Delhi District Court
State vs Kalpana Jha Etc on 9 October, 2025
Cr Cases 2035049/2016
IN THE COURT OF MR. CHATINDER SINGH, JMFC-04,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI.
CR Cases No. 2035049/2016
CNR No. DLST020003592010
State v. Kalpana Jha ETC.
FIR No. 465/2008
PS: Sangam Vihar
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 28.08.2008
2) The name of the complainant : SI Balbir Singh, Belt No.D-591, PS Sangam
Vihar
3) The name & parentage of accused : 1. Arvind Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh
2. Kalpana Jha W/o Sh. Upender Jha
3. Bhagwat Yadav S/o Sh. Bindeshwar Yadav
4. Indraj S/o late Sh. Rampal
5. Pushp Kumar Aggarwal S/o late Sh.
Mahavir Prasad
6. Bhupender Yadav S/o Sh. Satyaram Singh.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.1 of 66
Cr Cases 2035049/2016
4) Offence complained of : Section 147/148/149/186/353/332/427/34 IPC
and 3 PDPP Act
5) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
Date of Institution : 07.05.2010
Date of final arguments : 01.09.2025
Judgment announced on : 09.10.2025
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.08.2008 at around 05:15 PM at M B Road opposite Jamia Hamdard Univesity, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, all accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and were carrying dandas, iron rods and hockey sticks in their hands and further used force and violence in prosecution of the common object against police officials and caused traffic jam on M B Road. Further, all the accused persons obstructed and assaulted police officials in discharge of their lawful duties and forcefully took away four unknown boys from the custody of the police. Further, all the accused persons also caused damage to five DTC buses and four buses belonging to private carrier. The FIR number 465/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was registered on the basis of the complaint of SI Balbir.
2. After registration of FIR, investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 173 CrPC was filed regarding commission of offence under Section 147/148/149/186/353/332/427/34 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act 1984.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.2 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016
3. Vide order dated 06.08.2015, charge was framed against the accused persons namely Arvind Singh, Kalpana Jha, Bhagwat Yadav, Indraj Singh Biduri, Pushp Kumar Aggarwal and Bhupender Singh Yadav regarding commission of offence punisbable under Section 147/148/149/186/332/353 r/w 140 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act 1984.
4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses.
5. PW-1 Retd. SI Balbir Singh deposed that on 28.08.2008 he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as SI and his duty hour were from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. He further deposed that during his duty he alongwith Ct. Avtar Singh were present at Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar. He further deposed that at about 5.15 pm while they were on duty, one tempo came and stopped on the opposite side road of the police picket Ratia Marg, M B Road, Sangam Vihar, further, persons were seated in the tempo, one local leader whose name was Kalpana Jha was already there alongwith 3-4 persons. He further deposed that when tempo stopped, some public persons came out from the tempo and joined Kalpana Jha, further, they started making slogans against police and also started stopping the traffic on the MB Road. He further deposed that when he saw all this, then, he alongwith Ct. Avtar came there and tried to make them understand but to no avail, thereafter, accused persons started breaking the glasses of DTC buses, they also started pelting stones on the buses, he tried to pacify again but to no avail. He further deposed that he called PS Sangam Vihar from his mobile phone, in the meantime, some of them went towards Ravidas Marg and started stopping traffic there. He further deposed that Inspector Dilip Singh came alongwith police staff. He further deposed that the agitators even came to police picket Ratia Marg and started assaulting police officials HC Prahlad Singh and Ct. Sahab Singh. He further deposed that Inspector Dilip Singh any how managed FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.3 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 to control the agitators but again slogans against police were being raised. He further deposed that he sent HC Prahlad to hospital in a TSR. The witness further deposed that his statement was recorded at the spot which is Ex.PW1/A. The witness correctly identified the DTC and Blue Line Buses from the photograph which are Ex.P-1 to P-17.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Bhupender Singh by Sh. Narendra Hudda, the witness deposed that his duty was at Ratia Marg police picket on the date of the incident. The witness denied the suggestion that his duty was with MCD Demolition drive. The witness was shown the duty roaster Mark A wherein the name of the witness was reflected on MCD Demolition Ratia Marg to which the witness replied that he was at police picket Ratia Marg. The witness further deposed that he do not know whether his duty roaster was changed on that date by duty officer. The witness further stated that on the date of the incident, he was having mobile phone whose number was 9871580999, he had called at the PS from his mobile phone, however, he do not remember the exact time but it might be half an hour after the incident. The witness further stated that Ct. Avtar Singh was with him on picket duty on the date of the incident. He further stated that Ct. Avtar Singh had also witnessed the incident, he had called after the incident, he know all the accused persons prior to the incident particularly accused Kalpana Jha by face. The witness further stated that accused Kalpana Jha had not made any complaint against him prior to the incident. The witness admitted that he know all the accused persons by face not by name prior to the incident except accused Kalpana Jha. The witness further stated that names of accused persons were revealed when they were apprehended by the police after the incident. The witness further deposed that his complaint was written at the spot by the lO. The witness admitted the FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.4 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 suggestion that names of the accused persons were revealed when his statement was recorded. The witness further deposed that he do not remember on which date Diwali was celebrated in the year 2008, he had told to the IO that firstly the mob was around 15-20 people, 4-5 persons were already present at the spot and 15-20 persons came there on tempo. The witness further deposed that at the arrival of people there on tempo, accused persons who were already there started making slogans and thereafter incident was started. The witness correctly identified the accused Bhupender. The witness further deposed that accused Bhupender is also known by his nick name Gujjar, accused Bhupender is associated with local leader Kalpana Jha. The witness admitted that hoarding posters used to be put in Sangam Vihar area depicting leaders. The witness further deposed that he do not know whether any other police officials except him and Ct. Avtar were at the spot, they might have come there after hearing the noise from nearby. The witness deposed that he do not know as to who had recorded his statement. The witness deposed that he refreshed his memory with his statement. The witness deposed that when agitators started pelting stones on the buses, the passengers started fleeing from the buses, he had made a call directly to PS and incident was told to duty officer and he had also called SHO and narrated the whole incident to him on phone, when he was making call to PS from local phones, it was found engaged, thereafter, he called from his mobile phone. The witness admitted that he did not make any call on 100 number. The witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A from A to A where it so recorded that call made to 100 number. The witness admitted that he had not made such statement which is already confronted to the IO and admitted that some of unidentified agitators had assaulted HC Prahlad and Ct. Sahab Singh, accused Bhupender was having a danda in his hand at the time of the FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.5 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 incident. The witness further deposed that danda was not seized in his presence, the danda which was hold by accused Bhupender was of 4-5 feet. The witness admitted that no any other person was injured in this agitation except two police officials. The witness deposed that he do not know the addresses/block of the accused persons except accused Kalpana Jha. The witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A where witness had stated the addresses of the accused persons. The witness had identified all the accused persons in the PS while they were in custody. The witness further deposed that his statement was recorded at once in this case, he do not remember as to how many documents he had signed, he do not remember the nature of documents on which his signatures were obtained. The witness further deposed that he do not remember whether any statement of any other witness was recorded in his presence. The witness denied that Ct. Avtar Singh was not with him on the date of the incident at Ratia Marg. The witness further denied that one complaint was made by Kalpana Jha through one woman against him that is why he falsely implicated her in the present matter. The wintess denied that he came to know the date of the incident today itself after refreshing his memory. The witness denied that he identified accused Bhupender from those posters and thereafter, identified him in the court. The witness denied that he had not seen accused persons agitating at Ratiya Marg or assaulting. The witness deposed that he do not remember exact time when the accused persons were apprehended and taken to PS, however, Sl Sanjay Singh took them to PS on the date of incident. The witness further deposed that 5-6 persons were apprehended by SI Sanjay Singh and taken to PS and they all were arrested by SI Sanjay Singh. The witness deposed that disclosure statement of the accused persons were recorded in his presence, he had signed his statement as well as some other documents however, he do not FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.6 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 remember whether his signatures were obtained on disclosure statement of the accused persons. The witness further deposed that he do not remember the name of the accused persons whose disclosure statement were recorded, his signatures were not obtained on arrest memos and seizure memos. The witness deposed that injured constable was taken to hospital in auto in his presence, however, he do not remember the name of the official who took him to hospital. The witness denied that disclosure statement of the accused persons were not recorded and accused persons were not arrested in his presence. The witness denied the suggestion that accused persons were not present at the spot at the time of the incident. The witness denied that injured constable was went to the hospital on his won and not brought by any public official.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Kalpana Jha and Bhagwat Yadav by Ld. Counsel Sh. Satish Kumar, PW-1 deposed that he had joined PS Sangam Vihar in the year 2006-07 and remained there till 2009. The witness further deposed that it was Tata 407 on which agitators came. The witness denied that only TSR is called as tempo and Tata 407 is not called as tempo. The witness further deposed that after dropping of agitators there, Tata 407 left away the spot, he could not reduced the registration number of Tata 407 into writing. The witness admitted that he was knowing accused Kalpana Jha prior to the incident as she is a leader, he remained at the spot for about two hours. The witness deposed that recovery of dandas were made in his presence however his signatures were not obtained on the seizure memo is correct that death of one girl had happened in Sangam Vihar on that date prior to the alleged incident, he cannot tell the name of relative of deceased. The witness deposed that he do not know whether SI Lakhan Singh was trapped by CBI at the instance of accused Kalpana Jha. The witness deposed that his statement was recorded at the spot FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.7 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 however he do not remember the exact tim, it was around sunset time. The witness denied that accused Kalpana Jha and Bhagwat were not present at the spot at the time. The witness voluntarily deposed that they were leading the agitation. The witness denied that accused Kalpana Jha and Bhagwat Yadav had been falsely implicated in this case as they had made several complaints of police officials of PS Sangam Vihar to CBI. The witness denied that he is dposing falsely at the instance of senior police officials as well as IO.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Indraj the witness deposed that photograph were taken by private phtoographer. The witness deposed that he do not remember the name of the photographer. The witness admitted that on seeing the photographs on judicial file, one cannot assume as who is damaging the same, photographs were taken at the spot. The witness further deposed that accused Indraj is a social worker in the area, he cannot tell the exact number of photographs which were taken at the spot, however, it may be 15-20. The witness deposed that IO did not record the statement of other wintesses in his presence, he had told the IO about the spot of the incident and site plan was prepared at his instance. The witness denied that photographs of buses were taken in PS that is why traffic movements were not captured. The witness denied that he have seen him in the postures of Sangam Vihar area being social worker that is why he identified him.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Pushp Kumar the witness denied that accused Pushp Kumar was present at the spot. The witness denied that he was falsely implicated in the case as he was the first person who had called on 100 number on death of two school children. The witness lastly denied that he is deposing falsely.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.8 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016
