Delhi District Court
3.Title State vs . Anand Parkash on 20 June, 2013
THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA :
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
1.FIR No. 399/04
2.Unique Case ID No. 02401R6270032004
3.Title State Vs. Anand Parkash
3(A).Name of complainant Manohar Lal, s/o Sh. Dulan Dass, r/o D-
17/164, Sector -3, Rohini, Delhi.
3(B).Name of accused Anand Parkash s/o Sh. Ravi @ Tejpal r/o
H.no. 259/2A, Gali no. 9, Nehru Nagar,
Anand Parvat, Delhi.
4.Date of institution of challan 24.12.2004
5.Date of Reserving judgment Pronounced on the same day
6.Date of hearing the final 20.06.2013.
arguments
7.Date of pronouncement 20.06.2013
8.Date of commission of offence 29.07.2004
9.Offence complained of Under Section 394/411 IPC
10.Offence charged with Under Section 394/411 IPC
11.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
12.Final order The accused is Acquitted U/sec
394/411 IPC
13. Date of receiving of judicial 28.02.2011
file in this court
FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 1 of 11
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. The criminal law was set into motion in the present case by complainant Sh. Manohar Lal s/o Sh. Dulan Dass by making a complaint in PS Moti Nagar regarding the commission of robbery.
2. The genesis of the prosecution case in a narrow compass is that on 29.07.2004 at about 09.00 PM at Jakhira Flyover, Rohtak Road, Near HIL, DTC Bus Stand within the jurisdiction of PS Moti Nagar, the accused person voluntarily caused hurt to one Manohar Lal s/o Sh. Dulan Dass in committing or attempting to commit robbery. Subsequently, on 01.08.2004 the cycle no. AO-20777 belonging to Manohar Lal was recovered at your instance from the house of the Deepak which was retained by you knowing or having reason to believe the same to be the stolen property and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 394/411 IPC.
3. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed, copies were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the material on record, the charge for the offence punishable u/s 394/411 IPC was framed against the accused on 02.07.2007, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution for proving its case against the accused persons could examine only four witnesses.
1. PW-1 Sh. Manohar Lal, the complainant.
FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 2 of 11
2. PW-2 HC Rajvir Singh, Duty Officer.
3. PW-3 HC Surender Singh, MHC(M).
4. PW-4 Sh. Munna Lal, Eye witness.
PW-1 Sh. Manohar Lal is the complainant and has deposed that in the month of July 2004 he used to work with Gupta Sarees Private Ltd., Chandni Chowk as an Accountant. On that day after completing his duty he left for his house on his cycle via Azad Market when he reached at Zakhira Chowk towards HIL DTC Bus Stop at around 09.15 PM suddenly two boys came infront of his cycle and forcibly stopped his cycle and asked him to hand over what ever he was carrying and under fear he handed over them a cash of Rs. 1,500/- which he was carrying and thereafter they took his search and also robbed three pants, three shirts and one new chappal which he had kept in his bag. Thereafter one of the offender caught hold of him and another offender who was carrying a big knife caused injury on his left arm and also over his eye and chest. After committing robbery the offender managed to run away and he requested many person for taking him to hospital and after some time some one took him to the hospital in a rickshaw where he remained admitted for about 8 days. His cycle was not robbed by the offenders and the accused Anand Prakash present in the court today was not among the offendors.
The witness has not supported the prosecution case despite FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 3 of 11 cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
PW-2 HC Rajvir Singh is the duty officer and has proved the FIR Ex. PW2/A and also made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/B. PW-3 HC Surender Singh is the MHC(M) and has deposed that on 01.08.2004 he was on duty as MHC(M) and on that day SI Sat Bir deposited in malkhana old cycle make Atlas and personal search articles, which was entered in to register no. 19 vide serial no. 2593. Photocopies is Ex. PW3/A (OSR).
On 16.08.2004 IO also deposited one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of MPS Hospital which was entered into register no. 19 vide serial no. 2619, Photocopies is Ex. PW3/B (OSR).
The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
PW-4 Sh. Munna Lal is the eye witness and has deposed that he is a rickshaw puller and do not remember the date, day and the year of the incident. It was almost in the midnight he was riding on his rickshaw and was passing near Moti Nagar Chowk near traffic signal. Two persons stopped him and he found that one third person was lying on the footpath in an injured condition and he took the injured to the hospital.
FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 4 of 11 The witness has not supported the prosecution case despite cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State.
The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
5. No other prosecution witness was examined and the prosecution evidence was closed. Accused was examined u/s 281 read with Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2013 wherein the accused submit that he is innocent and has been falsely and wrongly implicated in this case. However, he denied to lead any evidence in defence.
6. "In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
7. Now the stage has been set to appreciate the entire evidence on record in the light of essential ingredients of offence of the robbery as defined in section 390 IPC and punishable u/s 392 IPC and 394 IPC alleged to be committed by the accused persons and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The essential ingredients of offence of robbery punishable u/s 392 IPC are laid down in section 390 IPC "the said section starts with the wording that in all the robberies there is either theft or FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 5 of 11 extortion and subsequently defined as to when the theft amounts to the robbery as Theft is 'robbery' if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint".
The second portion of the section also defines as to when the extortion tantamount to a robbery if the offender, at the time of committed the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
The offence of robbery is punishable u/s 392 IPC and if the hurt is caused in committing or attempting to commit the robbery the same is punishable with the imprisonment for life and regress imprisonment which may extent to 10 years and also with fine u/s 394 IPC. The essential ingredients of the same are as under:-
1. Accused committed theft and thereby dishonestly removed the property without the consent of its owner/possessor;
2. Accused caused or attempted to cause some persons -
FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 6 of 11
(a) death, hurt or wrongful restraint;
(b) fear of death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint;
3. Accused did either act-
(a) in committing such theft, or
(b) in order to commit theft, or
(c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtaining by such theft;
4. Accused acted voluntarily.
8. Now the question which arises for the consideration is that whether the prosecution has been able to produce such evidence on record which warrants the conviction of the accused on the touch stone of the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
9. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have gone through the entire record carefully.
10. To prove the offence punishable u/s 394/411 IPC the prosecution was required to prove that the accused persons had committed the theft as defined u/s 378 IPC i.e. He has dishonestly removed the property of the complainant without his consent and the same was done by voluntarily causing or attempt to cause the death, hurt or wrongful restrain or the fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint of the complainant/victim.
FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 7 of 11 For bringing the alleged offence within the four corners of section 394 IPC the prosecution is also required to prove that the accused persons had also voluntarily caused the hurt to the victims in committing or in their attempt to commit the said robbery.
11. The prosecution has examined four witnesses in support of its case against the accused person including the victim / the complainant as PW-1 and eye witness Sh. Munna Lal as PW-4 but the said complainant/victim and eye witness had failed to identify the accused Anand Prakash despite being specifically pointed out by the Ld. APP for the state. The witnesses have failed to support the prosecution case despite their cross examination by the Ld. Prosecutor and had categorically deposed that they cannot identify the accused Anand Prakash and the complainant Manohar Lal has deposed that his cycle was not robbed by any of the offendor.
12. The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are of formal nature and are the witnesses of the investigation only as none of them had seen the commission of the offence. The same coupled with the hostility of the complainant and the eye witness to the prosecution case cast a shadow upon the claim of the prosecution regarding the commission of the offence punishable U/s 394 IPC.
13. Apart from it a charge for the offence punishable U/s 411 IPC is FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 8 of 11 also framed against the accused as it is alleged that the robbed cycle of the victim PW-1 Manohar Lal was recovered from the house of one Deepak at the instance of accused person. The prosecution had to prove the following facts in ordered to bring home the guilt of the accused person for the offence punishable U/S 411 IPC:-
1. That the stolen property was in possession of the accused.
2. That some other person other than the accused was possessing the same before the possession of the same by the accused person.
3. That the accused had the knowledge that the said property was the stolen property.
14. In the present case the complainant Manohar Lal is examined as PW-1 and has shown complete hostility to the prosecution version stating that his cycle was never robbed by any of the offender. He had also failed to identify the accused Mukesh Kumar despite being cross-examined by the prosecutor. The alleged recovery of the cycle of the complainant has to be appreciated in the light of the aforesaid testimony of the complainant. It is beyond the comprehension as to how an article, which is not at all stolen can be claimed to have been recovered at the instance of the accused or the same can be possessed by the accused with the knowledge that the same is the stolen property. Apart from it the claim of the prosecution regarding the recovery of the stolen cycle at the instance FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 9 of 11 of the accused from the house of the Deepak fails to inspire the confidence of the court as neither the said Deepak nor any public witness had joined/witnessed the alleged recovery.
15. The material prosecution witness i.e. the complainant / victim Sh. Manohar Lal and the alleged eye witness Sh. Munna Lal have failed to support the prosecution case regarding the commission of the offence by the accused Anand Prakash and has failed to identify him in the Court.
16. Considering the peculiar facts of the case particularly in view of the hostility of PW-1 the complainant/victim and PW-4 Sh. Munna Lal towards the prosecution case coupled with the deposition that his cycle was never robbed by any offender. Further coupled with the fact that the said Deepak from whose house the alleged recovery was effected was never joined any investigation along with any other public witness further coupled with the fact that the accused person was not identified by the complainant or the eye witness in the course of his deposition before the court cast a complete shadow on the prosecution regarding the alleged incident and the alleged recovery.
17. The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are more or less formal in nature who are not connected with the facts in issue.
18. In view of the aforesaid findings the Court is of the considered FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 10 of 11 view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused Anand Parkash beyond the shadow of the doubt.
19. Accordingly, the accused Anand Parkash stands Acquitted for the offence punishable u/sec 394/411 IPC.
20. Surety bond discharged, bail bond canceled.
21. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the (Sunil Kumar Sharma)
Open Court on 20.06.2013 Metropolitan Magistrate
(West-10), THC,-Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 11 (eleven) pages and each page bears my signature.
(Sunil Kumar Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate (West-10), THC,-Delhi/20.06.2013 FIR no. 399/04 State v. Anand Parkash Page no. 11 of 11