Delhi District Court
State vs Kamlesh Kumar Jha Etc on 19 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South West District; Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Date of Institution : 06.05.2019
Date of Reserving Judgment : 17.02.2024
Date of Judgment : 19.02.2024
In the matter of :
State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha
FIR No.48/2017
PS : Sector-23 Dwarka
U/s: 323/341/506/509 IPC
1. Regn. No. of Case : 10856/2019
2. CNR No. of Case : DLSW02-021828-2019
3. Name of Complainant : Smt. Chitra Aggarwal
W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
R/o FlatNo. 403, Janki CGHS,
Sector 23, Dwarka, New Delhi
4. Name of accused persons : Kamlesh Kumar Jha
S/o Sh. R.C.Jha
R/o D-21, Sector 8,
Dwarka, New Delhi
5. Offence charged under : 323/341/506/509 IPC
Section
6. Plea of accused persons : Not guilty.
7. Final Order : Acquitted
Digitally signed
State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha by Samiksha
FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka
Samiksha Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 Page No.1 of 21
13:50:58 -0200
State represented by : Sh. Rohit Grewal, Ld. APP for State.
Accused represented by : Sh. B. C. Mishra, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of prosecution that on 14.01.2017 at 06:30 p.m. at Janki CGHS Society, Sector 23 Dwarka, accused accused wrongfully restrained the complainant Chitra Aggarwal and one Satish Chandra. He also gave beatings to Satish Chandra causing simple injuries to him and further threatened both of them with threats to their life. Further, accused had also uttered filthy words for complainant Chitra Aggarwal in order to insult her modesty. Thus, prosecution has set up a case under Section 323/341/506/509 IPC against accused.
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by police, charge sheet was filed in Court and copy was supplied to accused. On the basis of charge sheet, charges for committing offences punishable under Section 323/341/506/509 IPC against accused were framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses, who are as under:
Sr. No Name Nature of Evidence 1. PW-1/Chitra Aggarwal Complainant Digitally signed State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Samiksha by Samiksha Gupta Gupta Date: 2024.02.19 Page No.2 of 21 13:51:29 -0200 2. PW-2/Satish Chandra Injured 3. PW-3/Ct. Bharat Along with IO 4. PW-4/SI Durgesh Kumar IO
4. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Exhibits Documents 1. Ex.PW 1/1 Photocopy of complaint 2. Ex.PW 1/A Written complaint 3. Ex.PW 1/C Statement U/s 164 Cr.PC 4. Ex.PW 1/D Site Plan
5. Ex.PW 1/D1 Photocopy of register of Janaki Group Housing yearly meeting dated 14.01.2017
6. Ex.PW2/DA Photocopy of the complaint in handwriting of Satish Chandra
7. Mark PW- Photocopy of Kalandra U/s 107/150 Cr.PC 3/D1
8. Ex.PW4/A Kalandra U/s 107/150 Cr.PC
9. Ex.PW4/B Endorsement of IO on complaint
10. Ex.PW4/C Certified copy of statement of complainant U/s 164 Cr.PC
11. Ex.PW4/D Notice U/s 41A Cr.PC to accused Kamlesh Kumar
12. Ex.PW4/D/ Photocopy DD No. 14A A
13. Ex.PW4/D/ Letter dated 12.02.2017 of the Secretary of the B society to SHO
14. Ex.A1 Copy of FIR without contents
5. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused Digitally signed State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha by Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date: 2024.02.19 13:51:40 -0200 Page No.3 of 21 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein accused claimed that no such incident had occurred and no offence was committed by him as alleged. He also examined five witnesses in defence.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. To establish guilt of accused under Section 323 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the following components:-
(i) Accused has caused hurt (bodily pain, disease or infirmity) to the victim;
(ii) Such hurt has been caused with the intention of so doing or with the knowledge that the act of accused will cause bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim.
