Delhi District Court
State vs Gulfikar on 30 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJEET NARAYAN, MM-02, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS/SHAHDARA, DELHI.
State Vs. Julfikar @ Danish
FIR No. 67/10
PS: Farsh Bazar
U/S: 451/506/509 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
ID number of the case : 75403/16
Date of commission of offence : 23.04.2010
Date of institution of the case : 24.07.2012
Name of the complainant : Rajiv Kumar, S/o Sh. Lokman Harit, R/o H.
No. 171, Gajju Katra Mohalla, Shahdara,
Delhi.
Name of accused and address : Julfikar @ Danish, S/o Sh. Yunis Khan, R/o-
Brahmpuri, Dadri, Noida, UP.
Offence complained of or proved : 451/506/509 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Order reserved : 06-09-2023
Final order : Acquittal
Date of judgment : 30-11-2023
FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off, the above captioned case FIR No. 67/10, PS Farsh Bazar. The case of the prosecution is that, the allegation against the accused is that on 23.04.2010, at about 10:30pm, at 171, Gajju Katta, Shahdara, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Farsh Bazar, accused Julfikar committed house-trespass in the house of complainant used as a human dwelling in order to commit the offence of criminal intimidation and accused also intimidated the complainant Rajiv Kumar while extending the threat to kill him and also insulted the modesty of sister of the complainant by uttering abusive words as well as by making abusive gestures and accused Julfikar was found with the possession of one country made pistol loaded with one live cartridge in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration and accused Julfikar also used the said katta by pointing towards the complainant, thereby accused Julfikar committed an offence u/s 451/506/509 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act. Accordingly, he stands charged for offence u/s 451/506/509 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 451/506/509 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act. On 24.07.2012, cognizance of offence was taken and copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 2 of 21 of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.05.2013, charge for committing offence punishable u/s 451/506/509 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act was framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. The prosecution has examined 08 prosecution witnesses in all in the present case. The deposition of witnesses is touched upon in brief as under to have a better appreciation of the case, which is follows:
(I) PW1 is Rajiv Kumar/complainant who has deposed in his testimony that in April, 2010, his sister told him that one boy Javed was annoying her by making call. PW-1 talked to accused Julfikar and warned accused Julfikar not to do such conduct in future.
After some days, in the morning, one razor (ustara) was found near the gate of his house. After some days, accused Julfikar entered into the roof of his house in the night, and tried to enter in the room but when PW-1 along with other persons went to the roof, accused managed to escape. After one month, his family members saw him in the Gali and tried to catch him but accused ran away. After some time, nephew of PW-1 caught the accused Julfikar near PS Farsh Bazar and one desi katta was found in accused's possession. Thereafter PW-1 complained to the police.
FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 3 of 21
Since, PW-1 was not disclosing complete facts, Ld. APP sought permission of court and cross examined the PW-1. PW-1 admitted that he made a complaint which is Mark-A. He admitted that on the day of incident when Ustra was found at the house of PW-1, accused called PW-1 and said that accused had placed said ustra. Accused Julfikar further told PW-1 that he will kill PW-1 and will throw acid on PW-1's children. PW-1 further admitted that accused told him that he will kidnap PW-1's sister Geeta from his house. PW-1 admitted that on 18.03.2010, accused came in front of PW-1's house and started using filthy language to PW-1 sister. On 23.04.10 at around 10.30 PM, accused came to the roof of PW-1 house with the help of the pipe line and started abusing PW-1 sister and she told to PW-1 that accused was standing on the roof of house and when PW-1 reached at the roof, PW-1 found accused there. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that when he tried to catch accused, he pointed desi katta at him and had said that he will take away the sister of complainant. PW-1 has admitted the suggestion that his younger brother Lokesh caught the accused from behind and accused tried to escape and fled away. PW-1 has failed to identify the desi katta which was brought sealed with seal of RS and opened before the court. PW-1 has admitted the suggestion that PW-1 made a complaint about the same. PW-1 has admitted the suggestion that police had prepared the sketch and measurement of case property in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that case property was sealed with seal of ALS in his presence and he was confronted with the statement Mark A from point A to FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 4 of 21 A1. Police had prepared site plan at the instance of PW-1 and also recoded statement of brother of PW-1, Lokesh and of some police officials in his presence. Accused was correctly identified by PW-1 during his testimony. Thereafter, PW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. LAC for accused.
