The extortion calls made by gangsters to the owners of Kumar Brothers are not new. In the past, the police acted on a complaint, arrested the accused gangster, but he was acquitted as the complainant did not appear before the court and the charges against the accused could not be proved due to a lack of evidence.
Ashwini Kumar, one of the owners of Kumar Brothers, filed a complaint with the police on April 17, 2018, alleging that he had received a call from gangster Sampat Nehra, who demanded Rs 3 crore from him.
In the complaint, he stated that on April 10, 2018, while returning home after closing his shop, he received a call from a mobile number. The caller identified himself as Sampat Nehra. He alleged that Nehra asked him to arrange Rs 3 crore and hand it over to two persons who would come to collect the money.
Ashwini Kumar stated that he expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount and instead offered to pay Rs 4 to 5 lakh, but the offer was rejected. He further alleged that he subsequently received another call demanding the money.
On the complaint of the local businessman, the police registered a case against Nehra, who was also alleged to be a member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang.
After investigation, the police arrested the accused and filed a chargesheet against him under Section 384 (extortion) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Sector-3 Police Station, Chandigarh.
Finding a prima facie case, the court framed charges against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
After hearing the arguments, the court, in its order delivered on February 12, 2024, acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him.
The court observed that it was the complainant, Ashwani Kumar, who could have deposed regarding the call allegedly received by him on April 10, 2018, and proved the complaint submitted to the police. However, the complainant did not step into the witness box.
The court further observed that there was no evidence on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Sampat Nehra who had threatened the complainant and demanded Rs 3 crore.
Moreover, there was no evidence that any payment had been made by the complainant to the accused. There was also no evidence, including call records or call details, establishing that the complainant had even received any such call, as alleged by him.
In these circumstances, the court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 383 of the IPC, as no delivery of property by the complainant to the accused had been established on record.
The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to discharge its initial burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Sampat Nehra alias Balkari was acquitted of the charges framed against him.
