Delhi District Court
State vs Karan Singh Tyagi on 4 May, 2026
IN THE COURT SH. KAUTUK BHARDWAJ
JMFC - 06 / NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS / NEW DELHI
Cr Cases 40131/2016
CNR No. DLND02-000094-2008
STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI
FIR No. 46/2006
PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed by
U/s 147/149/188/186/353/332 IPC
KAUTUK
KAUTUK BHARDWAJ
BHARDWAJ Date: 2026.05.04
18:00:55 +0530 JUDGMENT
A Registration Number Cr Cases 40131/2016
B Name of the State
complainant
C Name of the accused & 1. Karan Singh Tyagi
his parentage and S/o Sh. Atar Singh Tyagi
address R/o JA-54, Ground Floor,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
2. Reena Banerjee
W/o Sh. Sudershan Banerjee
R/o 79/8, Sector 1, Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi.
3. Shailendra Kumar
S/o Late Ram Prasad Azad, Near
Gurudwara Bal Vatika, VPO
Daltonganj, Distt. Palamu,
Jharkhand.
4. Eknath Dugdu Award
S/o Sh. Dagdu Awad
(proceedings abated vide order
dated 16/10/2015)
5. Panamoottil Thomas John
S/o Sh. Thomas
R/o C/D-2 Beach, Avenue
Puthia, Cadaver Beach Road,
Calicut Kerala.
Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 1 of 14
D Offence Complained of 147/149/188/186/353/332 IPC &
3(1) Damages Public Property Act
E Date of commission of 28/02/2006
offence.
F Date of Institution 21/05/2008
G Offence Charged 147/149/188/186/353/332 IPC
H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
person
I Order Reserved on 23/02/2026
J Date of Pronouncement 04/05/2026
K Final Order ACQUITTAL
Vide this judgment, the accused persons are being
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 147/149/188/
186/353/332 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") in this case FIR No. 46/2006 Police Station Parliament
Street, for the reasons mentioned below:
1.PROSECUTION'S CASE:
1.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.02.2006 at about 2:30 p.m. at First Barricade, Opposite Co-operative Society Office, Parliament Street, New Delhi all the accused persons were members of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the said assembly had voluntarily deterred public servants on their duty, assaulted or used criminal force to deter public servants from discharge of their duty and had disobeyed the order duly promulgated from public servant in pursuance of common object of the said assembly. It is further alleged that in furtherance of the common object and having knowledge that a prohibitory order U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. has been promulgated by a lawfully empowered public servant, all accused violated the same by carrying on the demonstration. It has further been alleged Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 2 of 14 against the accused persons that as part of the unlawful assembly, they all assaulted HC Gautam Tripathi and other public servants with intention to deter them from discharging their public duties. 1.2 That based on these facts, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is stated to have committed an offence u/s 147/149/188/186/353/332 IPC which lead to registration of FIR No. 46/2006 at PS Parliament Street.
2. CHARGE:
2.1 In compliance of the procedural mandate u/s. 173 CrPC, charge-sheet against the accused was filed in the present matter, upon completion of investigation.
2.2 Accused persons were summoned to face trial and was supplied with the copy of the charge-sheet as per s. 207 CrPC. 2.3 On the basis of the charge-sheet, a charge for the offences punishable u/s. 147/149/188/186/353/332 IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3.1 PW-1 Retd. SI Ram Babu has deposed that on 28.02.2006, he saw that about 8,000 workers of National Alliance for right to education and equity reached at the first barricade under the leadership of accused Karan Singh Tyagi and all of them were accompanying deceased accused Eknath. It has further been deposed that all of accused were giving provocative speech to the demonstrators which agitated them and led to breaking of barricades by them. Witness further deposed that the demonstrators started pelting stones on police officials and despite repeated warning given through loud speakers and a banner regarding the order U/s. 144 Cr.P.C., the demonstrators broke Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 3 of 14 down the first barricade and pelted stones on police personnel. It has further been deposed by the witness that accused persons assaulted the police persons with danda causing injury to one HC Gautam Tripathi from CRPF and caused damaged to barricades at the spot. Witness has correctly identified all accused persons before the Court as well as the barricades, dandas and the stones used in the offence.
3.2 PW-2 SI Masan Lal has has proved the registration of FIR Ex. PW-2/A and made endorsement on tehrir Ex. PW-2/B. 3.3 PW-3 ASI Parth Singh has deposed on similar lines as PW-1 and has further deposed regarding the registration of FIR. He has also proved the seizure memo of part of broken barricades, stones, and broken sticks Ex. PW3/A. He has also correctly identified the photographs of barricades in the Court.
3.4 PW-4 HC Gautam Kumar Tripati has deposed that on 28.02.2006 while being posted at 82 Battalion CRPF and being deployed near India Gate by SHO PS Parliament Street, at about 2:30 p.m., while being on duty he saw that about 400 to 500 protestors came near the barricade having wooden sticks and started pelting stones due to which the witness received injury on his nose.
3.5 PW-5 Retd. Inspector Pratap Singh has deposed on similar lines as PW-1.
3.6 PW-5A Insp. MP Saini (inadvertently mentioned as PW-5) has deposed on similar lines as PW-1.
3.7 PW-6 HC Bikash has identified the photographs of the spot Ex. P1 to Ex. P4.
3.8 PW-7 Raj Kumar has proved the MLC Ex. PW7/A of the victim.Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 4 of 14
3.9 PW-8 Asst. Commandant Ms. Ashu Kumar has deposed that on the day of the incident, there were about 150 to 200 people trying to cross the barricades and water cannons were used to disburse the same.
3.10 PW-9 Retd. ACP Awanish Dwivedi has deposed on similar lines as PW-1.
4. Statement of Accused:
4.1 It is pertinent to record that during the course of trial, accused Eknath Dugdu Awad had expired and proceeding qua him abated vide order dated 16/10/2015.
4.2 In order to allow the remaining accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of the accused persons was recorded without oath under Section 313 CrPC. 4.3 In reply, the accused persons stated that it is a false case against them and they have been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further stated that on the day of the alleged incident, they were protesting / demonstrating for the cause of free and compulsory education as being members of NAFRE (National Alliance for Right to Education). The said protest was conducted after taking due permission from the concerned police station and they were not informed about any order U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. which was enforced at that time either by loud speaker or any other means. It if further stated that the protest was conducted in a peaceful manner and they did not use any violence, did not give any provocative speech and no violence occurred in their presence.
4.4 Further, vide order dated 20/09/2024, the accused persons had denied to lead defence evidence.
Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 5 of 145. Details of all the witnesses examined, documents exhibited and Material Objects (muddamal) produced and exhibited:
5.1 Details of Witnesses:
Witness Name of the Witness Description
Sr. No.
PW-1 Retd. SI Ram Babu Visited place of
incident/ eye
witness
PW-2 SI Masan Lal Duty Officer /
registered the
FIR
PW-3 ASI Parth Singh Got registered
the FIR
PW-4 HC Gautam Kumar Tripati Eye witness/
injured
PW-5 Retd. Inspector Pratap Singh Eye witness
PW-5A Insp. MP Saini IO
PW-6 HC Bikash Photographer
PW-7 Raj Kumar Record Clerk,
RML Hospital,
proved MLC
PW-8 Asst. Commandant Ms. Ashu CRPF official
Kumar
PW-9 Retd. ACP Awanish Dwivedi Deployment of
police and
CRPF
5.2 Details of documents exhibited:
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved /
Attested by
Ex. PW-2/A Copy of FIR PW-2
Ex. PW-2/B Tehrir PW-2
Ex. PW-3/A Seizure memo of part of PW-3
broken barricades, stones,
broken sticks
Ex. PW-5/A Rukka PW-5
Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 6 of 14
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved /
Attested by
Ex. PW-5/B Site Plan PW-5
Ex. PW-7/A MLC No. 25581/06 PW-7
Ex. PW-9/A Complaint u/s 195 CrPC PW-9
5.3 Material Objects:
Material Object Description of the Proved by
(MO) No. Object
Ex. P-1 (colly) Two barricades PW-1
Ex. P-2 (colly) 11 dandas PW-1
Ex. P-3 (colly) Stones PW-1
6. APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS:
6.1 Section 147 IPC prescribes punishment for the
offence of Rioting, the necessary ingredients are:
a. Existence of an unlawful assembly and b. Usage of force or violence by any member of the said assemble
6.2 Section 149 IPC prescribes that 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 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.
6.3 Section 186 IPC prescribes punishment for causing obstruction to any public person in discharge of his public functions and the punishment prescribed is imprisonment up to three months or fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- or both.
Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 7 of 146.4 Section 332 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under this Section are:-
1. Voluntarily causing hurt to any person being a public servant in discharge of his duty as such public servant.
2. There should be an intention to prevent that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty.
6.5 Section 353 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging of his duty. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under this Section are:-
1. Voluntarily causing assault or criminal force to any person being a public servant in discharge of his duty as such public servant.
