Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Krishan Pal on 11 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF Ms. PRIGYA GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 08 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
*****
JUDGMENT
FIR No.: 24/2012 Police Station: Kamla Market U/s 336/34 IPC Case No. 297531/16 State Versus 1. Krishan Pal S/o Shri Kamar Singh R/o H No. 942, Master Colony, Bharampuri, Meerut, UP
2. Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal Sharma R/o Village Bargoah, Post. Barkhoda, PS Nanaul, Mahendergarh, Haryana
3. Tajender Singh S/o Sh. Gumail Singh R/o H. N. 3/1, PS Model Town, Delhi Permanent Address Village Rania, PS Badnikalan, Distict Moga, Punjab.
4. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Dal Chand R/o Village Khurera, Post Mahesna, Tehsil Tizara, District Alwar, Rajasthan
5. Vijender Singh S/o Sh. Gainda Lal R/o Village Deeppura, Post Machee, District Karouli, Rajasthan
6. Ravi (PO) .... Accused
(a) Date of Institution: 22.05.2012 State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.1/23 (b) Date of Offence: 05.06.2011
(c) Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
(d) Argument heard and
reserved for order: 11.12.2020
(e) Final Order: Acquittal
(f) Date of Judgment: 11.01.2021
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. Succinctly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2011 at about 12:50 a.m., at Ramleela Ground, Kamla Market, Delhi, the accused persons namely Krishan Pal, Ravi (Since declared PO), Sushil Kumar, Tejender Singh, Dinesh and Vijender Singh, all the said accused persons had used excess force in discharging their duty on the aforesaid date, time and place so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others and thereby all the said accused persons committed an offence punishable under Section 336 IPC.
2. After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offence u/s 336 IPC was prepared against all the abovesaid accused persons. The aforementioned chargesheet was filed before the court on 22.05.2012 whereupon the cognizance of the offence was taken against all the abovesaid accused persons. The copy of chargesheet was supplied to all the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. After hearing the arguments, the notice was served for the alleged commission of the offence u/s 336 IPC to which the accused persons pleaded "Not Guilty" & instead claimed trial. During the trial State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.2/23accused Ravi S/o Inderpal Singh stopped appearing before the Court and finally he was declared a Proclaimed Offender/absconder by the Court on 19.02.2018.
4. In support of its version, prosecution has examined 29 witnesses.
PW1 ASI Bodh Raj has deposed that 05.06.2011, he received the rukka brought by SI Sushil Kumar at about 8.20 a.m., which was sent by SHO Inspector Surenderjeet Kaur on the basis of which he registered FIR No.45/11 Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement upon rukka and he sent a copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Jogender Prasad through SI Sushil Kumar.
PW2 Gautam Dubey has deposed that he was Manager (Legal) in TV18, Broadcast Ltd., in the year 2012. During the investigation of present case, the police officials asked for the video footage of the Baba Ram Dev Andolan/incident. The reply regarding the same was given by Kshipra Jatana, Group General Counsel and eight DVDs were provided to the police alongwith the reply 'Mark A'. Subsequently, another notice was received from Delhi police to provide the certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act and to provide the details of cameraman etc. He had issued the certificate U/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW2/A in regard to the said eight DVDs Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. The said DVDs were played on the laptop and shown to the witness and he has confirmed that the same contain the footage of CNNIBN regarding the incident At Ramlila Maidan during the Bhrastachar Mitao Andolan organized by Bharat Swabhimann Trust from 03.06.2011 to 05.06.2011.
PW3 Sanjay Kaushik has deposed that on 04.05.2011 at about State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.3/2310.00 p.m., at Ram Leela Maidan, Delhi, he saw that Baba Ram Dev was on the dais and conducting sermons regarding getting back black money from abroad and he was taking photographs/video of the said agitation. His duty was from 10.00 p.m., till 8.00 a.m. He identified the footage in the CD Ex.P3A which was recorded by him.
PW4 Rahul Khanna has deposed that on 24.03.2012, he replied the notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C., reply is Ex.PW4/A served by investigation officer Inspector Satish Malik, PS Kamla Market. IO had requested to supply the original tape dated 03.06.2011 which was covered by India TV of Bhrastachar Mitao Andolan organized by Bharat Swabhiman Trust. The certificate u/s 65 (B) Evidence ACt, regarding the CD/coverage of the events is Ex.PW4/B. He has further deposed that on 26.04.2012, he replied the notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C., served by investigation officer Inspector Satish Malik, PS Kamla Market (PW4/C). IO had requested to furnish the name of the person who covered the event of the programme. He has also deposed that it was not possible as it was extremely difficult to furnish the name of correspondent cameraman as the event was more than 10 months old. On 03.05.2012, he replied the notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C., served by the IO PS Kamla Market (Ex.PW4/D). On 12.05.2012, they provided the name of the reporter and cameraman who covered the said event. The reporter was Sayed Aftab and cameraman was Amit Sinha, the said reply is Ex.PW4/E. The witness correctly identified the CD Ex.P1.
PW5 Guneet Vedi has deposed that in the month of June 2011, he was working as cameraman in CNN IBN, TV Channel. The Bharashtachar Mitao Andolan was going at Ram Leela Maidan, Kamla Market where at the instruction of the officials of his TV channel the events were covered.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.4/23Ld. APP has crossexamined the said witness with the permission of the Court.
He admitted the suggestion of Ld. APP that he had visited the PS. However, he stated that he did not remember whether his statement was recorded or not. He has also denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that IO had shown him the video footage and he had identified the same as it was covered by him for IBN7. He has also denied the suggestion given by Ld.APP that he had deposed falsely.
PW6 Inspector Pramod Joshi has deposed that on 09.03.12, a writ petition no. 122/11, titled as Ram Leela Maidan incident dated 04/05.06.11 Vs. Home Secretary and others was finally deposed of on 23.02.12 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had taken suo motu cognizance on the incident happened in Ram Leela Maidan on 04/05.06.11. As per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court the present FIR was registered. He had prepared the complaint Ex. PW6/A and directed the duty officer PS Kamla Market to register a case. The investigation was marked to Inspector Joginder Singh. Inspector Joginder Singh had inspected the place of occurrence i.e., Ram Leela ground at his instance. The photocopy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (running in 5 pages) and photocopy of the daily newspaper Times of India and others (running into 11 pages) were also annexed with the complaint. The photocopy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is collectively Mark X1. The photocopy of the daily newspaper is collectively Mark X2.
PW7 W/SI Chanchal has deposed that on 09.03.12, she was posted at PS Kamla Market as Duty Officer/WHC from 08.00 a.m. to 4.00 pm. On that day, at about 3.30 p.m., Inspector Pramod Joshi, SHO PS Kamla Market, presented a complaint for recording the FIR. State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.5/23On the basis of which, FIR No. 24/12, U/s. 336 IPC was registered by the computer operator on the computer installed in DO room, which was kept in lawful control and safe custody at the time of generating Erecord and derived from the computer in ordinary course of taking printout and the same was operating properly at the time of generating electronic record. She made an endorsement on rukka vide DD No. 24A Ex. PW7/A in this respect. The printout of the FIR alongwith rukka were handed over to Inspector Joginder Prasad for investigation of the case. One another printout was kept as a record in PS. She brought the FIR Ex. PW7/B. PW8 SHO Inspector Ram Niwas has deposed that on 13.03.2012, he was posted at PS CR Park as SI. Since, one Special Investigation Team was constituted after the pronouncement of judgment by the Apex Court in an incident that happened in the intervening night of 04/05.06.2011 at Ramlila Maidan, where the crowd was forced to leave the ground at midnight. As per the order of Apex Court, FIR No. 24/12 dated 09.03.2012 U/s 336 IPC was registered at PS Kamla Market. Since, a case bearing FIR No. 45/11 PS Kamla Market was already registered in respect of the incident of Ramlila ground and investigation was being conducted by Inspector Joginder Prasad, PS Kamla Market. 47 MLCs pertaining public injured persons who had participated, 149 complaints which were received at PS Kamla Market, 21 photocopies of affidavits of various public persons and CD/DVDs, hard disc of various channels (details mentioned in seizure memo) were provided by Inspector Joginder Prasad to IO Inspector Satish Malik in his presence on 13.03.2012 which were taken in possession by IO vide separate seizure memos Ex. PW8/A to PW8/D. He was also deputed as assistant to IO Inspector Satish Malik in present case during present case. State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.6/23Thereafter, as per the instructions of IO Inspector Satish Malik, he went to various places of UP and UK and thereafter the injured public persons resident of UP and UK were examined by him. The statements of injured persons were also recorded by him on different dates. The injured persons were requested to see the CCTV footage of alleged incident at PS Kamla Market. Only one witness namely Rajinder Arya of Agra turned up to see the footage at PS Kamla Market. But he could not identify the police officials. All 47 MLCs, 147 complaints, 21 affidavits and CD/DVDs, hard disc marked as MARK A1 to D1 colly.
PW9 Satyakki Bhattacharjee has deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Vice President, Human Resources and Head of Legal Department, ABP News Pvt Ltd. At that time the name of the company was MCCS Pvt. Ltd. He has further deposed that on 22.03.12, notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C., was issued by Delhi Police to the Chief Editor, Star News Channel, A37, Sector 60, Noida (UP) in the office of MCCS Pvt Ltd. By way of this letter the recorded footage material of 'Bhrastachar Mitao Andolan' organized by Bharat Swabhiman Trust were sought. The copy of said notice is Mark PW9/X. He had replied to the notice on 26.03.12 by stating that the data sought is not available because the data beyond three months was not saved as per the regulations of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting guidelines. When the data was sought nine months had already elapsed. His reply to the notice is Ex. PW9/A. Another notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C., dated 24.04.12 issued by Delhi Police was also received in their office asking for the names of the camera persons and reporters who covered the news reports related to Baba Ramdev at Ram Leela Ground from 03.06.11 to 05.06.11. He had replied the notice and furnished the required information i.e., name of reporters State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.7/23and camera persons. His reply is exhibited as Ex. PW9/B. He also issued the certificate Ex. PW9/C U/s. 65B Evidence Act, 1872. One CD of the video footage of the programme of Andoolan from 03.06.11 to 05.06.11 was provided to the police. The video footage stored in CD had been recorded live through camera during which period the said camera had been used for recording various other video footages. The aforesaid contents/video footage so stored in CD has not been manipulated or distorted in any manner whatsoever. The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State.
PW10 Charan Srivastava has deposed that on 22.03.12, notice u/s. 91 Cr.PC was issued by Delhi Police to the Chief Editor, Live India News Channel for asking the names of the camera persons and reporters who covered the news reports related to Baba Ramdev at Ram Leela Ground from 03.06.11 to 05.06.11. He had replied the notice and furnished the required information i.e. name of reporters and camera persons etc. His reply exhibited as Ex. PW10/A. PW11 Omveer Singh has deposed that on 19.03.2012, he was posted at Ministry of communication and IT as Additional director/scientist' E CERTIn forensic Lab. Letter Ex. PW11/A dated 19.03.2012 address to Director general, CERT was received in the office alongwith 10 DVR in sealed cardboard boxes for cloning. He assigned the same to his subordinate officer to clone the hard disc of those DVRs. The all DVRs were cloned under his supervision. They had not switched on any of the DVR. After examinations the hard disc, the detail reports was given to Sh. Satish Malik, IO/Inspector of the said case alongwith the covering letter duly signed by him. The covering letter exhibited as Ex. PW11/B. The detailed report running into 26 pages exhibited as Ex. PW11/C and Additional report running into 7 pages exhibited as Ex. PW11/D. 10 original hard disks in State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.8/23sealed packets and 10 cloned hard disks in DVR packed in card box duly sealed and 01 unused hard disc were handed over to the police alongwith reports. The photographs were got clicked of all 10 DVRs which were sent by the police and the photographs were also got clicked of 11 original hard discs, which were taken out from DVRs. The same are the part of the report which was handed over to the IO. He has correctly identified the case property i.e., a DVR Ex.P1 bearing serial no. 402794571 and another DVR Ex.P1 bearing serial no. AFJI00359 as the DVRs which he received in the office. He has seen the serial numbers of cloned copies and stated that these serial numbers are the same which are mentioned in the report and thus he identifies these cloned copies as the one which were prepared by him in his office. The cloned copies of the DVRs are given Ex. P3 to PW9. The cloned copies which were lying in the DVRs are given Ex. P10 and P11.
