Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

FIR No.  278/06              State Vs Nawal Kishore & Anr.                               2  of  23 PS : Kotwali

3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor and summons were issued to the accused.  Accused appeared   in   the   Court.   Compliance   of   Section   207,   Criminal Procedure   Code,   1973   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   'Cr.P.C.)   was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offences punishable under  Section 420/34, 468/34, 471/34, 384/34 IPC and Section 506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to  which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.  

33. Further,  PW­2, PW­4, PW­5, PW­6, PW­9,  PW­11, PW­ 12, PW­13, PW­14 & PW­15, the other public witnesses, have also not made any allegation to the effect that any of the accused had ever criminally intimidated any of them. In such circumstance, the material   on   record   is   not   sufficient   to   prove   the   charge   of   the offence under Section 506/34 IPC against any of the accused. 

34. The   accused   persons   have   also   been   charged   for committing offence punishable under Section 384/34 IPC. Section 384 IPC provides punishment for putting a person in fear of injury to commit extortion. Section 383 IPC defines extortion. The Section reads as under : 

37. None     of   the   other   public   witness   has   made   any allegations that the accused persons had put them under the fear of any injury and extorted money from them. In such circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove charge of the offence punishable under Section 384 IPC. 

38. The   accused   persons   have   also   been   charged   for committing offence punishable under Section 420/34 IPC.  Section 420,   IPC   provides   punishment   for   cheating   and   dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In order to constitute, offence under FIR No.  278/06              State Vs Nawal Kishore & Anr.                               19  of  23 PS : Kotwali Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused had deceived the complainant/victim dishonestly inducing him to part   with   any   property   in   his   favour   which   he   would   not   have parted but for the deception   played on him. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence is that there must be dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the time of making the representation to the complainant / victim on the basis which the complainant / victim part with his property. Intention must be dishonest and there must also be mens rea.  The offence is made up of two ingredients. Deception of any person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or two consent that any person shall retain any property. Therefore burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused persons had deceived te complainant   or   any   other   witness   and   that   the   said   person   had delivered any property to accused or to some other person under such deception. 

FIR No.  278/06              State Vs Nawal Kishore & Anr.                               22  of  23 PS : Kotwali

45. In the light of the discussions hereinabove, I hold that the   prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   its   case   against   any   of   the accused. The benefit of doubts is given to the accused persons as per   law.   The   accused   persons   are   therefore   acquitted   of   the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471/384/506  IPC.

46. The accused persons have already furnished bonds with one surety each under Section 437A, with photographs and copies of address proof.