Delhi District Court
State vs Hitesh@Golu on 15 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA SHARMA ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE VS. HITESH @ GOLU
FIR No. 388/207
PS Pahar Ganj
U/s 363/368/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 17.12.2017
Of offence
2) The name of the complainant : OM PRAKASH YADAV
S/o Sh. Chandrika Prasad
Yadav.
3) The name & parentage
of the accused : HITESH @ GOLU
S/o Sh. Jai Prakash
R/o H. No. CB-262
Naraina Ring Road Delhi
and also at Vill:-
Barahadpur
Muhammadabad Gohna
Distt MAU (UP)
4) Offence complained of : 363/368/34 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : ACQUITTAL
Date of Institution : 19.03.2019
Judgment reserved on : 15.04.2024
Judgment announced on : 15.04.2024
Cr. No. 3931/2019
FIR No. 388/2017
PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 1/19
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
1. Bereft of unnecessary details, case of the prosecution is, that on 17.12.2017, at Motia Khan, DDA Flats, Pahar Ganj accused alongwith co-accused Pradeep @ Deepak (since declared CCL) within the jurisdiction of PS Pahar Ganj, wrongfully confined or concealed the victim, namely, Ms. Babita knowing, that Ms. Babita had been kidnapped or abducted, without her consent and thus accused committed offence punishable U/s 368 IPC.
Thereafter, accused was summoned and thereafter copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused Hitesh @ Golu in compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC.
2. Charge u/s 368 IPC was framed against accused Hitesh @ Golu on 10.11.2022, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, matter was listed for prosecution evidence. Prosecution examined following witnesses :-
PW1:VICTIM MS. BABITA YADAV
4. As broadly deposed by PW1/Ms. Babita Yadav, that on 17.12.2017, her bua was going to Himachal and her bua asked to her to accompany her as she was going to Himachal. Thereafter, she informed her mother through mobile phone regarding the same. She alongwith her friend, namely Deepak went to Naraina and after reaching there, her friend Deepak took her at the room of his relative, namely, Golu and stopped her at the room and did not Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 2/19 allow her to go to her home. She remained there whole night at the room of accused Golu. Thereafter, on 18.12.2017, she came to know, that father of her friend Deepak got arrested by police and on 23.02.2017, her statement was got recorded in the Court, Ex. A4.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State and she denied the suggestion that accused Golu had also stopped her at his room and did not allow her to go to her home. She further denied the suggestion, that she had been never won over by the accused.
Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW2:FATHER OF VICTIM MR. OM PRAKASH YADAV
5. As broadly deposed by PW2/Mr. Om Prakash Yadav, that prior to 1-1.5 years of 17.12.2017, her daughter Babita Yadav was residing at the house of his sister at 227B, DDA Flat, Motiya Khan, Pahar Ganj for her studies. On 17.12.2017, his sister was going for a tour to Himachal and he had sent his daughter to his home. At about 03:00 PM, his daughter informed PW2's wife, that she was coming from the house of his sister. At about 06:00 PM, when his daughter could not reach at his house, he tried to contact her daughter but her mobile phone was switched off. Thereafter, he searched for her daughter but her daughter could not be traced. On suspicion on his neighbour, namely, Deepak that he would have enticed his daughter and took her away to some other place, he made a complaint at PS and the same is Ex. PW2/A. On 18.12.2017, he took father of Deepak @ Pardeep at the PS and after sometime, PW2 came to know that her daughter was at the Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 3/19 house of Pradhan, Nangloi. Thereafter, he alongwith her daughter, his wife and police staffs came at the PS: Pahar Ganj and after medical examination of her daughter, her daughter was handed over to him.
Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW3:MOTHER OF VICTIM SMT. USHA DEVI
6. As broadly deposed by PW3/Smt. Usha Devi, that in the year 2017, her daughter Babita was residing at the house of her sister-in-law at Motia Khan. On 17.12.2017, her sister-in-law was going to Himanchal Bhawan and sent her daughter to her home at Nangloi. At around 04:00 PM, her daughter informed that she was coming from the house of her sister-in-law however, her daughter had not came to her house and she informed the same to her husband. On 18.12.2017, she found her daughter at Vishwakarma Chowk, Prem Nagar. Recovery seizure memo was prepared by the police, Ex. PW3/A. Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW4:SH. SURENDER PAL LANDLORD OF ACCUSED
7. As broadly deposed by PW4/Sh. Surender Pal, that the house in which he was residing was is in the name of his mother Smt. Surajwati. As her mother was old age woman, so he used to look after the said house. Accused Hitesh @ Golu was tenant in his said house and was residing for the last six months prior to the incident at the ground floor of the said house and was paying rent of Rs. 3,000/- for the said house. He further submitted that the entry for the tenants was from the back side and his entry was from Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 4/19 the front side.
Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW5: SI GIRI RAJ PART OF INVESTIGATING TEAM
8. As deposed by PW5/SI Giri Raj that on 27.12.2017, the day after receiving the call from IO/SI Harpal Singh, he reached at H. No. Z-350/10, Prem Nagar-2, Kirari. After reaching there, he interrogated the CCL Deepak @ Pradeep in the presence of his father, namely, Jai Singh and prepared documents, Mark X (Colly).
This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Defence despite opportunity being given to do so.
PW6:SH. NARESH KUMAR MEDICAL RECORD CLERK
9. As deposed by PW6/Naresh Kumar, Medical Record Clerk, LHMC Hospital, that he had been working in LHMC Hospital since the year 2000. The summons of Dr. Raksha was assigned to him as she had left the services of hospital. He further submitted, that he can identify the signatures of Dr. Rakhsha in MLC No. 4626, Ex. PW2/A (OSR) as he had seen her signing and writing during the course of his duties.
Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW7: W HC SUDHA PART OF INVESTIGATING TEAM
10. As deposed by PW7/W HC Sudha, that on 18.11.2017, he alongwith IO/ASI Shyam Sunder and complainant, namely, Smt. Usha went to Chowk, Prem Nagar-II, Kirari, Delhi from where they recovered victim Babita Yadav. The recovery memo in this regard, Ex. PW3/A. Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 5/19 Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW8:ASI SHYAM SUNDER PART OF INVESTIGATING TEAM
11. As deposed by PW8/ASI Shyam Sunder, that on 18.12.2017, he had joined the investigation of the present case with SI Harpal Singh, W/Ct Sudha and mother of victim namely Smt. Usha. Thereafter, they reached at Vishwakarma Chowk, Kirari, Prem Nagar-II, Delhi from where they recovered victim girl. IO recorded his statement. On 27.12.2017, he alongwith SI Giriraj, JWO and SI Harpal went to house No. Z-350/10, Prem Nagar-II, Kirari, Delhi where they enquired about the juvenile 'P' and after due enquiry accused was apprehended by JWO vide memo, MARK X. After due procedure, the custody of juvenile was handed over the guardian.
On 24.01.2018, he alongwith SI Harpal went to the house of accused Hitesh @ Golu, residing at Naraina, Delhi where they met with Jai Singh, the father of accused Hitesh. Accused was interrogated and documents pertaining to his age were collected. Accused Hitesh was served with notice U/s 41(A) Cr.P.C and his detailed interrogation report Ex. PW8/A was prepared by IO.
Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW9: SI HARPAL SINGH INVESTIGATING OFFICER
12. As deposed by PW9/SI Harpal Singh that on18.12.2017, complainant came at the PS and gave a written complaint in Hindi to him i.e. Ex. PW1/A and he had gone through the content of the complaint and thereafter he made endorsement on the complaint Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 6/19 and prepared rukka, Ex. A2. As per the complaint, daughter of complainant, was missing. He handed over the said rukka to DO for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he collected copy of FIR and original rukka from DO. Thereafter, he alongwith W/Ct. Sudha, ASI Shayam Sunder and complainant Om Prakash went for investigation and reached near Vishkarma Chowk Prem Nagar Kirari Delhi, where victim, namely, Babita was found. The said victim was recovered vide recovery memo, Ex. A3/2 and medical examination of victim was got conducted at LHMC Hospital. The custody of victim was handed over to Katyani Child Home after the order of CWC. On 19.12.2017, victim was again produced before CWC and after that she was released to her parent by the order of CWC. On 23.12.2017, statement of victim Babita was recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC by the Ld. MM. In her statement she had made allegations against a CCL and accused Hitesh @ Golu. On 14.01.2018, a Notice U/s 41 Cr.PC was serve to accused Hitesh @ Golu i.e. Ex. 9/A. He interrogated the accused Hitesh and prepared report, Ex. 8/A. He recorded the statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.PC. After completion of investigation, he filed charge- sheet in the Court against accused Hitesh @ Golu and filed charge- sheet against the CCL before Ld. JJB.
Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
13. After examination of all the aforesaid PWs, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 23.01.2024.
14. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 23.01.2024. Accused Hitesh @ Golu stated, that he does not wish Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 7/19 to lead any defence evidence in this case.
15. Thereafter the matter was fixed for final arguments. Accordingly, final arguments were advanced by both the parties.
16. The Ld. APP for the State had submitted, that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused, in crux, had vehemently submitted, that the accused has been falsely implicated and therefore he cannot be convicted. Ld. Counsel for accused pleaded for the acquittal of the accused on the ground that no allegations stands proved against the accused.
EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE, BRIEF REASON AND THE DECISION
17. The accused was brought before the court, facing trial for the alleged commission of offense punishable under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code, pertaining to the wrongfully confining or concealing the victim, namely, Ms. Babita, who had been kidnapped or abducted. Within the realm of legal principles, it is firmly established that the prosecution bears the weighty responsibility of proving the case against the accused beyond any lingering doubt that may exist. To fulfill this onerous duty, the prosecution must firmly stand upon its own foundations, relying solely on the strength of its evidence and argumentation, unaided Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 8/19 by extraneous factors.
18. Before dwelling into the merits of the present case, it becomes imperative to understand the emote of law entailed U/s 368 IPC as under:-
Section 368 IPC:-Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person- "Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement".
19. Section 368 IPC uses term kidnapping or abduction and kidnapping has been defined U/s 360 and U/s 361, but in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the present case, Section 361 holds relevancy and the same reads as under:-
Section 359 IPC:- "Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship".
Section 361 IPC:- "Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship".
Explanation.--The words "lawful guardian" in this section Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 9/19 include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.
Exception.--This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
The term Abduction is defined in IPC and the same reads as under:-
Section 362 IPC:-Abduction-"Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person".
20. Thus, for attracting Section 368 IPC, the knowledge is a sine-qua-non. Any conviction U/s 368 IPC can only be sustained, if the accused could be held liable of having knowledge of the fact that an offence of kidnapping or abduction is committed in respect of the victim. To apply Section 368 IPC, accused must be proved to have had knowledge of the fact of kidnapping or abduction (Emperor Vs. Zamin AIR 1932 and Kharag Singh Vs. State of U.P 1981, U.P. CRC 19). Section 368 pre supposes that the offence of kidnapping or abduction has taken place so that anyone wrongfully concealing or confining the person kidnapped or abducted is guilty of an offence U/s 368 IPC. But where kidnapping is not proved in the first place wrongfully confining or concealing does not constitute and offence U/s 368 Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 10/19 IPC.
21. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Court needs to appreciate the evidence brought forth by the prosecution with regard to the wrongful concealment or confining of the allegedly kidnapped or abducted girl by the accused having knowledge of the said facts, in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case.
22. The most tectonic witness examined by the prosecution is the victim herself. The Court hereby proceeds to anatomize the testimony of PW1/Victim/ Ms. Babita Yadav. PW1 deposed in her examination-chief, that she alongwith Deepak went to Naraina and after reaching Naraina Deepak took her at room of his relative, namely, Golu and she remained whole night at the said room. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State as she was not supporting the case of the prosecution and was resiling from her earlier statement. It is pertinent to mention, that in the cross-examination done by the Ld. APP for the State, victim categorically denied the suggestion, that accused Golu had also stopped at his room and did not allow the victim to go to her home. The relevant extract of her cross-examination to this effect is as under:-
"It is wrong to suggest that accused Golu had also stopped at his room and did not allow me to go to my home".
