Delhi District Court
State vs Bindu Sharma Etc. 2 on 16 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, JMFC-10 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLWT020007302012
STATE VS. Bindu Sharma & Others
FIR No. : 67/2012
PS : Nangloi
U/s : 384/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 63852/2016
B. Date of Commission of offence 12.03.2012
C. Date of FIR 12.03.2012
D. Date of charge-sheet 06.12.2012
E. Name of the complainant Ram Shah Shamshad
F. Name of the accused persons, their (1) Bindu Sharma W/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma R/o H.
parentage and residence No. I-24, Pratap Nagar, Delhi
(2) Ram Singh S/o Sh. Bansi Lal R/o H. No.
RZ-29A/B, Gali No. 1, Karan Vihar, Part 1 st, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi (3) Rekha W/o Sh. Ashwant Jain R/o H. No. 17/20, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi G. Offence complained of or proved 384/34 IPC H. Date of framing of charges 27.05.2013 I. Date of commencement of evidence 05.05.2015 Digitally signed by VIJAYSHREE VIJAYSHREE RATHORE RATHORE Date: 2025.09.16 15:26:03 +0530 State Vs. Bindu Sharma & Others FIR No. : 67/2012 PS Nangloi U/s 384/34 IPC Page no.1 of 9 J. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty K. Date on which judgment is reserved 09.09.2025 L. Final Order Acquitted M. Date of Judgment 16.09.2025 Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of the prosecution arises out of the complaint dated 12.03.2012 of complainant Ram Shah Shamshad that on the said date at about 11 AM, accused persons Bindu Sharma, Rekha and Ram Singh came to his factory and started saying that minors are working in the factory and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him and threatened to send them to Jail. He arranged Rs. 40,000/- and handed over the same to the accused persons. When accused persons started going back in the vehicle bearing no. DL 4 CS 5220 black colour Accent, some people from nearby factory gathered and told that the accused persons had also demanded money from them. The complainant made a 100 number call. Accused Ram Singh handed over Rs. 20,000/- back to him. They fled away with remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/-. On the basis of complaint, FIR in the present case was registered. During investigation, Rs. 20,000/- was seized from the accused persons and the FIR was registered against them. Accused persons were arrested, site plan was prepared. Statement of the witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused persons. Cognizance of the same was taken. Digitally signed by VIJAYSHREE VIJAYSHREE RATHORE RATHORE Date:
2025.09.16 15:25:47 +0530 State Vs. Bindu Sharma & Others FIR No. : 67/2012 PS Nangloi U/s 384/34 IPC Page no.2 of 9 Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 27.05.2013, charge was framed against accused persons for the offence u/s 384/34 IPC to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined five witnesses. PW1 is ASI Bala Devi, PW2 is Sunil, PW3 is Shamshad, PW4 Brijesh Kumar and PW 5/IO/Inspector Harender.
4. PW1 ASI Bala Devi had deposed that on 12.03.2012, at about 2.30 PM, SI Harender handed over rukka to her and on the basis of same, she got FIR No. 67/2012 registered which is Ex. PW 1/A. She further deposed that she made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW 1/B.
5. PW2 Sunil had turned hostile and had stated that he do not know about the present case. On cross examination by Ld. APP, he denied that all the statements made before the police U/s 161 Cr. PC.
6. PW3 Shamshad had deposed that around 11-12 years back, when he reached at 40 feet, Rajdhani Park, Nangloi in search of work, he saw that gathering of many public persons. When he stopped there to see what had happened, PCR came and took him alongwith his wife to PS. He had also turned hostile and denied his previous statement made U/s 161 Cr. PC.
