Delhi District Court
State vs Ravinder Prakash Gupta Ors on 28 June, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NABEELA WALI: LD. CMM : NEW DELHI
DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.
State Vs. Ravinder Prakash
Gupta & Ors.
FIR No. 190/2006
U/Sec. 149/147/186/353 IPC &
Section 3 of Prevention of
Damage of Public Property
Act1984
P.S. Delhi Cantt.
1. CC No. :47110/2016
2. Date of institution of case :19.01.2009
3. Date of Commission of Offence :14.05.2006-15.05.2006
4. Name of the complainant : ASI Kapoor Singh
5. Name, parentage & Address : 1. Ravinder Prakash Gupta
S/o Sh. B. D. Gupta
R/o R/71, Flat No. 3, FF,
Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. Muneesh Kumar
S/o Sh. R. P. Gupta
R/o R/71, Flat No. 3, FF,
Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
3. Dheeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. R. P. Gupta
R/o R/71, Flat No. 3, FF,
Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
4. Swatantra
S/o Sh. R. P. Gupta
State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally signed
by NABEELA
WALI
NABEELA Date:
WALI 2024.06.28
18:16:03
+0530
2
R/o R/71, Flat No. 3, FF,
Khirki Extension,Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
5. Vikas
S/o Sh. Parmanand Parikh
R/o Aggarwal Farm House,
Dera Gaon, Delhi.
6. Ishahid @ Babloo
S/o Sh. Khalik
R/o H. No. 20, Shahurpur Peer,
Nand Chandu Nola Thana,
Mehrauli, Delhi.
7. Shri Niwas (Absconding)
S/o Sh. P. S. Kasoria
R/o H. No. 217, Sector 1,
Mahavir Vihar, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
8. Yateesh
S/o Sh. R. N. Sahoo
R/o A/402, Plot No. 36,
Rajasthan Apartment, Sector-4,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
5. Offence complained of or proved :U/Sec. 149/147/186/353 IPC & Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act1984
6. Plea of Accused : Accused pleaded not guilty.
7. Final Order : All accused persons acquitted Date of reserving the judgment : 06.06.2024 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.06.2024 State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:16:09
+0530
3
THE BRIEF BACKGROUND & GENESIS OF FIR :
1. The facts in brief are that in the intervening night of 14.05.2006 and 15.05.2006, at about 01.00 AM, near Dwarka Flyover, within the jurisdiction of PS Delhi Cantt., accused persons alongwith co-
accused Sriniwas (Since PO) and several others obstructed the complainant ASI Kapoor Singh and his team in the discharge of his public functions by damaging the police vehicle bearing No. DL 1CJ 3096 and physically manhandling them. Thus, the present FIR was registered for offence U/s 149/147/186/353 IPC & Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act 1984. After investigation, chargesheet was filed under the above mentioned provisions.
2. On appearance of the accused persons, copy of the chargesheet was provided and charge was framed upon accused Ravinder Prakash Gupta, Muneesh Kumarj, Dheeraj Kumar, Swatantra, Vikas, Ishahid @ Babloo and Yateesh vide order dated 18.08.2017. Accused Shri Niwas was declared absconding in the present case.
3. In support of its case against the accused persons, prosecution examined nine witnesses.
MATERIAL WITNESSES :
4. The complainant in the case i.e. ASI Kapoor Singh was examined State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:16:15
+0530
4
as PW1 who deposed that in the intervening night of 14.05.2006 and 15.05.2006, at about 12.20 AM, he received a call from Zebra-1. Thereafter, he alongwith his staff including a gun man and PCR driver reached Palam Flyover where they saw one bus, 5-6 cars and one motorcycle in accidental condition. PW1 further deposed that they informed Zebra-1 about the situation and waited for the local police and thereafter, SI Sumer Singh alongwith his team reached the spot. PW1 stated that he requested for more force as a crowd, raising slogans against the police, had gathered at the spot. PW1 further deposed that the enraged crowd overturned the PCR vehicle and broke its windows by throwing stones. PW1 identified six accused persons before the court who were amongst those in the crowd.
5. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he deposed that the registration number of the PCR Vehicle was 3095. PW1 admitted that the complete number of the PCR vehicle was DLICJ 3095. PW1 further admitted that the crowd was shouting slogans to the effect that "police to maro, inki gaadi fook do, gaadi tod do". PW1 admitted that his signatures appear on arrest memos at point A but the accused persons were not arrested in his presence. PW1 further deposed that the personal search memos bear only his name but they do not bear his signatures at point A.
6. PW-1 further admitted his signatures at point A on the complaint which is Ex. PW-1/A. PW-1 admitted that he had pointed towards State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally signed by NABEELANABEELA WALI Date:
WALI 2024.06.28
18:16:20
+0530
5
the spot on the basis of which the IO had prepared the site plan Mark PW-1/C, though he stated that it was not prepared in his presence and denied the suggestion that his supplementary statement Mark PW-1/D was recorded by the IO on 15.05.2006.
7. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and admitted that the complaint Ex. PW-1/A does not mention the registration number other vehicles which were found in accidental condition, or the names their owners or drivers. PW- 1 further deposed that the crowd included about 700-800 people and that there was no street light at the spot.
8. HC Krishan Kumar was examined as PW-2 who stated that on the day of incident, he was posted as Constable with Mobile Crime team and had visited the spot and taken the photographs of the spot. The witness was not cross-examined despited opportunity.
9. SI Ramesh Singh was examined as PW-3 who deposed that on the intervening night of 14/15-05-2006, he alongwith ASI Kapoor was on PCR duty and received a call regarding of accident at Palam Fly Over. On reaching the spot, he found 3-4 vehicles, a bus and some cars involved in an accident. PW-3 stated that the number of Bus as DL 1PG 2752. He further stated that he does not remember the registration number of cars, make santro, Wagon R, Maruti car and motorcycle, which were present at the spot. He further deposed that there was traffic jam at the spot and the public person caught in the traffic jam were becoming furious and State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:16:27
+0530
6
were shouting. PW-3 stated that public persons came and overturned the gypsy bearing NO. DL1CJ 3095 and also pelted stones on them. PW-3 could identify the person involved in the rioting at the time of his examination.
10. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State and admitted the suggestion that the crowd damaged the gypsy by pelting stones and manhandled them. During his cross- examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness stated that photographs of the gypsy were taken.
11. ACP Ajit Singh was examined as PW-4 who deposed about reaching the spot alongwith Ct. Krishan Kumar (the photographer). He stated that he found one PCR Van toppled up on one side and several cars and bus in accidental condition on the other side. The Witness, in his cross-examination, stated that he cannot identify whether the accused persons were present at the spot or not.
12. ASI Chattarpal Singh was examined as PW-5 who deposed that on the day of incident, he alongwith SI Samar Singh reached at the spot and found that there was a traffic jam on the said flyover and the general public was very violent. He stated that he found bus and many cars in accidental condition. PW-5 deposed that the general public got provoked on their own and became violent and when they tried to pacify the persons present, he alongwith SI Samar Singh was attacked by them and as a result they fell down. State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:16:33
+0530
7
The witness stated that public persons followed them more aggressively and toppled down the PCR Van which was standing nearby. As deposed by the witness, the mob was so violent and would have killed them if they had not receded back. The witness stated that he could not identify the accused present before the Court due to lapse of time. The witness identified his signature at point A on the seizure memo of the PCR Van which is Ex.PW5/A and his signature on the arrest memo which is Ex.PW5/B1 to Ex.PW5/B7 and on the personal search memos which are Ex.PW5/C1 to Ex.PW5/C8.
13. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State and admitted the suggestion that he had stated in his statement to the police that the people who gathered there were saying " police wallo ko maaro or inkay wahan jala do " and that they tried to pacify the public persons present on the spot.
14. The witness also admitted the suggestion that the accused persons present before the Court were the person who were involved in rioting. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
15. Retired SI Puran Singh was examined as PW-6 who deposed about registration of the present FIR on the basis of original rukka received by him. PW-6 proved carbon copy of the FIR as Ex.PW6/A (OSR) bearing his signatures at point A and the endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW6/B bearing his signatures at State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:16:38
+0530
8
point A.
16. Insp. Samar Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case was examined as PW-7, who deposed that on the day of incident, after reaching the spot, he found public persons gathered at the spot and the road jammed. He stated that one Bus bearing no. DL 1PB 2252 had caused accident to 4-5 cars, which were standing in the front of the Bus. PW-7 deposed that the accused Ishahid, Yateesh, Vikas, Dheeraj and Munish alongwith other public persons proceeded towards him and other staff members and were raising the slogan "Delhi Police Murdabaad" and were shouting "Accident Ho Gya Aur Delhi Police Kuch Nahi Kar Rahi". As per PW-7, accused person over turned the PCR Car bearing no DL ICJ 3095 and also broke window glasses of the PCR Car. As per the witness, he apprehended the accused persons and recorded the statement of ASI Kapoor Singh which is Ex.PWI/A and identified his signatures at point B. PW-7 deposed about preparing the site plan Ex.PW7/B and identified his signature at point A. The witness identified his signatures at point C on the arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused persons. The witness deposed that he called Crime Team at the spot for taking the photographs and the mechanical inspector Lakhi Ram to examine the vehicle bearing no. DL-1CJ-3095 (PCR Van). The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
17. Sh. G. C. Salhan was examined as PW-8 and admitted his signature at point A on the application Ex. PW-8/A for release of State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:16:45
+0530
9
vehicle bearing no.DL-1CJ-0395 and on the complaint u/s 195 CrPC which is Ex. PW-8/B. The witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
18. SI Balkaran Singh was examined as PW-9 and proved the Stock Register entry No. 210 regarding the vehicle No.DL-1CJ-3095 of the vehicle as Ex.PW9/A(OSR). The witness also proved the condemnation and action vide order dated 34-44/A-1/PHQ 02.04.2013 and No.6170/HAMT(1) P & L 20.10.2014. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld Counsels for accused persons.
19. No other prosecution witness was examined and matter proceeded for recording of statement of accused.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CRPC :
20. Thereafter, statement of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused distinctly, separately and specifically. Accused persons admitted their presence at the spot, however, denied the allegations against them. They stated that their vehicle had met with an accident and they had made complaint to the police and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in defence and matter proceeded for final arguments.
State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:16:51
+0530
10
ARGUMENTS :
21. Thereafter, matter proceeded for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. APP for State and the accused persons. The defence has also placed on record written submissions it is argued by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt from the testimony of the prosecution witness. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution in support of its case. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also pointed out several contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
FINDINGS :
22. It is settled principle of law that in criminal proceedings, prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the accused is charged for the offences punishable under Section 149/147/186 r/w Section 149 IPC, 353 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act 1984 r/w 149 IPC. Before recording any finding on the facts, it is imperative to discuss the essential ingredients of each of the offences:-
149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.--
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 State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:16:57
+0530
11
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.
147. Punishment for rioting.--
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.
186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.--
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.
353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--
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 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 two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 3 in The Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984 State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:17:03
+0530
12
3. Mischief causing damage to public property (1)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.(2)Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being(a)any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;(b)any oil installations;(c)any sewage works;(d)any mine or factory;(e)any means of public transportation or of tele-communications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine:Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
23. In Sukha v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1956 SC 513] it was observed that the common object of the unlawful assembly in question depends firstly on whether such object can be classified as one of those described in Section 141 of the IPC. Secondly, such common object need not be the product of prior concert but, as per established law, may form on the spur of the moment.
24. In Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1999) 3 SCC 97] it was observed that the nature of this common object is a question of fact to be determined by considering nature State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:17:09
+0530
13
of arms, nature of the assembly, behaviour of the members etc.
25. The first issue to be resolved in this matter is to ascertain the point at which the `common object' of the unlawful assembly in the instant case was crystallized, and the nature of this common object, as this would be necessary to rule on the applicability of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter `IPC').
26. Regarding the application of Section 149, the following observations are extracted from the case of Charan Singh v. State of U.P. [(2004) 4 SCC 205] :
"The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141... The word 'object' means the purpose or design and, in order to make it 'common', it must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it [emphasis supplied]. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression 'in prosecution of common object' as appearing in Section 149 have to be strictly construed as equivalent to 'in order to attain the common object'. It must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter... 'Common object' is different from a 'common intention' as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.Digitally signed by NABEELA
NABEELA WALI Date:
WALI 2024.06.28
18:17:14
+0530
14
assembly to achieve that object. [emphasis supplied] The 'common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful. Under the Explanation to Section 141, an assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful. In other words it can develop during the course of incident at the spot or instanti."
27. In the instant case, as stated by PW-1 & PW-3, the public persons caught in jam were becoming furious and were shouting. Thus, as per the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the common object of the unlawful assembly was crystallized due inaction of the police which resulted in traffic jam consequent of an accident that had occurred at the spot.
28. The prosecution was required to prove that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of damaging the police vehicle and as members of the assembly used force or violence in furtherance of common object State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date: 2024.06.28 18:17:21 +0530 15
of the said assembly. The prosecution is also required to prove that the accused persons obstructed the complainant ASI Kapoor Singh and his team in discharge of his public function by damaging the PCR van and physically manhandling the police officers and used criminal force upon them.
