Delhi District Court
State vs . Sobhit Jaswal on 31 October, 2014
FIR No. 293/09
State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal
U/s. 323/341/506 IPC
PS: Keshav Puram
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPLAV DABAS MM4(NORTH WEST) ROHINI
COURTS DELHI
FIR No. 293/09
State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal
U/s. 323/341/506 IPC
PS: Keshav Puram
Case ID No. 02404R0057172010
Date of Institution of case : 08.03.2010
Date of Judgment : 31.10.2014
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 03.10.2009 b) Offence complained of : U/s 323/341/506 IPC c) Name of Accused, his : Sobit Jaiswal parentage & residence S/o Sh. Kirpal Singh, R/o House no. 100A, Block B-3, Keshav Puram, Delhi. d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted. Page No.1/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.10.2009, at around 05.15 p.m, at House no. B-3/98, Keshav Puram, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Keshav Puram accused Shobit Jaswal wrongfully restrained the complainant Smt. Chanderlekha Wadhwani and voluntarily caused simple hurt as well as criminally threatened to eliminate her, her husband and her children and thus committed offence punishable u/s 341, 323 & 506 IPC. After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offence u/s 341, 323 & 506 IPC was filed by the investigating agency against the accused.
2. The aforesaid chargesheet was filed before the court on 08.03.2010, whereupon the cognizance of the offences u/s 341, 323 & 506 IPC was taken against the accused. Thereafter, provision of section 207 Cr.PC. was complied.
3. After hearing the arguments, charge u/s u/s 341, 323 & 506 IPC was framed against the accused Sobit Jaiswal upon which the accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial. Accordingly, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 341, 323 & 506 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Sections:
Page No.2/22 FIR No. 293/09State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram
i) Section 323:- That the accused caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim and that accused did so with intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim.
ii) Section 341:- That the accused lawfully restrains a person, that such restraint prevented the victim from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits and that the victim had every right to proceed beyond the circumscribing limits.
iii) Section 506 IPC :-That the accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested, that the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence and that the accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.
5. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined six witnesses to substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused.
6. PW-1, Smt. Chanderlekha Wadhwani deposed that on 03.10.2009, one vehicle for lifting the garbage came in their street as some renovation work was going on in her house and in other houses in neighborhood, that the accused finding no proper space to pass through the street starting shouting on the driver of the truck asking him to move the vehicle from the Page No.3/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram street, that she sent the labourer on hearing the noise, that she also started going downstairs for seeing as to what was going on, that she requested accused either to wait for five minutes or to take alternative route for his house, that the accused started shouting in filthy language and started uttering abuses, that the accused got down from his car and took out an iron rod and hit the same on her left arm, that other persons of the neighborhood also came at the spot, that the accused gave a punch on her face in presence of other residents, that the accused pushed her and threatened her that he would kill her and her husband, that the accused also threatened her maid servant who tried to save her, that other people saved her from the accused and took the accused to his house, that her son made PCR Call, that she called her husband, that the police came to the spot who took her to the police station and after that got her medically examined, that police officials asked her to lodged the FIR on the next day in the presence of the parents of the accused, that on the next day FIR was lodged after she approached the DCP Office (North West), that she never gave the statement dated 30.10.2009 marked as Mark X bearing his signature at point X, that the said statement was recorded by the police officials on their own upon which she was forced to sign and that her statement was recorded on 04.10.2009 which is Ex. PW-1/A. The testimony of this witness had gone unrebutted as this witness was not cross examined despite opportunity. However, on 16.08.2011, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of PW-1 Ms. Chander Page No.4/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram Lekha Wadhwani was moved on behalf of accused and the said application was allowed by Ld. Predecessor's Court vide order dated 16.08.2011.
