Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepu on 24 March, 2022
____________________________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-03,NORTH, ROHINI COURTS,DELHI
____________________________________________________________________
State Vs. Deepu
FIR No. 78/2010
PS. KNK Marg
U/s. 435/509 IPC
Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 07.04.2010
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Smt. Sangeeta w/o Sh. Uday Veer,
r/o H-3/377, Ground Floor, Sector -
16, Rohini, Delhi.
3) The name & parentage
of accused : Deepu s/o Sh. Raju Shrivastav r/o
A-1/59, Sector 16 Rohini, Delhi.
4) Offence complained of : U/s 435/509 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Convicted for offence u/s 435
IPC and Acquitted for offence
u/s 509 IPC
7) The date of such order : 24.03.2022
8) Date of Institution : 30.07.2010
9) Judgement reserved on : 16.03.2022
10) Judgement announced on : 24.03.2022
____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 1 of 16 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2010 at about 01:00 AM (Mid Night) at and in front of H. No. H-3/377, Sector 16 Rohini, Delhi, the accused Deepu with intention to insult the modesty of the complainant Sangeeta uttered abusive and filthy language against her and thereby, the accused Deepu committed an offence punishable u/s 509 IPC. The accused also committed mischief by using lighter to ignite the scooty bearing number DL-4SBM-0893, Hero Honda Pleasure, AC and gate of the complainant and put these articles on fire and due to which the complainant suffered wrongful loss and thereby, the accused had also committed an offence punishable u/s 435 IPC.
2) After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C, arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 17.09.2018, charge for offences punishable u/s. 435/509 IPC were framed against the accused Deepu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its case, the prosecution got examined six witnesses.
4) PW 1 SI Karan Singh, No. D-2076, Narcotics Cell, Rohini District, Sector-4 Rohini, Delhi, deposed that on 12.06.2010, he was posted at PS KNK Marg as SI. On that day, he received the case file of the present case through MHCR on the instruction of the concerned SHO. He had gone through the case file. As the investigation was completed, he prepared the challan sheet of the present case and submitted the same before the court. The previous IO was SI Vikram. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.
____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 2 of 16
5) PW 2 complainant/Smt. Sangeeta w/o Sh. Uday Veer r/o H-3/377, Ground Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi, deposed that she has been living at the above-mentioned address with her family members. On 07.04.2010, she alongwith her children was present at the aforesaid house. At that time, her husband Sh. Uday Veer was not present at home as he had gone to the village. On that day, at around 01:00 A.M. (Mid Night), accused Deepu came at her home and said "Gate Kholo", she did not open the door. She opened the wooden door however she did not open the iron gate. She saw from grill of the iron gate that the accused Deepu was using vulgar language "Gandi Gaali". At that time, accused Deepu took out a lighter and put her scooty bearing number DL-4SBM- 0893, make Hero Honda Pleasure in red colour, on fire which was parked outside the house and tied with the tree. She made a call at 100 number. Owing to the fire caused by the accused Air Conditioner of her neighbour got fired. The sister of accused "Mausi ki Ladki" namely Prem Lata, also reached at the spot and stated that she will pay the damage. She knew the accused Deepu prior to the incident. Accused Deepu was "Mausi-ka- Ladka" of her neighbour Prem Lata. After the call at 100 number, police officials reached at the spot. However, at that time, she had not given any complaint on the request of the Prem Lata as she had promised to her that she would compensate her. Later on, SI Vikram reached at the spot and she had given her statement which is Ex. PW 2/A bearing her signature at Point A. Police officials arrested the accused Deepu. She had given the RC of the scooty to the police officials vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B bearing her signature at Point A. Burnt scooty was seized by the police officials vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/C. She put her signature on the arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused Deepu which are Ex. PW 2/E and Ex. PW 2/F at Point A. She had shown the place of the incident to the police officials. Later on, accused Deepu alongwith Raju and one another person had visited her home and gave the threat to ____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 3 of 16 withdraw the present case and also used vulgar language. Accused was correctly identified by the her in the court on 19.09.2019. Photographs of the burnt scooty and the spot are correctly identified by her and same is Ex. P1. She was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6) PW 3 Sh. Karambir S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan R/o E-2/4/43, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi, deposed that on 08.04.2010, he was the owner of the H. No. 3/377, Sector 16 Rohini, Delhi. He had given the said house to Ms. Sangeeta on rent. In the said house, one of his shop/property dealer office was situated on the ground floor of the said house. When he reached at the abovesaid office, he came to know that the scooty of his tenant got burnt by someone and in the said incident his air conditioner which is installed at the abovesaid office was also burnt. Police officials reached at the spot and he narrated the whole incident to the police official and the police official recorded his statement. Photographs of the spot and burnt vehicle which are on record was correctly identified by the him which is already Ex. P1(colly). He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.
