Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Witnesses Examined By The Prosecution

4. During trial, prosecution examined two witnesses. Ct. Rohit was examined as PW1 and HC Sunil Kumar as PW2.

5. Before I proceed with the adjudicatory evaluation of material available on record and comment upon the merits, I deem it appropriate to take on record the brief testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

Prosecution Evidence

6. As broadly testified by PW1/Ct.Rohit and PW2/Sunil Kumar, on 04.09.2023, they were on Patrolling Duty in the area of Beat No.10, H-Block, Sultanpuri, Delhi, and at around 7:30 pm, when they reached near Govt. Sarvodiya Kanya School, H-Block, Sultanpuri, Delhi, they noticed the said flex board hanged on the wall of the said School. PW2 clicked the photograph of the said flex board, Ex.A4, through his mobile phone, seized the same vide seizure memo/Ex.PW1/A, prepared the Rukka/Ex.PW2/A and got the instant FIR registered through PW1. After registration of instant FIR, PW1 came back on the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and the original Rukka to PW2. PW2 prepared the site plan/Ex.PW1/B and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. On 05.09.2023, PW2 arrested the accused vide arrest memo, Ex.PW1/C, and recorded the statement of PW1. The PW2 prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the Court. They both have correctly identified the said flex board and the accused in the Court.

16.Now, to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused person, it is to be examined if the case is covered by section 3(1) of the DPDP Act i.e if the accused person has defaced the property in public view by himself hanging the said flex board on the spot.

No independent witness joined

17. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of the Police Official and the documents exhibited in evidence. Admittedly, no public person has been joined to the seizure proceedings of the said flex board. As deposed, the said flex board was found hanged on the spot which is a public place that too at around 7:30 pm. It is not the case of the Prosecution that no public person was available on the spot. It has also not been deposed by the witnesses that no public person was available on or near the spot. Significantly, no plausible explanation came forward from the Prosecution for not joining the public witness to the seizure proceedings or the investigation. Although that by itself is not a reason to outrightly reject the Prosecution Case, it does warrant careful scrutiny of the testimony of the Police Officers.

Nexus between the accused persons and the crime

29. As per prosecution, the accused person is connected with the crime or is the perpetrator of the crime as he is the owner of Gupta School Uniform Shop the address of which was found printed on the said flex board. However, there is no evidence on record which could indicate that the accused is the owner of the said shop as well as to the hanging of the said flex board by the accused person as none of the witnesses examined has deposed that they saw the accused person hanging the said flex board on the spot.

30. Significantly, no inquiry or interrogation at all has been made either from the accused person as there is nothing on record like his disclosure statement or public person or the printer or the publisher of the said flex board which could have indicated that the accused person had affixed the said flex board on the spot as alleged.

31. Thus, the identity of the offender is shrouded in doubt and the Prosecution has failed to convincingly establish the identity of the accused person as the perpetrator of the crime who affixed who hang the said flex board on the spot as alleged.