Delhi District Court
State vs Dinesh Mohaniya And Others on 16 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER : SH. VISHAL PAHUJA.
F.I.R. No: 535/16
PS Neb Sarai
U/s 323/354/506/509 IPC
State vs Dinesh Mohaniya and others
JUDGMENT
Case no. : 03/2019
Date of commission of offence : 22.06.2016
Date of institution of the case : 10.02.2017
Name of the complainant : Ms. Zarina
Name of accused persons: 1. Dinesh Mohaniya
and addresses s/o Sh. Bhagat Singh
Mohaniya, r/o H.no. B14,
Shiv Park, Khanpur, New
Delhi.
2. Subhash Shukla,
s/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
Shukla, r/o B14, Shiv Park
Khanpur, Delhi.
3. Satish @ Lalit
Chaudhary, s/o Sh.
Hukam Singh, r/o H.no. E
26A, Jawahar Park,
Khanpur, New Delhi.
FIR No. 535/16 Page 1/21
State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 323/354/506/509 IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for : 05.03.2020
Judgment
Date of announcing of Judgment : 16.03.2020
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. The accused persons namely Dinesh Mohaniya, Subhash Shukla and Satish @ Lalit Chaudhary have been prosecuted in this case for commission of offences under section 323/354/506/509 IPC.
2. The allegations of the prosecution are that on 22.06.2016 the complainant namely Ms. Zarina along with victim Noor Bano and other residents of Sangam Vihar, Delhi, had gone to the office of the accused Dinesh Mohaniya, who was sitting MLA of the concerned area for raising the complaints of shortage of water in their locality. Further, on arriving at the office of the accused Dinesh Mohaniya, accused Satish and Shafeeq misbehaved with Noor Bano and other persons. That the accused Satish and Shafeeq grabbed the Noor Bano from her waist and pulled her "saree" due to which her saree FIR No. 535/16 Page 2/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
got loosened from her body. It is alleged that Noor Bano then went to the accused Dinesh Mohaniya, who along with his PA namely accused Subhash and 34 other persons were sitting inside the office and complained him about the conduct of the accused Satish and Shafeeq. On this, accused Dinesh Mohaniya said that he would also do the same and called Noor Bano, a "prostitute". Further, accused Dinesh Mohaniya pulled Noor Bano from her shoulder and then forcefully pushed her due to which her blouse got torn and strap of her bra broke out. It is further stated that accused Dinesh Mohaniya grabbed Noor Bano from her neck and threatened her. It is further alleged that from the assault of the accused Dinesh Mohaniya on Noor Bano her breast got uncovered from her clothes. Then the accused Dinesh Mohaniya touched Noor Bano in an inappropriate manner. He also grabbed Noor Bano's breast. Finally, Noor Bano managed to escape from there. The complainant and other accompanying persons were forcefully removed from the office of the accused Dinesh Mohaniya and were threatened that if they had come again, they would be beaten up. On 28.06.2016, Noor Bano was threatened at the behest of the accused Dinesh Mohaniya and was asked not to oppose the bail application moved by the accused. On the complaint of Ms. Zarina, present FIR was registered on 22.06.2016 u/s 323/342/354/354A/354B/506/ 509/34 IPC.
FIR No. 535/16 Page 3/21State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
3. After conclusion of the investigation the police filed the charge sheet on 10.02.2017 u/s 323/342/354/354A/354B/506/509/34 IPC. Ld. Predecessor of this court took cognizance and summoned the accused persons.
4. Upon the appearance of the accused persons the complaince of section 207 Cr.P.C. was ensured. Ld. Predecessor of this Court after hearing the arguments on charge discharged the accused Shafeeq Ahmed and a formal charge was ordered to be served upon the accused persons namely Dinesh Mohaniya, Satish @ Lalit Chaudhary and Subhash Shukla vide order dated 26.04.2018. Charge was served upon the accused Dinesh Mohaniya on 26.04.2018 u/s 323/354/506/509/34 IPC, upon the accused Satish @ Lalit Chaudhary on 26.04.2018 u/s 354/34 IPC, upon the accused Subhash Shukla on 26.04.2018 u/s 506/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The order of the charge was challenged before the Ld. Revisionist Court and in compliance to order 25.09.2018 passed by Ld. Sessions Court, charge was altered and was separately served upon the accused persons accordingly. Accused Dinesh Mohaniya was charged u/s 323/354/506/509 IPC. Accused Satish @ Lalit Chaudhary was charged u/s 354 IPC. Accused Subhash Shukla was charged u/s 506 IPC. A formal charge was served upon the accused persons on 05.10.2018 and 01.10.2018 respectively to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 535/16 Page 4/21State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined twenty one witnesses.
