Delhi District Court
State vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin on 20 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF Ms POOJA AGGARWAL:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 133/12
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin
Date of Institution: 09.10.2012
Date of Judgment: 20.02.2020
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 529965/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 26.05.2012
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh Chanderveer
(d) Name of Accused, his : Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin
parentage & residence S/o Shri Pal Chaudhary
R/o 717/44, Lekhu Nagar, Tri
Nagar, Delhi
Earlier R/o H.No. 770, Chander
Quarter, Rampura, Delhi
(e) Offence complained of : Under Section 386 IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Acquittal.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) In brief, the accused Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin has been sent to face trial for the commission of offence under Section 386 of the Indian FIR No. 133/2012 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386 IPC State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin Page No. 1 of 10 Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') on the allegations that on 26.05.2012 at about 7.00 pm, at 2786/246, Hansapuri, Road, Tri Nagar, Delhi, he intentionally committed extortion by putting complainant Chander Veer S/o Rajan Lal Yadav in fear of death or grievous hurt and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant so put in fear to deliver Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 400/- on different occasions to the accused.
2) After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court, cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was duly summoned by the Ld Predecessor. After the presence of the accused was secured, copy of the chargesheet with documents was supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) After consideration of arguments, charge was framed against the accused Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin for the offence under Section 386 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 05 witnesses.
5) PW-1 Sh. Chandervir Singh being the complainant turned completely hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution testifying that he did not know anything about the case upon which he was duly cross-examined by the Ld APP for the State wherein he FIR No. 133/2012 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386 IPC State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin Page No. 2 of 10 admitted that in 2012, he was running stitching machine repair shop at Tri Nagar, Delhi but he denied that on 26.05.2012 at about 7.00 pm, when he was present with Jugal Kishore Sharma at his shop, the accused Robin reached at his shop and forced him to hand over the money upon which he was duly confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A but he volunteered that the police officials had got his signature on some blank papers. He further denied that Robin threatened him or that the accused had stated that he was having weapon in his possession upon which he was again confronted with Ex.PW1/A. He also denied that thereafter, he handed over Rs. 1000/- kept in his pocket whereafter the person went away upon which he was again confronted with Ex.PW1/A. He also denied his statement in toto and also denied as to the IO having prepared site plan on his instance and also denied as to the IO having recorded the statement of Jugal Kishore in his presence upon which he was duly confronted. He also denied as to the IO having arrested and personally searched the accused Robin on his identification. He admitted his signatures on the arrest and personal search memo of the accused Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin ie Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C but denied the contents of the memos reiterating that police officials had got his signatures on some blank papers. He denied other suggestions of the Ld APP for the State.
6) PW2 Sh Jugal Kishore Sharma being an eye-witness testified that he was a mechanic by profession and used to work of repairing FIR No. 133/2012 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386 IPC State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin Page No. 3 of 10 sewing machine when on 26.05.2016 at about 6.00-7.00 pm, he was working in the shop of Chander Veer Yadav at Tri Nagar and on that day, accused Robin, came at the shop of Chander Veer Yadav and threatened him and demanded money and he also told that if you running the shop in the locality whereafter, accused took out two notes of Rs. 500/- from the pocket of Chander Veer Yadav and the accused was also having one weapon like revolver whereafter, the accused ran away the shop and complainant made a complaint in the PS. He correctly identified the accused in the Court but was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
7) PW3 SI Hari Ram being the then Duty Officer testified that on 26.05.2012, at about 9.30 pm, he received a rukka sent by SI Subhash through Ct. Virender on the basis of which he registred FIR no. 133/12 ie Ex.PW3/A and further testified as to having handed over the copy of FIR to Ct. Virender and having made an endorsement Ex.PW3/B on the rukka to this effect identifying his signature thereon. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
8) PW4 Ct. Virender testified that on 26.05.2012, at about 08:00 PM, upon receipt of DD No.30 PP regarding a call of quarrel, he went to the spot i.e. H.No.2786/246, Old Bus Stand, Meter House, Tri Nagar, Delhi with the IO where complainant Chandra Veer met and told that a sum of Rs.1,000/- had been extorted from him by one Robin after FIR No. 133/2012 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386 IPC State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin Page No. 4 of 10 threatening him whereafter, the IO recorded statement of complainant, prepared tehrir and sent him for registration of FIR. He further testified that at about 09:30 PM, he reached PS and handed over the tehrir to the Duty Officer who handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to him after registration of FIR and at about 10:15 PM, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO who prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant. PW4 further testified that they had also searched for the accused but could not find him.
