Delhi District Court
State vs Satyam Singh on 4 July, 2024
CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021
State v. Satyam Singh
SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur
DLNE010009022021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
INDEX
Sl. HEADINGS Page Nos.
No.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2
2 The case set up by the Prosecution 2-4
3 Charges 4-5
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 5-15
5 Arguments of Defence & Prosecution 15-16
Appreciation of Facts and Evidence
6 Unlawful Assembly and Riots 16
7 Identification of accused persons 17-18
8 Conclusion and Decision 18
Digitally signed
by PULASTYA
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.07.04
Page 1 of 18 (Pulastya Pramachala)
17:53:49 +0530
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021
State v. Satyam Singh
SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur
Sessions Case No. : 112/2021
Under Section : 147/148/149/436 IPC
Police Station : New Usmanpur
FIR No. : 118/2020
CNR No. : DLNE01-000902-2021
In the matter of: -
STATE
VERSUS
SATYAM SINGH
S/o. Sh. Basant Singh,
R/o. H.No. 41/12-A, Gali No. 24,
Jai Prakash Nagar, Ghonda,
North-East, Delhi-110053.
Complainants: 1. Mohd.Wakil
S/o. Sh. Bundu Master,
R/o. A-251/250, Buland Masjid,
Shastri Park, Delhi.
2. Mohd. Rashid
S/o. Sh. Abdul Aziz,
R/o. J-3/53, Jai Prakash Nagar,
Ghonda, Delhi-53.
Date of Institution : 05.07.2020
Date of reserving order : 04.07.2024
Date of pronouncement : 04.07.2024
Decision : Acquitted.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with by accused)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: -
1. Brief facts of the present case are that on 03.03.2020, FIR was registered pursuant to the written complaint of Mohd. Vakeel. In his complaint, Mohd. Vakeel alleged that he was running a barber shop, which was situated at L-21, Gali No.2, Tiranga Chowk, Jai Prakash Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi-53. This shop was taken on rent from Umesh Sharma. Mohd. Vakeel further alleged that on Digitally signed by Page 2 of 18 (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.07.04 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 17:53:59 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur 25.02.2020, at around 2-3 AM, some rioters entered his above- said shop by breaking the shutter and locks and set it ablaze.
2. On the basis of complaint of Mohd. Vakeel, FIR was registered in the present case by ASI Harbir Singh, for offences punishable u/s.147/148/149/436 IPC. ASI Radhey Shyam was marked investigation of the present case.
3. During investigation, IO/ASI Radhey Shyam visited shop of Mohd. Vakeel and prepared site plan. At the same time, IO was marked another complaint of Mohd. Rashid. In his complaint dated 08.03.2020, Mohd. Rashid alleged that he was running his barber shop at the property bearing H.No. J-3/54, Gali No.3, Bittu Chowk, Jai Prakash Nagar, Delhi-53. Mohd. Rashid alleged that on 25.02.2020, he along with his children had gone to his village. On 06.03.2020, when he came back from his village, he saw that some articles of his above-said shop was vandalized and some articles were already burnt. He came to know from his neighbours that in the night of 25.02.2020, 20-25 rioters had come and they vandalized said shop and took away cash amount of Rs.30,000/-. He further alleged that he suffered loss of Rs.70,000 to 80,000/- in this incident. IO clubbed this complaint with this FIR, on the proximity of date, time and place of incident. IO prepared site plan at the instance of Mohd. Rashid. IO recorded statement of witnesses.
4. On the pointing of secret informer and identification by Ct. Rajan Singh, IO arrested and personally searched accused Satyam Singh in the present case. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused and recovered a danda at his instance, which was used Digitally signed Page 3 of 18 by PULASTYA (PulastyaPRAMACHALA Pramachala) PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALA District, Date: 2024.07.04 Karkardooma17:54:10 Courts, Delhi +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur by him at the time of incidents of this case. IO seized the same. IO also seized mobile phone, clothes and shoes of accused, which were allegedly worn by him at the time of riot. IO also obtained video footage and seized DVR from a home in the neighbourhood of both shops. IO sent DVR to FSL, Rohini, Delhi for examination.
5. After completion of investigation, on 05.07.2020 chargesheet was filed against accused Satyam Singh for offences punishable u/s.147/148/149/436 IPC, before ld. Duty MM, North-East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi. On 02.12.2020, ld. CMM (N/E) took cognizance of aforesaid offences. Thereafter on 01.02.2021, ld. CMM (N/E) committed the case to the court of sessions.
6. On 13.03.2023, first supplementary chargesheet along with complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., prohibitory order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. and other documents, was filed directly before this court. On 05.04.2024 second supplementary chargesheet along with E- challan and certain documents including FSL reports, was filed directly before this court.
CHARGES
7. On 06.09.2021, charges were framed against accused Satyam Singh for offences punishable under Section 143/147/148/380/454/427/436 IPC r/w. Section 149 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charges were framed in following terms: -
"That in night of 25.02.2020, exact time unknown, in the area of Tiranga Chowk, Jai Prakash Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi-110053, within the jurisdiction of PS New Usmanpur, you being from a particular community alongwith your other associates (unidentified) formed an Digitally signed Page 4 of 18 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Date: Delhi 2024.07.04 17:54:20 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur unlawful assembly, the object whereof was to cause maximum damage to the property and persons belonging to the other community and commit criminal trespass, vandalism, theft and arson in the shops, houses and other properties of the persons from other community by the use of force or violence in prosecution of the common object of such assembly and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 143/147/148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date, between 2.00 AM to 3.00 AM, at shop bearing No.L-21 (rented barber shop), Gali No.2, Tiranga Chowk, Jai Prakash Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi-53, you being member of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said shop, belonging to complainant Mohd. Vakil, S/o Shri Bundu Master, by breaking open its shutter to commit offences and indulged in vandalism and thereafter committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid shop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/427/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, in the night, exact time unknown, at shop No.J-3/54 (barber shop), Gali No.3, near Bittu Chowk, Nav Jeewan Adarsh Public Schoo, Jai Prakash Nagar, Delhi- 53, you being member of the said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said shop, belonging to complainant Mohd. Rashid, S/o Shri Adbul Aziz, to commit offences and indulged in vandalism, committed theft of various articles lying therein and thereafter committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid shop of complainant and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 454/427/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance."
DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
8. Several witnesses were dropped on the basis of admission of documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case.
Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved
& Name documents documents/
of case
Witness properties
PW1/ In the intervening night of 25.02.2020 Ex.PW1/A
Mohd. and 26.02.2020, some unknown rioters (complaint of
Page 5 of 18 (PulastyaDigitally
Pramachala)
signed by
ASJ-03, North-East
PULASTYA PULASTYA
PRAMACHALA
District,
Karkardooma
PRAMACHALA Courts,
Date: Delhi
2024.07.04
17:54:29 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021
State v. Satyam Singh
SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved & Name documents documents/ of case Witness properties Wakil & set ablaze their respective barber shops. PW1);
PW1 was running his barber shop at L- PW2/ 21, Gali No.2, Tiranga Chowk, Jai E.PW1/B Mohd. Prakash Nagar, Delhi-53. PW2 was (site plan Rashid running his barber shop in the name and prepared at style of M/s. Salim Hair Dresser at instance of Bittoo Chowk, Jai Prakash Nagar, Delhi. PW1); & On 02.03.2020, PW1 had given a written Ex.PW2/A complaint. Police officials came to his (complaint of shop and prepared the site plan at his PW2) instance.
On 07.03.2020, PW2 had submitted a written complaint. PW2 had gone to his village on 25.02.2020 and returned therefrom on 06.03.2020. Police had come to his shop and prepared site plan at his instance.
PW3/Sh. He was resident of L-20A, Gali No.1, Jai Ex.PW3/A Vipin Prakash Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi-53. After (notice u/s. Bansal one month of the riot, police officials 91 Cr.P.C.
had come to his residence and they took given to DVR containing CCTV footages from PW3); his house in his absence.
