Delhi District Court
State vs Darpan Seth Etc on 21 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07, WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. -: 71296/2016
Unique Case ID No. -: DLWT020007562009
FIR No. -: 133/2009
Police Station -: Tilak Nagar
Section(s) -: 384/394/411/34/174A
IPC
In the matter of
STATE
VS.
DARPAN SETH ETC.
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta
1. Darpan Seth
2. Name of Accused : 2. Rajesh Kodimma
3. Salina Seth
Offence complained of or 394/384/411/34 IPC & 174A
3. :
proved IPC.
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 23.04.2009
6. Date of filing of chargesheet : 23.11.2009
7. Date of Reserving Order : 07.02.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025
All accused acquitted u/s 384/34
and 394/34 IPC.
Accused Darpan and Rajesh are
9. Final Order :
acquitted u/s 411/34 IPC.
Accused Salina convicted u/s 174A
IPC.
Argued by -: Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Sh. Arun Kumar, Sh. Gaurav Bansal and Sh Rahul Kumar and, Ld. Counsel for all accused Digitally signed Page 1 of 12 ANEEZA by ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date: 2025.03.21 17:00:35 +0530
-:J U D G M E N T:-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2009, at about 09:25 PM, within the jurisdiction of PS Tilak Nagar, accused Salina Seth alongwith co-accused Darpan Seth and Rajesh Kodimma, in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery of key of car bearing no. DL-3CL-0159, laptop (make Toshiba Satellite series, black colour), Abey National ATM Card, Citibank ATM Card, ICICI Bank ATM Card, Centurion Bank ATM Card, a Passport and a bag of complainant Ashok Gupta and also caused hurt to the complainant, and thereby accused Salina Seth committed offence punishable u/s 394/34 IPC. Secondly, within the jurisdiction of PS Tilak Nagar, accused alongwith co-accused persona namely Darpan Seth and Rajesh Kodimma, in furtherance of their common intention, extorted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from complainant Sh. Ashok Gupta, and thus accused Salina Seth is alleged to have committed the offence punishable u/s 384/34 IPC.
2. It is alleged that on 23.04.2009 at about 09:25 PM, accused Darpan Seth and Rajesh Kodimma, within the jurisdiction of PS Tilak Nagar, both accused along-with their co-accused namely Salina Seth, in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery of Key of car bearing no. DL-3CL-0159, laptop, make Toshiba Satellite Series, Black Colour, Abey National ATM Card, Citibank ATM Card, ICICI Bank ATC Card, Enturion Bank, a Passport and a bag of complainant Ashok Gupta and also caused hurt to the complainant, and thus both accused are alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s 394/34 IPC.
Secondly, within the jurisdiction of PS Tilak Nagar, both accused alongwith other co-accused persons namely Salina Seth, in furtherance of their common intention extorted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant, and thereby both are alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 384/34 IPC. Thirdly, on 12.06.2019 at about 08:20 PM, accused Darpan Seth was found in possession of Passport of Page 2 of 12 Digitally signed by ANEEZA ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date: 2025.03.21 17:00:40 +0530 Gurpreet Singh and a Nokia mobile phone and accused Rajesh was found in possession of mobile phone make Soni Ericcson, Abey Bank Card, Citibank Card, Centurion Bank Card, ICICI Bank Card and Vanquis Bank Card belonging to the complainant Sh. Ashok Gupta which were robbed by both accused along-with co- accused namely Salina Seth. Thereby, accused Darpan and Rajesh are alleged to have committed the offence punishable u/s 411/34 IPC.
3. Further, charge under Section 174A IPC was framed against accused Salina Seth. The accused Salina Seth was declared 'proclaimed offender' vide order dated 24.07.2012 in the present FIR by Sh. Rajesh Malik, Ld. MM-05, and accused Salina Seth was apprehended on 31.03.2016 from Sultanpuri, Delhi as a proclaimed offender and thereby, accused Salina is alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 174A IPC.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED -
4. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused persons were summoned to face trial.
