Delhi District Court
State vs . Kamal Chopra on 3 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETIKA KAPOOR, MM-11, SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 891/14
U/s : 380/411 IPC
P.S. : Janakpuri
STATE vs. KAMAL CHOPRA
a) Cr. No. of the Case : 11201/19
b) Name & address of the complainant : Babu Lal Yadav,
S/o Raj Kumar,
R/o G-16, Vishwadeep
Tower, District Centre,
Janak Puri, New Delhi
c) Name & address of accused : Kamal Chopra,
S/o S.N.L. Chopra,
R/o A-324, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi
d) Date of Commission of : 08.08.2014
offence
e) Offence complained of : U/s 380/411 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquitted
Date of registration of FIR : 10.08.2014
Final arguments heard on : 20.05.2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 03.06.2022
FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 1 / 16
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Kamal Chopra is facing trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) in connection with the case FIR No. 891/14 dated 08.08.2014 registered at PS Janakpuri.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.08.2014 at about 7.30 P.M, at G-16, Vishwadeep Tower, District Centre, Janakpuri, accused Kamal Chopra came to shop of Durgesh Pandey and committed theft of three laptops after forcefully taking them out of the possession of complainant/employee Babu Lal present at the shop. Complainant Babu Lal Yadav went to PS Janakpuri and gave a written complaint and based on the complaint, formal FIR no.891/14 dated 10.08.2014 u/s 380/411 IPC was registered at PS Janakpuri and SI Arun Kumar was appointed to investigate the case.
3. During, the course of investigation, I.O. SI Arun Kumar recorded statement of complainant, visited the spot, and prepared the site plan and served notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to the owner Durgesh to produce relevant documents relating to stolen property i.e. three laptops which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. Thereafter, notice was served to accused to produce the case property who produced the laptops which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. Photographs of the stolen laptops were taken which are Ex. P-1 to P-3. IO recorded the statement of witnesses and based on material collected during the investigation, the accused was prima-facie found responsible for the commission of offenses punishable under Sections 380/411 I.P.C. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the case file was handed over by I.O SI Arun Kumar to S.H.O. of Police Station, Janakpuri who after following the codal formalities, prepared and filed the instant challan against the accused.
FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 2 / 16
4. On finding sufficient material on record against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 380 and 411 I.P.C, he was summoned before this court and on his appearance, copies of the challan and other documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C).
5. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused under Sections 380 and 411 I.P.C, charge was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defense to make.
6. Thereafter, the prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 5 witnesses. PW-1 Babu Lal Yadav is the complainant. PW-2 Durgesh is the owner of the shop from where three laptops were allegedly stolen. PW-3 ASI Dharam Singh brought the original register no. 19 containing entry no. 3723 in regard to deposition of three stolen laptops which is Ex. PW3/A. PW-4 ASI Shri Niwas Rao proved the original rukka which is Ex. PW4/A, copy of FIR Ex. PW4/B and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW4/C and PW-5 SI Arun Kumar is the investigating officer of the case.
7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution was put to the accused by recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein the accused denied the case of the prosecution in totality and pleaded innocence by stating to have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant Babu Lal Yadav at insistence of employer Durgesh who had an outstanding liability towards accused but had failed to discharge the same. He stated that Durgesh had issued a cheque to discharge his liability of Rs. 39,000/- but the same had gotten dishonored and as a revenge Durgesh has made this case against him. He further expressed his intention of leading evidence in defence.
FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 3 / 16
8. Thereafter, accused stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and having deposed on oath, closed his defense evidence.
9. I have heard Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Ld. APP for the State and Sh. R. Vasudev, Ld. Defense counsel and have gone through the records carefully.
10. On the basis of the evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
1. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 08.08.2014 at around 7.30 PM at G-16, Vishwadeep Tower, District Centre, Janakpuri, Delhi, accused Kamal Chopra committed theft of three laptops by moving them out forcefully from the possession of complainant Babu Lal Yadav from the shop of Durgesh as alleged?
2. Whether the aforesaid stolen property i.e, laptops were recovered from the possession of accused Kamal Chopra on 12.08.2014 which he had received or retained having knowledge or reason to believe the same to be stolen property as alleged?
3. Final Order
11. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the points for determination, my findings on the said points are as under:
Point 1: No
Point 2: No
Final Order: The accused Kamal Chopra is acquitted of all
the offences in question as per the operative
part of the judgment.
POINTS NO.1 & 2
12. Both the points being inter-linked and inter-connected are taken up together for discussion for the sake of brevity.
FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 4 / 16
13. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused committed theft of three laptops from the shop belonging to the Durgesh forcibly with a dishonest intention after moving them from the possession of the complainant Babu Lal which were later recovered from his possession and thereby committed an offence u/s 380 r/w section 411 IPC.
14. The accused has admitted his presence at the place of occurrence in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C as well as in his testimony as DW-1. As DW-1, he deposed on oath and unequivocally denied his involvement in the alleged offence. He deposed that in the month of July 2014, Durgesh (the owner of the stolen laptops) had placed an order for printer and accessories with him and had issued him a cheque amounting to Rs. 39,025/- for the order. The cheque on presentment to the bank got dishonored due to reason "Funds Insufficient" and when the accused made a call to Durgesh, he asked him to come to his shop and collect the payment in lieu of the cheque. He further deposed that he went to the shop the same evening, but Durgesh was not having sufficient cash and as per mutual understanding between, Durgesh offered him to take one laptop in lieu of aforesaid cheque. Accused has raised the defense that he had taken only one laptop and that too with the permission of Durgesh. Although, Durgesh was not present at the shop, accused had taken one laptop as per their understanding. Accused produced copy of statement of account of Union bank of India dated 01.05.2022 which gives an account of the dishonored cheque. Hence, from the testimony of DW-1, the fact that the accused was present at the place of the alleged occurrence is accepted to be correct. However, merely because the accused was present at the scene of occurrence is not sufficient to conclude that the alleged offence was committed by him. This fact must be proved independently by the prosecution.
15. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 380 and 411 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Section 378 and 380 IPC is reproduced herein below:
FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 5 / 16 Section 378 IPC: Theft: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Explanation 1.--A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.--A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3.--A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it. Explanation 4.--A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal. Explanation 5.The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code
380. Theft in dwelling house, etc.--Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 411 IPC- Dishonestly receiving stolen property.--Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
16. To bring home the guilt of a person u/s 380/411 IPC, the prosecution must prove firstly that accused committed theft of the three laptops i.e., First, accused, intending to take dishonestly, moved the laptops out of the possession of complainant without his consent. Secondly, the said stolen property i.e., laptops were recovered from the possession of the accused, and thirdly that accused received or retained the laptops knowing or having the reason had knowledge or reason to believe that the same to be stolen property.
17. The prosecution to substantiate its case examined as many as 5 witnesses. Out of these 5 witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 being the eyewitnesses are material to the case of the prosecution.
FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 6 / 16
18. PW-1 Babu Lal Yadav stepped into the witness box and deposed that in the year 2014, he was working as sales executive in Global Infomatic, District Centre, Janakpuri, dealing in sale and purchase of laptops when one person namely Kamal who runs a shop by name of Prompt Stationary in District Centre, Janakpuri came to the shop and demanded cash from the witness and placed his hands on the cash box. The witness deposed that he locked the cash box and kept the key in his pocket and called the owner of the shop Durgesh Pandey whose phone was switched off or unreachable. He further deposed that Kamal started shouting and abusing and took three laptops from the shop and began to head outside. Witness inquired from the accused as to why he was doing so to which he stated that he would sort out the matter with Durgesh and pushed the witness after holding his collar due to which he fell on the floor. Accused left the shop. Witness ran outside the shop but by that time, accused had left the shop. PCR was called at no. 100 who came to the spot after 15-20 minutes and took the witness to PS Janakpuri where the IO recorded the statement of witness Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. The witness further deposed that complaint Ex. PW1/A was not written in his presence and that he had signed the page having his name and address and again stated that the word "zabardasti" was written by the IO in the complaint after one hour at his insistence. Reply to notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C was given by the witness which is Ex. PW1/B. Seizure memo of original bills and reply is Ex. PW1/C. Bill dated 02.06.2014 and 05.08.2014 are Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E and bill dated 27.06.2014 is Ex. PW1/F. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. Superdar produced the three stolen laptops, which are-1. Acer Aspire E1- 570 (NXMEPSI0013492246B3400), 2. Lenovo G-500-(59380860) I3-3110-2-500- DOS-15.6 and 3. HP laptop having serial no. 5CB (4095JX2). The serial no. of the laptops matched with the respective serial no. mentioned in the original bills however, objection was raised by Ld. Defense counsel regarding identification of Acer laptop with respect to the serial no. and identification of HP laptop as serial number of the same was which is written as "rubbed" in the seizure memo.
FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 7 / 16
19. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness deposed that incident is perhaps of 07-08 August. He further stated to be the only employee at the computer shop at the time of alleged incident and that there were 4-5 shops besides the computer shop but there used to be no rush in and around the shop as three shops just before his shop were vacant. He further deposed that noise of incident might have not reached the other shop and that they were unable to call for help from other shop as they did not get any time. He further deposed that at the time of incident, no public person had gathered at the shop but once the PCR was called, public persons gathered around the shop. Witness stated to know one such public person namely Rishi. Witness stated that there was no other eyewitness besides him. He admitted that the owner of the shop was not present at the time of incident and denied that he cannot depose about the stolen articles but voluntarily stated that laptops were snatched and stolen. He denied the suggestion that he had not stated the fact of snatching of laptop to the IO. Witness deposed that IO had not correctly noted down the facts narrated by him and when he had approached them several times, only then they noted the correct facts.
20. Witness was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A as well as his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C as well as the present FIR wherein the fact of snatching was not disclosed. He admitted that he had not taken any step against the IO for not recording correct facts as per statement. He denied deposing falsely at the instance of his employer. He deposed that he had informed the IO that accused had grabbed his collar and pushed him on the floor but on seeing the judicial record stated that the above fact was not recorded in either his complaint or statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C or the FIR. He further deposed that name, address and phone no. on complaint Ex. PW1/A was written by IO in his handwriting and he had merely signed the complaint and the contents of the complaint are not in conformity with what was stated to the IO. Witness deposed that he did not give any written complaint at PS. Despite being literate, he did not give any written complaint as he FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 8 / 16 was not aware about the police proceedings. He admitted that nothing during the proceedings of the case was written by him. He admitted that IO did not call him for the preparation of site plan. He deposed to have worked at the shop for about 2 ½ years and to have left the job on 31.03.2015.
21. On being recalled for further cross-examination, he deposed to have received a call from Durgesh at about 8.30 PM and to have narrated the whole incident to him. He stated that he was accompanied by one person namely Paritosh who was relative of Durgesh but who was not present at the shop. Witness failed to state the exact time of incident but stated it to be around 7.00 PM. Witness left the shop for PS somewhere around 7.30-8.00 PM. He admitted that PVR Satyam is in the vicinity and at about 7.00-7.30 evening show ends and there is usually rush in the area. He admitted certain computer shops to be in the other building opposite to his shop and that voice can be heard from the gate of the shop but voluntarily stated that voice cannot be heard by the other shop of the building. Witness deposed to have met Durgesh after the incident on the next day i.e. 08.08.2014 at about 10.30 AM. He further deposed that Paritosh waited for him at the entrance of PS and left the PS with him at around 10.30 PM from where they went to their respective residences, and he left Paritosh at the house of Durgesh but did not find Durgesh there. He further stated that shop of accused Kamal Chopra was at a walking distance of 1-2 minutes from his shop and he knew the accused since October 2012 as there were business transaction between accused and Durgesh. He further deposed that till the time of incident, he was not aware about Durgesh having outstanding liability towards accused but got to know about the same from accused. He further stated that accused had never visited their shop to purchase anything in his presence prior to the incident. He further deposed that whatever goods or equipment that were purchased by accused from the complainant were delivered or taken by the office boy of accused or from their shop. He further deposed that no person from the family of Durgesh accompanied him for initiating the legal proceedings and voluntarily stated that brother of Durgesh was at his job at that FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 9 / 16 time. Witness further deposed that he had not given any written complaint at PS and had not made any complaint at PS on the date of alleged incident. He deposed that police official had recorded his statement at about 8.30 PM on the same day and handed over a copy of the same on the same day. He denied that accused never came to the shop and has been falsely implicated in the present case by Durgesh as he had an outstanding liability towards accused. He admitted that the present FIR was not lodged or registered according to his version or as per the facts stated by him.
22. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he denied that contents of complaint Ex.PW1/A were recorded by IO on his narration and that he had signed the same after going through it. He denied the suggestion that the present FIR was lodged on his complaint and was correct. He denied that he was unable to recall the complete facts as it was two years old case.
23. The testimony of this witness cannot not be relied upon solely as admittedly the witness deposed the fact that accused Kamal Chopra snatched the laptops from his possession or grabbed his collar and pushed him on the floor was not disclosed either in his initial complaint or statement u/161 Cr.P.C or the present FIR. Moreover, it is admitted by the witness that his complaint Ex. PW-1/A only bear his signatures but was never written by him. Moreover, on being recalled for cross-examination, witness resiled from his previous statement and denied that he had lodged any complaint to the police on the date of the alleged incident. The testimony of this witness suffers from various inconsistencies and contradictions. At one point, in his examination-in-chief, witness stated to have called at PCR at no. 100 and to have gone to PS where he had lodged complaint Ex. PW1/A on the date of incident whereas in his cross-examination, he resiled from his statement and stated to have not given any written complaint in the PS on the alleged date of incident. At one point, in his cross-examination, witness stated to have gone to PS with one relative of Durgesh namely Paritosh, who waited outside the police station FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 10 / 16 and thereafter left the police station with him to the house of Durgesh whereas later, he has deposed that no person from the family of Durgesh accompanied him for initiating the legal proceedings. Witness admitted that nothing during the investigation was written by him or that he was called by the IO for the same and that the site plan was not prepared at his instance by the IO. Evidently, testimony of this witness is not sufficient to raise the presumption that the accused had committed theft and thus this version of the witness requires corroboration.
