Delhi District Court
State vs Yogesh on 7 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS -05 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
Digitally
State Vs. : Yogesh and Others
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.07
14:56:17
FIR No : 240/10 +0100
U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Case No. : 11267/19
2. Date of commission of offence : 18.09.2010
3. Date of institution of the case : 06.12.2013
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of
accused persons :1. Yogesh s/o Sh. Om
Parkash
2. Naresh s/o Sh.
Surender Tyati
3. Rahul s/o Sh. Manish
4. Manish s/o Sh.Beghraj Tyagi
6. Offense complained or proved : 452/323/427/34 IPC.
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved: 15.02.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 07.03.2025
State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 1
1. The accused persons are facing trial for offences u/s 452/323/427/34 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 18.09.2010 at about 8.45 PM at WZ- 131/A, 2nd Floor, Budhela Village, Vikas Puri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri, the accused persons in furtherance of common intention with each other after having made the preparation, wrongfully trespassed in the house of one Sandeep with intention to putting victims Vikram and Harish in fear of being hurt. Further, on the above said date, time and place all accused persons in furtherance of common intention with each other hit the friend of the complainant namely, Harish and caused voluntarily simple injuries to him. Further, all accused persons in furtherance of common intention with each other wrongfully broken the Optra Car bearing No. DL-3-CAA-2954 belonging to the complainant namely, Vikram and caused damage to his car to the tune of more than Rs. 50/-. The accused persons were associated in the investigation and were admitted to bail. After completion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed by police for conducting trial of accused persons for alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offences, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and charges for offences u/s 452/323/427/34 IPC were framed against accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed and trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused persons, prosecution has examined nine prosecution witnesses.
State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 2
4. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimonies have remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, offences u/s 452/323/427/34 IPC have been proved beyond doubt.
5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials at the behest of complainant. Arguing further, Ld. Counsel has inter-alia submitted that the accused persons were falsely implicated by the complainant at the instance of his friend namely, Vikas Tyagi with whom accused Rahul Tyagi was having a previous enmity as the latter got registered an FIR against the former previously due to the acts of assault inflicted by the former against accused Rahul Tyagi. It has also been argued that no independent public witnesses were joined by the police during investigation of the case. It has also been argued that the so called eye witnesses including complainant have also not supported the case of prosecution and have also made considerable improvements in their version before the Court. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused persons be given the benefit of doubt and are therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
6. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and defence, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief. PW-1 Sh. Vikram, has deposed that on 18.09.2010, at about 8:00 PM, he along with his friend Harish went to the house of his other friend namely, Sandeep at State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 3 Vikas Puri. He further deposed that they went there by car bearing no. DL-3CAA- 2954 make Chevrolet Optra and they parked the car on the road side near the flats. He further deposed that at about 8:45 PM, after meeting Sandeep, they both came down to their car and he found three persons consuming alcohol in the street. He further deposed that the names of those three persons revealed as Yogesh, Rahul and Kala one of them asked him about the car if he was the owner and told them that it was his car and after hearing this, the accused persons started calling bad names to him and started giving blows to him. Thereafter, the accused persons called their acquaintance upon which one boy and few ladies came at the spot and he saw the boy who came at the spot and some of ladies were having dandas in hands and started running from the spot but was chased by them. He further deposed that they threw stones on him and he went again to the flat of Sandeep. He further deposed that the accused persons tried to break open the door of house of his friend Sandeep and in the meanwhile, police call was made. He further deposed that the police came at the spot and took him to the spot. He further deposed that he ran towards the park when the accused persons chased him and his friend Harish received injuries due to stones thrown by the accused persons. He further deposed that the name of the boy who came