5. On their appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge under Sections 384/394/34/174A IPC respectively was framed against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -
6. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
Digitally signed Page 3 of 12ANEEZA by ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date: 2025.03.21 17:00:46 +0530 ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Ashok Gupta PW-2 : Maninder Singh PW-3 : HC Deep Chand PW-4 : W/Ct. Manju Kumar PW-5 : ASI Kirori Mal PW-6 : ASI Rajeev Kumar DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW-3/A : FIR (OSR) Ex. PW-3/B : Endorsement on Rukka Ex. PW-3/C : DD No.35A Ex. PW-4/A : Arrest memo of accused Salina Ex. PW-4/B : Personal search memo of accused Salina Ex. PW-4/C : Disclosure statement of accused Salina Ex. PW-5/A, B : Seizure memos &C Ex. PW-5/D & : Arrest memos E Ex. PW-5/F & : Personal search memos G Ex. PW-5/H & Disclosure statement of accused Darpan :
I and Rajesh
Ex. PW-5/J
: Seizure memo
(colly)
Ex. PW-6/A : Complaint
Ex. P1, P2 &
: Case properties
P3
Mark-A : Site Plan
Mark-X (colly) : Photographs of Alto car
Oral evidence with respect to accused Salina Seth u/s 174A IPC CW-1 : HC Sanjay Kumar PW-7 : ASI Suresh Kumar PW-8 : HC Arvind Page 4 of 12 Digitally signed ANEEZA by ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date: 2025.03.21 17:00:51 +0530 Documentary evidence with respect to accused Salina Seth u/s 174A IPC Ex. PW-7/A : Arrest memo Ex. PW-7/B : Search memo Ex. PW-7/C : Kalandra u/s 41.1(c) Cr.PC STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE -
7. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the joint statement of the accused persons was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. The accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons further submitted that they do not wish to lead DE and accordingly, matter was listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS -
8. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsels for the accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
9. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
10. Per contra, learned counsels for the accused persons have argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for accused Salina has argued that no alleged incident took place as per the version of complainant and the case has been falsely registered against the accused due to personal grudge. Further, it has been argued that the said account of accused in which allegedly Rs. 10,000/- were transferred by the complainant is not in the Digitally signed Page 5 of 12 ANEEZA by ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date: 2025.03.21 17:00:55 +0530 name of complainant and neither any document has been placed on record to prove the same.
11. Ld. Counsel for accused Darpan and Rajesh has argued that the present case is false and fabricated due to previous enmity of the complainant with the accused persons and that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. Further, it was argued that the alleged incident occurred on 23.04.2009 and the complaint was lodged on 16.06.2009 and during the said period, as per prosecution story, the complaint was being threatened by the accused persons to deposit cash and he did so due to fear. No reliance on any call detail record and bank account statement has been placed by the complainant in this regard. Further, even the fact of the complainant meeting the accused persons at Rajouri Garden has remained unsubstantiated as neither any witness has been brought on record nor any bill of the said place/bar has been produced. Further, there are various discrepancies and various improvements made by the complainant from his complaint to the statement/examination in chief given by him on oath in court. Also, it has been argued that complainant had stated that his neighbour Mr. Anil Saxena took him to DDU Hospital, however, in his examination in chief he has not mentioned about his neighbour and has stated that he went to RML Hospital. Also, it has been argued that the friend of complainant who allegedly was present at the time of arrest of accused persons with the complainant has completely failed to support the prosecution story and has stated on oath that he does not know anything about the case and does no complainant as well. It is further argued that non-joining of public witness shroud doubt over the fairness of investigation by police. Further, reliance has been placed upon the judgments titled as Krishna Gowade Vs. State of Karnataka by Arkalgud Police dated 28.03.2017 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Curt of India wherein it has been observed that contradictions create serious doubts Page 6 of 12 Digitally signed ANEEZA by ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date: 2025.03.21 17:01:00 +0530 about the truthfulness of witness and there is a clear mismatch between all PWs statement therefore it is not safe to rely upon such evidence. It was argued on behalf of both the accused persons that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and hence are liable to be acquitted.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE -
12. The accused persons have been charged for the offence punishablew under Section of the 384/394/34 IPC, accused Darpan and Rajesh u/s 411/34 IPC and accused Salina Seth u/s 174A IPC. For the offence under Section 384 IPC, it must be proved that the accused intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be covered into a valuable security, commits "extortion". For robbery, it is to be proved that the accused has voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint to the victim. Further, for commission of the offense of theft, the essential ingredients are: (i) There must be a dishonest intention of a person to take the property; (ii) the property must be movable; (iii) the property must be taken out of the possession of another person/complainant; (iv) the property must be taken without the consent of that person/complainant; (v) There must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it.
