Delhi District Court
State vs Subhash Gupta on 8 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS4
(SOUTHEAST),SAKET COURTS, DELHI
1. Unique I.D. No. : 97087/2016
2. Title of the case: : State Vs Subhash Chand Gupta
FIR No. 87/2010, PS Govind Puri
3. Date of institution : 06.10.2010
4. Date of reserving Judgment : 24.01.2024
5. Date of pronouncement : 08.08.2024
JUDGMENT :
(a) The date of commission 17.03.2010
(b) The name of complainant Sh. Mahender Yadav S/o Sh.
Shyam Lal, R/o TA 337/5, Gali
No. 5, Tughlakabad Extension,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
(c) The name & address of accused 1. Subhash Gupta S/o Sh. Om
persons Prakash Gupta, R/o TA-171/1,
Tughlakabad Extension, New
Delhi
2. Hari Prakash S/o Sh. Om
Prakash R/o TA-105/2,
Tughlakabad Extension, New
Delhi.
(d) The offence complained of U/s 454/392/411/34 IPC
(e) The plea of the accused persons Not guilty
(f) The final order Acquitted
(g) The date of such order 08.08.2024
FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. As per prosecution, on 17.03.2010 in between 11:30 AM at TA-105, TKD Extension, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Govind Puri, accused persons namely Subhash Gupta and Hari Prakash in furtherance of their common intention, committed house breaking in the aforesaid property with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant Sh. Mahender Yadav, who was in possession of the said property thereby committed an offence under Section 454/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). Further on above said date, both accused persons wrongfully restrained the complainant and snatched a lock and key by using force from the hand of the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC. Further on 18.03.2010 from the wine shop TA- 46, TKD Extension, New Delhi, one lock make Harrison and one key of that lock were recovered and they committed offene u/s 411/34 IPC.
2. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet and annexed documents, cognizance was taken and the both the aforesaid accused persons namely Subhash Gupta and Hari Prasad were summoned to face trial. On appearance of the accused persons, provisions of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") were complied with and after hearing arguments, charge qua the offence under Section 454/392/411/34 of IPC was framed against the aforesaid accused persons to which they pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial instead and accordingly, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In the present matter, PW1/Complainant Mahender Kumar stepped in the witness box and deposed that on 17.03.2010, he was working with Rameshwar Yadav as a FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta caretaker at TA-105, Gali no.2, Tughlakabad Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi. At about 11:00 am, when he was cleaning some junk articles from the godown, accused persons Subhash Chand Gupta and Hari Prasad and picked one lock and its key hanging there in the godown. Complainant requested them to give him back the lock and keys but they did not pay heed to it. Thereafter, he called PCR, in the meantime, the accused persons locked the godown with their own lock and took away his lock and keys as well as some articles like empty crate of soft drink, one sack of water bottle, one iron stand and one torn chair. Thereafter, police officials took him and accused persons in the PS where police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. On 18.03.2010 with the help of police they got back with possession of the property. PW-1 also identified the accused persons and case properties.
This witness was cross examined by counsel for both the accused persons wherein he deposed that he admitted that he did not use to visit godown regularly. He further deposed that when they snatched the key and lock, he called his owner and on the directions of his owner, he further called PCR. He further deposed that police had recorded is statement in PS. He deposed that the godown is used to keep the hardware stuff like pipe, tub etc and the same was there from the very first day when he joined this job. He further deposed that all the stuff was broken and sold off by the accused persons.
4. Sh. Rameshwar Yadav was examined as PW-2. He deposed that T-105, Tugalakabad Extension is a plot of nearly 110 gaj and due to an agreement dated 30.12.1992, 68 gaj out of 110 gaj was on the name of his brother Nagarmal. Out of 68 gaj, the possession of 30 gaj was handed over and amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid at the time of agreement and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be paid in between two years. One more agreement was effected on 30.12.1991, about the 45 gaj, which agreement was on the name of his sister Urmila Yadav. In 1991, FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta they converted that property into godown after construction. The 30 gaj property was also made to godown but that was an open godown and they kept the marble chips and SWR pipes at that place. Om Prakash Gupta and Somwati made the agreement with his sister that if they would not pay back the money to his sister then his sister would become the owner of that property and OM Prakash and Somwati would effect an registry in his sister's name. In the year 2002, he wound up his shop of sanitary and he went to Mount Abu for his spiritual liFe. On 22.05.2002, he became the owner of the godown through registered GPA. He dumped the remaining stuff of his sanitary shop into the godown. At that time, he employed Vijay to look after the godown. Whenever, Vijay used to open the godown, the accused persons always harassed his employee who informed him about the same on phone. In 2007, he employed one permanent caretaker namely Mahender Yadav for the godown. Accused persons used to harass his employee on his other property i.e. TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extention too. The accused persons picked up his stuff from his brother's godown and sold the same after making the doors from inside. The accused persons had broken the door of their godown and constructed a wall at that place. In between thus, they filed a number of complaints with the police. On 13.09.2008 accused persons picked up all the stuff from his godown and sold the same value of which was about Rs. 2.50 lacs. Elder brother of accused Subhash Chand Gupta called and told him about the entire incident. Thereafter, he came back to Delhi. When he reached there and saw that his godown was empty and accused was doing flooring in his godown. Thereafter, accused persons threatened him that if he will come there again they would kill him. Thereafter he went to PS Govind Puri and gave the complaint to police officials. On 13.09.2008, he again kept some stuff in the godown and repaired all the doors and locks. Then he again went back to Mount Abu. On 21.10.2008, accused persons sold the stuff which he kept in his godown.
FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta Thereafter, his employee Mahender Yadav went to the PS and told the entire incident to the police and police official made the Kalandra U/Sec 107/151 Cr. P.C. On 17.03.2010, accused persons again illegally took the possession of his godown. His employee called him and he advised his employee to make the call at 100 number. Thereafter, police officials came and apprehended the accused persons. In this matter FIR was registered, he also came back from Mount Abu. He got passed the electric meter from BSES but accused persons did not let the officials to install the same.
5. HC Vinod was examined as PW-3. He deposed that on 17.03.2010, he was posted as Ct. at PS-Govindpuri. On that date, DO handed over to him copy of FIR and tehrir to hand over the same to SI Sanjay Bhatt at TA-105, TKD Extension, Govindpuri, New Delhi. He went there and handed over the same to SI Sanjay Bhatt. Thereafter he left the place.
6. ASI Hasan Khan was examined as PW-4. He deposed that on 18.03.2010, he was posted as Ct. at PS-Govindpuri. On that day, he joined the investigation of this case with SI Sanjay Bhatt and SI Sanjay Bhatt recorded the disclosure statement of accused Subhash Chand as Ex.PW4/A. In his disclosure, he disclosed that, he had thrown the lock and key near the wine shop. Thereafter, at the instance of accused, he alongwith IO went to that wine shop, in between the way, they met complainant Mahender Yadav and he also accompanied them. Thereafter, the lock and the key were recovered from there at the instance of the accused. On lock "Harison" was written. On key also "Harison" was written. Thereafter, IO made the pullanda of the abovesaid case property and sealed the same with the seal of SB. He proved seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B. Before seizing and sealing the above mentioned case property, complainant Mahender Yadav identified the above mentioned case property. IO handed over the sealed pullanda to him and he deposited the same in the FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta malkhana. IO produced both accused persons before the Hon'ble Court.
7. HC Balinder Singh was examined as PW-5. He deposed that on 17.03.2010, he was posted as Ct. at PS Govindpuri. On that day, on receiving DD no.10 A, he alongwith IO went to the spot i.e 105/2, TKD Extension, New Delhi where they met complainant and accused persons at the place of incident and they all went back to PS, where IO recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared the rukka on the same and FIR was registered, on the same through DO. Thereafter, they went back to the place of incident and saw that it was locked. Thereafter, the lock was broken down and IO seized the lock and the kunda through seizure memo and sealed the same with the seal of SB and the seizure memo is already Ex.PW1/H. Thereafter, IO seized the stuff which was recovered from inside like plastic stand, a sack of water packs, one wooden plank, one rack of bingo chips and all the stuff were seized by IO vide memo already Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, they came back to PS alongwith that bags.
8. Inspector Ashok Giri was examined as PW-6. He deposed that in the year, 2008 he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Govind Puri. On 20.10.2008, he prepared a kalendra u/sec.107/150 Cr.P.C. against accused Subhash Chand Gupta as there was numerous complaints and PCR call regarding the dispute of property no. TA-105, Tughalkabad Extension, New Delhi. The details regarding the property were mentioned in the Kalendra which he filed before the Special Executive Magistrate, South-East District, Delhi and proved the same as Ex.PW6/A.
9. SI Jawahar Lal was examined as PW-7. He deposed that On 13.09.2008, he was posted as HC at police post Govind Puri. On that day, he was on day emergency duty i.e. 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. On that day, he received DD no. 11. After receiving FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta the same, he went to the place of incident, but the caller was not present there. However, one Rameshwar Yadav was present there and he gave him the statement that the caller namely Subhash Chand Gupta was making the false call to falsely implicate him and he further disclosed that he had the threat to his person and property from Subhash Chand Gupta. After some time, Subhash Chand Gupta came at the spot and he gave me one letter and disclosed that Rameshwar Yadav had the possession of the rear part of the plot and a case is already pending before the court and he made a false PCR call. Thereafter Subhash Chand Gupta started fighting and started threatening Rameshwar Yadav. Thereafter, he tried to stop Subhash Chand Gupta but he did not stop, thereafter, he apprehended him with the help of Ct. Jagjeevan. Thereafter, he disclosed the entire facts to my senior officials. After getting the opinion from senior officials, he prepared the Kalendra u/sec.107/151 Cr.P.C. vide DD no. 23 against accused Subhash Chand Gupta and proved the same as Ex. PW7/A.
10. SI Shiv Kumar was examined as PW-8. He deposed that on 17.03.2010, he was posted as SI at PS Govind Puri. On that day his duty hours were 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. On that day, at about 4.20 p.m., he received rukka from SI Sanjay Bhatt and he made the endorsement on the same vide DD no. 17/A which is Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter, he registered the FIR now Ex. PW8/B (OSR). After registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Vinod to hand over the same to SI Sanjay Bhatt as the further investigation was marked to him.
11. Inspector Sanjay Bhatt was examined as PW-9. He deposed that on 17.03.2010, he was posted as SI at PS Govindpuri. On that day, he received DD No. FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta 10-A, after receiving the same, he alongwith Ct Balwinder went to the place of incident, after reaching there he saw that complainant Mahender Yadav and the other party namely Subhash Chandra were present there. Thereafter, they all came to PS, complainant Mahender Yadav had given him his statement already Ex PW1/A. Thereafter, he had conducted the preliminary inquiry on the matter and after inquiry he had obtained the approval from senior officials. Thereafter, he had prepared the rukka on the same which is Ex. PW9/A and handed over the same to DO for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant went to the place of incident. In the meantime, constable came at the place of incident alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to me as the further investigation of the case was marked to me. Thereafter, he had prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex. PW9/B. During the investigation of the present case, he had interrogated the accused Subhash Chander Gupta and after interrogation, he had arrested him and conducted his personal search vide memos already Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/G. Thereafter, photographs were got clicked. Thereafter, he had seized the lock and one broken kundi after making the pullanda of the same by sealing the same with the seal of SB vide memo already Ex PW1/H. On the same day, he had seized few articles from there vide memo already Ex PW1/C. During the investigation of the present case, he had interrogated the accused Hari Prakash Gupta and conducted his personal search. Thereafter, on next day he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Subhash Chander Gupta which is already Ex PW4/A. Thereafter, he had recovered the lock and one key at the instance of the accused, the same was seized by him by making the pullanda of the same after sealing the seal of SB vide memo Ex PW1/B. Accused persons were produced before this Hon'ble Court and accused persons were sent to JC. On 19.01.2010, he had seized few documents from the complainant through seizure memo which is Ex FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta PW1/H. During the investigation of the present case, he had recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC and after completing the investigation of the present case, he had prepared the charge sheet and filed it before this Hon'ble Court.
12. Statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons on record.
13. Final arguments heard. Record Perused.
14. Firstly, to establish the offence u/s 454 IPC prosecution has to prove whether accused persons, in order to commit an offence or insult or annoy the complainant, committed criminal trespass if as described in section 445 IPC if they effects their entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say--
1. If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.
2. If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
3. If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house- trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
4. If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.
FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta
5. If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault.
6. If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.
15. The prosecution has failed to lead any evidence establishing that the accused persons committed criminal trespass in any of the aforementioned manners to commit an offence. PW Mahender deposed that accused persons came to the premise where he was cleaning after opening the same , which clearly indictes that the the impugned premise was already open , and the accused persons did not enter or quit the premise by using any of the aforementioned methods. Further it cannot be even made out whether accused persons even entered the premise as the prosecution case entirely rests on the sole testimony of PW Mahender who is an interested witness. Therefore prosecution has failed to establish the offence u/s 454 IPC.
16. In order to prove offence of robbery u/s 392 IPC, prosecution has to prove that accused persons committed theft and in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the accused persons, for that end, voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to the complainant death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
PW Mahendra deposed that on 17.03.2010 he was working for Rameshwar Yadav as caretaker of his godown located on TA-105, Gali No.2, Tughlakabad Extention, Kalkaji, New Delhi. At 11:00 am he opened the godown and was cleaning the same. Accused persons came and the key and lock were hanging there and both the accused persons picked up lock and key. He requested them to give it back ,but they FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta did not. Then he called the policewith whom he went to the police station . On 18.03.10 , with the help of police officials they got back possession of the property. Ld APP for the state after receiving permission of the court, asked PW Mahender a leading question through which PW Mahender was prompted into answering in the affirmative that he did not hang the lock and keys, rather accused persons snatched it from his custody. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused on the next date, he deposed that after opening the godown's lock with key, he hanged the same without specifying where exactly he hung the same and the accused persons came to the godown at 10:45 AM . In chief he deposed that he opened the godown at 11:00 am. Then he was about to lock the godown with his lock and key, accused snatched the lock and key from him . Then he first called owner the godown and then upon his instruction, called the police. PW Rameshwar deposed that on 17.3.10 PW Mahender called him and told him about the entire incident and he directed him to call the police.
17. In order to establish robbery, prosecution has to prove that accused in order to commit theft, voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to the complainant death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The complainant/PW Mahender, the sole eye witness and the alleged victim made inconsistent wavering statements. First stating that lock and key which was allegedly taken away by the accused was hanging somewhere and was taken by the accused. After due prompting by Ld APP he improved his deposition to stating that same was snatched by accused persons and made up a sequence of events through which accused persons allegedly snatched lock and key from him. When cross examined by the Ld Counsel for accused, he also changed the time of the alleged incident. The same is an improvement in the testimony which has to be FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta borne in mind.
18. Further he made vague and general accusations that accused persons took / snatched lock and key from where it was hanging/from his hand, without specifying which accused took what. He did not lead any evidence through which it can be established that accused voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to the complainant death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Therefore prosecution failed to prove offence u/s 392 IPC against the accused persons.
19. Finally to prove the offence u/s 411 the prosecution has prove that that accused persons dishonestly received or retained any stolen property accrued from aforementioned robbery. In order to prove the same, prosecution relied on the disclosure statement made by the accused Subhash Chand ie Ex PW 4/A wherein he stated that he threw the lock and key near near the wine shop and PW Mahender accompanied the IO to the wine shop from where the lock and key were recovered at the instance of the accused on which Harrison was written, which was duly identified by the complainant before being sealed in a pullinda. The first thing that is strange about this sequence of events is that as per testimony of PW5 HC Balbinder is that he went with the IO to the place of incident where they met the complainant as well as the accused persons, and along with them came back to the police station. Thereafter they went back to the place of the incident and saw that it was locked. Whether 105/2, TKD extention, New Delhi was locked and if so by whom, when they reached the place of incident or not was not clarified by any of the police officials in the charge sheet or by prosecution witnesses in evidence. He deposed in his cross examination as well that he reached along with the IO at about 11:45 AM FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta and found both complainant as well as accused Subhash Chand on the spot IO had in his evidence deposed that after preparing rukka and getting FIR registered at instance of the Complainant , IO had interrogated and arrested the accused and on the next day at instance of accused Subhash Chand's disclosure, recovery of lock and key was made from the wine shop, after which accused were produced before he court and sent to JC . What remains unclear is that if the accused was found at the spot by the IO , when did he get the chance and time to dispose of the lock and key belonging to the complainant, because after his apprehension by the IO at the spot , he remained in the custody of police till his production before the court. It seems highly unlikely , that accused would break in impugned premise, take the lock and key from the complainant and after commission of these offences, go throw the lock and key allegedly robbed from the complainant and then come back at the place of incident to be found by the police. Further he deposed that the lock on the gate was broken by the IO without any prior permission of any senior official . This can be corroborated through the deposition of the IO . PW IO and PW HC Balbinder both deposed that the lock and one broken kundi was seized by the IO after he broke the same, now exhibited as Ex PW1/H.
20. Furthermore, there is not a single public witness to the seizure memos of both the Harrison lock and key allegedly belonging to the complainant exhibited as EX PW1/B and the broken latch i.e. kundi and other lock on which "with freedom Harrison" was written exhibited as Ex PW1/H, other than PW Mahender who is an interested witness in the present matter. In absence of a single independent witness, recovery cannot be proved from the accused persons.
21. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta prosecution was required to prove the offence under Section 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The accused persons were successful in pointing out the deficiencies in the case of the prosecution. The recovery of the stolen property from the possession of the accused, which was the essential ingredient of the offence, is highly doubtful. The fact that independent witnesses were not joined, despite abundant availability, casts serious doubt on the version of the prosecution. Therefore, prosecution has been unable to prove that the Harrison make lock and key was even robbed by the accused persons and, let alone prove the genuineness of its recovery from the wine shop for securing conviction u/s 411.
22. Upon perusal of the entire prosecution evince, there is but one eye witness whose testimony cannot be relied upon as he is an interested witness. He acts at beck and call of his master i.e his employer PW Rameshwar. As per his own version he even made the call to the police only afte receiving instruction from PW Rameshwar which was duly corroborated by testimony of PW Rameshwar. PW Rameshwar on the otherhand is merely a heresay witness who was not present at the spot and who has deposed qua the on going civil litigation pending between the parties, therefore his testimony cannot be relied upon.
23. This Court has to examine the credibility of the witnesses to rule out any tainted evidence given in the court of Law. It was contended by learned counsel for the accused persons that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses in the present case and that the witnesses PW Mahender was PW Rameshwar's employee,thus his testimony can be influenced by those factors.
24. This Court is conscious of the well-settled principle that just because the FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta witnesses are related/interested/partisan witnesses, their testimonies cannot be disregarded, however, it is also true that when the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection.
25. In the case of Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381, this Court held that the testimony of such related witnesses should be analysed with caution for its credibility.
26.In Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701, this Court observed:
"29. The sum and substance is that the evidence of a related or interested witness should be meticulously and carefully examined. In a case where the related and interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny. However, this is only a rule of prudence and not one of law, as held in Dalip Singh [AIR 1953 SC 364] and pithily reiterated in Sarwan Singh [(1976) 4 SCC 369] in the following words: (Sarwan Singh case [(1976) 4 SCC 369, p. 376, para 10) "10. ... The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should 13 be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration."
27. Further delving on the same issue, it is noted that in the case of Ganapathi and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) 5 SCC 549, this Court held that in several cases when only family members are present at the time of the incident and the case of the prosecution is based only on their evidence, Courts have to be cautious and meticulously evaluate the evidence in the process of trial. It is thus settled that the evidence of the related witnesses have to be considered by applying discerning scrutiny.
FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta
28. This Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kalki & Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752, distinguished between the normal discrepancies and material discrepancies. This Court held that the Courts have to label as to which category a discrepancy can be categorized. The material discrepancies corrode the credibility of the prosecution's case while insignificant discrepancies do not do so.
29. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, this Court would hold that in the present case, there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
30. The prosecution has thus failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, owing to the substantial and material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the prosecution is considered wholly unreliable. Additionally, the prosecution has examined only related witnesses and not a single independent witness. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence does not prove the alleged offences against the accused.
31. Accordingly, the accused persons Subhash Gupta and Hari Prakash stand acquitted for the offence under Section 392/411/454/34 IPC.
Digitally signed
DEVANSHI by DEVANSHI
JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date: 2024.08.08
15:27:17 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (DEVANSHI JANMEJA)
COURT ON 08.08.2024 JMFC-04/SOUTH EAST/ SAKET EAST COURTS/DELHI 08.08.2024 FIR No. 87/2010 State Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta