Delhi District Court
State vs . Harish Kumar And Ors. on 31 January, 2020
State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS SHEFALI SHARMA: ACMM01(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI
State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
FIR NO. : 150/11
U/S : 451/323/354 IPC
PS : Paharganj
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 297220/16 b) Date of institution of the case : 21.9.2012 c) Date of commission of offence : 9.10.2011 d) Name of the complainant : Sh. Sarvjeet Kaur S/o Lt Satyavir.
e) Name & address of the 1. Harish Kumar S/o Sh. Mata Deon accused persons R/o H.No. 2771/Sangatarshan, Paharganj , Delhi .
2. Pooja W/o Sh. Harish Kumar R/o H.No. 2771/Sangatarshan, Paharganj, Delhi
3. Sushila W/o Lt Sh. Arun Kumar R/o H.No. 2771/Sangatarshan, Paharganj, Delhi
4. Roop Kishore @ Sheenu S/o Sh. Bahudev Prasad.
R/o H.No. 1352 Sangatarshan, Paharganj, Delhi
5. Anuj Kumar Gupta @ Bunty S/o Lt Sh. Azad Babu Gupta.
R/o H.No. 1352 Sangatarshan,
Paharganj, Delhi
FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 1 of 20
State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
f) Offence charged of : 451/323/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
h) Arguments heard on : 21.1.2020
i) Final order : Acquitted.
j) Date of Judgment : 31.1.2020.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The chargesheet in the present case has been filed by prosecution with the allegations against accused Harish Kumar, Pooja, Sushila , Roop Kishore that on 9.10.2011 at around 1:30pm when complainant was alone in the room at the first floor of her house all accused alongwith coaccused Anuj Kumar forcefully entered in her room from adjacent wall and started bearing her, that accused Harish held her back and twisted her arms while accused Roop Kishore alongwith Anuj held her from her legs, accused Pooja hit on her head with the help of balli while accused Sushila hit on her shoulder and stomach with the help of danda , that accused Harish kept on slapping her on her face and threatened her that complainant would close the window which is open since last 35 years , that accused persons with common intention not only forcefully entered in the room of the complainant but also beat her mercilessly and caused simple injury on her person and thereby alleged to have committed offences U/sec.451/ 323/34 IPC .
FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 2 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. A formal charge for commission of offence U/sec. 451/ 323/34 IPC were framed against all accused persons by my Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Perusal of record transpires that during course of trial , vide order dt. 14.10.2013 of my Ld Predecessor one of accused namely Anuj Gupta stands acquitted for the charges framed against him.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, (12) twelve witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The relevant and material extract of their testimony is as under:
5. PW 1 W/Ct Rani deposed that on 9.10.11 she registered information about quarrel vide DD no. 20 Ex PW 1/A and handed over the same to HC Charanjeet for further proceedings. During her cross examination by ld defence counsel, she deposed that she handed over DD no. 20 to HC Charanjit after two or three mins of registering the same through telephone, that he had not handed over the document in which DD no. 20 was registered.
6. PW 2 Dr Rashmi (RML Hospital) proved MLC of injured Ex FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 3 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
PW 2/A . She was not cross examined by ld defence counsel despite opportunity given.
7. PW 3 HC Mahavir deposed that on 9.10.2011 at about 3:23 pm they received a call and went at the spot i.e 2776/6 chuna mandi Paharganj , that they met with lady Sarabjit Kaur who was injured, that they had taken her to RML hospital, that they also informed about the incident to police control room. He was not cross examined by ld defence counsel despite opportunity given.
