Delhi District Court
State vs . Saleem Etc on 3 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07 (CENTRAL), ROOM NO. 137,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. SALEEM ETC
C.C. NO. 08/09
P.S. RPF/POST TUGLAKABAD
Unique Case ID No. 02401R051872009
Date of Institution: 14.07.2009
Date of reserving judgment: 03.06.2014
Date of pronouncement: 03.06.2014
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.
a) Date of offence : 22.03.2009
b) Offence complained of : U/s 3 RP (UP)Act.
c) Name of accused, his parentage : (1) SALEEM
& residence S/o Aziz,
R/o Mohalla Ghamera, Nai Basti,
Bulandshehar, PS Kotwali Dehat,
Dist Bulandshehar, UP.
Also at Kacchi Kabad ki Dukan,
Primary School, in front of
Tehkhand village, PS Okhla Phase
I, New Delhi .
(2) VINAY
S/o Shri Pal,
R/o village Chakarpur, PS
Sikandarpur, Dist Kashiram Nagar,
UP.
Also at Kacchi Kabad in Dukan,
Primary School, in front of
Tehkhand village, PS Okhla Phase
CC No. 08/09
State Vs. Saleem Etc
PS- RPF/TKD Page 1/20
I, New Delhi.
d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
e) Final Order : Both acquitted.
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a complaint case filed by the officials of Railway Protection Force (RPF) under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), wherein it is alleged that accused Saleem, S/o Aziz and Vinay, S/o Shri Pal were found in possession of railway property (three helical springs and four EM pad plates) which was reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. The value of abovesaid case property in this case is Rs. 8500/ (approximately).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2009, while the RPF officials including PW2 HC Amrit Singh, PW3 ASI Ranveer Singh alongwith PW4 Ct Shyam Sunder and PW5 Ct Satyapal were on patrolling duty in the area of marshaling yard, TKD Station. They apprehended the accused persons on receipt of secret information and found three helical springs and four EM pad plates belonging to Railway in a plastic bag for the possession of which they could not produce any valid authorization. Accordingly, accused persons were arrested. Present crime case was registered against the accused persons and inquiry was conducted. After completion of the inquiry, complaint was filed in the court.
3. Since, the present complaint was filed by the public servant in CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 2/20 writing, recording of presummoning evidence was dispensed with. Precharge evidence was lead wherein the complainant examined PW1 S.K Parashar SE/C&W/TKD(NR), PW2 HC Amrit Singh (recovery witness), PW3 ASI Ranveer Singh (EO), PW4 Ct Shyam Sunder (recovery witness), PW5 Ct Satyapal (recovery witness). Additionally, in the post charge evidence, complainant examined PW6 HC Sita Kannojiya.
4. On the basis of precharge evidence so lead, charge for the offence under section 3 of the Act was framed against the accused persons vide order dated 16.02.2013 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. At the trial, in terms of Section 246 CrPC, the witnesses already examined in precharge evidence were recalled for crossexamination in postcharge evidence qua accused.
6. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 were part of the RPF team which apprehended the accused. All the witnesses deposed about the apprehension of the accused while in the possession of the railway property arrest and personal search of accused person vide memos Ex. PW2/A, PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C as well as recording of disclosure statements Ex. PW2/D. Witness also stated about preparation of handing over memo vide Ex. PW2/G, confessional statement vide Ex. PW2/F and site plan vide Ex. PW3/A. Case was registered vide DD No. 27 which is Ex. PW2/H. Inquiry was taken up by PW3 and after completion of inquiry, the complaint Ex. PW4/A was filed in the court.
7. PW1 S.K Parashar was the SE/C&W at Tuglakabad station. He CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 3/20 issued theft memo Ex. PW1/A. He also examined the case property and gave his detailed verification report which is Ex. PW1/B. The case property is EX. P3 [collectively].
8. Statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded on 03.06.2014 wherein they denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. They stated that nothing was recovered from their possession. They claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, they chose not to lead any evidence in defence.
9. It is in these circumstances that the Ld. PP for RPF has argued that the prosecution/complainant has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. He has primarily submitted that all the witnesses have supported its case and no contradiction can be seen in their testimony.
10. On the other hand, accused persons have submitted that they have been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from their possession.
11. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. PP for RPF as well as the accused persons and have meticulously perused the material available on record.
12. The present case has been filed under Section 3 of the Act which reads as follows:
"Whoever is found or is proved to have been in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 4/20 lawfully, be punishable
(a) for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees...".
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law in precedents titled as State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale [AIR 1979 SC 1825] and also in Om Prakash v. State of UP [AIR 2008 SC 1112], that the following ingredients need to be established by the prosecution in such cases to establish the guilt of the accused:
(i) the property in question should be railway property,.
(ii) it should reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, and
(iii) it should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property.
14. Before evaluating the evidence adduced on record by the complainant, it would be appropriate to discuss the background of the authority/powers granted to the complainant/RPF to prosecute the present complaint. The Railway Protection Force was constituted by the Parliament of India vide Railway Protection Force Act 1957, the Preamble of which "Act" mentions the reason for constitution of RPF as an armed force of the Union so as "to provide better protection and security to railway property, passenger area and passengers CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 5/20 and for matters connected therewith". In order to deal with the enormity of problems of theft and pilferages on railways, Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was enacted which conferred powers upon members of the RPF to arrest any person found in unlawful possession of railway property and to further conduct an inquiry under the said Act. After the conclusion of the inquiry, stipulated under Section 8 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966, complaints like the one in hand are filed before the concerned Illaqa Magistrates. Here it would be appropriate to discuss certain mandatory provisions/rules regarding the records to be maintained by the RPF in respect of theft of any railway property. In order to regulate the inquiry anticipated u/s 8 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966, certain rules have been codified under Chapter XIV titled "Investigation and Prosecution" of Railway Protection Force Rules 1987, prescribing, under Rule 222, that all the crimes affecting Railway Property have to be entered either in the localized crime register or the unlocalized crime register. (Localized Crimes are those where the actual place of offence is prima facie apparent from the inspection of the scene and Unlocalized crimes are those where actual place of crime cannot be immediately known or ascertained). The relevant part of said rule is reproduced below for ready reference :
222.5.... For the "Localized Crime Register", two summaries shall be prepared one shall be cause wise and the other commoditywise. The causewise summary CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 6/20 shall have its subheading as :
(a) Running Train Thefts;
(b) Yard Thefts;
(c) Goods Shed, Parcel godowns and Platform Thefts;
(d) Pilferages;
(e) Thefts of fittings from Rolling stock;
(f) Thefts of Railway Material including coal (except theft of fitting from rolling stock);
(g) Miscellaneous;
Each summary may have further subclassifications as may be prescribed through the Directives.
Similarly, under Rule 223 of RPF Rules, it has been provided that all seizures or recoveries of railway property shall be entered in malkhana register and an entry to that effect has to be made in the concerned crime register. It has been further provided under rule 223.2 of the RPF Rules that where the seized property cannot be linked to the railway property for which theft or shortage memo has been issued, the same shall be entered in Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act register. These rules categorically imply that the RPF is under an obligation to make the necessary entries in its records/registers regarding any intimation about the theft of any Railway Property. In the present case, neither at the time of alleged apprehension of the accused along with case property nor at the time of receipt of theft memo (which theft memo was received by the RPF CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 7/20 around three days prior to the date of alleged apprehension of accused) the RPF bothered to make the necessary entries in the prescribed registers as discussed above. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that security agencies like the RPF have been granted wide powers for the apprehension and arrest of offenders. This court is further aware of the fact that railway property is lying strewn all across the length and breadth of the country whereever railway network is available and so in order to channelize the powers and to restrict their misuse, certain rules regarding the conduct and procedure of the security agencies have also been prescribed. In the present case the RPF has blatantly violated the mandate of rules 222 and 223 of RPF Rules 1987 by not making the necessary entries, thereby bringing its motives under a cloud of doubt. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein it has been observed that :
"if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. "
It has been submitted by the Ld. PP that the purpose of maintaining Localized and Unlocalized crime registers is only to assess the quantum of crime regarding railway property and has nothing to CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 8/20 do with the enquiry anticipated u/s 8 of the Act. This court finds it difficult to uphold this argument raised by the Ld. PP as he fails to justify the enactment of said rules (Providing for maintenance of Localized and Unlocalized Crime Registers) under the only chapter dealing with investigation and prosecution by the RPF (i.e Chapter XIV). The Ld. PP submits that the said chapter XIV (Investigation and Prosecution) does not deal with the inquiry anticipated u/s 8 of the Act and the inquiry officers of the RPF are not supposed to follow any other rule except as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Ld. PP submits that the rules provided under Chapter XIV are to be followed by the "Investigation Wing" of the RPF and not the "inquiry officers". However, the Ld. PP has failed to justify the enactment of rule 231 in the same Chapter XIV wherein a specific provision has been made for prosecution of cases and disposal of seized or recovered property. Rule 231 is reproduced below for ready reference :
231. Prosecution of cases and disposal of seized or recovered property:
231.1Prosecution of cases: On completion of inquiry in cases where a criminal has been arrested in connection with any offence against the protection and security of railway property and matters connected therewith and where it is proposed to launch prosecution under the powers vested in the Force or it is proposed to close the case as there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 9/20 ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the case shall be entrusted to the Prosecution branch for scrutiny and conducting the same in a court of law.
