Delhi District Court
State vs . Mahesh Goel on 7 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJEET NARAYAN, MM02, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS/SHAHDARA, DELHI.
State Vs. Mahesh Goel
FIR No. 99/08
PS: Farsh Bazar
U/S: 448 IPC
ID number of the case : 76793/16
Date of commission of offence : 31.05.2008
Date of institution of the case : 21.02.2009
Name of the complainant : Som Prakash Tripathi, S/o Sh. Ram Manohar
Tripathi, R/o H. No. X/2559, Street No. 8,
Raghuwar pura II, Gandhi nagar, Delhi.
Name of accused and address : Mahesh Goel, S/o Sh. Baseshar Nath Goel
H. No. 5/107, Gajju Katra, Farsh Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : 448 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Order reserved : 20102022
Final order : Acquittal
Date of judgment : 07.12.2022
Page No. 1 of 23
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off, the above captioned case FIR No. 99/08, PS Farsh Bazar. The case of the prosecution is that, the allegation against the accused is that on 31.05.2008 at unknown time, at house no. 5/107, Gajju Katra, Farsh Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Farsh Bazar, accused Mahesh Goyal committed house trespass at the abovesaid house which was in possession of complainant Som Prakash Tripathi. Accordingly, he stands charged for offence u/s 448 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 448 IPC on 21.02.2009, cognizance of offence was taken and copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.01.2013, charge for committing offence punishable u/s 448 IPC IPC was framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. The prosecution has examined 08 prosecution witnesses in all in the Page No. 2 of 23 present case. The deposition of witnesses is touched upon in brief as under to have a better appreciation of the case, which is follows:
PW1 is Sh. Som Prakash Tripathi who is the complainant and victim of this case has deposed that he purchased a house bearing no. 5/107/Gajju Katra, Shahdara in December, 2007 from one Lokesh Kohli, in the name of his wife Smt. Kavita Tripathi and obtained possession of the house and also kept his goods in the said house. It is further deposed by PW1 that after 34 months, when he visited aforementioned house, he found the accused Mahesh Goyal inside his abovementioned house. When he inquired from accused Mahesh Goyal, then he told him that he is the owner of the said house. PW1 further deposed that he called at 100 number, police reached at the above mentioned house and asked from accused Mahesh Goyal regarding documents of the house from accused Mahesh Goyal, but accused failed to produce the documents regarding property and the complainant had shown all the documents to the police. PW 1 gave complaint Ex.PW1/A to the police and police arrested accused Mahesh Goyal vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. Police seized the articles which were belonging to accused vide Ex.PW1/D and photocopy of documents belonging to the complainant was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. The sale deed/document executed by Lokesh Kohli in favour of wife of complainant was marked as Mark PW1/A. Witness has correctly identified the accused present in the court. Thereafter, he Page No. 3 of 23 was crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel.
PW2 is Ms. Kavita Tripathi who is wife of complainant, who has deposed that the property bearing no. 5/107/Gajju Katra, Shahdara was purchased in her name from one Lokesh Kohli, who has bought this property from the wife of the accused. It is deposed by PW2 that accused Mahesh Goyal trespassed the said property after breaking the locks of the abovementioned property. Witness has correctly identified the accused present in the court. Thereafter, she was crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel. PW3 is Sh. Lokesh Kohli who has deposed that he has purchased the abovementioned property measuring 50 sq yrds in 2006 and sold the property to Kavita Tripathi in the year 2007 and handed over the possession and documents of the same to her. PW3 was also crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel.