PW12 Kshipra Jatana has deposed that on 26.03.12, she was posted as EVP and Head Legal, Network 18, office at- ETT, Film City, Sector - 16A, Noida, UP. Their channel had covered the footage of the Bhrastachar Mitao Andolan organized by Bharat Swabhiman Trust, at Ram Leela Ground, Kamla Market, Delhi on 05.06.11. 08 DVDs in respect of the coverage of said Andolan were provided to the police alongwith request letter addressed to IO Inspector Satish Malik duly signed by him. The said request letter marked as Mark A, bearing the signature of his subordinate Rachna at point A. He has correctly identified DVDs Ex. PW12/P1 by saying that these are the same which were handed over to the IO.
PW13 Anoop Singh has deposed that in the year 2011 he was working in NDTV as AVP Legal and Company Secretary. On 04.04.12, he received a letter from IO Inspector Satish Malik u/s. 160 State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.9/23Cr.P.C., and in reply to which he issued letter Ex. PW13/A. IO of the case had requested him to supply unedited original footage of Ram Leela Ground but he replied that the unedited copy of the footage cannot be provided and thereafter he supplied the edited footage in the form of DVDs (IDVD 801 and 813) containing the footage of the stories as aired on their channel. He issued a certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act Ex. PW13/B. He has correctly identified DVDs Ex.P13/C. He stated that he could not identify whether it was the same video which was provided to the IO but the DVD was of the same video which was aired after seeing the face of reporter.
PW14 Anshul Saharan has deposed that on 23.03.12, he issued letter Ex. PW14/A in reply to the notice dated 21.03.12 issued by the IO of this case alongwith the aforesaid letter. He also sent one CD containing the clicked photographs by Ms. Piyal Bhatacharji (photographer). He failed to identify the CD due to lapse of time.
PW15 Dr. Puneet Jain has deposed that in the year 201112 he was working as head (Legal and compliances), General Manager (F&A) and Company Secretary in TV Today Network Ltd. The editorial team of TV Today Network Ltd had covered the story of Bharastachar Mitau Andolan held at Ram Leela Ground in June 2011. The police of PS Kamla Market had sought some information from the TV Today Network Ltd regarding the name of the Editorial Team who covered the story alongwith the copy of the impugned footage. The required information was furnished by him by way of letter dated 04.05.12 addressed to Inspector Satish Malik, PS Kamla Market in response to the notice dated 20.04.12 issued under Section 91 Cr.PC. The said letter dated 04.05.12 exhibited as Ex. PW15/A. PW16 Vikas Singh has deposed that in the year 201112 he was working as resident editor in Times of India, Delhi. The team of State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.10/23Times of India had covered the story of Bharastachar Mitau Andolan held at Ram Leela Ground on 4th/5th June 2011. The police of PS Kamla Market had sought the name of reporter and photographer, who were the members of the team at that time. He furnished the said required information i.e., the name of reporter was Deepak Kumar Dash and the name of photographer was Piyal Bhattacharjee by way of letter dated 02.05.12 Ex. PW16/A. PW17 HC Jiboy has deposed that in the month of June 2011 he was posted in the PS Kamla Market as Chittha Munshi. On the intervening night of 04/05062011, he deployed the entire police staff to go to Ramlila ground and other routine duties. Witness was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the state.
PW18 Retired ACP Raja Ram Yadav has deposed that on in the month of June 2011 he was posted as ACP Paharganj. In the month of June 2011, Bharat Swabhiman andolan was organized in the Ramlila ground by Baba Ramdev which commenced from 01.06.2011. Sufficient staff and police officials were deployed to maintain law and order. The permission for the gathering of 5000 people was granted but the actual gathering was more than 50,000 people there. In the intervening night of 0405.06.2011 he alongwith other Senior police officials tried to pacify the organizers and told them that the permission granted to them was already over as they were crossing the limit of gathering and section 144 Cr.P.C was invoked by ACP Kamla Market and after reaching at the stage the same was announced so that gathering of the persons could disburse but they received protest from the organizer side and Baba Ramdev who jumped from the stage between the gathering of his followers and thereafter about 1.50 AM he again came on the stage and his followers starting throwing bricks, mike etc upon the police officials State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.11/23and as such the gathering was declared illegal as the persons gathered there were violating the law & order despite the announcement having been made u/s 144 Cr.P.C. No order was given by any officer for lathi charge.
