Delhi District Court
State vs Manjeet Singh 17 Ors on 7 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SUSHANT CHANGOTRA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
EAST DISTRICT, DELHI
Session Case No.: 659/2016
State Vs : Manjeet Singh & Ors
FIR No. : 105/2010
U/s : 14/148/149/436 and 30/27A of Arms Act
PS : Kalyanpuri
CNR No.: DLET01-000383-2010
Date of Institution : 14.09.2010
Date of Judgment reserved on 11.12.2024
Date of Judgment : 07.01.2024
Brief Details Of The Case
Offence complained of or
proved : 14/148/149/436 and
u/s 30/27A of Arms Act
Name of the accused persons :
Srl. Name Srl. Name
No. No.
1 Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. 2 Pappe Singh S/o Inder
Parsa Singh R/o 11/42, Singh R/o Jhuggi no.
Kalyanpuri, Delhi. 89, 11-12 Block,
Kalyanpuri, Delhi
3 Phool Kaur W/o Asha 4 Makhan Singh S/o
FIR No. 105/10
PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 1 of 32
Singh R/o 20/137, Iqbal Singh R/o Jhuggi
Kalyanpuri, Delhi no. 19/88, 11-12
Block, Kalyanpuri,
Delhi
5 Sanjay S/o Pahalwan 6 Surjeet Singh S/o Jagir
R/o Jhuggi no. 105, 11- Singh R/o Jhuggi no.
12 Block, Kalyanpuri, 96, 11-12 Block,
Delhi Kalyanpuri, Delhi
7 Pradhan Singh S/o Mitha 8 Gurmail Singh S/o
Singh R/o Jhuggi no. Karam Singh R/o
100, 11-12 Block, Jhuggi no. 105, 11-12
Kalyanpuri, Delhi Block, Delhi.
9 Gurubachan Singh S/o 10 Bichhatar Singh S/o
Dharma Singh R/o Pradhan Singh R/o
Jhuggi no. E -102, 11-12 Jhuggi no. E-87, 11-12
Block, Kalyanpuri, Block, Kalyanpuri,
Delhi. Delhi.
11 Jaipal Singh S/o Jagan 12 Gulab Singh S/o Pappu
Singh R/o 11/169, Singh R/o Jhuggi No.
Kalyanpuri, Delhi. E-19/112, 11-12 Block,
Kalyanpuri, Delhi.
13 Sandeep Singh S/o Ba- 14 Sukhdev Singh S/o
boo Singh R/o Jhuggi Amarjeet Singh R/o
no. E - 102, 11-12 11/445, Kalyanpuri,
FIR No. 105/10
PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 2 of 32
Block, Kalyanpuri, Delhi.
Delhi.
15 Baldev Singh S/o Mohan
Singh R/o 11/366,
Kalyanpuri, Delhi.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. At first, it is necessary to note that there were a total of 19 accused persons. However, during the trial five accused i.e. Parsa Singh, Vaijyanti, Jeet Singh, Sonu @ Sonta and Sandeep expired and the proceedings against them stood abated.
2. Remaining all the above-mentioned 14 accused are facing trial for the commission of offences u/s 147/148/149/ 436/149 of IPC. In addition, accused Pappe Singh is also facing trial for commission of offence u/s 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:-
(a) As per the complaint / statement of Ct. Rajender, on 03.04.2010 Ct. Rajender, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Surender were on patrolling duty in the area of 16 Block, Kalyanpuri, Delhi. At about 10:45 PM a mob of 50/60 persons came from 11 Block, Kalyanpuri side towards Jalebi Chowk near 16 Block. The said FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 3 of 32 mob was led by Manjeet Singh S/o Parsa Singh R/o 11/42, Kalyanpuri and he was accompanied by his father Parsa Singh, sisters Phool Kaur, Maina Kaur, Vaijyanti and Pappi, Sandeep and other persons. They saw that Manjeet Singh was instigating the mob to put the market on fire as the shopkeepers were not paying the monthly to 'Sikligaron'. Accused Manjeet Singh also shouted that shopkeepers cannot survive without their mercy and they should stamp the might of 'Sikligaron' in the area.
Thereupon the mob turned violent and put the shop with the name of 'Darshna Garments' and its adjoining shop on fire. Some of the members of the said mob also burnt the sign boards of the other shops. Then accused Manjeet Singh took the mob to the rear side of 16 Block and they burnt a Maruti 800 Car which was parked there. The mob also sent the 'rehdies' and 'khokas' on fire.
(b) The aforementioned police officials warned the mob to disperse as they had turned into unlawful assembly, but they did not budge and started pelting stones on the shops. In the meanwhile, SI Raj Kumar came at the spot and he also warned the mob to disperse by declaring it as unlawful assembly, but it also did not have any impact as the mob continued with stone pelting.
