Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The present case arises from FIR No. 51/2012 registered at PS Nabi Karim on the complaint of Smt. Kavita, wife of late Sh. Rajesh Kumar, resident of T-144, Gali Hanuman Mandir, Nabi Digitally STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL KUMAR RAJ (Nabi Karim) SINGH KUMAR SINGH U/s:384/511/34 IPC Karim, Delhi. It is alleged that on 12.01.2012 at about 5.30 p.m. the accused persons, who are three real brothers, visited the house of the complainant, demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 and threatened that if the said amount was not paid, they would not allow the complainant to construct her house and would break the house and kill her and her children. The allegation is that this demand and threat amounted to an attempt to commit extortion, attracting Sections 384/511 read with 34 IPC.

INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

17. The accused are charged with offences under Sections 384/511 read with 34 IPC. For an offence of extortion, the prosecution must prove that the accused put any person in fear of injury Digitally STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL RAJ signed by KUMAR (Nabi Karim) SINGH SINGH U/s:384/511/34 IPC and dishonestly induced that person to deliver property or any valuable security. For an attempt to commit extortion, there must be clear evidence of intention to commit extortion and some act done towards its commission that is sufficiently close to the completed offence. In addition, where common intention under Section 34 IPC is invoked, there must be evidence that the alleged act was done in furtherance of a shared intention. The burden of proof is on the prosecution throughout. The standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

38. In the present case, the material on record does not inspire the degree of confidence necessary to hold that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, attempted to extort Rs. 50,000 from the complainant by putting her in fear of injury. In the absence of reliable, consistent and corroborated evidence of an attempt to commit extortion, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. CONCLUSION

39. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Manohar Lal, Padam and Madan Lal @ Maddi committed the offence of attempt to extortion punishable under Sections 384/511 read with 34 IPC. All the three accused are accordingly acquitted of the offences with which they were charged in FIR No. 51/2012, PS Nabi Karim.

40. The accused persons are already on bail. In compliance with Section 437A CrPC read with Section 481 BNSS, the bail STATE Vs. 1.MANOHAR LAL 2.PADAM 3. MADAN LAL (Nabi Karim) U/s:384/511/34 IPC bonds already furnished shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.