Ex.PW3/B PW3 had received notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C. (seizure dated 03.03.2020 from police officials. memo dated PW3 identified his signature at point A 04.03.2020 of on the seizure memo dated 04.03.2020 DVR); & of DVR. PW3 also identified his certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act in respect Ex.PW3/C of DVR. (certificate u/s. 65-B of There were some barber shops in gali I.E. Act of no.2, Jai Prakash Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi. PW3) Those shops were at a distance of about 10 paces from his house and those shops could be seen from the gate of his house.
PW4/ On 03.03.2020, he was on duty as Duty Ex.PW4/A
ASI Officer from 4 PM to 12 midnight, at PS (copy of
Page 6 of 18 Digitally
(Pulastya signed
Pramachala)
by PULASTYA
ASJ-03, North-East
PULASTYA District,
PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Date: 2024.07.04
17:54:39 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021
State v. Satyam Singh
SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved & Name documents documents/ of case Witness properties Harbir New Usmanpur. During his duty hours, FIR);
at about 8 PM, ASI Radhey Shyam presented rukka before PW4 for Ex.PW4/B registration of FIR. (certificate u/s. 65-B of PW4 registered FIR and thereafter he I.E. Act of made endorsement on rukka at point X PW4) to X bearing his signatures at point Y. PW4 executed certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act, bearing his signature at point A. PW5/Ct. On 26.02.2020, he was posted as Beat Ex.PW5/A, Rajan Officer in Beat No. 13, PS New Ex.PW5/B,E Singh Usmanpur. In the intervening night of x.PW5/C 25.02.2020 and 26.02.2020 at about 2 (arrest memo, AM, about 10 to 15 boys came at personal Tiranga Chowk. They broke open the search memo locks of two shops, took out the goods and from the shops and set ablaze those disclosure goods. They also vandalized the shops. statement of accused On 04.03.2020, PW5 alongwith IO/ASI Satyam, Radhey Shyam had visited house of one respectively); Vipin opposite the aforesaid two shops. There were CCTV Cameras installed in Ex.PW5/D the said house. PW5 was witness to (seizure seizure of DVR by IO from the house of memo of one Vipin. PW5 identified his signature at T-shirt, one point B on said seizure memo i.e. jeans and a Ex.PW3/B. pair of shoes of accused);
On 06.04.2020, one secret informer told him that one of the rioters involved in Ex.PW5/E the above incident namely Satyam Singh (seizure was resident of H-Block, Jai Prakash memo of one Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, PW5 wooden rod); alongwith IO visited the said house, where accused Satyam Singh was found Ex.PW5/F present. PW5 identified accused Satyam (seizure Singh. They brought Satyam to the memo of police station. mobile of accused); & Page 7 of 18 (Pulastya Pramachala) Digitally signed by PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East PULASTYA District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.07.04 17:54:47 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved & Name documents documents/ of case Witness properties PW5 was witness to arrest, personal Ex.PW5/G search and disclosure statement of (pointing out accused Satyam Singh. PW5 identified memo) his signature at point A on arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Satyam.
Accused Satyam Singh took them to his home, from where he got recovered one T-shirt, one jeans and a pair of shoes, which he disclosed as wearing at the time of incident. These were seized by the IO vide a memo.
Accused Satyam Singh also got recovered one wooden rod from his house which he had disclosed using in commission of crime in this case. The same was seized by the IO vide memo. The IO also seized mobile phone of accused vide a memo. Accused Satyam also pointed out the incident spot in the presence of PW5 vide memo, bearing signature of PW5 at point A. PW5 correctly identified accused Satyam Singh before the court.
PW6/Sh. In the intervening night of 25.02.2020 and 26.02.2020, at Dinesh about 02:30 AM or 3 AM, he was present at his house Sharma bearing H.No. L-21, Gali No.2, Jai Prakash Nagar, Delhi. PW6 was running a retail shop in his aforesaid house.
PW6 heard commotion from outside his house. PW6 could not come outside of his house as same was bolted from outside. PW6 raised alarm and after about half an hour, one of the neighbours opened the bolt from outside and PW6 was able to come out. PW6 saw that the chair had been taken out from the shop of Md. Vakil and was burnt. His shop had been vandalized, but by that time, Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA Page 8 of 18 (Pulastya PRAMACHALA Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.07.04 17:54:56 +0530 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved & Name documents documents/ of case Witness properties the rioters had already left the shop. PW7/HC In April 2020, he was assigned duty of Ex.PW7/ Kishan beat Constable of Beat No. 13. On Article-1 Lal 06.04.2020, ASI Radhey Shyam IO of (mobile this case told PW7 to accompany him to phone of the area of his beat, informing that Samsung accused of this case namely Satyam was Company reportedly present in the beat area of belonging to PW7. PW7 along with IO and Ct. Rajan accused went to H-Block, Jai Prakash Nagar, Satyam); Gamri, Delhi, in search of accused Satyam. The secret informer had Ex.PW7/ informed Ct. Rajan that accused was Article-2 (3 residing in Gali No.24. They all reached feet long in gali no.24 and secret informer pointed danda); out the house of accused Satyam from a Ex.PW7/ distance. Ct. Rajan identified accused Article-3 to Satyam and he was brought to PS. Ex.PW7/Arti PW7 deposed on the same lines as cle-5 (T-shirt, deposed by PW5 in respect of jeans and a Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/F, which were pair of Nike prepared by IO. PW7 identified mobile shoes of phone of Samsung Company belonging accused to accused Satyam, 3 feet long danda, T- Satyam) shirt, jeans and a pair of Nike shoes of accused Satyam.
PW7 correctly identified accused Satyam before the court.
PW8/ He was the first IO of this case. Ex.PW8/A
ASI (endorsement
Radhey On 02.03.2020, he received a complaint of PW8 on
Shyam of Mohd. Wakil, which was marked to the back side
him by SHO for action. PW8 studied of the
that complaint and thereafter, he made complaint of
his endorsement from point A to A1 on Mohd.
the backside of the complaint, for Wakil); &
registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, DO handed over original complaint Ex.PW8/B Digitally signed Page 9 of 18 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.07.04 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 17:55:04 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved & Name documents documents/ of case Witness properties and copy of FIR with certificate u/s 65B (site plan of IE Act to PW8, for investigation. prepared at the barber On 03.03.2020, PW8 alongwith shop of complainant went to Shop no. 21, gali Mohd. no.2, Tiranga Chowk, Jai Prakash Nagar, Rashid); North East, Delhi. PW8 prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Mohd. Wakil and obtained his signature also on the site plan (Ex.PW1/B). A CCTV camera was found installed in a house at Tiranga Chowk, gali no.2 and PW8 watched the video footage of the intervening night of 25/26.02.2020, alongwith Ct. Rajan and Ct. Krishan. PW8 handed over a notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C. to owner of DVR. Next day, Ct. Rajan brought that DVR and handed over the same to PW8 in the PS. PW8 played that DVR again and he had seen riot taking place from time frame of 1.56 to 2.06 at Tiranga Chowk. PW8 seized that DVR, vide a seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW3/B. On 04.03.2020, PW8 obtained certificate u/s. 65-B of IE Act from the owner of that DVR.
On 06.04.2020, Ct. Rajan told him that one boy seen in the video of riot, was residing in gali no.24, Jai Prakash Nagar. His name was told as Satyam Singh. Thereafter, PW8 alongwith Ct. Rajan, Ct. Krishan and the secret informer went to gali no.24, Jai Prakash Nagar. The secret informer pointed out to the house of accused Satyam Singh and thereafter, they discharged him. Then, PW8 alongwith other 2 constables went to the house of accused Satyam Singh and Satyam was found at his home. His Digitally signed Page 10 of 18 PULASTYA(Pulastya byPramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.07.04 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 17:55:11 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved & Name documents documents/ of case Witness properties father was also present at his home. They brought Satyam Singh to PS. They played video before accused in the PS and accused identified himself in that video. Thereafter, they again went to the house of accused alongwith him. Accused Satyam took out a black yellow and white mix T-shirt, blue colour jeans and Nike Shoes and he produced the same before PW8, stating that he was wearing the same clothes and shoes at the time of riots.
