Delhi District Court
Vishan Shobha vs . Bhagat Ram Etc. on 26 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02, DISTRICT
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Jitendra Pratap Singh, DJS
Vishan Shobha Vs. Bhagat Ram etc.
CIS No. 54886/16
U/s. 506(II)/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Name of the Complainant : Vishan Shobha
2. Name of the accused and : (1) Bhagat Ram
parentage S/o Sh. Kripa Ram
(Since deceased)
(2) Rakesh
S/o Sh. Bhagat Ram
(3) Lucky
S/o Sh. Bhagat Ram
(4) Rajesh
S/o Sh. Bhagat Ram
3. Offence Complained of : 506(II)/34 IPC
or proved
4. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. Date of institution of the case : 01.08.2006
6. Date of reserve for order : 21.11.2019
CC No.54886/16 Vishan Shobha Vs Bhagat Ram etc. 1 of 10
7. Final order : Acquitted
8. Date of final order : 26.11.2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Smt. Vishan Shobha (since deceased) has made a complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC against the accused persons namely Bhagat Ram (accused no.1) and his three sons i.e. Rakesh, Lucky and Rajesh (accused no.2 to 4 respectively) with the allegations that the accused no.1 claiming himself to be the owner of the property no.13/310, Geeta Colony, Delhi31 enticed the complainant to purchase it for RS.45 lacs. The accused no.1 received a sum of Rs.4.5 lacs as earnest money from the complainant while the remaining amount was agreed to be paid by 20.07.2006 at the time of execution of sale documents. It was agreed that prior to the accused no.1 shall be getting the property converted to freehold at his own cost and expenses. It was agreed that if the documents were not executed by 20.07.2006 the accused would be returning a sum of Rs.9 lacs to the complainant i.e. the double of the earnest money. It is sated that the accused no.1 neither informed the complainant about conversion of the property to freehold nor appeared in the office of Sub Registrar on 20.07.2006. That the accused no.2 to 4 had witnessed the agreement to sell dated 21.02.2006 executed between the complainant and the accused no.1 and as such they were in connivance and collusion with the accused no.1 in the criminal CC No.54886/16 Vishan Shobha Vs Bhagat Ram etc. 2 of 10 conspiracy. It is stated that when the accused no.1 did not turn up to execute the sale documents, the complainant went to the accused no.1 and demanded the double of the earnest money upon which all the accused persons started quarreling with the complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. The complainant was threatened with death in case she visited the accused persons again or made complaint to the police and other authorities.
2. After recording the evidence of the complainant, the then Ld MM vide order dated 06.02.2007 summoned the accused no.1 for the offences punishable u/s 420/506 IPC and the accused no.2 to 4 for the offences punishable u/s 506 IPC. In the pre charge evidence the complainant examined herself as the witness CW1. Before charge for any offence could be framed against the accused no.1, the proceedings against him abated in the event of his demise. It is also relevant to mention that the complainant had also expired during such period and her daughter, Ms. Renu Kapoor was permitted to pursue the complaint on behalf of the complainant. Record reveals that on the basis of the evidence led on behalf of the complainant the charge for the offence punishable u/s 506(II)/34 IPC was framed against the accused no.2 to 4 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the case against the accused no.2 to 4, Ms. Renu Kapoor has got herself examined as CW1. She stated that her CC No.54886/16 Vishan Shobha Vs Bhagat Ram etc. 3 of 10 mother i.e. the complainant had purchased the property no.13/310 Geeta Colony from the deceased accused Bhagat Ram in the year 2006 however, she could not tell the exact date of purchase. That a sum of Rs.4.50 lacs as Bayana was given to the said accused in presence of remaining all three accused persons Rakesh, Lucky and Rajesh. That the total consideration was agreed to be Rs.45 lacs. It was agreed in the agreement to sell that the property would be got freehold by the said accused late Bhagat Ram before executing the documents for its transfer in favour of her mother. That he did not get the property converted to freehold and for this reason the property could not be transferred in the name of her mother. That the abovesaid three accused persons had witnessed the agreement to sell executed by late Bhagat Ram in favour of her mother. She produced the original agreement to sell dated 21.02.2006. She identified the copy of the same, already Ex.CW1/B. She stated that the said agreement also bears the signature of the first party Sh. Bhagat Ram and of second party Smt. Vishan Shobha and also the signature of the attesting witnesses Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sh. Lucky and Sh. Rajesh in whose presence the agreement was executed. She stated that it was agreed that the sale deed will be executed on 20.07.2006 and it was also decided that in the meantime prior to the registration the house will be got freehold from the DDA. That on 20.07.2006 they reached the office of the Sub Registrar for registration for the sale deed but the opposite party did not turn up. That they remained there upto 2.30 PM and waited for the first party to come CC No.54886/16 Vishan Shobha Vs Bhagat Ram etc. 4 of 10 and to get the sale deed registered in their favour. That they got an attendance slip from the office of Sub Registrar, Geeta Colony which was already Ex.CW1/A. It is stated that when the opposite party did not turn up, on the next day i.e. 21.07.2006, the complainant and the witness went to the house of Bhagat Ram and demanded Rs.9 lacs as per agreement but all the accused persons did not return the bayana money rather they extended threats to kill and to eliminate their family in case they demanded any money or made any complaint to higher authorities. She stated that thereafter they made complaints to the SHO and to the other higher authorities by speed post, already Ex.CW1/C vide postal receipts Ex.CW1/D. She further stated that subsequently it was revealed that Sh. Bhagat Ram is not the lawful owner of the land in question and it was the land of the DDA which Sh. Bhagat Ram had illegally occupied. She further stated that she had also previously examined two witnesses, one from DDA and the other from MCD and placed reliance on the statement of these witnesses namely Sh. Surender Malik and Sh. Ramji Lal. This witness was cross examined at length by the Ld Defence counsel.