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, whereby she stated, that on 17.12.2017, Deepak called her to meet him at Shadipur Metro and when she reached there only Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 11/19 Deepak was present and he was not accompanied by accused Golu @ Hitesh. Thereafter, Deepak took her to a room. Though, PW1 stated in her cross-examination, that she knew to whom the said room belonged to but she had not named accused as the person to whom the room belong to. In fact, in her entire deposition, be it examination-in-chief or cross-examination, PW1 has nowhere deposed, that she knew that the said room belonged to Golu @ Hitesh. In fact, she had categorically stated, that even Deepak had not informed her regarding the person to whom the said room belonged to. It is further pertinent to mention, that PW1 stated in her cross-examination, that when she reached at room at Naraina in the evening, the room was opened and Golu @ Hitesh was not at the room. In fact, she averred, that she met Hitesh @ Golu only on 18.12.2017, when he came to inform Deepak, that his father got arrested but this also nowhere results in concluding, that Golu knew, that Deepak is inside the room alongwith the victim.
23. Thus, from the entire testimony of the victim it cannot be deduced, that accused knew that the victim was abducted or kidnapped and despite having said knowledge he concealed or confined the victim in the said room.
24. Further, the testimony of PW2/Sh. Om Prakash Yadav is also relevant as (father of complainant) he deposed, that he had suspicion on his neighbour, namely, Deepak that his neighbour Deepak would have enticed his daughter and had taken his daughter to some other place. He further deposed in his Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 12/19 examination-in-chief, that his daughter was at the house of Pradhan, Nangloi. Thereafter, he went to the house of Pradhan, Nangloi and he alongwith his daughter and his wife went to the PS. On the other hand, in his cross-examination he stated, that he reached at the house of Pradhan, Nangloi where his daughter and Deepak was not present and no person by the name of Hitesh was present at the house of the Pradhan when he reached there and he had never met any person, namely, Hitesh.
Thus, from the entire testimony of the PW2/Sh. Om Prakash and PW1/Babita Yadav, clear cut contradiction can be established as PW1/Victim Ms. Babita stated in her examination- in-chief as well as in her cross-examination, that she stayed with Deepak in one room which belonged to someone but it was certainly not the house of Pradhan at Nangloi but in cross- examination of PW2 i.e. Om Prakash Yadav it is stated, that the victim i.e. daughter of PW2 was present at the house of Pradhan. Thus, the entire factum of the victim being at the house of alleged accused Hitesh @ Golu is not clearly established as she was actually found/recovered from the house of Pradhan, Nangloi.
25. Another vital witness examined by the prosecution in the present case is PW4/Surender Pal Singh. PW4 is the landlord of the house which was allegedly rented to accused. It is deposed by PW4 in his examination-in-chief, that accused Hitesh @ Golu was tenant in his house and was residing in that house for a period of 6 months but what is most crucial to be observed at this stage is, that PW4 categorically stated in his examination-in-chief Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 13/19 before the Court, that the accused was tenant in his house for a period of 6 months prior to the incident and the relevant extract of his cross-examination to this effect is as under:-
"Accused Hitesh @ Golu was tenant in my said house and was residing for the last 6 months prior to the incident at the ground floor of the said house and was paying rent for Rs. 3,000/- for the said house". Thus, even from the deposition of PW4 a question mark arises with regard to the accused being even in symbolic possession of the said house on the date of the incident as it is averred by PW4, that accused was residing in his house at the ground floor as a tenant for last 6 months prior to the date of the incident, meaning thereby that on the date of the incident as per PW4 also, the accused was not his tenant and therefore the factum of accused having knowledge of the fact that the victim was taken to the said house after being kidnapped or abducted by one Deepak comes under scanner.
26. Another significant factor that cannot be lost sight of is, that the prosecution had not examined any independent witness who had seen the victim being taken to the house of alleged Hitesh @ Golu as no prosecution witness is cited to this effect. Further, it is also not proved by any of the prosecution witnesses, that accused Hitesh @ Golu was also present at that house for even a moment for the entire duration for which the victim was present in that house.
