Delhi District Court
State vs Smt. Santosh on 14 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANUJ KAUSHAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04/CENTRAL: DELHI
STATE VS. SANTOSH & ORS.
FIR No. 118/2018
Case No. 5964/2020
P.S. : SARAI ROHILLA
U/s 341/448/506(ii)/34 IPC
Date of institution of case : 22.09.2020
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 14.11.2024
Date of judgment : 14.11.2024
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 23.03.2018
b) Offence complained of : U/s 341/448/506(ii)/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Dhupa Devi
d) Name of accused, : (1) Smt. Santosh
persons their parentage : W/o Prahlad Prajapati
local & permanent residence R/o:- H.No. B 1616 Shastri
Nagar Delhi
(2) Shivani
W/o Gaurav Thakur
R/o B 1616 Shastri Nagar
Delhi
(3) Khusbhu
W/o Nitesh Jain
R/o B 1616 Shastri Nagar
Delhi
e) Plea of all accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : Acquitted
FIR no. 118/2018 State Vs. Smt. Santosh & Ors. Page no. 1 of 4
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
1. Briefly stated, it is the prosecution's case that on 23.03.2018 at time unknown at house no. B-1616, Shastri Nagar Delhi, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed the complainant Dhupa Devi from proceedings in her house and also committed house tress-pass by entering into the house of the complainant and locked the complainant alongwith her daughter in the stairs of the house and also gave life threats to the complainant and her daughter and thereby all accused persons committed offences punishable under Section 341/448/506(ii)/34 IPC.
2. On the basis of material filed along with the charge-sheet, charge u/s U/s 341/448/506(ii)/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons vide order dated 19.04.2023 to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case the prosecution proposed to examine 6 witnesses. PW/complainant Dhupa Devi and Parwati were deleted from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dt. 14.11.2024 as they were unserved through DCP and their names were deleted from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dt. 14.11.2024.
4. Since the star witness of the prosecution was deleted from the list of prosecution witnesses, the remaining prosecution witnesses were dropped as they were all formal witnesses who had merely joined the investigation at different stages and none of them witnessed the alleged offence and whose testimony, even if accepted unrebutted, would not have been sufficient to prove the allegations against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, keeping in view the right of the accused persons to speedy trial and the guidelines echoed by the Hon'ble FIR no. 118/2018 State Vs. Smt. Santosh & Ors. Page no. 2 of 4 Supreme Court of India from time to time that when it becomes fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial for completing the formality only to pronounce the conclusion on a future date, the trial was truncated and PE was closed.
5. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, recording of his statement u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
6. Final arguments were heard and record of the case has been perused.
7. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"i) 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 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 less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
8. It is a settled law as well as matter of common knowledge that evidence of complainant and other public witnesses is the best available evidence and the case can be proved beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimony FIR no. 118/2018 State Vs. Smt. Santosh & Ors. Page no. 3 of 4 of said witness only. In the present case, there is no evidence to bind the accused with the scene of crime as the complainant had already deleted from the list of prosecution witnesses. No other eye witness of the incident has been cited by the prosecution. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that even if testimony of the remaining witnesses sought to examined by the prosecution is accepted to be the truth still the offence and the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the offence could not have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
9. In view of the above discussion, the case against accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, all accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in the present matter. Accordingly, all accused persons namely Smt. Santosh, Shivani and Khusbhu stands acquitted U/s 341/448/506(ii)/34 IPC in the present case.
10. Original documents, if any, be returned to the entitled parties and also any endorsement on the documents be cancelled.
Digitally signedPRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT MANUJ by MANUJ
KAUSHAL
TODAY ON 14th NOVEMBER 2024 KAUSHAL Date: 2024.11.14
16:00:55 +0530
(MANUJ KAUSHAL)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
FIR no. 118/2018 State Vs. Smt. Santosh & Ors. Page no. 4 of 4