Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar Etc. on 25 February, 2015
FIR No. 235/08
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC
State Vs Anil Kumar etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPLAV DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: NORTH WEST04, DELHI
Case ID:- 02404R0148292009
FIR No. 235/08
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC
State Vs Anil Kumar etc.
Date of Institution of case : 22.05.2009
Date of Judgment : 25.02.2015
UDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 25.08.2008
b) Offence complained of : U/s 451/323/506 &
427 r.w. Section 34 IPC
c) Name of Accused, his : 1) Sh. Anil Kumar
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Kailash
2) Sh . Vijay
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
3) Yogita @ Pinkey
D/o Sh. Om Prakash,
4) Smt. Kushum Gupta,
W/o Sh. Anil Kumar
5) Smt. Shakuntala Devi
W/o Om Prakash
1/19
FIR No. 235/08
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC
State Vs Anil Kumar etc.
6) Smt. Suman
W/o Sh. Ved Prakash
All are R/o C-3/46,
Keshav Puram, Delhi
d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
e) Final order : Acquitted
2/19
FIR No. 235/08
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC
State Vs Anil Kumar etc.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
1. That on 25.08.2008 at about 12:00 Noon at H.No. C-3/45 A, Keshav Puram, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Keshav Puram accused persons namely Anil Kumar, Vijay, Yogita , Kusum Gupta, Shakuntla Devi and Suman in furtherance of their common intention committed house tresspass in the house of complainant Smt. Kusum Lata after making preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and her daughters, that accused persons voluntarily caused simple hurt on the person of Kusum Lata, Archana and Kanchan and also criminally intimidated them by giving threats to kill the complainant and that accused persons committed mischief by causing loss or damage to telephone and door of the house of complainant. Thus the accused persons committed offences punishable u/s 451, 323, 506 & 427 read with Section 34 IPC within the cognizance of this Court.
2. The Court took cognizance of the abovesaid offences punishable u/s 451, 323, 506 & 427 read with Section 34 IPC and as a prime facie case was made out against the accused persons for offence punishable u/s 452, 323, 506 & 427 read with Section 34 IPC, charge was accordingly framed against them to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons for offences punishable u/s 452, 323, 506 & 427 read with Section 34 IPC, the prosecution 3/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Sections:-
a) Section 452 IPC:- That the accused committed house-trespass, that he did so by entering into or remaining unlawfully in any building or tent or vessel, that such building, tent or vessel was used as a human dwelling or a place of worship or for custody of property and that the accused committed house-trespass after making preparation for causing hurt to or for assaulting or for wrongfully restraining some person or for putting some person in fear of hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.
b) Section 323 IPC :- That the accused caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim and that accused did so with intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim
c) Section 427 IPC:- That the accused committed mischief and such mischief caused loss or damage amounting to not less than Rs. 50.
d) Section 506 IPC :-That the accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested, that the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence and that the accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.
e) Section 34 IPC:-
i) That the criminal act or a series of acts which include omissions and need not necessary be an overt act should have been done not by one 4/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. person but by more then one person.
ii) That the doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting into the commission of criminal offence should have been in furtherance/ advancement/ promotion of common intention of all such persons.
iii) This Section deals with constructive criminal liability which provides that where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. If the common intention leads to the commission of the criminal offence charged, each one of the persons sharing the common intention is constructively liable for the criminal act done by one of them ....... Nand Kishore v State of M.P (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 378: (2011) 12 SCC 120; Brathi v State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 519.
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses.
5. PW-1 Ms. Archana deposed that on 25.08.2008 at about 12 Noon, she alongwith her mother and sister were present at the first floor of their residence, that accused Anil Gupta who used to reside at the first floor in the building opposite to their residence came out of his residence and started giving abuses to them, that in the meantime other accused persons namely Suman, Shakuntala, Vijay and Pinki also started raising quarrel with them, that accused Anil and Kusum brought a cricket bat and iron rod and started beating them, that she alongwith her mother went to PS Keshav Puram 5/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. leaving behind her sister Kanchan at home, that after half an hour all accused persons came to PS dragging her sister Kanchan and that at about 2:30 p.m they were taken to BJRM Hospital. PW-1 Ms. Kanchan further deposed that her sister Kanchan sustained internal injuries so she was taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hosital and she remained there admitted for 10 days. After recording examination in chief, this witness could not be brought for cross-examination despite various opportunities given to the prosecution.
