Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil @ Sullu on 23 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAYURI SINGH
ACMM : NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:- CR No. 2641/2020
State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu
FIR No. 311/2020
P.S. Sonia Vihar
U/S.295IPC
JUDGMENT
1 FIR no. of the case 311/2020
2 The date of commission of the Offence Unknown
3 The name of the complainant PSI Tarun, No. D-6184
4 The name of the accused, his Sunil @ Sullu, S/o Lt.
parentage and address Mohar Singh, R/o 2 ½
Pusta, Sonia Vihar,
Sonu Ki Parking, Delhi.
5 The offence charged with U/s.295 IPC
6 The plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
7 Final arguments heard 21.04.2022
8 Date of judgment 23.04.2022
9 Final order Convicted
Judgment :
Vide this judgment, I shall decide this case under Section 295 IPC. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on an unknown date and time, at 2 ½ Pusta Park, Sonia Vihar, Delhi, in a Twitter video, accused was found standing over the idol of Lord Shiva and by doing so, he defiled the place of worship and hurt the sentiments of hindu religious community. An FIR was registered and investigation was taken up. After FIR no. 311/20 State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu Page no.1/10 completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court.
2. Accused Sunil @ Sullu appeared before this Court and after compliance under Section 207 IP, notice u/s 295 IPC was served upon and read out to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To discharge its onus, prosecution examined four witnesses. A brief scrutiny of prosecution evidence is as follows: -
3.1 PW-1 is Duty Officer, HC Shiv Raj, who deposed that on 20.09.2020, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as a Head Constable. On that day he was performing his duty as Duty Officer at PS and his duty hours were from 12:00 Mid Night to 04:00 PM. At around 08:30 PM, he received a rukka through CT. Nitin, sent by SI Tarun, on the basis of the rukka, he registered the present FIR i.e. Mark A. He had endorsed the said rukka vide memo Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Nitin for handing it over to SI Tarun for further investigation.
3.2 PW-2 is Ct. Nitin Tomar, who deposed that on 20.09.2020, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as Constable. He deposed that on that day, he along with PSI Tarun were on patrolling duty in the area of 2 ½ Pusta, Sonia Vihar in evening vide DD no. 45A. He has further deposed that PSI Tarun told him that one video was uploaded on Twitter and was re-
FIR no. 311/20 State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu Page no.2/10 tweeted again and again, regarding which he along with PSI Tarun visited the spot. PSI Tarun showed him the place where one idol of Lord Shiva was kept and near the said idol, one idol of Maa Durga was also lying. He further deposed that PSI Tarun prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR and then he took the said rukka to PS and got the FIR registered. After some time, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO/PSI Tarun. He further deposed that IO, thereafter prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they searched for the person who was shown in the said viral video. IO showed the said video to one person namely, Sonu who was the owner of the parking, on which he disclosed that the said person, seen in the viral video, used to sleep in the said parking and disclosed his name as Sunil @ Sullu. Sonu also informed that that the accused was at that time sleeping in the parking. Thereafter, IO woke up the sleeping person and interrogated him, on which he disclosed his name as Sunil @ Sullu. Thereafter, IO had arrested and personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C, both bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex. PW2/D bearing his signature at point A. IO had also recorded his statement. He has correctly identified the accused standing on an idol of Lord Shiva in one of the two photographs shown to FIR no. 311/20 State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu Page no.3/10 him, as placed on Judicial File.
3.3 PW-3 is Sh. Sonu, S/o Vijay Singh, who has deposed that he resides at H.no. D-11, Gali No. 1, Sadatpur Extension, Delhi. He has further deposed that on 20.09.2020, he was running a parking at 2 ½ Pusta, Yamuna Khadar, Sonia Vihar. On that day SI Tarun came to him and had shown him one video and asked him whether he was acquainted with the person shown in the video, to which he replied that he was acquainted with the person shown in the video. He disclosed to IO that the name of the person shown in the video was Sunil. Thereafter, IO arrested and personally searched the accused Sunil in his presence vide memos Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C both bearing his signature. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement. He has also correctly identified the accused in the Court.
He has further deposed that accused Sunil @ Sullu resides in Sonia Vihar and that is why he knows him but he does not know the other family members of the accused. He has further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO at PS, at the time when IO showed him the video. PW3 further deposed that IO arrested the accused after showing him the video and had not inquired from any other person regarding identity of accused.
3.4 PW-4 is IO/SI Tarun Kumar who has deposed that on FIR no. 311/20 State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu Page no.4/10 20.09.2020, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as SI. On that day, he along with Ct. Nitin were on patrolling duty in the area of 2 ½ Pusta, Sonia Vihar. During patrolling duty at about 09:00 PM, when they were present near 2 ½ Pusta parking, he found that one of the police staff had sent him one video on his WhatsApp which was uploaded on Twitter and the said video had gone viral. On checking, he found that in the said video, one person was standing on the idol of Lord Shiva. In the said video, one idol of Maa Durga was also shown near the idol of Lord Shiva and behind the idols, a river was flowing. The said video was uploaded from the account of "Aapki Lekhika". PW4 found that the said place was situated in the jurisdiction of PS Sonia Vihar, behind 2 ½ Pusta Parking. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Nitin reached the place of incident and verified that the said place of incident was correct. After verifying the place, he prepared a rukka which is Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Nitin for registration of FIR, who took the rukka to PS and got the FIR registered. After sometime, Ct. Nitin returned to the spot with a copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that he had prepared the site plan on his own which is Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at Point B. He inquired from some public persons of the locality after showing them the said video. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Nitin reached at 2 ½ Pusta Parking where he met the owner FIR no. 311/20 State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu Page no.5/10 of the said parking, namely Sonu. On inquiry and showing the said video to Sonu, he identified the said person who was standing on the idol of Lord Shiva, as Sunil @ Sullu. Sonu further told him that Sunil used to sleep in the parking and at that time, he was sleeping there with his friend. Thereafter, he apprehended the accused Sunil @ Sullu on the identification of Sonu and interrogated him, on which he accepted his guilt. Thereafter, he arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C, both bearing his signature at point C. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW2/D bearing his signature at point B. He has further deposed that information regarding arrest of the accused was given to his friend Sonu as there was no person available from his family. Thereafter, he briefed the facts of the incident to the SHO concerned. Thereafter, he took accused to JCP Hospital for his medical examination. After medical examination, accused was sent to lockup. On the next day, accused was produced before the court concerned and remanded to Judicial Custody. During investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses. He has further deposed that after completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and submitted it before the court for trial. He has correctly identified accused in the Court. He has also correctly identified the accused standing on an idol of Lord Shiva in one of the two FIR no. 311/20 State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu Page no.6/10 photographs shown to him as placed on Judicial File.
4. After closure of Prosecution Evidence, statement of the accused was recorded on 12.04.2022, wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated and he was merely putting garland on the statue of Lord Shiva and did not have any bad intention. Accused did not choose to lead any evidence in his defence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.
5. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the APP for state and Ld. counsel for accused and gone through the materials available on record.
Ingredients of Offence: -
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for offence punishable under Section 295 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove:
(1) That the accused destroyed/damaged/defiled any place of worship/object, held sacred by any class of persons; (2) That his act was done intentionally with a view to insult the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such an act to be an insult to their religion.
Analysis and Appreciation of Evidence and Reasons for Decision
7. Coming to the offence U/s 295 IPC, it is seen that prosecution has proved on record that accused had climbed up on the statue of Lord FIR no. 311/20 State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu Page no.7/10 Shiva and in the photograph of the footage (screen shot) Ex. P1, he can be seen wearing shoes and this act of his can be clearly considered to be with the knowledge that any class of person may consider such an act to be an insult to their religion and such a conduct amounts to defilement of the statue of Lord Shiva. Though, the original video footage was never produced before the court, but not only the photograph of the footage is filed on record, but independent witness namely Sonu has deposed that he was shown video footage by PW/SI Tarun and had identified accused in the said footage and further he identified the accused in the photograph of screen-shot of video footage. As fas as accused is concerned, he has not denied his presence in the footage and the photograph Ex. P1. PW2 Ct. Nitin Tomar and IO SI Tarun Kumar have deposed that intimation was received by police regarding uploading of a video footage on twitter and on enquiry it was learnt that the footage was of accused Sunil @ Sullu standing on the idol of Lord Shiva and the statue of Lord Shiv was found situated within the jurisdiction of PS Sonia Vihar. No suggestion was put to PW2, PW3 and PW4 to the effect that the photographs of screen-shot as filed on record are morphed or that the person shown in the photograph Ex. P1 is not accused Sunil @ Sullu himself, but some other person. In his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused stated that he was putting garland on the statue of Lord Shiv by climbing over the statue and he did not have any FIR no. 311/20 State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu Page no.8/10 bad intention and was drunk at that time. Hence, it is seen that accused has not denied his presence in the footage and the alleged act of climbing over the statue of Lord Shiva wearing shoes. MLC of accused of the fateful day is neither placed on judicial file, nor proved on record for the court to examine if the accused was in drunken condition at the relevant time. However, it is relevant to note here that Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code, categorically provides that in case of voluntary intake of alcohol and reason of a person being impaired on account of the intoxication, it is a no excuse for commission of an offence and the knowledge shall be imputed to the said individual. In case 'Mirza Ghani Baig Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 2 Crimes19 (AP)', it has been observed that the court must attribute to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober unless he was besides his mind altogether at the time of incident. Accused has neither led any evidence to show that he was intoxicated at the relevant time, nor has he taken any defence of any involuntary intake of alcohol. Hence, from the evidences available on record, offence U/s 295 IPC stands proved against the accused.
8. In view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has established the charge U/s 295 IPC against accused Sunil @ Sullu beyond reasonable doubt. For the foregoing reasons, accused Sunil @ Sullu is convicted for offence U/s 295 IPC.
FIR no. 311/20 State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu Page no.9/10
9. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convict. Copy of Digitally signed the judgment be uploaded on the official website. by MAYURI SINGH MAYURI Location:
Karkardooma SINGH Courts Complex, Court No.1 Date: 2022.04.23 09:50:07 +0530 Announced in open Court (MAYURI SINGH) on 23.04.2022 ACMM (North East) KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR no. 311/20 State Vs. Sunil @ Sullu Page no.10/10