Delhi District Court
State vs Billu Seth on 7 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS VASUNDHARA AZAD, CJM, WEST,
1. TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT02-021102-2023
State Vs. Billu Seth
FIR No. :653/2023
Police Station : Paschim Vihar East
Under Section : 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Public
Property Act, 2007
Date of institution : 04.12.2023
Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2025
JUDGEMENT
a) Cr. Cases number of the case 12040/2023
b) Date of commission of offence 06.02.2025
c) Name of the complainant HC Pradeep Kumar
d) Name, parentage and address of the Billu Seth accused S/o Kuldeep Seth R/o E-30, Peeragarhi Camp, Paschim Vihar West Delhi, Paschim Vihar East, Outer District, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of Section 3 DPDP Act f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty g) Final order Acquitted State Vs. Billu Seth FIR No. 653/2023 P.S Paschim Vihar East Page no.1/10 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date: 2025.07.07 13:27:15 +0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Briefly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on 26.08.2023 at around 08.40 pm at tree situated near E-30, Peeragarhi Camp, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, one board bearing contents "Pizza Gallery......8168607566" affixed by accused Billu Seth was found and thus, accused Billu Seth is guilty of having committed offence U/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007.
ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 06.02.2025 of this court, notice for offence under Section 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act was framed against accused Billu Seth, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. It is noted that as per statement of accused recorded (under Sec. 294 Cr.PC/330 of BNSS) on 06.02.2025 the following documents were admitted by the accused:-
S. no. Exhibits Documents
1. Ex. A-1 DD No. 121 dated 26.08.2023
2. Ex. A-2 and Ex. A-3 Copy of FIR No. 653/2023 and
Certificate under Sec. 65-B of
IEA
3. Ex.A-4 Statement of Ct. Somendra
Samota under Section 161
Cr.PC/180 BNSS dated
26.08.2023.
State Vs. Billu Seth FIR No. 653/2023 P.S Paschim Vihar East Page no.2/10
Digitally signed
by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD
Date:
2025.07.07
13:27:21 +0530
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
4. The prosecution in all examined 01 witness in order to prove its case against the accused, viz.
(a) PW-1 HC Pradeep Kumar who has deposed that on 26.08.2023, when he was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Somendra, near E-30, Peera Garhi Camp, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, they saw one fiber board over one tree whereupon two mobile numbers were mentioned and "Star Pizza Gallery" was also written. It is deposed by PW-1 that the photograph of the aforesaid board which was causing defacement of public property was clicked (Ex. PW1/A) and it was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW-1/B), rukka/tehrir was prepared (Ex. PW-1/C), FIR (Ex A-2) was registered and site plan (Ex.PW1/D) was prepared. PW-1 has further deposed that during investigation of the present case, accused Billu Seth was arrested vide memo (Ex. PW1/E) and released on police bail. Accused Billu Seth and case property was correctly identified by PW-1. PW-1 was duly cross- examined by the counsel for the accused and thereafter discharged.
5. Since all the prosecution witnesses were examined, at request of Ld. APP for the State, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was fixed for recording statement of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
6. In his examination under Section 313 CrPC., accused denied the entire evidence put to him and opted not to lead DE. Thereafter, DE was closed.
State Vs. Billu Seth FIR No. 653/2023 P.S Paschim Vihar East Page no.3/10 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2025.07.07 13:27:27 +0530 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
7. Final arguments advanced by Ld. APP for State and accused heard.
Case file perused carefully.
8. It is argued by Ld. APP for State that accused has affixed a fiber board "Star Pizza Gallery......8168607566" on a tree and accordingly, the accused be convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 DPDP Act.
9. On the other hand, it is argued by accused that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as there is nothing on record to show that the impugned board/banner was affixed by the accused. There are no public witness to substantiate the commission of the offence and hence, accused be acquitted.
10. After hearing the submissions of both the sides and before proceedings further with deciding the present case, it is inevitable to discuss Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 which provides that: -
"Penalty for defacement of property. - (1) Whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Where any offence committed under sub-section (1) is for the benefit of some other person or a company or other body corporate or an association of persons (whether incorporated or not), then, such other person and every president, chairman, director, partner, manager, secretary, agent or any other officer or persons concerned with the management thereof, as the case may be, shall, unless he proves that the State Vs. Billu Seth FIR No. 653/2023 P.S Paschim Vihar East Page no.4/10 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2025.07.07 13:27:32 +0530 offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, be deemed to be guilty of such offence.
(3) The aforesaid penalties will be without prejudice to the provisions of section 425 and section 434 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and the provisions of the relevant Municipal Acts."
11. Though in the present matter a board/banner mentioning "Star Pizza Gallery......8168607566" was found affixed on an electric pole, yet it has to be decided as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt with respect to offence under Section 3 DPDP Act, 2007.
