Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh Kr. Pal on 7 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ISRA ZAIDI: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-04, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
JUDGMENT
Cr. No. of the case 464181/2015
CNR Number DLNE02-000235-2008
FIR Number 444/2007
Police Station Khajuri Khas
Name of the Complainant/Informant SI Ram Kumar Name of the Accused, his 1. Rakesh Kumar Pal S/o Sh. Pal Singh Pal parentage and address R/o C-372/9, 2nd Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
2. Bablu S/o Sh. Keshav Prasad R/o CH 313, 2nd Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
3. Anuj S/o Sh. Ram Gopal R/o E1/1169, 25 Foota Road, 5th Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
4. Deepak Kumar S/o Sh. Chittar Singh R/o C-43/3, 2nd Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
5. Dumed S/o Sh. Ram Kumar R/o C1/592, 2nd Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
6. Sanjay @ Sanju (Since PO).
FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal ISRA
Page 1 of 15
ZAIDI
Digitally signed
by ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
2026.02.07
14:16:53 +0530
Date of Commission of offence 21.09.2007
Date of institution 29.08.2008
Offences complained of Under Section 186/353/332/ 427/
436/34 and 3 & 4 PDPP Act.
Offences charged of Under Section 147/148/149/323
IPC and Under Section 3 PDPP
Act against accused Bablu, Anuj,
Rakesh Kumar Pal, Deepak Kumar
and Dumed
Under Section 186/353/332/435/34
IPC against accused Bablu and
Anuj.
Plea of the accused persons Pleaded not guilty
Date of final arguments 07.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 07.02.2026 Final Order Acquitted BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
01. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on 21.09.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. at Sonia Vihar Pushta, near Zero Pushta, Water Plant, Sonia Vihar, Delhi, accused Bablu, Anuj, Rakesh Kumar Pal, Deepak Kumar and Dumed along with co-accused Sanjay @ Sanju (since PO) were armed with danda committed rioting, caused simple injury to Jagbir Singh and damaged the public property i.e. police gypsy. It is also alleged that Accused Bablu and Anuj along with co-accused Sanjay @ Sanju (Since PO) voluntarily obstructed public servant namely Ct. Sanjeev and SI Ram Kumar in discharge of their public functions. It is further alleged that the above said accused persons assaulted or used criminal force against Ct. Sanjeev and caused simple hurt to him. It is also alleged his motorcycle was set on fire by the accused. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against ISRA ZAIDI Digitally signed FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal by ISRA ZAIDI Page 2 of 15 Date: 2026.02.07 14:18:29 +0530 the accused persons under sections 186/353/332/427/436/34 and 3 & 4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as PDPP Act).
COURT PROCEEDINGS
02. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 186/353/332/427/147/148/149 IPC and Section 3 & 4 PDPP Act was filed before the court against the accused persons. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 29.08.2008 and accused persons were summoned to face the trial. On their appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to him as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.06.2017, notice under sections 186/353/332/435 IPC was framed against accused Bablu and Anuj and charge under section 147/148/149/323 IPC and under section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act was framed against the accused Bablu, Anuj, Rakesh Kumar Pal, Deepak Kumar and Dumed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
03. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 HC Sanjeev
2. PW2 Retired ACP Meena Naidu
3. PW3 Retired SI Ram Kumar
4. PW4 ASI Beer Singh
5. PW5 Retired SI Ravikaran ISRA FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal ZAIDI Page 3 of 15 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.07 14:18:41 +0530 DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
1. Ex. PW1/A Seizure memo of motorcycle
2. Ex. PW2/P-1 Photographs of the Gypsy
3. Ex. PW3/A Statement of Retired SI Ram Kumar
4. Ex. PW5/A Rukka
5. Ex. PW5/B Site Plan
6. Ex. PW5/C, Ex. PW5/D, Arrest Memos of accused persons Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F
7. Ex. PW5/P-1 Photographs of burnt motorcycle
8. Ex. P-4 Seizure Memo of Gypsy
9. Ex. P-5 Seizure Memo of torn Uniform STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 313 Cr.PC
04. The accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C examined on 05.01.2026. The accused persons stated that they are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in the present case, they were passers-byes and scuffle had already been taken place, due to which, crowd was gathered and they were asked to how the ID proofs and they were taken to the PS. No defence evidence was led by the accused persons despite granting him an opportunity.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
05. The court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 07.02.2026. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case against the accused is false and frivolous and has prayed that accused be acquitted of the offence charged. Learned APP for the state submitted that accused be convicted of the offences under ISRA FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal ZAIDI Page 4 of 15 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.07 14:19:35 +0530 the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused. This court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 294 Cr.PC
06. The accused had admitted the following documents without admitting its contents and hence the examination of the concerned witnesses were dispensed with.