During cross examination PW-1, Sh. Chander Lekha Wadhwani deposed that she had given her statement first time to the IO on 03.10.2009 at about 5:30 / 6:00 p.m and that her said statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded at PS Keshav Puram. The witness on being confronted with statement Ex. PW-1/A deposed that she had stated to the police in her statement exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A that on 03.10.2009 one vehicle for lifting the garbage came in their street as some renovation work was going on in her house and in other houses in neighborhood, that the accused finding no proper space to pass through the street starting shouting on the driver of the truck asking him to move the vehicle from the street, that she sent the labourer on hearing the noise, that she also started going downstairs for seeing as to what was going on, that she requested accused either to wait for five minutes or to take alternative route for his house, that the accused started shouting in filthy language and started uttering abuses, that the accused got down from his car and took out an iron rod and hit the same on her left arm, that other persons of the neighborhood also came at the spot, that the accused gave a punch on her face in presence of other residents, that the accused pushed her and threatened her that he would kill her and her husband, that the accused also threatened her maid servant who tried to save her, that other people saved her from the accused and took the accused to his house, that her son made PCR Call, that she called her husband, that Page No.5/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram the police came to the spot who took her to the police station and after that got her medically examined, that police officials asked her to lodged the FIR on the next day in the presence of the parents of the accused, that police officials did not lodge the FIR and on the next day and FIR was lodged after she approached the DCP Office (North West) and that the police officials forced her to sign on one paper. However, perusal of the statement Ex. PW-1/A revealed that nothing as deposed above by the witness had been mentioned in the statement Ex. PW-1 which shows that the complainant's version is false. Smt. Chander Lekha Wadhwani further deposed that her statement was recorded on 03.10.2009 marked as mark X and secondly on 04.10.2009 exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A and that blood was oozing out from her cheek, ear and noise due to the cut mark but her clothes did not have any mark of blood so oozed out from her above-mentioned parts due to punching. The witness denied the suggestion that she had not mentioned in her statement marked as Mark X that she was restrained by accused on the way, that on 03.10.2009 a simple verbal quarrel took place between her and the neighbours with regard to the blockage of street by the labourers to load the garbage in the vehicle or that due to this reason the neighboring persons objected the same or that she and her son started misbehaving and abusing with the neighbours and her son even assaulted them, that neighbors made a PCR call and when police reached to the spot she did not make any statement to the police officials, that she was not having any cut mark or any injury or any bleeding and that she made a concocted false story and lodged Page No.6/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram a false FIR.
7. PW-2 Constable Lokesh, No. 524 (N/W) deposed that on 03.10.2009 at about 5:20 p.m on receipt of DD no. 58, he along with Head Constable Narender went to the spot where they met with a lady namely Chanderlekha Wadwani with whom the accused had quarreled and got her injured, that she was got medically examined by him at BJRM Hospital after which he came to spot, that complainant did not give statement on 03.10.2009 so he along-with IO came back to police station, that IO recorded the statement of complainant on 04.10.2009 at her house and handed over the rukka to him for getting the FIR registered and that IO arrested the accused Sobhit on the identification of complainant and prepared arrest memo.
During the cross-examination, the witness deposed that IO did not enquire on the spot as to who had made the call to PCR in his presence, that he remained at the spot for about 10/15 minutes, that during his stay at the spot, no document was prepared and no person was examined by the IO and that the IO had enquired the public persons gathered at the spot and recorded their names, parentage and addresses but did not serve any notice to them. The witness further deposed that he did not notice whether any tempo was stationed at the spot or not, that IO did not enquire the driver or its owner in his presence, that they reached at the spot on receipt of DD no. 58 & that he does not know whether any call was received pertaining to incident in question after receipt of DD no. 58. The witness denied the Page No.7/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram suggestion that accused was not arrested in his presence, that accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of complainant with the collusion of police officials & that all the public persons were making statement against the complainant and her son but IO did not deliberately record the same.
8. PW-3 Sh. Surender Kumar Dalal, S/o Late Sh. Hardwari Lal deposed that on 03.10.2009, he saw that many persons had gathered at the stairs due to quarrel between the children, that accused Sobhit was also present at the spot, that he tried to defuse the situation and that he took accused to his house. The testimony of this witness shows that the incident did not take place in the manner as alleged.
During examination in chief, Ld. APP was permitted to cross-examine the witness under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act and the witness deposed that he did not state to the police officials that accused was quarreling and beating his neighbor Chanderlekha Wadhwani. The witness further deposed that he does not know whether on the day of incident, his neighbour sustained injury or not. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity. The testimony of this witness shows that the incident did not take place in the manner as alleged.
9. PW-4, Salil Kumar Sil, S/o Late Sh. S.C. Sil deposed that on 03.10.2009, in the evening time he heard noise in the Gali upon which he came out and saw that accused was quarreling with Ms. Chander Lekha Page No.8/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram Wadhwani and that he does not know whether accused used filthy language against Ms. Wadhwani.
During examination in chief, Ld. APP was permitted to cross-examine the witness as he was resiling from his statement recorded earlier and the witness deposed that his statement Ex. PW-4/A was recorded by the police, that he has gone through its contents which are true and correct and that accused was abusing Ms. Wadhwani and also slapped her.
During the cross examination the witness deposed that on the day of incident the renovation work was going on in the house of the complainant, that he does not remember if any raw material or garbage was lying in the street which was causing obstruction to the vehicles and other public persons, that he did not see any vehicle / tempo having raw material which was to be delivered at the house of the complainant, that he did not make any call to the PCR, that the PCR and the local police reached at the incident within half an hour of the incident and that his statement was recorded by the police at the same time.
