Delhi District Court
State vs Kalwa Ors on 29 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. AVIRAL SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-05, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLST02-032898-2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE Vs. KALWA ORS.
FIR no. 108/2016
PS MEHRAULI
JUDGMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : CR No. 5250/2018
B) The date of commission of : 11.01.2016
offence
C) The name of the complainant : Ms. Chandni Khan, W/o Sh. Umar
Khan, R/o H. No. T-35/A, Gali No.
10, Ward no. 6, Dayaram Apartment-
2, Islam Colony, Mehrauli, New
Delhi.
D) The name and address of accused : 1) Kalwa, S/o Sh. Jodha Raj, 2)
Savitri, W/o Sh. Kalwa and 3) Ravi
Kumar, S/o Sh. Kalwa, R/o H. No. T-
93, Ward no. 6, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
E) Offence complained of : 323/506-II IPC
F) The plea of accused : Not Guilty
G) Final Order : Acquitted u/s 323/506-II IPC
H) The date of such Order : 29.07.2024
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 25.10.2018
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 19.07.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29.07.2024
FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.1 of 17
Digitally signed
by AVIRAL
AVIRAL SHUKLA
SHUKLA Date:
2024.07.29
16:53:11 +0530
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present case has originated from the charge-sheet filed by the State under Sections 323/506-II IPC against accused persons namely 1) Kalwa, S/o Sh. Jodha Raj, 2) Savitri, W/o Sh. Kalwa and 3) Ravi Kumar, S/o Sh. Kalwa. As per the charge-sheet, on 11.01.2016 at about 05.00 PM at T-35, Daya Ram Apartment, Mehrauli, all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, gave beatings to the complainant Ms. Chandni Khan along with her husband and threatened her to kill and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 323/506-II IPC.
2. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the Court took cognizance of the offence and the accused persons were supplied with copy of chargesheet alongwith documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C on 25.02.2019. Court framed the charge against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 323/506- II IPC. Charge was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following four witnesses:
(i) PW1 was Ms. Chandni Khan;
(ii) PW2 was Sh. Umar Khan;
(iii) PW3 was Sh. Santosh Kumar; and
(iv) PW4 was HC Rajkumar.
FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.2 of 17
Digitally signed
by AVIRAL
AVIRAL SHUKLA
SHUKLA Date:
2024.07.29
16:53:19 +0530
4. PW-1 Ms. Chandni Khan deposed that on 11.01.2016, she along with her family members were residing at above- mentioned address. At about 04:00-05:00 PM, she went downstairs to switch on the motor. She went upstairs to check the water tank and saw that water was not coming inside the water tank. When she went downstairs, she saw that the motor was switched off by co-accused Savitri w/o Kalwa. She deposed that accused Savitri abused her in filthy language. When she requested to stop the abusive language, accused Savitri pulled her hair and at the same time, Savitri called her son namely Rahul (aged about 20-22 years) and 2- 3 other children and her husband i.e. accused Kalwa. All of them started beating her. PW Chandni Khan raised alarm and called her husband Umar Khan for help. Her husband tried to rescue her but all accused persons also gave beatings to her husband by pulling him down.
5. PW-1 Ms. Chandni Khan further deposed that she called the police at 100 number upon which police officials reached at the spot. She narrated the entire incident to the police and took herself and her husband for medical examination. Police officials had recorded her statement. Her statement/complaint is Ex.PW1/A. During the incident, all accused persons gave threat to her by saying "yaha rehne nahi denge, yaha se ukhad phenk denge". The name of one son of the accused was Ravi. PW1 Ms. Chandni voluntarily deposed in her examination in chief that accused Kalwa was having five sons namely Rahul, Ravi, Bunty, Ashu, etc. Her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC was got recorded which is admitted as Ex. A-4 (u/s 294 Cr.PC). PW-1 Ms. Chandni Khan identified the accused Kalwa and Savitri before the Court. Ld. counsel for accused persons have not disputed the identity of FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.3 of 17 Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date:
2024.07.29 16:53:27 +0530 accused Ravi Kumar.
6. PW-1 Ms. Chandni Khan deposed in her cross-examination that at the time of the incident, he was working at Gurgaon and her husband was also doing a job at Gurgaon. On the day of incident, she along with her husband had returned home at about 5 PM. She again said that they returned at around 04:30-05:00 PM. She further deposed that the accused persons used to reside at first floor of the same building and the said building was having four floors. The switch of the motor was installed at the ground floor of the said building. No one was residing at the ground floor and the same was for parking. She deposed that they have common ground floor water tank, however, at the roof, they have separate water tanks. The said switch of the motor was operated by the residents individually. No complaint or 100 number call to the police was made prior to the present incident. She had dialled the 100 number from her mobile phone 9899807618 or 9899807616.
7. When PW-1 Ms. Chandni Khan was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel, she deposed that she had given a handwritten complaint to the police at the PS on the day of incident i.e. 11.02.2016. She gave the complaint at PS Mehrauli at around 04:00-05:00 PM i.e. right after the incident. She along with her husband went to the hospital for treatment from the PS. Medical examination of PW Chandni Khan and her husband was conducted at the hospital. No statement was recorded at the hospital by the police. They were discharged from the hospital at about 09:00-09:30 PM. No statement was recorded by the police at her house. No site plan was prepared by the police in her presence. Police had not made any FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.4 of 17 Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date:
2024.07.29 16:53:34 +0530 inquiry from the neighbours/residents of the same building. She had written in her complaint Ex. PW-1/A that accused Savitri pulled her hair and beaten her up on the date of the incident.
8. PW-1 Ms. Chandni Khan was also shown complaint Ex.PW-1A. The witness was unable to point out the exact sentence so claimed to have been written. Witness was also shown Ex.A-4. She had stated that accused Savitri had beaten her up with a chappal and the same is recorded in the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. She admitted that she had not stated the factum of pulling of hair by the accused in her statement under Section 164 CrPC. She had written in her complaint about the fact that she was beaten up by a chappal by the accused Savitri. She deposed that the police came at the ground floor / parking of the building and from there, they returned back within five minutes. She voluntarily stated that police had not visited at her home/floor.
9. When PW-1 Ms. Chandni Khan was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel, she further deposed that the police did not visit at her house. She also voluntarily deposed that police officials had changed her case and implicated her husband u/s 354 IPC. She told the name of the children of the accused to the police officials and police officials recorded her statement at PS on the same day. PW Chandni Khan denied the suggestion that she and her husband had beaten the accused Savitri. She also denied the suggestion that she along with her husband had torn the clothes of the accused persons. She also denied the suggestion that accused Kalwa and Ravi were not present at the spot. She further deposed that an FIR was registered against FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.5 of 17 Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date:
2024.07.29 16:53:40 +0530 her and her husband by the accused Savitri. PW Chandni Khan denied the suggestion that she has lodged a false complaint against accused persons. She further denied the suggestion that no incident of beating ever took place at any point of time that is why MLC were not prepared. PW Chandni voluntarily deposed that police had taken money from the accused persons.
10. PW-2 Umar Khan deposed that on 11.01.2016 at about 04.00-05.00 PM, he along-with his wife Chandni reached at Flat No. 14, Dayaram Apartment, Islam Colony, Ward no. 6, Mehrauli Delhi from Gurugram. He deposed that at that time, his wife went downstairs to switch on the water motor which was installed at Ground Floor. PW-2 Umar Khan was present inside his flat. After some time, he heard some noises. There was an alarm ( Bachao Bachao). He came down at Ground Floor from the Second Floor. Accused persons had given beatings to him and his wife. PW Umar Khan identified the accused persons namely Kalwa and Savitri in the Court. The identity of accused Ravi Kumar was not disputed by Ld. counsel.
11. When PW-2 Umar Khan was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that at the time of incident, he was working as a driver at Gurgaon, Haryana. His wife also works at Gurgaon. On the date of incident, he along with his wife came back to his house at about 04.30-05.00 PM. The incident took place just after they arrived at their house. His apartment consists of four floors. No police person ever came to their house after the incident. After the incident, his wife informed the police by calling 100 number. He deposed that police never recorded FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.6 of 17 Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.07.29 16:53:46 +0530 his statement regarding the present incident at any point of time. He along-with his wife were taken to the hospital by the police officials. They went to the hospital from PS. He along-with his wife received medical treatment at the hospital. PW Umar Khan denied the suggestion that at the time of incident, accused Kalwa and Ravi was not present at the place of incident.
12. PW Umar Khan, in his cross-examination, denied the suggestion that accused Kalwa and Savitri were at their respective working place. He was not present at the time when his wife quarreled with Savitri. PW Umar denied the suggestion that he along-with his wife assaulted accused Savitri and tore her clothes. PW Umar also denied the suggestion that because one cross FIR was registered against him and his wife by the accused Savitri because of the same, the present case is filed falsely to make a counter blast claim.
