Delhi District Court
State vs . Jeet Bahadur & Anr. on 15 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. VIPUL SANDWAR
JUDGMENT
FIR NO. : 83/2008, U/s 452/323/506(ii)/34 IPC PS : SEELAMPUR A. CIS No. of the Case : 461490/2015 B. FIR No. : 83/2008 C. Date of Institution : 12.06.2008 D. Date of Commission of Offence : 30.09.2007 E. Name of the complainant : Chander Prakash Sharma S/o Ram Bhal Sharma, R/o H. No.26B, Gali No.11, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
F. Name of the Accused, his : (1) Jeet Bahadur S/o Late Parentage & Addresses Jang Bahadur and (2) Pradeep Kumar S/o Jeet Bahadur, both R/o C-198, Gali No.7, Shastri Park, Delhi.
G. Representation on behalf of : Sh. Ankit Gautam, Ld. APP. State H. Offence complained of : U/s 452/323/506(ii)/34 IPC I. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
J. Order reserved on : 16.11.2022 K. Date of Order : 15.12.2022 L. Final Order : ACQUITTED
FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.1 of 19 Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case
1. The present FIR was registered on the directions of Ld. MM Sh. S. K. Singh, Karkardooma Courts vide order dated 23.02.2008. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the nephew (bhanja) of the complainant Manoj Kumar is residing at C-198, Gali No.7, Shastri Park, Delhi and both the accused are in relation from native place, accused no.1 being the Uncle of Manoj Kumar and accused no. 2 being the cousin. On 30.09.2007, the complainant had gone to the residence of Manoj Kumar wherein both the accused entered and started beating to the complainant and Manoj Kumar. The complainant received severe injure in his right eye. The complainant was pushed on the ground and was beaten by both the accused by slaps, legs and fists. Accused no.1 threatened him saying "aaj isse andha karke chhodenge tab dekhte hai kaise manoj ke sath madad karne aata hai". The civil dispute between the parties are already pending. The complainant was then taken to the GTB hospital for treatment and referred to x-ray. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant with malafide intention to grab the property of Manoj Kumar has beaten the complainant and his nephew Manoj Kumar. Kalandara against both the accused was also filed and bonds were executed for a period of six months by the Court of Special Executive Magistrate, North-East.
2. FIR was registered under section 323/452/506/34 IPC and has been investigated by the officials of Police Station Seelampur and IO/SI Shailendra Kumar filed the charge sheet against the accused upon which cognizance was taken on 12.06.2008 by the learned Predecessor of this Court.
FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.2 of 19
3. Accused appeared before the Court and copy of chargesheet along with other documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to them.
4. Charge was framed vide order dated 17.11.2011 for the offence punishable Under Section 452/323/506(ii)/34 IPC against accused persons by the learned Predecessor of this Court, to which, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. The Prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in support of its case. In nutshell, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is as follows :-
(i) PW1 Chand Prakash Sharma is the complainant and has deposed that on the day of incident i.e. 30.09.2007 he had gone to meet his nephew (bhanja Manoj Kumar) in house C-198, Gali No.7, Shastri Park, Delhi. At around 05:00 pm, both the accused came into the room and started abusing him, when he objected he was apprehended by accused Pradeep from the back side and accused Jeet Bahadur hit him on the eye with some object. When Manoj Kumar tried to rescue him both the accused slapped him on his face due to which his spectacles fell on the ground and broke. He has stated that accused persons wants to grab the property of his nephew Manoj Kumar and for the same reasons they have beaten him. He has also deposed that accused persons have threatened to kill him. The said witness was cross examined at length by Ld. counsel for accused persons.
(ii) PW2 Manoj Kumar is the nephew of the complainant has deposed that his uncle (chacha) accused no.1 accompanied by his cousin accused No.2 came to his house on the day of incident. He FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.3 of 19 has stated that accused Pradeep caught hold of his Uncle PW1 and started abusing him. His uncle accused no.1 hit his mama PW1 in his eyes and he was seriously injured. He has deposed that when he attempted to rescue PW1 accused Pradeep hit him on the face due to which his spectacles fells on the ground and broke. He has also stated that accused Pradeep fled the scene and his uncle accused no.1 stayed back. Both PW1 and accused no.1 were taken to police station and GTB hospital for examination.
The said witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons.