PW8 deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW5 and PW7 in respect of Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F. PW8 obtained CDR of mobile phone being used by accused Satyam. On analysis of the same, PW8 found location of accused Satyam in gali no.2, Tiranga Chowk during the time of riot.
On 07.03.2020, a complaint of Mohd. Rashid was marked to him and he clubbed that complaint in this case, because of proximity of time, place and date. On 08.03.2020, PW8 alongwith complainant Mohd. Rashid had visited Bittoo Chowk, Jai Prakash Nagar. There was a barber shop of complainant. PW8 found that shop in damaged condition. PW8 had prepared site plan of that shop. PW8 recorded statement of witnesses. In the month of July 2020, PW8 prepared chargesheet and filed the same in the court. On 04.08.2020, further investigation was handed over to SI Amit.
PW8 correctly identified accused
Page 11 of 18 (Pulastya Digitally
Pramachala)
signed
ASJ-03, North-East
PULASTYA District,
by PULASTYA
PRAMACHALA
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
PRAMACHALA
Date: 2024.07.04
17:55:18 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021
State v. Satyam Singh
SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved & Name documents documents/ of case Witness properties Satyam before the court.
PW8 deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW7 in respect of Ex.
PW7/Article-2; Ex.PW7/Article-3; Ex.PW7/Article-4 and Ex. PW7/Article-
5.PW9/Sh. He was working as Alternate Nodal Ex.PW9/A Pawan Officer in Vodafone Idea Ltd. since (letter dated Singh September 2018. 10.06.2020);
In 2020, a notice was received in his Ex.PW9/B office, thereby demanding CDR, CAF, (colly 4 certificate u/s 65B of I.E. Act and Cell sheets) ID Chart in relation to mobile no. (certified 9582944880 for period w.e.f. 23.02.2020 copy of to 27.02.2020. Vide letter dated CDR); 10.06.2020, aforesaid materials were handed over to police official by PW9. Ex.PW9/C (back to PW9 identified his signature at point X back) on letter dated 10.06.2020; on certified (certified copy of CDR; on certified copy of copy of printout of EKYC in the name of EKYC of Satyam Singh; on certified copy of Cell Satyam); ID Chart; and on the certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act. Ex.PW9/D (colly 2 sheets back to back) (certified copy of Cell ID Chart); & Ex.PW 9/E (certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act) PW10/ On 24.02.2020 at about 9 AM, DO informed him that HC proclamation u/s 144 Cr.P.C. was issued by DCP. DO Vipin told PW10 to go into the area of PS and to make Digitally signed Page 12 of 18 (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALA District, Date: 2024.07.04 Karkardooma 17:55:26 Courts, Delhi +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved & Name documents documents/ of case Witness properties Giri announcement of such proclamation. PW10 obtained loud hailer from malkhana and hired one E-rickshaw from G.T. Road. Thereafter, PW10 went to Shastri Park, main road from Shastri Park to Khajuri; Service road from zero pusta to 5th pusta; Hansraj Dairy; Jai Prakash Nagar; X block Brahmpuri; Gautampuri pulia; Engineering college; JPC hospital; and back to PS and announced that Section 144 Cr.P.C. was invoked in the area. PW10 had made this announcement again on 25.02.2020 also, in the same manner. PW11/ On 29.07.2020, she was working as Ex.PW11/A Ms. Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical & Neelam Examiner in FSL Rohini. On that day, Ex.PW11/B PW11 was marked exhibit of this case (report and for examination. PW11 received one certificate white sealed parcel alongwith u/s. 65-B of forwarding letter mentioning the details I.E. Act of of exhibit and details of examination PW11); required with certificate to examine the exhibit. There was also copy of FIR, Ex.PW11/ seizure memo and the road certificate. Article - 1 to Forwarding letter was having sample Ex.PW11/ seal. Before opening the parcel, PW11 Article - 4 compared the seal. Parcel was having (CD marked seal of 'R.S.'. Same was intact and as Annexure similar to specimen seal. CD1; CD having PW11 copied the video files in CD and endorsement prepared her report and certificate u/s. of Annexure 65-B of I.E. Act, in this respect. CD1 & DATA of PW1 identified her signature at point X Ext.HDD1; on CD (forwarded to Physics Division) DVR and marked as 'Annexure CD1'; on CD Hard Disk, (kept by her in her division) bearing respectively) endorsement of 'Annexure CD1' & 'DATA of Ext.HDD1'; and on the DVR and hard disk (kept inside this DVR). DVR was taken out from open parcel bearing seal of 'DOC FSL'.
