Delhi District Court
41.In The Judgment Reported As Kishore ... vs State Of Himachal on 21 December, 2016
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) NORTH WEST,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
State
versus
Mr. Bhajju @ Bachu
Son of Mr. Bhajan Lal
Resident of Jhuggi Near Kali Mata Jhuggis,
Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 235/2014
Police Station : South Rohini
Under section : 436 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 27.11.2014
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal : 05.01.2015.
Arguments concluded on : 20.12.2016.
Date of judgment : 21.12.2016.
Appearances: Ms. Nimmi Sisodia, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu on bail.
Mr. Ranvir Singh and Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey, counsel for
accused.
**********************************************************
New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini,
Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 1 of 37 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
JUDGMENT
1. Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu, accused has been charge sheeted by Police Station South Rohini, Delhi for the offence under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that on 18.09.2014 at about 05:20 pm at Jhuggi Footpath, near Kali Mata Mandir, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi, the accused intending and knowing that he would destroy the jhuggi of complainant Ms. Asha, which was being used as a dwelling house to his knowledge, set the said jhuggi on fire.
CHARGE SHEET AND COMMITTAL
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 27.11.2014 and after its committal, the case was assigned to the learned predecessor of this Court for 05.01.2015.
CHARGE
3. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under section 436 of the IPC was framed against the accused Bhajju @ Bachu vide order dated 05.02.2015 by the learned predecessor of this Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses i.e. WHC Sheelawati, the Duty Officer, who had New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 2 of 37 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
recorded the formal FIR of the case, as PW1; Ms. Asha, complainant of the present case, as PW2; Ct. Rohtash as PW3; HC Akhilesh, witness of investigation, as PW4; Mr. Kabir Yadav, eye witness of the case, as PW5; Mr. Raj Kumar, private photographer, as PW6 and SI Amarjeet, the Investigation Officer of the case, as PW7.
5. The accused has preferred not to cross examine PWs 1 and 6 due to which their evidence remains uncontroverted and unrebutted and can be presumed to have been admitted as correct by the accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CR.P.C. AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu has controverted and rebutted the entire evidence against him and submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. His signatures were obtained on blank papers which were converted into documents of this case. He did not know Asha or anybody from her family prior to her implication in this case. He has no enmity with them. He does not know why he has been implicated. It appears that someone else might have committed the act and he has been implicated as actual culprit could not be found and he was sitting near tea stall of his mother in intoxicated condition. He wanted to lead defence evidence. However, on 28.03.2016, on the submission that the accused is not to lead any evidence in his defence, the defence New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 3 of 37 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
evidence was closed.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point. I have also carefully perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the accused.
8. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for convicting the accused for having committed the offence under section 436 of the IPC, submitting that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused by examining its witnesses whose testimonies are corroborative and reliable.
9. The counsel for accused, on the other hand, has requested for his acquittal submitting that there is nothing incriminating against the accused persons on the record. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is unreliable as it suffers from various contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies. The investigation has not been properly conducted as there is no eye witness although many people reside at the place of incident. He saw the smoke and came to the spot. As he is a smoker, a matchbox has been recovered at his instance. In order to extort money from him, the complainant in collusion with police, he has been falsely implicated.
