanjay Sharma could not be examined as he expired during the course of trial and was dropped from the list of witness.
FIR No.948/13 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.2 of 7
6. IO/ASI Pramod Kumar, PW has deposed in terms of the prosecution case. He deposed that he saw one board affixed on the electric poles near Priyadarshani Vihar Main gate. He deposed that he took photographs of the same and the photographs were marked as Mark A and seized the board was seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. Site plan was prepared which was Ex. PW2/B. He was extensively cross-examined.
7. PW1 is HC Jai Kishan who also accompanied the IO during investigation. He also deposed on the same lines as of the IO.
8. Accused admitted the registration of FIR u/s 294 Cr.PC hence the examination of duty officer was dispensed with.
9. After completion of PE, statement of accused was recorded wherein he denied all the allegations. He stated that he did not affix the flex board and he was falsely implicated by the political rivals.
10.Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
11. Ld. APP for state contended that the witness of the prosecution i.e. IO has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the flex board was affixed by the accused on the electric pole and the offence u/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is made out. On the other hand Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that there are various lacunaes in the prosecution case as no independent witness was joined to prove that such a flex board was affixed. That the printer was not examined as he FIR No.948/13 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.3 of 7 expired. He further contends that such a flex board can be very easily got printed by any person and in the absence of any direct evidence showing that the same was affixed by the accused or at his instance by his supporters, accused cannot be convicted and he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
12. I have perused the entire record including the statement of witnesses.
13. It is trite to say that 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.
14. In the instant case there are many loop holes in the version of the prosecution story. It is pertinent to note the during the cross-examination of PW2. He deposed that he lodged the FIR against the accused as he is residing in the said area and the other persons whose photographs are there on the board are not residing. Then he stated that he cannot say whether Vishawjeet Bajaj is residing in the same area i.e. Priyadarshani Vihar. He deposed that accused is a famous person and he knows the address of accused. He further stated that the said holding was not affixed before him nor any eye witness was found nor any public persons joined the investigation. He further stated that the printer Sanjay (not examined due to his death) did not produce any bill nor any documentary proof showing that the accused had published the hoarding board.
FIR No.948/13 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.4 of 7
15. Coming to the cross-examination of PW1 he deposed that the IO did not enquire from Vishawjeet Bajaj regarding the poster. IO did not enquire from any persons as to who had affixed the banner and no public persons or neighbours or security guard was enquired to verify this fact.
16. Thus, going by the evidence available on record, I find that the present case was registered only on the basis of presumption that since the poster contained the photograph of the accused, he had got them printed and had affixed at the electricity pole. I have seen the poster which was produced in the court also as well as its photograph. There is a photograph of Mr. Vishawjeet Bajaj. However no enquiries were made from him regarding this aspect. I find that the investigation in the present matter were not conducted and the IO failed to discharge his duties as required by law. The IO never made any investigation from the public person in this regard. Now merely because the photograph of the accused is shown on a banner does not lead to a presumption that the banner was fixed by the accused himself. There has to be some evidence in this regard to show that the banner was affixed by the supporters of the accused at his instance or under his directions. In the instant case there is no such evidence led by the prosecution.
17. Moreover the printer Sanjay Sharma also could not be examined due to his death. Even otherwise IO had admitted that the printer never produced any proof to show that the poster was printed at the instance of accused.
18. I am also in agreement with the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that FIR No.948/13 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.5 of 7 such a flex board can be printed by any third person to implicate the accused out of political rivalry. The possibility of the fact that the flex board was affixed by the rival parties cannot be ruled out as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had got the said flex board printed. Such a flex board can be printed and affixed by any person and as such once the accused is refusing that he affixed the flex board, the possibility of his opponents pasting the flex board in order to implicate him cannot be ruled out. The examination of printing press officials would have provided additional corroboration to the version of prosecution. They could have provided the name of person on whose behalf that flex board was published and the same would have been vital piece of evidence. However, the printere was not examined due to his death. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the allegation against the accused.
CONCLUSION
19. In view of my above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are several loop holes in the prosecution story which give rise to doubt in the mind of the court as regards the alleged investigation and inclines the court to give benefit of doubt to accused.
20. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions accused is acquitted of offence u/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.
21. As per section 437-A of the Cr.P.C as inserted vide the Amendments Act which came into force on 31.12.2009, accused shall furnish fresh personal bond and surety bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- today which shall FIR No.948/13 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.6 of 7 remain intact for a period of six months from today.
22. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. ANNOUNCED ON 17.05.2019 (AMIT ARORA) ACMM (E)/KKD/Delhi/17.05.2019 Certified that this judgment was directly typed by my personal assistant on computer directly on my dictation.
(AMIT ARORA)
ACMM (E)/KKD/Delhi/17.05.2019
Digitally
signed by
AMIT AMIT ARORA
Date:
ARORA 2019.05.17
04:34:38
+0530
FIR No.948/13 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.7 of 7