Delhi District Court
State vs . Raja & Ors on 21 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 57/2010
ID 64956/2016
U/S. 379/356/34/174-A IPC
PS Ranjit Nagar
State Vs. Raja & Ors
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 64956/2016
2. Date of commission of offence 8.4.2010
3. Name of complainant Ms. Neha Bisht
4. Name of accused (1) Raja
s/o. Sh. Sarvan Kumar
r/o. H NO. B-344, Inderpuri
Delhi.
(2)Dalip
s/o. Sh. Bhanwar Singh
r/o. W-5Z-13, Jhuggi Naraina
Loha Mandi, Railway Station
Naraina South-West, Delhi.
(3)Mahesh
s/o. Sh. Amar Singh
r/o. Jhuggi NO. D-230
Inderpuri, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 379/356/34/174-A IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Acquitted
State Vs. Raja & Ors; FIR No. 57/10-RN 1/8
8. Date of such order 21.4.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION:-
Accused persons had been sent to face trial in the present case on the allegations that on 8.4.2010 at about 8.30 PM at Patel Road near Metro Station, Delhi they all in furtherance of their common intention had used criminal force upon the complainant Ms Neha Bisht and had snatched the Gold Chain worn by the complainant. It is further alleged against accused Mahesh that he failed to join investigation as required him and proclaimed as PO. After that accused Mahesh was arrested in kalandara u/s. 41.1 (c) of Cr.P.C.
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS:-
After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused persons. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused persons was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge. It is pertinent to mention here that during trial accused Dalip Kumar was declared PO and arrested in kalandara u/s. 41.1 ( c) of Cr.P.C.
3. CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS:-
State Vs. Raja & Ors; FIR No. 57/10-RN 2/8 Charge for offences punishable u/s. 356/379/34/174A IPC was framed against accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION :-
In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined four witnesses as under :-
(a)PW1 Ms. Neha Bisht. PW1 was the complainant. PW1 deposed that on 8.4.2010 she was going towards Rajender Place roundabout and felt that she was being followed. She further stated that when she turned back one person snatched the Gold chain from her neck and ran away. PW1 further stated that the said person sat on a motorcycle standing at some distance. She further stated that she caught hold of said person by collar and in the process the motorcycle rider lost balance and the the motorcycle fell down on the road. She further stated that out of three persons two fled away leaving the motorcycle at the spot.
PW1 further stated that she had managed to catch the third person but the said person also ran away after pushing her. She further stated that she made a call at 100 number and police arrived there and recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A; seized the motorcycle vide memo Ex. PW1/B. PW1 pointed out towards accused Dalip and stated State Vs. Raja & Ors; FIR No. 57/10-RN 3/8 that he was probably one of the accused persons. It is pertinent to mention here that the examination of PW1 was not completed as the motorcycle in question was not produced and exhibited by the prosecution thereafter.
(b)PW2 is HC Santosh Kumar. PW2 had proved the registration of the FIR Ex. PW2/A by him on 8.4.2010.
(c)PW3 is Ct. Sandeep Kumar. PW3 had joined the investigation of the case with the IO on 8.4.2010 and 26.4.10. PW3 had deposed about the seizure of the motorcycle by the IO and also the arrest of accused Raja and thereafter accused Dalip.
(d)PW4 is SI Khajan Singh. PW4 was the investigating officer. PW4 deposed about the investigation carried out by him. PW4 also proved the documents prepared by him during the investigation of the case.
5. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND DEFENCE:-
Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of using criminal force upon the complainant while snatching the Gold Chain from her person by accused persons has been beyond State Vs. Raja & Ors; FIR No. 57/10-RN 4/8 reasonable doubt and therefore, accused persons are liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, accused persons have submitted that no independent witness was examined by prosecution in support of its case. It is further submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against them and therefore, they are entitled of being acquitted in this case.
6. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
(i) In the present case, a charge for offences punishable u/s. 379/356/34/174A IPC was framed against accused persons. Prosecution in support of its case has cited as many as 4 witnesses.
(ii) The most important and the star witness of the prosecution was the complainant i.e. Ms. Neha Bisht.
Complainant was examined in the court as PW1. In her testimony recorded in the court, she narrated the incident in question thoroughly . However, she failed to identify the accused with precision who was apprehended by her. It is pertinent to mention her that PW1 was examined thrice on different dates but she failed to identify the accused with certainty. PW1 though pointed out towards accused Dalip s/o. Sh Bhagwan Singh but at the same time submitted he State Vs. Raja & Ors; FIR No. 57/10-RN 5/8 was probably one of the accused. Thus, the identity of accused Dalip s/o. Sh. Bhagwan Singh could not be established with certainity from the testimony of PW1. Further, PW1 has not stated anything about other accused persons. Further, she stated that the other persons had run away and she could not even see the glimpse of any other person. Thus nothing incriminating was said against any other accused.
(iii) Even otherwise testimony of PW1 is not inculpatory qua the accused as PW1 had not stated anything against the accused Mahesh. She only stated about the accused apprehended by her at the spot.
(iv) The testimony of other witnesses i.e. PW2, PW3 and PW4 is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that accused persons had committed the offence in question. Their testimony is formal is nature and only relates with the factum of recording of FIR and apprehension of accused persons.
(v) The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of offence of snatching of Gold Chain from the person of complainant.
(vi) As far as section 174-A IPC qua accused Mahesh State Vs. Raja & Ors; FIR No. 57/10-RN 6/8 is concerned, prosecution has failed to examine any other witness except the IO to prove the fact that accused despite knowledge had failed to appear in the Court. Thus, the prosecution has also miserably failed to establish its case against accused on this aspect also.
(vii) It is a settled principle of law that simply allegations cannot take the place of proof unless substantiated by relevant evidences and to prove such allegations, it is necessary that the prosecution must established its case beyond reasonable doubt. In case law reported as Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court had observed as under:-
"5. 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".
State Vs. Raja & Ors; FIR No. 57/10-RN 7/8
(viii) From the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences against the accused persons.
7. CONCLUSION:-
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, accused persons are hereby acquitted in the present matter. Fresh bail bond in compliance u/s. 437A cr.p.c. has been furnished by the accused persons and same are accepted. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date: 2018.05.01 12:08:37 +0530 Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI i.e. the 21st of April, 2018 (This judgment consists of 8 pages) State Vs. Raja & Ors; FIR No. 57/10-RN 8/8