at the spot was Munish. He further stated that his car was badly damaged by the accused persons and his statement was recorded by the police vide Ex. PW1/A and the seizure memo of his car vide Ex. PW1/B was also prepared. He further stated that he cannot tell the nature of the document Ex. PW1/B and that he had put his signatures on arrest memos of Yogesh, Rahul, Munish and Naresh vide Ex. PW1/C to PW1/F. He further State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 4 stated that at the time of scuffle, his gold chain and the mobile phone of his friend Harish went missing. He further deposed that on the date of incident, he was pursuing his studies and had received the result of 12th class examination and Harish was his child hood friend and he know to Sandeep for about 12 years before the date of incident. He further stated that he met Sandeep at IGI College at Vikas Puri and that he and Harish left their houses for the house of Sandeep at about 6:30 PM and Harish came to his house and then they proceeded to Sandeep's house. He deposed that the distance between his house situated at Kair and the house of Sandeep which is situated at Vikas Puri is approximately 18-20 Kms. He further deposed that his friend Sandeep was staying at his flat as a tenant but he could not state about the tenure of his tenancy. He further deposed that before the incident, he had never gone to the house of Sandeep. He further deposed that the accused namely Yogesh, Kala and Rahul were sitting together when they came down from the flat of Sandeep. He further deposed that the aforesaid three persons were having glasses and bottle of liquor with them and he met the accused Yogesh Tyagi for the very first time on the date of the incident and the names of the accused Yogesh Tyagi was told to by his friend Sandeep. He admitted that his father is working in Delhi Police as Head Constable and on the date of incident, his age was around 18-19 years. He further deposed that IO might have recorded the statement of his friend Sandeep but he is not sure about the same and Yogesh also called him by bad names and has also beaten him along with the other accused persons. He further deposed that Yogesh gave blows to him as well as his friend Harish. He further deposed that neither he nor his friend Harish took any alcohol. State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 5 He further deposed that the park was situated at a distance of 400-500 meters from the spot and his statement was recorded by the IO at Police Station. He denied that he cannot tell the time of recording his statement as he was not present at the spot. He further deposed that there might be shops at the spot along with the residential premises. He further deposed that the incident took place on the public road. He further deposed that there was no specific parking at the spot and he parked his car near the park and he cannot tell the exact number of the public persons present at the spot. He deposed that he did not receive much injuries as he ran away from the spot. He further deposed that he cannot tell as to what injuries were caused to whom and by which accused. He further deposed that he saw the accused Munish along with the ladies when they came at the spot on the calling of the accused persons. He deposed that the police came to the spot within 10-15 minutes. He could not state if inquiries were conducted by police from the local persons. He deposed that he remained in the PS for about 30-60 minutes but could not state if he signed all the documents in PS. During cross examination, he stated that when he was taken to the house of Sandeep by Police officials after the incident in his presence, the glasses and the alcohol bottles were not seized by the police and Harish also went to PS with him. He further deposed that Harish had injuries on his person when they reached the PS and that he does not know who got conducted the medical examination of Harish. He further deposed that he cannot say as to who broke the door of Sandeep's house. He denied that no incident had taken place or that the door of the house of the Sandeep was not broken or that no chain or mobile phone went missing in the incident. He further stated that he was not State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 6 known to the accused Rahul and Munish before the incident. He admitted that the house where Sandeep was staying was the property of Vikas Tyagi. He denied that accused Rahul and Munish were not present at the spot. He denied that no damage was caused to his car and there was an incident between the family members of accused Rahul and Vikas Tyagi. He further stated that he came to know about the same later on and he does not know if some FIR is lodged regarding the same incident between the families of Rahul and Vikas Tyagi. He denied that he had lodged a false complaint against the accused Rahul and Munish at the behest of Vikas Tyagi. He denied that his car met with an accident on the day of incident and a false case had been lodged against the accused persons at the behest of his father, who is working as Head Constable in Delhi Police. PW-2 Sh. Vikas Tyagi deposed that he is doing property business and his cousin namely, Vivek Tyagi is the owner of Second Floor, WZ-131-A, Budhela, Vikas Puri and the person namely, Sandeep was