Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Kishore @ Raju @ Thinu on 10 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NITISH KUMAR SHARMA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-03, NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
F.I.R. No. : 893/2020
Police Station: Khajuri Khas
State Vs. Jai Kishore @ Raju @ Thinu
U/S 452/427/389 IPC
(a) Case ID number/CR No. : 563/2021
(b) Date of commission of the : 10.12.2020
offence
(c) The name of the complainant : Smt. Hemlata W/o Sh. Sameer,
R/o A-355, Gali No.8, Part 5
Soniya Vihar, Delhi.
(d) The name of the accused, : Jaikishore @ Raju @ Thinu
parentage and residence S/o Raj Kishor, R/o H.No. 314,
Gali No.14, Part 6 Block A,
Soniya Vihar, Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Section 452/427/389 of
IPC.
(f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Acquittal.
(h) The date of such order : 10.11.2021
Challan was filed on: 08.02.2021
Final arguments were heard on: 10.11.2021
Judgment is announced on: 10.11.2021
FIR No. 893/2020 State Vs. Jaikishor @ Raju @ Thinu PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 1 of 5
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Jaikishore @ Raju @ Thinu S/o Raj Kishor, R/o H.No. 314, Gali No.14, Part 6 Block A, Soniya Vihar, Delhi, here in this case has been put to trial to answer the charge framed for the offence punishable under section 452/427/389 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.12.2020 at about 11:30 AM at H.No. 355, Gali No.8, Part 5, Sonia Vihar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi, accused Jaikishor @ Raju @ Thinu forcefully entered into the house of complainant Smt. Hemlata and demanded money and when she refused, accused started damaging household articles and damaged electricity meter and also threatened the complainant to falsely implicate her in criminal case and inflicted injuries on himself and thereby accused committed offences punishable u/s 452/427/389 IPC. The FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 452/427/389 IPC.
3. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet under Section 173 of Cr.PC was filed on behalf of Investigating Officer and the accused was consequently summoned. As per the chargesheet, the accused is stated to have committed the offences under Section 452/427/389 IPC.
FIR No. 893/2020 State Vs. Jaikishor @ Raju @ Thinu PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 2 of 5
4. The accused was called upon to enter his trial and after his appearance, the copy of the relevant documents were furnished to the accused. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the case record, the charge was framed u/s 452/427/389 IPC and the charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined complainant Smt. Hemlata, who is the main witness in the present case to prove her case. She has not supported the case of the prosecution and has resiled from her statement given to police which is Ex.PW1/A. She also denied the suggestions during cross-examination by Ld. APP for State. The complainant stated that she did not make any complaint to the police.
6. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that an accused presumed innocent until he is held guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The onus to prove the case against the accused lies upon the prosecution which has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant stated that she had not made any complaint Ex.PW1/A.
7. As the material or the star witness i.e. the complainant namely Smt. Hermlata at whose instance the present case FIR No. 893/2020, PS Khajuri Khas was registered had turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution and during her cross-examination by Ld. APP FIR No. 893/2020 State Vs. Jaikishor @ Raju @ Thinu PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 3 of 5 for State, she flatly denied that she has made any given statement to the police during investigation of this case, the other witnesses in the case (being formal witnesses only) were not examined.
8. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case of "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55"
as under:-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 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 view of non-availability of any material incirminating evidence against the accused brought on record by the prosecution, his statement/explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC also dispensed with. Accused submits that he does not want to lead any evidence in his defence. Accordingly, DE was also closed in the present matter.
CONCLUSION:
10. Accordingly, considering the above discussion, there is nothing on record to prove the charges u/s 452/427/389 of IPC against accused Jaikishor @ Raju @ Thinu. The prosecution has failed to prove FIR No. 893/2020 State Vs. Jaikishor @ Raju @ Thinu PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 4 of 5 its case even remotely against him in veiw of little incirminating evidence brought on record by it. Accordingly, the accused Jaikishor @ Raju @ Thinu is acquitted of the charge framed for the offence punishable u/s 452/427/389 of IPC. Acquitted person is directed to furnish bail bond and Surety bond of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 437A of Cr.PC.
Now, file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed byNitish Kumar Nitish Kumar Sharma Announced in the open court Sharma Date: 2021.11.10 16:50:28 +05'30' on 10.11.2021 (Nitish Kumar Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate-03, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi FIR No. 893/2020 State Vs. Jaikishor @ Raju @ Thinu PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 5 of 5