Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu And Anr. on 13 August, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS RICHA SHARMA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No.48/2009.
U/s 341, 323, 427 and 34 IPC
PS: SWAROOP NAGAR
State vs. Sonu and Anr.
Date of Institution of case:19.09.2009.
Date of Judgment reserved:07.08.2020.
Date on which Judgment pronounced:13.08.2020.
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 5281280/16
Date of Commission : 04.06.2008.
of offence
Name of the : Jai Inder Singh.
complainant
Name and address of : 1) Sonu son of Kartar Singh, resident of House
the accused persons No.45, M.C.D. Flats, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
2) Amit son of Jai Bhagwan, resident of House
No.D321, Gali No.3, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 341, 323, 427 and 34 IPC Plea of accused : Not guilty persons Final Order : Acquitted Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:28:58 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009. State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 1 of 19 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case of the prosecution in brief is, that on 04.06.2008, at about 11/11:30 p.m., when son of the complainant namely Upender Kumar was returning form the office, within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangir Puri, Delhi, both accused persons namely Amit Kumar and Sonu in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant, dragged him out of his car, broke the front mirror of the car, snatched the chain worn by him, caused him injuries and extended threat and thereby both of them committed offences punishable U/s 323, 341, 427, 394 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. It is further the case of prosecution, that on 01.06.2008, at about 01:00 a.m, accused Amit along with his friend was firing crackers in front of the house of the complainant, due to which, the complainant and his family members were getting disturbed. The complainant and his father asked the accused persons not to do so, but they did not pay any heed towards their request. The accused Amit was rebuked by his father for doing so. However, he threatened the complainant and his sons of dire consequences in front of his father. It is further stated, that on 04.06.2008, at about 11:00 p.m., when the complainant's son Upender was returning from his office, accused Amit and Sonu along with their three associates, came on a motorcycle, bearing registration No.DL8SNA2775, in the street and restrained him and stopped his car by placing the motorcycle infront of his car. They dragged the complainant outside, broke the front shield of his car and also caused him several serious injuries. On hearing screaming noise, his father and brother Gaurav came at the spot and called PCR at 100 number. On seeing his father and brother arriving at the spot, accused fled away along with his associates. While fleeing away Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:29:13 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 2 of 19from the spot, accused Amit snatched complainant's gold chain and both of them threatened him stating that, "Ye to abhi trailor tha, baki baad me batayenge". When he approached the police, no action was taken against the accused persons and therefore, he had to approach the Court vide his complaint, which is exhibited as Ex.PW3/A.
3. It is noteworthy, that after investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the Court on 19.09.2009, against the accused persons for the offences under Section 323, 341, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.).
CHARGE
4. Charge for the offences u/s 323, 341, 427, 394 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against them, accordingly, vide order dated 01.12.2010 by Ld. Predecessor of the Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in all.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.
6. PW1 Jai Inder Singh deposed on the lines of the complainant and stated that on 04.06.2008, accused Amit along with his friend Sonu and 23 other persons stopped the car of his son by putting their motor cycle, bearing registration No.DL8SNA2775, in front of his car. His son Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:29:25 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 3 of 19was dragged out and was given several injuries on his face, head and other parts of body. Accused Sonu had beaten his son with helmet and accused Amit had beaten him with bricks. Accused Sonu broke the front mirror of his car. On hearing alarm raised by his son, he along with his other son Gaurav reached the spot. On seeing them, the accused person fled away from the spot. His elder son Gaurav made a call to PCR at 100 number.
In his crossexamination, he categorically deposed, that he was not present on the spot when the alleged incident took place. He volunteered, that he reached the spot on hearing the alarm of his son.
7. PW2 HC Rang Bahadur deposed, that on 01.03.2009, he was posted as Duty Officer at P.S. Swaroop Nagar. On that day, SHO handed over written complaint, on the basis of which he registered the complaint Ex.PW2/A. He also identified his signature at pointA on the endorsement made by him on Ex.PW2/B.
