Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Junaid & Ors on 22 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJAT GOYAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-08, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
SAKET, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Mohd. Junaid & Ors
FIR No. : 482/2012
P. S. : Jamia Nagar
U/s : 160 IPC
A Sl. No. of the case : 94201/2016
B Date of commission : 15.06.2012
C Date of institution of the case : 20.07.2012
D Name of complainant : ASI KP Singh
E Name of accused persons and : 1. Mohd. Junaid, S/o Sh. Mohd.
their parentage. Jamshed, R/o House no. 59, Street
no. 14, Zakir Nagar, Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. Talib, S/o Sh. Afsar Khan, R/o
House no. P95, Street no. 2, Batla
House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Dilshad, S/o Sh. Abdulla Khan,
House no. P-95, Street no. 2, Batla
House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
(proceedings qua him were abated
vide order dated 29.09.2018).
F Offence complained of : 160 IPC.
G Plea of accused : Not guilty
H Orders reserved on : 23.02.2021
I Final order : Accused Junaid and Talib are
acquitted for the offence
punishable u/s 160 IPC.
J Date of judgment : 22.04.2022
FIR No.482/2012 State Vs Junaid & Ors.
PS Jamia Nagar Page 1 of Page 6
JUDGMENT:-
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2012, at around 12.50 pm, accused Junaid, Talib and Dilshad committed the offence of affray by fighting in a public place and disturbing public peace in the area near 20 foota road, Alkatwa Masjid, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Jamia Nagar. Present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint given by ASI KP Singh, who is stated to have reached the place of incident on receipt of information in this regard vide DD no. 26 A. After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation, IO filed the chargesheet for offences punishable u/s 160 IPC.
2. Cognizance was taken in the present matter vide order dated 20.07.2012 and accused were summoned. After compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., matter was fixed for consideration on charge. On the basis of material on record, charge u/s 160 IPC was framed upon the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. It must be noted here that accused Dilshad expired during the pendency of the present trial and proceedings qua him were abated vide order dated 29.09.2018. It must also be noted here that accused Junaid absented himself during the present proceedings and NBWs FIR No.482/2012 State Vs Junaid & Ors.
PS Jamia Nagar Page 2 of Page 6 were issued against him vide order dated 03.04.2013. On the basis of report on NBWs, process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against accused Junaid vide order dated 31.05.2013. The said process was executed by the process server and accused Junaid was declared absconder vide order dated 02.12.2013. He was subsequently arrested and produced before the court. In view of the fact that accused Mohd. Junaid had absconded during pendency of present trial, additional charge u/s 174 A IPC was framed against him vide order dated 17.01.2018. Accused Mohd. Junaid pleaded guilty for the offence punishable u/s 174 A IPC and he was accordingly convicted for the period already undergone by him vide order dated 24.01.2020.
4. In order to establish its case against the accused, prosecution has examined 2 witnesses. PW1 was ASI Anil Kumar, who stated that on 15.06.2012, he went to the spot with ASI KP Singh on receipt of DD no. 26 A and found that some public persons were quarreling with each other near Alkatwa Masjid, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. It was further stated by PW1 that the said persons included accused Talib and Junaid and that they were abusing and beating each other. PW1 further stated that despite efforts by him and ASI KP Singh, the said persons continued fighting and that ASI KP Singh prepared Tehrir and got the present FIR registered through him. It was further stated by PW1 that he came back to the spot after registration of FIR and that the IO then prepared site plan FIR No.482/2012 State Vs Junaid & Ors.
PS Jamia Nagar Page 3 of Page 6 Ex.PW 1/A and arrested the accused vide memos Ex.PW 1/B to Ex.PW 1/D. PW1 also correctly identified the accused in the court. PW2 was IO/ retired ASI KP Singh, who stated that he went to the spot with Ct. Anil on 15.06.2012 on receipt of DD no. 26 A and saw that 3 persons were fighting with each other and giving fist blows to each other and that a crowd had gathered at the spot. It was further stated by PW2 that the said 3 persons included accused Junaid and Talib and that he then prepared rukka Ex.PW 2/D and got the present FIR registered through Ct. Anil. It was further stated by PW2 that he then arrested the accused persons and got their medical examination conducted and also collected MLC reports Ex.PW 2/A to Ex.PW 2/C. PW2 correctly identified both the accused persons in the court. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 24.01.2020.
5. Thereafter, statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein they stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case and that they were merely present at the spot and that an altercation/fight was going on between some other persons. Matter was then listed for final arguments as both the accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in their defence.
6. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that case of the prosecution has been fully established and prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and that accused persons FIR No.482/2012 State Vs Junaid & Ors.
PS Jamia Nagar Page 4 of Page 6 should be convicted. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that there are several contradictions in the case of prosecution and that benefit of doubt must be given to accused persons.
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. Both the accused persons have been charged u/s 160 IPC, which prescribes punishment for commission of affray. The offence of affray has been defined u/s 159 IPC as disturbance of public peace by fighting of two or more persons in a public place. It has been alleged that accused persons were fighting on 15.06.2012 in the area near Alkatwa Masjid, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi and that lot of public persons had gathered at the spot and that conduct of the accused persons was disrupting peace in the given area. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Ct. Anil as PW1 and IO/ ASI KP Singh as PW2. Both PW1 and PW2 stated that accused persons were quarreling with each other and abusing each other on the date of incident. However, neither PW1 nor PW2 stated that there was any disruption of peace during the incident in question. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that there was any disturbance or breach of public peace by the said quarrel of accused persons. It is very pertinent to note here that it is not every quarrel which has been made punishable as affray by section 159/160 IPC. It is only the quarrel in a public place which FIR No.482/2012 State Vs Junaid & Ors.
PS Jamia Nagar Page 5 of Page 6 disturbs public peace which is punishable u/s 160 IPC. In the instant case, as mentioned above, there is not even an iota of evidence to prove that public peace was being disturbed by quarrel of the accused persons. Though it was stated by PW1 as well as by PW2 that many public persons had gathered at the spot, none of the said witnesses were ever cited or examined by the prosecution to prove that public peace was effected by the incident in question. Present FIR was registered on the basis of PCR call received vide DD no. 26 A dated 15.06.2012, to the effect that there was a quarrel taking place in the area of Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. However, caller of the said PCR call was not even cited as a witness in the present case. As mentioned above, even PW1 and PW2 did not testify to the effect that public peace was breached by the quarrel of the accused persons. Hence, prosecution has not been able to prove one of the essential ingredients of section 160 IPC.
9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Junaid and Talib are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 160 IPC.
Copy of this judgment be provided to both the sides.
RAJAT Digitally signed
by RAJAT GOYAL
Date: 2022.04.22
GOYAL 14:56:07 +0530
Announced in the open court (Rajat Goyal)
on 22.04.2022 Metropolitan Magistrate-08,
South East, Saket, New Delhi.
FIR No.482/2012 State Vs Junaid & Ors.
PS Jamia Nagar Page 6 of Page 6