8. PW 4 Sarabjit Kauar deposed that on 9.10.2011 he was in his house i.e 2776/6 Chuna Mandi Paharganj Delhi, that the adjacent residential construction work was going on , that due to construction work cracks appeared in the wall of shop situated at the ground floor, that at about 1:30pm Harish alongwith other person came at his roof from his from side of their roof, that Harish caught hold him from behind and he also twisted his hand, that acused Roop Kishore and his son in law Manoj @ Bunti hold him from his legs, accused Pooja hit him on his head with wooden Bali , that accused Sushila having danda in her hand and hit him on his shoulder and his stomach with that danda Harish Kumar was slapping him continuously, that Harish Kumar alongwith other coaccused persons threatened him by saying that ' khirki band nahi ki to tujhe jaan se maar denge' that due to severe beatings by Harish Kumar and other coaccused he became unconscious, that was FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 4 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
taken to hospital, MLC Ex PW 2/A prepared, that he gave written complaint Ex PW 3/A to police. She further deposed that on prior to the above mentioned incident , accused Pooja nad Harish on 23 rd or 26 January 2009 or 2010 they throw bricks at his mothers house , that accused persons entered in her room i.e barsati constructed at the roof of his mothers house with the intention to threatened her and to cause injuries to her, that accused with common intention caught hold me and threatened him and gave injuries on the person with the intention to pressurize him to close the window which was on the wall on the side of the accused persons.
During her cross examination, she deposed that the house bearing no. 2776/6 chuna mandi Paharganj Delhi in her mother's house, that on 9.10.2011 she came to his mother house at about 10:30 am when she went to her mother place there were some repair work going on at Harish house but the repair work was going on 2775/6 , she deposed that it is is correct that her mothers house and house of accused persons are adjoining and share the same wall . She denied the suggestion that the relations between her and accused persons were strained from last many years. She further deposed that on 26.1.2009 10 the bricks were thrown by someone at his mother's house , the bricks were thrown from the side of house of accused persons and wife of accused Harish was seen standing , that the bricks were in the hands of wife of accused Harish and she was also throwing towards her mother's house, that wife of accused Harish was throwing the bricks as she was FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 5 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
asking to remove the window or to close as they want to construct their house, that no written compromise between him and accused persons . She denied the suggestion that she had promised in the compromise to remove the window from the wall of the accused persons. She further deposed that it is correct that at the time of the incident her mother was at the first floor of the house and even after hearing the sounds from the roof her mother did not come upstairs. . She denied the suggestion that she had filed the false complaint in order to implicate the accused persons in false case to take the previous revenge regarding the previous quarrels. He cross examination was not concluded as she did not come forward thereafter and her evidence was closed vide order dt. 25.7.2019/.
9. PW 5 Israr Babu ( Nodal officer) proved original customer application form Ex PW 5/A and computer generated call detained of mobile phone no. 9013258525 EX PW 5/B Ex PW 5/B , certificate section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex PW 5/C . He was not cross examined by ld defence counsel despite opportunity given.
10. PW 6 HC Yudvir deposed that on 9.10.2011 he alongwith HC Charanjit went to house no. 2776 chuna mandi Paharganj Delhi where they came to know that injured was taken to RML hospital, that he alongwith HC Charanjit collected the MLC injured namely Sarabjit , that on 20.10.2011, complainant Sarabjit came to the PS and gave FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 6 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
complainant regarding the incident Ex PW 3/A , that on complaint HC Charanjit singh made endorsement, that he went to PS for registration of FIR, that after registration he came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original complaint. He was not cross examined by ld defence counsel despite opportunity given.
11. PW 7 Dr Poonam Vohra identified handwriting and signature on Xray report of patient Sarabjit Ex PW 7/A of Dr Shashank Sood . During her cross examination by ld defence counsel , she deposed that no proceedings regarding Ex PW 7/A took in his presence , that only he can identify the signature of Dr Shashank Sood having been worked with him.
12. PW 8 Dr Gyan Ranjan Kumar identified handwriting and signature of Dr Trilok Chand on MLC no. 20053 of patient Sarabjit Ex PW 2/A . During his cross examination by ld defence counsel , he deposed that no proceedings regarding Ex PW 2/A took in his presence , that only he can identify the signature of Dr Trilok Chand having been worked with him and he had worked with Dr Trilok Chand for about two years.
13. PW 9 Dr Harmeet Singh proved MLC no. 20053 of patient Ex PW 2/A and identified signatures and handwriting of Dr Animesh Aggarwal. During his cross examination by ld defence counsel , he FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 7 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
deposed that he can identify the signature of Dr Animesh Aggarwal having been worked with him, that he cannot depose anything about the Ex PW 2/A .