Digitally signed Page 13 of 18 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALA District, Date: 2024.07.04 Karkardooma Courts, 17:55:34Delhi +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh
SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved & Name documents documents/ of case Witness properties PW12/Dr. On 23.02.2021, she was working as Sr. Ex.PW12/A Bharti Scientific Officer (Physics), FSL, (examination Bhardwaj Rohini, Delhi. On that day, PW12 report of received one sealed parcel with seal of PW12 in 'DOC FSL' from Computer Forensic respect of Division (CFD) alongwith a file. The file video contained copy of forwarding letter, contained in copy of seizure memo, copy of FIR and CD marked copy of the road certificate. One internal as Exhibit forwarding letter was also received CD1) having sample seal. Before opening the parcel, PW12 compared the seal. Same was intact and similar to specimen seal.
On opening the parcel, one CD having endorsement of 'DATA retrieved from Exhibit DVR(HDD1)', was taken out. This CD was marked as Exhibit CD1 by her. It was containing one CCTV footage file. PW12 examined this file on Video Analyst System and she prepared her report accordingly. PW12 sealed that CD in parcel with seal of 'FSL B.B.DELHI'. Video file was found without any tampering.
PW12 had put her initial over the aforesaid CD. PW12 also identified her intial at point Y over CD Ex.PW11/Article-1.
PW13/SI On 04.08.2020, MHC(R) handed over police file of this Amit case, informing that main chargesheet was already filed Kumar and further investigation was marked to him.
On 14.10.2020, MHC(M) handed over one sealed parcel from FSL Rohini, to PW13. PW13 opened that parcel and took out report from the same. There was one pendrive also in this parcel. PW13 went through the report and he also checked the data in pendrive. On 04.09.2021, PW13 obtained permission u/s. 195 Cr.P.C. PW13 also received copy of order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. from Digitally signed Page 14 of 18 (Pulastyaby Pramachala) PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.07.04 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 17:55:42 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur Sl. No. Role of witness & Description of Proved & Name documents documents/ of case Witness properties HAX branch. On 04.09.2022, PW13 got sent DO letter to FSL in respect of examination of DVR as deposited in this case. On 10.03.2023, PW13 recorded statement of HC Vipin, who had pronounced order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. PW13 prepared a supplementary chargesheet and filed the same in the court on 11.03.2023 alongwith aforesaid materials. On 21.03.2023, PW13 prepared one certificate u/s 65-B of IE Act, on the basis of informations furnished by complainant Wakil. On 04.03.2024, MHC(M) handed over a sealed pullanda to PW13 and PW13 opened that pullanda. One DVD and one report were found therein.
PW13 did not open the pullanda, which was received by him on 04.03.2024. That pullanda was produced by him before the court on 05.03.2024. In the court, that sealed pullanda was opened by the court. The FSL report was handed over to PW13 for making copies of that report and for supplying it to accused Satyam. On 12.03.2024, PW13 took a forwarding letter and submitted it to FSL for preparation of mirror image of the DVD using the office copy maintained in FSL. On 29.03.2024, PW13 collected 5 sealed mirror copies of DVD from MHC(M). PW13 filed the FSL report alongwith mirror copies before the court through a supplementary chargesheet. Admitted documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. prohibitory order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. as Ex.A1 and complaint u/s. 195 Cr.P.C. as Ex.A2.
9. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with as per provisions u/s 232 Cr.PC, because there was not a single evidence on the record to point out towards the accused, as member of the riotous mob behind the incident at the barber shops of PW1 and PW2.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE AND PROSECUTION
10. Ld. counsel for accused submitted that there is no incriminating Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 15 of 18 (PulastyaPRAMACHALA PULASTYA Pramachala) PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.07.04 ASJ-03, North-East District, 17:55:51 +0530 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur evidence against the accused and hence, SA should be dispensed with.
