Delhi District Court
This Judgment. Judgment In Case Tilted ... vs . on 18 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI, CMM, EAST
DISTRICT, KKD COURTS DELHI
FIR No. 133/97
PS Kalyan Puri
JUDGMENT
UID No. 02402R0008571998 a. Sl. No. of the case : 95/2/98 b. Date of commission of offence : 02.03.1997 c. Name of the complainant : Rajender Prasad d. Name of the accused, their : 1. Desh Raj parentage and addresses S/o Sh. Umrao Singh R/o 1/53, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
(proceedings against him already abated)
2. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Desh Raj FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 1/24 R/o 1/53, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
3) Bhagat Singh S/o Sh. Desh Raj R/o 1/53, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
e. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty f. Offence complained of or proved: 448/341/34 IPC g. Final order : Acquitted h. Date of Institution : 23.03.1998 i. Judgment reserved on : 18.11.2014 j. Judgment delivered on : 18.12.2014 Brief Facts
1. As per prosecution version, on 02.03.1997, complainant went to PS and gave his statement to SI Gyan Chand.
FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 2/24
2. Complainant in his statement stated that he is having chemist shop in Mayur Vihar Phase II. He stated that he purchased one plot bearing No. R1/10, Gautam Marg, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi in phases i.e. 100 yards vide power of attorney dated 12.12.1988, 100 yards on 20.01.1989 and 50 yards on 07.04.1989 in which half share i.e, to the tune of 125 yards was of his partner namely Arjun Das Handa who sold complainant his share vide power of attorney on 21.11.1990. He stated that he is legally entitled to total plot area of 250 yards. He stated that in this plot, boundary wall and two rooms were already constructed. Complainant stated that he has put his locks on the gate of the said plot from outside. Complainant stated that today i.e. on 02.03.1997 at about 07:00 PM, when he tried to go inside his plot after opening lock on the outside gate, he found gate closed from inside. Complainant stated that when he saw from above the wall, he saw that lock of his one room was broken and its door was open. Complainant stated that he did not see his luggage in the room and he observed some bories inside the room. Complainant stated that he found one wall was totally removed which was on the side of his neighbourer Desh Raj. Complainant stated that in the meanwhile his FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 3/24 neighbourer Desh Raj and his two sons came there and told that he should leave and that they have locked the house from inside and that the plot does not belong to him and rather it is their plot. Complainant stated that they further stated that they will not allow complainant to enter into the plot. Complainant stated that Desh Raj and his two sons have restrained him from entering into his plot.
3. It is stated that SI Gyan Chand got lodged FIR on statement of complainant. It is stated that during investigation, SI Gyan Chand inspected spot, prepared site plan and recorded statements of witnesses u/sec 161 Cr. P. C. It is stated that court granted anticipatory bail to accused persons who were later on formally arrested by IO.
4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before court on 23.03.1998.
5. Provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P. C. were complied with on appearance of accused and prima facie case having been made out, notice u/s 448/341/34 IPC was framed against accused persons on 06.07.1998 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 4/24 In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following witnesses: PW 1 Rajender Prasad PW 2 Ramesh Kumar PW3 Ct. Rishipal PW4 HC Swarn Singh PW5 Dinesh Gautam PW6 Arjun Dass Handa PW7 SI Gyan Chand PW8 Akhtar PW9 ASI Sobran Singh
8. PE was closed vide order dated 06.11.2000 on submissions made by Ld. APP for state.
9. S/A u/s 313 Cr. PC r/w Section 281 Cr. P. C. were recorded on 31.05.2001 in which all incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused were put to accused to which accused persons stated that they had never committed trespass into plot No. R1/10, Gautam Marg, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi on 02.03.1997 or on any other prior date. They further stated that they never obstructed complainant FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 5/24 Rajender Prasad from proceeding in any direction in which he has right to proceed. They stated that the property is ancestral property in name of accused Desh Raj and complainant Rajender Prasad had no connection whatsoever with the abovesaid plot. They stated that complainant is not having any right to enter in the said plot. They stated that said plot falls in khasra No. 193/3 and that they are also residing in the abovesaid plot with their family members. They stated that they have no knowledge from whom complainant Rejender Prasad had purchased the abovesaid plot. They further stated that nobody except Desh Raj has any right, title or authority to sell the aforesaid plot. They stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that they do not know complainant Rajendra Prasad.
