Delhi District Court
State vs Thakur Dass on 31 May, 2024
IN THE COURT SH. ROHIT KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04
NORTH: ROHINI COURT : NEW DELHI
Cr. Case 5291148/2016
STATE Vs. Thakur Dass
FIR No. 217/2014
PS Prashant Vihar
U/s 195A/506/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
A Registration Number 5291148/2016
B Name of the State
complainant
C Name of the accused & (1) Thakur Dass
his parentage and S/o Late Sh. Lukai Ram
address R/o VP-256C, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
(2) Rahul Thakur
S/o Sh. Thakur Dass
R/o VP-256C, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
(3) Dolly
D/o Sh. Thakur Dass
R/o VP-256C, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
D Offence Complained of 195A/506/34 IPC
E Date of commission of 05.03.2014
offence.
F Date of Institution 27.05.2014
G Offence Charged U/s 506/34 IPC against accused Rahul
Thakur and u/s 195A/506/34 IPC
against accused Thakur Dass & Dolly.
H Plea of the accused Not pleaded guilty and claimed trial
person
I Order Reserved on 15.02.2024
J Date of Pronouncement 31.05.2024
K Final Order Acquitted.
Vide this judgment, accused persons are being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 195A/506/34 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:28:30 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 1/25 IPC of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") in this case FIR No. 217/2014 Police Station Prashant Vihar for the reasons mentioned below:
1. PROSECUTION'S CASE:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.03.2014 at about 11:00 am to 1:35 pm outside the court room no. 409, Rohini Courts, Sector-14, Rohini within the jurisdiction of the PS Prashant Vihar both the accused in furtherance of their common intention threatened the complainant Vishal Moga, his mother and his sister not to give evidence or to give false evidence in case FIR No. 310/12 u/s 307/34 IPC PS Maurya enclave in which the complainant, his mother and sister were the prosecution witnesses and thus thereby both the accused committed an offence punishable u/s 195A/34 IPC.
Further, both the accused in furtherance of their common intention threatened the complainant, his mother and sister to kill them as they had given the evidence in the aforesaid case against the accused Rahul Thakur and thereby criminally intimidated them ad thereby committed an offence u/s 506/34 IPC.
That based on these facts, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is stated to have committed offence u/s. 195A/506/34 IPC IPC which led to registration of FIR No. 217/2014 at PS Prashant Vihar.
2. CHARGE:
In compliance of the procedural mandate u/s. 173 CrPC, charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed in the present matter, upon completion of investigation.
Accused persons were summoned to face trial and ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:28:36 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 2/25 was supplied with the copy of the charge-sheet as per s. 207 CrPC.
Based on the charge-sheet, a charge for the offences punishable u/s. 195A/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3(a). PW-1 Sh. Vishal Moga deposed that on 05.03.2014, on that day. He along with his sister and mother went to court room No. 409, to depose before the Hon'ble Court m FIR No. 310/12. They were waiting for his turn in front of the above said court room. Thereafter. Dolly and Thakur Dass/both accused persons came near to him and try to give him bribe but he was not convinced by the accused persons. At that time, he ignored the accused persons. Dolly and Thakur Dass stated pyar se man jao varna tumhare liye acha nahi hoga, agar Rahul Thakur ke khilaf gawai di to he ignored the threat of the accused persons and deposed his statement against the accused before the Hon'ble Court. He further deposed that he narrated the whole incident before the Hon'ble Court and when he returned back outside the court the accused Dolly and Rahul Thakur Dass gave a threat to kill him and his family members. The accused persons stated tumne gawai de di hain, tum ne jo karna tha wo kar dya, abhi humne jo karna hain wo karenge" and also said tumhe aur tumhare parivar ko mardenge, ab humse bach ke rehna". Thereafter, he narrated whole incident which occurred in front of the court room before the Presiding Officer Dr. Kamini Lau, Thereafter, Presiding Officer asked to call Dolly and Thakur Dass to take action against them but the accused persons fled away at that time. Thereafter, he mad a complaint at police chowki, Rohini, Court which is Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at point ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 17:28:42 +0530 Date: 2024.05.31 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 3/25 A. He further deposed that on 06.03.2014, he made the above said complaint and he narrated the whole incident before the court. Police official recorded his statement.
This witness has correctly identified the accused persons. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused. 3(b). PW-2 Bhanu Priya who deposed that on 05.03.2014. on that day in the morning he along with brother and mother reached at the court. He was witness in that Prior to my deposition in the court room, mother and father of fahul Thakur gave a threat mere bete ki khilaf gawal na dena, naht to acha naht hoga, hum tum logo ko lekhatam karwa de, tum gawat mat dena". Thereafter, he entered in the court room and gave his statement and thereafter, they all deposed before the Hon'ble Court and came outside the court room. On that day accused Rahul Thakur was produced before the Hon'ble Court. Again after deposition in the court, the accused Rahul Thakur and his father and mother had given threat to him, his brother in front of the court room. The accused Rahu Thakur stated" tm logo ne hamari baat nahi mani esiliye main tumhe aur tmhari pariwar ko jaan se mardengee" when accused Rahul Thakur went away then father and mother of accused asked threatening by saying " tum logo ne jo karna tha wo karliya, jo tumhe karna hai wo hum karenge" to him, his brother and his mother.
This witness has correctly identified the accused persons.
He was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused. 3(c). PW-3 HC Lakhpat Singh who deposed that on 07.03.2014, he was posted as a duty officer in PS Prashant Vihar. On that day his duty hours were from 12 mid night to 8 Am. At about 1205 am, a rukka was brought by Ct. Sanjeev which was sent by HC Goverdhan for getting the case registered. On the ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:28:49 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 4/25 basis of rukka, he got registered the case vide FIR No. 217/14 and computer generated copy of the same is Ex. PW3/A bears his signature at point A. He also made endorsement on original rukka Ex. PW-3/B bears his signature at point A. This witness has correctly identified the accused persons.
He was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused. 3(d). PW-4 Ms. Veena Monga who deposed that her son Vishal Monga had got registered an FIR in PS Maurya clave u/s 307/34 IPC against the accused Rahul Thakur. She further deposed that on 05.03.2014, she along with her son Vishal and daughter Bhanupriya had come to Rohini Court and were present out side the court No. 409 for giving evidence in that case and while they were waiting for their turn out side the court room at about 11.00 AM., the mother and father of accused Rahul namely Dolly and Thakur Daas came to them and threatened that they should not depose against Rahul otherwise "Anjaam Achcha Nahi Hoga". They further stated that they will get her and her family killed. However, they ignored them and deposed against accused Rahul and after their evidence was recorded and they came out of court room and accused Rahul and his mother and father again threatened them that now as they had deposed against Rahul, they will have to face the consequences. Accused Rahul stated that "Mai tumhe aur tumhare parivar ko jaan se maar dunga". All three of them also stated that they will not spare them. The said incident also came into the knowledge of Ld. Judge in court No. 409 and he directed the police officials present there to take an appropriate action against the accused persons. Her statement was recorded by the IO.
This witness has correctly identified the accused persons.
ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 17:28:54 +0530 Date: 2024.05.31 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 5/25 He was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused. 3(e). PW-5 Ct. Sanjeev who deposed that on 06.3.2014, he was posted at PS Rohini Court, PS Pr. Vihar and on that day at about 11:50pm, the IO HC Goverdhan Singh, handed over to him a rukka which he took the PS and after some time, he returned to the PP and went outside court room no. 409, Rohini Court, where he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. He statement was recorded by the IO.
3(f). PW-6 Sh. Pramod Sharma who deposed that he was summoned to produce the cause list dated 05.03.2014 in the court of Ld. ASJ, Dr. Kamini Lau, Rohini Court, Delhi. He further deposed that he has produced the case FIR No. 310/12 PS Maurya Enclave titled as state vs Rahul Thakur was listed at Sr. Noi. 1 for prosecution evidence, the photocopy of the same is Ex. PW-6/A (OSR) 3(g). PW-7 Ct. Bhagwan Lal deposed that on 28.03.2014, he was posted at PS Pr. Vihar. On that day, he joined investigation with IO HC Govardhan and they reached at Rohini Court. He further deposed that the accused Rahul Thakur was produced from JC and after obtaining permission from the Ld. MM for interrogation, the IO interrogated him and thereafter, he was arrested by the IO in the present case vide arrest memo Ex. PW-7/A bears his signature at point A, thereafter, he was produced before the Ld. MM and he was sent to 12 days JC. He statement was recorded by the IO.
