Delhi District Court
State vs 1.Manohar Lal 2.Padam 3. Madan Lal on 18 December, 2025
Digitally
RAJ signed by
KUMAR RAJ
SINGH KUMAR
SINGH CIS No.297776/2016
STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL
FIR No.51/2012
(Nabi Karim)
U/s:384/511/34 IPC
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CIS NO.297776/2016
STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL
FIR No.51/2012
(Nabi Karim)
U/s:384/511/34 IPC
DLCT020031882013
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 29776/2016 (b) Date of offence 12.01.2012 c) Complainant Kavita w/o. Late Sh. Rajesh Kumar r/o. T-144, Gali Hanuman Mandir, Nabi Karim, New Delhi. (d) Accused 1. Manohar Lal s/o. Late Sh. Gopal Ram 2. Padam s/o. Late Sh. Gopal Ram 3. Madan Lal @ Maddi s/o. Late Sh. Gopal Ram (e) Offence 384/34 IPC (f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty (g) Final Order Acquitted (h) Date of Institution 02.01.2013 (i) Date when judgment was 28.03.2025 reserved (j) Date of judgment 18.12.2025
1. The present case arises from FIR No. 51/2012 registered at PS Nabi Karim on the complaint of Smt. Kavita, wife of late Sh. Rajesh Kumar, resident of T-144, Gali Hanuman Mandir, Nabi CIS No.297776/2016 Digitally STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL RAJ signed by FIR No.51/2012 KUMAR RAJ (Nabi Karim) SINGH KUMAR SINGH U/s:384/511/34 IPC 2 Karim, Delhi. It is alleged that on 12.01.2012 at about 5.30 p.m. the accused persons, who are three real brothers, visited the house of the complainant, demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 and threatened that if the said amount was not paid, they would not allow the complainant to construct her house and would break the house and kill her and her children. The allegation is that this demand and threat amounted to an attempt to commit extortion, attracting Sections 384/511 read with 34 IPC.
2. As per the prosecution, the complainant was getting her old house reconstructed. The accused, who are also from the same locality, allegedly came to her house, demanded Rs. 50,000 and threatened to obstruct construction, demolish the house, and kill her and her children. On the basis of the written statement of the complainant, recorded by SI Suresh Pal, rukka was prepared and FIR was registered. Investigation was conducted, site plan was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested / formally arrested on surrender. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 384/511/34 IPC.
3. Cognizance was taken. Copies of charge sheet and documents were supplied to the accused in compliance with Section 207 CrPC. Vide order dated 11.04.2014, charge was framed against all three accused for offences under Sections 384/511 read with 34 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the pendency of trial, the complainant Smt. Kavita expired. Vide order dated 05.06.2015, her name was struck off Digitally CIS No.297776/2016 RAJ signed by STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL KUMAR RAJ FIR No.51/2012 SINGH KUMAR SINGH (Nabi Karim) U/s:384/511/34 IPC 3 from the list of prosecution witnesses. She could not be examined before this Court. Her statement to the police, which formed the basis of registration of FIR, therefore remains only a previous statement and is not substantive evidence of the occurrence. This aspect has an important bearing on the case because the only direct victim of the alleged attempt of extortion never entered the witness box for cross examination by the accused.
5. On 11.11.2024, the accused persons made a joint statement under Section 294 CrPC. Without prejudice to their defence and without admitting allegations, they did not dispute the genuineness of the FIR, the certificate under Section 65B, the endorsement on rukka and certain DD entries, which were accordingly exhibited as Ex. AD1 to Ex. AD5. They clearly stated that they did not admit the truth of any allegation contained in those documents. By virtue of this admission of genuineness, some formal witnesses were dropped. The admission, however, does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt through substantive evidence.
