Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Hans @ Hans Raj Etc. on 17 January, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Raj Hans @ Hans Raj Etc.
FIR No. 835/06
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
U/S 354/506/324/34 IPC
THE JUDGMENT
1. DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE : 26.06.2007
2. SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE : 178/2
3. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 28.06.2006
4. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : Ms. Asha
5. NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS : 1) Raj Hans S/o Late Sh,
Raja Ram
2) Rita Devi W/o Sh. Raj Hans,
Both R/o Jhuggi No.
WS8/204, Balmiki Camp,
Begumpur, New Delhi
6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF :U/S 354/506/324/34 IPC
7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
8. DATE OF RESERVE OF JUDGMENT : 15.01.2013
9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Acquitted
10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 17.01.2013
St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar
2
Brief Facts
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.06.2006 at about 10.30 am, opposite Jhuggi No. 8/60, Balmiki Camp, Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention outraged the modesty of the complainant Ms. Asha and threatened to kill her. They also assaulted complainant, her mother and her sister. The accused poured hot tea in his hand on the complainant and also bitten the complainant on her hands as well as on breast and, thus, committed an offence punishable u/s 354/506/324/34 IPC. The FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant against both the accused persons and investigation was carried out.
2. Charge sheet under Section 354/506/324/34 IPC was filed in the court, accused persons were supplied the documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 30.09.2009, charge was framed against both the accused persons for offence u/s 354/506/324/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses and the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 27.04.2011.
St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 3
4. PW1 Ms. Asha is the complainant and she deposed that she does not remember the date but in the year 2006 during the summer season, at about 10 a.m to 10:30 a.m, she was playing with her sister Pinki close to her house. Aunti Rita Devi (accused) present in the court (correctly identified) asked her as to why she is whispering to which she replied that she is not whispering. The accused Rita Devi started quarreling with her. Then she was joined by her husband Hans Raj (correctly identified) and he gave tooth bite on her breast and hand. Accused Hans Raj had hot tea in his hand which he poured on her right hand and consequently she suffered burn injuries on her hand. The Accused persons used to abuse and defame her and her family. But they always maintained peace with them. She further deposed that accused persons assaulted and abused them in filthy language on the day of incident. She reported the matter to the police vide her complaint Ex. PW1/A wherein she narrated the whole incident in detail. She was treated for her injuries vide MLC Ex. PW1/B. Site plan was prepared by police at her instance vide Ex. PW1/C. The accused persons are previously known to her being her neighbors. She further deposed that she also filed complaint Ex. PW1/D in the court wherein the whole incident were narrated in detail. She had also filed photographs Ex. P1 and P2 wherein injuries caused by accused persons are shown at point A and B. St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 4
5. During her cross examination, she stated that she can not say as to whether public persons or neighbors gathered at the site of occurrence. She admitted that neighborers were residing in the neighborhood but as far as she remembers, they were not present at that time. She does not remember as to whether any quarrel took place between her family and accused persons prior to this incident. She does not know who called the police. However, she knows that she went to police. She can not say as to after how much time after the incident, the police came. Her statement was reduced in writing by police on the same day. She can not say whether police recorded statements of any other witness in her presence. She stated that about 23 policeman came to them. She was taken to hospital by police. She was taken to police station and all proceedings were conducted there. She denied the suggestion that she is falsely implicating the accused persons due to prior enmity with accused persons. She admitted that a case u/s 308 IPC is pending against her father in the court of law. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
6. PW2 Mrs. Bhola is mother of the complainant. She deposed that at about 1010:30 a.m, in summer season about 34 years ago, her daughter namely Asha and Pinki were playing outside the house while she was inside her house. Both the girl while playing laughed on which Rita said that why they are St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 5 whispering. Her daughter replied that she is not whispering, but accused still pressed that her daughter was whispering and making fun of her. She further deposed that accused persons gave teeth bite on the breast of her daughter Asha. When she came out and made enquiry and was in petticoat, they also started beating her. Her hairs were pulled by accused persons and accused persons pulled her petticot while pulling her hairs. Matter was reported to police. After three days of occurrence, accused persons indulged into altercation with another neighbor Maya and they falsely implicated her husband despite that he was not present at the spot. Thereafter they got registered the present case. She further deposed that accused Rita used to abuse her husband in filthy language by calling him Gunda. The said witness correctly identified both the accused persons Hans Raj and Rita present in the court.
