Delhi District Court
Fir No. 26/2004, Ps : New Ashok Nagar ... vs Ramesh Chand & Ors on 13 October, 2020
FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors
IN THE COURT OF ACMM (EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors
FIR No. 26/2004
PS : New Ashok Nagar
U/s 323/506/448/420/471 IPC
Date of Institution : 22.06.2006
Date of reserving of order : 29.09.2020
Date of Judgment : 13.10.2020
CNR No. DLET020004132005
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 9154/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : Ms.Sushma Singh
3. Date of incident : 17.04.2003
4. Names of accused persons :
(1) Ramesh Chand S/o Late Ranjit
Singh, r/o C2/46, New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi.
(2) Satish Kumar S/o Late Ranjit
Singh, r/o C2/46, New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi.
5. Offence for which charge
sheet was filed
S.323/506/448/420/467/468/469/471/34 IPC.
6. Offence for which charge has been framed Page 1 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors Accused Ramesh S. 323/34, Chand 506(ii)/34, 448/34, & 380/34, IPC Accused Satish Kumar S. 323/34, 506(ii)/34, 448/34, & 380/34, 420, 471 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Judgment : 13.10.2020 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Mr. Ramesh Chand and Satish Kumar, the accused herein, have been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 323/506/448/420/467/468/469/471/34, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. The case of the prosecution is that complainant Sushma Singh is the owner of property bearing no.31 Abadi of New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. The accused persons, who are real brothers of the husband of the complainant, were allowed to reside in the said property by the complainant on their request. On 14.04.2003, in the evening the complainant and her husband visited the said Page 2 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors property. Accused Satish Kumar started quarreling with the complainant and caused injuries to her. She reported the matter to the police. However no action was taken. On 17.04.2003, at about 7.00 p.m. the complainant again visited the said property alongwith her husband. She noticed that the accused persons had broken open the locks of the rooms in which the articles of the complainant were lying. On asking, all the accused persons started quarreling with her. They also threatened her and caused injuries to her. The complainant reported the matter to the police. Her MLC was prepared. However police did not take any action. The complainant also came to know that the accused persons had obtained electricity connection on the basis of the forged documents in the said property in the name of accused Satish Kumar. The complainant approached the Court by moving an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said application was allowed vide order dated 07.02.2004 and SHO concerned was directed to register the FIR and to investigate the matter.
Thereafter present FIR was registered. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused persons were Page 3 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 323/506/448/420/467/468/469/471/34, Indian Penal Code.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor and summons were issued to the accused persons and Om Prakash (since deceased). The accused and Om Prakash (since deceased) appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offences punishable under Section 323/34, 506(II)/34, 448/34, & 380/34, IPC was framed against all three accused persons. A separate charge for offence punishable under Section 420&471 IPC was also framed against accused Satish Kumar. The charge was read over to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial accused Om Prakash had expired. Therefore criminal proceedings against him were dropped vide order dated 22.12.2011.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case against the accused persons.
Page 4 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors
6. PW1 Ms. Sushma Singh is the complainant. She has deposed that she had purchased a plot (Old No. 31/402/268 and new number 46CII), situated at New Ashok Nagar. Her Devers namely Satish, Ramesh, and Jeth Om Prakash (since deceased) came to her aforesaid residence. Her husband had given the abovesaid plot to Satish and Om Prakash. When they had given the abovesaid plot to Satish and Om Prakash, it was having two rooms and one bathroom. Accused Ramesh was residing on rent in nearby location at that time. She had constructed one more room on the said plot. She used to visit the said plot frequently. Some belongings of her were also lying there. She had visited the abovesaid plot at about 8.00 p.m. alongwith her husband on 14.12.2003 (sic). Her husband was parking the vehicle while she entered into the plot. She found the gate of first room was broken. Her husband told her that he was going to arrange some carpenter and he left the place. Thereafter she entered into the said plot and found that the lock of the second room was broken. At that time accused Satish was present there and she inquired from Satish as to who had done that. However, he started abusing her. Satish also Page 5 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors slapped and pushed her. Satish also gave a fist blow on her waist. In the meanwhile, her husband reached there. Her husband told him as to why he had done that. Thereafter they left the plot.
7. PW1 would further depose that on 17 th day of the said month, i.e. 23 days after the incident, she alongwith her husband again visited the abovesaid plot to see their belongings. All the three accused Satish, Om Prakash (since deceased) and Ramesh Chand were present there. While her husband was parking the vehicle, all the three accused had started beating her with danda. Accused Satish hit her with danda on her left hand. Other two accused kept on beating her. In the meanwhile, her husband came and rescued her. Thereafter she went to PS New Ashok Nagar and made a complaint there, which is mark SS1. On 14.12.2003 Satish called the police that some unwanted (Badmash) had entered into the house. Police came there but did not find anyone. On 17.12.2003 accused Ramesh had also kept his articles in the abovesaid plot (room).
Page 6 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors
8. PW1 produced the complaint which she had allegedly lodged at PS New Ashok Nagar which is Ex.P1. Police did not register the matter. Thereafter she had made a complaint to the DCP. Some kallandra proceedings were initiated against both the parties. The said kallandra is Mark SS2. After that they came to know that accused Satish had forged documents and obtained an electricity connection in the said plot in his name. She also lodged a complaint on 24.12.2003 regarding the same which is Mark SS3. Again the police did not take any action on the same. Thereafter they approached the Court u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the said complaint FIR was registered. The said complaint is Ex.PW1/A and Ex. PW1/A2. The plot in question was purchased by her from one Mange Ram in the year 10.12.1987. The copies of the documents are Ex.PW1/B (OSR).
9. PW2 Sh. J.P. Singh is the husband of the complainant. He has also deposed similar to PW1.
10. HC Begraj Singh was also examined as a witness. However inadvertently his number was also mentioned as PW2. He was the DO at the relevant time.
Page 7 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors He has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW2/A (OSR), and the endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/B.
11. PW3 A.K. Mittal is the DGM from BSES YPL. He has deposed that the IO had applied for seeking certified copies of an electricity connection vide K. No. 303/124/667 on premises no. 46, CII, New Ashok Nagar. He had supplied the attested copies of 7 no. of documents which are Ex.PW3/B.
12. PW4 Rajesh Kumar is the Asst. Manager from BSES YPL. He was summoned to produce the original record for installation of electricity meter in the name of Satish Kumar. He would depose that he could not bring the said record as during the process of shifting the office, the record was misplaced and not traceable.
13. PW5 ASI Jaivir Singh is the police officials who had participated in the investigation. Accused Ramesh Chand was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex.PW5/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW/5/B.
14. PW6 Inspector Madan Pal Bhati was the IO. He would depose that on 17.04.2003, he received one Page 8 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors complaint through SHO. He got conducted the medical examination of complainant Smt. Sushma. On 19.04.2003, he recorded the statement of all alleged persons during inquiry and initiated proceedings against the complainant and alleged persons to maintain peace and tranquility in the society. On 04.02.2004, FIR was registered on the basis of directions of the Court u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. During inquiry, on a complaint of Smt. Sushma Singh, he verified electricity connection taken by alleged persons from the office of Asst. Engg. PS. Mayur Vihar and collected all the relevant document i.e. Copy of GPA, will deed, death certificate, no objection certificate, indemnity bond, etc. vide application Ex.PW6/A. On 24.04.2004, he collected the original documents of property in question from the concerned court and placed with chargesheet and thereafter he was transferred.
15. PW7 Dr. S.B. Jangpangi is the doctor from LBS hospital. He has identified signatures of Dr. R.N. Das on MLC No. 2131/03 Ex. PW7/A, of the complainant.
16. PW8 retired SI Jai Prakash is the second IO. He had arrested the accused persons vide memo Ex. PW8/A, Page 9 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors PW8/B and PW8/C (also exhibited as Ex. PW5/A). He had filed the challan in the Court.
17. The witnesses were crossexamined by ld. defence counsel.
18. The prosecution evidence was closed. The accused were examined U/s 313 Cr PC r/w Section 281 Cr.PC. The accused denied the incriminating evidence. They would state that they were falsely implicated.
19. The accused persons led their defence evidence. They examined Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Patwari, LAC East. The witness produced the record to award no. 39/82 83, Chilla Saroda Banger, Delhi. He would depose that Khasra No. 402/268 was acquired by the government in the year 1983 for the purpose of Planning Development of Delhi. The copy of said award is Ex. DW1/A.
20. DW2 Sh. Subodh Kumar is the patwari. He has produced the record pertaining to Khasra Khatauni No. 402/268 (110 Beegha). As per record the said khasra is owned by the government. The copy of said award is Ex. DW2/A (OSR). He has also produced letter Ex. DW1/XA to show that no inquiry has been conducted regarding Page 10 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors illegal occupants in the said Khasra.
21. DW3 Sh. S.N. Tripathi is the Kanungo. He has produced the attested copy of the record pertaining to award no. 39/8283, Chilla Saroda Banger, Delhi. He would deposed that Khasra No. 402/268 was acquired by the government in the year 1983 for the purpose of Planning Development of Delhi. As per record the said land was acquired by the government. The copy of said award is Ex. DW3/A (colly) (OSR).
22. DW4 is Sh. Rajesh is a public person. He would depose that on 14.04.2003, there was a quarrel between the accused and the complainant. The accused Satish alongwith his family, accused Ramesh and Om Prakash (since deceased) were residing at CII46, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. On 14.04.03, he was present at his home due to a function of Namkaran of his Niece. On that day at about 1.00 pm01:30 pm, a quarrel had taken place between Satish and husband of the complainant namely Jai Prakash. Accused Satish made a 100 number call. PCR came at the spot after that he went to his home. On 17.04.03, no quarrel had happened between both the parties. All the accused persons had made the three rooms Page 11 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors at the abovesaid address and all accused are residing in separate room. Jai Prakash and his family never resided at the abovesaid property and no articles of the Jai Prakash and his family were available at the spot at any point of time. The abovesaid property was purchased by the father of the accused. Jai Prakash had not made any construction at the abovesaid property.
23. The witnesses were cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. The defence evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
24. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The identity of the accused persons has been established beyond reasonable doubts. The testimonies of the public witnesses have proved the ingredients of the offences. DW 4 is a planted witness. His testimony is not able to show that the accused are innocent. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
25. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case Page 12 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors against any of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. The complainant and her husband are interested witnesses. They have deposed falsely on oath to falsely implicate the accused persons. They have made a false complaint to grab the entire property which was purchased by the father of the accused persons. The accused persons are brothers of the husband of the complainant. The complainant and her husband have become greedy. No public persons has been examined by the prosecution to prove its case. On the other hand the accused persons have examined a neighbour to show that no such incident had happened as alleged by the complainant. On 14.04.2003 it was accused Satish who had called the PCR after the complainant and her husband had attacked the accused persons at their residence. There is a delay in making the complaint. The complainant never approached the police after the alleged incident which shows that it is a concocted story. No PCR call was ever made. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of complainant and her husband. Husband of the complainant was holding post of Assistant Vice Page 13 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors President in BSES Delhi. By misusing the said position he got prepared false documents against the accused persons from the electricity company. The accused persons are innocent. Hence it is prayed that they may be acquitted.
26. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
27. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
28. In the present case, accused Satish and Ramesh Chand have been charged for committing offences punishable under section 323/506(ii)/448/380/34 IPC.
Page 14 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors Accused Satish is also charged with offence punishable under Section 420/471 IPC.
29. First I shall take the charge of offence punishable under section 420/471 IPC against accused Satish.
30. Section 420, IPC provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In order to constitute offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused had deceived the complainant dishonestly inducing him to part with any property in his favour which he would not have parted but for the deception played on him. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence is that there must be dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the time of making the representation to the complainant / victims on the basis which the complainant / victims part with his / their property. Intention must be dishonest and there must also be mens rea. Section 471, IPC provides punishment for using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. Section 463 IPC provides definition of forgery while Page 15 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors section 464 IPC provides definition of making a false documents.