7) PW 4 Smt. Shakuntala W/o Late Sh. Ashwani Sharma R/o Plot No. 104, First Floor, Partap Nagar, Delhi, deposed that she is the registered owner of the scooty bearing registration number DL-4SBM-0893, Hero Honda Pleasure. In the year 2000, she had given the abovesaid scooty to her friend Ms. Sangeeta. Later on, she came to know that the said scooty burnt by someone. RC of the abovesaid vehicle is Ex. PW 4/A which is already on record and was registered in her favour. The photographs of the burnt scooty is already Ex. P1. She was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.
____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 4 of 16
8) PW 5 IO/SI Vikram, No. D-4141, PIS No. 16080109, deposed that on 07.04.2010, he was posted at PS KNK Marg as PSI. On that day, he had received the information regarding the incident vide DD No. 6A which is Mark PW 5/A. After receiving the same, he alongwith Ct. Rajkumar reached at the spot i.e. H.No. 3/377, H-Block, Sector 16 Rohini, Delhi. After reaching there, he found burnt scooty in front of abovesaid spot and he also met the complainant Smt. Sangeeta, who stated that some quarrel had taken place between her and neighbour. At that time, complainant had not given any statement to him. Later on the same day, complainant Smt. Sangeeta had given the statement which is already Ex. PW 2/A bearing his signatures at Point B as an attesting witness. He made the endorsement on the complaint and prepared the rukka. He sent rukka to the concerned police station through Ct. Rajkumar for registration of the FIR. FIR was registered on the basis of the said rukka and Ct. Rajkumar came back at the spot and handed over the rukka to him. During the investigation, he prepared the site plan at the spot at the instance of the complainant which is Ex. PW 5/A bearing his signatures at Point A. Photographs of the spot were clicked by the private photographer, who was called by him. He seized the abovesaid burnt scooty bearing registration nnumber DL-4SBM-0893 vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW 2/C bearing his signatures at Point B. The details of the scooty was mentioned by him in the seizure memo itself. He seized the RC of the abovesaid scooty vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW 2/B bearing his signatures at Point B. On the same day, he arrested accused Deepu, who was the son of the sister(Sarita) of the neighbour of the complainant Ms. Prem Lata. He prepared the arrest memo of the accused which is already Ex. PW 2/E and the personal search memo which is already Ex. PW 2/F, both bearing his signatures at Point B. He recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He arrested the accused at the instance of the complainant. The disclosure statement of ____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 5 of 16 the accused was also recorded by him which is also Ex. PW 5/C bearing his signatures at Point A. During the investigation, mechanical inspection of the burnt scooty was conducted and he moved an application for the same, which is Ex. PW 5/D bearing his signatures at Point A. Mechanical inspection of the air conditioner of the landlord of the complainant namely Sh. Karambir, was also conducted which is Ex. PW 5/E bearing his signatures at Point A. During the investigation, he got transferred and he handed over the case file to MHCR. Accused was correctly identified by him in the court on 04.10.2019. He do not want to say anything else. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State as he was not disclosing the complete facts. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.
