Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Bhushan Etc. Date Of Institution : ... on 12 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS COLETTE RASHMI KUJUR:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT,
NEW DELHI
State vs Amit Bhushan etc. Date of Institution : 13.06.2001
FIR No. 133/01 Judgment Reserved on 26.03.2012
PS Hauz Khas Date of Judgment : 12.04.2012
U/s 411/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 395/02
b) Date of offence : 17.02.01
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Deepak Kumar s/o Sh. Murari Lal r/o
: juggi no. S-205/A-391, Shaheed Arjun
: Das Juggi Camp, Raj Nagar, New Delhi.
d) Name & address of the : 1. Amit Bhushan s/o Sh. Vijay Bhushan, accused : r/o H. No. B-301, Som Vihar Apartment, : R.K. Puram, New Delhi & 2. Rajesh : Gautam s/o Sh. Surender Gautam, r/o H. : No. 406, Sector 10 Panchkula, Haryana.
e) The offence complained of : U/s 411/34 IPC.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order : Acquitted
h) Date of order : 12.04.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The complainant Sh. Deepak Kumar has alleged in his complaint that he being an employee of Royal Motors used to give trial of the State Vs Amit Bhushan etc FIR No. 133/01 -1- cars. On 17.02.01 the accused had come for the trial of the car and was sitting at the drivers seat. When they reached in front of NIFT Hauz Khas, at about 2.10pm accused Amit Bhushan on the pretext that he wanted to sit in the rear seat allowed the complainant to get off the car while he drove the car away thereby committed theft of Silver Acent Car no. DL-6CG-2592 from his possession.
2. According to the chargesheet accused Rajesh Gautam and the car were seized on the pointing out of Amit Bhushan. As prima facie offence u/s 379 IPC was made out against Amit Bhushan charge was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Af for Rajesh gautam charge was framed u/s.411/34 IPC.
3. Thereafter, matter was listed for prosecution evidence. In its evidence the prosecution examined only three witnesses.
4. PW1 HC Kapil Dev who is a formal witness, proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW-1/A and his endorsement on the rukka.
5. The summon of the complainant namely Deepak Kumar was marked to Ct. Kamal Kumar for service. As per the report of the process server, he had gone to the given address but complainant could not be traced despite his best efforts. He also made a inquiry from the neighbour who stated that complainant does not reside here. The detailed report is Ex. CW-1/A.
6. Thereafter no other prosecution witness was examined despite several opportunities. All efforts have been made to summons the State Vs Amit Bhushan etc FIR No. 133/01 -2- complainant but he remained unserved.
7. Matter pertains to the year 2001 and was kept pending since then for prosecution evidence and prosecution has failed to produce/examine public witness. Therefore, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dt. 26.03.2012.
8. In the absence of statement of complainant Deepak Kumar statement of accused was dispensed with and matter listed for orders.
9. To substantiate the fact of accident and the identity of the accused, the prosecution case rested heavily on the deposition of the injured and complainant. In the absence of the crucial statement the present accused cannot be convicted for the said offence.
10. As the entire prosecution story rests on the statement of the complainant, in his absence no incriminating evidence against the accused could be brought on record by the prosecution.
11. I find no ground to hold the accused guilty of the offences as charged. The accused Amit Bhushan is hereby acquitted of the offence u/s 379 IPC & accused Rajesh Gautam is hereby acquitted of the offence u/s 411/34 IPC.
Announced in open Court.
on 12th April, 2012 Colette Rashmi Kujur
Metropolitan Magistrate -06,
South East District, Saket
State Vs Amit Bhushan etc FIR No. 133/01
-3-