Delhi District Court
State vs . Nakul Bhardwaj on 23 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF Ms. Shilpi Jain
METROPOLITAN MEGISTRATE-01(CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI - 110054
FIR No.78/04
PS - Maurice Nagar
State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj
Unique Case ID No.02401R0111582005
JUDGMENT
(a) Sr. No. of the Case 02401R0111582005
(b) Date of offence 26.06.2004
(c) Complainant Professor K. M. Shrimali,
S/o Sh. Manmohan Lal Shrimali
R/o 155,Vaishali, Pitam Pura, Delhi-88
(d) Accused Nakul Bhardwaj
S/o Late Anand Bhardwaj
R/o DD 593, Sector-4, Shiv Colony, Palwal,
Haryana
(e) Offence 427/506 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of Institution 05.02.2005
(i) Date when judgment was 23.06.2016
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 23.06.2016
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:-
1. The present FIR was registered at PS Maurice Nagar against the accused namely, Nakul Bhardwaj for the offence U/s 427/506 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26.06.2004 at about 12.15 pm FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 1 to 12 at Delhi University Library, University of Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Maurice Nagar accused committed mischief causing loss/damage of amount of more than Rs.50 to the property of the office of the University librarian, Centre reference library, first floor, Delhi University and also extended threat of complainant and thereby committed offence U/s 427/506 IPC.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police in the Court and the copy of the charge sheet and annexed documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, accused Nakul Bhardwaj was discharged for the offence U/s 506 IPC vide detailed order dated 23.02.2013 passed by Ld. Predecessor and charge u/s 427 IPC was framed against him vide order dated 23.02.2013, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was fixed for PE. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 6 witness.
5. PW-1 namely Sh. Komal Singh, who deposed that at the relevant time he went to the room of Shrimaouli (OSD) for taking his signatures on some documents but he do not remember the description of documents, that he cannot tell the date of incident, that one student came there and Shrimali asked him to go outside and he left his room thereafter, that after some time, it FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 2 to 12 came to his knowledge that a quarrel took place at the first floor, that he do not know any Nakul Bhardwaj, that nothing was seized in his presence, that police officials did not record his statement, that he was Semi Professional Assistant in the Library.
6. During the cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State, he denied that on 26.06.2004, he alongwith Salim Anwar (Assistant Librarian) was discussing some official matter with Prof. Sh. K.M. Shrimaouli, that in the meantime, Nakul Bhardwaj (Ex. President DUSU) sent his visiting card to Shrimaouli as he wanted to meet with him, that Shrimaouli asked Nakul Bhardwaj to wait for some time as he was busy in discussion with them, that in the meantime, Nakul Bhardwaj alongwith his friend entered the room/office and started using abusive language and also started making noise, that thereafter he started breaking articles lying inside the office, that Nakul Bhardwaj started breaking computer, telephone, table glass, fax machine, pen stand, etc. lying on the table, that Nakul Bhardwaj also turned down the said table, that in the meantime, other staff also reached there and they tried to stop Nakul Bhardwaj, that he also threatened Prof. K.M. Shrimaouli "aaj toh tumhe chod diya hai, main ABVP ka neta hoon, agar aisa hua toh tumhe nahi chodunga", that IO prepared site plan at the instance of Shrimaouli, that IO got click the photographs of the spot and of broken articles, that IO also seized the visiting cards of Nakul Bhardwaj, that his statement was recorded by the police officials, that he is deposing falsely as he has won over by the accused.
FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 3 to 12
7. PW-2 is is Salim Anwar who deposed that at the relevant time, Prof. Shrimali was their professor incharge, library system, that he was discussing some matter with him relating to department, that one attendant came there and asked Mr. Shrimaouli that some students wanted to meet him, that he asked attendant to wait for some time and instructed him to ask the student about the matter, that after some time, the said attendant again came there, that he asked Shrimaouli that students wanted to meet him, that in the meantime, suddenly, 4-5 students entered the office and started talking with Shrimaouli regarding some payment issue, that some heated arguments took place there, that in the meantime, someone turned down the table lying in the office, that he went to Shrimaouli to look whether he had sustained any injury, that thereafter, the said students left the spot, that he do not remember anything else as the case pertains to year 2004, that he also cannot tell whether his signatures were obtained on any paper or not, that he cannot identify the accused persons as the case is very old, that he also cannot identify the case property as the case pertains to year 2004.
8. During the cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State, PW-2 denied that on 26.06.2004, he alongwith Komal Singh was discussing some official matter with Prof. Sh. K.M. Shrimaouli, that in the meantime, Nakul Bhardwaj (Ex. President DUSU) sent his visiting card to Shrimaouli as he wanted to meet with him, that Shrimaouli asked Nakul Bhardwaj to wait for some time as he FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 4 to 12 was busy in discussion with them, that in the meantime, Nakul Bhardwaj alongwith his friend entered the room/office and started using abusive language and also started making noise, that thereafter he started breaking articles lying inside the office, that Nakul Bhardwaj started breaking computer, telephone, table glass, fax machine, pen stand, etc. lying on the table, that Nakul Bhardwaj also turned down the said table, that in the meantime, other staff also reached there and they tried to stop Nakul Bhardwaj, that he also threatened Prof. K.M. Shrimaouli "aaj toh tumhe chod diya hai, main ABVP ka neta hoon, agar aisa hua toh tumhe nahi chodunga", that IO prepared site plan at the instance of Shrimaouli, that IO got click the photographs of the spot and of broken articles, that the broken articles i.e. table glass, pen stand, paperweight as mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW2/A was seized in his presence, that IO also seized the visiting cards of Nakul Bhardwaj Ex.Mark-X, that his statement was recorded by the police officials, that Shrimauoli gave a written complaint to the IO in his presence, that he is deposing falsely as he has been won over by the accused.
9. PW-3 is HC Niraj Kumar, who deposed that on 26.06.2004, he was posted as a constable at P.S. Maurice Nagar, that after receiving DD, he alongwith SI Dinesh Kumar reached at the spot i.e. Arts Faculty, Library, first floor, that one Professor namely Shrimaouli met them there who told them that two boys came there and damages the articles of his office, that thereafter, he handed over one written complaint to the IO, that thereafter IO made endorsement on FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 5 to 12 it and handed over the same to him for registration of case, that after registration of case, he came back at the spot and handed over the same to IO, that his statement was recorded.
10. During the cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-3 deposed that he came back at the spot at about 3/3.30p.m. after registration of case, that he left the spot for registration of case at about 2.30 p.m., that he cannot tell the time of reaching at police station with Rukka, that he never visited the spot at any point of time, that he cannot tell the exact time when they reached the spot for the first time, that he cannot tell the time how much time was taken by him for reaching at the police station, that the distance between the spot and P.S. is about 1 KM. He denied that he is deposing falsely.
11. PW-4 is Retired Professor Sh. K. M. Shrimali, who deposed that Before 26.06.2004, he took the charge of as OSD of Delhi University Library System, that on 26.06.2004, he was working in his office and around 12.15 pm, a young man who himself identified as Nakul Bhardwaj ( a leader of ABVP) came into his room with an accomplice and wanted to talk to him on some matter, that he was busy in discussing affairs of library with his colleague Sh. Salim Anwar and Shri Komal Singh, that he requested that young man to wait outside for a while but he insisted upon seeing him immediately, that his colleagues also persuaded him to have patience but he still insisted and then started destroying office equipment i.e. computer processor, fax machine, FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 6 to 12 telephone, table glass etc, that he also over turned furniture in the room and hurled a chair at him, that thereafter, he left the room around 12.30 pm and threatening him, that thereafter, he wrote a letter to SHO of PS Maurice Nagar and reiterating the details of the matter, that his complaint is Ex. PW 4/A, that he cannot identify the accused as the matter is around 12 years old, that no other investigation was conducted in his presence.
12. During the cross by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-4 denied that the broken articles like table glass, paper weight etc. of his office were seized by the police officials and were sealed with the seal of DS in his presence vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 2/A, that the site plan was prepared at his instance by the police officials, that a visiting card of Nakul Bhardwaj was seized in his presence, that he is deposing all the facts intentionally as he has won over by the accused.
13. During the cross examination by Ld. Defene Counsel, PW-4 deposed that his accomplice namely Sh. Salim Anwar and Komal Singh were not present there, that no such occurrence as alleged by him in his examination in chief ever happened, that no computer, processor, fax machine etc. were broken, that he has named the accused because of party politics.
14. PW-5 is ASI Ranbir Singh, who deposed that on 26.06.2004, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Maurice Nagar, that on that day, his duty hours were FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 7 to 12 08.00 am to 04.00 pm, that on that day, constable Neeraj brought the rukka which was handed over by SI Dinesh for registration of case, that thereafter, he registered FIR Ex. PW 5/A (Colly.), that he made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW 5/B, that the copy of FIR and original tehrir was handed over to Ct. Neeraj.
15. During the cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel PW-5 denied that FIR is anti time and anti dated and he is deposing falsely.
16. PW-6 is Inspector Dinesh Sharma, who deposed that on 26.04.2004, he was posted as a SI at PS Maurice Nagar, on that day, on receiving DD no. 18 A, he along with constable Neeraj reached at the spot i.e. Library, Arts Faculty, Delhi University. Complainant Sh. K. M. Shrimali, OSD, Delhi University Library System, met with him and produced the complaint already Ex. PW 4/A, that thereafter, he made endorsement Ex. PW 6/A and sent the rukka through Ct. Neeraj for registration of case, that thereafter, HC Surender reached at the spot and he was sent for taking photographer, that thereafter, he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex. PW 6/B, that HC Surender brought photographer Ranjit at the spot from Jagdamba Photo Studio situated at Patel Chest, that thereafter, photographs of the spot were clicked which are Mark X, that thereafter, he recorded the statement of photographer Ranjit Kumar, that thereafter, he seized table glass, Pen stand, paper weight, thumblers vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 2/A, that he took into FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 8 to 12 possession visiting card of Nakul Bhardwaj/accused which was lying at the spot and the same is already Mark X, that thereafter, Ct. Neeraj reached at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him, that thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded, that he along with staff reached at the PS Maurice Nagar and deposited the case property with MHC (M), that thereafter, he transferred to PS Lahori Gate and he handed over the file to MHC (M), that photographs along with negatives are not in dispute, that at this stage, MHC (M) has produced the case property in a pulinda but the seal of the case property is not legible and in broken condition, that pulinda has been opened with the permission of the court. Thereafter, MHC (M) produced three paper weights, two thumbler, one pen stand, broken pieces of glasses. Witness has identified the same and the whole case property is Ex. P1.
17. During the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-6 admitted that the site plan Ex. PW 6/B does not bear signatures of complainant at whose instance site plan was prepared. He denied that the site plan was not prepared at the instance of complainant, that he received DD no. 18 A at about 1.30 pm and reached within 10 minutes at the spot and remained at the spot till 05.00 pm. He further admitted that DD no. 18A is not on record. He denied that no such information of alleged incident was received by him and that is why DD entry is not on record. He admitted that there is no statement of the official who handed over him the said DD. He admitted that he has not mentioned the specific mark of the company, colour, design of the case property in seizure FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 9 to 12 memo Ex. PW 2/A, that he has seized the case property through seizure memo Ex. PW 2/A and one visiting card of Nakul Bhardwaj, that it is not specifically mentioned that he seized three paper weights. He deposed that he cannot recall whether at the time of seizure of case property, glass tumblers were in broken conditions or not. He further admitted that he has not specifically mentioned in seizure memo that glass tumblers, pen stand were in broken condition, that the three paper weights produced in the court today, are not in broken condition, that the case property including paper weights, pen stand, and tumbler are such type of articles which are easily available in the market. He denied that no alleged incident was occurred, that case property has been procured from junk dealer for strengthening the case that a false case has been registered at the instance of the complainant. He deposed that as he conducted investigation only for one day so he did not make investigation regarding the fact that Nakul Bhardwaj was using such type of visiting cards at that time. He denied that card mark X did not belong to Nakul Bhardwaj, that card Mark X was planted in order to strengthen the case, that he is deposing falsely.
18. Thereafter, PE was closed and matter was fixed for SA. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded by putting entire incriminating evidence to the accused . The accused denied all the allegations against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as complainant belongs to opposite political party. Accused chose not to lead DE. Therefore, DE was FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 10 to 12 closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
19. Final argument heard on behalf of defence counsel as well as State and record perused.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
20. It is a case of prosecution that accused committed mischief and caused loss/damage to the tune of Rs. 50 or more to the property of the office of University Liberian and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 427 IPC. Prosecution has examined three public/eye witnesses as PW-1 namely Sh. Komal Singh, PW-2 Sh. Salim Anwar (Deputy Liberian) and PW-4 Retd. Professor Sh. K. M. Shrimali in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, all the three key witnesses failed to identify the accused as well as case property. All three of them have categorically deposed in their examination in chief that they cannot identify the accused and thereby failed to identify the accused Nakul Bhardwaj. During evidence in the cross examination by Ld. APP for the State all the three witnesses categorically denied that accused has committed the incident in question on the aforesaid date and thereby did not support the case of prosecution and denied all the allegations levelled against the accused in toto. By way of aforesaid testimony in the Court, they failed to support the case of the prosecution as well as failed to identify the accused. Perusal of the entire evidence reveals that all the three public witnesses have not supported the FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 11 to 12 case of prosecution and categorically denied that accused committed any offending act with them. In such kind of cases, evidence of the eye witnesses is the best available evidence and case can be proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of testimony of said witnesses only.
21. In the fact and circumstances, case of prosecution is not supported by the key/eye witness, as they have deposed nothing incriminating against the accused. Upon the testimony of key/eye witnesses offence have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt goes to the credit of accused. Accordingly, accused namely, Nakul Bhardwaj stands acquitted for the offence U/s 427 IPC.
22. Necessary BB with surety along with latest passport size photograph and residence proof furnished in compliance of Section 437 A CrPC. Same is accepted for a period of six months from today.
23. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Pronounced and Signed in the Open Court on 23rd June, 2016 (Shilpi Jain) MM-01(Central)/THC/Delhi 23.06.2016 FIR No. 78/04 State Vs. Nakul Bhardwaj. Page No. 12 to 12