Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder Solanki & Others on 10 August, 2016
FIR No. 360/2014
P.S.: Ranhola
U/s: 387/506(2)/34 IPC
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH : METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI.
FIR No. 360/2014
PS: Ranhola
U/s.387/506(2)/34 IPC
Case ID No. 02001R0402522015
Dated: 10.08.2016
STATE VS. RAVINDER SOLANKI & OTHERS
Date of Institution : 23.06.2015
Date of Commission of offence : 19.05.2014 &
21.05.2014
Name of the Complainant : Sh. Sujay Kumar S/o
Sh. Ranjeet Prasad.
Name parentage and address
of the accused : (1) Ravinder Solanki
S/o Sh. Surender
Solanki, R/o; Village
Baprola, Delhi.
(2) Ajay @ Maruti
Solanki S/o Sh.
Ramesh Solanki, R/o;
H.No. 99, Village
Baprola, Delhi.
Offence Complaint of : U/s.387/506(2)/34 IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted.
Judgment reserved on : 10.08.2016
Date of judgment : 10.08.2016
JUDGEMENT
Page 1 of 7
FIR No. 360/2014
P.S.: Ranhola U/s: 387/506(2)/34 IPC BRIEF FACTS
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off, the above captioned case FIR No. 360/14. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.05.2014 & 21.05.2014, at about 8'o clock, accused persons went to the house of the complainant namely Sh. Sujay Kumar i.e. H.No. A-52, Street No. 19-A, Near Fauji Farm House, Harphool Vihar, Jai Vihar, Phase-III-A, Baprola, Nazafgarh, New Delhi and in furtherance of their common intention put him under the fear of death for committing extortion of Rs. 3 Lacs from him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 387/34 IPC. Secondly, on the said dates, time and place, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention threatened to kill the complainant Sh. Sujay Kumar and thereby cause criminal intimidation by threatening to cause death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506(2)/34 of IPC. On the complaint of the complainant the present FIR was registered.
2. On conclusion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under Section 387/506(2)/34 IPC. After necessary compliances a charge was framed against the accused persons U/s. 387/506(2)/34 IPC, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECIUTION EVIDENCE
3. To bring home the guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution examined only two witnesses in the instant case. The prosecution has examined eye witness Smt. Anita Devi as PW-1 and complainant Sh. Sujay Kumar as PW-2, who have turned hostile on the point of identifictions. The remaining witnesses were formal in nature being the police witnesses, therefore prosecution evidence Page 2 of 7 FIR No. 360/2014 P.S.: Ranhola U/s: 387/506(2)/34 IPC was closed.
STATEMENT U/S 313 OF CR.P.C
4. Statement of accused persons U/s. 313 Cr.PC. have been recorded separately, in which the accused persons did not lead their defence evidence. Final arguments have been heard and record has been meticulously perused.
5. During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that the witnesses, who have been examined by the Prosecution is not sufficient to convict the accused persons. It is further submitted that the PW-1 Smt. Anita Devi and PW-2 Sh. Sujay Kumar have turned hostile in the instant case on the point of identification and remaining witnesses are formal in nature being the police witnesses, therefore the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in the instant case.
INGRIDIENTS OF SECTION
6. For proving the offence U/s.387/506(2) IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following:-
(i) prosecution must prove that the accused put or attempted to put the complainant in fear of death or of grievous hurt to him or to some other person in order to commit extortion.
(ii) that the accused threatened some person.
(iii) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested;
(iv) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the star witnesses of the Prosecution in the instant case are PW-1 Smt. Anita Devi and Complainant/PW-2 Sh. Sujay Kumar, who are projected as eye witnesses to the alleged incident and they have turned hostile. The law on appreciation of evidence in the event of witness turning Page 3 of 7 FIR No. 360/2014 P.S.: Ranhola U/s: 387/506(2)/34 IPC hostile was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"....even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross examined and contradicted with a leave of the court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross examination and contradiction, the witness stands throughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.....".
8. Now coming back to the facts of the instant case, the eye witness Smt. Anita Devi and Complainant Sh. Sujay Kumar, who are the victims and only eye witnesses to the incident has turned hostile on the point of identification. The relevant extract of the examination in chief are reproduced below for ready reference:-
" PW-1: I reside at the abovesaid address for about two years alongwith my family members. I am housewife. I do not remember anything of this case due to lapse of time. I also do not identify the accused as I am housewife and I sheldom go out of my house.