27. It is further vital to note, that apart from victim and the father of the victim, other witnesses examined by the prosecution Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 14/19 are merely formal in nature. PW8/ASI Shyam Sunder was part of the investigating team in the present case but it is clear from his cross-examination, that he did not make any departure or arrival entry on 18.12.2017, that is the day on which the victim girl was recovered. Further, neither did he sign any recovery memo nor did he make any departure entry or arrival entry on 14.01.2018 at the PS when they left for the house of the accused. Thus, the entire investigation seems to be done in a mechanical manner and thus raises question marks on the procedure and the legality of the investigation.
28. It is further apposite to state, that PW9 i.e. SI Harpal Singh (Retd) was the one who had handed over the rukka to DO for registration of FIR and also he went near Vishkarma Road, Prem Nagar, Kirari, Delhi, where victim Babita was found present. It is apropos to state, that it is stated by PW9 in his cross- examination, that at the time of recovery of victim accused Hitesh @ Golu was not present with her. Thus, this per se raises question mark on the factum of accused being in knowledge of the fact, that victim was kidnapped or abducted.
29. Thus, on the basis of the above observations and findings, this Court finds no hesitation in deducing:-
1. Firstly, the prosecution has miserable failed to prove, that the victim actually stayed in the house of accused Hitesh @ Golu as she was not recovered from there but from the house of Pradhan, Nangloi.Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 15/19
2. Secondly, even if for the sake of argument, Court accepts the version of the prosecution to the extend, that the victim was for some duration of time even at a house which at one point of time was rented by Hitesh @ Golu but on the date of the incident the said house was under the rental accommodation of Hitesh @ Golu remains unproved as it is averred by the landlord that though Hitesh @ Golu was staying in the said house on rental for a period of 6 months but the same was prior to the date of the incident.
3. Thirdly, even again for the sake of argument, the Court believes the version of the prosecution to be a gospel truth that the house where Deepak took victim was belonging to the accused, nothing has surfaced on record to show that the accused was having the knowledge of the fact that the victim was kidnapped or abducted and knowing such fact also he concealed the factum of victim being kept at the house of the accused.
4. Fourthly, the prosecution failed to examine any public witness to the effect, that they had seen the victim being present at the house of Hitesh @ Golu in the presence of the accused as there is no evidence on record to substantiate the fact, that the accused was present at that house for even a moment when the victim was present there as the victim herself had submitted that accused was not present in the house, when she was taken to the house.
30. In the instant case, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the prosecution for not joining the public witnesses. The names of the persons to whom the request was made to join the Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 16/19 investigation has nowhere been mentioned. There is nothing on record which could suggest, that there was paucity of time because of which notice could not be served upon the persons who refused to join the investigation, if at all. Merely deposing that public person refused to join the investigation is of no avail. Considering the aforementioned observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions/failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt to the prosecution case.
31. In Bhagwan Singh & Anr Vs. State of MP (2002) 4 SCC 85, the Court repeated one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the Court, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other two his innocence, the view which is favourble to the accused should be adopted.
The Court observed as under :
"7 The golden threat which runs through the web of 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 two his innocence the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Such is not a jurisdiction limitation on the appellate Court but a judge made guidelines for circumspection. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided".Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 17/19
32. At the end, Court deems it fit to state, that 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. If two views are possible, one favouring the accused and the other against him, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and in the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
33. 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 examined by prosecution.
34. Therefore, in light of the above observations and finding, it can be safely culled out that case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes as there are numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses examined by prosecution.
Cr. No. 3931/2019 FIR No. 388/2017 PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 18/1935. 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 or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused" .
CONCLUSION
36. Therefore, in light of the above observations and finding, it can be safely culled out that case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes as there are numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses examined by prosecution.
37. Hence, in view of the aforesaid comprehensive discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons and therefore, the accused HITESH @ GOLU is hereby acquitted from the offence (s) u/s 368 IPC.
38. Bail bond in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C has been already obtained from the accused (since acquitted) in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs. Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I A.D (Del.) 389. Bonds accepted in terms of provision of section 437A Cr.P.C, 1973, shall remain in force for six months from today.
Digitally signed by RICHAAnnounced in the open Court today RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
i.e. 15.04.2024 2024.04.15
16:32:06 +0530
(RICHA SHARMA)
ACMM-1(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/ DELHI
Cr. No. 3931/2019
FIR No. 388/2017
PS Pahar Ganj State Vs. Hitesh @ Golu Page 19/19