Delhi District Court
State vs Shahid Ali @ Mogli on 20 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI,
MM-02, PATIALA COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. SHAHID ALI @ MOGLI
DD No. 57 dt 13.06.2020
PS: CHANAKYAPURI
U/S: 53/116 DP Act
CNR No. : DLND02-008305-2020
Date of commission of offence : 13.06.2020
Date of institution of the case : 18.08.2020
Name of the complainant : ASI Maheshwar
Name of accused and address : Shahid Ali @ Mogli
S/o Sh. Fazlu Rehman
R/o A-628, Sanjay Camp,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 53/116 DP Act
State Representation : Sh. Prashant Chaudhary, Ld.
Asst. Public Prosecution
Plea of Accused : Plead not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 20.03.2024
DD No. 57 dated 13.06.2020 Page 1 of 9
State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli
PS : Chanakyapuri
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief can be stated as that on 13.06.2019 Addl. DCP (I) New Delhi District passed an externment order against Shahid Ali @ Mogli S/o Sh. Fazlu Rehman (hereinafter referred to as accused) however, despite such directions under Section 47 Delhi Police Act, the accused was found at a Jhuggi in Sanjay Camp, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi on 13.06.2020 at about 07:00 p.m. and thereby committed offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act.
2. Kalandra under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act was filed. The cognizance for the commission of offence was accordingly taken and charge was framed against the accused under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Hence, this Court conducted trial.
3. For proving its case, prosecution examined three witnesses.
(3.1) HC Dhirender Singh was examined as PW1 who deposed that on 13.06.2020, he was posted as Constable at PS Chanakyapuri and he was on Beat duty at Sanjay Camp and he was doing patrolling in the said area along with Ct. Rohtash. He deposed that at about 06.30 PM, ASI Maheshwar Singh came to them along with a DD entry no. 46A regarding a PCR call from a lady. He deposed that thereafter one secret informer also came to them and told them that one bad character criminal by the name Shahid Ali @Mogli whose externment order was duly issued by the DCP, was present near a Juggi No. 1628, Sanjay Camp Chanakyapuri and if raided he may be caught. He deposed that ASI Maheshwar Singh informed DD No. 57 dated 13.06.2020 Page 2 of 9 State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli PS : Chanakyapuri and requested several public persons to join the investigation/raid but none agreed and they all went away without giving their details. He deposed that without wasting the time ASI Maheshwer Singh prepared a raiding team including himself, ASI Maheshwar and Ct. Rohtash. He deposed that thereafter they went at the spot. He deposed that on seeing them accused tried to escape but they caught hold of him. He deposed that ASI Maheshwar Singh arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A and the accused was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that thereafter they went to the police station Chanakyapuri. He deposed that thereafter, he got the medical examination of the accused done. PW-1 correctly identified the accused.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that the incident took place on 13.06.2020 in the evening but he does not remember the exact time. He deposed that he does not know the name of secret informer and he does not remember the name of person to whom arrest information of accused was given. He deposed that the accused was apprehended near Mazar i.e. public area and he was not aware whether any notice was given to any public person by the IO. He denied the suggestion that accused did not enter into the territory of Delhi or that he was apprehended from the outside of Delhi.
(3.2) HC Rohtash was examined as PW 2 who deposed that on 13.06.2020, he was posted as Constable at PS Chanakyapuri and was on Beat duty at Sanjay Camp and was doing patrolling in the said area along with Ct. Dhirender. He deposed that at about 06.30 PM, ASI Maheshwar Singh came to them along with a DD entry no. 46A regarding a PCR call from a lady. He deposed that thereafter, one secret informer also came to them and told them that one bad character criminal by the name Shahid Ali DD No. 57 dated 13.06.2020 Page 3 of 9 State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli PS : Chanakyapuri @ Mogli whose externment order was duly issued by the DCP, was present near a Juggi No. A628, Sanjay Camp Chanakyapuri and if raided he may be caught. He deposed that ASI Maheshwar Singh informed and requested several public persons to join the investigation/raid but none agreed and they all went away without giving their details. He deposed that without wasting the time ASI Maheshwer Singh prepared a raiding team including himself, Ct. Dhirender and ASI Maheshwar and thereafter they went at the spot. He deposed that on seeing them accused tried to escape but they caught hold of him. He deposed that ASI Maheshwar Singh arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A and accused was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that thereafter they went to the police station Chanakyapuri. PW-2 correctly identified the accused.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not filed any separate departure entry for going to patrolling duty. He denied the suggestion that he was not on patrolling duty on the relevant time and date. He deposed that the distance between where the information was received and the place where the accused was apprehended is about 200 yards. He admitted the suggestion that the spot is jhuggi cluster and public persons were available. He deposed that no public witness was joined at the time of apprehension of accused. He deposed that the family member of the accused were present at the spot when the accused was apprehended. He deposed that accused was arrested at 7.30 PM and they remained at the spot for about 30 minute after apprehending the accused. He deposed that IO had shown him the externment order qua the accused and IO reached at the spot at 7 PM. He denied the suggestion that accused was not arrested at the spot within the territory of Delhi or that he has not violated any order of externment.
