Delhi District Court
State vs . Ishwar Dass on 14 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. ISHWAR DASS
FIR No. 452/1994
PS: MOTI NAGAR
U/S: 448/380/411 IPC
JUDGMENT
Sr. no. of the case : 707/2
Unique Case ID no. : 02401R0139072002
Date of commission of offence : Night of 11/12.08.1994
Date of institution of the case : 21.01.1995
Name of the complainant : Mohd. Salim
Name of accused and address : Ishwar Dass
S/o Sh. Tahu Ram
R/o WZ-30, Raja Garden,
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 448/380/411 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 14.10.2014
******************************************************************************************************************************* BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR DECISION:
THE FACTS:
1. As per the prosecution, on 11/12.08.1994 at WZ-30, Najafgarh Road, Raja Garden, accused committed house trespass on the above said property belonging to and in the possession of complainant Mohd.
Salim. It is further alleged that accused had committed theft of 3500 second hand shockers, 23 maiyani, 70 cut piece iron, 2 iron bang, 6 iron hammers, 1 wall clock, 5 sign boards, 45 ring pana, 45 keys, 27 gotiya, 8 sacks miscellaneous items, 2 mobile oils drums of 70 liters each, 8 godhi iron, 1 puller iron, 45 yamaha rod, 700 shocker rods, 8 FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 1/15 new shockers, 2 sacks plastic covers, 35 kg kurkut, wooden boxes weighing around 150 kg, and 1 celling fan etc. as mentioned in the list Mark CX belonging to complainant Mohd. Salim. It is further alleged that on 30.08.1994 from H-131, Mahavir Enclave, Dabri, which was a place belonging to accused, the above said articles were recovered vide Mark CX, which were received or retained by the accused dishonestly or knowingly or having reasons to believe that the same is stolen property. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused.
2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, charges were framed against the accused by my Ld. Predecessor for trial of offence U/s 448/380/411 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
3. The Prosecution in support of present case has examined following witnesses.
4. PW1 Sh. Des Raj stated that about 7-8 years back he was called by the police as he was having his shop where he was working as a painter near PS. He was called by the police and they took him to a shop near Raja Garden and asked whether the name already painted on that shop can be erased and fresh name can be painted on the same, on which this witness had replied that the same would require 2-3 days. It is stated by him that then he went back and know nothing else about the case. It is stated by him that his statement was not recorded. He does not remember what was written on that shop. However, it is stated by him that there was large amount of tarcoal on the shutter.
5. PW2 Sh. Vinay Kumar stated that he does not remember whether he had taken photographs at the instance of the police. Even after seeing the photographs from the file, this witness could not tell if the same were taken by him or not. He denied making any statement to the police. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP. During cross-
FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 2/15 examination, witness stated that he has not made any statement Mark X dated 12.08.1994 to the police. This witness denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of accused.
6. PW3 Sh. Sajjan Singh stated that he was the DO on 12.08.1994 and had received rukka from ASI Urmila Sharma and recorded FIR in question. FIR exhibited as Ex.PW3/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/B.
7. PW4 HC Swaroop Chand stated that on 12.08.1994 he joined the investigation with W/ASI Urmila Sharma and had went to shop no.WZ-30, Raja Garden, Delhi with complainant Mohd. Salim, where they found that shop was locked and on the board it was found written "Chetak Enterprises, R.K. Taneja" with white paint. It is further stated that a photographer were called and photographs were taken. Thereafter, a painter was called and writing on the board were erased, when writing was erased, it was found written Mistri Saleem, WZ-30, Raja Garden on the board. It is further stated that thereafter, complainant called the accused (this witness correctly identified the accused) at the spot. It was apprised by the complainant that he was the tenant of the accused. It is stated that accused was found in possession of the key by which shop was opened. 14 cylinders were found in the shop which were belonging to the accused and other articles were belonging to the complainant as stated by the complainant. It is stated that key and lock were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A and 14 cylinders were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B and the remaining articles lying in the shop were also seized vide memo ExPW4/C. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/D and this witness also marked the photographs as Mark 1 to 8. All the documents are bearing signatures of this witness. The witness correctly identified the case property i.e. one lock and key as produced by MHC(M). Exhibition of 14 cylinders were not objected by the accused as the same were released to him on superdari. The remaining articles seized vide memo Ex.PW4/C could not be produced in the Court by MHC(M). On the next date of hearing, it was observed that items mentioned in FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 3/15 Ex.PW4/C were not related to this witness. In his cross-examination, it is stated by this witness that he does not know who was the owner of property no.WZ-30. It is stated that he does not know whether IO gathered any evidence about the tenancy of Mohd. Salim. It is stated by him that he does not know whether IO had taken evidence from complainant Mohd. Salim about the the ownership of kamani, shockers, tools etc. It is stated by this witness that he cannot give the identity of locks and keys, he does not know about the nature of possession of Mohd. Salim. He denied the suggestion that lock, key, shocker and kamani etc. were planted on the accused.
8. PW5 SI Ram Niwas stated that on 30.08.1994 he alongwith ASI Urmila Sharma reached at Raja Garden Chowk and met complainant Mohd. Saleem, who told ASI Urmila Sharma that he came to know from some source that his stolen property was lying in flat no.H-131, Mahavir Enclave, Delhi, on that, this witness alongwith ASI Urmila Sharma reached H-131, Mahavir Enclave where one Munna Lal was present. On search of the flat, they found 3500 shockers, 23 myani, 70 cut piece iron and many more articles as per the seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. The seizure memo bears signatures of this witness at point B. The property seized as per memo Ex.PW4/C could not be produced before the Court as the same was released to complainant/superdar Mohd. Saleem, who had expired during the trial. During cross-examination, it is stated by this witness that he could not recollect on which date he had visited flat no.H-131, Mahavir Enclave, PS Dabri. He again stated that the date was 30.08.1994. It is stated by him that he does not recollect the DD Number vide which entry was made and left for the said place to recover the articles. It is further stated that seizure memo was witnessed by Munna Lal and Ram Sewak. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the aforesaid house. He further denied the suggestion that he had connived with the complainant or that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused or from the said flat. He further stated that he does not recollect the number of storeys of the said property and also cannot tell the direction of the said property.
FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 4/15
9. PW6 ASI Tek Ram stated that he was MHC(M) on 12.08.1994. It is stated by him that on that day ASI Urmila Sharma deposited one pullinda containing lock and keys sealed with the seal of 'US'. She had also deposited 14 gas cylinders. Relevant entry in respect of the same was made at entry no.2339 in register no.19. It is further stated that on 30.08.1994 ASI Urmila Sharma had again deposited certain case property as per seizure memo, relevant entry was made at serial no. 2380 in register no.19. It is stated that on 06.09.1994 the above said articles as per seizure memo dated 30.08.1994 were released on superdari to Mohd. Saleem, relevant entry in this respect was made, copies of relevant entries exhibited as Ex.PW6/A (OSR).
10. PW7 Sh. Ram Sewak stated that he knows nothing about the present case, however, it is stated by him that accused was his employer. It is stated by him that police has visited house of accused and had recorded name and address of this witness. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP. During cross-examination done by Ld. APP, it is stated by him that he was not familiar to any person by the name of Mohd. Saleem. He accepted that there was shocker shop at WZ-30, Raja Garden but he cannot say whether it was being run by some Mohd. Saleem or not. He denied the suggestion that in the night intervening between 11-12.08.1994 accused had broken opened the shop at WZ-30 of Mohd. Saleem and had taken away the articles (shockers etc.) lying in the shop in a truck. He further denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not disclosing complete facts particularly that on 30.08.1994. He accepted that his thumb impression is at point T on memo Ex.PW4/C. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in favour of accused being his ex-employee. During cross-examination on behalf of accused, this witness denied that he was forced to put his signatures on the blank papers in the PS.
