Delhi District Court
State vs Vipin Chaudhary@ Robin on 1 November, 2014
FIR No. 310/12
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 386/427/506 IPC
State Vs.Vipin Chaudhary@ Robin
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPLAV DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: NORTH WEST04, DELHI
FIR No.310/12
Case ID:- 02404R0368562012
FIR No. 310/12
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 386/427/506 IPC
State Vs.Vipin Chaudhary@ Robin
Date of Institution of case : 28.12.2012
Date of Judgment : 01.11.2014
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 31.10.2012 b) Offence complained of : U/s 386/427/506 IPC c) Name of Accused, his : Sh. Vipin Chaudhary @ Robin parentage & residence S/o Sh.Shri Pal R/o 717/ 44. Lekhu Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted 1/8 FIR No. 310/12 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386/427/506 IPC State Vs.Vipin Chaudhary@ Robin BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
1. That on 31.10.2012, at about 10:00 / 10:15 p.m, at Shop No. 2577, Jain Sathanak Road, Tri Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Keshav Puram the accused Vipin Chaudhary intentionally committed extortion by putting complainant Sachin Singh into fear of death or grievous hurt and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant so put in fear to deliver Rs. 800/- and also threatened to him by giving criminal intimidation and accused also committed mischief by causing damage to the glass of the counter of the abovesaid shop which was in possession of complainant thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. The accused thus committed an offence punishable u/s 386, 506 and 427 IPC within the cognizance of this Court.
2. The Court took cognizance of the abovesaid offences u/s 386, 506 and 427 IPC and as a prime facie case was made out against the accused Vipin Chaudhary for offence punishable u/s 386, 506 and 427 IPC, charge was accordingly framed against him to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 386, 506 and 427 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Sections:
2/8 FIR No. 310/12PS Keshav Puram U/s 386/427/506 IPC State Vs.Vipin Chaudhary@ Robin
a) Section 386 IPC:- That accused put the victim or any other person in fear of death, grievous hurt, that he did it voluntarily, that he did so and to induce the victim to deliver some property, valuable security or something signed or sealed which could be converted into valuable security and that such inducement was done dishonestly.
b) Section 427 IPC:- That accused committed mischief and such mischief caused loss or damage amounting to not less than Rs. 50.
c) 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 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.
4. To prove its case, prosecution started its evidence by examining the witnesses as per the list.
5. PW-1 Sh. Sachin Singh, S/o Sh. Hari Ram deposed that he does not know anything regarding the present case, that he is unable to understand as why the Hon'ble Court asked him to appear in the Court, that he has seen the accused Vipin Chaudhary for the time first time in the Court and that he has 3/8 FIR No. 310/12 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386/427/506 IPC State Vs.Vipin Chaudhary@ Robin never handed over any currency notes to anybody out of fear or under pressure.
During the examination in chief Ld. APP for the State was permitted to cross examine the witness and the witness deposed that his statement exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A bears his signature at point A, that he runs a mobile shop at Tota Ram Bazar, Tri Nagar, Delhi & that he disowned the contents of his statement exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. The witness denied the suggestion that he has made statement to the police exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A, that he had put his signatures over the statement after reading the same, that he had stated in his statement exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A that on 31.10.2012 at about 10:00 / 10:15 p.m, when he was present in his shop alongwith his friend Sunil, the accused demanded some money from him forcibly by saying that ""He is Robin" and all the Tri Nagar knows him", that accused also threatened him that if he would not pay the money he would not allow him to operate in that area, that he had stated in his statement exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A, that he paid a sum of Rs. 800/- from his counter as the accused had lifted his laptop and threatened to break the same, that accused abused him in a filthy language, that accused broke the mirror of his shop and that site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared by the IO at his instance. The witness further deposed that arrest memo, personal search memo and recovery memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B to Ex. PW-1/D bears his signature at point A. The witness further denied the suggestion that accused Vipin Chaudhary @ Robin was arrested and personally searched in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C or that he identified the accused before the IO and that currency note of Rs. 500 were recovered from the possession 4/8 FIR No. 310/12 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386/427/506 IPC State Vs.Vipin Chaudhary@ Robin of the accused in his presence which was seized vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D. The witness deposed that he can-not identify the currency notes if shown to him. The witness refused to identify the currency notes produced by MHC(M) and stated that the same does not belongs to him.
