Delhi District Court
State vs Hans Raj on 24 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAHIL MONGA: JMFC-06, PATIALA HOUSE
COURT, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI
FIR No.: 43/2009
PS: Parliament Street
U/s 384 IPC
State Vs. Hans Raj
CNR No.: DLND02-000511-2010
JUDGMENT
Cr. Case No. of the case 44497/16
Date of Commission of offence 03/04.03.2009
Name of complainant/ informant Prakash Jus Roy S/o Sh. Prem Jus Roy
Name of the Accused Hans Raj S/o Lt. Sh. Gulzari Lal
Offences complained of U/s 384 IPC
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquittal
Date of such order 24.07.2025
Statement of facts and reason for decision:
1. In the present case, accused who is a Police Official/Head Constable is facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on the intervening night of 03-04.03.2009, the accused arrested the son of complainant namely Pranay Jus Roy in a false and malicious complaint case against him and put the complainant namely Prakash Jus Roy and his son in fear of SAHIL MONGA Digitally signed FIR No. 43/19 State Vs. Hans Raj Page No. 1/7 by SAHIL MONGA Date: 2025.07.24 16:01:53 +0530 injury/accusation and dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- were delivered by the complainant to the accused for releasing the son of complainant . FIR bearing no. 43/2009 was registered. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, Charge Sheet (Final Report u/s 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in short 'Cr.PC') for commission of offence punishable u/s 384 of IPC was filed in the court.
2. On 02.11.2010, charge-sheet was filed in the court. After completion of procedural requirement, matter was listed for charge.
3. Vide order dated 19.03.2021, charge for commission of offence punishable u/s 384 of IPC was framed against accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, matter was listed for examination of prosecution witnesses (in short 'PE').
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Sh. Prakash Jus Roy PW-2 Smt. Santosh Jus Roy PW-3 Sh. Pranay Jus Roy PW-4 Smt. Rachna Jus Roy PW-5 Sh. Mohit Aggarwal PW-6 Sh. Vijendra Nath Gupta PW-7 Retd. Insp. Sh. Sandeep Kumar PW-8 ACP Sh. Surajbhan PW-9 HC Sh. Gurcharan PW-10 Dr. Sh. Natrendra Kumar Arya PW-11 ASI Sh. Sunil Kumar SAHIL FIR No. 43/19 State Vs. Hans Raj Page No. 2/7 MONGA Digitally signed by SAHIL MONGA Date: 2025.07.24 16:01:59 +0530 PW-12 Retd. ACP Sh. Vijay Chandel DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A Citizen Complaint Information Ex. PW1/B Complainant statement recorded by IO Ex. PW1/C Site Plan of Incident i.e. PS Ex. PW4/A Statement of PW4/Rachna u/s 161 CrPC Ex. PW7/A Rukka Ex. PW8/A Arrest Memo Ex. PW8/B Personal Search Memo Ex. PW9/A Posting Register (details of police officials) Ex. PW10/A MLC of PW3/Pranay Jus Roy Ex. PW10/B MLC of PW4/Rachna Jus Roy Ex. PW12/A Chargesheet
5. The accused had admitted the FIR No. 43/2009 - PS Parliament Street under Section 294 r/w 281 Cr.PC and hence the examination of the witnesses were dispensed with. This is the entire evidence in this matter.
6. On 15.05.2025 statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.PC). The accused denied entire allegations of the prosecution. In his statement accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused did not press for leading defence evidence. Accordingly, matter was listed for final arguments.
7. The file has been perused and submissions of Ld. APP have been considered. Ld. APP for the State argued that all the witnesses have corroborated themselves in all material particulars and accused could not lead any defence to either contradict the FIR No. 43/19 State Vs. Hans Raj Page No. 3/7 SAHIL MONGA Digitally signed b SAHIL MONGA Date: 2025.07.24 16:02:04 +0530 witnesses or rebut the allegations. Hence, the accused should be held guilty for the charges framed upon him.
8. Ld. Counsel for accused vehemently opposed the contentions of Ld. APP. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that accused has been falsely charged and no offence of extortion was committed by the accused. He further argued that prosecution has miserable failed to prove that Rs.25,000 were handed over to accused by the complainant. Ld. Counsel has further argued that there are several contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Hence, it is prayed that accused be acquitted for the charges leveled against him.
9. I have considered submission of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused and have thoroughly perused the records. The accused has been charged for the offence under Section 384 IPC, for committing extortion of Rs. 25,000 from the complainant.
10. The prosecution in order to prove the allegations against the accused examined the complainant as PW-1. PW-1, Sh. Prakash Jus Roy, the complainant in the present case, testified regarding the events leading to the alleged extortion. According to his deposition, the accused, along with PW-6, arrived at his residence on the night of 03- 04.03.2009 and the accused asked the son of the complainant to come to police station on the complaint of PW-4/Rachna Jus Roy i.e the wife of son of the complainant for his abusive misbehavior towards her. The complainant further stated that at the police station, the accused threatened them under threat of legal action for misbehavior and also put pressure on not granting the bail. PW-1 further deposed that he gave Rs. 25,000/- to the accused under undue influence. However, the testimony of PW-1 lacked critical details and corroborative evidence to substantiate the alleged payment of Rs. 25,000/-. PW-1 personally handed over the alleged amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the accused just by relying on second-hand information made by his FIR No. 43/19 State Vs. Hans Raj Page No. 4/7 SAHIL MONGA Digitally signed by SAHIL MONGA Date: 2025.07.24 16:02:10 +0530 Advocate namely Sh. D.S. Dalal. The accused made the compromise in a sum Rs. 50,000/- with the advocate of the complainant and not with the complainant directly. PW-1 in his cross examination admitted that he physically handed over Rs.25,000/- in cash to the accused and the same was not given in the presence of any other police official/independent witness. His testimony was vague and lacked clarity regarding the sequence of events, including who was present during the alleged transaction or any specific details about the advocate who was involved in the alleged compromise.
11. PW-2, Smt. Santosh Jus Roy, the wife of the complainant, deposed regarding the alleged extortion incident. However, her evidence contained significant inconsistencies and gaps that undermined the prosecution's case. PW-2 stated in her cross examination that the complainant on call asked her to send an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant through her nephew namely Mohit/PW-5 as the demand of the accused for bail of their son. Though PW-2 gave Rs. 45,000/- to her nephew/PW-5 to give it to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that during the cross examination of complainant/PW-1 clearly stated that he called his wife/PW-2 and asked her to send "some money" and has not mentioned any amount i.e. whether to send Rs. 50,000/- as allegedly demanded by the accused. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 were riddled with contradictions regarding the sequence of events. The inconsistency in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 is creating a huge shadow of doubt as their statements are contradicting in nature. It is again notably seen that the amount allegedly demanded as a bribe by the accused was something else, the amount allegedly sent by PW-2 to PW-1 was something else and the amount given as a bribe to the accused was something else. Not only this but the complainant also failed to disclose the denomination of the amount paid to the accused.
12. Section 384 IPC mandates that person put in fear delivers some property or valuable security to any person. The alleged payment of Rs. 25,000/- is not proved by the prosecution. Moreover, the alleged amount of Rs. 25,000/- was not given in the Digitally FIR No. 43/19 State Vs. Hans Raj Page No. 5/7 signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
2025.07.24 16:02:16 +0530 presence of any independent witness like any other police official or any public persons. The absence of independent witnesses during the extortion casts doubts on the fairness of the procedure and the veracity of the prosecution's claims.
13. The prosecution failed to examine key witnesses who were important to corroborate the complainant's version of events. According to PW-1 the compromise was made by the lawyer of the complainant and the accused and not by the complainant directly. However, the lawyer was not examined as a witness. His testimony could have provided an independent account of the events and corroborated the complainant's allegations of extortion. The complainant mentioned that his lawyer namely D.S. Dalal was present at the police station had direct conversation about the compromise on behalf of the complainant with the accused as well as assisted him during the alleged extortion. Despite being an eyewitness and actively involved in the events, he was not brought forward as a prosecution witness. His absence creates a significant gap in the prosecution's case. PW-1 testified that the money was handed over to the accused after his lawyer had a conversation with the accused for settlement. However, the said lawyer was neither named nor examined during the trial. The non-examination of this material witness raises serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations and the manner in which the events unfolded.
14. Moreover, it is worth observing that the complainant/PW-1 himself has failed to recognize or identify the accused. During the course of cross examination, the witness was pointed out towards the accused in the court but he failed to identify the accused due to lapse of time and old age. It is not digestive of a fact that the complainant has himself failed to recognize the accused standing in front of him when the alleged amount of Rs. 25000/- were also given by the complainant directly to the accused without any independent eye witness.
15. After carefully analyzing the evidence on record and the submissions of both FIR No. 43/19 State Vs. Hans Raj Page No. 6/7 Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
2025.07.24 16:02:23 +0530 the prosecution and the defense, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution's evidence is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and glaring omissions that severely undermine its credibility. The contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the absence of corroborative evidence, failure to identify accused by the complainant and the non-examination of material witnesses collectively lead to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof.
16. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, it is held that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Hans Raj is acquitted of the charge under Section 384 IPC. The bail bond, if any, is hereby canceled, and surety stands discharged. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SAHIL
Announced in the open Court SAHIL MONGA
On 24.07.2025 MONGA Date:
2025.07.24
16:02:31
+0530
(Sahil Monga)
JMFC-06/PHC/NDD/24.07.2025
FIR No. 43/19 State Vs. Hans Raj Page No. 7/7