Delhi District Court
Briefly The Case Of The Prosecution Is ... vs State Of U.P on 21 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02 (MAHILA COURT),SOUTHEAST,
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State v. Sadhu Yadav
FIR No. 241/2014
U/s 354/509 IPC
P.S. H.N. Din
J U D G M E N T
Criminal Case No. : 87090/2016.
Date of Institution : 12.08.2014.
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : Not reserved
Date of judgment : 21.04.2018.
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet.
Date of the commission of offence : 17.06.2014.
Name of accused : Sadhu Yadav
S/o Sh. Ruddal Yadav,
R/o Vill. Chiraya, PS & PO
Bakhtiyar Pur, Distt. Patna,
Bihar.
Offence complained of : U/s 354/509 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 354/509 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
FIR No.241/2014, PS G.K. I State v. Sadhu Yadav Page No.1/6
Final order : Acquitted
Date of Institution : 12.08.2014
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : Not reserved
Date of judgment : 21.04.2018.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on a complaint of complainant dated 17.06.2014 wherein she had stated that she had notice while coming back from office, a bird who had died in her drive way, therefore, she went to look for some labour. Meanwhile, she saw the accused and requested the accused to burry the dead bird. He agreed for the same and complainant gave him Rs.50/ for his work. However, after that the accused started abusing her in filthy language and tried to pull her towards him. She ran towards the police officials and told him and reported the matter as the accused was demanding heavy amount from her.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
FIR No.241/2014, PS G.K. I State v. Sadhu Yadav Page No.2/63. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against the accused under Section 354/509 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter, prosecution examined only four witnesses in order to prove its case.
PW1 HC Rajender deposed that on 17.06.2014 he was posted as constable and joined the investigation with the IO and arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.PW1/C. Witness denied all the suggestions put to him during cross examination.
PW2 ASI Pawan Kumar deposed that on 17.06.2014, he was in the QRT team and at around 03:30 p.m complainant approached him and informed him regarding the mis behaviour towards her by the accused. Thereafter, he tried to pacify to the accused who did not listen to her and, thereafter, he took the accused to the PS and handed over him to the duty officer.
During cross examination PW2 deposed that no other public person was present at the spot and witness denied all suggestions put to him.
FIR No.241/2014, PS G.K. I State v. Sadhu Yadav Page No.3/6PW3 HC Amit (duty officer ) deposed that on 17.06.2014 upon receiving rukka he registered th FIR in the present matter. The rukka and the FIR was Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. Opportunity to cross examine PW2 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to the witness.
PW4 SI Braham Dutt (IO) deposed that on the date of incident the investigation was marked to him and he met the complainant in the PS. Accused was handed over to him and was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.PW1/C. He got the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C and the site plan was prepared vide Ex.PW4/A. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed the charge sheet.
Witness denied all the suggestions put to him. Prosecution had cited six witnesses in all and among them PW Complainant was the sole eye witness/complainant and the victim in the present matter but she could not be called in the witness box as she was found untraceable through DCP concerned and did not join investigation despite service of notice on previous occasions was accordingly dropped from the list of witnesses. No other public witness was cited and only police witnesses were left. Therefore, PE was closed.
FIR No.241/2014, PS G.K. I State v. Sadhu Yadav Page No.4/65. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 r/w 281 CrPC was dispensed with as nothing incriminating came on record against the accused.
6. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
7. Complainant was the only material prosecution witness. She was reported to be untraceable. In the absence of examination of complainant/eye witness, there was no purpose in examining the remaining formal witnesses. Since the material eye witnesses of the incident could not be examined despite best efforts on the part of the executing authority, there was no chances of further improvement in the case of the prosecution even after examining the remaining witnesses. Therefore, PE was closed in order to save the precious time of the court as well as harassment to the accused.
8. I have heard the arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the materials available on record.
9. Since the material prosecution witness/victim could not be examined by the prosecution, there is no other witness to establish that the accused had comitted the offence alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the FIR No.241/2014, PS G.K. I State v. Sadhu Yadav Page No.5/6 prosecution is miserably failed to establish the charge U/s 354/509 IPC. Hence, the accused Sadhu Yadav stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 354/509 IPC.
10. The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
"The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal, cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
11. In view of above discussion, the accused Sadhu Yadav is acquitted of offence punishable U/s 354/509 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN) on 21.04.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate02 (Mahila Court) Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No.241/2014, PS G.K. I State v. Sadhu Yadav Page No.6/6