To establish guilt of accused under Section 341 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the following components:-
(i) Accused has voluntarily obstructed the victim;
(ii) Such obstruction is from proceeding in any direction in which the victim has a right to proceed.
To establish guilt of accused under Section 506 IPC, Digitally signed Samiksha by Samiksha Gupta State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date: 2024.02.19 13:51:52 -0200 Page No.4 of 21 the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the following components:-
(i) Accused has threatened the victim with injury to his person/property/ reputation; or;
Accused has threatened the victim with injury to the person/property/ reputation of some person in whom victim is interested; and;
(ii) Such threat is with an intent to cause alarm to the victim or to make him do or omit something which he would not otherwise do/omit.
To prove the charge under Section 509 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt the following components:
(i) Accused must have uttered a word, made a gesture, made any sound or exhibited any object;
(ii) Such aforesaid acts must have been seen/heard by a woman;
(iii) Such aforesaid acts must have been done with the intention to insult modesty of a woman; or;
(iv) Such aforesaid acts must have intruded upon the privacy of the woman.
8. The evidence of prosecution witnesses in the present case has to be examined against this legal position.
(i) PW-1 Chitra Aggarwal has deposed that on Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:52:01 -0200 Page No.5 of 21 14.01.2017, she was attending a meeting of management committee of the society in evening at around 4:30-5 p.m. as she was the member of the committee. The meeting was held in the office of society which was in the basement. Nine members were present in the meeting including Kamlesh Jha / accused (Vice President at that time), Rajeev Kumar, D.N.Jha, O.P. Pandey, Ravi Mishra, Satish Chandra, Mrs. Sheela Jha and one Mr. Hargava including this witness. After the meeting was over and they were signing the register, the witness sought disclosure of income and expenditure. On hearing this, all members present there except Satish Chander started shouting at her. Accused also abused her in filthy language. Accused took Satish Chand from basement to park for some conversation. Witness went to her flat at 4th floor. After some time, she received a call from one Shewta Ahuja, who asked her to come down. When she reached the park, she saw that many persons were present and blood was oozing out from the nose of Satish Chander. Thereafter, she went alongwith Satish Chander to the PS and lodged the complaint.
No action was taken by the police officials after which a written complaint was given in February 2017, after which present FIR was registered. Statement under Section 164 Cr.PC of the witness was recorded.
On being cross examined by Ld. APP for State, she denied that site plan was prepared by IO at her instance. She also stated that IO had already prepared the site plan andhad only Digitally signed State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha by Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date: 2024.02.19 13:52:10 -0200 Page No.6 of 21 asked her to sign the same.
During cross examination by accused, she stated that minutes were recorded of every meeting of management committee. Same were signed after going through them and sometimes without going through them. Register was signed on 14.01.2017 but she could not state with certainty whether minutes were also signed. She further stated that income and expenditure were not the agenda of meeting. On being shown the register, she admitted that she had signed against her number at Sr. No.3 and at all other pages of the proceedings (Ex.PW- 1/D1). She stated that Ram Mehar Singh and Gopey Mehar Singh were spouses and members of the society. She admitted that there were some issues regarding their membership in the society. She admitted that there were CCTV cameras installed in the society but was not aware if the footage was collected by IO. She could not state that accused and Mohan Mishra had filed police complaint against Gopey Mehar Singh and her son. She denied the suggestion that it has been inserted in her complaint Ex.PW-1/A that .... "accused along with others gave beatings to Satish Chander....." She denied the suggestion that there was no incident regarding quarrel and beating of Satish Chander. She alsoi admitted that original complaint Mark PW-1/1 in her handwriting does not mention about any abusive language or beatings given to Satish Chander. She denied the suggest that accused was falsely implicated at the behest of Gopey Mehar Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:52:18 -0200 Page No.7 of 21 Singh and Ram Mehar Singh. She denied the suggestion that Rajeev Kumar was not present in the meeting while admitting that his presence is not marked in Ex.PW-1/D1 (photocopy of register of Janki Group Housing yearly meeting dated 14.01.2017).
(ii) PW-2 Satish Chander deposed that on 14.01.2017, being member of Management Committee, he attended society meeting along with accused, Rajeev Kumar, O. P. Pandey, D. N. Jha, Ravi Kumar Mishra, Sheela Jha, A. K. Hargava and Chitra Aggarwal. Meeting started at about 04:45 p.m. and concluded at 06/6:30 p.m. Chitra Aggarwal had sought details of income and expenditure of society from the management which they refused to give and started shouting at her. Accused started abusing her. When the witness tried to stop accused from abusing Chitra, accused started abusing him as well. After minutes of meeting were signed, accused asked him to meet outside in the lawn. When he went to the lawn, accused snatched away mobile phone and threatened him. Driver of Kamlesh Jha namely Vidur was also standing with him and told to bring 4-5 persons from outside. Within a few minutes, 4-5 persons came in a Wagon R car. They came out of the car and Rajeev and O. P. Pandey had also come. All of them started rushing towards him and caught him and gave beatings to him.
Rajeev, O. P. Pandey and accused were instructing the other Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:52:27 -0200 Page No.8 of 21 persons to beat him on his ear and face. He managed to flee the lawn and PCR was called by one Shewta. After police officials came at the spot, he went to the PS along with Chitra and some other persons. Written complaint was given to SI Durgesh. On asking of IO, another separate complaint regarding beating was given. Police did not register FIR. FIR was got registered on 16.02.2017 on the intervention of DCP.
During cross examination by accused, he admitted that there were CCTV cameras installed in society. He also admitted that he knew Col. Ram Mehar Singh and Mrs. Gopey Mehar Singh and that some litigation was going on regarding cancellaton of membership of Col. Ram Mehar Singh. He admitted that agenda of society meetings was notified before hand and that all members of management committee used to sign the minutes of meeting. He admitted that issue of income and expenditure was not one of the notified agendas of the meeting where the incident occurred. He admitted signing the minutes of meeting after reading them on 14.01.2017. Witness voluntarily stated that he had given some more complaints to the police but same were not filed with charge sheet. He admitted that complainant Chitra also signed the minutes of meeting. He denied that only one written complaint was given in PS on 14.01.2017 but admitted that only one complaint is on record after seeing the file. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of Gopey Mehar Singh Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:52:37 -0200 Page No.9 of 21 and Ram Mehar Singh. He denied the suggestion that accused did not call him or snatch his mobile or threaten him after the meeting on 14.01.2017. He denied the suggestion that Vidur was not present at the spot. He could not depose if visitor's register was maintained at the gate of society. He denied the suggestion that no outsider had come to the society on 14.01.2017 in a Wagon R car. He denied the suggestion that he did not get himself medically examined as he was not beaten by anyone on 14.01.2017. He admitted that kalandara was filed against both parties on 14.01.2017 under Section 107/150 Cr.PC. He denied the suggestion that accused had called the police when him and complainant had started quarreling with members of Managing Committee at the instance of Gopey Mehar Singh.
(iii) PW-3 Ct. Bharat has deposed that on receiving DD No. 23A regarding quarrel at Janki Apartments, he went to the spot alongwith IO/SI Durgesh on 14.01.2017. No one was present at the spot and it was revealed from enquiry that one party had gone with the PCR. While they were returning, they met with the other party who told them that they were going to the PS. When both parties reached the PS, they gave their written complaints and call was kept pending by IO. IO recorded statement of this witness.
During cross-examination, he stated that on enquiry being made from residents, they informed them that no quarrel had Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:52:45 -0200 Page No.10 of 21 taken place. He admitted that IO had prepared the kalandra against both parties.
