Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay. on 17 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Sanjay.
FIR No. 446/98
U/s. 507/509/34 IPC.
PS Mangol Puri, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
a) The sl. no. of the case : 298/2.
b) The Unique ID No. of the case : 02401R0049041999.
c) The date of commission of the : 18/05/1998.
offence
d) The date of institution of case : 10/05/1999.
e) The name of the complainant : Smt. Veena Sharma.
f) The name & address of accused : Sanjay S/o. Krishan
R/o. A108, Laxmi Park,
Nangloi, Delhi.
g) The offence complained of : U/s. 507/509/34 IPC.
h) The plea of the accused : pleaded not guilty.
i) The date of reserving the order : 28/09/2011.
j) The final order : Acquitted.
k) The date of such order : 15/10/2011.
FIR No. 446/98
PS Mangol Puri 1
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18/05/1998 at about 6:30 pm, in front of Kala Mandir Cinema Hall, accused Sanjay alongwith coaccused Narender Gautam (since expired) was apprehended for committing criminal intimidation by sending an anonymous telephone call and for threatening complainant Smt. Veena Sharma W/o Sh. Deshraj with injury to her person and to her reputation. The complainant was made to the police and after investigation, challan was filed by the police.
2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused and after hearing arguments, charge was framed against the accused for trial of offence U/s. 507/509/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Th prosecution in support of its case examined PW.1 ASI Prem Singh, Duty Officer, who has proved the copy of FIR vide Ex. PW1/A. PW.2 is, complainant Smt. Veena Sharma, who has proved the complaint given to police vide Ex. PW2/A. PW.3 is Sh. Deshraj, husband of Smt. Veena Sharma, who deposed about the incident, arrest of accused persons, personal search and body inspection of accused persons conducted in his presence vide memos Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C. PW.4 is HC Meer Singh, who had joined the investigation alongwith ASI Rama Nand and complainant Deshraj and has proved application Ex. PW3/PX1 for recording the conversation received from telephone No. 7175113 and arrest of accused Sanjay vide Ex. PW4/A, body inspection of accused Sanjay vide Ex. PW4/B, FIR No. 446/98 PS Mangol Puri 2 body inspection of accused Gautam vide Ex. PW4/C. PW.5 is IO SI Ramanand, who had investigated the case and has proved rukka vide Ex. PW5/A, site plan vide Ex. PW5/B and after completion of investigation, prepared the challan.
4. The statement of accused Sanjay was recorded U/s. 313 CrPC, wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. However, he did not wish to lead evidence in support of his defence.
5. I have heard final arguments from Ld. APP for State, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused and also gone through the evidence and documents on record carefully.
6. To prove the offence U/s. 507/509/34 IPC against the accused Sanjay , the prosecution has to prove that accused Sanjay along with coaccused Narender Gautam (since expired) in furtherance of his common intention committed criminal intimidation by sending an anonymous telephonic calls and threatened the complainant Smt. Veena Sharma with injury to her person and to her reputation. The prosecution in this case has examined five witnesses in total.
7. As per prosecution case, deceased accused Gautam used to make threatening and insulting telephonic calls to the complainant/PW2 Smt. Veena Sharma and on 18/05/1998 accused Gautam telephoned to meet complainant Smt. FIR No. 446/98 PS Mangol Puri 3 Veena Sharma. When the complainant went to meet him at the appointed place, both the accused persons were apprehended at the spot by the police while they trying to communicate with the complainant Smt. Veena Sharma.
8. Despite examining five witnesses, nothing incriminating came on record against accused Sanjay. The prosecution has examined PW2/complainant Smt. Veena Sharma and her husband PW3 Deshraj, both of whom have deposed only against deceased accused Gautam, whereas they have ascribed only a very limited role to accused Sanjay. They merely deposed that on 18/05/1998 deceased accused Gautam telephoned PW2/complainant Smt. Veena Sharma to meet her near Kala Mandir Cinema, Mangol Puri. When they reached there accused Sanjay approached the complainant Smt. Veena Sharma and stated that accused Gautam was standing nearby and had called her. When she walked around 2530 steps, deceased accused Gautam was found standing. Immediately then, the police had apprehended accused Gautam and Sanjay. PW2 had specifically deposed that only deceased accused Gautam used to threaten and insult her on telephone. PW2 and PW3 have not made any allegations of threatening and insults against accused Sanjay. The limited role ascribed to accused Sanjay is not sufficient to infer that this accused was acting in common intention with deceased accused Gautam in threatening and insulting the complainant/PW Smt. Veena Sharma through telephone. Rest of the PWs are only witnesses to investigation of the case.
FIR No. 446/98 PS Mangol Puri 4
9. In view of above observation and discussion and the evidence available on record, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused Sanjay all shadows of reasonable doubt. Hence, I hereby acquit the accused Sanjay for the offence he has been charged with. He is on bail. His bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 17/10/2011. (VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
(Copies 1 + 1) Delhi
FIR No. 446/98
PS Mangol Puri 5