residing as tenant in the said property. He further deposed that on 18.09.2010 at about 9:15 PM, Sandeep made a call to him and informed that the accused persons Yogesh, Naresh, Rahul and Munish had beaten Sandeep and his friends Vikram and Harsh and he informed that the accused persons damaged the vehicles parked there and forcefully entered the house after breaking front door. He deposed that he made a call at 100 number and rushed to the spot and saw the car of Vikram and other vehicles damaged and all the glasses of the house WZ-131 and its front door were broken. He further deposed that the accused persons had already ran away from the spot and there were two other relatives of the accused persons who were present at the spot and State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 7 they were hurling abuses on Sandeep and his friends. He identified the photographs of the spot as well as the damaged vehicles vide Ex. PW-2/1 to Ex. PW-2/19. During cross examination, he stated that he know the accused Yogesh since his childhood and an altercation had taken place between him and Yogesh Tyagi somewhere six months prior to the date of the incident. He further stated that the persons namely, Amit Tyagi is his younger brother and Vipul Tyagi is his nephew and that Vivek Tyagi S/o Munish Tyagi had filed one complaint against Amit and Vipul prior to this incident and that he was also aware that regarding that complaint and pending case between the parties. He further deposed that he does not know as to how Sandeep got the house of Vivek Tyagi on rent. He further deposed that he knows Sandeep as he is studying in Vikas Puri college and had met him as he used to come to college and was living in Vikas Puri. He further deposed that he does not know Vikram and also does not know any Harish. He further deposed that he had never been in landlord-tenant relationship with Sandeep and has never taken any rent from him. He further deposed that at the time of incident, he had no share of ownership in property bearing No. WZ-131-A, Budhela, Vikas Puri. He deposed that Sandeep had been living in the property before the incident however, he could not state the duration of the same. He further deposed that once or twice, he had visited the residence of Sandeep in the aforesaid property. He denied that he was the owner of the second floor of the aforesaid property and used to receive the rent of the same from Sandeep and admitted that he had reached the spot after the incident and did not see the same. He denied that accused Vipul Tyagi and Amit Tyagi are accused in FIR No. 169/09 State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 8 PS Vikas Puri. During his cross examination, he stated that when he received the call from Sandeep, he was present at Paschim Vihar and he reached at the spot within half an hour by his car and that the police reached within 15-20 minutes after he made a call to them from the Paschim Vihar itself. He further deposed that he cannot tell the exact duration for which police remained at the spot. PW-3 Ct. Parveen deposed that on 18.09.2010, he was on emergency duty and at about 9.45 PM, SI Manoj Dahiya received a call from duty officer. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Manoj Dahiya went to the spot i.e. WZ-131, Budhela Village. There, they met a person namely, Harish at the spot and IO filled the medical request form and took the injured to the DDU Hospital. He deposed that he collected his MLC no. 17624/10 and that after the medical examination of the injured, he took him back to the spot. He further deposed that IO prepared the seizure memo of the broken pieces of glasses and stones vide memo already Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that IO prepared the seizure memo of the car bearing registration no. DL- 3CAA-2954 vide Ex.PW3/A and that IO recorded the statement of the witnesses and got clicked the photographs of the spot. He correctly identified the photographs of the spot as well as of the damaged vehicle vide Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/19. During his cross examination, he stated that at the time of incident, his duty hours were 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM and an information regarding quarrel and stone throwing was received at about 9.45 PM. He further stated that at the time of receiving call, IO as well as he was present in the police station. He further stated that he did not know whether the IO has made any departure entry in DD register. State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 9 He further deposed that he cannot tell the name of the photographer who took the photographs of the damaged vehicle and of the spot.
PW-4 Sh. Ashish Khattar deposed that he is doing the work of photography and printing from 2005 and in the present case, 19 photographs of the spot and damaged vehicles which are already Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/19 were clicked by him and it shows that they have been printed from their Lab. However, he does not have in his possession the negative No. 6733. During his cross examination, he stated that he does not remember the date when photographs were developed in his lab. He could not state whether photographs Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/19 developed from negative or data card.
