Delhi District Court
State vs Ravish Kumar And Others on 21 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Neha Garg, JMFC-02 (East)
State vs. Ravish Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 394/2013
PS. Geeta Colony
U/s. 160 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) CIS Number of the case : 7682/2016
2) The date of commission of offence : 11.09.2013
3) The name & parentage of the accused : (1) Ravish Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kailash
Chand,
R/o H. No. A-45, Gali
No. 14, Sarojini
Naidu Park, Shastri
Nagar, Delhi.
(2) Amit Sharma,
S/o Sh. Jwala Prasad
Sharma,
R/o H. No. D-16/70,
Sector-03, Rohini,
Delhi
(3) Smt. Chanchal,
W/o Sh. Ravish
Kumar,
R/o H. No. A-45, Gali
No. 14, Sarojini
Naidu Park, Shastri
Nagar, Delhi.
5) Offence involved : 160 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : ACQUITTED
8) The date of such order : 21.01.2025
Date of Institution : 16.01.2014
Judgment reserved on : 21.01.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 21.01.2025
FIR No. 394/2013 State vs. Ravish Kumar Etc. 1 of 7
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
01. The present case was registered with the allegations that on 11.09.2013, at about 06:30 PM, in front of House No. 45A, Gali No. 14, New Lahore, Shastri Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Geeta Colony, accused persons namely Ravish Kumar, Amit and Smt. Chanchal were found fighting with each other in a public place and disturbed the public peace and thus, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 160 of IPC.
02. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable U/s 160 IPC was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. Accordingly, a formal notice for commission of offence punishable U/Sec. 160 IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
03. In order to prove the allegations against the accused persons, the prosecution has got examined two witnesses.
04. PW-1 HC Dharmender in his examination-in-chief dated 26.04.2023 has stated that "On 11.09.2013, I was posted at PS Geeta Colony, Delhi as Constable. On that day, I joined the investigation of the present case along with Insp. Kishanveer Bhati, who had received a PCR call regarding quarrel. Thereafter, I along with the IO went to the spot i.e. Sarojini Naidu Park, Delhi and saw that a mob had gathered there. We cleared the mob and saw that 02-03 persons were quarreling and fighting among them. Thereafter, IO pacified the accused persons and thereafter, we took them to SDN Hospital for medical examination in a private vehicle. Thereafter, IO handed over a Teharir to me and I came to the PS for registration of FIR. I got registered the FIR and returned to the spot along with the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to the IO. Thereafter, IO conducted the proceedings and arrested the accused persons. The accused persons Ravish, Amit and Chanchal were arrested vide memos Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/C, all bearing my signatures FIR No. 394/2013 State vs. Ravish Kumar Etc. 2 of 7 at point A. The personal search of accused persons was conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/D (colly), all bearing my signatures at point A respectively. Thereafter, accused persons were released on police bail on production of sureties. IO recorded my statement. Thereafter, we returned to the PS".
05. PW-2 Inspector Kishanveer Bhati in his examination-in-chief dated 07.11.2024 has stated that "On 11.09.2013, I was posted at PS Geeta Colony as SI. On that day, I was present at the PS and DD no. 35A regarding PCR Call (already Ex. A-1) was marked to me. Thereafter, I along with Ct. Dharmender reached the spot i.e. House No. 45A, Gali No. 14, New Lahore Shastri Nagar near Sarojini Naidu Park, Delhi where public persons were gathered. After scattering the public persons, I saw that three persons were fighting with each other. I tried to intervene to stop them but they continued fighting with each other. Thereafter, I along with Ct. Dharmender had apprehended the accused persons. I enquired about the incident from the public persons present there who informed me that the accused persons were fighting at the public place due to which inconvenience was causing to the public persons. I requested the public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and refused to give statement and left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses. I asked the name and particulars of the accused persons namely Ravish Kumar, Amit and Chanchal. I called the duty officer and requested to send Woman HC at the spot. After sometime, Woman HC Kusum Lata arrived at the spot and the accused persons were taken to SDN Hospital for their medical examination. Thereafter, I prepared the rukka on the basis of DD no. 35A which is Ex. PW2/A bearing my signature at point and handed over the same to Ct. Dharmender to get the FIR registered at the PS. After the registration of FIR, Ct. Dharmender returned to the Hospital along with the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to me. I arrested the accused persons in the Hospital vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C bearing my signature at point B on all memos. Thereafter, I conducted the personal search of accused persons namely Amit and FIR No. 394/2013 State vs. Ravish Kumar Etc. 3 of 7 Ravish. The personal search memo of accused Amit is Ex. PW2/B bearing my signature at point B. The personal search memo of accused Ravish is Ex. PW2/C bearing my signature at point B. The personal search of accused Chanchal is already Ex. PW1/D (colly) bearing my signature at point B. The accused persons were granted bail police bail vide bail bonds Ex. PW2/D to Ex. PW2/F all bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I recorded the statement of Ct. Dharmender u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. After that, we returned to the PS. After completing the investigation, I prepared the charge-sheet and forwarded it to the Court".
