Delhi District Court
State vs . (1). Jagat Singh on 8 November, 2016
FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI SC No. 57310/16 State Vs. (1). Jagat Singh S/o Sh. Balwan Singh R/o Village Katwal, PS Gohana District Sonepat, Haryana. (2). Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Hawa Singh R/o Village Thana Khurd, PS Kharkhoda District Sonepat, Haryana. FIR No. : 8/2000 Police Station : S.P. Badli Under Sections : 186/353/333/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 02.04.2016 Date on which judgment was reserved: 08.11.2016 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 08.11.2016 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The prosecution had sent the abovenamed accused persons, to face trial in respect of offences punishable U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC on the allegations that on 07.01.2000 at about 2.30 pm at Mukarba Chowk, near PCR Base, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS S.P. Badli, both of them in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed public servant State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 namely Ct. Nand Kishore (PW2) in discharge of his public functions and intentionally assaulted or used criminal force against him and caused grievous hurt to him.
2. The case of the prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is as under:
(i). That on 07.01.2000 at about 3.35 pm, DD no. 14A (Ex.C3) with regard to causing beatings to Home Guard at By Pass, was recorded in PS S.P. Badli and same was entrusted to ASI Hari Ram (PW4) for necessary action. Accordingly, ASI Hari Ram alongwith Ct. Rajender Singh rushed to the spot, where they met Delhi Home Guard Ct. Nand Kishore (PW2). ASI Hari Ram recorded his statement (Ex.PW2/A), wherein he claimed that on that day at about 2.30 pm, while he was on official duty at Mukarba Chowk, both these accused came to him and started abusing him. They caught hold of his neck. Accused Sunil Kumar also gave fist blow on hisnose. The incident was witnessed by T.I. Om Prakash Sharma (PW3). Accordingly, PCR was informed through wireless set;
(ii). On the basis of said statement, FIR in question was got registered U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and same was entrusted to ASI Hari Ram. Ct. Nand Kishore was got medically examined from Hindu Rao Hospital through Ct. Devanand;
(iii). It is further the case of prosecution that IO ASI Hari Ram State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of relevant witnesses and arrested both the accused persons. After receipt of result as grievous on MLC of injured, section U/s 333 IPC was added during investigation.
Chargesheet could not be filed before the concerned Court due to fault of IO ASI Hari Ram for which separate FIR was also registered against him. Thereafter, complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. was prepared. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in this case.
3. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED
4. Before proceeding further, it may be noted here that initially Court of Ld. Magistrate had been pleased to frame charge for offences punishable U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC against both these accused on 12.12.2012 and proceeded to record the evidence of prosecution witnesses during trial. On 01.12.2014, Ld. Defence counsel made submission that accused persons did not dispute the factum of registration of FIR, endorsement on rukka and DD No. 14A dated 07.01.2000 while denying the contents thereof. In view thereof, the said documents were exhibited as Ex.C1, Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 respectively by Ld. Magistrate on 01.12.2014. Ld. Magistrate also examined three witnesses i.e. PW1 Inspector Om State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 Prakash Sharma, PW2 ASI Kishan Kumar and PW3 HC Devanand during trial upto 18.03.2016, whereafter on realising that offence U/s 333 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. This is how the present matter was assigned to this Court for its trial.
5. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, this Court framed the charge for the offences punishable U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC against both the accused persons vide order dated 04.05.2016, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses namely PW1 ASI Bijender Tomar, PW2 Sh. Nand Kishore, PW3 ACP Sh. Om Prakash Sharma, PW4 ASI Hari Ram and PW5 (sic PW2) ASI Kishan Kumar, during trial.
7. It may be noted here that the accused persons made joint statement during trial that they are not disputing the registration of FIR as well as contents of MLC of injured Nand Kishore and they do not want to cross examine the said witnesses. In view of said joint statement, the MLC was exhibited as Ex.PX during trial.
8. Thereafter, statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of both the accused persons were recorded, during which all the incriminating evidence were put to them. However, they denied the same and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Their defence is of general denial. However, they opted not to lead any evidence towards their defence.
State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 18FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016
9. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of State and Ld. Counsel on behalf of both the accused persons. I have also gone through the material available on record.
10. Before discussing the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief the testimonies of the aforesaid star witnesses examined by prosecution during trial.
PUBLIC WITNESSES:
11. PW2 Sh. Nand Kishore: He is the victim in this case, who was assaulted by the offenders during the incident in question. He supported the case of prosecution only to the extent that on 07.01.2000 at about 2.35 pm, he was assaulted by some public persons, while he was on official duty as Ct. Delhi Home Guard. However, he deposed contrary to the prosecution story by testifying that 57 unknown public persons had assaulted him and one amongst them had given fist blow on his nose due to which he sustained injuries. T.I. Inspector Om Prakash Sharma who was present on other side of the road, rushed to the spot on hearing his noise. He informed T.I. about the occurrence as also the fact that the assailants had managed to run away from the spot. T.I. gave message through his wireless set to the Control Room, whereafter police officials reached at the spot and took him to the hospital, where he was medically examined. He categorically deposed that he was not able to identify those offenders as occurrence had taken place more than 16 years ago and even otherwise, he State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 was not able to see those offenders.
He was cross examined at length on behalf of State, during which all the relevant suggestions were put to him on the lines of prosecution story but same were denied by him. Although, he identified his signature appearing on police statement Ex.PW2/A, but he categorically deposed that he did not make any such statement to the police. Despite the fact that his attention was drawn towards accused persons during trial, he categorically stated that the accused persons had not assaulted him. He also denied to have made supplementary statement Mark PW2/B before police during investigation.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he admitted that the place of occurrence was not visible to Inspector Om Prakash Sharma as at the time of occurrence, he was across the road. The distance between the place of occurrence and the place where Inspector Om Prakash Sharma was present, was about 25 feet or so. He also admitted that said road was a busy road and vehicles were passing through the said road at the time of occurrence. The incident in question did not take place in the presence of Inspector Om Prakash Sharma. He further deposed that the attention of Inspector Om Prakash Sharma was drawn towards him only when he raised noises. By the time Inspector Om Prakash Sharma reached at the place of occurrence, the assailants had managed to run away from there.
State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 18FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 POLICE WITNESSES:
12. PW1 ASI Bijender Tomar: He was posted as MHC(M) at PS S.P. Badli on 07.01.2000. He deposed that on 07.01.2000, ASI Hari Ram had deposited two sacks containing some clothes and personal search articles of accused persons, in Malkhana vide entry at serial no. 2636 of register no. 19. He proved copy thereof as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that so long as the case property remained with him, same was not tampered with by him or anyone. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
13. PW3 ACP Sh. Om Prakash Sharma: He deposed on the lines of prosecution story that on 07.01.2000 at about 2.30 pm, he was performing his duty alongwith few other traffic police officials including Ct. Nand Kishore at Mukarba Chowk for regulating traffic when he heard the noise of 'bachaobachao' raised by Ct. Nand Kishore, whereafter he rushed to the spot and saw accused persons assaulting him. He managed to save Nand Kishore from the clutches of accused persons and made PCR Call through wireless, on which PCR reached at the spot, followed by ASI Hari Ram alongwith one Constable of PS S.P. Badli. Ct. Nand Kishore was got medically examined from Hindu Rao Hospital and custody of accused persons was handed over to ASI Hari Ram. During investigation, he had prepared complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/A) and handed over the same to IO.
In his cross examination, he admitted that date of incident was State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 07.01.2000 and complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. was made on 11.12.2008. He also admitted that no document was produced by him showing that he was on duty at the place of occurrence on that day or that Ct. Nand Kishore was also performing his duty over there on 07.01.2000. Although, he deposed that one Zonal Officer, one Head Constable and two Constables were also performing duty with him at the said place, but he could not disclose the name of Head Constable and admitted that none of those traffic police officials was made witness in this case.
14. PW4 ASI Hari Ram: He is the IO of this case. He deposed about the relevant investigation carried out by him in this case. He testified that on receipt of DD No. 14A on 07.01.2000, he alongwith Ct. Rajender went to the place of occurrence, where they met Ct. Nand Kishore, Inspector Om Prakash Sharma and both the accused persons. He had recorded statement of Ct. Nand Kishore, whereafter he prepared rukka Ex.PW4/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Rajender. Ct. Rajender returned back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR Ex.PW4/1 and original rukka to him. He had prepared site plan Ex.PW4/B at the instance of Ct. Nand Kishore and also arrested both the accused persons vide memos Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/E. He had also collected result on MLC of Ct. Nand Kishore.
In his cross examination, he admitted that the factum of presence of Inspector Om Prakash Sharma at the spot or of Ct. Nand Kishore being found in injured condition, are not mentioned by him in the rukka Ex.PW4/A. He did not record statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Zonal State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 Officer, Head Constable and two traffic Police Constables, who were present there and also did not collect any Duty Roster/DD entry showing that Ct. Nand Kishore and Inspector Om Prakash Sharma were performing duty at Mukarba Chowk on 07.01.2000.
15. PW5 (Sic PW2) ASI Kishan Kumar: He deposed that he was posted as MHC(M) in Traffic Circle Model Town on 07.01.2000. Ct. Nand Kishore was on duty on that day from 8 am to 3 pm and he had been deputed to Mukarba Chowk for regulating traffic. He had recorded DD No. 2 in Roznamcha in that regard. However, he did not produce the said DD entry by claiming that relevant DD register was not available and may have been destroyed.
In his cross examination, he admitted that he was not in a position to show even list containing names of Home Guards who had reported for morning shift duty on that day. He admitted that his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in year 2008.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
16. After referring to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Ld. Additional PP argued that PW3 has fully supported the prosecution case on relevant aspects, whereas PW4 has deposed about the relevant investigation carried out by him in this case. He further submitted that complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/A) has also been filed in this case. He also relied upon MLC Ex.PX of injured i.e. Ct. Nand Kishore, in order to bring home his State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 point that said injured had sustained grievous injuries during the incident in question while discharging his official duty and thus, the prosecution has successfully established the charges levelled against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. Thus, both the accused persons should be convicted in this case.
17. Per contra, Ld. defence counsel argued that entire burden to prove its case rested upon prosecution, but the prosecution has failed to discharge the said burden beyond pales of reasonable doubt. For the said purpose, he referred to the testimony of star witness of prosecution i.e. PW2 Ct. (Retd.) Nand Kishore in order to bring home his point that the said witness not only failed to support the entire occurrence, but also did not identify the accused persons during trial to be amongst the offenders. He further argued that no documentary evidence has been placed on record in order to show that PW2 and/or PW3 were on official duty at the time of alleged incident. He therefore, urged that accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in this case.
18. It is needless to mention here that in order to bring home the charge in respect of offence U/s 186/34 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:
a). That the complainant and/or any other aggrieved person was public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC.
b). Said public servant was performing his official duty State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 at the time of incident; and
c). The said public servant was obstructed or prevented from discharging his public functions by the accused persons.
19. In addition thereto, there is also a requirement under the law that complaint in writing of concerned public servant or of some other public servant to whom the complainant/victim is administratively subordinate, shall also be filed before the Court in respect of offence U/s 186 IPC as stipulated by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. without which no cognizance can be taken by the Court
20. Now, I shall discuss about the offence punishable under Section 353/34 IPC. In order to prove the said offence, it was essential for the prosecution to prove the following ingredients:
a). That the complainant and/or any other aggrieved person was public servant within the meaning of section 21 IPC;
b). Said public servant was performing his official duty at the time of incident;
c). The accused either assaulted or used criminal force to said public servant while he was executing his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter such public servant from discharging the duty.
State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 18FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016
21. Now, I shall discuss about the offence punishable under Section 333/34 IPC. In order to prove the said offence, it was essential for the prosecution to prove the following ingredients:
a). That the complainant and/or any other aggrieved person was public servant within the meaning of section 21 IPC;
b). Said public servant was performing his official duty at the time of incident;
c). The accused persons voluntarily caused grievous hurt to said public servant while he was discharging his duty as public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter said public servant from discharging the duty.
22. Now reverting back to the facts of the present case. Firstly, I shall deal with the charge in respect of offence punishable U/s 186/34 IPC. According to the case of prosecution, the occurrence took place on 07.01.2000. Section 186 IPC prescribes punishment of imprisonment of either description which may extend to three months or fine extendable upto 500 rupees or with both. Section 195 (1)(a) Cr.PC clearly stipulates that no Court can take cognizance in respect of offence U/s 186 IPC except on complaint in writing being made by Competent Authority in that regard. Section 468 (2) Cr.PC prescribes the period of limitation of one year for taking cognizance in case of offence punishable with imprisonment not State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 exceeding one year. Section 469 Cr.PC clearly provides that period of limitation shall commence from the date of offence. That being the position of law, the complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC ought to have been filed by the Competent Authority for prosecuting the accused persons for offence punishable U/s 186/34 IPC within one year from the date of incident i.e. 07.01.2000. Undisputedly, the complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC ( Ex. PW1/A) has been made only on 11.12.2008 i.e. beyond the prescribed period of limitation. PW3 Inspector Om Parkash Sharma (now ACP) has admitted in his cross examination that he did not prepare and file complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC before the concerned Court immediately after the occurrence or till 11.12.2008. It is also relevant to note that complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC has to be filed separately before the Court of Law for offence punishable U/s 186 IPC and cognizance is to be taken by Magistrate only on the basis of said complaint. In the present case, complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC (Ex. PW1/A), is found to have been tagged with charge sheet. In other words, said complaint is not found to have been filed separately before the Court of law. Same also constitutes material illegality so far as prosecution of accused for said offence is concerned.
23. Be that as it may, the fact remains that accused persons cannot be held guilty for offence U/s 186/34 IPC as the complaint stipulated by Section 195 Cr.PC was clearly barred by limitation. Moreover, the complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC (Ex. PW1/A) is also found to be defective in asmuch as it does not contain any prayer for prosecuting the accused State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 persons for offence U/s 186/34 IPC. For all these reasons, Court is of the view that charge for the said offence could not be proved against accused persons.
24. This brings me down to the charge for the offences punishable U/s 333/353/34 IPC. According to the case of prosecution, PW2 Ct. Nand Kishore was on official duty at Mukarba Chowk, while being posted as Delhi Home Guard in the Traffic Circle of Model Town on 07.01.2000 from 8.00 am to 3.00 pm. However, there is no iota of evidence to show that PW2 was actually a Delhi Home Guard Constable at that time or that he was posted in Model Town Traffic Circle on that day. There is also no cogent evidence available on record in order to prove that PW2 was actually on official duty at the time of incident in question committed against him. For the said purpose, the testimonies of PW3 and PW4 assume relevance. PW3 has admitted in his cross examination that he did not hand over any document during investigation showing that Ct. Nand Kishore (PW2) was performing official duty or was posted in Traffic Unit on 07.01.2000. There is also no cogent evidence available on record in order to prove that PW2 was actually on official duty at the time of incident in question committed against him. For the said purpose, the testimonies of PW3 and PW4 assume relevance. PW3 admitted in his cross examination that he did not hand over to IO any document during investigation showing that Ct. Nand Kishore (PW2) was performing official duty on 07.01.2000 or showing that PW2 was posted in Traffic Unit on that day. Similarly, PW4, who is IO of the State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 14 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 case, also admitted in his cross examination that he did not collect any duty roster/DD entry showing that PW2 Ct. Nand Kishore was performing official duty at Mukarba Chowk on that day.
25. Ld Additional PP vehemently relied upon the testimony of PW5 ASI Kishan Lal who testified that Ct. Nand Kishore was deputed to Mukarba Chowk for regulating traffic on 07.01.2000 vide DD no.2. He therefore, contended that the said fact stood established on record, but the said argument is without any substance. Firstly, the relevant DD register containing DD no. 2, if any, with regard to deputing Ct. Nand Kishore for duty at Mukarba Chowk on 07.01.2000 from 8.00 am to 3.00 pm, has not been produced by said witness during trial. The reason furnished by him is that the relevant register was not available and may have been destroyed but again, the witness was not sure as to whether the relevant DD register was actually destroyed or not. The copy of relevant order issued by Competent Authority directing destruction of said DD register, has also not been brought on record. Moreover, it was the duty of IO to collect attested copy of duty roster/DD entry showing that PW2 was actually deputed at the place of occurrence in discharge of official duty on the day of occurrence but no explanation have been furnished by him for not doing so. In the absence of any concrete evidence being placed on record showing that PW2 Ct. Nand Kishore was public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC or that he was actually performing his official duty on the alleged date and time of the incident, Court finds considerable force in the argument raised on behalf of State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 15 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 accused persons that reasonable doubt is created in the case of prosecution benefit of which must go to the accused persons.
26. There is one more reason for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid charges levelled against the accused persons. The star witness of the prosecution i.e. PW2 Ct. Nand Kishore failed to support the prosecution story during trial. He demolished the case of prosecution during trial by testifying that he was beaten up by 4 5 unknown assailants during the course of occurrence. He gave clean chit to both these accused by deposing that they were not amongst the assailants despite the fact that his attention was drawn towards the accused persons on behalf of State. He also denied to have made statement Ex. PW2/A before police, which led to registration of FIR in question.
27. The contention of Ld. Additional PP that PW3 has fully supported the case of prosecution and thus, prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of accused persons, is without any merit. Firstly, the presence of PW3 at the time of occurrence, is not proved beyond doubt. PW3 himself admitted in his cross examination that he did not hand over any document showing that he was on duty at the place of occurrence on that date and time. PW4 i.e. IO of the case, also admitted in his cross examination that he did not collect any document showing that PW3 was on duty at Mukarba Chowk on that day. Moreover, PW3 claimed that one Head Constable was also present alongwith him at the said place but he could not disclose the name of said Head Constable during his cross State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 16 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 examination. Further, PW3 and PW4 although claimed that there were one Zonal Officer, one Head Constable and two Traffic Police Constables on duty at the time of incident in question but none of four said police officials were joined during investigation and were also not cited as prosecution witnesses in this case what to say of being produced during trial. There is one more aspect involved in the matter. PW2 categorically admitted in his cross examination that incident was not witnessed by Inspector Om Parkash Sharma (PW3) as PW3 was present across the road and at the distance of 25 feet away from the place of occurrence and it was a busy road where vehicles were passing at the time of occurrence. Not only this, he also deposed that attention of PW3 was drawn towards him only when he raised noise and by the time PW3 reached at the place of occurrence, the assailants had managed to flee away from there. As contrary thereto, PW3 testified that he had seen both these accused assaulting PW2 and had rescued PW2 from the clutches of accused persons. The falsity of the said portion of the testimony of PW3 is writ large from the fact that when he was standing at a considerable distance of 25 feet away from the place of occurrence and traffic was running on both the sides of the road at the time of occurrence as also admitted by PW3 himself in his cross examination, it would not have been possible for him to see the faces of the assailants from such a long distance. PW3 has deposed that despite hearing noise by other traffic police officials present over there, none of them crossed the road to help PW2 Ct. Nand Kishore. Same is also quite unnatural and unbelievable by applying State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 17 of 18 FIR No. 8/2000, U/s 186/353/333/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D.: 08.11.2016 the test of conduct to be displayed by reasonable and prudent person in such a situation. It is also pertinent to note that PW4 nowhere mentioned in the rukka Ex. PW4/A that he had met PW3 Inspector Om Parkash Sharma (now ACP) at the spot when he had reached there on receipt of call vide DD no. 14A. Thus, the presence of PW3 at the spot at the time of incident in question, seems to be doubtful and could not be conclusively established beyond doubt.
28. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of both the accused persons namely Jagat Singh and Sunil Kumar for the charges framed against them, beyond pales of reasonable doubt. Consequently, both the said accused persons are hereby acquitted of the said charges by giving them benefit of doubt. File be consigned to Record Room, after compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC.
Announced in open Court today (Vidya Prakash)
On 08.11.2016 Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Jagat Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 18 of 18