Delhi District Court
State vs Pappu Kumar on 14 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OFSH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-09 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Pappu Kumar
FIR No : 41/2017
U/s : 52 r/w Section 58 Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020292782019
2. Date of commission of offence : 16.02.2017
3. Date of institution of the case : 20.06.2019
4. Name of the complainant : HC Rajesh
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Pappu Kumar
address S/o Vinod Singh,
R/o H. no.RZ-101/6,
Narsingh Nagar,
Khyala, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 52 r/w Section 58 of
Delhi Excise Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 14.10.2023
Argued by:- Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. R. P. Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 1 of 16
Digitally signed
Abhinav by Abhinav
Ahlawat
Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14
15:32:55 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 16.02.2017 at about 06:00 PM, on road going from Bakargarh Mor towards Gumenhera road Bakargarh Village, New Delhi, accused being registered owner of vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1LK-4135 which was being driven by accused S. Prabhakar (since not arrested) who was carrying 115 cartons of Impact Grain Whiskey 180 ml. 'for sale in Haryana only' having 48 quarter bottles in each carton totalling about 5520 quarter bottles which was being transported by him without any permit or licence and in contravention of notice issued by Delhi Administration and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 52 r/w Section 58 of Delhi Excise Act, for which FIR no.41/2017 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under Section 52 r/w Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 2 of 16 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:33:06 +0530 Section 58 of Delhi Excise Act was framed against the accused on 19.11.2019. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Retd. SI Ram Niwas PW-2 ASI Rajesh Kumar PW-3 HC Satish Kumar PW-4 HC Samundar Singh PW-5 HC Neeraj DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Rukka Ex.PW1/B Form M-29 Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo qua illicit liquor Ex.PW1/D Seizure memo qua tempo Ex.PW1/E Site plan Ex.PW1/F Letter regarding inquiry of ownership of offending vehicle Ex.PW1/G Notice u/S 133 M. V. Act Ex.PW1/H Arrest memo Ex.PW1/I Personal search memo Ex.PW1/J Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW2/P1 Confiscation order dated 31.08.2018 Ex.PW2/P2 Report regarding destruction Ex.PW2/P3 Photograph qua plastic sack Ex.PW2/P4 Photograph qua vehicle Ex.PW2/P5 Sample bottle ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.P/A/1 FIR no.41/2017 Ex.P/A/2 Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P/A/3 DD no.25A Ex.P/A/4 DD no.50B Ex.P/A/5 Excise Lab Report
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 3 of 16 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:33:24 +0530
5. PW1 Retd. SI Ram Niwas deposed that on 16.02.2017, on receiving DD no 25A he along with Ct. Satish reached at Bakhargarh Village, Gubhana Road, where they met HC Rajesh along with recovered illicit liquor and a tempo bearing registration no.DL-1LK-4135. There were 115 pettis in the said tempo of Impact Grain Whiskey sale in Haryana only. One bottles from each petti were taken for sample. The sample bottles were kept in a plastic katta and sealed with the seal of RN. The remaining bottles in the pettis were kept in plastic katta and same was sealed with the seal of RN. He recorded the statement of HC Rajesh and attested the same. On the basis of the said statement, he prepared rukka Ex.PW1/A. Form M-29 was filled up vide Ex.PW1/B and after registration of FIR, the recovered illicit liquor was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and the said tempo was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. He prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, he left the spot in custody of Ct. Satish and he along with other police staff went in search of accused person but could not find any accused person. Thereafter, the case property was kept back in the same tempo and brought to the PS. The case property was submitted to malkhana. The seal was handed over by HC Rajesh to him. He recorded the statement of witnesses. During investigation the case property was sent to Excise Laboratory and its report was received and put on record. During investigation, he had inquired about the details of the ownership of the offending vehicle vide letter Ex.PW1/F and upon receiving the report from the concerned department, the same was put on record. Thereafter, he served upon the accused/owner Pappu Kumar notice U/s 133 M.V Act Ex.PW1/G and received its reply upon the same notice which the accused wrote in his own hand Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 4 of 16 Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:33:35 +0530 writing in his presence. Thereafter, he arrested the accused Pappu Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/H, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/I and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/J. During investigation, he searched for the accused Prabhakar but no such person was found. He concluded his investigation and filed the present chargesheet against the accused before the Court. The witness has correctly identified the accused present in the court and the case property as Ex.PW2/P3 to Ex.PW2/P5. In cross- examination, he stated that the accused present in the court was not driving the vehicle when he reached at the spot.