(iv) PW-4 SI Durgesh has deposed that on receiving DD No. 23-A on 14.01.2017, he went to the spot along with Ct. Bharat at Janki Apartment, Sector 23 Dwarka. When he reached the spot, he was informed that party had gone to police station. When they reached PS Sector 23, complainant Chitra and others gave him a written complaint. The other party i.e. accused and others were also present and gave their written complaint. After discussion with senior officials, kalandara was prepared against both parties and proceedings were initiated before SEM, Dwarka. On 16.02.2017, complainant again came to the PS and gave a written complaint. FIR was got registered on the basis of that complaint. Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant. Statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.PC was got recorded. Further investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed in Court.
During cross examination, he stated that CCTV footage was not collected as it was not clear. He admitted that Secretary of society Rajeev Kumar had given a letter dated 12.02.2017 to him for giving CCTV footage and also informed him that the footage is recycled every 12 days. Witness, however, stated that CCTV footage was not clear. He stated that inquiry from residents was made on 14.01.2017 but their Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:52:53 -0200 Page No.11 of 21 statements were not recorded. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated as action against him was already taken in kalandara u/s 107/150 Cr.PC.
9. Accused has examined five witnesses in his defence.
(i) DW-1 A. K. Hargava deposed that in 2017, he was a member of Managing Committee of Janki CGHS. On 14.01.2017, meeting was held at about 4 p.m. and got concluded at 6 p.m. Meeting was held in peaceful manner and minutes were signed by all members. No quarrel between anyone took place on the day of meeting. He had left for his residence after conclusion of meeting. On reaching his house, he was informed that some verbal altercation had taken place between Satish Chandra and some members of Managing committee. Police was called after which they went to the PS and gave complaint against Satish Chandra, which was also signed by this witness (Mark X).
During cross examination, he admitted that no incident pertaining to present FIR had occurred in his presence. He admitted that he is hear-say witness and not the eye witness to the incident in question. He denied the suggestion that he had connived with other committee members to shield the accused.
(ii) DW-2 Rajiv Kumar deposed that he was Honorary Secretary of the Managing Committe of Janki CGHS Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:53:02 -0200 Page No.12 of 21 in 2017. On 14.01.2017, meeting of Managing Committee was called at about 4 p.m. but he was absent as his mother was unwell. On getting a call from society office at around 06:30 p.m, he was informed that some verbal altercation had taken place between Satish Chandra and members of Managing Committee. He was informed that police was called. After arrival of police, complaint against Satish Chandra was given which was also signed by him (mark X). When he reached the spot, some arguments were taking place but nobody was beaten up.
During cross examination, he admitted that no incident pertaining to the present FIR had occurred in his presence. He had signed the complaint against Satish Chandra, though, he was not witness to the actual incident. He admitted that he is hear-say witness and not the eye witness to the incident in question. He denied the suggestion that he had connived with other committee members to shield the accused.
(iii) DW-3 Dharam Nath Jha has deposed that in year 2017, he was a member of Managing Committee of Janki CGHS. On 14.01.2017, meeting was held at about 4 p.m. and got concluded at 6 p.m. Meeting was held in peaceful manner and minutes were signed by all members. No quarrel between anyone took place on the day of meeting. He had left for his residence after conclusion of meeting. On reaching his house, Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:53:10 -0200 Page No.13 of 21 he was informed that some verbal altercation had taken place between Satish Chandra and some members of Managing Committee. Police was called after which they went to the PS and gave complaint against Satish Chandra, which was also signed by this witness (Mark X). When he reached the spot, some arguments were taking place but nobody was beaten up.
During cross examination, he admitted that no incident pertaining to the present FIR had occurred in his presence. He had signed the complaint against Satish Chandra, though, he was not witness to the actual incident. He admitted that he is hearsay witness and not the eye witness to the incident in question. He denied the suggestion that he had connived with other committee members to shield the accused.
