Delhi District Court
State vs . Hansraj on 21 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH AYUSH SHARMA: MM-02
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI.
State vs. Hansraj
FIR No. : 137/16
U/s : 384/511/506 IPC
PS : Kanjhawala
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 1068/2017
b) Date of institution of the case : 15.09.2016
c) Date of commission of offence : 23.03.2016
d) Name of the complainant : Pankaj Yadav S/o Sh. Sakaldeo Parsad Yadav,
R/o A-33, 30 Foota Road, Sukhbir Nagar,
Delhi.
e) Name & address of the accused : Hansraj S/o Sh. Mehar Singh R/o H.No.246,
VPO Kirari, Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 384/511/506 IPC
g) Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 11.11.2022
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 21.11.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The present case was registered on the receipt of complaint dated 25.03.2016 from the complainant Pankaj Yadav, who is the president of RWA, Sukhbir Nagar, Karala State vs. Hansraj FIR No.137/16 U/S 384/511/506 IPC PS Kanjhawala Page no.1/11 Delhi. Succinctly put, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 23.03.2016, he came to the colony of complainant Pankaj Yadav and represented himself to be from vigilance and demanded an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs from him for making his house. The accused further threatened him to get his house demolished if he did not pay the aforesaid amount. On the asking of the complainant, the accused also produced his ID card bearing the stamp of MLA, Mundka and the same was found to be fake as it is not within the province of an MLA to issue a vigilance ID card to any person. On the basis of the complaint of the complainant, the present FIR was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 384/511/506 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC') was filed and the accused was sent for trial.
2. The ld. Predecessor of this court took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused. Pursuant to the appearance of the accused, he was supplied with the copy of chargesheet in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Upon hearing the arguments, vide order dated 22.12.2017, charge under Section 384/511/506 IPC was ordered to be framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and the matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence ('PE').
3. In order to establish its case against the accused persons, prosecution examined five witnesses namely Ram Dass Sahu ('PW1') Complainant Pankaj Yadav ('PW2'), HC Vikas Malik ('PW3'), Sukhbir Singh Dalal ('PW4'), Inspector Manoj ('PW5') and ASI Udayan Rana ('PW6').
4. PW1 deposed that on 23.03.2016, when he was present at that his residence, accused and complainant/PW2 were also present there. He testified that at that time accused was asking for Rs. 3 Lacs from PW2 as he was constructing new building/house. He further testified that accused said to PW2 that if he would not give the above said amount to him he would demolish his building. According to this witness, accused represented himself as a vigilance official and the complainant had asked him to produce his identity card. He further deposed that the accused produced his identity State vs. Hansraj FIR No.137/16 U/S 384/511/506 IPC PS Kanjhawala Page no.2/11 card, but the same was found to be fake and had the stamp of Sukhbir Dalal, MLA, Mundka. He further stated that Sukhbir Dalal supported the accused on the mobile phone and accused told PW2 "3 lac kya 5 lac rupees dene chaiya makan banana ke naam pe". According to the witness, in the meantime, many public persons from the locality reached the spot and thereafter PW2 made a call to the police at 100 number and thereafter police officials reached the spot. Police officials thereafter asked them to come to PS and accordingly, he went to PS and gave his oral statement. He further testified that the SHO assured us that he will investigate the case and after 5-6 days, when they again went to PS, SHO concerned told them that MLA Sukhbir Dalal is equally liable for the offence with accused. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
5. In his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the distance between the house of complainant/PW2 and his house is about 150 sq. yards and the incident took place at around 4-5 pm. He further testified that he is doing the business of rice, wheat etc. and used to leave his house at 9.30 am and return back at around 7.30 pm in the evening. He denied that he was not present on the day of incident with the accused and PW2. He further deposed that he does not remember the mobile number of PW2. He further deposed that on the day of incident accused and complainant talked on their mobile phone and at the time of incident accused was alone. He admitted that he is not aware as to what conversation was going on between the complainant and the accused on mobile phone. He admitted that before the day of incident inauguration of phirni road which was connected to 30 foota road, of Sukhbir Nagar was done by the MLA concerned of that area. He further admitted that on 23.03.2016, officials of the government came for the demarcation of road. He also admitted that verbal arguments took place between the said government officials and the residents of that area with respect to the construction of the house. He also admitted that government officials complained about the length of balcony over the road. He further admitted that he did State vs. Hansraj FIR No.137/16 U/S 384/511/506 IPC PS Kanjhawala Page no.3/11 not hear any demand for money from any person to save the houses from being broken/demolished. He denied that he is deposing falsely.
