Delhi District Court
State vs Surender Basaya on 16 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA ARORA:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 77/2011
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors.
Date of Institution: 01.08.2012
Date of Judgment : 16.01.2025.
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 534060/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 26.03.2011
(c) Name of the complainant : Ct. Rajkumar
(d) Name of Accused persons, : (1) Surender Basoya their parentage & residence S/o Late Sh. Anoop Singh, R/o: H.No. 1859, Jood Bagh Village, Delhi.
(2) Robin Sharma S/o Sh. Dev Priya Sharma, R/o: H.No. 1611/115, Ganesh Pura, Tiri Nagar, Delhi.
(3) Richie Sharma S/o Sh. Dev Priya Sharma, R/o: H.No. 1611/115, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi.
(4) Kamal Aggarwal (settled in plea bargaining) (5) Vimal Aggarwal (settled in plea bargaining) FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 1 of 20
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Acquittal BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The present judgment arises from a complaint alleging that on 26.03.2011 at about 9.15 pm, at Road No. 37, Near Police Booth, Shanti Nagar, Red Light, Delhi, the accused persons, namely Robin Sharma, Richi Sharma, Surender Basoya, Kamal Aggarwal, and Vimal Aggarwal, voluntarily obstructed and used criminal force against public servants performing their official duties, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 186, 332, 353, and 34 IPC. Accused Kamal Aggarwal and Vimal Aggarwal have already been convicted under plea bargaining proceedings. This judgment pertains to the trial of accused Robin Sharma, Richi Sharma, and Surender Basoya. The prosecution alleges that the accused voluntarily obstructed police officials Ct. Rajkumar, Ct. Mukesh, and Ct. Net Ram and used criminal force against them. It is further alleged that the accused caused hurt to the said officials. The incident occurred on a public road, where a large crowd had allegedly gathered, and the accused Robin Sharma, Richi Sharma and Kamal Aggarwal fled the spot after the altercation, and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 186, 353, 332 FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 2 of 20 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court, cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned. After they entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet alongwith the documents was sup- plied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against all the accused persons on 03.02.2014 for the commission of offences under Section 186/353/332/34 IPC to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses.
During the trial, accused Kamal Aggarwal and Vimal Aggarwal have already been convicted under plea bargaining proceedings.
5) PW1 Ct. Mukesh deposed that accused Robin and Richie had manhandled Ct. Rajkumar and Ct. Net Ram and also beaten them. He further deposed that accused Robin and Surender Basoya had torn the uniform of Ct. Raj Kumar which is Ex.P-1. He also deposed that all the accused persons were drinking Foster Beer and Royal Stag Whiskey which were re- covered, and exhibited as Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-2 respectively. He further deposed that accused Surender Basoya came at the FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 3 of 20 spot and misbehaved, pushed, scuffled and manhandled the police officials. He also identified the accused persons in the court.
6) PW2 HC Rajkumar deposed on the same line of PW-1 and stated that accused persons had beaten him at the place of in- cident and in particular accused Robin had caught hold the colour of HC Rajkumar and had torn the pocket of his shirt and had pulled out the button. Torn uniform is Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that accused Surender Basoya and Vimal Aggarwal were arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E. He also identified the accused persons in the court.
7) PW-3 Ct. Net Ram deposed on the same line of PW-1 and PW-2. He further deposed that accused Robin caught hold of him and he sustained injury on the right side of his neck. He also identified the accused persons in the court.
8) PW-4 SI Surender Singh deposed that on 26.03.2011 at about 9.20 pm, upon receiving information regarding quarrel he reached at the spot where accused Surender and Vimal were found apprehended by the police officials. Accused persons were under the influence of liquor. Accused persons were medically examined by the IO. He also identified the accu- sed persons in the court.
FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 4 of 20
9) PW-5 HC Deepak deposed that on 26.03.2011, he recorded the DD No. 31-PP at PP Shanti Nagar in Rojnamcha Regis- ter. Said DD entry is Ex.PW5/A.
10) PW-6 HC Ramesh deposed that on 26.03.2011, he alongwith IO reached at the spot i.e. Road No. 37, Near Police Booth where they met with Ct. Rajkumar, Ct. Lokesh, Ct. Net Ram and two accused persons Surender Basoya and Vimal Aggar- wal. He further deposed that IO prepared tehrir on the state- ment of Ct. Rajkumar, and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He registered the FIR and handed over the copy of FIR to the IO.
