Delhi District Court
State vs . Harish on 15 December, 2012
1 FIR No:338/2001
State Vs. Harish
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 338/2001
PS: Dabri
U/s 379/511 IPC
State V. Harish
Date of institution of the case : 23/06/2001
Date on which Judgment was reserved : Not Reserved
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 175/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 30.04.2001
c) Name of the Complainant : Sh. Balbir Singh
S/o Sh. Chhotu Ram
R/o S-33, Vishwas Park
New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : 1). Harish
S/o Sh. Kedar Sharma
R/o Village Ghaghar, PS:
Wazir ganj, Distt. Gaya,
Bihar
e) Offence complained of : U/s 379/511 IPC
2 FIR No:338/2001
State Vs. Harish
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 15/12/2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Sh. Balbir Singh in which he alleged that he is residing at H.No.S-33, Vishwas Park, Dabri, New Delhi. In front of his house, there was his vacant plot in which his two buffalows and one cow was tied up. On 30.04.2001 at about 11.30 pm, he heard the noise of chain of his buffalow. He awakened up and saw from the roof of his house that one person was bending towards the neck of his buffalow. He asked his son Naresh Kumar to see. When his son Naresh Kumar went into the plot, the accused tried to ran away but he was apprehended at the spot. At his complaint the present case was registered and after completion of 3 FIR No:338/2001 State Vs. Harish investigation challan was filed against accused the offence u/s 379/511 IPC.
2. After taking cognizance, the accused was summoned and charge for the offence u/s 379/511 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and trial started.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Five witnesses and has examined all the Five witnesses.
4. PW-1 Balbir Singh stated that about 6-7 years ago accused had attempted to commit theft in respect of his buffallow at plot in front of his premises S-33 Vishwas Park, accused was apprehended and handed over to the police, police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He narrated all the incident to the police and his son Naresh also joined him at that time. He had shown the spot of occurrence to the police. Site plan is Ex.PW1/B was prepared. 4 FIR No:338/2001
State Vs. Harish Accused was arrested. He do not remember the name of the accused and identity as on today due to lapse of time. It was night time and therefore he do not remember exactly the face of the accused.
5. PW-2 Naresh Kumar also stated the identical version as stated by PW-1 Balbir Singh.
6. PW-3 Ct. Tejpal Singh stated that on the intervening night of 30.04.2001 and 01.05.2001 he had accompanied IO HC Desraj Singh on receipt of DD No.5A, Ex.PW3/A, the spot of occurrence where IO recorded the statement of Balbir Singh and Naresh. Accused Harish was also produced by them. IO handed over him rukka to which he took to PS. On return he handed over the carbon copy of the FIR and original rukka to the IO. Accused was arrested vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/A and vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A. 5 FIR No:338/2001 State Vs. Harish
7. PW-4 SI Raghubir Singh who was working as Duty Officer stated that on 01.05.2001 at about 2.15 am he received rukka through Ct. Tejpal Singh on the basis of which he recorded the FIR Ex.PW4/A and also made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW4/B.
8. PW-5 ASI Desh Raj stated that on 01.05.2001 on receipt of DD No.5A he along with Ct. Tejpal went to H.No.S-33, Vishwas Park, Delhi where they met complainant Balbir Singh and Naresh. Complainant Balbir Singh produced accused Harish. He recorded the statement of Balbir Singh and prepared the tehrir and same was handed over to Ct. Tejpal for registration of FIR. After the registration of FIR he came back to the spot and handed over the carbon copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/B and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A and took his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the challan.
9. No other witness was examined by the prosecution. 6 FIR No:338/2001
State Vs. Harish Thereafter PE closed. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations against him and further stated that he does not want to lead any evidence in his defence. Therefore, DE closed and matter fixed for final arguments.
10. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused is the actual culprit who attempted to commit theft of buffalow of complainant and was caught red handed. Case of prosecution is totally proved and accused deserves maximum punishment. On the other hand accused stated that he is innocent and committed nothing wrong with the complainant. He is implicated in the false case. The story of prosecution is concocted and he is liable to be acquitted.
11. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and analyzed the statement of witnesses.
12. In the present case, there are two material witnesses 7 FIR No:338/2001 State Vs. Harish cited by the prosecution i.e. one complainant himself and another is eye witness who is son of the complainant. When these both witnesses appeared before the court to give their evidence as PW-1 and PW-2, these both witnesses not supported the prosecution case. These both witnesses could not identify the accused. When PW-2 was cross examined by the Ld. APP, then also he denied the suggestion that he deliberately not identifying the accused.
13. These both witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 also gave contradictory statement to the complaint Ex.PW1/A. In complaint Ex.PW1/A, detail circumstances and manner of committing the alleged theft by the accused is narrated by the complainant but when complainant as well as eye witness appeared before the court, they had not narrated the facts as of complaint but only stated that accused had attempted to commit theft. No exact day, month or year of the occurrence is stated by both witnesses. These things also makes their statements doubtful.
8 FIR No:338/2001
14. The other examined witnesses are only formal witnesses. PW-3 and PW-5 went to the spot when the incident already occurred and they only stated that when they reached at the spot, complainant handed over accused to the police. Regarding other facts of connecting the accused with the alleged attempt of theft, their statement is nothing more than a hearsay. PW-4 recorded only FIR. None of these witnesses independently or collectively capable through their testimony to link the accused with the alleged incident or with the offences charged against him.
15. There is no any other documentary or circumstantial evidence to corroborate the allegations of the prosecution that at the time of incident, accused entered into the plot of complainant where he attempted to commit the theft of his buffalow.
16. The above said discussion reveals that prosecution is miserably failed to prove its case against accused due to lack of evidence. Hence, accused Harish S/o Sh. Kedar Sharma stands 9 FIR No:338/2001 State Vs. Harish acquitted for the offence u/s 379/511 IPC in the present case FIR No.338/2001, PS: Dabri. Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the period of six month starting from today in accordance with section 437A Cr.P.C as no fresh bail bond furnished by the accused. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on this 15th day of December 2012 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 9 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
10 FIR No:338/2001
State Vs. Harish FIR NO: 338/2001 PS: Dabri U/s 379/511 IPC State V. Harish 15/12/2012 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused Harish is acquitted for the offence u/s 379/511 IPC. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI