Delhi District Court
State vs Aditya Gupta & Anr on 31 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH)
SAKET DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
State
Vs.
Aditya Gupta & Anr.
FIR No. 286/2000
P.S Mehrauli (CB)
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case 2034366/2016
2. Date of institution 31.08.2001
3. Name of the complainant Sh. Ved P. Chaudhary
S/o Late Daya Ram
FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 1 of 26
R/o Village Gadaipur, PS
Mehrauli, New Delhi3.
4. Date of commission of offence 24.04.2000
5. Name of accused 1. Aditya Gupta
S/o Late Arun Gupta
R/o House No. B-34, Friends
Colony (West), New Delhi.
2. Chander Pal Sharma
S/o Late Yograj
R/o 21-A, Queen Apartment,59
Palli Hill, Bandra, Mumbai
(West).
6. Offence complained of U/s 387/506/507/120 B IPC
i7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the judgment 30.07.2018
9. Final order Acquitted
10 Date of such judgment 31.07.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The story of the prosecution is that a complaint was received from Sh. Ved P. Choudhary stating that he received a FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 2 of 26 call at his office number on 24.04.2000 at around 6.30 pm from one person who claimed himself to be Sikander and calling from Dubai from the residence of Dawood's brother. He asked him to pay Rs. 1 crore within four days failing which he would be eliminated. He asked him as to whom the money was to be delivered. The caller gave instructions about his local contact who turned out to be one Aditya Gupta. This Aditya Gupta had earlier also extorted money through various persons for settling the property dispute with him. The caller also told him that in case the money was not paid, his two sons would be kidnapped. He was made to pay Rs. 10 lacs and was assured that in future, he would not be harassed. Thereafter, on 15.03.2000 there was an incident of shoot out at Air Force Bharti school where a student was seriously injured. He then received a call from Aditya Gupta who told him that same was done by Dawood's men and he should not contact police and that his sons may not be able to escape the attack. The complainant's sons were also studying in the same school. Due to the said threat, he had to withdraw his children from the said school. He also mentioned about his past acquaintance with Aditya Gupta. In the year 1997, mother of Aditya Gupta Mrs. Lilly Gupta entered into an FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 3 of 26 agreement to for purchase of farm land in Sohna but due to recession in the real estate, the deal could not be finalized. He also expressed his inclination to settle the matter with Mrs. Lilly Gupta. He further provided the telephone numbers from which the calls were made at his office and his mobile. He was never contacted at his residence telephone number. Investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed.
2. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. On appearance of accused persons before Court and prima facie case having been made out, charge for the offence of under section 387/507/506/120B IPC was framed against accused Aditya Gupta and Chander Pal Sharma.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all.
4. Sh. Sanjay Kapahi was examined as PW1. He deposed that he knew Ved Prakash Chaudhary through his brother's brother- in-law namely Ravinder Chaudhary. He had not made him talk on telephone to Sikander Chaudhary or anybody else on 15.05.2000. He had not talked to anybody regarding sale transaction of any land between Aditya Gupta and V.P. FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 4 of 26 Chaudhary. Witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP. Witness confronted with his statement recorded u/sec 161 Cr. P.C. dated 16.05.2000 vide Mark A and he denied the same.
5. Sh. Ved Prakash Chaudhary was examined as PW2. He deposed that accused Aditya Gupta was friend of his brother namely Rajender Chaudhary. In the year 1997, accused Aditya Gupta purchased a land situated at Village-Nunera, Sohna, Haryana from him and the consideration amount was paid to him by mother of accused Aditya Gupta by way of cheque and cash. The registration of the land was not completed as mother of accused had not given full payment. In the meantime, economy went into recession and accused wanted to earn profit. He refused to complete the registration of the aforementioned plot and complete the sale transaction between them. Accused wanted that he should return his earnest money/part payment with interest of 5 % per month. He decided to return the received consideration amount paid to him by accused without any interest and he issued to him few cheques, which were either not presented for encashment or were dishonoured. He had returned the entire land transaction amount to accused till the year 1999. After having received full consideration amount, FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 5 of 26 accused started sending Badmash/underworld people as he wanted to receive the interest money also @ 5 % per month upon the consideration paid. He further deposed that he received threatening calls from Major Ravi (muscle man) of D.P. Yadav to pay the money if he did not return the interest amount due to accused, he would kidnap his children and would also shoot him. Major Ravi also forcibly took his Santro Car worth around Rs.5 lacs. He also withdrew his children from Bal Bharti School and sent them abroad for study as there was some firing incident at Air Force Bal Bharti School, Lodhi Road, in which some student got injured and accused Aditya Gupta telephonically threatened him that every time, his children would not be lucky.
In April, 2000, he received a phone call at his office situated at 2/1, Chhattarpur, New Delhi on office telephone number 26802767. He further deposed that his brother Trilok Chaudhary also received that call for the first time and he told his brother that one person namely Sikander was abusing and threatening him to kill. Thereafter, he also received phone call on his mobile phone number. On the phone, Sikander told him that he owed Rs. 1 crore to Aditya Gupta and he should give FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 6 of 26 him the said amount otherwise they would kill him and his family and kidnap his children. Said call came from Dubai as Sikander told him that he was calling from Dubai and he was a muscle man of Dawood. Sikander continued making several phone calls on his mobile, office and residential phone numbers. When he used to pick the calls, Sikander used to threat him that if he did not pay Rs. 1 crore to accused Aditya, he would kill him, his family and kidnap his children. He went to police and he made a written complaint to Joint Commissioner of Police vide Ex.PW2/A. Police also instructed him to continue talking to Sikander over phone and police also provided him PSO. Police also directed him to make a phone call to the number of Sikander in presence of police. When he made a call to Sikander, it was not attended. After some time, in the presence of police, Sikander called back. That call was recorded by the police. When Sikander called him that time, he told Sikander that accused Aditya told him that he did not know any person in the name of Sikander. Upon this, Sikander contacted accused Aditya Gupta on conference call. Accused Aditya Gupta then admitted that he knew Sikander. Over the phone, accused Aditya Gupta accepted that he received some FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 7 of 26 amount paid by him towards the aforesaid land transaction and accused Aditya Gupta further asked him that he still owed him the balance amount after subtracting the amount after subtracting the amount already paid by him to accused from Rs. 1 crore, although he had returned Rs.32 lacs on different occasions to mother of accused Smt. Lillyy Gupta. Rs.10 lacs were also already taken by Major Ravi on behalf of accused Aditya Gupta. Accused Aditya Gupta and Sikander were asking the balance of Rs.1 crore minus Rs.42 lacs paid by him. He recorded the conference call between himself, Sikander and accused Aditya Gupta. He handed over the recorded cassette of same to the police which was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. Police had directed him that whenever Sikander or accused called him, he should record the same. Thus, he used to record the telephone calls made by Sikander and accused. He handed over the recorded cassette of the calls to the police which was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. Police called him on a number of occasions and recorded his statements. He used to receive the calls from accused and Sikander on his mobile number.
6. Sh. Captain Rakesh Bakshi was examined as PW3. He FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 8 of 26 deposed that in the year 2000, he was posted as security officer in Airtel at the office situated at D-184, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi. He did not remember anything pertaining to present case. Witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP. Witness was shown call details record vide Mark PW3/A and he replied that he was not sure whether said call details record signed by him, stamped or authenticated from the Airtel Office.
7. Sh. Trilok Chaudhary was examined as PW4. He deposed that in the year 2000, one Aditya Gupta had an agreement regarding a land with his brother namely Sh. Ved Prakash. Later on accused refused to take the land and he demanded his money back. After few days, he was present in his office at Chhatarpur, he received a call from one Sikander, who claimed himself to be an associate of Dawood. Sikander asked him to give Rs.1 crore to accused Aditya Gupta and he abused over the phone and in retaliation he also did the same. Sikander put his phone on hold and got accused Aditya Gupta joined over the phone via conference. He had a talk with accused on conference. He was asked to give Rs.1 crore to accused and if he failed to do so he would be killed. He made a complaint to the police.
In the month of May, 2000, he again received a call of FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 9 of 26 Sikander and he again threatened him to pay the money to accused. Witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP. IO recorded his statement also. Witness correctly identified the accused Aditya before the court.
8. Sh. Prasant Kumar, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd, C-45, Okhla Industrial Area was examined as PW5. He deposed that no record was available of mobile no. 9811101143, 9811158441, 9811123598 and 9820063423 for the period from February, 2000 to May, 2000 as the same was more than one year old. CDR and advice charge of mobile numbers 9811101143, 9811158441, 9811123598 are Mark A, Mark B and Mark C and the CDR of 9820063423 is Mark D.
9. Sh. Lalit Thukral was examined as PW6. He deposed that he knew accused Aditya Gupta from several years. His younger brother was residing in US. There was one friend of his younger brother namely Mickey Sachdeva. Mickey Sachdeva was married to sister of accused Aditya Gupta. One day, Mickey Sachdeva called him and told that accused Aditya Gupta was very disturb and mother of accused Aditya Gupta called him and told him that they had given some money to Sh. Ved. As the FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 10 of 26 father of accused Aditya Gupta was already expired, Mickey asked him to look into this and help them. Thereafter, he received a call from mother of accused Aditya Gupta who told him that they had given some money to Mr. Ved and they were going to his house again and again but he was not ready to return the same and they were suffering a lot. Thereafter, he met Ved on few occasions. He came to know that actual amount given by accused Aditya was around Rs. 85 lacs and with interest, it was Rs.1.25 crore approximately. He asked accused Aditya Gupta to take the principal sum of Rs. 85 lacs and he also requested Mr. Ved to give the said amount to him to which both agreed but no money was paid uptill 2-3 months. However, accused Aditya Gupta called several persons who were known to Ved and told them that Ved was not paying their money and thus harm his reputation. Thereafter, Ved did not pay money to them. Witness correctly identified accused Aditya Gupta before the court. Witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP.
10. SI Brahm Prakash was examined as PW7. He deposed that on 13.01.2000, he was posted at Anti Robbery Section. That day, IO SI Satish Sharma sent him to Airtel Office at Okhla to FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 11 of 26 collect the call details of three mobile numbers. He went there and collected the call details of those mobile phone numbers and handed over to IO. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. On 24.05.2000, he was present alongwith IO at the time when IO arrested accused Aditya Gupta vide arrest memo and prepared his personal search memo vide Ex.PW7/B. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Aditya Gupta. During investigation on 26.05.2000, he again went to Airtel office, Okhla and collected the call details of three mobile numbers and handed over the same to the IO. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. On 31.05.2000, he alongwith HC Ashok went to Maharashtra, Mumbai in search of accused Chander Sharma at 21,Queen Apartment, Pali Hill, Bandra but he was not found there. On that address, they got two land line number and one mobile number which was registered on this address. Thereafter, from the concerned telephone departments, he got the telephone and call details of the landline and mobile number. Thereafter, they came back to Delhi and handed over the same to IO. Thereafter, IO arrested accused Chander Sharma and prepared his personal search memo vide memo Ex.PW7/D and recorded his statement. FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 12 of 26 Accused Chander Sharma was produced before the learned MM and his PC remand was taken. During his PC remand, accused Chander Sharma was taken to Jaipur in a hotel where accused Chander Sharma produced his passport which was kept in the reception of the hotel. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/E. Thereafter, they came back to Delhi. At the time of arrest of accused Aditya Gupta. IO also seized his mobile phone and SIM Card vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/F. During investigation, he also collected some bank statements which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/G.