8. PW3 Upender Kumar deposed that on 01.06.2008, at about 01:00 a.m., accused Amit along with friend was firing crackers in front of the house of the complainant, due to which, the complainant and his family members were getting disturbed. The complainant and his sons asked the accused person not to do so, but they did not pay any heed towards the request. The accused Amit was rebuked by his father for doing so. However, he threatened the complainant of dire consequences in front of his father. It is further stated, that on 04.06.2008, at about 11:00 p.m., when the complainant was returning from his office, accused Amit and Sonu along with their three associates came on motorcycle, bearing registration no. DL8SNA2775, in the street and restrained him Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2020.08.13 15:29:31 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009.State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 4 of 19
and stopped his car. They dragged him out of the car, broke the front shield and also caused him several serious injuries. On hearing screaming noises, his father and brother Gaurav came on the spot and called PCR at 100 number. On seeing his father and brother arriving at the spot, the accused persons fled away along with their associates. While fleeing away from the spot, the accused Amit snatched his gold chain and both of them threatened him stating that "Ye to abhi trailor that baki baad me batayenge". When he approached the police, no action was taken against the accused persons and therefore, he had to approach the Court vide his complaint which is exhibited as Ex.PW3/A. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he did not lodge any complaint on 01.06.2008, at P.S. Swaroop. On 04.06.2008, he did not make any call to the PCR, rather his brother made the same. He categorically deposed, that he did not lodge any written complaint at P.S. prior to the complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C filed before the court. He volunteered, that his father lodged complaint to P.S. He has further deposed that the accused persons are known to him prior to the incident.
9. Perusal of the record shows that Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO, BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi was recorded as PW3 inadvertently instead of PW4. He deposed that Dr. Nadeem left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known to him. He identified the writing and signature of Dr. Nadeem, as he had worked with him. He further deposed, that on 05th June, patient Upender was brought to the casualty with history of assault. He proved the signature of Dr. Nadeem at PointA vide MLC Ex.PW3/A. Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2020.08.13
15:29:38
+0530
FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 5 of 19
10. PW4 HC Pardeep Kumar deposed, that on 07.05.2009, he was posted as Constable at P.S. Swaroop Nagar. He proved his signature at PointA on arrest memo Ex.PW4/A.
11. PW 5 Inspector Rajinder Singh deposed, that on 01.03.2009, he was posted as SubInspector at P.S. Swaroop Nagar. He collected relevant documents i.e. DD No.9B, MLC of complainant Upender Singh, recorded the supplementary statement of complainant Jai Inder Singh. Further, he obtained opinion on MLC of injured regarding the nature of the injuries. He did not find any clue regarding the offence of robbery as well as Section 308 and 506 IPC. After going through the facts, Sections 308, 506 and 392 IPC were removed by the order of senior officer.
12. PW6 ASI Jagdev Singh deposed that on 24.04.2009, when the case was marked to him, he was posted as Head Constable at P.S. Swaroop Nagar. He visited the spot on 25.04.2009 and prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Jai Inder Singh, bearing his signature at PointA. He further proved his signature on arrest memo Ex.PW6/A. Statement under section 313 Cr.PC
13. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 22.04.2019, wherein both the accused persons pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Further, they got examined themselves as defence witness.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13
15:29:43 +0530
FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 6 of 19
14. On the basis of the above oral and documentary evidence on record, Ld APP requested for conviction of the accused.
15. On the other hand, learned defense counsel contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, he prayed for the acquittal of the accused persons.
16. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as Ld. defence counsel for the accused and perused the plethora of evidence on record, including the testimony of the prosecution and defence witnesses as well as the documents on record. The careful findings are as under; REASONS FOR APPRAISAL
17. Primarily, at the very outset, there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. The incident is described to have taken place on 04.06.2008, whereas the FIR has been registered on 01.03.2009, thus there is an inordinate delay of almost nine months. It is pertinent to mention, that the complaint before the Court itself was moved on 15.10.2008, whereas the incident took place on 04.06.2008 i.e. after a delay of more than four months. Even if for the sake of argument, the version of the complainant is believed to be gospel truth, the fact that the complainant moved to the court nearly four months after the alleged incident remains unexplained. In this regard, it is settled principle of law that delay in lodging of the FIR is fatal to the prosecution, unless the prosecution explains the same. In the present case, the prosecution has Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:29:50 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 7 of 19not come up with any reasonable or plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. In this regard, the Court seeks support from the case law authorities namely "Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal Vs. State of Punjab 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 453 (P&H), Suba Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 45 (P&H) and Bhagwan Singh & Another Vs. The State of Haryana 2003(2) AICLR 130 (P&H)", wherein it has been held, that every delay in lodging FIR would not vitiate the trial, but an inordinate delay will have to be necessarily explained by the Investigating Agency and an absence of unexplained delay, throws a doubt on the ocular version and thereby casts doubt on the version of the prosecution as a whole.