11) PW-7 Inspector Vijay Kumar deposed that on 16.10.2011, IO SI Ranbir Singh has placed the file of the present case before him alongwith relevant material for giving complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC. After perusing the material, Inspector Vijay Kumar prepared complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC alongwith list of witnesses which is Ex.PW7/B.
12) PW-8 Dr. R.S. Mishra, CMO BJRM Hospital deposed that on 27.03.2011, patient namely Ct. Rajkumar, Ct. Mukesh and Ct. Net Ram were medically examined by Dr. Ajit Tripathi under his supervision, and their MLCs are Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C. Injury of Ct. Rajkumar, Ct. Mukesh and Ct. Net Ram was opined as simple in nature. He further deposed that patient namely Vimal Aggarwal and FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 5 of 20 Surender Basoya were also examined by Dr. Ajit Tripathi un- der his supervision vide MLC Ex.PW8/D and Ex.PW8/E. In- jury was opined as simple in nature on the said MLCs. He also opined that smell of alcohol was coming from the ac- cused Surender Basoya.
13) PW-9 ASI Rajender Prasad deposed that on 27.03.2011, he received rukka through Ct. Ramesh sent by SI Ranbir Singh. On the basis of the same he registered the present FIR, copy of the same is Ex.PW9/A (OSR). After registration of FIR, original rukka and copy of FIR were handed over to Ct. Ramesh for handing over the same to the IO.
14) PW-10 Retd. SI Ranbir Singh deposed that on 26.03.2011, upon receiving DD No.31 PP Shanti Nagar, he alongwith ASI T.M. Bhatt and Ct. Ramesh reached Road No. 37 near Shanti Nagar Police Booth. There we met Ct. Raj Kumar, Ct. Mukesh, Ct. Net Ram and SI Surender and they produced ac- cused persons namely Vimal Aggarwal and Surender Basoya. Ct. Raj Kumar got recorded his statement as Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, SI Ranbir Singh got medically examined Ct. Mukesh, Ct. Net Ram and Ct. Raj Kumar and both the above named accused persons and prepared rukka Ex.PW10/A and handed over the same to Ct. Ramesh Kumar for getting the FIR registered. Thereafter, Ct. Ramesh returned back to the spot alongwith all the above named police personnels and the accused persons. SI Ranbir Singh prepared site plan FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 6 of 20 Ex.PW10/B at the instance of Ct. Raj Kumar bearing my sig- nature at point A. Accused Vimal got recovered one beer bot- tle which was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. Accused Vimal also got recovered one bottle having the label of Royal Stag. Same was also taken into po- lice possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/B. The uniform i.e. the torn shirt of Raj Kumar was also taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. In the meanwhile, Ct. Rarmesh returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. Ac- cused Surender Basoya was arrested and personally searched by the IO vide memo Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW2/E. Accused Vimal was arrested and personally searched by the IO vide memos Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.PW-2/D. Disclosure statement of accused Surender Basoya recorded by the IO which is Ex.PW10/C. Disclosure statement of accused Vimal was also recorded by the IO which is Ex.PW10/D. Thereafter both the accused persons were produced before the Court and sent to JC. During the course of investigation, accused persons namely Richie Sharma, Robin Sharma and Kamal were re- leased on anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Court. Accused Richie Sharma, Robin Sharma and Kamal Aggarwal were formally arrested by the IO vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/F, Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H respectively. IO obtained the com- plaint u/s 195 Cr.PC and the same is already Ex.PW-7/A. IO got verified the details of the vehicle bearing registration number DL-9CG-1480 in which the accused persons had ar- FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 7 of 20 rived at the spot, was found to be registered in the name of Sh. Om Prakash, uncle of accused Richie and Robin. IO col- lected the attested copies of 11-PP Shanti Nagar, DD No. 32- PP Shanti Nagar, and 28-PP Shanti Nagar all dated 26.03.2011 from the ACP concerned. The same are Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW10/F and Ex.PW10/G respectively. He identified the accused persons namely Robin, Richie and Surender Basoya in the Court. He also identified the case property one torn uniform i.e. brown colour shirt and one torn pocket. Same are Ex.P-1. He also identified one Royal Stag bottle half filled which is Ex.P-2. He also identified one empty Foster beer bottle as recovered from accused Vimal. Same is Ex.P-3.
15) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons who maintained their innocence, and accused Richie stated that "I was driving the vehicle Honda City and I have dropped my uncle Omprakash. In the car, only I and Robin were there. We have gone to see our grand- father and since we were about to take the Gali which reaches down to our home and at the time when we reached, there was crowd, therefore, we requested the IO / police offi- cial there to clear the crowd for the reason that we could reach our home easily and swiftly as if we would have taken FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 8 of 20 longer route, we would have been compelled to go through Tota Ram Market which would have taken half an hour more. Since the area is crowded and the Red Lights are at the space of 200 meters each, therefore, it was very difficult that we could have escaped. The truth is that we requested the po- lice official therein to allow us to go because it was my birth- day and we were in hurry to reach the home and the police official replied that "Tu nawaab hai", aage se nikal ja". It is only on the next day that we came to know that we had been implicated in the present case. We were not in drunken state or drinking and since my father is a social activist and there was rift between the IO and my father wherein IO had threat- ened my father that he will falsely implicate his sons and to that effect, written complaint had been filed with the ACP concerned. Surender Basoya was never called by me and only I and Robin were there in the car and we just stopped there for a minute or two only to request that the crowd be cleared. I was driving my vehicle on the said location to go towards my house. Because of the rift between the police of- ficials and my father, I have been falsely implicated in the present case." Accused Robin stated that "We have been falsely implicated in the present case. I was present only with Richie in the car. I do not know Vimal and Kamal, however they live in the area. Richie was driving the vehicle Honda City and we had dropped our uncle Omprakash. In the car, only I and Richie were there. We had gone to see our grandfather and since we were about to take turn in the FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 9 of 20 street which reaches down to our home and at the time when we reached, there was crowd, therefore, we requested the IO / police official there to clear the crowd for the reason so that we could reach our home easily and swiftly otherwise we had to take longer route and we would have been com- pelled to go through Tota Ram Market which would have taken half an hour more. Since the area is crowded and the Red Lights are at the space of 200 meters each, therefore, it was very difficult to escape. The truth is that we requested the police official therein to allow us to go to our house as it was Richie's birthday and we were in hurry to reach the home and the police official replied that "Sab aage se jaa rahe hai tu bhi aage se nikal ja" then we took the way to our home through Tota Ram Market. It was only on the next day that we came to know that we had been implicated in the present case. We were not in drunken state. Since my father is a social activist and there was rift between the IO and my father wherein IO had threatened my father that he will falsely implicate his sons and to that effect, written complaint had also been filed with the ACP concerned against the then Chowki In-charge who is the IO in the present case. Though I know Surender Basoya but I do not know how when and for what reason, he was implicated in the present case. Surender Basoya was never called by me and only I and Robin were there in the car and we just stopped there for a minute or two only to request that the crowd be cleared. Be- cause of the rift between the police officials and my father, I FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 10 of 20 have been falsely implicated in the present case. There was a rift between the IO of the present case and my father as IO at that point of particular time was In-charge of the police Post Shanti Nagar, Delhi. My father had filed a complaint with the ACP concerned much before the incidence in relation to a demonstration and we had confronted such complaint with the IO." Accused Surender Basoya stated that "I went to Po- lice Post Shanti Nagar for the reason that the father of the Vi- mal and Kamal Aggarwal i.e. Subhash Aggarwal was my tenant. Subhash Aggarwal came to my place wherein he said that both of his sons are at police post Shanti Nagar and thereafter, I went to the police post, where I saw that both Vi- mal and Kamal were lying flat on the ground at police post. They were unconscious and upon my insistence to take them to hospital, at most what the IO did was to take us to the hos- pital and I was with them. I was forced out to police post and Lathi was blown to me at the back of my head as I was insist- ing that the Kamal and Vimal be taken to the hospital. I was never apprehended from the spot. Since I was wounded so I was taken to the hospital and I was never allowed to leave the hospital. I have been falsely implicated. No action was taken upon the call which I had made to the PCR from Police Post Shanti Nagar itself nor I was given adequate medical at- tention." Accused persons have chosen to lead defence evi- dence.