231.2 The Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor as may be detailed for the purpose shall represent the railways on all matters connected with that case.
231.3 Custody and disposal of seized or recovered property: The custody and disposal of seized or recovered property shall be in accordance with the provisions contained in the Police Regulations of the State in which a post is located. The Chief Security Commissioner shall issue detailed instructions on the subject on that basis and in conformity with these rules.
Evidently, the Chapter XIV of RPF rules no where makes any distinction between the terms "investigation" and "inquiry". Infact Rule 231.1 provides for scrutiny of the materials collected by the RPF during inquiry before being forwarded to the Magistrate for trial and which rule is being followed diligently by the RPF, as admitted by the Ld. PP. If the RPF is following this Rule 231 diligently then it is difficult to understand as to why the RPF is reluctant to follow the other rules comprised in Chapter XIV. Chapter XIV appears to provide structural prerequisites of the inquiries to be conducted by the RPF. The use of word "inquiry" in rule 231.1 further fortifies the deductions CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 10/20 arrived at by this court because this complaint follows the inquiry conducted by the RPF subsequent to the alleged recovery of railway property. Accordingly, the argument raised by the Ld. PP is sans any merits and is rejected. The necessary corollary is that RPF ought to have followed the Chapter XIV of RPF Rules in the cases of recoveries enumerated thereunder.
15. The Ld. PP has now relied upon Directorate of Enforcement V Deepak Mahajan and Ors. 1994 CRI.L.J 2269 (SC) and submitted that the RPF is not supposed to follow any other rule except the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) while conducting inquiry. The Ld. PP has further qualified his above submission by stating that the RPF officials are not supposed to maintain even the case diaries as anticipated under the provisions of Cr. P.C. The Ld. PP further submits that the RPF officials are merely obliged to prepare certain documents as mentioned in para No. 112 of Directorate of Enforcement V Deepak Mahajan (ibid) and in the present case all such documents are available on record. This court has gone through the citation relied upon by the Ld. PP. The said citation deals with the powers of a Magistrate to remand any person arrested by the concerned authorities empowered under FERA, 1973 or Customs Act 1952 to custody although none of the said authorities could be termed as police officers and wherein there is a brief reference about the RPF also (RPF having been granted the powers of inquiry). It appears that the Ld. PP considers the term "inquiry", as mentioned in Section 8 of the Act, something new and CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 11/20 distinct from the routine term "investigation". It has been made clear in paras 114 and 115 of the Directorate of Enforcement V Deepak Mahajan (ibid) that the term investigation could not be limited only to police investigation but on the other hand the said word is with wider connotation and flexible so as to include the investigation carried on by any agency whether he be a police officer or empowered or authorized officer or a person not being a police officer under the directions of a Magistrate to make an investigation vested with the powers of investigation. Apparently the Ld. PP errs in considering the words to be having different connotations/meanings as an identical submission made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment was rejected in para no. 131 itself. Having observed that, this court shall now deal with the submission made by the Ld. PP that the RPF officials are not bound to follow any other rules except those provided by the Cr.P.C. Again the approach of Ld. PP is erroneous as Cr.P.C. does not prevent the RPF inquiry officers from following the rules laid down for conducting inquiry u/s 8 of the Act. Since Chapter XIV provides for maintaining Localized and Unlocalized Crime Registers, the RPF could not be exempted from making the necessary entries in the said registers. The RPF authorities ought to follow the rules laid down in order to keep a check on the impropriety,if any, of the inquiry officers. Moreover, the observations made in para no. 112 of Directorate of Enforcement V Deepak Mahajan (ibid) does not appear have been made in the context referred to by the Ld. PP. Infact, para no. 112 of the said judgment was apparently dealing with the CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 12/20 duties of authorized officers of Enforcement or Customs and not the RPF. It is not clear from the entire judgment as to if the Hon'ble Supreme Court was even apprised of the existence of certain rules prescribing the procedure to be followed by the RPF inquiry officers. There is only a passing reference about the RPF in the said judgment that too in para no. 114 of the said judgment. Accordingly, the observations made in para no. 112 could not be held to be "ratio decidendi" as far as the same are concerned with the preparation of certain documents by the RPF inquiry officers. Also this court cannot permit the RPF inquiry officers to devise their own procedures by upholding the submission made by the Ld. PP. Moreover, if what the Ld. PP argues is accepted and upheld, then the same would amount to a judicial declaration of the redundancy of said rules, which course would be absolutely inappropriate in the eyes of law. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that the submissions made by the Ld. PP do not hold water and are therefore rejected.
Now the Ld. PP has argued that a roznamcha entry had been made after the recovery of railway property and a copy of which is Ex. PW2/F which is sufficient for the purposes of this trial. It is further submitted by the Ld. PP that the roznamcha entry may be treated as sufficient compliance of the necessary procedures. In this regard, it has to be observed that the RPF has been mandated to proceed with inquiry, as anticipated u/s 8 of the RP(UP)Act, after making the necessary entries in Localized/ Unlocalized crime registers as provided under Chapter XIV of the RPF rules. In the present case the inquiry CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 13/20 was initiated on the basis of roznamcha entry after ignoring the mandatory procedural rules. The entry in Localized/Unlocalized register is the foundation of the inquiry anticipated u/s 8 of the RP(UP)Act. The RPF has failed to lay down the foundation of the inquiry and the necessary corollary is that the case of the prosecution has to collapse. In this regard the observations made by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed Vs KingEmperor AIR 1936 Privy Council 253(2) are very relevant. It was held in Nazir Ahmed's case (Supra) that "where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden". Applying the ratio of Nazir Ahmed's case (Supra), it has to be necessarily held that the inquiry conducted by the RPF after making roznamcha entry is rendered vitiated for the absence of entries in Localized/Unlocalized crime registers. Under no circumstances, the RPF could be allowed to deviate from the procedure set down by the statutory rules and therefore the roznamcha entry could not be treated as a substitute of Localized/Unlocalized registers. The deliberate noncompliance of prescribed rules by the RPF during inquiry casts a duty upon this court to scrutinize the evidence adduced on record by the complainant with extra caution and circumspection.
16. The case of the prosecution has many other weaknesses apart from the above mentioned technical shortcomings. The prosecution projects the DD Ex. PW2/F as the entry made in the roznamcha register after the arrival of the RPF staff consequent to the alleged CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 14/20 apprehension of the accused. However, the prosecution has not placed the relevant departure entries of the RPF staff vide which they left the RPF post for patrolling the area and later on allegedly apprehended the accused red handed. There is no justification forthcoming on behalf of RPF, to exclude the departure entries.
Further more, it is interesting to note here that the RPF officials who allegedly apprehended the accused along with the case property, did all the documentation (i.e preparation of seizure/arrest memo, disclosure statement, confessional statement) at the spot of apprehension of accused, but have nowhere explained as to why they were carrying the papers, stamp pad etc. while being on patrolling duty. It is not disputed that the patrolling parties of RPF are not obliged to carry the articles mentioned above while leaving the posts for patrolling. It is difficult to understand as to why the RPF officials were carrying the abovesaid articles in this case. The RPF officials have further failed to explain as to how they could complete/fill the said documents without any hard surface to place the documents on, as none of the documents available on record bear any mark of damage which is bound to occur in the absence of any hard surface to place the documents on at the time of scribing the proceedings upon them. This court is unable to comprehend the suspicious conduct of the said RPF officials. It is difficult to believe that the documentation allegedly done by the RPF officials was in fact done at the spot of apprehension.
Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the above CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 15/20 mentioned documents were prepared at the spot (as deposed by the recovery witnesses) still chances of prejudice could not be ruled out as the person who made the recovery from the accused, i.e PW1 also recorded the disclosure statement, prepared the pointing out memo and the site plan, recorded the confessional statement and got the roznamcha entry (regarding the arrest of accused ) recorded. It is pertinent to mention here that all the above documents were prepared by the said official in violation of procedure prescribed for inquiry under Appendix VIII (purporting to be Railway Board's order no. 73 See.Spl/Regn/Ch.XXV dated 09.07.1975) as annexed with a publication namely "Hasan Askari's Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 together with Railway Protection Force Act and Rules Revised by Vijay Malik, LLB., M.B.A." published by Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, reprinted 2000, page 283 placed before this court by the Ld. PP for RPF namely Sh. Dharmender Mehla. Rule 7 of the said procedure prescribes the preparation of a recovery memo only by the apprehending officer. The rest of the enquiry as envisaged u/s 8 of the Act is to be conducted by the enquiry officer and not the officers who apprehended the accused red handed. This conduct of the RPF is also contrary to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Megha Singh Vs State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709 in para no. 4, reproduced below for ready reference:
"4. .............PW 3, Siri Chand, Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 16/20 from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But it appears, to us that he was not only the complainant in the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation".
