Delhi District Court
State vs . Rahul And Others on 1 June, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02/WEST : DELHI
STATE Vs. Rahul and others
FIR No. : 525/2008
U/SEC : 420/419/506/384/471/417/511/34 IPC
PS Hari Nagar Delhi
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0082232009
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 1158/II/09 Date of commission of offence 18.12.2008 Date of institution of the case 20.02.2009 Name of the complainant Smt. Jyoti Kohli
Name of accused, parentage & 1. Parshuram s/o Sh. Naresh
address Bhardwaj r/o H. No. 297/23, Tri
Nagar, Delhi.
2. Rahul s/o Prem Messy r/o
CB32D, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi.
3. Anand Yadav @ Guddu s/o Sh.
Shobha Ram r/o B352, Village
Jharoda, Delhi Cantt. Delhi
Offence proved Sections 419/465/385/417/34 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of arguments 27.04.2013
Final order Accused Anand is acquitted.
Accused Rahul and Parshuram are
convicted.
Date of Judgment 01.06.2013
FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1 of 22
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case filed by SI Narayan Singh (hereinafter referred as IO) on the complaint of Smt. Jyoti Kohli (hereinafter referred as complainant) against Sh. Parshu Ram, Rahul and Anand Yadav @ Guddu (hereinafter referred as accused persons) for committing offences under sections 420/419/506/384/471/417/511/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 20.12.2008 DD No. 18A was registered at PS Hari Nagar at 02:00 PM to the effect that one person has been apprehended who entered into the house alongwith another person of one person namely Satish Kumar Khanna and claimed themselves as BSES employees. DD entry was handed over to IO who reached the spot alongwith Ct. Om Prakash. IO recorded the statement of complainant who stated that some persons came to her house on 18.12.2008 and claimed themselves to be BSES employees.
They threatened that they will raise the bill of Rs. 2 lacs as her meter was faulty. They demanded Rs. 20,000/ from her and also threatened with dire consequences. She paid Rs. 7,000/ to them out of fear. On 20.12.2008 when accused persons entered into the house of Satish Kumar Khanna, she identified them as the same persons who cheated FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 2 of 22 here on 18.12.2008. IO prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Om Prakash and FIR under sections 419/420/468/471/384/506/34 IPC was registered. Accused Parshuram, who was apprehended at the spot, was found in possession of one I Card of BSES Rajdhani duly stamped by Everest Engineering. Accused Parshuram was interrogated and he disclosed that accused Rahul was accompanying him who fled away from the spot. Accused Anand was also involved with them in similar kind of incidents which they had committed on earlier occasions. Motorcycle bearing No. DL3SAR3011 make Unicorn was also found at the spot which was being left by accused Rahul. After verification I Card of accused Parshuram was found to be fake and residential address given on the card was also found to be wrong. Subsequently, accused Rahul and Anand were also arrested.
3. In this back drop, charge sheet was filed after completion of investigation under sections 420/419/506/384/471/417/511/34 IPC against the accused persons on 20.02.2009. Copies under section 207 CrPC supplied to the accused persons. Charge was framed against the accused persons on 04.05.2011 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was put up for prosecution evidence. EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL:
4. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses to prove its case against all FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 3 of 22 the accused persons.
5. PW1 Satish Kumar Khanna deposed that accused Rahul and Parshuram entered into his house on 20.12.2008 and stated that they had come from BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., Hari Nagar for the purpose of inspection of electricity meter. They came on a motorcycle. During the inspection of the electricity meter, accused Rahul broke the seal of the meter to which Satish Kumar Khanna objected. Both accused threatened him that they will raise a huge amount of electricity bill, if Satish Kumar Khann will not give them some money for the settlement purpose. Satish Kumar Khanna again stated that he will call the police and when he was going to call the police, both accused threatened to kill him if he dare to raise alarm. Accused Parshuram was apprehended at the spot alongwith the help of neighbours. Accused Rahul managed to flee away from the spot. He stated that accused persons had shown their I Card of BSES when they entered into his house. Accused Parshuram was handed over alongwith motorcycle and I Card to the police. He correctly identified the accused persons and the fake I Card and exhibited the I Card as Ex. P1. Identity of motorcycle has not been disputed by the accused persons.