7. During her cross examination, she stated that she had not only heard about the occurrence but also witnessed the occurrence when she came out. Nobody else was present at the time of occurrence except Chotte Lal who is their neighborer and one more person who was not known to her. Accused had cup of tea in his hand and he had already thrown the hot tea on the hand of her daughter. Police came to the spot after about ten minutes of this incident. She stated that her statement was recorded by the police at the spot. Accused Rita abused her by calling her Randi and Badmash. Her daughter was got medically examined by St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 6 her at Safdarjung hospital after three or four days of the incident. Police told her to take Asha for medical examination. She denied the suggestion that she is falsely implicating the accused persons due to prior enmity with accused persons. She admitted that a case u/s 308 IPC is pending against her husband in the court of law. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
8. PW 3, S.S. Rawat, Medical Record Technician Safdarjung Hospital deposed that he has brought the burns, OPD register bearing number 2173/06 dated 10.07.06 of concerned record i.e prescription slip of Asha d/o Sh. Vijay bears the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Viquar Hussain who has since left the services of the hospital without any forwarding address. He can identify handwriting and signatures of Dr. Viquar Hussain on prescription slip as he has seen him writing and signing in usual course of his duties. The prescription slip is Ex. PW1/B which bears the signatures of the Dr. Viquar Hussain at point A.
9. PW 4, Retired SI Jai Jai Ram is Duty Officer. He deposed that on 16.07.06 he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Malviya Nagar and on that day at about 12:20 am on receipt of a Rukka through SI Rohtash Kumar, he registered FIR No. 835/06 U/S 324/354/506/34 IPC vide Ex. PW 4/A and made his endorsement on Rukka vide Ex. PW4/B. After registration of FIR, he handed over the carbon copy of FIR and original Rukka to SI Rohtash Kumar.
St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 7
10.During his cross examination, he stated that on that day his duty hours were 12 midnight to 8:00 am. It took around 20 minutes to record FIR. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
11. PW 5, Smt Rani deposed that on dated 16.07.06 she was posted at PS Malviya Nagar as W/Constable and on that day she alongwith SI Rohtash and Ct. Ram Khiladi went to Balmiki Camp, Begum Pur. On that day accused Rita Devi (correctly identified) was arrested by the SI Rohtash vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A. Personal search of accused Rani Devi was conducted by the SI Rohtash in her presence vide search memo Ex. PW5/B.
12.During her cross examination, she stated that when they reached at the spot the incident had already occurred. They reached at the spot at about one or one and half hour after the occurrence of the incident. No public persons were present at the spot when the accused Rita Devi was arrested in her presence. She admitted that there are other houses in the vicinity of Rita Devi's house and there are narrow lanes. They remained at the spot for about half an hour. All the writing work was done by the IO at the spot. The accused Rita Devi was identified by the complainant Asha. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 8
13.PW 6, SI Rohtash Kumar deposed that on the intervening night of 15/16.07.06, while he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar, complainant Asha alongwith her mother came in the PS. He recorded the complaint vide Ex. PW1/A and made her endorsement vide Ex. PW6/A and handed over the complaint to Duty Officer for registration of the case. After registration of case Duty Officer Jai Jai Ram handed over the copy of FIR Ex. PW4/A and original rukka to him. He further deposed that on 16.07.06 complainant handed over OPD slip bearing no. 2173/06 dated 10.07.06 i.e. Ex. PW1/B. On 16.07.06 he alongwith complainant Asha, Ct. Ram Khiladi, W/Ct. Rani went to house no. 8/60, Balmiki Colony, Begum Pur for the investigation of the case. At the instance of the complainant he inspected the site and prepared site plan vide Ex. PW1/C. On the 16.07.06 on the pointing out of complainant accused Rita Devi (correctly identified) was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A. Personal search of the accused was conducted by him vide search memo Ex. PW5/B. He recorded the statement of witnesses. He further deposed that on 21.09.06 he arrested the accused Raj Hans @ Hansraj was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/B. After completion of the investigation challan was filed.
