Delhi District Court
State vs Mohan Singh Chauhan Etc on 13 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAHUL SAINI, JMFC-08,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI.
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.278/2011, PS
Jyoti Nagar[Cr. Case
No.78806/2016]
b Date of the commission of the : 04.07.2011
offence
c Name of the Complainant : Sh. MANTU SAW
d Name of Accused person and his : (1) Mohan Singh Chauhan
parentage and residence S/o Late Raghubir Singh
(2) Sohan Singh Chauhan
S/o Late Raghubir Singh
Both are R/o: Aman Vihar,
Band Phatak, Behta
Hajipur, Loni, Ghaziabad,
UP.
e Offence complained of : 420/511/34 IPC
f Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted
h Order reserved on : 13.01.2025
i Order pronounced on : 13.01.2025.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-
1. Vide this judgment a case registered against accused persons namely Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan vide FIR No.278/2011, PS Jyoti Nagar shall be decided and disposed off.
FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 1 of 19
2. Briefly stated, facts of the Prosecution case is that on 04.07.2011, at about 5.45 pm, at bus stand Loni Gol Chakkar within the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar, accused persons namely Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu attempted to cheat the complainant Mantu Saw by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs. 400-500 to accused persons Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu by showing bundles which was in the size of currency notes by saying that Rs. 1,000/- will be given to the complainant if complainant takes above said bundles to Durgapuri Chowk. Complainant started shouting, upon this, two police officials came there and the complainant narrated them the whole incident. The police officials caught the accused persons and the present case was registered against accused persons for the offences u/s 420/511/34 IPC.
3. Chargesheet in this matter was filed in the court on 29.09.2011 for offences u/s 420/511/34 IPC against accused persons namely Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu. Thereupon cognizance was taken in the present matter on the same date and the accused persons were summoned to appear before the court. On their appearance before the court on 17.12.2011, copies of the chargesheet and documents annexed along with the chargesheet were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Detailed arguments were heard on the point of charge and thereafter, it was held that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons namely Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 2 of 19 Chauhan @ Sonu for offences punishable under Section u/s 420/511/34 IPC. Charge was accordingly framed against the said accused persons, on 07.08.2012, charge was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, matter was taken up for recording of prosecution evidence.
5. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note that complainant Mantu Saw remained unserved through DCP concerned and thus, he was deleted from the list of witnesses vide order dated 17.01.2019. It is pertinent to note that in total 06 witnesses (PW1 to PW5) have been cited by the prosecution including only one public witness i.e. complainant Mantu Saw and other were investigation witnesses including police witnesses i.e. from PW1 to PW2.
6. It is important to mention that accused persons namely Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu were declared as Proclaimed absconders in this case vide order dated 21.06.2024. Thereafter, accused Mohan Singh Chauhan was produced after arrest by HC Om Prakash on 10.07.2024 on Kalandra u/s 35.1(d) BNSS on DD entry No.14A dated 10.07.2024, PS Geeta Colony, FIR no. 278/2011. After that, Kalandra was disposed of and accused person namely Mohan Singh Chauhan was remanded to Judicial Custody and accused Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu was produced after arrest by HC Om Prakash on 11.07.2024 on Kalandra u/s 35.1(d) BNSS on DD entry No.25A dated 11.07.2024, PS Geeta Colony, FIR no. 278/2011. After that, Kalandra was disposed of and FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 3 of 19 accused person namely Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu was remanded to Judicial Custody. Supplementary charge sheet qua offence u/s 174A IPC was filed before the court and copies of the same are supplied to accused persons. After that, detailed arguments were heard on the point of charge and thereafter, charge was framed qua both the accused persons u/s 174A IPC vide dated 09.09.2024 which was read over and explained to both accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that 03 prosecution witnesses have been examined qua offence u/s 174A IPC.