New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 4 of 37 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS, OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
10.The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it has some variations in the evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are created. To search it out, the Courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on the other hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of the witnesses, of course after excluding that part of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of the prosecution or a defence case could be concertized. It would depend upon the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 5 of 37 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So the Courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
11.Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both the sides.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION, ALLEGATIONS AND PROVED DOCUMENTS
12.The prosecution story unveils on 18.03.2014 when Ct. Rohtash (PW3) and HC Akhilesh (PW4), while patrolling, reached Kali Mata Mandir and they saw that Ms.Asha @ Rekha (PW2) had caught hold of the accused in front of her jhuggi and her jhuggi was burning at that time which was erected on the footpath with 'tirpal'. Ms.Asha (PW2) lodged her complaint (Ex. PW2/A). HC Akhilesh (PW4) made endorsement/rukka (Ex.PW4/A) on the complaint of Ms.Asha (Ex.PW2/A) and sent Ct.Rohtash (PW3) to the Police Station South Rohini for getting the FIR registered. W-HC Sheelawati (PW1) registered the FIR (Ex.PW1/A) and made endorsement (Ex.PW1/B) on rukka. After registration of FIR, Ct.Rohtash carried copy of FIR and original rukka to the spot and handed them over to IO/SI Amarjeet (PW7) to whom the investigation of the case was assigned. SI Amarjeet (PW7) made enquiry from the complainant Ms.Asha (PW2) and prepared site New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 6 of 37 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
plan (Ex.PW7/A). Accused was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW2/B) and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo (Ex.PW2/C). In the personal search of the accused, one match-box (Ex.P-1) was recovered which was sealed by SI Amarjeet (PW7) with the seal of ASR and it was taken into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW2/D). Accused made disclosure statement (Ex.PW7/B) which was recorded by SI Amarjeet (PW7). Mr.Raj Kumar (PW6), a private photographer, was called and he took the photographs (Ex.PW2/E1 to E3) of the burnt jhuggi, made CD of photographs (Ex.PW6/B), issued certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW6/C) which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW6/A). Ms.Asha (PW2) and the accused were taken to Police Station, after the fire was doused at the spot with the help of public persons. At the time of incident, the accused was under the influence of liquor and he was taken to BSA Hospital where he was medically examined vide MLC (Ex.PW7/C). Accused was also seen by Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) and Mr.Akram (not examined by the prosecution) on the date and time of the incident and the accused had pointed out towards smoke coming out from the jhuggi of Ms.Asha about 100 steps away from Rain Basera, near Kali Mata temple where Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) and Mr.Akram (not examined by the prosecution) were on duty. On being asked about reason of smoke, the accused told that he had set the jhuggi on fire because that lady, her husband and brother gave beatings to Rakesh. Accused also confessed about setting the jhuggi of New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 7 of 37 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
Ms.Asha on fire in presence of Ct. Rohtash and in presence of Mr.Kabir.
13.The allegations against accused Bhajju @ Bachhu on the allegations that on 18.03.2014 at about 5.20pm at Jhuggi Footpath, near Kali Mata Mandir, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi, accused intending and knowing that he would destroy the jhuggi of complainant Ms.Asha, which was being used as a dwelling house to his knowledge, set the said jhuggi on fire. On 18.03.2014, when Ms.Asha (PW2) returned from Rohini Courts at about 5-5.30 pm, she saw her jhuggi on fire and she saw that the accused was putting her jhuggi on fire at that time.
TESTIMONIES OF THE MATERIAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES
14.It is necessary to discuss and analyse the testimonies of the material public witnesses of the prosecution in brief. They are Ms.Asha (PW2) and Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5).
EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT
15.Ms.Asha (PW2), the complainant, had deposed that she lives in the jhuggi for about 3-4 years with her husband. On the occasion of Holi, on 17.03.2014, her husband was intoxicated and was sleeping outside jhuggi. She was sleeping inside jhuggi when one Mukesh came inside the jhuggi and started molesting her. When she resisted, Mr. Mahesh, her devar (brother in law) got up and saw Mr. New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 8 of 37 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
Mukesh in the jhuggi. Then Mr. Mukesh fled away from the jhuggi. It was about 01:00 am in the midnight. After Mr. Mukesh fled away from the spot, he again tried to enter her jhuggi. Mr.Mukesh was intoxicated at that time and also at the first time when he came to the jhuggi. At that time Mr.Mukesh was given beatings by her and the neighbourers. Thereafter, on the next day 18.03.2014, when I returned from Rohini Courts at about 5 or 5.30 pm, she saw that her jhuggi was on fire. She saw the accused Bhajju was putting her jhuggi on fire. At that time one police man was also with her. She did not know the name of that police man. Accused was putting burning fire woods inside her jhuggi from the backside. She went and apprehended the accused Bhajju. Accused was then taken to police station. At the time of incident, her jhuggi was locked. Her entire house hold articles and clothes were burnt inside the jhuggi. Police recorded her complaint (Ex.PW2/A). Then she was again called in the police station by the police for the purposes of identification of the person who had put her jhuggi on fire. Police had asked her whether she can identify the person who had put her jhuggi on fire. She replied in the affirmative. She then again went to the Police Station where she identified the same person who committed the crime. In her presence, the police did not take any photographs of the incident. Police had obtained her signatures on the arrest documents of the accused. Nothing was recovered from the accused in her presence.