2. There should be an intention to prevent that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty.
3. Or in consequences of anything done or admitted to be done by that person in lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant.
7. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND MARSHALLING OF THE FACTS:
7.1 This being the factual, evidentiary and the legal position of the present case, let us analyse whether the prosecution has been able to successfully prove the guilt of the accused persons on the touchstone of "beyond reasonable doubt". The factual conspectus leading to the initiation of the criminal proceedings Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 8 of 14 needs to be reiterated, in order to appreciate the factual inquiries necessitated in the trial. The State has alleged that the accused persons have formed an unlawful assembly, used criminal force to deter the public servants and also assaulted public servants, despite the promulgation of prohibitory order u/s. 144 CrPC.
7.2 Now, it is not in dispute that the accused person were present on the place of incident and were in fact part of the protest for their own cause. In fact, it is their line of defence that they were not informed about the imposition of order u/s. 144 CrPC. It is their case that the protest was carried out peacefully, without any violence or provocative speech. This leaves us with two fold factual inquiries. Firstly, whether there was commission of an offence by a member of an unlawful assembly in order to attain the common object of that assembly. Secondly, whether there was knowledge on the part of a member of the unlawful assembly qua the likelihood of such offence being committed in order to attain the common object.
7.3 PW-1 has deposed regarding the provocative speech and it is alleged that upon the provocation the demonstrators had broken down the barricades. It is stated that the imposition of the s. 144 CrPC had been informed by the SHO concerned through loud speaker and a banner was also displayed regarding the imposition of s. 144 CrPC. Similar deposition qua the promulgation of S. 144 CrPC was made by PW-3.
7.4 Now, let us first understand what the law expects and mandates the police officials, while promulgating the order under s. 144 CrPC. The said aspect was dealt by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 9 of 14 Home secretary & Ors (SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 122 OF 2011), wherein the Hon'ble court observed:
"162. The Standing Order 309 contemplates that there should be display of banner indicating promulgation of Section 144 Cr.P.C., repeated use of Public Address system by a responsible officer- appealing/advising the leaders and demonstrators to remain peaceful and come forward for memorandum, their deputation etc. or court arrest peacefully and requires such announcement to be videographed. It further contemplates that if the crowd does not follow the appeal and turns violent, then the assembly should be declared as unlawful on the PA System and the same should be videographed. Warning on PA system prior to use of any kind of force is to be ensured and also videographed. I find that there is hardly any compliance to these terms of this Standing Order."
7.5 It would be profitable to reproduce the relevant standing order No. 309 issued by the DCP (Headquarters) dated 31.01.2003:
"Regulation of Processions and Rules, which prescribes the mode of service of the order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C is reproduced as under :-
"XXXX Arrangement at the place of demonstration should include the following :
(i) Display of banner indicating promulgation of Section 144 Cr.P.C.
(ii) At least 2 video graphers be available one either side of the demonstration to capture both demonstrators as well as police response/action.
(iii) Loud hailers should be available.
(iv) Repeated use of PA system by a responsible officer-
appealing/advising the leaders and demonstrators to remain peaceful and come forward for memorandum/deputation etc or court arrest peacefully. Announcements should be videographed.
(v) If they do not follow appeal and turn violent declare the assembly unlawfully on PA system and videograph.
(vi) Warning of PA System prior to sue of any kind of force must be ensured and also videographed.
(vii) Announcement for injured to take them to hospital for medical aid use of stretchers to carry the injured up to the vehicle/ambulance etc and videographed.
(viii) In case of arrest/detention of MPs, MLAs, information to be given to concerned department, Speaker, Lok Sabha Chairman, Rajya Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 10 of 14 Sabha, Speaker Assembly by quickest means both in writing and on wireless.
(ix) Special attention be paid while dealing with women's demonstrations only women police to take them.
(x) During registration of case evidence regarding use of stone, lathis, dandas etc to be videographed and taken into possession from the site."
7.6 The present facts is a demonstration of the utter disregard for not just the mandate of the Hon'ble Court but also of its own standing orders. The display of banner promulgating the order of 144 CrPC has not been proved by the prosecution. There is no whisper in the evidence as to why the banner has not been seized as evidence to the present case. In fact, the prime eyewitness PW-1 has even failed to depose regarding the contents of the said banner. The police was also mandated to videograph the entire proceedings of demonstration and the police action. No such evidence has been brought. There was also a requirement of declaration of the assembly as unlawful and announcement in this regard. None of the witnesses have deposed that any such declaration was made by the police officials. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the copies of order passed u/s 144CrPC were pasted at prominent places. Even though all the above modes i.e. announcement through loud-hailers; use of PA system; display of banners etc. for communication of the Prohibitory Order had to be cumulatively followed in terms of Section 134 Cr.P.C. and Standing Order No. 309.
