Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj @ Kali on 29 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Manoj@Kali
DD No : 25 dated 03.03.2015
U/s : 53/116 Delhi Police Act
P.S. : Mangol Puri
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 13025/17 2. Date of commission of offence : 03.03.2015
3. Date of institution of the case : 04.03.2015
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused, parentage : Manoj @ Kali S/o Sh.
Surgyani Lal R/o H.No.
Q10/28 Mangol Puri,
Delhi
6. Offense complained or proved : Section 53/116 Delhi
Police Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 08.07.2023 9. Final order : Acquitted 10. Date of final order : 29.08.2023
1. The case of the prosecution in brief can be stated as that on 18.12.2014, Addl. DCP (I) Outer District passed an externment order against Manoj @ Kali s/o Sh. Surgyani Lal (hereinafter referred to as accused) however, despite such directions under Section 47 Delhi Police Act, the accused was found at Q-Block Public Distribution Shop, Mangol Puri , Delhi on 03.03.2015 at about 1.35 p.m. and thereby committed an 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 notice of accusation 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.
4. ASI Mahesh Kumar was examined as PW-1 who deposed that on 03.03.2015, one secret informer told him that the accused who was on externment order dated 18.12.2014 u/s 47 DP Act would come at Q Block Kattar Market, Mangol Puri Delhi. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with HC Harvinder informed the superior police officials after which the raiding party was prepared which included HC Harvinder, HC Surender Rathi and secret informer. Thereafter, the raiding party left the office vide DD.No.14 Ex.PW1/A and reached the spot i.e Q- Block Mangol Puri near Public Distribution Shop and apprehended the accused. Thereafter, HC Harvinder was sent to DCP Office to collect the externment order and after his arrival at spot along with externment order, kalandra Ex.PW1/B was prepared. He further deposed that the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that personal search of the accused was also conducted vide memo as Ex. PW1/D. During his cross−examination, PW-1 admitted that the owner of ration shop or no other public persons were made as witnesses at the time of apprehension of accused. He volunteered that the ration shop was closed on that day. He also admitted that DD No.14 Ex.PW1/A does not find any mention about the place of incident nor any site plan was prepared by him. He further stated to have reached the spot at 1:20 PM and had received the information at about 12:30 PM. He was also confronted with DD No.14 Ex.PW1/A where the time of receipt of information was recorded as 11:50 AM. He also admitted that said DD entry does find specific mention about the arrival of raiding team at spot by car but denied that he has falsely implicated the accused by calling him from outside Delhi.
5. HC Anil Kumar was examined as PW-2 who proved the copy of externment order no. 4165-4190/Ext.Addl.DCP(I)Outer District dated 18.12.2014 Ex.PW2/A along with entry regarding the dispatch of said order to SHO PS Mangol Puri which is Ex.PW2/B.
6. SI Harvinder Singh was examined as PW-3 who deposed that after receiving DD No.14, he handed over the externment order to HC Mahesh and pursuant thereto, the accused was arrested in his presence near Q Block Mangol Puri. He also identified the accused in Court. During his cross examination, he stated that on the day of occurrence, he was on duty at Sector 14 Special Team Crime Branch and admitted that the DD No.14 Ex.PW1/A does not find mention of the fact of his departure. He also admitted that the spot of occurrence is a crowded place and no public persons were joined in the investigation. He volunteered that IO had requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but they left without stating the reasons. He also stated that the ration shop was closed at the relevant time. He denied that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case after his apprehension from outside Delhi.
7. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined in accordance with Section 281 r/w 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 that all the witnesses are police officials and that he was falsely arrested by police from Dhanesh Dharam Kanta, DSIDC Bahadurgarh Haryana and thereafter falsely implicated in the present case. The accused opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
8. Final arguments were heard.
9. Ld. APP for the State has 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. She further argued that on the basis of testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is established that accused violated the externment order.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that accused was apprehended from a public place but still no public witness joined the investigation. He further argued that even site plan of the place of arrest was not prepared. He further argued that there are several inconsistencies and contradictions in the version of PW-1 and PW-3 which makes the story of prosecution doubtful. He further argued that the accused was falsely apprehended by the IO from Dhanesh Dharam Kanta, DSIDC, Bahadurgarh Haryana and he had not acted in violation of the externment order issued against him. 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, accused be acquitted.
Applicable Law, Appraisal of Evidence and Findings.
11. 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.
12. In the present case, PW2 produced copy of externment order no. 4165-4190/Ext.Addl.DCP(I)Outer District dated 18.12.2014 Ex.PW2/A issued against accused Manoj @ Kali for a period of 6 months. 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.
11. Further, the accused was apprehended on 03.03.2015 i.e. when the said externment was still applicable. Although, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 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. In the present case, even though defence was successful in pointing out some minor contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3, however the careful analysis of the testimonies of both these PWs reflects that they were consistent in their testimonies and also corroborated each other in material particulars. There is nothing on record which raises any doubt as to the role of the witnesses or creates any suspicion regarding their testimony. The presence of accused in Delhi on the day of occurrence stood sufficiently established from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses 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. The accused even though has narrated in his statement u/s 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC. that he was falsely implicated in the present case as the police apprehended him for Dhanesh Dharam Kanta, DSIDC, Bahadurgarh Haryana but surprisingly, he did not lead any evidence to substantiate his said stance. 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 Manoj @ Kali is convicted of the offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act.
15. Let convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence.
16. Copy of this judgment be given, free of cost, to the convict.
Announced in the open Court
On 29th Day of August, 2023 (Rishabh Kapoor)
MM-05 North West District
Rohini Courts, Delhi