The witness further deposed that he does not remember exactly whether his statement was recorded on the same day or the next day, that his statement was recorded by the police at her house who had called him at her house, that he does not remember if complainant ever made any statement to the police in his presence, that 7-8 neighbours had gathered at the spot after seeing the quarrel but he does not remember if any public persons made any statement to the police at the spot on the day of incident Page No.9/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram and that he does not remember if complainant had made any allegation against the accused on 03.10.2009 or not. The witness denied the suggestion that he has not seen any incident of quarrel or that he is deposing falsely because of close and harmonious relation with complainant. It is clear from aforesaid deposition that the version of prosecution regarding threats being extended by accused and complainant being hit by iron rod is not supported by this witness which falsifies the prosecution version.
10. PW-5 ASI Narender Singh No. 2674/North, PS Timarpur, Delhi deposed on the similar lines as deposed by the PW-2 Constable Lokesh in his examination in chief. PW-5 ASI Narender Singh deposed that on 03.10.2009 the complainant gave the statement Ex. PW-5/E bearing his signature at point B, that on 04.10.2009 he again visited the spot where he prepared the tehreer Ex. PW-5/A on basis of complaint Ex. PW-1/A made by the complainant, that he prepared site plan Ex. PW-5/B at the instance of complainant, that he arrested the accused and personally searched him vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW-5/C and Ex. PW-5/D respectively and that he recorded the statement of Surender Dalal and Saleel Kumar who were the eye witnesses.
During the cross examination the witness deposed that he can not tell as who had made PCR call in this case and from whose number, that lots of public persons gathered at the spot when he reached at the spot on 03.10.2009 but he did not record their statement on 03.10.2009, that on day Page No.10/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram no body made any statement to him with regard to the incident and that after about one hour of the incident complainant gave the statement Ex. PW-5/E. The witness further deposed that the FIR was not lodged on the basis of complaint Ex. PW-5/E rather another complaint Ex. PW-1/A was made by the complainant on 04.10.2009 at about 2:15 p.m upon which FIR was got registered and that the statements of public witnesses were recorded by him at the house of the complainant. The witness denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation of this case fairly, that the witnesses were planted at the instance of complainant, that the accused was falsely implicated in this case, that after reaching at the spot he came to know that son of complainant had given beatings to the neighbours and made nuisance or that in order to avoid the consequence the complainant deliberately did not make any statement on the day of incident or that subsequently the complainant lodged a false compliant case.
11. PW-6 HC Ram Krishan, No. 1672/Security, HM Office, North Block, Delhi proved the FIR exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A in the present case bearing his signature at point A. The endorsement is Ex. PW-6/B. During the cross examination the witness denied the suggestion that no rukka was received at PS or that rukka was prepared at the PS only at the instance of the complainant.
12. On 08.09.2014, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused that Page No.11/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram as per the instruction of his client, he is not disputing the preparation and contents of MLC which is exhibited as Ex. P-1 and filing of charge-sheet. Separate statement of Ld. Counsel for accused to this effect was recorded separately and in view of same the remaining prosecution witnesses being only Doctors were dropped.
13. Vide order dated 08.09.2014, the prosecution evidence was closed by this Court and matter was fixed for recording of statement of Accused.
14. On 12.09.2014, statement of accused was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/s 313 of code of criminal procedure in which he denied all the allegations made against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused further submitted that true facts are that on 03.10.2009, a simple verbal quarrel took place between the neighbores with regard to the blockage of street by the labours who were loading the garbage/ construction material in the vehicle or due to that reason the neighborers objected the same. Accused further stated that the complainant and her son namely Sameer Wadhwani @Chintu were misbehaving and abusing the neighborers and the said Sameer Wadhwani assaulted some of them, that one of the neighbour made a call to the PCR and when police reached at the spot, the complainant in order to save her son from legal action, pacified the matter with the neighbour and did not give any statement to the police on the same day but Page No.12/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram later on she, falsely implicated him in the present case. Accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence and thus defence evidence was closed.
15. At the time of final arguments it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of relevant sections are completed. In reply to this it is argued on behalf of accused that police had falsely implicated the accused in the present case and and prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
16. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state as well the defence counsel.
