Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Verma on 3 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Deepak Verma and anr.
FIR No : 138/2013
U/s : 323/325/452/34 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020380982023
2. Date of commission of offence : 17.11.2023
3. Date of institution of the case : 05.08.2023
4 4. Name of the complainant : Kiranpal
5. Name of accused, parentage & : 1. Deepak Verma
address S/o Jai Prakash Verma
2. Vijay
S/o Jai Prakash Verma
Both R/o RZ-A-67A,
VPO Jafarpur Kalan,
New Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 323/325/452/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 03.12.2024
Argued by:- Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Aarin Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for accused
Deepak Verma.
Digitally signed
by Abhinav
FIR No.138/2013, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Verma etc. Page 1 of 7 Abhinav Ahlawat
Date:
Ahlawat 2024.12.03
15:43:12
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. The present judgment pertains to accused Deepak Verma only as proceedings against accused Vijay Verma abated vide order dated 27.05.2024.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2013 at about 08:00 am at the house of complainant Kiranpal Singh at H. no.69A, Jaffarpur Kalan Extentended Colony, New Delhi, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, committed house trespass by entering into the house of complainant having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant or for assaulting him or for putting him in fear of hurt or assault and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to son of complainant namely Tushar and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 323/325/452/34 of IPC, for which FIR no.138/2013 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
3. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused persons was filed. The court took the cognizance vide order dated 21.02.2024 against the accused persons and summons were issued to the accused persons. On their appearance, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). During pendency of the present case, accused Vijay Verma had Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.138/2013, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Verma etc. Page 2 of 7 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.12.03 15:43:18 +0530 expired on 25.02.2024 and present proceedings were abated against him vide order dated 27.05.2024. On finding a prima facie case against accused Deepak Verma, charge under Sections 323/325/452/34 of IPC was framed against accused Deepak Verma on 09.08.2024. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused person to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Kiranpal PW-2 Tushar Chaudhary PW-3 Prem Wati ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.138/2013 alongwith certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A2 DD no.26A dated 17.11.2023 Ex.A3 MLC no.6257/13 dated 27.01.2023 Ex.A4 MLC no.6257/13 dated 27.01.2023
5. Prosecution examined the following witnesses and the same are as follows:
PW1 Kiran Pal (complainant), PW2 Tushar Chaudhary (eye- witness) and PW3 Prem Wati deposed on the same lines. They deposed that due to lapse of time, they did not remember anything about the present case. They did not remember whether they gave any complaint/ statement regarding the said case. They all further submitted that they knew the accused persons as he is their neighbour. It is further stated that police officials obtained their signatures on some blank papers but they did not know about the contents of the said papers on which police Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.138/2013, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Verma etc. Page 3 of 7 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.12.03 15:43:25 +0530 officials obtained their signatures. As PW1, PW2 and PW3 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put them questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein they denied the suggestion that on 17.11.2013 at about 08:00 am, accused persons entered into their house with the preparation of causing hurt to them. They further denied the suggestion that accused persons had beaten complainant and when Tushar tried to save his father, accused persons also gave beatings to him. They further denied the suggestion that they were deposing falsely just to save the accused persons as they had already settled the matter with accused persons in the Mediation Centre.
6. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
7. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded on 01.10.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC, wherein he stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that no such incident ever happened. He further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No.138/2013, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Verma etc. Page 4 of 7 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.12.03 15:43:32 +0530 ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
9. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offences are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused person be punished for the said offences.
10. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused person has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused person be acquitted for the said offences.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE The provisions for which accused person is charged are as follows:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) says that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) says that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.Digitally signed by Abhinav
Abhinav Ahlawat Page 5 of 7 Date:
FIR No.138/2013, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Verma etc. Ahlawat 2024.12.03 15:43:36 +0530 Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) says that whoever commits a house-trespass, after doing some groundwork and preparation to hurt or attack an individual or to wrongfully restrain them, thereby causing assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of maximum 7 years and/or fine.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
11. It is a paramount tenet of criminal law that every accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus rested upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. The failure to do so would necessarily result in acquittal of accused. It has been held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1997) 3 RCR (Cri) 421:-
"5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 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."
12. At the outset, the entire narrative of prosecution hinges on the testimonies of PW1 Kiranpal, PW2 Tushar Chaudhary and PW3 Prem Wati as they were the victim and the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. Nevertheless, as noted hereinabove, all the said witnesses turned volte-faced and did not make even a slight implication against the accused person in their evidence as they failed to identify the accused persons as the assailants who trespassed into their house. Accordingly, the depositions of these witnesses accord no support to prosecution case as far as the indictment against the accused person is concerned. This casts a fatal blow to the case of prosecution as there is no other evidence, either ocular or documentary, direct or circumstantial, on record to even remotely indicate the involvement of accused person in the alleged incident.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No.138/2013, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Verma etc. Page 6 of 7 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.12.03 15:43:42 +0530
13. All the remaining witnesses are of formal nature who had merely participated during investigation and none having witness the incident as such. The upshot of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs is that neither the prosecution has brought any direct evidence nor such chain of circumstances as would point to an irresistible conclusion that the accused person committed house- tresspassed into the house of complainant Kiranpal having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant or for assaulting him or for putting him in fear of hurt or assault and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to son of complainant namely Tushar. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused person. As a sequitur thereto, the accused person stand entitled to benefit of doubt. Conclusion
14. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary, including the surrounding circumstances leads to the only conclusion that prosecution failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused person and benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused persons. Accordingly, accused Deepak Verma is held not guilty and hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323/325/452/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Announced in the open court
Digitally signed
by Abhinav
Abhinav Ahlawat
on 03.12.2024 in the presence Date:
Ahlawat 2024.12.03
15:43:49
of the accused person. +0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/03.12.2024
This judgment contains 07 pages and each page has been signed by me. Abhinav Digitally signed by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2024.12.03 15:43:56 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/03.12.2024 FIR No.138/2013, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Verma etc. Page 7 of 7