(iii) PW3 HC Ram Rattan was the Duty Officer, on receiving the complaint registered the present FIR and made endorsement on the complaint and gave the original complaint and copy of FIR to Ct. Vinod for handing over to IO/SI Shailendra Kumar. The said witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
(iv) PW4 Ct. Dharmender on instructions of IO he took PW1 to GTB hospital for medical examination. PW1 was examined and his MLC bearing No.4697/07 was prepared. The said witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
(v) PW5 SI Shailendra Kumar was the IO. He along with PW1 reached the spot and prepared site plan. Thereafter, he went to the house of accused Jeet Bahadur and arrested him on 23.02.2008. Later on 03.05.2008 he arrested accused Pradeep Kumar. He collected the MLC of PW1, prepared the chargesheet and file the same before the Court. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons.
(vi) PW6 Dr. Jolly Rohtagi, was the head of the department, GTB hospital identified the signature of Dr. Praveen Monga on FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.4 of 19 MLC of the PW1. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons.
(vii) PW7 Dr. Pramod Kumar Sahu, Director Professor, Department of Opthalmology, GTB hospital identified the signatures of Dr. Suraj Mungal on the MLC of PW1. The said witness was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity.
6. PE was closed on 06.06.2019 and on 25.02.2020, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and thereafter, matter was fixed for DE. Both the accused examined themselves as DW1 and DW2. Their testimonies are as follows:
(i) DW1 Jeet Bahadur is the accused no.1 has deposed that on the day of incident PW1 and PW2 came to his house and started quarreling with him and he made a call at 100 number. Police came after that and took him and PW1 to GTB hospital for medical examination. PW1 filed a complaint under section 156 (3) Cr. PC against me and present FIR registered. He has deposed that the property in question is in the name of his children Pradeep and Dilip. He has also deposed that PW1 threatened to kill him. He was cross examined at length by Ld. APP for the State.
(ii) DW2 Pradeep Kumar is the accused no.2 has deposed that on the day of incident i.e. 30.09.2007 he was in his office in Maharaja Hotel in Laxmi Nagar. He received a call in his office that PW1 and PW2 came to his house and quarrel with his father.
When he came back to his house he came to know that PW1 and his father were taken to PS. He has deposed that he and his father have been falsely implicated in present case. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.5 of 19
7. No other witnesses were examined by the accused persons and DE was closed on 05.09.2022 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. Final arguments heard. Case record perused meticulously.
9. This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on record and arguments advanced with due circumspection.
10. S. 323 deals with Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and reads as:
"Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, 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. S 319 defines Hurt as--Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
11. In the present case, Complainant PW1 has deposed that accused Pradeep Kumar apprehended him from back side and accused Jeet Bahadur hit him on his eyes with some object due to which swelling had come on his eyes and blood clots had appeared. He has further deposed that when PW2 Manoj came to rescue him both the accused slapped him on his face due to which his spectacle fell down and broke. Thereafter both the accused started beating them with legs and fists. PW2 has corroborated the version of PW1 and has stated that accused Pradeep Kumar caught hold of PW1 and accused Jeet Bahadur hit PW1 in his eyes and he was seriously injured. He has also stated that when he tried to rescue PW1, accused Pradeep hit him FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.6 of 19 on the face due to which his spectacles fell and broke. PW1 has deposed that police took him, PW2 and accused Jeet Bahadur to GTB Hospital. PW2 in his deposition has stated that police took PW1 and accused Jeet Bahadur to GTB Hospital. PW4 Ct. Dharmender in his deposition dated 11.08.2014 has stated that he took only PW1 to GTB Hospital.
12. On the contrary, accused no. 1/ DW1/ Jeet Bahadur has deposed that on the day of incident, PW1 and PW2 came to his house and started quarreling with him where after he made a 100 no. call. He has stated that he and PW1 were taken to GTB Hospital and were medically examined. During his cross- examination, the said witness denied causing injury to PW1 or PW2 with an object. Accused no. 2/DW2/ Pradeep Kumar deposed that on the day of incident he was in his office in Maharaja Hotel in Laxmi Nagar and received a call that PW1 and PW2 had come to his house and had started quarreling with his father. He came to know that PW1 and his father were taken to GTB Hospital for medical examination. The said witness could not establish his alibi during the cross examination.
13. The MLC of PW1 Ex. PW6/A is on record. PW6, Dr. Jolly Rohtagi, identified the signature of Dr. Praveen Monga and PW7, Dr. Pramod Kumar Sahu, identified the signatures of Dr. Suraj Munjal on the MLC of PW1/Complainant on the MLC. No MLC of PW2 is on record. Perusal of MLC of PW1 shows that he has
1. redness in right eye and, 2. abrasion over nose with nature of injuries as 'simple'. From the conjoint reading of PW1, PW2 and PW4 it cannot be established with certainty that who all were FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.7 of 19 taken to the GTB Hospital. The contradictions in their testimonies are vital and cannot be sidelined. PW1 has deposed that he suffered serious injuries but did not mention which eye. MLC shows redness in the right eye. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant.
14. The offence under S. 452 IPC, the section reads as follows:
"452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.--Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The genus 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.
Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass and is as under:
"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'."
15. In Rajinder v. State of Haryana [(1995) 5 SCC 187 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 852], hon'ble Supreme Court Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 198-99, paras 21-22) "21. It is evident from the above provision that unauthorised entry into or upon property in the FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.8 of 19 possession of another or unlawfully remaining there after lawful entry can answer the definition of criminal trespass if, and only if, such 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. In other words, unless any of the intentions referred in Section 441 is proved no offence of criminal trespass can be said to have been committed. Needless to say, such an intention has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of a given case."
16. Dealing with the issue of trespass, hon'ble Supreme Court in Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath, (1991) 2 SCC 141 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 315 at page 147 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. The authors of the Code had the following words to say:
"We have given the name of trespass to every usurpation, however slight, of dominion over property. We do not propose to make trespass, as such, an offence, except when it is committed in order to the commission of some offence injurious to some person interested in the property on which the trespass is committed, or for the purpose of causing annoyance to such a person. Even then we propose to visit it with a light punishment, unless it be attended with aggravating circumstances. These aggravating circumstances are of two sorts. Criminal trespass may be aggravated by the way in which it is committed. It may also be aggravated by the end for which it is committed."
17. In Matiullah Sheikh v. State of W.B., (1964) 6 SCR 978 :
AIR 1965 SC 132 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 126, it has been observed FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.9 of 19 that:
"5. It is worth noticing also that house trespass, apart from anything else is made punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code the punishment prescribed being imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or both.
6. Higher punishment is prescribed where house trespass is committed "in order to" the commission of other offences. An examination of Sections 449, 450, 451, 454 and 457 show that the penalty prescribed has been graded according to the nature of the offence "in order to" the commission of which house trespass is committed. It is quite clear that these punishments for house trespass are prescribed quite independent of the question whether the offence "in order to" the commission of which the house trespass was committed has been actually committed or not. In our opinion, there can be no doubt that the words "in order to" have been used to mean "with the purpose of". If the purpose in committing the house trespass is the commission of an offence punishable with death the house trespass becomes punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code. If the purpose in committing the house trespass is the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life the house trespass is punishable under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, Sections 451, 454 and 457 will apply the house trespass or lurking house trespass, or lurking house trespass by night or house breaking by night are committed for the purpose of the offence indicated in those sections. Whether or not the purpose was actually accomplished is quite irrelevant in these cases.
18. From the above discussion, 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.
FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.10 of 19
19. In Rash Behari Chatterjee v. Fagu Shaw, (1969) 2 SCC 216, it was 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."
20. In the present case, PW1/Complainant has deposed that both the accused "came in the room where we were sitting in a room of the ground floor of the same house". In his cross examination dated 29.05.2012, PW1 has stated that three property suits are pending between the PW1 and the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons are the owners of property bearing no. C-198, Gali No. 7, Shastri Park. He denied any knowledge of the accused persons purchasing the said property. He also went on to depose that the accused persons are claiming ownership by forging documents purported to be executed by my brother in law Sh. Ram Bahadur Tiwari, father of PW2.
FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.11 of 19
21. Nephew of the complainant PW2, stated that the accused persons came to his house on 30.09.2007 and accused no. 1 who is his Chacha started abusing his mama PW1/Complainant. He has also deposed that his Chacha accused no. 1 was accompanied by accused no. 2. During his cross examination PW2 has also denied the suggestion that the property bearing no. C-198, Gali No. 7, Shastri Park, Delhi - 53 has been purchased by the accused persons. He has also affirmed the pendency of civil suits between him and the accused persons. He has voluntarily stated during his cross examination dated 28.02.2013 that "my lock was already present and on the said date I had gone for cleaning/brooming he rooms. Two rooms are in my possession."
22. The accused persons examined themselves as witnesses and Accused Jeet Bahadur deposed as DW1 and stated that on the day of incident, PW1 and PW2 came to his house and started quarreling with him and thereafter he made a 100 no. call. He has stated that he and PW1 were taken to GTB Hospital and were medically examined. However, he did not furnish any documentary proof that the house belonged to him. Accused no. 2/DW2/ Pradeep Kumar deposed that on the day of incident he was in his office in Maharaja Hotel in Laxmi Nagar and received a call that PW1 and PW2 had come to his house and had started quarreling with his father. He came to know that PW1 and his father were taken to GTB Hospital for medical examination. Both the DWs have mentioned their present address as C-198, Gali No. 7, Shastri Park, Delhi - 53 as their present address during deposition.
FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.12 of 19
23. To prove the offence of S. 452 IPC, prosecution has relied on the deposition of above mentioned two witnesses. None of the above PWs have been able to establish their possession at the house C-198, Gali No. 7, Shastri Park. Nothing has been brought on record to establish the fact the the complainant or PW2 was in possession of the property. PW1 nowhere in his deposition has stated h is the owner of the property. During his cross- examination PW2 has hinted that he was actually not residing that the property and had come to clean/broom the property. No documentary proof of possession viz. Electricity bill etc either by PW1 or PW2 has been brought on record. The pendency of civil litigations is also suggestive of the fact that the ownership/possession of the property is cloudy. In the circumstances, prosecution has failed to establish the possession of the complainant at C-198, Gali No. 7, Shastri Park and since the possession has not been established, trespass of the same cannot be said to be done. Accordingly, no offence under S. 452 IPC is made out.
24. Coming to offence punishable under S. 506 IPC. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:
"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 execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.13 of 19 Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
25. A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation"
would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
26. In Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 132, it has been observed that:
"It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section."
27. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons have criminally intimidated the complainant pw1 and his nephew PW2. Complainant PW1 has deposed that the accused persons came at C-198, Gali No. 7, Shastri Park and started abusing him. He has further deposed that they also threatened me "tera aana jana band kara denge aur tujhe itni maar marunga ki tu iski koi mada nahi kar payega aur nahi aa jaa payega". PW2 has nowhere in his deposition has mentioned that he or PW1 was threatened by the accused persons. PW2 has stated that the accused persons started abusing him.
FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.14 of 19
28. Accused No. 1 and 2 deposing as DW1 and DW2 respectively in their cross-examination dated 05.09.2022 has denied the suggestion that they threatened the complainant.
29. The accused persons have been charged with the offence of S. 506(Part II). Part II specifically deals with the threat or intimidation to cause death etc and is much graver as compared to Part I. Clearly, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons have committed offence under S. 506 Part II. The deposition regarding criminally intimidating the complainant as deposed by him/PW1 nowhere mentions that he was threatened to kill.
30. Now examination of S. 506 (Part I) becomes important. However, before proceeding further, it is to be kept in mind that the threat as required for the offence punishable under S. 506 is that it should cause an alarm. PW1 in his deposition has stated that he was threatened by the accused persons. The exact words used by the accused persons were" tera aana jana band kara denge aur tujhe itni maar marunga ki tu iski koi mada nahi kar payega aur nahi aa jaa payega".As discussed above the intention of the accused persons is to be examined. The pendency of ongoing litigation between the Complainant and accused persons have been admitted by PW1 during his cross examination dated 29.05.2012. The threat extended was not with an intent to cause an alarm in the minds of the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the accused persons to cause alarm in FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.15 of 19 the mind of the complainant. Accordingly, offence under S. 506 IPC is not made out.
31. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities."
32. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.16 of 19 the accused. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression "reasonable doubt" is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge."
33. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
"It is difficult to define the phrase 'reasonable doubt'. However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case. He says:
'It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
34. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus:
"The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.17 of 19 if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt."
35. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : (1974) 1 SCR 489 Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that:
"the dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt."
36. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is not sufficient to link the accused to the commission of the crime. As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to proved the possession of the complainant or that the accused criminally intimidated him. There has been material contradictions in the versions of PW1, PW2 and PW4. No medical documents suggesting eye injury as claimed by PW1 has been brought by the prosecution.
37. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the Prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Jeet Bahadur and Pradeep Kumar has committed offence under S. 452 IPC or S. 506 IPC or S. 323 IPC, therefore, accused Jeet Bahadur and Pradeep Kumar is found not guilty in the present case and resultantly, they stand acquitted in the present case.
FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.18 of 19
38. Accused persons each are directed furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount u/s 437A Cr.P.C and directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when directed. Digitally signed by VIPUL VIPUL SANDWAR SANDWAR Date:
2022.12.15 16:18:54 +0530 Announced in the open (VIPUL SANDWAR) Court on 15th December, 2022 MM-02/NE/KKD COURTS FIR No.83/08 State vs. Jeet Bahadur & Anr. PS Seelampur Page No.19 of 19