Srl. No. Exhibited No. Nature of Documents 01. Ex. P-1 DD No. 31-A dated 21.09.2007 02. Ex. P-2 FIR No. 444/2007 03. Ex. P-3 DD No. 37-A dated 21.09.2007 04. Ex. P-4 Seizure Memo of DL-1CH-2614 05. Ex. P-5 Seizure Memo of Pullanda 06. Ex. P-6 Arrest Memos of all the accused persons. 07. Ex. P-7 Quest for inspection of motorcycle and Gypsy 08. Ex. P-8 Discharge Summary of Ct. Sanjeev 09. Ex. P-9 MLC of Sanjay 10. Ex. P-10 MLC of Ct. Sanjeev 11. Ex. P-11 MLC of Ct. Jagveer 12. Ex. P-12 Complaint u/s. 195 Cr.PC
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
07. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offences punishable under section 186/353/332/435/147/148/149/323 IPC and under section 3 PDPP Act beyond reasonable doubt. It is apt to quote the following sections :
ISRA FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal ZAIDI Page 5 of 15 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.07 14:19:45 +0530 Section 147 IPC:-
"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 148 IPC:-
"Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 149 IPC:-
"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 323 IPC:-
"Whoever, 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 186 IPC:-
"Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." ISRA ZAIDI FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Page 6 of 15 Date:
2026.02.07 14:19:55 +0530 Section 353 IPC:-
"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 to the lawful discharge of his duty as 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 332 IPC:-
"Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 435 IPC:-
"Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards or (where the property is agricultural produce) ten rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 3 of PDPP Act: -
"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."
ISRA FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal ZAIDI Page 7 of 15 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.07 14:20:05 +0530 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
08. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
09. PW1 HC Sanjeev, in his examination in chief deposed that on 21.09.2007, his duty was with ZO SI Ram Kumar for making challan. He deposed that on that day at about 6.00 pm, he along with IO on his private motorcycle No. UP-12H-0967 had reached near water plant before Zero Pushta, Sonia Vihar, where at the direction of IO, he had signaled towards TSR to stop as he was carrying extra passengers. He deposed that when the driver of said TSR stopped his vehicle, he reached near him and asked for his licence and documents of vehicle, on which the passengers who were sitting in the said TSR started arguing with him on the point of challan. He further deposed that thereafter, three boys of said TSR came down and started abusing and beating him and also torn his uniform. He deposed that one of the said boys had also biten him on his hand and thereafter they cried "sale ki motorcycle me aag laga do" and they set fire on his motorcycle. He further deposed that in the meantime, ZO SI Ram Kumar had informed to TI Meena Naidu regarding the incident, on which, TI Meena Naidu along with other staff had reached at the spot. He deposed that accused had also called more three boys on the spot and they broke the glasses of government gypsy by dandas. He further deposed that one of the accused had also hit his face on the bonnet of the gypsy.
10. He further deposed that in the meantime, three accused persons fled away from the spot by the said TSR, due to which, neither they could stop the said TSR nor noted down number of the said TSR. He further deposed that one public ISRA ZAIDI FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal Page 8 of 15 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.07 14:20:15 +0530 person also intervened into the matter and tied to rescue the police officials from the clutches of accused persons, however, he was also beaten by accused persons by blow and fist, due to which, he had also sustained injuries. He further deposed that the accused who hit his face on the bonnet of gypsy had also sustained injuries and blood was oozing out from his mouth as he was in drunken condition. He deposed that in the meantime, SHO, PS Khajuri Khas along with his staff reached at the spot and accused persons were apprehended by IO with the help of police officials of PS Khajuri Khas.
11. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 testified that his statement was recorded by the IO at PS on 21.09.2007 in the evening. He testified that he did not mention his private bike number in departure DD entry. He could not tell the number concerned TSR which he tried to stop. He also could not tell the name of driver of the TSR. He did not know whether the TSR was plying on the same route. He testified that they were two police officials at the time of incident. He further testified that when he requested the driver of the TSR to come out from the same, he denied. He testified that the challan book was is in the hand of ZO SI Ram Kumar and SI Ram Kumar was standing about 50 steps away from the place of incident. He testified that he saw the TSR from about 15-20 meters before it reached at the spot. He testified that there were seven persons including driver sitting in the TSR, three passengers were sitting at the back seat and other three passengers were sitting besides the driver. He testified that the ZO had inquired the name of accused who had bitten him on his hand. He further testified that one accused sustained injury and he had had stated the role of accused persons in his statement recorded by the IO He denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
12. PW2 Retired ACP Meena Naidu, in his examination in chief deposed that on 21.09.2007, at around 06:00 p.m., SI Ram Kumar, ZO called him and told that he had been surrounded by public persons while he was performing his traffic duty. She deposed that thereafter, she along with his driver Ct. Giriraj reached at the spot ISRA FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal ZAIDI Page 9 of 15 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.07 14:20:37 +0530 i.e. Sonia Vihar, 1st Pusta near Water Plant, where she saw that one motorcycle was burnt and three boys came, attacked upon her car and broke down the glasses of the car. She further deposed that one person namely Jagbir tried to pacify them but they did not listen and also beaten him. She deposed that one of those boys, had caused injury himself by attacking his face upon the bonnet of his car and then the blood was oozing out from his face. She further deposed that public persons were gathered there and he somehow dispersed them. She deposed that three more boys came there namely Anup, Bablu, Imesh and Rakesh and obstructed them to discharge the public duty. She further deposed that they all were drunk, they torn the uniform of Ct. Sanjeev and burnt the private motorcycle. She deposed that his statement u/s 161 was recorded by the IO and then, she left the spot. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
13. PW3 Retired SI Ram Kumar, in his examination in chief deposed that on 21.09.2007, he was performing traffic duty at Pusta No. 1 Khajuri Khas, in the meantime, one TSR came, which was overloaded and he stopped it. He deposed that Ct. Sanjeev reached near the TSR and six persons who were in the TSR attacked Ct. Sanjeev and torn his uniform. He further deposed that they also attacked his face by giving blow on his face, due to which, blood was oozing out from his face. He deposed that they all were drunk and they were saying "inn police walo ki gaddi mei aag laga do". He deposed that after some time, Inspt. TI Meena Naidu reached there and they also attacked her gypsy and broke down the glasses of her gypsy. He further deposed that one of those boys had caused injury to himself by attacking the bonnet of her car by his face. He further deposed that meanwhile, one public person came to pacify them but they did not listen and they also attacked him.
14. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, PW3 admitted that he along with Ct. Sanjeev was performing his duty on his private motorcycle no. UP- 12H-0967 and that the TSR in question came around 06 PM and that the accused ISRA FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal ZAIDI Page 10 of 15 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.07 14:23:13 +0530 persons had burnt the motorcycle of Ct. Sanjeev and that Inspr. Meena Naidu came in her gypsy no. DL-1CH-2614 and that those accused persons had attacked the gypsy of Inspt. Meena through the sticks and broken the glasses of the car and that all the accused persons were drunk and that the accused persons were apprehended and arrested when SHO PS Khajuri Khas came at the spot and arrested them. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
15. PW4 ASI Beer Singh, in his examination in chief deposed that on 22.09.2007, he was called by IO/ASI Ram Karan to click photographs of the case property i.e. DL-1CH-2614. He further deposed that he clicked the photographs Ex. PW2/P-1 and handed over the same to the IO.
16. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW4 admitted that the photographs were not clicked at the spot. He testified that he had not handed over the negatives of the said photographs to the IO. He further testified that the negatives of the said photographs are kept on record. He could not tell whether it is visible by seeing the photographs of the case property that it was burnt. He could not tell whether the said vehicle was damaged. He testified that the seizure memo was not prepared qua the said photographs. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
17. PW5 Retired SI Ravikaran, in his examination in chief deposed that on 21.09.07, on receiving DD entry no. 31 regarding beatings to traffic police official, he along with Ct. Ravinder reached at the spot i.e. Sonia Vihar Pushta, Water tank, where they met SHO PS concerned and other police staff members. He conducted the investigation in the present case.
18. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW5 testified that all the accused persons met him at the spot and he arrested all of them from the spot.
