Delhi District Court
State vs . on 14 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVEEN K. KASHYAP
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
STATE
Vs.
RAJA RAM
FIR No.486/2000
U/s.452 and 323 IPC
P.S.: Vasant Kunj(N)
JUDGMENT
a) Sl.No. of the case :
b) Date of commission of offence : 10/09/2000.
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Karm Singh.
d)Name of the accused, and
his parentage and residence : SH. Raja Ram
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh
R/o Village Ghitorni Pahari,
New Delhi.
e)offence complained of
or proved : U/s.452 and 323 IPC.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
g) final order : Accused acquitted of all
charges.
h) date of such order : 14/12/2011.
Date of institution of the case : 23/11/2001
Date of Reserving the judgment : not reserved.
FIR NO. 486/2000 U/s. 452 and 323 IPC ,PS:Vasant Kunj(N) Page 1 of 6
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 14/12/2011.
i) BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR DECISION: THE FACTS :
As per the prosecution, on 10/09/2000 at about 10:30 am accused Sh. Raja Ram trespassed into Jain Farm House, Road No3, Ghitorni, Vasant Kunj, Delhi and caused simple hurt to the guard of the said farm house Sh. Karam Singh and also to caretaker of the farm house sh. Rakesh kumar. Accordingly, after investigation, police filed the present charge sheet u/s 452 and 323 IPC.
2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, charge was framed against the Accused for trial of offence U/s. 452 and 323 IPC by my predecessor court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF :
3. Prosecution in support of present case examined 4 witnesses. 3.1. PWRakesh is one of the alleged eye witness to the incident in question. His evidence is discussed at appropriate stage later on. 3.2. PW2 HC Karambir Singh recorded the FIR in question. He proved a copy of the same as PW2.and endorsement on the rukka as FIR NO. 486/2000 U/s. 452 and 323 IPC ,PS:Vasant Kunj(N) Page 2 of 6 PW2/A. 3.3. PW3, Ct. Balwan is the police official who accompanied the IO. He deposed that on 13/07/2001 he joined investigation with the IO of the present case. That accused was arrested in his presence. 3.4. PW4,SSRawat ,MTR from SJ Hospital proved the xray report as PW4/A. And MLC report as PW4/B. 3.5. But despite repeated opportunity given and efforts made by the prosecution the eye witness/injured Sh. Karam Singh could not be traced.
THE DEFENCE :
4. Statement of accused persons was dispensed with as nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused in the statement of prosecution witnesses. ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES :
5. The Ld. APP has submitted that on a combined reading of evidence by PW the ingredient of offence u/s 452 and 323 are proved.
6. On the other hand accused has refuted the same and argued that FIR NO. 486/2000 U/s. 452 and 323 IPC ,PS:Vasant Kunj(N) Page 3 of 6 no incriminating evidence has come on record at all. THE FINDINGS:
7. Section 441 IPC deal with the offence of criminal trespass. For offence under section 441 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following essential ingredient:
i) entery into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to
a) commit an offence or to
b) intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or
ii) having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby
a) to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or
b) with intent to commit an offence, 7.1. Further Section 442 IPC deal with House trespass which is aggravated form of section 441 IPC. Further section 452 IPC, with which we are concerned in present case, deals with punishment for house tresspass after preparing for assault/hurt/wrongful restrain. FIR NO. 486/2000 U/s. 452 and 323 IPC ,PS:Vasant Kunj(N) Page 4 of 6
8. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
9. In the present case the only witness examined regarding the incident is PW1. But on a bare reading of his examination in chief itself it is clear that he is not supporting the prosecution case at all. AS such, PW1 was even cross examined by the prosecution itself. But in such cross examination by prosecution also he has not supported the prosecution case at all. He denied that police recorded any statement on 10/09/2000 or any other date.
FIR NO. 486/2000 U/s. 452 and 323 IPC ,PS:Vasant Kunj(N) Page 5 of 6
Further as already noted, despite repeated opportunity given and efforts made by the prosecution the eye witness/injured Sh. Karam Singh could not be traced.
There is no other eye witness to the incident or any other circumstantial evidence proved on record against the accused.
10. As a result no case beyond reasonable doubts either u/s 452 or 323 IPC against the Accused is made out and as such he is acquitted of the same.
11. The accused is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond are canceled. Surety is discharged. Original documents, if any, of the surety be returned after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on 14/12/2011 and all the pages from 1 to 6 are signed by me.
(NAVEEN K. KASHYAP ) MM03, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEWDELHI.
FIR NO. 486/2000 U/s. 452 and 323 IPC ,PS:Vasant Kunj(N) Page 6 of 6