16.As Ms.Asha (PW2) was partially hostile, she was cross examined New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 9 of 37 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. In her cross examination, she has deposed that the site plan was prepared by the police at her instance. She has denied that the photographs of the spot were taken by the police in her presence. She has denied that from the possession of accused one match box was recovered. She did not witness any recovery memo. She has admitted that signature at point A on recovery memo (Ex.PW2/D) is her signature. She has denied that the police recorded her supplementary statement (Mark -P-2-X) on 18.03.2014. The 3 photographs (Ex.PW2/E-1 to E-3) are the photographs of her burnt jhuggi and were taken in her presence. She could not identify any match box since she did not see any recovery of match box.
17.It can be seen from the record that there are several unexplained contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence of Ms.Asha (PW2) which remain unexplained. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused. Neither Ms.Asha (PW2), the complainant, nor the prosecution has been able to explain the same which are too major to be ignored and also fatally strike at the very root of the prosecution story. The evidence of Ms.Asha (PW2) is not reliable and trust worthy as there are several material contradictions and inconsistencies in her complaint (Ex.PW2/A), her examination in chief and cross examination. The veracity of her testimony is shattered due to the glaring inconsistencies and overwhelming contradictions, which remain explained by the prosecution and are too major to be ignored. New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 10 of 37 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
18.In her complaint (Ex.PW2/A), Ms.Asha (PW2) has stated that on the night of 17/18.02.2014, one young man had entered into her jhuggi and tried to molest her (galat harkat karne ki koshish ki). In her examination in chief, she has deposed that on the occasion of Holi, on 17.03.2014, her husband was intoxicated and was sleeping outside jhuggi. She was sleeping inside jhuggi when one Mukesh came inside the jhuggi and started molesting her. When she resisted, Mr. Mahesh, her devar (brother in law) got up and saw Mr. Mukesh in the jhuggi. Then Mr. Mukesh fled away from the jhuggi. It was about 01:00 am in the midnight. After Mr. Mukesh fled away from the spot, he again tried to enter her jhuggi. Mr.Mukesh was intoxicated at that time and also at the first time when he came to the jhuggi. At that time Mr.Mukesh was given beatings by her and the neighbourers. The version given in the complaint and the evidence of Ms.Asha (PW2) are completely different.
19.Another contradiction is regarding Ms.Asha (PW2) knowing the accused and having enmity with him prior to the alleged incident. In her complaint (Ex.PW2/A), Ms.Asha (PW2) has stated that she knows the accused as he had quarreled with her few days earlier and his name, after enquiry, was revealed as Mr.Bhajju while in her examination in chief, Ms.Asha (PW2) has deposed that she saw the accused Bhajju was putting her jhuggi on fire. In her cross examination by the accused, she has deposed that she did not know accused Bhajju prior to the date of incident. Accused did not have New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 11 of 37 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
enmity with her. She had seen the accused in the Mandir prior to the occurrence. Prior to Holi, she had a quarrel with the accused. She voluntarily stated that when her husband used to go for collecting garbage, the accused used to abuse and ill treat her husband. Around 6-7 days prior to Holi, herself and her husband fought with the accused. Her husband slapped the accused 2-3 times in her presence. She did not fight with any other person besides Mr. Mukesh and accused, 15-20 days prior to the occurrence. The fact that there was previous enmity between Ms.Asha (PW2), the complainant and the accused indicates the possibility of the false implication of the accused.
20.Another material inconsistency is regarding the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. In her complaint (Ex.PW2/A), Ms.Asha (PW2) has stated that the accused was putting wooden sticks in her jhuggi. In her examination in chief, Ms.Asha (PW2) has deposed that when she returned from Rohini Courts at about 05:00 or 05:30 pm, she saw that her jhuggi was on fire. She saw the accused Bhajju was putting her jhuggi on fire. In her cross examination, she has deposed that when she saw the accused, he was throwing burning wood pieces inside the jhuggi. He was carrying one burning wood at that time. When she first saw the accused, he was 5 steps away from her. Her jhuggi caught fire only after she saw the accused putting a burning wooden log on her jhuggi and she did not see that her jhuggi was already on fire.
New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 12 of 37 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
21.Another contradiction which indicates towards the false implication of the accused is the manner of his identification by Ms.Asha (PW2). In her complaint (Ex.PW2//A), Ms.Asha (PW2) has stated that she had apprehended the accused, handed over the accused to the police which was patrolling. In her examination in chief, she has deposed that after she apprehended the accused, he was taken to the Police Station. Police recorded her complaint (Ex.PW2/A). Then she was again called in the police station by the police for the purposes of identification of the person who had put her jhuggi on fire. Police had asked her whether she can identify the person who had put her jhuggi on fire. She replied in the affirmative. She then again went to the Police Station where she identified the same person who committed the crime. In her cross examination, Ms.Asha (PW2) has deposed that after apprehension of accused, he was taken to the police station by the police men but she remained at the spot. Accused was taken to the police station immediately at 5.30 pm. After 5 minutes, she also went to the police station. She stayed in the police station at that time for half an hour. She signed all the exhibited documents in the police station only. The prosecution has not explained as to why the identification of the accused was required from Ms.Asha, the complainant, when she had herself handed him to the police and why the documents were got signed from her in the Police Station.