6. PW1 Ms. Zarina deposed that the incident in question is of two years back and it was during Ramzan. There was scarcity of water in the locality so PW-1, her aunt PW-2 Noor Bano along with other persons of the locality visited the office of accused Dinesh Mohaniya. There were 2-3 persons who used to sit outside the office. As per PW-1, one of the person might be the accused Lalit Kumar, but she was not sure as the incident took place two years ago. It is further stated that aunt of PW-1 namely Noor Bano went to the office of Dinesh Mohaniya and she was present in the room adjacent to the office. There was a glass partition and PW-1 could see the incident through it. Dinesh Mohaniya stood up from his chair and raised his voice on Smt. Noor Bano. Smt. Noor Bano also raised her voice. Dinesh Mohaniya pushed the aunt of PW-1 namely Noor Bano, abused her and mishandled her. Thereafter, the associates of Dinesh Mohaniya pushed her outside the office. It is stated that Noor Bano fell on them and the sari that she was wearing was also derobed. It is stated that she is not aware as to whether it was intentionally done or it was because of the manhandling. It is stated that Smt. Noor Bano called the police at 100 number but police did FIR No. 535/16 Page 5/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
not arrive at the spot. Thereafter, a police complaint was filed Ex. PW1/A. PW-1 also recorded her statement before the Magistrate. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
7. PW2 Ms. Noor Bano deposed that she do not remember the date, month or year of the incident but it occurred around two years back in the month of Ramzan. It is deposed that PW-2 went to the office of accused Dinesh Mohaniya, alongwith Zarina and Wasim for complaining about the problem of water. There were large number of persons present at the office of Dinesh Mohaniya. The accused Arvind Shukla and Lalit held the waist of PW-2 and pulled her saree, then, PW-2 complained to Dinesh Mohaniya, who shouted at her and pushed her from her shoulder due to which, her blouse got torn and when she was about to fall, he touched PW-2 just below the shoulder. It is stated that she do not know whether it was intentional or for saving PW-2 from falling down. Thereafter, a lady gave her a pin of saree by which PW-2 hooked her saree and the blouse. It is further deposed that after around 15-20 days accused Arvind Shukla came to her house for compromising the matter and said that she should take back the case otherwise it will not be good for her. Her statement was recorded in front of the Magistrate, which is Ex.PW2/A. This witness correctly identified the accused persons. This witness could not identify her signatures on document Ex.PW1/A. This witness exhibited on record her complaint regarding the intimidation i.e. Ex.PW2/B. It is stated that accused Subhash Shukla & Shafique were not arrested in her presence. PW-2 FIR No. 535/16 Page 6/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
identified her signature on the arrest memo Ex.PW2/C of accused Subhash Shukla at point A. The phone of Mohd Wasim was seized by the police in her presence vide Ex.PW2/D. PW-2 also made a complaint to police station Neb Sarai vide Ex.PW2/E. This witness was also cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
8. PW3 Ms. Firoza deposed that she do not remember the date of the incident. She further denied seeing anything happening at the spot. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for state with the permission of the court as she resiled from her statement Mark PW3/A. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
9. PW4 Wasim deposed that he along with 4050 persons went to the office of Dinesh Mohaniya for resolving the problem of water. When they entered the office, the female members went inside and he stood at the gate. He further deposed that it was dark in the corridor so he opened the light of his mobile camera. As per him the people shouted as he was making video and his phone was seized the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for state with the permission of the court as he resiled from his statement Mark PW4/A. This witness was also cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
FIR No. 535/16 Page 7/21State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
10. PW5 Desh Raj also deposed on the same lines as that of PW4. He further deposed that the females were saying that they were pushed and shoved inside the office. This witness denied remembering anything else. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for state with the permission of the court as he resiled from his statement Mark PW5/A. This witness was also cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
11. PW6 Ms. Munni Bai, PW7 Smt. Bhawani, PW8 Smt. Prabeen, PW9 Smt. Sehnaz, PW10 Ms. Heera, PW11 Mr. Saurabh Choudhary and PW20 Ms. Aaysha deposed that they do not know anything about the case and also they failed to identify the accused persons. All these witnesses have been cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state with the permission of the court.
