Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Devi on 1 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON, MM-6 (C), TIS
HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
FIR No.364/2005
State Vs. Jai Devi
U/s. 448 IPC
PS Sadar Bazar
JUDGMENT
1. CIS number of the case : 296002-2016
2. CNR number of the case : DLCT02-000642-2006
3. The date of commission of : Prior to 10.05.2005
offence
4. The name of the complainant : Sh. Suraj Bhan Gupta
5. The name and address of : Jai Devi
accused W/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal
R/o 10871, Church Gali,
Jhandewalan Road, Sadar
Bazar, New Delhi.
Presently residing at H.No.E-
151, Rama Vihar, Durga
Mandir, Sai Chowk, Gali No.18,
Rohini, Delhi.
6. Offence under which charge : U/s 448 IPC
has been framed
7. The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Final Order : Acquitted of charge
U/s 448 IPC
Date of Institution : 21.12.2006
Judgment reserved on : 30.05.2019
Judgment announced on : 01.06.2019
FIR No.364/2005 State Vs. Jai Devi 1/8
PS Sadar Bazar
Brief Reasons For Such Decision:
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as unfolded from the charge-sheet are that prior to 10.05.2005, within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Bazar, accused Jai Devi committed the offence of house trespassing by entering into the property No.10867-10871, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, Delhi by breaking open the locks of the aforesaid property, which belongs to complainant namely Sh. S.B.Gupta. Thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable u/s. 448 IPC and accordingly, charge-sheet was filed.
2. The copies of charge-sheet as well as its annexures were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and charge for the offences U/s 448 IPC was framed against accused Jai Devi by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court vide order dated 19.04.2012, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution was given opportunity to prove the accusation against the accused and it examined 6 witnesses in total.
It is pertinent to mention here that accused admitted the genuineness of registration of the present FIR bearing No.364/2005, PS Sadar Bazar exhibited as PX1 & endorsement on rukka, exhibited as PX2, during her statement recorded u/s. 294 Cr.PC qua admission/ denial of documents recorded on 07.12.2018. Hence, PW Duty Officer/ HC Yashpal was dropped from the list of witnesses.
Thereafter, on submission of prosecution, the PE was closed.
FIR No.364/2005 State Vs. Jai Devi 2/8 PS Sadar Bazar
4. Accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.PC, wherein all the incriminating evidence on record alongwith documents were put to her which was generally denied by the accused. She stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused chose not to lead evidence in her defence.
5. Final arguments heard on behalf of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The entire record has been carefully perused.
6. The accusation against accused Jai Devi as levelled by prosecution is that at unknown date, time, however, prior to 10.05.2005 at place of incident, she committed the offence of house trespassing by entering into the property No.10867-10871, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, Delhi by breaking open the locks of the aforesaid property, belonging to complainant namely Sh. S.B.Gupta. On complaint of complainant Sh. S.B.Gupta, the criminal machinery set into motion, who has been examined as PW-2. He deposed that he had a property bearing No.10710-12 and 10867-71, Nabi Karim, Jhandewalan, Paharganj, Delhi in the year 2010 and the said properties have been alloted numbers i.e. 10710-12 to the front side and 10867-71 for the back portion of the property, which shares a common wall in their middle, consisting of two floors in which, ground floor was sold to Dilip Singh, the then tenant of the above said portion in 2008-09. On the first floor, possession was originally with Leela Dhar, who was residing with his brothers. After the death of Leela Dhar, his LR/ wife started living there and after her, her sons alongwith his cousin started living there. Originally, he had filed a suit for FIR No.364/2005 State Vs. Jai Devi 3/8 PS Sadar Bazar recovery of rent against Leela Dhar and after the death of Leela Dhar, his wife & son were made party in the said litigation. Further, in the year 1994, the litigation/ suit was decided in his favour. Then, he filed an execution petition but a settlement arrived between him and Devi Prasad. Accordingly, he alongwith his son namely Vinod Gupta reached at the above said property and he left his son to wait with his tenant Dilip Singh and he alongwith Devi Prasad & his Samadhi went upstairs where Devi Prasad unlocked his locks and asked him to put his locks on 11.11.2004. He put his locks on the said premises and after coming downstairs told the same to his son. After 10 days of putting of locks on the property, Dilip Singh made a call to him and informed that some noise is coming from the above said portion & someone was residing there. He made complaint to the police, proved as Ex.PW2/A. Police went to the spot and found that some machine was lying installed there. He was called at the spot by the police, who witnessed the machine. Some men were doing the work of stitching of bags, etc. and told police personnel that one lady namely Jai Devi had given possession of the said rooms to them. Police started investigating and he had handed over decree of the suit alongwith other documents pertaining to ownership vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW2/D. Accused was correctly identified by him in the Court.