22.Lastly, it is relevant to mention that Ms. Asha (PW2) was declared partially hostile by the prosecution. She has denied that the New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 13 of 37 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
photographs of the spot were taken by the police in her presence. She has denied that from the possession of accused one match box was recovered. She did not witness any recovery memo. She has denied that the police recorded her supplementary statement (Mark
-P-2-X) on 18.03.2014. The 3 photographs (Ex.PW2/E-1 to E-3) are the photographs of her burnt jhuggi and were taken in her presence. She could not identify any match box since she did not see any recovery of match box. The prosecution has not been able to explain why Ms.Asha has denied the taking of photographs of her jhuggi in her presence and recovery of match box from the accused.
EVIDENCE OF MR.KABIR YADAV
23.Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) has deposed that in the month of March 2014, he used to work as Security Guard in Rain Basera, situated behind Kali Mata Temple, Sector-3 Rohini. The name of his employer was Mr.Prince Gupta. In March 2014, on the next day of Holi festival, he was deputed on duty by his employer in Rain Basera, Distt. Centre, Janak Puri. On that day, his duty hours were from 08:30 am to 08:30 pm. On that day, in the morning hours, he received telephone call of Mr.Prince Gupta, who directed him to reach at Rain Basera, near Kali Mata Temple, Sector-3 Rohini, as some quarrel had taken place. He also directed him to report him about the call. Thereafter, he went to Rain Basera, near Kali Mata Temple, Sector-3 Rohini. There, he came to know from some boys that one person namely Mr.Rakesh was beaten up by one lady and New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 14 of 37 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
her husband. He knows Mr.Rakesh as he used to beg in that area and was a very honest person. He was informed that Mr.Rakesh was severely beaten up and he was also stabbed by those persons. The lady used to pick the garbage from that area and reside in a jhuggi. Now, he did not recollect the name of that lady. Thereafter, he went to see Mr.Rakesh in BSA Hospital. In the hospital, he met Mr.Rakesh and inquired from him about the quarrel. Mr.Rakesh told him that on previous day (which was Holi festival), he saw some boys (drug addicts) and one lady were giving beatings to a dog, to which he objected. Then those boys and that lady gave beatings to him with knife and lathies. Mr.Rakesh did not inform him the name of those assailants, however, he told him that one was the husband of that lady and the other was brother of that lady. He informed these facts to his employer who deputed him in the Rain Basera, near Kali Mata Temple, Sector-3 Rohini. After about 2-3 days, when he was on duty in the Rain Basera area, near Kali Mata Temple, Sector-3 Rohini, one person namely Mr.Bhajju came there. Accused Mr.Bhajju came there in the evening time. Accused Mr.Bhajju pointed out towards smoke which was at about 100 steps away from the place where he was on duty. He asked the accused about the reason of that smoke. Accused Mr.Bhajju told him that he set the jhuggi of that lady on fire because that lady alongwith her husband and brother gave beatings to Mr.Rakesh. Accused Mr.Bhajju told him that as Mr.Rakesh was beaten up by that lady and by her husband and brother without any reason and further, Mr.Rakesh was an honest and good person, so he set the jhuggi on New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 15 of 37 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
fire. Police officials came at the spot after some time and apprehended the accused Mr.Bhajju. Beat Ct.Rohtash gave some slaps to accused Bhajju and then he confessed in his presence that he had set the jhuggi on fire. Accused Mr.Bhajju used to sell flowers in Kali Mata Temple and resides in Rain Basera. My statement was recorded by police.