Testimonies of the examined Prosecution witnesses are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs:
PW1 ASI Ghanshyam : He deposed that on 04.07.2011, he was posted as Ct. at PS Jyoti Nagar, Delhi. On that day, after completing briefing he and Ct. Devender were going to attend beat duty and when they reached near Loni Fly- over, they heard noise and saw one boy shouting and after seeing us, two boys started running from there. He further deposed that they caught both the accused persons (correctly identified accused persons who were present in the court) and on enquiry, the accused persons disclosed their names as Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh and the third boy who was shouting told his name as Mantu. Mantu (complainant) in the present case told us that both the accused persons gave him handkerchief to take the said handkerchief to Durgapuri Chowk and the accused persons repeatedly saying to complainant Mantu that Rs. 500/---Rs. 700/-. They and he denied the same that he had not FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 4 of 19 Rs. 500/---Rs. 700/- and the accused persons also saying to him that to hand over the security money. He further deposed that complainant told us that thereupon he shouted and he opened the handkerchief and found that there was bundle which was containing only note of Rs. 100/- bearing no. OLS135596 which was kept upon front upon the folded paper of the newspaper.
PW 1 further deposed that after sometime Inspector Rakesh Yadav came on the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared tehrir. Thereafter, Inspector Rakesh Yadav prepared the pullanda of the case property and sealed with the seal of RY and the same was seized vide seizure memo of the case property which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signatures on point A. He further deposed that IO Inspector Rakesh Yadav prepared the tehrir and same was handed over to him for registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, the present matter was handed over to Inspector Mangesh. PW1 further deposed that he along with Inspector Mangesh reached at the spot and there SI Rakesh handed over the sealed case property, seizure memo and the accused persons to Inspector Mangesh. He further deposed that Inspector Mangesh prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Rakesh and also recorded the statement of SI Rakesh and thereafter, SI Rakesh left the spot. He further deposed that Inspector Mangesh made the arrest of the accused persons vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A respectively and conducted the personal search of the accused persons which are Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E, bearing his signatures at point A respectively and FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 5 of 19 also recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons which are Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G, bearing my signatures at point A respectively. He further deposed that case property was deposited in malkhana and IO recorded his statement in the PS.(witness correctly identified the case property which is Ex. P1(Colly.).
During his cross examination by Ld. LAC for the accused PW1 deposed that he does not remember the no. of the motorcycle on which he was performing his duty. He further deposed that the spot is a crowded place, however, no notice was served to public persons to join the investigation. He further deposed that no identification mark was put on the alleged currency note.
PW2 HC Devender:- He deposed on the same lines as PW1. He has also identified the accused persons who were present in the court. He correctly identified the case property in the court which is Ex. P1(Colly.).
During his cross examination, he deposed that IO recorded his statement at the spot and sealed the case property in his presence. He further deposed that he does not remember the denominations of notes of Rs. 100/- which was seized by the IO. Further, he does not remember the exact time when IO recorded statement of Ct. Ghanshyam. He further deposed that accused persons were arrested and their personal search memos were conducted in his presence but he does not remember the exact time. He further deposed that IO had requested 4-5 public persons to join investigation but none agreed and went away without telling their names and addresses. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were falsely implicated FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 6 of 19 in the present case.
PW3 Retired SI Ram Niwas:- He deposed that he was posted at PS Jyoti Nagar on 04.07.2011 and his duty hours were from 4 pm to 12 midnight as duty officer. He deposed that Ct. Ghanshyam handed over him rukka for registration of the FIR and thereafter, he registered the FIR No. 278/2011 and same is Ex. PW3/A(OSR) bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he made endorsement on the rukka same is Ex. PW3/B, which bears his signatures at point A and thereafter, on the instructions of SHO, PS Jyoti Nagar, the said investigation was marked to ATO/Inspector Mangesh.
During cross examination he deposed that he cannot type in Hindi and English on computer and he does not remember the make of computer and printer on which FIR was typed.
PW4 Inspector Rakesh Yadav:- He deposed that on 04.07.2011, at about 5.45 pm, he was directed by the duty officer to go to Loni Gol Chakkar, regarding apprehension of two accused persons in a cheating case. He further deposed that he proceeded to the spot where Ct. Ghanshayam and Ct. Devender had apprehended two accused persons namely Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu. Complainant Mantu Saw was also present at the spot who narrated the whole incident to him. He further deposed that he seized the fake bundles of currency notes by making a white colour cloth pullanda which was sealed with the seal of RY.
Sealed pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point B. He further FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 7 of 19 deposed that he recorded the statement of the complainant which is Ex. PW4/A, bearing his signature at point A. After recording the statement of the complainant, he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW4/B, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, rukka was handed over to Ct. Ghanshyam for registration of the FIR. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, Ct. Ghanshyam along with Inspector Mangesh came back at the spot along with copy of the FIR and original rukka and further investigation was carried out by Inspector Mangesh as per the directions of SHO PS concerned. He has also identified the accused persons and the case property.
During his cross examination he deposed that he does not remember the mode of information by the duty officer regarding the present incident. He further deposed that he does not remember whether he had made departure entry in the PS. He further deposed that no particular identification mark was put on the newspaper cutting which was seized and no public persons were made witness during the recovery because none of them agreed to join investigation and no notice was served to any public persons due to paucity of time. He denied the suggestion that case property has been planted upon accused persons in connivance with the complainant.
PW5 ACP Mangesh:- He deposed that he was posted as ATO at PS Jyoti Nagar and on 04.07.2011, the investigation of the present case was marked to him and he reached the spot i.e. Loni Gol Chakkar where he met Ct. Shyam Singh, Ct. Devender, SI Rakesh FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 8 of 19 Yadav and the complainant. He further deposed that SI Rakesh Yadav handed over to him the documents prepared by him and the accused persons. He further deposed that he has prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant which is Ex. PW5/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he recorded separate disclosure statement of both accused persons which are already Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G, both bearing his signatures at point C. He further deposed that the seized case property was deposited with the malkhana and after completion of investigation he submitted the chargesheet before the court.
During his cross examination he deposed that he does not remember to whom the information regarding arrest of accused persons was shared and the same is recorded in the arrest memo prepared by him. He deposed that no public persons were made witnesses during the recovery as none of them had joined the investigation. He further deposed that no notice could be served upon public persons due to paucity of time. He denied the suggestion that both accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case with connivance of the complainant.
PW6 SI Rajeshwar Rao:-He deposed that on 10.07.2024, he was posted at PO Staff at PS Geeta Colony as ASI. He deposed that on that day, he along with HC Om Prakash and HC Narender went to search of accused Mohan Singh Chauhan who was declared PO. He further deposed that HC Om Prakash prepared DD No.14A for departure. He deposed that they reached near Chintamani Restaurant, Jhilmil Colony where one secret informer FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 9 of 19 gave information regarding accused Mohan Singh Chauhan qua his presence at B-21, Jhilmil Industrial area, Jhilmil, Delhi. Thereafter, they reached the said place where accused was present and IO/HC Om Prakash arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A, bearing his signature at point A and personal search memo Ex. PW6/B, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they went to SDN Hospital where they got medical examination of the accused and after that reached KKD Courts and produced the accused before the court and sent him to J/C. He correctly identified the accused Mohan Singh Chauhan in the court. He further deposed that on 11.07.2024, he again joined the investigation with IO HC Om Prakash and HC Narender and went to search of accused Sohan Singh who was declared PO. He further deposed that HC Om Prakash prepared DD entry no. 25A for departure. He deposed that they reached Village Saboli where secret informer gave information qua presence of accused near Railway crossing, Bhaita, Loni, Ghaziabad, and thereafter IO/HC Om Prakash arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/C, bearing his signature at point A and personal search memo Ex. PW6/D, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they went to SDN Hospital where they got medical examination of the accused and after that reached KKD Courts and produced the accused before the court and sent him to J/C. He correctly identified the accused Sohan Singh Chauhan in the court.
During his cross examination he deposed that IO requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without telling their names and addresses. He further deposed FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 10 of 19 that IO did not give notice to public persons. He further deposed that IO had not prepared any videography at the time of apprehension of the accused persons.
PW7 HC Narender Singh:- He deposed on the same lines as PW6 that on 10.07.2024 and 11.07.2024, he was posted at PO Staff, PS Geeta Colony as HC. He also identified both accused persons in the court.
During cross examination, he corroborated the testimony of PW6 and denied the suggestion that accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case.
PW8 HC Om Prakash:- He supported the testimonies of PW6 and PW7 stating that on 10.07.2024 and 11.07.2024, he was posted at PO Staff, PS Geeta Colony as Ct. He further deposed that he along with HC Narender and HC Rajeshwar Rao went to search accused Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh and prepared DD No.14A dated 10.07.2024 and DD entry No. 25 A dated 11.07.2024 for departure entry. He deposed that after investigation against accused Mohan Singh, he prepared Kalandra which is Ex. PW8/A, bearing his signature at point A and after investigation against accused Sohan Singh, he prepared Kalandra which is Ex. PW8/B, bearing his signature at point A. He has also identified both the accused persons present in the court.
During his cross examination, he deposed that he requested public persons to join the investigation, however, none agreed and left without telling their names and addresses. He further deposed that he had not given notice to public persons. FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 11 of 19
8. Thereafter, on 20.12.2024, separate statements of both accused persons namely Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu u/s 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.PC were recorded wherein accused persons denied the commission of the alleged offences and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they had never received notice qua proceedings u/s 174A IPC. Despite opportunity, the accused persons preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence and accordingly, defence evidence was closed and the matter was taken up for final arguments.
Final Arguments
9. Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused persons addressed detailed arguments in support of their respective cases.
10. Ld. APP for the State has vehemently argued that alleged offence is made out against the accused persons. He submitted that prosecution witnesses have corroborated the Prosecution case and admitted the entire incident. It was further argued by Ld. APP for the State that all the Prosecution witnesses have given uniform testimonies and therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the offences in question, both accused persons namely Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu deserve to be held guilty and to be given maximum punishment.
FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 12 of 19
11. On the other hand, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused persons vehemently argued for acquittal of the accused persons stating that investigation of the present case has not been conducted properly by the IO which is evident from the discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses and which could have been brought to light by examination of the IO which could never be done. Ld. LAC for accused persons argued that except complainant Mantu Saw every other witness examined by the prosecution is formal witness and has done formal duties with regard to investigation and arrest of accused persons. Ld. LAC further argued that no public person has joined the investigation and also no identity Mark has been given by the IO to the case property. This shows that case property was planted upon the accused persons with the connivance of the complainant.
12. Submissions have been duly heard. Record has been carefully perused.
Appreciation of Evidence in the light of relevant legal provsions
13. At the outset, before proceeding further on to discussing the weight and relevancy of evidence led by the Prosecution, this court deems it appropriate to first highlight the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, i.e. one, that the Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and two, that the burden upon the Prosecution lies to the extent of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove all the ingredients which constitute the offence so that all reasonable doubts in the case of the Prosecution are FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 13 of 19 removed. It may be noted that strongest of suspicion upon the accused, does not lead to the guilt of the accused. Thus, keeping in view the above stated aspects and principles of criminal jurisprudence this court shall proceed to decide upon the innocence or guilt of the accused persons.
14. Before proceeding on to appreciate the evidence brought by Prosecution in this matter to prove its case, it is pertinent to take a look at the penal provisions invoked against the accused persons and their implications.
15. Accused persons have been charged for offence under section 420 IPC titled as Cheating And Dishonestly Inducing Delivery Of Property. The section provides as follows:
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 14 of 19 The provision makes it clear that for completion of the offence under section 420 IPC, commission of cheating, as defined u/s 415 IPC, by the accused coupled with dishonest intention to induce the victim to deliver any property etc. is a pre-requisite. A recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India titled as M N G Bharateesh Reddy vs Ramesh Ranganathan and Another [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701] explains the provisions as follows:
13. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are spelt out in Section 415 of the IPC. Section 415 is extracted below:
"415. Cheating -- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation -- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
14. The ingredients of the offence under Section 415 emerge from a textual reading. Firstly, to constitute cheating, a person must deceive another. Secondly, by doing so the former must induce the person so deceived to (i) deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(iii) intentionally induce the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and such an act or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
15. Section 420 deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It reads as follows:
FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 15 of 19 "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being capable of converting into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
16. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, a two-judge bench of this Court interpreted sections 415 and 420 of IPC to hold that fraudulent or dishonest intention is a precondition to constitute the offence of cheating.