6. The prosecution in all examined twelve witnesses. PW1 Babita and PW3 Sumit are close relatives of the complainant. PW2 Laxman Indoria and PW5 Deepak are neighbours or persons from the locality who, as per prosecution, were present around the scene. PW4, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11 and PW12 are police or formal witnesses relating to arrest, disclosure, and other formal aspects of investigation. No Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ CIS No.297776/2016 SINGH KUMAR STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL SINGH FIR No.51/2012 (Nabi Karim) U/s:384/511/34 IPC 4 defence evidence has been led.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. PW1 Babita is the sister of the complainant. In her examination in chief on 14.09.2016, she stated that on 12.01.2012 in the evening at about 5.30 p.m. she went to the house of her sister Kavita at T-144, Gali Hanuman Mandir. On reaching there she allegedly saw all three accused inside the house. According to her, the accused demanded Rs. 50,000 from Kavita, abused her and threatened that if the amount was not paid they would break her house and kill her and her children and that they would file complaints against the house so that it would be difficult to get the house constructed. She stated that after saying so the accused left and at the time of their departure Deepak and Laxman were present in the gali. She claimed that her statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded. No cross examination was conducted on that date.
8. PW1 Babita was later recalled for cross examination on an application under Section 311 CrPC and was examined on 06.08.2019. In this later testimony, she stated that the house of Kavita was in the next gali, that the house was about 15 feet by 10 feet in size, at ground floor and that the accused had been tenants in the said house for the last two to three years at a rent of Rs. 5,000 per month. She further deposed that she went to her sister's house because she came to know through her children at about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. that some altercation had taken place between Kavita and Manohar. She then went to the house immediately. She stated that only she and her sister Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ CIS No.297776/2016 SINGH KUMAR STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL SINGH FIR No.51/2012 (Nabi Karim) U/s:384/511/34 IPC 5 Kavita were present in the house at that time as both the children of Kavita had gone to work. She said that hot words were exchanged between the accused and Kavita for about one hour.
9. Importantly, in this cross examination PW1 Babita admitted that on 12.01.2012 the accused persons had not demanded any money from Kavita and that they only asked her not to construct the house. She accepted that the house had been given on rent to the accused for Rs. 5,000 per month, that there was an issue regarding security amount of Rs. 50,000 and that there were disputes between the accused and one Laxman Indoria. She also stated that her sister wanted to close the case, that Laxman was not ready to close it and that she had made the earlier statement at the instructions of Laxman. She denied that the accused ever demanded any money from her sister in her presence.
10. PW2 Laxman Indoria, examined on 02.11.2017, stated that on 12.01.2012 he was passing through the gali and saw some public persons gathered and one lady Kavita crying and saying that she was receiving threats that her house would be broken. He stated that she did not name any person in his presence. He further stated that he knew the accused from the locality but that they were not present at the spot and that Kavita did not disclose their names in his presence. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the learned APP but he denied having given any incriminating statement against the accused under Section 161 CrPC and denied that the accused threatened Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ CIS No.297776/2016 SINGH KUMAR STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL SINGH FIR No.51/2012 (Nabi Karim) U/s:384/511/34 IPC 6 Kavita in his presence. During his further examination on 30.01.2018, even when the learned APP pointed out the accused and suggested that they had threatened Kavita to pay Rs. 50,000 he reiterated that they were not present and that he gave no such statement to the police.
11. PW3 Sumit is the son of the complainant Kavita. In his examination in chief on 30.01.2018 he stated that on 12.01.2012 at about 5.30 p.m. he was present at home along with his mother and his maternal aunt Babita. He deposed that all three accused came and asked his mother to give Rs. 50,000 saying that otherwise they would not allow the house to be constructed. He further stated that the accused started taking photographs of the house and threatened that they would kill them if the amount was not paid. He identified all the three accused in Court. No cross examination was conducted on that date.
