Delhi District Court
Title Of The Case: : State vs Satish on 11 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS UPASANA SATIJA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI, NORTH WEST
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New Case No. : 540327/16
Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0229142015
Title of the case: : State Vs Satish
DD No. 77 B dated 16.06.2015,
PS Sultan Puri
Date of institution : 20.06.2015
The offence complained of : 53/116 DP Act
The date of commission of
offence : 16.06.2015
The name of complainant : HC Balram, No. 404/OD,
PS Sultan Puri, Delhi.
The name of accused : Satish S/o sh. Sarnam Singh
R/o P2/465, Sultan Puri, Delhi.
The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
The final order : Convicted
The date of such order : 11.09.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief can be stated as that on 07.08.2014 Addl. DCP (I) Outer District passed an externment order against Satish s/o Sh. Sarnam Singh (hereinafter referred to as accused) however, despite such DD No. 77 B dated 16.05.2015 State v Satish Page 1 of 6 directions under Section 47 Delhi Police Act, the accused was found at P2/465 Sultan Puri, Delhi on 6.06.2015 at about 9.10 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 two witnesses.
3.1. ASI Balram was examined as PW1 who deposed that on 16.06.2015, one secret informer told him that the accused who was on Externment order dated 07.08.2014 u/s 47 DP Act was present in the park in front of his house at P2/465, Sultan Puri, Delhi. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Sukender went to the above said house and apprehended the accused vide arrest memo exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that personal search of the accused was also conducted vide memo exhibited as Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that on the instructions of SHO concerned, he took the accused to the Tikri Border and directed him not to enter into Delhi and to be present before the Court on 19.06.2015. He produced the copy of the Externment order issued by the Additional DCP (Outer District) which was marked as Mark A. He further deposed that he made the DD No.77 B about all the proceedings of the present case which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that he filed the Kalandra u/s 53/116 DP Act in the concerned Court on 19.06.2015 which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/D. PW1 correctly identified the accused in the court.
During his crossexamination, PW1 admitted that he knew the accused DD No. 77 B dated 16.05.2015 State v Satish Page 2 of 6 prior to the day of incident but denied that he falsely implicated the accused by calling him from outside Delhi. He further stated that accused was alone in the park. He further admitted that no site plan of the place of arrest was prepared nor did he give notice to anyone to join investigation.
3.2. Ct. Sukender was examined as PW 2 who deposed that on 16.06.2015, one secret informer told him that the accused who was on Externment order dated 07.08.2014 u/s 47 DP Act was present in the park in front of his house at P2/465, Sultan Puri, Delhi. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith HC Balram went to the above said house and apprehended the accused vide arrest memo already exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that personal search of the accused was also conducted vide memo already exhibited as Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that on the instructions of SHO concerned, he alongwith HC Balram took the accused to the Tikri Border and directed him not to enter into Delhi and to be present before the Court on 19.06.2015. He further stated that the copy of the Externment order issued by the Additional DCP (Outer District) was already marked as Mark A. He further deposed that HC Balram made the DD No.77 B about all the proceedings of the present case which was already exhibited as Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that HC Balram filed the Kalandra u/s 53/116 DP Act in the concerned Court on 19.06.2015 which was already exhibited as Ex.PW1/D. PW2 correctly identified the accused in the court.
During his crossexamination, PW2 admitted that he knew the accused prior to the day of incident but denied that the accused was falsely implicated by calling him from outside Delhi. He further stated that accused was alone in the park. He further admitted that no site plan of the place of arrest was prepared.
DD No. 77 B dated 16.05.2015 State v Satish Page 3 of 64. 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 that both the witnesses are police officials and that he was called by the police for some enquiry and was thereafter falsely implicated. 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 did not even specify the case for interrogation in which he was called.
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 no public witness joined the investigation. He further argued that PW1 did not produce any evidence to show that he left the accused at Tikri Border. 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.
DD No. 77 B dated 16.05.2015 State v Satish Page 4 of 6Applicable 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, PW1 produced copy of externment order dated 07.08.2014 passed by Addl. DCP Outer District against Satish S/o Sh. Sarnam directing him to remove himself beyond the limits of Delhi for a period of one year w.e.f. 14.08.2014.
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 06.06.2015 i.e. when the said externment was still applicable. Although it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that testimony of PW1 and PW2 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, both the witnesses 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.
DD No. 77 B dated 16.05.2015 State v Satish Page 5 of 6Further, even the accused also stated that PW1 called him for inquiring about some other case. Hence, the presence of the accused in Delhi is not disputed by the accused 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 furnish any details of the case for which he was allegedly called. Accordingly, second ingredient is also established.
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, the accused Satish is convicted of the offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act.
13. Copy of this judgment be given, free of cost, to the convict.
Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA
SATIJA Date: 2019.09.12
16:49:44 +0530
Announced in the open Court (UPASANA SATIJA)
on 11th September, 2019 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE1
ROHINI DELHI
DD No. 77 B dated 16.05.2015 State v Satish Page 6 of 6