Delhi District Court
Fir No.162/18 Ps-Sarita Vihar State vs . Rohit Bhiduri Page No. 1 Of 7 on 13 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE
VS
ROHIT BIDHURI
FIR No. 162/18
U/s. 188 IPC
PS : Sarita Vihar
A. Cr No. : 5709/18
B. Date of Institution : 21.08.2018
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 22.06.2018
D. Name of the complainant : HC Babu Lal
E. Name of the Accused : Rohit Bidhuri
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh
Bidhuri
R/o H. No. 659
Mahela Mohalla,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi
F. Offences complained of : U/s 188 IPC
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Order reserved on : Not Reserved.
I. Final order : Acquitted.
J. Date of such order : 13.09.2018
FIR No.162/18 PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs. Rohit Bhiduri Page no. 1 of 7
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts :-
1. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 22.06.2018 at about 09:30 PM, at House no. 659, Mahela Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Sarita Vihar, the accused had kept tenants without Police verification and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 188 IPC.
2. Cognizance was taken and copy of challan and documents were supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. After hearing the parties, prima facie offence punishable U/s 188 IPC was found to made out against the accused. Charge was framed accordingly and explained to accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined the IO/ HC Babu Lal. Vide separate statement recorded U/s 294 Cr.P.C r/w S. 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C, accused admitted the genuineness Copy of FIR, Arrest memo, site plan, copy of Order of ACP. PE was closed.
5. Accused was examined U/s 313 CrPC He did not produce FIR No.162/18 PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs. Rohit Bhiduri Page no. 2 of 7 any independent witness in his Defence. Accordingly, the matter was listed for final arguments.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and accused as well as gone through case file very carefully.
7. The argument of Ld. APP is that there is enough evidence on record to prove the case against the accused. On the other hand, accused has submitted that the copy of the Order of ACP was not served upon him and thus, there is no violation.
Relevant Law:-
It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. Also it is a FIR No.162/18 PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs. Rohit Bhiduri Page no. 3 of 7 settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Law relating to requirement of independent witness
8. Further Sec. 100 Clause 4 & 5 CrPC talk about requirement of independent witnesses only when search is made on the person of the accused or at some place from where the incriminating articles is recovered and not when corroboration of happening of event in which accused is alleged to be involved is concerned. Regarding the non-joining of independent witnesses it has been stated in judgment titled as Appabhai v. State of Gujrat, 1988 Supp 241 : AIR 1988 SC 696 that "11......
Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there FIR No.162/18 PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs. Rohit Bhiduri Page no. 4 of 7 everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One can not ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused. This has also been relied upon in judgment titled as Kathi Bharat Vasjur v. State of Gujarat in AIR 2012 SC 2163 (Para 22).
Overall context of the case is to be seen.
9. It also the settled law laid down in Sardul Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2002 SC 3462 that courts have a duty to undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all the vital features of the case and entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt.
10. In the present case, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 22.06.2018 at about 09:30 PM, at House no. 659, Mahela Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of FIR No.162/18 PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs. Rohit Bhiduri Page no. 5 of 7 P.S. Sarita Vihar, the accused had kept tenants without Police verification and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 188 IPC. The prosecution has proved copy of Order of ACP dated 07.06.2018 which prohibits that landlord/ owner/ person of any house property to let/ sublet/ rent out any accommodation to any person unless and until he has furnished the particulars of the said tenant to the SHO of the concerned Police Station. The said Order is to remain in force for 60 days from the date of the Order.
11. The accused can be punished for violating the said Order only if the same was brought to his knowledge by any means. The copy of the Order shows that spare copies of the Order were sent for publicity in Local press/ Radio/ television. However, there is no evidence to show that these were actually published. The manner of publication of this Order has also not been proved in evidence.
12. The prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that this Order was brought to the notice of the accused in any manner. This is a major lacuna in the case of the prosecution and thus benefit of doubt accrues which must be extended to the FIR No.162/18 PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs. Rohit Bhiduri Page no. 6 of 7 accused. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, benefit of doubt is given to accused and he is acquitted for offence U/s 188 Digitally IPC. signed by SHIVANI SHIVANI CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date:
2018.09.14 Announced in the open 09:22:46 Court on 13.09.2018 +0530 (SHIVANI CHAUHAN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 SOUTH EAST DISTRICT SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI FIR No.162/18 PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs. Rohit Bhiduri Page no. 7 of 7