31. In the present case it has been alleged that accused Satish Kumar had dishonestly induced electricity company BSES YPL to install an electricity connection by deceiving it through forged documents. It is alleged that the accused had used an NOC and GPA which were forged documents to obtain the said electricity connection. During the trial the alleged forged documents have not been produced on record. PW4, Rajesh Kumar, official of BSES has deposed that the documents were lost and they were not traceable. Further there is no report of any forensic expert to show that the abovementioned documents were forged documents. The material on record is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused Satish had used any forged document to obtain the electricity connection. Therefore the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 471 IPC are not proved against accused Satish beyond reasonable doubts. The accused is therefore acquitted of the said charge.
Page 16 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors
32. Now I come to the charge of offences punishable under Section 323/506(ii)/448/380/34 IPC. Section 323 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. In order to prove the charge under Section 323 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had intended or had knowledge to be likely to cause hurt by their action. Section 506, IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation. Offence of criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC. The Section reads as under :
"503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.
--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
33. Section 448 IPC provides punishment for house trespass. Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass as Page 17 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors entering into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains their with intent thereby to intimidate, insult, or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence. Section 442 IPC defines house trespass as committing criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship or as as place for the custody of the property. Section 380 IPC provides punishment for committing theft, as defined under Section 378 IPC, in any building, tent or vessel, which is used as a human dwelling, or is used for the custody of property. Section 34, IPC provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. It is not necessary that there must be prior conspiracy or pre meditation as the common intention can be formed in the course of occurrence.Page 18 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020
FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors
34. In the present case it is alleged that on 17.04.2003 the accused persons had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant, they had threatened the complainant to cause her death, they had trespassed into two rooms which were in possession of the complainant and they had also committed theft of various items lying in those two rooms.
35. The complainant has been examined as PW1 to prove the case of the complainant. Her husband Sh. J.P. Singh has also been examined as PW2 to prove the incident.
36. It is on record that the parties are relatives. The accused persons are brothers of the husband of the complainant. It has also come on record that there is property dispute between the parties. PW1 Smt. Sushma Singh has admitted in her crossexamination that on 14.04.2003 accused Satish had called the PCR after some quarrel had taken place between them. Thus PW1 and PW2 are interested parties and they might have a motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. Therefore their testimonies require strict scrutiny.Page 19 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020
FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors
37. PW1 has claimed herself as owner of the property where the alleged incident had taken place and where the accused persons had been residing at the relevant time. The complainant has stated that she and her husband had allowed the accused persons to reside in the said property. During the evidence, however, no document is brought on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant or her husband were the owner and in possession of the said property at any point of time. During her examination, PW1 had produced certain unregistered documents to show that she was the owner of the said property. However, the documents i.e. the unregistered GPA, unregistered agreement to sell and receipt etc. are unable to show that Mange Ram, the person from whom the complainant had allegedly purchased the said property, was the rightful owner of the said property at any point of time and that he was in possession of the said property. The chain of the documents produced by the complainant is not complete. On the other hand the accused persons have shown on the preponderance of the probability that the said land is a government land. The complainant herself had admitted Page 20 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors that the accused persons were in possession of the said property.
38. The complainant has also claimed that she was in possession of two rooms in the said property. The accused persons have denied the said contentions of the complainant and her husband. The complainant has failed to produce any independent witness to show that she was in possession of any portion in the said property at any point of time. She has also not produced any documentary evidence to show that she was in possession of the part portion of the said property. It has come on record that the husband of the complainant was holding a high position in BSES YPL at the relevant time. Therefore in all probabilities there must have been an electricity connection in the name of the complainant or her husband in the said property if they had been occupying two rooms in the said property as deposed by them. It appears highly improbable that the complainant was using those two rooms without having any electricity connection therein. Thus, even prima facie the complainant has failed to prove Page 21 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors that she or her husband was in possession of any portion of the abovementioned property at the relevant time.