(iv) DW-4 Ravindra Kumar Mishra deposed that in 2017, he was a member of Managing Committee of Janki CGHS. On 14.01.2017, meeting was held at about 4 p.m. and got concluded at 6 p.m. Meeting was held in peaceful manner and minutes were signed by all members. No quarrel between anyone took place on the day of meeting. He had left for his residence after conclusion of meeting. On reaching his house, he was informed that some verbal altercation had taken place between Satish Chandra and some members of Managing committee. Police was called after which they went to the PS and gave complaint against Satish Chandra, which was also Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:53:19 -0200 Page No.14 of 21 signed by this witness (Mark X).
During cross examination, he deposed that he had left the meeting at about 6 p.m. and was informed about verbal altercation over telephone by his office assistant. He could not recall as to who had written the complaint Ex.PW-1/D1. He denied the suggestion that he had connived with other committee members to shield the accused.
(v) DW-5 Om Prakash Pandey deposed that in 2017, he was a member of Managing Committee of Janki CGHS.
On 14.01.2017, meeting was held at about 4 p.m. and got concluded at 6 p.m. Meeting was held in peaceful manner and minutes were signed by all members. He admitted that minutes of meeting were prepared by him in his handwriting. No quarrel between anyone took place on the day of meeting. He had left for his residence after conclusion of meeting. On reaching his house, he was informed that some verbal altercation had taken place between Satish Chandra and some members of Managing committee. Police was called after which they went to the PS and gave complaint against Satish Chandra, which was also signed by this witness (Mark X).
During cross examination, he admitted that no incident pertaining to the present FIR had occurred in his presence. He further stated that when he reached the spot on receiving a call, he saw Satish Chandra using abusive language in Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:53:26 -0200 Page No.15 of 21 an aggressive posture in front of police and committee members and so he had signed the complaint against Satish Chandra. He denied the suggestion that he had connived with other committee members to shield the accused.
10. It is trite law that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
11. Perusal of evidence shows that prosecution has not been able to prove its allegations against the accused due to the following reasons:
(i) The testimony of complainant and PW Satish does not inspire the confidence of this court. She has given different versions of the incident at various stages of investigation and trial. The contradictions in her versions are material and quite apparent from the record.
It is pertinent to state that the incident in question occurred on 14.01.2017, after which a complaint was given on the same day by Satish Chandra. It is stated in the said complaint (Ex.PW2/DA) accused, OP Pandey and Sanjeev Kumar started Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 Page No.16 of 2113:53:38 -0200 abusing in filthy language when meeting of Management Committee was being held. It has also been stated in the complaint that Satish Chandra did not want to get his medical examination conducted.
The charge, however, has been framed against the accused under Sections 323/341/506/509 IPC. In the original complaint Ex.PW2/DA, there is not even a whisper of causing hurt to victim Satish or using derogatory language to insult the modesty of any woman. It is pertinent to state that FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Chitra Aggarwal dated 16.02.2017. In the said complaint Ex.PW1/A, it is alleged that accused, Rajeev Kumar, D.N.Jha, O.P.Pandey, A.K.Hargava and R.K.Mishra had started shouting and abusing during the Management Committee meeting on 14.01.2017. It is further stated that accused made comments in filthy language on the complainant, which fact is not stated in the original version as given by Satish Chandra. Complainant has also alleged in her written complaint that aforesaid accused persons had given beatings to Satish Chandra. Perusal of the complaint shows that this statement is written in a different ink, leading to the possibility that it may have been added as an afterthought. It is also pertinent to mention that victim has not placed on record any medical examination report to substantiate such allegations against accused.
Further, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:53:44 -0200 Page No.17 of 21 complainant Chitra has stated that while she was reading the minutes of the meeting conducted on 14.01.2017, accused started shouting at her and abusing her in filthy language. There is substantial improvement in her version as she has mentioned some abuses which were not there in her complaint to police and the fact of such abuses having been given were not even mentioned in the complaint of victim dated 14.01.2017. It is further stated by her that accused held Satish Chandra's hand and took him out of the basement, where he was beaten up. She has also stated that Satish was bleeding from his nose. If such injury had indeed been caused to Satish, what precluded him from getting medical examination conducted is something to be explained by the prosecution.
