Delhi District Court
State vs Harender Kumar. on 10 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MR. PRITAM SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/ SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET
COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Unique Identification no. 02403R0135422003
Case no. RBT 347/1 dated 11.04.2013
FIR No. 705/99
PSNew Friends Colony
State Vs Harender Kumar.
JUDGEMENT
S. No. of Case : RBT347/1dated 11.04.2013
Date of Commission : 05.12.1999
of offence
Name of Complainant : Anil Gupta
Name and address : Harender Kumar S/o SH Moti Lal Prasad,
R/o Village Paru, Chaudhary Tolu, Post,
Paru Distt Muzzafarpur, Bihar
Offence Complained : U/s. 387/507 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Arguments heard : 10.04.2015
Date of judgment : 10.04.2015
Final order : Accused acquitted.
1. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 12.12.1999 a complaint was made by Sh. Anil Gupta to the SHO PS NFC stating that on 05.12.1999 at about 12.30 PM he received a call on his telephone no. 6837081. The caller told that he was an associate of Dawood and asked the complainant to arrange Rs. 40,000/ FIR No. 705/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Harender Kumar 1 of 5 otherwise one of his one brothers would reduce. The complainant again received a call on 12.12.1999 at 11.00 AM on his mobile no 9811034946 asking him to deliver Rs 40,000/ at 07.00 PM at emergency ambulance lane, Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. On this complaint the present case was register u/s 387/507 IPC.
2. During investigation, accused was apprehended. Chargesheet was filed in the court u/s 387/507 IPC against accused Harender Kumar and the accused was supplied complete set of documents. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.11.2010, charge for the offence punishable u/s 387/507 IPC was framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined five witnesses. SH Anil Kumar Gupta, the complainant was examined as PW 1, HC Ram Bhaj who accompanied IO at the spot was examined as PW2, ASI Wahid Khan Duty officer was examined as PW3. Ct. Avran Singh was who also went to the spot with IO PW4 and IO / SI Virender Singh was examined as PW 5 . The following documents were exhibited during prosecution evidence:
(i) Complaint Ex.PW1/A
(ii) Seizure memo of bundle of paper notes and bag Ex.PW1/B
(iii) Copy of the FIR Ex.PW3/A
(iv) Endorsement on the Rukka Ex.PW3/B
(v) Personal search memo of accused Ex.PW4/A
(vi) Seizure memo of slip of STD phone Ex.PW4/B
(vii) Statement of accused Ex.PW5/A
(viii) Site Plan Ex.PW5/B
(ix) Case properties Ex.P1 to P6 FIR No. 705/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Harender Kumar 2 of 5
4. Thereafter statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC read with 281 Cr.PC. Accused denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not lead defence evidence therefore DE was closed.
5. Final argument heard. Record perused and considered.
6. PW1 is complainant and a material witness therefore his deposition is being discussed here. PW1 deposed that it was an old case about 1012 years old. Therefore he did not remember the facts of the case. PW1 further deposed that he wanted to refresh his memory. PW 1 was allowed to refresh his memory. PW1 deposed after refreshing his memory that the incident took place at Apollo Hospital, Nathu Sweets. He used to receive calls from someone who demanded Rs 30,000 to Rs. 40,000/ from him and told him that he was an associate of Dawood. PW1 again said that he told him that he was an important person. PW1 further deposed that he went to PS and handed over a written complaint Ex PW 1/A to the police. Thereafter police prepared a bundle of notes of paper. PW1 further deposed that he reached at the Apollo Hospital, Nathu Sweets and police also reached there but he did not remember whether police apprehended any person. As PW1 was still not supporting the case of the prosecution despite refreshing his memory Ld. APP for state sought permission to cross examine PW1 and allowed. PW1 deposed when cross examined by Ld. APP for state that on 12.12.1999 he received a call on his mobile no. 9811034946 and a person demanded Rs 40,000/ from him. PW1 further deposed that the person threatened him if he informed the police he would kill him and his brother. PW1 further deposed that he prepared the four bundles on the instruction of the police of size of Rs 100 notes. He could not say FIR No. 705/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Harender Kumar 3 of 5 whether IO had signed the said bundle. PW1 denied the suggestion that he had given the said bundle of paper notes to the accused. PW1 admitted the suggestion that police had apprehended the accused Harender and recovered the bundles from him.
7. PW1 deposed in his cross examination that police had wades of notes. PW1 further deposed that he neither informed the medical superintendent of Apollo Hospital nor gave complaint to the police in the PS. His brother gave complaint to the police in the PS. PW1 further deposed that he did not recognize accused as he had not met him for last ten to twelve years but accused appeared in the court and he recollected that he was Harender. PW1 is the only material witness who was present when the alleged bundle of paper notes was given to the accused. However as discussed above the deposition of PW1 is full of contradictions and cannot be relied upon . PW1 firstly deposed that it was about ten to twelve years old case therefore he did not remember the facts of the case. PW1 refreshed his memory after seeing his statement but despite that he could not support the case of the prosecution and finally he was declared hostile and cross examined by Ld. APP for state. The deposition of PW1 is very shaky. On the one hand, PW1 deposed that on the instructions of the police he prepared the four bundle of white paper in the size of Rs.100 notes and on the other hand he deposed that police had prepared the four bundle of notes and he had not purchased the bundles of notes. PW1 further deposed that he could not say whether IO had signed the said bundle. PW1 even denied the suggestion that he had given the said bundle to the accused. PW1 deposed in his examination in chief that he made the complaint to the police but in his cross examination he deposed that his brother gave complaint to the police. These contradictions and variations in the deposition of the PW1 raise doubts in the story of prosecution. I have placed reliance on the following rulings: FIR No. 705/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Harender Kumar 4 of 5
(i) "Chhadha Singh vs. State", AIR 1995 (SC) 135 When the evidence adduced did not conclusively lead to the guilt of the accused and only pointed needle of suspicion towards the accused and nothing more, he cannot be convicted because suspicion is no substitute for proof in criminal trial.
(ii) "Jaskaran Singh vs. State", 1997 SSC(Crl.) 651 When the evidence of first informant is found to be full of contradiction, exaggeration and improvements, he cannot be held to be a crucial witness.
(iii) "Jagdish Parshad vs. State" 1994 Cr.L.J. 1106 (SC) When the testimony of the eye witness is clouded with grave suspicion and discrepant in material particular, recording of conviction of the accused is not proper.
7. In view of the above discussions and relying upon above mentioned rulings, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It well settled law that benefit of doubt always goes in favor of accused. Hence, accused Harender Kumar is acquitted from the charges of offence u/s 387/507 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (PRITAM SINGH )
Dated: 10.04.2015 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South East District/Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi/10.04.2015
FIR No. 705/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Harender Kumar 5 of 5