12. PW12 ASI Kuldeep Singh and PW16 ASI Bhupender Singh are the formal witnesses who deposed qua their role in depositing the parcel/exhibites with FSL. PW16 ASI Bhupender Singh exhibited on record the road certificate as Ex.PW16/A and receiving from FSL as Ex.PW16/B. Both the witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
13. PW13 Dr. Susheel Shukla exhibited on record MLC of accused Dinesh Mohaniya as Ex. PW13/A. He also exhibited on FIR No. 535/16 Page 8/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
record the registration slip as Ex. PW13/B. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
14. PW14 Ct. Sukhbir deposed qua the manner and his involvement in the investigation. PW14 Ct. Sukhbir relied upon already exhibited arrest memo of accused Subhash Shukla Ex. PW2/C and exhibited on record the personal search memo of accused Subhash Shukla as Ex. PW14/A. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
15. PW15 HC Satpal Samota was the duty officer, who exhibited on record the true copy of print out of FIR is Ex. PW15/A, endorsement made on the copy of FIR is Ex. PW15/B, the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW15/C, the entry with respect to the present case in roznamcha is Ex. PW15/D. This witness was cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
16. PW17 SI Ranbir Singh deposed qua the manner and his involvement in the investigation. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW17/A and prepared the site plan Ex.PW17/B. This witness also exhibited seizure memo vide which blouse of Noor Bano was seized as Ex.PW17/C. He got the statements of Zarina and Noor Bano recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by moving application before the court. He identified the case property. Same is exhibited as Ex.P-1. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
FIR No. 535/16 Page 9/21State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
17. PW18 SI Vinay Kumar also deposed the manner and his involvement in the investigation. He exhibited on record the arrest memo of accused Dinesh Mohaniya as Ex. PW18/A, his personal search memo as Ex. PW18/B and the disclosure statement as Ex. PW18/C. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
18. PW19 W/SI Asha was the Investigating officer in the present case who deposed qua the manner and her involvement in the investigation. This witness relied upon the documents already exhibited by PW2, PW14, PW17. She recorded the supplementary statements of Zarina and Noor Bano during the investigation. After seizing the mobile phone from witness Wasim, the same was sent to FSL. FSL report is exhibited on record as Ex. PW19/A. This witness also exhibited on record the arrest memo of accused Lalit as Ex. PW19/B, notice to Noor Bano Ex. PW19/C. This witness identified all the accused persons. After completion of the investigation PW19 filed the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet before the court. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
19. PW21 Ms. Niti Phutela, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate was examined who exhibited on record the statements of the victims FIR No. 535/16 Page 10/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW21/A and Ex. PW21/B. This witness was also cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
20. No other witness was left to be examined, thus, PE was closed on 28.08.2019.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
21. Statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against accused persons were put to them to which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case and the witnesses who deposed against them are interested witnesses. It is stated that the case is politically motivated and has been falsely filed against them. Accused Dinesh Mohaniya opted to lead defence evidence. Accused Subhash Shukla and Satish @ Lalit Chaudhary opted not to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
22. Accused Dinesh Mohaniya examined himself as DW1. He exhibited on record the CCTV footage of the incident in a Pen drive downloaded from the DVR dated 22.06.2016 along with the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The pen drive is Ex.
FIR No. 535/16 Page 11/21State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
DW1/A and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. DW1/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. APP for state.
ARGUMENTS:
23. Ld. APP for state has argued that on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses testimony, offence U/s 323/354/506/509 IPC are proved against the accused persons beyond any doubt. It is addressed by Ld. APP for state that all the star witnesses of the prosecution have duly proved the case against the accused persons and their testimony remained unrebutted on the material aspects, thereby, proving the guilt of the accused persons.
24. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the accused persons have argued that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution. It is further argued that none of the prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution and there is no cogent evidence led on record to prove the guilt of the accused persons. It is further argued that the independent public witnesses have also failed to support the case of the prosecution rendering the testimony of star witnesses as interested witnesses. Arguing further Ld. counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt due to tainted testimony of PWs, hence accused FIR No. 535/16 Page 12/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
persons are entitled to be acquitted.
FINDINGS:
25. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.
26. This Court has bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before the Court. Accused persons are indicted for the offences U/s 323/354/506/509 IPC. Section 323 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing simple hurt. Section 354 IPC provides punishment for assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for committing criminal intimidation. Section 509 IPC provides for punishment to a person who utters any word, makes any sound or gesture or exhibit any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman with intention to insult the modesty of any woman.
27. After appreciating the evidence and going through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses this Court finds the accused persons not guilty for any offence charged herein and they deserve FIR No. 535/16 Page 13/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
acquittal for the following reasons:
28. PW1 Ms. Zarina and PW2 Ms. Noor Bano are the star witnesses of the prosecution being complainant and victim in the present case.