06. During trial, the accused persons have admitted the factum of preparation of DD No. 35A Ex. A-1, registration of FIR No. 394/2013 Ex. A-2, without admitting the contents of the same and the preparation of their MLCs Ex. A-3, Ex. A-4 and Ex. A-5. Accordingly, the witnesses i.e. Duty Officer/HC Dharmender and Dr. Jetavya, CMO SDN Hospital were dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dated 26.04.2024.
07. After completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed vide order dated 07.11.2024. Separate statements of accused persons u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C read with Section 281 of Cr.P.C were recorded on 07.01.2025 wherein they refuted the allegations levelled against them in toto and submitted that accused Chanchal and accused Ravish Kumar are husband and wife and they were having argument at their home and on that accused Amit Kumar, who is the brother of accused Chanchal, has called the police from his mobile number pursuant to which the police officials came and falsely implicated all three of them in the present case. Accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in support of their defence. Accordingly, the matter was listed for final arguments.
08. I have heard the arguments as advanced by the Ld. APP for the State. No final arguments have been advanced on behalf of accused persons. I have also perused the record.
FIR No. 394/2013 State vs. Ravish Kumar Etc. 4 of 7
09. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
10. In the instant case, the Ld. APP has argued that in view of categorical testimony of the witnesses, the offence alleged against the accused persons stands established and the accused persons deserve to be convicted.
11. From material available on record and the evidences of the witnesses recorded, this Court is of the opinion that there are loopholes in the story of prosecution which has been left unplugged and accordingly, the case of the prosecution fails for the reasons discussed below.
12. It has come on record from the MLCs of the accused persons Chanchal and Ravish that they have sustained injuries on their persons during the alleged incident. But the IO has failed to explain as to why appropriate provisions of IPC have not been invoked in the present case despite clear evidence on record in respect of the same. It reflects the casual approach of the IO towards the investigation of alleged incident dated 11.09.2013.
13. Despite public witnesses being available at the spot, as revealed from the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, no efforts seem to have been made to make them join the investigation. PW-1 HC Dharmender has stated in his examination-in-chief that when he along with the IO went to the spot, they saw that a mob had gathered there. Further, PW-2 IO/Inspector Kishanveer Bhati has stated in his examination-in-chief that when he along with Ct. Dharmender reached at the spot, the public were gathered there. Absence of the efforts to join any public witnesses have further introduced an element of doubt in the case of prosecution.
FIR No. 394/2013 State vs. Ravish Kumar Etc. 5 of 7
14. In Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1989 (2) RCR 504 it was held that where the IO has failed to join the public persons in the investigation of a case despite their availability at the spot itself, the case of the prosecution is rendered doubtful.
15. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that Affray has been defined by section 159 of IPC. It provides as when two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to "commit an affray". Section 160 of IPC provides "Whoever commits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with both".
16. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H) (DB), 1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 662).
"Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence (before an accused can be convicted)."
17. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was observed in Partap v. State of U.P., (SC) 1976 A.I.R. (SC) 966 that while prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability. Accused is not expected to prove his innocence to the hilt. If prosecution FIR No. 394/2013 State vs. Ravish Kumar Etc. 6 of 7 story is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
18. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence alleged against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. Suspicion how so ever strong it may be, cannot replace the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of the accused persons. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus. The evidence available on record is not sufficient to substantiate the guilt of the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Ravish Kumar, Amit and Chanchal deserve acquittal and accordingly they are acquitted for which they have been charged.
Announced in open Court (NEHA GARG)
on 21.01.2025 JMFC-02(East)/KKD Courts/Delhi
FIR No. 394/2013 State vs. Ravish Kumar Etc. 7 of 7