3 (h). PW-8 Retd./SI Dinesh Bhargava deposed that on 05/03/2014, he was posted as Sl in Delhi Police. He remained IO in case FIR No. 310/12 u/s 307/34 IPC PS Maurya Enclave, Delhi. He was summoned as witness for 05/03/2014 in case FIR No. 310/12 u/s 307/34 IPC PS Maurya Enclave, Delhi by the court of Ms. Kamini Lau, Ld. ASJ, Rohini, Room No. 409. On ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:28:59 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 6/25 05/03/2014, the proceedings of case FIR no. 310/12 was going on and he was present in the court room. He further deposed that the witnesses of case FIR No. 310/12 namely Vishal Monga along with his mother and sister came inside the court room and told to the Ld. ASJ that they were waiting for their evidence outside the court room 409 and when they were present outside, the accused Thakur Das and accused Dolly (parents of accused Rahul Thakur who was the accused in case FIR No. 310/12 PS Maurya Enclave) had threatened the witnesses Vishal Monga, his mother and sister that if they would give evidence against their (accused Thakur Das and Dolly) son (Rahul Thakur), they will have to face dare consequences and that they (victims Vishal Monga, his mother and sister) have to give evidence in favour of Rahul Thakur in that case. After listening this, Ld. ASJ has directed him to go outside the court room to see whether the parents of Rahul Thakur is accused Thakur Das and Dolly were present outside the court room. Accordingly, he went outside the court room and saw that both the accused Thakur Das and Dolly was standing outside the court room and he told this fact to the Ld. ASJ Dr. Kamini Lau. Thereafter, Ld. ASJ directed me to accompany Vishal Monga, his mother and sister to police post, Rohini Court Complex. Accordingly, he along with Vishal Monga, his mother and sister went to police post and where Vishal Monga made complaint against both the accused. Later on on 14/03/2014 his statement was recorded by IO in this case. 3(i). PW-9 SI Ravinder Kumar deposed that on 05.03.2014, he was posted at 3rd Battalion, DAP as a Constable at Rohini lockup. On that day, at around 10:35AM, he took the custody UTP Rahul Thakur S/o Thakur Das FIR no. 310/12, U/s 307/34 IPC from the Rohini Court lockup for producing before the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Kamini Lau, in Court No. 409, Rohini.
ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:29:04 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 7/25 Within 5-7 minutes he produced the aforesaid UTP before the aforesaid Court. After production while he took back UTP Rahul, UTP Rahul raised his voice "meri jamanat karao" thereafter, he took the UTP Rahul in the lockup.
3(j). PW-10 W/Ct. Sharda deposed that on 12.05.2014, he was posted at Prashant Vihar as a W/Ct. He further deposed that on that he had joined the investigation of the present case. During the investigation, he and HC visited at Pitampura to arrest the accused person namely Thakur and Dolly. He further deposed that IO took the custody of the accused person. He put my signature on the arrest memo accused Dolly which is now Ex. PW-10/A bearing his signature at point A and at around 04:45pm IO arrested the accused Dolly.
3(k). PW-11 Retired/SI Dinesh deposed that on 05.03.2014 he was posted at police training curing that pursuing his course at police training college. On that day, he was present in the court room no. 409 of Hon'ble Judge, Kamini at Rohini Court. In case FIR No. 310/2012. Court proceedings were going on in the court room. The complainant Vishal Moga alongwith her sister present outside the court room no. 409 and he was present inside the Court room 409 at that time. Complainant in FIR no. 310/12 came inside the Court and appeared before the concerned judge and stated to Court that "Rahul or Rahul ke mata pita court ke bahar mojud haii or jo mujhko dhamki de rahe hai" due to which concerned judge instructed him to come out of the court to see and verify the fact that whether parent of the accused Rahul were present there or not. He came out the other parent of the accused Court to see present there of Rahul were present Court room no. 409 and saw that mother father of UTP and Rahul were present in front of the Court. Thereafter, he went inside the court and stated to the judge that the parent of the ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:29:18 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 8/25 accused Rahul are present outside the court room. At that time the concerned Judge gave me the instructed that "ki complainant ko niche chowki me chodkr aao". Thereafter, he took the complainant Vishal Moga along with her sister to the PP Rohini Court.
At the relevant time accused/UTP Rahul was present in the Court room no. 409 and Court proceeding were going on. Accused Rahul, Father and mother of the accused Rahul (accused person in the present case) in the Court, witnes correctly identified all of accused persons.
3(l). PW-12 ASI Goverdhan deposed that on 06/03/2014, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar as HC. On that day, he had received the copy of the court order of the court of Ms. Kamini Lau, td, ASJ, Rohini, regarding the threat given by Thakur Dass, Rahul Thakur Dass and Doll to the complainant Vishal Monga, who were the party in the FIR No. 310/2012, PS Maurya Enclave. The certified copy of the said court order is Ex. X2. Upon the receipt of the above said court order, he called the complainant Vishal Monga at PP Rohini Court, who narrated the incident and he recorded the complaint of the complainant Vishal Monga, which is already Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point B, as attesting witness. He prepared the rukka on the said complaint and sent them the Ct. Sanjeev to the PS for registration of the present FIR. Accordingly, Ct. Sanjeev went to the PS Prashant Vihar along with the original rukka and got registered the present FIR. After the registration of FIR, Ct. Sanjeev came back at PP Rohini Court, and then, handed over the computerized copy of the FIR and original rukka to him as the investigation was marked to him.
He further stated that later on, he along with Ct. Sanjeev and complainant went to the spot i.e. outside the court room no.
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31
17:29:23 +0530
Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 9/25
409, Rohini Court. After reaching there, he had seen the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Vishal Monga, which is Ex. PW12/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that on 07/03/2014, he recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant. He recorded the statement of the Ct. Sanjeev 161 Cr.PC.
