Delhi District Court
State vs . Babu And Ors. on 12 September, 2019
FIR No.174/17
State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 419/17
CNR no. : DLNW010069152017
State
Vs
1. Babu
s/o Noor Muhamad
2. Shetani
W/o Babu
3. Anish
S/o Babu
All R/O Khasra No. 7/9, Gali no. 2
Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi
4. Md. Dilshad
S/O Babuddin
R/Ojhuggi No. 139, Kubram Park,
Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi
5. Gulshan
W/O Sakil
R/O H3/119, Sultan Puri
Delhi
FIR No. : 174/2017
Police Station : Sultan Puri
Under Section : 147/148/149/308/452/506 Indian Penal
Code
Page No. 1 of 22
FIR No.174/17
State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri
Date of Institution in Sessions Court : 14.07.2017
Date when judgment reserved : 11.09.2019
Date when judgment pronounced : 12.09.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that this FIR was registered on the complaint of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar wherein he stated that on 3/3/2017 at about 2:40 p.m. a personal namely Babu who lives in the same locality came along with his wife, son and two more persons and they pelted stones on the shutter of English Wine Government Shop and when he tried to restrain them they all started quarreling with him. In the meantime, many people gathered at the spot and his Manager namely Imran called 100 number and PCR officials also came at the spot and in the meantime the said assailants who were armed with lathies and dandas entered his house after breaking the door and he was physically assaulted by them and Babu also threatened him with dire consequences. Three assailants namely, Babu, his son Anish and Mohd. Dilshad were apprehended at the spot. He himself was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for treatment.
2. During investigation SI Amit seized the pieces of the brick and stones lying at the spot and he effected the arrest of five accused persons namely, Babu, Smt. Shetani, Anish, Md. Dilshad and Smt. Gulshan. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court.
Page No. 2 of 22 FIR No.174/17Police Station : Sultan Puri
3. On compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the chargesheet was committed to this Court by the Court of Ld. MM.
4. Charge under Section 143/147/148 IPC & u/s 452/506 r.w.s.
149 IPC & u/s 308 r.w.s. 149 IPC was framed against all the accused persons vide order dated 25/08/2017, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in total 12 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
6. PW3 Sanjiv Kumar is the complainant, PW4 Sh. Imran and PW6 Sh. Raj Singh are the officials of the complainant. Their testimony shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
POLICE WITNESSES
7. PW1 HC Surender Singh is the Duty Officer, who proved the copy of FIR, endorsement on rukka, certificate u/s 65Bof Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/A, ExPW1/B and ExPW1/C respectively.
8. PW2 W/CT Pooja has deposed in sync with PW12 SI Amit with whom she remained in the investigation during the arrest of both the Page No. 3 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri lady accused namely, Smt. Shetani and Smt. Gulshan.
9. PW7 Ct. Sunil Kumar has deposed that on 3/3/2017, on receipt of the call at about 2:55 p.m. he along with Ct. Jitender went to the spot i.e. English Wine shop, near Kirari Fatak, Delhi and found that several persons had gathered around and PCR vehicle staff had already taken three persons in their custody namely, Babu, Dilshad and Anish. SI Amit left them at the spot so as to keep guard and he himself proceeded to SGM Hospital. After about 2025 minutes IO arrived at the spot and conducted the proceedings at the spot. Thereafter this witness has deposed in sync with PW12 SI Amit with whom he remained in the investigation.
10. PW9 ASI Subhash Chand was the duty officer. He has deposed that 3/3/2017 at about 2:50 p.m. an information was received that "main road sarkari theka hai, Kirari caller ne bataya ki sharab theke per lagbhag 200 aadami vai lady hai, police chaiye". The said information was reduced in DD register vide DD no. 23A which is ExPW9/A.
11. PW10 W/HC Dharam Kaur has deposed in sync with PW12 SI Amit with whom she remained in the investigation at the time of arrest of both the lady accused namely Shithani and Gulshan.
12. PW11 Ct. Ashok has deposed in sync with PW12 SI Amit with whom he remained in the investigation.
Page No. 4 of 22 FIR No.174/17Police Station : Sultan Puri
13. PW12 SI Amit is the IO of the case. He has deposed that on 03.03.2017 on receipt of DD No. 23A Ex. PW9/A, he alongwith Ct. Ashok reached at the spot i.e. Wine Shop near Kirari Fathak, Sultanpuri, Delhi where he found that three persons had already been apprehended by the police staff members and a huge crowd had gathered and pieces of bricks and stones were also lying scattered on the ground. He came to know that injured Sanjeev Kumar had already been taken to SGM Hospital by PCR. He left Ct. Ashok at the spot for safe guarding purposes and went to SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi and collected the MLC of the injured and recorded the statement of injured Sanjeev Kumar Ex. PW3/A and made endorsement on his statement, Ex. PW12/A and got the FIR registered. He proved the site plan Ex. PW12/B and seizure memo of pieces of bricks and stones lying at the spot Ex. PW11/A. He effected the arrest of accused Babu, Anish and Md. Dilshad, vide arrest memos Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW3/C & Ex. PW3/D. He prepared the age memo of accused Md. Dilshad, Ex. PW12/C. The two ladies namely Gulshan and Sethani who also indulged in the commission of offence were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A & Ex. PW2/B. MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
14. PW5 Dr. Gurmohan Sethi, Surgeon, SGM Hospital, Delhi had examined the injured Sanjeev who was brought to the said hospital with the alleged history of physical assault. He proved his MLC as Page No. 5 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri ExPW5/A and opined the injury as simple in nature.
15. PW8 Dr. Rajesh Dalal, CMO SGM Hospital,Mangol Puri, Delhi has deposed that injured Sanjeev was examined by doctor Dr. Gurmohan Sethi under his supervision.
Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C
16. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which all the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in evidence against them was put to them which have been denied by them in toto.
17. Accused Babu, Anish, Shetani and Md. Dilshad have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further stated by them that there were in total four shops at the spot and Babu together with his partner namely Faizan had taken a shop on rent and he was running the shop of kabari there. Few days back theft had taken place in his shop but the Manager of the complainant namely, Imran had asked him not to report matter to the police and he promised to compensate him for the loss suffered in the said theft and when Babu demanded the said compensation amount, he asked him to vacate the premises and subsequently when he refused to vacate the premises, he together with his employer Sanjeev falsely implicated them in this case.
Page No. 6 of 22 FIR No.174/17Police Station : Sultan Puri
18. Accused Ms.Gulshan has stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On the date of the incident she was going to Nangloi so that her labour card is prepared and while passing from the spot, she noticed lot of gathering and saw that altercation was going on between certain persons. she went to the room of her sister who was living nearby but she was falsely implicated in this case.
19. The accused have not led any evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES
20. I have heard Sh. Rajat Kalra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh.
Krishan Kumar, Ld. Counsel for all the accused and have perused the material available on record.
21. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is pointed out that there are lot of contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses and the case of prosecution does not have any ring of truth. It is further stated that the accused persons have been implicated by the complainant due to malafide reasons and the circumstances connecting the case are highly doubtful and hence, all the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
Page No. 7 of 22 FIR No.174/17Police Station : Sultan Puri
22. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that complainant Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (PW3) and his companion Sh. Imran (PW4) and Raj Singh (PW6) have deposed in detail about the manner in which the offence was committed by the accused persons some of which were apprehended at the spot and this coupled with testimony of police officials, who conducted the investigation, completes the chain of circumstance for the prosecution to prove its case.
MY FINDINGS Ocular Evidence:
23. Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.
