Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Lalit on 28 September, 2022
FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIPLAV DABASS: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : FAST TRACK COURT: SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI SC No. 63/2018 State Vs. 1. Lalit S/o. Sh. Sukan R/o. Village Tilka Garhi, Post Raipur, Tehsil Mant, District Mathura, U.P. 2. Rinku(CCL referred to JJB vide order dated 18.11.2017) CNR No. : DLSW010014442018 FIR No. : 112/17 Police Station : Palam Village Under Sections : 364-A/307/506/120-B IPC Date of institution : 02.01.2018 Date of committal to Sessions Court : 16.01.2018 Date of transfer to this court : 02.09.2022 Date on which judgment was reserved : 28.09.2022 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 28.09.2022 State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 1 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The case of prosecution is that on 11.04.2017, upon receipt of DD no. -9A, SI Ajay Kumar reached at Village Palam Gol Chakkar where he met complainant Abrar Ahmed s/o Farmuddin r/o B-99 Gali No. 9, Naseer Pur Colony, Harijan Basti, Sagar Pur. On inquiry the complainant stated that at about 2.45 am Jeeshan @ Rajji who was residing with the brother of the complainant namely Afzal came to him and stated that at about 2.30 am four persons abducted Afzal after beating him and took him in a WagonR. He further stated that Bhura s/o Chanderveer was having some financial transactions with the victim Afzal and at the instance of Chanderveer, Bhura along with three persons had kidnapped/abducted Afzal. The accused persons had also threatened the complainant of dire consequences, if they complaint about the incident. SI Vinay Kumar constituted a raiding party and went in search of accused at Nohjheel, Mathura, U.P. In the meantime, Abrar had received information from PS Noohjheel, Mathura, U.P. that his brother Afzal was found in injured condition near Raipur and during investigation police officials came to know that Afzal was rescued by the villagers and the accused persons ran away by firing in air.State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 2 of 20
FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC
2. The vehicle used in the crime was recovered from Raipur, Mathura and the police seized the vehicle number DL-2C-P-6429. When police officials interrogated victim Afzal, they came to know that Bhura had abducted him by beating him and asked mobile number of her wife and called her for ransom of Rs. 25 lacs. The accused persons with the intention of killing him had tied his hands and legs and thrown him into the well. Victim was admitted to Divya Prastha Hospital where doctor had opined nature of injury as grievous. On 18.04.2017 statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded. On 27.04.2017, police along with complainant and eye witness Jeeshan @ Rajji constituted a raiding party and raided at the dairy of accused Bhura from where they have arrested younger brother of Bhura namely Rinku who told that victim Afzal used to purchase paneer from them but due to bad quality they stopped further business with accused persons as well as refused to pay the earlier debts. In order to teach Afzal a lesson he along with his father and accused Bhura conspired on 10/11.4.17 to kidnap victim Afzal. On 02.05.2017 TIP of the accused persons was conducted and victim Afzal had correctly identified the accused Lalit. However, he failed to identity accused Jeeetpal. NBWs of the rest of the accused persons were also obtained.
3. Vide order dated 15.12.2017 of Ld. MM, Dwarka Courts, accused Chanderveer and Bhura were declared as absconder. Notice u/s 133 MV Act was given to owner of vehicle number DL-2CP-6429 State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 3 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC Sh. Mangal who informed the police that he had already lodged FIR No 461/17 regarding theft of the vehicle. During investigation offences punishable u/s 364-A/307/506/120-B/34 IPC were added. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in court against accused persons. However, accused Rinku was declared juvenile and was sent to JJB.
4. On 02.01.2018, charge sheet was filed before the court after conducting investigations and Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of offences alleged. On 16.01.2018, after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, the present case was committed to court of Sessions.
5. It is pertinent to mention that fiver persons were arrayed as accused in this case initially out of which fate of accused Lalit is being decided in this judgment, accused Rinku was referred to JJB being juvenile vide order dated 18.11.2017, accused Jeet Pal was released due to TIP failure and accused Bhura and Chanderveer were declared proclaimed offenders.
6. After hearing arguments on point of charge, on 18.05.2022, as a prime facie case was made out, charge for the offence punishable u/s u/s 364-A, 307, 506, read with section 34 IPC & 120-B IPC read with section 364-A IPC was framed upon the accused Lalit to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 4 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC for prosecution evidence.
7. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 5 witnesses to substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused.
