Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Sharma on 3 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-03, EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 770/15
Police Station Gazipur
Unique Case ID No. 958/17
Title State Vs. Deepak Sharma
Name of complainant Sh. Naresh Kumar
Name of accused Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Bhupender Nath
R/o 47-B, Pocket-A3, M.V-III, Delhi.
Date of institution of challan 25.01.2017
Date of Final arguments 10.11.2025
Date of pronouncement 03.12.2025.
Offence complained of Under Section 384 IPC
Offence charged with Under Section 384 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
Digitally
JUDGMENT signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03
18:40:57
+0530
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma page 1 of 21
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
01. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the case of the
prosecution against accused Deepak Sharma for offences under
section 384 IPC.
02. The present case arises out of complaint Ex. PW1/A ,
wherein the complainant stated that he work as salesman at the fair
price shop of Sh Rampal Goyal and Ms. Indu Goyal. He further
stated that on 19.05.2015, he was present at the shop, accused
Deepak came at his shop and got sealed their shop after calling the
MLA of area namely Manoj Kumar, after around 15 days, their shop
was de-sealed, and thereafter accused used to threaten to get the
shop sealed again and demanded Rs. 2000/- . It is further stated in
the complaint that complainant gave Rs. 4000/- to the accused and
accused used to ask him to pay the money without demand.
Complainant further stated in the complaint that after learning the
fact of similar demands from other fair price shop owners, he filed a
complaint in the police station. Consequently, upon this complainant,
an FIR no 770/2015 was registered in PS Gazipur and the
investigation commenced. During the investigation police had also
interrogated the MLA Manoj Kumar, however the IO ruled out his
role in the incident alleged by the complainant. The chargesheet was
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03
18:41:10
+0530
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma page 2 of 21
filed only against accused Deepak Sharma for the offences u/s 384
IPC.
03. After taking the cognizance of the offence mentioned in
the chargesheet , accused was summoned. After appearance of the
accused, complete set of charge sheet and other documents were
supplied to him. After hearing arguments, charge for offence
punishable under section 384 IPC was framed against the accused, to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
04. The prosecution had cited total 08 witnesses in the
present matter, out of which 7 witnesses in total were examined by
prosecution. Statement of accused u/s. 294 Cr.PC was recorded, in
view of same, witness Ms. Richa Parihar, Ld. MM KKD Courts, was
dropped from the list of witnesses.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION:-
05. PW1 is Sh. Naresh Kumar, who deposed that he was
working as a salesman at F.P.S. Uchit Dar Dukaan No. 8461 at House
No. A-881, G.D. Colony, Mayur Vihar Phase-III, Delhi for last around
five years and the owners of the shop are Sh. Rampal Goyal and Indu
Goyal. He further stated that on 19.05.2015, at about 11-11:30 am, he
was present at the abovesaid shop, accused Deepak came at his shop
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN Date:
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma 2025.12.03 page 3 of 21
18:41:17
+0530
and got sealed the shop after calling MLA of area namely Sh. Manoj
Kumar. After around 15 days, their shop was de-sealed by the order of
the concerned authority. After around one month, accused again came
at his shop and said "2,000/- rupaye mahina diya karo nahi toh
tumhari dukaan phir se seal kara denge". Due to the fear, he paid Rs.
2,000/- two times to accused in the month of June and July. He came
to know in the month of August 2015, that accused Deepak had been
arrested by the police. Thereafter, he also went to the PS and gave his
statement, which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and the
case was registered, however, he stated that he did not remember the
date. Accused was correctly identified by PW1. He further stated that
he did not know what happened thereafter.
5a. With the permission of the Court, Ld APP put
some leading questions to the witness, wherein witness stated that the
case had been registered on the same day when his statement
Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the police. He further admitted that the
date mentioned under his statement i.e. 11.08.2025 is the date
correctly mentioned for the day he gave his statement to police. He
had shown his shop to police. The site plan Ex.PW1/B had been
prepared in his presence by the police and the same bears his signature
at point A. Accused was present in the PS when he gave his statement
to police. He further admitted that he had signed the document
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN Date:
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma 2025.12.03
18:41:22
page 4 of 21
+0530
pertaining to the arrest of accused in the present case, which are
Ex.PW1/C to Ex.PW1/E. Police official had taken the accused at his
shop also and prepared a document Ex.PW1/F. During the
investigation of this case, his statement had been recorded by the
Magistrate also and the same is Ex.PW1/G. He had disclosed to his
employer that accused had taken Rs.4,000/- from him on the pretext
of threat given for sealing the shop. PW1 identified his signatures at
point A on the memos. He further stated that he did not know for
what reason the said shop was sealed on 19.05.2015. His employer
was not present at the shop at that time. The staff from ration office
had also come with accused with MLA of area Sh. Manoj Kumar at
the time their shop was sealed. PW1 further stated that he had told to
them that he was only the employee at that shop and employer was not
present at that time. He further stated that he did not remember the
exact dates when he handed over the money to accused. He had given
the money to accused from the cash box of the shop himself.