16. Further, the judgment titled as International Advanced Research Centre For Powder Metallurgy And New Materials (ARCI) & Ors. vs Nimra Cerglass (P) Ltd.& Anr (2016) (1 SCC
348) elucidates upon the essentials of section 420 IPC in the following words:
The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 IPC are: (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security and
(iii) mens rea of the Accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
In order to bring a case for the offence of cheating, it is not merely sufficient to prove that a false representation had been made, but, it is further necessary to prove that the representation was false to the knowledge of the Accused and was made in order to deceive the complainant.
17. Thus, for establishing the offence of cheating, it is vital for the Prosecution to prove that the intention of the Accused was from FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 16 of 19 the very beginning to cheat the victim and with that intention only inducement of the victim was done to deliver the property/valuable security.
18. Coming now to the facts of the case at hand, since the offence pertains to cheating, it is utmost essential to establish the identities of the Accused persons chargesheeted in this matter. Surprisingly, on this very aspect, nothing has come on record particularly against the accused persons. It is important to mention here that the complainant Mantu Saw who was the star witness in the present case was not examined as he was deleted from the list of witnesses vide order dated 17.01.2019. Since he was the only eye witness in the present case as well as the victim, no eye witness of the incident could come on record.
19. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution qua offences u/s 420/511/34 IPC i.e. from PW1 to PW5 could not lead any support to the prosecution case as none of them was an eye witness and only deposed regarding the investigation conducted by them. Further, no other independent evidence has been collected which can link the accused persons with the alleged offences.
20. In the leading judgment of the Supreme Court of India in matter titled as Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala [2019 (SCC online) SC 974], elucidating upon the onus of proof in a criminal trial, it was held that:
9. The burden lies on the Prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the Accused has only to create a doubt about the Prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 17 of 19 Accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the Prosecution. If the Accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the Accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the Prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Also, Narinder Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 7 SCC 171], it was held by the Apex Court that:
However great the suspicion against the Accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the Accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the Accused and the Prosecution has to bring home the offence against the Accused by reliable evidence. The Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
21. Thus, this court has no hesitation in holding that despite examination of plethora of witnesses and bringing several documents on record, Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts as required in law. Quality and relevancy; and not quantity of evidence, is what determines the fate of a case. Culpability can be attached to the Accused persons only if it is proved that they have committed the alleged offence, which in this case, the Prosecution failed to do despite several efforts. In these circumstances, as a natural corollary following to the discussion above held, this court cannot hold the Accused persons guilty in the present case.
FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 420/511/34 IPC State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 18 of 19 Conclusion
22. In view of the appreciation of evidence as well as above held discussion, the Accused persons namely Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu are held not guilty and acquitted for the charges levelled against them under section 420/511/34 IPC.
23. Perusal of the record manifests that proclamations u/s 82 Cr.P.C were duly published against accused persons namely, Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan @ Sonu respectively, who have failed to appear before this court and, therefore, vide order dated 21.06.2024 they have been declared as Proclaimed Absconders by this court and the testimonies of witnesses i.e. PW6 to PW8 have already been discussed. Accordingly, Mohan Singh Chauhan and Sohan Singh Chauhan stand convicted for the offence u/s 174A IPC.
Announced in the Open Court (RAHUL SAINI)
on 13.01.2025 JMFC-08/Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
13.01.2025.
FIR No.278/2011 PS Jyoti Nagar
U/s 420/511/34 IPC
State vs. Mohan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 19 of 19