Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Fir No. 134/14, Ps : Hauz Qazi State vs Raj Kumar on 10 April, 2019

FIR No. 134/14,          PS : Hauz Qazi          State Vs Raj Kumar


    IN THE COURT OF MM­08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
         TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Raj Kumar
FIR No. 134/2014
PS : Hauz Qazi
U/s 160 IPC
Date of Institution                   : 01.07.2014
Date of reserving of order            : 10.04.2019
Date of Judgment                      : Oral
JUDGMENT

CNR No. DLCT02­001254­2014

1. Serial No. of the case : 290172/2016

2. Name of the Complainant : HC V.P. Singh

3. Date of incident : 13.06.2014

4. Name of accused person :

Raj Kumar Aggarwal S/o Late Suresh Chand, R/o H. No. 3493, Gali Bajrang Bali, Chawri Bazar, Delhi­6

5. Offence for which chargesheet was filed : S. 160 IPC

6. Offence for which charge has been framed : S. 160 IPC

7. Plea of accused : Not guilty

8. Final Order : Acquitted

9. Date of Judgment : 10.04.2019 Page 1 of 9 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/10.04.19 FIR No. 134/14, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Raj Kumar BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:

1. Mr. Raj Kumar, the accused herein, has been charge­sheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 160, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.06.2014 at about 1 :10 p.m., at H. No. 3493, Gali Bajrangbali, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, accused Raj Kumar and Narender Kumar were quarreling with each other and they were disturbing the public peace. One PCR call was made in this regard. Complainant HC V.P.Singh and Ct.

Sandeep reached at the spot. They tried to pacify them. However, they did not listen to them. On the basis of complaint present FIR was registered. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused alongwith Narender Kumar were charge­sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 160, Indian Penal Code.

3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Court and summons were issued to the accused persons. Accused appeared in the Court.

FIR No. 134/14, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Raj Kumar Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable under Section 160 IPC were framed against both the accused persons. It was read over to them. Accused Raj Kumar pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Narender pleaded guilty and he was convicted vide order dated 29.01.2015.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 03 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.

5. PW­1 HC Hardayal Singh is the DO. He has deposed that on 13.06.2014, he was posted as duty officer at PS Hauz Qazi from 05:00 p.m., to 01:00 p.m. On that day, at about 09:45 p.m., he received rukka from Ct. Sandeep sent by HC V.P. Singh for registration of case and on the basis of rukka, he got recorded FIR No. 134/2014. copy of the same is Ex. PW­1/A. He made endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW­1/B. He also issued certificate under Section 65­B which is Ex.PW­1/C. He handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Sandeep to be handed over to HC V.P Singh for investigation.

6. PW­2 HC V.P. Singh is the complainant/IO of Page 3 of 9 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/10.04.19 FIR No. 134/14, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Raj Kumar the case. He has deposed that on 13.06.2014 after receiving DD entry 14A which is Mark A regarding quarrel, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep reached at House no. 3293, Gali Bajrang Bali, Sita Ram Bazar. There two persons Raj Kumar and Narender were quarreling and abusing each other. He tried to pursue both of them. However, both persons namely Raj Kumar and Narender kept quarreling. Thereafter, he consulted SHO concerned and got lodged a case under Section 160 of IPC vide FIR bearing no. 134/14 on 13.06.2014 itself on the basis of rukka Ex.PW1/B. Rukka was taken to PS through Ct. Sandeep. He had prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, he arrested both the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and PW2/C. Personal search were conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/D and PW2/E. Both the accused were medically examined vide MLC Mark B and C. Both accused were released on bail. On Court questions the witness stated that the local persons were feeling bad while seeing the said incident and therefore peace in the locality was breached.

7. PW­3 Ct. Sandeep is the police official who was with the complainant. He has deposed similar to PW­2.

8. PE was closed. The accused was examined Page 4 of 9 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/10.04.19 FIR No. 134/14, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Raj Kumar under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He denied all the incriminating evidence. He would state that he was falsely implicated at the instance of Anil Aggarwal with whom he had a property dispute.

9. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.

10. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The identity of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 160 IPC, and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.

11. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. The accused was falsely implicated at the instance of another person. The accused was not arrested in the manner alleged by the witnesses. There is no property bearing no. 3293 in the locality. The police Page 5 of 9 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/10.04.19 FIR No. 134/14, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Raj Kumar officials are interested witnesses. No public persons have been examined by the prosecution to show that the peace was disturbed in the locality. Hence, it is prayed that benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.

12. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.

13. In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to put his defence.

14. In the present case, the accused has been charged for committing offence punishable U/s 160 IPC which provides punishment for committing affray. Section 159 IPC defines affray as disturbance of public peace by fighting of two or more persons in a public place. The prosecution has to establish that two or more persons were fighting in a public place and that due to such fighting the peace in the locality was disturbed.

15. In the present case, as the testimony of the prosecution witness would show that a PCR call was received that some quarrel had taken place at 3489, Gali Bajrangwali Chawri Bazar. The information was recorded Page 6 of 9 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/10.04.19 FIR No. 134/14, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Raj Kumar vide DD No. 14A which is Mark A on Court file. However, the witness PW­2 has stated that in his testimony that after receiving the information he has reached at the house no. 3293. There is no explanation on the record as to why he reached at H. No. 3293 while the PCR call was regarding the H. No. 3489. The difference in the house number as above­mentioned is such that it is not possible that both the houses must be in the same gali. In such circumstances, reasonable doubts have been raised on the case of the prosecution that the IO had reached at the spot after receiving the information of quarrel.

16. Further, PW­2 in his examination has stated that due to fighting between the accused and Narender, local people were feeling bad. Thus, as per the complainant there were public persons present at the spot. However, the IO did not make any effort to join any such public persons during the investigation. He did not record statement of any such public person.

17. In the present case, as the record would reveal, all the prosecution witnesses are police officials. No independent public witness had joined the investigation at any point of time. From a perusal of the record, no serious Page 7 of 9 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/10.04.19 FIR No. 134/14, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Raj Kumar effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made. It is a well settled proposition that non­joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. 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. In the case titled as Nank Chand Vs. State of Delhi, Crl. Revision No. 169/81, decided on 07.11.1990, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:­ "The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola.''

18. In the present case, as the record would reveal, examination of public person was necessary to prove that due to fighting between the accused and the convict, public peace was disturbed. Non­joining of any public Page 8 of 9 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/10.04.19 FIR No. 134/14, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Raj Kumar person as a witness creates doubt on the case of the prosecution.

19. In the light of the discussions herein­above, I hold that prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 160 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The accused is therefore acquitted.

20. The accused has already furnished bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C with one surety, latest photographs and ID proof. Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR Date:

                                 KUMAR             2019.04.10
                                                   16:24:29
                                                   +0530
Pronounced in the open Court on     (Dinesh Kumar)
       th
this 10 Day of April 2019          MM­08 (Central)
                             Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.




  Page 1 of 9                      MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/10.04.19