Delhi Court Acquits Man Accused Of Threatening To Kill PM Modi

Anand Parbat police had filed a chargesheet under section 506 (II) of the IPC against Mohd Mukhtar Ali for calling the helpline and using abusive language and death threats against the prime minister in January 2019.

Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation and its second part is slapped against those who make a threat to cause death or grievous hurt. Metropolitan Magistrate Shubham Devadiya said in and order passed last month that the crucial evidence to substantiate the charge against Ali was a handwritten general diary entry and the PCR form (a form about the contents or details of the call made to the police control room).

He said no explanation was provided by the assistant sub-inspector (ASI) concerned regarding the non-collection of the PCR form, which was material to prove the exact conversation or statement made by the person who made the call on the alleged date. In the absence of the form, the evidentiary value of the said GD entry was “feeble in nature,” he added.

Also, the number from which the alleged call was made was issued in the name of Surad Ali. The role of this person was not investigated and the ASI merely stated that he could not find the person, the court said.?

"This court finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record any evidence which could have shown or proved any statement in the form of threats to kill anyone has ever been made," Magistrate Devadiya said in an order passed last month.

"The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused stands acquitted of the charge," he added. The court also said that the seizure memo did not show recovery of any SIM card from the accused and no serious efforts were made for public witnesses to join the case.

During their cross-examinations, the ASI and a head constable admitted that they never served any notice to any public person so as to join them in the investigation, the court noted. The prosecution was also unable to show the intention of the accused to cause alarm to the victim, it said.

Referring to a 2000 judgment of the Delhi High Court, the magistrate underlined that mere bald and general assertions of threats to kill anyone are not sufficient in itself to bring a case under Section 506(II) of the IPC.

The magistrate noted the ASI's statement, according to which he had “implicated” Ali after calling the number from which the threatening call was made and the receiver of the number, who was Ali's brother, led him to the “discovery of the present accused.” This showed a “callous way of investigating” the case and “did not inspire much confidence in the prosecution's story,” the magistrate said.