ISRA
FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal
ZAIDI Page 11 of 15
Digitally signed
by ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
2026.02.07
14:23:56 +0530
He testified that sticks, bricks, matchsticks, oil and stones were not recovered from the possession of accused. He testified that the accused persons except Sanjay were not beaten or injured by the public or police. He further testified that no crime team was called at the spot. He also testified that no blood stains came on the clothes of the accused persons. He had not obtained the opinion of the doctor whether injury could be possibly when someone causes it by injuring himself on the bonnet. He testified that the statement of public person namely Jagbir Singh was recorded and he had sustained injuries on his body, however, he had not sustained any material injury. He admitted that the photographs attached with the case file i.e. Ex. PW5/P1 does not bear the pictures of the accused person. He did not remember whether he recorded the statement of the photographer and that whether he seized the photographs through the seizure memo. He denied all the suggestions put by Ld. defence Counsel.
19. As per the story of the prosecution an overloaded TSR was stopped by the police officials. However, PW1 in his cross-examination could not tell the number of the TSR, the name of its driver, or even whether the TSR was plying on the same route. No efforts were made by the IO to trace the TSR or its driver, even though this vehicle allegedly triggered the entire incident as it was carrying extra passengers as per the version of the prosecution. This omission strikes at the very root of the prosecution case.
20. PW1 himself admitted that his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC was not available on the judicial file. The prosecution further alleged that one public person, namely Jagbir Singh, intervened in the incident and sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. However, Jagbir Singh was neither examined as a prosecution witness nor cited as such. No plausible explanation was put forth for non-examination of the said witness and such non-joinder gives rise to an adverse inference. In case of Pradeep Narayan State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1930 held that failure of ISRA FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal ZAIDI Page 12 of 15 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.07 14:24:04 +0530 police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of investigation, benefit of which must go to the accused persons.
21. The testimonies of police witnesses are also riddled with inconsistencies on material particulars. PW1 stated that the accused persons were apprehended at the spot at his instance, whereas PW5 stated that the area police staff was already present and apprehended the accused. PW5 further contradicted himself regarding the presence of the crime team at the spot. Such contradictions go to the root of the prosecution case and affect the credibility of the witnesses.
22. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. These are the few principles which the Court has stated consistently and with certainty. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of "Joseph v. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC".
23. As regards the allegation of damage to public property, the prosecution relied upon photographs purportedly depicting the damaged gypsy and burnt motorcycle. PW4, the photographer, admitted that the photographs were not taken at the spot, that the negatives were not seized and that no seizure memo of the photographs was prepared. He further admitted that he could not say whether the photographs depicted any burns or damage. It appears that evidence cannot be relied upon to prove damage beyond reasonable doubt. Perusal of the DD No. 31-A dated 21.09.2007 reveals that it was regarding scuffle between the traffic police and public and not as alleged by the prosecution.
24. PW5 admitted that no sticks, bricks, matchsticks, oil or stones were recovered from their possession. No forensic evidence was collected to establish that the motorcycle was set on fire by the accused. These omissions materially weaken the ISRA FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal Page 13 of 15 ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.07 14:24:14 +0530 allegations of rioting.
25. The charge of unlawful assembly and common object has also not been proved. The evidence on record indicates that the incident arose suddenly during a challan dispute. There is no material to show prior meeting of minds or pre-concert among the accused persons. It is a settled law that mere presence at the spot does not make a person a member of an unlawful assembly unless the common object is clearly established.
26. Moreover, PW5 also admitted that no medical opinion was obtained to ascertain whether the injury on one accused could be self-inflicted by hitting his face on the bonnet, as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. No blood-stained clothes of the accused were seized. Such lapses further create doubt about the prosecution version.
27. It is not in dispute that the entire prosecution case rests upon official witnesses. There is no law that police testimony cannot be relied upon but the court it must be credit worthy. In the present case, the absence of independent corroboration assumes significance in view of the inconsistencies and procedural lapses as discussed above.
28. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The ISRA FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal ZAIDI Page 14 of 15 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.07 14:24:21 +0530 burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
29. Therefore, keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this Court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, this Court gives benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Accordingly, accused Bablu, Anuj, Rakesh Kumar Pal, Deepak Kumar and Dumed are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/323 IPC and under Section 3 PDPP Act. Accused Bablu and Anuj are also acquitted for offences punishable Under Section 186/353/332/435/34 IPC.
Digitally Pronounced in the open Court on 07.02.2026. signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
ZAIDI 2026.02.07 14:24:37 +0530 (Isra Zaidi) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 North East District/KKD/Delhi This Judgment contains 15 pages and each page bears my signature.FIR No. 444/2007 State Vs. Rakesh Kr. Pal Page 15 of 15