PW4 is Sh. Manish Garg, who has deposed that in front of his house, a house is situated which belongs to Basheshwar. He further deposed that in the said house Mahesh Kumar and his brother namely Sunder Lal used to reside and wife of Mahesh namely Meena Goel had sold the said house three years ago from the date of incident and labours were residing in the said house. PW4 was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for state after taking permission as PW4 has not deposed complete facts. Thereafter, despite opportunity, PW4 was not crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel. Page No. 4 of 23 PW5 is Sh. Shravan Mehta, DEO, SubRegistrar office, who has brought the documents i.e., irrevocable GPA, in which the first party is Meena Goel and second party is Lokesh Kohli, Registration no. 7286 in Book No. 4, Volume No. 2128 on page No. 151158 executed on 18.04.06 by the Sub RegistrarVIII, Delhi. The said documents are Ex.PW5/A (colly.). He has also proved the Sale Deed, executed between Lokesh Kohli and Kavita Tripathi, Registration No.12352 in additional book No.1, Volume No.3146 running from page No.1624 executed on 13.12.2007 by the Sub Registrar VIII, Delhi. The said documents are Ex.PW5/B (colly.). Thereafter, PW5 was cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
PW6 is Sh. Jitender Chaudhary has deposed that accused Mahesh Goel was residing in his house on rent and he resided for two years. After two years, he left his house. He does not remember the period from which he started residing and when he left his house. He has correctly identified the accused Mahesh Goel. Despite opportunity, PW5 was not crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel.
PW7 is HC Surender who has deposed that on 13.04.2008, complainant Som Nath Tripathi has produced document seized by IO vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, PW7 was duly crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel. Page No. 5 of 23 PW8 is Retd. Insp. Jaswant Singh who has deposed that on 31.05.2008, he was posted at PS Farsh Bazar and received DD No.16A, Ex.PW8/A, he along with Ct. Ajay reached at the spot i.e., house of Kavita Tripathi and met with Som Prakash Tripathi along with accused and some other persons. He further deposed that he recorded statement of complainant Ex.PW1/A, prepared rukka Ex.PW8/B and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ajay. He also prepared the seizure memo of the articles lying at the spot Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E and prepared site plan Ex.PW8/C. He arrested the accused Mahesh Goyal vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B and personal search is Ex.PW1/C. On 28062008, he seized the documents and verified the documents of the property and found genuine after verification, in favour of wife of the complainant. Then, he further conducted the investigation on the present case and file the chargesheet against the accused Mahesh Goyal in the court. Thereafter, PW8 was duly crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel.
5. Prosecution has examined 08 prosecution witnesses and PE was closed on 08.03.2022. Statement of Accused under Section 313 Cr.PC read with Section 281 Cr.PC was conducted on 26.04.2022 and all the incriminating evidences against the accused person have been put to them to which the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that the present case is a false and fabricated case and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Page No. 6 of 23
6. Defence has examined 04 witnesses in its favour.
DW1 is Gopal Dutt, record keeper, SubRegistrarIV, Seelampur, Delhi he authorized by SRIV to depose before this court and to furnish the record regarding property bearing no. 5/106107, Gajju Katra, Shahdara, Delhi. He has brought original record of cancellation of GPA dated 03.03.2005, Registration no. 3623, volume no. 9662 running in 2 pages from 85 to 86 registered at SRIV. The copy of the same is Ex.DW1/A (OSR). He has also brought deed of will dated 10.12.1998 regarding property bearing no. 5/106107, Gajju Katra, Shahdara, Delhi, Registration no. 48562, volume no. 2346, Book No. 3 running in 2 pages from 75 to 76 executed by Sh. Basheshar Nath in favour of Mahesh Goel and Naresh Goel. The copy of the same is Ex.DW1/B (OSR). He has also brought original record of GPA dated 30.08.2000, Registration no. 46826, volume no.6804 running in 3 pages from 172 to 174 registered at SRIV. The copy of the same is Ex.DW1/C (OSR). Said GPA was executed by Mahesh Goel in favour of Meena Goel regarding property bearing no. 5/106107 (50 Sq. Yards), Gajju Katra, Shahdara, Delhi. He was duly cross examined by the Ld APP for the state.