Complainant improved upon her version yet again during her testimony in court. She had stated that accused started shouting at her in filthy language. Thereafter, accused took Satish Chandra to the park and she went back to her house. On receiving call from one Shweta Ahuja, she came down and saw that blood was oozing out from the nose of Satish Chandra. In her original complaint, she has asserted that accused along with others had beaten Satish Chandra. However, perusal of her testimony shows that she did not actually see accused beating Satish Chandra and only. Her testimony before the court is yet again replete with material contradictions and improvements. Thus, her testimony cannot be relied on.Digitally signed by Samiksha
State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:54:00 -0200 Page No.18 of 21
(ii) PW/ injured Satish Chandra was also cited as a witness for prosecution. One complaint was filed by him on the day of incident. As discussed above, the fact of accused abusing Chitra in filthy language or the accused beating him is conspicuous by its absence. The said fact has only come on record vide written complaint of complainant Chitra dated 16.02.2017 ie. almost a month after the incident. It is further pertinent to note that on the day of incident, written complaint was filed by both parties against each other, showing the fact that the parties did not enjoy a cordial relationship.
During his testimony in Court, PW Satish stated that accused started abusing complainant in filthy language. After some time, he asked him to come to the lawn. When he went there, accused snatched his phone and threatened to teach him a lesson. He further stated that on asking of accused, one Vidur (driver of accused) called 4-5 persons who came in a Wagon R car. All such persons with the accused attacked the witness. It is interesting to note that this narration of facts came for the first time on record during his evidence, which is a material improvement over his earlier version. It defies logic as to why would a victim not get himself medically examined if he has been assaulted by a group of people. This further lends credence to the version of accused that he was falsely implicated due to previous discord between them, which fact has been admitted by Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:54:14 -0200 Page No.19 of 21 prosecution witnesses. Adverse inference in this regard can be drawn against the complainant/ victim and their credibility as witnesses.
(iii) It has come on record in the statement of complainant that the incident of abuse and beating by accused was witnesses by many people of the society. It has also come on record that there were CCTV cameras installed but CCTV footage was not collected by IO, who has simply stated that the footage was not clear. IO has further not recorded the statement of even a single public witness to corroborate the prosecution version.
(iv) It has further come on record from the testimony of PW Chitra and Satish Chandra that there were other persons also who had abused them during the meeting of management committee. However, prosecution has failed to explain why the IO did not deem it necessary to interrogate such other alleged accused persons, thus, casting doubt on the veracity of prosecution witnesses.
(v) Accused examined 5 witnesses in his defence.
He proved that the parties had a history of proceedings, and that they were not in the best of terms. This fact is also corroborated by the IO who had prepared kalandra under Section 107/150 Digitally signed by Samiksha State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Samiksha Gupta FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 13:54:26 -0200 Page No.20 of 21 CrPC on the day of incident. This shows that complainant had an axe to grind against the accused. Perusal of testimonies of witnesses show that the complainant/ victim are interested witnesses.
It is well settled that the Court has to scrutinize evidence of an interested witness with great care and caution. An interested witness would have some direct or indirect interest in ensuring the conviction of accused, thereby increasing the probability of false implication. Thus, testimony of the complainant/victim cannot be relied on to form the basis of conviction, in the absence of corroboration from independent witnesses. Further, as discussed above, the version of complainant and victim has changed at various stages and is completely unreliable.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt its allegations against the accused. Accordingly, accused Kamlesh Kumar Jha is acquitted of the offences charged under Sections Digitally signed by 323/341/506/509 IPC. Samiksha Samiksha Gupta Pronounced in open Court Gupta Date:
2024.02.19 on 19th of February, 2024 13:54:39 -0200 SAMIKSHA GUPTA Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi 19.02.2024 State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jha FIR No.48/2017; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.21 of 21