Delhi District Court
State vs Nitin Kumar on 2 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAHIL MONGA: JMFC-04,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
STATE VS. NITIN KUMAR & Ors.
FIR No.191/15
U/sec. 323/341/506/34 IPC
PS: Karawal Nagar
Date of institution of the case:28.03.2017
Date on which judgment is reserved:29.06.2024
Date on which judgment is delivered:02.08.2024
Cr. Case No.746/17
CNR No.DLNE02-004991-2016
JUDGMENT
Date of commission of the offence :06.03.2015
a) Name of the complainant : Meenakshi
b) Name of the accused and his parentage : (1)Nitin Kumar (2) Sandeep Kumar (3) Jitender Kumar All S/o Sh. Genda Lal All R/o H. No. B-
188, Gali No. 8, Ph-10, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
(4) Ms. Anita S/o Sh. Braham Parkash R/o H. No. 16/51, Old Chandrwal Civil Lines Delhi.
c) Offence complained of :S. 323/341/506/34 IPC Digitally signed by SAHIL State Vs. Nitin Kumar & Ors Page 1 of 8 FIR No.191/15 SAHIL MONGA Date:
MONGA 2024.08.02
14:15:13
+0530
d) Offence charged of : 323/341/34 IPC
e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not
guilty
f) Final order : Acquittal
g) Date of such order : 02.08.2024
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.03.2015 at about 03.00 PM at Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, accused persons had obstructed and caused simple hurt to complainant namely Meenakshi and her mother Ms. Nirmala Devi.
Accused persons appeared before this court and after compliance under section 207, charge under section 323/341/34 IPC was framed against them to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has cited as many as Six (6) witnesses.
3. PW/complainant Meenakshi and PW Ms. Nirmala Devi were summoned to depose but the notice issued to PW/complainant Meenakshi and PW Ms. Nirmal Devi received back as unserved through DCP concerned and consequently when the PW/complainant Meenakshi and PW Ms. Nirmala Devi failed to appear before the court despite issuing notice on several dates of hearings, they were dropped from the list of witnesses. Consequently, request of the learned APP for State to examine remaining prosecution Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA Date: State Vs. Nitin Kumar & Ors Page 2 of 8 FIR No.191/15 MONGA 2024.08.02 14:15:18 +0530 witnesses was declined as no useful purpose would be served by examining the rest of the witnesses, who are formal in nature. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that:-
"...In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date.........."
4. As no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused persons, recording of their statement under section 313 of the Code was also dispensed with.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the file very carefully.
Arguments
6. It is submitted by the learned defence counsel that the accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable under sections 323/341/34 IPC and the prosecution examined PW1/ASI Ram Kumar, who is police witness and interested in the success of the prosecution story. Thus, according to learned defence counsel in the absence of the testimony of complainant Meenakshi and PW Ms. Nirmala Devi, there is nothing on record to connect the accused Digitally signed by persons with the offences charged with. SAHIL SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
2024.08.02 14:15:23 +0530 State Vs. Nitin Kumar & Ors Page 3 of 8 FIR No.191/15
7. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of State (Delhi Adminsitration) vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi 1995II AD (Delhi) 6 wherein it was held as under:-
"..Further, Major Chakarvarty alone could have testified whether scooter Ex. P-1 was the one which belonged to him and was stolen. He has not been produced and examined as a witness in the case. Thus, the best evidence for establishing identity of the recovered property and the stolen property was not produced".
8. He submitted that in the present case also the best evidence i.e. complainant Meenakshi and PW Ms. Nirmal Devi were not produced before the court as he also failed to appear before court despite issuing summons through DCP concerned. He, therefore, requested that the accused persons may be acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
Decision and brief reasons for the same
9. The prosecution has a duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no duty on an accused to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. A Court cannot draw an inference of guilt from mere suspicion.
10. Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot take the place of legal proof.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under:-
Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
2024.08.02 State Vs. Nitin Kumar & Ors Page 4 of 8 FIR No.191/15 14:15:31 +0530
6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that 'may be' proved, and something that 'will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide:
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR Digitally signed by State Vs. Nitin Kumar & Ors Page 5 of 8 FIR No.191/15 SAHIL SAHIL MONGA Date:
MONGA 2024.08.02 14:15:36 +0530 2012 SC 1979).
12. The rule that every accused person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is fundamental to the system of justice practiced in this country and in several other countries. Indeed it is entrenched in the Constitution that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty.
13. Despite availing numerous opportunities, prosecution has not examined the PW/complainant Meenakshi and PW Ms. Nirmala Devi. It is pertinent to record that no public witness was joined in the investigation by the IO. The police witnesses cannot be straightaway termed as unreliable witnesses, however, when there is a possibility of joining any public witness in the investigation and still no genuine efforts are made to join the independent person as witness, then the testimony of the police witness does not lend sufficient credence/reliability, unless it is corroborated by independent material witness. In view of above discussion, it is duly established that genuine efforts were not made by the IO of the case to join the public witness. The non-joining of the public witness at the time of alleged recovery of the article creates doubt in the story of the prosecution as was held in Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1987 CC 585 Delhi High Court. In these circumstances, as despite the presence of public persons at/around the place of alleged recovery the investigating officer failed to join independent public persons Digitally signed by SAHIL State Vs. Nitin Kumar & Ors Page 6 of 8 FIR No.191/15 SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
2024.08.02 14:15:45 +0530 as witness to the proceedings of the present matter, warrants an adverse inference to be drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that the evidence if produced would have been unfavourable to the case of the investigating agency/prosecution and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery from the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Since PW/ complainant Meenakshi and PW Ms. Nirmala Devi could not be examined despite giving numerous opportunities, nothing could come out on the record to prove the incident or the necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under section 323/341/34 IPC as there is no direct evidence to connect the accused persons with the crime.
Conclusion
15. The entire prosecution case hinges upon the statement of PW/complainant Meenakshi and PW Ms. Nirmala Devi, however, he could not be examined by the prosecution despite repeated opportunities. Rest witnesses are formal in nature and the guilt of the accused cannot be established from his testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident neither took place in him presence nor it is the case of the prosecution.
16. Therefore, keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, I give benefit of doubt to the accused persons namely Nitin Kumar, Anita, Sandeep Kumar and Digitally signed by SAHIL State Vs. Nitin Kumar & Ors Page 7 of 8 SAHIL FIR No.191/15 MONGA MONGA Date:
2024.08.02 14:15:49 +0530 Jitender Kumar.
17. Accused persons namely Nitin Kumar, Anita, Sandeep Kumar and Jitender Kumar are ACQUITTED of the charge levelled against them.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open SAHIL
SAHIL
MONGA
MONGA Date:
2024.08.02
14:15:59
Court on 2nd August, 2024 (Sahil Monga) +0530
JMFC-04/North-East District
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
02.08.2024
This judgment contains 8 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally sig by SAHIL SAHIL (Sahil Monga) MONGA Date:
MONGA JMFC-04/North-East District 2024.08.02 Karkardooma Courts/Delhi 14:16:03 02.08.2024 +0530 State Vs. Nitin Kumar & Ors Page 8 of 8 FIR No.191/15