(II) PW2 is Sh. Lokesh Hari who has deposed in his testimony that on 23.04.2009/2010, at about 10.30 PM, accused had entered in house of complainant through water pipe. After that, he had scuffle with his brother Rajesh Harit, his sister Geeta @ Gudiya and when accused tried to run away, public persons/neighbours gathered there and accused had fell down near the chowki Farsh Bazar and he took out a katta from his picket of jeans. Thereafter, accused was handed over to the police at PS Farsh Bazar.
Since, PW-2 was not disclosing complete facts, Ld. APP sought permission of court and cross examined the PW-2. PW-2 has admitted that his sister Gudiya had told him that accused used to call her and used to talk obscene things to her and a ustra was thrown by accused in house of PW-2, which was found in the house. PW-2 has admitted that when accused entered through roof in house, accused had made obscene gesture against PW-2's sister. After seeing the accused, sister of PW-2 told him that he is Javed who used to call her and talks obscene things. PW-2 had denied the suggestion that his brother Rajiv had tried to apprehend the accused and accused had pointed out a katta towards his brother and had threatened his brother to be FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 5 of 21 killed and her sister to be kidnapped. PW-2 was confronted with his statement given to police which is Mark X from portion A to A1 where it was so recorded. PW-2 had denied the suggestion that accused had threatened him. PW-2 was confronted with his statement given to police which is Mark X from portion B to B1 where it was so recorded. PW-2 has admitted that he had caught the accused from behind and neighbours namely Ramesh Chand and other neighbours had also gathered there. PW-2 had denied the suggestion that his brother had snatched the katta from accused and he was confronted with his earlier statement. PW-2 had proved the sketch memo of katta and cartridge which is Ex. PW-2/A, seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B, arrest memo which is Ex. PW-2/C, personal search memo which is Ex. PW-2/D, disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW-2/C. The case property was not identified by PW2. Thereafter, PW-2 was cross-examined by the Ld. LAC of accused.
(III) PW3 is Gudiya who has deposed in her testimony that in the year 2010, accused met PW-3 in the market and talked to PW-3 regarding getting clothes on concession. Accused also obtained her mobile number and also talked to her one or two times on her mobile number. Thereafter, accused frequently used to follow her and PW-3 told him not to follow her but he kept on following her and sometimes he used to pass bad comment against her. On 23.04.2010, at around 10:30 pm, accused entered in her house, through pipe line attached to the wall. On that day, accused entered the house by climbing the pipe of her house from roof side and entered into the same. After entering the house, FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 6 of 21 accused caught hold of her and took out a desi katta from the pocket of his wearing pant and warned to took her along with him. On this, PW-3 raised her voice for help and her brother Lokesh arrived and apprehended him. Her neighbors also gathered and thereafter, accused was taken to PS. Accused was identified by PW-3 during her testimony. Thereafter, PW-3 was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel. (IV) PW4 is SI Satyender who has deposed in his testimony that in the intervening night of 23-24.04.2010, Rajiv, Lokesh and Ramesh along with some other persons came to the PS and produced accused along with one desi katta with one live cartridge before the ASI Amrit Lal. IO ASI Amrit recorded the complaint of the complainant Rajiv and got the FIR registered. IO ASI Amrit Lal prepared the sketch of desi katta and live cartridge Ex.PW2/A and seized the desi katta and live cartridge in a pullanda Ex.PW2/B. The said pullanda was sealed with the seal of ALS. IO also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW2/E and effected his arrest vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C. Accused was identified by the PW-4 during his testimony and also identified the case property. Thereafter, PW-4 was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel. (V) PW-5 is Sh. Ramesh Chand who has gone completely hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution and he has not disclosed anything about the case. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State. Thereafter, PW-5 was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity given. FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 7 of 21 (VI) PW-6 is SI Shubhangi who has deposed in his testimony that he has brought the record of additional Deputy Commissioner Police-1, East District which is Ex. PW6/A. Thereafter, PW-6 was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel. (VII) PW-7 is Sh. Chaman Lal, Dispatch Rider, FSL, Rohini has deposed in his testimony and has produced FSL letter no. 322/DFSL/Court dt. 28.03.2023 which was reported by Sh. R. Suresh Senior Scientific officer ballistic of FSL Delhi. Thereafter, PW-7 was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
(VIII) PW-8 is ASI Satya Narayan who has deposed in his testimony and has brought the photocopy of section order u/s 39 Arms Act dated 23.10.2010 passed by Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police-I (Ms. IB Rani, IPS) which is Ex.PW6/A. Thereafter, PW-8 was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