13. PW-3 SI Santosh Kumar deposed that on 11.01.2016, he was posted as Sl at PS Mehrauli. On that day, he was on emergency duty and he received DD no. 41A regarding quarrel. He reached at the spot i.e. T-35, Gali no 10, Islam Colony, Ward no. 6, Dayaram Apartment, Mehrauli where he enquired from some public persons Thereafter, the public persons informed him about the quarrel which is related to water issue. Complainant Chandni Khan came at the spot and she narrated the whole incident to him. PW SI Santosh Kumar enquired from the neighbours.
Complainant had given him a written statement in her handwriting. After inquiry, he came back to the PS and endorsed rukka on the complaint. On the basis of the complaint that was given by the complainant, FIR was registered in the present FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.7 of 17 Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date:
2024.07.29 16:53:53 +0530 case. The said rukka is Ex. PW-3/A. Thereafter, the further investigation of the case was marked in the name of HC Rajkumar by the SHO. PW-3 SI Santosh Kumar correctly identified the accused in the court.
14. When PW-3 SI Santosh Kumar was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that he received the information about the incident at about 04.40 PM.
He reached at the spot at about 05.20 PM-05.25 PM. He met some public persons at the spot. He had not given any notice to public persons to join the inquiry. He voluntarily deposed that he asked public persons to join the inquiry proceedings. However, his request to join the inquiry was refused by them. He had not noted the names of public persons. He does not remember whether he met the husband of complainant at the spot. However, he met the complainant at the spot. PW SI Santosh Kumar left the spot at about 09.20 PM-09.25 PM. Complainant met him at the spot at about 07.00-07.30 PM. He was present at the spot when the complainant met him.
15. PW-4 HC Rajkumar deposed that he was the 2nd IO in the case and the present case was marked to him for further investigation. On 12.01.2016, he went to the spot and met the complainant along-with her husband at her house. Complainant narrated the whole incident to him about the quarrel over water issue with accused persons. He asked whether the complainant had received any injuries during the said incident. Thereafter, he asked her for her medical examination. However, she refused for medical examination regarding this and her statement also recorded by him u/s 161 CrPC. PW HC Rajkumar further deposed that he also FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.8 of 17 Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date:
2024.07.29 16:54:00 +0530 recorded the statement of husband of complainant namely Umar Khan u/s 161 CrPC and he had gone to house of accused persons. However, no one was found at the address of accused persons.
16. PW-4 HC Rajkumar further deposed that he also asked from some public persons about the incident who also reside in the same building. The said public persons also informed him about the fact that incident of fighting was related to water issue. PW HC Rajkumar asked the complainant for recording of her statement u/s 164 CrPC upon which she refused to get recorded her statement as she was not having sufficient time. However, she told him that whenever she gets time, she will get her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC. On 09.02.2016, statement of complainant u/s 164 CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused Savitri and Ravi came to the PS and told him that they want to settle the present case. However, when he discussed the same with the complainant, she refused to settle the case with accused persons.
17. PW-4 HC Rajkumar further deposed that he bound down the accused persons namely Ravi and Savitri at their residence. On the day when he bound down the accused persons, another accused i.e. Kalwa was not present at his house. Three children were also found at the house of accused Kalwa. However, none of them were bound down as they were minor. On 01.06.2016, he bound down accused Kalwa. He prepared the charge-sheet in the present matter before he was transferred from PS Mehrauli to PS Vasant Kunj. The pabandinama of accused persons are Ex. PW-4/A to Ex. PW-4/C. The charge-sheet is Ex. PW-4/D. PW HC FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.9 of 17 Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date:
2024.07.29 16:54:07 +0530 Rajkumar had correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
18. When PW-4 HC Rajkumar was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that he does not remember the time when he visited the house of the complainant on 12.01.2016. He prepared the site plan at the spot. He recorded the statement of the complainant and her husband on 12.01.2016 at PS. He does not remember the time when the complainant or her husband reached at the PS. There were public persons present at the spot. He also did not record the statement of any of the public persons. No notice was served to any of the public persons. PW4 HC Rajkumar was also shown the original complaint i.e. Ex. PW-1/A in which he was asked whether the name of accused Kalwa finds mention in the complaint. Witness replied that the name of accused Kalwa is mentioned as 'husband of Savitri i.e. Kalwa'. He did not know the accused persons prior to the incident.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE
19. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all incriminating material was put to them. Accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Accused Kalwa chose to lead evidence in his defence.