6. PW-2 Ct. Sahab Singh deposed that on 28.08.2008 he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as Ct, on that date, at around 5,00 pm on receipt of information, alongwith Inspector Dilip Singh, HC Prahlad Singh and other police officials went to the spot i.e. red light Hamdard University, MB Road where they saw many public persons had gathered at the spot. The witness deposed that public persons had stopped the traffic movement and breaking the windows of bus, they were also raising slogans. The witness further deposed that four boys were apprehended from the gathering who were breaking the windows of the bus and on instructions of Inspector Dilip Singh we took them in a TSR. The witness further deposed that when they were turning our TSR towards PS, some persons who were at nearby police booth came on the asking of four boys and managed to take away all four boys who had been apprehended by them, they also assaulted them with danda and stones. The witness further deposed that HC Prahlad Singh received injuries in the leg and he sustained minor injuries on his body, later, it was found that leg of HC Prahlad Singh was fractured. The witness further deposed that assailants were namely Kalpana Jha, Indraj, Pushp Kumar, Bhupender Yadav and others whose name he do not remember at present. The witness further deposed that he and HC Prahlad Singh were treated at Batra hospital, however, his MLC was not prepared at it was minor injuries to him. The witness further deposed that he had signed on the arrest memo of Indraj Singh, Pushp Kumar and Bhupender Kumar Yadav vide memos Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/C respectively. The witness correctly identified 17 photographs which are shown to him and the same was exhibited as Ex.PX1 to PX17.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.9 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 During cross examination on behalf of accused Bhupender by Ld. Counsel Sh. Narender Hudda, the witness deposed that on that date, his duty was in beat of H Block and HC Devender was with him in the beat. The witness deposed that he do not remember the name of his Division Officer. The witness further deposed that he was performing his duty on the said date on his private vehicle and HC devender also on own motorcycle. The witness deposed that his beat office situates near the place of occurrence, one police booth was sitauted as a beat booth, police officials for picket officers used to be deputed from PS. The witness did not remember the name of police officials who were deputed by the concerned SHO at the police picket on that date. The witness deposed that as briefing was going on and all staff of police station was present in the briefing and duty officer get a call from the source regarding the incident, same was conveyed to Inspector Dilip Singh and him as a beat officer. The witness deposed that till the time information was received, briefing was not started. The witness deposed that he alongwith 4-5 other police officials were asked to accompany Inspector Dilip Singh at that time. The witness further deposed that normally briefing starts at around 5.30-5.45 pm. The witness deposed that there is no fix time for briefing, they had gathered at around 4.30 pm in the PS for briefing. The witness deposed that he was present in his beat on 28.08.2008. The witness deposed that he did not know whether any accident had occurred in his beat in which three children succumbed to injuries, he do not remember the exact time however, it might be 5.30 pm when they had accompanied Inspector Dilip Singh from PS. The witness admitted that till 5.30 pm briefing was not started. The witness deposed that he went to the spot on his motorcycle however due to traffic jam, parked his motorcycle at the corner and thereafter, went to the spot on foot. The witness deposed that he was alone on my motorcycle FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.10 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 remaining officials had gone there on their vehicles, they all were in uniform, when they went to the spot, public persons had gathered there. The witness deposed that he know some of them. The witness voluntarily deposed that he could not recognize any person from the mob when they reached the spot firstly however, when they were taking away four boys in TSR and had reached near police booth where he identified some of known persons. The witness deposed that prior to their arrival, there were no police official present at the spot, two police officials were present at the picket which was at a distance from the spot. The witness deposed that police picket come on the way to PS from the spot, they did not request picket officials however, they also came at the spot after hearing the noise. The witness deposed that it took around 8-10 minutes to reach at the spot, when they reached at the spot some of the vehicles were already damaged by the mob and they were still damaging the vehicles. The witness deposed that all the buses including blue line and DTC were being damaged by the mob, most of them were youth from the mob. The witness deposed that accused persons were not present at the very spot where buses were being damaged by mob however, they were standing nearby the police booth, some of the boys who were damaging the vehicle were apprehended. The witness deposed that he do not know the date when his statement was recorded by the IO, he had not stated to the IO that the mob was dispersed by Inspector Dilip Singh. The witness admitted that he had stated to the IO that the accused persons were standing near the police picket. The witness deposed that he had not seen any of the accused persons damaging the vehicle at the spot. The witness deposed that he remained posted in PS Sangam Vihar for a period of about 5 ½ however, he do not remember the exact date of posting and transfer. The witness admitted that he know accused persons prior to the incident as they FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.11 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 used to come in PS as they are social worker of different political parties, he know accused Kalpana Jha as he have seen her postures/hoardings pasted in the area. The witness correctly identified the accused persons. The witness deposed that four boys were taken in auto rickshaw, he alongwith other police officials were in TSR. The witness deposed that they immediately seek the assistance of TSR and took the boys to PS. The witness deposed that they all seven persons including driver of TSR were in TSR, no statement of driver of TSR was recorded in his presence by the IO. The witness deposed that he was using mobile phone at that time, he had not called on 100 number. The witness deposed that he do not know whether his colleague had called on 100 number, IO had prepared the site plan in his presence however, he do not remember the date. The witness deposed that IO had not obtained his signature on the site plan. The witness deposed that he do not remember whether any of the accused persons were arrested by the police on the date of the incident, IO had got identified the accused persons by him. The witness deposed that he had told to the IO that they are the accused. The witness denied the suggestion that he was not present in my beat on 28.08.2008 that is why he was not aware about the above said accident and death of three children. The witness denied that he manipulated the story of TSR to falsely implicate the accused persons, present in the court. The witness further denied that the boys were not taken in the TSR. The witness denied that accused had not assaulted me and HC Prahlad Singh. The witness denied the suggestion that nothing had happened as stated above. The witness denied that accused persons were falsely implicated being local leader having enmity with police officials. The witness lastly denied that he is deposing falsely.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.12 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 During cross examination on behalf of accused Indraj by Ld. Counsel Sh. Subhash Tanwar, the witness deposed that he do not remember the date when accused Indraj was arrested, even he do not remember as to after how many days after incident, accused Indraj was arrested, even I do not remember the exact time when accused Indraj was arrested. The witness deposed that he do not remember as to whom the information of arrest of accused Indraj was given. The witness deposed that disclosure statement of accused Indraj was recorded by the IO where he had put his signature. The witness deposed that photograph of damaged vehicles were taken however, he do not remember the number of photographs. The witness deposed that photographs were taken as and when damaged vehicles were stationed. The witness admitted that there was a playground behind the PS Sangam Vihar. The witness deposed that there were around 50-60 public persons who were damaging the vehicles. The witness deposed that he do not know whether IO had recorded the statement of any public persons, he do not know whether his departure was entered in DD register for this purpose. The witness deposed that firstly he alongwith Inspector Dilip Singh and other police officials reached at the spot thereafter, some more police officials reached at the spot. The witness deposed that he do not know whether police officials were also reached at the spot prior to their arrival, they had apprehended four boys from the mob and remaining were started fleeing after seeing them however, they did not use any measures to disperse the mob. The witness deposed that the incident was got video recorded/photographed by the IO, he do not know as to who was posted at police picket on the date of the incident. The witness deposed that his statement was recorded at once, IO had taken dandas and stones from the spot in his presence. The witness admitted that he know accused Indraj prior to the incident as he often visits PS being a social FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.13 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 worker of the area for redressal public grievances. The witness denied that photographs of damaged vehicles were taken in the PS and not at the spot and denied that photographs of damaged vehicles were taken in that playground.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Pushp Kumar by Ld. Counsel Sh. S. P. Verma, the witness deposed that he do not know whether children were died in road accident in Sangam Vihar one day prior to the incident. The witness deposed that he was not on leave on that date, he was on beat duty one day prior to the incident, he do not know whether accused Pushp Kumar had called on 100 number regarding the accident and expiry of three children in that accident. The witness deposed that he do not know whether accused Pushp Kumar also used to visit PS for redressal of public grievances. The witness deposed that he do not remember the date on which accused Pushp Kumar was arrested.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Kalpana Jha and Bhagwat by Ld. Counsel Sh. Satish Kumar, the witness deposed that he know accused Kalpana Jha prior to the incident as she is a local leader, he do not remember the DD number of the information which was received to Duty Officer and thereafter they went to the spot. The witness deposed that he do not remember whether his departure was entered in DD register. The witness deposed that he accompanied Inspector Dilip Singh, HC Prahlad Singh and other police officials, they went to the spot on different vehicles. The witness deposed that they reached the spot successively.