18. Moving further, it is apposite to mention that the star witness i.e. PW3, being the injured in the present case states in his examination in chief that on 01.06.2008, at about 01:00 a.m, the accused was firing crackers in front of the complainant's house along with his friend and as a result of the noise so caused, the complainant and his father asked him not to do so, but the accused paid no heed and continued with his activity. At this stage, Court deems it fit to take a pause and canvass the testimony of PW1 i.e. the father of the complainant, as the latter deposed in his examination in chief, that it is he who went to the house of the accused and asked him to stop firing the crackers. Implying thereby, that there is no iota of evidence regarding PW3 accompanying his father to the house of the accused on 01.06.2008. This is a major contradiction with regard to the deposition made by PW1 and PW3, which hits the root of the prosecution case at a vital point.
Digitally signedRICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:29:57 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009. State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 8 of 19
19. It would further not be out of place to mention, that there is no complaint on record with regard to any such incident that happened on 01.06.2008, filed either by PW1 or by PW3 with the police. Further, there is nothing on record placed by the prosecution to show that any 100 number call was made to the police reporting the alleged incident. It is further relevant to state, that no independent evidence has been led by the prosecution in the first place to prove that any such alleged incident of firing of crackers actually happened. The incident reported is stated to have emanated as a result of an alleged incident of firing of crackers by the accused and his friend on 01.06.2008, but it is apropos to state that nothing has been mentioned with regard to the fact that as to why the crackers were being fired, as neither it is stated in testimony of star witness i.e. PW3 or his father i.e. PW1, that there was any kind of celebration in the family of the accused. Further, the incident allegedly took place in the month of June, which creates doubt in the mind of the court for the reason as to why alleged crackers were being played/fired by the accused persons at that point of time. The onus was upon the prosecution to dispel the doubt, but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the same, as no plausible reason has been tendered explaining the alleged firing of crackers by the accused, without any rhyme or reason. Had the incident occurred somewhere around Diwali season or any other festive season, then for once, the court would have been inclined to believe the version of the prosecution, which is not the case in hand.
20. It is further relevant to mention, that it is stated by PW1 and PW3 that as a result of the heavy firing of crackers, their family was being disturbed, but no family members has stepped into the witnessbox Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:30:03 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 9 of 19to support the version of the prosecution and this further raises a doubt in the mind of the Court, regarding occurrence of alleged incident of 01.06.2008. Moreso, in a scenario where the family members could have easily been produced by the complainant as a witness as they are very much within the reach of the complainant, but not doing the same goes against the case of the prosecution itself.
21. Now, coming to the fateful incident of 04.06.2008. It is alleged by the complainant, that on the fateful day, he was returning from his office at about 11:00 p.m., when the accused persons Amit and Sonu along with their three other associates came in the street and restrained his way. He further deposed, that he was dragged outside his car and the accused persons had attacked him on his head and face with bricks and helmets as a result of which the blood started oozing out. Let us hault here for a moment and examine the MLC Ex.PW3/A of the injured/PW3. Perusal of the MLC shows, that no head injury was ever reported and further the injured was declared fit for statement. Not only this, no complaint was ever lodged with the police corresponding to the same day of the incident. It is further material to mention, that PW3 stated that he was attacked with helmets and bricks, but neither of the two were ever recovered by the police as no recovery memo to this effect is adduced in evidence by the prosecution.
22. As per the version of the complainant, on hearing him scream, his father came out from the house, but in the deposition of PW1 it is categorically deposed that he had not seen the alleged incident with his naked eye. The relevant extracts of his deposition to this regard are "It is correct that when the incident took place I was not present at the spot."
