Delhi District Court
State vs Sumit@Chuha on 21 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01, TIS HAZARI COURT,
CENTRAL : DELHI.
STATE VS. SUMIT @ CHUHA
Case no. 12956/2023
FIR No. 491/2023
PS Pahar Ganj
JUDGMENT
(a) Cr. Case No. 12956/2023
(b) Date of offences 12.07.2023
(c) Complainant ASI SURESH KUNDU
(d) Accused SUMIT @ CHUHA S/o Sh.
Sohan Lal R/o H. No. 3224,
Gali School Wali, Pahar Ganj,
Delhi.
(e) Offence Under Section 4 (c) of The
Delhi Prevention of Touting &
Malpractice Against Tourist
Act, 2010
(f) Plea of accused person Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final Order ACQUITTED
(h) Date of institution 13.10.2023
(i) Date when judgment was29.04.2025
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 08.05.2025
Cr. Case No. 12956/2023
PS Pahar Ganj
FIR No. 491/2023 State Vs. Sumit @ Chuha Page No. 1/8
1. Vide this judgment; I shall decide the final outcome in the FIR No. 491/2023, registered at Police Station: Paharganj, wherein alleging the commission of the offence punishable under section U/s 4 (c) of The Delhi Prevention of Touting & Malpractice Against Tourist Act, 2010 (shall be referred to as 'DPT & MAT Act' in short).
PROSECUTION CASE
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.07.2023, at about 05:00 PM, at DBG Road, Near Avtar Hotel, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Pahargnj, Delhi, accused was found touting Indian and Foreign tourists by offering hotel and taxi at cheap rates. Hence, the instant FIR was registered against accused.
3. Investigation was conducted. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court on 13.10.2023, against accused for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 4 (c) of the Delhi Prevention of Touting & Malpractice Against Tourist Act, 2010. Two witnesses were cited to be examined to prove its case by the prosecution.
4. On 13.10.2023, cognizance of offence was taken and the accused person was summoned. Accused put in an appearance in the Court. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to him.
Cr. Case No. 12956/2023PS Pahar Ganj FIR No. 491/2023 State Vs. Sumit @ Chuha Page No. 2/8 NOTICE
5. On 21.11.2024, Notice in terms of section 251 CrPC was served upon the accused for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 4 (c) of the Delhi Prevention of Touting & Malpractice Against Tourist Act, 2010, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION AND DENIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED IN TERMS OF PROVISION OF SECTION 294 CrPC
6. The accused person has admitted the genuiness of the instant FIR, Endorsement on rukka and Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, marked as Ex. A1, Ex. A2 and Ex. A3. Therefore, the name of DO/ASI Vir Singh, who was the duty officer and registered the instant FIR, was dropped from the list of witnesses.
WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION
7. ASI Suresh Kundu as PW1, who was the complainant in the present matter and SI Vikesh examined as PW2, who was Investigation Officer in the present matter. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 05.04.2025.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON
8. Statement of the accused person has been recorded in terms of provisions of section 313 r/w 281, Cr.PC. He stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. He opted not to lead evidence.
Cr. Case No. 12956/2023PS Pahar Ganj FIR No. 491/2023 State Vs. Sumit @ Chuha Page No. 3/8 FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Final arguments have been heard. Records have been perused and considered.
10. Ld APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State has also argued that the factum of the accused touting has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, Ld. LADC for accused has submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The Ld Counsel has also submitted that the alleged incident took place on a public place but no public witness has been joined and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. With these submissions, Ld. Counsel has prayed for acquittal of the accused. EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE AND BRIEF REASON FOR THE DECISION
11. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence that in order to prove its case, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from Cr. Case No. 12956/2023 PS Pahar Ganj FIR No. 491/2023 State Vs. Sumit @ Chuha Page No. 4/8 the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offence in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
12. It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
13. In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the fate of the present case.
14. PW2 who is not the eye witnesses to the alleged incident as per the case of the prosecution. Whereas PW2 SI Vikesh carried out the investigation after the registration of the instant FIR and he had not seen the occurence of the alleged incident. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 ASI Suresh Kundu is more relevant to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused.
15. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was touting the tourist. Thus, the victims of the crime were the tourists who were allegedly being touted by the accused. The victim was in better position to depose as to what had happened with her/him. Pertinently, neither any victim has been cited as a witness nor examined by the prosecution. Had any of the victims been examined the accused would Cr. Case No. 12956/2023 PS Pahar Ganj FIR No. 491/2023 State Vs. Sumit @ Chuha Page No. 5/8 have got the opportunity to cross examine the victim and truth could be elicited on record. The accused has been deprived of this opportunity. For not examining any victim, no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution which evokes a suspicion to the case of prosecution.
16. Further, evidently, neither any public witness has been cited in the list of witnesses or examined by the prosecution. The alleged incident of touting is stated to have taken place on a public place i.e DBG Road, Near Avtar Hotel, Paharganj, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Paharganj that too around 05:00 PM, Delhi. It is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was available on the spot. In the absence of the examination of the victim, the testimony of the police witnesses needs corroboration from independent witnesses which is lacking in this case. The testimony of official witnesses does not find any corroboration from any independent source.
17. Further, there is no link in the investigation as to whether the accused was connected with any hotel or lounge for which he was touting. The mere evidence available on the record is that some police officials saw the accused touting which in my humble view is not sufficient. It is not the fact which can be merely perceived by the eye only. The transaction of touting can be witnessed by oral senses also. No witness has deposed as to what the conversation of Cr. Case No. 12956/2023 PS Pahar Ganj FIR No. 491/2023 State Vs. Sumit @ Chuha Page No. 6/8 touting was. There is nothing on record which shows that the accused was having any material with him which could have been subject of touting. Both investigation and evidence are lacking in so many aspects. Hence, raise considerable doubt on the case of the prosecution. The law is well settled that whenever there is a doubt in the mind of the Court, the benefit has to be given to the accused.
18. It is cardinal principle of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. It is apt to refer to the following observation in the case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55:
"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."
CONCLUSION
19. In view of the above examination of the evidence and material available on record, it is observed that the Cr. Case No. 12956/2023 PS Pahar Ganj FIR No. 491/2023 State Vs. Sumit @ Chuha Page No. 7/8 prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused of which the accused faced the trial. Therefore, accused, SUMIT @ CHUHA, is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 4 (c) DPT & MAT Act of which he faced the trial. The bonds accepted in terms of provision of section 437A Cr.P.C shall remain in force for a period of six months.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 21.05.2025 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.21 16:25:18 +0530 (NEETU SHARMA) ACJM-01(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS/ DELHI Cr. Case No. 12956/2023 PS Pahar Ganj FIR No. 491/2023 State Vs. Sumit @ Chuha Page No. 8/8