7. PW-3 ASI Prahlad Kumar deposed that on 28.08.2008 he was posted as HC at PS Sangam Vihar, on that day after receiving information regarding the damaging (todfod) of DTC buses at M B Road, Red Light by 15-20 persons.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.14 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 The witness deposed that thereafter, he along with Inspector Dilip Singh went to the spot and saw the gathering of public persons who were damaging and restricting the way of the buses and also damaging the glasses of the buses. The witness further deposed that Inspector Dilip Singh with the help of other police official tried to intervene and pacify the matter with the public person but they did not give any heed, thereafter, they dispersed the mob. The witness deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Sahab Singh apprehended four persons and took them in the TCR to PS. The witness further deposed that as they reached near Ratia Marg, the persons sitting with us started making noise (shor sharaba) and after hearing the noise 15-20 boys namely Inder Raj Singh, Arvind Singh, Pushp Kumar, Bhagwat Yadav and other came for their rescue and stopped our TSR on which they were taking them to TSR and released the apprehended persons. The witness further deposed that the above mentioned 15-20 boys started throwing stones and dandas because of this he received injury on his right leg, thereafter, he went for my medical examination at Batra Hospital where he received MLC bearing no. 5733. The witness deposed that the accused Inder Raj Singh, Bhupender Singh and Pushp Kumar are present on the incident on 28.08.2008 and they were involved in damaging the DTC bus. The witess deposed that IO had recorded my statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. The witness correctly identified the photographs Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX17.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Bhupender Singh by Ld. Counsel Sh. Narender Hudda, the witness deposed that in the present case the IO of the case was SI Chand Singh, he met with SI Chand Singh at the spot when he reached on a call and he was accompanied with Inspector Dilip Singh and other staff. The witness deposed that he was posted at the PS for about one year prior to the incident, he reached at the spot for about 5.15 pm. The witness FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.15 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 deposed that he do not remember at which time and date the IO had recorded his statement with respect to the present case. The witness deposed that he had not made any signature in any document with respect to the present case. The witness denied that he was never involved in the present case for investigation and neither he was present at the spot. The witness deposed that the incident did not took place in his presence. The witness further deposed that among 15-20 persons present at the spot, he know the accused persons by their names. The witness denied that because of this he had named the accused persons in the present case I know them prior to the incident. The witness denied that because the accused persons are politically involved and their posters and banners are hanging placed near by the Sangam Vihar area therefore, he was aware with their names once, they are falsely implicated in the present case. The witness deposed that he do not remember the name of the persons who were apprehended and kept in the auto but he can identify the persons if shown to him. The witness further deposed that IO had never asked for any TIP of the persons who were involved in the incident and neither he had asked for the persons identification who run away from the auto rickshaw, he alongwith Ct. Sahab Singh and the four persons (apprehended) were present in the auto. The witness deposed that the driver was also present in the auto who was driving the auto. The witness deposed that he do not know the name of the driver, he had not recorded the statement of the driver of the auto in his presence. The witness deposed that no auto was seized in his presence, the crowd were pelting the stone from some distance. The witness deposed that the site plan was not prepared in his presence, he became unconscious so he was not aware whether the stones were collected by the IO or not. The witness deposed that he sustained injury on his both legs and thereafter, he became inconscious. The FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.16 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 witness deposed that he regain his conscious at the hospital. The witness deposed that he had not told this fact to the IO regarding his consciousness as IO has not asked for. The witness denied that he had not sustained any injury and he had never become unconscious because of the injury. The witness denied that he was beaten by the crowd/ mob. The witness denied that accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case and he was unable to identify those persons who inflicted injury on him person as such he have mentioned the names of the present accused persons. The witness lastly denied that he is deposing falsely.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Indraj by Ld. Counsel Sh. Subhash Tanwar, the witness deposed that on that date my duty hours was 9.00 am to 9.00 pm, he was present in the PS when the information regarding the incident came to our knowledge. He witness deposed that Inspector Dilip Singh had told him about the incident while he was briefing them. The witness deposed that the said briefing was made at about 5.00 pm, he do not remember the exact number of the persons who were present at the time of briefing. The witness admitted that all the division incharge and beats were remained present. The witness again said that those who are present at the PS were briefed by the Inspector Dilip Singh. The witness deposed that he do not made any departure entry but it might be done by Inspector Dilip Singh as he have accompanied with him. The witness deposed that the distance between the spot and the PS is about 1 KM, they left the PS after 5-15 PM. The witness deposed that he do not remember the other police staff who were accompanied them to the spot. The witness deposed that he went at the spot on a private motorcycle of Ct. Sahab Singh, there were around 15-20 public persons were present at the spot. The FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.17 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 witness admitted that when he reached at the spot the crowd were breaking the glasses of the buses. Further, the witness was asked the following questions i.e. :
Q. You have earlier stated that when you reached at the spot, the incident had already taken place but in the present cross examination you have again said that the incident was going on. Which statement is correct?
The witness stated that no videograpy / photography was conducted by the IO or any police staff in her presence. The witness stated that he remained at the spot for period of half an hour, she had not made any effort to apprehend the accused persons and he is not aware whether the other police staff had made any effort or not. The witness further stated that he do not remember as when his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO. The witness further stated that Inspector Dilip Singh alongwith other police staff tried to disperse the crowd with the help of wooden stick/ danda. The witness further stated that he do not remember whether she had told this fact to the IO or not. The witness further stated that his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC was recorded by the IO two times. The witness further stated that again said, it was recorded once however, he do not remember the date. The witness further stated that other public persons were also apprehended by the IO regarding the said incident. The witness further stated that he can not tell the names of the other public persons who were apprehended by the IO.
Q. You had stated in your examination in chief that I sustained injury on my right leg and in your cross examination today you had stated that you had sustained injury on your both leg. Which one statement is correct ?
Ans. The witness stated that he had received injury on his both legs as one of his legs (right) got fractured and other one received injury.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.18 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 The witness deposed that as he was unconscious so the fact of fracture of his right leg was not disclosed by him to the doctor concerned, further, he do not aware whether the fact was told by Ct. Sahab Singh who had taken him to the hospital. The witness deposed that he was not aware about whether the fact of unconsciousness was mentioned in MLC or not. The witness deposed that he have not stated anything to the doctor, he do not remember whether any x-ray of his right leg was conducted or not. The witness deposed that during the investigation, he had identified the accused persons as IO has called him to identify them. The witness deposed that he do not remember as to after how many days of the incident IO had called him to identify the accused persons. The witness admittted that on the day of identification of accused persons all accused persons were not present however, some of them were present. The witness deposed that he had identified the accused persons one by one in the room of the IO. The witness deposed that he do not know the name of the IO on whose behest he had identified the accused persons in the PS, he remained posted at PS Sangam Vihar till 2012, exact date he do not remember. The witness deposed that he do not remember as who was the SHO of PS Sangam Vihar when he was transferred from there. The witness deposed that he do not remember the registration number of the auto. The witness deposed that at the time of incident he was on the beat duty at Gupta Colony near shooting range. The witness denied that he was on beat duty at Gupta Colony. The witness denied he had identified the accused Indraj because he is the active member of BJP and he was the president of Mandal at that point of time and various hoardings and posters were there in the area. The witness denied that accused persons had tried to stop the auto. The witness denied that accused tried to release the accused persons who was taken by them in the auto. The witness FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.19 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 denied that he apprehended persons present in the auto at that time were never called by the IO for any investigation in his presence.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Bhagwat Yadav by Ld. Counsel Sh. Satish Kumar, the witness deposed that IO/SI Sanjay had recorded his statement. The witness denied that SI Sanjay recored his statement and he had not given any statement in the present case.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Pushp Kumar by Ld. Counsel Sh. Narender Hudda, the witness deposed that he met the accused Pushp Kumar once prior to the incident, however, he do not remember the exact date when he met him. The witness deposed that normally, he do not remember the name of each and every person whom he met in daily course. The witness lastly denied that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case and he is deposing falsely.
8. PW-4 HC Naresh Kumar deposed that on 28.08.2008 he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as Ct, on that day, he was on emergency duty alongwith SI Chand Singh, on that day, SI Chand Singh received an information and thereafter, he assisted him to the spot i.e. at MB Road opposite to Hamdard University, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. The witness deposed that on reaching the spot, they found that lot of public persons were assembled at the spot, there was also traffic jam at the spot. The witness deposed that additional SHO Inspector Dilip Kumar and other police officials were also present at the spot, the public persons who were present at the spot were protesting. The witness further deposed that at that time, Additional SHO Inspector Dilip Singh were trying to disperse the mob and to open the traffic, at that time, SI Baibir Singh came to SI FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.20 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 Chand Singh and narrated the facts of the incident. The witness further deposed that SI Balbir Singh also gave the details of the vehicles that was damaged by the mob which were parked at the spot. The witness further deposed that thereafter, IO SI Chand Singh recorded the statement of SI Balbir Singh. The witness deposed that thereafter, IO SI Chand Singh prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR, thereafter, he went to PS and got the case registered, thereafter, the rukka and registered copy of FIR was handed over to SI Pramod Joshi. The witness deposed that thereafter, he alongwith SI Pramod Joshi came to the spot of the incident, thereafter, SI Pramod Joshi prepared the site plan of the spot at the instance of Sl Balbir Singh. The witness deposed that thereafter, IO seized the damaged vehicles, which were 9 in numbers. The witenss deposed that the seizure memo of the aforesaid vehicles bearing registration numbers DL-1PB-0023, DL-1PB-6788, DL-1PB-2913, DL-1PB-4563, DL-1PB-2162, DL-1PB-6974, DL-1PB-5278, DL-1PB-4643, DL-1PB-6723 vide seizure memos Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/I respectively. The witness deposed that thereafter, IO also seized three dandas, one iron rod and one hockey stick from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/J. The witness deposed that at that time, HC Prahlad and Ct. Sahab Singh reached the spot after conducting their medical examination and gave their MLCs to the IO, thereafter, IO recorded their statement. The witness deposed that thereafter, IO arrested the accused persons. The witness correctly identified the photographs of DTC buses annexed in the judicial file and deposed that these buses were seized by the IO in his presence, the photographs are already Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX17. The witness correctly identified the case property i.e. hockey stick, danda and iron rod seized by the IO.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.21 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 During cross examination on behalf of accused Arvind, Pushp Kumar and Bhupender by Ld. Counsel Sh. Narender Hudda, the witness deposed that when he reached the spot the incident had already been occurred, the case properties were recovered from the place of incident, the same were lying on the road. The witness deposed that around 100-150 public persons were present at the spot, he do not remember apart from him whether IO had made any other witness, at the time of recovering the case properties. The witness deposed that IO had prepared the site plan in his presence at the instance of SI Balbir. The site plan prepared by the IO was rough and not prepared as per scale, the site plan was prepared before the recovery of the case properties. The witness deposed that the FIR was not registered prior to the recovery of the case properties. The witness admitted that only two dandas, one hockey and one iron rod were recovered from the spot, he had not read the content of recovery memo Ex. PW4/J prior to signing the same. The witness deposed that IO recorded the statement of Ct. Pahlad and Ct. Sahab Singh in his presence at the spot, the seizure memos of buses were not seized by the IO. The witness deposed that no broken glasses of buses were seized by the IO in his presence, no video recording of the incident had done in his presence. The witness deposed that the seized buses were photographed at the PS, there were 9 buses at the spot. The witness deposed that the buses were driven by their respective drivers, he visited the spot twice. The witness deposed that first time, he had visited the spot at about 5.30 pm alongwith SI Chand Singh and again at about 10.00-10.15 pm alongwith SI Pramod. The witness deposed that no injured persons were found present when he reached the spot for the first time. The witness deposed that approx. 100-150 public persons were present at the spot. The witness admitted that he do not know their names. The witness deposed that accused FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.22 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 Arvind and Kalpana Jha were present at the spot when he visited the spot first time, people were raising slogans at the spot when he reached there for the first time. The wiitness deposed that the agitation was with regard to death of two children in an accident that had occurred some day before the incident however, he cannot tell the exact date of the said incident, no force were used to disperse the agitating people at the spot. The witness deposed that when he reached the spot for the first time alongwith police official, his seniors were present. The witness denied that he is deposing falsely or that all the documents were prepared at the PS by the IO and he signed the same later on. The witness denied that no recovery was effected in his presence and he signed the seizure memo of the case properties later on in the PS. The witness deposed that he is deposing falsely on issue of recovery memo which was prepared by the IO in his presence as in which it is specifically mentioned that there were 3 dandas were recovered but in his presence two dandas were recovered from the spot. The witness denied that the said buses were produced by their respective drivers in the PS and the same were not seized by the IO. The witness denied that he never visited the spot nor he know the exact incident and he have deposed in the court as per the instructions of the IO.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Indraj by Ld. Counsel Sh. Subhash Tanwar, the witness deposed that he do not remember the DD number upon which he visited the spot, SI Chand Singh instructed him orally to visit the place of incident. The witness deposed that he had not stated in his statement u/s 161 CPC and deposition before the court in examination in chief the fact of visiting of the place of the incident twice. The witness voluntarily deposed that he had deposed today upon the specific question of defence counsel. The witness admittted that he do not remember the number of the buses which were FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.23 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 damaged in the alleged incident, when he reached at the spot, there were already 15-20 police personnels were present at the spot. The witness deposed that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the IO only once, IO inquired in his presence from the public as to who were the agitators but public persons stated that they do not know any of them. The witness deposed that no notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C were served by the IO to any of the public persons in his presence, present at the spot.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Kalpana and Bhagwat yadav by Ld. Counsel Sh. Satish Kumar, the witness deposed that the witness admitted that IO had not obtained his signature on the site plan. The witness deposed that IO had not record the statement of any of the drivers of the DTC buses in his presence. The witness denied that the site plan was not prepared in his presence and that accused Kalpana Jha was not arrested in his presence. The witness denied that he was never present at the spot of the incident nor accused Kalpana Jha was arrested in his presence. The witness deposed that no personal search of accused Kalpana Jha was conducted in his presence, he do not know accused Kalpana Jha prior to the said incident. The witness deposed that he also do not know SI Lakhan posted at PS Sangam Vihar who was arrested by the CBI on the complaint of Kalpana Jha. The witness denied that Kalpana Jha was made accused in the present case as she had filed a complaint in CBI against SI Lakhan Singh as well as against other police officials of PS Sangam Vihar. The witness denied that he have become witness in the present case on the behest of the senior police officials.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.24 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016
9. PW-5 Inspector Pramod Joshi deposed that on 28.08.2008 he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as SI, on that day, at around 09.45 pm, copy of FIR was handed over to him for further investigation. The witness deposed that he reached the spot ie. Ratiya Marg, MB Road where SI Chand Singh, Ct. Naresh and SI Balbir were present, thereafter, at the instance of SI Balbir, he prepared the site plan of the spot, same was Ex. PW5/A. The witness deposed that thereafter, he seized the 9 buses from the spot which were damaged by the mob. The seizure memos of the same are already Ex.PW4/A to Ex. PW4/I, thereafter, he seized stones, iron rod and hockey sticks from the spot and prepared seizure memo which is already Ex.PW4/J. The witness deposed that thereafter, HC Prahlad and Ct. Sahab Singh reached the spot and handed over their MLCs to Inspector Pramod Joshi, thereafter, he recorded their statement. The witness deposed that thereafter, SI Balbir handed over to Inspector Pramod Joshi one person, namely Arvind Singh, who was involved in the alleged incident. The witness deposed that thereafter, Inspector Pramod Joshi interrogated him and he was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW4/K, his personal search was also conducted vide memo already Ex.PW4/L. The witness deposed that thereafter, Inspector Pramod Joshi recorded his disclosure statement, same is Ex.PW5/B, thereafter, accused Kalpana Jha was produced by SI Balbir Singh with the assistance of W/Ct. Savitri. The witness deposed that thereafter, Inspector Pramod Joshi interrogated her and arrested her vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/C. The witness deposed that thereafter, her personal search was got conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/D, thereafter, disclosure statement of accused Kalpana Jha was recorded vide mely CAPW5/E. The witness deposed that medical examination of the aforesaid accused persons were got conducted and thereafter, they were put in lockup. The witness FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.25 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 deposed that Inspector Pramod Joshi also recorded the statement of the other witnesses, the case properties were deposited in the malkhana. The witness deposed that on next day, the aforesaid accused persons were produced before the court and they were sent to JC, thereafter, on the next day i.e. 30.08.2008, out of 9 buses, 6 vehicles were released on superdari. The witness deposed that on 29.09.2008, Inspector Pramod Joshi received an information that one accused namely Bhagwat Yadav involved in the present case was surrendering before the court. The witness deposed that thereafter, he went to the court and application was moved for interrogation of the accused before the court. The witness deposed that thereafter, the accused Bhagwat Yadav was interrogated and thereafter, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/F and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/G, thereafter, the said accused was sent to JC. The witness deposed that thereafter, Inspector Pramod Joshi was transferred and the present case file was handed over to MHC(R). The witness correctly identified accused Kalpana Jha and Bhagwat Yadav and photographs of buses annexed with the judicial file.
During cross examination on behalf of the accused Pushp Kumar Agarwal, Bhupender and Arvind Singh by Ld. Counsel Sh. Narendra Hudda, the witness deposed that the photographs of the buses were taken in the premises of PS where all the buses were stationed. The witness admitted that before he received tehrir, the incident had already occurred. He had not visited the spot prior to receiving of tehrir or FIR, only two injured persons came to him qua this incident. The witness deposed that one is HC Prahlad and the other one is Ct. Sahab Singh. The witness deposed that he had not seized any cloth of above said police officials. The witness deposed that statement/tehrir was recorded by SI Chand Singh. The witness deposed that he reached the spot at FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.26 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 around 9.50 pm, he had prepared the site plan thereafter however, he do not know the exact time, it was dark at that time. The witness deposed that no public persons were present when he had drafted the site plan. The witness deposed that he alongwith SI Chand Singh, SI Balbir and Ct. Naresh was present while he had drafted the site plan. The witness deposed that he had not made any of them as a witness, there is no public witness present when he had seized the case property. The witness deposed that SI Balbir had told him about the case property which was lying on the abandoned road, the case property is not specified by the witnesses and it is easily available in the market. The witness deposed that he do not remember whom he had cited as a witness at the time of preparation of seizure memo of the case property in question, he had brought all the buses to the PS and deposited the same in the malkhana. The witness deposed that the drivers pertained to these buses drove their buses to the PS however, he do not remember the name of the drivers. The witness deposed that some of the drivers belonged to DTC and some drivers were private drivers. The witness deposed that in his tenure i.e. 2006- 2007, he was posted as Incharge PP Pushp Vihar, he knew Pushp Kumar Agarwal prior to the incident as he was living in the same area at Pushp Vihar, he do not know accused Bhupender Tomar personally. The witness deposed that he had not seized the negative of the photographs of the buses which were taken by the photographer, he also not remember the name of the photographer. The witness admitted that the photographs were not clicked at the place of occurrence on that day. The witness deposed that he had not investigated who had rescued the alleged persons while they were taken to the PS. The witness deposed that although he had not investigated this qua the auto rickshaw and his driver, who is part of tehrir. The witness deposed that FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.27 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 he had not cited any witness of traffic police who was present at the spot on the day of the incident, he had arrested accused Arvind at around 11.30 pm. The witness deposed that he do not remember whom he had given the information of Arvind's arrest. The witness denied that accused Arvind was apprehended by the other police from his home as they had to arrest someone in this case that is why accused Arvind was arrested in the present case. The witness deposed that he had prepared the personal search of the accused but he do not remember regarding the recovery of personal search of accused Arvind Kumar. The witness denied that he is deposing falsely in the court regarding the personal search of accused Arvind and that is why he do not remember the articles recovered during the personal search of accused Arvind. The witness deposed that during the investigation of the present case, he did not meet any of the public witness. It is admitted that during the incident, there were around 50-60 public persons present. The witness deposed that site plan was prepared before preparing the seizure memo. The witness deposed that on the date of the incident, he had recorded the statement of injured, bus drivers and police officials who were present during the incident, he can tell the name of only five police officials, he had seized the keys of the buses. The witness again said, he had not seized the keys of the buses. The witness deposed that when he reached at the spot SI Balbir was already present at the spot, there was no public witness present when he visited the place of occurrence and met with SI Balbir. The witness deposed that during his investigation, it did not come to my knowledge as to who had called for the said agitation but he came to know the reason of the agitation was death of one boy due to an accident which took place one day prior to the incident. The witness deposed that he did not join the parents of the deceased boy who had expired in the accident, in his FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.28 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 investigation. The witness deposed that he had not taken any connected document of that accident which was occurred prior to incident during his investigation. The witness denied that he had prepared the site plan at the PS and that is why he had not made any of the police officials as a witness to the site plan. The witness denied that he had prepared the seizure memo in the PS and that is why he do not remember the name of the witnesses whom he had cited on the seizure memo. The witness denied he had not conducted a fair investigation in the present case. The witness further denied that he do not know the proper reason of agitation as there was two children who died in the accident and public were gathered for getting justice. The witness deposed that denied that he had not done a fair investigation in the present matter and he had only done a mechanical job to arrest the innocent persons without any evidence against them. The witness deposed that he is deposing falsely. The witness deposed that the DTC buses and some private buses were produced before him by the drivers of buses. The witness deposed that the photographs were taken by the photographer in police station, all the buses were mechanically inspected at the police station. The witness deposed that he do not remember the timing of my posting at PS Sangam Vihar. The witness deposed that he do not know Indraj personally. The witness deposed that he had taken the disclosure statement of accused whom he had arrested, he had not moved application u/s 195 Cr. PC during his investigation. The witness deposed that he had seized the weapon of offence i.e. like some dandas, saria, hockey stick. The witness deposed that he had seized all the said weapons and prepared seizure memo of the same. The witness deposed that there were several police officials present when he seized the said case property but there were no public witness present. The witness denied no such seizure was done FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.29 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 by him and all those documents pertaining to seizure were prepared while sitting at the PS. The witness deposed that he did not get any TIP of the accused persons conducted during the time he was investigating the case. The witness deposed that he went to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka with endorsement after registration of case. The witness deposed that the accused persons namely, Arvind and Kalpana Jha were present at the spot when Inspector Pramod Joshi reached there and were handed over to him. The witness denised that he did not do fair and proper investigation in the instant case and have falsely implicated the accused person.
10. PW-6 Sh. Pramod Kumar deposed that on 28.08.2008, he was driver of blue line bus bearing no. DL-1PB-4643 and was coming from Mori Gate to Devli. The witness deposed that at about 06.00 pm, when he reached near Majidia Hospital, Sangam Vihar, there was protest going on at the spot and around 15- 20 people stopped his vehicle, thereafter the aforesaid protestors started damaging his vehicle by dandas due to which, the window panels got broken and he also sustained injury on his left hand. The witness deposed that thereafter, he immediately got down from the bus and rescued himself, thereafter, police recorded his statement in the present case.
During Cross-examination on behalf of accused Pushp Kumar Agarwal, Arvind Singh and Bhupender by Sh. Narandra Hudda the witness deposed that on the date of incidence his conductor was Prakash. The witness deposed that the police had not recorded the statement of said Prakash in his presence. The witness deposed that police had recorded his statement at about 6.30 pm in the PS. The witness deposed that he cannot identify the accused persons who had committed the offence. The witness deposed that he do not remember the name of the IO who had recorded his statement. The witness deposed that IO had not FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.30 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 collected the medical prescription of his injury during investigation, his vehicle was not seized by the IO. The witness deposed that the vehicle was released to him by the IO in the evening on the date of the incidence. The witness deposed that the police had not taken any photographs of the vehicle in his presence. The witness deposed that police had taken him to the PS from hospital. The witness deposed that he do not know how the police came to know that he was the driver of the said bus because at the time of incidence police was not present. The witness deposed that police had obtained his signatures on some papers on which something was written but he was not gone through the same. The witness voluntarily deposed that the registered owner of the said bus also came to the PS). The witness deposed that police did not seize his DL. The witness denied that he had not sustained any injury and he was not present at the spot that is a reason why no medical report with regard to the same was handed over to the police. The witness further denied that his vehicle was not got damaged, on the date of the incidence, he was not driving the said bus nor he was present at the spot at the time of alleged incidence. The witness further deposed that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
During Cross-examination on behalf of accused Kalpana Jha and Bhagwat Yadav by Sh. Sh. Satish Kumar, the witness admitted that some broken pieces of the glass is also lying on the ground, as depicted in the said photograph. The witness further admitted that he had not made any call to the police from hospital nor police came to the hospital. The witness deposed that he do not have any knowledge whether the call from hospital was made to the police. The witness deposed that he do not remember whether any MLC was prepared with regard to his admission in the hospital, he do not have any medical documents with regard to the same. The witness denied that he was not FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.31 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 never injured nor any medical document was prepared and that is why he is not having the same. The witness denied that he himself had parked his bus behind the PS on the instruction of the police officials of PS Sangam Vihar. The witness lastly denied that he is deposing falsely.
11. PW-7 Sh. Ram Kishan deposed that on 28.08.2008, he along with his companion Hiralal were coming back from the office in our DTC Bus and as the bus went further to a couple of stands in Khanpur, the bus was out of CNG and it stopped there. The witness deposed that some people came over the spot and starting stone pelting on the bus. The witness deposed that the left side window panel at the back of the bus was broken. The witness deposed that as the case is of the year 2008, he do not remember everything meticulously. The witness deposed that he cannot exactly identify those persons involved at the time of incidence.
During cross-examination on behalf of accused Bhupender, Pushp Kumar Agarwal, Arvind Singh, Indraj Singh by Sh. Narendra Hudda, the witness deposed that he do not remember when his statement was recorded by the police. The witness deposed that his vehicle was not seized by police in his presence and his vehicle was stationed on road. The witness deposed that he do not remember if any photographs were taken in his presence by the police officers. The witness further deposed that he do not remember if any mechanical inspection of his vehicle was conducted by the police officials. The witness denied that his vehicle was not damaged by the crowd. The witness correctly identified the accused persons.
During Cross-examination on behalf of accused Kalpana Jha and Bhagvati Yadav by Sh. B.P Shukla, the witness denied that Hiralal was FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.32 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 accompanying him at the time of incidence. The witness deposed that they had provided manor the police officials for the incidence that the occurred. The witness denied that no intimation for the incidence was given to the police by him.
12. PW-9 Om Prakash deposed that on 28.08.2008, he was posted as driver of DTC bus bearing number DL1P86788 of Shriniwas Purt Diger Delt and the aforesaid bus was plying from Lajpat Nagar to Mehrauli. The witness further deposed that at about 06:00 pm when the bus reached near Mazidlaya Hospital, there was a protest going on and thereafter 15-20 people stopped the heir and thereafter the protesting people started damaging the bus by danda and stones. The witness deposed that the window of debes had broken due to the same, none of the passengers got injured. The witness deposed that thereafter the police had seized the said vehicle vide seizure memo already exhibit PW4/B. The witness corretly identified the photograph of bus annexed in the judicial file. The photograph is now exhibit P9/A. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Arvind, Bhupendra, P.K. Agarwal and Indraj Singh by Ld. Counsel Narender Hudda, the witness deposed that he can not identify any of the protesters, he had deposited his vehicle in police station Sangam Vinar. The witness deposed that he do not remember the exact time when the same was deposited. The witness deposed that he also do not remember the date of the same. The witness deposed that no mechanical inspection of the vehicle was carried out in his presence, no inventory of the damage vehicle was prepared in his presence.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.33 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 During cross-examination on behalf of accused Kalpana Jha and Bhagwat Yadav by Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. Counsel, the witness deposed that IO had not called him to the PS or not recorded his statement. The admitted that in the photograph exhibit P9/A, he was not present.
13. PW-10, Mahesh Kumar deposed that he do not remember the exact date and month, however, the incident has happened in the year, 2008. The witness deposed that on that day, he was driver of Bus bearing registration no. DL1PB4563 of route Khanpur to Old Delhi. The witness deposed that at about 04:00 PM when the bus reached near Mazidiya Hospital there was a protest going on and thereafter 10-15 people stopped his bus and thereafter the protesting people started damaging the bus by Danda and stones. The witness deposed that the windows of the bus had broken due to the same, none of the passengers got injured. The witness deposed that thereafter police seized the said bus vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW-4/D. The witness correctly identified the photograph of bus annexed with the judicial file, the photograph is now Ex. PW-10/A. The witness deposed that thereafter police have recorded my statement.
During cross-examination on behalf of accused- Arvind, Bhubhendra, PK Agarwal and Indraj by Ld. Counsel, Shri. Narender Hooda, the witness deposed that he cannot identify any of the protesters. The witness deposed that he do not remember the exact time when the vehicle was seized by the police, no mechanical inspection of the vehicle was carried out in his presence, no inventory of damage vehicle was prepared in his presence. The witness deposed that there were approximately 40-50 protesters at the spot.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.34 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 During cross examination on behalf of accused Kalpana Jha and Bhagvat Yadav by Shri. Satish Kumar, Ld. Counsel, the witness admitted that the photograph Ex PW-10/A is not taken at the spot of the incident. The witness further admitted that the said photograph is not taken in his presence. The witness deposed that he has not given any proof to the police with regard to the route of the bus. The witness denied that the route of his bus was not from Khanpur to Old Delhi.
14. PW-11 Sh. Surender Nath deposed that he is retired Traffic Inspector from bus depot Srinivas Puri, he got released the bus bearing no. DL-1P-6723 on superdari on behalf of Depot Manager vide superdarinama Ex PW10/A. The witness correctly identified the photograph of bus bearing no DL-IP-6723, the said photographs are already Ex PX1 to Ex PX17.
During cross-examination on behalf of accused- Arvind, Bhubhendra, PK Agarwal and Indraj by Ld. Counsel, Shri. Narender Hooda the witness deposed that he did not have any authority letter from the department however he was authorized to get the bus released on superdarı. The witness further deposed that police officials did not ask any authority letter from him to get the bus released on superdari. The witness deposed that he had only handed over the copy of his identity card. The witness further deposed that he do not remember the date on which he received the vehicle from PS. The witness further deposed that his photograph along-with the bus was not taken by the police while releasing the bus nor police had taken any photograph of the bus in his presence. The witness deposed that he do not remember till how many days the bus was remained in the PS. The witness deposed that police did not record his statement on the day of releasing the bus.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.35 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016
15. PW-11 Sh. Pankaj Bali deposed that in the year 2008, he had got released vehicle no. DL. 1 PB 5278, case property in the present case vide executing superdarinama. The witness deposed that the superdarinama is in the judicial file and the same is ExPW11/A. The witness correctly identified the photograph of bus bearing registration no. DI. 1 PB 5278 annexed in the judicial file and the photograph was exhibited as Ex PW11/B. During cross-examination on behalf of accused- Arvind, Bhubhendra, PK Agarwal, Indraj singh and Bhupender singh yadav by Ld. Counsel, Shri. Kamal Kishore the witness deposed that he do not have any personal knowledge with regard to the present case.
16. PW-12 Bir Singh deposed that on 30.08.2008, he was posted as Traffic Inspector at DTC Vasant Vihar Depo, on that day he released the vehicle bearing registration no. DI. IPB 2913, involved in the present case vide supredari nama the same is Ex. PW12/A. The witness correctly identified the photograph of the vehicle annexed in the judicial file and the photograph was Ex. PW8/A. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Arvind Singh, Inderraj Singh, Pushp Kumar Agarwal, Bhupender Singh Yadav by Ld. Proxy Counsel Sh. Ravikant Upadhyay, the witness deposed that he do not have any personal knowledge about the present case, he is not the eye witness, he do not know the accused persons involved in the present case.
17. PW-13 SI Sukh Lal deposed that on 28.08.2008, he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as Head Constable, on that day, he was working as Duty Officer.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.36 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 The witness further deposed that CL Naresh came to PS alongwith rukka and which is marked as Mark S and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR, thereafter, FIR bearing no. 465/2008 vide dd no 53A got registered which is ExPW13/A(OSR). The witness further deposed that the same FIR was registered by him, he also handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Naresh after registering the same.
During cross-examination on behalf of all accused persons except Kalpana and Bhagwat Yadav by Sh. Narender Hudda, the witness deposed that he was never called by the investigating officer to record his statement u/s 161 CrPC. The witness further deposed that he know St Chand Singh. SI Chand Singh sent him the rukka through Ct. Naresh. The witness further deposed that after registration of the case he had given rukka and FIR to Ct. Naresh. The witness denied that the rukka and FIR was given to Ct. Naveen after its registration and he has also received rukka from Ct. Naveen not from Ct. Naresh. The witness deposed that he had registered DD entries regarding the PCR calls. The witness deposed that he do not remember the dd numbers. The witness further deposed that his duty was from 05:00 pm to 01:00 am, he had received a rukka at 09:38 pm. The witness further deposed that he is not familiar with computer but they have one operator in PS to register the case. The witenss deposed that in their PS on the day, there were two rojnamcha. The witness deposed that before registration of FIR, they used to seek instruction from SHO concerned. The witness deposed that he do not remember who was the SHO on that day, when he received rukka from concerned IO, sections are already mentioned in rukka. The witness further deposed that he had made kimy rukka, he do not remember how much time he had taken to register the FIR and he do not remember when he had handed over the rukka and FIR to Ct. Naveen. The FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.37 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 witness denied that the kimy was anti date and anti time as rojnamcha of the PS has been awaited on the direction of concerned SHO. The witness deposed that he had made DD entries in rojnamcha A, all dd entries regarding this case or connected with this case are done in roinamcha A. The witness deposed that he do not remember who was the emergency officer on that day. The witness deposed that on that day he handed over the rukka to Ct. Naveen. The witness denied that his statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C record and he is deliberately deposing falsely regarding non recording of the same.