Accused led defence evidence.
Accused in their defence examined following witnesses:
DW1 Dal Chand
DW2 Shri Ram
DW3 Bala Dutt
DE was closed on 31.08.2001.
FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 6/24
I have heard final arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record including written arguments filed by accused persons and brief history of the case filed by complainant. Decision and Brief Reasons for the Same Before disclosing my opinion on merits, I will discuss evidence led by prosecution and defence.
PW1 Rajender Prasad is the complainant who has exhibited his statement given to IO on basis of which FIR in present case was lodged vide Ex. PW1/A, GPA of land measuring 200 sq yards out of Khasra No. 193/2, East Vinod Nagar, Village Khichripur, Delhi by Desh Raj in favour of Sakina Begam vide Ex. PW1/B, receipt with regard to the abovesaid property vide Ex. PW1/C and agreement for sale for the abovesaid property vide Ex. PW1/D. PW1 also exhibited GPA with regard to 100 sq yards of land out of 200 sq yards out of Khasra Number 193/2, Kichripur, East Vinod Nagar made by Sakina Begam in favour of Sardar Kulwant Singh vide Ex. PW1/E, agreement for sale with regard to this property vide Ex. PW1/F and receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW1/G. Complainant further exhibited GPA with regard to other 100 sq yards of FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 7/24 land out of khasra Number 193/2, Kichripur, East Vinod Nagar made by Sakina Begam in favour of Mr. S. L. Anand vide Ex. PW1/H, receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW1/I and agreement for sale with regard to this property vide Ex. PW1/J. Complainant also exhibited GPA made by Mr. S. L. Anand in favour of one Gulshan Kumar of piece of land measuring 100 sq yards out of entire area of 200 sq yards in khasra number 193/2, Kichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi vide Ex. PW1/K1, agreement deed of this property vide Ex. PW1/K2 and receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW1/K3. Complainant also exhibited GPA in favour of Sunder Lal made by Sardar Kulwant Singh with regard to property measuring 100 sq yards in khasra Number 193/2, Kichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi vide Ex. PW1/L1, agreement deed with regard to this property vide Ex. PW1/L2 and receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW1/L3. Complainant further exhibited GPA of plot of land bearing No. R10/A measuring about 100 sq yards, part of khasra number 193/2, Kichripur, East Vinod Nagar made by Sunder Lal in favour of Vijay Kumar and Narender Tuli vide Ex. PW1/M1, agreement deed with regard to this property vide Ex. PW1/M2 and receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW1/M3. Complainant exhibited GPA made by FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 8/24 Gulshan Kumar in favour of one Brij Mohan Gupta for property of about 100 sq yards out of khasra no. 193/2, Kichripur, East Vinod Nagar vide Ex. PW1/N1 and agreement deed with regard to this property vide Ex. PW1/N2. Complainant also exhibited GPA made by Brij Mohan Gupta in favour of one S. K. Aggarwal with regard to property bearing No. 10B measuring 100 sq yards in khasra No. 193/2 Kichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi out of total area of 200 sq yards vide Ex. PW1/O1, agreement deed with regard to this property vide Ex. PW1/O2 and receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW1/O3. Complainant also exhibited GPA made by Vijay Kumar and Narender Tuli in his favour as well as in favour of Mr. Arjun Dass Handa of property bearing plot No. R10/A, measuring about 100 sq yards in khasra No. 193/2, Kichripur, East Vinod Nagar vide Ex. PW1/P1, agreement deed with regard to this property vide Ex. PW1/P2, will deed with regard to this property made by Narender Tuli in favour of complainant and Arjun Dass Handa vide Ex. PW1/P3 and receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW1/P4. Complainant also exhibited GPA made by one Khacheru in favour of Phool Singh of land measuring 50 sq yards out of khasra No. 193/2, Kichripur, Shahdra, Delhi vide Ex. PW1/Q1, receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW1/Q2 and FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 9/24 agreement to sale with regard to this property vide Ex. PW1/Q3. Complainant also exhibited GPA made by Arjun Dass Handa in favour of complainant of plot No. R10/A measuring 50 sq yards out of khasra No. 193/2, Kichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi vide Ex. PW1/R1, deed of agreement with regard to this property vide Ex. PW1/R2, receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW1/R3 and deed of will in favour of complainant vide Ex. PW1/R4.