8. PW-1 Afzal Khan/complainant deposed that he was in business of selling milk items ie cheese etc and he was having shop in the name and style of Chaudhary Paneer Bhandar at Palam Gol Chhakar. On 10/11-04-2017, he was present in his shop along with Jasan @ Rajji he had to receive paneer. At that time one WagonR came and stopped in front of his shop and two persons had come to him for inquiring about the route to go for Ashram. They further asked him explain the route to the driver of the vehicle. When PW-1 reached there, other two persons who were sitting in the car got down. They were having pistol and knife with them. Out of the four persons, one person was the brother of Bhura. They give him beatings with fist and leg blows at his shop itself and on his head with the pistol. He became unconscious, when he regained consciousness, he was in the back side of the car where three persons had kept him under their legs and they had tied his hands and legs with a cloth. They took him in forest like area. They had also beaten him. He further deposed that accused Bhura used to purchase paneer for the last eight years from him. They had taken him to the house of one of the persons namely Bhura. At the said house, Pradhan of the village Jeetpal came. Accused Bhura was also State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 5 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC present there. The said Jeetpal asked Bhura to talk to his father Chandervir @ Khili. Thereafter, Jeetpal had stated to Bhura to continuously beat him and also stated to take mobile phone of his wife and to demand Rs. 25 lacs for his release. Bhura asked him to give mobile phone and asked him to call his wife. They had also threatened his wife by saying that if the said amount was not paid to them, they will kill him. At about 8.30 am, Bhura and his associates and two other persons had taken him outside the village towards jungle and kept him under the tree and gave him beatings. Thereafter, Bhura had stated to his associates that he had talked to his wife and she was arranging the said amount and she was coming and there was no necessity and he stated to throw him/PW Afzal in a well. When the accused persons were about to throw him, PW Afzal shouted and after hearing his shout, the nearby farmers who were working in their field, had noticed and rescued him from the said persons. Bhura and his associates had run away from there. The farmers had called the police and police had came and taken him to the hospital. Thereafter, from there, he was referred to another hospital. He further deposed that he can identify the accused persons. However, witness submitted that the accused present in the court was not the person who had accompanied Bhura along with their associates. He further deposed that he had seen Lalit in the village only and he had not done any act against him. He also identified his statement u/s 164Cr.P.C vide Ex. PW-1/A. State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 6 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC
9. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for State as he was resiling from his earlier statement. In his cross examination he admitted the fact that he correctly identified the accused Lalit during the TIP proceedings as Ex. PW-1/B. However, he further deposed that he had mistakenly identified the accused Lalit as he was under confusion. He volunteered that he had identified accused Lalit as he was present fields of village where Bhura and his associates had beaten him. He also denied the statement Ex. PW-1/C. He further denied the suggestion that the accused Lalit was the person who came to Delhi and kidnapped him from his shop or that accused Lalit was present at the time of demand of Rs. 25 lacs from his wife for his release. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he was won over by the accused persons or to save them. He was not cross-examined by the defence counsel despite opportunity.
10. PW-2 Mr. Jeeshan @ Rajji deposed on the lines of PW-1 and stated that on 10/11-04-17, he came to the house of Afzal and stayed at his house. At about 2.00 AM, Afzal had woke him up as the paneer delivery vehicle had came to his shop. He along with Afzal arrived and an Eco car/vehicle was waiting. He further deposed that when Afzal was putting the paneer in his shop , one WagaonR came and one person asked address of Asharam from Afzal and he also asked to make understand the driver. When Afzal went to the driver for explaining the route, four persons got down from WagonR, who were having pistoal State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 7 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC and knife and they had also beaten Afzal. When he was trying to rescue the victim, out of them one person pointed out pistol towards him and due to fear he kept silent. One of them also hit on victims head due to which Afzal became unconscious and that person put Afzal into car and ran away. Thereafter, he went to victim Afzal's brother Abrar who was having a shop at Ramphal Chowk and narrated the incident to him. Abrar made a call at 100 number. Thereafter, wife of Afzal received a call from Bhura who demanded ransom of Rs. 25 lacs for release of Afzal and threatened to kill Afzal if the said amount would not be paid. Thereafter, elder brother of Afzal and Kadir went to Aligarh. He further deposed that he does not know the names of the accused persons but he can identify the said persons who came in said vehicle. However, he was not able to identify the accused persons present in court as the same persons who came in WagonR car for kidnapping Afzal. He deposed that he joined the investigation of the case and went to Village Gubrari, U.P. in order to apprehend the accused. At that time he met with one person who came in Bolero car when he was going towards the dairy and had identified the said person as one who had caught hold the knife at the time of incident. Police apprehended him and his name was revealed as Rinku who stated that he was brother of Bhoora. The witness was not cross examined by the defence despite opportunity.