PW19 ACP Surenderjeet Kaur has deposed that in the month of June 2011 he was posted in the PS Kamla Market as SHO/Inspector. From 01.06.2011, Bharat Swabhiman movement was organized by Baba Ramdev and his followers. Sufficient police force was deployed in the Ramlila ground to maintain Law and order. In the intervening night of 04/05062011, she was present in Ramlila ground. The permission to continue the movement was got canceled by invoking the section 144 Cr.P.C and the same was duly conveyed to Baba Ramdev and his followers but the crowd became violent. The CCTV cameras were installed in the Ramlila ground by the organizers and the media persons were also present there with their respective cameras. She had been shown the CCTV footage and the video of media coverage but the same was not clear and she could not identify any of the police officials of PS Kamla Market in the video. PW19 was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the state.
PW20 Ram Kumar has deposed that on 21.03.2012, he was posted as ACP at PS Kamla Market. During the course of investigation of FIR No. 24/12, PS Kamla Market, he had written a letter to Swabiman Manch of Swami Ramdev addressed to Virender Vikram on 21.03.2012, thereby requesting him to provide details of injured persons so that compensation could be paid to them and they could be examined as witnesses in the aforesaid FIR. The copy of the said letter marked as Mark "A". He gave a reminder to the aforesaid person on 29.03.2012 to do the needful, the copy of which is marked as Mark B. State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.12/23PW21 Retired ACP Rajbir Sharma has deposed that on the intervening night of 4/5.6.2011, he was posted as a Inspector in First Battalion and as a reserved he was performing his duty in Kalyan Puri, Police Station. On receipt of DD No. 17, he was asked to reach Vijay Ghat, CPR alongwith M. Company which consisted of Ct. Kishan Pal and Ct. Ravi. At about 00:30 AM, they were directed to reach at Ramlila Ground, where Baba Ramdev was holding a procession/Dharna. After half an hour the people started running here and there and the public persons gathered over there and started pelting stones on the police party. He tried to control the public and thereafter, could over power them after about half an hour and thereafter, he reached at his home. He has further deposed that on 03.05.2012, he was called at PS Kamla Market where he was shown footage of CCTV Camera where Ct. Kishan Pal and Ct. Ravi were seen in a blurred vision. He was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the state.
PW22 HC Mahipal Singh has deposed that on 04.06.2011, he was performing duty as Duty Officer between 12 Noon to 4 pm. He received a CPR message for the purpose for deploying a company of police officials at Vijay Ghat and at 12.53 p.m. DD no.17 was lodged vide which Inspector Rajbir Sharma alongwith other police made departure by aforesaid DD. After few days, he was shown the video clip in the police station and in the said video some police official who were in police uniform were seen by him, however, photos of those police officials were not clear and he could not identify any of the police official.
PW23 SI Uttam Kumar has deposed that in the month of MarchApril 2012, they distributed compensation to the injured persons who were victims in Ramleela Ground violence. As part of State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.13/23SIT, various tasks were assigned to various IOs at different points of time. The DVRs containing CCTV footage of Ramleea ground were seen by him and wherever the alleged violence was seen, the same was earmarked and handed over to senior officers.
PW24 Inspector Nagender has deposed that on 15.05.2012, he had given reply Ex. PW24/A, to the Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C., given by Insp. Satish Malik, IO of the present case. He had handed over certified copy of 06 documents. The certified copy of letter dated 20.06.2011 is Ex. PW24/B. Letter dated 25.04.2011 is also exhibited as Ex. PW2/C. He handed over the original documents mentioned Ex. PW24/A to SI Rakesh who took over the charge. No handing over and taking over of the charge was prepared. The copy of relevant documents regarding the NOC to hold Yoga Programme at Ram Lila Maidan marked as Mark PW24/DA.