9) PW4 further testified that on 09.06.2012, he went with IO and complainant to Katta Market, Chander Quarter, Ram Pura, Delhi and after waiting on the road going towards Chander quarters for sometime, the complainant pointed out towards the accused who was coming who was apprehended by him and the IO and the IO recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/A, accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C identifying the accused as well as the signatures on the documents. He further testified as to them all having come to PP Shanti Nagar where IO recorded the statement of the complainant and medical examination of the accused was got conducted at BJRM Hospital. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
10) PW-5 SI Subhash Chandra being the Investigating officer testified on similar lines as PW4 Ct Virender. He went on to testify that after FIR No. 133/2012 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386 IPC State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin Page No. 5 of 10 recording of statement of complainant ie Ex. PW1/A, he had prepared the tehreer Ex. PW5/A and got FIR registered through Ct Virender and after receiving tehreer and copy of FIR, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/B at the instance of complainant. He further testified as to having recorded the statement of PW Jugal Kishore ie Ex. PW5/F on 28.05.2012 and went on to testify that on 08.06.2012, he received secret information about the presence of the accused in the area of Chander Quarter, near Rampura, Delhi upon which he went there with Ct. Virender and complainant where the accused was present and was identified by the complainant. He also identified his signatures on arrest memo Ex. PW1/B, personal search memo Ex. PW1/C and disclosure statement of accused ie Ex. PW4/A. He further testified as to having recorded the statement of complainant Chander Veer Ex. PW5/C and of Ct. Virender. He further testified as to having filed the challan after completion of investigation. He also relied upon statements of the complainant Ex. PW5/D and PW5/E. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified his signatures on the documents. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
11) During the course of the trial, the accused did not dispute the factum of recording of DD No 30PP Shanti Nagar dated 26.05.2011 ie FIR Ex Y1 upon which the relevant witness was dropped from the list of witnesses.
FIR No. 133/2012PS Keshav Puram U/s 386 IPC State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin Page No. 6 of 10
12) After the prosecution evidence was closed upon request of the Ld APP for the State, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence and chose not to lead any defence evidence.
13) Final arguments were then advanced by Ld. APP for the State and by the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
14)It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
15) In the present case, the victim/complainant ie PW1 Chandervir Singh has turned completely hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution either in respect of the incident or even in respect of the identity of the accused as he completely denied as to accused Bipin@Robin came to his shop on 26.05.2012 at about 7.00 pm and forced him to hand over the money and he also denied that Robin FIR No. 133/2012 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386 IPC State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin Page No. 7 of 10 threatened him or that the accused had stated that he was having weapon in his possession upon which he handed over Rs. 1000/- kept in his pocket whereafter the accused went away. The complainant has also denied having made the statements Ex PW1/A and while he admitted his signatures on Ex PW1/B and Ex PW1/C, he went on to testify that his signatures had been obtained by the police on blank papers. No admissions could be elicited by the prosecution, even through the cross-examination of its own witness as to the incident itself or even the identity of the accused being the perpetrator thereof nor any other circumstance available on record to prove the same.
16) It is duly noted that while the prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW2 Jugal Kishore Sharma setting up the case that he was also present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident, PW2 Jugal Kishore has inter alia testified that on 26.05.2016 at about 6.00-7.00 pm, the accused Robin came at the shop of Chander Veer Yadav and threatened him and demanded money and he also told that if you running the shop in the locality whereafter, accused took out two notes of Rs. 500/- from the pocket of Chander Veer Yadav and the accused was also having one weapon like revolver whereafter, the accused ran away the shop. The said testimony of PW2 Jugal Kishore has gone unrebutted but still is does not inspire confidence since it is inconsistent with the case of the prosecution in as much as while cross-examining the complainant, the Prosecution had itself suggested that it was the complainant who had handed over FIR No. 133/2012 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386 IPC State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin Page No. 8 of 10 Rs.1000/- to the accused which were kept in his pocket which is inconsistent with the testimony of PW2 Jugal Kishore as to the accused himself having taken out the money from the pocket of the complainant. The said inconsistency appears to be insignificant at the first glance but on careful perusal of the testimony of the PW1, it transpires that the very presence of PW2 Jugal Kishore has also not been corroborated by PW1 Chandervir since he had denied being present at his shop on the day of the incident with Jugal at about 7.00pm. Since, only one version could have been correct, it was for the prosecution to clarify the same which it failed to do and consequently, the benefit of the same accrues to the accused.
Decision
17)In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and the testimony of PW2 Jugal does not inspire confidence of the Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence accused Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin, S/o Sh. Shri Pal Singh Chaudhary, is acquitted for the offence under Section 386 IPC in FIR No. 133/12 PS Keshav Puram.
18) The accused is directed to furnish personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in like amount in compliance of provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is FIR No. 133/2012 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386 IPC State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin Page No. 9 of 10 served upon him
19) File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court
Digitally signed by
on 20.02.2020 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2020.02.20
15:30:41 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 10 pages and each page bears my signature. POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2020.02.20 15:30:53 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 133/2012 PS Keshav Puram U/s 386 IPC State Vs Bipin Chaudhary @ Robin Page No. 10 of 10