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2020.08.13
15:30:32 +0530
FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 10 of 19
It is further required to be noted, that PW1 during his crossexamination has not given any satisfactory answers with regard to questions put to him during his crossexamination as he deposed lack of knowledge regarding various vital questions that were put to him by the defence. The relevant extracts of his crossexamination to this effect are "I alone went to the spot where my son Upender was found in injured condition. It is correct that there are residential houses adjacent to my house. I did not see whether public persons gathered at the spot or not after the incident. I do not know whether bricks and helmet were taken into police possession or not."
23. Another crucial aspect which needs to be delved into, is with regard to prosecution having not examined any neighbours or people residing in the vicinity of the said area, as it is a matter of record that the incident happened in a residential area and further it was admitted by PW1 that, there were residential houses at the place where the incident happened and so being the case, it is difficult to perceive that no one came out of their houses despite hearing the screams and the cries of the injured, whereas PW1 reached there hearing the same. This further puts a dent into the story of prosecution version.
24. It is a matter of record, that both PW3 i.e. the injured and PW1 i.e. the father of the injured stated that Gaurav, being the elder brother of the injured and son of PW1 along with his friend were coming from a marriage function and they saw the accused and on seeing them he made 100 number call. Implying thereby that as per the version of PW1 and PW3, it is Gaurav and his friend, who witnessed the alleged incident and this per se makes them material witnesses, but the prosecution has Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 FIR NO.48/2009. 15:30:38 +0530 State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 11 of 19 not examined either of the two, despite them being material to the case of the prosecution and the same has proved fatal. No reason has been given by the prosecution for not examining such crucial and material witnesses, more so when the presence of these witnesses could have easily been secured by the complainant, being family members. It is further not the case of the prosecution, that their presence could not be secured due to extraneous reason and no application was moved before the Court for securing their presence whatsoever.
25. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to examine the material witnesses, particularly when no allegation has been made to this effect, that if produced, he would not speak the truth. In such scenario, not only does an adverse inference arise against the prosecution case for its non production of a material witness. Also, in view of illustration (g) to section 114 of Indian Evidence Act it can be held that the circumstances of the material witnesses being withheld from the court casts a serious reflection on the fairness of the trial and the laxity on the part of the prosecution. It was the incumbent duty of the prosecution to have examined all the material witnesses who could have given an account of the narrative of the events on which the prosecution's case is essentially based.
26. At this stage, Court deems it fit to state that in judicial pronouncement namely State of H.P. Vs. Gian Chand: (SCC p.81, para
14) Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"14.....nonexamination of a material witness is again not a mathematical formula for discarding the weight of the testimony available on record, how so ever natural, trustworthy and Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:30:43 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009.State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 12 of 19
convincing it may be. The charge of withholding a material witness from the court leveled against the prosecution should be examined in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case, so as to find whether the witnesses were available for being examined in the court and were yet withheld by the prosecution."
27. In the case law titled as Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, the Court has ruled that: (SCC p.155, para 19) it has been held as follows:
"19..... it is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness, who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the court to draw a adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have examined it would not have supported the prosecution case. On the other hand if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of evidence already adduced, nonexamination of other witness may not be material. In such a case, the court ought to scrutinize the worth of evidence adduced. The Court should pose the questions whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court? If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the witnesses already examined are reliable and Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:30:49 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009.State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 13 of 19
the testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the court can safely act upon it, uninfluence by the factum of nonexamination of other witnesses."
28. Thus, from the above case law authorities, it is quite vivid that nonexamination of a material witness would not always create dent in the prosecution case. However, as held above, withholding of a material witness should be examined in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case so as to find out, whether the witnesses were available for being examined in the court and were yet withheld by the prosecution. This apart, the court has to first assess the trustworthiness of the evidence adduced and available on record. Thus, in the case in hand, prosecution has not furnished any plausible explanation for not examining Gaurav and his friend both being material witnesses of the alleged incident. More so, when Gaurav happens to be the brother of the complainant in the first place and this puts a major question upon the entire prosecution story.
29. Further, PW5 i.e. Inspector Rajender Singh (Investigating Officer) has categorically stated in his crossexamination, that he did not receive any application from both the parties. He has further stated that no public person was joined in the investigation when he recorded the statement of the complainant, which was recorded on 20.03.2009. This further creates doubt in the mind of the Court, regarding the version of the prosecution.
30. However, it becomes pertinent to take a glance at the statement of accused Sonu recorded as DW1. He deposed that the Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:30:55 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 14 of 19incident happened otherwise. It was the complainant Vicky alias Upender, who hit him from rear side of his Alto car in front of the shop of Amit. When he asked him to be careful while driving, he called his family member namely Gaurav Chikara and Jayender Chikara, who came on the spot and started beating the accused. They further snatched ₹6500/ and motorcycle from him. He sustained injuries on his eye, chest and back. He has further deposed, that the police did not take any action against the complainant and therefore, he had to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the complainant. This Hon'ble court issued notice to the complainant Vicky Chikara, Jayender Chikara and Gaurav Chikara under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
31. Bare perusal of statement of DW1 Sonu, prima facie appears to be plausible, as notice has already been issued against Vicky Chikara, Jayender Chikara and Gaurav Chikara, though the matter is yet to be decided by the court.
32. In nutshell, the version of the prosecution suffers from various infirmities and glaring loopholes i.e. the prosecution has failed to explain delay in FIR, no complaint was moved by either of the parties to the police, the brother of the complainant has not been examined by the prosecution and no call on 100 number was made by either of the parties, to put into motion the criminal machinery. At the cost of repetition, in addition to this, it is pertinent to mention that the accused had moved an application regarding the alleged incident, wherein he has alleged that the complainant of the present case caused injuries to him. On such allegation, notice against Upender Chikara, Vicky Chikara and Jayender Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:31:01 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 15 of 19Chikara under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC was framed vide order dated 25.09.2018.
33. At this stage, this Court deem it fit to state that in land mark Judgment namely Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1662, the five golden principles or panchsheel of proof of a case, based on circumstantial evidence was evolved. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted that this court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
established there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra 1973 Crilj 1783 where the following observations made:
Certainly, it is primary principal that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict, and the mental distance between may be and must be is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
2) The fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable or any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:31:07 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009. State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 16 of 19 4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except that one to be proved, and 5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused"
34. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be convicted on pure moral conviction. Further it is imperative to state that the expression proved, disproved and not proved as enunciated u/s 3 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the standard of proof, namely about the existence or non existence of the circumstance from the point of the view of a prudent man, so much so that while adopting the said requirement, as an appropriate concrete standard to measure "proof", full effect has to be given to the circumstances or conditions of probability or improbability and it is this degree of certainty, existence of which should be arrived at from the attendant circumstances, before a fact can be said can be proved.
35. Thus, to sum it up it can be said that, the case of the prosecution when judged on the touch stone of totality of facts and circumstances, does not generate an unqualified and unreserved sanctification indispensably required to enter a finding of the guilt against the accused persons, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused. Having regard to the evidence on record as a whole in the present case, it is not possible for the court to unhesitatingly hold that the charges levelled against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13 15:31:14 +0530 FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 17 of 19doubts. The version of the prosecution and testimony of prosecution witnesses, suffers from irreconcilable inconsistencies, anomalies and omission rendering the prosecution case unworthy to predict.
36. No doubt wrong acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of the innocent man. The consequences of conviction of innocent men are far more serious and its reverberation would be felt by an innocent all his life in a civilized society, therefore, it is the duty of the court to avoid any wrongful conviction and to grant benefit of doubt where ever the need arises. The golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases, is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In this regard, this Court seeks support from the case law authority namely Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and Anr. AIR 2016 SC 5160, Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 and Golbar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 242.
37. At this stage, court further deems it fit to state that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that culpability cannot be established on surmises and conjectures, but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused. In the present case it is pellucid that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes as there are numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses is found.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2020.08.13
15:31:20 +0530
FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 18 of 19
38. As a sequel to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons stands acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 341, 427, 394 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
39. Previous Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged. Endorsement if any, be cancelled and documents if any, be returned, against acknowledgment after due verification. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2020.08.13
15:31:26 +0530
(Richa Sharma)
Metropolitan Magistrate
North District Court/Delhi
FIR NO.48/2009.
State Vs.Sonu and Anr.. Page 19 of 19