PW2 Ramesh Kumar has not supported prosecution version and has become hostile. He has though admitted to have signed certain documents marked on record in his cross examination by state.
PW3 Ct. Rishipal is the police official who has deposed with regard to that he alongwith ASI Sobhran Singh restoring possession of premises bearing No. R1/10 to complainant/PW1.
PW4 HC Swaran Singh is DO who has exhibited and proved FIR vide Ex. PW4/A. PW5 Dinesh Gautam is witness to GPA of house bearing No. R1/10 (part) measuring 50 sq yards in khasra N. 193/2, Khichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi made by one Phool Singh in favour of complainant and Arjun Dass Handa vide Ex. PW5/A, agreement to sell of this property vide FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 10/24 PW5/B, receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW5/C, will deed with regard to this property vide Ex. PW5/D, GPA of property bearing No. 10B measuring 100 sq yards in khara No. 193/2, Khureji Khas, East Vinod Nagar made by S. K. Aggarwal in favour of complainant and Arjun Dass Handa vide Ex. PW5/E, agreement deed of this property vide Ex. PW5/F, will deed of this property vide Ex. PW5/G and receipt with regard to this transaction vide Ex. PW5/H. PW6 Arjun Dass Honda has deposed to have purchased plots measuring 50 yards, 100 yards and 100 yards alongwith complainant and further regarding sale made by him to complainant of his share of 125 yards.
PW7 SI Gyan Chand is IO of the case who has not exhibited in his deposition any document but on court record site plan has been exhibited vide Ex. PW7/A. He has deposed to have formally arrested accused persons.
PW8 Akhtar is the photographer who has marked photographs on record vide Mark A to mark D. These photographs were exhibited in re examination of PW1 on he producing negatives of the same on 06.11.2000 vide Ex. P1 to P4.
FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 11/24 PW9 ASI Sobran Singh is second IO of the case who has deposed to have recorded statements of Arjun Dass Handa and Dinesh Gautam and submitted that challan to SHO concerned.
DW1 Dal Chand and DW2 Shri Ram have not exhibited any document on record but have deposed that plot adjoining/neighbouring house of accused Desh Raj belongs to accused Desh Raj.
DW3 Bala Dutt is parwari from office of SDM, Preet Vihar who has exhibited and proved copy of relevant register of jamabandi of khasra No. 193/2 and 193/3, Village Khichripur vide Ex. DW3/A and Ex. DW3/B respectively.
After going through evidence as adduced by prosecution on court record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons as to why I have arrived at such a conclusion are as follows: The main contention in the present case is that complainant is claiming property in question being located in khasra No. 193/2, Khichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi which is located adjoining house of accused whereas defence of accused persons is that the property adjoining their house falls in khasra No. 193/3, Khichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 12/24 and is not property of complainant.