PW-5 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Beniwal deposed that in the year 2010, he had taken a room on rent Budhela Village at Vikas Puri as his college I.G.L.P.E.S.S. was in Vikas Puri. He further deposed that his friend Vinod took the keys of his room in the month of September 2010 to celebrate the birthday of his friend Vikram where Harish was also present. He deposed that after completing his college, he also came to his room at about 4.30 P.M. where his friends were having alcohol and he also joined them. He further deposed that after having dinner, they left his place and he went to the roof of the fourth floor in order to sleep there and after listening the shouts, he saw down from the roof where some people were fighting but due to darkness, he could not see their faces from the roof but he ignored the incident and went off to sleep and bolted the door of the roof from inside. He further deposed that his landlord Vikas Tyagi called at his number and he told him that he was present at the roof and he went down stairs where PCR van was already present State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 10 there and he enquired from his friend Vikram as to why the police officials had come who told him that they had a scuffle with some persons. He further deposed that his landlord Vikas Tyagi told him and his friends to go upstairs. He further deposed that Vikram had called at 100 number and accused persons were not present at the spot when he came down stairs. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he admitted that in the year 2010 he used to study in IGIPESS and reside at House no. WZ-131, second floor, Budhela Village, Vikas Puri, Delhi. He admitted that Vikram and Harish had come at his rented accommodation along-with Vinod. He admitted that Vikram had parked his car bearing registration no. DL- 3CAA-2954 outside the building. He admitted that he along-with Vinod. Vikram and Harish went downstairs at about 8.45 P.M. and after seeing of them, he started going towards his room. He denied that when he was standing in the balcony after seeing off his friends he saw that accused Yogesh, Naresh and Rahul had stopped his friends namely, Vikram and Harish and was not standing in the balcony. He denied that that after talking for some time with his friends accused Yogesh, Naresh and Rahul started beating his friends namely, Vikram and Harish. He denied that to save themselves, his friends namely, Vikram and Harish came inside his room. He denied that he locked his room and came to balcony. He denied that accused Yogesh, Naresh and Rahul came up stairs along-with danda and started breaking the glasses of the building. He denied that in the meanwhile some companions of accused persons including some ladies started pelting stones towards his building. He denied that accused persons after breaking the glasses of building went downstairs and damaged the car of Vikram with danda and stones. He denied that State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 11 accused persons have also damaged the other cars parked over there. He denied that police had recorded statement of Vikram in his presence. He denied that police has taken into possession the broken glasses and stones from the spot in his presence.
PW-6 ASI Dhanpat deposed that he received the rukka from SI Manoj Kumar and endorsed the same vide DD no. 29A which is Ex. PW 6/A and has proved the copy of FIR vide Ex. PW 6/B. He also proved the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW 6/C. PW-7 Dr. Sanjay Rai has identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Jawahar on the MLC no. 17624 dated 18.09.2010 vide Ex. PW 7/A. PW-8 Manoj Dahiya deposed that on 18.09.2010, he along with Ct. Parveen was on emergency duty and upon receiving DD no. 38 A they went to the spot i.e. WZ-131 Bhudhela Village, where they met complainant Harish, Sandeep and Vikram and he noticed that one sedan car was parked in a damaged condition in front of the spot. He further deposed that there were stones which were lying on the spot also and window glasses of the spot were also broken. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Vikram and prepared tehrir vide Ex. PW 8/A. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and he prepared the site plan vide PW 8/B and seized the car. He deposed that he also seized the stones and glass pieces and in the meantime, owner of the house no. WZ-131, Budhella Village i.e. Vikas Tyagi also came at the spot he tried to trace the accused persons. He further deposed that he collected previous involvements of accused Yogesh and Naresh vide Ex. PW 8/C (Colly) and thereafter, accused persons was arrested on the identification of Vikram vide State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 12 arrest memos already Ex. PW 1/C, Ex. PW 1/D, Ex. PW 1/D and Ex. PW 1/F. During his cross examination, he stated that the DD number which he had received on the day of incident was regarding quarrel. He further deposed that it was approximately 9:00 PM when he reached the spot and the place of incident was a residential locality. He further deposed that he does not remember whether at the place of incident, public persons were gathered or not. He admitted that during his entire investigation he had not recorded any statement of any public person and residents of same vicinity. He admitted that he had not placed on record certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act with the photographs. He further deposed that he captured the photographs from his