(c) As per the chargesheet, upon receiving DD no. 45 A dated 03.04.2010 SI Raj Kumar reached 16 Block, Kalyanpuri and saw that a mob had gathered and they were burning the shops and one Maruti 800 car was also burning and FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 4 of 32 the violent mob was also pelting stones. He also asked the mob to disperse, but they did not pay heed to his warnings. He conveyed the message to control room east district for sending more force and also called fire brigade. The accused Manjeet Singh was instigating the mob to ransack the place. Senior police officers and reserve police came at the spot. The fire brigade douse the fire. The members of unlawful assembly were controlled. Fourteen persons namely Parsa Singh, Phool Kaur, Vaijyanti, Pappe, Sandeep, Gulab, Jaipal Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Gurmail Singh, Pradhan Singh, Jeet Singh, Surjeet Singh, Sanjay and Makhan Singh were apprehended and their names and other details were disclosed by them upon apprehension. In the meanwhile, accused Manjeet Singh fled away from the spot. The fire was brought under control by the fire brigade and the crowd was also controlled by Ct. Rajender and the additional police force. Crime team was called at the spot. IO recorded statement of Ct. Rajender and prepared rukka and got the case registered. Crime team took photographs of the spot. Thereafter, the burnt car and 'rehdies' were taken into custody. Site plan was prepared at the spot.
(d) In the chargesheet, the IO also specified the details of another case i.e. pertaining to FIR no. 106/2010 u/s 147/148/149/307/186/353 IPC of PS Kalyanpuri relating to another incident of rioting near 11 Block, Kalyanpuri by some other persons which included Bhram Pal.
FIR No. 105/10PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 5 of 32
(e) As per chargesheet, accused Surjeet Singh, Jaipal Singh, Gulab Singh and Vaijyanti Kaur had sustained simple injuries. On 14.05.2010, accused Sukhdev, Sonu and Baldev were arrested during the course of investigation as they were also part of the unlawful assembly. A licensed gun was recovered from accused Parsa Singh and since he had used the aforesaid gun in rioting, therefore, section 30 of Arms Act was invoked against them. The remaining accused who were members of unlawful assembly could not be identified.
4. The court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. After completion of necessary legal formalities u/s 207 Cr.P.C the case file was committed to the Court of Sessions. Pursuant to order of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, East, the matter was fixed for hearing on point of charge. Vide order dated 11.11.2010 charge for commission of offences u/s 147/148/149/436/149 of IPC was framed against all the accused persons. In addition charge for commission of offence u/s 27 of Arms Act was framed against accused Pappe Singh. Charge u/s 30 of Arms Act was also framed against accused Parsa Singh (since deceased). All accused pleaded not guilty to the above-mentioned charges and claimed trial.
5. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses. A brief account of the depositions made by the witnesses of prosecution is reproduced herein below :-
FIR No. 105/10PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 6 of 32 Evidence of Public Witnesses:-
6. PW-2 Smt. Maya deposed that on 30.04.2010 at about 10 pm she went to her house after closing her kiosk of photo frame situated at 16/1, Kalyanpuri, Delhi. She heard the noise of 'aag lag gayi' and she rushed towards her kiosk and saw that it had been burnt. She raised alarm and someone made call to Fire Brigade. Fire brigade came there and extinguished the fire. She also deposed that besides her kiosk other shops including Om Textile, Balaji etc had also caught fire.
However, as per her statement u/s 161 Cr. PC she had seen accused Manjeet Singh leading the crowd, but in her deposition the witness stated that she did not see anyone putting fire on her kiosk. In her cross-examination conducted by ld. Addl. PP for the State she denied that accused Manjeet Singh was committing riots and he alongwith others had light her kiosk and other shops on fire and they were also indulging in stone pelting. She denied having given any statement to IO.