12. PW3 Sumit was subsequently recalled under Section 311 CrPC and was cross examined on 06.08.2019. In this later evidence he stated that he does the work of stitching bags and that on the date of incident he was working from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. He then stated that on the day of the incident he came home at lunch time at about 2 p.m. and returned to work at about 6 p.m. He stated that the accused came to the house at about 3 to 4 p.m. and that at that time he, his mother and his aunt Babita were present. He said that there was some dispute relating to Rs. 50,000, that he did not know what the dispute was, that his mother had told him that she had cleared the account with the Digitally CIS No.297776/2016 RAJ signed by STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL KUMAR RAJ FIR No.51/2012 SINGH KUMAR (Nabi Karim) SINGH U/s:384/511/34 IPC 7 accused and that he did not remember what exact threats were given by the accused. He again accepted that accused Manohar is also a builder, that his mother got the house constructed through Laxman Indoria and that there were bad relations between the accused and Laxman. He admitted that there was some dispute regarding money between his mother and the accused persons and that for that reason his mother was threatened, but he repeatedly stated that he did not remember the details of the dispute or the exact nature of threats.
13. PW4 Ct. Ram Niwas, PW6 ASI Satish Kumar, PW7 HC Nafees Mohammad, PW8 ASI Pappu Ram, PW9 ASI Bir Singh and PW12 SI Avtar Bakshi are witnesses regarding the arrest or formal arrest of the accused persons and their disclosure statements. They speak about the accused being apprehended or formally arrested in various courts and being taken to PS Nabi Karim. Their evidence is formal in nature and does not speak about the alleged occurrence of 12.01.2012.
14. PW5 Deepak, examined on 27.02.2019, stated that on some day in January 2012 at about 5.30 p.m. he along with Laxman was going in the gali of his house and there was a crowd near the house of Kavita. He only heard Kavita raising alarm that her house was being broken and he went away. He specifically stated that he did not know anything else. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the learned APP. He denied having given any statement to the police under Section 161 CrPC attributing any demand of money or threats to the accused. He denied that the accused demanded Rs. 50,000 CIS No.297776/2016 RAJ Digitally STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL KUMAR signed by RAJ KUMAR FIR No.51/2012 SINGH SINGH (Nabi Karim) U/s:384/511/34 IPC 8 from Kavita or threatened to demolish her house in his presence.
15. PW10 Retired SI Suresh Pal is the first Investigating Officer who deposed about recording the complaint of Kavita, preparing rukka, getting the FIR registered, preparing the site plan and later effecting arrests of some of the accused. PW11 Inspector Rajiv Gulati is the subsequent IO who deposed about further investigation and formal arrest of accused Madan on surrender. Both are formal witnesses and do not add any independent eye witness account beyond what was stated by the complainant in her statement Ex. PW10/A, which cannot now be treated as substantive evidence in the absence of her examination before this Court.
16. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC read with Section 281 CrPC. All incriminating circumstances emerging from the evidence, including the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000, the threats to break the house and to kill the complainant and her children and the alleged presence of the accused at the house, were put to each accused. All the accused denied the allegations and stated that they had been falsely implicated. They did not lead any defence evidence.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
17. The accused are charged with offences under Sections 384/511 read with 34 IPC. For an offence of extortion, the prosecution must prove that the accused put any person in fear of injury CIS No.297776/2016 Digitally STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL RAJ signed by KUMAR RAJ FIR No.51/2012 KUMAR (Nabi Karim) SINGH SINGH U/s:384/511/34 IPC 9 and dishonestly induced that person to deliver property or any valuable security. For an attempt to commit extortion, there must be clear evidence of intention to commit extortion and some act done towards its commission that is sufficiently close to the completed offence. In addition, where common intention under Section 34 IPC is invoked, there must be evidence that the alleged act was done in furtherance of a shared intention. The burden of proof is on the prosecution throughout. The standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
18. In the present case, the central allegations of demand of Rs.
50,000 and threats are said to emanate from the complainant herself. However, as already noticed, the complainant Kavita could not be examined because she expired during the pendency of trial. Her name was struck off from the list of witnesses on 05.06.2015. Her statement to the police, Ex. PW10/A, cannot by itself be treated as substantive evidence of the facts stated therein. As a result, the prosecution case on the core ingredients of the alleged attempt to extort Rs. 50,000 rests essentially on the testimonies of PW1 Babita and PW3 Sumit, who are close relatives, and on the supposed corroboration by independent public witnesses PW2 Laxman and PW5 Deepak.
19. Both PW2 Laxman and PW5 Deepak, however, have not supported the prosecution. PW2 clearly stated that he only saw Kavita crying that her house would be broken, but that she did not name any accused in his presence and that the accused were not at the spot. He denied his alleged earlier statement CIS No.297776/2016 Digitally RAJ signed by STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL KUMAR RAJ FIR No.51/2012 SINGH KUMAR (Nabi Karim) SINGH U/s:384/511/34 IPC 10 under Section 161 CrPC and was declared hostile. PW5 Deepak similarly stated that he only saw a crowd and heard Kavita saying that her house was being broken, that he went away, and that he did not know anything else. He too denied having given any statement to the police implicating the accused and was declared hostile. Thus, both the independent public witnesses who were expected to support the complainant's version have resiled from their alleged statements and have not attributed any demand of money or threats to the accused.
20. The case therefore effectively falls back upon the testimonies of PW1 Babita and PW3 Sumit, who are respectively the sister and the son of the complainant and are interested witnesses. Their evidence must be scrutinised with care, especially in view of the absence of the complainant and the hostility of the supposed independent witnesses.
21. PW1 Babita, as noted, initially supported the prosecution version in her examination in chief and spoke of a specific demand of Rs. 50,000 and threats to demolish the house and kill the complainant and her children. However, in her detailed cross examination on recall, she significantly changed her stand in several vital respects.
22. To begin with, she gave a different version about the time and manner of her arrival at the spot. In examination in chief, she stated that she went to her sister's house at about 5.30 p.m. and directly witnessed the accused demanding money and issuing threats. In cross examination, she stated that she came to know Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ CIS No.297776/2016 SINGH KUMAR STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL SINGH FIR No.51/2012 (Nabi Karim) U/s:384/511/34 IPC 11 through her children at about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. that some altercation had taken place between her sister and Manohar, that she then immediately went to the house and that hot words were exchanged for about one hour. This narrative, if accepted, would place her presence at the spot much earlier in the afternoon and would make it unclear at what exact time and stage, if at all, she saw the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/-.
23. Next, she contradicted herself on the question of who was present in the house. In her examination in chief, she suggested that Deepak and Laxman were present in the gali when the accused were leaving the house. In cross examination she stated that when she reached the house only she and her sister were present and that both children of the complainant had gone to work. This is materially inconsistent with the later version of PW3 Sumit, who states that he, his mother and Babita were present in the house when the accused came.
24. Most importantly, PW1 Babita in cross examination categorically admitted that on 12.01.2012 the accused did not demand any money from her sister and that they only asked her not to construct the house. She further admitted that there /was a tenancy between the accused and her sister with rent of Rs. 5,000 per month and that there was a dispute relating to a security deposit of Rs. 50,000 for the tenanted premises. She stated that the security amount had been adjusted from rent and that the house had been opened by them one year prior to the incident. She also admitted that there were enmical relations between the accused and builder Digitally CIS No.297776/2016 RAJ signed by STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL KUMAR RAJ FIR No.51/2012 SINGH KUMAR (Nabi Karim) SINGH U/s:384/511/34 IPC 12 Laxman and that she had made the earlier statement as per the instructions of Laxman. She went to the length of stating that she wanted the case to be closed but that Laxman was not ready.
25. These admissions by PW1 directly cut at the root of the prosecution case of attempted extortion. Once the principal eye witness, who initially spoke of a demand of Rs. 50,000 and threats, later admits that no such demand was raised on the date of incident and that she had made her earlier statement at the instance of a third party with whom the accused had enmity, her earlier untested version cannot be treated as reliable. Her testimony becomes internally inconsistent and heavily tainted by the admitted influence of a person who was in dispute with the accused.