He further deposed that on 08/03/2014, he called the eye- witness namely, Veena Monga and phanu priya at Rohini Court. He inquired from the eye-witnesses and recorded their statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. Later on, during the investigation, he recorded the statement of 10/ SI Dinesh Bhargwa of FIR No. 310/12, PS Maurya Enclave. On the day of incident, SI Dinesh Bhargwa had appeared before the court no. 409 in respect of case/FIR no. 310/12. On the day of incident, when complainant Vishal Monga, his mother Veena Monga and Sister Bhanu priya were entered in the court room and stated to the Ld. Presiding officer that the accused namely Rahul Thakur, Thakur Dass (Father of the accused Rahul Thakur) and Doli (Mother of the accused Rahul Thakur) had threatened them regarding not to depose against the accused Rahul Thakur. The above said fact were stated by the complainant, Veena Monga, Bhanu priya, and SI Dinesh Bhargawa. The said Fact were also mentioned in the copy of the court order.
He further deposed that on 26/03/2014, he arrested the accused Thakkur Dass S/o Sh. Lukairam from the Rohini Court Complex and prepared the arrest memo Ex. PW12/B, and Personal Search Memo Ex. PW12/C, both bearing his signature at point A. He made the arrest of the accused Thakur Dass in the presence of Ct. Ajay Kumar. Later on, he moved the application for the production of the accused Rahul Thakur, which is marked as Mark X1. Digitally signed by ROHIT ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.05.31 17:29:30 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 10/25 He further deposed that on 28/03/2014, when accused Rahul Thakur was produced before the court. After the permission from the court, he interrogate accused Rahul Thakur and upon satisfaction, he arrested accused Rahul Thakur vide arrest memo already Ex. PW7/A, bearing his signature at point B. At that time, Ct. Bhagwanlal was Prent and he also put his signature on the arrest memo.
He also deposed that during the investigation, accused Dolly got the anticipatory Bail. On 12/05/2014, he went to the residence of the accused Dolly and interrogated her in the the presence of WCL. Sharda. Upon the satisfaction, he made the of accused Dolly vide arrest memo already Ex. PW10/A, bearing his signature at point B. During the investigation, he obtained the relevant entry (DD No. 4C and DD No. 11D) regarding the entry and exit of the UTP Rahul Thakur from the Rohini Court Lockup and place the DD entry No. 4C and DD No. 11D both dated 05/03/2014, IIIrd Battalion, DAP, Delhi, on the record, which is already Ex. A1 (colly.) (admitted U/s 294 Cr.PC). During the investigation, he obtained the copy of the cause list dated 05/03/2014 of court of Dr. Kamini Lau, Ld. ASJ, Rohini Court, and placed the same on the record which is already Ex. PW6/A (OSR). He placed the photocopy of the charge-sheet of FIR No. 310/12, PS Maurya Enclave, which is marked X3. He recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He also deposed that after the completion of the investigation of the present case, he prepared the challan-sheet and submitted the same before this Hon'ble Court.
3(m). PW-13 S1 Ajay deposed that on 26.03.2014, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar as Constable. On the said date, he was on emergency duty along with HC Goverdhan. He also deposed that in a case HC Goverdhan was the IO and the name of ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 17:29:36 +0530 Date: 2024.05.31 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 11/25 the accused was Thakur Dass in the said case.
He further deposed tha accused Thakur Dass was present in the court on 26.03.2014. He assisted HC Goverdhan in the arrest of accused namely Thakur Dass, the arrest memo is already Ex. PW12/B, bearing his signature at point B. and personal search memo was carried out vide personal search memo already Ex. PW12/C, bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he took the accused for medical examination at BSA Hospital, the said MLC is marked as Mark Z which bears his name on the left side at point A. Thereafter, the accused was produced in court, JC remand was given and he was sent to lock up.
4. The statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 28.06.2023 wherein accused persons did not opt to lead DE.
5. Ld. APP for the State argued that PWs have corroborated themselves in all material particulars and accused persons themselves could not lead any plausible defense. Hence, accused persons should be convicted for the charges framed against them.
On the other hand, Counsel for defense has argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter.
6. APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS:
At this juncture, it would be pertinent to lay bare the relevant legal principle pertaining to the alleged offence.
• Section 195A IPC. Threatening any person to give false evidence.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:29:41 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 12/25 reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both;
and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced.] • Section 506 IPC. 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 imprisonment for life, of 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.
7. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND MARSHALLING OF THE FACTS In this matter, the allegations of the prosecution against accused persons are that on 05.03.2014, at about 11:00 am to 1:35 pm, outside the court room no. 409, Rohini Court, Sector-
ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:29:48 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 13/25 14, Rohini, within the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar, accused persons namely Thakur Dass and Dolly in furtherance of their common intention threatened the complainant Vishal Moga, his mother and his sister not to give evidence or to give false evidence in case FIR no. 310/2012 u/s 307/34 IPC PS Maurya Enclave, Pitam Pura, in which the complainant, his mother and sister were the prosecution witnesses and thereby they committed an offence u/s 195A/34 IPC and these two accused persons and accused Rahul Thakur in furtherance of their common intention threatened the complainant, his sister and mother to kill them as they had given the evidence in the aforesaid case against the accused Rahul Thakur and thereby committed the offence u/s 506/34 IPC.
8. In this matter to establish the story of the prosecution, prosecution has examined in total 13 witnesses from list of witnesses filed alongwith the charge sheet before the court.
9. In this matter, Sh. Vishal Monga S/o Late Sh. Sunil Kumar Mongwas was examined as a prosecution witness as PW-1. PW1 has deposed before the court that on 05.03.2014, he along with his sister and mother went to court room No. 409, to depose before the Hon'ble Court in FIR No. 310/12. He further deposed that when they were waiting for their turn in front of the above said court room, accused Dolly and Thakur Dass came near to him and tried to give him bribe but he was not convinced by the accused persons. He further deposed that he ignored the accused persons. PW 1 further deposed that at that time accused Dolly and Thakur Dass had stated to him "pyar se man jao varna tumhare liye acha nahi hoga, agar Rahul Thakur ke khilaf gawai di to he ignored the threat of the accused persons and deposed his Digitally signed ROHIT by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 17:29:53 Date: 2024.05.31 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 14/25 statement against the accused before the Hon'ble Court.
He further deposed that he narrated the whole incident before the Hon'ble Court and when he returned back outside the court, the accused Dolly and Rahul Thakur Dass gave a threat to kill him and his family members and accused persons stated that "tumne gawai de di hain, tum ne jo karna tha wo kar dya, abhi humne jo karna hain wo karenge" and also said tumhe aur tumhare parivar ko mardenge, ab humse bach ke rehna".
PW1 has correctly identified the accused persons before the court. In the cross-examination, PW1 had deposed that his statement was recorded only once in this case i.e. Ex. PW-1/A before the police on 05.03.2014 at about 11:00 am. It is pertinent to mention that perusal of statement Ex. PW1/A shows that this statement was given on 06.03.2014 not on 05.03.2014. It is pertinent to mention further that PW1 has denied the suggestion that his statement Ex. PW-1/A on 06.03.2014 was recored in the night hours. PW1 further deposed in his cross-examination that he had mentioned the name of all accused persons about the threat in his deposition recorded in case FIR no. 310/2012 which was recorded before the court of Dr. Kamini Lau, Ld. Judge. PW1 had denied the suggestion that aforementioned fact was not mentioned in his statement recorded in the FIR no. 310/2012. It is pertinent to mention that prosecution has not placed any copy of the testimony recorded before the court of Dr. Kamini Lau, Ld. Judge to clarify the situation whether any such fact of threat by accused persons was recorded in the court on 05.03.2024. It is pertinent to mention further that PW-1 has deposed in his examination in chief that on 05.03.2014, accused Dolly and Thakur Dass had also tried to give him bribe but perusal of statement of PW1 Ex. PW-1/A and statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C do not reflect anywhere about the mentioning of fact of ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:29:59 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 15/25 bribery. As per PW1 he was threatened two times on that day on 05.03.2014, firstly at 11:00 am and secondly at about 2:30 pm i.e. after lunch and at both the time he was threatened at the same place i.e. court no. 409 towards mediation centre and his sister and mother were present at the time to both the incident. Further deposed that on that day neither he nor his mother and sister made any call to PCR or lodged any complaint to any authority including police authority or any call. Further deposed that he had introduced the IO of this case to the public persons and other litigants in whose presence he was threatened twice by the accused persons. He further deposed that at 11:00 am on 05.03.2014, he was threatened in the presence of IO of FIR no. 310/2012 namely Dinesh Bhargav.
10. In the later part of cross-examination of PW-1, PW1 deposed that on 05.03.2014, he himself made a complaint in his hand writing about the incident of threats and gave the same to the chowki incharge. Further deposed that he had never given the copy of this said complaint to the IO of the present case. It is pertinent to mention that in this matter, as per the PW-1 he had given a written complaint to the chowki incharge on 05.03.2014 but same has not been brought on record either by the prosecution or the PW1. It is also pertinent to mention that as per PW1, he was threatened second time on 05.03.2014 at about 2:30 pm but perusal of rukka on the complaint reflects that the date of incident and time was on 05.03.2014 at 11:00 am to 1:35 pm. It is pertinent to mention that there is contradiction between the testimony of PW-1 and the rukka of Ex. PW-1/A qua timing of the threat. How is it possible that if second threat was given at about 2:30 pm and rukka was prepared for incident occurred at 1:35 pm. It is again pertinent to mention that on judicial record ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 17:30:05 +0530 Date: 2024.05.31 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 16/25 there is no complaint of dated 05.03.2014 stated to be lodged by the PW-1 in his hand writing. It is pertinent to mention that as per PW-1, at the time of threat at 11:00 am on 05.03.2014, IO namely Dinesh Bhargav in FIR no. 310/2012 was present at the spot and he was threatened in the presence of the IO but perusal of testimony of PW-8 i.e. retired SI Dinesh Bhargav shows that PW- 8 in his cross-examination, deposed that he cannot say if any threats were given by the accused in his presence to the complainant. He also admitted the suggestion that incident of threat did not take place in front of him or his presence. It is again pertinent to mention that despite the fact that IO was introduced by the PW-1 to public persons, no public person has been examined by the IO and has not been brought before the court as a witness. Further, IO has also not clarified whether he has issued any notice to the public persons or not and whether any person has refused to join the investigation, if notice is served.
Further, it has been deposed by the PW1 that site plan was prepared in his presence and at his instance and he further deposed that he had also signed one site plan. Perusal of Ex. PW- 12/A i.e. site plan reflects that there is no signature of PW1 thereon. Court is of the view that if site plan had been prepared at the instance of PW-1 in his presence, same must have been bearing signature of PW1 but on Ex. PW-12/A there is no signature of PW1.
11. In this matter, prosecution has also examined PW-2 Bhanu Priya, one of the victim as a witness before the court. PW- 2 has deposed before the court that on 05.03.2014 in the morning, he along with brother and mother reached at the court and she was witness in that case. Prior to her deposition in the ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:30:11 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 17/25 court room, mother and father of Rahul Thakur gave a threat that "mere bete ki khilaf gawal na dena, naht to acha naht hoga, hum tum logo ko lekhatam karwa de, tum gawat mat dena". Thereafter, she entered in the court room and gave her statement and thereafter, they all deposed before the Hon'ble Court and came outside the court room. PW 2 further deposed that on that day, accused Rahul Thakur was produced before the Hon'ble Court. As per PW-2, after deposition in the court, the accused Rahul Thakur and his father and mother had again given threat to her and her mother and brother in front of the court room. The accused Rahul Thakur stated "tum logo ne hamari baat nahi mani esiliye main tumhe aur tmhari pariwar ko jaan se mardengee"
when accused Rahul Thakur went away then father and mother of accused asked threatening by saying " tum logo ne jo karna tha wo karliya, jo tumhe karna hai wo hum karenge" to him, his brother and his mother.
In the cross-examination of PW-2, PW-2 deposed that her statement was recorded only once in this case on 05.03.2014 after 5:00 pm and she has signed her statement in the presence of her brother. Further deposed that statement of her brother, mother and herself recorded simultaneously at police post Rohini Court on 05.03.2014 in the evening hour. Further deposed that she never met any police official after 05.03.2014. She further deposed before the court that she alongwith her brother and mother discharged from the court after 2;30 pm on 05.03.2014 as their deposition completed at about 2:30 pm on that day. Further deposed that after coming out of the court at about 2:30 pm, mother and father of accused Rahul met her outside the court and threatened her "mere bete ki khilaf gawai ne dena, nahi to acha nahi hoga, hum tum logo ko khatam karwa de, tum gawai mat dena". ROHIT by Digitally signed ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:30:16 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 18/25 PW-2 further deposed that accused Rahul had specifically addressed her and her family by giving threats that "tum logo ne hamari baat nahi mani, esiliye main tumhe aur tumhari pariwar ko jaan se mardenge".
Further deposed that at the time of threat extended by accused Rahul and his parents in front of mediation center, lot of public persons and litigants were present there. Further deposed that she did not tell the IO Dinesh Bhargav any threat received by them on 05.03.2014. Further deposed that mother and father of accused Rahul extended threats to them in presence of lots of police officials present outside the mediation center but she does not remember the names of any such police official who might have witnessed the occurrence of threat. It is pertinent to mention that as per PW2 at the time of threat by accused persons there were presence of lot of public persons and police officials at the time of incident but perusal of list of witnesses and judicial record, it has been reflected that not a single person from public or police official not connected with this case but present at the spot at the time of alleged incident, has been made as a witness by the prosecution before the court. It is pertinent to mention further that as per PW-2 their deposition before the court was completed on 05.03.2014 at about 2:30 pm on that day and thereafter, accused persons had given threat to them but again it is pertinent to mention that as per the rukka on Ex. PW-1/A, date and time of alleged incident is mentioned as 05.03.2014 at 11:00 am to 1:35 pm. It is further pertinent to mention that in computer generated FIR Ex. PW-3/A, also time of occurrence of offence has been mentioned as 11:00 am to 01:35 pm. It is very difficult to understand for the court if as per PW-2 second time threat was given to the victims by the accused persons after completion of deposition/testimony before the court, outside the court room at ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:30:21 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 19/25 2:30 pm then why on rukka, time of incident has been mentioned as 11:00 am to 1:35 pm. It is also pertinent to mention that the fact of presence of IO in FIR no. 310/2012 at the time of alleged incident has not been deposed by the PW-2 as same was deposed by PW-1. In this matter, if all victims were in the court room till 2:30 pm then how as per rukka on Ex. PW-1/A, alleged incident of threat has completed at 1:35 pm. Further, it is also pertinent to mention that there is no statement of PW-2 stated to be recorded on 05.03.2014.