mobile phone. He further deposed that he does not remember whether the person namely, Harish was intoxicated on the date of incident. He further deposed that he does not remember whether any witness examined by him has given any specific allegation against the accused Yogesh for forcefully entering to the house. He admitted that they were known to accused Yogesh prior to the incident. He further deposed that during the investigation, it has not come to his knowledge that the complainant was in altercation with accused Yogesh prior to the date of incident. He denied that accused Yogesh was named in the present case only due to the prior enmity between Sandeep and accused Yogesh. He admitted that he had not recorded the statement of relatives of Vikas Tyagi who were present on the date of incident. He admitted that no one from the complainant side has given him the video recording of the incident. He further deposed that in the year 2010, it was rare that the people were carrying phone which was having feature of videography and after the incident, he recorded the State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 13 statement of witnesses who specifically made allegations and identified accused Yogesh as the person who has thrown the stones and broken the car belonging to complainant. He further stated that after the date of incident, he made efforts to record the statement of public witnesses but all of them refused to depose on the pretext of their personal difficulty. He admitted that he had not named the persons in his investigation from whom he made efforts to investigate and record their statement. He admitted that he had never issued any notice to any public persons for joining the investigation. He further stated that except complainant and his friend/relative, no other person has disclosed him about the involvement of accused Yogesh in the incident. He further stated that no recovery was affected from the accused Yogesh. He admitted that during investigation, the unknown lady against whom allegations were made by the complainant was never called nor could not be identified. He further deposed that the complainant and his friend has never disclosed about the particulars of unknown ladies who were involved in the quarrel. He further stated that during his investigation, no danda was recovered from the accused Yogesh. He further deposed that no danda was found at the spot after his reaching there on the date of incident. He further deposed there was no specific parking space at the spot. He further deposed that he cannot state about the width of the road on which the alleged damaged car was found parked and two cars can pass from the road where the alleged car was parked. He deposed that he does not remember exact time when he reached at the house of Sandeep and on the basis of statements of witnesses Vikas Tyagi and Sandeep only, he can say that Sandeep was the tenant. He further deposed that he did not find it appropriate to collect any State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 14 proof with regard to the fact that the Sandeep was tenant there. He further stated that he can only say that the photographs placed on record are of Sandeep's rented house only on the basis of fact that he clicked the same at the house of Sandeep though there is no specific identity in that the clicked photographs belongs to Sandeep's house only. He further stated that no one informed him that there was enmity between the Rahul's family and Vikas Tyagi. He denied that at the instance of Vikas Tyagi, the closed persons of accused Rahul were falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that when he reached the Sandeep's rented house, only Ct. Parveen was present with him and that he does not remember the time when Ct. Praveen went for conducting the MLC of the witness Sandeep. He further stated that in this case only Harish received injuries, therefore only his MLC was conducted. He further stated that he does not have the mobile phone by which he had taken the said photographs as about 13 years have already been passed and also that he has not filed the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to the factum of clicking of the alleged photographs by him. He further stated that when Harish was taken for medical examination, the complainant Vikram was at the spot with him and does not remember as to by what time Ct. Parveen returned to the spot from the hospital after conducting MLC of the witness Harish. He deposed that does not remember if the father of witness Vikram is/was in police. He denied that at the behest of the father of witness Vikram only, a false and fabricated case has been made out against accused persons. He denied that there were no shops open at the time of alleged incident and that does not remember as to how many stories were there in the house in which the Sandeep was residing as tenant. State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 15 PW-9 HC Makhhan Lal is the MHCM and has proved the relevant entry no. 2515 dated 19.09.2010 qua deposition of case property in Malkhana which is Ex. PW 9/A.
6. This is the entire evidence on case record.
STATEMENTs OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
7. Statements of the accused persons u/s Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidences were put to them. The accused persons controverted and denied the allegations levelled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused persons further opted to lead evidence in their defence, hence, matter was fixed for DE.