6. PW-2 Ms. Kanchan D/o Sh. Om Prakash deposed that on 24.08.2008 she alongwith her sister namely Archna & Shivanjali (niece) were going to temple, that when they were passing through the street accused Anil, Pinky and Suman who were standing in the street passed comments " Dhanda Karne Chal Di Hai Inki News Mai Nikelwao", that they ignored the aforesaid comments and returned to their house from temple, that they informed the aforesaid comment of the accused persons to their mother, that in the meantime, accused persons came outside their house with cricket bat and iron rod in their hands and that they broke the net fixed in the iron gate of their house. PW-2 Ms. Kanchan further deposed that on 25.08.2008 at about 12 Noon accused Anil and his wife opened the bolt of their main gate which was bolted from inside after inserting hand from the broken net and both of them entered in their house and started giving beatings to them, that they also called rest of the accused persons there, that her mother and sister went to the PS and she remained alone in the house, that all the accused persons broke landline telephone instrument and gave beatings to her, that they gave continous beatings for one hour and dragged her to the PS where her mother 6/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. and sister were already present, that one Police Constable Bal Kishan rescued her from the accused persons who even did not stop beating her in the PS & that she alongwith her sister and mother were taken to the BJRM Hospital from where she was taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.After recording examination in chief, this witness could not be brought for cross- examination despite various opportunities given to the prosecution.
7. PW-3 ASI Ilam Singh proved the registration of FIR Ex. PW-3/A in the present case bearing his signature at point A. During the cross examination the witness deposed that ASI Bal Kishan produced rukka at about 9:00 p.m, that he stayed with him for about 30-35 minutes and that thereafter he left after obtaining copy of FIR and original rukka to him.
8. PW-4 Smt. Kusum Lata deposed that the incident took place on 24.08.2008 which was also Janamastmi festival, that on that day at about 08.00/09.00 her daughters namely Archana and Kanchan went to the temple, that they returned to the house at about 09.30 pm and informed her that accused persons namely Shakuntala, Pinki, VIjay and Suman misbehaved with them by uttering filhty langauges to them on the way, that she did not made complaint in this regard and they slept in the night, that she along with her daughters resides at the first floor, that on 25.08.2008 at about 12.00 noon she along with Archana left the house for taking Muskan her grand daughter from the school van, that at that time Kanchan was standing near the gate of her house, that when she and Kanchan were just outside the gate 7/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. of their house then accused Anil and Kusum started giving abuses to them, that Kusum took out one iron rod from the house and Anil came with cricket bat who started beating her and her daughter Archana with these weapons, that she made PCR call and then she and Archana went to PS Keshav Puram after leaving Kanchan alone in the house, that Kanchan had bolted the door from inside in their presence and then she and Archana left for PS, that after about one and a half or two hours accused Anil and Suman came to the PS with her daughter Kanchan and they were beating her, that Kanchan informed her that when she was in the house accused Anil, Suman and the above named four accused persons came in the house and started beating her after which Anil and Suman took her to the PS while beating her on the way, that all the accused persons reside in her neighbourhood, that she and her both daughters were taken to BJRM Hospital for medical examination, that the condition of her daughter Kanchan became serious so she got admitted in SL Jain Hospital on 02.09.2008, that the police made inquiry from her but she does not remember the date when the police made the same and that her statement bearing her signatures at point A is exhibited as Ex.PW -4/A. Ld. APP for the State was permitted to cross-examine this witness as she was resiling from her earlier statement and the witness deposed that her daughter informed her that accused Anil and his wife Kusum made comments i.e Phir Chal Di Dhanda Karne Ke Liye" while they both were going to temple and that she raised objection in the night before accused Anil and Kusum who started quarreling with her but did not give beatings in the night of 24.08.2008 (confronted with portion A1 to A2 of the statement Ex. PW-4/A), that thereafter rest of the four accused persons along with accused Anil and 8/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. Kusum gathered outside their house having wodden sticks in their hands, that they were knocking the door of her house but she did not open the door, that they did not give any beatings to her and her daughters on 24.08.2008 (confronted with portion A3 to A4 of the statement Ex. PW-4/A where it is recorded that all accused persons gave beatings on 24.08.2008) & that she made complaint on 24.08.2008, however the matter was compromised.The witness denied the suggestion that she and Archana were present in the house at about 12 Noon when all the accused persons tresspassed her house armed with iron rod, cricket bat and wooden sticks, that all of them were beaten up by the accused persons inside the house (confronted with the portion A5 to A6 of the statement Ex. PW-4/A where it is so recorded) and voluntarily stated that accused persons namely Anil and Kusum gave beatings to her and Archana after which they left for PS and accused perons tresspassed in the house and gave beatings to Kanchan and at that time she was not present at the house. The witness further deposed that accused persons had broken the iron net of the door of her house and that accused persons continously gave threats to kill her and her daughters.