6. Complainant/PW2 deposed that he does not remember the exact date of incident but it was somewhere in February or March, 2016 and at that time, he was the president of RWA, Sukhbir Nagar, Delhi. He testified that on the day of incident, the work of removing unauthorised construction on 30 foota road was going on and due to that, many public persons had gathered at the spot and started making hue and cry. According to the witness, in the said hue and cry, someone from the locality came to him and told that he had found a ID card on the road and gave it to him. He further deposed that he made a call at 100 number and told that he had found an ID card of someone. The police officials came at the spot and he gave the said ID card to them. He was thereafter called by PS, whereupon he gave his statement to them and the present FIR was registered. He correctly identified the accused in the court. PW2 was also cross-examined by Ld. APP after declaring him hostile. In the cross-examination done by Ld. APP, PW2 admitted that the incident in question took place on 23.03.2016. He admitted that he gave his complaint Ex. PW2/A on his own in his own handwriting. He further admitted that in his complaint he had not mentioned anything that is false/untrue. He deposed that he does not know the accused and he has not met with him ever. He admitted that he made a call at 100 number from his mobile number. However, he deposed that by mistake he told that at house no. A-33, Sukhbir Nagar, Karala, one person posing himself as vigilance with an ID card is roaming and demanding money from him. He deposed that he did so due to pressure from public. He denied that no person on behalf of MLA Sukhbir Dalal had ever come to visit at his house. He further denied that the accused had ever made a demand of Rs. 3 lakhs from him and threatened him to the effect that if he did not pay he will get his house demolished. He correctly identified the ID card Ex. P1. He denied that he has been won over by the accused and that is why he is not disclosing the complete and true facts.
State vs. Hansraj FIR No.137/16 U/S 384/511/506 IPC PS Kanjhawala Page no.4/11
7. In his cross-examination by defence, PW2 deposed that contents of Ex. PW2/A are given by him as were told to him by public. He has further deposed that he has identified the accused just because he has appeared in the present case and he has never met the accused prior to the date of his deposition.
8. PW3 deposed that on 23.03.2016, he was on patrolling duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm with PW6. He deposed that when he reached Sukhbir Nagar, on 30 foota Road in front of gali No. 14, he saw many people from the locality have gathered there. He further deposed that PW2 was present at the spot and the public had caught hold of accused. He further deposed that as per the allegations of PW2, accused was demanding money for construction of building. He further testified that public had also caught hold of one Patwari namely Satyaprakash. He deposed that as they were busy in managing the crowd, the accused and Patwari ran away from the spot. According to the witness, PW2 revealed him that the accused were trying to extort money amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs from him by representing himself as vigilance official and showing a forged ID card. He deposed that he left the spot thereafter and his statement was recorded by IO u/s 161 CrPC. He has correctly identified the accused in the court.
9. During PW3's cross-examination, he testified that PW2 did not make any statement in his presence before the IO/PW5. He admitted that he did not take into possession the ID card produced by PW2. He denied that PW2 had not stated anything regarding the demand of any extortion of money by the accused. He further denied that in order to created false evidence against the accused, he has given a false statement u/s. 161 CrPC to PW5/IO.
10. PW4 deposed that on 23.03.2016, he was the MLA of Mundka Constituency, Delhi. He deposed that the ID card was issued by him vide letter no. 1295 Ex. PW5/A. He State vs. Hansraj FIR No.137/16 U/S 384/511/506 IPC PS Kanjhawala Page no.5/11 further deposed that he is aware of the facts of the letter as it was issued in his authority. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
11. PW5/IO of the present case deposed that he examined the complainant and prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/A, seizure memo of disputed ID card Ex. PW5/B and obtained the verification letter Ex. PW4/A of the disputed ID card. He further deposed that he formally arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW5/C and recorded the statement of witnesses u/s. 161 CrPC. He further deposed that he filed the charge sheet after completing the investigation in the present matter. He has correctly identified the accused present in the court.
