Delhi District Court
State vs . Ashish & Anrs. on 25 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS MANSI MALIK,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NORTH-WEST-03, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State vs. Ashish & Anrs.
FIR NO. : 121/2019
U/S : 388/506/34 IPC
PS : North Rohini
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 3394/2019
b) Date of institution of the case : 12.06.2019
c) Date of commission of offence : 16.04.2019
d) Name & address
of the complainant : Sh. Anil Jain
S/o Sh. Murari Lal
Aggarwal
R/o House no. H-55,
Shakurpur Colony,
North-West, Delhi
e) Name & address of the accused : (1) Ashish, S/o Nawal
Singh, R/o 337, Village
Karala, Delhi.
(2) Deepak Mathur
S/o Sh. Aare Singh
R/o House no. 504 C
Village Majri, Village
Karala, Delhi
(3) Sunita @ Bina
W/o Sh. Ravi Kumar
@ Sanjay
R/o K-2/24-25, Budh
Vihar Phase-I, Delhi
FIR No. 121/2019 PS North Rohini State vs. Ashish And Anrs. page 1 of 5
MANSI byDigitally signed
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date: 2022.11.25
15:16:46 +0530
(4) Neema
W/o Anil Kumar
R/o A-2, Police Colony,
Mangolpuri Delhi
(5) Mohit Kumar
S/oSh.Krishan Pal Mathur
R/o House no. 984,
Village Karala, Delhi
f) Offence charged with : 388/506/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Arguments heard on : 25.11.2022
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 25.11.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused persons have been sent to face trial with the allegations that on 16.04.2019 at about 11:00 AM at bus stand, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi, the accused Neema who took lift from the complainant on his scooty and took him to a house situated at Budh Vihar from where he was taken to BSA hospital, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS North Rohini and it is alleged that all the accused persons demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant by threatening to falsely implicate him in a rape case and committed extortion by putting the complainant in fear of false implication and dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver Rs. 50,000/- and also criminally intimidated him and thereby the accused persons are alleged to have committed offence u/s 388/506/34 IPC.
FIR No. 121/2019 PS North Rohini State vs. Ashish And Anrs. page 2 of 5 MANSI byDigitally signed MANSI MALIK MALIK Date: 2022.11.25 15:16:54 +0530
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and a charge u/s 388/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
3. The prosecution examined the complainant Sh. Anil Jain as PW-1. PW-1 Sh. Anil Jain is the complainant and eye witness to the incident and has deposed about the extortion by threat of implication in false rape case as well as criminal intimidation. But during his examination in the court, the complainant did not disclose about the alleged incident of extortion and criminal intimidation and also he failed to identify the accused persons, therefore, he was cross-examined by Ld. APP on the point of identity of accused persons and about the incident in question but even after his cross-examination by Ld. APP, he failed to identify the accused persons and depose about the alleged incident. The complainant, therefore, failed to depose as per the prosecution version. Remaining witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses were formal in nature who were not present at the spot. Hence, PE was closed today itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors." 1996, JCC 07 has observed that:-"in a case, where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose FIR No. 121/2019 PS North Rohini State vs. Ashish And Anrs. page 3 of 5 Digitally signed MANSI by MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2022.11.25 15:17:00 +0530 of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date." Since, there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C read with Section 281 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with.
4. I have heard the arguments as advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused persons and have also perused the record.
5. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused persons. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
6. In the instant case, complainant/PW-1 was the only eye witness to the incident in question, but during his examination in chief, he did not identify the accused persons nor did he depose about the incident in question, therefore, he was cross- examined by Ld. APP, but even after his cross-examination by Ld. APP, he did not disclose anything about the incident in question. No other eye witness, except PW-1 was examined on behalf of prosecution to establish the identity of accused persons as perpetrator of offence of alleged extortion and criminal intimidation. The identity of accused persons are the FIR No. 121/2019 PS North Rohini State vs. Ashish And Anrs. page 4 of 5 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2022.11.25 15:17:07 +0530 most vital aspect of any criminal trial. The testimony of complainant as well as the other eye witness was therefore necessary for conviction of accused persons. It is the complainant or the eye witness who only could have deposed regarding the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of alleged offence. Since PW-1 refused to identify the accused persons as perpetrator of the offence, the offence u/s 388/506/34 IPC cannot be proved by the prosecution.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the allegations against accused persons and they are accordingly acquitted for the charges u/s 388/506/34 IPC as levelled against them. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open Court (MANSI MALIK)
MANSI MANSI MALIK
th Date:
on 25 Day of November, 2022 Metropolitan MALIK Magistrate 2022.11.25 15:17:12 North-West, Rohini, Delhi +0530 FIR No. 121/2019 PS North Rohini State vs. Ashish And Anrs. page 5 of 5