8. In defence evidence, accused Rahul Tyagi @ Vivek Tyagi examined himself as DW-1.
DW -1 Rahul Tyagi deposed that Vikas Tyagi is one of the witnesses in the present case. He further stated that there was some conflict between him and Vikas Tyagi in the past and he was beaten by nephew namely, Vipul and brother namely Amit Tyagi @ Bunty of the said Vikas Tyagi due to which he lodged an FIR no. 169/09 PS Vikas Puri against the persons involved in the beating incident with him. He further stated that earlier Vikas Tyagi forced him to withdraw the above said FIR no. 169/09. He further stated that when he refused to withdraw his complaint in FIR no.169/09, the said Vikas Tyagi in connivance with Vikram (Complainant) who was State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 16 the friend and the tenant also of said Vikas Tyagi in the present case, has falsely implicated him, his father and his cousin brothers by using the influence of the father of said Vikram who is working in Delhi Police. He deposed that all the accused persons in the said FIR got convicted by the order of this Hon'ble Court. He placed the copy of his Adhar Card on record which is Ex.DW1/A, which shows his name as Vivek Tyagi which is his original name and his nick name is Rahul with which he is popularly known and in the said FIR no. 169/09 his name is mentioned at Vivek Tyagi which is his original name. During his cross examination, he stated that he resided at House no. WZ 130, First Floor, Budhela Market. He admitted that WZ-131 A Budhela Vikas Puri belongs to person namely Vikas Tyagi. He admitted that one person namely, Sandeep used to reside there as tenant at WZ- 131A Budhela Vikas Puri. He admitted that there were earlier disputes going between family members of Vikas Tyagi. He denied that on 18.09.2010 at about 8:45 PM, he along with accused persons namely, Yogesh, Naresh and Munish was drinking alcohol in front of WZ-131A Budhela Vikas Puri. He denied that due to previous enmity with Vikas Tyagi, they had beaten them. He denied that he along with accused Yogesh, Naresh and Munesh gone upstairs along with danda and started breaking glasses of above said building.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
9. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. The accused persons have been indicted for the offences u/s 452/323/427/34 IPC.
State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 17
10. For the sake of repetition, it is again reiterated that the sum and substance of the allegations as levelled against accused persons is that on 18.09.2010 at about 8.45 PM at WZ-131/A, 2nd Floor, Budhela Village, Vikas Puri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri, all the accused persons in furtherance of common intention of each other after having made the preparation, wrongfully trespassed into the house of one Sandeep with intention to putting complainant Vikram and his friend Harish in fear of being hurt by them. Further, on the above said date, time and place all the accused persons in furtherance of common intention of each other hit the friend of the complainant namely, Harish and voluntarily caused simple injuries to him. Further, on the above said date, time and place all the accused persons in furtherance of common intention of each other wrongfully break the Optra Car bearing No. DL-3CAA-2954 belonging to the complainant namely, Vikram and caused damage to his car to the tune of more than Rs. 50/- and thereby committed the offences u/s 452/323/427/34 IPC.
11. The careful perusal of the case record would reflect that in order to establish the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimonies of PW-1 Vikram, PW-2 Vikas Tyagi and PW-5 Sandeep Kumar. It is pertinent to mention that the mere perusal of the testimony of PW-2 Vikas Tyagi would reflect that the alleged incident did not take place in his presence and rather he was informed through call by PW-5 Sandeep Kumar qua the incident in question and thereafter, he rushed to the spot and made a police call, hence, the testimony of PW-2 appears to be evidence which is hearsay in nature and same in itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences. State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 18 Further, on perusal of the testimony of PW-5 Sandeep Kumar Beniwal, it appears that this witness has though narrated that he heard some loud noises while he was present at the roof of his house and saw that some persons were fighting in the street and thereafter he informed his landlord/PW 2 Vikas Tyagi regarding the same and went downstairs, after which his friend/PW 1 Vikram who was already present there narrated that he had a scuffle with some person but again this witness has failed to identify any of the accused persons as the offenders who either assaulted PW-1 Vikram or Harish or as persons who damaged the vehicle of PW-1 Vikram. He has also ruled out about the alleged acts of trespass into his house by the accused persons during his testimony, hence, it also appears that even the testimony of PW-5 is of no avail to bring home the guilt of accused persons for the alleged offences. The careful scrutiny of the testimony of PW-1 Vikram would reflect that during the course of deposition in the Court, he has made some considerable improvements. More specifically, PW-1 has narrated about the acts of being chased down by the accused persons along with their associates that too with the weapons in the nature of sticks, iron rods etc. but such version of this witness does not find mention in his complaint Ex. PW1/A. There is an admission the part of PW-1 that prior to the alleged incident, he