24.As regards the evidence of Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5), the prosecution has projected him as one of the two persons (other being Mr.Akram who has not been examined) before whom the accused had made an extra judicial confession. It may be mentioned that as per the prosecution case, evidence of Ms.Asha (PW2) and the complaint (Ex.PW2/A), the date of the alleged incident is 18.03.2014. However, as per Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) the incident regarding beating of dog and Mr.Rakesh by boys and a lady was in March 2014, on the day of Holi, and after about 2-3 days, when he was on duty in the Rain Basera area, near Kali Mata Temple, Sector-3 Rohini, one person namely Mr.Bhajju came there in the evening time. Accused Mr.Bhajju pointed out towards smoke which was at about 100 steps away from the place where he was on duty. He asked the accused about the reason of that smoke. Accused Mr.Bhajju told him that he set the jhuggi of that lady on fire because that lady alongwith her husband and brother gave beatings to Mr.Rakesh. Accused Mr.Bhajju told him that as Mr.Rakesh was beaten up by that lady and by her husband and brother without any reason and further, Mr.Rakesh was a honest and good person, so he New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 16 of 37 ::-
-:: 17 ::-
set the jhuggi on fire.
25.The evidence of Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) is contrary to the evidence of Ms.Asha (PW2) regarding some very material points. The first contradiction is about the day and date of alleged incident as Ms.Asha (PW2) has deposed that the alleged incident occurred on 18.03.2014 at about 05:00 or 05:30 pm while Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) has deposed that it was in the evening but he has not deposed about the date of the alleged incident.
26.The second contradiction is regarding the incident of the previous day as Ms.Asha (PW2) has deposed that Mr.Mukesh had entered her jhuggi twice while Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) has deposed regarding the lady and some boys beating a dog and Mr.Rakesh.
27.The third contradiction is regarding the extra judicial confession as Ms.Asha (PW2) has deposed that she saw the accused Bhajju was putting her jhuggi on fire by putting burning fire woods inside her jhuggi from the backside and she apprehended the accused Bhajju while Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) has deposed that accused Mr.Bhajju came to him, pointed out towards smoke which was at about 100 steps away from the place where he was on duty and told him that he set the jhuggi of that lady on fire because that lady alongwith her husband and brother gave beatings to Mr.Rakesh without any reason and further, Mr.Rakesh was a honest and good person, so he set the jhuggi on fire. If Ms.Asha (PW2) had already apprehended New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 17 of 37 ::-
-:: 18 ::-
accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu at her jhuggi which he had set on fire, then it is not possible that the accused had gone 100 steps away to Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) and made the extra judicial confession to him.
28.The fourth contradiction is regarding the police man accompanying Ms.Asha (PW2) as Ms.Asha (PW2) has deposed that when she returned from Rohini Courts, at that time, one police man was also with her whose name she did not know while Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) has deposed that the police officials came at the spot after some time and apprehended the accused Mr.Bhajju.
29.The fifth contradiction is regarding the confession of the accused as Ms.Asha (PW2) is silent on this aspect while Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) has deposed that Beat Ct.Rohtash gave some slaps to accused Bhajju and then he confessed in his presence that he had set the jhuggi on fire. This part of the deposition shows that the disclosure supposedly made by the accused is forced.
30.The sixth contradiction is regarding the factum of smoke coming from the jhuggi. Ms.Asha (PW2) has deposed in her cross examination that her jhuggi caught fire only after she saw the accused putting a burning wooden log on her jhuggi and she did not see that her jhuggi was already on fire. Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) has deposed in his cross examination that "I had noticed smoke emanating from the jhuggi in question for about 5 minutes New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 18 of 37 ::-
-:: 19 ::-
before Bhajju came to me. Jhuggi was not directly visible to me but dense smoke was visible. At the time when Bhajju came to me, he was not carrying anything in his hand. Vol. But he was intoxicated. I did not see anything capable of igniting fire in the hands of Bhajju at that time." This part of the deposition also indicates that accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu did not have anything with which a fire could be started and the jhuggi of the complainant could be set on fire.
31.The disclosure or confessional statement of accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu cannot be used against him in the absence of any incriminating evidence. There is no ocular evidence of the commission of offence and the prosecution case is based entirely on subsequent circumstantial evidence which is also not proved. The extra judicial confession of an accused cannot be fastened upon the other for holding him guilty of mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy house, etc. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Sunil Rai @Paua & Ors. V. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2011 IV AD (Cri.) (SC)
53. EVIDENCE OF POLICE WITNESSES
32.The evidence of the police witnesses of investigation especially Ct.Rohtash (PW3), HC Akhilesh (PW4) and SI Amarjeet (PW7) points towards the false implication of the accused.
