Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay Sachdeva And Anr on 7 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01, TIS HAZARI COURT,
CENTRAL : DELHI.
STATE VS. SANJAY SACHDEV & ORS
FIR No. 0087/2019
PS: Pahar Ganj
JUDGMENT
(a) Cr. No. of the case 9361/2019
(b) Date of offence 08.10.2018 to 29.12.2018
(c) Complainant PRADEEP KUMAR
(d) Accused (1)SANJAY SACHDEV S/o Sh.
Sikander Sachdev
(2) HARSH MALHOTRA S/o
late Sh. Ved Parkash
(3) GOVINDA CHAND S/o Sh.
Gopi Chand
(4) RAJESH MALHOTRA S/o
late Sh. Ved Parkash
(5) KAILASH CHAND @
SONU S/o Sh. Puran Chand
(e) Offences U/s 342/384/386/506/509/34 of
The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(f) Plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final Order ACQUITTED
(h) Date of institution 17.07.2019
(i) Date when judgment was07.10.2024
FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 1 of 23
PS Pahar Ganj
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 07.10.2024
1. Vide this judgment; I shall decide the final outcome in the FIR No. 87/2019, registered at Police Station, Paharganj, wherein alleging the commission of the offences punishable under section 342/384/386/506/509/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (shall be referred to as 'IPC' in short) against accused persons, present FIR was registered.
PROSECUTION CASE
2. The prosecution case in brief is, that from 08.10.2018 to 29.12.2018 at house no. 2860, First Floor, Gali no.5, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, falling within the jurisdiction of PS: Paharganj, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully confined the complainant namely Pardeep Kumar and three other couples. Further, the accused persons had put them in the fear of grievous hurt by dog bite and beatings. The accused persons had dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver money to them and had criminally intimidated the complainant and abused the complainant's female friend and other victims. Thus, on the basis of the above allegations, the present FIR bearing No. 87/2019 was registered at police station Paharganj.
3. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court on 17.07.2019, against the accused persons for FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 2 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj the alleged commission of the offence punishable under section 342/384/386/506/509/34 IPC. Six witnesses were cited to be examined to prove its case by the prosecution. Thereafter, cognizance of offence was taken and due compliance of Section 207 of Cr.PC was done.
NOTICE
4. On 09.10.2019, charge was framed against the accused persons for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under section 342/386/506 Part (1)/509/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, further proceedings were carried out to record the evidence of prosecution.
5. It is pertinent to mention, that proceedings against accused Rajesh Malhotra already stands abated vide order dated 16.01.2023.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. Before I proceed with the adjudicatory evaluation of material available on record and comment upon the merits, I deem it appropriate to take on record the brief testimony of the prosecution witness.
PW1/COMPLAINANT-PARDEEP KUMAR
7. As deposed by the PW1/Complainant Sh. Pardeep Kumar, FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 3 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj that he saw the youtube video of Luv Commando NGO and called a person namely Sanjay Sachdev on his mobile phone for the purpose of his marriage, which was provided in the details of the said video. Sanjay Sachdeva had assured him that he will got his marriage done and told him to come at Paharganj. He did not remember the exact year but on 6th December, he along with girl with whom he want to marry, went to PS Paharganj and talk to Sanjay Sachdeva on phone. After some time, one person came and took him to Gali no.6, Chuna Mandi at second floor of one property but he did not remember the address of the said property.
Thereafter, at the said property, his bag and bag of girl was checked and took his documents i.e marksheet, aadhar card, PAN card etc. Thereafter, Sanjay Sachdeva asked him regarding how much cash he had brought with himself. He told him that he had brought Rs. 25,000/-. On his instructions, he handed over the cash of Rs. 25,000/- to him. Thereafter, Sanjay Sachdeva collected his mobile phone as well as the mobile phone of Saloni. Thereafter, for two days they stayed on the above said property. Three more couples were staying with them. On 9th December, Sanjay Sachdeva told him that the marriage function would be held. After that, they left the said house with persons namely Sonu Dhangi and Govind Chand. They took them to a temple but did not remember the address of the said temple.
FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 4 of 23PS Pahar Ganj Their marriage was solemnized as per the rituals of Arya Samaj. After the marriage, they returned to the above said property at Paharganj. After about one week, he requested accused Sanjay Sachdev to register their marriage. Accused Sanjay Sachdev told him that since their marriage was a Hindu Muslim marriage, so for the registration of the marriage, he had to pay Rs. 28,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. After about one week, he had requested the accused Sanjay Sachdev that since the money for the registration had not been arranged, he requested him to allow them to left to their home. However, Sanjay Sachdev did not agree. On the next day, when he requested to allow them to leave, accused Harsh Malhotra had told him that "aap aise nahi jaoge, hamari marji se jaoge". Accused persons had not registered their marriage even after repeated requests. When he inquired accused Sanjay Sachdev regarding his parents, he told him that his father had been arrested and had to give money for the registration for any information regarding his families. Accused persons had forced him to do the household work and also forced to drink alcohol with them. Accused persons had also used abusive language against the women present in the said house and also checked the personal belongings of those women.
On one occasion, accused Govinda had abused his female friend (with whom he married) and had beaten him with a belt. The accused persons had also gave him stale FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 5 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj foods on many occasions. When he again requested him to let them go, the accused persons again threatened him to hand over him to the family member of the girl namely Saloni. The accused persons also threatened that if he dare to move out of the house, he might face dire consequences by the said persons. He only get out from house for roaming with the dogs of accused persons. He did not remember the dates of the incident due to lapse of time.
On 25.03.2019 he along with other persons who were in the custody of above said accused persons were got out from the said house with the help of raid conducted by Delhi Women Commission. He gave his complaint to the police i.e Ex. PW-1/A. This witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence.
PW2/HC MANOJ KUMAR
8. As deposed by PW2/HC Manoj Kumar, that on 03.05.2019, out of five accused persons, four accused persons namely Harsh Malhotra, Govinda, Rajesh Malhotra and Kailash Chand @ Sonu came at the police post, Sangatrashan. All four accused persons were formally arrested vide arrest memos i.e Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/D respectively.
This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity given to do so.
FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 6 of 23PS Pahar Ganj PW3/ RETD. SI ABHAY RAJ
9. As deposed by PW3/Retd. SI Abhay Raj, that on 01.04.2019 he had handed over photocopy of charge sheet, FIR and other related documents of FIR no. 44/19 to the IO of the present case SI Mahender Singh. IO had prepared the site plan at his instance i.e Ex. PW-3/A. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW4/RETD. SI MAHENDER SINGH, INVESTIGATING OFFICER
10. As deposed by PW4/Retd. SI Mahender Singh, that on 25.03.2019, on the directions of senior officers, separate FIR had to be registered regarding the rescue of four couples, rescued from Love Commando NGO, Chunamandi, Paharganj, Delhi. On the basis of complaint made by complainant Pradeep Kumar and prepared rukka i.e Ex. PW4/A and got the present case FIR registered. Thereafter, he obtained the production warrants of accused Sanjay Sachdeva. He formally arrested the accused Sanjay Sachdeva vide memo i.e Ex. PW4/B. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sanjay Sachdeva vide memo i.e Ex. PW4/C. Thereafter, he obtained the photocopies of documents from the IO ASI Abhay Raj of case FIR No. 44/19, PS- Paharganj. Thereafter, he served notices to other co-accused namely FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 7 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj Harsh Malhotra, Kailash Chand, Govind Chand and Rajesh Malhotra to join investigation and same is exhibited as Ex. PW4/D to Ex. PW4/G respectively.
Thereafter, all the co-accused namely Harsh Malhotra, Kailash Chand, Govind Chand and Rajesh Malhotra were interrogated vide memos i.e Ex. PW4/H to Ex. PW4/K respectively. All co-accused namely Harsh Malhotra, Kailash Chand, Govind Chand and Rajesh Malhotra were arrested. Thereafter, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
11. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated on 04.04.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.PC.
12. Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. As stated by the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated. Accused persons opted to lead evidence in their defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
13. Accused persons have examined two witnesses i.e Manoj as DW-1 and Ravikant Meena as DW-2 and their FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 8 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj deposition is as under:
DW-1 / MANOJ
14. DW-1 Manoj deposed, that on 24.01.2015, he alongwith his wife namely Kavita came to Delhi and met with accused Govinda. He took him and his wife at the Shelter Home, situated at Pahar Ganj, Delhi. At the shelter home, he met Harsh Malhotra and Rajesh Malhotra (since deceased). He alongwith his wife stayed there for about one year. During that time, all the above-mentioned persons treated him and his wife very well. Even his medical expenses was borne by accused Harsh Malhotra and other accused persons. They had never demanded any money from him or his wife, rather they provided foods and clothes to him and his wife. During his stay at the Shelter Home, a job was also managed by accused persons for him at Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj. Accused Harsh Malhotra had also arranged rented accommodation for him and his wife and he stayed there for five years on said rented accommodation. All accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.
