Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Kumar on 24 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI,
JMFC-02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. RAVI KUMAR
DD No. 86 dated 08.03.2023
PS: CHANAKYAPURI
U/S: 53/116 DP Act
CNR No. : DLND02-007283-2023
Date of commission of offence : 08.03.2023
Date of institution of the case : 09.03.2023
Name of the complainant : HC Rajesh
Name of accused and address : Ravi Kumar
S/o Sh. Nand Ram
R/o Jhuggi No. A-78, Sanjay
Camp, Chanakyapuri, New
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 53/116 DP Act
State Representation : Sh. Prashant Chaudhary, Ld.
Asst. Public Prosecution
Plea of Accused : Plead not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 24.09.2024
DD No. 86 dated 08.03.2023 Page 1 of 7
State Vs. Ravi Kumar
PS : Chanakyapuri
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief can be stated as that on 08.03.2023 at unknown time at Sanjay Camp, Railway Line, Shiv Mandir, Chanakyapuri, Delhi, accused was found present within the jurisdiction of PS Chanakyapuri knowing that by an order of externment ( tadipur) issued by Addl.DCP/NDD vide order No. 1776-1800/SO-ADDL(1) New Delhi dated 20.12.2022 accused was directed not to enter the territory of State of Delhi and thereby committed offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act.
2. Kalandra under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act was filed. The cognizance for the commission of offence was accordingly taken and charge was framed against the accused under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Hence, this Court conducted trial.
3. For proving its case, prosecution examined two witnesses.
(3.1) Ct. Gopesh Kumar was examined as PW1 who deposed that on 08.03.2023, he was posted at PS Chanaypuri as Ct. and on that day, he along with HC Rajesh Kumar were on patrolling duty and during patrolling they reached at Sanjay camp where at the railway line, near Shiv Mandir they found a suspect, which was asked about his name and he revealed his name as Ravi S/o Nand ram. PW-1 correctly identified the accused. He deposed that thereafter IO found that accused was externed from the Delhi for six months vide order no. 1779-1800/SO-Addl. DCP-I, New Delhi dated 20.12.2022, he was asked why he has come in Delhi but he did not DD No. 86 dated 08.03.2023 Page 2 of 7 State Vs. Ravi Kumar PS : Chanakyapuri give any reply. He deposed that thereafter he was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that thereafter his medical examination was conducted and IO recorded his statement.
During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he denied the suggestion that accused was not present in Delhi at Sanjay camp or that he has been falsely implicated in this case or that he was not aware about any externment order.
(3.2) HC Rajesh Kumar was examined as PW 2 who deposed that on 08.03.2023 he was posted at PS Chanaypuri as Ct. and on that day, he along with Ct. Gopesh Kumar were on patrolling duty and during patrolling they reached at Sanjay camp where at the railway line, near shiv mandir they found a suspect, which was asked about his name and he revealed his name as Ravi S/o Nand ram. PW-2 correctly identified the accused. He deposed that thereafter he found that accused was externed from Delhi for six months vide order no. 1779-1800/SO-Addl. DCP-I, New Delhi dated 20.12.2022, he was asked why he has come in Delhi but he did not give any reply. He deposed that thereafter he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that thereafter he prepared kalandra u/s 53/116 DP Act Ex.PW2/A and same was filed before this Court.
During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he denied the suggestion that accused was not present in Delhi at Sanjay camp or that he has been falsely implicated in this case or that he was not aware about any externment order.
DD No. 86 dated 08.03.2023 Page 3 of 7State Vs. Ravi Kumar PS : Chanakyapuri
4. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined in accordance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. The entire incriminating evidence was put to him who denied the same and stated to be innocent and to have been falsely implicated in this case.