14.During his cross examination, he admitted that the incident took place on 28.06.06, as per the statement given by the complainant Asha. He does not St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 9 remember the exact time when complainant Asha came to PS alongwith her mother, at about 10:00 - 11:00 pm on 15.07.06. Thereafter, on the morning of 16.07.06 at about 10:00 am he alongwith Ct. Ram Khiladi and W/Ct. Rani reached house no. 8/60, Balmiki Colony, Begum Pur, of the complainant who joined them and identified the place of incident. The complainant's house is at a distance of about 2 Km from the PS. The place of incident is just in the front of house of the complainant. The accused persons are residing just opposite the house of the complainant. The spot is surrounded by residential area. He stated that he asked the neighbours about the incident but nobody came forward to disclose about the incident. He denied the suggestion that this case has been registered at the instance of the complainant. Besides statement of the complainant and statement of her mother, complainant also handed over her treatment slip to him on the basis of which he registered the above mentioned case. He cannot say if the accused persons had history of quarrels with each other. He denied the suggestion that the accused person's complaints against the complainant and her family members was received at PS Malviya Nagar. He does not remember whether the accused Rita Devi had received injuries or that she was bandaged on the day they arrested her. It is wrong to suggest that on the directions of the Ld. MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi u/s 156(3) Cr.PC. a case u/s 308 IPC was registered against the family members of the complainant pursuant to the injuries received by the accused Rita Devi on the St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 10 same day of incident i.e. 06.07.2006. It is wrong to suggest that after registration of the case u/s 308 IPC case bearing FIR no. 883/06 the accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case. He admitted that he has seen the injuries sustained by the complainant on her neck. It is wrong to suggest that he is deposing falsely.
15.PW 7, Ct. Ram Khiladi deposed that on 16.07.06 he was posted as Constable at PS Malviya Nagar and on that day he accompanied IO/SI Rohtash during investigation of the present case. Site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant Ms. Bhola. He deposed that they reached at Jhuggi number 8/60, Balmiki Camp where accused Rita Devi (correctly identified) was met. Accused Rita was arrested after interrogation and her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 5/A and Ex. PW 5/B.
16.During his cross examination, he stated that his duty hours were from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. He left the PS along with the IO at 1:00 pm on foot. The distance between the PS and the spot of occurrence was 1/1.25 km. He remained at the spot with the IO for the entire period of inquiry on that day. The complainant Ms. Bhola accompanied to the spot from the PS. The IO prepared the sketch of the site plan without any scale. IO after arresting the accused Rita Devi returned to the PS where IO recorded the statements of the complainant, the Lady Ct. Rani.
St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 11 He stated that he cannot say whether the IO recorded the statements of the neighbors at the spot of occurrence. He does not know if IO had recorded the statements of the public persons present at the spot or not. However, the IO had inquired the neighbors. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to the spot and that he is conniving with the IO. He denied the suggestion that the entire paper work was completed at the PS. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
S.A
17. The statement of both accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the allegations leveled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this present case. It is stated by accused Rita Devi in her defence that the father of the complainant namely Vijay, along with Chhote Lal and Suresh were in drunken condition and started fight with her and her daughter. They also entered in her house and hit her and her daughter on their head. She and her daughter suffered severe injuries on the head and blood even started oozing out. The SHO concerned called them in the PS on the pretext of effecting compromise between them and the said persons. However, she was implicated in the false case by the police.
18.It is stated by the accused Raj Hans in his defence that his wife namely Rita and St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 12 his daughter were badly injured by the Vijay, Chhote Lal and Suresh. At that time he was in his office attending his duty and his neighbors informed him that his wife was taken to hospital after being hit by the said persons. He went to the hospital and Doctor was stitching her wife's head. Thereafter, he returned back to his house. After two three days, the said 3 persons came to his house in his presence and threatened them not to lodge any complaint against them otherwise they will implicate them in false case. Thereafter, he along his wife has been implicated in the present false case by the said 3 persons. They opted to lead evidence in our defence.
Defence Evidence
19.The accused examined himself and three other witnesses in support of his case.
20.DW1 Sh. Mohan Lal deposed that on 28/06 in the month of June, he does not remember the year. He again stated that in the year 2006 or 2007. He was a guard in security along with the accused Raj Hans. They used to go and attend their duties together. They used to go to attend duty at nearby places as he was working in house keeping and the accused was working as a security guard. He further deposed that their duties were different. On that day, he visited accused Raj Hans's house to tell him that he is on leave today and that he should go to St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 13 the duty himself, but accused was not present in his house, thereafter he went to his friends house who lived nearby. He further deposed that he was at his friends place about for 45 minutes. While returning to his house on his way he again went to the accused Raj Hans house but he was not there. And thereafter he went back to his house.