Total area of property in question is 250 sq yards as per complainant. How complainant acquired the same has been detailed below: Complainant in order to show his right over property in question has exhibited various documents on record which are completing chain of ownership of property in question. Complainant has brought on record one GPA, receipt and agreement for sale all dated 24.06.1981 (Ex. PW1/B to Ex. PW1/D) vide which Desh Raj transferred plot of 200 sq yards in khasra No. 193/2, Khichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi in favour of one Sakina Begam. Thereafter complainant has exhibited GPA, agreement for sale and receipt all dated 25.03.1982 (Ex. PW1/E to Ex. PW1/G) vide which Sakina Begum transferred 100 sq yards out of 200 sq yards in khasra No. 193/2, Khichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi in favour of one Sardar Kulwant Singh. Complainant exhibited GPA, agreement deed and receipt all dated 29.03.1985 (Ex. PW1/L1 to Ex. PW1/L3) vide which Sadar Kulwant Singh transferred this 100 sq yards of land in favour of one Sunder Lal with one temporary room and boundary walls. Complainant exhibited GPA, agreement deed and receipt all dated 28.09.1988 (Ex. PW1/M1 to Ex. PW1/M3) vide which Sunder Lal transferred this 100 sq yards of land in FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 13/24 favour of one Vijay Kumar and Narender Tuli with one room and boundary walls. Complainant exhibited GPA, agreement deed, Will deed and receipt all dated 12.12.1988 (Ex. PW1/P1 to Ex. PW1/P4) vide which Vijay Kumar and Narender Tuli transferred this 100 sq yards of land in favour of one Arjun Dass Handa and complainant herein with one room and boundary walls.
Complainant in order to show chain of other 100 sq yards out of 200 sq yards located in khasra No. 193/2, Khichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi has exhibited GPA, receipt and agreement for sale all dated 25.03.1982 (Ex. PW1/H to Ex. PW1/J) vide which Sakina Begam transferred 100 sq yards out of 200 sq yards in favour of one S. L. Anand without having any construction over it. Complainant further exhibited GPA, agreement deed and receipt all dated 29.03.1985 (Ex. PW1/K1 to Ex. PW1/K3) vide which S. L. Anand transferred this 100 sq yards of land in favour of one Gulshan Kumar with boundary walls upto two feet. Complainant exhibited GPA and agreement deed both dated 28.09.1988 (Ex. PW1/N1 to Ex. PW1/N2) vide which Gulshan Kumar transferred this 100 sq yards of land in favour of one Brij Mohan Gupta with one room and boundary walls. Complainant exhibited GPA, agreement deed and receipt all dated 13.12.1988 (Ex.
FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 14/24 PW1/O1 to Ex. PW1/O3) vide which Brij Mohan Gupta transferred this 100 sq yards of land in favour of one S. K. Aggarwal with one room and boundary walls. Complainant got exhibited GPA, agreement deed, Will deed and receipt all dated 20.01.1989 (Ex. PW5/E to Ex. PW5/H) vide which S. K. Aggarwal transferred this 100 sq yards of land in favour of complainant and Arjun Dass Handa with one room and boundary walls.
Complainant in order to show chain of other 50 sq yards located in khasra No. 193/2, Khichripur, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi has exhibited GPA, receipt and agreement to sell all dated 02.07.1987 (Ex. PW1/Q1 to Ex. PW1/Q3) vide which one Khachru transferred this 50 sq yards of land in favour of one Phool Singh with one room and boundary walls. Complainant got exhibited GPA, agreement to sell and receipt all dated 07.04.1989 (Ex. PW5/A to Ex. PW5/C) vide which Phool Singh transferred this 50 sq yards of land in favour of complainant and Arjun Dass Handa with one room and boundary walls.
Complainant exhibited GPA, deed of agreement, receipt and deed of Will (Ex. PW1/R1 to Ex. PW1/R4) all dated 21.11.1990/02.11.1990 vide which property as mentioned above aggregating 125 sq yards out of 250 sq yards comprising of two rooms with boundary wall was transferred in his FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 15/24 favour by Arjun Dass Handa.
As per chain of documents as discussed above, complainant in the last came in possession of three rooms alongwith boundary walls over property in question i.e. one room plus boundary wall in 100 sq yards, one room plus boundary wall in other 100 sq yards and one room with boundary wall in 50 sq yards.
As per documents executed by Arjun Dass Handa in favour of complainant, complainant was transferred 125 sq yards in aggregate comprising of two rooms and boundary walls earlier in share of /jointly owned by complainant and Arjun Dass Handa.
Whatever the case may be, complainant in the last as per chain of documents as brought on record by complainant came in possession of 250 sq yards of land comprising of 3 rooms and boundary wall.
