Delhi District Court
State vs . Jatin Pal & Anr., Fir No. 195/00, Ps ... on 10 October, 2013
State VS. Jatin Pal & Anr., FIR No. 195/00, PS Model Town, U/s : 384/34 IPC IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV, (DISTRICT NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. 195/00 PS: MODEL TOWN U/S: 384/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) JATIN PAL (2) SUDHIR TIWARI JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 933/07
B. COMPUTER ID NO. : 02404R0514252000
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 09.01.2002
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 16.02.2000
D. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : Sh. Gurmeet Singh
COMPLAINANT S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : 1. Jatin Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Man Mohan Singh
2. Sudhir Tiwari S/o Sh. R.S. Tiwari
F. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/s 384/34 IPC
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquitted
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 10.10.2013
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as unfolded from the chargesheet are that on 01.04.2000, Sh. Gurmeet Singh gave a written complaint alleging that on 16.02.2000 at about 7.30 p.m, accused Sudhir Tiwari along with a police personnel came to his audio cassette shop no.9, F14/26, Model Town, Delhi and Page no.1 out of total 5 pages.
State VS. Jatin Pal & Anr., FIR No. 195/00, PS Model Town, U/s : 384/34 IPC took some audio cassette and 2/3 CDs from his shop with the allegation that they are not genuine. The complainant has also alleged that accused Sudhir Tiwari also accompanied with the other accused namely Jatin Pal Singh, who was introduced as his colleague at Indian Music Industry. The complainant has alleged that both the accused persons started threatening him with the consequences implicating him in a false case and by putting the complainant under the said fear, they extorted Rs.24,000/ from him. Consequently, on the basis of statement given by the complainant Sh. Gurmeet Singh S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, the present FIR U/s 384/34 IPC was registered at PS Model Town, Delhi. On conclusion of the investigation the present challan under the aforesaid section was filed by SHO PS Model Town, Delhi.
2. In compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C the copy of the challan and the documents annexed with the challan were supplied to both the accused persons. Prima facie charge U/s.384/34 IPC was made out against both the accused persons. Accordingly, on 13.09.2011, the charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined only two witnesses.
4. Sh. Gurmeet Singh (PW1) is the complainant and he has deposed that in the year 2000, one police person alongwith one unknown person came to his shop i.e. shop no. 9, F14/26, Model TownII, Delhi and started searching his shop. He has further testified that they took 2/3 CDs and cassettes and told that they are not genuine. He has further testified that they threatened him to implicate him in a false case. He has further deposed that in the garb of said raid they extracted Rs. 24,000/ from him. He has proved his complaint as Ex. PW1/A. He has failed to identify either of the accused persons to be the perpetrator of the present offence. Thereafter, he was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the state, but despite that he persisted that the accused persons are not the culprits. Though, Page no.2 out of total 5 pages.
State VS. Jatin Pal & Anr., FIR No. 195/00, PS Model Town, U/s : 384/34 IPC he has admitted the correctness of his complaint Ex.PW1/A, however, he has testified that the names of the accused persons were supplied to him by one Mr. Pahwa. He has further testified that he had never seen either of the accused persons as none of them came to his shop. The said witness admitted his signatures on the arrest memo of the accused Jatin Pal, but continued that the said signatures were obtained by the police on blank form.
5. SI Manvender Singh (PW2) is the first IO and he has deposed that on 01.04.2000, he was posted as SI at PS Model Town, Delhi and on that day Sh. Gurmeet Singh (PW1) gave a compliant Ex. PW1/A to him regarding extortion against the accused persons namely Jatin Pal and Sudhir Tiwari and the investigation of the present case was marked to him. He has further deposed that during investigation he recorded the statement of witnesses. He has further deposed that on 22.07.2000, he was transfered and the case file of the present case was handed over to MHC(R), PS Model Town, Delhi. Thereafter, PE was closed.
6. Statements of both the accused persons u/s. 313/281 Cr.P.C were separately recorded. All the incriminating evidence were put to them. In the said statements they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are innocent. However, they preferred not to lead evidence in defence. Accordingly, the matter was listed for final arguments.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for both the accused persons. I have carefully perused the case file.