17. It is apparent from the confronted portion of cross examination of the complainant that the version as stated in the statement Ex. PW-1/A based on which the FIR was registered is not the same as deposed by this witness in her examination in chief and cross examination. Despite confrontation the witness failed to give any explanation to justify the material improvement made during the recording of testimony over the version mentioned in the statement Ex. PW-1/A which shatters the credit of the prosecution version and falsifies it. In the said statement complainant had stated that the accused hit her with the iron rod picked up from the garbage after climbing the stairs of her house whereas during the examination in chief this witness stated that she started going downstairs and the accused hit her with the iron Page No.13/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram rod after getting down from his car which is material contradiction going to the roots of the prosecution version as it is not possible for the accused to hit the complainant after climbing her stairs and simultaneously hit her on the street after getting out from his car. The defence has shattered the credit of this witness by extracting from her during cross examination that whatever she had told to the police on 03.10.2009 after coming back to the PS from hospital was written by them in the document marked as Mark X bearing her signature at point A which mentions the true facts as she had not concealed anything from the police whereas this witness denied giving any such statement to the police in her examination in chief. It creates grave doubt upon the version as mentioned in the document marked as Mark X which indicates that the complainant's version of alleged incident can-not be accepted as truthful. This witness contradicted herself by deposing in examination in chief that her statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded on 04.10.2009 while during cross examination she deposed that her first statement marked as Mark X was recorded on 03.10.2009 and denied that her statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded on 04.10.2009 which shows that the witness is inconsistent and not credit-worthy thereby raising a question mark on the said statements made by the complainant as well as the contents stated therein and the factum of happening of the incident described in the said statements. The witness further testified during cross examination that her statement was recorded twice i.e firstly on 03.10.2009 marked as Mark X and then on 04.10.2009 exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A while in reply to the very Page No.14/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram first question during cross examination the witness stated that she had given her statement first time to the IO on 03.10.2009 and the said statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded in PS Keshav Puram which reflects the lack of creditability of the deposition of this witness and that both the alleged statement are concocted ones which can-not be believed by any prudent person in view of these contradictions and inconsistencies. Perusal of statement mark X / PW-5/E shows that the version of complainant is that the accused argued with her without any reason, abused her and slapped her. But the complainant during cross examination admitted, by denying the suggestions that she had not mentioned the factum of any rod or saria in her statement mark X & that she had not mentioned the name of any witness or factum of her being restrained by the accused on the way or factum of any threat in her statement Mark X, that she had mentioned the aforesaid facts in the said statement. These admissions are contrary to the contents of the statement mark X which reflect that the complainant's entire version is false and full of improvements thereby leading to the conclusion that accused had been falsely implicated by the complainant. PW4 the eye witness admitted during his cross examination that his statement was recorded by the police on the day following the incident at the house of complainant who had called him at her house and that he is having good visiting terms with the complainant being her neighbour. However, the complainant PW1 admitted during cross examination that neighbouring persons had gathered at the spot after seeing the incident and during the incident but she can not tell the Page No.15/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram names or other particulars of any of them. The failure of the complainant to tell the names or other particulars of the next door neighbours as is apparent from the addresses of the complainant and witnesses whose statements were recorded at the house of the complainant at her instance leads to the conclusion that the said witnesses were not present at the time of the alleged incident or that no such incident as alleged had taken place which was witnessed by the said witnesses which further indicates that neither the deposition of the said witness nor that of the complainant regarding the manner of occurrence of the incident indicting the accused can be believed.
It is the case of the complainant as deposed in her examination-in- chief that the main cause of alleged incident was lack of availability of space in the street for passing of the car of accused as a vehicle for lifting the garbage/malwa of the renovation work being carried out in the house of the complainant and neighbours had arrived in the street. However, PW-4 deposed during cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused that he did not see any vehicle and he does not remember whether any raw material or garbage was lying in the street. Similarly, PW-2 who reached the spot alongwith IO on 03.10.2009 deposed that he did not notice whether any tempo was stationed at the spot or not. Even the IO PW-5 neither mentioned anything in his examination about such tempo obstructing the street nor made any enquiries as to main cause of the alleged incident as stated by complainant. These depositions indicate that no such obstruction took place which further implies that the root cause of the alleged incident did not exist Page No.16/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram and hence the question of happening of the incident in the manner as alleged did not arise. Further more PW-4 the eye witness deposed that the accused abused and slapped the complainant but he did not depose anything regarding the complaint being wrongfully restrained or threatened or being hit by the accused with the iron rod as deposed by the complainant during her examination in chief. These inconsistencies in the aforesaid testimonies indicate that the complainant is making false allegations against the accused.
