Delhi District Court
State vs Dinesh Alia Karala And Others on 8 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEHA GUPTA SINGH,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
NORTH DISTRICT : DELHI
STATE Vs. : Dinesh @ Karala & Ors.
FIR No : 419/2019
P. S. : Alipur
U/s : 387/506/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial No. of the 6776/2019
case
(b) Date of offence 05.10.2019 to 11.10.2019
(c) Complainant Madan Lal
(d) Accused 1. Dinesh @ Karala
S/o Bijender Singh
2. Gulshan @ Gullu
S/o Sh. Madan Lal
(e) Offence U/Sec. 387/506 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted for offence 387/506 IPC
(h) Date of institution 18.12.2019
(i) Date of reserve of 08.08.2024
order / judgment
(j) Date of judgment 08.08.2024
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 05.10.2019 at 4.40 p.m. to 11.10.2019 at about 9.00 p.m. and various other times at premises no. 60 P , Sector 15, Sonepat, Haryna and at 840, Narela Road, Alipur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS CC No. 6776/2019 State Vs. Dinesh @ Karala & Ors. FIR No. 419/2019 PS Alipur Page 1 of 4 Alipur, both the accused persons in order to commit extortion attempted to put the complainant Madan lal and Harish Kumar in fear of death or a grievous hurt to the complainant by making several threatening calls over telephone (including mobile whatsapp calls) to the complainant and his son Harish thereby demanded protection money from the complainant and by extending threat to them to face dire consequences. FIR was registered on complaint of Madan Lal.
2. Investigation was completed and police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed under sections 387/506 IPC. Cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned.
3. Copy of charge sheet and documents were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Arguments on charge were heard and charge against accused Dinesh @ Karala and Gulshan @ Gullu framed under section 387/506 IPC vide order dated 04.02.2020. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined only one witness.
6. PW-1 Sh. Varun deposed he was working as salesman at Arjun Dev Steel situated at Narela Road . In the year 2019 at about 10.30 a.m. he was present in his office and saw that one boy in muffled face came inside the office while talking on the phone and asked him to talk to some on his phone. He talked to that person who told him "Harish hi se bat karni hai wo jab to bt krana paise dene hai bar bar nai ayenge bake who samjdar hai"
and that boy left after this. He further deposed that he came CC No. 6776/2019 State Vs. Dinesh @ Karala & Ors. FIR No. 419/2019 PS Alipur Page 2 of 4 back after 2 minutes and asked him to talk to some one again on phone who told me that "mai goig giroh se Dinesh Karala bol raha hu, Unhe bata dena. He nothing told against the accused persons in the present case and totally turned hostile. The said witness is duly cross examined by Ld APP for the state.
7. Since, PW-1 did not support the prosecution and complainant and other eye witness is untraceable, examining formal witnesses would have been a futile exercise. Accordingly PE was closed. Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as no incriminating evidence has come on record. Final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Learned APP Sh.
Gurdaulat Singh Sidhu for state and the Ld. counsel for accused persons and have carefully perused the record.
9. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defense of the accused. Accused persons are entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
10. PW 1 is the eyewitness. He has not supported the prosecution. He did not identify accused persons. Accordingly, Prosecution has failed to establish the identity of accused persons and facts of case. Complainant and public witness are CC No. 6776/2019 State Vs. Dinesh @ Karala & Ors. FIR No. 419/2019 PS Alipur Page 3 of 4 not traceable.
11. In such circumstances it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons Dinesh @ Karala and Gulshan @ Gullu are acquitted for offence under section 387/506 IPC.
Neha Digitally signed
by Neha Gupta
Announced in the open court Gupta Singh
Date: 2024.08.08
On this day 08th August 2024 Singh 15:35:54 +0530
(Neha Gupta Singh)
Chief Judicial Magistrate
North Rohini Delhi
CC No. 6776/2019 State Vs. Dinesh @ Karala & Ors. FIR No. 419/2019 PS Alipur Page 4 of 4