Complainant in his complaint on basis of which FIR in present case was lodged (Ex. PW1/A) has mentioned that in the plot, two rooms and boundary wall was already constructed over property in question. Complainant /PW1 as per chain of documents produced and exhibited by him on record should have been in possession of three rooms constructed over property in question whereas as per Ex. PW1/A, only two rooms and FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 16/24 boundary wall was constructed over property in question.
Complainant /PW1 in his cross examination has stated that he has not obtained any electricity or water connection in the said plot. He further stated that there was no tenant in the said premises. He further stated that there is no acquaintance of him in the neighborhood of accused persons. He further stated that he does not know whether there are shops of his community persons.
Property in dispute to the tune of 200 sq yards as came lastly in possession of complainant and Arjun Dass Handa as per chain of documents brought on record by state is bounded by Shiv Mandir on the East and on the West, it is bounded by 25 feet road. Property in dispute to the tune of 50 sq yards as came in possession of complainant and Arjun Dass Handa as per chain of documents brought on record by state is bounded by 25 feet road on the West side and plot of others on the Eastern Side. PW1 in his cross examination has stated that the distance between his plot and nearby Shiv Mandir is about 50 meters and there are about 56 plots in between my plot and the Shiv Mandir. He further admitted that is is correct that another plot of land situated just back side of his plot had no 25 feet road around it as on date. He volunteered that earlier there was a road. Majority of FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 17/24 property allegedly purchased by complainant /PW1 to the tune of 200 sq yards is bounded by Shiv Mandir on the Eastern Side as brought on record by State as per the documents on record and bounded by road of 25 feet in the West. Whatever PW1 in his cross examination as discussed above has stated prima facie shows that land in question over which he is laying claim is not property what he purchased as property purchased by him was bounded by Shiv Mandir on the Eastern Side and as per whatever stated by complainant in his cross examination, there are fivesix plots between his plot and Shiv Mandir meaning thereby that property on which he is laying claim is not his. With regard to change in boundation of property in question on the Western Side of property in question, complainant /PW1 though has volunteered that earlier there was a road but he has admitted that another plot of land situated just back side of his plot adjacently had no 25 feet road around it. IO has not brought any document on record which can show that road on Western Side of property of PW1/complainant was later on converted into plot.
Further, site plan Ex. PW7/A (though not exhibited in deposition of PW7 but in actual on court record, the same has been exhibited) does not further case of state as it does not show any adjoining property of property FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 18/24 in question. As per site plan Ex. PW7/A, road in name of Gautam Marg appears to be on Eastern side of property in question which fact does not match with description of property as brought on record by IO through chain of documents produced by complainant /PW1.
Photographs of property in question i.e. Ex. P1 to P4 are not reliable and cannot be said to have been proved as PW8 Akhtar in his examination in chief has not stated that photographs belong to particular property number. PW8 in his cross examination has identified photographs of property on record vide Mark A to Mark D but I am unable to comprehend as to how he identified the same as he has in his cross examination stated that he did not see photographs prior to his appearance in the court. He further stated that negatives were taken by police officials. PW1 in his re examination on 06.11.2000 i.e after PW8 was examined produced negatives of Ex. P1 to P4 and stated that he took it from photographer. In case as per PW8, negatives were handed over to police officials then how come negatives were produced by PW1 in his reexamination. All this casts shadow of doubt regarding photographs exhibited on record and tempering of the same/ possibility of same may not be of property in dispute cannot be ruled out.
FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 19/24 Certified copy of judgment in suit number 497/07, 496/07, 117/06 and 291/08 decided by court of Sh. Anil Kumar Sisodia, Ld. Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller (NE) dated 04.03.2011 was filed by complainant. Two of the suits were filed by complainant herein and two suits were filed by accused Desh Raj herein (since represented by his LRs in the suit). Controversy in these suits on a larger level revolved around property in dispute. Complainant during course of arguments harped upon this judgment. Judgment in case tilted as "Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370" has been filed on record on behalf of accused persons. In this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held: "Evidence Act, 1872S.3Appreciation of evidenceCivil and criminal proceedingsStandard of proof required inDistinctionfindings given in one proceedingbinding in nature of, in the otherHeld, civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be givenfindings recorded in one proceedings may not be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein."
FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 20/24 In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I am of the view that evidence which has been led by state in the present is what matters for proving case of prosecution though judgment in civil case between the same parties may be relevant. Otherwise also, after going through common judgment as mentioned above, which appears to have been upheld in appeal by court of Sh. G. N. Pandey, Ld. ADJ, KKD Courts, I am of the view that accused herein lost the case primarily because of non production of evidence in their favour. Court of Sh. Anil Kumar Sisodia, the then Ld. SCJ cum RC in judgment dated 04.03.2011 while deciding issue No. 3 in suit No. 497/07 has observed that DW1 Jagat Singh in his cross examination admitted that he has not filed any documents to show that he is owner of property forming part of khasra No. 193/3, Village Khichripur except the fard which he could not read as it was in Urdu. Ld. Judge further observed that the plaintiffs also failed to file certified copy of the said fard and its translated copy despite opportunities being given. Ld. Judge observed that thus plaintiffs failed to show any right, title or interest in the suit property and also failed to show their possession in the suit property.
I am of the view that accused herein failed to sustain their civil case against complainant herein because of lack of production of evidence and FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 21/24 judgment in that case as such cannot be binding for deciding present case.
Accused in defence evidence examined Mr. Bala Dutt, Patwari as DW3 who in his deposition has exhibited and proved relevant pages of jamabandi for the year 198889, Village Khichripur for khasra No. 193/2 and khasra No. 193/3 vide Ex. DW3/A and Ex. DW3/B. As per jamabandi of khasra No. 193/2, village Khichripur none of the accused is owner of the said khasra whereas accused Desh Raj and his brother Lekh Raj have been shown to be cultivator/owner of one bigha 10 biswa in khasra No. 193/3. In cross examination of DW3 by Ld. APP, DW3 has admitted that on Ex. DW3/A, it has not been written that it belongs to which Village, Tehsil and District. Ex. DW3/A is with regard to Khasra No. 193/2. DW3 in his examination in chief has clearly stated that jamabandi register brought by him is of Village Khichripur. Ld. APP has not asked DW3 in his cross examination that Ex. DW3/A or Ex. DW3/B are not of Village Khichripur meaning thereby that it stands proved that Ex. DW3/A and Ex. DW3/B are of Village Khichripur. As mentioned above, Ex. DW3/A and Ex. DW3/B stands proved on record and accused are not owner /cultivator of khasra No. 193/2. Complainant as per his case according to documents brought on record has claimed trespassing in khasra No. 193/2 by accused persons. As FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 22/24 discussed earlier, state has not been able to show that property allegedly trespassed by accused is in khasra No. 193/2, I am of the view that state has failed to prove its case against accused persons.
Further, complainant in Ex. PW1/A has stated that when he saw lock of the room broken and door lying open, he observed that his articles /luggage was not there. Complainant has not specified nor IO has investigated as to what articles complainant kept in property in question and what articles were missing. Complainant himself also does not appear to have made any further complaint with regard to theft of his articles which conduct primarily does not behove conduct of a ordinary reasonable and prudent person. In case, one's articles in the property trespassed are missing/stolen, one should have given details of the articles kept and section 380 IPC should have also been invoked by IO which is not the case in circumstances of present case which fact also reduces credibility of prosecution version.
In view of my discussion in various preceding paras, I am of the view that state has failed to prove that property allegedly trespassed belonged to PW1/complainant and that consequently version of complainant that he was restrained to go to his property by accused is also FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 23/24 bereft of any credibility. In these circumstances, I am of the view that state has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt against accused and accused persons deserve to be given benefit of doubt which is accordingly given to them. Accordingly, accused persons are acquitted for offences u/s 448/341/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court (SONU AGNIHOTRI)
Dt. 18.12.2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
District East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 133/97 PS Kalyan Puri 24/24