12. At the outset, it may be noted that there are two cardinal principals of criminal jurisprudence which govern the decision in any criminal trial; one, that accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty and two, the guilt of the accused has to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.
13. Meaning thereby that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and even if no defence is led by the accused, he can still rebut the case of the prosecution by creating preponderance of probabilities in his favour.
14. In the leading judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter titled as 'Anand Ramachandra Chougule Vs. Sidarai Laxman Chougala' [2019 (SCC online) SC 974], elucidating upon the onus of proof in a criminal trial, it was held that:
"The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the State Vs. Billu Seth FIR No. 653/2023 P.S Paschim Vihar East Page no.5/10 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2025.07.07 13:27:37 +0530 probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt."
15. Also, 'Narinder Kumar Vs. State' (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 7 SCC 171], it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt."
16. In the present matter, in order to prove the commission of the offence of defacement by the accused, the first and foremost ingredient which is to be proved by the prosecution is that the board/banner was affixed by the accused himself or the same was affixed at his behest and as per the settled principles of law discussed above, the same has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Mere insinuation that the poster was pasted by the accused does not prove the prosecution case.
17. Upon perusal of the record as well as testimony of the witness, the first and foremost and the most crucial fact which surfaces is that not even a single eye-witness has been brought on record by the prosecution who has seen the accused either himself pasting the posters or instructing someone to do the same. Rather none of the witness examined on record has also not seen the incident at the time State Vs. Billu Seth FIR No. 653/2023 P.S Paschim Vihar East Page no.6/10 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2025.07.07 13:27:42 +0530 of it occurrence. Mere fact that accused was contacted on the mobile number mentioned on the board is not sufficient to establish guilt of the accused under Section 3 DPDP Act, 2007. No attempts have been made to recover a CCTV footage of the alleged incident from the spot which could have shed some light on the truth of the matter. If recovered, it could have been another crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution case.
18. Also, it is pertinent to note that no evidence has been brought on record by prosecution to establish that the alleged board/banner was in fact got printed by the accused. No investigation has been done in regard to the printing press from where such board may have been printed. No inquiry was conducted by the IO to find out the details of the printer or as to who paid the bill of printing or at whose instructions were such board circulated, etc. Hence, this turns out to be a lacuna in the prosecution case which has broken the link between the accused and the alleged poster.
19. Further, it has been stated in the testimony of PW1 that he did not ask public persons join investigation renders the case of prosecution doubtful. The above stated observation of this court is fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as 'Hemraj vs State of Haryana' [AIR 2005 SC 2110] wherein it was held that:
"the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case..."
State Vs. Billu Seth FIR No. 653/2023 P.S Paschim Vihar East Page no.7/10 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2025.07.07 13:27:47 +0530
20. Furthermore, in case titled as 'Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana' [1999 (1)C.L.R 69], the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that:
"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful..."
21. Hence, the absence of eye witnesses as well as other inpendent witnesses does bring the case of prosecution in a grey area and casts a shadow of doubt in it. More so, because the place of occurrence of the incident is a public place and there was no lack of time and opportunity with the IO to associate some independent witnesses in the investigation.
22. From the scrutiny of evidence discussed above, it is apparent that even though the act of defacement as such has been brought on record by the prosecution, prosecution has miserably failed to bring any evidence on record that it was committed by the accused.
State Vs. Billu Seth FIR No. 653/2023 P.S Paschim Vihar East Page no.8/10
Digitally signed
by
VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA
AZAD AZAD
Date: 2025.07.07
13:27:51 +0530
Neither any ocular evidence nor any documentary evidence viz. video footage, bills of printing, etc. has been brought on record which proves that the poster was in fact pasted by the accused himself or at his instructions. Further, prosecution could not even prove that the posters were got printed at the instance of the accused.
23. Undoubtedly, the first essential of the offence of defacement i.e. commission of defacement by the accused has not been proved by prosecution. There are several lacunae in the prosecution case which remained open till the end of trial. As already mentioned above, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. On the basis of mere allegations, the accused cannot be held liable for the alleged offence.
CONCLUSION
24. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
25. In the present case, in view of the above stated discussions, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence coming on record entitles the State Vs. Billu Seth FIR No. 653/2023 P.S Paschim Vihar East Page no.9/10 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2025.07.07 13:27:57 +0530 accused to be acquitted in the present case. Therefore, accused namely Billu Seth is hereby acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 3 of DPDP Act.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Billu Seth is held not guilty u/s 3 of DPDP Act and thereby acquitted for the same.
Let digitally signed copy of this judgment be uploaded on the district court website.
Digitally Announced in open Court on 07.07.2025.
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2025.07.07
13:28:02
+0530
(VASUNDHARA AZAD)
CJM/West/THC/07.07.2025
State Vs. Billu Seth FIR No. 653/2023 P.S Paschim Vihar East Page no.10/10