11. Per contra, ld. Special PP submitted that the testimony of PW5/Ct. Rajan Singh is incriminating against the accused as that witness deposed about identifying the accused and that witness also deposed about incident taken place in the intervening night of 25.02.2020 and 26.02.2020.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY & RIOT
12. PW1/Mohd. Vakeel and PW2/Mohd. Rashid are two victims, who had made complaints regarding vandalism at their barber shops. Both of them vouched about making such complaint and their barber shops being vandalised. PW6/Sh. Dinesh Sharma also deposed that he saw that chair taken out from the shop of PW1 was lying burnt, when he came out in the intervening night of 25.02.2020 and 26.02.2020 from his home. This witness deposed that he had heard commotion at that time, but gate of his house was bolted from outside. He could come out after around half an hour, when some neighbour opened gate of his house and at that time he had seen the shop of PW1 in vandalised condition. PW8/ASI Radhey Shyam was IO of the case, who vouched about visiting the barber shop of aforesaid two victims i.e. PW1 and PW2 and finding them in damaged condition. Though, he also deposed about photographs handed over by these witnesses to him, but those photographs were not proved on the record for the reasons best known to the IO and prosecution.
13. Still, I have no reason to disbelieve the version and claim made by PW1 and PW2 and hence, it is assumed that barber shops of Digitally signed Page 16 of 18 (Pulastya by Pramachala) PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Date: Delhi 2024.07.04 17:55:59 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur PW1 and PW2 were vandalised by a mob of rioters in the intervening night of 25.02.2020 and 26.02.2020. IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED
14. Ld. Special PP took my attention to the testimony of PW5 i.e. paragraph-1 to paragraph-3 of his exmaination-in-chief. I have perused such portions of the testimony of PW5. From the testimony of PW5, I do not find any claim made by this witness about seeing the incident at the barber shops of victim Mohd. Vakeel and Mohd. Rashid. He only referred to two shops without specifying the nature of those shops. He also did not claim about seeing and identifying any of the rioters, who were part of the mob, which indulged into incident of vandalism at the so called two shops. Ld. Special PP also referred to third paragraph of his examination-in-chief, wherein he deposed that on information received from one secret informer, this witness went to the house of accused with IO and there he identified the accused. However, identifying accused and identifying accused as one of the members of rioting mob, which was behind the incident at two shops belonging to aforesaid two victims, are altogether two different things. From the given statement of PW5, no inference can be raised for want of any such specific claim made by PW5, that he identified accused Satyam Singh as one of the rioters.
15. Ld. Special PP submitted that apart from testimony of PW5, there is no other incriminating evidence against the accused to establish his identity as one of the rioters behind the incidents probed in this case.
16. IO had seized a DVR from the house of PW3/Sh. Vipin claiming that there were video footages of the riots taken place in that Digitally signed by Page 17 of 18 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALA District, Date: 2024.07.04 Karkardooma Courts,+0530 17:56:06 Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000902-2021 State v. Satyam Singh SC No.112/21, FIR No. 118/20, PS New Usmanpur area. However, though this DVR was sent to FSL, Rohini for extracting video footage in a CD, and for examination by expert to check tampering in the same, but no one from the prosecution witnesses claimed appearance of accused in such video footage. The video footage was never played before any witness. IO though claimed having recovered the clothes worn by accused at the time of riot, but neither did he apply for face recognition of the accused in the relied upon video footage, nor did he seek any opinion regarding resemblance of the clothes recovered by him, with the cloth worn by any person appearing in the video. Thus, there is no evidence at all to establish the fact that accused was part of the mob.
CONCLUSION & DECISION
17. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that charges leveled against the accused in this case are not proved at all. Hence, accused Satyam Singh is hereby acquitted of all the charges leveled against him in this case.
Digitally signed by PULASTYAPULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.07.04 17:56:13 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 04.07.2024 ASJ-03 (North- East) (This order contains 18 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Page 18 of 18 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi