Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Rahish on 16 October, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI
STATE VS. MOHD. RAHISH
FIR NO: 494/94
P. S. NDLS
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Serial No. of the case : 847/03
b) Date of offence : 26.5.94
c) Offence complained of : 384/34 IPC
d) Name of complainant : Ram Nath
e) Name of accused, his : Mohd. Rahish S/o Mohd. Yusuf
parentage & residence R/o H.No. 3431, Gali Abdul
Kadir, Faraskhan, Delhi.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of institution of case : 27.6.2003
i) Date on which case reserved : 16.10.2007
for judgment
j) Date of judgment : 16.10.2007 (After lunch)
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1- Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been facing trial on the allegation that on 26.5.94 at about 4.45 pm near Old Mal Godown Shed Lahori Gate side within the jurisdiction of PS NDLS he in furtherance of his common intention with co accused ( not arrested) committed extortion and dishonestly induced PW Ram Nath to deliver a sum Contd..........
/2/ of Rs. 5,000/- and thus he by intentionally putting the complainant in fear of injury. Thus a case for offence punishable u/s 384/34 IPC has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2- The accused was supplied with copies of charge-sheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 384/34 of IPC vide order of this court dated 23.2.1995. When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3- To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses in support of its case.
4- The first witness examined by prosecution was PW1 SI Netrapal was the IO of the case and not the eyewitness of the case and has deposed about the investigation done in this case being IO of the case and exhibited the document prepared during investigation. 5- PW2 was the complainant Ram Nath, who was the star witness of the case and failed to support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
Contd..........
/3/ PW2 despite lengthy cross examination by APP representing the State did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that the accused present in court was not the person who has threatened him and snatched any money from him. He further stated in his statement that the accused persons who has committed the offence in question with him had escaped from the spot. As such the testimony of the complainant/PW2 is not supportive to the case of the prosecution.
6- PW3 ASI Dharam Singh has deposed about registration of the case and has proved the copy of FIR registered in this case. 7- Statement of accused was recorded on 16.10.2007, wherein accused has denied all the incrimination evidence when the same was put to him and deposed that it is a false case and he had been falsely implicated in this case. However the accused has refused to lead evidence in his defence. 8- I have heard the submissions of APP for the State and accused in person and carefully gone through the material produced on record. 9- As stated above the prosecution examined only three witness in support of its case out of which PW3 was a formal witness and has deposed regarding registration of the case. The PW1 was the IO of the case and has deposed about investigation done by him in this case. Further , the PW2 who was the complainant and the eyewitness of the case as well as the victim of Contd..........
/4/ the case failed to support the case of the prosecution. There is no other eyewitness of the incident either citied or examined by prosecution in support of its case and the evidence produced on record is to of no use. As such in absence of effective evidence on record there is no ground to convict the accused for the offence with which he has been charged. 10- The word "Extortion" is defined u/s 383 IPC which states as under:
Extortion:- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security commits "extortion" 11- Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act the doctrine of presumption is not alien to the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused as held in case titled as "State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar", (2000) 8 SCC 382. Non examination of certain witnesses does not amount to withholding of evidence. The court is entitled to draw adverse inference against non-examining witnesses, as observed in case titled as "P. Veeraswami Naidu Vs. Pushpanmal", AIR 1996 Mad
131.
12- In a case titled as 1995 Cri.LJ. 2036 of Orrissa High Court :wherein it was observed that:
" Sec 3 of Evidence Act ---- Evidence of witnesses---- credibility----- doubt arising with regard to any material fact in a criminal case---- accused always entitled to benefit of such doubt"
Contd..........
/5/ 13- Further in case titled as 1994 (3) CCC 6 (SC) State of AP Vs. Pnnati Ramnen passed by Mr. Justice A.S. Anand and K.P. Singh it was observed that:
"Tainted investigation unsafe to rely upon delay FIR as are not knowns where the police officer would have stopped to fabricate evidence and create false clues."
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, accused Rahish S/io Mohd. Yusuf is hereby acquitted for the offence in question. Bail bonds of accused are cancelled. Surety is discharged. Case property be disposed of in accordance with law. Let file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 16.10.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI