Delhi District Court
State vs . Jaipal & Ors. on 23 August, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS MANSI MALIK, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-
03, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Cr Case No.534795/2016
FIR No. : 71/13
P.S. : North Rohini
State Vs. Jaipal & Ors.
U/s. 323/325/341/427/506/34 IPC
State
v.
1. Jai Pal
S/o Sh. Chander Bhan,
R/o H. No. 46, Village Naharpur, Delhi
2.Surender Singh Saini
S/o Sh. Manni Ram Saini,
R/o H. No. 46, Village Naharpur, Delhi
3. Manni Ram
S/o Sh. Chander Bhan,
R/o H. No. 46, Village Naharpur, Delhi
4. Chander Bhan
S/o Sh.Nathan Singh,
R/o H. No. 46, Village Naharpur, Delhi
5. Deepak
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan,
R/o H. No. 46, Village Naharpur, Delhi
6. Ram Kishan
S/o Sh. Chander bhan,
R/o H. No. 46, Village Naharpur, Delhi
7. Umesh Kumar Saini
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o H. No. 179, Pocket-16, Sector-24, Rohini
8. Ram Kumar Saini MANSI
Digitally signed
by MANSI
MALIK
S/o Sh. Chander Bhan Saini, MALIK Date: 2021.08.23
16:16:30 +0530
State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 1/17
R/o H. No. 179, Pocket-16, Sector-24, Rohini
9. Surender Kumar Saini
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Saini,
R/o H. No. 179, Pocket-16, Sector-24, Rohini
Date of institution of case : 05.10.2013
Date of reserving the judgment : 11.08.2021
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.08.2021
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 534795/2016
2. Date of Commission of Offence: 24.09.2011
3. Date of institution of the case: 05.10.2013
4. Name of the complainant: Sh. Raghubir Singh Saini
5. Name of the accused: (1) Jai Pal,
(2) Surender Singh Saini,
(3) Manni Ram,
(4) Chander Bhan,
(5) Deepak,
(6) Ram Kishan,
(7) Umesh Kumar Saini,
(8) Ram Kumar Saini,
(9) Surender Kumar Saini
6. Offence complained or proved: U/s 323/325/341/427/506/34 IPC
7. Plea of Accused: "Not Guilty"
8. Final Order: Acquitted
9. Date of Final Order: 23.08.2021
MANSI Digitally signed by
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date: 2021.08.23
16:16:59 +0530
State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 2/17
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Succintly, the case of prosecution is that on 24.09.2011 at around 10:30 PM the complainant was loading goods into his vehicle and the wife of the complainant was also standing nearby, in the meantime the accused no.1 Chander Baba came and started abusing the complainant and when the complainant objected the accused no.1 call the other accused persons and they started beating the complainant with fists and blows and caused damaged to the car of the complainant with iron rods thereby wrongfully restraining the complainant, causing hurt to him and committing mischief. Further, on 25.09.2011 accused no.1, 2 and 3 alongwith 6-7 associates reached the residence of the complainant and threatened his family to face the consequences thereby committing criminal intimidation.
2. The copies of charge sheet and relevant documents were supplied to accused persons namely Jai Pal, Surender Singh Saini, Manni Ram, Chander Bhan, Deepak, Ram Kishan, Umesh Kumar Saini, Ram Kumar Saini, Surender Kumar Saini in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.PC).
3. Prima facie case was made out and charge for offences punishable under section 341/323/325/427/506/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons namely Jai Pal, Surender Singh Saini, Manni Ram, Chander Bhan, Deepak, Ram Kishan, Umesh Kumar Saini, Ram Kumar Saini, Surender Kumar Saini on 23.07.2014 to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence.
MANSI Digitally signed by
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date: 2021.08.23
16:17:20 +0530
State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 3/17
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined six witnesses. At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the gist of deposition made by the witnesses:
• PW-1, Sh. Raghubir Saini is the complainant/victim himself and the prosecution case hinges heavily upon his testimony. In his examination in chief, PW-1 states that the accused Jaipal and Ram Kumar had beaten him with fists and blows due to which he sustained injuries on his face and his tooth was broken. Further, all the accused persons had dandas and iron rods in their hands and hit his car and broke the glasses of the car. All the accused persons caught hold of him and beat him. He further states that after the alleged incident, he called the police and the police officials also reached the spot, however, no medical examination of the complainant was conducted on 24.09.2011. Thereafter, the complainant got himself medically examined at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura on 26.11.2011. PW-1 states that his front tooth in the upper row was broken and X-ray of the same was taken by the doctor. The complainant subsequently handed over the X-ray and the broken tooth i.e. Ex. PW1/C to the IO. PW-1 has deposed that no other injury was caused to his face during the incident except the broken tooth. Further, he states that he got his Alto vehicle repaired but he does not remember the exact date, month and year when he got repaired the same. Only one photograph of the car was clicked which is on record as Ex.P1. He admits that the photograph Ex. P1 was clicked by him after about one year after the incident and that no other photographs were clicked prior to the photograph, which is already on record. He further states that the IO neither inspected his car nor clicked any photographs. PW-1 also states that he has not placed on record any bill regarding repair of the tail light of the alto car.
MANSI Digitally signed
by MANSI MALIK
Date: 2021.08.23
MALIK 16:17:45 +0530
State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 4/17
PW-1 further deposes that on 25.09.2011 all the accused persons threatened him to withdraw the property case which was filed against them as well as several other persons, they threatened him to be abducted by goons and threatened to kill him as well as shoot him. PW-1 correctly identified all the accused persons • PW-2, Sh. Ravinder Saini, nephew of the complainant, has deposed in his examination in chief that all the 9 accused persons were in front of his house and out of them 2 were holding the hands of the complainant and the rest were beating the complainant. He then states that as his tauji was alone he rushed to the spot where he was being manhandled. He further states that all the accused persons had damaged/broken the alto car of his tauji. In his cross-examination, he states that he raised alarm from the first floor and asked them not to quarrel with his tau. It is pertinent to mention here that PW- 2 also stated in his cross-examination :-"Police did not record any statement in my presence. I have not remembered that I have met to the police or I went to the police station or the police came to my residence. Police never recorded any statement in my presence. I do not remember whether the police investigate the case. It is correct that I sustained no injury nor my tauji." • PW-3, Smt. Kamala Saini, wife of the complainant has deposed that on 24.09.2011 all the accused persons gave beatings to her husband and broke the tooth of her husband. The accused persons also broke/damaged their alto car and threatened to kill them. In her cross-examination she has deposed that she does not remember where Ravinder@Rinku was present on 23.09.2011. She also states that no quarrel/heated argument had taken place on 25.09.2011 in between her family and the accused persons.Digitally signed by MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2021.08.23
16:18:11 +0530
State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 5/17
• PW-4, Dr. Anil Mittal, states that on 26.09.2011, the patient Dr. Raghubir Singh reached at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi with alleged history of assault 2 days back and was examined by PW-4 vide OPD card no. 211906 Ex. PW-4/A. During investigation, he gave his opinion to the IO vide letter Ex. PW-4/B that there was fracture/damage to the tooth structure of the patient. He further stated that it cannot ascertained by seeing the tooth whether it belongs to male or female. PW-4 also stated that he has examined the damaged tooth from the point of view that it belongs to the complainant but he has not opined on the same in writing.
PW-4 also deposed that the patient was advised X-ray by the doctor as per the OPD card i.e. Ex. PW-4/A. However, the X-ray report was not seen by PW-4 as the complainant did not come back after getting the X- ray done and never visited the hospital again • PW-5, Balibir Singh Saini, has deposed that on 24.09.2011 he found the accused persons quarrelling with the complainant. He also found the front tooth of Sh. Raghubir Singh was broken and was bleeding. He also states that the accused persons damaged the alto car belonging to his brother Raghubir. In his cross-examination he states that the accused Chanderbhan did all the misdeed/quarrel on that day in his presence and no other accused persons committed anything in his presence. He further states that when he reached the spot only his brother Raghubir had received injuries. He admits that no quarrel took place after he reached the spot.
• PW-6, SI Sachin Kumar is the IO in the present case. In his examination, PW-6 has stated he went to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura to collect the MLC of the victim but he was informed that no MLC of the victim has been prepared and that he was only given OPD treatment. The Digitally signed MANSI by MANSI MALIK MALIK Date: 2021.08.23 16:18:34 +0530 State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 6/17 OPD card is Ex. PW-4/A and the opinion on the OPD card is Ex. PW- 4/B. He has further stated that the incident in question was of 24.09.2011 and the tooth in question was handed over to him on 13.08.2013 by the complainant. He admits that the tooth was neither sent to FSL, nor any medical opinion was taken as to whether the tooth belongs to the complainant or not. PW-6 also states that no mechanical inspection of the vehicle in question was conducted by him. The complainant handed over to him the only single photograph i.e. Ex. P-1 and the same has been placed on record.
5. The following documents were tendered during the evidence of these witnesses:-
(a) Ex. PW1/A is the complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
(b) Ex PW1/B is the the application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
(c) Ex. PW-1/C seizer memo of the broken tooth.
(d) Ex. PW-1/D is arrest memo of accused Jaipal.
(e) Ex. PW-1/E is arrest memo of accused Sunder.
(f) Ex. PW-1/F is arrest memo of accused Maniram.
(g) Ex. PW-1/G is arrest memo of accused Chanderbhan.
(h) Ex. PW-1/H is arrest memo of accused Deepak Saini.
(i) Ex. PW-1/I is arrest memo of accused Ram Kishan.
(j) Ex. PW-1/J is arrest memo of accused Umesh Kumar Saini.
(k) Ex. PW-1/K is arrest memo of accused Ram Kumar Saini.
(l) Ex. PW-1/L is arrest memo of accused Surender Saini.
(m) Mark A is copy of the complaint lodged by the complainant against the accused persons in PS.
(n) Mark B is copy of the complaint lodged by the complainant to the DCP.
(o) Mark C is copy of the repair bill of the Maruti Alto car of the complainant.
(p) Ex. P-1 is the photograph of the tail lights of the Maruti Alto car.
MANSI Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2021.08.23 MALIK 16:18:48 +0530 State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 7/17
(q) Ex. PW-2/A is certified copy of the charge sheet of FIR bearing no. 430/2007 PS South Rohini.
(r) Ex. PW-4/A is OPD card of Sh. Raghubir Singh dated 26.09.2011.
(s) Ex. PW-4/B is opinion of Dr. Anil Mittal, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital dated 27.07.2013.
(t) Ex. PW-6/A is copy of FIR.
(u) Ex. PW-6/B is site plan of the spot of the incident.
(v) Ex. PW-6/X1 is tooth.
The accused persons also admitted the genuineness of FIR Ex. PW-6/A u/s 294 Cr.PC, without admitting the content of the same. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed on 31.01.2020.
6. Statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC., wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, to which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the accused persons opted to lead defence evidence.
7. In their defence, the accused persons examined three witnesses. At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the gist of deposition made by the witnesses:
• DW-1, Sh. CS Madan, has deposed that from 2001 till September 2016 he was working, as Senior Manager HR in Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd and the certificate to this effect is Mark X (OSR). DW-1 admits that he issued the letters dated 05.06.2013 Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2. He states that as per office record on the night of 24/25 September, 2011 Sh. Ram Kishan S/O Sh. Chander Bhan was present on duty on 8:00 pm to 7:00 am and Sh. Mani Ram Saini, S/o Chander Bhan was present on duty on 1:00 pm to 10:00 pm on 24.09.2001. Nothing substantial was elicited during the cross examination of DW-1. Digitally signed MANSI by MANSI MALIK MALIK Date: 2021.08.23 16:19:06 +0530 State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 8/17 • DW-2, ASI Bijender Singh, produced the duty roster, PM cell dated 05.09.2011 to 04.10.2011. As per this record Ex. DW-2/1, HC Ram Kumar belt no. 1077- SEC was working in PM cell as per record he was on duty on 24.09.2011. In his cross-examination he stated that as per Ex. DW-2/1 HC Ram Kumar joined his official duties on 24.09.2011 at 8:00 am and his duty hours were upto 2:00 pm as per shift system.
