Delhi District Court
State vs . Suraj @ Machhar Sc No. 06 Of 2014 1/19 on 9 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE04 & SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS, SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 06/2014
Unique ID No. 02406R0081262014
FIR No. 105/2014
U/s 392/397/411/34IPC
PS : Okhla Industrial Area
State
Vs
Suraj @ Machhar
S/o Late Baleshwar
R/o Jhuggi No. S17/146,
New Sanjay Camp, OIAII,
New Delhi
Instituted on : 05.05 2014
Argued on : 02.03. 2015
Decided on : 09 .03 2015
J U D G E M E N T
1 Accused Suraj @ Machhar has been sent up for trial for the offences punishable u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC by the SHO of PS Okhla Industrial Area. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that on 12.2.2014 at around 11.15 PM at a place near jhuggies of CBlock, Okhla Indistrual Area, PhaseII, near under construction underpass, within the local jurisdiction of PS Okhla Industrial Area, accused Suraj @ Machhar, alongwith his two associates, namely, Bittu @ Chause and Bineet @ Binee (both JCL), in furtherance of their common intention had robbed the mobile phone make Micromax 455 containing SIM Card No. 9718986033 and wallet of the complainant Sh Rajesh Singh S/o Mata Bheek Singh State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 1/19 and while doing so, they had also threatened to cause hurt to him with a small knife.
3 The present case was registered on the written statement (asal tehrir) of the complainant. The accused persons were arrested and the mobile phone in question was recovered from the possession of JCL Bitto @ Chusa. The knife used in the commission of the crime was recovered at the instance of accused Suraj @ Machhar from his jhuggi. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the present accused for offences u/s u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC before the Court of Learned MM on 2.4.2014.
4 Since the other coaccused persons, namely Bitto @ Chusa and Bineet @ Binee, were stated to be juvenile, separate charge sheet against them was stated to be filed before the Juvenile Justice Board for their onward trial. 5 Case was committed to the Court of sessions on 01.05.2014. 6 Charge for the offences punishable under sections 392/394/397/34 IPC against the accused was framed on 15.05.2014 to which he had pleaded not guilty and had claimed trial.
7 In order to prove accusation against the accused, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses in all.
8 PW1 ASI Madan Pal, Duty Officer, had recorded FIR of this case. He had proved the copy thereof which was Ex. PW1/A. He had also proved his endorsement to this effect on the rukka which was Ex. PW1/B (Ex.PW1/A). He had further deposed that further investigation of the case was assigned to SI Praveen. State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 2/19 9 PW2 Sh. Rajesh Singh is the complainant/victim himself. He had deposed on oath that earlier, he was residing in the House of Pappu Chauhan, Chauhan Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar as a tenant and was working as Welder at Shed No. 49, Scheme 1, OIA, PhaseII, Delhi. He had further deposed that on 12th February 2014, at about 11:00/11:15 pm, he alongwith his collauges, namely, Gautam Ram and Jitender Mistri, after finishing their duty, were going to Village Tekhand at the house of Jitender on foot and when they were passing through Jhuggis and had reached near an under construction flyover, they had seen three persons sitting around a fire place (aag sek rahe the).
He had further deposed that one of those three boys had demanded a match box from him and upon his refusal to the same, those boys had caught hold of him. His colleagues Jitender and Gautam Ram tried to rescue him, but when knife was shown by one of those boys, Jitender and Gautam Ram ran away from the spot leaving him alone. Those boys thereafter took out his purse, which was having Rs.4,000/ & his Voter Card and mobile phone (make Micromax 455 of white colour touch screen having SIM Card No. 9718986033) from his pocket. One of those boys had also slapped on his face and thereafter, those boys ran away towards CBlock, PhaseII Jhuggis, after taking away his aforesaid robbed articles. 10 PW2 had further deposed that thereafter, as he had moved towards the house of Jitender, he met Jitender and Gautam. Then one Virender Yadav, who was also working with them had met them and he had narrated the incident to him also, whereupon he had informed the police at 100 number. Police Gypsy reached State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 3/19 there and he had narrated the entire incident to the police. Police had also recorded his statement(Ex.PW2/A). He had further deposed that had accompanied the police and had shown the place of occurrence to the police on the next day i.e. 13 th February 2014. He had also proved the site map (Ex.PW2/B) prepared by the IO.
PW2 had further deposed that after few days of the incident, he had come to the Court of Magistrate and had identified his mobile phone in the Court. He had also identified his robbed mobile phone (Ex.MO1) recovered from the accused persons.
11 PW3 HC Mahender Singh had deposed that on 12th February 2014, he was working as Duty Officer from 04:00 pm to 12:00 am (mid night)at PS OIA and at about 11:45 pm, wireless Operator Java 62 came to the DO Room and produced a PCR Call and he recorded DD No. 27A (Ex.PW3/A) regarding the robbery of the instant case on the basis of the PCR Call. Thereafter, he had assigned the copy of said DD to SI Parveen Kumar for investigation.
12 Sh. Gautam Ram (PW4) had deposed that on 12th February 2014, at about 11:00 pm, after finishing his job, he alongwith complainant Rajesh Singh and his other colleague Jitender Mistri was returning to Tehkhand Village on foot and at about 11:15 pm, when they had reached near underpass, which was under
construction, three boys were noticed sitting around the fire (aag sek rahe the), who had asked for the match box from them, but they did not give any response.
He had further deposed that Rajesh was behind him and started moving fast but those three boys started scuffling with Rajesh and also started State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 4/19 snatching from him. One of them had also shown and pointed out a knife towards him and told him as well as Jitender to run away from the spot and thereafter, he & Jitender ran away, but those boys had caught hold of Rajesh.
PW4 had further deposed that they had hardly reached a little ahead, then they saw one of their colleagues namely Virender Yadav and they had told him about the incident and thereafter they again returned towards the place, where incident had occurred and saw Rajesh coming alone.
He had further deposed that Rajesh had told them that his Micromax Mobile and purse having Rs.4,000/ were snatched by those three boys. Thereafter, Virender Yadav had informed the police at 100 number. Police had also reached at the spot and had recorded his statement and also the statement of Jitender and Rajesh. He had identified the mobile phone (Ex.MO1) of complainant Rajesh.
This witness was declared hostile and after obtaining permission from the Court, the witness had been cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP u/s 154 Indian Evidence Act.
In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he had admitted that the incident had occurred on 12th February 2014 and the person, who had demanded match box from them had also shown the knife to them and the other boy had given a fist blow on the face of Rajesh and he had taken out the purse from the back pocket of Rajesh. PW4 had further admitted that the third boy had taken out the mobile phone of Rajesh from the right pocket of his wearing pant and thereafter, those boys had ran away towards the CBlock. He had further admitted State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 5/19 that Rajesh had told them that he was having Rs.4,000/ in his purse. He had further admitted that in the meantime, one Virender Yadav had also reached there and had called the Police at 100 number and he could not recollect and depose those facts in his examination in chief due lapse of time. He had specifically deposed in his cross examination by Ld. Addl.PP for the State that he could not identify the accused, even if they were shown to him as he could not see their faces due to the darkness.
13 PW5 Sh. Virender Kumar Yadav had deposed that he did not remember the exact date but it was in the month of February, 2014, when after finishing his work at around 11.30 PM, he was going to his house and had reached at underpass near Power House, Okhla PhaseII, Rajesh, Gautam and Jitender Mistri met him. There were also working with him at the same place i.e. M/s Shiv Enterprises at 49, DSIDC Shed, SK Mohan, PhaseII. This witness had further deposed that they had told him that three persons had robbed the mobile phone of the Rajesh and had fled away from there and thereafter he had made a telephone call to the police at 100 number from his mobile no. 9711268487. He had further deposed that the police had also made inquiries from him and had also recorded his statement.
14 PW 7, Ms. Shivani Chauhan, the then Ld. MM, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi had conducted the TIP proceedings of the case property. She had proved the application (Ex. PW7/A) moved by the IO for conducting the TIP and also the statement (Ex. PW 2/C) of the complainant Rajesh in this regard. The State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 6/19 TIP proceedings were proved as Ex. PW 2/C. 15 PW9 Jitender Mistri had deposed that since last six years (from the date of his deposition dated 09.01.2015), he was working as welder at Shed No. 49, DSIDC, Scheme1st Okhla, PhaseII. As far as he could recollect, it was 12 th of February 2014, when he alongwith Rajesh and Gautam, who were also doing the work in his company at the same place, were going on foot to their residences at Tekhand. At about 11:15 pm, when they had reached at under construction underpass, Okhala, PhaseII near Jhuggi area, three persons were found taking heat from fire (alao i.e. fire par taap rahe they); one of them had asked for the match box from Rajesh. Rajesh had refused the same, hence, those three persons had apprehended Rajesh and had started beating him, upon which he and Gautam had tried to intervene but one of those boys took out a knife and put the same on abdomen of Gautam; another boy took out the mobile phone from the right pocket of the pant of Rajesh while the third one had taken out the purse from the pocket of wearing pant of Rajesh.
PW9 had further deposed that one of the boy amongst them had inflicted fist blow upon Rajesh and due to fear, he (PW9) alongwith Gautam had fled away from the spot. Police had reached at the spot and then they alongwith the police had though tried to search the accused persons, but they could not be found. Police had recorded his statement in this regard.
He had further deposed that on 16th February 2014, Police had come at his work place and then, he had accompanied the police to the Jhuggi area. State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 7/19 When they reached in front of CBlock, Okhla, PhaseII, there he had seen one of the assailants and had pointed out towards the said assailant to the Police. The said person was apprehended by the police. The name of that person was revealed at Machhar @ Suraj i.e. the present accused. He had correctly identified the accused. He had further deposed that accused Suraj @ Macchar was arrested in this case vide his arrest memo Ex.PW6/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/D. Both these memos bear his signatures at pointsB. PW9 had further deposed that accused was interrogated by the police who had also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/E, which also bears his signature at pointB. PW9 had further deposed that accused Suraj @ Macchar had also got recovered one knife from his jhuggi, which was lying under a 'takhat'. The sketch of the recovered knife was also proved by him as Ex.PW6/A and he had further stated that the said knife was seized by the Police in this case vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B. PW9 further stated that accused Suraj @ Machhar had also pointed out the place of occurrence to the police in his presence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW6/E. He had also proved the recovered knife (Ex.MO2). 16 PW 10 SI Praveen Kumar, was the IO of the case and PW 6 Ct. Ravi Kumar and PW 8 Ct. Deepak had remained present in the investigation with him and there relevant testimonies shall be discussed later in the following paras as and when felt necessary.
17 As no witness remained to be examined, PE was therefore closed. State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 8/19 18 Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he had denied the entire incriminating evidence put to him in toto and had claimed himself to have been falsely implicated in this case. However, he had preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.
19 I have heard Sh. Inder Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Sh. Mohinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused and have gone through the entire material available on record.
20 Sh. Inder Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that from the statements of the witnesses, the prosecution case stands proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt in as much as the accused had been correctly identified at different stages of investigation as well as before the court during trial and the robed articles were also recovered from the possession of the JCL Bittoo @ Chusa and the same were also correctly identified by the complainant during TIP proceedings related the case property, conducted by Ms. Shivani Chauhan, the then Ld. MM01(SE), New Delhi on 22.2.2014 and the same were proved on record as Ex. PW2/C. 21 It has been argued further that so far as the minor discrepancies that had crept in the their statements are concerned, the same are bound to occur due to lapse of time and hence the same do not go to the root of the prosecution case to totally brush aside the same.
22 On the other hand, Sh. Mohdinder Singh, Ld. Defence Counsel had argued that the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 9/19 because of the quarrel that had taken place between him and the complainant Rajesh Singh, just about fourfive days prior to the alleged incident. He had further argued that other witnesses, namely PW4 Gautam Ram and PW9 Jitender Mistri had deposed against the accused because they happened to be friends of the complainant and since they had deposed falsely against the accused at the behest of the complainant, no credence can be given to such statements qua the accused. 23 It was further argued that in fact, the accused was lifted from his house and was shown to the witnesses, namely, complainant Rajesh and Jitender Mistri (PW9) at the police station and hence the accused had refused to take part in the judicial TIP before the Ld. MM and thus in the given set of circumstances, the refusal by the accused to take part in the TIP could not have been read against him nor any adverse inference could have been drawn against him for his refusal to participate in the said proceedings and hence the accused deserved to be acquitted on this short ground alone.
24 It was also submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that PWs PW4 Gautam Ram and PW9 Jitender Mistri had been introduced by the IO of the case just to secure a false conviction of the accused, as none of them was present at the spot, when the police had allegedly reached there on receipt of information given to PCR by one Sh. Virender Kumar Yadav (PW5), who had also been introduced subsequently. Ld. Defence Counsel had argued further that as per the IO of the case, when he had reached at the spot, he had found all the alleged eye witnesses at the spot and had recorded their statements at the spot itself on the same day, State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 10/19 where as PW8 Ct. Deepak, who had allegedly accompanied the IO to the spot, during his crossexamination conducted on behalf of the accused, had not corroborated this version of the IO and had stated that only one person was found present there, i.e. the complainant namely Rajesh , on that day whose statement was recorded by the IO in his presence and this particular statement of PW8 Ct. Deepak had rather corroborated the defence version of the accused that the witnesses PW4 Gautam Ram and PW9 Jitender Mistri and Virender Yadav (PW5) were introduced later on. Even no call details of the mobile of PW5 Vuirender Yadav were proved on record to show that he had actually informed the PCR regarding the alleged incident when he was allegedly passing through the spot at that point of time .
25 After hearing both the sides and going through the judicial record, I find certain glaring contradictions in the version of PWs due to which it shall not be safe for this Court to hold the accused guilty of the said offences and convict him for the same.
26 PW1 ASI Madan Pal, PW3 HC Mahender Singh and PW7 Ms. Shivani Chauhan, the then Ld. MM, were not crossexamined by the accused despite availing opportunities in this regard.
27 PW2 Rajesh Singh, victim in this case, had though reiterated his version made before the police before the court as well. However, during his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel Sh Mohinder Singh, he had deposed that he had gone to the police station of his own and after reaching police station, he was State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 11/19 accompanied by Ct. Devender (PW8), who was accompanying him to the Court as well on the date of his deposition. This version of the complainant is quite contradictory to the version of the investigating agency, as per which, after receiving the DD entry No. 27A, IO had reached at the spot and had recorded statement of the complainant, on the basis of which the present case was registered. 28 Further, it was deposed by the complainant during his cross examination that after the date of incident, he had seen the accused only in the police station for the first time where he was called by the IO to identify the accused. In the light of this deposition of complainant (PW2), refusal of the accused to undergo any judicial TIP has been justified because once the accused was already shown to the witness by the IO at the police station itself, then there was no justification for subjecting the accused to judicial TIP as well. 29 Interestingly, complainant (PW2) had also deposed during his cross examination by the ld. Defence Counsel that he was previously acquainted with the accused as he had seen him in the jhuggies near the place of incident even before the date of incident and that was the only reason that he had been able to identify him as the culprit, who had attacked him. He had further deposed that roughly he had seen the accused many times roaming near the area when he used to return to his house from his work place.
30 In the light of this testimony of complainant PW2, it becomes surprising that despite having familiar with the accused, he had not given any of his physical description to the police in his initial statement(asal tehrir), on the basis of State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 12/19 which the present case was registered.
31 It was also admitted by him that in the TIP of his mobile phone, no other instrument of similar or identical appearance was placed before him and only his own phone alongwtih other sets of different makes were shown to him for the purpose of identification. In view of this categorical admission made by PW2 during his crossexamination, even the TIP of the case property also looses its significance, importance as well as legal sanctity.