DD No. 57 dated 13.06.2020 Page 4 of 9State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli PS : Chanakyapuri (3.3) SI Maheshwar was examined as PW-3 who deposed that on 13.06.2020, he was posted as ASI at PS Chanakyapuri and on that day he was on emergency duty. He deposed that he had received DD No. 46A Ex.PW3/A regarding a PCR call. He deposed that after reaching there, when he was returning back, at Sanjay Camp, Ct. Dhirender and Ct. Rohtash met him where an information was received that accused Shahid @ Mogli has entered into the territory of Delhi against whom an externment order was passed. He deposed that thereafter, he asked some public persons to join the investigation/raid but none agreed and they all went away without giving their details. He deposed that without wasting the time, he prepared a raiding team including himself, Ct. Dhirender and Ct. Rohtash. He deposed that thereafter they went at the spot. He deposed that on seeing them accused tried to escape but they caught hold of him. He deposed that he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A. He deposed that the accused was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that thereafter they went to the police station Chanakyapuri. PW-3 correctly identified the accused.
During cross-examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that he had not filed any separate departure entry for going to spot. He deposed that the distance between where the information was received and the place where the accused was apprehended is about 200 yards. He admitted the suggestion that the spot is jhuggi cluster and public persons were available. He deposed that no public witness was joined at the time of apprehension of accused. He deposed that the family member of the accused were present at the spot when the accused was apprehended. He deposed that accused was arrested at 7.30 PM. He deposed that we remained at the spot for about 30 minute after apprehending the accused and he had shown to the accused DD No. 57 dated 13.06.2020 Page 5 of 9 State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli PS : Chanakyapuri the externment order. He denied the suggestion that accused was not arrested at the spot within the territory of Delhi or that he has not violated any order of externment.
4. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined in accordance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. The entire incriminating evidence was put to him who denied the same and stated to be innocent and to have been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated all the witnesses are police officials and he was lifted by the police officials outside the territory of Delhi. The accused opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
5. Final arguments were heard.
6. Ld. APP for the State argued that on the basis of the entire evidence brought on record, the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused be convicted. He further argued that on the basis of testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is established that accused violated the externment order. He further argued that the accused has not filed any evidence to show that he was lifted outside the territory of Delhi and was not in violation of the externment order.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the secret informer did not identify the accused rather PW1 already knew the accused and accordingly, could have falsely implicated him by calling him. He further argued that accused was apprehended from a public place but still DD No. 57 dated 13.06.2020 Page 6 of 9 State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli PS : Chanakyapuri no public witness joined the investigation. He further argued that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have failed to show that the accused was arrested inside the territory of Delhi. He further argued that even site plan of the place of arrest was not prepared. He further argued that in view of the above, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, he be acquitted.
APPLICABLE LAW, APPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE AND FINDING
8. To establish liability of the accused under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act, the prosecution need to prove firstly that the externment order was passed against the accused under Section 47 Delhi Police Act directing him to remove himself from Delhi for the period as specified in the order and secondly, that the accused was found present in Delhi in violation of the said externment order.
9. In the present case, the accused has admitted the already annexed externment order Ex.A-1 dated 13.06.2019 passed by Addl. DCP New Delhi District against Shahid Ali @ Mogli S/o Sh. Fazlu Rehman directing him to remove himself beyond the limits of Delhi for a period of two years w.e.f. 13.06.2019. The correctness of said order was not disputed by the accused nor did he state that he was not aware of any such order. Accordingly, the first ingredient is established.
10. Further, the accused was apprehended on 13.06.2020 at around 07:00 pm near Sanjay Camp jhuggi i.e. when the said externment was still applicable. Although it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that DD No. 57 dated 13.06.2020 Page 7 of 9 State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli PS : Chanakyapuri testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 cannot be relied upon as no public witnesses joined the investigation but it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi repeatedly that testimony of police officials should not be discarded merely because no public witness was present and that testimony of police officials should not always be looked upon with suspicion and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. In the present case, all the three witnesses were consistent in their testimonies and also corroborated each other in material particulars. It is also on record that there are minor contradictions qua the non joining of public witness, but that by itself cannot be sufficient ground to weigh out the testimonies of the police witnesses. Though the accused has taken the defence that accused has been lifted outside the territory of Delhi, however, not an iota of evidence has been produced either by way of contradiction or by way of an witness to support to his plea of alibi. The mere taking of the defence will not serve the purpose of the accused unless it is well supported either by discrepancies in the prosecution story, or by his evidence.
12. There is nothing on record which raises any doubt as to the role of the witnesses or creates any suspicion regarding their testimony. Hence, the presence of the accused in Delhi is not disputed by the accused by any cogent reason and accordingly, the burden of proof was upon him to furnish an explanation as to his presence in Delhi despite directions under Section 47 Delhi Police Act. But the accused could not furnish any cogent explanation for the same and as pointed out by the Ld. APP the accused did not even furnished any details as to where he was lifted outside the territory DD No. 57 dated 13.06.2020 Page 8 of 9 State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli PS : Chanakyapuri of Delhi or any person was present when he was lifted outside the limits of Delhi. Accordingly, second ingredient is also established.
13. In view of the above, it can be concluded that prosecution has been able to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act beyond reasonable doubts.
14. Accordingly, the accused Shahid Ali @ Mogli is convicted of the offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act.
15. Copy of this judgment be given, free of cost, to the convict.
Note: This judgment contains 09 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.
Announced in the open court on Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi
20th March, 2024 MM-02/PHC/NewDelhi
DD No. 57 dated 13.06.2020 Page 9 of 9
State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli
PS : Chanakyapuri