12. In his cross-examination, PW5 deposed that the incident is of 23.03.2016 and the complainant handed over him the disputed/forged ID card. He denied that he prepared all the documents while sitting in the PS and falsely implicated the accused.
13. PW6 deposed that on 28.03.2016, he was posted as DO in PS Kanjhawala from 4 pm to 12 am and the SHO concerned gave tehrir to him and he made the endorsement on tehrir Ex. PW6/A and registered the present FIR Ex. PW6/B. He also issued the ceritificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act Ex. PW6/C and thereafter the case was marked for investigation to PW5. He further deposed that on 23.08.2016, he was doing patrolling duty along with PW3 and when they reached Sukhbir Nagar, they met PW2, who was known as Pradhan of that place. According to the witness, PW2 had apprehended the accused and told him that accused was demanding money from him for constructing his new house. He further testified that PW2 was having one ID card which looking to have the seal of MLA. He deposed that accused was posing himself as posted in vigilance branch and was in the work of demanding the money illegally. He correctly identified the accused in the court. He was also cross-examined by Ld. APP as he was not disclosing the complete facts. In his cross-examination by State vs. Hansraj FIR No.137/16 U/S 384/511/506 IPC PS Kanjhawala Page no.6/11 Ld. APP, he admitted that when they reached gali no. 14, there was rush of people and Halka Patwari Satyaprakash and accused were in altercation with each other. He further admitted that accused was demanding an amount of Rs. 3 lacs from PW2.
14. In his cross-examination by defence, PW6 deposed he does not remember the exact time but it was in evening. He admitted that he did not write about the present incident in arrival DD entry in PS. He admitted that no demand of money was made in his presence. He denied that PW2 did not tell him anything as he is deposing in his examination-in-chief and he had given a false statement to IO.
15. Vide separate statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC, accused admitted the genuineness of original FIR Ex. PW6/B, DD entry No. 49 B dated 23.03.2016 and certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act Ex. PW6/C. Accordingly, vide order dated 11.11.2022, PE was closed. In the statement recorded u/s. 313 CrPC, accused denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. He stated that it is a false case and did not opt to lead defence evidence.
16. Ld. APP has submitted that the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt as the witnesses have consistently deposed against the accused. He has submitted that testimony of PW1 is trustworthy, cogent and reliable and the accused be convicted for the offence for which he has been charged.
17. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for defence has submitted that that accused is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. He has further submitted that the essential ingredients of offence under Section 384 IPC and 506 IPC have not been proved by prosecution and therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted of the alleged offence.
State vs. Hansraj FIR No.137/16 U/S 384/511/506 IPC PS Kanjhawala Page no.7/11
18. I have heard the submissions of Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the judicial record. In the present matter, prosecution has alleged that there was an attempt on the part of the accused to commit extortion by putting PW2 in fear of injuries and dishonestly inducing him to deliver an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to him. However, the delivery of amount did not take place. It has been further alleged by the prosecution that the PW2 was criminally intimidated by the accused by threatening him to demolish his house if he did not accede to his request and paid an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs.
19. Before adverting further, I may note that for an offence under Section 384/511 IPC (attempt to commit extortion), prosecution is required to prove the following essential ingredients viz. a. ) the victim was put to fear or attempted to be put to fear by accused, b.) that this fear or attempt to scare the victim was to cause some injury as understood in section 44 IPC, c.) that the accused did so to dishonestly induce the victim so put in fear to deliver to the accused any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security. As far as Section 506 IPC is concerned, the prosecution is required to prove that a.) that the accused threatened the victim, b.) that this threatening was with an injury to his person, reputation or property (or to another in whom the victim is interested), c.) this threatening was intended to cause alarm to the victim or to cause the victim to do anything which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do anything which he is legally entitled to do.
