Judgment 127-1997

:1:
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHUBIR SINGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02 (NORTH) DELHI
Case No. 2211ST106
Unique Case ID No.: 02401R0026711997
State v. Ayodhya Prasad
(Senior Citizen)
FIR No. : 127/97
PS: Roop Nagar
U/s. 506 IPC
Date of institution: 22.07.1999
Date of arguments:06.02.2013
Date of Judgment: 06.02.2013
JUDGMENT
a) Serial No. of the case 02401R0026711997
b) Date of commission of the 03.02.1997
offence
c) Name of the complainant Sh. Nishikant Thakur Manager
(Admn), Dainik Jagran, 501, INS
building, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
d) Name of the accused person, Sh. Ayodhya Prasad Tripathi Sb Sh
and his parentage and Beni Madhav Tripathi
Rio 62-A,
address. Kamla Nagar, Delhi.
e) Offence complained or proved 506 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order Acquitted
h) Date of such order 06.02.2013
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. The Prosecution case in brief is that on 01.03.1997, a zero FIR vide entry no. 14 A dated 18.02.1997 u/s 506 IPC PS Parliament Street,
FIR No. 127/97 PS: Roop Nagar Page 1 of 5

 

:2:
New Delhi had been received in the PS Poop Nagar to the effect that one Sh. Nishikant Thakur Manager (Administration) Hindi Daily Dainik Jagran had made a complaint to the said police station to the effect that one Sh Ayodhya Prasad on 01.02.1997 had threatened the editor of Dainik Jagran Newspaper
( namely Sh Narender Mohan Member Parliament). The alleged threat had been given in connection with a news clipping appearing in the Lucknow edition of the said paper by the aforenamed person showing his address of ; as Manav Raksha Sangh, 62A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. He had sent a letter showing his address as above and threatening that in case his order was not obeyed said Sh Narender Mohan would be cut into pieces and would be made bait of the dogs . It is further averred therein that on an earlier occasion i.e on 16.04.1996 also; at about 10.30 pm some so called Shiv Sainiks had intruded into the office of the aforenamed Hindi Daily and had given beatings to employees and had also caused damage to the property. Hence, the present complaint was lodged with the police.
2. After conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet/final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C dated 09.03.1998 was filed in the court and the accused was summoned in the due course
. The accused appeared on the very next date and was supplied with the requisite copies of the chargesheet and annexures thereof. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s 506 IPC was served upon the accused vide order dated 02.12.1999 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution got examined seven witnesses to prove its case and the PE stood closed vide order dated 23.02.2012. Here it is worthm entioning that the examination in chief of the main witness i.e complainant
FIR No. 127/97 PS: Roop Nagar Page 2 of 5

 

:3:
witness Sh Nishikant Thakur remained incomplete. It is also worth mentioning that no witness has been shown examined as PW-3.
4. SA u/s 313 Cr.P.C of the accused was recorded on
26.04.2012. During the course of SA the incriminating evidence put to the accused was denied. Accused opted for leading no evidence in his defence.
5. File perused. Counsels heard.
6. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are:
i) PW-1 SI Prithi Singh
Duty officer there at PS
Parliament Street; who had recorded the zero FIR as on
18.02.1997 on the written complaint of the complainant
Sh Nishikant Thakur.
ii) PW-2
- ASI Geeta Rani ; also happens to be the duty officer there at PS Roop Nagar who on receiving the zero FIR ; got recorded the present FIR ie FIR no. 127/97.
iii) PW-3
no witness has been shown examined as
PW-3.
iv) PW-4
lnsp Sunder Singh ; 10 of the case
v) PW-5
Sh Nishikant Thakur whose examination in chief is incomplete.
vi) PW-6
- HC Onkar Singh ; in whose presence the
accused had been arrested by SI Raghunath Tyagi (the
said SI Raghunath Tyagi has not been examined as a
witness)
FIR No. 127/97 PS: Roop Nagar Page 3 of 5

 

:4:
vii) PW-7
HC Jagjit Singh; who had deposited the documents in question with FSL, and;
viii) PW-8
- HC Minhazuddin ; who also happens to be a formal witness.
7. Perusal of the case file makes it clear that either the material witnesses were not examined or their testimony remained incomplete or the depositions which are there on record are not trustworthy. The complainant Sh Nishikant Thakur has been shown examined as PW-5
, however, his examination in chief was deferred for want of original documents. Thereafter, the prosecution failed to bring on record the requisite original documents as well as in calling the said witness for the purpose of concluding his examination in chief. Hence, his testimony cannot be read at all. The incomplete testimony of the material witness destroys the very base of the prosecution story.
8. Further, the accused is shown having been arrested by SI Raghunath Tyagi
. It is also part of the prosecution story that during the course of interrogation by the said SI the accused had made a disclosure statement and had also given the specimen handwriting and signatures to the said police official. However, the said police official SI Raghunath Tyagi was not at all examined as a witness for the reasons known to the prosecution itself.
9. Now, coming to the testimony of PW-4 lnsp Sunder Singh the
10 of the case
, it becomes clear that the very material documents i.e the alleged threatening letter , the specimen handwriting & signatures of the
FIR No. 127/97 PS: Roop Nagar Page 4 of 5

 

:5:
accused as well as the FSL result pertaining thereto, could not be brought on record
. The prosecution entirely failed to satisfactorily explain as to what happened to these documents and the FSL result thereof. In the absence thereof the accused is very much entitled to be acquitted of the allegations/charges levelled against him.
10. On the basis of the findings given herein above, it becomes crystal clear that the prosecution story cannot be believed at all and is bound to fail. Even the examination of the complainant witness remained incomplete. The material documents (i.e the alleged threatening letter, the specimen handwriting & signatures and the FSL result) also couldn’t be brought on record. The accused thus deserves to be acquitted.
11. Ordered accordingly.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court (RAGHUBIR SINGH)
today on
6th February, 2013 Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-O2lNorthlDelhi
FIR No. 127/97 PS: Roop Nagar Page 5 of 5

 

:6:
State v. Ayodhya Prasad (Senior Citizen)
FIR No. : 127/97
PS: Poop Nagar
U/s. 506 IPC
06.02.2013
Present: Ld APP for the state
Accused on bail with Id counsel
Arguments heard.
Vide separate and detailed judgment of this day, accused stands acquitted of the allegations levelled against him.
At this stage, accused has furnished personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-
. Same is hereby accepted as per the provision. His previous surety stands discharged and the previous bail bonds stand cancelled.
File be consigned to record room.
(RAGHUBIR SINGH)
Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-O2INorthIDel hi
FIR No. 127/97 PS: Roop Nagar Page 6 of 5

 

Comments