16) DW-1 Dev Priya Sharma, DW-2 Surender Basoya, DW-3 FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 11 of 20 Robin Sharma, DW-4 Richie Sharma, DW-5 HC Sushil Ya- dav, DW-6 Amandeep Singh and DW-7 Vimal Aggarwal were examined and they were duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
17) Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the State wherein it has been argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused persons be found guilty in the case. On the other hand, Ld. counsels for the accused persons have argued that sufficient material has not been brought on record to prove that the accused persons committed the present offence.
18) The arguments as advanced by both the parties have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
19) 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 whatso- ever 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.
Points for Determination:
20) The following points arise for determination:
FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 12 of 20
(a). Whether the accused persons obstructed the public ser-
vants in discharge of their duties.
(b). Whether the accused persons used criminal force and voluntarily caused hurt to the public servants.
(c). Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
21) Ld counsel for accused persons have argued that the present FIR was filed due to personal grudge and animosity. It is sub- mitted that the father of accused Robin and Richi Sharma, a political and social worker, had led a demonstration against the Investigating Officer (IO) SI Ranbir Singh, leading to his transfer in 2008. The defence relies on the testimony of DW1 and the cross-examination of PW10, who admitted that a complaint against him had been made by DW-1.
22) The defense has further highlighted several contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, absence of indepen- dent public witnesses, and lack of evidence corroborating the allegations.
Appraisal of Evidence
23) The prosecution claimed that a large crowd had gathered dur-
ing the incident. However, no public person was cited as a witness, nor was any notice issued to public persons under Section 160 CrPC. The absence of independent corroboration FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 13 of 20 weakens the prosecution's case, as held in Prem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1989) AIR SC 937, where the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of independent witnesses in cases involving public altercations.
24) One of the critical aspects of the prosecution's case pertains to the alleged escape of the accused persons, Robin Sharma and Richi Sharma, from the spot. The defence has raised sub- stantial questions regarding the plausibility of the prosecu- tion's claim that the accused managed to flee from a busy public area, particularly when there were traffic signals nearby and public persons gathered around the scene. The ev- idence on this aspect is appraised as the prosecution has not placed any evidence on record to show that the police offi- cials on duty made a call to the Police Control Room (PCR) when the accused fled the spot. It is common practice that upon observing a public altercation or the escape of accused persons, police personnel are required to alert the PCR imme- diately to facilitate their apprehension. The failure to do so raises doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's ver- sion.
25) In Prem Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 937, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of prompt action and proper documentation in cases involving public altercations. The absence of a PCR call weakens the FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 14 of 20 prosecution's case and creates a significant gap in the chain of events.
26) The prosecution witnesses, particularly PW2 (Ct. Rajkumar) and PW3 (Ct. Net Ram), testified that the alleged incident oc- curred in a public area with traffic signals nearby. Further- more, they claimed that a large crowd had gathered during the altercation. Despite these claims, the prosecution has not explained how the accused managed to escape undetected from such a busy area. No public person came forward as a witness to corroborate the claim that the accused fled the scene.
27) PW6 (Ct. Ramesh) testified that the PCR van arrived at the spot in his presence. In contrast, PW10 (SI Ranbir Singh) stated that the PCR van had already left the spot by the time he reached the spot along with PW6. This inconsistency raises questions about the sequence of events and whether ad- equate efforts were made to prevent the accused's escape.
28) None of the witnesses, including PW2 and PW3, could pro-
vide a clear explanation of how the accused managed to evade capture, given the alleged presence of multiple police officials and a crowd of onlookers.
FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 15 of 20
29) The inability of the prosecution to explain how the accused escaped the scene, despite the presence of traffic signals, public persons, and multiple police officials, creates a signifi- cant lacuna in the case. This raises questions about whether the events unfolded as described by the prosecution or whether certain facts have been exaggerated or fabricated.
30) The prosecution's case against accused Surender Basoya is based on the claim that he was called to the spot by one of the co-accused. However, there are significant gaps and inconsis- tencies in the evidence regarding who called him and how he arrived at the scene.