14. PW 10 Madhu Sharma deposed that on 9.10.2011 his younger brother accused Roop Kishore came to his house at around 8 9am he went his house situated at 1352 Katra Jamaluddhin Paharganj New Delhi, that police came to his house in his presence, that he alongwith his brother coaccused Roop Kishore went to the Police post . During his cross examination by ld defence counsel , he deposed that the distance between the house of Roop Kishore and place of occurrence is about that ½ km . She further deposed that in between there are lanes and road besides Sangtration police post, that he had not seen the house where the quarrel had taken and area is densely populated. He further deposed that room constructed upon the house of the Roop Kishore was once demolished by the MCD and thereafter further booked by the MCD, that there are civil proceedings between his brother and Sarabjeet Kaur in Govt officers and Courts , that present case has been framed due to pendency of other cases , that complainant is working in police as Inspector.
15. PW 11 Ramesh Kumar deposed that he was working at 1743 Laxmi Narain Street Paharganj Delhi at his company namely Hill top travel, that coaccused Anuj Kumar @ Bunty worked as driver in his FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 8 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
company with his car maruti bearing NO. DL 2C1360, that on 9.10.2011 at around 11:am he sent his local passenger in car , that accused Anuj Kumar @ Bunty was acquitted for the charges vide order dt. 14.310.2013. During his cross examination by ld defence counsel , he deposed that the he only used to sent accused Anuj Kumar with local passenger in his car, that he do not know accused Harish Kumar.
16. PW 12 ASI Charanjit Singh deposed that on 9.10.2011 he received a call vide DD no. 20 PPST regarding quarrel at 2776 Gali 6 Chuna Mandi Paharganj, that he alongwith Ct Yudvir visited at the spot, that he interrogated injured Sarabjit Kaur regarding the quarrel , that on 20.10.2011 he endorsed the said complaint and prepared rukka on the basis of the said complaint Ex PW 12/A, that he interrogated injured and prepared site plan at instance Ex PW 12/B , that on next day , he had interrogated all accused , that he arrest accused Harish Kumar, Pooja and Sushila vide memo Ex PW 12/C, PW 12/D and PW 12/E, that on the same day all accused persons released on bail, that there were two other persons involved in the present case that is why he had visited their address, that at the said address he met secret informer who told him that there is previous enmity between the both accused and complainant that is why the complainant had lodged the present case and add their name namely Roop Kishore and Bunty, that he made inquiry from both the accused out of them one accused told him that he had went with the passenger by his vehicle at local delhi at the time of FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 9 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
incident, that he enquired from the travel agency through which he had went with the passenger to local Delhi, that after investigation of these accused he did not find any clue to show their involvement he kept both the accused in coloumn no. 12 in the present chargesheet and prepared challan. He correctly identified all accused persons .
During his cross examination by ld defence counsel , he deposed that at the time of incident, the complainant was working as Inspector in Delhi Police. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately conceal the facts that she was Inspector in Delhi Police at the time of incident. He further denied the suggestion that because the complainant was his senior officer as Inspector , therefore he illegally supported her version in the present complaint. He deposed that after receiving the DD entry when he reached the place of incident he enquired from the local residents who resides nearby . He further deposed that it is correct that the place of incident is a densely populated area , there are plenty of shops , hawkers and residents who resides at the same colony, that he visited the place where the incident took place on the day of DD entry was received by him, that he came to know regarding the previous civil litigation and complaints made by both the parties i.e accused persons and complainant , that during the investigation, for a window opened by the complainant into the property of accused Harish and litigation filed by complainant against accused Roop Kishore for his property, that he was not aware about the cases bearing suit no. 1023/13 titled and Sarabjit Bhatti Vs Roop Kishore FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 10 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
sharma and ors and also in the said case directions were issued by the concerned civil court to the SHO PS Paharganj to facilitate the repairing work in the house of accused Roop Kishore, whereas the case was filed by complainant Saarabjit, that he was not aware about the civil suit no. 603/14 titled as Raguvir Singh Vs. Roop Kishore and ors. He denied the suggestion that present complaint is after thought in retaliation to the result of the aforesaid cases of complainant as she could not got any relief in her favour against the accused persons despite filing the aforesaid cases. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
17. Record transpires that during course of trial, accused persons admitted FIR by the DO HC Arvind vide their separate statement in terms of Sec. 294 Cr.PC. Therefore, the said documents can be read in evidence without formal proof of same.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 313 OF CR.P.C.