At this stage, Ld. APP for the State seeks permission to cross examine the witness as she is resisling her previous statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
XXXXXX by Ld. APP for the State.
I am illiterate and I do not know how to write and read Hindi. I do not know whether my statement was recorded by the police or not.
At this stage, the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Mark X) is read over to Page 4 of 7 FIR No. 360/2014 P.S.: Ranhola U/s: 387/506(2)/34 IPC her from A to A1 and the same was contradicted under the relevant provision of Evidence Act, upon which she stated that she do not remember anything. It is wrong to suggest that on 19.05.2014, I had stated to the police that my husband had told me that the accused namely Ravinder alongwith one Maruti had visited her house and asked extortion money from him of Rs. 3 lacs. It is wrong to suggest that I had to the police that on 21.03.2014, at about 8.00 PM, when I was at my house, the abovesaid persons came at my house and they called my husband and after that my husband informed me that they were demanding of extortion money of Rs. 20,000/- per month and they were also threatening him that in failing which they will kill my husband. At this stage, accused persons present in the court today, are shown to the witness for identification upon which the witness is stated that she does not know them. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying the accused as due to the threat of my husband and my family members.
PW-2; I reside at the abovesaid address for about two years alongwith my family members and I work as Motor Mechanic. I was knowing the accused Ravinder previously as I had some property transaction with him earlier. The accused Ajay @ Maruti Solanki was his friend. Both are present in the court today and correctly identified. On 19.05.2014, the accused Ravinder came to me and asked Rs. 3 Lacs as loan. But, I denied him to give any money. On 20.02.2010, he came to my house alongwith his friend namely Ajay @ Maurti Solanki and asked me to give Rs. 20,000/- and stated that he needs that money for the purpose of his expenses, but I again denied him to give any money. After that, quarrel broke out between me and accused Ravinder on the issue of a plot and he threatened to beat me. I went to Police Station and got my complaint registered, which is Ex. PW2/A, bearing my signature at point A. IO prepared site plan at my instance, which is Ex. PW2/B, bearing my signature at point A. Except the above, I have nothing to say in this case.
At this stage, Ld. APP for the State seeks permission to cross examine the witness as he is resisling his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
XXXXXX by Ld. APP for the State.
I am 8th pass and I know how to write and read Hindi. At this stage, the statement of the witness from A1 to A2 read over to him upon which he stated that I do not remember whether I had made complaint against the Page 5 of 7 FIR No. 360/2014 P.S.: Ranhola U/s: 387/506(2)/34 IPC accused regarding the extortion of the abovesaid money. Vol. I got the statement prepared through a local Advocate. I do not remember the name and address of the same. It is wrong to suggest that the accused persons had demanded the said money from me as extortion. It is wrong to suggest that the accused persons threatened to kill me or my family members. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying the accused persons present in the court today as offenders, due to threat of my life and of my family members.
The said witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile....".
8. The eye witnesses Smt. Anita Devi and Sh. Sujay Kumar, who have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 have turned hostile on the point of identification and PW-1 and PW-2 were the only eye witness & alleged victims in the instant case. The remaining witnesses were merely police witnesses, who were formal in nature. The admission of FIR, personal search memo and arrest memo only prove that the FIR was registered in the instant case against the accused persons and they were was arrested. These documents are not sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences.
CONCLUSION
9. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused persons. 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 persons.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of any lacunae, left in the investigation, has to be given to the accused persons. For the Page 6 of 7 FIR No. 360/2014 P.S.: Ranhola U/s: 387/506(2)/34 IPC foregoing reasons, accused persons are entitled to acquittal. Accused persons are therefore acquitted.
Announced in the open court (JITENDRA SINGH) today itself i.e. 10.08.2016 METROPLITAN MAGISTRATE TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI Page 7 of 7 FIR No. 360/2014 P.S.: Ranhola U/s: 387/506(2)/34 IPC Page 8 of 7 FIR No. 360/2014 P.S.: Ranhola U/s: 387/506(2)/34 IPC Page 9 of 7 FIR No. 360/2014 P.S.: Ranhola U/s: 387/506(2)/34 IPC Page 10 of 7