In his cross examination done on behalf of accused Parshuram, witness stated that at the time of incident accused persons did not FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 4 of 22 intimidate him and the police was not called by him. He further stated that apart from him, statement of any other family member was not recorded by the IO. In his cross examination he identified accused Anand as Rahul. He stated that police did the entire investigation while sitting in his drawing room and he does not remember whether he had signed on any other document or not. He stated that accused was apprehended by his neighbours and public persons but he failed to disclose the names of those neighbours and public persons. He admitted that he did not apprehend the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that accused Parshuram was not arrested from his house and was not involved in the incident.
In his cross examination done on behalf of accused Rahul he admitted that IO never called him after arresting accused Rahul for identification after the day of incident. He stated that he cannot identify accused Rahul as he is having similar face like of accused Anand and they resemble each other very much.
6. PW2 ASI Rajbir Singh exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW2/B.
7. PW3 Ct. Om Prakash accompanied the IO to the spot on 20.12.2008. He exhibited arrest memo of accused Parshuram as Ex. PW3/A, his personal search memo as Ex. PW3/B and seizure memo of fake I FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 5 of 22 Card as Ex. PW3/C.
8. PW4 Naryan Dass stated that A297, Hari Nagar is owned by him and he had never kept a tenant. He stated that accused Parshuram never stayed at his house and address given on fake I Card Ex. P1 is forged.
9. PW5 Rajender Singh Rathi stated that he worked with Everest Engineers and Consultants till 12.09.2007. He stated that their contract with BSES Rajdhani ended on 12.09.2007 and the I Card seized from the accused is showing validity from 01.05.2008 to 01.05.2009. He stated that no person namely Parshuram have ever worked with Everest Engineers and Consultant and I Card is a forged one. He stated that he had given one sample blank ID card to IO for comparison and the same was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW5/A.
10.PW6 Ct. Virender Singh was on patrolling duty on 20.12.2008. He reached the spot after arrival of SI Narayan Singh and Ct. Om Prakash. He stated that motorcycle was seized in his presence by the IO and seizure memo was signed by him. Accused Parshuram was arrested and personally searched in his presence. He correctly identified accused Parshuram. He exhibited the arrest memo of accused Anand as Ex. PW6/A and his personal search memo as Ex. PW6/B as he was also present when Anand was arrested later on. FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 6 of 22
11. PW7 Manjeet Singh, who had signed on the complaint in the capacity of independent witness, deposed as hostile witness. He stated that he signed one paper at the instance of police persons and he does not know what was written in that paper. He exhibited the complaint as Ex. PW7/A and admitted his signature on it. He also failed to identify accused Parshuram.
12.PW8, the complainant, deposed as a hostile witness. She stated that in December 2008 some boys came to her house and asked for money for faulty electricity meter but she did not pay any money to them. She stated that after two days of the incident at her house, she identified those boys in the house of her neighbour. She also stated that one boy escaped from the spot and they were able to apprehend one of them. She failed to identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. She admitted the fact that she gave a written complaint to the police. She denied the suggestion that she paid Rs. 7000/ to the accused persons as stated in her complaint. She also denied that accused Rahul and Parshuram were involved in the incident which occurred at her house. She denied that I Card was recovered from accused Parshuram on 20.12.2008, although one person was apprehended at the spot.
13.PW9 Ct. Naresh exhibited the arrest memo of accused Rahul as Ex. PW9/A, his personal search memo as Ex. PW9/B and disclosure FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 7 of 22 statement as Ex. PW9/C.