18. On Conclusion of PE, statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC were recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them. The accused persons denied the same as incorrect and stated that they have been falsely implicated. Accused persons do not lead any defence evidence in their favour.
19. I have heard the arguments as advanced by the Ld. APP for FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 11 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
the State and Ld defence counsel.
20. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
21. It has been argued by the Ld. APP that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is contended that in the light of testimony of PW4 and his MLC Ex.PW 2/A . It is argued that the accused persons deserve to be convicted for the offence with which they have been charged.
22. Per contra, it is contended by Ld. defence counsel that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further argued that there are material contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and thus a reasonable shadow of doubt is cast upon the prosecution version.
23. In view of the submissions made, I proceed to analyze the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution.
FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 12 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
24. Complainant was the prime prosecution witness. It was deposed by complainant /PW4 Smt. Sarabjit Kaur in her examination in chief that :
"..............On 9.10.2011 he was in his house i.e 2776/6 Chuna Mandi Paharganj Delhi, that the adjacent residential construction work was going on , that due to construction work cracks appeared in the wall of shop situated at the ground floor, that at about 1:30pm Harish alongwith other person came at his roof from his from side of their roof, that Harish caught hold him from behind and he also twisted his hand, that acused Roop Kishore and his son in law Manoj @ Bunti hold him from his legs, accused Pooja hit him on hishead with wooden Bali , that accused Sushila having danda in her hand and hit him on his shoulder and his stomach with that danda Harish Kumar was slapping him continuously, that Harish Kumar alongwith other coaccused persons threatened him by saying that ' khirki band nahi ki to tujhe jaan se maar denge' that due to severe beatings by Harish Kumar and other coaccused he became unconscious, that was taken to hospital, MLC Ex PW 2/A prepared, that he gave written complaint Ex PW 3/A to police. She further deposed that on prior to the above mentioned incident , accused Pooja nad Harish on 23rd or 26 January 2009 or 2010 they throw bricks at his mothers house , that accused persons entered in her room i.e barsati constructed at the roof of his mothers house with the intention to threatened her and to cause injuries to her, that accused with common intention caught hold me and threatened him and gave injuries on the person with the intention to pressurize him to close the window which was on the wall on the side of the accused persons. ............"
25. Thereafter her cross examination has been deferred and she was partly cross examined on 21.3.2015 and thereafter recalled for FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 13 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
further cross examination after allowing of the application u/s 311 CrPC vide order dt. 4.1.2016 moved by the counsel for the accused on 9.2.2018 . Thereafter her further cross examination was deferred and despite repeated opportunities and services of the notices the complainant PW 4 did not come forward for his cross examination and accordingly vide order dt. 25.7.2019 when she herself refused to get her evidence recorded and it was observed by ld Predecessor, her evidence stood closed. Thus , her testimony is being read only qua the relevant part for which she was cross examined and not in entirety.
26. The complainant had deposed that at the time of incident her mother was present at the first floor . At the very outset it is pertinent to mention that the mother of the complainant had not been summoned as a prosecution witness . Further in her cross examination the complainant stated that the mother despite hearing the sound did not come upstairs as she is having ear impairedness but no proof regarding the same has been adduced.
27. The complainant had deposed that at around 1:30Pm accused persons namely Pooja , Harish, Sushila and Roop Kishore and his son in law Manoj came at the roof top and the accused persons misbehaved with her and caused injuries . Roop Kishore and his son in law Manoj @ Bunti caught hold of her from her legs and the accused Pooja hit the complainant on her head with "a wooden balli" and FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 14 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
Sushila hit on her shoulder and stomach with a "danda". At this stage, it would be relevant to quote the testimony of PW 10 and PW 11 .
28. PW 10 Smt Madhu Sharma categorically deposed that on 9.10.2011 Roop Kishore had come to her house at around 89:00am and remained there till 4:00pm. In her cross examination by ld APP for the State she further stated that the complainant had constructed one latrine bathroom forcefully and a complaint had been filed in this regard and that complainant herein used to quarrel with the accused Roop Kishore. The alleged time of incident is 1:30pm , thus if the accused Roop Kishore was present with PW 10 from 8:00am to 4:00 pm , how could he be present at 1:30pm with the complainant. This is a material contradiction in the testimony of PW 10 and PW 4 which remains unexplained by the prosecution.
