Delhi District Court
Criminal Appeal/984/1995 on 8 July, 2010
FIR N0. : 984/95 U/S : 3 ITP Act.
PS : Rajouri Garden
JUDGM ENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 2485/3
b) Date of commission of offence: 13.12.1995
c) Date of institution of the case : 03.02.1996
d) Name of the complainant : Sh. Vinod Shah
e) Name & address of the : Smt. Maya Devi, accused
W/o Sh. Shesh Nath,
R/o C-9/39,
Sultan Puri, New Delhi
f) Offence complained off : 3 ITP Act.
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 08.07.2010
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 08.07.2010
FIR No. 984/95 1
complainant Vinod Shah for the purpose of prostitution at a public place and has thus committed an offence punishable U/s 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, (herein after called ITP Act.). FIR No. 984/95 was registered in the matter on investigations were assigned to IO SI Ramesh Kumar.
2. Upon completion of investigation the challan was filed and accused was summoned. A formal charge U/s 8 ITP was framed against the accused on 26.04.2004 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the allegation.
4. PW1; Lady Ct. Munni Devi carried out the personal search of accused Maya Devi and proved her search memo Ex. PW 1/A.
5. PW 2; Retd. SI Ram Baksh is the IO of the instant case, who has deposed before the court that on 13.12.1995 when FIR No. 984/95 2 Shah, PW 2/A, site plan Ex. PW 2/B and an arrest memo Ex. PW 2/C.
6. The complainant Vinod Shah in the instant matter was reported to be not traceable by the concerned DCP. PE was closed by the order dated 08.07.2010 and since nothing incriminating has come on record, the accused SA was dispensed with.
7. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
8. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. 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.
FIR No. 984/95 3 examination of complainant is fatal to the case of the prosecution and accused deserves the benefit of doubt. She is accordingly acquitted for the charges levelled against her. Announced in the open court on 08.07.2010 (Dharmender Rana) MM/Delhi / 08.07.2010 FIR No. 984/95 4