14. PW10 IO exhibited rukka as Ex. PW10/A, site plan as Ex. PW10/B, disclosure statement of accused Parshuram as Ex. PW10/C and disclosure statement of accused Anand as Ex. PW10/D. He deposed on the lines of investigation being carried out by him.
15.Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 10.04.2013. Statement of accused under section 281 CrPC read with section 313 CrPC was recorded on 22.04.2013 in which all the incriminating evidence was put to them to which they denied in toto. They also opted not to lead any defence evidence.
16.I have heard the final arguments put forth by ld. APP for the State and by Ld. Defence Counsels.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
17. Accused Rahul and Parshuram have been charged for committing offences under sections 420/419/506(I)/384/34 IPC on 18.12.2008 and for committing offences under section 420/419/506(II)/384/471/511/34 IPC on 20.12.2008. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Rahul and Parshuram alongwith other associates extorted Rs. 7,000/ from complainant on 18.12.2008 and when they tried to repeat the incident at the house of Sh. Satish Kumar Khanna, they were identified by the complainant. Accused Parshuram was apprehended and accused Rahul FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 8 of 22 ran away from the spot.
18.Role of accused Parshuram and Rahul in the incident of 18.12.2008. As far as allegations qua incident dated 18.12.2008 is concerned, the sole and star witness of the prosecution is the complainant. She has been examined as PW8 by the prosecution but she has deposed as hostile witness. She stated that some boys came at her house but she did not pay any money to them. She failed to identify the accused persons as the same persons who committed the offence at her house on 18.12.2008. She has been thoroughly cross examined by Ld. APP but she has not supported the prosecution version that accused persons were involved in the incident of 18.12.2008. She stated that she wrote the complaint at the instance of other public persons. Therefore, no evidence is available on record to support that fact that accused Rahul and Parshuram were involved in the incident on 18.12.2008 at the house of complainant Jyoti Kohli and therefore, they are acquitted for committing offences under section 420/419/506(I)/384/34 IPC on 18.12.2008.
19.Allegations under section 420/511/34 IPC against accused Rahul and Parshuram for incident of 20.12.2008. Accused persons have been charged under various allegations which are to be dealt separately. First of all lets take allegations under section 420/511/34 FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 9 of 22 IPC. Accused persons visited the house of PW1 Satish Kumar Khanna. The represented themselves as employees of BSES and shown their I Cards. Relying on their conduct PW1 Satish Kumar Khanna allowed them to enter his house and also to check electricity meter installed in his house.
20.Ld. Defence Counsel argued on behalf of accused Parshuram and Rahul that section 420 IPC is not made out against the accused persons as no property was handed over by the complainant to the accused persons and in absence of that a person cannot be convicted under section 420 IPC. It is further argued that alleged act of the accused persons does not fall under the category of committing cheating under section 420 IPC because they never demanded anything from the complainant. When ingredients of an offence are not complete, attempt of that offence cannot be termed as offence. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the allegations under section 420/511/34 IPC against the accused persons.
21. Before proceeding further I would like to reproduce section 415 IPC wherein offence of cheating has been defined.
Section 415 IPC. Cheating. "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 10 of 22 omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
22.After going through the definition of cheating, it reveals that it has two parts. Part one is made punishable under section 420 IPC when any person fraudulently or dishonestly induces somebody to deliver any property and the second part is that when any person intentionally induces a person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do if he was not so deceived. Applying the definition of cheating to the present set of facts, it is correct that accused persons did not demand any property from the complainant and same was also not delivered by the complainant to them. But second part of definition of cheating is applicable in this case. Accused persons claimed themselves as BSES employees and thereby deceived PW1 in a way that he allowed them to enter his house. They also shown their I Cards and acting on that inducement, PW1 Satish Kumar Khanna allowed them to enter his house and to check the electricity meter. He would not have allowed them to do so if he was not deceived by their inducement. Therefore, ingredients of second part of section 415 IPC are duly proved and same is made punishable under section 417 IPC.