5. Prosecution has examined 08 prosecution witnesses and PE was closed on 28.06.2023. Statement of Accused under Section 313 Cr.PC read with Section 281 Cr.PC was conducted on 18.08.2023 and all the incriminating evidences against the accused person have been put to them to which the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that the present case is a false and fabricated case and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The accused has chosen not to lead defence evidence and therefore, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 8 of 21
6. I have perused the record and heard the arguments. Sh. Vinayak Sharma, Ld. APP for the State has argued that material on record clearly points towards guilt of the accused. On the other hand, Ld LAC has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and there are material contradictions in the story of the prosecution. It has been stated that accused person has been falsely implicated in the present case by police along with complainant.
7. I have also carefully perused the record. The court has carefully examined the entire material available on record including the testimony of the witnesses from both sides recorded before the Court. After arguments were heard, matter was fixed for judgment.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
8. Before proceeding further, there is need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused persons. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rest on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 9 of 21 the accused persons. Also, it is no longer Res Integra that accused persons are entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused person to acquittal.
9. In the present case the charge for the offence U/s 451/506/509 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 Arms Act has been framed against accused. Before appreciating the evidence, let us first discuss relevant legal provisions given under Indian Penal code. A. Section 451 IPC provides punishment for House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.
"Section 451: House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment: Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years."
The essential ingredients to be proved to bring the act of the accused within the purview of Section 451 IPC are that: -
(1) The accused person had committed criminal tress pass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel which had been used as a human dwelling or used as a place of worship or as a place for the custody of the property.
(2) Accused persons has committed house tress pass over the property of another by FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 10 of 21 entering the said property or by remaining there at the said property with an intention to commit the offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person who has the possession of the said property so tress passed.
The genus of Section 451 IPC 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 442 IPC defines house trespass. Section 442 IPC reads as under: "Section 442. House trespass: Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit housetrespass"
Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass. Section 441 IPC reads as under: "Section 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".
B. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:
FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 11 of 21 "Section 503 IPC: 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.
Explanation. --A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
The essential ingredients to be proved to bring the act of the accused within the purview of Section 506 IPC is that:
(i) 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
(ii) 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.
C. Section 509 IPC provides punishment for use of word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Section 509 of IPC which reads:
"Section 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 FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 12 of 21 the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
However, in order to prove the offence U/s 509 IPC the following ingredients are required to be proved on behalf of the prosecution to convict the accused U/s 509 IPC, such as:
(i) intention to insult the modesty of a woman,
(ii) the insult must be caused:
(a) by uttering any word or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that the gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or
(b) by intruding upon the privacy of such woman.
D. Section 27(1) of Arms Act provides punishment for use of prohibited arms.
"27. Punishment for using arms, etc. (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to be fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
With regard to Section 27 Arms Act, it may be noted that the said section prohibits the use of arms or ammunition or other prescribed arms without a valid license FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 13 of 21 granted under the Arms Act or the rules made there under.
In this case, the accused has been charged with Section 451/506/509 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 Arms Act.
10. Now adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is the case of prosecution that accused has committed house trespass in the house of complainant and had criminally intimidated the complainant and has outraged the modesty of sister of complainant and additionally accused was found in possession of desi katta and he has pointed the said katta towards the complainant. On the other hand, it is the defence of accused that accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant.
Coming to the case of prosecution, prosecution has to prove that accused has entered into the house of complainant and has threatened the complainant and has insulted the modesty of sister of accused and also that a desi katta was recovered from the accused.
There are lot of contradictions and inconsistencies in the story of complainant and prosecution. Complainant/PW-1, Rajeev Kumar has deposed that accused Julfikar entered into the roof of his house in the night, and tried to enter in the room but when PW-1 along with other persons went to the roof, accused managed to escape. After one month, his family members saw him in the gali and tried to catch him but accused ran away. After some time, nephew of PW-1 caught the accused Julfikar near PS Farsh Bazar and one desi katta was found in accused's possession. Thereafter FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 14 of 21 PW-1 complained to the police.
PW-1 was cross examined and was put some leading question by Ld APP. PW-1 has deposed that on 23.04.10 at around 10.30 PM, accused came to the roof of PW-1 house with the help of the pipe line and started abusing PW-1 sister and she told to PW-1 that accused was standing on the roof of house and when PW-1 reached at the roof, PW-1 found accused there. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that when he tried to catch accused, he pointed desi katta at him and had said that he will take away the sister of complainant. PW-1 has admitted the suggestion that his younger brother Lokesh caught the accused from behind and accused tried to escape and fled away. PW- 1 has failed to identify the desi katta which was brought sealed with seal of RS and opened before the court.
The testimony of PW-1 is self-contradictory as he has deposed in his examination in chief that accused has fled from the roof and after one month when accused was found in the gali, his nephew had caught him near PS Farsh Bazar and one desi katta was found in his possession, but when leading question was asked to witness by APP, he has deposed that on 23-04-2010, he and his brother has caught the accused when accused was at the roof and was abusing his sister. Also, PW-1 has failed to identify the desi katta brought in the court and PW-1 has also turned hostile on the point that accused has pointed out the desi katta at him and has threatened him in examination in chief. Hence, the testimony of complainant is inconsistent with the FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 15 of 21 version of prosecution and not trustworthy and reliable.
Coming to the testimony of PW-2, who is brother of accused has deposed that on date of incident, at about 10.30 PM, accused had entered in house of complainant through water pipe, after that, accused had scuffle with his brother Rajesh Harit, his sister Geeta @ Gudiya and when accused tried to run away, public persons/neighbours gathered there and accused had fell down near the chowki Farsh Bazar and he took out a katta from his picket of jeans.
PW-2 was cross examined and was put some leading question by Ld APP. PW-2 had denied the suggestion that his brother Rajiv had tried to apprehend the accused and accused had pointed out a katta towards his brother and had threatened his brother to be killed and her sister to be kidnapped. PW-2 was confronted with his statement given to police which is Mark X from portion A to A1 where it was so recorded. PW-2 had denied the suggestion that accused had threatened him. PW-2 was confronted with his statement given to police which is Mark X from portion B to B1 where it was so recorded. PW-2 had denied the suggestion that his brother had snatched the katta from accused and he was confronted with his earlier statement.
Hence PW-2 testimony is inconsistent with the story of prosecution and of complainant, as he has stated that some public person has apprehended the accused, but it is the story of complainant that he and PW-2 has apprehended the accused. In his cross examination, he has deposed that he has not seen the accused intruding into the FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 16 of 21 house of complainant through pipe. Also, PW-2 has failed to identify the desi katta brought in the court and PW-2 has also turned hostile on the point that accused has pointed out the desi katta at complainant and has threatened him or his brother. Hence, testimony of PW-2 is in variance with that of PW-1 and story of prosecution and unreliable.