13. Therefore, the prosecution was required to satisfy the aforesaid ingredients to bring home the charge against the accused persons. 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 persons has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the ANEEZA Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Page 7 of 12 BISHNOI Date: 2025.03.21 17:01:05 +0530 guilt of the accused persons. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 15 SCC 357 wherein Paras 3 & 4 of same were extracted and it was held that if any property is not delivered to the accused- person in pursuant to threat, no offence of extortion is made out. It further lays down that for constituting an offence of extortion, the transaction must be proved and same has to be on account of being putting in fear or injury. Ultimately, the High Court has quashed the proceedings terming it to be an abuse of process of law.
15. In the case of Dhananjay Dhananjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2007 (1) Supreme (SC) 922; equivalent citation (2007) 14 SCC 768. the Hon'ble Supreme Court lays down that a bare perusal of provision relating to extortion would demonstrate that following ingredients would constitute the offence, which are as under:-
1. The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person.
2. The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional.
3. The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.
4. Such inducement must be done dishonestly.
The facts in each and every case are different but herein, when we look at the investigation carried out so far, it clearly indicates that there was only a bald statement of complainant which was recorded by the Investigating Officer and no overact was found proved by the Investigating Officer. The record does not indicate that any false complaint was made or any information on social media was published or circulated by the petitioner, therefore, on simple allegations of threat and demand as levelled by the complainant, without supporting evidence how Investigating Officer can substantiate the charge under Section 384 of the IPC. Thus there is no material to substantiate the allegation and mere bald statement will not be sufficient to justify offence under section 384 IPC.
Page 8 of 12 Digitally signedANEEZA by ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI 17:01:09 Date: 2025.03.21 +0530
16. We shall now proceed to analyze the prosecution evidence and the material present on record.
17. During the prosecution evidence, the complainant Mr. Ashok Gupta was examined as PW-1. In the FIR, it has been stated by the complainant that after 2-3 days of the alleged incident, accused Darpan called him and asked for money in exchange for the articles taken from him and has further stated that he did not approach the police as he was very scared. He has further informed that when he stopped attending his call, accused tried to reach him from various different numbers and complainant asked his partner to talk to accused Darpan alongwith his friend Mani and they both reached at a negotiation amount of Rs. 20,000/- to be given to accused in cash. Complainant further stated in the FIR that he gave Rs. 20,000/- to his friend Mani to be deposited in the bank account as told to him by accused Darpan. Further, they deposited Rs. 5,000/- on two dates i.e. 18.05.2009 and 21.05.2009 and rest of the Rs. 10,000/- were to be handed over to him at Gandhi Cycle Store, Tilak Nagar. It was there that complainant and his friend Mani got the accused caught by the police official. In the FIR, it has been stated by the complainant that the account in which the negotiation amount was to be deposited was of one Smt. Seema D/o Sh. Abdul Kadir having account no.7429 in The Delhi State Co-op Bank Ltd, Nangloi, Police Station.
18. When the complainant was called to depose as a prosecution witness and he gave his evidence as PW-1, he has failed to mention anywhere the fact that after 2-3 days of the alleged incident, he gave any amount negotiated with the accused. Further, he has completely failed to state the aforementioned facts as mentioned in the FIR during his deposition on oath.
19. Be that as it may, even if we are to believe the version of the complainant stated in the FIR, he has completely failed to support the said allegations against the accused persons as neither he has placed any call detail Page 9 of 12 Digitally signed by ANEEZA ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date:
2025.03.21 17:01:14 +0530 records nor he has placed on record the bank account statement to prove the alleged transaction done by him.
20. Further, PW-1 has failed to even give uniform deposition regarding the facts pertaining to his medical treatment, as in the complaint it has been stated by him that he was taken to DDU Hospital by Sh. Anil Saxena (his neighbour) and in examination in chief, however, during his cross-examination conducted, he has stated that he went to RML Hospital for his treatment.
21. It is also pertinent to mention here that he has specifically stated that he was taken to hospital by his neighbour Mr. Anil Sharma, however, neither his statement on record nor he was brought to the court as a prosecution witness to corroborate the allegations against the accused of having beaten the complainant brutally.
22. Also, this court fails to understand as to why no complaint was registered on the alleged day of incident i.e. 23.04.2009, as it has been stated by PW-1 himself that when he reached to his house with blood oozing out of his face and ear and had a swollen face, his wife was at police station at that time and his daughter opened the door for him.
23. Also, neither the statement of his business partner nor the statement of his wife and daughter are present on record, even though, as per his admission, his daughter saw him in this injured condition and that his business partner was the one who was involved in these transactions throughout.
24. It can be reasonably concluded that complainant has made several major improvements throughout the case starting from filing the complaint, getting the FIR registered and thereafter giving depositing before the court on oath and the same has not been able to stand the test of cross-examination.
25. In addition to this, PW-2 i.e. Manender, who has been stated to be friend of complainant, who has allegedly taken part in delivering the extortion Page 10 of 12 Digitally signed by ANEEZA ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date:
2025.03.21 17:01:19 +0530 amount and getting the accused persons arrested has completely failed to identify the accused persons and even the complainant himself. PW-2 has stated that he has no knowledge of the case and he does not know the complainant Ashok Gupta.
26. Even PW-4/W-Ct. Manju Kumari has failed to identify the case property.
27. The essence of offence of extortion is in the actual delivery of possession of property by the person, to put in fear and the offence is not complete before such delivery. In the present case, no actual delivery was done by the complainant to the accused persons as is evident from the record and evidence and prosecution has failed to prove the same.
28. Regarding offence under section 411 IPC, it is the case of the prosecution that the case property was recovered from accused Rajesh and Darpan. However, no public witness was cited in respect of the said recovery. Furthermore, prosecution has not been able to establish that the accused, if in possession of the property, was in such possession with due knowledge or intention to retain such property knowing the same to be stolen property. Thus, allegations under section 411 IPC have also not been successfully substantiated by the prosecution.
29. With respect to section 174A against accused Salina Seth, PW-7 and PW-8 have been examined in chief and Ld. Counsel for the accused has not cross- examined the above-said witnesses despite being given opportunity to. Hence, the deposition given by the witnesses has remained unrebutted and stands proved against the accused. Hence, the offence u/s 174A IPC is proved against accused Salina Seth.
-:CONCLUSION:-
30. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution was required to prove the offence charged against Page 11 of 12 Digitally signed by ANEEZA ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date: 2025.03.21 17:01:25 +0530 the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt. As mentioned above, there are various discrepancies in the prosecution version and the fact that the accused persons, all the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted for the offence u/s 384/34 IPC and u/s 394/34 IPC and accused Darpan and Rajesh are entitled to be acquitted u/s 411/34 IPC. However, the material on record is sufficient to prove the essential ingredients of the offence charged against the accused Salina Seth u/s 174A IPC since crucial witnesses have not been cross-examined qua the offence under Section 174A IPC against accused Salina Seth.
31. Resultantly, the accused persons namely Darpan Seth S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Seth, Rajesh Kodimma S/o Sh. Vikram Kodimama and Salina Seth W/o Darpan Seth are entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt. The accused persons hereby ACQUITTED for the offence under Section 384/34 IPC and 394/34 IPC. The accused persons namely Darpan Seth S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Seth and Rajesh Kodimma S/o Sh. Vikram Kodimama are ACQUITTED for the offence u/s 411/34 IPC.
32. Accused Salina Seth is CONVICTED for the offence u/s 174A IPC.
Pronounced in open court on 21.03.2025 in presence of accused persons. This judgment contains 12 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed byANEEZA ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date: 2025.03.21 17:01:30 +0530 (Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi) Judicial Magistrate First Class -07, West, THC, Delhi, 21.03.2025 Page 12 of 12