29. PW 11 further deposed that the accused Anuj Kumar @ Bunty worked as a driver in his company and at around 11:00am PW11 had sent the accused with a local passenger in the car. The photocopy of the attendance register is also proved as mark A and vide order dt. 14.10.2013 accused Anuj Gupta was acquitted.
30. In the present case, the incident reportedly took place in the after noon at 1:30pm, but no public persons was joined in the investigation. No written notice was served by the IO to join the FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 15 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
proceedings in the present case or to face action u/s 187 IPC . Facts and circumstances of the case suggests that no sincere efforts were made by police officials concerned to join independent public witnesses in the concerned police proceedings at any of the available stages. In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judgments:
31. In case law reported as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under: "18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
32. In a case law reported as "Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana" 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under: "3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses form the public were available and they were asked to join the FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 16 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner".
"4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for nonjoining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
In case law reported as "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court had observed as under: "5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 17 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
"6. In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely, Nirmal Kumar Jha SI who appeared as PW8 and HC Sukhpal Singh, PW9. Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner, but there was no public witness who had joint. It is not necessary in such recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but attempt must be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereotype statement of nonavailability will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the service of public witness. This reflects adversely on the prosecution version".
33. Further, PW 4 had deposed that she was hit with "wooden balli" and a "danda" , however the said weapon of offence had not been seized by the IO and there is nothing to show in his testimony that any effort had been made to trace out the same.
34. Further PW 4 deposed that she was inflicted injuries on her stomach , head and shoulders . The MLC Ex PW 2/A reveals the nature of injury . However, it does not prove as to in what manner with what weapon if any alleged injury had been inflicted. Doctor from RML hospital has been examined as PW2 . PW 7 Dr Poonam Vohra in her cross examination admitted that no proceedings regarding the X Ray report Ex PW 7/A took place in her presence and even PW 8 Dr Gyan FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 18 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
Ranjan Kumar admitted that the MLC Ex PW 2/A had not been prepared in his presence and they can only identify the signatures of the doctor but could not depose about the authenticity of contents the said documents.
35. Further, PW 4 was thoroughly cross examined on the aspect of where she was posted on the date of incident and did she take any leave from her office to be present at her home , where the alleged incident took place. Relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced herein below: "........Ques On 9.10.2011 have you take any permission from your senior to stay at home, not to join your duty at the abovesaid officer and if ayes from whom did you take the permission? Can you tell as to how you take the permission was it in writing or oral?
Ans. It was Sunday and I had taken oral permission from seniors to stay at home from the concerned ACP. However the name of the said ACP I do not remember now. There was 8 ACPs to govern the office. Again said there is only one ACP who governs my officer. I do not remember the name of the said ACP from whom he had taken the permission.
I do not remember today as to when I had taken the permission from the ACP regarding the leave on 9.10.2011 . Again said I had taken the leave from ACP on phone. However I do not remember the time. Ques: By your above statement do you mean to submit that you were present at the abovesaid office 8.10.2011 , when you asked for the leave for 9.10.2011 from the ACP ? What do you say?
Ans. I do not remember today as to when and from FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 19 of 20 State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
where I had taken the permission from ACP whether I had taken it on the way from my mobile phone, whether I had taken it when I was at my house, whether I had taken it when I was in the officer. Again said I also do not remember I had taken it from the ACP directly when he would have come for inspection of shelter house.
It is wrong to suggest that I had not taken any such permission and therefore I cannot tell the name of the said ACP today before the court.........."
36. She could not prove with satisfaction that she had taken a leave after due permission of her senior officials and hence her presence on the spot remains under cloud and thus grave doubt is raised in story of the prosecution .
CONCLUSION
37. Therefore in view of the aforesaid discussion and material available on record, I am of the considered view that case of prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all accused persons namely Harish Kumar, Pooja , Sushila and Roop Kishore stand acquitted U/sec. 451/323/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2020.01.31
16:29:18 +0530
Announced in the open court (Shefali Sharma)
on 31.1.2020 ACMM01(Central) THC
Delhi / 31.1.2020
FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 20 of 20
State vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
FIR No. 150/11 PS Paharganj 21 of 20