DW2 is Sh. Rajiv Verma, Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Mona T. Kerketta, Ld. ADJ 01/NE, KKD Courts, Delhi and has brought the summoned record pertaining to the Page No. 7 of 23 appeal no. 39/2017 titled as Mahesh Kumar Goel Vs. Lokesh Kohli. Copy of the appeal is Ex.DW2/1 (OSR). The trial court record is also attached with the file and the copy of the judgment/decree/order dated 28.01.2017 are Ex.DW2/2 (colly) (OSR). Despite opportunity, DW2 was not crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State. DW3 is Sh. Shailendra Sharma, Senior JA posted in record room (sessions) KKD Courts, Delhi and has brought the summoned record pertaining to the HMA no. 1303/2006. The copy of the judgment and decree passed by the court of Sh. Arvind Kumar, the then ADJ, KKD Courts. The copy of judgment and decree dated 20.04.2009 is Ex.DW3/1. Despite opportunity, DW2 was not crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State.
DW4 is HC Rohit who has brought the FIR book from FIR No. 51 to 100, year 2008 along with photocopy of FIR No. 52/2008. The said FIR is Ex.DW4/A. DW4 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State.
After it, defence evidence was closed on 21092022 and, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have perused the record and heard the arguments from both sides. Sh. Vinayak Sharma, Ld. APP for the State has argued that material on record clearly points towards guilt of the accused.
Page No. 8 of 23
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and there are material contradictions in the story of the prosecution. He has stated that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case by complainant.
8. I have also carefully perused the record. The court has carefully examined the entire material available on record including the testimony of the witnesses from both sides recorded before the Court. After arguments were heard, matter was fixed for judgment.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
9. Before proceeding further, there is need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused persons. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rest on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused persons.
Page No. 9 of 23
Also, it is no longer Res Integra that accused persons are entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused persons to acquittal.
10. In the present case the charge for the offence U/s 448 IPC has been framed against present accused Mahesh Goyal. Before appreciating the evidence, let us first discuss relevant legal provisions given under Indian Penal code. A. Section 448 IPC provides punishment for House Trespass. Section 448 IPC reads as under: "Section 448: Whoever commits housetrespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
The genus of Section 448 IPC can be found in S. 441 IPC which defines the term house trespass. The succeeding sections are the variations of the criminal trespass defined in s. 441 and are punished as per the requirements of the sections. B. Section 442 IPC defines house trespass. Section 442 IPC reads as under: "Section 442. House trespass: Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit Page No. 10 of 23 housetrespass"
C. Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass. Section 441 IPC reads as under: "Section 441. Criminal trespass: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass".
The essential ingredients to be proved to bring the act of the accused within the purview of Section 448 IPC are that:
(i) The complainant was in possession of the property;
(ii) Property consisted of a building tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or a building used as a place of worship or for custody of property.
(iii) The accused entered into or upon such building, tent or vessel;
(iv) Having entered lawfully into such building, tent or vessel, the accused remains there unlawfully,
(v) His intention was to commit an offence, or intimidate, insult or annoy the Page No. 11 of 23 person in possession.
11. In a case titled as Rajinder Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 5 SCC 187 it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the unauthorised entry into or upon the property in the possession of another or unlawfully remaining thereafter lawful entry can answer the definition of criminal trespass if, and only if, such unlawful entry or unlawful remaining is with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property. Therefore, unless any of the ingredients referred in Section 441 IPC is proved, no offence of criminal trespass can be said to have been committed. Such an intention has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of a given case.
In a case titled as Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath, (1991) 2 SCC 141 Supreme Court has observed that:
"It is significant that when entry into or upon property in possession of another is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property with the object of intimidating, insulting or annoying the person in possession of the property would be criminal trespass. The offence would be continuing so long as the trespass is not lifted or vacated and intimidation, insult or annoyance of the person legally in possession of the property is not stopped."
In Rash Behari Chatterjee v. Fagu Shaw, (1969) 2 SCC 216, it was Page No. 12 of 23 observed that:
"The correct position in law may, in our opinion, be stated thus: in order to establish that the entry on the property was with the intent to annoy, intimidate or insult, it is necessary for the Court to be satisfied that causing such annoyance, intimidation or insult was the aim of the entry; that it is not sufficient for that purpose to show merely that the natural consequence of the entry was likely to be annoyance, intimidation or insult, and that this likely consequence was known to the person entering; that in deciding whether the aim of the entry was the causing of such annoyance, intimidation or insult, the Court has to consider all the relevant circumstances including the presence of knowledge that its natural consequences would be such annoyance, intimidation or insult and including also the probability or something else than the causing of such intimidation, insult or annoyance, being the dominant intention which prompted the entry."
Hence, it can be stated that every trespass does not amount to criminal trespass within the meaning of Section 441 IPC. In order to satisfy the conditions of Section 441 it must be established that the appellant entered in possession over the premises with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property.
12. To prove criminal trespass, it has to be proved by prosecution that the entry was made by accused in the property which was in actual possession of Page No. 13 of 23 another. Hence, the first ingredient which needs to be proved that complainant was in actual physical possession of the house at the time of trespass.
Now adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is the case of complainant that he had purchased the property in question in December 2007 from one Lokesh Kohli and also obtained the physical possession and has also kept some house hold articles in the house. After about 34 months when complainant went to his house, he found the accused inside his house, thereafter he called 100 number and police reached at spot. On the other hand, it is the defence of accused that accused was in continued possession of the property since the death of his father.
Coming to the case of prosecution, PW1/complainant is the main witness of the alleged incident. PW2, Kavita Tripathi is the wife of the complainant, who has not witnessed the incident and the alleged trespass of the property. PW3, Lokesh Kohli is the witness of the ownership of the property.
Coming to the testimony of complainant, he has deposed that he was not present at the time when accused has allegedly broken the locks and trespassed into the property of complainant. He has deposed that when he reached at his house after 34 months, he found that accused was present at the spot inside his house. PW1 has deposed that he has purchased the ground floor from PW3, Lokesh Kohli and he has possession of ground floor and first floor of the property was vacant. Complainant has Page No. 14 of 23 denied the suggestion given in the cross examination that Lokesh Kohli was not having the authority to sell the property and also denied the suggestion that exwife of accused Meena has no right to sell out the property and he was aware about the cancellation of GPA dated 03032005 in the name of exwife of accused.
Coming to the deposition of PW2, she has deposed that when her husband visited the said property, he saw the accused had trespassed the said property after breaking the locks. She has not witnessed anything as the fact of trespassing was communicated by her husband. Hence, her testimony is of no use to the prosecution.
Coming to the deposition of PW3, he has stated that he has purchased a property in 2006 and has sold the same to Kavita Tripathi in 2007 and handed over all the documents and possession to her. PW3 is witness of ownership of property and has not witnessed the act of trespass. PW3 in his cross examination has stated that he has purchased the property from Meena Goel. The property was constructed up to two floors and he had purchased only 50 square yards out of 100 sq yards. He has stated that property was having partition wall on both the floor of the property. Since, PW3 is not the witness of incident or trespass, his testimony can't prove the allegation against accused.
Coming to the deposition of PW4, Manish Garg, he has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. He has denied the suggestion that accused had Page No. 15 of 23 broken the lock of the house in the absence of owner of the said house. He has deposed that in the said house, accused and his brother used to reside and wife of accused Meena Goel had sold the house 3 years ago from the date of incident and labours were residing in the said house. PW3 has nowhere deposed that complainant was in the actual possession of the house.
PW5 is the witness of ownership of property and has proved the chain of ownership documents which are EX.PW5/A and EX.PW5/B. Since, ownership of property is not in question here in this case, the testimony of PW5 is of no use to the prosecution. PW6 is Jitender Chaudhary, who has deposed that accused was residing in his house on rent and he resided for two years, but witness does not remember the period from which he started residing there. So, PW6 has not deposed anything about the possession of alleged property and the trespass. Hence, it's of no use to the prosecution.
Coming to the deposition of PW8/IO, he has deposed that on the day of incident, complainant met him along with accused and some other persons. He conducted a local inquiry and recorded the statement of complainant. Also, he has deposed that he has seized the articles which were lying in front of the said house. Also, he has seized the documents and recorded statements of witness. PW8 has stated that the article seized as per seizure memo Ex PW1/D belongs to the accused. Coming to the cross examination of IO, he has admitted that apart from accused and complainant, there Page No. 16 of 23 were 45 persons, present at the spot. He has recorded the statements of 3 persons out of 45 persons, present at the spot.
13. There are some weaknesses in the case of prosecution. In the present case, complainant has stated in his original complaint, Ex PW1/A, that he was not present at the house when incident happened, and when he came to know that his house was open, he reached at the spot with Kewal Krishan and he has found accused at the spot. Hence, he has not seen accused committing criminal trespass. Also, he has stated that before the date of incident, he has shown the property to one Jai Prakash for rent. But prosecution has not examined the Jai Prakash, who could have deposed in favour of complainant, regarding his actual physical possession. Also, Kewal Krishan, who was an important witness, could not be examined by the prosecution as he expired before his testimony. Also, as per prosecution story, there were some house hold articles of complainant kept in the property in question, but goods which were seized by IO, which are Ex PW1/D, were of accused only. If complainant was in actual possession of property, his household articles should have been present in the house.
As it is not in dispute in the present case that complainant traces back the property in question to the father of accused, Basheshar Nath. It is not in dispute that property in question measuring 100 Sq yard has been devolved from Basheshar Nath, father of accused, to accused Mahesh Goel and his brother Naresh Goyal, vide registered Page No. 17 of 23 Will dated 09121998 Ex DW1/B. It is also not in dispute that vide registered GPA dated 30082000, Ex. DW1/C, along with agreement to sale and will dated of 3008 2000, accused has transferred the same property measuring 50 sq yard to his wife Meena Goyal.
But, apart from it, it is contented by the accused that, he has cancelled the GPA in favour of her wife vide registered cancellation of GPA dated 03032005, Ex DW1/A, in respect of the property in question. It is the defence of accused that since he has cancelled the GPA in favour of his wife, his wife Meena had no authority to further transfer the property to Lokesh Kohli vide GPA and Agreement to sale dated 1804 2006 and further Lokesh Kohli has no authority to further transfer the property to Kavita Tripathi, wife of complainant vide registered sale deed dated 13122007.
It is further defence of accused that, since there is property dispute between the parties, he has not parted away the actual possession of the property. He has summoned the trial court record and appellate court record of civil suit of declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, namely Mukesh Kumar Goel v Lokesh Kohli, civil Suit no 124/08, Ex. DW2/1 and Ex. DW2/2, which was filed on 13022008, before the registration of present FIR. Accused has averred in his plaint that he has actual possession of the property. Hence, it clear that there was a civil dispute regarding the property in question before the alleged incident of trespass and registration of FIR. Page No. 18 of 23 Although, said civil suit was dismissed, but trial court has held that "however, it is made clear that dismissal of the present suit does not amount to a declaration that any of the defendants are the owner of the suit property or that they have any legal right, title or interest in the same".
Accused has also summoned the trial court judgment and decree of HMA no 1303/2006, Ex DW 3/A, for proving divorce between himself and her wife Meena Goyal, that there was marital discord between them. Also, as per the record of HMA judgment, the address of accused is same as the property in question. This shows that accused was having possession of property at that point of time and it is mentioned in judgment in para number 26 that parties were residing separately since January 2004, hence it does not seem probable that Meena Goyal was in possession of property at the time she has transferred property to Lokesh Kohli. Hence, it also does not seem probable that Lokesh Kohli could have transferred the actual possession to the wife of complainant.