Digitally signed by VIJAYSHREE VIJAYSHREE RATHORE RATHORE Date: 2025.09.16 15:26:14 +0530 State Vs. Bindu Sharma & Others FIR No. : 67/2012 PS Nangloi U/s 384/34 IPC Page no.3 of 9
7. PW4 Brijesh Kumar had deposed that in the month of March, 2012, he received a call from his friend Shamshad who demanded money from him and asked to come to Rajdhani Park. When he went there, Shamshad was not found present and he asked him to come to police station. He further deposed that when he went to police station, he saw gathering of many public persons there. He had also turned hostile and denied his previous statement made U/s 161 Cr. PC.
8. PW 5/IO/Inspector Harender deposed that on 12.03.2012, after receiving DD No. 23A, he along with Ct. Satyavart went to the place of occurrence i.e. B-21, Rajdhani Park, Nangloi, Delhi. He further deposed that after reaching there, he made an enquiry and during enquiry, he came to know that the PCR van had already been taken the accused and complainant to PS Nangloi. Thereafter, he reached at the PS where 15 to 20 persons were gathered. He inquired to complainant. After enquiry, he handed over him the sum of Rs. 20,000/- along with his hand written complaint which is already Ex. PW1/A. He took the money in my possession vide seizure memo already PW3/C. Thereafter, he endorsed the said complaint and prepared rukka Ex. PW5/A. He further deposed that thereafter, he handed over the said rukka to DO concern for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he left the PS along with complainant, Ct. Satyavart and accused perons namely, Rekha, Bindu and Ram Singh reached at the residence of complainant i.e. S-47, 40 Foota Road, Rajdhani Park, Nangloi, Delhi. After reaching there, he interrogated some person. However, he could not find he could not find any eye witness of the Digitally signed VIJAYSHREE by VIJAYSHREE RATHORE RATHORE Date: 2025.09.16 15:26:20 +0530 State Vs. Bindu Sharma & Others FIR No. : 67/2012 PS Nangloi U/s 384/34 IPC Page no.4 of 9 incident. Meanwhile, Ct. Sunil reached there along with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He had further deposed that one Accent car black coloured was parked in front of complainant's house and he told that accused persons had come here in the above-said car. Thereafter, he searched the car and found one camera make Canon and some other documents. He seized the above-said camera and document vide seizure memo already Ex. PW3/D. Thereafter, he seized the vehicle bearing no. DL 4CS 5220 along with attached accessories vide seizure memo PW3/E. He prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is already Ex. PW3/B. Thereafter, they reached at the PS where he arrested all the accused persons vide arrest memo already Ex. PW3/F, Ex. PW3/G and Ex, PW3/H. He also conducted personal search of all accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PW5/C and Ex. PW5/D. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Bindu, Rekha and Ram Singh Ex. PW3/H, Ex. PW3/I and Ex. PW3/J. Thereafter, he deposited all the case property to the malkhana concerned. The witness had correctly identified the case property i.e. currency notes as Ex. P1 (colly) and the camera and documents as Ex. P2(colly). He had also identified the car bearing no. DL 4CS 5220 and also the accused persons.
Statement of accused
9. The examination of accused persons u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they stated that they are innocent and have falsely implicated in the case.
Digitally signed by VIJAYSHREE VIJAYSHREE RATHORE RATHORE Date: 2025.09.16 15:26:26 +0530 State Vs. Bindu Sharma & Others FIR No. : 67/2012 PS Nangloi U/s 384/34 IPC Page no.5 of 9
10. Accused did not lead defence evidence. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
11. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
12. It is argued on behalf of accused that complainant had turned hostile and did not identify the accused persons. Accused persons are falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove their case.
13. Section 384 prescribes punishment for 'extortion'. It states that
-Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
14. It is the allegation against the accused persons that they threatened the complainant and his wife to implicate them in a case of engaging child labour and had therefore, extorted Rs. 40,000/- from them. In this regard, it is mentioned that complainant/PW 3 Shamshad who is the star witness in the case had turned hostile. He had not supported the prosecution version. He had merely stated in his testimony that when he reached at 40 feet road, Rajdhani Park, Nangloi in search of work, many public persons gathered there. PCR came there and took him alongwith his wife and other persons to police station. On cross examination by Ld. APP, he had stated that he was working as a labourer at S-47, Rajdhani Park, Nangloi. He denied his presence at his shop Digitally signed by VIJAYSHREE VIJAYSHREE RATHORE RATHORE Date:
2025.09.16 15:26:32 +0530 State Vs. Bindu Sharma & Others FIR No. : 67/2012 PS Nangloi U/s 384/34 IPC Page no.6 of 9 when the accused persons came there. He had also denied making his statement Ex. PW 3/A that the on 12.03.2012 at around 11 AM, he had gone out of the factory but his wife was present there, then accused Ram Singh alongwith two women came there and they started demanding Rs. 50,000/- from him, otherwise, they would send him and his wife to Jail. He had also denied giving Rs. 40,000/- to accused persons. He clearly denied that the accused persons demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him and his wife. The complainant had also failed to identify the accused persons before the Court as the one who had demanded money from him. The complainant had turned completely hostile and had not deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons.
15. In his testimony, PW2 Sunil had also denied the allegations that the accused persons demanded Rs. 20,000/- from him on the pretext of sending jail for the reason that some minors are employed in his factory. He had also turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution version. On cross examination by Ld. APP, he had denied making statement U/s 161 Cr. PC to the police. He had denied the suggestion that on 12.03.2012 at about 10 AM, when he was sitting in his factory, accused Ram Kumar alongwith two ladies came there and told him that they were from one NGO and further told him that some minors are employed by him in his factory. He had also failed to identify the accused persons before the Court. PW 4 Brijesh Kumar had admitted in his testimony that he received a call from complainant and demanded money from him and asked him to come to Rajdhani Park, however, he had not supported the prosecution version. He had also turned hostile. Digitally signed by VIJAYSHREE VIJAYSHREE RATHORE RATHORE Date:
2025.09.16 15:26:37 +0530 State Vs. Bindu Sharma & Others FIR No. : 67/2012 PS Nangloi U/s 384/34 IPC Page no.7 of 9
16. Apart from the disclosure statement Ex. PW3/H, Ex. PW3/I and Ex. PW3/J of accused persons, there is nothing on record to show that the accused persons had extorted money of Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant by putting him in the fear of causing injury to him. There is nothing on record to show how the complainant had handed over Rs. 40,000/- to the accused persons. Since, PW 4 Brijesh Kumar had turned hostile, it is also not proved that the complainant had arranged Rs. 20,000/- from him to be handed over to accused persons. Thus, the involvement of the accused persons in committing extortion is doubtful in the present case.
17. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. There is no material on record to assume that accused persons had threatened the complainant Shamshad and his wife to implicate them in a case of child labour and had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from them. There is also no material on record to show that the accused persons had extorted Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant by putting them in a fear of injury. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant and independent witnesses. The identity of accused persons and of case property is also doubtful in the case as none of the independent persons had identified them. It is apparent from the above discussion that the allegations against the accused persons have not been proved and therefore benefit of doubt goes in favor of accused persons.
Digitally signed VIJAYSHREE by VIJAYSHREE RATHORE RATHORE Date: 2025.09.16 15:26:43 +0530 State Vs. Bindu Sharma & Others FIR No. : 67/2012 PS Nangloi U/s 384/34 IPC Page no.8 of 9 Conclusion & Decision 18. Thus, considering the entire material on record I am of the
considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s 384/34 IPC against the accused persons namely Bindu Sharma, Rekha and Ram Singh beyond reasonable doubt. Keeping in mind the above-mentioned discussion, accused is acquitted for the commission of the offence U/s 384/34 IPC.
VIJAYSHREE Digitally signed by VIJAYSHREE
RATHORE
RATHORE Date: 2025.09.16 15:27:09 +0530
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE)
In Delhi on 16.09.2025 JMFC-10 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Bindu Sharma & Others FIR No. : 67/2012 PS Nangloi
U/s 384/34 IPC Page no.9 of 9