Delhi District Court
State vs Vinod on 4 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAHIL MONGA:
JMFC-06, NDD, PHC, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Vinod and ors.
FIR No.: 192/2021
P.S.: South Campus
U/Sec.: 160 IPC
CNR No. DLND02-068156-2024
JUDGMENT
Srl. No. of the case & Date of 56147/24 and 23.12.2024 institution Date of commission of offence 23.12.2021 Name of the complainant Udai Singh Name of the accused 1. Vinod S/o Sh. Mahaveer
2. Neeraj S/o Sh. Mahaveer
3. Ravi Sankar S/o Bal Chand Nature of offence complained of U/S. 160 IPC Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Final Order Acquitted Date of order 04.12.2025.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. The prosecution case is that on 23.12.2021 at about 10:00 AM at Road H-
Block, Nanakpura, within the jurisdiction of PS South Campus, the accused persons Vinod, Neeraj and Ravi were found quarrelling with each other in a public place and thereby disturbed public peace, allegedly committing an offence punishable u/s 160 IPC. An FIR bearing no. 192/21 was registered against the accused.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 23.12.2024 and cognizance was taken. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Section 160 IPC was given to accused on 22.07.2025 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 192/21 State Vs. Vinod and ors. Page No. 1/1Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL Date:
MONGA MONGA 2025.12.04 17:18:13 +0530
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 IO/SI Udai Singh PW-2 Vinod DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A Rukka
5. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused under section 313 of the Code was recorded. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused persons stated that I am innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. They further stated that they do not want to lead DE.
6. Final arguments were advanced at length by Ld. APP for the State and counsel for accused.
7. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
8. Section 160 IPC: Punishment for committing affray. If two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray.
Digitally signed by SAHILSAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
FIR No. 192/21 State Vs. Vinod and ors. Page No. 1/22025.12.04 17:18:18 +0530
9. The prosecution case rests solely on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, both police officials, who stated that the accused persons were quarrelling on a public road. However, despite the alleged incident occurring at 10:00 AM in a public place, no independent public witness was examined to corroborate the version of the police. The absence of any neutral witness raises doubt regarding the occurrence of any actual affray or disturbance of public peace. Further, the statements of the prosecution witnesses are general and vague. Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 described any specific overt act committed by any particular accused, nor did they mention any details showing how public tranquility was disturbed. Minor contradictions also exist regarding the preparation and handing over of rukka, which weakens the reliability of their testimony. Mere assertion that "three persons were quarrelling" is insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of Section 160 IPC.
10. In criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the evidence falls short of proving that the accused engaged in fighting in a public place in a manner that actually disturbed public peace. Due to lack of independent corroboration, vague testimonies, and failure to establish the specific ingredients of the offence, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly accused persons namely Vinod, Ravi Sankar and Neeraj are acquitted for offences punishable under Section 160 IPC.
Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA Announced in the Open Court today. MONGA Date:
2025.12.04 (dt.04.12.2025) 17:18:22 +0530 (Sahil Monga) Judicial Magistrate -06 (NDD) Patiala House Courts, New Delhi 04.12.2025 FIR No. 192/21 State Vs. Vinod and ors. Page No. 1/3