11. PW-3 Mr. Abrar Ahmad deposed that he was the supplier of paneer since 2002. On 11.04.2017, he was present at his shop situated State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 8 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC at Ramphal Chowk. At about 2.45 am, Jeeshan @ Rajji who was residing with his brother Afzal had came to him and told him that four persons came in WagonR vehicle at about 2.30 pm and beat Afzal and took him in the said car at Palam Gol Chakkar, Paneer Shop. During that time, he received information that one person namely Bhoora and his father Chandervir took his brother Afzal with regard to some payment and at the instance of Chandervir, the persons who came in Wagon-R took his brother with them. He had given complaint Ex. PW- 3/A in this regard. A call was received by wife of Afzal via number 7351765905 and the caller demanded Rs. 25 lacs for release of his brother Afzal otherwise they would kill Afzal. PW-3 also talked to the father of Bhoora on phone and he also threatened the witness. On 13.04.2017, he also gave statement to the police where he stated that his brother also received calls from Bhoora and his father Chandervir and they had threatened his brother. On 27.04.2017, he joined investigation and went to Gubrari Village(where the paneer was prepared) in search of accused. They took position there and after some time, one person came in Bolero and he got down and pointed towards the dairy. He along with Jeeshan @ Rajji had identified the said person and Jeeshan @ Rajji stated that he is the same person who was having knife at the time when his brother was kidnapped. Police apprehended him and his name was revealed as Rinku. On 15.07.2017, he had given his statement to the police and he stated that Bhoora and his father Chanderveer were having dairy at Gubrari, UP and they used State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 9 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC to purchase panner from them and no register was maintained and all the purchase was made by cash transactions. On 11.07.2017, Bhoora and his men had come to his brother Afzal to kidnap his brother. He went along with police to UP and they received phone calls from Navjhil, UP that police along with the help of public had rescued his brother. From there, they had brought his brother Afzal to Delhi and got him admitted at Divyaprastha Hospital. He further deposed that he had not seen accused Lalit at anywhere with regard to the present case.
The witness was not cross examined by the defence despite opportunity.
12. PW-4 SI Harbans Lal deposed that as the main IO was on leave on 05.12.2017, he had filed the supplementary charge sheet on the directions of SHO. The witness was not cross examined by the defence despite opportunity.
13. PW-5 SI Vikas was the IO of the present case he deposed that on 15.05.2017, he was posted at PS Palam Viilage. On that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him and he collected the file from MHC(R). He had filed charge sheet against Rinku. Thereafter, the file was sent to JJB as the age of Rinku was under 18 years. Thereafter, he had taken NBWs against the accused Bhoora (since expired), Chanderveer (since expired), Lalit and Jeet Pal. On 31.10.2017, accused Lalit and Jeet Pal had surrendered before the court State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 10 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC and he arrested the accused Lalit vide memo Ex. PW-5/A and accused Jeet Pal Ex. PW-5/D. He also recorded their disclosure statements vide memo Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F. Thereafter, both accused persons were sent to JC. He also moved an application Ex. PW-5/G for conducting TIP of both accused persons on the same day. TIP of accused persons was fixed for 03.11.2017 at Jail no.8. Accordingly, victim Afzal Khan came at Central Jail no.8 and during TIP proceedings, victim Afzal Khan had identified accused Lalit and failed to identify accused Jeet Pal. After that he had taken police custody of both accused persons for recovery and arrest of co-accused persons. As nothing was recovered, the accused Lalit was produced before the court and sent to judicial custody. He moved an application Ex. PW5/H for release of accused Jeet Pal. Thereafter, he went on leave for about one and a half months and handed over the case file to MHC(R). Thereafter, PW-4/ ASI Harbans Lal had prepared the charge sheet and after completing of investigation ASI Harbans Lal had filed charge sheet in court. The witness was not cross examined by the defence despite opportunity.
14. Accused admitted copy of FIR No. 112/17 Ex. P1, Site plan Ex.
P2, GD No. 009A dated 11.04.2017 Ex. P3 and Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in his statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC and DO/HC Manoj Kumar was dropped from the list of witnesses. On 27.09.2022 prosecution evidence was closed vide a separate State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 11 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC statement of the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor as all the material witnesses have been examined. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for 28.09.2022.
