Delhi District Court
State vs Hem Singh Tomar, Fir No.172/2014, Ps ... on 25 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02 (MAHILA COURT),SOUTHEAST,
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State v. Hem Singh Tomar
FIR No. 172/2014
U/s 354D/506/509 IPC
P.S. Greater KailashI
J U D G M E N T
Criminal Case No. : 91915/2016.
Date of Institution : 16.10.2014.
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : Not reserved
Date of judgment : 25.09.2017.
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet.
Date of the commission of offence : During the year 2014.
Name of accused : Hem Singh Tomar,
S/o Sh. Siya Ram Singh,
R/o H. No.B197, GKI,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 354D/506/509 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 354D/506/509 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
State Vs Hem Singh Tomar, FIR No.172/2014, PS Greater KailashI 1/5
Date of Institution : 16.10.2014.
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : Not reserved
Date of judgment : 25.09.2017.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on a complaint of complainant dated 24.04.2014 wherein she had been living with her two minor children and her husband was residing at house no.B197, GK1, with whom she was having a matrimonial dispute and in her ten years of married life she had come to know that her husband was a criminal. On 24.04.2014 between 4.25 am to 4.37 am she received calls on her mobile phones from another numbers which belong to the driver of the husband of the complainant ( that is the accused in the present matter ). The calls were made with the purpose to threaten, abuse, torture and harass the complainant. Further on earlier occasion the accused had followed her in a car and used filthy language against the complainant. Futher her husband had instigated his driver, guards and servant to harass the complainant.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of State Vs Hem Singh Tomar, FIR No.172/2014, PS Greater KailashI 2/5 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 323/354 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter, prosecution examined only one witness in order to prove its case.
PW1 ASI Meena Arora ( Duty officer) deposed that on 07.05.2014 she received a complaint at around 2.50 pm and made endorsement vide Ex. PW1/A and registered the present FIR vide Ex. PW 1/B and also gave certificate U/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW1/C. Opportunity to cross examine PW1 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to the witness.
Prosecution had cited five witnesses in all and among them PW Complainant was the sole eye witness/complainant and the victim in the present matter but she could not be called in the witness box as she was found untraceable through DCP concerned 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 State Vs Hem Singh Tomar, FIR No.172/2014, PS Greater KailashI 3/5 313 r/w 281 CrPC was dispensed with as nothing incriminating came on record against the accused.
6. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
7. Complainant was the only material prosecution witness. She was 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/victim could not be examined by the prosecution, there is no other witness to establish that the accused had comitted the offence alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the prosecution is miserably failed to establish the charge U/s 354D/506/509 IPC. Hence, the accused stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 354D/506/509 IPC.
State Vs Hem Singh Tomar, FIR No.172/2014, PS Greater KailashI 4/5
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 Hem Singh Tomar is acquitted of offence punishable U/s 354D/506/509 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN) on 25.09.2017 Metropolitan Magistrate02 (Mahila Court) Saket Courts, New Delhi.
State Vs Hem Singh Tomar, FIR No.172/2014, PS Greater KailashI 5/5