Delhi District Court
State vs Shiv Dasan And Ors on 9 January, 2025
FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors.
CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023
Date of Filing : 25.06.2016
Date of Registration : 20.11.2023
Date of decision : 09.01.2025
Duration : 12 months 20 days
IN THE COURT OF ACJM-01,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
- Presided by: PARAS DALAL, D.J.S.
CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023
Criminal Case No. 13/2023
FIR No. 102/2013
PS Connaught Place
For offences alleged U/Ss. 147/149/186/353/
448/452/332/336/34 IPC & 3 DPDP Act
State Vs. Shiv Dasan & Ors.
Cr.C No. 13 of 2013
CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023
Date of Institution 25.05.2016
Name, parentage and address of the Sh. Bishwanath Sinha, IAS
Complainant Additional Resident Commissioner,
Government of Kerala,
Kerala House, 3, Jantar Mantar Road,
New Delhi
Name, parentage and address of the Shiv Dasan S/o Sh. Narayanan
accused no.1
Name, parentage and address of the Shatrup Ghosh S/o S.N. Ghosh
accused no.2
Name, parentage and address of the Mood Shobhan S/o Sh. Bhadru
accused no.3
Name, parentage and address of the Rahul N S/o Sh. K. Narayanan
Pages 1 of 16
FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors.
CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023
accused no.4
Name, parentage and address of the P. Laxmaiah S/o Sh. Jaya Raj
accused no.5
Name, parentage and address of the Noor Mohammed S/o Sh. Noshad
accused no.6
Name, parentage and address of the Upender Manjula S/o Sh. Biksham
accused no.7
Name, parentage and address of the Ramu
accused no.8
Name, parentage and address of the Nitheesh Narayan S/o Sh. Narayanan
accused no.9
Name, parentage and address of the Mubeen Denim
accused no.10
Name, parentage and address of the K. Deepnal
accused no.11
Name, parentage and address of the Sujeet Nath S/o Sh. G. Nathan
accused no.12
Name, parentage and address of the Abdul Baanit T.
accused no.13
Name, parentage and address of the Kuldeep Singh
accused no.14
Name, parentage and address of the Hariya
accused no.15
Name, parentage and address of the Anusa
accused no.16
Name, parentage and address of the Sukanya
accused no.17
Name, parentage and address of the Tejashree
accused no.18
Name, parentage and address of the Sandhya
accused no.19
Name, parentage and address of the Shruti
accused no.20
Name, parentage and address of the G. Amariya
Pages 2 of 16
FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors.
CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023
accused no.21
Name, parentage and address of the Madhvi
accused no.22
Name, parentage and address of the Neha
accused no.23
Name, parentage and address of the Rishiya
accused no.24
Offence complained off U/s.147/149/186/353/448/452/332/336/
34 IPC & 3 PDPP Act
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Final Order Acquitted
Date of Judgment 09.01.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argued by: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Mr. Subhash Chandran K.R. and Ms. Krishan L.R., Ld. Counsels
for the accused persons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. The SHO, Police Station Connaught Place has presented this charge-
sheet against above named accused persons for initiation of trial under Sections 147/149/186/353/448/452/332/336/34 IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") & 3 Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 (for short "PDPP Act").
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution story are that on 09.07.2013 the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and with a common object criminally trespassed into Kerala House, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi after breaking open the main gate of the Kerala House to hold demonstration against the Kerala Government and then then Pages 3 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 Chief Minister of Kerala and also used criminal force against the security guard and police officials present at the spot. It is also the allegation that during such demonstration, they raised slogan and also burnt effigy symbolising the then Chief Minister, Kerala at the front porch of Kerala Building right outside the reception rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and personal safety. The allegations are also to the extent that when the police officials tried to extinguish the fire, the accused persons in furtherance of common intention obstructed, assaulted, used criminal force and caused hurt to them so as to stop them from extinguishing the fire and deter them in discharge of their official duties. The complaint was made by Sh. Bishwanath Sinha IAS, then then Additional Resident Commissioner, Government of Kerala, Kerala House and soon after the registration of FIR, the investigation was taken upon. Upon completion of investigation, challan was prepared u/Ss.
147/149/186/353/448/452/332/336/34 IPC IPC & 3 PDPP Act and filed in Court for trial against accused 24 named accused persons.
3. The inquiry was undergoing before the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction wherein 10 accused persons were appearing, however there was no whereabouts of remaining 14 accused persons named in the chargesheet. The inquiry proceedings were then transferred to the present Court since the accused persons no.1 Sh. Shiv Dasan was the then siting Member of Parliament from Rajya Sabha. The copy of chargesheet and documents were supplied to the 10 accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. This Court vide detailed Order dated 30.04.2024 separated the trial of the present 10 accused persons against Pages 4 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 the remaining 14 accused persons who were not produced before the Court. Prima facie case was made out, charge for offence u/s. 147/149/186/353/448/452/332/336/34 IPC & 3 PDPP Act were framed against the 10 accused persons on 24.08.2024 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses (hereinafter referred to as 'PW'). Before discussing the testimonies of other witnesses, the two important testimonies are to be stated to set the record and prosecution case straight. Sh. Bishwanath Sinha was examined as PW3 by the prosecution and he is complainant in the present case. PW3 Sh. Bishwanath Sinha IAS deposed that in the month of July in year 2013, at around 11.00 A.M. to 12.00 noon, he was posted as Addl. Resident Commissioner and was present at the Kerala House at 3, Jantar Mantar Road. On that day, some protest was being carried out in front of the main gate of Kerala House, wherein a group of around 70-80 persons comprising of male and female both were protesting outside the gate of Kerala House, shouting slogans and were also carrying placards. Most of the slogans were against the then existing government of Kerala and particularly against the then Chief Minister of Kerala. Most of the protesters who were carrying the cards were displaying visual words against government, against C.M. and in favor of group of their support which specifically mentioned SFI and DYFI. PW3 further deposed that a group split and forced their entry in the premises of Kerala House and very quickly reached upto the main porch of the main guest house while continuing their slogans. PW3 stated that Pages 5 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 they lit fire to some object which was like an effigy and their slogans changed after the fire in the effigy symbolizing burning of the then Chief Minister. PW3 further deposed that after may be 2-3 minutes, few of them attempted to enter the reception area of the guest house and this is the point which alarmed him because the entire area was a wooden structure and there was a very imminent danger of a disastrous fire in the whole building. PW3 stated that after police removed all these protesters from the premises, he wrote the complaint which is exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A. PW3 was then cross-examined by the defense and he admitted that he did not call the fire brigade /tender on the date of incident. He was not aware as to how close the fire station was situated from Kerala House. He could not say if the same is situated only 5 minutes away from the Kerala House. He answered that the main gate of Kerala house opened into two parts and denied that the police was not called by him as the Delhi Police personnels are always present there or that protest was peaceful outside the gate of Kerala House. Interesting however is that PW3 was asked to identify the accused persons, however he failed to identify any and even when permission was sought to cross examine the witness by the prosecution to establish identity, the witness still failed after the accused persons were pointed out by the prosecution to the witness. PW3 explained that due to long passage of time, he was not able to identify any of the accused person involved in the incident.
5. Before the above complainant PW3, prosecution had examined two police officials as PW1 and PW2 and even subsequently examined PW4 to PW12 who were police officials and officials working in Kerala House on the date of alleged incident. Necessary however is to discuss Pages 6 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 the deposition of investigating officer who was called as PW13. PW13 IO/Retd. SI Pritam Singh deposed that on the date of deposition he had already retired as Sub Inspector and suffer from various ailments and he has suffered brain stroke due to which, his memory is weak. PW13 stated that on 09.07.2013, he was posted at PS Connaught Place as Sub Inspector and he was performing the duty of day emergency from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. On that day, when he was present at CP, he received on DD entry no.17A dated 09.07.2013 PS Connaught Place from Ct. Vikrant regarding the fact that some people had gathered inside Kerala House and who had burnt fire inside the premises of the said Kerala House. The copy of the said DD entry is Ex.PW13/A. Acting on the information, he alongwith Ct. Vikrant went to the spot i.e. Kerala House where he saw that a group of around 25 to 35 people belonging to SFI and DFY comprising of male and female protesters had gathered who were raising slogans against the Kerala Government and the then CM of Kerala. PW13 said protesters had also burnt an effigy in front of the reception of the Kerala House and he also found that SHO Connaught Place alongwith other police staff and outside force were already present at the spot and the said staff was trying to set off the said fire but the above-said protesters had prevented the police staff to put off the fire and were also assaulting the police staff present at the spot. PW13 stated that he alongwith the SHO Connaught Place tried to pacify the situation by making the above-said protesters understand that their protest was illegal and they should leave the spot immediately but all in vain. On this, the police staff including him used the minimum force against the protesters and tried to detain them, on which the said protesters became agitated and they started pushing the police staff. PW13 also stated to Pages 7 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 have observed that the said protesters had effected their entry by breaking open the main gate of the Kerala House which was found lying on the ground in broken condition. PW13 also stated that the protesters were detained and were made to sit in a official vehicle and were thereafter sent to PS Connaught Place for further course of action. PW13 stated to have left some police staff at the spot to secure the spot and he alongwith complainant Bishwanath Sinha, IAS went to his office where he handed him over his complaint which is already Ex.PW3/A on the basis of which, the present FIR was lodged. PW13 deposed to have then returned to PS Connaught Place where he met with HC Kaushal and he handed him over his MLC alongwith the MLCs of Ct. Avdesh, Ct. Anuj, Inspector Sunil Kumar, Ct. Satender and Ct. Ajay and which was prepared by the doctors of RML Hospital and he exhibited the said MLCs as Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/E, Ex. PW13/F, Ex.PW13/G respectively as the said police officials had sustained injuries in the above-said protest. PW13 also stated that HC Kaushal handed him one list of names and addresses of 24 protesters who were detained at the spot by the police officials comprising of 14 males and 10 females. PW13 stated that out of the said protesters, 15 protesters took advantage of one red signal and ran away from the above-said vehicle during their transit from the spot to the PS Connaught Place. The remaining 9 protesters who were brought to PS Connaught Place were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide arrest and personal search memos which he exhibited as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/R. PW13 identified the site plan of the spot which he prepared at the instance of the complainant which is Ex.PW13/H. PW13 deposed to have called the crime team at the spot which inspected and took the Pages 8 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 photographs of the spot which are exhibited as Ex.PW1/S (colly). PW13 also exhibited the register of the main gate of Kerala House vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/A. The said register was the case property and produced by MHC(M), CP in one pullanda which was properly sealed and bore the case details of the present case. The mouth of the said pullanda was properly intact with the seal of 'PS'. PW13 however failed to identify any of the accused person and permission was thus sought to put leading question to him to identify the accused person, however PW13 failed to identify any of the accused persons citing his medical condition and lapse of time. PW13 was also then sought to be cross examined by the State to question him about identifying the accused persons, but even then also PW13 could not answer any question as to identify of the accused persons. The defence than put limited questions to PW13 in his cross examination, wherein he denied the suggest that the investigation was conducted by him while sitting at the PS or that no accused person was detained on the date of incident or that he never visited the spot or that all the documents were prepared by him without visiting the spot or that he had conducted a faulty investigation.
6. Having read the evidence of PW1/ complainant and PW13/ investigating officer, this Court has found nothing incriminating against the present 10 accused persons. Although the veracity of statements of these two witnesses as to sequence of events as well as investigation is to be established, however this Court has seen that the complainant stated that there was two group, one which stayed outside the gate of Kerala House and were raising slogans and other group which had alleged broken the main gates, protested in the porch area and even lit fire right infront of Pages 9 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 the reception area. Even if the statement of complainant about the incident is admitted to be genuine, there is no evidence that the present 10 accused persons were part of the second ground who broke open the main gate, gathered at the porch area and lit fire. Similarly, the investigating officer alleged that certain police officials were hurt and he even exhibited the MLCs, however, here again if the injuries are presumed, there is no evidence that the present 10 accused persons were the ones who had used criminal force or caused hurt or injuries to the police officials.
7. Now this Court wishes to highlight the testimonies of 11 other prosecution witnesses. PW1 is ASI Kaushal Kumar, PW2 is HC Aadesh Kumar Chauhan, PW5 is HC Ajay Kumar, PW6 is HC Vikrant Tyagi, PW7 is Retd. ASI Tiku Ram, PW9 is HC Om Prakash, PW10 Retd. ACP Sunil Kumar Singh, PW11 is HC Sitender and PW12 is HC Anuj Kumar. These are the 9 police officials who appeared and deposed before this Court. PW1, PW9, PW10, PW11 and PW12 even deposed to have sustained injuries at the hand of the violent protesters, however, even they could not identify any of the 10 accused persons to be the one who assaulted them. None of these 9 police officials examined by the prosecution identified any of the 10 accused persons facing trial to be present at the spot or one who were part of the protesters or one who had assaulted the police officials. PW4 is Sumer Singh, security guard at Kerala House and PW8 is Vijayalakshmi, Personal Assistant to Additional Resident Commissioner, Kerala House. These two are the officials from Kerala House who stated to have witnessed the protests. Although PW8 stated that she only heard commotion and sloganeering, Pages 10 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 however she did not witness any event of breaking the main gate of Kerala House, protesters who charged inside the Kerala House or crowd which burnt effigy in the porch area. PW4 was actually manning the gate and there was deposition that he was pushed by the protesters and his uniform was also torn, however he did not himself deposed to have been assaulted by the crowd or that his uniform was torn. PW4 deposed that one security guard Sohan was assaulted by the protesters, however, said guard Sonu was never examined by the prosecution or was made part of the list of witnesses by the police. PW4 despite being in the middle of all the commotion, also could not identify any of the 10 accused persons as the culprit.
8. The police chargesheet had cited a total of 22 witnesses and since nothing incriminating came from 13 material witnesses examined, this Court vide Order dated 23.12.2024 reasoned as to why the remaining formal witnesses even if summoned could not help prosecution bring home its case against the 10 accused persons. The remaining 9 witnesses were thus not summoned or could not appear for reasons stated in Order dated 23.12.2024.
Statement of Accused
9. The statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was dispensed with vide Order date 23.12.2024 as nothing incriminating was found against any of the 10 accused persons facing trial and none of the prosecution witnesses identified any of these 10 accused persons to have committed any of the act as alleged. None of the witness even stated that any of the 10 accused persons were present Pages 11 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 at the spot. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajashtan, 2013 INSC 313.
Arguments
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State requested that the State would be permitted to examine the remaining formal witnesses to prove diary entries as well as medical documents showing the injuries suffered by the victims, however this Court vide Order dated 23.12.2024 already rejected the said request as nothing but futile exercise and wastage of judicial time and resources since proof of police station diary entries or medical reports would not go on to prove that the present 10 accused persons were present at the spot and they had committed the offence as alleged.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to even establish its case, forget proving the same beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts against the 10 accused persons. The defence is that none of the prosecution witness could identify any of the accused person to the alleged offence. The defence argued that no such incident occurred and the documentation was done in the police station, which is the reason why no witness could depose qua any role of any accused person in the incident.