5b. PW1 was cross-examined by the defence Counsel.
During cross-examination, PW1 stated that Rampal Goyal and Indu
Goyal are the owner of the shop having licence no. 8461. He deposed
that he sit at this shop and Sh. Rampal Goel and Indu Goel sit at the
shop once in a while. He deposed that he work independently in the
shop in the absence of Rampal Goyal and Indu Goyal. He further
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma 18:41:28 page 5 of 21
+0530
stated that in the absence of Rampal Goyal and Indu Goyal, he
maintained stock register, cash register and cash memo. He further
deposed that on 19.05.2015 at about 11-11:30 a.m., when accused had
reached at their ration shop, the stock register, cash register and cash
memo were not duly maintained by them. He further deposed that
their shop was sealed by Food & Supply department. He further
deposed that after that, he gave a representation to Food & Supply
department and based on that representation their shop got de-sealed.
PW1 further stated that their shop had been sealed on the complaint
of local MLA Sh. Manoj Kumar and the accused. The Food & Supply
department had sealed their shop after they found that their shop was
not being run in compliance with the rules set by the department. The
Food & Supply department people had inspected their stock register,
cash register, cash memo also the actual ration stock lying in the shop
and thereafter, they sealed their shop. He further stated that when
their shop was sealed, Rampal Goyal and Indu Goyal were not present
in the shop. He further stated that Rs.2,000/- had been paid to the
accused in June 2015, money was of Rampal Goyal and Indu Goyal
which he had taken out of galla of shop and it was not his money and
the same is his reply with respect to the money paid in July 2015. He
further stated that he did not remember the date and time when the
accused had come to his shop to demand for money of Rs.2,000/-. On
the question asked by the Ld defence counsel, as how the accused
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma 18:41:33
+0530 page 6 of 21
could have got his shop sealed, to which PW1 replied that accused
could have got his shop sealed by complaining about them to the
MLA. He further stated that he had filed the complaint in the PS
because his owners namely Rampal Goyal and Indu Goyal had asked
him to do so. He further deposed that there were so many ration shop
owners who had filed the complaint in PS on the same day at the same
time. Manoj Kumar, MLA, the accused and various other people were
part of vigilance committee which was authorized to inspect the ration
shop in the constituency of Manoj Kumar, MLA. He deposed that he
did not remember if the police had filed any document showing that
he was the salesman in their shop. He also deposed that he had not
brought any document with regard to his salesmanship with Rampal
Goyal or Indu Goyal. He deposed that he cannot admit or deny
whether there was any document with respect to his employment with
Rampal Goyal or Indu Goyal.
06. PW2 is HC Yashveer Singh, who deposed that on
11.08.2015he was posted at PS Gazipur and working as duty officer from 4.00 pm to 12.00 mid night. On 11.08.2015, at about 05:50pm IO ASI Yoginder Kumar produced a rukka to him for registration of FIR and he registered the present FIR on the basis of rukka. Copy of the same is Ex. PW2/A. He further stated that he had made the endorsement on rukka i.e. Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point A. SACHIN FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma page 7 of 21 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:41:38 +0530 He also handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Satbir to be given to the IO ASI Yoginder Kumar.
07. PW3 is ASI Satbir Singh, who deposed that on 11.08.2015, he was posted as Constable at PS Gazipur and on that day, DO handed over the copy of present FIR and original rukka to him for handing over to IO SI Yogender and he handed over the same to him at the spot i.e. A-881, GD Colony, Garholi and complainant of the present case was also there. He further deposed that he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO SI Yogender. During investigation, they all came to PS and IO had arrested accused Deepak Sharma in the PS, who was arrested in other cases and he signed the documents Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D , bearing his signature at point B. IO had also interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/E bearing his signature at point B. IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. He further stated that complainant of the present case was also present in the PS at the time of arrest of accused. PW3 identified accused in the court.
7a. In the cross examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, PW3 stated that he did not know whether complainant Naresh Kumar is owner or salesman of the shop. He did not know whether the shop is owned by Rampal Goyal or not. He did not know or identified the complainant Sh Naresh Kumar and he also did not Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03 18:41:43 FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma page 8 of 21 +0530 know the accused. PW3 admitted that IO Yogender Singh got him introduced to the complainant Naresh Kumar and accused Deepak Sharma in the PS itself. He further stated that he did not know whether the spot 881, GD Colony , Garholi is a shop or residence or anything else. The spot was a covered place. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared in the PS by the IO and he was merely a signatory to them.
08. PW-4 is ASI Yogender Singh, who deposed that on 11.08.20915, he was posted at PS Gazipur as ASI and on that day, Naresh Kumar came to the PS and appeared before the SHO and on hearing his complaint, SHO sent the complainant to him and he recorded the statement of the complainant vide Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. PW4 further stated that he endorsed the same and prepared the rukka Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point A .
He got the FIR registered through DO. PW4 further stated that accused Deepak Sharma was already under arrest in other matter in the same sections by the IO ASI Vijay Kumar. PW4 further deposed that he interrogated the accused in the present case and formally arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point C and personally searched him vide memo Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at point C. He also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW1/E bearing his signature at point C. PW4 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03 FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma 18:41:48 +0530 page 9 of 21 further deposed that he alongwith accused and the complainant went to the spot situated at Ghadoli Dairy Farm and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. He prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of the accused vide Ex.PW1/F bearing his signature at point C. He also recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant at the spot. He also recorded the statement of Ct Satbir, who came to him at the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka. He returned to PS alongwith accused and handed over the accused to IO of other case. He further stated that on 13.08.2015, he got recorded the statement of the complainant u/s 164 Cr.PC i.e Ex.PW1/G. He further stated that on 30.08.2015, he was transferred from the PS Gazipur to PS Shakarpur and accordingly, he handed over the case file to MHC(R). PW4 identified the accused in the court.
8a. In the cross examination, PW4 stated that he arrested the accused at about 7.15 pm. The spot is situated at a distance of 1.5 kilometers from the PS. They reached at the spot in police gypsy. He did not make official request or issue requisition memo for use of police vehicle. He did not obtain any permission from any senior officer as it their own gypsy. The spot is a shop room in the dairy farm. The shop room opens on the south side and the said shop is owned by Rampal Goyal and complainant Naresh was the salesman there. He further admitted that accused was already arrested in many SACHIN FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma Digitally signed page 10 of 21 by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:41:53 +0530 cases of same nature or that he has not verified any documentary proof with respect to identity of complainant Naresh Kumra as well as identify of accused. He denied all the suggestions put to him .
09. PW5 is Sh. Rampal Goyal who deposed he owned a shop at A-881, Ghadoli Dairy Colony, Delhi-96. The said shop is FPS bearing no 8461. He kept a servant namely Naresh Kumar at his above said shop from April 2015. He worked at his abovesaid shop around a period of one and half years and thereafter he left the shop.
He further stated that he did not know specifically about the incident. He had not witnesses the incident. Police did not come to him.
9a. As PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution, so he was cross examined by Ld APP with the permission of the court, wherein he admitted the fact that on 29.04.2016, he was called at the PS and he was enquired by the police and further that he has stated to the police that his salesman Naresh Kumar told him that one person namely Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh Kumar came to his above shop and extorted Rs. 4000/- besides making further demand for monthly extortion and also threatened to close the shop, if the said demand would not be fulfilled.
9b. In the cross examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, PW5 stated that the salesman Naresh Kumar was paid a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He did not remember the exact Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma 2025.12.03 18:41:59 page 11 of 21 +0530 date and time as and when Naresh Kumar told him about payment of extortion money and further demand of extortion by Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh Kumar but it was after the incident. He further stated that his salesman was not allowed to use the cash of shop without his permission. He further admitted that his salesman did not pay the money in his presence or that he has not seen that any money is paid to anyone.