Apart from the afore-discussed inconsistencies and reasons, the contradictions & omissions as described in the following discussion further make the prosecution version highly suspicious:- The case of prosecution is that at about 5.28 pm on 03.10.2009 DD No. 58 B was registered at PS Keshav Puram regarding quarrel by phone no. 9810282726, however no investigation was conducted by the police official as to who made the call. Further more, the complainant alleged that she herself made a call at 100 number in the statement Ex. PW-1/A, however, PW-1 complainant deposed in the Court that her son made call at 100 number and the witnesses PW-2, PW3 and PW-6 deposed that they had no knowledge who made the call at 100 number. Moreover, the police official did not make an inqury from the PCR control room regarding the person who made the call which is a relevant question in the present circumstances as the same would have thrown some light as to whether the complainant was victim and thus she or her son called the PCR or she and her son had themselves misbehaved and abused the neighbours with regard to the blockage of the street which Page No.17/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram prompted the neighbours to make the PCR Call. The complainant deposed that the accused slapped her and gave her beating with the iron rod on her left arm as mentioned in the statement Ex. PW-1/A dated 04.10.2009. However, the duly admitted MLC of the complainant shows that the complainant was having pain on the left side of the face, swelling on the left side of the face and abrasion on the left cheek and no bleeding from any side which falsifies the version of the complainant as the injuries are not corroborated from the statement of PW-1 recorded in the Court and specifically nothing has been mentioned in the MLC regarding any injury on the left arm alleged to be inflicted by iron rod by the complainant. It is also apparent from the testimony of PW-2 that he left the house of the complainant with rukka at about 5:00 p.m and he again reached the house of the complainant at about 6:00 or 6:30 p.m but testimony of PW-6, duty officer on 04.10.2009 at PS Keshav Puram, shows that his duty hours were from 9:00 to 5:00 p.m on 04.10.2009 and on the same day he received rukka at about 3:00 p.m through PW-2 Ct. Lokesh sent by PW-5 ASI Narender Singh which indicates that the rukka was prepared ante-time at the instance of the complainant in connivance with the police officials.
Furthermore, PW-1 namely Smt. Chander Lekha Wadhwani deposed that police official took her to the police station and then to the hospital, but PW-2 Constable Lokesh deposed that IO/ PW-5 ASI Narender Singh sent PW-1 with him to BJRM Hospital, that on 03.10.2009 police did not register FIR but PW-2 Constable Lokesh deposed that PW-1/ complainant did not Page No.18/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram give her statement on that day and that statement exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A was recorded by police officials at the police station but PW-2 namely Constable Lokesh deposed that on 04.10.2009 he alongwith PW-5 HC Narender went to the house of the PW-1/ complainant where her statement was recorded, that the blood had oozed out from her cheek, ear and nose, but PW-2 namely Constable Lokesh deposed that there no blood on the spot was found as the injury was not of such nature and that Ex.PW-1/A was recorded by police at the police station, but PW-2 namely Constable Lokesh, PW-5 ASI Narender Singh and PW-6 Ram Krishna had given contradictory statements on the said statement give by PW-1.
PW-5 namely ASI Narender Singh deposed that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses i.e PW-3 namely Surender Dalal and PW-4 namely Saleel Kumar as their respective house but PW-4 namely Saleel Kumar deposed that his statement was recorded at the house of the complainant/ PW-1 and that on 04.10.2009 at 2:15 p.m, the complainant/ PW-1 gave her statement upon which FIR was lodged but PW-2 namely Constable Lokesh deposed that at 2:15 p.m, they left the police station for the house of the complainant/ PW-1 and at about 5:00p.m, he left with rukka for police station. The PW-6 HC Ram Krishan deposed that at about 3:00 p.m, PW-2 Constable Lokesh came at police station with rukka but PW-2 namely Constable Lokesh deposed that at about 5:00 p.m, he left with rukka for police station. The above stated material contradictions of the statements of the witnesses show that the applicant/ accused is innocent and he was Page No.19/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram falsely implicated in the present case by PW-1/ the complainant in connivance with the local police officials.
The afore-discussed contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions and improvements create a grave and serious doubt on the entire version of the prosecution which shows that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Court of Punjab and Haryana in Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Cr. L.J 1471(DB) (Punjab) in which it was observed as follows:-
The guilt of accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record. Even if, there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole, the prosecution may be true, but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.
18. In the present facts and circumstances, it is pertinent to mention the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It Page No.20/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt which failed to do so in the present case. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and laws laid down by the higher Courts, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, Sohbit Jaswal, S/o Sh. Kripal Singh is acquitted of the charges levelled Page No.21/22 FIR No. 293/09 State Vs. Sobhit Jaswal U/s. 323/341/506 IPC PS: Keshav Puram against him. Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any. Case property, if any, be confiscated to State and be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS)
On 31.10.2014 MM-04/NORTH WEST/DELHI
31.10.2014
Page No.22/22