Delhi District Court
State vs . Tara Chand Etc. on 28 January, 2009
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL : ACMM-I
(CENTRAL) : DELHI.
FIR NO.505/95
U/s 506 IPC
PS Pahar Ganj
State Vs. Tara Chand etc.
JUDGMENT :
a The Sl. No. of the case : 19/08
b The date of commission : 23/8/95
c The name of complainant : Pawan Gupta s/o Laxmi Narain Gupta
d The name of accused : Tara Chand s/o Yad Ram
R/o village Meen Pur, PO Arali
PS Hapsa, Distt. Faridabad,
Tehsil Ballabh Garh, Haryana
Vinod gupta @ Dabbu
S/o Om Prakash Gupta
R/o Jal Varia Niwas, near bus stand,
Riwari road, PS Sadar,
Distt. Mahender Garh, Haryana.
e The offence complained of : 506/34 IPC
f The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g The final order : Acquitted
h The date of such order : 28/1/09
i The Date of institution : 23/12/95
of the case
j Date of hearing final arguments:
and adjourning the matter
for orders : 28/1/09
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
In brief the case of the prosecution against is that as per statement : 2 : Exb.PW.1/A made by complainant Pawan Gupta is that he is running a guest house at 4252, Krishna Gali, Pahar Ganj along with his father. On 23/8/95 at about 6.30 PM he was present at the abovesaid guest house. One person named as Dabbu, accused No.2, who is well known to the complainant and with whose maternal grandfather complainant is having a dispute regarding the abovesaid guest house and one court case is also pending, along with accused Tara Chand (driver) came at the abovesaid guest house and immediately started using abusive language. Accused No.2, Dabbu had shown a knife like weapon to complainant Pawan Gupta and had threatened to kill the complainant by saying that "TUMNE MERE NANJI KI PROPERTY HARAP KAR LI HAI, TUMHEN AAJ KINDA NAHIN CHORUGA" and also accused Tara Chand loudly stated that "BAR-BAR KA LAFRA KHATAM KARO". At that point of time, accused Tara Chand was having a danda in his hand and by showing the danda, he threatened the complainant to kill him. Complainant raised the alarm. Mr. Pankaj Chakravorty, a customer of guest house came out and stated that let the police be called. At this, both the accused left the spot by showing knife and danda to the complainant. As per statement, Exb.PW.1/A, complainant and his family is having danger to their life and property from the accused. On the basis of this statement, Exb.PW.1/A, formal FIR, Exb.PW.2/A was registered for offence u/s 506/34 IPC. The case was investigated into. The investigation ended in the filing of charge-sheet u/s : 3 : 173 Cr.PC charging accused for commission of offences punishable u/s 506/34 IPC 2 Vide order dated 12/3/97 accused both the accused were charged for offence u/s 506/34 IPC.
3 To substantiate its case on judicial file, the prosecution has examined as many as two witnesses. Pw.1 is Pawan Gupta, the complainant and Pw.2 is HC Chander Pal who had recorded the formal FIR, Exb.PW.2/A. Thereafter, vide order dated 4/1/08 PE was closed by court order despite request of Ld. APP for the State for more opportunity.
4 I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Shri M.M.L. Sharma, advocate for the accused and have gone through the case file very carefully. 5 It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts 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, in 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 to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the : 4 : prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. 6 Further in a case law reported as Rajender Prasad & Others Vs. State, 1990(2) C.C. Cases 183 (High Court), Hon'ble Delhi High Court has ruled as under :
"If the prosecution fails to prove satisfactorily that the incident took place in the very manner it alleges, the only logical and reasonable inference would be that it had taken place in a manner different than the one suggested by the prosecution and the benefit thereof would naturally go to the accused. Though the accused are not to prove their innocence, they can always probabalize their defence by reference to the facts and circumstances of the case."
7 In a case law reported as Amitabh Adhar & Anr Vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2000 CrlLJ 4772; Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that mere threat causing no alarm to the complainant is not an offence u/s 506 IPC. Further, in a case law reported as Usha Bala Vs. State of Punjab, 2002(2) C.C. Cases Punjab & Haryana 320; it has been held as empty threats does not prima facie mean that case u/s 506 IPC is made out. Also in a case law reported as Noble Mohandass Vs. State, 1989, CrLJ 669; it has been held that to amount an offence u/s 506 IPC, threat must be real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering it does not exactly means what he says and also when the person at whom threat is caused does not feel threatened actually. Further, in a case law reported as Rameshwar Prasad Srivastava Vs. State of Utter Pradesh, 1984 CrLJ 996; it has been held as under : : 5 :
"Penal Code (45 of 1860) Section 504, 506 - conviction under - complainant not corroborated in respect of actual words constituting offence by eye-witnesses, nor those words mentioned in complaint, nor mentioned either in charges framed or in testimony of independent witnesses - conviction cannot be sustained."
8 In my opinion being guided by the above legal position discussion in Paras 5 to 7, and as cumulative effect of the following reasons, both the accused are entitled to be acquitted of the charge against them :
i As per statement Exb.PW.1/A accused persons after reaching at the guest house in question had used the abusive language but while appearing as PW.1 Pawan Gupta has not so deposed. He has simplicitor deposed that accused persons had come to guest house and had criminally intimidated him. Further, while appearing as PW.1, Pawan Gupta has not deposed about the exact words of threat used by accused No.1 & 2 as stated in statement Exb.PW.1/A. As per deposition made by PW.1, Pawan Gupta, accused Tara Chand had caught hold of his hand. But there is no such averment in the statement Exb.PW.1/A. Further, as per statement Exb.PW.1/A, accused Tara Chand was having a danda in his hand but while appearing as PW.1, complainant is silent about accused Tara Chand having a danda in his hand while extending threat to complainant. Further, while appearing as PW.1, complainant Pawan Gupta has not deposed that accused Tara Chand had threatened to kill by showing the danda in his hand. Also, PW.1 Pawan Gupta : 6 : is silent about any property dispute between him and maternal grandfather of the accused as has been stated by him in his statement Exb.PW.1/A. Further, PW.1 Pawan Gupta is silent about the intervention of PW. Champak Chakravorty as has been stated by him in his statement Exb.PW.1/A. Further, while appearing as PW.1, complainant Pawan Gupta is silent about presence of other persons other than the complainant, accused and Mr. Champak Chakravorty as has been stated by him in his statement Exb.PW.1/A. Also, no such person has been cited by the prosecution as a prosecution witness ii Complainant of the present case Mr. Pawan Gupta has not deposed that by virtue of threat, alarm had been caused to him or that he had become afraid after the alleged threats had been extended to him. iii It is pertinent to note that as per statement Exb.PW.1/A and depositions made by PW.1 Pawan Gupta, no attempt whatsoever was made by the accused persons to execute the alleged threat iv Also, no explanation has come on record as to why the accused persons were not chased by the complainant and other persons allegedly present at spot of incident. Further, it has not come on record as to by which mode of conveyance, accused persons had reached at spot and how they succeeded in fleeing away from the spot without being apprehended v In the present case, accused Tara Chand was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Exb.PW.1/B. The said memo : 7 : suggests that accused was apprehended on 23/8/95 itself which is the date of alleged offence. PW.1 is silent about how and under what circumstances, accused Tara Chand was apprehended. Further, it has not come on record as to from where accused Tara Chand was arrested. If it is taken that accused Tara Chand was apprehended from his residence, it is very unlikely that a person after committing an offence qua the complainant who is very well known to such person / accused will go back to his residence immediately after committing an offence without making an attempt to conceal himself from being apprehended by the police
9 In my considered opinion, in view of aforesaid discussion, it would not be safe to sustain conviction of the accused. Accordingly, both the accused are acquitted of the charge u/s 506/34 IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
on 28/1/09 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
ACMM-01 (CENTRAL) : DELHI