Delhi District Court
State vs . Dinesh Chauhan on 31 January, 2019
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA GUPTA SINGH,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02,-NORTH DISTRICT,
DELHI
STATE VS. Dinesh Chauhan
FIR NO: 336/02
P. S. Samai Pur Badli
U/s 448/380 IPC
JUDGMENT
Registration No. of the case : 5281421-2016 Date of its institution : 09.07.2003 Name of the complainant : Kumari Sonia Thakur Date of Commission of offence : 16.05.2002 to 31.05.2002 Name of the accused : 1. Dinesh Chauhan S/o Sh. Nathu Singh R/o House No. D-150, DCM Colony, Ibrahim Pur Samaipur, Badli, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 448/380 IPC Plea of accused : pleaded not guilty Case reserved for orders : 16.01.2019 Date of judgment : 31.01.2019 Final Order : Acquitted -: 2 :-
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 16.05.2002 to 31.05.2002 at House No. D-150, DCM Colony Ground Floor, Ibrahim Pur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS S.P. Badli, accused Dinesh Chauhan committed house trespass by entering into the above said premises which was in the possession of complainant Kumari Sonia Thakur with intend to commit an offence of criminal trespass. Further, on the above said date, time and place, accused Dinesh Chauhan committed the theft of articles mentioned in the complaint Mark A, from the above said premises and thus accused thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 448/380 IPC.
2. Investigation was completed and police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed under sections 448/380 IPC. Cognizance was taken and accused was summoned.
3. Copy of charge sheet and documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Arguments on charge were heard and charge against the accused Dinesh Chauhan was framed under section -: 3 :- 448/380 IPC by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 12.09.2008. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined seven witnesses.
6. PW-1 HC Dharam Pal deposed that on 31.05.2002, one lady Sonia Thakur came to PS and gave an oral statement to SI Ravinder Kumar and on the basis of her statement FIR was registered. He alongwith complainant Sonia Thakur and SI Ravinder Kumar went to the spot at House No. D-150, DCM Colony, Ibrahim Pur, Delhi. IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant, recorded the statements of witnesses and went to search of accused but no one was found.
7. PW-2 Kumari Sheetal Raghav deposed that in the year 2001, she used to work as a teacher at Navjyoti Public School at House No. 150/DCM Colony, Ground Floor, Ibrahim Pur. The manager of the school were Sonia Thakur and Jyoti Thakur. She used to teach children of LKG in the room. She did not know anything further -: 4 :- about the present case. She was declared hostile but nothing incriminating has come out from her evidence.
8. PW-3 Smt. Sonia Thakur deposed that in the year 2001, she had taken ground floor on rent at D-150, Nathu Pura, DCM Colony, Ibrahim Pur, Delhi from Dinesh Chauhan for Rs. 1200/- per month. She used to run Primary School in the name of Nav Jyoti Public School. In the month of December 2001, the landlord Dinesh Chauhan started pressurizing them for increasing rent from Rs. 1200/- to 1600/-. She told him that she is ready to pay Rs. 1600/- but only in July 2002. Thereafter, in the month of January 2002 accused cut the electricity & water connection. She somehow managed he electricity and water. In the month of February 2002, accused Dinesh Chauhan told them to vacate the said premises. On 29.05.2002, she received a call from parents of her students that the banners and boards of the school were removed. Thereafter, she went to the spot and found that the banners of school board was missing. Since it was evening time, she went to accused on next day but the accused was not found. She called at 100 number. The lock of the school was broken in front -: 5 :- of the teachers and neighbours. On checking the rooms inside the school, she found the following articles missing i.e. 30 chairs, 4-5 black board, two notice boards, two Mayur Jug, small Almira, fans of East-West, center table, sofa set revolving chair, one dari and one mat and other articles in the other room like desk, chart etc. There were some stationary items was also found missing from the school. She narrated the incident to the police officials. Police recorded her statement. She proved her statement Ex.PW3/A. The police officials prepared site plan Mark A at her instance on the spot. IO checked the first floor of the said premises where nothing was recovered vide memo Ex.PW3/B.