DW-2 / RAVIKANT MEENA
15. DW-2 Ravikant Meena deposed, that in the year 2017, he came to Delhi and he had already talked with accused Sanjay Sachdeva. He had already married with a FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 9 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj girl namely Uma Bharti. However, her parents had taken her back to their home. On his arrival at Delhi, he met accused Sanjay Sachdeva, Harsh Malhotra and other accused persons. He requested them for help with respect to taking his wife back from the house of her parents. All accused persons helped him in the same. After about 9 months, he was able to rescue his wife with the help of accused persons. His wife was also taken to Delhi and they both stayed at Luv Commando Shelter Home. He alongwith his wife stayed there for about 3 months as there was threat to his life from the parents of his wife. In the meantime, his father expired due to some illness. Thereafter, he alongwith his wife went to his house. During his stay at the shelter home, they were provided very friendly environment by the accused persons. Accused persons provided all facilities to him and his wife. Other couples were also staying there and they were also treated well by the accused persons like their children. They never demanded any cash or any other thing from them. Accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.
16.Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed vide order dated on 05.07.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
17. The Ld. APP for the State submitted, that the allegations against the accused persons are serious and therefore, he FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 10 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj pleaded, that accused persons be convicted.
On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, in crux, has submitted, that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons. According to him, there is absolutely no material on record against the accused persons to convict them. It was also submitted that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. With these submissions, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons pleaded for the acquittal of the accused persons.
EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE, BRIEF REASON AND THE DECISION
18. The accused persons were brought before the court, facing trial for the alleged commission of offense (s) punishable under Section 342/386/506(part II)/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pertaining to wrongful confinement of the complainant and three other couples, thereby dishonestly inducing the complainant to deliver money. Further, the accused persons have been alleged to criminally intimidating the complainant and further for abusing the complainant's female friend. Within the realm of legal principles, it is firmly established, that the prosecution bears the weighty responsibility of proving the case against the accused persons beyond any lingering doubt that may exist. To fulfill this onerous duty, the prosecution must firmly stand upon its own foundations, FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 11 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj relying solely on the strength of its evidence and argumentation, unaided by extraneous factors.
19. Within the realm of legal principles, it is firmly established, that the prosecution bears the weighty responsibility of proving the case against the accused beyond any lingering doubt that may exist. To fulfill this onerous duty, the prosecution must firmly stand upon its own foundations, relying solely on the strength of its evidence and argumentation, unaided by extraneous factors.
20. Before delving into the merits of the present case, this court deems it imperative to discuss in a summarized manner the legal provisions and the essential ingredients entailed under them, that were require by the prosecution to be proved beyond reasonable doubts in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.
21. To begin with, the first offence under which the accused persons have been charge is section 342 IPC pertaining to wrongful confinement.
22. The ingredients of the offence of wrongful confinement are spelt out in section 340 of IPC. Section 340 IPC is extracted below:-
"Wrongful confinement - Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person."FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 12 of 23
PS Pahar Ganj
23. Thus, to bring home the guilt under section 342 IPC, prosecution had to prove the following ingredients; a. The accused persons voluntarily obstructed the complainant from proceeding in any direction in which the complainant intended to proceed.
24.Another offence for which the accused persons have been charged is U/s 386 IPC.
"386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. - Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
25.In order to attract the culpability under this section the prosecution had to prove the ingredients of the offence of extortion as entailed under section 383 of IPC.
26.Another offence for which the accused persons have been charged is U/s 506 Part (1) IPC I.e punishment for criminal intimidation, whereby the definition of the same is entailed u/s 503 IPC.
"503. Criminal intimidation - Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 13 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."
27. Another offence for which the accused persons have been charged is U/s 509 IPC.
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman - Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, (shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.)"
28. In the backdrop of the law reproduced as above, it becomes imperative to anatomize the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in the present case. Prosecution in total had examined 4 witnesses and court hereby begins to appreciate the testimony of these 4 witnesses one by one.
29. The most tectonic witness examined by the prosecution in the present case is PW1-Pradeep Kumar i.e the complainant himself and therefore, it becomes imperative to anatomize the testimony of this witness in detail.
30.To begin with, PW1 deposed in his examination in chief, that vide a you tube video of Love Commando i.e an NGO, he happened to come in contact with one of the accused person namely Sanjay Sachdeva, as his mobile number was provided in the details of the said video. However, the said video has neither been placed on record by the FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 14 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj prosecution nor by the complainant himself in his deposition before the court. Another vital aspect which needs deliberation is with regard to the fact, that the complainant i.e PW1 stated in his examination in chief, that he went to PS Paharganj and there he had a word with Sanjay Sachdeva on the phone. This averment does not appeal to the might of the court as in the first place when the complainant was present at PS Paharganj then how and through whom from the PS he got in touch with one of the accused Sanjay Sachdeva. Prosecution has not advanced any argument to adduced clarity on this aspect.
31. Moving ahead, the complainant further deposed in his examination in chief, that one person came and took him to one property, the address of which the complainant did not remember and that property apparently was being run as an NGO by the name of Love Commando by the accused persons as alleged by the prosecution but no document has been advanced in support of this contention of the complainant. Now the said one person most certainly was not one of the accused in this case and therefore, who was that one person who had taken PW1 to the property located at Gali no.6, Chuna Mandi, stands not disclosed by the prosecution. Therefore, the factum that the accused persons in any way were responsible for bringing the complainant and his wife to the said address stands unproved as the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to link any kind of nexus between that one person who had FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 15 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj taken the complainant and his wife to a property at gali no.6, Chuna Mandi and between the accused persons.
32. It is further averred by PW1, that at the instructions of accused Sanjay Sachdeva, PW1 handed over cash of Rs. 25,000/- to him but the said fact stands contradicted by PW1 himself in his cross examination, whereby he admitted that he handed over Rs. 20,000/- and not Rs. 25,000/- to accused Sanjay Sachdeva. The relevant excerpts of his cross examination is as under:
"It is correct that I had handed over Rs. 20,000 and not Rs. 25,000 to accused Sanjay Sachdeva."
33. The complainant PW1 further deposed in his examination in chief, that apart from him and his wife, three more couples were staying with them at the said address but the said couples have not been examined by the prosecution and further they have also not been cited as one of the prosecution witnesses.
34. PW1 further deposed, that accused Sanjay Sachdeva had asked him to pay Rs. 28,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- for the purpose of registration of his marriage but as PW1 was unable to arrange the said money, he requested accused Sanjay Sachdeva to allow them to go to their home. As per the narrative of PW1 accused Sanjay Sachdeva did not allow them to leave and further accused Harsh Malhotra told, that they can leave only after the accused Harsh Malhotra desires them to leave.
35. It is further averred by PW1, that the accused forced him FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 16 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj to do household work and further forced him to drink alcohol but there is no corroborative evidence to this effect. It is paramount to note, that the prosecution has not even examined the wife of the complainant i.e Saloni in order to corroborate the averments of the complainant PW1. Saloni being the wife of PW1 could have easily been examined by the prosecution as one of the witness to corroborate the case of the prosecution but non- examination of her has proved fatal to the case of the prosecution as there is no independent evidence corroborating the testimony of PW1.
36. It is further deposed by PW1, that on one occasion accused Govinda had abused one of his female friend, who he got married to i.e Saloni and the said fact also does not stand corroborated as the wife of PW1 never stepped into the witness box to testify qua the same for the reasons best known to the prosecution.
37. It is relevant to note, that the accused had been blowing hot and cold at the same time and in one breath as on one hand he deposed, that the accused persons had threatened him that if he dared to move out of the house he would face dire consequences but on the other hand, he stated in his examination in chief, that he used to get out from the house for taking the dog of the accused persons for a walk and so being the case, the accused had ample opportunities to raise the alarm but he did not choose to do so.
38. This witness was subjected to litmus test of cross FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 17 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj examination whereby he categorically admitted, that he voluntarily came at the place of the occurrence, meaning thereby, that neither he was forced nor he was coerced to visit the place of occurrence. It is material to note, that the complainant in his cross examination stated, that he had not made any complaint during the period of his stay at the said place as he was not allowed to go out of the premises but this statement of his, is in total contradiction to the averment that was made by him in his examination in chief as he categorically stated, that he used to take the dogs of the accused persons for walk everyday. He further admitted, that whenever he used to go outside along with pet dogs for taking them a walk his mouth was not closed by any cloth and therefore, he had the opportunity of raising an alarm but he did not do so for the reasons best known to him.
