Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Maan Etc. on 3 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MANISH KHURANA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NORTH:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
STATE VS. ANIL MAAN ETC.
JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR No. of the case : 20/05
(b) Police Station : Prashant Vihar
(c) The date of commission of offence : 11.01.2005
(d) The name of complainant : Dwarka Dass,
S/o Late Sh. N R Aggarwal
R/o D99,
Prashant Vihar, Delhi.
(e) The name of accused : 1. Anil Maan, S/o Sh. Ajit Singh R/o Village Kherhakhurd, Delhi.
2. Ajay Maan, S/o Sh. Pratap Singh R/o Village Kherhakhurd, Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of :U/s 323/342/506/34 IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(g) Date of Institution : 24.10.2005
State Vs. Anil Maan etc. page 1
of 4
(h) The date on which
judgment was reserved : 02.07.2013
(i) The final order : Acquitted
(j) The date of such order : 03.07.2013
(k) The Unique Identification Number : 02404R1221152005
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 11.01.2005 at about 6:45 pm at Vijay Market, Village Razapur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar, accused Anil Maan and Ajay Maan along with coaccused Satish Maan (since PO), in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully confined the complainant Dwarka Dass and criminally intimidated him as well as voluntarily caused him simple hurt and have thereby committed offence punishable U/s 323/342/506/34 IPC.
2. The matter was investigated by the police and a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
3. From the material on record, charge U/s 323/342/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined one witness.
5. PW1 HC Om Prakash was the Duty Officer on 11.01.2005 who State Vs. Anil Maan etc. page 2 of 4 proved the FIR as Ex.PW1/A.
6. This witness was not cross examined by accused persons.
7. No other witness was examined by the prosecution as the star witness complainant Dwarka Dass remained untraceable despite being repeatedly summoned through DCP Outer. He could not be traced at his residential address and he also could not be traced at his shop in Village Razapur, Rohini. Remaining witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses are formal in nature. Therefore, PE was closed and statement of the accused persons were recorded in which they denied all the allegations. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State.
9. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence.
Further it is a settled proposition of the criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial files prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot drive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness if any in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial through out the trial is on the prosecution and its never shifts to the accused and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubts entitles the accused to acquittal.
State Vs. Anil Maan etc. page 3
of 4
10. In this case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons committed the offence as the star witness i.e. the complainant Dwarka Dass remained untraceable. Remaining witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses are formal in nature and are not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.
11. Hence, in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The accused persons, namely, Anil Maan and Ajay Maan are accordingly acquitted for the offence U/s 323/342/506/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 3rd day of July, 2013. (MANISH KHURANA) MM : ROHINI: DELHI State Vs. Anil Maan etc. page 4 of 4