18. PW-14 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, the witness deposed that on 08.08.2009, he was posted as S1 at PS Sangam Vihar, on that day, their investigation of the present case was marked to him by the SHO. The witness deposed that during investigation on 09.12.2009, he formally arrested accused persons namely Indra Singh and Pusp Kumar vide arrest momos which is already Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. The witness deposed that he also prepared disclosure statement of both the accused persons which is now Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B respectively. The witness deposed that during investigation, on 11.12.2009, he also formally arrested accused Bhupender and he also prepared his disclosure statement which is now Ex.PW14/C. The witness deposed that as all the three accused persons had already got anticipatory bail he also recorded statement of witnesses, after completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the court. The witness correctly identified all the three accused persons namely Indraj, Pusp Kumar and Bhupender present in the court.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Kalpana and Bhagwat by Ld. Counsel Sh. Satish Kumar, the witness deposed that he had not recorded statement of any public person regarding the incident during investigation. The FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.38 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 witness deposed that he had made enquiry regarding the incident from the public persons, he had mentioned about the same in the case diary. The witness deposed that he had not given any notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. to the said public persons. The witness deposed that he had received an information through secret informer regarding the said public persons at the spot. The witness further deposed that he had visited the spot during the investigation, he had not prepared the site plan. The witness deposed that the place of incident is MB Road, near red light of Ratia Marg and the incident had not occurred at any other place other than the said spot. The witness deposed that he had gone through the site plan which is a part chargesheet and was prepared by previous IO SI Pramod Joshi. The witenss deposed that the distance be the place of incident and red light of ratia marg is about 40-50 mtrs. The witness further deposed that the protests spot was in regard to demise of a boy in a road accident. The witness further deposed that he had not enquire from any person involved or the family of the deceased in the said road accident. The witness deposed that he do remember if any CCTV camera was installed in PS or not during the time of incident. The witness denied that the distance between the place of incident and red light of ratia marg is about 150 mtrs. The witness denied that he had never gone to the spot during the investigation. The witness denied that he had done improper investigation and had wrongly chargesheeted accused Kalpana and Bhagwat or that they were not present at the spot. The witness denied that he had falsely implicated the accused Kalpana Jha in the present case as she had given complaint against SI Lakhan Singh in the CBI, who was posted at Sangam Vihar on 08.11.2004. The witness lastly denied that he is deposing falsely.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.39 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 During cross examination on behalf of accused Bhupender, Indraj, Pusp Kumar and Arvind Kumar by Ld. Counsel Sh. Narender Hudda, the witness deposed that he do not remember as to when he was posted in PS Sangam Vihar. The witness further deposed that he also do not remember the exact gap between my transfer to PS Sangam Vihar and date as to when the investigation of the present case was marked to him. The witness deposed that he had not given any notice to any public persons related to the incident. The witness further deposed that he had not given any notice to any accused, he came to know about accused Indraj and his parentage as he had attended an anticipatory bail matter of the said accused. The witness further deposed that he had not enquired any person of the said locality who had the name Indraj other than the accused. The witness further deposed that he had given a reply in anticipatory bail of accused Indraj on which it was stated that he was absconding. The witness deposed that father's name and residence of accused came on record during investigation at the time of filing of reply of anticipatory bail application. The witness further deposed that he do not remember the address of the alleged accused which he had mentioned in reply of anticipatory bail application. The witness deposed that he do not remember the permanent address of accused Indraj at the time of formal arrest of accused Indraj. The witness further deposed that he cannot tell the exact number of days between the anticipatory bail and date on which he formally arrested the accused persons. The witness deposed that he had telephonically called the accused persons to join the investigation. The witness deposed that he had the mobile numbers of the accused persons at that time, he had not got the TIP of pender, Indraj, Pusp Kumar and Arvind Kumar conducted from any public person as they were mentioned by name in the FIR. The witness deposed that he do not remember FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.40 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 whether their parentage or address was mentioned in the FIR. The witness further deposed that he had not given any notice to accused Bhupender to join the investigation of the case. The witness further deposed that police official who got the FIR registered, already knew accused Bhupender as he was a reputed individual of the locality. The witness further deposed that during his tenure of investigation, DTC buses were released by him on supardari. The witness again said, he cannot say with certainty as he do not remember. The witness deposed that he do not remember if he had sought permission w/s 195 Cr.P.C. during his investigation. The witness deposed that no videography was conducted at the spot on the day of incident. The witness deposed that he do not remember as to when he had recorded the statement of Ct. Sahab Singh during my investigation and he do not remember as to how many times he had taken the statement of Ct. Sahab Singh. The witness admitted that he had recorded the statement of some police officials during the investigation. The witness deposed that he had not recorded the statement of Ct. Sahab Singh during the investigation of present case. The witness denied that he is deposing falsely.
19. PW-15 Retd. ACP Mahipal Singh deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted as ACP at Ambedkar Nagar, during that period, he made complaint u/S 195 CrPC in FIR number 465/08 under Section 148/149/186/353/352/427/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention from Damage to Public Property Act against the accused persons in the court of Ld. ACMM, South-East District alongwith list of witnesses and list of accused persons and other document, the same complaint was Ex.PW15/A. The witness deposed that he moved the complaint after examining the document presented before me by the IO.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.41 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 During cross examination on behalf of accused Indraraj, Bhupender, Arvind and Pushp Kumar Agarwal by Ld. Counsel Sh. Narender Hudda, the witness deposed that he was posted as a SGPO, ACP, Sangam Vihar since October 2009 till January 2012, he do not remember the IO of the case who has put up the complaint u/S 195 CrPC. The witness further deposed that the complaint was drafted by me u/S 195 CrPC and the annexed document was provided by the investigation officer. The witness further deposed that he do not remember who was the investigating officer on that day, he do not remember whether any signature was put up by the IO on the document which was annexed with the complaint u/S 195 CrPC. The witness further deposed that he do not know whether permission was granted for prosecution but he do not know whether he had granted the permission in present case or not. The witness deposed that the complaint was typed under his instruction and under his observation, although he do not remember the date on which it was drafted. The witness admitted that in case in which permission would be sought by the IO for prosecution, the permission is granted by him as SGPO. The witness admitted that it is not only a complaint but also permission which he had given. The witness deposed that he know the difference between complaint and permission. The witness admitted that the Ex.PW15/A is only a complaint not a permission for prosecution. The witness denied that he is deposing falsely because it is not a complaint it is permission for legal action, he had signed the abovesaid document. Ex.PW15/A in mechanical and negligent manner without the content of Ex.PW15/A. The witness deposed that when he had made sign on the above said complaint Ex.PW15/A (colly), the document alongwith the complaint was provided to him which is list of witness. The witness further deposed that he do FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.42 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 not remember had signed on the list of witnesses provided to him but he had not signed. The witness again said, he do not remember the list of witness who was signed by him or not. The witness further deposed that he do not remember whether he had signed the roznamcha. The witness further deposed that he do not remember whether the document produced before him was signed by someone or not, he do not remember how many accused was made in the charge sheet for prosecution, however, he can tell after going through the judicial file as it was attached with the complaint u/S 195 CrPC. The witness further deposed that the charge sheet was forwarded by him. The witness deposed that he do not remember the year when he forwarded the charge sheet, it might be last month of year 2009-2010, when the charge sheet was forwarded by him, he was put in list of witnesses. The witness deposed that he do not remember the name of the IO who has filed the charge sheet, he do not remember when the charge sheet was completed for prosecution and he further do not remember when the charge sheet was put up before him for forwarding. The witness denied that he is deposing falsely and he had made signature on the complaint u/S 195 CrPC or charge sheet in mechanical manner without going through the content of the charge sheet and permission u/S 195 CrPC. The witness denied that he am deposing falsely to prove this case in favour of prosecution. The witness denied that he had not gone through the content of permission u/S 195 CrPC and same was put up before him by police official or that he had put his signature in routine manner.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Kalpana Jha and Bhagwat Yadav by Ld. counsel Sh. Satish Kumar he do not remember whether a separate permission u/S 195 CrPC was required to be given by him or not apart from complaint which is already Ex. PW15/A (colly). The witness deposed that the FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.43 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 IO produced all the documents before him when he moved complaint u/S 195 CPC. The witness deposed that he is not able to recall the process of moving the complaint u/S 195 CrPC as he have left service before 8 years, so not able to recall. The witness deposed that he do not remember specifically what documents were produced before him. The witness again said, he had produced complete file alongwith list of witness and list of accused persons. The witness deposed that he do not remember whether the list of accused persons is bearing my signature or not. The witness deposed that list of accused persons and list of witness filed along-with the 195 CrPC complaint is not bearing my signature. The witness voluntarily deposed that complaint u/S 195 CrPC was signed by him. The witness denied that he have not examined the documents which were produced by IO before moving application u/S 195 CrPC. The witness denied that he had not given any permission u/S 195 CrPC in the present case.
20. PW-16 HC Gambhir Singh deposed that today, he have brought the order number 4811-4900/HAR/SD dated 09.03.2021 vide which the duty roster upto 31.12.2017 (chitta upper and lower subordinates) has been destroyed, the copy of order is as Ex.PW-16/A. The witness deposed that as per this order, the duty roster of 28.08.2008 has also been destroyed and the same cannot be produced. The witness deposed that his reply pertaining to the same is on record and the same is now being Ex.PW16/B.
21. When the prosecution concluded its evidence, the accused persons were examined u/s 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "the Code"), wherein the incriminating evidence were put to them to which they replied that all allegations against them are incorrect and all the documents are false and fabricated. They claimed false implication by the police officials of PS Sangam Vihar and that there is no any public witness despite police officials. They FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.44 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 further claimed that there is also not any medical evidence against the injury of police officials and no weapon or anything has been recovered from the accused persons. Accused Kalpana Jha opted to lead DE.
Defence Evidence
21. DW-1 Kalpana Jha deposed that she is being falsely implicated in the present matter, she filed the RTI before the police commissioner regarding the falsely implicated in present matter and also demand in RII for CCTV footage of the PS Sangam Vihar, at the time of incident, the copy of the same is exhibited as DW-1/1 (colly (OSR). The witness further deposed that in the month of November 2004, she had made a complaint against a police official SI Lakhan Singh who used to exploit people and take bribes, upon her complaint she was pressurized by the said Sl and the other police officials but she did not succumb to the pressure and FIR was registered and the accused St Lakban was also convicted by the trial court after she and Bhagwat Yadav had deposed in the favour of the prosecution. The witness further deposed that she have also brought the certified copy of the judgment of hon'ble trial court which was pronounced on 27.06.2014 the certified copy of the judgment was exhibited as Ex. DW-1/2 (colly running into 75 pages). thereafter, she was time to time pressurized by the officials of PS Sangam Vihar. The witness further deposed that she was made accused in this case as the then additional SHO PS Sangam Vihar, was a relative of SI Lakhan, she had also made a complaint to concerned DCP, ACP and Commissioner of police Delhi as she was having apprehension that she would be falsely implicated by the police officials. The witness deposed that she have brought the original complaint dated 22.07.2009 and 09.09.2005 which was exhibited as Ex. DW-1/3(colly running in to 04 pages) (OSR) and FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.45 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 Ex. DW-1/4(colly running in to 03 pages) (OSR) 28.08.2008, she was called to the PS by IO Dilip Kumar and thereafter she was falsely implicated in this case.
During cross examination on behalf of the State, the witness stated that she was called at the PS on 28.08.2008 at about 03:00 pm by SHO PS Sangam Vihar, namely Sh. Dilip Singh. The witness further deposed that he did not informed her why she was called at the PS, the SHO along with ACP namely Sanjay Bhatia made her sit at the PS on the pretext of some meeting as she was social worker. The witness deposed that at about 10:00 pm she was asked by them to go to PS CR Park, she was taken to PS CR Park by one lady SI and she informed her that she have been arrested for some unlawful assembly at Sangam Vihar and she also told her that she will be kept at the PS overnight as if she released there may be some mis-happening at Sangam Vihar. The witness deposed that later on, she came to know that there was some balva at MB Road, near Jamia Hamdard University, Sangam vihar, she do not know what happened at MB Road, near Jamia Hamdard University, Sangam vihar. The witness further deposed that During cross examination, the witness deposed that she was called at the PS on 28.08.2008 at about 03:00 pm by SHO PS Sangam Vihar, namely Sh. Dilip Singh. The witness further deposed that he did not informed her why she was called at the PS, the SHO along with ACP namely Sanjay Bhatia made her sit at the PS on the pretext of some meeting as she was social worker. The witness deposed that at about 10:00 pm she was asked by them to go to PS CR Park, she was taken to PS CR Park by one lady SI and she informed her that she have been arrested for some unlawful assembly at Sangam Vihar and she also told her that she will be kept at the PS overnight as if she released there may be some mis-happening at Sangam Vihar. The witness deposed that later on, she came to know that there was some balva at MB Road, FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.46 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 near Jamia Hamdard University, Sangam vihar, she do not know what happened at MB Road, near Jamia Hamdard University, Sangam vihar. The witness further deposed that later on, she was informed by the police officials that there were unlawful assembly at MB Road, near Jamia Hamdard University, Sangam vihar who had damaged DTC buses. The witness admitted that some children died in govt. school, Tughlakabad in road accident and school children DTC buses in retaliation. The witness further deposed that she was alone called at the PS, she just received the call from PS and went there. The witness deposed that additional SHO PS Sangam Vihar Anil Gautam took her mobile phone when she reached at PS, she was not aware if the PS official can confiscate her mobile without any reason. The witness deposed that she used to visit to PS usually being a social worker, she did not make any formal complaint regarding confiscation of her mobile phone. The witness denied that the police officials did not confiscate her mobile. The witness deposed that only co-accused Bhagwat Yadav is known to her prior to this case as he used to work with her. The witness further deposed that she there used be gathering of around 1000 persons. The witness denied that 28.08.2008, she organized a public gathering at MB Road, near Jamia Hamdes University, Sangam vihar. The witness denied that she along with the persons caused traffic jam and obstructed police officials in discharge of their officials duties and also assaulted the police officials and damaged DTC buses on 28.08.2008. The witness denied that her mobile phone was not confiscated by the police officials hence she made no complaint in this regard. The witness denied that she is deposing falsely to save her self from the clutches of law. The witness denied that she was wrongfully confined at PS Sangam Vihar at the instance of ACP, SHO and additional SHO hence she made FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.47 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 no complaint on 28.08.2008 in this regard. organize Jan Sabha ie. gathering of public persons.
22. After defence evidence, final arguments heard at length on behalf of State as well as on behalf of the accused persons.
23. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the incident pertains to 28.08.2008. It is further submitted that FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint of the complainant PW-1 on 28.08.2008. It is further submitted on behalf of the State that PW-1 SI Balbir was on picket duty, discharging lawful duty alongwith Ct. Avtar Singh. It is further submitted that the accused persons made an unlawful assembly and by sharing a common object took away four unknown boys from the custody of the police officials. It is further submitted that all the accused persons by sharing the common object also blocked the public road and caused damaged to public property by breaking the window glasses of buses. It is further submitted that accused persons also assaulted HC Prahlad and Ct. Sahab Singh who were discharging their lawful duty at the spot. It is further submitted that PW-1 to PW-4 correctly identified all accused persons during trial. It is further submitted that victim PW Ct. Prahlad and Ct. Sahab Singh were medically examined and they have shown to have suffered simple injuries at the hand of accused persons. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution regarding charges of offence punishable under Section 323/353 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and offence punishable under Section 147 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is duly proved by prosecution so the accused persons may be convicted as per law and be sentenced as per law.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.48 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016
24. It is submitted on behalf of accused persons that on the date of the incident the PW-1 was not discharging his official duty as per duty Mark A. The duty of the PW-1 was at MCD Demolition Ratiya Marg, not at the picket. It is further submitted that on the date of the incident only accused Kalpana Jha and Arvind Singh were present at the spot and the other accused persons were not even present at the spot. It is further submitted that the statement of all the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent and are contradictory in nature. It is further submitted that on the site plan, the signatures of PW-1 and PW-2 are not there which shows that the site plan was not made at the spot. It is further submitted that in the photos of damaged buses, there is no traffic movement and all the buses were taken to a open ground near the PS, thereafter, the pictures were taken. It is further submitted that the PW-1 already knew all the accused persons as they belong to one or the other political faction. It is further submitted that in the present case, there are allegations of assault on police officials however, no clothes of the injured police officials were seized by the IO during investigation to prove the allegation of assault. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to show the common object of the unlawful assembly, so the accused persons cannot be held vicariously liable for making unlawful assembly under Section 147/149 IPC. It is further submitted on behalf of accused persons that the TSR from which the accused persons alleged to have taken the custody of four unknown boys is not seized during investigation, neither the driver of the TSR is made a prosecution witness which could have suportted the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that IO has not conducted any valuation of the damage caused to the buses and in the photographs of the damaged buses seized by the IO, no damage is actually seem to have been inflicted. It is further submitted that all the accused persons are FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.49 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 falsely implicated in the present case by the IO as they are social workers of different political parties who works for welfare of the people in a locality. It is further submitted that no independent public witness has been examined by prosecution despite the fact that large number of people assembled at the spot on the date of the incident. It is further submitted on behalf of accused persons that PW-15 Retd. ACP Mahipal Singh is not a reliable witness as in the cross examination PW-15 admitted that he drafted the complaint under Section 195 CrPC. It is further submitted that PW-15 even do not know whether he granted permission for prosecution in the present case or not. The accused Kalpana Jha examined herself as DW-1 that in the month of November 2004, she made complaint against police official SI Lakhan Singh who used to exploit people for taking bribes, later, SI Lakhan was convicted by the trial court and the judgment of the Hon'ble Court is Ex. DW1/2.
25. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution against all accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused persons were falsely implicated so they may be acquitted from the present case.
26. Arguments heard. Record perused.
27. Section 141 IPC defines unlawful assembly as" an assembly of five or more persons is designated as unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is-
First- To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, (the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State), or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.50 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 Fourth- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation- An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
Section 142 of IPC defines being member of unlawful assembly.--Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
Section 143 of IPC provides about Punishment.-.
Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Section 146 of IPC defines Rioting--Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.51 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 Section 147 of IPC provides about punishment for Rioting.--Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 149 of IPC provides that every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object-
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Section 21 (a) of IPC defines public servant as the words "public servant"
denotes a person falling under any of description hereinafter following namely very person, in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for performance of any public duty by the Government.
Section 323 of IPC provides about Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt however, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 353 of IPC provides about punishment of assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.52 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 provides that: Mischief causing damage to public property Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.
(2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being.
(a) any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;
(b) any oil installation;
(c) any sewage works;
(d) any mine or factory
(e) any means of public transportation or of teledommunication, or any building, installation shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine.
Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
Section 425 of the IPC defines Mischief as "
Whoever with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes destruction of any FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.53 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously, commits mischief. Explanation it is not essential to the offence of mischief that offender should intent to cause loss oi damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed, it is sufficient if he intends to cause, or know that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injury in any property, whether its belong to that person or not.
Explanation- Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly.
According to Section 2 (b) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, " Public property is defined as any property, whether immovable or movable (including any machinery) which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the control of) the Central Government; or
(ii) any State Government; or
(iii) any local authority; or
(iv) any corporation established by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State Act;
or
(v) any company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); or
(vi) any institution, concern or undertaking which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;
Provided that the Central Government shall not specify any institution, concern or undertaking under this subclause unless such institution, concern or undertaking is financed wholly or substantially by funds provided directly or FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.54 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 indirectly by the Central Government or by one or more State Governments, or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments.
38. Heard the submission on behalf of the State and also heard the submission on behalf of the accused persons. I have also gone through the entire case file and case law as relied by Ld. Counsels for the parties.
39. PW-1 Retd. SI Balbir Singh, PW-2 Ct. Sahab Singh & PW-3 ASI Prahlad Singh are the star witnesses of the prosecution as they were performing their duties at the spot of incident when the mob reached there and hence their testimonies are to be appreciated as per the established principles of law pertaining to the appreciation of testimonies of eyewitnesses.
40. PW1 Retd. SI Balbir Singh deposed that on 28.08.2008 he along with Ct. Avtar Singh were present at Ratia Marg on official duty, at about 5.15 PM one tempo came to the spot and stopped at opposite road to police picket Ratia Marg, M.B road, Sangam Vihar. Some people from the said tempo joined the accused Kalpana Jha, local leader who was already present at the spot. They all started raising slogans against the police and stopped traffic, he along with Ct. Avtar tries to stop but to no avail. Thereafter, the accused persons started breaking the glasses of the DTC buses and also pelted stones on the Buses. PW1 further deposed that he made call to PS from his mobile, thereafter, Inspector Dilip came at the spot with along with police staff. The agitators became more violent, came to the police picket Ratia Marg and started assaulting police staff namely HC Prahlad and Ct. Sahab Singh. Thereafter, he sent HC Prahlad to hospital in a TSR.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.55 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 During cross examination PW1 stated that his duty was at police picket Ratia Marg, however, duty roaster, mark A show that the duty of PW1 was on MCD demolition drive. Further, PW1 stated to have made call to PS from his mobile, however, no document to support the said fact has been brought on record, no CDR or call log or any thing else. Further, PW1 in his statement Ex.PW1/A stated that he made call on 100 number, however, in his chief examination he deposed that he made call to PS directly from his mobile number. PW1 admitted that some unindentified agitators assaulted HC Prahlad and Ct. Sahab Singh. The witness stated that he does not know the number and nature of documents he signed. PW1 stated that SI Sanjay took the accused persons to PS after arrest, however, the prosecution has failed to brought on record any document showing that SI Sanjay was posted at PS Sangam Vihar on the date of the incident. Further, the absence of signature of SI Sanjay on arrest memos and seizure memos show that he was not present at the spot on the date of the incident. Further, the absence of signature of PW1 on site plan also show that the same was not prepared at the site and not at the instance of PW1. This raise serious doubts on the prosecution story as well as on veracity of PW- 1/complainant HC Raj Kumar.