7. PW-3 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta (Son of complainant) deposed that property bearing No.10710-12 and 10867-71, Jhandewalan Extention, Nabi Karim, Delhi was in the name of his Father Sh. S.B.Gupta & a case was filed for the said property in the year 2005 and finally the same was decreed in favour of his Father. One person namely Devi Prasad, who FIR No.364/2005 State Vs. Jai Devi 4/8 PS Sadar Bazar was the tenant in the said property and his Father has filed cases against him, but agreed to settle the matter out of the Court and on 11.11.2004, infront of his Father-in-law Sh. Mohan Lal gave the possession of two rooms on the first floor of the aforesaid property to them.
After about 4 to 5 months, someone informed his father telephonically that someone has taken the possession of the said rooms by breaking the locks put by his father. Then, he went to the aforesaid property alongwith his father and came to know that one lady namely Jai Devi broke the locks, took the possession of the above said rooms and further gave the rooms on rent to someone else.
8. PW-4 Sh. Jai Prakash deposed that he had business of school bags in the year 2005, during which, he had taken one room on rent in the area Shankar Piyau, Jhandewalan Road from one lady namely Jai Devi at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- or Rs. 3,000/- per month. The address of the same room was 10871, first floor, situated near stairs in Church Wali Gali. After lapse of one month of getting the possession of the said room, two police officials from PS Sadar Bazar visited the said place and inquired from him about the owner of the said property/ room. Thereafter, he vacated the said room as there was dispute of ownership. Accused was correctly identified by him in the Court. However, during his cross- examination, he deposed that neither any rent agreement was executed nor any rent receipt was issued to him by the accused, being the land lady.
9. PW-5 SI Baldev Singh deposed that on 10.05.2005, after receiving complaint from Sh. S.B. Gupta, he went to the spot for inquiry FIR No.364/2005 State Vs. Jai Devi 5/8 PS Sadar Bazar where he recorded the general statements of complainant and Dilip Singh, Mohan Lal, Jai Prakash and Devi Prasad regarding the aforesaid complaint. Thereafter, it was handed over to SI Amar Singh for further investigation.
10. The Investigating Officer namely Inspector Amar Singh has been examined as PW-6, who deposed that on 11.11.2005, he proved endorsement on the complaint of complainant, as Ex.PW6/A and thereafter, he got the present FIR registered through Duty Officer. He proved site plan as Ex.PW6/B. He seized the copy of decree pertaining to the Civil Case, which was produced by complainant vide seizure memo proved as Ex.PW6/C (colly). On 05.02.2006, he alongwith Lady/ Ct. Neelam reached at the spot where accused Jai Devi was arrested & personally searched vide memo, already proved as Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively by PW-1/ W-Ct. Neelam. Accused was correctly identified by him in the Court.
11. During his cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that complainant gave him photocopy of decree qua the property in question, however, he did not verify the same from the concerned Court. Accused was arrested from the house, she trespassed into but he failed to tell whether the property belonged to her or not.
12. The complainant, who has alleged that accused Jai Devi trespassed into the property belonging to him only deposed that he put his lock on the said property on 11.11.2004 and after 10 days, he received a FIR No.364/2005 State Vs. Jai Devi 6/8 PS Sadar Bazar telephonic call from his tenant that someone has trespassed into his property, as noise was coming from there. Immediately he made a call at number 100 and after police made inquiry, it was surfaced that accused Jai Devi had given the property in question on rent to someone. However, PW-3/ son of complainant deposed that they were informed about trespass into their property by someone after 4/ 5 months from the date his father put locks on the property i.e. 11.11.2004. Further, when they made inquiry from the spot, it was revealed that accused has trespassed into the property by breaking open the locks and had given the same on rent to someone else. Neither complainant/ PW-2 nor PW-3 has witnessed the accused trespassing into their property after breaking open the locks put by them.
13. Even PW-4 who stated that accused had given him the property in question on rent could produce rent agreement or rent receipt for the same. The IO/ PW-6 has not conducted any proper investigation in the present matter, for the reasons best known to him, as he admittedly neither inquired from the neighbours about the trespass by the accused, as alleged nor verified the ownership of the accused qua the property. He simply deposed that accused was arrested from the spot during investigation, as she was found present there, without specifying whether she was residing or had someone other business to be present there at the time of her arrest, which was much later after the complaint. Hence, the investigation remains shoddy.
14. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is FIR No.364/2005 State Vs. Jai Devi 7/8 PS Sadar Bazar presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
15. With this background, it is held that in the present case the evidence put forward by prosecution on the record is not at all sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Jai Devi is acquitted for the offence charged U/s 448 IPC.
Digitally signed by SHEFALISHEFALI BARNALA Announced and dictated in the BARNALA TANDON Date:
open Court today i.e. on 01 June, 2019. TANDON st 2019.06.03 16:49:51 +0530 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM-06, Central, Tis Hazari Court Delhi All pages are duly signed.
FIR No.364/2005 State Vs. Jai Devi 8/8 PS Sadar Bazar