7. Similarly, PW-4 Shyam Babu also deposed that on the intervening night of 03/04.04.2010 he was present in his house and someone told him that some persons had set shops, showroom, vehicles etc on fire in the market, but he did not know any of the accused persons who were present in the court nor anything had happened in his presence. He also failed to identify the articles were which burnt. In his cross-examination conducted by ld. Addl. PP for the State he denied that accused Manjeet Singh was committing riots in Central Market and they FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 7 of 32 had set the car and board on his shop on fire. He also denied that he had watched the incident from a incident and after the situation was controlled police had recorded his statement. Evidence of Other Eye Witnesses:
8. PW-3 Ct. Rajender Singh deposed that on 04.04.2010 he alongwith Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Surender were on patrolling duty at 16 Block, near Jalebi Chowk. At about 10.45 pm, they saw a mob of 50-60 persons coming from the side of 11 block, Kalyanpuri and they were shouting slogans and were making noise. Accused Manjeet Singh was leading the mob consisting of other accused persons. His father Parsa Singh (since expired), his sisters Phool Kaur and Vaijayanti, accused Pappe Singh and accused Sandeep were also part of above-said mob and the mob was being instigated and addressed by accused Manjeet Singh. Accused Manjeet Singh was instigating the mob by saying that 'shopkeepers were not giving monthly to 'Sikligaron' and he was further saying that shopkeepers cannot survive without the mercy of Sikligaron. Accused Manjeet Singh was also instigating the mob to set the entire market on fire in order to expose the might of Sikligaron in the area. Due to his abetement and instigation the mob became furious and out of control and it set 'Darshna Garments' and adjoining shops & showrooms on fire. Thereafter, accused Manjeet Singh took the mob behind 16 Block and put a Maruti 800 car which was parked there on fire. The mob also set 'rehdies' & 'khokas' on fire. He and other police officials warned accused Manjeet Singh and the FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 8 of 32 mob in loud voice that their assembly was unlawful and directed them to disperse but they did not pay any heed and continued pelting stones upon them and shops. SI Raj Kumar came at the spot and also warned the mob/accused persons but accused persons continued pelting stones upon the shops and continued damaging the property. Police Force was called at the spot to control the unlawful assembly of the accused persons. Crime team and fire brigade was called at the spot and unlawful assembly of the accused persons was controlled. One gun and 18 live cartridges were recovered from the hand of accused Parsa Singh (since expired) and the same was sealed with the seal of RK and then seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. A sword was recovered from accused Pappe Singh and same was sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. His statement Ex.PW3/C was recorded. Rukka was sent to PS through Ct. Rajender for registration of the case who came back to the spot and handed over rukka and copy of FIR to IO.
The said witness further deposed that on 14.05.2010, he identified accused Sukhdev, Sonu @ Sonta and Baldev in the lock up as the same persons who alongwith other accused persons were involved in the rioting and arson and stone pelting on 04.04.2010 at Kalyanpuri Central Market near Jalebi Chowk. On 08.08.2010 at about 1 pm accused Manjeet Singh came to police station and he identified accused Manjeet Singh as the same person who was leading and instigating the mob on the intervening night of 03/04.04.2010. One burnt Maruti 800 car FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 9 of 32 was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D. 'Rehdi' & wooden planks were also seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D1. Remaining accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/E to Ex. PW3/W and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW3/X to PW3/Z16. He identified all accused persons present in the court and also identified the case property i.e. gun Ex. P3. He also identified photographs of burnt car, rehdi and planks etc i.e. Ex. PW6/B (colly).
9. PW-7 HC Ravinder Singh deposed that on the intervening night of 03/04.04.2010, he alongwith Ct. Rajender and Ct. Surender were on patrolling duty. As they reached Jalebi Chowk, they saw a mob consisting of 50-60 persons was coming from the side of 11 block Kalyan Puri. Accused Manjeet Singh was leading the mob and they were shouting slogans. Father of accused Manjeet Singh namely Parsa Singh (since expired) and sisters namely Phool Kaur, Maina Kaur and Vajenti Kaur were also part of the said mob and they were also shouting slogans. Accused Pappe Singh and Sandeep were also present in the mob. Accused Manjeet Singh was shouting "dukandar humey monthly nahi dete hain, inhe nahi pata ki sikhligari ke rahmokaram ke bina ye log zinda nahi reh sakte". Accused Manjeet Singh instigated the mob to set shops on fire. Then the crowd present with accused Manjeet Singh set the shops on fire. One shop in the name of 'Darshana Garments' and other shops were set on fire. Accused persons also set sign board of some shops on fire.
FIR No. 105/10PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 10 of 32 Thereafter, accused Manjeet Singh led the crowd behind 16 block, Kalyanpuri where they set one Maruti 800 car on fire. The crowd had also set the 'rehdies' and 'khokha' on the road on fire.
He further deposed that he warned the crowd, but they did not pay any attention to his warning and kept on indulging in unlawful activities. The crowd also started pelting stones. In the meantime, SI Rajkumar came to the spot and he also warned the crowd, however, his warnings were also ignored. SI Rajkumar called the police force and overpowered the crowd. Crime Team and Fire Brigade were also called at the spot. At that time, 15 accused persons were overpowered. One 12 bore gun and 18 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Parsa Singh (since expired). IO SI Rajkumar took the aforesaid gun and live cartridges in possession vide memo Ex.PW3/A. One sword was also recovered from the possession of accused Pappe Singh which was taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.3/B. Ct. Rajender went to police station for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR he returned back to the spot. He identified all accused persons in the court. He also identified case properties i.e. gun Ex. P1 and live cartridges with belt Ex. P2 (colly), sword Ex. P3. He also identified photographs of burnt car, 'rehri', shops, sign board and spot i.e. Ex. PW6/B (colly).
10. PW-10 ASI Surender deposed that on the intervening night of 03/04.04.2010 at 10:45 pm he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Rajender and Ct. Ravinder. They FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 11 of 32 reached at Jalebi Chowk and saw a mob of 50-60 persons coming from the side of 11 Block, Kalyan Puri and the said mob was being led by accused Manjeet. The mob led by accused Manjeet were shouting slogans. Father of accused Manjeet Singh namely Parsa Singh (since expired) and his sisters namely Phool Kaur, Maina Kaur and Vajenti Kaur were also present in the mob and all of them were shouting slogans. Accused Pappe Singh and other accused Sandeep were also present. Accused Manjeet Singh was leading the mob and was shouting that "dukandar humey monthly nahi dete hai, inhe nahi pata ki sikhligari ke rahmokaram ke bina ye log zinda nahi reh sakte". Accused Manjeet Singh instigated the mob to set shops on fire in the market. The crowd present with accused Manjeet Singh set the shops i.e. 'Darshana Garments' and other shops on fire. Accused persons amongst the crowd also set sign boards of some shops on fire. Thereafter, accused Manjeet Singh led the crowd behind 16 Block, Kalyanpuri and they set one Maruti 800 car on fire. The crowd also set 'rehri' and 'Khokha' on fire.
He further deposed that he warned the crowd, they did not pay any attention to his warning and kept on indulging in unlawful activities. The crowd was also pelting stones. SI Raj Kumar came at the spot and he also warned the crowd, however, they did not pay heed to his warnings and kept on throwing stones. SI Raj Kumar called police force and overpowered 15 accused persons from the crowd. Crime Team and Fire Brigade were also called at the spot. One 12 bore gun and 18 live FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 12 of 32 cartridges were recovered from the possession of Parsa Singh. IO/SI Raj Kumar took the aforesaid gun and live cartridges into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. One sword was also recovered from the possession of accused Pappe Singh which was taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. Ct. Rajender went to police station for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR he returned back to the spot. He identified all accused persons in the court. He identified case properties i.e. gun Ex. P1, live cartridges with belt Ex. P2 (collectively) and the sword Ex. P3. He also identified photographs of burn card, 'rehri', planks, shops, sign boards and spot i.e. Ex. PW6/B (colly).
11. Evidence of Formal Police Witnesses:-
12. PW-1 HC Sukhbir Singh i.e. duty officer proved the copy of present FIR Ex. PW1/B and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW1/A.
13. PW-5 W/Ct. Poonam deposed that on 04.04.2010 she joined the investigation of the present case with IO SI Raj Kumar. On that day, IO arrested accused Phool Kaur and Vaijayanti from 16 Block, Kalyanpuri vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/J and Ex. PW3/K and also conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW3/Y and PW3/Z. She also identified said accused persons in the court.
14. PW-6 ASI Satender Singh deposed that on 03.04.2010, he alongwith IC ASI Ahtesham Ali and ASI Harshwardhan went to the spot i.e. Central Market, Kalyanpuri FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 13 of 32 near Jalebi Chowk and he took 15 photographs of the spot i.e. Ex. PW6/B. He also proved negatives of said photographs Ex. PW6/A (colly).
15. PW-8 SI Ahtesam Ali deposed that on 03.04.2010, he alongwith photographer Ct. Satender and other staff went to the spot i.e. Jalebi Chowk, 16 block, Trilokpuri and Ct. Satender took certain photographs of the spot. The fire brigade came to the spot. One Maruti Car and 'rehri' were burning and the fire was controlled by the fire brigade. He prepared his report regarding their visit at the spot. He proved entry no. 299 i.e. Ex. PW8/A.
16. PW-9 HC Jai Bhagwan deposed that on 03.04.2010 he recorded DD no. 45A Ex. PW9/1 regarding quarrel at Kalyanpuri. He telephonically informed SI Raj Kumar in that regard. At about 23:07 hours he recorded another DD no. 46A Ex. PW9/2 regarding fire at Block no. 16 Market, Kalyanpuri and he informed SI Raj Kumar about it.
Evidence of Investigating Officer:
17. PW-11 Insp. Raj Kumar deposed that on 03.04.2010 at about 10:53 pm on receipt of DD No. 45-A regarding stone pelting and arson near Jalebi Chowk, Kalyan Puri, he went to the spot and met Ct. Ravinder, Ct. Surender and Ct. Rajender. He also saw that 50-60 persons were pelting stones and two shops were set on fire by the said public persons/mob. The mob was being led by accused Manjeet Singh and he was BC of PS Kalyan Puri. Accused Parsa Singh was present in the mob and he FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 14 of 32 was having a gun. They tried to control the mob and directed them to disperse, but they did not pay any heed to his direction and continued stone pelting with their common object. One Maruti car was also set on fire by the mob and few wooden planks were also set on fire by the mob alongwith other articles. He called control room and also informed the senior officials about it. In the meanwhile, fire brigade, crime team and CP Reserved were called at the spot and fire brigade doused the fire and the crime team took photographs. They controlled the mob with the help of CP Reserved force and other police officials and they apprehended 15 persons. Accused Manjeet Singh ran way away from the spot. He recorded statement of Ct. Rajender Ex. PW3/C and prepared rukka Ex. PW11/A. He handed over the rukka to Ct. Rajender for registration of FIR. He interrogated 15 persons who were apprehended by the police. After some time Ct. Rajender returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him.
He further deposed that he seized one gun 12 bore and 18 live cartridges from accused Parsa Singh vide memo Ex.PW3/A. He also seized the burnt 'rehri' and wooden planks from the spot vide memo Ex.PW3/D1. He also seized the sword which was recovered from the possession of accused Pappe Singh vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He also seized burnt Maruti 800 Car from the spot vide memo Ex.PW3/D. He prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Rajender i.e. Ex. PW11/B. He arrested the aforesaid 15 apprehended accused persons vide memos Ex.
FIR No. 105/10PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 15 of 32 PW3/I to Ex.PW3/W and also conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW3/X to Ex.PW3/Z-12. In the meanwhile again stone pelting took place towards the side of 11-Block, Kalyan Puri. He produced the accused persons before the concerned court on 04.04.2010 and from there they were sent to J/C. Thereafter, he deposited the case property in malkhana of PS Kalyan Puri.
He also deposed that on 14.05.2010, he arrested accused Baldev Singh, Sonu @ Sonta and accused Sukhdev vide memos Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H respectively and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW3/Z-16, Ex.PW3/Z-15 and Ex.PW3/Z-14 respectively. On 08.08.2010, he formally arrested accused Manjeet Singh vide memo Ex.PW3/E and also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/Z-13. He identified all accused in the court and also identified the case properties i.e. sword Ex. P3, one gun Ex. P1, live cartridges with belt Ex. P2. He also identified photographs of 'rehri' i.e. Ex.PW11/P1 & Ex.PW11/P2, photographs of Maruti Car Ex.PW11/P3, Ex.PW11/P4 & Ex.PW11/P5 respectively.
Statement of All Accused U/s 313 Cr. PC:
18. The separate statements of surviving fifteen accused persons were recorded separately. In their separate statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C all accused denied all the incriminating evidence. They took a plea that they had been falsely implicated in this case and they had never participated in FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 16 of 32 any alleged criminal activities. Police had picked them from their houses and they were falsely arrested. All accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
Arguments:
19. I have heard the final arguments advanced by ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State as well as by ld. Defence counsels.
20. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that oral evidence of prosecution witnesses has proved all the offences against the accused persons. The allegations against the accused stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused may be convicted of the offences charged.
21. On the other hand, the Ld. defence counsels representing the accused persons vehemently argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated. The public witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. There are contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses which make the case of prosecution doubtful. Accused Manjeet Singh was not arrested from the spot, but according to two of the police officials who are alleged to be the eye-witnesses the said accused was arrested at the spot. There is no investigation regarding the ownership of the Maruti 800 car, 'rehris', 'khokas' and the other shops which are alleged to have been set on fire. The accused persons were falsely arrested. Their identification in the court was a result of tutoring. Hence, they argued that all accused may be acquitted of the charges.
FIR No. 105/10PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 17 of 32 Appreciation of Evidence vis-a-vis Allegations of Commission of Offences by Accused:
22. I have considered the submissions and combed through evidence on record very carefully.
23. All the accused are facing trial for charges with respect to commission of offences punishable u/s 147/148/149/436 r/w 149 IPC. In addition, accused Pappe Singh is also facing trial for offence u/s 27 of Arms Act. Therefore, the prosecution was under obligation to establish the allegations vis- a-vis formation of unlawful assembly and rioting as well as usage of prohibited arms in the commission of offence of rioting. The substantive provisions vis-a-vis the said offences are as follows:
"Section 141 IPC- Unlawful Assembly: An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:
(1) To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or (2) To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or (3) To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or (4) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 18 of 32 or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (5) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Section 146 IPC- Rioting: Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
Section 27 of Arms Act: Punishment for using arms, etc.--(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, 2[shall be FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 19 of 32 punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.] "
24. In Sharad Briduchand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116, Dr. S.L.Goswami Vs. State of MP" 1972 A.I.R (SC) 716 :1972 (2) SCR 948 : 1972 Cri. L.J.511 : 1972 (3) S.C.C.22 and "Ram Swarup and others Vs. State of Haryana 1993 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 344, the Hon'ble Appex Court had laid down that, "It is the duty of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by examining reliable witnesses not only to prove the commission of an offence, but also to prove the manner in which the offence in question had been committed."