Findings
12. At the onset, it is pertinent to note that there were 13 prosecution witnesses who deposed before this Court, however nothing incriminating Pages 12 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 was deposed against any of the 10 accused persons facing trial. Some witnesses stated that they could not identify the accused persons due to long passage of time, some stated lapse of memory and some stated that they only saw the accused persons momentarily and they could not now possitively identify them since they were part of a big protest/ gathering. Even the IO/ PW13 failed to identify or establish the role of each accused persons citing his lack of memory and medical condition. This Court has seen the previous Ordersheets of this case, wherein the improper investigation has been highlighted and even brought to the notice of the higher police officials. This Court thus does not deem fit any further to make observation qua the investigation. However, suffice is to submit that the investigating agency ought to have contemplated the challenges the investigation and trial would go through in the present case. The investigation should have been prompt to secure all evidence to establish the identity and role of each accused persons. The possible scientific evidence in the form of CCTV footage, possible finger prints ought to have been gathered and investigation even could have resorted to test identification parade of the accused persons at the initial stage itself. Without the above efforts, the present trial has reached its fateful conclusion that the investigation was lacking and same is the reason all benefits are available to the accused persons.
13. PW3/ complainant stated that there was a huge crowd of protesters and only some had used force and entered the Kerala House. The 10 police officials also deposed that once the gathering was declared illegal by the then SHO and they were asked to vacate the area, some protesters ran away. Thus it could be seen that not all the protesters had not come with Pages 13 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 premeditated plan to use force or cause injuries and many were present to exercise their right for peaceful protest. Raising slogans outside the gates of Kerala House was not illegal and the group/ protesters cannot be called to be rioters. The gathering initially was not unlawful or had any common object to cause fire or use criminal force or commit assault. However, a certain faction of the protesters forcefully entered the premises, raised slogans, lit fire, burnt effigy and even assaulted the police officials present. Even if the entire sequence as alleged is presumed to be true, nothing incriminating can be found against the 10 accused persons facing trial at present. The thirteen witnesses examined have not only failed to identify the 10 accused persons as the culprit, but the 10 accused persons have not even been deposed to be present at the spot, inside or outside the premises, at the time of alleged incident.
14. The investigation has since failed to collect any scientific evidence from the spot, therefore, the version of the prosecution has remained uncorroborated. The witnesses that are examined by the prosecution in the present case have not identified the 10 accused persons as being involved in the incident as alleged.
15. Be that as it may, nothing prevented the IO from ascertaining the CDR or location of the accused at the place of incident. There could have been some CCTV footage from Kerala House or any property nearby to establish presence of accused persons at the place of incident and they being held by the police after protesters turned violent. All the above discrepancies are detrimental to the case of the prosecution and casts a Pages 14 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 serious doubt in the present case, sufficient to afford benefit of the doubt to the accused.
Conclusions
16. It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave may be, cannot take place of proof. Every benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. It is a long-settled principle famously expressed by the celebrated English jurist William Blackstone - "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
ORDER: ACQUITTED
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts and the benefit of doubt ought to be granted to accused persons, who are entitled to be exonerated of the charge against them in the present case. Accordingly, accused persons
1. Shiv Dasan S/o Sh. Narayanan; 2. Shatrup Ghosh S/o S.N. Ghosh;
3. Mood Shobhan S/o Sh. Bhadru; 4. Rahul N S/o Sh. K. Narayanan;
5. P. Laxmaiah S/o Sh. Jaya Raj 6. Noor Mohammed S/o Sh. Noshad
7. Upender Manjula S/o Sh. Biksham 8. Yenumula Rama Narasimha Pages 15 of 16 FIR No. 102 of 2013; P.S. Connaught Place State v. Shiv Dasan & Ors. CNR No. DLCT12-000185-2023 Rao S/o Sh. Dasu; 9. Nitheesh Narayan S/o Sh. Narayanan; and 10. Sujeet Nath S/o Sh. G. Nathan are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 147/149/186/353/448/452/332/336/34 IPC & 3 DPDP Act.
Digitally signedPARAS by PARAS DALAL DALAL 2025.01.09 Date:
16:30:07 +0530 Announced in Open Court (Paras Dalal) on this January 09, 2025 ACJM-01, RADC, New Delhi Pages 16 of 16