• DW-3, Sh. Som Kumar, President of RWA has deposed that on 24.09.2011, there was a meeting in RWA between 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm in Pocket 16, Sector-24 park, Rohini and that accused Umesh, Deepak and Sunder were present in the meeting between 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and raised questions regarding the security issues. In his cross-examination he has stated that he does not have any document showing that any meeting took place on 24.09.2011 between 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm at Pocket 16, Sector-24 park, Rohini.
8. Following documents were tendered during the evidence of these witnesses: -
(a) Mark X is copy of the certificate issued by Chief Operating Officer, Cambia Aviation pvt. Ltd. in favour of DW-1 (OSR).
(b) Ex. DW-1/A is copy of aadhar card of DW-1 (OSR).
(c) Ex. DW-1/1 is copy of letter dated 05.06.2013.
(d) Ex-DW-1/2 is copy of letter dated 05.06.2013.
(e) Ex. DW- 2/1 is duty roster PM cell dated 05.09.2011 to 04.10.2011 (OSR).
(f) Mark S-1 is copy of aadhar card of DW-3.
Defence evidence was thereafter closed on 02.03.2021 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
9. The Court has carefully perused the case record and has heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as by Ld. Defence counsel.
MANSI Digitally signed
by MANSI MALIK
Date: 2021.08.23
MALIK 16:19:18 +0530
State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 9/17
10. Short point for determination before the court is as under -
"Whether on 24.09.2011 at about 10:30 pm at Naharpur Village, Sector-7 Rohini, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS North Rohini, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant, caused hurt/grevious hurt to the complainant with fists and blows, committed mischief by damaging the car of the complainant by iron rods and criminally intimidated the complainant?"
Before delving into the findings in the present case, it would be appropriate to have glance at the ingredients of the offence charged :
Section 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt-Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 341. Punishment for wrongful restraint- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one month, or with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Section 427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees- Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 506 Punishment for criminal intimidation- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for MANSI Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK MALIK Date: 2021.08.23 16:19:38 +0530 State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 10/17 a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprison- ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 34 IPC. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
11. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that from the ocular and documentary evidence on record, charges alleged against the accused persons are proved beyond reasonable doubt and prayed that the accused persons be convicted for the alleged offences.
12. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld Defence counsel that the case of the prosecution is fraught with serious contradictions and the eye witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution have deposed different versions in their respective depositions in the court, than the version of the prosecution, as mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted that the complainant has lodged a false case against the accused persons as there were property disputes between the parties including various other court cases. It is stated that FIR bearing no. 55/12, PS North Rohini has been registered against the complainant regarding the same incident, which is in question in the present case.
13. I have heard the rival submissions and have also carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evidence led on behalf of the prosecution. My MANSI Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2021.08.23 MALIK 16:19:54 +0530 State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 11/17 findings on the point for determination and brief reasons for the same are now being discussed in following paragraphs.
14. To prove the case against accused, the prosecution was obliged to prove that on 24.09.2011 at around 10:30 PM at Naharpur Village, Sector-7 Rohini, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant, caused hurt/grevious hurt to the complainant with fists and blows, committed mischief by damaging the car of the complainant by iron rods and criminally intimidated the complainant.