32 Though it was also stated by the complainant (PW2) that PW Virender Yadav, who had allegedly informed the police at 100 number, had come to the spot with his employer in a WagonR vehicle on the date of incident when they had met him. However, PW5 Virender Yadav himself had never made any such claim during his deposition before the Court. Rather PW5 Gautam Ram had contradicted this claim of the complainant (PW2) by deposing during his cross examination that Virender Yadav was on foot when he met them. 33 Although, PW2 had denied any instance of his previous quarrel with the accused during his crossexamination. However, the fact related to his admission of his previous acquaintance with the accused is sufficient enough to justify the claim of the accused made by him during his examination under section 313 CrPC before this court that 45 days before the date of incident, he had a quarrel with the complainant. Though, it was also deposed by him during his cross examination that in the morning hours of the following day, i.e. 13.2.2014, police had met him at his office and had taken him to the place of occurrence, but this fact State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 13/19 has not been so deposed anywhere by the IO of the case that he had called the complainant to join investigation on 13.2.2014 at any point of time whatsoever. 34 PW4 Gautam Ram had though resiled from his earlier testimony made before the police, but during his examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he had again admitted substantial portion of his statement made before the police u/s 161 Cr.PC. However, despite being an eyewitness of the incident, he had categorically refused to have identified the accused and had emphatically stated that due to darkness, he had never seen the face of the accused, therefore, he was not in a position to identify him.
35 During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he had admitted it to be correct that at the time of snatching of the mobile phone and purse of the complainant, he was not present at the spot as he had already run away from the place of incident after seeing knife in the hands of one of the accused persons. He had also admitted the fact that apart from darkness, there was heavy fog as well on the night of incident. Hence, he had not seen faces of any of the persons, who had committed the offence with the complainant. Even, PW5 Virender Yadav had also admitted the fact that it was very dark and heavy fog on the night, when the incident in question had taken place.
36 PW6 Ct. Ravi Kumar had joined the investigation with the IO of the case (PW10) SI Parveen Kumar on 16.02.2014. He had deposed in his examination in chief that when he alongwith the IO had reached at the work place of the complainant, they came to know that the complainant was on leave that day and State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 14/19 thereafter, IO took one Jitender Mistri an eyewitness of the incident alongwith him and when they had reached towards CBlock Jhuggi, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, it was then that the witness Jitender Mistri had identified one boy as an accused and upon his pointing out present accused, whose name was later on revealed as Suraj @ Machhar was apprehended. As per this witness, accused also got recovered one knife kept under a 'takhat' lying in his jhuggi, sketch of which was prepared by the IO, and proved on record as Ex.PW6/A, bearing the signature of the witness at pointA and later on, the knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B and accused was arrested vide his arrest memo Ex.PW6/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/D and after his arrest the accused was produced before the Court from where he was taken to PC Remand by the IO and on the very same night at around 10:00 pm, remaining two persons involved in the incident, who were JCLs were also apprehended on the identification of the present accused. One mobile phone make Micromax was also recovered from JCL Bittoo, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/F. 37 In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 had deposed that at the time of apprehension of the present accused, though 45 persons from the nearby Jhuggies were also present at the spot, but the IO had not recorded any statement of either of them. Jitender Mistri was stated to be present with the police party at the time of arrest of the accused, whose statement was also recorded by the IO at the spot. In his further cross examination, he had deposed that IO of the case had not asked anybody from the public to join the investigation either at the time of State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 15/19 apprehension of the accused or at the time of recovery of knife at his instance. Formal suggestions put to him by the Ld. Defence Counsel were denied by this witness as incorrect.
38 PW8 Ct. Deepak, who had also accompanied the IO (PW10) SI Parveen Kumar, had deposed that in the intervening night of 12/13 th February 2014 he was on emergency duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am and upon receipt of DD No. 27A, he had accompanied the IO to the place of occurrence, where complainant Rajesh Singh (PW2) met them and his statement was recorded by the IO on the basis of which rukka was prepared and was handed over to him for registration of the FIR and after registration of the FIR, the witness had brought the original rukka with copy of FIR to the spot and had handed over the same to the IO. He had further deposed that though efforts to nab the accused persons were made, but all efforts went in vain. Thereafter, this witness had taken the complainant to ESI Hospital for his medical examination.
