Delhi District Court
Briefly The Case Of The Prosecution Is ... vs State Of U.P on 18 December, 2018
In The Court of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan: Metropolitan Magistrate
02 (Mahila Court), SouthEast, Saket Courts:New Delhi
State v. Lal Chand
FIR No. 221/2016
U/s: 354/354A/323/451 IPC
P.S. OIA
J U D G M E N T
Criminal Case No. : 1364/2017
Date of Institution : 02.03.2017
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : Not reserved
Date of judgment : 18.12.2018
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet.
Date of the commission of offence : 28.03.2016
Name of accused : 1. Lal Chand,
S/o Sh. Khacheru
r/o H.No.C18,
Harkesh Nagar, OIA,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 354/354A/323/451 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 354/354A/323/451IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
Date of Institution : 02.03.2017
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : Not reserved
Date of judgment : 18.12.2018
State v. Lal Chand. FIR No.221/2016: PS OIA PageNo.1/5
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that on 28.03.2016 accused had wrongfully trespassed into the house of the complainant with the intention to commit offence and assaulted the complainant. Further, accused had committed the act of criminal force against the complainant with the intention to outrage her modesty and slapped her and caused simple hurt.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against the accused under Section U/s 354/354A/323/451 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter, prosecution examined only two witnesses in order to prove its case.
PW1/complainant deposed that in the intervening night of 28/29.03.2016 nothing had happened with her and she had made a complaint to the police as there was some quarrel between her husband and accused as the accused had filed a criminal complaint against her husband.
Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State as the witness was resiling from her previous statement. Upon being read over State v. Lal Chand. FIR No.221/2016: PS OIA PageNo.2/5 the complaint Ex.PW1/A and the statement of the witness recorded u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW1/B witness denied all the contents of the same and was confronted with the aforesaid complaint. The statement of the complainant recorded u/s 164 CrPC was Ex.PW1/C and the witness denied that such incident had occurred and stated that she had misconceived the facts and the accused has not misbehaved with her.
Opportunity to cross examine PW1 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to the witness.
PW2 Retd. SI Bijender Singh (IO) deposed that he was working in Delhi Police from 15.05.1979 to 30.04.2018. On 29.03.2016, he was posted as SI in PS OIA and on that day he was working in PP Okhla Phase 3 and complainant Rachna came at PP at around 11.00 AM and gave him a written complaint already ExPW1/A. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, he prepared rukka ExPW2/A and got it registered as FIR. After registration of FIR, investigation of the present case was marked to him and he received original rukka and copy of FIR and went to the residence of complainant and prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which was ExPW2/B. He recorded supplementary statement of the complainant. During the course of investigation, complainant was sent to the court for recording of her statement u/s 164 Crpc through Ct. Alis and he also accompanied them. After recording of her statement u/s. 164 Crpc copy of the same was collected and attached with the file. Notice u/s. 41.1A Crpc was given to accused Lal Chand which was ExPW2/C. After the completion of investigation, challan was prepared. During cross-examination on behalf of accused, PW2 deposed that no other public person was found present at the spot when they reached there. Complainant was not taken for her medical examination during the course of investigation.
State v. Lal Chand. FIR No.221/2016: PS OIA PageNo.3/5 Prosecution had cited about six witnesses in all and among them PW1 complainant was the sole eye witness/complainant and the victim in the present matter but she did not depose on the lines of her complaint and were declared hostile as she did not support the story of prosecution. Further, all public witnesses examined by the prosecution were declared hostile. No other public witness was the eyewitness to the incident narrated by the complainant in her complaint and only police witnesses were left. Therefore, PE was closed.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 r/w 281 CrPC was dispensed with as nothing incriminating came on record against the accused.
6. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
7. Complainant was the only material prosecution witness. She was declared hostile. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused revealed from the testimony of the complainant, there was no purpose in examining the remaining formal witnesses. Since the material eye witnesses of the incident did not depose on the lines of their complaint, there was no chances of further improvement in the case of the prosecution even after examining the remaining witnesses. Therefore, PE was closed in order to save the precious time of the court as well as harassment to the accused.
8. I have heard the arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the state and State v. Lal Chand. FIR No.221/2016: PS OIA PageNo.4/5 by Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the materials available on record.
9. Since the material prosecution witness/victim was declared hostile and none of the public witnesses supported the story of prosecution, therefore, the prosecution is miserably failed to establish the charge U/s 354/354A/323/451 IPC. Hence, the accused stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 354/354A/323/451 IPC.
10. The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
"The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal, cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
11. In view of above discussion, the accused Lal Chand stand acquitted.
Pronounced in open court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan) on 18.12.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate02 (Mahila Court) Saket Courts, New Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2018.12.19
11:39:12
+0530
State v. Lal Chand. FIR No.221/2016: PS OIA PageNo.5/5