Delhi District Court
State vs . Rahul Kumar &Anr. on 14 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST):
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Rahul Kumar &Anr.
FIR No. 16/14
U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC
P.S. G.K. I
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 176/2/14
Unique Identification No. : 02406R0109972014
Date of Institution : 28.02.2014
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : Not reserved
Date of judgment : 14.07.2016
Name of the complainant : Intzar Khan
s/o Sh. Alimuddin Khan
r/o H. No. 8, Zamrudpur,
G.K.1, New Delhi.
Date of the commission of offence : 11.01.2014
FIR No.16/14 State Vs Rahul and Anr. Page 1 of 6 pages
Name of accused : 1. Rahul Kumar
s/o Sh. Netrapal Singh
r/o H. No. 5, Zamrudpur,
G.K.1, New Delhi.
2. Netrapal Singh
s/o Late Sh. Charan Singh
r/o H. No. 5, Zamrudpur,
G.K.1, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
Date of Institution : 28.02.2014
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : Not reserved
Date of judgment : 14.07.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was FIR No.16/14 State Vs Rahul and Anr. Page 2 of 6 pages registered on a complaint of complainant Intzar Khan wherein he has stated that he was working for Aam Admi Party. On 10.01.2014 he had gone to Chirag Delhi for a meeting of the Aam Admi Party at around 5:30 p.m. In the meeting accused Rahul was also present and apart from accused Rahul many other persons were also present and at that time accused Rahul pointed towards him and said "mullah chunav ladega" and then the complainant said he could have even contested the election for M.P. had he got the ticket. Thereafter some heated argument occurred between the two and during the same accused Rahul threatened him by saying that he shall teach him a lesson when he reaches Zamrudpur. Thereafter the complainant alongwith two persons namely Inderpreet Singh and Shastri came back to his house at 7:30 p.m. and at that time accused Rahul stopped him and abused him and even slapped on his face. Thereafter accused Netrapal also came and held the complainant by his collar and abused him by using foul language and slapped the complainant two/three times. They even threatened to kill the complainant and thereafter some persons intervene and when around 10:00 p.m. the complainant was closing down his shop accused Rahul again came and abused the complainant in filthy language.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR FIR No.16/14 State Vs Rahul and Anr. Page 3 of 6 pages was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against the accused under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution had cited five witnesses in all and among them PW Intzar Khan and Smt. Banno who was the wife of the complainant were the sole eye witness/complainant and the victim in the present matter but they could not be called in the witness box as they were found untraceable and was accordingly dropped from the list of witnesses. No other public witness was cited and only police witnesses were left. Therefore, PE was closed.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 r/w 281 CrPC was dispensed with as nothing incriminating came on record against the FIR No.16/14 State Vs Rahul and Anr. Page 4 of 6 pages accused.
6. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
7. Sh. Intzar Khan and Banno were the only material prosecution witness. They were reported to be untraceable. In the absence of examination of complainant/eye witness, there was no purpose in examining the remaining formal witnesses. Since the material eye witnesses of the incident could not be examined despite best efforts on the part of the executing authority, there was no chances of further improvement in the case of the prosecution even after examining the remaining witnesses. Therefore, PE was closed in order to save the precious time of the court as well as harassment to the accused.
8. I have heard the arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the materials available on record.
9. Since the material prosecution witness/injured could not be examined by the prosecution, there is no other witness to establish that the FIR No.16/14 State Vs Rahul and Anr. Page 5 of 6 pages accused had caused injuries to the complainant. Therefore, the prosecution is miserably failed to establish the charge U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC. Hence, the both the accused stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.
10. The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
"The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal, cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
11. In view of above discussion, the accused persons are acquitted of offence punishable U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN)
on 14.07.2016 MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:14.07.2016
FIR No.16/14 State Vs Rahul and Anr. Page 6 of 6 pages