29. As far as the testimony of PW1 Ms. Zarina w.r.t. accused Subhash Shukla is concerned, in her examination in chief recorded before the court she has not assigned or attributed any role of acused Subhash Shukla in commission of any offence. She also did not make any allegations against accused Subhash Shukla in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. exhibited as Ex. PW21/B. PW 2, Noor Bano in her examination in chief stated that after 1520days Arvind Shukla came to her house and threatened her for compromising the matter whereas the complaint Ex.PW2/B is given on 29.06.2016 i.e. after 07days of the incident. In the complaint Ex. PW2/B, the name of person threatening the victim has not been mentioned by PW2. The name of person who threatened PW2 has been mentioned by the name of Arvind Shukla in her examination in chief and there is no clarification given by PW2 that Arvind Shukla and Subhash Shukla are the same person. In her examination in chief PW2 stated that Subhash Shukla was not arrested in her presence but she failed to explain as to how her signatures are on the arrest memo of Subhash Shukla, meaning thereby that accused FIR No. 535/16 Page 14/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
Subhash Shukla has not been arrested from the place that has been mentioned in the arrest memo nor he has been arrested in the presence of PW2. During her cross examination PW2 admitted that her signatures at document PW2/C have been obtained without her knowledge. The accused Subhash Shukla has been charged u/s 506 IPC for threatening the victim Noor Bano for not opposing bail application of accused Dinesh Mohaniya but this fact has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of PW1 & PW2. Hence, the allegations against the accused Subhash Shukla are not substantiated.
30. As far as the allegations against accused Satish @ Lalit Chaudhary, he has been charged under Section 354 IPC. PW1 in her examination in chief stated that she is not sure that the person present in the office of accused Dinesh Mohaniya was Lalit Kumar as the incident occurred two years back. Nowhere in her examination in chief or statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., PW1 made allegations of outraging of modesty of victim Noor Bano by the accused Satish @ Lalit Chaudhary. PW2 in her examination in chief stated that Lalit held her waist and pulled her saree. This fact has not been supported by PW1 who was accompanying PW2 nor this fact has been stated by any of the independent public witness examined by the prosecution. The incident captured by the CCTV placed on record also do not reveal any such act by the accused Lalit FIR No. 535/16 Page 15/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
Chaudhary @ Satish. It is further pertinent to note that PW2 or any of the other prosecution witness has failed to prove on record that Lalit Chaudhary is also known by the name Satish. PW2 relied upon a document Ex. PW2/E in which she clarified that Satish and Lalit are the same person but during her cross examination she admitted that the contents of document Ex. PW2/E are not in her knowledge and same was signed by her without being read by the person who took her signatures on the same. In absence of clinching evidence against the accused Satish @ Lalit Chaudhary the allegations made u/s 354 Cr.P.C. against him could not be substantiated on record by the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
31. Now coming to the allegations against accused Dinesh Mohaniya. PW1 did not assign or attributed any role of accused Dinesh Mohaniya in commission of any offence in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. PW1 in her examination in chief stated that accused Dinesh Mohaniya pushed her aunt Noor Bano, abused her and mishandled her. This is the only statement made by PW1 against the accused Dinesh Mohaniya. She did not state as to what words the accused Dinesh Mohaniya utterred while abusing Noor Bano. In her examination in chief PW1 stated that when Noor Bano was pushed outside to the office she fell on her and her saree was derobed but this was stated to be by associates of Dinesh Mohaniya not by Dinesh Mohaniya himself. Simultaneously, PW1 clarified that FIR No. 535/16 Page 16/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
she is not aware as to whether in was intentionally done or it was because of manhandling. The testimony of PW1 ruled out any deliberate or intentional act on the part of the accused Dinesh Mohaniya while dealing with the victim Noor Bano.