5. Final arguments were heard.
6. Ld. APP for the State argued that on the basis of the entire evidence brought on record, the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused be convicted. He further argued that on the basis of testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is established that accused violated the externment order. He further argued that the accused has not filed any evidence to show that he was lifted outside the territory of Delhi and was not in violation of the externment order.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the secret informer did not identify the accused rather PW-1 already knew the accused and accordingly, could have falsely implicated him by calling him. Ld counsel further argues that the factum of externment order was never communicated to the accused. The accused had no knowledge that any such order was passed by the ADCP concerned dated 20.12.2022. He further argued that accused was apprehended from a public place but still no public witness joined the investigation. He further argued that PW-1 and PW-2 have failed to show that the accused was arrested inside the territory of Delhi. He further argued that even site plan of the place of arrest was not DD No. 86 dated 08.03.2023 Page 4 of 7 State Vs. Ravi Kumar PS : Chanakyapuri prepared. He further argued that in view of the above, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, he be acquitted.
APPLICABLE LAW, APPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE AND FINDING
8. To establish liability of the accused under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act, the prosecution need to prove firstly that the externment order was passed against the accused under Section 47 Delhi Police Act directing him to remove himself from Delhi for the period as specified in the order and secondly, that the accused was found present in Delhi in violation of the said externment order.
9. In the present case, the accused has admitted the already annexed externment order Ex.A-1 dated 20.12.2022 passed by Addl. DCP against Ravi Kumar directing him to remove himself beyond the limits of Delhi for a period of two years w.e.f. 20.12.2022. The correctness of said order was not disputed by the accused, however, he has not admitted the contents of the same. The defence of the accused is that the order dated 20.12.2022 was never communicated to the accused and therefore he had no reason to believe that he has to remain beyond the boundaries of NCT of Delhi. I find merit in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused that once any order is pronounced against the accused it has to be duly communicated to the accused. Perusal of order of ADCP dated 20.12.2022 does not specify that the same order was passed either in the presence of the accused or any efforts were made to communicate the same to the accused. Communication of any order causing prejudice to a person, must be DD No. 86 dated 08.03.2023 Page 5 of 7 State Vs. Ravi Kumar PS : Chanakyapuri specifically communicated to him. In absence of communication, he cannot be held liable for an act which he did not know. There is nothing on record to show whether the said order was either communicated to the accused, or publication was done qua the said order in leading newspapers or the neighbourhood where the accused resides.
10. Further, the accused was apprehended on 08.03.2023 at unknown time at Sanjay Camp, Railway Line, Shiv Mandir, Chanakyapuri when the said externment was still applicable. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that testimony of PW1 and PW2 cannot be relied upon as no public witnesses joined the investigation and I find strength in such argument because once an accused person is apprehended the same has to be supported and corroborated by any independent witness or eye witness. This is more so required because neither the order of the DCP nor the testimonies of the police witnesses suggest that the order of the DCP was communicated to the accused or well publicized so that it can be presumed to be within the knowledge of the accused.
11. In the present case, all the three witnesses are police witnesses and they have failed to show whether any departure entry regarding their patrolling on the relevant date and time was there or not. The witnesses also failed to show whether any notice was served to the independent witnesses or passersby to join the investigation to show their bonafide. Testimonies of the witnesses are also not clear whether the order of externment was communicated either to the accused or to the society writ large so that it can be presumed that the same were within the knowledge of accused.
DD No. 86 dated 08.03.2023 Page 6 of 7State Vs. Ravi Kumar PS : Chanakyapuri
12. In view of the above, it can be concluded that prosecution has not been able to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Ravi Kumar is acquitted of the offence under Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act.
Note: This judgment contains 07 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.
ANIMESH Digitally signed by
ANIMESH
BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI
TRIPATHI
MANI Date: 2024.09.24
TRIPATHI 16:54:07 +0530
Announced in the open court on (Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi)
24th September, 2024 JMFC-02/PHC/New Delhi
DD No. 86 dated 08.03.2023 Page 7 of 7
State Vs. Ravi Kumar
PS : Chanakyapuri