24. In the present case the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the eye witness account given by the victim Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (PW3) and Imran (PW4) who have identified the accused and also proved the incident which had taken place with them. Here, I may Page No. 8 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri observe that since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimony of the said witnesses, hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether what they have deposed is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.:
Page No. 9 of 22 FIR No.174/17State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
25. Complainant/Victim Sh. Sanjiv Kumar (PW3) has deposed that on 3/3/2017 while he was present in the house, he was told by his manager Imran that certain persons were pelting stones on the shop situated outside his farmhouse and were also manhandling the persons present there and he immediately came out and saw that 150 200 people had gathered there. Imran informed the matter to the police on 100 number and PCR van reached there but it could not manage the crowd and hence they called 45 police gypsies at the spot with police staff. The accused persons rushed towards him to assault him and on the asking of the police, he went inside his house but the accused persons i.e. Babu, his son Anish, his wife Shetani and two more persons namely, Dilshad and Gulshan who were armed with iron pipe and dandas intruded inside his house and physically assaulted him and damaged his farmhouse and broke the household articles, window panes etc. Some of the accused were apprehended at the spot. He was shifted to SGM Hospital from the PCR officials where he was treated and subsequently this FIR was registered on his complaint.
26. His statement is corroborated by his manager namely, Imran who has been examined as PW4.
Page No. 10 of 22 FIR No.174/17Police Station : Sultan Puri CONTRADICTIONS IN THE STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT/ VICTIM
27. It is relevant here to state that there are lot of improvements and contradictions in the statement of complainant/victim Sh. Sanjiv Kumar. He has deposed a number of facts at the time of his examination in court which he did not say when his statement was recorded by the police and the same are material in nature. Some of the said instances are as under:
(i) He has deposed in court that he had let out certain shops to liquor vendors on the main road situated outside his farmhouse and the persons managing the said liquor vends used to complain to me that one person namely Babu used to blackmail them and demand free liquor from them in case they want to continue their work there but he did not say so in his complaint to the police, ExPW3/A.
(ii) He has deposed in court that he conveyed to the tenants that they should report the matter to the police if Babu repeats his act in future and on 3/3/2017, while he was present in his house, he was told by Imran that certain persons were pelting stones on the shop situated outside his farmhouse and were also indulging in manhandling people but he did not say so in his complaint to the police, ExPW3/A.
(iii) He has deposed in court that he immediately came out and saw that around 150200 people had gathered there along with the family Babu and they all had come over there at the instance of Babu. Almost all the residents of nearby jhuggies had gathered Page No. 11 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri around and he saw that the said gathering was pelting stones on the said liquor shops and in order to avert damage the managers of the said liquor vends had put down their shutters and had also confined themselves inside but he did not say so in his complaint to the police, ExPW3/A.
(iv) He has deposed in court about the measurement of pipe and dandas which were being carried by the accused persons but he did not mention about the same in his complaint to the police, ExPW3/A.
(v) He has deposed in court that he saw Babu was having iron pipe but he is completely silent about the same in his complaint to the police, ExPW3/A.
(vi) He has deposed in court that seeing that police had arrived at the spot, he came outside and requested the police to take action but he did not say so in his complaint to the police, ExPW3/A.
(vii) He has deposed in court that accused persons broke the household articles,window panes of his cars and the vehicles of his neighbours standing over there but he did not say so in his complaint to the police, ExPW3/A.
(viii) He has deposed in court that at the time when accused persons were beating him, Babu exhorted his son Anish that he (i.e. witness) be finished off as he thinks high of himself but he did not say so in his complaint to the police, ExPW3/A. Page No. 12 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri
28. Since this witness did not say about these things in his complaint to the police ExPW3/A, which are material in nature, Ld. Defence counsel confronted the witness in his crossexamination where the said facts were not mentioned and it creates doubt in the case of prosecution.
29. When the contradictions are material in nature, it has been held in Tehsildar Singh vs. State of UP AIR 1959 SC 1012 :
Moreover, looking at the ambiguous narration of sequences described by the witnesses, the chain of events in the case cannot be said to have been properly brought on record by the prosecution. It is always the duty of the Court to separate chaff from the husk and to dredge the truth from the pandemonium of Statements. It is but natural for human beings so state variant statements due to time gap but if such statements go to defeat the core of the prosecution then such contradictions are material and the Court has to be mindful of such statements.
30. In the present case, in my view, the contradictions mentioned above, in the testimony of the victim, are vital in nature and it goes to the root of the matter and there is nothing on record to explain about the same and hence this witness does not appear to be very reliable, dependable and trustworthy, whose testimony can be used to convict the accused persons.
Page No. 13 of 22 FIR No.174/17Police Station : Sultan Puri MATERIAL POLICE OFFICIALS ARE N OT MADE WITNESSES
31. It is deposed by PW12 SI Amit that on receipt of DD no. 23A ExPW9/A when he reached at the spot along with Ct. Ashok, he found that three persons namely, Babu, Anish and Md. Dilshad had already been apprehended by police staff members there and huge crowd had gathered there. He further deposed that the police staff comprising of PCE personnels and other beat staff members apprised him that the said persons in their custody had indulged in stone pelting and they had beaten complainant Sanjiv Kumar.
32. It is relevant here to state that the prosecution is completely silent as to who were the said police staff comprising of PCR officials and other beat staff members who had apprehended the said three accused persons at the spot. The said police officials have neither been cited as witnesses nor examined in court.
33. Complainant/victim Sanjiv (PW3) has also deposed that on the intimation of his Manager Imran at 100 number, PCR van had reached at the spot and they had called 45 police gypsies with police staff which arrived at the spot and on their asking, he went inside his house, to save himself but inspite of same he was physically assaulted by the accused persons. From the same it is clear that police personnels including PCR staff were already at the spot, when complainant/victim was assaulted by the accused persons. However, it is not clear as to who were the said PCR personnels and the police Page No. 14 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri staff present at the spot in whose presence the said incident had taken place.
34. The said PCR personnels and police staff, in whose presence the said incident had taken place were material witnesses who could have deposed about the manner of commission of offence and about the apprehension of the three accused persons but investigating agency has miserably failed to cite them as witnesses or even examine in court. Non citing of the said material witnesses and their non examination is very conspicuous and it creates doubt in the case of prosecution.
35. It is settled law that shoddy or defective investigation could, in a given case, result in acquittal but this would depend upon the defects. If the investigation results in the real culprit not being identified, then acquittal should follow. Similarly, if there are glaring loopholes in the investigation, the defence can exploit the lacunae and the trial is to ensure that an innocent person is not to behind bar on trumpedup charges. It was so held in Surajit Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal (2013) 2 SCC 146.
36. Although this court is aware that the court cannot acquit an accused on the ground that there were some defects in the investigation and in case of defective investigation, as submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, it is the legal obligation on the part of the court to examine prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, but in the Page No. 15 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri present case, the said PCR personnels and police staff who were present at the spot at the time of commission of the offence were material witnesses and they could have deposed about the identity of the accused persons allegedly apprehended at the spot and also about the commission of the offence but as stated above, the said witnesses were neither cited nor examined in the court for the reasons best known to prosecution and hence it creates doubt in the case of prosecution.
PUBLIC WITNESSES NOT INCLUDED IN THE INVESTIGATION
37. When there are contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the complainant/victim Sh. Sanjiv Kumar as discussed above and the fact that material police officials who allegedly apprehended the accused persons at the spot are not being cited as a witness, the court also notes that no independent witness was produced by the prosecution in support of its version of the manner of commission of offence and apprehension of accused persons. Despite the fact that admitedly 150200 people had gathered at the spot, the police party was unable to join even one independent witness in its proceedings except the complainant and his manager Imran.
38. It appears that the investigating agency did not make any sincere effort to join any public witness in the said proceeding. In a case titled as Ritesh Chakarvarty vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2006 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 150, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated Page No. 16 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri the practice of the investigating officials not joining the independent witnesses in the investigation. In two other judgments pronounced in the cases titled as Anup Joshi vs. State 1992 (2) CC cases 314 and Roop Chand vs. State of Haryana 1991 (1) CLR 69, it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court that failure to proceed against the public person who refused to join the investigation, is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non joining of witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. In the absence of any satisfactory and reliable reason forthcoming from the prosecution as to why the public persons were not included in the proceeding even after the apprehension of the accused persons, the case of the prosecute has become highly doubtful.
39. It is relevant here to state that although the official of the wine shop in question namely, Sh. Raj Singh has been examined as PW6 but he has failed to identify the accused persons except Babu. As per the case of the prosecution he suggested the name of wife of Babu, his sons and one another person as the ones who had come with Babu but when his attention was drawn by Ld. Addl.PP for the State accused Anish, Shetani and Gulshan, he failed to identify them. He also denied the suggestion of the State that he has deliberately not identifying the said accused persons. He also failed to identify accused Dilshad.
MLC OF THE COMPLAINANT/VICTIM
40. After the incident in question, victim Sanjeev was taken to Page No. 17 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi where he was examined by doctor on duty under the supervision of PW8 Dr. Rajesh Dalal, CMO, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri Delhi who has proved the MLC of the said patient as ExPW5/A. On local examination, there was abrasion of size 1 X 0.5 cm on left parital region of scalp. The nature of injury was opined to be simple in nature and the said opinion was given by PW5 Dr. Gulmohar Sethi. Hence, from the said MLC, it is clear that there was only one abrasion on the parital region of the scalp measuring 1 X 0.5 cm. There was no other injury on his person . If he was assaulted with pipe and dandas by five accused persons who were all armed with the said pipe and dandas, he would have suffered much more injuries. Hence, the testimony of the victim regarding the manner of commission of offence, number of persons, weapons used by the assailants does not match with the injuries suffered by him as reflected in his MLC and it also makes the case doubtful about the role of accused persons.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
41. It is the case of the accused persons that commercial activity was taking place in the said property of the complainant and several pollution emitting units were running from the said property behind the closed gates without license with hazardous pollutants and there was resentment among the people of the locality. Accused Babu and his family have further taken a stand that Babu was running a kabari shop at the spot and Imran on behalf of his employer had promised Page No. 18 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri him to compensate him for the theft which had taken place in his premises and when Babu demanded the said compensation amount, he was directed to vacate the said premises and subsequently falsely implicated in this case. All the accused persons have allegedly false implication by the complainant and his Manager due to ulterior motives.
42. In a case titled as Dudhnath Pandey vs. State of U.P. AIR 1981 Supreme court 911 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution and the courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in the defence witnesses. In the present case, due to contradictions/improvements in the testimony of the complainant, non inclusion of public witnesses, non examination of material police officials in the court as discussed above, this court does not find any reason to discard the version of the defence and in my view, it cannot be said that it is unworthy of reliance at all and rather their version creates dent in the case of prosecution .
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
43. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn Page No. 19 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
44. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as discussed above, are full of inconsistencies and contradictions and do not inspire the confidence of the court put forward by the prosecution. The version given by these witnesses do not find any corroboration from any independent source.
45. In the light of the above referred deficiencies, inconsistencies and discrepancies, the opinion of this court, it can be said that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be said that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn is fully established or that the facts Page No. 20 of 22 FIR No.174/17 State Vs. Babu and ors.
Police Station : Sultan Puri established are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused persons. Further the chain of evidence is also not complete as not complete show that in all probability, the act must have been done by the accused persons.
46. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. It is settled law that the burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. It has been so held in Paramjeet Singh vs. State of Uttrakhand AIR 2011 Supreme Court 200.
47. In case titled Sohan and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2001) 3 SCC 620 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"An accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty. The burden of proof that he is guilty, is on the prosecution and that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In other words, the innocence of an accused can be dispelled by the prosecution only on establishing his guilt beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of evidence".Page No. 21 of 22 FIR No.174/17
Police Station : Sultan Puri
48. In view of the above discussion, in the opinion of this court, it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, all the accused persons are acquitted from the charges framed against them.
49. The accused persons are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety each in the like amount u/s 437A CrPC.
50. The case property, if any, is confiscated to the state and the same may be destroyed after the period of appeal and if appeal is preferred, subject to the order of Ld. Appellate court.
51. Put up on 13/9/2019 for furnishing the bonds u/s 437A CrPC Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK GARG GARG Date: 2019.09.12 Announced in the open court 14:51:23 +0530 on this 12th day of September, 2019. (DEEPAK GARG) ASJII, NORTHWEST ROHINI: DELHI Page No. 22 of 22