6. PW2 ASI Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 16.02.2017, he along with Ct. Dinesh and Ct. Samundar were checking vehicles by putting barricades at Main Road, Bhakkar Garh at about 06.00 PM. A person came from the side of Guhana Village on vehicle bearing registration no. DL-ILK-4135 and seeing them checking the vehicles he stopped the said vehicle at a distance prior to checking point and ran away leaving the said vehicle. They went to the said vehicle and checked and it was found having illicit liquor in it. In the meantime, two police persons came there from Excise Department namely HC Jai Bhagwan and Ct. Samunder. The information of the said facts was shared to duty officer of PS Jaffarpur. Thereafter, SI Ram Niwas and Ct. Satish came to the said place. SI Ram Niwas recorded his statement. The illicit liquor was seized vide seizure memo and the said vehicle was also seized. The liquor was sealed with the seal of "RN". IO prepared site plan at his instance. The Driver of the said vehicle was not present in court. He proved the order dt. 31.08.2018 vide order no.Con.9658/2018/3538-3539 regarding the confiscation vide Ex.PW2/P-1. Report regarding destruction order dt.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 5 of 16 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:34:02 +0530 27.12.2018 at serial no.03 Ex PW1/P-2 and two photographs regarding plastic katta and vehicle vide Ex.PW2/P-3 & Ex.PW2/P-4 and one sample bottle of 180 ml of Impact Grain Whiskey sale for Haryana only with unbroken tap as Ex.
PW2/P5. In the cross-examination, he stated that the accused who was present in the court was not driving the vehicle and he was not present when the person driving the said vehicle left the vehicle at the said place.
7. PW3 HC Satish Kumar deposed that on 16.02.2017, he was on emergency duty with SI Ramniwas. Upon receiving information from the duty officer, he along with SI Ramniwas reached at near Bakkargarh Village at main Bakkargarh Gubhana Road where they met HC Rajesh and Ct. Dinesh and Ct. Samunder who produced one tempo bearing No. DL1LK4135 make Tata CNG and the colour of the said tempo was white. The said tempo was filled with illicit liquor. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of HC Rajesh Kumar. IO asked 3-4 passersby to join the recovery proceedings but none of them agreed to the same. Thereafter, the petties containing illicit liquor were taken out from the said tempo and he was sent to bring more plastic sacks. Thereafter, he brought the plastic sacks to the spot and handed over the same to the IO. At that time, the IO was sealing the quarter bottles of illicit liquor with the help of white cloth. Upon counting, a total of 115 quarter bottles of illicit liquor was found. The same were marked from serial no. 1 to 115 and were sealed with the seal of RN. Thereafter, the said quarter bottles of illicit liquor were kept in a plastic sacks while every two gatta peties were kept in separate plastic sacks. The plastic sacks were then sealed with the help of white cloth with the seal of RN. The plastic sacks were then marked serial no. 1 to 57. One gatta peti was kept in a Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 6 of 16 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:34:21 +0530 separate plastic sack and the same was sealed with the seal of RN and was marked serial no.58. The seal after use was handed over to HC Rajesh. Form no. M-29 was prepared at the spot. Thereafter, IO prepared to tehrir and got the FIR registered through Ct. Samunder. The illicit liquor and tempo were seized vide separate seizure memo. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Rajesh Kumar. Thereafter, the police officials went in search of the accused but no accused was found. Thereafter, the case property was kept back in the same tempo and brought to the PS. The case property was submitted to malkhana. The seal was handed over by HC Rajesh to the IO. In the cross-examination, he stated that the accused present in the court was not driving the vehicle when he reached at the spot.
8. PW4 HC Samundar Singh deposed on the lines of PW2 ASI Rajesh. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not know if the accused present in the court was driving the vehicle on the date of incident as he fled away from the spot.
9. PW5 HC Neeraj deposed that on 12.12.2018, SI Ram Niwas arrested the accused Pappu Kumar at the PS J.P. Kalan in his presence, personally searched him and recorded his disclosure statement. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the Hon'ble Court and was released on police bail. After the transfer of SI Ram Niwas, the further investigation of the present matter was handed over to him. The copy of the delivery receipt was verified by him and upon verification it came out that no such person by the name of Prabhakar had ever resided at the address mentioned upon the said delivery receipt. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Court.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat Date: FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 7 of 16 Ahlawat 2023.10.14 15:34:32 +0530 STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
10. 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 person was recorded on 20.05.2023 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case and sold the vehicle to Prabhakar on 27.12.2016. He further stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
11. 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.
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence 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 offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
13. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel 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 Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 8 of 16 Date:
Ahlawat 2023.10.14 15:34:50 +0530 the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
14. In order to sustain conviction under Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act, and specifically under section 52(2) of Delhi Excise Act. The prosecution is required to prove that the vehicle as owned by the accused was used in the commission of offence under this Act.
15. The accused has been charged for the offence of that his vehicle was used in the commission of unlawful transport of illicit liquor without any license, permit or pass.
It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act lays down a rebuttable presumption which goes as follows:
"Section 52. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:
1. In prosecution under Section 33, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily.
2. ........."
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
16. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal. The words "for the Digitally signed Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 9 of 16 Ahlawat Date: 2023.10.14 15:35:10 +0530 possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily" used in Section 52(1) of the Delhi Excise Act clearly reveal that as a pre-requisite for the presumption under the aforesaid provision being raised against the accused, it is imperative for the prosecution to successfully establish the recovery of the said alleged articles from the possession of the accused.
17. It is only after the prosecution has proved the possession of the alleged articles by the accused, that the accused can be called upon to account for the same. However, as discussed hereinafter, careful scrutiny of the evidence placed on record brings to light the fact that the case of the prosecution is fraught with multiple inconsistencies, rendering the prosecution version incredible, owing to which, no presumption, as provided for under Section 52 of the Act, can be raised against the accused in the present case.
The non-joining of any independent / public witness
18. It is evident from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that no public witness to the recovery of the liquor has been either cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or has been examined by the prosecution. It is stated by PW3 HC Rajesh that IO asked 3-4 passersby to join the recovery proceedings but none of them agreed to the same. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that public witnesses were not available at the spot. However, from a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made by the investigating officer. These facts are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as, Anoop Joshi Vs. State"
1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein it was observed as under:Digitally signed by Abhinav
Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 10 of 16 Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:35:21 +0530 ".........18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
19. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The State of Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:
"........The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner.
20. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly, the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but no serious efforts were undertaken by the investigating agency to join them. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 11 of 16 Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:35:32 +0530 the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the IO must have proceeded against them under the relevant provision of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non- joining the witnesses from the public is an afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful."
21. In fact, in this regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also accords assistance to the aforesaid finding, by providing that whenever any search is made, two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality are required to be made witnesses to such search, and the search is to be made in their presence.
Under Section 100(8) Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such non-willing public witness liable for criminal prosecution. Despite the availability of such a provision, no sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses in the present case. Therefore, non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law, even though public witnesses were easily available in the vicinity, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful.
22. This court is conscious of the legal position that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. As observed above, the testimony of the police witnesses in the present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation, evidence of an independent witness would have rendered the much-needed Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 12 of 16 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:35:42 +0530 corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution, as discussed above, and hereinafter.
Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer
23. As per the version of the prosecution witnesses, the case property and the samples of illicit liquor were sealed with the seal of "RN", the seal was handed over to HC Rajesh. However, HC Rajesh was the complainant himself and had apprehended the accused and was subsequently, a part of the investigation in the present case. PW1 Retd. SI Ram Niwas stated in his cross- examination that the case property was submitted to malkhana and the seal was handed over by HC Rajesh to him. Moreover, the seal handing over memo has not been prepared. There is nothing on record to suggest that IO had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent witness. In addition to this, there is no taking over memo on record to show as to when the seal was taken back. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
24. In this regard, judgment in case titled as Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
"....The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out. In the present case, the seal of Investigating Officer-Hoshiar Singh bearing impression HS was available with Maha Singh, a junior police official and that of Deputy Digitally signed FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 13 of 16 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:35:51 +0530 Superintendent of Police remained with Deputy Superintendent of Police himself. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with seals as well as seized contraband and samples cannot be ruled out."
25. Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
"9. ... The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused..."....
11. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to the independent witness P.W.5. Even the I.O. P.W.7 does not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out...."
26. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
v). Other infirmities in the prosecution case
27. Furthermore, doubts are raised with respect to false implications of accused from the fact that PW1 stated in his cross-examination that the accused present in the court was not driving the vehicle when he reached at the spot. PW2 stated in his cross-examination that the accused who was present in the court was not driving the vehicle and he was not present when the person driving the said vehicle left the vehicle at the said place. PW3 stated in his cross-examination that the accused present in the court was not driving the vehicle when he reached at the spot. PW4 stated in his cross-examination that he did not Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 14 of 16 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:35:59 +0530 know if the accused present in the court was driving the vehicle on the date of incident as he fled away from the spot. The accused is prosecuted in the present case as he being the registered owner of the vehicle used in the commission of the transporting the liquor without any valid license, permit. Although, during the course of investigation, notice under section 133 MV Act Ex. PW1/G was served upon the accused being the owner of the vehicle used in the alleged offence, which was duly replied by the accused, wherein accused submitted that he had sold the vehicle in question to one Prabhakar on 27/12/2016 but the vehicle was not transferred through valid documents.
Pertinently the offence in question is dated 16/02/2017. There is no other piece of evidence to show that the vehicle in question was at the spot with the illicit liquor as discussed in the preceding paragraphs and therefore, fact of the accused or his driver or the subsequent driver being present at the spot is shrouded with clouds of ambiguity and cast doubt over the actual presence of the vehicle at the spot, rendering the version of the prosecution unworthy of credit and giving rise to the suspicion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
CONCLUSION
28. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 15 of 16 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.10.14 15:36:07 +0530 prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
29. There is no gainsaying that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the accused for offence u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitling the accused person to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
30. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 52 r/w Section 58 Delhi Excise Act and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Pappu Kumar is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 52 r/w Section 58 Delhi Excise Act.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed on 14.10.2023 in the presence Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat 2023.10.14 Date:
of the accused. 15:36:14 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Metropolitan Magistrate-09, Dwarka, Delhi/14.10.2023 Note:- This judgment contains 16 pages and each page has been signed by me. Abhinav Digitally signed by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.10.14 15:36:24 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Metropolitan Magistrate-09, Dwarka, Delhi/14.10.2023 FIR No.41/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pappu Kumar Page 16 of 16