21.During his cross examination, he stated that the accused was residing at Balmiki camp Begumpur. He stated that he used to go to his duty at about 9 to 10 am. He went to the house of the accused at about 9 to 9:30 am on first occasion. And he left for his house at about 10:30 am and reached at his house at about 10:45 am. He stated that he asked the wife of the accused about the presence of the accused. He cannot say if the incident of the present case was taken place in his absence at the house of the accused. He stated that he has come to the court with the accused. He has come to the court to disclose the truth in the court. He stated that accused Raj Hans is his friend as well as colleague. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing in the court to save the accused being his friend and colleague.
22.DW2 Raj Hans Ram deposed that he was on duty at the time at which the alleged incident has purportedly taken place. He returned back to his house. Thereafter suddenly police personnel came to his house on 24 or 25 July 2006 St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 14 with a warrant. Since, he was not present at that time and was on duty, his wife told him about the police personnel coming to the house. The villagers of Begumpur were aghast when they came to know about the case instituted against him & his wife by the complainant as in fact his wife & his daughter were badly battered/assaulted by the father of the complainant. He stated that the police personnel has told his wife to tell him that he should surrender himself at the police station. When the villagers came to know about the present case, they exclaimed that this was a 100% a false case. He deposed that his wife and his children were beaten by the complainant's father. His wife has lodged a complaint regarding the same. He has filed the documents regarding the same vide Ex DW2/A and the photograph as marked A.
23. During his cross examination, he stated that Mohan Lal used to come at his house. On the day of incident Mohan Lal did not go to the duty with him. However he had gone to his house. Mohan Lal did not meet him. Mohan Lal had not come to his house on the day of incident and therefore he went to his work place alone. He voluntary stated that his wife told him that Mohan Lal had come to the house when he came back to the house. There was a register in his work place to show his attendance. He further stated that he has not brought any proof showing his presence at his work place at the date and time of the incident. He has not made any written complaint against the police St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 15 officials who has falsely implicated him in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he had given tooth bite on the hands and breast of the complainant Ms. Asha and also thrown hot tea on the right hand and also abused her and her father or that he had caused problem to them and called her father as 'Gunda' He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely being an accused in the present case to save himself. After putting Court question to the accused, the accused has stated that he can produce the attendance register to show that he was at his work place on the day and the time of the incident. He failed to bring the attendance register which can show his presence at his work place at the time of incident. He sought time to bring the villagers of Begumpur as witnesses in his defence who were aghast when they came to know about the present case filed by the complainant against him & his wife which is a false case. He does not know whether any villagers had given the statement to the police in writing that the present case is false against him & his wife. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
24. Then accused produced DW3 Shaif Ali. He deposed that he is working as Field Officer with M/s Anchor Security and Investigating Services(Regd) situated at 51, 1st Floor, Mini Market(Mandir Lane), Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi16. The summoned records pertaining to the period 15/06/2006 to 30/06/2006 can not be produced since destroyed by the office. They destroyed the office record St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 16 which is more than two years old. After putting Court question to the said defence witness, he stated that they do not have any document to show that the relevant record has been destroyed.
25. DW4 Kishan deposed that he is residing at the address i.e. 8/100, Valmiki Camp, Begum Pur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for the last 15 years. He had been the President of Valmiki Camp for about 2 years till about 2 years. He does not know about the occurrence. He admitted that all matters are initially reported to Pradhan of Valmiki Camp by the residents.
26. During his cross examination, he admitted that he was not Pradhan of Valmiki Camp during the period 2006 or or 16/07/2006. He denied the suggestion that he was never Pradhan at any point of time and for this reason he has not brought any documentary evidence in this regard. He stated that the accused is known to him for the last 23 years. He again stated that 89 years. He has come to the court on receipt of summon. He stated that accused had first and last met him yesterday itself. He has no knowledge of occurrence/incident for which the present case has been filed since he was not present at that time. He stated that he knows Ms. Bhola, the mother of the complainant for the last 67 years. He knows that Ms. Bhola has one daughter but he does not know that the accused present namely Raj Hans gave bite to daughter of Ms. Bhola namely St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 17 Asha.