PW25 Inspector Binod Kumar Singh has deposed that in March, 2012, he was also attached with Special Investigation Team constituted for further investigation of FIR No. 24/12, PS Kamla Market regarding Ram Leela ground incident. He was assigned the task of examining the various complainants having residential address of different part of Bihar and Jharkhand. He has further deposed that on 24.03.2012, he alongwith HC Bodan Lal departed for the aforementioned investigation and returned on 02.04.2012. In between, he met with various complainants and recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C but none of them disclosed that they cannot come to Delhi and identify the accused persons as due to mess and heavy gathering in the ground they were not able to identify the accused persons correctly. Some of the complainants were not found at their residential address. Some of them joined the investigation at PS Kamla Market later on. He also examined by himself. They had State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.14/23also narrated the same story saying that they were beaten and misbehaved at the spot, however they could not identify any of assailants. Besides that, he also got prepared some photographs from the video footage supplied by different news agencies, with the help of private lab and he submitted those photographs with the IO and he took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/A. PW26 Inspector Jogendra Prasad has deposed that on 09.03.2012, the present case was registered on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Ram Leela Ground incident occurred in the night of 04/05.06.2011. The particulars of the petition wherein the directions qua lodging of FIR were issued are mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW6/A. After the registration of present case FIR, the same was entrusted to him for further proceedings and the investigation of the said case remained with him for three days within which, an application was moved before the concerned court for desealing the DVR which was already seized in the case FIR No. 45/11 PS Kamla Market dated 05.06.2011. During investigation, on 13.03.2012, after completion of aforesaid proceedings, the investigation was further handed over to another police official.
PW27 Deepa Verma had deposed that on 16.03.2012, she was posted as Assistant Director (Documents) at FSL, Rohini. She has further deposed that on 16.03.2012, a letter was received from PS Kamla Market for examination of Hard Disc of DVR Players. In this regard, reply was given vide letter no. FSL No. 2011/Misc./CFU/59 dated 16.03.2012 Ex. PW27/A. PW28 G K Prabhat has deposed that in the year 2011, he was dealing in the business of CCTV cameras and Security equipments. He had taken a contact for affixing CCTV cameras at Ram Lila Maidan from Bharat Swamibhan Trust. He subcontracted the said State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.15/23contract to H.V. Communication whose proprietor was Sh. Vipin Mittal. Accordingly, on his behalf CCTV cameras were affixed at Ram Lila Maidan by H.V. Communication w.e.f. 02.06.2011.
PW29 Inspector Satish Malik has deposed that on 13.03.2012, the present case file was entrusted to him for further investigation. After perusal of the case file it was noticed that the case was registered on 09.03.2012. This case was regarding an episode that had taken place in the intervening night of 4/5 June, 2011 in Ramleela Ground during the agitation undertaken by Baba Ramdev against the then Government. Baba Ramdev had sought through Bharat Swabhiman Trust permission from DCP Central District to undertake a Yoga Shivir from 1st June, 2011 to 20th June, 2011. The program of Baba Ramdev had deviated from the stated objective and he had undertaken fast unto death. The crowd that had come to support him had exceeded the figure of five thousand as initially stated by him in the application for seeking permission. The crowd of supporters had reached a figure of fifty thousand. After repeated communication, DCP Central District had cancelled the permission for the Yoga Shivir on 04.06.2011 as the programme had deviated from its stated objective and the crowd of supporters had also exceeded the initial estimate of five thousand supporters. In the night senior officers including ACP Kamla Market had reached the Ramleela Grounds to communicate Baba Ramdev regarding the cancellation of permission earlier granted to him for carrying on the program. While this was being communicated the supporters of Baba Ramdev had turned aggressive. Baba Ramdev also jumped off the stage and disappeared in the crowd. After sometime he again reached on the stage and his supporters also climbed the stage in large numbers. They were holding sticks in their hands. Large scale State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.16/23vandalism was resorted to by his supporters. In anticipation of this situation, large component of police force was also deployed in and around Ramleela Grounds. To control the riotous crowd section 144 Cr.P.C was invoked and the assembly was declared unlawful. Senior officers on finding that the situation is going out of hands, ordered use of water cannon and tear gas shells. In this episode large number of police staff and supporters of Ramdev were injured. This incident was reported live by the media. Local police had registered case FIR number 45/11 PS Kamla Market against the members of unlawful assembly. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India took suomoto cognizance of the incident. Through its panel order Hon'ble Supreme Court of India directed police to register the case against members of assembly who had indulged in damage to public property and against the members of police force who had used excessive force against the public persons. Since case FIR number 45/11 against the members of unlawful assembly, afresh case was register vide the present FIR against the members of police force who had exceeded their brief and had used excessive force. During the perusal of the case file, it was noticed that there were lot of video evidences and eye witnesses regarding the incident. The IO of case FIR number 45/11 had seized MLC's of injured, complaints, copies of affidavits filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and DVR's video CD's. From SI Joginder Prasad IO of case FIR number 45/11, he seized through seizure memo's complainants Ex PW8/B, photocopies of affidavits Ex PW 8/C, MLC's Ex PW8/A, photographs Ex PW25/A. During the course of investigation, he prepared the site plan Ex PW29/A. Fourteen notices under section 91 Cr.P.C., to different media houses for providing the original source of recordings but no original recording sources was provided. With the permission of the court a mirror State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.17/23image of the DVR's which had recordings of the incident through CCTV cameras was got prepared for investigation purpose from CERT. Complainants were identified and joined in the investigation, they were shown the CCTV footages and recordings done by the media but none of the witnesses could identify any police official exceeding the brief of the senior officers. With the intend to identify on the basis of possible identification by police officials, the police officials present at the time of incident were joined in the investigation. On the basis of identification done by SHO/Inspector Surinderjeet Kaur, SHO at the relevant time and the deployment officer constable Jiboy. The accused present in the court SI Susheel, HC Vijender, Ct. Tejender and Ct. Dinesh were identified in the CCTV footages of camera number 16 from 02:20 a.m onwards canning the members of the unlawful assembly. From the video recordings provided by NDTV in DVD NDTV partII english the present accused Ct. Krishanpal and Ct. Ravi (since declared PO) were identified canning members of unlawful assembly. In respect of the DVD provided by NDTV certificate under section 65B Evidence Act was taken from NDTV and in respect of CCTV footages certificate under section 65B Evidence Act was taken from G.K.Prabhat who had installed the CCTV cameras at the Ramleela ground. He had recorded statement of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., and after completion of the investigation he prepared chargesheet and submitted before the court.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded separately wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against them. However, they chose not to lead evidence in their defence.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.18/236. I have heard learned APP for State and learned counsel for accused. I have perused the record.
Before proceeding for the appreciation of the evidence, the cardinal principle of criminal law is to be borne in mind, that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
It is alleged against the accused persons that on 05.06.2011, the accused persons had used excessive force in discharge of their duties, in a rash and negligent manner thereby endangering human life and personal safety of others. At the very outset of deliberations, an observation is made that not even a single eye witness / victim / injured has been examined in the present case. Neither is there any MLC of any of the victims. That being so, the court treads ahead to evaluate the evidence on record to decipher as to whether the same is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. PW6 Inspector Pramod Joshi is the complainant in the present case, who deposed that the present FIR was registered on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. While being crossexamined, he admitted that the complaint Ex.PW6/A did not mention the names of State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.19/23any of the accused persons. He further deposed that applications from injured persons were received for registration of FIR, however, none of the applications disclosed the name any of the accused persons. He admitted that the copies of the applications were not filed on record. Neither have the complaints / applications of the victims been placed on record or proved nor has any of the victims been examined as a witness. A perusal of testimony of PW29 Inspector Satish Malik would reveal that a separate FIR NO.45 /11, PS Kamla market was registered against the unlawful assembly which gathered at Lal Lila Ground during the agitation undertaken by Baba Ramdev against the then Government. The witness deposed that there were number of videos evidences and eye witnesses regarding the incident in question, the IO of the case FIR No. 45 /11 had seized the MLCs of injured persons, complaints, affidavits filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the DVRs videos were also seized. However, the prosecution, in all wisdom chose not to prone the abovesaid MLCs and complaints. Neither was any injured summoned nor was any doctor examined for the abovesaid purposes. A mere oral deposition to the effect that complaints regarding the said incident were received would not suffice in proving the facts at hand. Be that as it may, the evidence on record is now further explored.