New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 19 of 37 ::-
-:: 20 ::-
33.Ct.Rohtash (PW3) did not depose all the relevant facts including the name of the complainant due to which he was put leading questions by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and eventually declared hostile as he resiled from his previous statement and cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. He has also signed on the arrest memo (Ex.PW2/D), personal search memo of the accused (Ex.PW2/C) and seizure memo of match box (Ex.PW2/D) in the Police Station and not at the spot where the same were allegedly prepared.
34.HC Akhilesh (PW4) was declared hostile as he resiled from his previous statement and cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
35.There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the public witnesses and police witnesses which remain unexplained by the prosecution
36.Ms.Asha (PW2) and Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) have deposed that the jhuggi of Ms.Asha is situated in a residential area and Rain Basera is situated nearly. Ct.Rohtash (PW3) has deposed in his cross examination by the accused that 15-20 persons were present at the spot. HC Akhilesh (PW4) has deposed in his cross examination by the accused that 50 persons were present at the spot. SI Amarjeet (PW7) has deposed in his cross examination by the accused that no public persons had gathered at the spot. The contradiction New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 20 of 37 ::-
-:: 21 ::-
regarding the public persons being available and not associated in the investigation points towards the innocence of the accused.
37.It has come forth in the evidence of the prosecution especially Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) who has deposed that "Bhajju was intoxicated at that time." and SI Amarjeet (PW7) who has deposed that "The accused was under the influence of liquor at that time....." and that he was medically examined. However, the prosecution has not examined the concerned doctor who had medically examined the accused and prepared his MLC. It would be relevant to mention here that the accused had consumed alcohol and also seemed to under its influence is mentioned in the MLC. Although the MLC of the accused (Ex.PW7/C) is exhibited in the evidence of SI Amarjeet (PW7) but it is not properly proved as the author of the same i.e. the concerned doctor has not been examined by the prosecution due to which it cannot be taken into consideration.
38.SI Amarjeet (PW7) has also deposed in his cross examination by the accused that neither the fire brigade to douse the fire nor the experts from FSL or anywhere else were called to the spot for finding out as to how the fire was ignited, whether any inflammable material such as petrol, kerosene was used or not used. No burnt article from the house of the complainant was taken into possession. Not even one such burnt fire logs were attempted to be recovered and seized in the case. The accused took out the New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 21 of 37 ::-
-:: 22 ::-
match box from pocket of his shorts in his presence. (Ms.Asha- PW2) has not identified the match box deposing that she did not see any recovery of match box.) The documents were prepared at the spot.
39.It is also clear from the record that the police man who accompanied Ms.Asha from Rohini Courts to her jhuggi, husband of the complainant, Mr.Mahesh, devar-brother in law of the complainant, Mr.Mukesh, who had entered twice into the jhuggi of Ms.Asha (PW2) on the night prior to the day of incident (as per Ms.Asha-PW2), Mr.Rakesh, who was beaten by a lady (Ms.Asha), her husband and brother prior to the alleged incident (as per Mr.Kabir Yadav-PW5), Mr.Prince Gupta, who had directed Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) to report about some quarrel, have not been associated in the investigation nor cited as witnesses nor produced nor examined by the prosecution. Their evidence could have could facilitated the Court in adjudication. By not citing, producing and examining the above named persons, the prosecution has left out some very material evidence which may have been of some help to the prosecution in this case against the accused.
NO DIRECT, INDIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
40.It is clear from the above discussion that the prosecution has failed to show that the accused has set the jhuggi of Ms.Asha (PW2) on fire. There is neither any direct nor indirect nor circumstantial New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 22 of 37 ::-
-:: 23 ::-
evidence against the accused.
41.In the judgment reported as Kishore Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1990, Supreme Court 2140 it has been observed that all circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of conclusive nature and define tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstance must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstance must bring home the offences to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstance by itself be conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. If those circumstances of some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of hypothesis. In assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no role to play. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. In other words when there is no direct witness to the commission of murder and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 23 of 37 ::-
-:: 24 ::-
must be fully established. The chain of events furnished by the circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. If any of the circumstances proved in a case are consistent with the innocence of the accused. If any of the circumstances proved in case are consistent with the innocence of the accused of the chain of the continuity of the circumstances is broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In assessing the evidence to find these principles, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic facts on one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the Court has to Judge the evidence in the ordinary way and in appreciation of the evidence in proof of those basic facts or primary facts, there is no scope for the application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The Court has to consider the evidence and decide whether the evidence proves a particular fact or not. Whether that fact leads to the inference of the guilt of the accused or not is another aspect and in dealing with this aspect of problem, the doctrine of benefit would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved facts are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and are consistent only with his guilt. There is long distance between may be true and must be true. The prosecution has to travel all the way to establish fully all the chain of events which should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and those circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency and New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 24 of 37 ::-
-:: 25 ::-
they should be such as to exclude all hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved by the prosecution. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far consistent and complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all probability the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone.