Brief reasons for the decision of the case
27. Learned APP has stated that the guilt of both accused persons is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. On the other hand learned counsel for the accused persons has argued that it is a fit case to acquit the accused persons. It is argued by the learned counsel for accused persons that as per the prosecution, the incident occurred on 28.6.2006. However, the complaint was made to the police only on 16.7.2006. The unexplained delay in registration of FIR casts clouds of suspicion on the entire case of the prosecution. He has further argued that even the MLC of the complainant was not prepared on time and was prepared only on 10.7.2006. Further there is history of previous enmity between the complainant and accused persons. The accused Reeta Devi as well as her daughter Moni Kumar were assaulted by the father of the complainant alongwith one Chhote Lal and Suresh Kumar on 6.7.2006 in which accused Reeta as well as her daughter suffered serious injuries. The FIR in the said case was registered after the accused herein filed the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 11.7.2006 and the father of the complainant herein is facing trial in the said case for the offence punishable under Sections 323/451/308/506/34 IPC. The complainant herein filed the present false complaint on 16.7.2006 against the accused persons as a counter St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 18 blast. It is also urged that there are discrepancies in the complaint dated 16.7.2006, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered, and the deposition of PW1 (complainant) and PW2 (complainant's mother). No public witness has been examined despite the availability. Therefore, it is argued by counsel for the accused that the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
28.I have bestowed my careful considerations to the rival submissions made at bar and perused the record meticulously.
Delay in registration of FIR
29.In the present case, the incident in question occurred on 28.6.2006 at 10.30 AM. However, the complaint was made by the complainant only on 16.7.2006 and consequently the FIR was registered on 16.7.2006. The delay in lodging of complaint and registration of FIR has not been properly and satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. The delay in registration of FIR caste pale of suspicion on the veracity of entire case of prosecution. The possibility of embellishment and distortion in the complaint cannot be ruled out and it calls for an adverse inference against the prosecution.
Previous enmity
30. The delay also assumed importance in view of the fact that there is history of St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 19 previous enmity between the accused persons and the family of the complainant. The Ex. DW2/A filed by the defence show that accused Reeta has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the father of the complainant and other accused persons on 11.7.2006 which culminated into registration of FIR against the father of the complainant. The father of the complainant is facing trail in the said FIR. Noticeably present complaint was filed by complainant on 16.7.2006 after the accused persons filed complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the father of the complainant on 11.7.2006. The timing of complaint gives credence to the plea of defence that the present case is counter blast to the case filed by accused persons against father of complainant.
Material Inconsistencies
31. There are vital discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 & PW2 and the complaint. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that the quarrel started with accused Hansraj. Accused Hansraj burned the complainant by pouring hot tea in his hand on the complainant and later on, the other accused Reeta Devi also reached at the spot. But in the evidence, PW1 and PW2 stated that the quarrel started between complainant and accused Reeta Devi and later accused Hansraj came to the spot. In the complaint, it is also stated that accused Hansraj gave bite on the neck of the complainant. However, in the evidence of PW1 St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 20 complainant stated that accused gave bite on the breast of the complainant. In the evidence, PW1 and PW2 have also stated that accused pulled the wearing peticot of PW2. But no such statement has been made in the complaint. Non examination of public witnesses
32.The prosecution case is further weakened by non examination of independent public witness. The quarrel in the present case occurred in the morning near the house of the complainant and the accused persons who are neighbours. PW1 and PW2 stated that the said locality is inhabited by other neighbours. The PW5 also stated in her evidence hat there are other houses in the vicinity of house of Rita Devi and there are narrow lanes. However, no neighbor/public witness has been examined by the prosecution in support of its case. PW1 and PW2 stated in their evidence that no neighbours were present at the time of incident. The said submission is unworthy of credence. It is not believable that when such ugly fight occurs between the neighbour outside their house, other neighbours would not gathered at the spot/place of incident. Non examination of public witness has further punctured the case of prosecution.
33.The prosecution has placed on record the MLC dated 10.7.2006 and photographs which shows the old burn injury and small healing wound on the chest of the complainant. However, in view of the late medical examination of St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar 21 the complainant, it remains doubtful that complainant suffered the said injuries in the incident dated 28.6.2006.
34.It is a settled law that the onus to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt always remains on prosecution and never shifts. The benefit of every loophole in the case of the prosecution goes to the accused. It is equally settled that in case of two views at the end of trial, one in favour of accused and one against him, the view which is in favor of accused is to be taken.
35.For reasons stated above,I am of the considered opinion that the false implication of the accused persons at the hands of complainant and her family in the present, case cannot be ruled out and the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted of all the charges.
36. I order accordingly.
Announced in the open court on this (PRIYA MAHENDRA) th day of 17 January, 2013 Metropolitan Magistrate:
Mahila Court South Delhi, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi.
St. Vs. Rita Devi etc FIR no.835/06 P.S. Malviya Nagar