9) PW 6 ASI Raj Kumar, 2886 PCR, North Delhi Zone, deposed that on 07.04.2010, he was posted as Constable at PS KNK Marg. On that day, upon receipt of DD No. 6A by the IO/SI Vikram, he alongwith the IO went to the spot i..e. H.No. 377, Sector 16 Rohini, Delhi, where they saw that a scooty was ablazing and the complainant Smt. Sangeeta also met them who refused to give the statement at that time. Later that day, complainant had given her statement which is already Ex. PW 2/A to the IO at the spot. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to the police station and got the FIR registered through Duty Officer. After returning to the spot, he handed over the copy of the FIR and original tehrir to the IO. IO prepared the site plan of the spot at the instance of the complainant. Thereafter, he alongwith the IO and the complainant went to the house of the accused Deepu where they came to know that the accused had gone to Kali Mata Mandir, Main Road, KNK Marg, Delhi. Accordingly, they also went there and upon the identification and at the instance of the complainant, accused Deepu was apprehended from the front side of the ____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 6 of 16 temple. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo which is already Ex. PW 2/E and personally search vide memo already Ex. PW 2/F, both bearing his signatures at Point C respectively. Accused was correctly identified by him in the court on 18.01.2020. Accused was interrogated by the IO and he made a disclosure statement which was recorded by the IO and was already Ex. PW 5/C bearing his signatures at Point B. The abovesaid burnt scooty bearing registration number DL-4SBM-0893 was seized by the IO vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW 2/C bearing his signature at Point C. The RC of the said scooty was also seized vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW 2/B bearing his signature at Point C. He correctly identified the burnt scooty from the photographs which are already Ex. P1(colly). He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10) Statement of accused under section 294 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 04.10.2019 and he admitted the genuineness/preparation of present FIR bearing number 78/10,PS KNK Marg as Exhibit D1, DD number 6A dated 07.04.2010 PS KNK Marg as Exhibit D2, mechanical inspection report Exhibit D3, relevant entry in register number 19 as Exhibit D4 and statement of photographer as Exhibit D5.
11) Statement of accused under section 294 Cr.P.C. has been further recorded on 18.01.2020 and he stated that he shall not dispute the genuineness and preparation of the photographs already Ex. P-1(colly) during the course of trial.
12) Statement of accused under section 294 Cr.P.C. has been further recorded on 14.02.2020 and he stated that he shall not dispute the genuineness and preparation of Rukka repaired by IO Exhibit D6, endorsement of DO on the Rukka Exhibit D7 and the photograph of the burnt vehicle already Exhibit P1(colly) during the course of trial.
____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 7 of 16
13) After prosecution evidence, statement of the accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Sec 281 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 14.02.2020 wherein the accused pleaded innocence and false implication in the present case. It is stated by the accused that he do not want to lead DE.
14) I have heard the final arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
15) At the outset, Ld. Counsel for accused has taken the plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
16) In "Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, MANU/SC/0121/1973", Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"Para 26. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt......"
____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 8 of 16
17) It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
18) It is stated by Ld APP for the state that complainant/victim/PW2 Sangeeta gave a very consistent and trustworthy statement which inspires confidence. It is further stated by Ld APP for the state that she has categorically deposed about using of the vulgar language by the accused against her and it has also been deposed that accused put her scooty on fire and that she had witnessed the incident but since her husband was not present at home and since it was midnight time, she could not do anything. It is further stated by Ld APP for state that she made a prompt call to PCR at 100 number which was transferred to local PS vide DD number 6A Exhibit D2 at 1:35 AM midnight and nothing incriminating could be brought out in the cross examination of the complainant which could impeach her credibility and veracity. It is further stated by Ld APP for state that the fact of burning of scooty has been proved by the complainant/PW2 herself being the eyewitness from the photographs Exhibit P1(colly) duly proved by PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and also from the statement dated 04.10.2019 of accused where he himself admitted the photographs and even the evidence of PW3 and PW4 goes uncontroverted, thus stands admitted by accused in totality. It is further stated by Ld APP for the state that the possession of scooty with the complainant/PW2 has been very well proved by PW2 herself, PW3 and PW4 is the registered owner of the scooty and it is also pertinent to notice that the statements of PW3 and PW4 goes ____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 9 of 16 unchallenged and uncontroverted and thus their complete deposition stands proved and admitted by the accused. It is further stated by Ld APP for state that the fact of burning of scooty is also proved by the mechanical report Exhibit D3 which is also admitted by the accused vide his statement dated 04.10.2019. It is further stated by Ld APP for the state that the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of both the sections 435/509 IPC and even prove the facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further stated by Ld APP for state that even the statement of IO/PW5 SI Vikram goes uncontroverted which further substantiate the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
It is stated by Ld counsel for the accused that no proof has been placed on record by the prosecution to prove that the scooty was purchased by the complainant as it is specifically stated by PW4 superdar who is also the registered owner of the scooty that she had given the scooty to the complainant and it is stated by PW2 during her cross- examination that she had purchased the scooty from Shakuntla PW4. It is further stated by Ld counsel for the accused that IO at one point of time during his examination stated that he had clicked the photographs of the spot and burnt scooty and at other point of time he stated that the photographs of the spot were clicked by private photographer called by him, which is totally contradictory to each other. It is further stated by Ld counsel for the accused that it is stated by PW2 during his examination that neighbours arrived at the spot after the incident but no one has been made witness in the present case by the prosecution. It is further stated by Ld counsel for the accused that the complainant has previous animosity and grudge with the mother of the complainant and had falsely implicated the accused in the present false case and that is also the reason why there is no independent witness in the present case.
____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 10 of 16
19) Section 435 of IPC provides punishment for mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees and lays down that:-
"whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards or where the properties agriculture produce ten rupees or upwards shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine"
20) Section 509 of IPC provides punishment for word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman and lays down that:-
"whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine."
21) In the present case, PW2 Sangeeta totally support the case of the prosecution and nothing comes out in the cross-examination of PW2 which can shake the veracity of her testimony and can shake her credibility. The testimonies of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5 remain unchallenged and uncontroverted as they were not cross-examined by Ld defence counsel despite opportunity being given. It is held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Anita Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 11 of 16 (2021) 1 SCC 171, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2015 SC 1032 and Rajender Parshad (Dead) by LR's Vs. Darshana Devi that when a factum has not been challenged or cross-examined by defence in cross-examination, it stands proved undisputedly. Moreover, during the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has been provided with an opportunity to put his defence and to explain the circumstances of the incident but accused simply pleaded false implication and came out with a complete denial approach. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Neel Kumar versus state of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766 and Phula Singh versus state of HP, AIR 2014 SC 1256 that if accused remain silent or in complete denial and did not furnish any explanation while answering to the questions under section 313 Cr.P.C. then court can take adverse inference against him and consider it as an additional link in the chain of circumstances to sustain charges against him.
Regarding the charge of section 509 IPC, it is held by Honourable Supreme Court of India in Rupan Deol Bajaj versus Kanwarpal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 that modesty as provided for in section 509 IPC is the sexual sanctity of a woman i.e. the esteem or the respect that the woman has towards her sexual integrity and the sexual parts of her body. Therefore, for section 509 IPC, it is needed that there should have been some utterance of words or making of some sound or depicting some object etc. with intent or with knowledge of insulting the modesty of a woman and the sexual connotation related to the sexual, physical dignity of that woman is a must and just a comment attributing bad character upon a woman would not be sufficient for section 509 IPC. In the present case, it is deposed by PW2 that accused used vulgar language "gandi gaali" and prosecution failed to prove whether that vulgar language "gandi gaali" is with intent or with knowledge of insulting the modesty of ____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 12 of 16 a woman and there is sexual connotation related to the sexual, physical dignity of that woman which is must and just vulgar language "gandi gaali" is not sufficient for section 509 IPC.
22) It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. There is no controversy to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt occurring in the prosecution case. The general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.
23) In Magan Bihari Lal V. the State of Punjab AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1091, the Apex Court held that the onus of proving all ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is the duty of the prosecution to show how hook the crook.
1 I am also of the view that intention, knowledge and motive are important aspects under criminal law and brief legal position concerning these words is given hereinbelow:-
Intention- "Criminal intention" simply means the purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by the criminal law without just cause or excuse. The intention of the accused to produce a particular consequence shows his intention to do the act. An act is intentional if it exists in fact, the idea realizing itself in the fact because of the desire by which it is accompanied. The word 'intent' does not mean ultimate aim and object. Nor it is used as a synonym ____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 13 of 16 for 'motive'. Where the Legislature makes an offence dependant on proof of intention, the court must have the proof of facts sufficient to justify it in coming to the conclusion that the intention existed. No doubt one has usually to infer the intention from the conduct, and one matter that has to be taken into the account is the probable effect of the conduct. But that is never conclusive. As a general rule, every sane man is presumed to intend the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his acts, and this presumption of law will prevail unless from a consideration of all the evidence the court entertains a reasonable doubt whether such intention existed. This presumption, however, is not conclusive nor alone sufficient to justify a conviction and should be supplemented by other testimony. An accused must be judged to have the intention that is indicated by his proved acts. The burden of proving guilty intention lies upon the prosecution where the intent is expressly stated as part of the definition of the crime. Criminal intent as a psychological fact has to be proved even in regard to offences under the Special Acts unless it is specifically ruled out or ruled out by necessary implication.
Knowledge- Where knowledge of a fact is an essential ingredient of an offence it must be distinctly proved. There are certain offences in the Penal Code where the accused who commits those offences is punished irrespective of this fact whether he had knowledge or not. Where a particular act is forbidden the question of knowledge is immaterial.
Motive- Motive is not to be confused with intention. If a man knows that a certain consequence will follow from his act, it must be presumed in law that he intended that consequence to take place ____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 14 of 16 although he may have had some quiet different ulterior motive for performing the act. The motive for an act is not sufficient test to determine its criminal character. By motive is meant anything that can contribute to give birth or even to prevent, any kind of action. Motive may serve as a clue to the intention; but although the motive be pure, the act done under it may be criminal. Purity of motive does not purge an act of its criminal character. An act which is unlawful cannot, in law, be excused on the ground that it was committed from a good motive.
Motive, though not a sine quo non for bringing the offence home to the accused, is relevant and important on the question of intention.
Though the prosecution is not bound to prove motive for the crime, absence of any motive is a factor which may be considered in determining the guilt of the accused. Thus, if there is really no motive and the crime is completely motiveless then that circumstance can be taken into consideration alongwith the evidence of prior insanity. But if the actual evidence as to the commission of the crime is believed, then no question of motive remains to be established. It is not the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove motive with which a certain offence has been committed. It is sufficient if the prosecution proves by clear and reliable evidence that certain persons committed the offence, whatever the motives may be which induced them to commit that offence. For, motive is a fact very often within the special knowledge of the person doing the act and thus it becomes extremely difficult to ascertain the motive in a given case but that does not mean that the offence was not committed.
____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 15 of 16 The question of motive is not material where there is direct evidence of the acts of the accused and the acts themselves are sufficient to disclose the intention of the actor. But in the cases of circumstantial evidence, absence of motive is a factor in favour of the accused.
24) In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has proved the charges u/s 435 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubts but failed to prove the charges u/s 509 IPC against the accused Deepu beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Deepu is hereby convicted for offence u/s 435 IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC.
25) Let the copy of judgment be given free of cost to convict.
26) Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.Digitally signed
Announced in open court MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2022.03.24
on 24th March, 2022 15:01:33 +0530
(Mayank Goel)
MM-03:North: Rohini
24.03.2022
____________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Deepu FIR No. 78/2010 PS. KNK Marg U/s. 435/509 IPC Cr. Case No. 5281703/2016 Page no. 16 of 16