Delhi District Court
Briefly The Case Of The Prosecution Is ... vs State Of U.P on 30 August, 2018
In The Court Of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan: Metropolitan
Magistrate02 (Mahila Court), SouthEast, Saket Courts:New Delhi
State v. Arjun Thapa
FIR No. 604/2016
U/s: 294/354A/509 IPC
P.S. Amar Colony
J U D G M E N T
Criminal Case No. : 4727/2017.
Date of Institution : 16.08.2017.
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : Not reserved
Date of judgment : 30.08.2018
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet.
Date of the commission of offence : 01.10.2016
Name of accused : Arjun Thapa,
S/o Sh. Chandra Bahadur Thapa,
R/o H. No.378, Chirag Delhi,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 294/354A/509 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 294/354A/509 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
Date of Institution : 16.08.2017
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : Not reserved
Date of judgment : 30.08.2018
State v. Arjun Thapa;FIR No.604/2016; PS Amar Colony PageNo.1/5
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that on 01.10.2016 at around 5.30 PM, on the back gate of LSR college, complainant saw that accused was exhibiting obscene gestures towards her and was masturbating in public and also used filthy language towards the complainant with the intention to insult her modesty.
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.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against the accused under Section 294/354A/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 one witness in order to prove its case.
PW1 Aritra Chakrabarty (eye witness/friend of the complainant) deposed that in the year 2016, she was pursuing political Science Hons. second year in Lady Shri Ram College, New Delhi. On the day of incident i.e 01.10.2016 nothing had happened with her and no incident had occurred in her presence. She did not know anything about the present case.
Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State v. Arjun Thapa;FIR No.604/2016; PS Amar Colony PageNo.2/5 State and deposed that she knew complainant as she was her senior and pursuing English Hons., 3rd year in Lady Shri Ram College when she was in second year in the same college. On the day of incident i.e 01.10.2016, complainant was not with her. She denied all suggestions put to her and was confronted with statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC. Thereafter, witness did not identify accused.
Opportunity to cross examine PW1 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to the witness.
Prosecution had cited about eight 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 and was accordingly dropped from the list of witnesses. No other public witness was cited and only police witnesses were left. Therefore, PE was closed.
5. 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. Further, PW1 who was the sole eye witness in the present matter turned hostile and did not support the story of prosecution. In the absence of examination of complainant or any other eye witness, there was no State v. Arjun Thapa;FIR No.604/2016; PS Amar Colony PageNo.3/5 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 followed the complainant. Therefore, the prosecution is miserably failed to establish the charge U/s 294/354A/509 IPC. Hence, the accused Arjun Thapa stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 294/354A/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.
State v. Arjun Thapa;FIR No.604/2016; PS Amar Colony PageNo.4/5
11. In view of above discussion, the accused Arjun Thapa is acquitted of offence punishable U/s 294/354A/509 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan) on 30.08.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate02 (Mahila Court) Saket Courts, New Delhi.
Digitally signed by SHEETALSHEETAL CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY PRADHAN PRADHAN Date:
2018.08.30 14:35:59 +0530 State v. Arjun Thapa;FIR No.604/2016; PS Amar Colony PageNo.5/5