20. DW-1 Kalwa deposed that on 11.01.2016, a quarrel happened between his wife, children and complainant. He was a driver by profession. On 09.01.2016, he left for Jaipur with his truck with articles of tent. He came back on 14.01.2016. On the day of incident, his family members including wife and children also made a FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.10 of 17 Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.07.29 16:54:15 +0530 complaint regarding the incident against the complainant.
21. When DW-1 Kalwa was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State, he deposed that on 11.01.2016, he was present at Jaipur. There were no documents available with him which can duly prove that he was in Jaipur. DW1 Kalwa denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not producing any documents regarding his presence at Jaipur because he was present at crime scene i.e. T-35, Daya Ram Apartment, Mehrauli.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
22. Final arguments were heard at length from Ld. counsel for accused persons and Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has vehemently argued that the prosecution has not substantiated its case. It has further been argued that testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are not reliable as they indicate significant improvement to the version provided in the original complaint made by the complainant. It is argued that there are several material inconsistencies in the prosecution version. It is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted as they have been falsely implicated in the case. On the contrary, Ld. APP for the State has strongly argued that this is a fit case for conviction as the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 remain unrebutted. She has accordingly prayed that the accused be convicted for the offences.
COURT OBSERVATION
23. Before appreciating the evidence, the Court deems it fit to reproduce and FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.11 of 17 Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.07.29 16:54:21 +0530 discuss the relevant provisions under the IPC which has been attracted in the present case as per the chargesheet. The first offence with which the accused persons have been charged is the offence under Section 323 IPC. Section 323 IPC prescribes the punishment for the offence of 'voluntarily causing hurt'. The offence of 'voluntarily causing hurt' has been actually defined u/s 321 IPC which reads as below:
"321. Voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said voluntarily to cause hurt."
24. At the outset, an offence under Section 323 IPC is invoked when a person voluntarily causes hurt to another, i.e. he does any such act with the intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt. The other person is said to have been 'hurt' when the act of the first person causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the other person. Hence, it is required to be proved in the present case that the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and her husband.
25. In the present case, the primary witness is the complainant / PW-1 Chandni Khan herself. PW-1 / complainant had given the original tehrir before the SHO, PS Mehrauli on 11.01.2016 itself and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. The complainant merely mentioned in the original tehrir that accused Savitri along with her '5 sons' got enraged and started beating her and her husband. There is no mention of names of either accused Ravi or Kalwa in the original tehrir.
FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.12 of 17 Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date:
2024.07.29 16:54:27 +0530
26. It is noted that the statement under Section 164 CrPC of the victim/ complainant PW1 was recorded only on 09.02.2016, i.e. after a delay of almost a month. In her Section 164 statement (Ex. PW1/B), the complainant alleged that accused Savitri Devi had beaten her up using a ' chappal'. The complainant has again referred to the alleged beating by '5 sons' of the accused Savitri, but she did not name any of the sons. There is absolutely no reference to the accused Kalwa in the statement under Section 164 CrPC.
27. It was only during her examination in chief (recorded on 12.12.2023), that complainant / PW1 has specifically stated that Savitri pulled her hair and then started beating her up after calling her 5 children. PW1/complainant has mentioned accused Kalwa for the first time only in the examination in chief dated 12.12.2023. There is no specific mention of accused Ravi in the said deposition. Rather, another son of the accused Savitri, i.e. Rahul, finds mention. In such circumstances, it can be concluded that PW1/ complainant has been changing her version regarding the manner she was beaten up by the accused persons. She has further failed to mention accused accused Ravi or Kalwa in Ex. PW1/A or Ex. PW1/B, which raise substantial doubt on the involvement of the said accused persons in the alleged crime.
28. PW2 / Umar Khan is the husband of PW1/ complainant. He is prima facie an interested witness in the case. Further, a glaring contradiction occurs in his cross examination, when he stated that: "No police person ever came to our house after the incident. After the incident, my wife informed police by calling 100 number.
FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.13 of 17 Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.07.29 16:54:34 +0530 Police never recorded my statement regarding the present incident at any point of time." It is noted that statements of witnesses PW1 and PW2 were recorded under Section 161 CrPC by HC Raj Kumar on 11.01.2016 itself.