31) The prosecution has alleged that accused Surender Basoya was called to the spot by one of the co-accused persons. However no witness, including the prosecution's key wit- nesses (PW2 Ct. Rajkumar, PW3 Ct. Net Ram, and PW6 Ct. Ramesh), has identified which of the co-accused allegedly called Surender Basoya to the scene. The prosecution's fail- ure to attribute the call to a specific individual raises doubts about the veracity of the claim. In State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, (1975) AIR SC 258, the Hon'ble Supreme Court em- phasized that vagueness in allegations and lack of clarity in identifying key actions or individuals weakens the prosecu- tion's case. The prosecution has not produced any call data records (CDRs) or other documentary evidence to prove that FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 16 of 20 Surender Basoya was called to the spot by any of the co-ac- cused.
32) Further, The prosecution's case is critically undermined by significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the testi- monies of its witnesses, particularly regarding the sequence of events, the involvement of the accused, and the circum- stances surrounding the alleged incident.
33) PW2 stated in his chief examination that he, along with PW3, saw two persons emerge from a Honda City car and start throwing liquor at each other. He further stated that when they approached the car, there was no one near it.PW3, in his cross-examination, contradicted this by claiming that a large number of people had gathered near the car when they approached it, and upon reaching the car, they saw bottles in the hands of two boys. These two contradictory accounts cre- ate serious doubts about the prosecution's version of events. The contradiction on such a fundamental fact, whether there was a public gathering near the car, affects the reliability of the witnesses. If PW2 and PW3 cannot agree on basic obser- vations, their testimonies lose credibility.
34) PW2 stated in his chief examination that accused Richi caught hold of his shirt. However, PW6 (Ct. Ramesh) stated in his testimony that PW2 had informed him that it was ac-
FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 17 of 20 cused Vimal and Surender who had beaten him and torn his uniform.
35) PW6 (Ct. Ramesh) stated that he reached the spot between 9:30 PM and 9:45 PM. PW10 (SI Ranbir Singh) stated that he reached the spot along with PW6 10-15 minutes after receiv- ing the information at 9:50 PM. PW4 (SI Surender) contra- dicted both accounts by stating that PW10 arrived at the spot between 9:25 PM and 9:27 PM. These discrepancies regard- ing the arrival times of key witnesses at the scene raise doubts about the sequence of events as presented by the pros- ecution. Such inconsistencies suggest that the testimonies may be unreliable or fabricated.
36) PW1 (Ct. Mukesh), PW2 (Ct. Rajkumar), and PW3 (Ct. Net Ram) stated in their testimonies that the SHO arrived at the spot in his official gypsy. However, PW4 (SI Surender), PW10 (SI Ranbir Singh), and PW7 (SHO himself) contra- dicted this by asserting that the SHO never came to the spot.
37) PW10's conduct is particularly questionable, as he stated that he reached the scene of the incident on foot. Given the grav- ity of the situation, a reported scuffle between public persons and police officials, PW10's decision to reach the scene on foot instead of using a vehicle lacks logic and raises ques- FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 18 of 20 tions about the authenticity of his account. The behavior of a key witness, such as a senior investigating officer, must be rational and consistent with standard police procedures. The unreasonable conduct of PW10 casts further doubt on the prosecution's narrative.
38) PW10 admitted that a complaint was lodged against him by the father of accused Robin and Richie Sharma in 2008. The possibility of the present FIR being a retaliatory act cannot be ruled out.
39) As held in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 11 SCC 743, if enmity is established, the testimony of interested wit- nesses must be scrutinized with greater care.
40) Considering the contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, lack of independent public witnesses,, and the possibility of the FIR being filed out of personal grudge, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a rea- sonable doubt.
Decision
41) In view of the above findings, the accused persons, Robin Sharma S/o Dev Priya Sharma, Richi Sharma S/o Dev Priya FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 19 of 20 Sharma, and Surender Basoya S/o Late Sh. Anoop Singh are hereby acquitted from all charges under Sections 186, 353, 332, and 34 IPC in FIR No. 77/2011 PS Keshav Puram.
42) Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond / surety bond for Rs. 10,000/- each under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon him.
43) File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 16.01.2025. DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.16 18:37:59 +0530 (DIVYA ARORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 20 pages and each page Digitally signed bears my signature.
DIVYA by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.16 18:38:06 +0530 (DIVYA ARORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 77/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC State Vs. Surender Basoya & ors. Page No. 20 of 20