15. Coming to the facts of the present case, as per the prosecution story alleged restraint and grievous hurt was caused to the complainant, however, the same remains unproven as no conclusive evidence documentary or otherwise has been brought on record to prove the chain of facts alleged against the accused persons. The complainant, PW-1 in his testimony, has stated that the accused Jaipal and Ram Kumar had beaten him with fists and blows due to which he sustained injuries on his face and his tooth was broken in the incident dated 24.09.2011. However, he stated that the police did not take him to any hospital for getting his medical examination conducted on 24.09.2011. Thereafter, the complainant got himself medically examined at his on instance at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura on 26.11.2011. It seems highly unlikely that the police would not have taken the complainant to a hospital for getting his medical examination conducted if he had sustained any injury in the alleged incident. Be that as it may, even if the medical documents placed on record are taken into consideration, the same still do not prove the direct causation between the injury sustained by the complainant and the accused persons. No MLC of the complainant is available on record, only an OPD slip/prescription dated 26.11.2011( Ex. PW4/A) i.e. 2 days after the incident and the opinion of the doctor, PW-4, on the OPD slip/ prescription is available. PW-4, Dr. Anil Mittal, is his MANSI Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK MALIK Date: 2021.08.23 16:20:07 +0530 State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 12/17 examination has stated that as per the OPD card there was fracture/damage to the tooth structure of the patient and therefore X-ray was advised to the complainant as per the OPD card. However, the X-ray report was not seen by PW-4 as the complainant did not come back after getting the X-ray done and never visited the hospital again. A perusal of the record also shows that the X-ray of the tooth of the complainant has also not been placed on record. Further, PW-4 has also deposed that it is not possible to state whether the tooth belongs to a male or female. PW-4 also testified that he has examined the damaged tooth from the point of view that it belongs to the complainant but he has not opined on the same in writing. Therefore, from the testimony of PW-4 it can be inferred that it established that the tooth, Ex. PW-6/X1, belongs to the complainant.
16. In relation to the above, PW-6, IO/SI Sachin Kumar has stated that the incident in question was of 24.09.2011 and the tooth in question was handed over to him on 13.08.2013 by the complainant. PW-6 has also deposed that the tooth was neither sent to FSL, nor any medical opinion was taken as to whether the tooth belongs to the complainant or not. Therefore, even if it is assumed that damage was caused to the tooth of the complainant it cannot be said with certainty that the same was caused by the accused persons as the OPD card is also dated 2 days after the incident and secondly, no medical opinion is available on record to prove that the tooth belongs to the complainant. Also, as the tooth was handed over to the IO almost 2 years after the incident it cannot be established that the same belonged to the complainant in the absence of any medical report opining on the aforementioned fact. The delay in handing over the tooth to the IO creates an opportunity for tampering with the evidence as well.
17. The prosecution version with respect to the damage caused to the car of the complainant has also not been proved. PW-1 has alleged that the accused persons MANSI Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2021.08.23 MALIK 16:20:29 +0530 State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 13/17 damaged his car and thereby committed mischief. In his examination in chief he has stated that the accused persons have broken the front glass (wind screen), tail lights, side view mirrors and have also caused damage to the other parts of the car. However, as stated by PW-1 himself in his testimony that only one photograph of the car Ex. P1 has been placed on record and the said photograph has also been taken nearly one year after the incident and no other photograph was taken prior to the photograph which is already on record. A perusal of the photograph shows that it bears no date and time stamp to show when was it actually clicked. Also, the photograph only shows the tail light of the vehicle as damaged. Damage, if any, to the rest of the car is not visible in the photograph even though the complainant has alleged that the accused persons have broken the front glass (wind screen), tail lights, side view mirrors and have also caused damage to the other parts of the car. No other photograph is available on record to show any other damage caused to the car of the complainant. Further, PW-6, has also stated in his examination that no mechanical inspection of the vehicle in question was conducted by him to assess the alleged damage caused to the car of the complainant. Thus, no evidence has been brought forth to show that damage was caused to the vehicle of the complainant in the incident in question. Further, PW-I has stated he got the car repaired but the bill placed on record is dated 16.07.2012 and is only a photocopy whereas the incident is question took place on 24.09.2011. It is difficult to fathom that a person whose car has been so extensively damaged as alleged would get it repaired after almost 10 months from the incident. In view of the above, it is difficult to determine firstly, whether any damage was caused to the car of the complainant and secondly, even if there was any damage to the car whether the same by caused by the accused persons in the incident in question. Hence, on this ground also the prosecution has failed to bring forth any conclusive evidence proving that the accused persons caused damage to the car of the complainant and thereby caused mischief.
Digitally signed by MANSIMANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2021.08.23 16:20:40 +0530 State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 14/17
18. With respect to the accused persons criminally intimidating the complainant, it is stated by PW-1 that on 25.09.2011, all the accused persons threatened him to withdraw the property case which was filed against them as well as several other persons, they threatened him to be abducted by goons and threatened to kill him as well as shoot him. However, PW-2, the wife of the complainant who is the other eye witness to the incident dated 24.09.2011 has stated in her cross-examination that no quarrel/heated argument had taken place on 25.09.2011 in between her family and the accused persons. Such material contradiction between the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 makes their depositions unreliable with respect to the alleged criminal intimidation committed by the accused persons.
19. Furthermore, even the testimonies of the other PW's are fraught with inconsistencies with respect to the version of events that unfolded on 24.09.2011. PW-2 has constantly contradicted his statements in his deposition. In his testimony, he stated that he rushed to the spot where his tauji (complainant) was being manhandled on the other hand he stated that he raised alarm from the first floor and did not go to the spot. Further, PW-2 also stated that the police did not record any statement in his presence and that his neither he nor his tauji sustained any injuries. Such a statement strikes at the root of the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the testimony of PW-2 is unreliable as containing material contradictions.
20. PW-5 has also contradicted his statements in his testimony. At one place in his examination, he states that when he reached the spot he found all the accused persons quarrelling with the complainant and he found the front tooth of the complainant was broken and that it was bleeding. However, in his cross-examination he stated that only accused Chanderbhan did all the misdeeds/quarrel on that day in his presence and no other accused persons committed anything in his presence. Further, he states that no quarrel took place once he reached the spot. Therefore, there is material MANSI Digitally signed by MANSI MALIK Date: 2021.08.23 MALIK 16:21:02 +0530 State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 15/17 contradiction in the testimony of PW-5 as on one hand he states that when he reached the spot he found all the accused persons quarreling with the complainant and on the other hand he states only accused Chanderbhan did all the misdeeds/quarrel on that day in his presence and no other accused persons committed anything in his presence and also that no quarrel took place once he reached the spot. In view of the aforesaid material contradictions, the testimony of PW-5 is also not reliable. All the aforementioned contradictions in the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses has raised serious doubts on the veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
21. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and 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". If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. It is also settled law that in case two views are possible, one which is favourable to the accused, should be taken.
22. At this stage, it would also be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) regarding the nature of burden of proof on the prosecution to prove its case. The ratio of this judgment is applied with the same vigour even after passing of more than 50 years. It was held in this case that:- "There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted." Again in Jagdish Prasad vs State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) 2011 (9) LRC 206 (Del), the Hon'ble High of Delhi had observed that "It is well settled that in a criminal case, in Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2021.08.23 16:21:42 +0530 State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 16/17 order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. If, on consideration of the prosecution evidence, a reasonable doubt remains in respect of culpability of the accused, he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of considered view that in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. As the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, no purpose would be served by discussing/appreciating the evidence led by the defence in the case at hand.
24. Accordingly, all the accused persons namely Jai Pal, Surender Singh Saini, Manni Ram, Chander Bhan, Deepak, Ram Kishan, Umesh Kumar Saini, Ram Kumar Saini, Surender Kumar Saini are acquitted for offences punishable u/s 323/325/341/427/506/34 IPC.
25. Bail bonds u/s 437A of CrPC are to be furnished which would remain valid for a period of six months.
Digitally signedMANSI by MANSI MALIK MALIK Date: 2021.08.23 16:15:38 +0530 Announced in open Court (MANSI MALIK) on 23rd Day of August, 2021 Metropolitan Magistrate North-West, Rohini, Delhi State Vs. Jai Pal & Ors. FIR no.71/13 Page No. 17/17