42.In assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no role to play. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. In other words when there is no direct witness to the commission of the murder and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on must be fully established. The chain of events furnished by the circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. If any of the circumstances proved in a case are consistent with the innocence of the accused of the chain of the continuity of the circumstances is broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
43.Before accusing an innocent person of the commission of a grave crime like the one punishable under section 436 of the IPC an honest, sincere and dispassionate investigation has to be made and to feel sure that the person suspected of the crime alone was responsible to commit the offence. Indulging in free fabrication of the record is a deplorable conduct on the part of an investigating New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 25 of 37 ::-
-:: 26 ::-
officer which undermines the public confidence reposed in the investigating agency. Therefore, greater care and circumspection are needed by the investigating agency in this regard. It is time that the investigating agencies evolve new and scientific investigating methods, taking aid of rapid scientific development in the field of investigation. It is also the duty of the State i.e Central or State Governments to organise periodical refresher courses for the investigating officers to keep them abreast of the latest scientific development in the art of investigation and the march of law so that the real offender would be brought to book and the innocent would not be exposed to prosecution.
44.In the judgment reported as Vijay Thakur Vs State of Himachal Pardesh, 2014 X AD (S.C) 89, it has been observed that "It is to be emphasized at this stage that except the so-called recoveries, there is no other circumstances worth the name which has been proved against these two appellants. It is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person."
45.It is clear from the above discussion that the prosecution has failed to show that accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu has committed the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy house, etc. punishable under section 436 of the IPC. There New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 26 of 37 ::-
-:: 27 ::-
is neither any direct nor indirect nor circumstantial evidence against accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu. It is clear from the record of the present case that the prosecution has not been able to assign any criminal role to the accused, as discussed above. How and why he had been arrested in the present case has not been disclosed. Merely on the basis of some information by Ms.Asha (PW2), which is also not proved, the accused was apprehended, his fundamental rights violated and he has been made to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial. There is no direct or indirect or circumstantial evidence against him. It is also clear that the recovery of the match box at the instance of the accused is also stage managed.
46.In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of very material prosecution witnesses namely PWs Ms.Asha (PW2) and Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) as well as Ct.Rohtash (PW3), HC Akhilesh (PW4) and SI Amarjeet (PW7) who also happen to be the most material witnesses, I am of the considered view that their deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable for the prosecution. PWs Ms.Asha (PW2), Ct.Rohtash (PW3) and HC Akhilesh (PW4) are hostile. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016. Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 27 of 37 ::-
-:: 28 ::-
conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
47.Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
48.In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
49.Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu is guilty of the charged offence as very material prosecution witnesses namely PWs Ms.Asha (PW2), Ct.Rohtash (PW3), HC Akhilesh (PW4) have made different inconsistent statements due to which their version becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence. There are several overwhelming inconsistencies and glaring contradictions in the evidence of PWs Ms.Asha (PW2), Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5), Ct.Rohtash (PW3), HC Akhilesh (PW4) and SI Amarjeet (PW7), as discussed above, which are too major to be ignored.
50.Where the evidence of the material witnesses is found suffering New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 28 of 37 ::-
-:: 29 ::-
from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material and there being no forensic or other evidence as well as no direct or circumstantial evidence, then no credibility can be given to the prosecution case. Onus is always on the prosecution to prove and accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Case of the prosecution is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from weakness of case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and story projected by the prosecution is found to be improbable, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. If evidence of the material witnesses is read and considered in totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, their deposition does not inspire confidence regarding the veracity of the prosecution case against accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu. Prosecution has not disclosed true genesis of crime. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (5) LRC 137 (SC).
51.If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness-complainant was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 29 of 37 ::-
-:: 30 ::-
Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
52.Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has not brought on record any incriminating evidence against accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu.
MENS REA / MOTIVE AND DEFENCE
53.Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. The motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should from one of the links to the chain of evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unnameable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 30 of 37 ::-
-:: 31 ::-
the alleged motive.
54.In the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu did not have a motive to commit the offence. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. However, there can be no sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. These observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
55.In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He did not know why he has been implicated. It appears that someone else might have committed the act and he has been implicated as actual culprit could not be found and he was sitting near tea stall of his mother in intoxicated condition. He has denied all the evidence against him. He has preferred not to lead any defence evidence.
