Delhi District Court
State vs Babu Lal on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAMIKSHA GUPTA,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
State Vs. Babu Lal
FIR No. 246/2024
PS - Palam Village
CNR No. DLSW02-023272-2025
1. Serial No. of case 1301/2025
2. Date of institution 12.02.2025
3. Name of the complainant HC Rambir
4. Date of commission of offence 16.04.2024
5. Name of accused Babu Lal S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o RZD-1/47, Gali No. 07,
Mahavir Enclave, Palam, New
Delhi
6. Offence complained of U/s 3 of Delhi Prevention of
Defacement of Property Act.
7. Plea of accused Not guilty
8. Final order Acquittal
9 Date of judgment 17.12.2025
FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 1 of 11
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of prosecution that on 16.04.2024 at around 7.30 pm at Mahavir Enclave, Gali No. 7 near Sanatan Dharm Mandir, accused had advertised one banner on electricity pole bearing contents "Hamare yaha band godi ................. Mob. No.9718776322, 8076727152" and had defaced the said public property. Thus, prosecution has set up a case under Section 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 ("DPDP Act", hereinafter) against him.
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by police, charge sheet was filed and copy of the same was supplied to accused. On the basis of charge sheet, notice for committing offence punishable under Section 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act was served upon him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined two witnesses, who are as under:
Sr.No Name of Prosecution Witness Nature of Evidence
1. HC Rambir Complainant / Investigating FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 2 of 11 Officer
2. HC Vishram 2nd Investigating Officer
4. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Exhibits Documents
1. Ex.PW1/A Tehrir / rukka
2. Ex.PW 1/B Site plan
3. Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo of case proerty
4. Ex. PX-1 Photograph of case property
5. Ex. PW 2/A Notice under Sec. 41A Cr.PC served
upon the accused
6. Ex. PW 2/B Pabandinama
7. Ex. PW 2/C Interrogation Report
8. Ex.A-1 (Colly) FIR along with certificate under Sec.
65-B of Indian Evidence Act
9. Ex. A-2 GD No.0125A dated 18.12.2024
5. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein he stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
6. The evidence of prosecution witnesses in the present case is FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 3 of 11 discussed hereunder:
6.2 PW-1 HC Rambir has deposed that he was on patrolling duty on 16.04.2024 along with HC Ram Avatar. When they reached near Gali No.7 near Sanatan Dharam Mandir, they saw that one banner bearing contents " Hamare yaha band, godi .............. Mob. No. 9718776322,8076727152" was affixed on electricity pole. The said board was found to be defacing public property. He clicked the photograph of the said banner. He prepared tehrir and got registered the present FIR through HC Ram Avatar. After registration of FIR, he prepared site plan and seized the case property. He correctly identified accused present in Court. Identity of accused as well as case property were not disputed by Ld. LADC for accused.
During cross-examination, he stated that he did not see who had affixed the banner on electricity pole and he did not serve any notice to any public person. He further stated that no intimation to MCD was given by him. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present case and the case property was planted upon him.
6.2 PW-2 HC Vishram has deposed that further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He served notice to the accused, FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 4 of 11 prepared interrogation report and released the accused on furnishing pabandinama. Identity of accused as well as case property were not disputed by Ld. LADC for accused.
During cross-examination, he stated that he did not see who had affixed the banner on electricity pole and he did not serve any notice to any public person. He further stated that no intimation to MCD was given by him. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present case and the case property was planted upon him.
7. Analysis & Findings:-
(a) Arguments heard. Record perused. (b) It is argued on behalf of accused that the banner was not put up
by him. It was also contended that accused was not seen by anyone while pasting the board on public property.
(c) To bring home the charge under Section 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following components:-
(i) The accused has defaced (impairing/interfering with the appearance) a public property;
FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 5 of 11 (ii) Such property must be in public view;
(iii) Such defacement is by writing/marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material; and
(iv) Such defacement is not for the purpose of indicating name/address of owner/occupier of the property in question.
(d) Whether affixation of the board amounts to defacement has been considered by way of several judicial precedents. Section 2(a) of DPDP Act defines 'defacement' as:
"defacement" includes impairing or interfering with the appearance or beauty, damaging, disfiguring, spoiling or injuring in any other way whatsoever and the word "deface" shall be construed accordingly.
In the present case, admittedly, there is no allegation that the accused had defaced any public property with ink, chalk, paint or any other material. The only allegation is that he had pasted/affixed a banner on public property. Thus, the basic ingredient as to 'defacement' is not made out in the present case. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. The State & Anr. of (Delhi High Court dated 08.08.2024) and T.S. Marwah & Ors. Vs. State : 2008 (4) JCC 2561.
FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 6 of 11
(e) Even otherwise, there are several loopholes in the prosecution version and it is important to ascertain whether or not the banner in question was affixed by the accused on electricity pole.
(f) At the outset, there is no eye-witness to affixing of the disputed banner either from public or police. Not only that, there is no public person to witness the procedure of removal of the said banner from the electricity pole.
(g) Additionally, the banner is shown to have been recovered from a busy locality which is visited by several people. However, there is not a single public witness who saw the accused affixing the same or any public person who saw the police officials removing the same. Under these circumstances, there is absolute non compliance of Section 100 (4) Cr. P.C which specifically provides that whenever any search or seizure is done by an investigating officer, the latter before making search or seizure shall join at least two independent respectable local inhabitants from the same locality in which search is to be effected.
(h) The word used in Section 100(4) Cr. P.C is "shall" which makes it mandatory. An investigating officer is granted liberty to join independent witnesses from other locality only when the witnesses FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 7 of 11 from the same locality are either not available or they refuse to become witness. It appears that no sincere efforts were made to join independent witnesses from the same locality.
In case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
In a case law reported as Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court it was held as under:
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 8 of 11 gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses form the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner".
"4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency 19.01.2013 should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 9 of 11 proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
The laxity on the part of the IO when he did not take sincere steps to join the public persons in the proceedings of the present case is beyond comprehension. The banner was removed from a public place. There was ample opportunity for the IO to join public persons in the proceedings but he did not do so which casts doubt on the veracity of prosecution version.
(i) It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The photograph of the spot was taken by the IO. No certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was placed in support of the photograph to prove the same. Further, the cell phone/device remained in possession of the IO throughout without any seal, under such circumstances, veracity of its contents comes under a cloud.
FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 10 of 11
(j) Moreover, the seizure memo of the board Ex. PW1/C bears the FIR number while the same was prepared when the FIR was not even in existence. This is evident from the testimony of PW-1/HC Rambir and the FIR itself. The fact that the FIR number is mentioned in the seizure memo reveals that the same was prepared after the registration of the FIR and the same is an ante-timed document. Accordingly, the seizure memo of the banner which is the most crucial document of the present case has not been proved to be reliable.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the case of the prosecution has several loopholes which go to the root of the matter. The prosecution has not been able to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Babu Lal S/o Sh. Shyam Lal is acquitted of the offence made punishable under Section 3, DPDP Act in the present case.
Pronounced in open Court on 17th December, 2025 (SAMIKSHA GUPTA) Chief Judicial Magistrate, South West District Dwarka Courts: Delhi FIR No. 246/2024 PS - Palam Village U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 11 of 11