24. The prosecution further relied upon the testimony of PW2 Durgesh who stepped into the witness box and deposed that he runs a computer shop in District Centre, Janakpuri and has business transactions with the accused who also runs a shop at District Centre, Janakpuri. He deposed that in August 2014, he had purchased some computer accessories from the accused and had paid Rs. 39,000/- by way of cheque to the accused but the same got dishonored on either 7th-8th August because the accused had presented the cheque in the bank a day before it was dated and on the same day, accused came to his shop when he was not there. He deposed that accused forcefully took three laptops, one Rs. 1.0 lakh from his shop after quarreling and fighting with his employee Babu Lal Yadav and broke the landline instrument. He deposed that at that time, his phone was switched off and at about 8.00-8.30 PM, he switched on his phone and saw missed calls from Babu Lal who narrated the entire incident to him. He further deposed that on 10.08.2014, police registered the FIR based on complaint Ex. PW1/A and recovered all the three laptops from the possession of accused which were seized by the police. Original bills of laptops were handed over by the police to the witness. Witness further deposed that he had requested the IO to seize the CCTV footage, if any, of the incident but no action was taken by the IO. Witness correctly identified the witness in the court.
25. In his cross-examination, witness deposed that he and accused were having business transactions since 2014 and prior to registration of FIR, he FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 11 / 16 had given one cheque to the accused which was presented by the accused after the registration of this case which got encashed and admitted that the earlier cheque had been dishonored. He deposed that at the time of incident, there were three employees in his shop but none of them were present in the shop. He further deposed that whenever he is not at his shop, he checks the details of all accounts immediately on coming to the shop and at the time of alleged incident, he was having one mobile instrument on which two numbers were active. Witness stated that he does not keep his mobile off during the day. He further stated that he came to know about the incident on 08.08.2014 at about 9.30-10.00 PM. He voluntarily stated that on the said date, his mobile phone was off as the battery has discharged but he saw the missed calls from his office at about 9.30-10.00 PM when he had switched on his mobile phone. Witness failed to recollect whether the cheque given by him to the accused was dishonoured on the day of incident or not. He denied the suggestion that on 08.08.2014, the cheque given to the accused was dishonoured due to which accused was called by him to his shop to take the laptop in question in lieu of the said cheque and the accused after taking the laptops from his employee informed him about the same. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated by him to save Rs. 39,000/-. He further denied that as no theft or quarrel had taken place in his shop, no public witness was cited by the police. Witness deposed to have visited the PS regarding the case for 2-3 days but the police did not take him for any investigation. Witness had also visited the senior of the IO as police was not registering his case. At this stage, witness along with his counsel submitted that they wished to make a clarification that at the time of alleged incident, his employee Babu Lal was present at the shop to which it was observed by the court that the said statement was not made by the witness at the time of his cross-examination despite repeatedly being asked by the court that he had to depose regarding presence of his employees at the time of alleged incident.
26. The testimony of this witness clearly suggests that in his examination-in-chief though he has supported the case of the prosecution but only FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 12 / 16 to the limited extent that accused came to his shop and took the laptop belonging to him as alleged and had later produced the same in PS. However, admittedly, he is not an eye witness to the present case and was merely informed by his employee Babu Lal Yadav. Moreover, testimony of PW-2 casts a shadow of doubt on the testimony of PW-1 as PW-2 in his statement clearly deposed that at the time of incident, none of employee were present at the shop. At one point, he states that he was informed about the accident at around 8.30 PM by his employee while on the other hand he stated that he got to know about the same at about 9.30-10.00 PM. The witness failed to depose anything about the way the accused came to his shop and took the laptop from the employee. PW-2 has neither witnessed the incident nor was he present at the time of investigation and deposed that even the site plan was not prepared at his instance. As such witness has also failed to depose about the public persons on the spot. Hence, this testimony does not prove the guilt of the accused towards the offence of theft.