15. On 28.09.2022, the statement of accused Lalit under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him who stated that the same is incorrect. Accused submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence. The accused did not opt to lead defence evidence and hence, defence evidence was closed. Thereafter, the matter was proceeded further for final arguments.
16. This court heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. (substitute) Additional PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and perused the record of the case.
17. Ld. Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the police witnesses have clearly established, the prosecution version of abduction of victim/injured Afzal for ransom of Rs. 25 lacs by the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt in the alleged manner. He stated that the factum that the victim was kidnapped for ransom of Rs. 25 lacs and was threatened of dire consequences in case of non receipt of the ransom amount is also established by PW-2 Abrar/brother of State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 12 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC victim and PW-2 Jeeshan @ Rajji. He submitted that the TIP of the accused was successful and victim's statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was also duly recorded which established the culpability of the accused. He further argued that the fact that the complainant has turned hostile qua the identity of the accused as offender does not in any manner effect the veracity of the consistent testimony of the police witness as they were not having any previous enmity with the accused. He further stated that moreover the complainants in such cases turn hostile due to fear of future enmity with the offenders, so the firm testimony of the police cannot be discarded in such circumstances and the accused be convicted for the offences punishable U/s 364-A/307/506/120-B IPC.
18. Ld. counsel for the accused argued that the victim Afzal and PW-2 Jeeshan @ Rajji who are the Star witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the version qua identity of the accused as abductors. He argued that the testimony of the police witnesses is of no consequence in view of hostility of the said main witnesses. He further stated that the hostility of the complainant along with non joinder of the public witnesses at the spot as well as at the time of rescue of the victim from Naujheel, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh substantiates the defence version of false implication of the poor accused by manipulating and fabricating documents by the police for working out of the case. He further submitted that the accused in these circumstances should be acquitted.
State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 13 of 20FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC
19. In order to prove the offense U/s 364-A/307/506/34 & 120-B IPC against accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the accused as assailant who abducted the victim for ransom and caused grievous injuries upon him with an intention to cause his death and threatened to kill him in case he or his relatives lodged complaint to the police, the fact that the accused agreed with other co-accused persons to do an illegal act i.e abduction for ransom and the factum of sharing of common intention with co-accused persons for committing the abduction for ransom, causing grievous hurt with an intention to kill and threatening the victim as alleged. For proving the aforesaid ingredients, the prosecution examined five witnesses out of which PW-1/victim and PW-2 Jasheen @ Rajji are the most important witnesses being the sole eye witnesses of the incident and the remaining witnesses are the complainant/brother of victim and police officials. Henceforth, court shall now proceed further to evaluate the evidence available on record to find out if the prosecution has succeeded in its task or not.
20. PW-1 Afzal was the victim/injured and eye-witness of the alleged incident and was examined as PW-1. Prosecution was relying on his version but he did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile qua the allegations made by him in his statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. PW-1 deposed in his examination in chief that State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 14 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC accused Lalit was not the person who had accompanied Bhura along with their associates. He further stated that he had seen Lalit in the village only and he had not done any act against him. He was cross- examined by the Ld. Addl. P.P for the State but he denied all the leading questions put by the prosecution.
21. He admitted in the cross-examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for State that he had identified the accused Lalit in the TIP but simultaneously volunteered that he had identified accused Lalit as he had seen accused Lalit at the fields of village where accused Bhura and his associates had beaten him. He further stated that at the time of judicial TIP of accused Lalit, he was under confusion and had mistakenly identified accused Lalit. He further denied all the suggestions put to him by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State to negate the aforesaid hostile testimony. The firm deposition of PW-1 along with consistent denials of the questions of the State indicate that prosecution failed to extract any material in its favour despite detailed cross examination. It is thus clear that PW-1 has completely turned hostile with respect to identity of the accused Anil Kumar as the offender.
22. PW-2 Mr. Jeeshan @ Rajji also deposed on the lines of PW-1 and firmly affirmed that accused present in the court was not the person who was present at the time of incident. Similarly, PW-3 Mr. Abrar who was the complainant in this case deposed on the lines of PW-2 and has firmly testified that he had not seen accused Lalit anywhere with regard State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 15 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC to the present case. These testimonies further shatter the prosecution version of involvement of accused Lalit in the alleged offences which substantiates the defence version of false implication of the accused.