10. PW6 SI Arun Kumar deposed that on 10.09.2015, he was posted as SI at PS Ghazipur and on that day, he received the case file of present case on the order of SHO and after going through the case file, he recorded the statement of Rampal Goyal and salesman Naresh U/s 161 Cr.PC. As per their narration, he served notice U/s 91 Cr.PC to concerned FSO, copy of which is Mark A-1 bearing his signature at point A. He received the reply vide Mark B. He further stated that certified copy of the licence issued to M/s Goyal Store was collected vide Ex.PW6/A. He further stated that on completion of investigation, he filed challan before the court. He identified the accused in the court.
10a. In the cross examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, PW6 stated that he did not know the complainant Naresh Kumar prior to present case and he did not collect his identity proof and he did not collect the identify proof of licence holder namely FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma SACHIN page 12 of 21 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:42:05 +0530 Rampal Goyal and Indu Goyal . He further stated that accused was formally arrested in this case and that he was not aware whether the previous IO had procured ID proof of complainant or not . He further stated that he did not record the statement of Indu Goyal.
11. PW-7 is Anindita Dey, Senior Assitant, Circle-56 Food and supply department and she produced the summoned record of licence of FPS number 8461, Gharoli Dairy Farm, Ghazipur, Delhi and as per the record the licence of said shop was issued in the name of M/s Goyal Store for running the fair price shop. Copy of attested photocopy of licence is Ex.PW6/A (OSR).
11a. In the cross examination, conducted by Ld defence counsel, PW7 stated that she has no personal knowledge about the case and she had joined the office in the month of May 2024.
12. After examination of the above prosecution witnesses, at request, PE was closed vide order dated 21.12.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
13. Statements of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 21.12.2024, wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him to which he pleaded innocence and stated he Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma 2025.12.03 18:42:10 page 13 of 21 +0530 has been falsely implicated in the present matter at the instance of one Ajay Verma, who is brother of Anita licence holder of shop no 9016, who was Pradhan/President of Fair Price Shop owner Association. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated by Ajay Verma belongs to Congress Political Party and he himself belongs to the rival party i.e. Aam Aadmi Party and due to this reason he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Accused chose not to lead any DE in the present matter.
ARGUMENTS:
14. Final arguments heard from , Ld. APP for the State and from Ld. Counsel for accused Sh. Prem Chand. During final arguments, The Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses are completely reliable for conviction of the accused in this case. The Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that material contradictions have appeared in the testimonies of the PWs, complainant did not support the case of prosecution and prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
FINDINGS AND REASONS THEREOF:-
15. Accused has been indicted u/s 384 IPC which provides punishment for the offence of extortion.
Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03 18:42:15 FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma +0530 page 14 of 21 Section 383 IPC defines 'extortion' as follows:
"Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security commits extortion."
16. A plain reading of above definition of extortion under Section 383 IPC discloses the following essential ingredients:
(i) accused intentionally put the victim to fear of injury to his/her person or to any other person;
(ii) thereby accused dishonestly induces a person put to fear;
(iii) deliver to person any property/valuable security.
17. Given the facts of the case, the prosecution was required to prove the incident(s) of extortion by establishing the above mentioned ingredients beyond reasonable doubts through direct evidence.
18. The defence of the accused is that he has been falsely implicated on account of political rivalry. In his examination under section 313, CrPC accused took the defence that complainant had filed the present case at the behest of Ajay Verma who was a member of Congress party and the accused being a member of Aam Aadmi party Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma 2025.12.03 18:42:19 page 15 of 21 +0530 had been falsely implicated in 17 cases of similar nature, including the present case, registered on same date against him to adversely affect his carrer. Such defence of the accused calls for a cautious and carefulful scrutiny of the case of prosecution.
19. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of the complainant. Being the complainant and the only eye witness of the incident, he is the star witness of the prosecution. In order to convict the accused, it has to be seen from the testimony of PW1 whether allegations of extortion have been established beyond reasonable doubts or not.
19a. PW1 during his examination in chief he stated that accused got his shop sealed after calling MLA. Further during his cross examination by Ld. APP, PW1 stated that he donot know for what reason shop was sealed on 19.05.2015, whereas during in his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW1 stated that the Food and Supply department people had inspected their stock register, cash register, cash memo and also the actual ration stock lying in the shop and thereafter shop was sealed by Food and Supply Department, as the shop was not run as the compliance with the rules set by the department. PW1 further stated that he filed the complaint in the PS on the behest of owner Rampal Goyal and Indu Goyal ,whereas PW5 Sh. Rampal Goyal during his cross examination FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma SACHIN page 16 of 21 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:42:24 +0530 stated that PW1 told him about extortion of money by accused after the incidence. Statement of PW1 is full of contradictions and his statement raises serious doubts over the case of the prosecution and only lends credence to the defence of false implication as PW1 himself admitted that shop was not running in compliance of set rules and accused was the part of vigilance committee which was authorized to inspect the ration shop in the constituency .
20. PW2 is the Duty Officer of the case who has only proved the registration of FIR and the endorsement on the rukka. His testimony does not prove the incident in question.
21. PW3 is ASI Satbir Singh, who is a formal witness and merely stated that he handed over the copy of present FIR and original rukka to IO SI Yogender at the spot . He had proved his signature on Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D at a point B. He further proved his signatures on Ex.PW1/E at point D and on Ex.PW1/F at point B. He is not an eyewitness to the incident.
22. PW4 ASI Yogender Singh is the first IO of the case who has deposed about the investigation conducted by him in the present case. The evidence of PW4 shows that the FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint of the complainant and thereafter he examined Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03 FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma 18:42:29 +0530 page 17 of 21 the accused and completed the other formalities of the investigation. No recovery has been attributed upon the accused. The testimony of PW 4 also does not prove the incidents of extortion.
23. The prosecution has examined the owner of the PDS shop, Rampal Goyal, as PW5. However, the testimony of PW5 clearly shows that he did not support the case of the prosecution against the accused. It is evident from his testimony that he did not depose anything in support of the allegations of the complainant. He deposed that he did not to know anything about the illegal demands of money made by the accused from his salesman, who is the complainant in this case. In his cross examination, he stated that his salesman was not allowed to use the cash of shop without his permission and he further stated that his salesman did not pay any money to any one in his presence. He is not an eye witness to the incident. Thus, it is evident that the testimony of PW4 does not prove the guilt of the accused.
24. PW6 is SI Arun Kumar who after receipt of file from MHCR , recorded the statement of one Rampal Goyal and salesman Naresh and as per their narration, he served notice U/s 91 Cr.PC to concerned FSO, copy of same is Mark A-1 bearing his signature at point A and he received the reply vide Mark B (the original notice and reply were attached with the case FIR no 769/15 PS Gazipur, SACHIN Digitally signed by FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 page 18 of 21 18:42:33 +0530 wherein he was the IO of that case). He filed the challan before the court. He is also not the eye witness of the case and has merely completed the formalities as stated by him.
25. PW7 has brought on record the documentary evidence of the license of the fair price shop. She is a formal witness whose testimony does not prove the incident of extortion in question.
26. Thus it is now clear that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the case of the prosecution primarily rests upon the testimony of PW1 i.e. the complainant Naresh Kumar. The perusal of the testimony of PW1 shows that there are contradictions in his testimony. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such witness can be relied . The pith and substance of the testimony of star witness is that his evidentiary value is reduced to nothing. Resultantly, the testimony of star witness is not at all worthy of any credence and cannot be believed in order to lend credence to the fact that the accused has committed offence of extortion.
27. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit SACHIN FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma page 19 of 21 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:42:37 +0530 whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts upon the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
28. In the instant case, the testimony material/star witness of the case i.e. complainant PW1 Sh Naresh Kumar cannot be said to be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, and the defence taken by the accused that the shop was sealed by the Food and Supply Department, cannot be disbelieved. The very foundation on which the entire prosecution case rests has been demolished by the star witness Naresh Kumar. The other Pws examined by the prosecution are the formal witnesses and their testimonies only prove the proceedings conducted during the course of the investigation.
29. The constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defence he put up but on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution. In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt the entire case of the prosecution crumbles down. The prosecution has completely failed to bring home the charge under section 384 IPC against the accused Deepak.
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma SACHIN page 20 of 21 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:42:50 +0530
30. Accordingly, accused Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh Kumar, S/o Bhupender Nath is acquitted in the present case. Accused to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.PC.
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
Pronounced in open Court SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03
18:42:59
on 03.12.2023. +0530
(SACHIN)
JMFC-03 (East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 770/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma page 21 of 21