never visited the house of PW- 5 Sandeep nor he was knowing the accused persons but the names of accused persons finds mention in the complaint Ex. PW1/A on the basis of which the FIR in question came to be registered. The prosecuting agency has not explained as to how PW-1 disclosed about the names of the accused persons in his complaint made to police when admittedly he was not knowing them previously nor he visited State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 19 the house of PW-1 on any prior occasion. The careful perusal of testimony of PW-1 would reflect that he has also admitted the fact that PW-5 was residing as a tenant in the house of PW-2 Vikas Tyagi. Besides this, he has also admitted that previously there was an incident between the family members of accused Rahul and PW-2 Vikas Tyagi. However, quite surprisingly, PW-2 Vikas Tyagi has tried to conceal the fact that PW-5 Sandeep was his tenant and rather he stated that PW-5 Sandeep was tenant of his cousin Vivek Tyagi. The aforesaid version of PW-2 was contradicted by PW-5 as he narrated that the house in which he was residing belonged to his landlord/ PW-2 Vikas Tyagi. Herein, an inference can be drawn that PW-2 might have tried to conceal the landlord/ tenant relationship between him and PW-5 as he has instigated PW-1 (being the friend of PW-5 ) to lodge a false complaint qua the alleged incident in question on account of his previous enmity with the accused Rahul. Further, it has also come in deposition of PW-5 that prior to the incident, the friend of PW-1/alleged victim Harish had consumed alcohol. The version of PW-1 is that even though he and Harish did not consume alcohol in the house of PW-5 but he has not ruled out that Harish might have come to the house of PW-5 after having alcohol. The MLC of Harish which is Ex. PW7/A also suggests that alcohol was found in his blood at the time of his medical examination. In these given facts and circumstances, the possibility that the incident might have ensued due to the acts of aggression/assault done by afore-named Harish under the influence of alcohol against the accused persons or that the injuries might have been sustained by him not due to the alleged acts of beatings / assault done by accused persons, cannot be completely ruled out. Further, it has been admitted by State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 20 PW-1 and PW-5 that when the police arrived at the spot, certain public persons were present at the spot of the incident. The spot of alleged incident is located in a densely populated area where the houses are adjacent to each other and given the fact that the incident has allegedly taken place at around 8:45 PM, hence, the possibility of presence of the independent public witnesses at the spot cannot be ruled out. However, no reasonable explanation has come from the IO examined as PW-8 as to why statements of no such public witnesses or the residents of the vicinity were recorded by him and as to why he only opted to examine Vikas Tyagi as a witness in the present case excluding the other resident of the vicinity. Even PW-8 has admitted the fact that during the course of investigation, he came into knowledge that there was a previous dispute between accused Yogesh and Rahul as well as Sandeep and Vikas Tyagi but despite coming into knowledge of such crucial fact, PW-8 did not opt to verify the version of the complainant by associating any independent public witnesses in the present case. The accused persons have probablized their defence that they might have been falsely implicated by the complainant Vikram under the instigation of witness Sandeep and Vikas Tyagi as accused Rahul got registered a case FIR no.169/09 PS Vikas Puri against the nephew and brother of Vikas Tyagi, in which they were also convicted vide judgment dated 04.04.2022. The accused persons have not only examined DW-1 i.e. accused Rahul Tyagi who has coherently deposed qua the aforesaid fact but they have also fortified their defence by bringing on record the certified copy of judgment dated 04.04.2022 pertaining to aforesaid case FIR no.169/09 PS Vikas Puri. In view of the such defence evidence led by the accused persons coupled State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 21 with the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution story as well as the admission on part of PW-1 that his father was working as head constable in Delhi Police during the relevant time, the possibility that the accused persons might have been falsely implicated by the complainant / PW-1 under the instigation and connivance of PW-2 Vikas Tyagi due to previous enmity between him and accused Rahul, cannot be ruled out. The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to an irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in order to prove the commission and guilt of the accused persons for offences u/s 323/452/427/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubts, thus, entitling the accused persons to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
12. In view of foregoing discussion, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused persons for the offences u/s 323/452/427/34 IPC and holds the accused persons not guilty for the alleged offences. The accused persons namely Yogesh, Naresh, Rahul and Manish Tyagi are thus, acquitted of the offences u/s 323/452/427/34 IPC.
Announced in the open 07.03.2025 (Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC-05 South West District Dwarka Courts, Delhi07.03.2025 State Vs. Yogesh and Others FIR No : 240/10 U/s : 452/323/427/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 22