11. Inspector Satish Sharma was examined as PW8. He deposed that on 11.05.2000, he received the investigation of the present case which was got registered by Inspector Rajender Bakshi at PS Mehrauli. During investigation of the case, he seized the call records of mobile no. 9811101143, 9811158441, 9811123598. He had also seized the call details of mobile number 9810088074 and 9810154571 vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. During investigation, he also seized the call details of 981054571, 9810088074 and 9810061904. He also seized call details of mobile number 9820063423 and STD/ISD call details of telephone number 6497660 vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 13 of 26 He also collected the bank statement and some property documents from complainant Ved Chaudhary and he seized them. On 21.05.2000, he seized cassettes produced by complainant with regard to recordings between Sikander and complainant. On 22.05.2000, he seized the cassettes produced by the complainant of conversation between complainant, Lalit Thukral, Aditya Gupta i.e. accused Aditya Guptat and Sikander. During investigation, he also arrested the accused Aditya Gupta on 25.05.2000 and conducted his personal search. He also seized the mobile of accused i.e Nokia Model 6610 having SIM of telephone number 9810154571. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Aditya Gupta. On 18.06.2000, he also recorded sample voice of accused Aditya Gupta in a cassette and seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C. During investigation, he also arrested accused Chander Sharma on 07.07.2000 vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/D. His personal search was also conducted. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Chander Sharma. He produced accused Chander Sharma before the Ld. MM and got his PC remand for three days. During his PC remand, accused Chander Sharma took them to Jaipur where he got recovered his passport. He seized FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 14 of 26 his passport. Thereafter, he sent the sample voice recording and the alleged voice recording to CFSL, Lodhi Road for comparison. He recorded the statement of witnesses under section 161 Cr.PC. He collected the FSL result. After completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the court. Witness correctly identified accused Aditya Gupta and accused Chander Pal Sharma before the Court.
12. The entire incriminating evidence brought on record against accused was put to them and their separate statements under section 313 Cr.PC were recorded. It is stated by accused Chander Pal Sharma that he has been falsely implicated by the police on the basis of call records with Mr. K.L. Bhatia who used to arrange finance for his film business.
13. It is stated by accused Aditya Gupta that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated by the complainant in connivance with police in order to avoid his legitimate payment which the complainant owed to him. The complainant also sent a message in the real estate market that no one can ask for return or refund of money from him and in case someone tried to do will be dealt in the similar manner as Aditya Gupta.
FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 15 of 26
14. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused and have also perused the judicial file carefully.
15. The case of prosecution is that extortion calls were received by the complainant both on his mobile as well as his office landline number from one Sikander who claimed himself an associate of the underworld don Dawood. The said Sikander told the complainant to deliver the extortion money to his local associate Aditya Gupta. It is also claimed by the complainant that in the past too Aditya Gupta had extorted money through one Major Ravi who was associate of D.P. Yadav. He also disclosed about his acquaintance with Aditya Gupta and the property deal entered into between the complainant and mother of Aditya Gupta.
16. On having received the complaint, investigation was carried out. During investigation, it was revealed that the complainant sold 3.73 acres of land in Sohna, Gurgaon to mother of accused and a payment of Rs. 47 lac was made to the complainant. Due to recession, the accused called off the deal and demanded his money back with an interest. The accused became dishonest and demanded more than the amount due. Complainant paid Rs. 10 lacs to accused through Lalit Thukral. The accused then FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 16 of 26 conspired with K.L. Bhatia and one Chander Pal Sharma who had links with Dubai Mafia. Chander Pal Sharma agreed to get the money recovered from the complainant on the basis of threats of Dubai mafia. Accordingly, extortions calls were made to complainant. Call details between accused Aditya Gupta and Chander Pal Sharma were obtained and verified. There were calls between accused Chander Pal Sharma and Dubai based criminals from his telephone number. After collecting sufficient evidence, both the accused persons were chargesheeted and brought before the Court.