23. Perusal of the record shows that PW-1 Afzal Khan and PW-2 Mr. Jeeshan @ Rajji are the only eye witnesses of the incident. Mere reading of testimony of police witnesses PW-4 Harbans Lal and PW-5 IO/SI Vikas and record, shows that they conducted the investigation on the basis of complaint filed by PW-3 ie the brother of the victim. It is thus evident that PW-4 Harbans Lal and PW-5/IO SI Vikas are not even eye witnesses of the incident and have merely conducted the investigation based on the version stated by the complainant. Furthermore, it is seen from the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that villagers had gathered at the time of rescue of the victim/PW-1 but none of them was joined in the investigation. It further creates grave doubt upon the fairness and impartiality of the investigation which renders the same nugatory. This non joinder of public witnesses had not been explained by prosecution during the trial. In view of hostility of the complainant/ victim, this unexplained non joinder of public witnesses becomes a very material omission which goes to the roots of the prosecution version and shatters that credibility of the police witnesses as their presence on the spot itself becomes doubtful. So, the testimonies of the police witnesses, in view of the hostility of the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 qua identity of the accused as State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 16 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC offender, is of no consequence to incriminate the accused for the alleged offences.
24. With respect to the arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. PP for State that accused was duly identified by PW-1 in the TIP proceedings and victim's statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded regarding the incident and the same are sufficient to incriminate the accused, it is pertinent to mention that both the TIP and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C are not substantive piece of evidence. The same can merely used to corroborate the version stated during the trial before the court. In the present case, PW-1 has not identified the accused Lalit as the offender during trial and further stated that he had mistakenly identified the accused Lalit during TIP as he had merely seen the accused Lalit in village. Considering the same and the justification given by him, the presumption of culpability of the accused Lalit arising on the basis of TIP and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C of the victim, stands washed off.
25. It is further observed from the record that the prosecution has made allegations against the accused for entering into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons to commit aforesaid alleged offences. However, neither any material has been collected by the investigating agency nor any alleged circumstance showing the prior agreement or prior acquaintance of the said accused persons has been brought on record. It is reflected that no credit worthy eye witness was State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 17 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC examined by the prosecution to establish the fact that the present accused along with other co-accused persons had ever met or discussed in the presence and hearing of the said witness, qua hatching a conspiracy to commit alleged offences. Even the telephonic records which could have been easily obtained in order to establish the link among the accused persons have also not been brought on record.
26. In view of the aforesaid omissions and the present facts, it is apt to say that the prosecution did not bring even any material/evidence/circumstance suggesting the existence of any agreement amongst the accused persons to commit the alleged offences. So, no offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC is made out against the accused.
27. It is already evident from the aforementioned discussion that identity of the accused as offender has not been established. It is further pertinent to mention that the prosecution did not bring any material suggesting the sharing of common intention by the accused with other co-accused persons for commission of the alleged offences. Neither any telephonic record or nor any other electronic evidence or other direct evidence has been brought on record suggesting the prior acquaintance of the accused with other co-accused persons or even their presence at the spot so as to assume that there was ever an occasion for the present accused to share common intention with others for committing the State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 18 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC alleged offences.
28. It thus emerges from the aforesaid discussion and perusal of testimonies of PWs as well as record that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the accused as assailant who abducted the victim for ransom and caused grievous injuries upon him with an intention to cause his death and threatened to kill him in case he or his relatives lodged complaint to the police, the fact that the accused agreed with other co-accused persons to do an illegal act i.e. abduction for ransom and the factum of sharing of common intention with co-accused persons for committing the abduction for ransom, causing grievous hurt with an intention to kill and threatening the victim as alleged.
29. Considering the afore-discussed testimonies, this Court is of the view that arguments advanced by the Ld. Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients necessary for completion of the alleged offences do not have any force whereas the arguments made on behalf of defence that the accused has been falsely implicated are found to be justified.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Lalit is hereby State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 19 of 20 FIR No. 112/17 P.S. Palam Village U/s. 364A/506/307/34 IPC & 120B IPC acquitted of the charge u/s 364-A, 307, 506, read with section 34 IPC & 120-B IPC read with section 364-A IPC levelled against him. Bail bonds stands cancelled and Sureties be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
31. Bail bonds and surety bonds already furnished on 27.09.2022 in compliance of Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C are considered and accepted for a period of six months from today.
32. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court
today on 28.09.2022 (VIPLAV DABASS)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:
FAST TRACK COURT
DWARKA COURTS, SOUTH-WEST
NEW DELHI
State V/s Lalit & Anr. Page 20 of 20