Delhi District Court
State vs Swarn Singh Etc on 30 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHANU PRATAP SINGH,
JMFC-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Swarn Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 354/2013
PS. Geeta Colony
U/s. 160 of IPC
JUDGMENT
1) CIS No. of the case : 4765/2016
2) The date of commission of offence : 14.08.2013
3) The name of the complainant : HC Rakesh Kumar,
PS Geeta Colony, Delhi
4) The name & parentage of accused : 1) Swarn Singh,
S/o Shiv Charan,
R/o 56A, New Lahore,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi
2) Prem Singh,
S/o Shiv Charan,
R/o 56A, New Lahore,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi
5) Offence involved : Section 160 of IPC
6) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquitted
8) The date of order : 30.09.2024
Date of Institution : 12.02.2014
Judgment pronounced on : 30.09.2024
BRIEF FACTS
01. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.08.2013, at about 09:30 am near House No. 56A, Neema Bhagat Wali Gali, New Lahore, Shastri Nagar, Delhi within FIR No. 354/2013 State Vs. Swarn Singh & Anr. 1 of 4 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
2024.09.30 SINGH 16:41:50 +0530 the jurisdiction of PS Geeta Colony, both the accused persons were fighting with each other in a public place and thereby disturbed the public peace and thereby both the accused persons namely Swarn Singh and Prem Singh committed offence under Section 160 of IPC.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
02. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 160 of IPC was filed by the IO. The cognizance of the offence was taken by this Court and the copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons. Thereafter, notice for commission of offence punishable under Section 160 of IPC was framed upon the accused persons on 03.08.2015 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged. Statement of accused persons u/s 281 read with Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 16.08.2023 in which accused persons stated that they want to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, defence witness was examined, cross-examined and discharged. Thereafter, the case was listed for final arguments. Thereafter, final arguments were heard on behalf of the parties.
REASONS FOR DECISION 03 The essential ingredients of Section 160 of IPC are:
(i) Fight between two or more persons.
(ii) Such fight must be in a public place.
(iii) The fight must disturb the public peace.
04. In order to prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW-1 Ct. Mahender Singh, PW-2 HC Navneet, PW-3 SI Mithilesh Yadav and PW-4 ASI Rakesh Kumar.
FIR No. 354/2013 State Vs. Swarn Singh & Anr. 2 of 4 Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2024.09.30 16:42:11 +0530
05. PW-1 Ct. Mahender Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that he along with IO reached at New Lahore Shashi Nagar where crowd was gathered. PW-4 SI Rakesh Kumar stated in his examination-in-chief that when he reached the spot i.e. A-56 New Lahore Shastri Nagar, he saw that there were public persons gathered at the spot.
06. PW-4 in his cross-examination stated that he requested the public persons present at the spot to join the investigation but none agreed and left the spot without telling their name and address. PW-4 further stated that some public persons were complaining about the situation created by the persons, but he cannot tell their name.
07. Perusal of testimony of PW-4 shows that no public person was joined as a witness to the investigation and no public person has been made as a witness in the present case. Further, PW-4/IO failed to give notice to any public person who refused to join the investigation. Further, PW-4/IO in his testimony failed to mention the name of the person who were complaining about the situation.
07. Perusal of the testimony of PW-4 shows that PW-4 has failed to mention the name of any public person who complained about the disturbance of public peace. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 is unreliable without corroboration from public witness. Further, the Prosecution has failed to examine any public witness to corroborate the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 despite the availability of public person at the spot.
08. PW-2 HC Navneet and PW-3 SI Mithilesh Yadav have no personal knowledge regarding the present case as they are not an eye witness to the present case.
FIR No. 354/2013 State Vs. Swarn Singh & Anr. 3 of 4 Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2024.09.30 16:42:18 +0530
09. Perusal of the entire record shows that there is no public witness to prove that the alleged fight took place at public place. Further, no public person has been made witness to the site plan to prove that the alleged fight took place at the spot mentioned in the site plan.
10. Further, no public person has been made as a witness to prove that there was exchange of blows or violence between the persons. Further, no MLC of the accused persons was conducted to show any injury to the accused persons. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no evidence to show that there was any exchange of blows or violence between the accused persons. Further, no public person has been made a witness to prove that there was disturbance of public peace.
11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 160 of IPC.
CONCLUSION:
12. In view of the above reasons, this Court has arrived to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the present case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons are not guilty for the offence u/s 160 of IPC. Therefore, accused persons namely Swarn Singh and Prem Singh stand acquitted for the offence u/s 160 of IPC. BHANU Digitally signed by BHANU PRATAP PRATAP SINGH Date: 2024.09.30 SINGH 16:42:29 +0530 Announced in open court (BHANU PRATAP SINGH) on 30.09.2024 JMFC-02 (East)/KKD Courts/Delhi FIR No. 354/2013 State Vs. Swarn Singh & Anr. 4 of 4