25. Therefore, in the present case in order to bring home the guilt of all accused, prosecution was under obligation to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the aforementioned accused persons had formed unlawful assembly and committed rioting in furtherance of common object of their unlawful assembly.
26. In nutshell the case of prosecution is that a mob of 50 / 60 persons including all accused persons had committed the offence of rioting by setting shops, Maruti 800 car, 'rehdies', 'khokas' and sign boards on fire. The prosecution intended to prove these allegations by way of testimonies of three police officials i.e. PW-3 Ct. Rajender, PW-7 HC Ravinder Singh, PW-10 ASI Surender and two public witnesses i.e. PW-2 Maya and PW-4 Shyam Babu.
FIR No. 105/10PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 20 of 32
27. The public witnesses i.e. PW-2 Maya and PW-4 Shyam Babu were examined to establish the fact that they saw that accused Manjeet Singh was leading the mob and the fact that rioting took place at his instance and instigation. However, they denied having seen accused Manjeet Singh or any other person in the acts been committed. Therefore, the entire case of prosecution rested on the shoulders of testimonies of above- mentioned three police officials who are stated to be the eye witnesses.
28. It is the settled proposition of law that the court can act on the basis of testimonies of police officials who are cited as eye-witnesses and it cannot be discarded solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. In Parmod Kumar Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC 344 as under:-
".....The witnesses from the department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony. This Court, after referring to State of U. P. Vs. Anil Singh, State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and Anr. and Ramjee Rai and Ors Vs. State of Bihar, has laid down recently in Kasmiri Lal Vs. State of Haryana that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 21 of 32 testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the Court cannot definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the Court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the Court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust."
29. The case of prosecution began with the assertion that all the above-mentioned three police officials left the police station together and went for patrolling duty in the area where the incident allegedly took place. The prosecution had to establish that all the aforementioned police officials i.e. PW-3 Ct. Rajender, PW-7 HC Ravinder and PW-10 ASI Surender were present at the spot and they had seen the incident.
30. At the outset, it is required to be noted that no documentary proof in the form of DD entries etc was filed alongwith chargesheet to establish the fact that infact the said police officials were on patrolling duty in the area where the incident allegedly took place.
31. In addition it is further required to be noted that the chargesheet is silent regarding the time at which the above- mentioned police officials left the police station for their routine patrolling duty. The testimonies of the said police officials vis-a- vis the time at which their patrolling duty began are contradictory to each other. PW-3 Ct. Rajender in his deposition stated that he was on patrolling duty from 5 PM and PW-10 ASI Surender FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 22 of 32 deposed that his patrolling duty commenced from 9 PM. PW-7 HC Ravinder in his cross-examination stated that he had left the police station for patrolling at about 10 PM.
32. As per case of prosecution as set out in the complaint/ statement of Ct. Rajender Ex. PW3/C, all of them reached at the spot at about 10:45 PM, but PW-7 HC Ravinder deposed that he had reached at the spot within 5 to 6 minutes i.e. at about 10:06 PM. Whereas, PW-10 ASI Surender deposed that he reached at the spot at about 9:10 PM. Therefore, the depositions of the said eye-witnesses are contradictory to each other even with regard to the time at which they reached at the spot.
33. As per case of prosecution, 15 accused were apprehended at the spot and accused Manjeet Singh had surrendered later on in compliance of order vide which anticipatory bail was granted to him and accused Sukhdev, Sonu and Baldev were arrested in police station on 14.05.2010.
34. The evidence lead on record is also highly contradictory with regard to the time at which all the above- mentioned eye-witnesses left the spot. As per complaint/ statement of PW-3 Ct. Rajender i.e. Ex. PW3/A, the same was recorded on 04.04.2010 (i.e. after midnight of 03.04.2010) and PW-3 Ct. Rajender took the rukka and went to police station and he came back alongwith rukka and copy of FIR. However, in his cross-examination he stated that he had left the spot only once and he did not return to the spot. The said fact falsifies the FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 23 of 32 prosecution version to the effect that PW-3 Ct. Rajender had taken the original rukka to police station and he came back alongwith rukka and copy of FIR Ex. PW1/B.
35. In his cross-examination, PW-3 Ct. Rajender could not tell the exact time when he finally left the spot, but he deposed that crime team did not visit the spot in his presence. The prosecution also examined the members of crime team who had visited the spot i.e. PW-6 ASI Satender and PW-8 HC Ahtesam. Both these witnesses deposed that they had reached at the spot at about 11:30 PM and they left at about 12:30 AM. The said fact means that either PW-3 Ct. Rajender had left before the arrival of crime team or the crime team never came to the spot. This fact also casts doubt regarding the presence of Ct. Rajender at the spot.