8. 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 the 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.
9. In order to sustain conviction of the accused u/s 384 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients as mentioned U/s.383 IPC : (I). The accused puts a person in fear of injury to such person or any other person ;
Page no.3 out of total 5 pages.
State VS. Jatin Pal & Anr., FIR No. 195/00, PS Model Town, U/s : 384/34 IPC (II). The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional; (III). The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security; and (IV). Such Inducement must be done dishonestly.
10. The foundation of the present case was laid down by the complainant PW1 Sh. Gurmeet Singh with his complaint dtd.01.04.2000, in which he has unequivocally mentioned the names of both the accused persons to be perpetrator of the present offence of extortion. He has admitted that the said complaint is in his handwriting and it bears his signatures. Accordingly, the said complaint is proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. His testimony regarding the incident of extortion has remained unimpeached and unrefuted. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the fact that on the alleged date, time and place the offence of extortion was committed.
11. Thus, the only point of contention that survives is regarding the identity of the accused persons. The complainant/PW1 Sh. Gurmeet Singh has failed to identify either of the accused persons to be the perpetrator of the present offence. It is not denied that the name of both the accused persons is categorically mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW1/A itself. However, PW1 Sh. Gurmeet Singh has advanced an explanation that the said names were supplied to him by one Mr. Pahwa as he personally or even by name did not know either of the culprit prior to the incident. The said witness had derived knowledge regarding the identity of the accused persons from a third unidentified and nonspecific person, who has not been examined as a witness in this case. Therefore, his complaint Ex. PW1/A is itself a hearsay statement and so even it is not admissible in evidence. Further, it is an admitted fact that the accused persons were not apprehended at the spot and the present complainant was made after unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly one and a half month. He has testified that he had never seen either of the accused persons at his shop. He has categorically denied that either of the said accused persons ever visited his shop Page no.4 out of total 5 pages.
State VS. Jatin Pal & Anr., FIR No. 195/00, PS Model Town, U/s : 384/34 IPC or they extorted Rs.24,000/ from him. Ld. APP for the state had crossexamined the said witness, but nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from the said witnesses. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the statement of the complainant/PW1 Sh. Gurmeet Singh and once he has failed to support the prosecution version regarding the identity of the accused, the entire case of the prosecution is bound to crumble like pack of cards.
12. In a criminal trial, the identity of the accused is most germane aspect and in absence of the proof of this indispensable aspect, the accused cannot be convicted for any offence. In the present case, none of the eyewitnesses including the complainant has identified either of the accused persons to be culprit of the present offence. Therefore, their identity has remained unestablished. Thus, there is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against either of them to substantiate the prosecution version. Hence, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of proving their culpability. Thus, they are entitled to benefit of doubt.
13. The prosecution has failed to lead clinching and conclusive evidence to indict either of the accused persons for the offence under which they have been charged. In view of the above discussion both the accused persons namely Jatin Pal and Sudhir Tiwari are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 384/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish fresh personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. They have submitted that their respective previous bail bonds and surety bonds be extended for the next six months. The said request is allowed and they are accepted for the next six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance . ANNOUNCED IN OPEN court today i.e. 10.10.2013 (DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Page no.5 out of total 5 pages.
State VS. Jatin Pal & Anr., FIR No. 195/00, PS Model Town, U/s : 384/34 IPC FIR NO. 195/00 PS: MODEL TOWN U/S: 384/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) JATIN PAL (2) SUDHIR TIWARI 10.10.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Both the accused persons namely Jatin Pal and Sudhir Tiwari on bail with their counsel.
The statements of both the accused persons u/s 313/281 Cr.P.C are separately recorded. Both the accused persons have submitted that they do not want to lead defence evidence.
Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, both the accused persons namely Jatin Pal and Sudhir Tiwari are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 384/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish fresh personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. They have submitted that their respective previous bail bonds and surety bonds be extended for the next six months. The said request is allowed and they are accepted for the next six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) MMIV/North, Rohini/Delhi 10.10.2013 Page no.6 out of total 5 pages.