Coming to the testimony of PW-3, Gudiya, she has deposed that on 23.04.2010, at around 10:30 pm, accused entered in her house, through pipe line attached to the wall. On that day, accused entered the house by climbing the pipe of her house from roof side and entered into the same. After entering the house, accused caught hold of her and took out a desi katta from the pocket of his wearing pant and warned to took her along with him. On this, PW-3 raised her voice for help and her brother Lokesh arrived and apprehended him. Her neighbors also gathered and thereafter, accused was taken to PS. The testimony of PW-3 also is inconsistent with that of other main witnesses, as she has stated that accused took out desi katta and pointed at PW-3, that is before the raising alarm, but it is the story of prosecution that accused has pointed out katta at complainant and not at PW-3. Also, PW-3 has deposed that after she raised alarm, her brother Lokesh i.e., Lokesh arrived at the scene and apprehended the accused, but as per testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, first complainant/PW-1 has arrived and then PW-2 has arrived. Hence, the testimony of PW-3 is not consistent with the prosecution story.
FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 17 of 21 Another important witness, PW-5, Ramesh Chand has gone completely hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution and failed to identify the accused, although as per story of prosecution, he was present at the time when accused was apprehended and he has accompanied the accused to the PS. This has weakened the case of prosecution and created doubt on the story of prosecution as there is no independent witness apart from PW-5.
As far as charge of threatening the complainant is concerned, no witness has deposed regarding the same and has turned hostile, hence charge under Section 506 IPC remains unproved.
Concerning the charge under Section 509 IPC, there is no specific testimony of any witness as to how accused has abused the sister of complainant or has outraged her modesty on the date of incident, 23-04-2010. Hence, the allegations regarding Section 509 IPC are vague and unproved.
Concerning the charge under Section 25/27 Arms Act, complainant and PW-2 has turned hostile and has deposed that accused has not pointed out the katta at them and regarding the possession of desi katta, the recovery is doubtful as PW-1 and PW-2 has failed to identify the desi katta in evidence and also there is of contradictions in the story of witnesses regarding the recovery of weapon. Hence, charge under Section 25/27 Arms Act is unproved.
As far as main charge of house trespass under Section 451 IPC is FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 18 of 21 concerned, after the appreciation of testimony of main witnesses, the presence of accused inside or roof of house of complainant is not conclusively proved, as testimony of witnesses are not coherent and consistent in this respect. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 is full of inconsistencies and there is loophole in the story of prosecution. PW-1 has said that accused was apprehended in the gali by his nephew and no witness has clearly deposed that accused was apprehended at the roof. Hence the charge under Section 451 IPC in light of lack of evidence, also remained unproved.
Thus, considering the major contradictions as noted above, the case of the prosecution fails and it is clear that the offence u/s 451/506/509 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act remain unproved. Also, prosecution has not been able to conclusively prove the charges against the accused, hence the benefit of doubt should go to the accused as prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. 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. It is also a settled principle that thought there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused but considered as a whole, there is invariably a long distance to travel and whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, trustworthy and unimpeachable FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 19 of 21 evidence before an accused can be convicted. This principle of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble apex court in the following cases: Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637; Anil W. Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67; Reddy Sampath W. v. State of A.P, (2005) 7 SCC 603 and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P, (2006) 10 SCC 172.
Despite the weakness in the defence case, prosecution has to stand on his own legs, it can't rely on the weakness of defence and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution had to prove that the accused had committed house trespass, criminal intimidation, outraging the modesty and use of desi katta etc. However, the material witnesses are not completely reliable and independent witness has turned hostile, also there are other inconsistencies in the story of prosecution, hence prosecution has not been able prove its case. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record, on the basis of discussions aforesaid, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favor of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused. Hence, applying the legal position stated in preceding paragraph, the charges U/s 451/506/509 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act against the accused has not been proved.
CONCLUSION
FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 20 of 21
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, whereby the accused has become entitled to the benefit of doubt, accordingly, the accused Julfikar @ Danish is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 451/506/509 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act.
This Judgment contains 21 pages, each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437 A CrPC.
Announced and dictated directly (Ajeet Narayan)
into the computer in the open Court, MM-02 (SHD)/Delhi
on 30th November, 2023. 30.11.2023
FIR No- 67/2010 State v Julfikar Page No. 21 of 21