36. It is pertinent to mention that as per prosecution version out of the mob of 50-60 persons, 15 were apprehended at the spot, three accused were arrested in police station on 14.05.2010 and accused Manjeet Singh had also surrendered later on. However, PW-7 HC Ravinder Singh in his cross- examination stated that accused Manjeet Singh was arrested at the spot. The said fact is a material contradiction, because if the witness would have been present at the spot, then he would never asserted that accused Manjeet Singh was arrested from the spot.
37. As far as the question of presence of PW-10 ASI Surender at the spot is concerned, the said witness also deposed that the crime team did not visit the spot in his presence which FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 24 of 32 means that either he had left the spot before the arrival of crime team or the crime team never came to the spot. This fact also casts doubt regarding his presence at the spot.
As per prosecution version, the IO came to the spot after intimation was given in PS by Ct. Rajender, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Surender and later on IO called additional police force at the spot. However, in his cross-examination, PW-10 ASI Surender rather deposed that he met the IO and outer force staff at the spot when he reached there. The aforementioned statement shows that PW-10 ASI Surender Singh was infact not present at the spot initially as per case of prosecution.
38. In the present case, the accused persons were identified by the above-mentioned witnesses in the court at the time of their respective evidence. As per prosecution version 15 accused were arrested at the spot and they had disclosed their names and particulars to the police officials at the spot for the first time. Hence, as per case of prosecution accused persons were not known to the police officials prior to the incident.
39. As regards the dock identification of all accused by the witnesses for the first time in the court, in Kanan & Ors. V. State of Kerala [AIR 1979 SC 1127], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T. I. parade to test his powers of observations. The idea FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 25 of 32 of holding T. I. parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T. I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court."
Also in Malkhansingh & Ors. V. State of M.P. [(2003) 5 SCC 746], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which obliges. the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim, a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 26 of 32 inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration."
40. Admittedly the incident took place at night, as per PW-3 Ct. Rajender they saw accused persons from a distance of 200 meters and PW-7 HC Ravinder stated that they saw the crowd from a distance of 500 meters.
In Ravindra Laxman Mahadik v. State of Maharashtra (1997 Criminal Law Journal 3833), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a similar issue regarding identification of accused persons in similar circumstances and it was held that,"I find merit in Mr. Mooman's submission that it would not be safe to accept the identification evidence of Manda Sahani. Manda Sahani in her examination-in-chief stated that on the place of the incident, there was no light. In her cross- examination (para 6) she stated that it was dark at the place of the incident but, slight light was emanating from the building situate on the shore. The distance between the building and the place where Manda Sahani and her husband were looted has not been unfolded in the evidence. The learned trial Judge has observed that the evidence of Vinod Sahani is that the incident took place at a distance of about 100 ft, from the Gandhi statute, where the meeting was held. What he wanted to convey was that hence there must have been light. at the place of incident in my view, on the face of the definite statement of Manda that it was FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 27 of 32 dark as there was only slight light, and bearing in mind that the incident took place at 9.30 p.m. in the month of February, 1992, it would not be safe to conclude that there was sufficient light on the place of the incident enabling Manda Sahani to identify the appellant."
41. Thus, in view of the aforementioned facts, it will be unsafe to rely on bare testimonies of PW-3 Ct. Rajender, PW-7 HC Ravinder and PW-10 ASI Surender regarding the identification of all accused persons for the first time in the Court.
42. Further as per case of prosecution three accused Sonu, Baldev and Sukhdev were arrested on 14.05.2010 and as per their arrest memos they were arrested in police station, but there is no averment in the entire chargesheet or in the evidence of any other witness including the IO as to how after a gap of more than one month they came to know about the involvement of said accused persons. Moreover, the said accused were arrested in police station at the identification of PW-3 Ct. Rajender, but there is no allegation that Ct. Rajender knew said accused persons before hand. Hence, it will be totally unsafe to rely upon identification of said accused persons for the first time in the court.
43. As mentioned above, as per prosecution story, 13 accused persons namely Parsa Singh, Pappe Singh, Sandeep, Gulab Singh, Jaipal Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Bichhatar Singh, Gurmail Singh, Pradhan Singh, Jeet Singh, Surjeet Singh, Sanjay FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 28 of 32 and Makhan Singh were arrested at the spot and their arrest memos i.e. Ex. PW3/L to PW3/W were also prepared at the spot itself. However, perusal of aforementioned arrest memos show that the time of arrest in each of the said memos is shown as 6 AM, meaning thereby that all of them were arrested at the same time which is physically and humanly impossible. Moreover, arrest memos of accused namely Vaijyanti and Phool Kaur i.e. Ex. PW3/J and PW3/K bear the time of their arrest as 6:35 AM respectively.