9. PW4 Ms. Jyoti Thakur deposed that she was the proprietor of the school namely Nav Jyoti Public School and she alongwith her sister Sonia Thakur used to run the said school which was taken on ground floor on rent in July, 2001 from accused Dinesh Chauhan for Rs. 1200/- PM. She further deposed that accused Dinesh Chauhan started pressurizing them for increasing the rent from 1200/- to 1600/-. They requested him that they are ready to pay him Rs. 1600/- but only from July 2002. -: 6 :- Thereafter, in the month of January, accused cut the electricity and water connection. Accused pressurized them to vacate the said premises. Therefore, they filed civil suit. She further deposed that accused removed the banners and boards of the school. She further claimed that removed 30 chairs, 4-5 black board, two notice board, two Mayur Jug, Small Almira, fans of east-west, center table, sofaset, revolving chair, one dari and one mat and other articles in the other room like dest, chart etc. There were some stationary items also missing. Police recorded her sister's statement which is Ex.PW3/A.
10. PW-5 Arti deposed that she is residing at house No. 3405, Gali No.89, Sant Nagar, Delhi. At the time of incident, she was residing House No. 30A, Block-E, DCM Colony Ibrahim Pur and she was teacher in Nav Jyoti Public School situated at Ibrahim Pur, DCM Colony. She deposed nothing in favour of the prosecution case. She was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State but nothing incriminating has come out from her evidence.
11. PW6 retired SI Ravinder Singh deposed that on 31.05.2002 he was performing emergency duty. One -: 7 :- complainant Smt. Sonia Thakur came to PS and registered her complaint of theft in her house. Upon her complainant, he prepared rukka Ex.PW6/A. He alongwith HC Dharampal and complainant reached the house No. D-150, DCM Colony, Ibrahim Pur ground floor and inspected the spot. He proved site plan Ex.PW6/B. He tried to search accused but no clue. Later on, he came to know that accused Dinesh Chauhan granted anticipatory bail in the court. Accused was given notice to join the investigation and accused was formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW6/C. He proved pointing out memo Ex.PW3/B.
12. PW7 Ms. Sushma deposed that she was a teacher in Nav Jyoti Public School since 2001. Ms. Sonia Thakur and her sister both were principal of the school and were care taker also. The owner of the above said school was Dinesh Chauhan. The said school was situated at ground floor comprising four rooms, kitchen and bathroom.
13. Thereafter, prosecution Evidence was closed. Statement of accused U/s 313Cr.P.C was recorded in which all the -: 8 :- incriminating evidence was put to accused explained to him in his vernacular language. He pleaded his innocence.
14. Final arguments were lead for state by Ld. APP and for accused Ld. Counsel leads the arguments.
15. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that state has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further stated that there are ocular and documentary evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused.
16. Per contra it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that public witnesses have not supported the version of the prosecution and complainant and other witnesses are hearsy witness. I have heard the state and accused and have perused the record carefully.
17. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defense of the accused. -: 9 :- Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
18. Offences alleged against the accused are for offence under section 448 IPC for house trespass, 380 IPC for theft in building, tent or vessel.
19. To prove house trespass prosecution had to prove peaceful possession with the complainant and witness to the fact that accused trespassed in the property. In present case it is admitted fact that accused was the owner of the property. Further complainant and witnesses were not present at the time of incident they are hearsay witness.
20. Prosecution has also failed to prove theft by the accused persons as witnesses did not saw accused taking away the goods Offence alleged to have been committed in broad day light and no neighbors were made the witness. Evidence was closed as complainant and eye witness did not appear for cross examination and all other eye witness turned hostile.
-: 10 :-
21. In light of above discussion no cogent evidence against accused has come on record. Accordingly, accused Dinesh Chauhan is acquitted for offence under section 448/380 IPC.
Digitally signed
NEHA
Announced in the open court GUPTA
by NEHA GUPTA
SINGH
On this 31st January 2019
Date: 2019.01.31
SINGH 16:15:18 +0530
Neha Gupta Singh
Metropolitan Magistrate-02,
North Rohini Delhi