Delhi District Court
State vs . Yogesh Bhadora on 30 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.03/2013
PS Shakarpur (Crime Branch)
State Vs. Yogesh Bhadora
(a) Sr. No. of the case 6002/2016 (new)
(b) Date of offence 10.12.2012 to 21.12.2012
(c) Complainant Krishna Kumar Sharma
(d) Accused, parentage and Yogesh Bhadora S/o Sh. Bhopal
address Singh R/o Village Bhadora, PS
Sarurpur Khurd, District Meerut U.P.
(e) Offence complained for Section 387 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of institution 04.09.2013
(i) Date when judgment was 30.05.2017 (announced on same day)
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 30.05.2017
J U D G M E N T
Brief Facts: On 21.12.2012, a written complaint was made to the
SHO, Police Station Shakarpur by one Sh. Krishna Kumar Sharma on which a DD entry no. 40A dated 21.12.2012 was recorded to the effect that complainant was having ancestral property at Mohalla Mothurpura, FIR No.03/2013 State Vs. Yogesh Bhadora Page No.1 of 5 Shikarpur, District Buland Shahar, U.P. where he has a Banquet Hall in the name of 'Anupam Farm House' and since the beginning of December 2012, he has been receiving threatening calls on his mobile number 9873903840 from some unknown numbers i.e. 8193876106, 8193876107 & 9058508472 by some Yogesh Bhadora and he was asking for a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs otherwise Yogesh Bhadora threatened to kill him and his family members. Consequently, an FIR was registered for the offence under Section 387 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, the final report (charge sheet) for the offence under Section 387 & 506 IPC was filed against accused Yogesh Bhadora. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material on record, one charge was framed against accused Yogesh Bhadora for the offences under Section 387 & 506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was put to trial and the prosecution examined total nine witnesses as under:
PW1 HC Hem Chand, Duty Officer PW2 Sh. Krishna Kumar Sharma, Complainant PW3 Sh. Wahid Ahmed, Public witness PW4 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Public witness PW5 Sh. Sheeshpal, Public witness. PW6 Sh. Sanjeet Singh @ Sanjay @ Sanju, Public witness PW7 Sh. Devender Singh, Public witness PW8 Sh. Bahi Miya, Public witness PW9 Sh. Sukhvir, Public witness
4. The matter was put to trial and the prosecution examined as many as 09 public witnesses including complainant. Complainant is claimed to be a FIR No.03/2013 State Vs. Yogesh Bhadora Page No.2 of 5 star witness but he did not support the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, PE was closed. Since no incriminating evidence came on record, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C was dispensed with. Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
5. I have heard the arguments addressed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for accused. File perused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
6. The law put into motion upon filing of a complaint by one Sh. Krishna Kumar Sharma to the effect that he was having a Banquet Hall and since December 2012, he has been receiving threatening calls from various numbers by one Yogesh Bhadora who has been demanding Rs. 10 lacs and threating to kill him if he fails to do so. Upon the said complaint, the present FIR was registered for the offence under Section 387 IPC. The Investigating Agency has placed on record voluminous call details of the mobile of complainant as well as the other mobile phones which were used for making calls to the complainant.
7. The prosecution already examined 09 witnesses but the most important amongst them is the complainant who has been examined as PW2 but unfortunately he did not depose anything material to the case of prosecution and simply stated that he does not know anything about this case. The complainant was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State at length but he denied important suggestions with regard to receiving of threating calls for FIR No.03/2013 State Vs. Yogesh Bhadora Page No.3 of 5 extortion/ransom or about making of a complaint (Ex.PW2/A). He also denied the suggestion that accused demanded Rs. 10 lacs from him or that he was won over by the accused.
8. From the aforesaid deposition of PW2 Krishna Kumar Sharma, it is clear that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences remained unproved.
9. Ld. APP for the State argued that there are various witnesses who proved the factum of ownership of the mobile phones which were used for making calls to the complainant and that the said mobile phones were used by the accused. But I am of the considered opinion that even if it is proved that the telephonic calls were made by the accused from different mobile phones of his friends/relatives to the complainant, in that case also it can be said that he had given the extortion/threatening calls since the said facts were the most important ingredients of the alleged offences which can be proved through complainant only who already turned hostile.
10. Moreover the record reveals that the Investigating Agency did not place on record the voice sample of the accused or the recording of any alleged conversation which contained the incriminating substance and accordingly, the accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of doubt/guess, howsoever strong it may be. It is also a settled preposition of law that there is difference in a doubt and a proof.
FIR No.03/2013 State Vs. Yogesh Bhadora Page No.4 of 5 Conclusion
11. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. Consequently, accused Yogesh Bhadora is acquitted from the offences under Section 387 & 506 IPC
12. At the request of accused, his bail bonds are extended for a period of six months as per Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Naresh Kumar Laka) on 30.05.2017. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (East) Karkardooma Courts : Delhi FIR No.03/2013 State Vs. Yogesh Bhadora Page No.5 of 5