Accused has summoned a copy of FIR no 52/2008, dated 26032008, Ex DW 4/A, to prove that his address mentioned on the FIR is same as property in question. Hence, it seems that even after 18042006, when wife of accused has transferred the property to Lokesh Kohli, accused was using the same address of property in question as his address. Hence, there is possibility that he might be having the actual physical Page No. 19 of 23 possession of the property in question.
14. In this case, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that complainant Som Prakash Tripathi had actual possession of the property in question at the time of alleged trespass. Apart from complainant, there are no eyewitnesses, neighbors etc., who could depose that complainant was in actual possession of the property. Also, there is no documentary proof like electricity bill, water bill ration card, voter ID card, or Adhar card of the complainant etc., in the name of complainant to show the possession of complainant. Although, there is sale deed in favour of wife of complainant by Lokesh Kohli, but ownership of suit in property is in civil dispute and appeal against the judgment of trial court is pending in appellate court. Also, having sale deed in his favour, does not necessarily mean that he was in the physical or constructive possession of the property in question. Even otherwise, even the ownership of the said property is in question, as before the registration of present FIR, the civil suit has been filed by the accused against Lokesh Kohli and other defendants. On the contrary, there are many documents like civil suit, judgment, HMA judgment, FIR copy, which shows the address of accused as property in question. So, prima facie it seems, accused was in actual physical possession of property and it creates doubt over the story of prosecution.
In this case IO has not done any investigation regarding the fact, that who Page No. 20 of 23 was in the actual possession of the property in question at the time of criminal trespass. IO has merely checked the title documents of the parties, although offence of criminal trespass does not concern with the ownership of the property. IO could have joined other public and independent witness, but has not done so and has not investigated into the fact that who was having possession of the property at that time. The testimony of the complainant only, which is even otherwise not completely reliable as he himself has not witnessed the alleged act of tresspass, cannot be accepted at sole basis for conviction of the accused.
Accordingly, the very first requirement of Section 441 IPC regarding the possession of the complainant over the said property is not satisfied.
Also, to prove Section 448 IPC, it is necessary to prove that the entry in the property has to be made with an intent commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the possessor of the property, however it seems in the present case since, accused has instituted the civil suit against his wife and other defendant, and he was in continued possession of property, that the accused was in belief that he is the owner of the said property and that he was not committing any offence or unlawful act. Before an accused is found guilty of criminal trespass, it must be proved that the dominant intention of the accused was to annoy when he made the entry and it was not enough to show that the accused must have known that such entry is bound to annoy the person in possession. Page No. 21 of 23 Again, it is nowhere the case of prosecution that when accused had allegedly entered in the said property, complainant was in possession of the same at that time. Hence, there is no question of any intimidation or annoyance being caused to complainant by the accused. Again, it is also not the case that accused had entered in the said property to commit any offence.
15. In the present case, the fact that the complainant was in possession of the said property on the date of the incident is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged incident was also not proved beyond reasonable doubts as there are no eyewitness of alleged incident, independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, the only independent witness turned hostile to the prosecution, presence of the accused on the spot at the date of incident could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and intention to commit offence or to cause annoyance is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt should go to the accused as the story of prosecution is not reliable.
16. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredient of the said section i.e. section 448 IPC including possession of the disputed property with the complainant prior to alleged trespass. Hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and accused deserves to be acquitted.
Page No. 22 of 23 CONCLUSION
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Mahesh Goel beyond reasonable doubt, whereby the accused has become entitled to the benefit of doubt, accordingly, the accused Mahesh Goel is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 448 IPC.
This Judgment contains 23 pages, each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by AJEET AJEET NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2022.12.08 17:47:36 +0530 Announced and dictated directly (AJEET NARAYAN) in the open court on 07.12.2022 MM02/Shahdara/KKD Courts 07122022 Page No. 23 of 23