44. It has to be borne in mind that IO Insp. Raj Kumar in his cross-examination deposed that he had prepared the arrest memos between 2 AM to 6 AM and he had left the spot at about 6 AM. The said statement of the IO is contradictory to the documents i.e. arrest memos of accused Vaijyanti and Phool Kaur as the same bear the time of their arrest as 6:35 AM. All the above-mentioned arrest memos bear the signatures of PW-3 Ct. Rajender as a witness. However, as mentioned earlier the said witness deposed that he had left the spot before the arrival of crime team and as per evidence PW-6 ASI Satender and PW-8 SI Ahtesham they had finally left the spot at 12:30 AM. Thus, the said fact also creates a doubt qua authenticity of the aforesaid arrest memos as well as arrest of said 15 accused at the spot.
45. The prosecution has alleged that accused Manjeet Singh had led the unlawful assembly which caused rioting. As mentioned above prosecution examined PW-2 Smt. Maya and PW-4 Shyam Babu to establish the said fact, however, they did FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 29 of 32 not support the case of prosecution and stated that they had not seen accused Manjeet Singh in the mob or anyone amongst the mob who had set fire to shops etc. It has already been mentioned above that presence of PW-3 Ct. Rajender, PW-7 HC Ravinder and PW-10 ASI Surender at the spot appears doubtful. However, it is further required to be noted that PW-7 HC Ravinder and PW-10 ASI Surender stated that accused Manjeet Singh was apprehended from the spot. Thus, the depositions of even the police officials is not free from doubt vis-a-vis presence of accused Manjeet Singh in the unlawful assembly which caused rioting.
46. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the case of prosecution is that the entire incident including the burning of shops, torching of car and 'rehdies', etc. was witnessed by PW-3 Ct. Rajender, PW-7 HC Ravinder, and PW-10 ASI Surender and IO Insp. Raj Kumar came at the spot after sometime when the mob had set fire to the shops, car and 'rehdies' etc. However, Insp. Raj Kumar deposed that he had also seen the entire incident. The testimony of IO is clearly contradictory to the case of prosecution as set out in complaint and evidence of PW Ct. Rajender, HC Ravinder and ASI Surender.
47. It is alleged that a Maruti 800 car was torched by accused persons behind 16 block. The prosecution has proved site plan Ex. PW11/B which shows that the said place is not visible from the spot where the mob had set fire the shops and 'rehdies' etc. Neither PW-3 Ct. Rajender nor PW-7 HC Ravinder FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 30 of 32 and PW-10 ASI Surender deposed that they had followed the mob to all the said places. Therefore there is no explanation as to how the said officials had witnessed the setting of Maruti 800 car as well as shops and 'rehdies' etc.
48. It is alleged that a licensed gun used by accused Parsa Singh and one sword used by accused Pappe Singh were recovered from them at the spot. However, PW-3 Ct. Rajender deposed that accused Parsa Singh and accused Pappe Singh were not having any weapons with them at the time of incident. The said statement is totally contradictory to the case of prosecution vis-a-vis allegations of use of weapons by them. It also makes the recovery of said weapons at the spot completely doubtful because if they were not carrying said weapons, then the same could not have been recovered from them at the spot.
49. In the aforementioned regard, PW-10 ASI Surender also deposed that the gun and cartridges were not recovered in his presence. The said statement also supports the defence version that the said weapons were not recovered from the accused persons namely Parsa Singh and Pappe Singh.
50. Hence, the above-mentioned facts as well as the fact that the arrest of accused persons at the place of incident is highly doubtful, a serious doubt is casted qua the prosecution version that recovery of weapons was effected from accused Parsa Singh and Pappe Singh respectively.
51. Thus, in totality of the facts and appreciation of evidence as mentioned above, it has to be said that prosecution FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 31 of 32 has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the alleged eye witnesses were infact present at the spot or the fact that all the accused persons had formed unlawful assembly and thereby committed rioting. It has also failed to prove that accused Pappe Singh had used a sword or the same was recovered from him. Conclusion:
52. In view of the aforementioned discussion, it has to be concluded that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all accused persons had committed offences U/s 147/148/149/436/149 of IPC and accused Pappe Singh had committed the offence u/s 27 of Arms Act. Hence, all accused are given the benefit of doubt and are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
53. All accused have already furnished bail bonds and surety bonds u/s 437-A Cr. PC.
54. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court on 07.01.2025 (Sushant Changotra) ASJ (FTC) / East KKD Court/ Delhi FIR No. 105/10 PS Kalyanpuri State Vs Manjeet Singh & Ors Page no. 32 of 32