23.As far as framing of charge under section 420/511/34 IPC is FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 11 of 22 concerned, in my considered view no prejudice has been caused to the accused persons by not framing of charge under section 417 IPC. They had full knowledge during the entire trial that they are being tried for cheating and moreover section 420 IPC is a major offence and section 417 IPC is minor offence. Therefore, not framing of charge under section 417 IPC is inconsequential to the merits of this case.
24. Ld. Defence counsel also argued that it is highly doubtful that accused Rahul was present at the spot and he was not apprehended at the spot. IO did not get conducted his judicial TIP during investigation. Therefore, prosecution is having a weak case against Rahul.
25. Three witnesses have been examined by the prosecution out of which only PW1 Satish Kumar Khanna has supported the prosecution case. He correctly identified accused Parshuram and Rahul in his examination in chief. Although he faultered in his cross examination when he identified accused Anand as Rahul. This is the major defence pleaded on behalf of accused Rahul that he has not been correctly identified by witness Satish Kumar Khanna.
In my considered view wrong identification by PW1 Satish Kumar Khanna in his cross examination is not detrimental to the prosecution's case. In his examination in chief he stated that accused Rahul pulled out the seal from the electricity meter. The reason for FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 12 of 22 wrong identification has been given by him as accused Anand and Rahul are having similar faces. It is not the case that PW1 had stated that accused Rahul was not involved in the incident or he cannot identify accused Rahul. As far as absence of TIP proceedings of Rahul is concerned, same is inconsequential. The purpose of TIP proceedings is corroboration of other evidence and testimonies. Moreover, a lacunae left in the investigation by the IO, cannot blow away the other relevant and proved facts against the accused. Motorcycle of accused Rahul was seized from the spot and this fact is against accused Rahul. Nothing has been explained by accused Rahul that how come his motorcycle reached the spot if he was not present with accused Parshuram on that day. In their statement under section 313 CrPC both accused stated that they were present at the spot on that day and their motorcycle got struck against one uncle which resulted into a scuffle. Accused Rahul fled away from there as public gathered over there. This is the only defence which has been put forth on behalf of accused that he was not present at the spot. The story weaved by accused Rahul is very weak. No suggestion has been given to any of the witness that there was an accident on that day. Accused persons were at liberty to lead defence evidence to support their theory of accident which is also not done by them. It seems that theory of accident is an afterthought which cropped into the minds of FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 13 of 22 accused persons only at the time of recording of their statement under section 313 CrPC. Moreover, no suggestion has been given to PW1 that accused Rahul did not pull off the seal of the electricity meter to counter the version of PW1 Satish Kumar Khanna given by him in his examination in chief. Therefore, presence of motorcycle of accused Rahul and no evidence to support the accident theory indicates towards only one conclusion that accused Rahul was present with accused Parshuram during the incident of 20.12.2008. It is also not the case of the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated out of enmity or with ulterior motive by the complainant or by PW1 Satish Kumar Khanna. Hence, keeping in view the evidence recorded during the trial, it is proved that accused Rahul and Parshuram had entered into the house of PW1 Sh. Satish Kumar Khanna after claiming themselves as BSES employees and same was allowed by him acting on their deception. Hence, they committed an offence under section 417/34 IPC.
26.Allegations under section 384/511/34 IPC. Both accused Parshuram and Rahul have been charged under section 384/511/34 IPC as they attempted to commit extortion from the complainant on 20.12.2008. Inadvertently charges have been framed under section 384/511/34 IPC, however separate section has been incorporated in the IPC to prove such kind of allegations i.e., section 385 IPC. Before proceeding FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 14 of 22 further I would like to reproduce section 385 IPC.
Section 385 IPC. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. "Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
27. Perusal of section 385 IPC reveals that if a person attempts to put any person under fear of any injury in order to commit extortion, he can be punished under section 385 IPC. Therefore, charge under section 384/511/34 IPC can be treated as charge under section 385 IPC. It is alleged against the accused persons that after checking the electricity meter at the premises of Satish Kumar Khanna, they threatened him that they will raise a huge amount of electricity bill but if he pay them some money then they will settle everything and he would not have to pay huge amount for his bill. Meaning thereby, accused persons put the victim Satish Kumar Khanna under the fear of injury (i.e., to pay a huge electricity bill) if their demands are not fulfilled by him. As per section 44 of IPC 'injury' means any harm caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. Applying the definition of injury given under section 44 IPC to the present set of facts, accused persons tried to inflict injury by raising a huge amount of bill and that can be termed as "property". Ld. Defence Counsel argued that ingredients of FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 15 of 22 section 385 IPC are not fulfilled as accused persons were not the employee of BSES and therefore, they were not able to inflict the alleged injury to the victim. If a person, who is not able to inflict injury then how come he can be convicted for putting any person under the fear of that injury.
The argument put forth by Ld. Defence Counsel is misconceived as victim was under the impression that accused persons were BSES employees at that juncture when the illegal demand was raised by them. At that time he was not aware that accused persons are not related to BSES Department. He was under that impression at that time and was actually under the fear of injury, he was under the threat and fear of injury to be inflicted by the accused persons. He had no suspicion on the accused persons as I Cards of BSES were shown to him by the accused persons. Victim Satish Kumar Khanna has stated in so many words that illegal demand was made by the accused persons. He has been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of accused persons but not even a single suggestion has been given to falsify the fact that illegal demand was made to extort money from him. The ingredients of offence was completed as and when demand was made by the accused persons and complainant came under the fear of that injury to his property. Therefore, I am of the considered view that prosecution has thoroughly proved allegation under section 385/34 FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 16 of 22 IPC against both accused persons.
28.Allegations under sections 419/511/34 IPC. Accused persons have also been charged under section 419/511/34 IPC but they should have been charged under section 419/34 IPC. Before proceeding further I would like to reproduce section 416 and 419 IPC.
Section 416 IPC. Cheating by personation. "A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is."
Section 419 IPC. Punishment for cheating by personation. "Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
29.Perusal of section 416 IPC reveals that a person is said to cheat by personation if he pretends himself to be some other person during the offence of cheating. The offence has been made punishable under section 419 IPC. In the earlier part of the judgment I have concluded that accused persons cheated the victim Satish Kumar Khanna and entered into his house. At the time of entering his house they pretended themselves as employees of BSES and shown their I card to support their identity. I Card of accused Parshuram was seized from FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 17 of 22 the spot and accused Rahul was accompanying him at that time. Prosecution has examined PW5 Rajender Singh Rathi who stated that no person namely Parshuram has ever worked with Everest Engineering and Consultant. The seized I Card has been forged. Ld. Counsel for accused Rahul argued that at the most accused Parshuram can be convicted but there is nothing on record against accused Rahul as he was not arrested from the spot and seized I Card does not belong to him.
The contention of Ld. Defence Counsel is of no avail as when the act is committed in furtherance of common intention by several persons then liability of that act would devolve on other also who were involved in the commission of offence with common intention. It is not mandatory for the prosecution to precisely prove each and every act of each and every accused. It is enough to prove that they were sharing common intention during the act and that is enough to make them liable for the offence committed by any of them. PW1 Satish Kumar Khanna also stated that accused persons pretended themselves as employees of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd and had shown their I Cards. Therefore, it is clear from the material available on record that accused persons committed the offence of cheating by personating themselves as the employee of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. The offence was completed when they entered into the house of the FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 18 of 22 complainant in the capacity of employees of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and that is enough to satisfy the requirement of section 416 IPC.
30.Allegation under section 471/34 IPC. Accused Rahul and Parshuram have been charged under section 471/34 IPC as one I Card of accused Parshuram was allegedly issued by Everest Engineering and Consultant to BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. was seized from him from the spot. As per section 471 IPC if a person is found using a forged document as genuine which he knowns or has reason to believe to be a forged, then he shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. To prove the fact that seized I card is forged one, prosecution has examined PW5 who worked with Everest Engineering and Consultant Pvt. Ltd. He stated that they had a contract with BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. till only 12.09.2007 but the validity on seized I card has been shown as 01.05.2008 to 01.05.2009. He also stated that accused Parshuram never worked with them. He stated that forged I card was not issued by their company and has been forged. To counter the deposition of PW5, it is argued on behalf of accused persons that PW5 got retired on 12.09.2007 and he joined the investigation in February 2009. At that time he was not an employee of the company. Therefore, he was not authorised by the company to verify the I Card. Therefore, this fact is not proved that I card is a forged one.
FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 19 of 22
The argument is inconsequential as the prosecution was to prove only the fact that I Card is a forged document. Perusal of seized I card reveals that residential address of accused Parshuram has been given as H. No. A297, Hari Nagar, Delhi110063. Prosecution has examined owner of the said house as PW4 who stated that accused Parshuram never resided in his house either in the capacity of owner or tenant at any point of time. Accused persons have failed to disclose one good reason that why PW4 is deposing against them. Photograph of accused Parshuram is also appearing on the I Card after scanning. This question is also left unanswered on behalf of accused Parshuam how come his photograph can be affixed on the said I card when he never worked with the said company. Therefore, the fact that accused Parshuram never worked with the company as stated by PW5, he never resided at the address given on the I Card and presence of his photograph leads to one conclusion that I Card is forged. Although it is not proved who had forged this I Card. But it is not case of the defence that photo of Parshuram was affixed by somebody else. Not even a single word has been said from the defence that forged I card was not used and was not recovered from Parshuram.
31. To prove the allegation under section 465 read with section 471/34 IPC, it is enough that I Card is forged document. In the commission of every crime, there is always a motive behind it. The motive behind FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 20 of 22 forgery of this I Card is to pretend accused Parshuram as the employee of BSES. Why would any other person forge this document when the same would have benefited accused Parshuram. Accused persons have failed to counter the deposition of PW1, PW4 and PW5. As accused Rahul was accompanying accused Parshuram at the spot and therefore, he is also liable to share the responsibility for using the forged document during the commission of offence as I card was used in furtherance of their common intention. Hence, in my considered view, both accused persons are liable for commission of offence under section 465/34 IPC.
32.Allegation under section 506(II)/34 IPC. Charge under section 506(I) IPC has also been framed against the accused persons but PW1 in his cross examination stated that he was not intimidated by the accused persons during the incident. Although he received a threatening call after the incident but he cannot say who was the person who called him. Therefore, there is nothing on record to suggest that accused persons criminally intimidated the victim during the incident and hence, they are acquitted for committing offence under section 506(II)/34 IPC.
33.Allegations against accused Anand. Accused Anand has been charged for committing offences under section 420/419/506(I)/384/34 IPC for the incident occurred on 18.12.2008. Therefore, the only FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 21 of 22 witness who could have proved the allegation against accused Anand Yadav, was complainant but she has not supported the prosecution case and she is in a way nullified the incident of 18.12.2008. She failed to identify the accused persons. Apart from her deposition, confessional statement of accused which was given to the police in custody but same is not sufficient to prove the allegations against accused Anand Yadav. Therefore, he is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.
34.Hence, keeping in view the above discussion and the material available on record, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove any allegation against accused Anand Yadav and he is acquitted accordingly. However, prosecution has proved its case against accused Parshuram and Rahul to the hilt, and therefore, I hereby convict them for committing offences under section 385/417/419/465/34 IPC.
35.Arguments on sentence shall be heard on 26.06.2013.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DHIRENDRA RANA
ON 01st June, 2013 MM02/WEST DELHI
FIR No. 525/2008 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 22 of 22