Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Chauhan on 4 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT ARORA
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. SANJAY CHAUHAN
FIR No.308/12
PS: Shakarpur
JUDGMENT:
A New Number of the case 5782/16
B Name of the Complainant HC Rohtash
Name of the accused & his Sanjay Chauhan s/o Sh. S.D.S. C parentage and address Chauhan R/o A-23, Krishna Kunj, Laxmi Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi D Offence complained of : 3 D.P.D.P. Act Date of commission of 24.04.2012 E offence F Date of Institution 20.07.2012 G Offence charged 3 D.P.D.P. Act H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty I Order Reserved on 04.10.2018 J Date of pronouncement 04.10.2018 Final Order Acquitted of offence u/s 3 D.P.D.P. K Act BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION ALLEGATIONS
1. The story of the prosecution as per charge sheet is as under:-
2. On 24.04.2012, PW3 ASI Rohtash (Investigating officer) alongwith Ct.
Sanjay was on patrolling duty. When they reached at Pushta Road, Ramesh Park, Near Lalita Park, Delhi they noticed that one flex board was affixed on two Electric Poles over the road near Samuday Bhawan, FIR No.308/12 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.1 of 6 Ramesh Park in which request was made to public at large to vote in favour of accused Sanjay Chauhan. The same was used for upcoming Councilor Elections for his political benefit as he was contesting election for Congress (I) Party, from Ward No.221, Krishan Kunj with election symbol. Hence, by pasting the said flex board on the said property, the accused had defaced the public property in public view. Therefore, accused is alleged to have committed offence u/s 3 DPDP Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. Accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act was framed against accused and read out to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
5. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has examined three witnesses in all.
6. PW1 Sh. Praveen Kumar is the photographer who did not support the prosecution case. He deposed that he never clicked any photograph nor he was called by the police to click the same. He was duly cross- examined by Ld. APP. However, he failed to support the prosecution case and failed to identify the photographs of the flex board.
7. IO/ASI Rohtash, PW3 has deposed in terms of the prosecution case. He deposed that he saw a flex board affixed on the two electric poles at FIR No.308/12 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.2 of 6 Samuday Bhawan, Ramesh Park. He deposed that a photographer was called who clicked the photograph of the said board. The photographs were marked as Mark P-1 to Mark P-5 and seized the board was seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. Site plan is Ex. PW1/D. He was extensively cross- examined.
8. PW2 is HC Sanjay who also accompanied the IO during investigation. He also deposed on the same lines as of the IO.
9. Accused admitted the registration of FIR u/s 294 Cr.PC hence the examination of duty officer was dispensed with.
10.After completion of PE, statement of accused was recorded wherein he denied all the allegations. He stated that he did not affixed the flex board and he was falsely implicated in connivance with the opposition party.
11.Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
12. Ld. APP for state contended that the witness of the prosecution i.e. IO has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the flex board was affixed by the accused on the two electric pole and the offence u/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is made out. On the other hand Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that there are various lacunaes in the prosecution case as no independent witness was joined to prove that such a flex board was affixed. No inquiry was made as to who has affixed the flex board; that no inquiry was made from the Printer as to who had ordered for the printing of flex board. He further contends FIR No.308/12 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.3 of 6 that the photographs Mark P-1 to Mark P-5 has not been proved as per law as there is no certificate under Sec. 65 B Indian Evidence Act. Ld. Counsel further contends that such a flex board can be very easily got printed by any person and in the absence of any direct evidence showing that the same was affixed by the accused or at his instance by his supporters, accused cannot be convicted and he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
13. I have perused the entire record including the statement of witnesses.
14. It is trite to say that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
15. In the instant case there are many loop holes in the version of the prosecution story. It is pertinent to note the during the cross-examination of PW3 he admitted that he has not seen any person who has fixed the abovesaid flex board. He further admitted that he has not seen that the accused has himself fixed the same. He further admitted that the public person did not disclose the name of the accused as they have not seen the name of the accused. Even he admitted that the charge-sheet has been filed only on the basis of the photograph which has been affixed on flex board. Thus, going by the cross-examination of the IO, I find that the investigation in the present matter were not conducted and the IO failed to discharge his duties as required by law. The IO never made any investigation from the public person in this regard nor he made any FIR No.308/12 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.4 of 6 inquiry to ascertain from where the flex board was got printed. Even the photographer cited by the prosecution to prove the fact that the banner was actually affixed on electric pole had not supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 denied that he clicked any photograph or he was ever called by the police to click the photographer. He was confronted with those photograph even then he denied to have clicked them. I am in agreement with the argument advanced by Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution in the first place has failed to prove that a banner was actually affixed on the electricity poles. Though there are photographs wherein a banner is seen affixed on electricity poles however, no certificate u/s 65B was placed on record. Now merely because accused was contesting as a Councilor election on a National Party Ticket and a banner was fixed with his photograph does not leads to a presumption that the banner was fixed by the accused himself. There has to be some evidence in this regard to show that the banner was affixed by the supporters of the accused at his instance or under his directions. In the instant case there is no such evidence led by the prosecution.
16. I am also in agreement with the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that such a flex board can be printed by any third person to implicate the accused out of political rivalry. The possibility of the fact that the flex board was affixed by the opposite party or by opposite contestant cannot be ruled out as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had got the said flex board printed. Such a flex board can be printed and affixed by any person and as such once the accused is refusing that he affixed the flex board, the possibility of his opponents pasting the flex board in order to implicate him cannot be ruled out. The examination of printing press officials would have provided additional corroboration to the FIR No.308/12 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.5 of 6 version of prosecution. They could have provided the name of person on whose behalf that flex board was published and the same would have been vital piece of evidence. However, the investigation on this aspect was not conducted Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the allegation against the accused.
CONCLUSION
17. In view of my above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are several loop holes in the prosecution story which give rise to doubt in the mind of the court as regards the alleged investigation and inclines the court to give benefit of doubt to accused.
18. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions accused is acquitted of offence u/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.
19. As per section 437-A of the Cr.P.C as inserted vide the Amendments Act which came into force on 31.12.2009, accused shall furnish fresh personal bond and surety bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- today which shall remain intact for a period of six months from today.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. ANNOUNCED ON 04.10.2018 (AMIT ARORA) ACMM (E)/KKD/Delhi/04.10.2018 Certified that this judgment was directly typed by my personal AMIT Digitally signed by AMIT ARORA assistant on computer directly on my dictation. DN: c=IN, o=OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE....., 2.5.4.20=5d03bd2902bae524e4720 (AMIT ARORA) 81070b034ee609e5ec0ad1936d93a ARORA 0429d51816814c, ou=HIGH ACMM (E)/KKD/Delhi/04.10.2018 COURT,CID - 6309251, postalCode=110092, st=Delhi, cn=AMIT ARORA Date: 2018.10.04 16:18:37 +05'30' FIR No.308/12 State v. Sanjay Chauhan Page No.6 of 6