During the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused persons the witness deposed that she made PCR call on 25.08.2008 (confronted with the statement Ex. PW-4/A where it is not so recorded), that she had stated to the police that accused Kusum Gupta came with a Iron Rod in her hand on 25.08.2008 (confronted with the statement Ex. PW-4/A where it is not so recorded), that on 24.08.2008 after the quarrel her daughter Archana made PCR call (confronted with the statement Ex. PW-4/A where it is not so recorded), that on receiving information ASI Bal Kishan alongwith two other 9/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. police officials came to her house, that she stated to the police that all the six accused persons had misbehaved and uttered unwanted comments to her daughters (confronted with the statement Ex. PW-4/A where only the names of Anil and Kusum are mentioned), that he did not make any complaint in writing on 24.04.2008, that police officials got the matter compromised between them, that she does not remember whether any document pertaining to compromise was prepared or not, that her husband was not present at the time of incident, that accused Anil hit circket bat on the person of Archana and accused Kusum Gupta hit iron rod on her person, that they gave blows with aforesaid weapons on different parts their body, that accused Anil did not give beatings to her and accused Kusum did not give beating to Archana & that she does not know how many times her statement was recorded by the police officials. The witness denied the suggestion that on 25.08.2008 she took Kanchan to S.L.Jain Hospital. The witness further deposed that she does not remember the date and place where police recorded the statements of her daughters & that her daughter Kanchan sustained serious injuries on her head and other parts of the body. The witness denied the suggestion that no beatings were given by accused persons to them, that she did not file any complaint on 25.08.2008 because she wanted to extrot money from the accused persons, that accused persons did not give any money and thus she got registered the FIR on 16.09.2008 and that they attacked the accused persons on 25.08.2008.
9. PW-5 Constable Ranbir Singh deposed that on 06.11.2008 he joined the investigation with IO HC Narender and arrested the accused persons vide 10/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. arrest memos Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/F, that the accused persons were later on released on bail and that he can not identify the accused persons with their names but they are same persons who were arrested by the IO in his presence.
During the cross examination the witness deposed that on 06.11.2008 he alongwith IO left PS Keshav Puram for the house of accused persons at about 12:00 Noon on bike of IO, that he does not remember the registration number of that motorcycle, that he does not know whether IO made departure or arrival entry or not, that all six accused persons were present in the abovesaid house, that they called sureties from other houses and that they left the spot at about 3:00 p.m. The witness denied the suggestion that all the accused persons came to PS and they were arrested in the PS only.
10. PW-6 ASI Narender Singh deposed that on 06.11.2008 he was posted at PS Keshav Puram, that on 06.11.2008 he alongwith Constable Ranbir reached at C-3/46, Keshav Puram where accused Anil, Vijay, Yogita, Kusum Gupta, Shaknutala and Suman were found present and they were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW-1/A to Ex. PW-1/F bearing his signatures at point B, that personal search of accused persons namely Anil and Vijay were made vide Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B bearing his signatures at point A, that all accused persons were released on bail vide Ex. PW-6/C, Ex.PW-6/D, Ex. PW-6/E, Ex. PW-6/F, Ex. PW-6/G and Ex. PW-6/H bearing his signatures at point A and that he prepared challan against all the abovesaid persons.