6. PW-2 Sh. Kuldeep, S/o Sh. Hari Ram deposed that he does not know anything regarding the present case and he is unable to understand as to why the Hon'ble Court asked him to appear in the Court as he has seen the accused Vipin Chaudhary today in the Court for the first time.
During the examination in chief Ld. APP for the State was permitted to cross examine the witness and the witness deposed that he is having a mobile shop no. 2577, Tota Ram Bazar, Tri Nagar, Delhi and that he has never made any statement to the police and that he disowned his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement to the police that on 31.10.2012 when his younger brother Sachin and his friend Sunil were present in the shop at about 10:00 to 10:15 p.m, the accused Vipin Chaudhary @ Robin came there and started breaking the counter and mirror of their shop and demanded Rs. 800 from his brother Sachin. The witness further denied the suggestion that he stated in his statement to the police that the accused threatened to kill his brother Sachin and out of fear his brother Sachin handed over Rs. 800 to the accused from the counter of the shop and the accused also threatened his brother to kill him if he made any complaint to the police.
7. During the prosecution evidence, it was brought to the notice of this 5/8 FIR No. 310/12 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386/427/506 IPC State Vs.Vipin Chaudhary@ Robin Court by the Ld. Counsel for accused that the complainant/ star witnesses are not supporting the prosecution and resiling from their statement recorded earlier, that no material could be extracted from the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses and that the witness has turned hostile in toto. It is submitted that the testimony of other eye witness namely Sunil would be of no consequence in view of the inconsistent deposition of the complainant/ victim as it is only the victim who is the best witness of the incident and other eye witness can only corroborate his version. Ld. Counsel further submits that corroboration by other witness would be of no use as the complainant has himself turned hostile. Furthermore, there is no other eye witness of the incident and there is no circumstance available on record to prove that accused was the offender who committed extortion and mischief by resorting to criminal intimidation or that it was the case property which was actually extorted from the victim or that the case property allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused was the same property as was robbed from the victim. It is submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution against the accused as remaining witnesses are all police witnesses who are formal in nature and the identity of the accused person as the assailant who extorted and committed mischief by criminally intimidating the victim as well as the identity of the case property, which is necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused for offences punishable u/s 386, 506 & 427 IPC can not be proved at all by the remaining prosecution witnesses.
8. Submission heard on behalf of State and defence. Record perused.
6/8 FIR No. 310/12PS Keshav Puram U/s 386/427/506 IPC State Vs.Vipin Chaudhary@ Robin
9. Perusal of the record reveals that submissions of the Ld. Counsel for accused are not baseless. Considering the record, the fact that the complainant/star witnesses PW-1 Sh. Sachin and PW-2 Kuldeep are not supporting the prosecution and are resiling from their statement recorded earlier regarding the identity of accused and that of the case property as well as the factum of extortion and mischief committed by the accused by criminally intimidating the complainant, that the testimony of other eyewitness namely Sunil would be of no consequence in view of the inconsistent deposition of the complainant/ victim as the alleged offences had been committed against his person and property and it is the only victim who is the best witness of the incident in such cases and other eye witness can only corroborate the version of the complainant which would be of no use as the complainant has already turned hostile and that the remaining witnesses are all police witnesses who are formal in nature and the identity of the accused person as the assailant who extorted and committed mischief by criminally intimidating the victim as well as the identity of the case property, which is necessary element for completion of offences u/s 386, 427 & 506 IPC can not be proved by those witnesses, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution evidence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is closed and recording of statement of accused is also dispensed with as there is no substantially incriminating circumstance available on record.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and the present circumstances, as no substantially incriminating material is available on record, accused namely Vipin Chaudhary @ Robin is hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 386, 427 & 7/8 FIR No. 310/12 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386/427/506 IPC State Vs.Vipin Chaudhary@ Robin 506 IPC levelled 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.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS)
today i.e on 01.11.2014 MM-04/North West, Rohini Courts:
01.11.2014
8/8