29. It is lastly noted that no evidence has been led on the actual injuries suffered by PW1 or PW2. PW1 Chandni Khan stated that she and her husband received injuries and their MLCs were conducted in the hospital but their MLCs have not been placed on record. Conclusive evidence must be led by the prosecution about injuries caused to the victim(s) for bringing the case within the purview of Sections 321/323 IPC. In the present circumstances, this Court cannot assess the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant or her husband. Accordingly, in the absence of duly proven evidence on record and in light of the material contradictions in the versions of PW1 and PW2, the offence under Section 323 IPC is not made out. The accused persons are acquitted of the offence u/s 323 IPC.
30. The other offence with which the accused persons have been charged is the offence u/s 506-II of IPC i.e. the offence of 'Criminal Intimidation'. It has been alleged that the accused persons criminally intimidated the complainant by threatening to kill. Section 503 IPC defines the offence of 'Criminal Intimidation' and Section 506 IPC provides the punishment for the offence in the following manner-
503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.14 of 17 Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date:
2024.07.29 16:54:41 +0530 act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intim- idation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
31. Upon considering the bare provisions of IPC, it is also pertinent to give due regard to the judicial pronouncements covering the offence in question. In the judgment rendered in 'Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. C. Pushpraj , 1988', the Hon. Madras High Court has delineated the essential ingredient of 'criminal intimidation' in the following manner-
"Part II of Sec. 506, IPC is attracted if the criminal intimidation includes threat to cause death or grievous hurt. Mere outburst is not sufficient to hold that it would fall within the mischief of Sec. 506, IPC. In the instant case, the averment in the complaint and the statements in the depositions, if taken together, there are no allegations in the whole complaint that the petitioner ever made any attempt or did any act in pursuance of his alleged expression. So also, the actual words used or supposed to have been used by the petitioner is not stated either in the complaint or in the depositions. Regarding criminal intimidation to whom it was intended, whether alarm was caused, it so, what are the actual words employed are not stated either in the complaint or in the depositions. In the absence of these averments touching the ingredients, mere mentioning of sections and putting a FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.15 of 17 Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.07.29 16:54:47 +0530 person to face the trial is nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court." (emphasis supplied) Thus, causing of an alarm is an essential ingredient in constitution of an offence of criminal intimidation and the same must be seen in the light of the actual words that are employed. Such words must be stated by the complainant in the complaint and in the depositions. A mere use of words or a mere threat would not constitute an offence under the purview of Section 506, IPC. The aforesaid view has been supported by judgment of Hon. High Court of Delhi in 'Kanshi Ram v. State, 2000 (86) DLT 609.
32. In the original tehrir Ex. PW-1/A, the complainant has merely stated that the accused persons gave "gaali galauch" and further threatened to kill the complainant and her husband. The actual words used by the accused persons have not been mentioned in the original tehrir. In the statement under Section 164 CrPC, the complainant has stated that the accused persons gave " gandi gandi gaaliyan" to her and her husband. It was only in the deposition dated 12.12.2023 that PW1/complainant clarified that accused persons stated- "yahan rehne nahi denge, yaha se ukhad phenk denge".
33. Hence, the actual words used by the accused persons only find mention in the deposition dated 12.12.2023 and appears to be a material improvement in the version. The actual words used by the accused persons (as per deposition dated 12.12.2023) only refers to a threat to dispossess and does not constitute a threat to kill. Glaringly, no evidence whatsoever has been led on the aspect of 'causation of alarm' to the complainant or her husband. Accordingly, the ingredients constituting FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.16 of 17 Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.07.29 16:54:53 +0530 the offence of criminal intimidation are not fulfilled and the culpability under Section 506 (Part II) IPC is not made out.
34. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused "beyond reasonable doubt". The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution.
35. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused persons, the benefit of which accrues in their favour. Accused persons namely 1) Kalwa, S/o Sh. Jodha Raj, 2) Savitri, W/o Sh. Kalwa and 3) Ravi Kumar, S/o Sh. Kalwa are accordingly acquitted for the offences under Sections 323/506-II IPC.
36. Let bail bonds / surety bonds be furnished by the accused persons under Section 437A, CrPC.
AVIRAL Digitally signed by
AVIRAL SHUKLA
SHUKLA 16:54:59 +0530
Date: 2024.07.29
Announced in Open Court (AVIRAL SHUKLA)
on 29.07.2024 JMFC-05,South District/29.07.2024
Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and bears my signatures at each page.
Digitally signed byAVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.07.29 16:55:04 +0530 (AVIRAL SHUKLA) JMFC-05,South District/29.07.2024 FIR No.108/2016 State Vs. Kalwa & Ors. Page No.17 of 17