26. Turning to PW3 Sumit, his two versions also suffer from significant contradictions and improbabilities. In his examination in chief he stated that on 12.01.2012 at about 5.30 p.m. he was at home, that his mother and his aunt Babita were also present, and that all three accused came, demanded Rs. 50,000, threatened not to allow the house to be constructed, started taking photographs and threatened to kill them.
27. In cross examination on recall he stated that he used to work from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. in connection with stitching bags, yet on the date of incident he claims to have come home at lunch at about 2 p.m. and to have remained at home till about 6 p.m. He gave no satisfactory explanation as to why, despite having fixed working hours from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., he happened to be CIS No.297776/2016 Digitally STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL RAJ signed by KUMAR RAJ FIR No.51/2012 KUMAR (Nabi Karim) SINGH SINGH U/s:384/511/34 IPC 13 at home from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on that particular day and did not return to his work place till the evening. This unexplained deviation from his normal routine makes his presence for four hours at home during working time somewhat unnatural and casts doubt on his version.
28. Further, while in examination in chief he had stated that the incident occurred at about 5.30 p.m., in cross examination he stated that the accused came to the house at about 3 to 4 p.m. This inconsistency as to the time of the alleged incident becomes more significant when seen alongside PW1 Babita's cross examination, where she stated that she went to the house after learning at 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. about an altercation and that the hot words went on for about one hour. The different and shifting time lines from PW1 and PW3 do not inspire confidence.
29. PW3 Sumit also departed from his earlier clarity regarding the alleged extortion. Although he initially stated that the accused demanded Rs. 50,000 and issued serious threats, in cross examination he repeatedly said that he did not remember what threats were given, that he did not know what exactly the dispute about Rs. 50,000 was and that he could not recall the details of the conversation. He admitted that there was a dispute about money between his mother and the accused, that his mother had told him that she had cleared the account with the accused and that the accused were also builders while the house was constructed through builder Laxman, with whom the accused had bad relations. He could not remember for how Digitally CIS No.297776/2016 RAJ signed STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL KUMAR by RAJ FIR No.51/2012 SINGH KUMAR (Nabi Karim) SINGH U/s:384/511/34 IPC 14 long the accused stayed, who clicked photographs, whether the photographs were ever used and other relevant particulars that one would expect a natural witness to remember in a case of such supposedly grave threats.
30. The versions of PW1 and PW3, therefore, not only lack consistency with their own earlier depositions, but also contradict each other in material respects. PW1 in cross examination says that on 12.01.2012 there was no demand of money and that her earlier statement was given at the instance of Laxman. PW3 in cross examination is unable to clearly support his earlier allegation of specific demand and threat. PW1 says that when she reached, only she and her sister were present and that both children were away at work, whereas PW3 says that he and Babita were present with his mother. There is also lack of clarity on how PW1 happened to reach at the exact time when the accused were allegedly issuing threats, whether she reached immediately after 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. as stated in cross examination, or only at 5.30 p.m. as per examination in chief.
31. It is also to be kept in view that both PW1 and PW3 are closely related to the complainant and are therefore interested witnesses. This by itself does not discredit them, but when their evidence is found to be riddled with contradictions on crucial aspects such as the time of incident, presence of persons, demand of money and nature of threats, and when they admit the existence of tenancy disputes and security deposit of Rs. 50,000 and acknowledge the role of builder CIS No.297776/2016 Digitally RAJ signed by STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL KUMAR RAJ FIR No.51/2012 KUMAR (Nabi Karim) SINGH SINGH U/s:384/511/34 IPC 15 Laxman who had enmity with the accused, their testimony has to be approached with caution.
32. The surrounding circumstances as revealed in the evidence suggest that there was a long standing tenancy of the accused in the complainant's house, that the rent was Rs. 5,000 per month, that a security amount of Rs. 50,000 had been deposited by the accused and that there was a dispute about the return or adjustment of this security and the manner in which the house was got vacated. Suggestions were put to PW1 and PW3 that the lock of the tenanted premises was broken and that the security amount was not returned, leading to a civil dispute. Even if these suggestions are treated only as part of the defence case, PW1 and PW3 have admitted the core fact of tenancy, rent, security and dispute. In this backdrop, the possibility that the criminal case was set in motion to pressurise the accused in relation to a civil or monetary dispute cannot be ruled out.
33. It is also not lost on the Court that there is no reliable independent witness to support the allegations of extortion at the time and place in question. PW2 and PW5 have not supported the prosecution despite being closest to the position of neutral witnesses from the locality. No other neighbour has been examined to substantiate that the accused demanded Rs. 50,000 and issued threats on 12.01.2012.
34. The formal witnesses, namely the police officials who spoke about arrest and disclosure statements, do not take the prosecution case any further on the core question whether any Digitally CIS No.297776/2016 RAJ signed by STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL KUMAR RAJ FIR No.51/2012 SINGH KUMAR SINGH (Nabi Karim) U/s:384/511/34 IPC 16 attempt at extortion was made by the accused. Disclosure statements are not substantive evidence of guilt and are relevant only to the limited extent permitted by law. In the absence of convincing substantive testimony about the alleged demand and threats, these formal aspects of investigation cannot fill the gaps.
35. The statement of the complainant recorded during investigation and the documents whose genuineness has been admitted under Section 294 CrPC can be read for such limited purposes as the law permits, but they cannot substitute the oral testimony of the maker under oath and subject to cross examination. Since the complainant is no more and could not be examined, her version remains untested.
36. On an overall appraisal, the prosecution evidence on the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 384/511/34 IPC is found to be deficient. The complainant has not been examined due to her death. The two independent public witnesses have turned hostile and denied the involvement of the accused. The two related witnesses, PW1 and PW3, have given contradictory and shifting versions and have themselves admitted facts which suggest that the dispute was essentially about tenancy and security deposit. The presence of PW3 at home in the afternoon for several hours despite his own statement that his duty hours were from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. remains unexplained. The exact time and manner of the alleged incident are uncertain. The alleged demand of Rs. 50,000 and grave threats, though initially asserted in examination in chief, Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ CIS No.297776/2016 SINGH KUMAR STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL SINGH FIR No.51/2012 (Nabi Karim) U/s:384/511/34 IPC 17 do not stand firm after cross examination.
37. In criminal law, the Court must be satisfied that the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. When the principal prosecution witnesses contradict themselves on core aspects and when independent witnesses do not support the case, the Court would be travelling beyond the permissible standards of proof if it were to convict the accused on such shaky foundation. If two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, the one that favours the accused must be adopted.
38. In the present case, the material on record does not inspire the degree of confidence necessary to hold that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, attempted to extort Rs. 50,000 from the complainant by putting her in fear of injury. In the absence of reliable, consistent and corroborated evidence of an attempt to commit extortion, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. CONCLUSION
39. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Manohar Lal, Padam and Madan Lal @ Maddi committed the offence of attempt to extortion punishable under Sections 384/511 read with 34 IPC. All the three accused are accordingly acquitted of the offences with which they were charged in FIR No. 51/2012, PS Nabi Karim.
40. The accused persons are already on bail. In compliance with Section 437A CrPC read with Section 481 BNSS, the bail CIS No.297776/2016 STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL FIR No.51/2012 (Nabi Karim) U/s:384/511/34 IPC 18 bonds already furnished shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
41. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
42. The judgment and the order be uploaded as per rules. Announced in open court on 18.12.2025 (Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/18.12.2025 Note: This judgment contains Eighteen (18) pages and having my signature on each page.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/18.12.2025 RAJ Digitally KUMAR signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH SINGH