Delhi District Court
State vs . Mahender on 31 March, 2022
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEHA GUPTA SINGH,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE09, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, DELHI
STATE VS. Mahender
FIR No: 201/13
P. S. Burari
U/s. 374/341/34 IPC, 23 JJ Act
JUDGMENT
Registration No. of the case : 290253/2016 Date of its institution : 8.09.2015 Name of the complainant : Anil Kumar Date of Commission of offence : 25.05.2013 Name of the accused : Mahender s/o Tara Chand 1772, Sanjay Basti, Old Qtrs Timarpur, Delhi Offence complained of : U/s 374/341 IPC, 23 J J Act Plea of accused : pleaded not guilty Case reserved for orders : 31.03.2022 Date of judgment : 31.03.2022 Final Order : Acquitted for offence u/s 374/344 IPC, section 14 Child Labor Act and 23 Juvenile Justice Act -: 2 :- BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25.05.2013 Accused within the jurisdiction of PS Burari, compelled child Pankaj against his will for child labor, and wrongfully confined him in his dairy for 10 days. He further exposed the child to men tal and physical suffering. He thereby committed offence un der section 374/344 IPC, section 14 Child Labor Act and 23 Juvenile Justice Act. FIR was registered.
2. Investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed under sections 374/344 IPC, section 14 Child Labor Act and 23 Ju venile Justice Act. Cognizance was taken and accused was summoned.
3. Copy of charge sheet and documents were supplied to the ac cused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Arguments on charge were heard and charge against ac cused Mahender was framed under section 374/344 IPC, sec tion 14 Child Labor Act and 23 Juvenile Justice Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined one witness.
-: 3 :-6. PW1 Siptar, deposed that his brother Anil told him that his son has left house without informing him. They found child in Burari. He did not disclose any further fatcs.
7. Victim and his parents are not traceable despite several ef forts. Witness has not supported the version of prosecution. There are no other material witness cited by prosecution. All other witnesses are formal witnesses.
8. Prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused under section 313 Cr.pc was dispensed with as no incriminat ing evidence has come on record against the accused persons.
9. Final arguments were lead for state by Ld. APP and for ac cused Ld. Counsel lead the arguments.
10. I have heard the state and accused and have perused the record carefully.
11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that pros ecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to suc cessfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defense of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every -: 4 :- reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
12. In present case, material witnesses is not supporting the ver sion of the prosecution. He has not identified the accused as person who committed the offence. Other witnesses are not traceable. Identity of accused or that he committed the aforestated offense is not established in present case.
13. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, ac cused is acquitted for offence under section 374/344 IPC, sec tion 14 Child Labor Act and 23 Juvenile Justice Act Announced in the open court NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA GUPTA On this 31st March 2022 GUPTA SINGH Date: 2022.03.31 SINGH 16:44:55 +0530 (Neha Gupta Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate09, Central, Tishazari Delhi