39. In his cross examination he averred, that he had told the entire incident to the police officials, and the same was reduced into writing by the police and was read over to him. He further admitted, that he had told to the officials of DCW at the time of their rescue that the accused persons had asked for a sum of Rs. 28,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- from him for the purpose of registration of marriage and that he had further given Rs. 20,000/- to accused Sanjay Sachdeva on his demand but on being confronted with his statement recorded as Ex. PW-1/A, no such demand had been mentioned.
FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 18 of 23PS Pahar Ganj
40. It is further an admitted fact, that all the expenses including lodging and food were borne by accused Sanjay Sachdeva for the entire stay duration of PW1 stretching over a period of 2-2 ½ months. Another contradiction that was observed in the statement of PW1 recorded as Ex. PW1/A and his deposition made before the court is to the effect, that he stated that the fact of handing over of Rs. 25000/- to accused Sanjay Sachdeva was mentioned by him in his statement i.e Ex. PW1/A but no such fact was found to be recorded.
41. Further contradiction can be observed in the statement recorded Ex. PW-1/A and his deposition before the court, whereby it was observed that the complainant had stated in the court, that he had mentioned in his complaint that accused Harsh Malhotra had told him "aap aise nahi jayoge, hamari marzi se jayoge" but no such fact was found to be recorded in his statement Ex. PW1/A. On being confronted with his statement, it further surfaced that the complainant has not mentioned any fact regarding he being made to do household work in the said premises.
42. PW1 averred in his cross examination, that other persons namely Garuav, Vyom and Sameer had also witnessed the incident of beatings to the complainant PW1 but none of these witnesses have been examined to substantiate this aspect of beatings.
43. At the cost of brevity it is being stated, that PW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination, that he FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 19 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj was asked to go outside of his premises for buying goods and vegetable from the local market and he was also accompanied by Saloni i.e the girl he was married to and when they went to Post Office for change of mobile number in their aadhar card but at every time, opportunity was being given to him to raise an alarm or to seek a rescue, but he did not avail the same and this per se stands unexplained by the prosecution.
44.Even if for the sake of arguments, courts comes to the conclusion that the instances on which PW1 alone had access outside the house he was not prompted to raise the alarm as he was worried or concerned about the well being of his wife namely Saloni but what stopped them from raising an alarm when they were together and visited the Post Office stands totally stands unexplained and does not inspire the might of the court.
45. It is further an admitted fact, that the area from where they went to the Post Office was most certainly a crowded area and PS was also there but despite that they choose to remain quite and did not avail the opportunity to raise an alarm stands unexplained.
46. Thus, from the testimony of PW1 it can be safely deduced, that Firstly, there are material contradictions that have surfaced in the statement as Ex. PW-1/A as compared to his deposition made before the court.
Secondly, the prosecution has not examined any FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 20 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj independent witness who was available at that point of time at the said premises as averred by PW1 to substantiate beating or alleged torture to which PW1 and his wife was subjected to.
Thirdly, it stands totally unexplained for what reason the prosecution did not examine the wife of PW1 Saloni who was the witness within the reach of the prosecution as she could have adduced clarity with regard to actual course of events that has transpired in the premises stated to be running as a NGO in the name of Love commando. Fourthly, there are material contradictions with regard to the amount that was allegedly given by PW1 to accused Sanjay Sachdeva.
Fifthly, there are material improvements and manipulations in the testimony of PW1 and therefore, this court does not repose confidence in the testimony of PW1, failing to form the sole basis for proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.
47.Thereafter, remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are merely formal who had conducted the procedural formalities of investigation and per se they do not come to rescue of the prosecution as far as proving material averments are concerned.
48. Therefore, in the teeth of the above analyses, it can be safely culled out that case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes as there are numerous FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 21 of 23 PS Pahar Ganj inconsistencies in the testimony of the material witness examined by prosecution.
49. It is cardinal principle of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. It is apt to refer to the following observation in the case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55:
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 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."
CONCLUSION
50. As observed above that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, I give benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons, namely, SANJAY SACHDEV, HARSH MALHOTRA, GOVINDA CHAND AND KAILASH CHAND @ SONU are acquitted of the charge of which they faced the trial.
FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 22 of 23PS Pahar Ganj Bonds accepted in terms of provision of section 437A, CRP.C, shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
51. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today
i.e. 07.10.2024
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07
16:13:52 +0530
(RICHA SHARMA)
ACJM-01(CENTRAL)
THC/DELHI
FIR No. 87/2019 State Vs. Sanjay Sachdev & Ors. Page 23 of 23
PS Pahar Ganj