20. To accomplish the purpose, prosecution has produced PW 1 and PW2 as the material witnesses. Without reiterating all the contents again, suffice to note that, PW1 deposed that on 23.03.2016, accused and PW2 were present at his place of residence and at that time a demand of Rs. 3 lakhs was made by the accused from PW2 for letting him construct his new house/building. He has further deposed that the accused has produced a ID Card Ex. P1 and posed himself as vigilance official and the same was State vs. Hansraj FIR No.137/16 U/S 384/511/506 IPC PS Kanjhawala Page no.8/11 found fake as it was bearing the stamp of PW4. He also deposed that a 100 number call was made by PW2 and the police officials reached at the spot. However, during his cross-examination, he has deposed that the accused and the complainant were talking on mobile phone and a quarrel was going on between the two. He has further admitted that he was not aware about what conversation was going between PW2 and the accused on mobile phone. He has further admitted during cross that he did not hear any demand from money from any person in order to save the house from demolition.
21. The scrutiny of testimony of PW1 shows that the he has taken a volte-face during cross-examination and by way of his assertion that the accused and PW2 were talking on mobile phone, denied the presence of the accused at the spot itself. Pertinent is that PW1 in his deposition maintained that police officials reached the spot when 100 number call was made by PW2, however, PW2 in his complaint Ex. PW2/A has stated that he made a call at 100 number but no police official reached at the spot. Moreover, PW1 has also denied hearing any demand for money from any person which also stare in the face of prosecution as deformity. Owing to material discrepancies and divergences in the testimony of PW1, the court is of the view that the same is unreliable and does not inspire confidence of this court so as to be relied upon against the accused.
22. A perusal of the testimony of principal witness of prosecution, PW2/Complainant himself, shows that he turned hostile and denied the case of the prosecution in toto. As to the incident, he deposed that the work of removing unauthorised construction was going on 30 foota road and at that time someone from locality had handed over him the ID card. He admitted that though the complaint Ex. PW2/A was given by him but, he deposed to the effect that the same was given under the pressure of people who had gathered there. He denied that the accused had ever demanded Rs. 3 lakhs from him for letting him construct his house and if he did not pay it, the accused will get the State vs. Hansraj FIR No.137/16 U/S 384/511/506 IPC PS Kanjhawala Page no.9/11 house demolished. He further deposed that he had never met the accused prior to his deposition in court. Thus, the hostility of prosecution of PW2 as to the alleged incident thrashed the case of the prosecution on all counts leaving no option for it but to surrender on all the charges against the accused.
23. It is also notable that the testimony of PW3, PW5 & PW6, also does not serve any purpose for the prosecution to bring home the charge against the accused. The scrutiny of their testimonies show that they were not present at the spot when the alleged incident took place and got to know about the alleged incident/demand of extortion of 3 lakhs from complainant/PW2, who himself has not supported the version of prosecution. The testimony of PW4 proves the factum that the ID card Ex. P1 was issued at his instance and by his authority and was not manufactured by the accused on his own.
24. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was observed in Partap v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1976 SC 966 that while prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., 1990(3) S.C.C. 190, it was again held that in criminal cases burden is always is on prosecution and never shifts. In Nasir Sikander Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (SC) 2005 Cri.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (SC) 1996(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 465 it was held that it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and burden lies on prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by the Statute. Accused is not expected to prove his innocence to the hilt. If State vs. Hansraj FIR No.137/16 U/S 384/511/506 IPC PS Kanjhawala Page no.10/11 prosecution story is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
25. The fact that nothing has come on record in the entire evidence put forth by the prosecution, as to the complainant/PW2 being put in any fear or was induced to deliver any amount of money to accused or was criminally intimidated in any manner, the charges u/s 384/511& 506 IPC remains unsubstantiated and cannot be said to be proved. In view of what has been taken note by me, the possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. Thus, in view of the foregoing analysis, this court is of the considered opinion that there are series of doubts in the entire case put forth by the prosecution and case cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt in any manner. Hence, accused Hansraj S/o Lt. Mehar Singh is held not guilty and stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 384/511 & Section 506 IPC. File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Announced in Open court (Ayush Sharma)
today i.e. 21.11.2022 MM-02/Rohini/Delhi
21.11.2022
State vs. Hansraj
FIR No.137/16
U/S 384/511/506 IPC
PS Kanjhawala Page no.11/11