Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh & Anr. on 9 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: ACMM01/(C)
TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI
State vs. Rakesh & Anr.
FIR NO. : 81/18
U/S : 160 IPC
PS : Paharganj
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 6340/18 b) CNR no. : DLCT020163802018 c) Date of institution of the case : 09/05/2018 d) Date of commission of offence : 30/03/2018 e) Name of the complainant : ASI Sham Sunder
f) Name & address of the : 1. Rakesh S/o Gopal Chaudhary
accused R/o H. No. 718, Baoli Chowk,
Pahar Ganj
2. S/o Sushil Pal S/o Gopal
Dass R/o H. No. 723, Mantola,
Paharganj, Delhi
g) Offence charged with : 160 IPC
h) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
i) Arguments heard on : 09/05/2018
j) Final order : Convicted
k) Date of Judgment : 09/05/2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution that on 30/03/2018 at about 10:15 p.m. at Bavli Chowk, near 6 Tooti Chowk, Paharganj, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Paharganj accused persons committed affray by FIR No. 81/18 State Vs. Rakesh & Anr. 1/6 quarreling in a public place and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 160 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by investigating officer (hereinafter called as IO) against accused persons and they were consequently summoned. After supply of copies and on completion of necessary formalities, a formal notice u/s 160 IPC was framed against accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Record transpires that vide separate statement, accused persons admitted FIR Ex. A1, DD no. 48B Ex. A2 and DD no. 16 PPST Ex. A3 in terms of section 294 Cr. PC. Therefore, the said documents can be read into evidence without formal proof of the same.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, only one witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
5. PW1 ASI Shyam Sunder is the complainant as well as IO and he deposed that on 30/03/2018 at about 10:15 p.m. he alongwith Const. Vinod were on area surveillance duty at 6 Tooti Chowk, Main Bazar, Delhi, that one unknown person informed about the incident in question, that he along with Const. Vinod reached there and found both accused quarreling with each other and public persons were getting annoyed by the said act of accused. He further deposed that about preparation of rukka Ex. PW1/A, registration of FIR, preparation of site plan Ex. PW1/B, arrest of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/C & Ex. PW1/D. He correctly identified both the FIR No. 81/18 State Vs. Rakesh & Anr. 2/6 accused.
6. On conclusion of PE, statement of accused U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in the manner provided u/s 281 CrPC wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against them was put to them. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated. However, they chose not to lead any defence evidence in their favour.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of accused persons causing affray by quarreling with each other on a public place has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused are liable to be convicted in this case. On the other hand, accused have argued that they are innocent and falsely implicated.
9. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 who is the material witness shows that he has supported the prosecution version fully. He has deposed in no unclear terms that he found accused persons quarreling with each other on a public place and public persons were getting annoyed due to this act. The testimony of PW1 has remained unrebutted as during his cross examination, accused had merely given a suggestion that they were not quarrelling with each other without rebutting the version of PW1 seriously.
FIR No. 81/18 State Vs. Rakesh & Anr. 3/6 The testimony of witness is reliable and inspires confidence of this court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1.
10. Thus, in view of the testimony of PW1, prosecution has successfully proved that accused persons had committed the affray by quarreling with each other on a public place and therefore they stand convicted of offence u/s 160 IPC. Parties be heard on point on sentence.
Announced and dictated in (ANUJ AGARWAL)
the open Court on 09/05/2018 ACMM(01)/Tis Hazari Court
09/05/2018
FIR No. 81/18 State Vs. Rakesh & Anr. 4/6
FIR No. 81/18
PS : Paharganj
State vs. Rakesh & Anr.
09/05/2018
ORDER ON SENTENCE
AT 1:20 PM.
Present: Ld Substitute APP for state.
Convicts in person.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as convicts on the point of sentence and perused the record. It is submitted by convicts that they are poor, 1st time offenders, and be given a chance to reform . Convicts have prayed for a lenient view. On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convicts be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convicts have been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 160 IPC. No previous conviction has been alleged or proved against convicts. The convicts are not involved in any such case, as stated by them. Convicts are having a family to support.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and genuine urge on behalf of convicts, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be met if the convicts are admonished u/s. 3 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958. Ordered accordingly. Further u/s. 5 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958, they are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/ each towards cost of present proceedings. Cost paid.
Surety stands discharged. Endorsement, if any be, cancelled. Documents, if any, be returned. File be consigned to record room after FIR No. 81/18 State Vs. Rakesh & Anr. 5/6 completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2018.05.09
15:45:09 +0530
(Anuj Agarwal)
ACMM01 (Central)/THC/Delhi
09/05/2018
FIR No. 81/18 State Vs. Rakesh & Anr. 6/6