41. PW2 Ct. Sahab Singh is one of the injured witnesses who deposed that on the date of the incident he along with Inspector Dilip Singh and HC Prahlad reached at the spot i.e Red light Hamdard University, MB road where public persons gathered and raising slogans, pelting stoned on DTC buses. PW2 further deposed they apprehended four boys from the public, on instructions of Inspector Dilip Singh, however, while the said boys were being taken to PS in a TSR, some public persons managed to take away all four boys from their FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.56 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 custody. The said public person also assaulted him and HC Prahlad. His MLC was not prepared as he received minor injuries.
In his cross examination PW2 stated that accused persons were not present at the very spot where buses were being damaged by mob, however, they were standing nearby the police booth. PW2 further admitted that he had not seen any of the accused persons damaging the vehicles. PW2 stated to be on his duty as beat officer, however, no duty roaster or DD entry was brought on record to show his presence at the spot. The absence of signature on site plan further raise doubt on the veracity of the statement of PW2. The four boys from the mob were stated to be taken to PS on a TSR, however, no statement of the driver of the said TSR was recorded nor was he made the witness by the prosecution which creates doubt on the prosecution story. Further, PW2 and PW3 both injured witnesses were stated be in their police uniform, however, the said uniform was not even seized by the IO during investigation. The Ld. APP argued that the same was not seized as the uniform was not torn by the mob. It is highly improbable that two police officials were assaulted by the mob of 50- 60 people, however, there was no damage to the police uniform worn by the police officials.
42. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime, even within an unlawful assembly, is not enough to establish guilt for an offense committed by the assembly under the Indian Penal Code, Section 149. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove that the accused was part of the unlawful assembly and that they shared its common object, not just that they were present or arrested at the location. Reliance placed upon Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan v State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 381.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.57 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016
43. To be held liable under Section 149, a person must be a member of the unlawful assembly and share its common object, which is the purpose or design of the assembly. Simply being at the scene of an incident or being arrested from there is not sufficient evidence to prove participation in the unlawful assembly. The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere inference or assumptions are not enough. There must be evidence to show the accused actively shared the common object or had an unlawful intention. While members are not required to perform individual overt acts, the prosecution must establish their active participation in or shared intent for the assembly's unlawful purpose. In the instant case, PW2 admitted that he has not seen the accused persons damaging any of the vehicles, however, they were present at the spot where the mob was damaging the vehicles. In the considered opinion of the Court unless some overt act is attributed to accused in pursuance of common object, a person cannot be held liable for forming an unlawful assembly. As far as taking away of four apprehended boys are concerned, the prosecution has failed to brought on record any corroborative evidence in support of their version of story. None of four boys were later apprehended nor any effort was shown to have made to trace them, the TSR driver was not examined, neither, the said TSR was seized during investigation. These all lapses have crated serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
44. PW3 deposed on similar lines as PW2. The witness during cross examination stated that IO did not record the statement of TSR driver in his presence nor the auto was seized by IO in his presence. The witness stated that after receiving injuries to his both legs he became unconscious and gained consciousness at hospital. Further, PW2 failed to brought on record any DD entry as to his departure from PS to spot. Further, the witness admitted that FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.58 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 when he reached at the spot the incident as to breaking of DTC buses glass had already taken place and no breaking of glass had taken place in his presence. This raises serious doubts on the prosecution story as well as on the veracity of PW-2 and PW3.
45. Further, the first and foremost consideration in this case pertains to the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 186, 353, and 332 of IPC. For an offence under Section 186 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the following three elements: (i) obstruction, (ii) of a public servant,
(iii) while he is discharging his public functions. Similarly, for an offence under Section 353 of IPC, it must be proved that there was (i) an assault or use of criminal force, (ii) upon a public servant, (iii) in the execution of his duty as such public servant. Likewise, for an offence under Section 332 of IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate (i) that hurt was caused, (ii) to a public servant,
(iii) in the discharge of his duty as such public servant.
46. For all these offences, one of the essential ingredients is - that the public servant must have been discharging his public duties, at the time when the offence is committed. In the instant case no documentary evidence, such as a duty roster or register, was produced by the prosecution to establish that the complainant/injured witnesses were, in fact, on duty at the time of the alleged incident. The absence of such documentary evidence is fatal to the prosecution case.
47. PW4 HC Naresh came to the spot after the incident had already occurred, so he is not the eye witness to the same. PW3 assisted IO during investigation.
46. PW5 Inspector Pramod Joshi deposed that he conducted further investigation of the case and during investigation he reached at the spot, where FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.59 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 he met SI Chand Singh, Ct. Naresh and SI Balbir Singh. PW5 prepared seizure memo of damaged buses and of stones, iron rod and hockey sticks. Thereafter, he arrested accused Arvind Singh from the spot and prepared his arrest memo Ex.PW4/K and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW5/. Further, accused Kalpana Jha was arrested by him vide memo which is Ex.PW5/C. PW5 further deposed that on 29.08.2008 he arrested Bhagwat Yadav from the Court after his surrender before the Court. He identified the damaged buses from the photographs Ex.PX1 to PX17.
During cross examination the witness admitted that he had not seized the clothes of the injures witnesses Ct. Sahab Singh and HC Prahlad. PW5 have not obtained the signature of any of the witness namely SI Chand Singh, Ct. Naresh and SI Balbir Singh for the reason known to him. Further, the IO has not joined any public witness at the time of seizing the damaged case property and he has simply stated that here was not public witness. The same fact has not been mentioned or supported by any contemporaneous DD entry. The case property i.e iron road, hockey sticks was seized by the IO from the abandoned road and there is no specific mark or identification on the case property. The planting of the same cannot be ruled out as the same is not seized from the possession of any of the accused persons. PW5 stated that all the buses were taken to the PS and their mechanical inspection was done at the PS only, however, no report of any mechanical inspection to show the damage is made the part of the chargesheet. This raises serious doubts on the prosecution story as well as on the veracity of PW5.
47. PW6 Pramod Kumar was the driver of the damaged Bus bearing registration number DL-IPB-4643 and the same was coming from Mori Gate to Devli. He deposed that the bus was stopped near Majidia Hospital, Sangam Vihar, where FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.60 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 protest was going on, there around 15-20 people stopped the bus and started damaging the same with dandas due to which the window panels got broken and he sustained injury on his left hand. During cross examination the witness stated that on the date of the incident the bus conductor was Prakash, whose statement was not recorded by the police in his presence. The witness admitted that he cannot identify the accused persons who committed the offence. The witness further stated that his bus was not seized by the IO and no photograph of the bus was taken in his presence. His testimony is not of any help to the prosecution.
48. PW7- PW11 are the witnesses of the formal nature who were drivers or superdars of the damaged buses. None of the witnesses deposed as to the incident, they have simply stated that they cannot identify the protestors.
49. PW 13 SI Sukh Lal was performing duty as DO on the date of the incident at PS Sangam Vihar who registered the FIR no. 465/2008 vide DD no. 53 A. which is Ex.PW13/A. He have not deposed anything as to the incident.
50. PW14 was one of the IOs of the present case who deposed as to investigation conducted by him. During cross the witness admitted that he had not recorded the statement of public person regarding the incident neither he made any enquiry from any public person. Pw14 did not make any efforts to seize any CCTV footage regarding the incident for the reason best known to him. His testimony is full of contradiction which are material in nature and the same does not inspire confidence.
51. PW15 Retd ACP Mahipal Singh granted the permission for prosecution under Section 195 Cr.PC. The testimony of PW15 is formal in nature as he has not deposed as to the incident.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.61 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016
52. The alleged incident took place at a public place in a crowded area. The alleged mob must have assembled at some place before reaching to the spot of incident. However, the IO has not collected any CCTV footage of the spot of incident or the CCTV footage of the area from where the said mob must have passed before reaching at the spot of incident. As per the prosecution story, the alleged incident continued for a long time and several police officials also reached at the spot of incident. However, none of the police official videographed the incident with their mobile phones through which the faces of accused persons could have been matched/identified. This raises serious doubts on the prosecution story.
53. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
54. In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that:-
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.62 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There FIR No. 58/2012, PS: Jama Masjid, should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any FIR No. 58/2012, PS: Jama Masjid, corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
55. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
56. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.63 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
57. Due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of PW- 1/complainant Retd. Balbir Singh, PW-2 Ct. Sahab Singh PW3 HC Prahlad Singh & PW-5 Inspector Pramod Joshi, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story. The versions of PW-1/complainant Retd. Balbir Singh, PW-2 Ct. Sahab Singh PW3 HC Prahlad Singh & PW-5 Inspector Pramod Joshi are not natural one. The things appears to have not happened in the manner these have been projected. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-1/complainant Retd. Balbir Singh, PW-2 Ct. Sahab Singh PW3 HC Prahlad Singh & PW-5 Inspector Pramod Joshi are not clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy and same are not corroborated by other material evidence. The testimonies of PW-1/complainant Retd. Balbir Singh, PW-2 Ct. Sahab Singh PW3 HC Prahlad Singh & PW-5 Inspector Pramod Joshi in the present case cannot be said to be of sterling quality to secure the conviction of the accused persons.
58. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
59. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:-
"The time tested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.64 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016 reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
60. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case, where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
61. In the present case, due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1/complainant Retd. Balbir Singh, PW-2 Ct. Sahab Singh PW3 HC Prahlad Singh & PW-5 Inspector Pramod Joshi, non- examination of any independent eyewitness, non-collection of any relevant CCTV footage and the defence taken by the accused persons, serious doubts have been created on the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
62. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 145/147/148/149 IPC, Sec. 186 IPC read with Sec. 353 IPC, Sec. 427 IPC and Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.65 of 66 Cr Cases 2035049/2016
63. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused persons namely Kalpana Jha, Arvind Singh, Bhagwat Yadav, Indraj Singh, Pushp Kumar Aggarwal and Bhupendra Yadav are hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sec. 145/147/148/149 IPC, Sec. 186 IPC read with Sec. 353 IPC, Sec. 427 IPC read with Sec. 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
64. Bonds under Section 437A CrPC are not furnished. At request of Ld. Counsels for all accused persons, bonds originally on record be considered as bonds for the purpose of Section 437A CrPC. Heard and considered.
65. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by CHATINDER SINGH CHATINDER Date: SINGH Announced in the open Court 2025.10.09 17:10:46 +0530 today i.e. on 9th October, 2025 (Chatinder Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 South /Saket Court/New Delhi FIR No. 465/2008 State Vs. Kalpana Jha Etc. Page No.66 of 66