39. On the other hand the accused persons have examined DW4 Sh. Rajesh, who is a neighbour. In his examination the witness has stated that the accused persons were in possession of the said property. He has also stated that the complainant and her family members had never resided in the said property and that no articles of the complainant and his family was lying in the said property. Thus, the accused persons have shown to the Court on the preponderance of the probabilities, that the complainant or her husband were never in possession of any portion of the abovementioned property and that their articles were not lying in any of the room of the said property. Therefore, there were no occasion for the accused persons to trespass in the property in possession of the complainant and to commit a theft of any property of the complainant as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 380 & 448 IPC against any of the accused.Page 22 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020
FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors
40. It has also been alleged that on 17.04.2003 the accused persons had beaten the complainant and they had also threatened her. PW1 and PW2 have deposed regarding the said incident. Perusal of their testimony would show that there are some material contradictions in their testimonies. PW1 has stated that on the relevant day she had reached at the said property alongwith her husband while her husband were parking the vehicle, the accused persons started beating her with a danda. Her husband came there and rescued her. Thereafter they went to PS New Ashok Nagar and made a complaint. PW2 has stated in his examination that when he had tried to save his wife, the accused persons had also beaten him. Thus, the husband of the complainant has stated that he was also beaten by the accused persons on that day. However the complainant has not made any such statement.
41. Further PW1 and PW2 have stated that after the incident they went to the PS and made a complaint to the police. They had brought on record copy of complaint which is Ex.P1. It is stated by them that this was the complaint made by the complainant to the police on that Page 23 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors day. Perusal of these documents would show that it does not bear any stamp or receiving by any police officials as stated by the complainant and her husband. Therefore it remains not proved that on 17.04.2003 the complainant and her husband had approached the police after the alleged incident. It is also noteworthy that the complaint Ex.P1 is a typed complaint containing three pages. It appears highly improbable that a person who was beaten by other would first go to a typist to get his complaint typed and thereafter he/she would go to the PS to make the said complaint. This fact also negate the contention of PW1 and PW2 that after the said incident they had directly gone to the PS to make the complaint.
42. Further it has also remained unexplained as to why no PCR call was made by the complainant or her husband after the alleged incident dated 17.04.2003. The husband of the complainant is admittedly an educated person holding high position in a big electricity company. In all probabilities a PCR call must have been made by the complainant or her husband if such an incident had happened. However not making of PCR call by the Page 24 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors complainant or her husband create reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the alleged incident.
43. It is admitted by the complainant in her cross examination that on 14.04.2003 after a quarrel, PCR call was made by one of the accused. Even DW4 has stated in his testimony that some quarrel had taken place between the accused persons and the complainant on 14.04.2003 and that accused Satish had called the PCR. PCR officials had reached at the spot. In such circumstances, I find merit in the submissions of ld. Defence counsel that as a counter blast to the said PCR call made by the accused, a false complaint was got typed by the complainant and her husband.
44. As abovesaid there is previous enmity between the parties. Therefore it would not be safe to rely upon the testimonies of interested witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2, without corroboration by some independent evidence. The testimonies of PW1 and PW2 regarding the incident dated 17.04.2003 do not inspire confidence. Reasonable doubts have been raised on their testimonies. Hence I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Page 25 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020 FIR No. 26/2004, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors offence punishable under Section 323 & 506 IPC against any of the accused.
45. In the light of the discussions hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the case of the prosecution has remained not proved beyond reasonable doubts. The accused persons are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubts. They are therefore acquitted.
46. The accused have already furnished bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C., with one surety each along with photographs and copies of address proof.Digitally signed by DINESH
DINESH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2020.10.13 17:05:31 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar) this 13th day of October 2020 ACMM (East) KKD Courts, Delhi. Page 26 of 26 ACMM(E)/KKD/Delhi/13.10.2020