During the cross examination the witness deposed that DD entry was made for reaching at the place of arrest, that he did not offer his search to 11/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. accused before their personal search & that signature of no public person was taken on arrest memo. The witness denied the suggestion that no public person was offered to become witness of arrest of accused persons. The witness further deposed that no notice in writing was given to them and denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted at PS and not at the spot or that all the proceedings were manipulated.
11. PW-7 Sh. Pravesh Kumar, Record Clerk BJRM Hospital got the medical examination (ME) report bearing no. 65685 exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A bearing the signature of Dr. Nadeem at point A and bearing the signature of Dr. R.S.Mishra at point B. This witness further got the medical examination (ME) reports no. 65687 & 65691 exhibited as Ex. PW-7/B and Ex. PW-7/C respectively bearing the signatures of Dr. Avdhesh at point A and B respectively and Dr. R.S.Mishra at point C. During the cross examination the witness deposed that he joined the said hospital in the year 2010 and that said ME reports were neither prepared nor signed before him.
12. Thereafter, on 18.12.2014, as the PW's Ms. Archana and Kanchan could not be served despite service being affected through DCP the said witnesses were dropped and Prosecution Evidence was closed as no more material witnesses were left to be examined. Thus, the matter was fixed for recording of the Statement of Accused persons.
13. The Statement of Accused persons was recorded U/Sec 281 r/w 313 Cr.
12/19 FIR No. 235/08PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. P.C on 22.12.2014 and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to the accused to which the accused replied that they are innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused chose not to lead evidence in their defence so the defence evidence was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
14. At the time of final arguments it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of relevant sections are completed. In reply to this it is argued on behalf of accused that accused are innocent, that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
15. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the entire record.
16. It is evident from the examination in chief of the last eye/ material witnesses namely Smt. Kusum Lata that there is no mention of any fact regarding the loss or damage to telephone or door of house of the complainant (PW-4) as well as regarding the commission of house trespass/house breaking in complainants' house by the accused persons which is necessary to fasten criminal liability for offences punishable u/s 427 & 452 IPC.
In the examination in chief of PW-4, nothing was mentioned regarding the comments "Phir chali Dhanda Karne Ke Liye" made by the accused Anil & 13/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. his wife Kusum as well as regarding the objection raised by PW-4 in the night of 24.08.2008 before Anil & Kusum who then started quarreling with PW-4, but did not give beatings to PW-4 and her daughter in the night of 24.08.2008 though in the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP for the state this witness affirmed the aforesaid version in consonance with the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. In the examination in chief, PW-4 deposed that she did not make any complaint on 24.08.2008 and affirmed the same in her cross examination by saying that she did not make any complaint on 24.04.2008. In the cross examination conducted by the Ld. APP for the state PW-4 deposed that she made complaint on 24.08.2008. In the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP for the state PW-4 deposed that the accused persons did not give beatings on 24.08.2008 to her and her daughter whereas in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-4 had stated that all the six persons had given beating on 24.08.2008. These omissions contradictions and improvements made by the PW-4 in her version create grave doubt about the happening of the alleged incident on 24.08.2008 which substantiates the defence version that entire version of complainant is concocted. In the examination in chief PW-4 did not state that she & her daughter Archana were also present in the house at about 12 noon on 25.08.2008 when all the accused persons trespassed her house armed with iron rod, cricket bat and wooden sticks and that all of them were beaten up by all the six accused persons inside of the house. PW-4 denied the suggestion put by Ld. APP for the state regarding aforesaid house trespass & beatings though the said version has been mentioned in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. During the cross examination by Ld. APP for the state PW4 14/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. voluntarily clarified that she was not present in her house when all the accused persons, trespassed in the house & gave beatings to Kanchan. These omissions, contradictions and improvements make the complainant's version of tresspass and beatings on 25.08.2008 highly suspicious thereby rendering the same unbelievable.
In the examination in chief PW-4 deposed that she & her daughter Archana were beaten by accused Anil & his wife Kusum with bat & rod respectively. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused persons PW-4 deposed that Anil give beatings to her daughter with bat & accused Kusum gave beatings to her with iron rod and that Anil did not give beatings to her & Kusum did not give beatings to her daughter. However, perusal of the statement of PW-4 exhibited as PW-4/A recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C reveals that the version PW-4 is that accused Anil had given beatings to her & her daughter with cricket bat and his wife Kusum had given beatings by blows & slaps to them. In the statement ExPW4/D it is further stated that iron rod was used by Vijay while Pinki, Suman and Shakuntala Devi had given beatings by way of slaps and blows.
These contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies in the version of PW-4 show that PW-4 is herself not sure as to who was attacked by whom and with which weapon and also about the presence of all the six offenders. It further indicates that the alleged version of assault as deposed by PW-4 is inconsistent and hence can not be accepted as reliable.
In the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused persons PW-4 deposed that she mentioned in her statement to the police that she made PCR call on 25.08.2008 thought it is not so mentioned in the statement 15/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. Ex. PW-4/A, that she stated to the police that accused Kusum Gupta came with an iron rod in his hand on 25.08.2008 though it is no so mentioned in statement Ex. PW-4/A, that she mentioned in her statement that all the six accused persons had misbehaved and uttered unwanted comments on her daughter though in the statement Ex. PW-4/A only the names of Anil and Kusum are mentioned.
It is apparent from afore-discussed facts that the witness PW-4 is not consistent at all and is contradicting as well as improving her version in material particulars throughout her evidence thereby rendering her testimony unbelievable and not worthy of any credit. Perusal of record shows that testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 can not be read into evidence as the same were not subjected to cross examination which remained deferred due to non- production of these witnesses still for sake of arguments if these testimonies are treated as complete with cross examination Nil despite opportunity then also, the testimony of PW-1 that on 25.08.2008 at about 12 Noon the quarrel took place between accused persons, her mother and herself outside the main gate of their house where her mother had come after hearing the noise of abuses given by accused persons to her after she had come out of her house, the testimony of PW-2 that on 25.08.2008 at about 12 Noon accused Anil and his wife, entered their house by opening the bolt of their main door which was bolted from inside after inserting hand from the broken net and started beating her, her sister and mother and further called other accused persons after making noise and testimony of PW-4 that on 25.08.2008 when she and her daughter Archana had come out to take Muskan from School Van and her daughter Kanchan was standing on the door of her house 16/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. accused Anil and Kusum started abusing and assaulting them, shows that every witness is deposing altogether a different version of the manner in which the incident happened on 25.08.2008 thereby making alleged version highly dubious and hence unworthy of credit.
It is further evident from record that the alleged incident is of 24 and 25 of August 2008 while the FIR was registered on 16.09.2008 after a delay of more than twenty days. This delay in getting the FIR registered has not been explained properly by the complainant and the fact of not taking action due to intervention of neighbours as stated by PW-4 in statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C does not seem reasonable in view of the kind of allegations made against the accused for the acts committed on 24/25 August 2008. The afore-discussed inconsistencies and contradictions in version of the complainant further suggest that the delay in registration of FIR was deliberately made so as to ensure an opportunity to the complainant to furnish an improved, concocted and embellished version which however could not withstand during the recording of evidence as discussed above.
The afore-discussed contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions and improvements create a grave and serious doubt on the entire version of the prosecution which shows that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Court of Punjab and Haryana in Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Cr. L.J 1471(DB) (Punjab) in which it was observed as follows:-
"The guilt of accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and 17/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. material on record. Even if, there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole, the prosecution may be true, but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted."
It is apparent that prosecution has failed to bring any reliable and unimpeachable evidence in the present case.
17. In the present facts and circumstances, it is pertinent to mention the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the 18/19 FIR No. 235/08 PS Keshav Puram U/s 451/323/427/506/34 IPC State Vs Anil Kumar etc. prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt which failed to do so in the present case. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and laws laid down by the higher Courts, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, Anil Kumar, Vijay, Yogita , Kusum Gupta, Shakuntla Devi and Suman are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any. Case property, if any, be confiscated to State and be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS)
On 25.02.2015 MM-04/NORTH WEST/DELHI
25.02.2015
19/19