29. Although, PW1 in his testimony has stated that a crowd raising slogans against the police, had gathered at the spot he however, did not mention what slogans were being raised against the police. It is only in his cross-examination by Ld. APP that he admitted that the crowd was shouting slogans " police ko maro inki gadi fook do and gaadi tod do". However, in his cross-examination by the defence, he was confronted with the complaint Ex. PW1/A where instead of "fook do and tod do", "inke wahan jala do" was mentioned. Similarly, PW-3 and PW-5 in their examination-in- chief have not mentioned about any slogans raised by the unlawful assembly although in his cross-examination by State, PW-5 has admitted that slogans of " police walo ko maro and inke wahan jala do" were being raised. It is only PW-7 who in his examination-in-chief, has stated that accused persons alongwith other public persons, came towards him and raised slogans of "Delhi Police murdabaad" and "Accident ho gaya aur Delhi Police kuch nahi kar rahi".
30. Furthermore, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 have deposed about "public persons"/"enraged crowd"/"mob" overturning and causing damage to the police vehicle by pelting stones, but PW-3 and PW- State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:17:27
+0530
16
5 failed to identify the accused persons as those part of the "enraged crowd"/"mob" and involved in rioting. PW-4 in his cross-examination also stated that although public persons were present at the spot, however he cannot identity whether accused persons were present or not.
31. Apart from the above discrepancies, there are other contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Firstly, PW-1 in his cross-examination by Ld APP for the State denied making any supplementary statement to the IO on 15.05.2006 which is Mark PW1/D. Also PW-1 in his cross-examination, stated that his complaint does not mention the registration number of vehicles involved in the accident, while it does. Thus the testimony of PW- 1 is incoherent. Furthermore, all material prosecution witnesses in the present case i.e. PW-1, PW-3 & PW-5 resiled from their statement u/s 161 CrPC and were cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State. All the above witnesses failed to depose about the acts or nature of slogans raised by the accused persons as members of the unlawful assembly.
32. Furthermore, in the instant case, as per the testimony of PW-2, he had visited the crime scene and taken photographs of the spot. Said fact is also deposed by PW-4 and PW7. However, the said photographs were not placed on record by prosecution witnesses and PW-7 failed to give any explanation regarding the same.
33. Also, the prosecution witnesses have deposed about the PCR van State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:17:33
+0530
17
being damaged by the crowd. Also, PW-7 in his testimony has deposed that he had called the mechanical inspector for examining the PCR vehicle. However, the said mechanical inspection report was not placed on record by the prosecution to prove the damage to the vehicle. In view of the incoherent testimony of prosecution witnesses, the photograph of the crime scene as well as the police vehicle and the mechanical inspection report were crucial documents to support the case of the prosecution.
34. As per settled preposition of law, a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon or used to convict the accused. The statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions.
35. It is also settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. In a criminal trial all allegations need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts that an ordinary man can have. There can be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. Even if slightest doubt is observed, accused is entitled to this benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
36. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Apex Court, laid down the five golden State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally
signed by
NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2024.06.28
18:17:38
+0530
18
should be satisfied before a case based on circumstantial evidence against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(I) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) the circumstance should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Conclusion :
37. After appreciation of the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the material on record by the prosecution, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to proved the case against the accused for offences u/s 149/147/186/353 IPC & Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act 1984. Accordingly, accused Ravinder Prakash Gupta S/o Sh. B. D. Gupta, Muneesh Kumar S/o Sh. R. P. Gupta, Dheeraj Kumar S/o Sh. R. P. Gupta, Swatantra S/o Sh. R. P. Gupta, Vikas S/o Sh. Parmanand Parikh, State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Digitally signed by NABEELA WALI NABEELA Date:
WALI 2024.06.28
18:17:44
+0530
19
Ishahid @ Babloo S/o Sh. Khalik and Yateesh S/o Sh. R. N. Sahoo are acquitted for the above mentioned offences.
38. Ordered Accordingly.
Announced in the open court
on 28.06.2024 Digitally signed
by NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
Date:
WALI 2024.06.28
18:17:50
+0530
(NABEELA WALI)
CMM, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
This judgment contains 19 pages and all the pages have been signed by Digitally signed me. by NABEELA NABEELA WALI Date:
WALI 2024.06.28
18:17:57
+0530
(NABEELA WALI)
CMM, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Ravinder Prakash & Ors FIR No. 190/2006 P.S. Delhi Cantt.