17. PW2 Sh. Ved Prakash Chaudhary is the complainant. The original complaint filed by him is Ex.PW2/A. It is stated in the complaint that the alleged extortion calls were received by him. When the said witness entered the witness box, his testimony changed and it was stated in the testimony that the call was received by his brother Trilok Chaudhary. There is no mention of brother receiving the calls in the complaint Ex.PW2/A
18. It is stated by PW2 that there was a land transaction between him and accused Aditya Gupta which could not be completed. Thereafter, he returned the entire consideration amount to the accused in the year 1999. However, the accused demanded 5% FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 17 of 26 interest on the said money. One Major Ravi was sent by accused who took Rs. 10 lacs from the complainant and his Santro Car. The children of complainant were studying in Air force Bal Bharti School, Lodhi Road when one firing incident took place. Thereafter, accused Aditya Gupta telephonically threatened him that his children will not be lucky as the children who were saved in the aforesaid incident. Due to this threat, the complainant withdrew his children from said school and sent them abroad for study.
19. PW2 Sh. Ved Prakash Chaudhary further stated that one Sikander called him from Dubai and threatened him that he should pay Rs. 1 crore to his local associate Aditya Gupta otherwise his family would be eliminated. He repeatedly received calls from said Sikander. He further deposed that on instructions of police, while he was present in the police station, Sikander called him. The said call was recorded by the police. Sikander even connected with accused Aditya Gupta on conference call. Accused Aditya Gupta accepted that he knew said Sikander. The said call between Sikander, Aditya Gupta and complainant were recorded. The recorded cassettes were handed over to the police.
FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 18 of 26
20. PW4 Sh. Trilok Chaudhary who is the brother of complainant deposed that he received one call from Sikander, who claimed himself to be an associate of Dawood and asked him to give Rs. 1 crore to Aditya Gupta. Sikander also joined Aditya Gupta through a conference call. In may, 2000, the call was also received from Sikander from Dubai. No call was received thereafter. He further stated that on 21.05.2000 his brother handed over recorded cassettes of conversation to the IO.
21. In his cross examination, it is stated by the said witness that only he spoke to Sikander but his brother never talked to Sikander. He further stated that cassettes Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C which were handed over to the police were recorded by him. The same had conversation of him with Sikander. He further stated that only two calls; one in March, 2000 and another in May, 2000 were received by him.
22. Prosecution has examined four independent witnesses to prove its case. First is PW1 Sh. Sanjay Kapahi. The said witness did not support the case of the prosecution. PW2 is the complainant. PW4 is brother of complainant and PW6 Sh. Lalit Thukral.
FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 19 of 26
23. PW6 Sh. Sh. Lalit Thukral deposed that the total amount recoverable by accused Aditya Gupta from complainant including interest Rs. 1.25 crore approximately. Principal amount was Rs. 85 lacs. The said amount was not returned by the complainant to the accused.
24. In order to prove the story of the prosecution, it would be essential that testimony of PW2 and PW4 be discerned alongwith complaint Ex.PW2/A. It is stated in the complaint of PW2 that "Yesterday 24.04.2000 at around 6.30 to 645 pm, I received a call from one person who identified as Sikander, calling from Dubai from the residence of Dawood's brother, and told me that I must pay Rs. 1 crore within 4 days failing which I shall be eliminated from the face of earth."
25. Now when the complainant stepped into the witness box deposed "My brother namely Trilok Chaudhary had received a call for the first time and he told me that one person namely Sikander was abusing and threatening me to kill. Thereafter, I also received phone call on my mobile phone number which I do not remember as the same was discontinued after receiving the said threatening call from Sikander."
FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 20 of 26
26. PW4 Trilok Chaudhary, the brother of the complainant deposed that "I received a call of one Sikander who claimed himself to be an associate of Dawood. He asked me to give Rs. 1 crore to Aditya Gupta." " In month of May, 2000 I again received a call of Sikander and he again threatened me to pay the money to Aditya Gupta."
27. It is stated by PW4 that "it is correct that it was only me who talked to so called Sikander and not my brother Sh. Ved Prakash Chaudhary."
28. PW2 stated that "Police also instructed me to continue talking to Sikdaner over phone and police also provided me PSO. Police also directed me to make a phone call to the number of Sikander in presence of police. When I made a call to the number of Sikander it was not attended. After sometime in the presence of police, Sikander rang me back. That call was recorded by police."
29. Per contra, it is deposed by PW4 that "it is correct that the recording which was done in May, 2000 and the cassettes which were handed over to the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C was done by me and all the FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 21 of 26 conversation with alleged Sikander was done by me."
30. As per PW2, the conversation recorded in the cassettes was done in the presence of police. Whereas it is deposed by PW8 Inspector Satish Kumar that on 21.05.2000 and 22.05.2000, he seized the cassettes produces by the complainant. He further deposed that police had not provided any instrument for recording of calls to the complainant. He further admitted that the recording was conducted by the complainant himself. The same was neither recorded with the help of police nor in the presence of police.
31. There are major discrepancies in the versions of two important witnesses of prosecution i.e. PW2 and his brother PW4 which create serious suspicion on the story of the prosecution.
32. It is alleged by complainant (PW2) that even prior to April, 2000 he had given Rs. 10 lacs to Major Ravi who was muscle man of D.P. Yadav for accused Aditya Gupta. This Major Ravi also forcibly took his Santro Car.
33. It is admitted by the IO that he did not conduct any investigation on the allegations of complainant that money was FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 22 of 26 extorted by Major Ravi and he even took Santro Car of the complainant. It is further admitted by the IO that he did not conduct any investigation regarding the numbers from which the alleged calls were received by the complainant. He did not even try to find out that whether the numbers were that of Dubai.
34. The IO only investigated on the allegations levelled by the complainant against accused Aditya Gupta. No effort was made to find out whether the allegations levelled by the complainant about Sikander and Major Ravi being accomplice of Aditya Gupta were true.
35. The IO even sought permission to take the voice sample of accused Aditya Gupta which were sent for comparison with the alleged conversation between accused and the complainant. The admitted voice of accused Aditya Gupta did not match with the alleged voice.
36. The entire story of prosecution revolves around the telephone calls allegedly made by either accused Aditya Gupta or his accomplice Sikander. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the call records or that the calls were actually FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 23 of 26 made by either of them.
37. PW3 Captain Rakesh Bakshi from Airtel could not authenticate the call records available on record. He could not depose with certainty that the calls were made from which number. Similarly, PW5 Prashant Kumar from Vodafone Mobile Service could not confirm that the CDRs available on record have been issued from his office. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the calls were actually made by accused Aditya Gupta. Further, it has even failed to prove that there was any connect between both the accused with any gangster in Dubai.
38. Absolutely, no evidence has been brought on record to prove connivance between both the accused persons or their connect with the underworld. The investigating agency has not conducted any investigation to establish the identity of Sikander or his connect with the accused persons.
39. The complainant on whose complaint, the investigation was initiated has given different versions in his complaint Ex.PW2/A and in the Court. Not only there are discrepancies in the previous statement of complainant and deposition before the FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 24 of 26 Court but also in the deposition of PW4. The testimonies of PW2 and PW4 are contrary to each other. The discrepancies in their statement are material who go into the roots of the matters.
40. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused "beyond reasonable doubt". The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB), 1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 662).
41. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused, the benefit of which accrues in their favour. They are accordingly acquitted for the offence under section 387/507/506/120B IPC Announced in the open Court on 31.07.2018 (POOJA TALWAR) CMM (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 25 of 26 Certified that this Judgment contains 26 pages and each page is signed by me.
(POOJA TALWAR)
CMM (South), Saket Courts,
New Delhi
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2018.08.03
17:20:21 +0530
FIR No. 286/2000 PS Mehrauli (CB) Page- 26 of 26