Delhi District Court
Chatarpal vs . Jyoti & Anr on 6 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK KUMAR II, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CC No. 4998280/16
PS. Dabri.
U/s. 506/34 IPC
Chatarpal Vs. Jyoti & Anr
JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 4998280/16.
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08/07/2005.
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 31/12/2004.
D. NAME OF THE : Sh. Chatarpal
COMPLAINANT S/o Late Sh. Har Lal.
E. NAME OF THE : Jyoti Sharma D/o Sh. Daya
ACCUSED Ram Thekedar
2) Rama Devi W/o Sh.
Daya Ram Thekedar
3)Daya Ram Thekedar S/o
Late Sh. Sukhlal
F. OFFENCE
COMPLAINED OF : U/s 506/34 IPC
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquitted
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 06.04.2018
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant was allegedly criminally intimidated Chatarpal vs Jyoti & Anr P.S. Dabri, U/s 506/34 IPC No. 4998280/16 Page No. 1/5 by the accused persons namely Jyoti, Rama and Daya Ram Thekedar on 31.12.2004. In pursuance of aforesaid criminal intimidation complainant herein filed the present complaint case and lead pre summoning evidence and on the basis of pre summoning evidence vide order dated 26.11.2013 accused persons in the present case were summoned by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the copy of complaint and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused persons. Prima facie charge under section 506/34 IPC were made out against all the accused persons and accordingly, on 17.12.2014 the notice was framed against them by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said notice. Thereafter, the case proceeded for complainant evidence.
2. In the instant case in post notice complainant evidence two witnesses were examined on behalf of complainant.
3. CW1 Chatarpal was cross examined on behalf of accused persons wherein he deposed that he do not remember whether he had made a complaint to the police on 20.06.2005; it is correct that he filed the present case against the accused persons after the filing of DV Act case against him by the Jyoti; accused persons threatened him twice one at 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM; he did not tell about the alleged incident of threatening to him by the accused persons to any of his neighbours.
4. CW3 Bimla was cross examined wherein she admitted that no quarrel took place between her family member and Jyoti on Chatarpal vs Jyoti & Anr P.S. Dabri, U/s 506/34 IPC No. 4998280/16 Page No. 2/5 31.12.2004.
5. The complainant examined only two witnesses in support of his case. All the incriminating evidence against accused persons were put to them while recording their statements under section 313 CrPC. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Subsequently, the case was listed for final arguments.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. LAC for the accused persons. I have carefully perused the case file.
7. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
8. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients as mentioned U/s 506/34 IPC:
(i) That the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have criminally intimidated the victim/ complainant ;
9. It is pertinent to mention here that though the CW1 and CW3 were cross examined in the post summoning evidence but on careful perusal of the same, this court is unable to find whether the CW1 and CW3 Chatarpal vs Jyoti & Anr P.S. Dabri, U/s 506/34 IPC No. 4998280/16 Page No. 3/5 were examined in chief neither the pre summoning evidence of CW1 and CW3 was adopted as post summoning evidence. This court is of the considered opinion that there is no evidence on record against the accused persons. In the matter titled as Nabil Ahmed vs. State and Anr being Criminal Revision Petition no. 329 of 2017 decided on 30.05.2017 it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the evidence is to be recorded in the presence of the accused and there is no occasion for the pre summoning evidence being allowed to be adopted in as much as that would be a departure from the normal procedure and in the teeth of the requirement of evidence to be gathered in the presence of the accused. Even if for the sake of arguments, the cross examination of CW1 and CW3 is to be considered then also this court is unable to find anything incriminating against the accused persons. CW1 Chatarpal was cross examined on behalf of accused persons wherein he deposed that he do not remember whether he had made a complaint to the police on 20.06.2005; it is correct that he filed the present case against the accused persons after the filing of DV Act case against him by the Jyoti; accused persons threatened him twice one at 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM; he did not tell about the alleged incident of threatening to him by the accused persons to any of his neighbours and CW3 Bimla was cross examined wherein she admitted that no quarrel took place between her family member and Jyoti on 31.12.2004. Therefore, the version of the complainant as alleged by him remains unproved.
10. There is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against the accused persons to fix their liability under section 506/34 IPC. The Chatarpal vs Jyoti & Anr P.S. Dabri, U/s 506/34 IPC No. 4998280/16 Page No. 4/5 prosecution has failed to prove its case by leading convincing and cogent evidence and thus have failed to discharge the onus placed upon it. Hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
11. In the light of the above discussion, the accused persons namely Jyoti, Daya Ram and Rama are acquitted of the offences punishable under section 506/34 IPC.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DEEPAK KUMARII) Today i.e. 06/04/2018 MM06/DWK/NEW DELHI Chatarpal vs Jyoti & Anr P.S. Dabri, U/s 506/34 IPC No. 4998280/16 Page No. 5/5