Delhi District Court
State vs . Sameer on 2 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI,
MM03, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS
STATE Vs. SAMEER
FIR No. 732/2021
PS: NAND NAGRI
U/S: 379/356 IPC
CNR No. : DLSH020001552022
Date of commission of offence : 09.11.2012
Date of institution of the case : 06.01.2022
Name of the complainant : Ms. Snigdha
Name of accused and address : Sameer
S/o Sh. Nizamuddin
R/o H.No. E57/A47, Jhuggi Sunder Nagri,
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 379/456 IPC
State Representation : Asst. Public Prosecution Sh. Ashutosh Pandey
Plea of Accused : Plead not guilty
Final order : Aquitted
Date of judgment : 02.02.2023
FIR No. 732/2021 1/4
State Vs. Sameer
PS. Nand Nagri
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 09.11.2021 at about 8:45 PM near Gagan Cinema, Nand Nagri, Delhi accused Sameer used criminal force to commit theft of mobile phone belonging to the complainant Snigdha. After the completion of necessary formalities, charge sheet was been filed in this court. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned. Copy of all necessary documents were supplied in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, CrPC). Charge for commission of offence under Section 356/379 India penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. To prove its case, prosecution has examined one witness till date. The prosecution has examined complainant Singdha in the present case who has not supported the case of the prosecution agianst the accused. Even on cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, PW1 has not made any incriminating statement against the accused. He has failed to identify the accused as perpetrator of the alleged offence. PW1 has stated that accused is not the person who had committed the crime. Identity of the accused is of paramount importance in case of hurt/ assault. In the present case, apart from PW1, there is no other eye witness or public witnes. PW1 has failed to identity the witness, further qua Section 411 IPC complainand and accused settled the matter outside the Court and same was compounded vide order 09.1.2023. There appears no document/ evidence incriminating in nature against the accused. Remaining public witnesses are formal witnesses whose testimanies even taken together will not establish the gulit of the accused.
3. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against accused due to complainant not identifying the accused, the prosecution can never hope to prove the allegations levelled against the accused. Remaining witnesses in the present case are official witnesses, whose testimoney even if taken together would also be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused.
FIR No. 732/2021 2/4State Vs. Sameer PS. Nand Nagri
4. Right to speedy trial is constitionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2021 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that the prosecution can neve hope to prove its case against the accused would tantamoun to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right to speedy trial of the accused. Similar, observations were made in Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 2008 SC 3057.
5. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
6. Keeping in mind the aforementioned reasons and the above case laws, recording of any further PE in the present case would be waste of judicial time, money and resources and will also cause unnecessary oppression of the accused who has anyhow faced the ordeal of trail in the present case for last eight years. Hence, by order of even date, PE has been closed and recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C has also been dispensed with as nothing incriminating came on record or can come on record against the accused in the present case.
7. Furthermore, it has been hled by Hon'bale Supreme Court in Dr. S.L Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not FIR No. 732/2021 3/4 State Vs. Sameer PS. Nand Nagri discharge the onus proving th eingredients of offence and thus, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
8. In view of the above discussion, since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, namely, Sameer, he is acquitted of the offence punishable U/S 356/379 IPC.
9. File be consigned to record room.
This judgment contains 4 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.
Digitally signed byANIMESH ANIMESH BHASKAR MANI BHASKAR TRIPATHI Location:
MANI Karkardooma
TRIPATHI Courts, Delhi
Date: 2023.02.02
16:15:16 -0800
Announced in the open court on Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi
2nd Feburary2023 MM03/ SHD/ KKD/ Delhi
FIR No. 732/2021 4/4
State Vs. Sameer
PS. Nand Nagri