4. After conclusion of evidence of the complainant, the respective statement of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded. The accused persons denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. They stated that they did not know Ms. Renu Kapoor nor had she ever visited their house. That they have never threatened her as alleged and that the CC No.54886/16 Vishan Shobha Vs Bhagat Ram etc. 5 of 10 witness has deposed falsely against them. They chose not to lead defence evidence.
5. Thereafter the final arguments as advanced on behalf of the complainant and of the accused no.2 to 4 were heard.
6. Ld counsel for the complainant has argued that there is categorical deposition of the witness CW1 Ms. Renu Kapoor to the effect that when she and her mother demanded the bayana back from the accused persons they all extended threats to kill and to eliminate their family in case they demanded any money or made any complainant to higher authorities. That they will get them killed by the miscreants of the society. It is submitted that this unequivocal statement of the CW1 is sufficient to convict the accused persons and it is prayed that the accused persons as such be convicted.
7. On the other hand Ld Defence counsel has prayed for acquittal of the accused persons stating that the witness CW1 is a planted witness and she was never there with the complainant as there is no mention of this witness either in the complaint made to the court or in the list of witnesses. That the complainant in her pre summoning evidence did not mention the said witness ever accompanying her either to the office of the Sub Registrar or to the house of the accused persons. It is submitted that the testimony of the witness Ms. Renu Kapoor cannot CC No.54886/16 Vishan Shobha Vs Bhagat Ram etc. 6 of 10 be relied upon for the purpose of holding the accused persons guilty.
8. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution (on the complainant in a complaint case) to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
9. In the instant case the most material witness is the CW1 Ms Renu Kapoor daughter of the complainant Smt. Vishan Shobha (since deceased). In her deposition this witness has stated that her mother had entered into the agreement to sell dated 21.02.2006 with the accused Bhagat Ram in her presence. That she had accompanied her mother to the office of Sub Registrar on 20.07.2006 where they waited till 2.30 PM for the accused Bhagat Ram to turn up for executing the sale documents and when he did not came they both went to his house on 21.07.2006 and demanded a sum of Rs.9 lacs i.e. the double of the earnest money as per the terms of the said agreement to sell. She stated that instead of returning the said money all the accused persons started threatening her and her mother with death. In the complaint made to the court, the complainant has nowhere mentioned that Ms. Renu Kapoor had accompanied her either to the office of Sub Registrar or to the office of CC No.54886/16 Vishan Shobha Vs Bhagat Ram etc. 7 of 10 the accused persons. The allegations regarding the threat to the complainant have been mentioned in paragraph no.6 of the said complaint but here also it is clearly mentioned that only the complainant was threatened by the accused persons. In the list of witnesses filed alongwith the complaint the name of Ms. Renu Kapoor is not mentioned. In the complaint dated 22.07.2006 made to the police, the complainant has not mentioned anything about the presence of Ms. Renu Kapoor at the time of the alleged extension of threats. There is available on record the copy of a complaint dated 22.04.2008 (filed with the status report on behalf of the SHO PS Geeta Colony) of one Mr. Rajesh Kapoor who has alleged therein that the accused Rajesh Chopra s/o Bhagat Ram had threatened to kill him. It is mentioned in the said complaint that the said Rajesh Kapoor is the nephew of Smt. Vishan Shobha. The CW1 Ms. Renu Kapoor is present in the court today and the court has inquired from her about the said Rajesh Kapoor and he has stated that he is her husband but is distantly related to the deceased complainant as well. The address of the complainant is mentioned as 12/138 while that of Ms. Renu Kapoor (on the copy of her voters ID card available on record) as on 01.01.2005 is mentioned as 13/169 Geeta Colony which was her matrimonial home. In her deposition dated 18.11.2006 the complainant has not mentioned about the presence of anyone else at time of the alleged offence. All these facts further create doubt about the presence of the said witness CW1 ever with the complainant. Therefore in view of this court the testimony of this witness is not of such an unimpeachable CC No.54886/16 Vishan Shobha Vs Bhagat Ram etc. 8 of 10 nature that the conviction of the accused persons can be based on the same.
10. In addition thereto there are only bald allegations of the accused person threatening the complainant. It is not mentioned that the complainant or any other person had feared for her life in furtherance of the said alleged threats. In the case titled Sree Kala Devi Vs. S.S. Michale, Crl. OP (MD) No.2993/12 decided on 18.12.2017, the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has observed that in order to attract the ingredients of Section 506 IPC the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. The Hon'ble Court after considering the decision of Usha Bala Vs. State of Punjab 2002(2) CC cases 320 (P&H) has reiterated that empty threats do not prima facie indicate that the case u/s 506 IPC is made out.
11. In the present case as well, neither the complainant during her deposition before the court nor the witness CW1 has stated anything that the alleged threats of the accused persons had made them to fear for their life. No protection has been ever sought from the police or from the court either by the complainant or by the abovementioned CW1 in furtherance of the alleged threats.
12. Accordingly this court does not find sufficient material to hold the accused persons guilty for the offences punishable u/s 506(II)/34 CC No.54886/16 Vishan Shobha Vs Bhagat Ram etc. 9 of 10 IPC. In these circumstances, accused persons namely Rakesh, Lucky and Rajesh are acquitted of the said offences. Ordered accordingly.
JITENDRA Digitally signed
by JITENDRA
PRATAP PRATAP SINGH
Date: 2019.11.27
SINGH 15:49:21 +0530
Announced in open court (JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH)
on 26th day of November, 2019 MM2/East/KKD Courts
Delhi
CC No.54886/16 Vishan Shobha Vs Bhagat Ram etc. 10 of 10