12. In this matter, prosecution has also examined Ms. Veena Monga as PW-4. PW-4 has deposed before the court that that her son Vishal Monga had got registered an FIR in PS Maurya clave u/s 307/34 IPC against the accused Rahul Thakur. Further deposed that on 05.03.2014, she along with her son Vishal and daughter Bhanupriya had come to Rohini Court and were present out side the court No. 409 for giving evidence in that case. Further deposed that when they were waiting for their turn out side the court room at about 11.00 AM, the mother and father of accused Rahul namely Dolly and Thakur Dass came to them and threatened that they should not depose against Rahul otherwise "Anjaam Achcha Nahi Hoga" and they further stated they will kill her and her family members. However, they ignored them and deposed against accused Rahul and after their evidence was recorded and they came out of court room and accused Rahul and his mother and father again threatened them.
In the cross-examination, PW-4 had deposed that first time, threat was extended to them at 11:00 am and this incident was informed by the IO to the Ld. Court in her presence. Further deposed that between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm, they remained inside the court room. Further deposed that after 05.03.2014, neither ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 17:30:26 +0530 Date: 2024.05.31 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 20/25 any police official met her nor she had joined investigation with regard to the present case. Further deposed that at 2:00 pm, accused persons threatened them just near the gate of court no. 409 and at about 2:30 -3:00 pm when they went down stairs to the police post Rohini Court, they came to know that accused Dolly had lodged a complaint against her and her children. Further deposed that IO had recorded her statement in this case on 05.03.2014. It is pertinent to mention that as per PW-4 her statement was recorded on 05.03.2014 by the IO but the same is not available on judicial record. It is further pertinent to mention that as per PW-4, after 05.03.2014, neither any police official had met her nor she had joined any investigation with respect to the present case but perusal of record shows that one statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C of PW Veena Monga was recorded by the IO on 08.03.2014. It is difficult to understand that if as per PW-4, she has not joined the investigation after 05.03.2014 how statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded on 08.03.2014. Prosecution is silent on this fact and there is also no statement of PW Veena Monga stated to be recorded on 05.03.2014. It is further pertinent to mention that in this matter, as per PW4, they were inside the court room between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm but again it is important to mention that time of alleged incident has been mentioned on rukka on Ex. PW-1/A as 11:00 am to 1:35 pm. It is difficult to understand again if as per PW4 they were inside the court room till 2:00 pm, how alleged incident of threaten has completed on 1:35 pm as per rukka. It has been deposed by PW-4 before the court that they were threatened by the accused persons at 2:00 pm. It is again pertinent to mention that prosecution is silent on the fact why as per rukka, time of completion of alleged incident of threat has been mentioned as at 1:35 pm. Further, it is specifically has been mentioned by PW-4 that they were ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:30:32 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 21/25 threatened by the accused persons at 2:00 pm. It is also pertinent to mention that there is also a contradiction relating to the timing of threat. Because as per PW-2, threat was given at second time at 2:30 pm, however, as per PW_4, it was given at 2:00 pm. Court is of the view due to this contradiction regarding the timing of the second threat and timing on the rukka is not in consonance with the testimony of PWs, doubt has been created in the story of the prosecution.
