Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/278/1990 on 6 June, 2007
(P/1)
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ,
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
FIR NO.278/90
u/s 420/506/34 IPC
P.S. Shalimar Bagh
JUDGMENT:
A SL NO. OF THE CASE : 96/92
B: DATE OF OFFENCE : on or before 22.3.1988
C: NAME OF THE : Vinay Kumar Jain
COMPLAIANT s/o Sh Balwant Singh
Jain
D: NAME OF THE : 1. Trilok Chand
ACCUSED S/o Shiv Charan r/o
Chhota Jogiwara,
RailwayRoad, Haridwar
(U.P)( expired)
2. Rajiv Kapoor s/o
Kulbhushan r/o H.no
46, Niranjani Akhara,
Haridwar, UP.
E: OFFENCE : U/S 420/506 /34IPC
COMPLAINED OFF
F: PLEA OF ACCUSED : PLEADED NOT
GUILTY
G: FINAL ORDER : Acquitted
H: DATE OF SUCH : 06.06.2007
ORDER
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
(P/2)
1. Accused Rajiv Kapoor is facing trial on the allegation of the prosecution that on or before 22.3.1988 at time not known at H.No 120, CP Block, Pitam Pura and other place as mentioned in the complaint , he alongwith co-accused Trilok Chand( deceased) in furtherance of their common intention cheated the complainant Vinay Kumar Jain by dishonestly inducing him to deliver the property belonging to him namely Rs 45000/- against a plot of land at Haridwar and executed a receipt but he was not the owner of the said property and further he alongwith co-accused in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal intimidation by threatening Sh Vinay Kumar Jain with injury to him and with intent to cause alarm .
2. After investigation the chargesheet was filed , prima facie case U/s 420/506/34 IPC was made out against the accused . After compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C. Accused Rajiv Kapoor was charged accordingly by this court to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Here it is pertinent to mention that during the trial of the present case co-accused Trilok Chand expired and proceedings against him stands abated.
3. The prosecution has examined three witnesses.
PW1 Retd HC Manohar Lal is the witness who accompanied the (P/3) IO during investigation . PW2 Ram Singh is the public witness who gave up the case of the prosecution and deposed that no quarell took place in his presence and no threat was given by the accused Rajiv Kapoor to the complainant. PW3 S.I Rameshwar Dass is the IO of the present case.
4. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused Rajiv Kapoor u/s 281 Cr. PC was recorded in which the defence of the accused was of denial simplicitor. However, he does not opt to lead any evidence in his evidence.
5. I have perused the record, heard the Ld APP and the ld counsel for accused .
6. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined three witnesses. PW2 Ram Singh is the public witness in the present case but he gave up the case of the prosecution and deposed that no quarell had taken place between Trilok Chand and Rajic Kapoor . He further deposed that name of these person were revealed by Vinay Kumar Jain. PW1 was cross examined by the ld APP . During his cross examination he has (P/4) denied the suggestion that accused Rajiv Kapoor extended any threat to the complainant . As far as the case against the accused Rajiv Kapoor is concerned, PW2 did not support the same.
7. Testimonies of the prosecution witnesses particularly, PW2 Ram Singh and PW3 Retd S.I Rameshwar Dass, IO of the present case shows that there is a material contradiction therein and which in turn does not inspired confidence . It creates doubt on the story of the prosecution and the complainant. Further , prosecution has not examined the complainant as he has expired whose testimony was of utmost importance to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The averments of the complaint remains unproved.
8. It is well known in criminal cases that it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt but in the present case , I find that the prosecution has failed to achieve this standard . In the present case , the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the contents of the charge as framed against the accused.
(P/5)
9. Keeping in view the above observation, facts and circumstances of the case, I am left with no option but to hold that prosecution has failed miserably to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, accused Rajeev Kapoor stands acquitted from the charge u/s 420/506/34 IPC . Surety stands discharged. Documents, if any be released after cancellation of endorsment.
10. File be consigned to record room.
(RAJESH KUMAR GOEL)
Metropolitan Magistrate
Announced in the open DELHI
court today i.e 06.06.2007
(P/6)