Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . on 22 December, 2021

     IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07,
              SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS,
                           NEW DELHI
             Presided over by- Sh. Dev Chaudhary, DJS

Cr. Case No.            -:    912/2017
Unique Case ID No.      -:    DLSW020026412017
FIR No.                 -:    539/2014
Police Station          -:    Chhawla
Section(s)              -:    385/506 IPC

In the matter of -
STATE
                                 VS.

MANISH
S/o Mahavir Singh (name wrongly mentioned as Raje Ram in
chargesheet at some places)
R/o H. No. V-15, Old Nangal, Delhi Cantt. Delhi.

                                                       .... Accused
1.

 Name of Complainant             : Talwinder Singh
2. Name of Accused                 : Manish
      Offence complained of or
3.                                 : 385/506 IPC
      proved
4. Plea of Accused                 : Not guilty
      Date of commission of
5.                                 : 30.08.2014 to 10.09.2014
      offence
6. Date of Filing of case          : 06.02.2017
7. Date of Reserving Order         : 22.12.2021
8. Date of Pronouncement           : 22.12.2021
9. Final Order                     : Acquitted

Argued by -: Sh. Naween Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.

Sh. Neeraj Dahiya, Ld. counsel for the accused.

INDEX -

                        (The headings are hyper-linked)
                              HEADING                         PAGES
     1.    Factual Matrix                                       2
     2.    Investigation and appearance of accused              3
     3.    Prosecution Evidence                                   3-5
     4.    Statement of accused and defence evidence               5
     5.    Arguments                                              5-6
     6.    Ingredients of the offence                              6
     7.    Hostile witnesses                                      6-7
     8.    Conclusion                                              8

BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION -:

FACTUAL MATRIX -

1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.09.2014, a written complaint was received from the complainant Talwinder, who stated that he is the owner of house no. 130-A, Durga Vihar, Phase -1, New Delhi (hereinafter, "disputed house"), which he purchased in the year 2006. On 30.08.2014, he had gone to the disputed house and found out that his locks were broken and were replaced with new locks. Neighbours informed him that 4-5 persons had come to the house and had stayed there. A mobile number was also written outside the house, and when the complainant dialled on the same, the caller told him that the house belonged to his uncle and threatened the complainant against going to the police. Money was demanded from him to vacate the house.

As such, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 385/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC").

INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED -

2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the charge-sheet against the accused was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.

3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to him in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the present accused only, charge under Sections 385/506 IPC was framed against accused Manish. Co-accused Jai Vir Singh @ Balli and Parmod @ Sonu were discharged vide order dated 03.11.2017. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -

4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:

ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Gurdeep Singh PW-2 : Talwinder Singh PW-3 : Ct. Kavita Bai PW-4 : Ct. Ashish PW-5 : Ct. Malkeet DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW2/A : Police complaint Ex. PW5/A : Arrest Memo of accused Ex. PW5/B : Personal search memo of accused Cr. Case No. 912/2017 State vs. Manish Page 3 of 8 Ex. PW5/C : Disclosure statement of accused

5. PW 2 Talwinder Singh is the complainant, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that he had purchased the disputed house in the year 2006 and the same was vacant till 2014. On 30.08.2014, he went to the said house and found that the lock was broken and new one was installed. He was told by the neighbours that around a month ago, 4-5 persons had come to his house and had stayed there. The house was also put for sale. The witness saw a mobile number written on his house and called on the same. The caller identified himself as Ravi and claimed that the house belongs to his uncle. Thereafter, the witness filed a police complaint. His relative Gurdeep informed him that Manish told Gurdeep that his friends had the plot and the witness has to pay 2-3 lakhs to them if he wants possession. He stated that he did not get any call for demand.

5.1. In his cross-examination, PW2 Talwinder admitted that he had received certain threatening calls from the said number written outside his house and a demand was made for Rs. 10 lakhs. He denied the suggestion that the present accused had come to his house to demand money. He further admitted that Manish never made any demand from him. He identified the accused but stated that he cannot identify the accused as the person who had demanded money from Gurdeep. He stated that Gurdeep knows Manish.

6. Gurdeep (PW1) is the relative of the complainant, who stated that he came to know the name of one illegal possessor of the house of his relative, as Manish. Manish was known to him. The witness stated that Manish informed him that the persons who Cr. Case No. 912/2017 State vs. Manish Page 4 of 8 have taken the possession of the plot of the complainant would take some money in lieu of vacating the possession. 6.1 In his cross-examination, Gurdeep (PW1) admitted that he stated that Manish had not informed him about the names of the persons who had taken possession of the house. He denied any further knowledge about the case and did not identify the accused in Court. He denied the suggestions that he was won over by the accused.

7. Since the two of the four public persons had turned hostile and out of the remaining two, the material witness had expired, prosecution evidence was closed vide separate order passed today, in view of the submissions of the Ld. APP. Rest of the prosecution witnesses, who were examined, are formal in nature and have proved the documents mentioned in the Table above.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE -

8. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. In reply, the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Thereafter, he stated that he did not wish to lead evidence in his defence.

ARGUMENTS -

9. I have heard the ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.

10. It is argued by the ld. APP for the State that the evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offences charged against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.

11. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel has argued that all the public witnesses have hostile and despite reading their evidence as a whole, nothing has come on record against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offences.

INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE -

12. The accused has been charged for the offences under Section 385 and 506 of the IPC. For offence under Section 385 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused put the complainant in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. For offence under Section 506 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused threatened the complainant with injury to his person, reputation or property, in order to alarm the complainant, or cause the complainant to do any act or abstain from doing any act.

13. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.

HOSTILE WITNESSES -

14. The main witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile in the present case and PW Prakashwati has expired. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in omnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under -

"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."

15. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witnesses can be relied in part. In the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution. PW2 has only deposed that he came to know that someone has changed the locks of his house. He did receive some threatening calls from a number with a demand for money, but there is no link of the present accused with the said number. Further, the witness has specifically stated that he did not receive any threats or demands from the present accused. The name of the present accused was disclosed to him by PW1 and it is the testimony of the complainant that PW1 only knows who demanded money and who is the present accused. The witness failed to identify the accused.

16. PW1 has himself turned hostile and his deposition is only to the effect that Manish informed him about illegal possession over the disputed house. Manish did not disclose him the identities Cr. Case No. 912/2017 State vs. Manish Page 7 of 8 of the persons who had done the act. He has further not identified the accused Manish from the dock. Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witnesses is considered partly, there is nothing to implicate the accused. As such, none of the essential ingredients of the offence stands fulfilled in the present case.

CONCLUSION -

17. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offences under Section 385/506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The star witnesses of the prosecution including the complainant have turned hostile. There is no evidence to link the accused with the crime charged against him. Further, the ingredients of the offences are not fulfilled from the material on record.

18. Resultantly, the accused MANISH is hereby found not guilty. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the offences under Section 385/506 IPC.

Pronounced in open court on 22.12.2021 in presence of the accused.

This judgment contains 8 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.

(DEV CHAUDHARY) Metropolitan Magistrate - 07 South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi/ 22.12.2021 Cr. Case No. 912/2017 State vs. Manish Page 8 of 8