Delhi District Court
State vs . Manish Bucha on 4 September, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP
METROPOLITAN MEGISTRATE01 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI - 110054
FIR No.05/98
PS - Maurice Nagar
State Vs. Manish Bucha
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0118742001
JUDGMENT
(a) Sr. No. of the Case 02401R0118742001
(b) Date of offence 12.01.1997
(c) Complainant Sh. J.K. Kapoor
(d) Accused 1.)Manish Bucha
S/o Sh. B.L. Bucha
R/o A354, Ground Floor, Surya Nagar,
Ghaziabad.
2.)Anil Jha
S/o Late Sh. Anand Mohan Jha
R/o B117, Indira Enclave, Kirari, Delhi.
ETC.
(e) Offence 149/186/353/427 IPC
(f ) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of Institution 27.02.1999
(i) Date when judgment was 04.09.2014
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 04.09.2014
FIR No.05/98 Page no.1 of 13
2
1. Briefly stated, the facts on the case are that accused Manish Bucha and Anil Jha have been chargesheeted in the present case by the police on the allegation that on 12.01.1998, in between 5.00 pm to 8.00pm, at Hansraj College within the jurisdiction of PS Maurice Nagar, both of the said accused alongwith other accused in furtherance of their common object i.e to make an agitation against the expulsion of accused Aakash Chaudhary from Hansraj College, Delhi University, formed an unlawful assembly . It has also been alleged that the accused persons in furtherance of their common object voluntarily obstructed the principal of Hansraj College namely Sh. J.K Kapoor in the discharge of his public function and latter was assaulted by the accused persons while executing his duty as public servant. It has been further alleged that the accused persons committed mischief by causing damage to the property valuing more than Rs.50/ of the Hansraj College. According to the prosecution the accused hereby committed the offence u/s147,149,186,353 and U/s 427 IPC.
2. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed on 27.02.1999 and the accused persons were supplied with copies of challan alongwith annexures in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Charge of the offence u/s 147/149/186/353/427 IPC was put to the accused persons by the Court vide order dt. 03.03.2001 and 27.07.2013 to which accused Manish FIR No.05/98 Page no.2 of 13 3 Bucha and Anil Jha pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. However, accused namely, Harjeet Singh, Shekhar, Jaydeep Mathur, Shalender, Mandeep, Rajeev Tyagi, Shivam Kumar, Chittur Raghav, pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. The said accused/convict were dealt with by the Court separately while trial was conducted by the Court in respect of charge framed against accused Anil Jha and Manish Bucha.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 9 witnesses.
5. Sh. J.K. Kapoor has been examined as PW1, who deposed that annual festival in the Hansraj College was going on in the year 1998 and he was the principal at that time. He further deposed that some students manhandled a peon/employee of college on duty. He deposed that in the staff council meeting, after an inquiry a decision was made to take action against the guilty student. He further deposed that students started agitation in the college and a complaint was lodged. He further deposed that he does not remember the name of the students who were involved in the incident as the incident pertains to the year 1998. PW1 proved on record his complaint as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that police was requested to escort him FIR No.05/98 Page no.3 of 13 4 to his house. He was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and discharged.
6. ASI Devender has been examined as PW2, who deposed that on 12.01.1998 he was posted as HC at PS Maurice Nagar. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Inderpal, Ct. Sarabjeet and one homeguard official was present at the college gate. He further deposed that one student namely Akash Chaudhary was expelled from the college and some students gathered there and were led by one student namely Kuldeep Chaudhary. He further deposed that principal and other staff members were busy in the meeting inside the room. PW2 deposed that in that meeting, it was declared that Kuldeep Chaudhary was expelled and thereafter students started agitating there and he made a call at PS. He further deposed that ASI Mange Ram reached at the spot. He deposed that they tried to make the students understand. He further deposed that SHO and ACP were also called there and police officials escorted the principal to his residence and thereafter students started agitating, abusing and pelting stones. He further deposed that some students were apprehended there and some students ran away from the spot and DUSU president Anil Jha also reached there at the spot. PW2 deposed that he does not remember exactly the name of the students as case pertains to year 1998. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and discharged.
7. HC Saranveer has been examined as PW3. He deposed that on FIR No.05/98 Page no.4 of 13 5 12.01.1998, he was posted as Ct. at PS Maurice Nagar. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith HC Devender , Ct. Inderpal and one homeguard official was present at the gate of Hansraj College. He deposed that one student namely Akash Chaudhary was expelled from the college and some students were sitting on Dharna outside the office of the principal. PW3 deposed that principal and his colleagues were busy in meeting. He deposed that some other students also came there from outside. He further deposed that they started using abusive language and pelting stones and thereafter DUSU president also reached at the spot. He deposed that IO/ASI Mange Ram prepared the rukka at the spot and handed over the same to him for registration of case. Thereafter, he went to PS and after registration of case, he came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. He further deposed that personal search of some students/accused persons were conducted in his presence but he could not remember their names as the case pertains to year 1998. PW3 proved on record Ex.PW3/A to Ex.CW3/H. PW3 could not identify the accused persons. He was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and discharged.
8. Sh. Vipati Ram (Retd SI) has been examined as PW4. He deposed that on 12.01.1998, he was posted as head constable at PS Maurice Nagar. He further deposed that HC Saranvir brought the rukka to PS sent by ASI Mange Ram, on the basis of which he registered the FIR proved on record as Ex.PW4/A. He further FIR No.05/98 Page no.5 of 13 6 deposed that he also made an endorsement on the rukka at point A proved on record as Ex.PW4/B.
9. HC Inderpal Singh has been examined as PW5. He deposed that on 12.01.1998 he was posted as a constable at PS Maurice Nagar. He further deposed that on that day, he along with HC Devender, Ct. Saranvir was on duty at Hansraj College. He deposed that some student were sitting on Dharna in front of the office of the principal as they were protesting against the expulsion of one student from the college. He further deposed that when principal of the college reached there, the students gaheroed him and did not allow him to enter in his office. He further deposed that they intimated duty officer of the police station Maurice Nagar and ASI Mange Ram reached at the spot. He further deposed that after some time, DUSU president Anil Jha alongwith 1015 students also reached there and students started pushing principal of the college. He further deposed that SHO and ACP concerned were also intimated and they also reached at the spot. He further deposed that SHO along with ACP along with the present staff started accompanying principal to his house. He further deposed that students started pelting stones and also broke the flower pots placed there. Thereafter 78 students were apprehended at the spot and they were taken to PS Roop Nagar. PW5 could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and discharged.
FIR No.05/98 Page no.6 of 13
7
10. Retd. ACP Satish Kumar has been examined as PW6. He deposed that on
12.01.1998, he was posted as SHO at PS Maurice Nagar. He further deposed that on that day, in the evening time, he received information that some students gheroad the principal of Hansraj College. He further deposed that he alongwith his staff rushed to Hansraj College where he found that 7080 students were present there and they were shouting slogans against principal of Hansraj College and they were not allowing the principal to move towards his residence. He further deposed that on inquiry, it was revealed that two students namely Akash Chaudhary and Kuldeep Chaudhary were expelled from the college and students were demanding to withdraw the expulsion order of Akash Chaudhary and Kuldeep Chaudhary. He further deposed that principal of the college was advising the students to come on next day if they wanted to resolve the matter. He further deposed that in the meantime, ACP Civil Line Sh. Ashok Sikka arrived at the spot. Thereafter they tried to pacify the students so as not to indulge in illegal practices. He deposed that they tried to move the principal towards his residence and the students present there started pelting stones, broke flower pots and started shouting slogans using filthy language. He further deposed that some of them got injured and out of them Akash chaudhary, Kuldeep Chaudhary alongwith 16 others were apprehended at the spot and taken to the PS and on the complaint of Sh. J.K. Kapoor, Principal Hansraj College FIR was lodged. He was cross examined and discharged.
FIR No.05/98 Page no.7 of 13 8
11. Retd. ACP Sh. Ashok Sikka has been examined as PW7. He deposed that at the time of incident, he was posted as ACP at Civil Lines and PS Maurice Nagar was under his jurisdiction. He further deposed that in the evening time, he got a call regarding the rioting in the Hansraj College. He further deposed that he immediately reached there and SHO PS Maurice Nagar alongwith the staff was found present there. He deposed that they tried to pacify the students who had gheroad the principal but the students did not pay any heed to their advice. He further deposed that he instructed the SHO and the staff present to take the principal to his residence situated inside the college premises. He further deposed that when police officials were taking principal to his residence, some students got agitated and started pelting stones. PW7 deposed that he do not remember the name of all the students but some students namely Kuldeep Chaudhary, Anil Jha etc were present there who were leading the agitation. He further deposed that police arrested some agitating students and thereafter principal was taken into his house. PW7 also could not identify the accused persons as the case pertained to year 1998. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and discharged.
12. Sh. Rakesh Bhardwaj has been examined as PW8. He deposed that on 12.01.1998, at about 09pm, he reached at the residence of principal of Hansraj College. He further deposed that at the directions of the IO, he took photographs of the spot and handed oer the the same alongwith their negatives to the IO. He was FIR No.05/98 Page no.8 of 13 9 cross examined and discharged.
13. Retd. ASI Mange Ram has been examined as PW9. He deposed that on 12.01.1998, he was posted as ASI at PS Maurice Nagar. He further deposed that on that day, on receiving of DD number, he went to the spot i.e in front of principal's residence at Hansraj College, Delhi University, where some students were protesting against the expulsion of student namely Akash and Kuldeep from hostel. He further deposed that after sometime, some more students had joined the protest and the then principal was requested to accompany with him to his residence. He further deposed that he informed the then SHO and ACP regarding the incident and requested them to reach at the spot. He further deposed that after sometime, SHO and ACP came to the spot and they tried to convince/pacify the students but the students kept on protesting. He further deposed that at the request of the principal, they escorted him to the passage of his residence. He further deposed that students started damaging the property of the premises of the principal residence i.e pots, glasses of window etc. PW9 deposed that eight students from the mob were apprehended by him and the staff. He deposed that principal gave him written complaint and he prepared a rukka and sent it to PS for registration of FIR through a Ct. PW9 proved on record the endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW9/A. He deposed that the name of the apprehended boys were Harjeet, Chittaur and he does not remember the name of the other boys/students. Thereafter photographer was called FIR No.05/98 Page no.9 of 13 10 at the spot. He further deposed that during investigation, 1820 more students were arrested in the present case at different times. He further deposed that after completing investigation, he handed over the file to the then SHO. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and discharged.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
14. PE was thereon closed by the Court vide order dt.26.07.2014 and statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 281/313 CrPC vide order dt. 04.08.2014, wherein both the accused denied all the incriminating evidence against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Since, the accused did not wish to lead any defence, hence, matter was fixed for final arguments straightaway.
15. Final arguments heard. File perused.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
16. In the present case, several of the accused persons initially chargesheeted by the police have already pleaded guilty and have been dealt separately by the Court while others have been declared proclaimed offenders after FIR No.05/98 Page no.10 of 13 11 following due process of Law by the Court. As far as accused Manish Bucha and Anil Jha are concerned, it is pertinent to note that none of the said accused has been identified to be a member of the alleged unlawful assembly of the students protesting against the expulsion of their costudents. Even if the non identification of the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses and especially by the complainant is ignored by the Court on account of lapse of time, then also the fact remains that none of the abovesaid two accused have been attributed and associated with any of the alleged offences as per the testimonies available on record. All the prosecution witnesses including the complainant/victim i.e PW1 have not even mentioned the name of accused Manish Bucha to have been present at the spot during the relevant period of time of the alleged incident. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses who have mentioned the name of accused Anil Jha being the then president of the students union, have deposed that the latter came at the spot alongwith his colleagues when the other students were already sitting on a dharna at the spot. No criminal act whatsoever has been attributed to the accused Anil Jha by the prosecution witnesses. It is pertinent to note that even the cross examination of prosecution witnesses by the Ld. APP for the State failed to brought anything substantial on record so as to help the prosecution in proving its case. Neither of the accused have been stated to be the part of unlawful assembly or the persons who assaulted and obstructed the PW1 and no witness has deposed about the accused persons breaking and causing damage to the property of the college premises as FIR No.05/98 Page no.11 of 13 12 alleged in the chargesheet. The prosecution has even failed to establish the presence of accused Manish Bucha at the spot of the incident while the role played by accused Anil Jha in the alleged incident could not be covered by the prosecution to be sufficient for the conviction of the said accused for the offences charged against him. The photographs and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses undoubtedly prove that the alleged incident indeed happened but the same are not sufficient to prove the charges against accused Manish Bucha and Anil Jha beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts.
17. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court has no hesitation in hereby arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Hence, both the accused persons hereby stand acquitted of the offence u/s147,149,186,353 and U/s 427 IPC accordingly.
19. Bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged.
20. Original documents, if any, be returned to the respective parties against receipt after verification and on cancellation of endorsement as per rules.
FIR No.05/98 Page no.12 of 13 13 Be heard on the point of bail u/s 437 A CrPC separately.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced and Signed in the Open Court th on 04 Day of September, 2014. (Harun Pratap) MM01(Central)/THC/Delhi 04.09.2014 FIR No.05/98 Page no.13 of 13