Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Narain & Anr. on 16 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
State V/s Ram Narain & Anr.
FIR No. 27/99
PS: Shalimar Bagh
JUDGMENT
A) The date of commission : 30.12.1998
of offence.
B) Name of the complainant : Ram Avtar Aggarwal
S/o. Sh. Kedar Nath
C) Name of the accused : 1. Ram Narain
S/o. Sh. Lal Singh
2. Jagdish
S/o. Sh. Ram Narayan
D) Offence complained of : U/s. 384/386/507/511/120 B IPC
E) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
F) Final order : Acquitted
G) The date of such order : 16/05/2013
Date of Institution : 06/04/1999
Judgment reserved on : Not reserved
Judgment announced on : 16/05/2013
State V/s Ram Narain & Anr. FIR No. 27/99 PS: Shalimar Bagh Page No. 1/4
THE BRIEF REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 30.12.1998, time and place unknown, within the jurisdiction of PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi both the accused Ram Narain and Jagdish entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, both of them attempted to commit extortion from complainant Ram Avtar Aggarwal by putting him under fear of death and demanded Rs. 15 lacs from him. Further that on 30.12.1998 at around 01:15 pm at BM-49, West Shalimar Bagh, within the jurisdiction of PS Shalimar Bagh, accused Ram Narain committed the offence of criminal intimidation by anonymous communication and by extending threats to complainant Ram Avtar Aggarwal.
2. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police U/s. 384/386/507/511/120 B IPC of which cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
Compliance of Sec.207 was carried out and complete set of documents were supplied to the accused persons.
3. Vide order dated 28.06.1999 charge was framed against accused Ram Narain for trial of offence under Section 386/511/507 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dated 24.08.2011 charge was framed against accused Jagdish for trial of offence under Section 386/511/507/120 B IPC. Thereafter matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
State V/s Ram Narain & Anr. FIR No. 27/99 PS: Shalimar Bagh Page No. 2/44. The prosecution proposed to examine seven witnesses which included the complainant/victim Ram Avtar Aggarwal, PWs Madhu and Kedar Nath who were the star/material witnesses, allegedly on whose complaint the present FIR was lodged. Numerous opportunities were given to prosecution but it failed to get the said witnesses examined.
5. Vide separate order of even date P.E. stands closed since no purpose would serve by examining the remaining witnesses as they are formal in nature. Statement of the accused persons U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as nothing incriminating had come against them.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the evidence and the material available on record.
7. Apart from testimony of PWs Madhu and Kedar Nath, deposition of the complainant/victim Ram Avtar Aggarwal was necessary for establishing the charges against the accused persons. In absence of his deposition, neither the alleged incident nor the identity of the accused persons as perpetrator of the crime can be established. His absence has sounded death knell to the prosecution story.
8. No other public witness / eye witness finds mention in the list of witnesses cited by the prosecution who could have deposed anything with respect to the incident in question and against the accused persons or the witnesses examined State V/s Ram Narain & Anr. FIR No. 27/99 PS: Shalimar Bagh Page No. 3/4 so far or the remaining unexamined witnesses, none has or can depose that it was due to the wrongful act of the accused persons that incident occurred. In absence of the material witnesses the case of prosecution remains totally unexplained.
9. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence alleged against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Suspicion how so ever strong it may be, cannot replace the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge its onus. The evidence available on record is not sufficient to substantiate the guilt of the accused persons. Neither the incident nor the identity of the accused persons could be proved. Accordingly the accused persons deserve acquittal.
10. It is ordered accordingly.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Announced in the open court on May 16th, 2013.
It is certified that this judgment contains 4 pages and each page is signed by me.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Date: 16/05/2013 State V/s Ram Narain & Anr. FIR No. 27/99 PS: Shalimar Bagh Page No. 4/4