Delhi District Court
State vs Shakti Kumar Etc on 7 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02,
DISTRICT EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Prerna Rai, DJS
State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC
FIR No. 281/2013
CNR NO. DLET020013862013
PS. Geeta Colony
U/s. 160 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) CR Case number of the case : 5790/2016
2) The date of commission of offence : 25.06.2013
3) The name of the complainant : SI Deepak PS Geeta Colony
4) The name & parentage of accused persons : 1. Shakti Kumar S/o Sh. Laxman Kumar
2. Pradeep Goswami S/o Late Sh.
Rajender Goswami
3. Subodh @ Rajesh S/o Khadoori FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 1 of 12 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.05.07 16:46:59 +0530
5) Offence involved : 160 of IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Accused persons stands acquitted of the offence Under Sec. 160 IPC.
8) The date of such order : 07.05.2026 Date of Institution : 16.11.2013 Judgment reserved on : 18.04.2026 JUDGMENT BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:-
01. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.06.2013 at about 11:26 PM, at main road near SDM Office, in front of Geeta Colony Flyover, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Geeta Colony, the accused persons namely 1. Shakti Kumar, 2. Pradeep Goswami and 3. Subodh @ Rajesh were found quarreling and fighting with each other in a public place, thereby disturbing public peace and committing an affray punishable under Section 160 IPC.
02. Upon receipt of DD No. 35A regarding quarrel, SI Deepak along with HC Satish reached the spot and allegedly found the accused persons fighting. Two accused persons were apprehended at the spot, FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 2 of 12 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA Date:
RAI RAI 2026.05.07 16:47:05 +0530 while one accused allegedly fled and was later arrested. Thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 160 IPC. Charge.
03. Upon filing of the charge-sheet and after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned counsel for the accused persons, and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court found that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons namely Shakti Kumar, Pradeep Goswami and Subodh @ Rajesh for the commission of offence punishable under Section 160 IPC.
04. Accordingly, vide order dated 31.10.2014, a formal charge for the offence punishable under Section 160 IPC was framed against all the accused persons. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to them in simple Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution evidence.
05. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses. The entire prosecution case rests primarily on the testimonies of police officials, as no independent public witness was examined.
06. Prosecution Witness No. 1 SI Rampal Singh (Duty Officer) who deposed that on the intervening night of 25-26.06.2013, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Geeta Colony. At about 01:30 AM, a rukka was brought by HC Satish, sent by IO SI Deepak Kumar. On the basis of the said rukka, he registered the present FIR through the computerized FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 3 of 12 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.05.07 16:47:13 +0530 system. He proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW1/B. His testimony is purely formal in nature and relates only to the registration of FIR. No material contradiction emerged in his cross-examination.
07. Prosecution Witness No. 2 SI Deepak (Investigating Officer) who is the material witness and the Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed that on the intervening night of 25-26.06.2013, upon receiving DD No. 35A regarding a quarrel, he along with HC Satish reached the spot i.e., near SDM Office, Geeta Colony Flyover. He stated that upon reaching the spot, he found a crowd gathered and noticed three persons quarreling and fighting with each other. He attempted to pacify them, but they did not heed his request. Thereafter, with the help of HC Satish, he overpowered them. He further stated that one accused, namely Subodh, managed to escape from the spot. He prepared the rukka (Ex. PW2/A) and sent it through HC Satish for registration of FIR. After registration, HC Satish returned to the spot with FIR copy and rukka. Thereafter:
* Accused Shakti Kumar and Pradeep Goswami were arrested vide memos Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. * Their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.
PW2/D and Ex. PW2/E. * Both were released on police bail.
He further deposed that accused Subodh was arrested later on 03.07.2013 vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/F and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/G. However, during cross-examination, several significant FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 4 of 12 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA Date:
RAI RAI 2026.05.07 16:47:18 +0530 aspects emerged:
* He admitted that no independent public person was joined in the investigation despite their presence. * He did not prepare any site plan of the place of occurrence. * He did not collect CCTV footage from the nearby SDM Office.
* No videography or photography of the incident was conducted.
* He did not inquire into the cause of quarrel. * He did not note details of vehicles allegedly present at the spot.
* He did not verify presence of any security guard at the SDM office.
08. Prosecution Witness PW-3: Retired ASI Satish Chand, who deposed that upon receipt of DD No. 35A regarding quarrel, he along with SI Deepak reached the spot and found a crowd gathered and voices of hue and cry. He supported the version that three persons were quarrelling and were apprehended.
He also corroborated the fact that:
* Rukka was prepared by IO and sent through him for registration of FIR.
* Accused Shakti and Pradeep were arrested at the spot. * One accused fled away.
However, in cross-examination, material contradictions and admissions surfaced:
* He admitted that he did not see accused Subodh escaping.
FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 5 of 12
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.05.07
16:47:23
+0530
* He stated that accused persons were abusing each other and not necessarily physically assaulting. * He admitted that no independent witness was joined. * No injury was caused to any accused. * No weapon was recovered.
* He had no knowledge of the actual cause of quarrel. * He admitted that except police officials, no one witnessed the alleged incident.
Statement of Accused (u/s 313 Cr.P.C.)
09. All incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons was put to them individually, to which they denied the allegations and claimed false implication.
Accused Shakti Kumar stated that on the day of incident, he was coming along with co-accused Subodh when police officials stopped them for security checking. According to him, after some time, Subodh was allowed to leave but he was taken to the police station and falsely implicated in the present case. He denied that any quarrel or affray took place.
Accused Subodh @ Rajesh stated that he was stopped by police during checking while he was with his family. He was allowed to leave but was asked to come to the police station later. On the next day, he went to the police station and submitted vehicle documents. He claimed that he came to know about the case only upon receiving summons from the Court. He denied his presence at the spot during any quarrel.
Accused Pradeep Goswami stated that he was returning from FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 6 of 12 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.05.07 16:47:27 +0530 his office in Noida and was stopped for routine vehicle checking. He alleged that police officials misbehaved with him and later falsely implicated him in the present case. He denied any involvement in the alleged incident.
All accused persons emphasized that no such incident took place. No independent public witness was examined and they were falsely implicated by police. All accused declined to lead any defence evidence.
Points for Determination
10. The following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the accused persons were engaged in fighting at a public place?
2. Whether such act amounted to affray under Section 160 IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?
Appreciation of Evidence and and Reason for decision
11. I have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 7 of 12 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.05.07 doubt, unless provided otherwise by the Statute.
12. In the present case, accused persons have been charged for the offence under section 160 IPC.
13. Section 160 IPC deals with the punishment for the offence of affray defined under section 159 IPC. Section 159 IPC reads as under :
"159. Affray.-- When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to "commit an affray".
14. From the definition it is clear that the offence of Affray is committed when two or more persons fight in a public place and disturb the public peace.
15. In Vishwanath Gadkar vs State of Haryana CRM-M-18080 of 2022, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High court has observed that:
"9. Tracing back the view as regard the allegations in the case at hand are concerned, it was held in Jagannath Sah vs. Emperor, AIR 1937 Oudh, 425, that the offence of affray as defined in Section 159 IPC postulates the commission of definite assault and a breach of the peace and mere quarreling or abusing in street without exchange of blows is not sufficient to attract the application of this Section and this Court in Puran Chand vs. The State, 1963 PLR 813, observed that to constitute affray exchange of blows was a must.
10. An essential ingredient of the offence being disturbance of public peace is more pervasive and of wider reach. There must be a prima facie positive evidence of having disturbed the tranquility, which is complained of by the one affected. The police have to of course keep a vigil and take prompt action where required to restore peace but are also duty bound to FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 8 of 12 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.05.07 16:47:37 +0530 distinguish between the different forms of altercation, so as to set the criminal law in motion. Independent corroboration to the alleged incident is conspicuously absent. There being no concept of automatic presumption of disturbance of peace, no material is on the record from which it may be patent that there was a supervening apprehension of threat or danger to a third person present at the spot, eventuating in the peace being disturbed, on account of the altercation as alleged between the petitioner and his co-accused friend (now deceased). Suffice it to say that the FIR ex facie lacks the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 159 IPC, for which the petitioner has been made to stand trial."
16. From the above discussed law, it is clear that for an offence of affray assault/physical flight where blows are exchanged is an essential ingredient and such physical fight must have breached the public peace which is reflective by a complaint being made by one affected by such fight.
17. In the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons were quarrelling with each other. PW 2 deposed that the accused persons were fighting among themselves, however, PW3 deposed that the accused persons were not assaulting but abusing one another.. Firstly, there is a contradiction in the testimonies of witnesses on this point, and secondly, even if for the sake of argument, it is considered that the accused persons were fighting or quarrelling with each other, none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed about the manner in which the accused persons were quarreling or fighting so as to make the act in question fall within ambit of the offence of Affray. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons were actually FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 9 of 12 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.05.07 16:47:43 +0530 involved in physical assault by exchanging blows or that the alleged fight or quarrel between the accused persons caused disturbance in public tranquility.
18. Further, it is also stated by all the prosecution witnesses that the place of incident is a public place and public persons were present at the alleged spot of incident, still the public persons were not examined in the present case. No explanation has been given for not examining the public persons. Both PW-2 and PW-3 admitted that there were several public persons were present at the spot. However, no independent witness was joined in the investigation. Furthermore, no CCTV footage of the incident has brought on record.
19. Further, PW3, in his cross examination had admitted that no public person gave him any complaint regarding breach of peace. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that public peace was actually breached by the alleged quarrel of the accused persons.
20. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Upmanyu & Ors vs. State of Haryana [2023:PHHC:151949] held that:
"10. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, a perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations against the petitioners are of speaking loudly and causing obstructions to general public traffic. Even the said allegations if taken to be true would not constitute an offence under Section 160 IPC. There is nothing on record to show that the accused successfully or even otherwise exchanged any blows or hot words. There is no independent evidence on record to establish that there was a disturbance of public peace due to the fight in a public place. Merely causing inconvenience to the public cannot FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 10 of 12 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.05.07 16:47:48 +0530 be considered to be sufficient to constitute the offence of affray. Even the improved version coming forth in the replies of the State that the five persons were spotted rioting, shouting loudly and created hindrance in the traffic, in the absence of any independent evidence would not make out any offence.
21. In the present case also, as noted above, admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the spot, but they were not made to join in the investigation. This casts a doubt on the case of prosecution.
22. Further, PW3 in his cross examination had categorically admitted that he did not see accused Subodh escaping and has not properly seen him at the spot. This creates serious doubt regarding his presence at the spot at the time of incident. Moreover, the prosecution has not examined the caller, W/Ct Deepa, who was one of the eyewitness to the incident. These infirmities have further created strong doubts on the prosecution's case and have weaken the case of prosecution.
Conclusion:
23. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Neeraj is entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, accused persons namely 1. Shakti Kumar, 2. Pradeep Goswami and 3. Subodh @ Rajesh are stands acquitted of the offence Under Sec. 160 IPC.
24. Ordered accordingly.
FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 11 of 12
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.05.07
16:47:54
+0530
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.05.07
16:48:01
+0530
Announced in open Court (Prerna Rai)
on 07th May, 2026 JMFC-02/East/KKD Courts/Delhi
NOTE: This judgment contains 11 pages and each page has been signed by me.
FIR No. 281/2013 State Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR ETC Page 12 of 12