56.The defence of the accused although is not proved but considering the unreliable evidence of the prosecution which suffers from overwhelming contradictions and glaring inconsistencies, the New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 31 of 37 ::-
-:: 32 ::-
prosecution version is neither believable nor reliable nor trust worthy.
57.The defence of the accused appears to be plausible considering the evidence of the prosecution wherein nothing incriminating has been deposed against him. The case of the prosecution has to stand of its own legs and is required to prove all its allegations against the accused and all the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused. It has already been discussed above that the evidence of prosecution is not reliable and is unworthy of credence.
58.There does not appear to be any criminal intention and mens rea on the part of accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu and his defence appears to be plausible.
FINAL CONCLUSION
59.The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation in respect of the numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution. Very material prosecution witnesses namely PWs Ms.Asha (PW2), Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5), Ct.Rohtash (PW3), HC Akhilesh (PW4) and SI Amarjeet (PW7) have made several contradictions and inconsistencies and thereby not supported the prosecution case against accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu. The same strikes at the very root of the prosecution story making it unbelievable and improbable. In the instant case, the evidence and New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 32 of 37 ::-
-:: 33 ::-
different statements of the witnesses of the prosecution suffer from such infirmities and the probabilities due to which the prosecution has come out with a story, which is highly improbable. The overwhelming inconsistencies are too major to be ignored and they strike a fatal blow to the prosecution version. Prosecution must lead positive evidence to give rise to inference beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu had committed the offence which it has failed to do. In fact what emerges from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu has not committed the alleged offence.
60.Since the evidence of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable as there are overwhelming inconsistencies in the statements and evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the defence of the accused appears to be correct and plausible, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence.
61.In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
i. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016. Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 33 of 37 ::-
-:: 34 ::-
'may be' established;
ii. The facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; iii. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
iv. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and v. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
62.Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it stands established that accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu has not committed the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy house, etc. punishable under section 436 of the IPC. There is no incriminating evidence against accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu. The gaps in the prosecution evidence, the several discrepancies in the evidence and other circumstances make it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of the charged offences as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is unreliable and unworthy of credence.
63.Onus is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused failing which the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Case of the prosecution is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from weakness of case of defence. In New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 34 of 37 ::-
-:: 35 ::-
case the evidence is read in totality and story projected by the prosecution is found to be improbable, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected.
64.If the prosecution evidence is read and considered in totality of circumstances along with other material on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, the deposition does not inspire confidence and is unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. Prosecution has not disclosed true genesis of crime.
65.It is a case of heinous crime of offence of mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy house, etc. punishable under section 436 of the IPC which carries grave implication for the accused, if convicted. Therefore, for convicting any person for the said offence, the degree of proof has to be that of a high standard and not mere possibility of committing the said offence. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence. The gaps in the prosecution evidence, the several discrepancies in the evidence and other circumstances make it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place. The prosecution has failed to prove that it is accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu and none else who is culprit and has committed the alleged offence. New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 35 of 37 ::-
-:: 36 ::-
66.The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that on 18.03.2014 at about 5.20pm at Jhuggi Footpath, near Kali Mata Mandir, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi, accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu intending and knowing that he would destroy the jhuggi of complainant Ms. Asha, which was being used as a dwelling house to his knowledge, set the said jhuggi on fire.
67.All the above facts indicate that there is no veracity in the prosecution case that accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu has committed the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy house, etc. punishable under section 436 of the IPC and accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu merits to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 436 of the IPC.
68.Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu.
69.Accordingly, Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu, the accused, is hereby acquitted of the charges for the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy house, etc. punishable under section 436 of the IPC.
COMPLAINCE OF SECTION 437-AOF THE CR.P.C. AND OTHER New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 36 of 37 ::-
-:: 37 ::-
FORMALITIES
70.Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.
71.Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal
72.One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
73.After completion of the formalities and expiry of the period of limitation, the Ahlmad/Junior Judicial Assistant of this Court is directed to consign the file to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 21st day of December, 2016. Special Judge (NDPS) North-West, Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
*********************************************************** New Sessions Case Number : 52341/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 02 of 2015.
FIR No.235/2014 , Police Station South Rohini, Under section 436 the Indian Penal Code.
State v. Bhajju @ Bachu -:: Page 37 of 37 ::-