32. PW2 in her examination in chief stated that Dinesh Mohaniya pushed her from her shoulder due to which her blouse got torned and he touched her when she was about to fall. She also clarified at the same time that she did not know whether it was intentional or for the purpose of saving her from falling down. This statement of PW2 ruled out any deliberate or intentional act on the part of the accused Dinesh Mohaniya to outrage her modesty. PW2 during her cross examination stated that the incident did not happen inside the office and it was happened in the gallery outside the office. This statement of PW2 is completely contradictory to the statement of PW1 who claimed that the incident took place in the office of Dinesh Mohaniya and she could see through the glass from the adjacent room. Further, PW2 stated the fact that a lady gave her a pin of saree by which she could hook her saree and the blouse but this fact was not found mentioned in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and u/s 161 Cr.P.C. when confronted during her cross examination. PW2 nowhere in her testimony stated that accused Dinesh Mohaniya called her prostitute that would attract section 509 IPC. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. PW2 stated that accused Dinesh FIR No. 535/16 Page 17/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
Mohaniya pulled her by holding her breast whereas no such fact has been deposed during her testimony recorded before the court. Hence, the allegations of section 354 IPC also remained unsubstantiated. PW2 nowhere in her examination in chief stated that accused Dinesh Mohaniya threatened her. The allegations of criminal intimidation are silent in the testimony of PW2 as contrary to what PW2 stated in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, hence, the ingredients of Section 506 IPC have not been complied with. As far as the allegations of section 323 IPC are concerned there is no material evidence produced by the prosecution on record to show that the victim PW2 have sustained any injury on her body. No MLC in support of such allegations have been led in evidence. In such circumstances, the offence u/s 323 IPC have also not been proved. Hence, the allegations against the accused Dinesh Mohaniya are not substantiated by the testimony of PW1 and PW2.
33. Above all testimony of PW1 & PW2 are not reliable enough to call for conviction of the accused persons in view of material contradictions and discrepancies. PW1 during his cross examination admitted that she has not gone through her statement u/s 161 or u/s 164 Cr.P.C and even complaint Ex.PW1/A before signing the same. Complaint Ex.PW1/A is breft of any details of incident which was the very first opportunity for the complainant to bring on record the entire sequence of events. Similarly PW2 also during her cross FIR No. 535/16 Page 18/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
examination admitted that her signatures were obtained on blank papers and she has no knowledge of the contents of the documents Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/E. She also admitted that the contents were not even read over to her. There are several contradictions in the testimony of PW1 visavis PW2 which does not rule out concoction or an after thought story especially when all other independent public witnesses have failed to corroborate their allegations. Most importantly there is delay in registration of FIR as the incident is stated to have taken place in the morning of 22.6.2016 whereas the FIR has been registered in the late night of 22.06.2016 which also remained unexplained by the prosecution. Thus, in these circumstances false implication of the accused persons in the present case cannot be ruled out.
34. Accused Dinesh Mohaniya stepped into the witness box as DW1 and exhibited on record the video footage in a pen drive supported with a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as DW 1/A and DW1/B respectively. The state did not opt to cross examine the witness. The testimony of DW1 and the documents relied remained unrebutted. The video footage in the pen drive was played and seen in the court. In the entire video, no such incident can be seen to have happen as alleged by the prosecution witness no.1 and 2. The prosecution has examined PW4 Wasim who happened to have videographed the incident and his mobile phone was seized FIR No. 535/16 Page 19/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. Admittedly, there is no such video found recorded in the mobile of Wasim. When examined before the court, PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner. In fact, he even denied making any video of the incident as claimed by the prosecution. The independent public witnesses namely PW5 Desh Raj, PW6 Ms. Munni Bai, PW7 Smt. Bhawani, PW8 Smt. Prabeen, PW9 Smt. Sehnaz, PW10 Ms. Heera, PW11 Mr. Saurabh Choudhary and PW20 Ms. Aaysha have not supported the case of prosecution in any manner and simply testified that they do not know anything about the present case or the incident happened. Apart from the complainant PW1 and the victim PW2 none of the independent public witness has corroborated their allegations. The judgment titled as M. Munuswamy v. State, Crl. A.No. 279 of 2008 applies in the present situation where it has been held that it is highly unsafe to convict the accused persons on the basis of interested testimony of the complainant where no other evidence in the form of independent public witness supports the case of the prosecution.
35. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such FIR No. 535/16 Page 20/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.
reasonable doubt entitles the accused to be acquitted.
36. In the instant case there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of star witnesses and none of the other independent public witnesses have supported the version of complainant leaving a big cloud of doubt. It is therefore held that the prosecution has not been able to successfully build the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all the accused persons are entitled to be given benefit of doubt. Hence, accused persons namely Dinesh Mohaniya, Subhash Shukla, Satish @ Lalit Chaudhary stands acquitted for the offences they are charged with.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date:
2020.03.16
15:41:16 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA)
COURT ON 16.03.2020 ACMMI/RACC/DELHI
Containing 21 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
Digitally signedVISHAL by VISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date: 2020.03.16 15:41:24 +0530 (VISHAL PAHUJA) ACMMI/RACC/DELHI FIR No. 535/16 Page 21/21 State vs Dinesh Mohaniya & others.