11. PW8 SI Urmila stated that on 12.08.1994 she was posted at PS Moti Nagar. On that day one Mohd. Saleem came to PS and made a complaint regarding trespass and theft in his shop. His statement Ex.PW8/A was recorded bearing his signatures at point A and attested FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 5/15 by PW8 at point B. Then this witness made endorsement on the same and presented the same to DO for registration of FIR. On that, present case was registered. Thereafter, she alongwith Mohd. Saleem and Ct. Suresh Chand went to WZ-30, Nazafgarh, Raja Garden, where she prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW8/C. Thereafter, complainant led her to the residence of accused. This witness correctly identified the accused. There she interrogated the accused. Thereafter, accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/D. In personal search of accused, one key was recovered which was also seized. Thereafter, a photographer was called to take photographs of the spot and lock of the shop was opened by the key taken from the accused. Thereafter, one painter was called to clean the writing "Chetak Enterprises" on the wall. On cleaning the same by thinner, word Saleem Mistri became visible under the words "Chetak Enterprises". Thereafter, the wall was again photographed. There were 14 cylinders in the shop, which were belonging to the accused as per the complainant, same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. It is stated by this witness that she recorded statement of photographer Vinay Kumar and painter Desraj U/s 161 Cr.P.C alongwith one Bhagwan Dass and Ct. Swaroop Chand. It is further stated that on 16.08.1994 Mohd. Saleem submitted some documents to prove his possession over the shop, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. It is further stated by her that on 30.08.1994 she received a secret information that stolen property were concealed at H.No. H-131, Mahavir Enclave, Delhi. On that, she alongwith ASI Ram Niwas raided that premises and seized a number of articles vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. It is stated by her that two public witnesses Munna Lal and Ram Sewak joined the investigation and witnessed the seizure and also put their signatures on the seizure memo. This witness correctly identified the key and lock as produced by MHC(M). Identity of 14 gas cylinders not disputed by the accused. During cross-examination, this witness stated that Sh. Mohd. Salim complainant in the present case had come to PS Moti Nagar at 05:30 PM to make the complaint. It is stated by her that she visited the spot FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 6/15 on same day on 12.08.1994 to find out the truth about the allegations of the complainant. One Sh. Bhagwan Dass met her and she recorded his statement on that day. He was having a shop in premises no.WZ-30, Raja Garden. His statement was recorded at 07:30 PM at his said address. It is further stated by this witness that FIR was registered at about 07/07:15 PM. It is stated by her that she remained at the spot for investigation for about 2½ hours. Witness further stated that she does not remember whether she had made my departure entry in the PS for going to the spot to investigate the matter. It is stated by her that she made entry in the record while she had come back from the spot but she cannot tell the time. Site plan was prepared in the shop of Mohd. Salim. It is stated by her that she cannot tell exactly the measurement of the shop. It is stated by her that there was no table or chair in the said shop of Mohd. Salim. The house of the accused was also part of WZ-30, Raja Garden. Accused was arrested on the said date itself at 08:30 PM. Arrest memo was also prepared and time is also shown therein of the arrest of the accused. It is further stated by this witness that there were two witnesses on the arrest memo and personal search memo, one of whom was Mohd. Salim and another person whose name he cannot tell. One Sh. Vinay Kumar Sharma was the photographer, who was having his shop at Bali Nagar but he cannot tell his address. Charges of photographer were paid by the police but he cannot tell how amount was paid. No entry for the payment of photographer charges were made in the record of police station. It is further stated that she cannot tell the bill number of the photographer charges. It is stated by her that she did not obtain the negatives of the photographs Mark 1 to
8. Deshraj was the painter, who was also called on the spot on the same day. It is further stated by her that she cannot tell how much amount was paid to him for cleaning the writing on the board. Mohd. Salim had furnished him the proof of his tenancy of the shop in question. The witness was shown the judicial file to point out the proof of tenancy as claimed but nothing was found on record. It is stated by her that she had obtained from him, his old photographs and some FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 7/15 copies of suit filed by him. It is stated by this witness that she had come back to the PS at 09:30 PM. She cannot tell the entry number of depositing the case property in the Malkhana of PS and also cannot tell the name of MHC(M). It is further stated by her that she cannot tell the timings on 30.08.1994 when they left for H-131, Mahavir Enclave, Dabri to recover the stolen articles from the accused. They had left for the said place by way of TSR, whose registration number she cannot tell. It may be possible that departure entry might have been made. It is further stated by her that she cannot tell how much amount was paid to TSR for transport charges. The expenses were incurred from the PS accounts. They all three persons i.e. herself, complainant and ASI Ram Niwas remained at the aforesaid address of H-131 for about 2 hours. The recovered articles were brought by them in a tempo, the registration number of which she cannot tell. It is further stated by her that she also cannot tell the name of driver of the said Tempo, who came to the PS alongwith recovered articles. Tempo driver was also not joined as prosecution witness. This witness accepted that she had knowledge about the filing of the civil suit for possession by the accused herein against the complainant, though she has no knowledge as to what was the fate of that suit. It is stated by her that she has no knowledge whether the said civil suit of the accused herein was decreed in his favour and she has also no knowledge whether the appeal against the said order of recovery of possession was too dismissed and thereafter, RSA was filed by Sh. Mohd. Salim before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and during the pendency of said appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Sh. Mohd. Salim had died and no legal heirs were brought on record in the said RSA and RSA was dismissed for this reason and thereafter, his legal heirs moved an application for bringing on record the LRs of the Mohd. Salim, which was allowed and ultimately thereafter, his appeal after substitution of LRs was too dismissed in default. It is further stated by this witness that she has no knowledge if the accused herein had obtained the possession of the premises in question through process of law from the FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 8/15 concerned Court of Sh. G.P. Singh, Ld. ADJ, THC, Delhi (later on succeeded by the Court of Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur, Ld. ADJ, THC, Delhi). This witness accepted that there is no arrest memo on the judicial file, though she has mentioned about this in her examination. This witness voluntarily stated that arrest memo was not prepared and only the personal search memo of accused was prepared as preparation of arrest memo was not in vogue at that time. She denied the suggestion that the accused had not trespassed in the suit property and had not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated by the complainant. She further denied the suggestion that all the writing work was done by her while sitting in PS. She further denied that she did not visit the shop in question for investigation purposes. She denied the suggestion that she has falsely implicated the accused in collusion with the complainant.
THE DEFENCE :
12. Statement of accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is stated by him that he had filed a civil suit for recovery of possession, damages and permanent injunction against Sh.
Mohd. Saleem, complainant in the present case in suit no.82 of 95, which was pending before the Court of Ld. ADJ Sh. Chander Shekhar, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the said suit was ultimately decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2001 and against which Sh. Mohd. Saleem had preferred RFA No.192/01 which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2010 and after the dismissal of said RFA, he filed execution case no.97 of 08 and in the said execution case which was ultimately pending before the Court of Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and he had received the possession of the shop through Bailiff of the Court concerning which the complainant had filed a false FIR against him and he has been facing long trial in the present case. He further stated that he is completely innocent. Accused opted to lead defence evidence and examined FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 9/15 himself as DW1.
13. DW1 Ishwar Dass i.e. the accused stated that he had filed a suit for recovery of possession against the complainant in this case, it was decreed by the Court of Hon'ble Shri Chander Shakar, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Court Delhi, in suit no. 82 dated 03.02.2001, photocopy / certified copy of the said judgment is mark A. Against the said judgment and decree Sh. Mohd. Salim had prefered a RF No. 192 of 2001 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the said case Shri Mohd. Salim had died during the pendency of the said proceedings and the said RFA was dismissed in depart and thereafter he legal heirs moved an application for restoration of their appeal which was allowed and ultimately again the said appeal was dismissed in default. The certified copy of the order dismissing in default the said RFA is Ex. DW1/1. Consequent thereafter he had moved an application for revival of his execution proceedings and he obtained the physical possession of the property in question concerning which he was charged in the present case through Court of Law and the execution proceedings bearing no. 97 of 2008 were pending before the Court of Hon'ble Shri Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, the then Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and the statement of Court bailiff Sh. Kuldeep Singh was recorded and the certified copy of his statement is Ex.DW1/2. The execution proceedings which were ultimately pending before the Court of Hon'ble Ms. Shukhvinder Kaur, the Ld. ADJ, THC, Delhi (successor of Hon'ble of Shri Rajneesh Kumar Gupta Ld. ADJ) were consigned to record room and warrant of attachment of movable goods of JDs could not be executed. It is further stated by him that he was falsely implicated in the present case as the complainant was not his tenant but a licensee inspect of premises in question, whose licence was terminated before filing of civil suit. During cross-examination done by Ld. APP, he stated that the deceased/complainant Mohd. Salim was never being his tenant. He stated that he knew the deceased/complainant for 15-20 years as he is residing in his locality. This witness denied the suggestion that complainant Mohd. Salim was his tenant. He further FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 10/15 denied that he gave aforesaid disputed shop to the complainant on rent in 1989. He further denied the suggestion that he dispossessed the deceased/complainant from the aforesaid disputed shop. He further denied the suggestion that he had committed theft inside the aforesaid shop. It is stated by him that he filed the recovery suit against the complainant. He denied the suggestion that complainant was his tenant therefore he filed a suit against him or that deceased/complainant used to pay monthly rent to him for the aforesaid disputed shop or that complainant had legal possession on aforesaid disputed shop. He accepted that 14 cylinders were found in side the aforesaid disputed shop and the same were belonged to him. He does not know whether articles of the complainant were lying inside the aforesaid disputed shop or not. He denied the suggestion that articles of the deceased/ complainant were lying inside the aforesaid disputed shop or that he had broken the lock of the complainant or that deceased/complainant had possession of the aforesaid shop therefore his articles were lying in side the disputed shop or that he had not filed any suit against the deceased/complainant.
THE ARGUMENTS:
14. Ld. APP for state has argued that witnesses have supported the prosecution and their testimony have remained unrebutted. That on a combined reading of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, offence under section U/s 448/380/411 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
15. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused. It is also stated that nothing was recovered from the accused. The recovery was false and planted, further the alleged articles have not been proved on record neither the fact that they belongs to complainant has been proved on record. It is also pointed out that there was no eye-witness of any such alleged theft.
FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 11/15 THE FINDINGS: Offense U/s 448/380/411 IPC:
16. I have heard arguments from Ld. APP for State, Ld. Defence counsel for the accused and perused the evidence and documents on record carefully.
17. The ingredients to prove the offence punishable under section 380 IPC are as follows:-
(1) That the accused had dishonestly taken the property. (2) That the property was movable.
(3) That the property was taken out of the possession of another person/complainant.
(4) That it was taken without the consent of that person / complainant.
(5) That there must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it.
(6) That the said property was taken out of any building, tent or vessel, which is used as a human dwelling or is used for the custody of property.
18. In order to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 448 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove following ingredient:-
(i). Entry into or upon property in possession of another;
(ii). Such property being used as a human dwelling, place for worship, place for custody of property;
(iii). If such entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property;
(iv). Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent to commit and offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the property.
19. In order to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove following ingredient :-
FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 12/15
a). The property was a stolen property.
b). The accused dishonestly received or retained the same.
c). The accused was having knowledge or having reason to believe the same to be a stolen property.
20. In the present matter complainant Mohd. Salim had expired during trial on 01.12.2003 and proper death verification report was filed in the Court on 07.11.2007 hence he could not be examined as a witness in the present case. Further in the present matter, there is no eye-witness of the alleged theft committed in the night of 11/12.08.1994. Further, the alleged recovery was effected on 30.08.1994 i.e. almost after 18 days. Thus, no presumption can be drawn regarding the theft. In such situation, there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the offence U/s 380 IPC against the accused.
21. Since the complainant Mohd. Salim could not be examined as a witness in the present case, hence, it could not be proved that the articles allegedly recovered from the H.No. H-131, Mahavir Enclave, Dabri were belonging to the complainant. In fact the alleged stolen articles never brought before the Court. Hence, their existence cannot be proved before the Court beyond reasonable doubt. Further there is no document whatsoever on record which would suggest that those articles were belonging to the complainant. Further the other public person of the recovery namely Sh. Ram Sewak has not supported the version of the prosecution. In fact there is no evidence on record to prove that the H.No.131, Mahavir Enclave, Dabri belongs to the accused. In such situation there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the offence U/s 411 IPC against the accused.
22. Since the complainant Mohd. Salim could not be examined as a witness in the present case, hence, nature of his possession in respect of shop at WZ-30, Nazafgarh Road, Raja Garden could not be proved on record i.e. it could not be proved whether he was a tenant in the said shop or was a mere licencee without exclusive possession. IO W/SI Urmila Sharma has stated that complainant had given certain documents to her to prove his tenancy though, when in her cross-
FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 13/15 examination, the judicial file was shown to her to point out such proof of tenancy, she could not point out any such document on record. From the perusal of file, it appears that there are few photographs of the shop, which have not been duly proved. There is a copy of a plaint allegedly filed by the complainant against the accused claiming himself to be the tenant in the shop at WZ-230, Nazafgarh Road, even this plaint has not been duly proved on record. Apart from that there are photocopies of payment of premium of LIC policies, a traffic challan and photocopy of a letter addressed to the complainant and on all these documents his address has been shown as WZ-30. However, all these documents are mere photocopies which have not been duly proved on record. Even if it may be hypothesized that these documents were proved on record, none of such documents would establish that accused was a tenant in the aforesaid premises. It is established principle of law that a licencee does not have exclusive possession over a property and if licencer would enter into that property that would not amount to trespass as the actual possession of the property would always vest in the licencer/landlord of the property. In the case in hand, accused has examined himself as defence witness and have categorically submitted that he is/was the owner of the shop at WZ-30, Nazafgarh Road, Raja Garden and accused was not a tenant but a licencee in respect of premises in question. This testimony of the accused remained unrebutted. In such situation, it can be safely held that the fact that complainant was the tenant in the premises in question has not been proved, rather in view of the unrebutted testimony of the accused as DW1, the same has been disproved. Since, the possession of the complainant has not been proved, hence, it cannot be held that accused had committed criminal trespass in respect of the property which was in the possession of the complainant.
23. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 14/15 prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
24. In view of the above stated facts and discussion this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly it is a fit case in which benefit of doubt must be given to accused, which is accordingly given. Hence, accused Ishwar Dass S/o Sh. Thau Ram is hereby acquitted of offence U/s 448/380/411 of IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 14.10.2014 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 15 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
FIR No. 452/1994, PS Moti Nagar Page 15/15