PW29 deposed that he issued 14 notices u/s 91 CrPC to different media houses for providing original source of recording, however, no original recording source was provided. Thus, with the permission of the court, mirror image of the DVRs which had recording the incident were got prepared for investigation from CERT. He further deposed that the complainants were identified and were shown the said CCTV footage, however, none of the witnesses State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.20/23(complainants) could identify any of the police officials. Thus, the accused persons were identified on the basis of the identification by then SHO/ Inspector Surinder Jeet Kaur and the deployment officer Ct. Jiboy. The first and foremost thing which catches the attention of the court is that the accused persons were not identified by the victims. They were arrayed as accused persons on the basis of identification carried by the Inspector Surinder Jeet Kaur who was neither the victim of the incident in question nor eye witness of the same. The witness during his crossexamination duly admitted that the injured witnesses were not asked to identify the accused persons for the purposes of knowing as to whether any of them had inflicted any injury to them. He has categorically deposed that the witnesses claimed that they could not identify any person responsible for inflicting injuries upon their person. For having established the guilt of the accused u/s 336 IPC, it was required to have proved that the life / personal safety of the victims / injured was endangered due to an act committed by the alleged accused persons. In the present case, none of the injured persons / victims were examined. No evidence regarding the hurt or alleged endangerment of the life caused to alleged injured persons was ever brought on record. The MLCs of the injured persons have neither been placed on record nor been proved as per law.
PW29 deposed that the accused persons were identified on the basis of the identification done the then Inspector / SHO Surenderjeet Kaur and the deployment officer Ct. Jiboy. The witness during his crossexamination had also admitted that the accused Ct. Ravi and Ct. Kishan Pal were identified by Inspector Rajveer and HC Pramod. The testimony of PW17 ie., HC Jiboy, PW19 i.e., ACP Surenderjeet Kaur, PW21 ACP Rajveer Sharma is thus scrutinized to State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.21/23decipher as to whether the identity of accused persons is established in the present matter. A bare reading of the testimony of PW17, PW 19 and PW21 clearly shows that the witnesses have refused to identify the accused persons. PW17 HC Jiboy, while being cross examined by the LD. APP for the stated specifically denied the suggestion that he was shown the CCTV footage regarding the incident in question and denied having identified SI Sushil, HC Vijender, Ct. Tejender and Ct. Dinesh on the basis of the said footage. PW19 ACP Surenderjeet Kaur also refused to identify the accused persons. PW19 ACP surenderjeet Kaur while being crossexamined by the Ld. APP has also denied the suggestion that she had identified the accused persons on the basis of CCTV footage in question. She testified that she was not aware as to whether the accused persons were deployed on the duty in Ram Leela Ground on that day or not. Another fact which assumes importance is that the PW17 and PW19 duly admitted that the IO never seized the original chiththa of the date of the incident in question regarding the deployment police officials at Ram Leela Ground. A scrutiny of the testimony of PW29 also reveals that the duty roster for 05.06.2011 was never seized by the IO. Further, it is noticeable that PW21 during his evidence, deposed that he was shown the CCTV footage where Ct. Kishal Pal and Ct Ravi were seen in a blurred view. PW21 while being cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State deposed that he could not identify the accused Ct. Kishal Pal and Ct. Ravi with certainty. He deposed that the persons appearing in the footage resembled the aforesaid accused persons. In view of the deposition made by PW21, it is quite clear that the identification done by PW21 is not concrete enough to inculpate the accused persons. The witness on being shown the CCTV footage, specifically stated that he could not identify State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.22/23the police official indulging in violence as they had their backs towards the camera. At this stage, testimony of PW22 HC Mahipal Singh is read who also refused to identify the accused persons. PW 22 on being crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State, specifically denied the suggestion that he had identified the Ct. Kishan and Ct. Ravi on seeing the footage.
At this stage, it gets imperative to make an observation that PW29 had specifically deposed that the accused persons were identified on the identification done by PW17, PW19 and PW22, however, PW17, PW19 and PW22 have completely turned hostile. They have clearly refused to have identified the accused persons. The said fact completely demolishes the very foundation of the story of the prosecution.
A further analyses of the evidence on record divulges that the prosecution has mainly rested its case upon the video footages provided by the different media houses. None of the accused persons have, however, been identified even on the basis of the said CCTV footages by any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.
7. In such a scenario where none of the injured / eye witnesses were examined as witnesses, the MLCs of the victims were also not proved as per law and the identity of accused persons was not established, it is safe to conclude that the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons namely Krishal Pal, Sushil Kumar, Tejender Singh, Dinesh Kumar and Vijender Singh are, accordingly, acquitted of the offence u/s 336 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 11.01.2021 (PRIGYA GUPTA) Metropolitan Magistrate08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. State vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. FIR No.24/2012 PS Kamla market Page no.23/23