39 During his cross examination, PW8 Ct. Deepak had categorically stated that only the complainant was found present at the spot, when they had reached there alongwith DD No. 27A. This part of his deposition casts a serious shadow of doubt on the presence of other persons, who had also claimed themselves to be the eyewitnesses in this case namely, Jitender Mistri and Gautam Ram.
40 PW9 Jitender Mistri, though, in his examinationinchief had deposed that it was on his pointing out that police had nabbed the present accused, but State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 16/19 during his crossexamination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, he had stated that he had never visited the place of occurrence with the police on any second occasion. However, later on, again, he had taken a "U" turn and had deposed that he had gone to the place of occurrence second time with the IO of the case. Interestingly, he had also deposed further that he had seen the accused at the time of incident and thereafter he had seen him only in the police station and later on in the court on the day of his deposition. If this version of the witness is believed to be correct, then, I have no hesitation in holding that neither the witness had accompanied the police party on 16.2.2014 at the time of apprehension of the accused nor the accused was arrested in this case upon his pointing out and no knife was recovered from the jhuggi of the accused at his instance in the presence of this witness, otherwise, he would not have deviated from his earlier version during his crossexamination, conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel. Not only this, but also, the fact of his seeing the accused for the second time after the date of incident in the police station was again reiterated by this witness during his further cross examination.
41 Even IO of the case, PW10, during his deposition had stated that accused was apprehended by him only at the pointing out of witness Jitender Mistri (PW9) and during his crossexamination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel Sh Mohinder Singh for the accused, PW10 had deposed that when he reached at the spot, he found the complainant present there alongwith Jitender Mistri (PW9) and Gautam Ram (PW4) and also the PCR caller Ravinder. This deposition of the State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 17/19 investigating officer (PW10) is not only contradictory to the deposition of his own Constable PW8 Deepak, but also he had named a new person Ravinder instead of Virender Yadav, as a caller who had informed the police. As per the IO, he had recorded the statement of complainant (PW2) as well as of all the witnesses at the spot, which version of this PW is again contradictory to the version of complainant himself who had deposed during his crossexamination that his statement was recorded by the police at the police station.
42 The IO had also shown his ignorance in respect of existence of any previous animosity between the present accused and the complainant. He had further denied a specific suggestion put to him by the Ld. Defence Counsel that due to previous animosity, the accused was falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant. Remaining formal suggestions were also denied by him as incorrect. 43 In the light of appreciation of aforesaid evidence, I have no hesitation in holding that even the alleged independent eye witnesses were also not able to prove their presence at the spot at the time of alleged incident, in view of the deposition of Ct. Deepak (PW8), who had accompanied the IO to the spot upon receipt of DD no. 27A. Moreover, the arrest of the present accused at the pointing out of PW9 Jitender Mistri had also become suspicious in view of his deposition before the court. All these contradictions as discussed and pointed out herein above, cannot be ignored or brushed aside in a lighter manner, as these contradictions, also go deeper to the root of the present case, raising a serious shadow of doubt as well as suspicion on the genuineness, correctness, authenticity State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 18/19 and truthfulness of the entire prosecution story as put forth before this court. 44 It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice administration that a suspicion howsoever grave it may be, cannot take place of proof and all the benefits of doubt arising of the story of the prosecution are to be given to the accused. 45 In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt by conferring all the benefits of doubt upon the accused. The accused is accordingly acquitted from the charges, after giving him due benefit of doubt.
46 Since, he is in custody, Jail Supdt. is directed to release him from custody forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. 47 He is further directed to furnish his personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety of like amount u/s 437A CrPC with a week from today, after his release from custody.
48 The case property (robbed article i.e. mobile phone) is stated to be on superdari and hence, the superdarinama, if any, executed by the superdar shall stand cancelled and the knife in this case, shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of the period of appeal/revision, if any.
49 File be consigned to Record Room after completion of all other necessary formalities.
announced in the
open court on (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
09th March, 2015 Additional Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
SouthEast, New Delhi
State Vs. Suraj @ Machhar SC No. 06 of 2014 19/19