27. PW-5 SI Arun Kumar conducted the investigation in the present case. He detailed the investigation carried out by him and proved rukka Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he along with Ct. Anil went to the shop but did not find the accused on the spot. Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C was served upon the complainant to produce the relevant documents relating to stolen property and statement of witnesses were recorded. Documents relating to stolen property were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. Notice was served upon accused who produced three laptops which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. Witness correctly identified photographs of stolen property from the photographs which are already Ex. P-1 to P-3.
28. In his cross-examination, witness admitted that mobile no. and identification no. of the laptops to be not visible in the photographs. Witness further admitted that only those nos. of the laptops were stated in the charge sheet which the complainant had told them. He voluntarily stated that he did not look out for the FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 13 / 16 identification no. of laptops himself. He denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place and entire investigation was done under the influence of complainant. He admitted that the numbers on the laptops matched with those provided by the complainant but denied the suggestion that no recovery was made from the accused.
29. Rest of the witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 supported the case of prosecution and proved the documents relied upon by them. However, perusal of the testimonies reveal that they are not eyewitnesses to the incident and PW4 had merely lodged the FIR after the incident had taken place and while they conducted the investigation in the present case, they could not explain in detail the act of theft on the part of the accused. All these witnesses being formal in nature need no elaborate discussion.
30. There is no other witness to prove the guilt of the accused persons. The only material witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 do not inspire the confidence of this Court to hold the accused guilty of the offences. Though the accused has admitted his presence at the spot, however, this fact is not enough to link the accused with the alleged offence of theft. The alleged incident took place on 08.08.2014 but the present FIR was lodged on 10.08.2014. Initial Complaint of PW-1 Babu Lal Ex. PW-1/A is undated whereas tehrir was made at 10.08.2014 at 4:30 PM. Rukka was prepared and subsequently, the Present FIR was lodged on 10.08.2014. Initial undated compliant of complainant Babulal Ex.PW-1/A fails to inspire confidence as at first PW-1 stated to have given his statement in PS on 08.08.2014 but later resiled and denied having given any complaint at PS on the day of the incident. Moreover, IO/PW5 at the outset stated that complainant had come to PS on 10.08.2014 and had given his statement Ex. PW-1/A. No plausible explanation has been furnished explaining the delay in registration of FIR. The testimony of star witness i.e. Complainant/PW-1 Babu Lal suffers from various inconsistencies and contradictions and thus fails to inspire the confidence of the FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 14 / 16 court. Although, the accused admitted that he had taken one laptop from the shop as per mutual understanding with Durgesh and later produced the same in PS, recovery of other two laptops has not been proved by the prosecution as the Seizure memo Ex. PW5/B does not bear the signature of any independent witness and merely bears the signature of accused. Pertinently, the original bills of the laptops and reply to notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. was furnished by complainant on 12.08.2014 i.e., the same day when accused had produced the laptops but seizure memo Ex. PW5/B does not bear the signature of complainant or owner Durgesh as a witness. Moreover, the recovery of one HP laptop has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as the Serial no. of the same was "rubbed" as per seizure memo and no effort was made by the IO to trace the Serial no. of the same. IO merely relied upon the serial numbers provided by the PW-2/ Durgesh. Photographs of the laptops that are on record do not clearly show the serial number/identification number of the same.
31. Thus, all these circumstances suggest that the possibility of lodging of the present FIR due to the strained relations between the accused and the complainant cannot be ruled out in the present case as PW-2 in his testimony admitted having business relations with accused and to have issued a cheque to the accused towards liability which got dishonored. Hence, the entire story of the prosecution comes under a dark cloud of suspicion and benefit of doubt in these circumstances must be extended to the accused. Even the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in case titled Kali Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh [1973 SC 2773] observed the following:
"Another golden thread which runs through the bread of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It needs all the same to be re-emphasised that if a doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused."
FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 15 / 16
32. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made above, the points no.
1 &2 under consideration are answered in the negative and decided against the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER:
33. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 380 r/w Section 411, I.P.C. Hence, the accused Kamal Chopra is acquitted for commission of the said offences.
34. The accused has already furnished personal and surety bonds as per the mandate of section 437-A CrPC, wherein they have undertaken that they will put in their appearance before the Ld. Appellate Court within the prescribed period in case an appeal is filed and admitted for hearing. File after due completion be consigned to the records.
Announced and signed in the open court on 3rd June 2022.
(NEETIKA KAPOOR) MM-11/DWARKA/DELHI 03.06.2022 **It is certified that this judgment contains 16 pages, and each page bears my signature** FIR No. 891/14 State vs. Kamal Chopra 16 / 16