In this matter, PW2 not only apprehended the accused red handed but also proceeded further to conduct the inquiry anticipated under Section 8 of the Act. This Court has already raised doubts about the said documents prepared by the officials of the RPF who apprehended the accused. In view of the entire facts and the circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that chances of prejudice to the accused could not be ruled out in view of the fact that railway property is mostly lying unclaimed in open. The above mentioned conduct of the RPF in blatantly violating the prescribed procedures, if encouraged, would lead to anarchy. On account of this reason also the recoveries allegedly made from the accused could not be believed by this court.
17. Lastly, the only material that is left on record against the accused is his confessional statement allegedly recorded by the RPF officials at the spot of apprehension. Ld. PP for RPF has argued that the CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 17/20 confessional statement made by the accused to RPF is admissible in evidence. No doubt the confessional statement recorded by RPF officials is admissible in evidence as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bal Kishan A. Devi Dayal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 379. However, the observations made by the Hon'ble Court in Bal Kishan's case do not, in the considered opinion of the court, preclude this court from assessing the attending circumstances to ensure that the confessional statement was voluntary in nature or not. It is not disputed that the accused was apprehended after a brief chase by the RPF Officials who are presumed to have been uniformed and probably armed at the relevant time. This court fails to understand as to how a person allegedly apprehended by uniformed and armed RPF Officials (whose uniform is identical to the one worn by local/State police) could be free from any fear, mental pressure or be even headed at the time of making the alleged confessional statement or could confide in the RPF officials who were admittedly unknown to him. Moreover, the witnesses who proved the alleged confessional statements, are the persons who allegedly apprehended the accused and none of the said witnesses have reproduced the exact words stated by the accused at the relevant time which further brings their testimony under a cloud of doubt as per the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in C.K. Raveendran, Appellant v. State of Kerala, Respondent, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 369 wherein it has been laid down that the witness of an extra judicial confession has to state the exact words used by the accused at the relevant time and the CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 18/20 confessional statement of accused was recorded by the same RPF officials who were a part of the team which allegedly apprehended the accused redhanded. In these circumstances, this court could not reasonably believe the absence of any pressure upon the accused at the relevant time. This court has already held in the preceding paragraphs that the documentation done at the spot by the RPF officials is not entirely free of doubts. Extra judicial confessions like the one in hand are always considered to be a weak piece of evidence. In the absence of any corroborative material and the absence of any public/independent witness who could depose about the sanctity of the confessional statement available on record, this court is not inclined to act upon the same and convict the accused.
18. In view of the above mentioned observations, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution fails to prove the charges against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt as not only the recovery of the case property is clouded with doubts, even the procedural requirements have not been complied with by RPF without any justification as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. It is a settled legal preposition that in case of doubt, benefit shall be given to the accused. In case titled Pratap Vs State AIR 1976 SC 966 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"The right of the accused to obtain the benefit of a reasonable doubt is the necessary outcome and counterpart of the prosecution's undeniable duty to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that this right is available to CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 19/20 the accused even if he fails to discharge his own duty to prove fully the exception pleaded".
In case titled Surender Kumar & Anr Vs The State, 2007 (2) JCC 1003 it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
"Benefit of doubtwhere there is a reasonable doubt and when two incredible versions confront the court, the court should give benefit of the doubt to the accused and it is not safe to sustain conviction".
19. Eventhough, the ownership of the case property is not disputed as belonging to Railways but its recovery from the accused persons is doubtful. Accordingly, accused Saleem, S/o Aziz and Vinay, S/o Shri Pal deserves benefit of doubt and are accordingly acquitted of all charges.
Announced in the open court (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) this 03rd day of June 2014 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07 (CENTRAL)/DELHI CC No. 08/09 State Vs. Saleem Etc PS- RPF/TKD Page 20/20