7.7 It is evident that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the promulgation of the orders U/s. 144 CrPC and the knowledge of the accused persons thereto. The failure to prove the order would dent the version of the prosecution that an unlawful assembly was formed resisting the orders U/s. 144 CrPC. As a Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 11 of 14 sequitur, the contention of violation of the public order shall also fall flat.
7.8 In addendum, even if it's momentarily presumed that there existed an unlawful assembly, the prosecution has even otherwise have failed to prove that the accused persons were member of the unlawful assembly. It would be appreciated that the mere presence at the scene of incident would not ipso facto render a person a member of the unlawful assembly, unless it is established that such an accused also shared its common object. It has been observed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in SATTAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ( CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1188 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 726 of 2014), that:
"A mere bystander, to whom no specific role is attributed, would not fall within the ambit of Section 149 of the IPC. The prosecution has to establish, through reasonably direct or indirect circumstances, that the accused persons shared a common object of the unlawful assembly. The test to determine whether a person is a passive onlooker or an innocent bystander is the same as that applied to ascertain the existence of a common object. The existence of a common object is to be inferred from the circumstances of each case, such as:
a. the time and place at which the assembly was formed; b. the conduct and behaviour of its members at or near the scene of the offence;
c. the collective conduct of the assembly, as distinct from that of individual members;
d. the motive underlying the crime;
e. the manner in which the occurrence unfolded; f. the nature of the weapons carried and used; g. the nature, extent, and number of the injuries inflicted, and other relevant considerations."
7.9 The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons shared a common object to the unlawful assembly. While the court is conscious of the principles of constructive liability, as Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 12 of 14 drawn in the cases of unlawful assembly, however the prosecution has failed to show the existence of parameters, as dealt in Sattar (supra).
7.10 In the present facts, there are no independent eye witnesses to the case and all the witnesses are police officials. Even the existing prosecution witness, do not aide the case of the prosecution. It has been deposed in the cross-examination of PW-1 that all the 8000 people came together towards the barricade and there was lot of noise. The witness has assumed unconscionable super powers and has deposed that he could "hear each and every person was saying out of the 8000 people", virtually destroying his own credibility. It is admitted by the said witness that he could not identify any particular person who had attacked the police officials and came towards the barricade. It is admitted that the specific roles of each of the persons could not be established. It is also admitted that the accused persons were neither carrying any daanda nor stones in their hand. It is also admitted that the accused persons had neither mishandled nor misbehaved with anyone and they were only part of the mob.
7.11 Prosecution case was also given a fatal blow, once the injured eye witness PW-4/Gautam had retracted from his version and had to be cross-examined by the State. The witness has failed to identify the accused persons and is even not aware as to who had pelted the stone and even denies knowledge that the accused persons attempted to enter the parliament. Hence, there could not be any question of causing injury or assault to public servant. The absence of any account of the witnesses qua the accused persons with respect to the violence, weapons etc. raises serious doubt about the sharing of common object by the accused Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 13 of 14 persons. The court is reminded of the caution underlined in Sattar (Supra), in the following words:
"The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that where there are general allegations against a large number of persons, the court must remain very careful before convicting all of them on vague or general evidence. Therefore, the courts ought to look for some cogent and credible material that lends assurance. It is safe to convict only those whose presence is not only consistently established from the stage of FIR, but also to whom overt acts are attributed which are in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly."
7.12 Considering the lack of evidence or the absence of any cogent or any credible material to lend assurance to the existence of common object, it can be safely concluded that the State has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons.
8. CONCLUSION:
8.1 The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were part of an unlawful assembly, much less have obstructed the public servants/police officials or caused injury, while they were discharging their public duty or having defied any public order. Accordingly, accused persons namely Karan Singh Tyagi, Reena Banerjee, Shailendra Kumar and Panamoottil Thoms John stand acquitted of the charges u/s 147/149/188/186/353/332 IPC.
8.2 Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the State.Digitally signed
Announced in open KAUTUK by KAUTUK
BHARDWAJ
BHARDWAJ
court on 04.05.2026 Date: 2026.05.04
18:01:06 +0530
(KAUTUK BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-06/PHC/ND/04.05.2026
Certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears my signature.
(KAUTUK BHARDWAJ) JMFC-06/PHC/ND/04.05.2026 Cr Cases 40131/2016 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH TYAGI FIR No. 46/2006 Page 14 of 14