13. In this matter prosecution has also examined, Retd./SI Dinesh Bhargava as PW-11. As per deposition of PW-11, on 05/03/2014, he was summoned as a witness in case FIR No. 310/12 u/s 307/34 IPC PS Maurya Enclave, Delhi by the court of Ms. Kamini Lau, Ld. ASJ, Rohini, Room No. 409. On 05/03/2014, the proceedings of case FIR no. 310/12 was going on and he was present in the court room. He further deposed that the witnesses of case FIR No. 310/12 namely Vishal Monga along with his mother and sister came inside the court room and told to the Ld. ASJ that they were waiting for their evidence outside the court room 409 and when they were present outside, the accused Thakur Dass and accused Dolly (parents of accused Rahul Thakur who was the accused in case FIR No. 310/12 PS Maurya Enclave) had threatened the witnesses Vishal Monga, his mother and sister that if they would give evidence against their (accused Thakur Das and Dolly) son (Rahul Thakur), they will have to face dare consequences and that they (victims Vishal Monga, his mother and sister) have to give evidence in favour of Rahul Thakur in that case. After listening this, Ld. ASJ has directed him to go outside the court room to see whether the parents of Rahul Thakur is accused Thakur Das and Dolly were present outside the court room. Accordingly, he went outside the Digitally signed ROHIT by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:30:37 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 22/25 court room and saw that both the accused Thakur Das and Dolly was standing outside the court room and he told this fact to the Ld. ASJ Dr. Kamini Lau. It is pertinent to mention that after perusal of examination in chief of PW11, it is reflected that at the time of alleged of incident threatened by the accused persons to the victims herein, PW-11 was inside the court room and he was directed by the Ld. ASJ Dr. Kamini Lau, to check the presence of the accused persons outside the court room. Therefore, from the testimony of PW-11, it is clear that he was not present outside the court at the time of alleged incident as stated by PW-1 in his examination before the court. It was deposed by PW1 that at the time of threat, IO in FIR no. 310/2012 PS Maurya Enclave was present. It is pertinent to mention that it has been reflected from the testimony of PW-11 that he was not present outside the court when threat was given to the victims for the first time. It is again pertinent to mention that PW-11 has also deposed before the court that no conversation between accused persons and complainant took place. Further PW-11 has also deposed that he cannot say if any threat given by the accused persons to the complainant in his presence and he has also specifically admitted the suggestion that incident of threat did not take place in his presence. This specific denial by PW-11 is not in consonance with the testimony of PW1 because as per PW-1, IO was present at the spot at the time of first threat.
14. In this matter, prosecution has examined SI Ravinder Kumar as PW-9 before the court. Before examine the testimony of PW9, court is of the view that deposition of PW9 is important in this case since he was the only person who had been very close to the accused Rahul every time since he has been given the duty of production of the accused Rahul Thakur before the court in the Digitally signed ROHIT by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:30:43 +0530 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 23/25 FIR no. 310/12 before the concerned court. PW9 has deposed before the court that on 05.03.2014, he was posted at 3rd Battalion, DAP as a Constable at Rohini lockup and on that day, at around 10:35AM, he took the custody UTP Rahul Thakur S/o Thakur Das FIR no. 310/12, U/s 307/34 IPC from the Rohini Court lockup for producing before the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Kamini Lau, in Court No. 409, Rohini and within 5-7 minutes he produced the aforesaid UTP before the aforesaid Court. After production while he took back UTP Rahul, UTP Rahul raised his voice "meri jamanat karao" thereafter, he took the UTP Rahul in the lockup.
PW9 in cross-examination, has deposed before the court that he does not remember whether UTP Rahul said the words or not mentioned at point A1 to A2 recorded by the IO u/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex. PW-9/A. With this deposition, PW9 has not corroborated his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to mention that PW9 has also denied the suggestion that while returning to the lock up, UTP Rahul had stated that "Ki sath saal ki to kaid he to hai, fassi to nahi lagegi tum meri jamant karvao or jail se bahar nikalwao inko to main apne aap dekhlunga, inko to jaan se mardunga"
It is pertinent to mention that as per PW9 accused Rahul was murmuring during the production in the corridor. After perusal of testimony of PW9, it has not been reflected anywhere in deposition of PW9 that accused Rahul had given the threatened to the victims. Court is of the view that after discussing the testimonies of relevant witnesses, other witness are formal are in nature.
15. After the detailed discussions on the peculiarities above and considering the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the Digitally signed ROHIT by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 24/25 17:30:49 +0530 accused persons, Court is of the view that due to non- examination of witnesses, contradiction in the timing of the alleged offence, non-supporting testimony of the PW9 and factors discussed above, doubt has been created in the story of the prosecution and it is settled law that when there is doubt in the story of the prosecution, benefit must be given to the accused persons. Accordingly, Court is of the view that accused persons are entitled for the acquittal.
16. CONCLUSION:
Considering the above discussion, the unequivocal conclusion that comes forth is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused person on the touchstone of "beyond reasonable doubt". Therefore, the accused Rahul Thakur is acquitted of offences punishable u/s 506/34 and accused Thakur Dass and Dolly are acquitted of offences punishable u/s 195A/506/34 IPC.Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
Announced in open 2024.05.31 17:30:54 +0530 court on 31th May 2024 (ROHIT KUMAR) MM-04 (North) Rohini Courts Delhi/31.05.2024 Certified that this judgment contains 25 pages, and each page bears my signature. ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.05.31 17:30:59 +0530 (ROHIT KUMAR) MM-04 (North) Rohini Courts Delhi/31.05.2024 Cr. Case 5291148/2016 STATE Vs. Thakur Dass FIR No.217/2014 Page 25/25