Delhi District Court
State vs Amit And Ors on 12 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020150642024
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No. 373/2024, PS Jyoti
Nagar [Cr. Case
No.13420/2024}
b Date of the commission of 30.08.2024
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Mithun
d Name of Accused person and : 1. Amit S/o Satish
his parentage and residence R/o: Karawal Nagar, North
East, Delhi.
2. Vijay S/o Mohan Singh
R/o: Karawal Nagar, North
East, Delhi.
e Offence complained of : U/s 304(2)/ 317(2)/ 3 (5) of
BNS
f Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted u/s 304(2)/3 (5) of
BNS and Acquitted u/s
317(2)/ 3(5) of BNS
h Order reserved on : 12.02.2025
i Order pronounced on : 12.02.2025
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Factual matrix and trial proceedings
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2025.02.12
FIR No. 373/2024 17:06:45
+0530
PS Jyoti Nagar
State vs. Amit and Ors. 1/ 11
1.Briefly stated the facts of the Prosecution case against both accused persons namely Amit S/o Satish and Vijay S/o Mohan Singh are that on 30.08.2024, at 8.50 am at Main Wazirabad Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar, both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention in order to commit theft suddenly or quickly or forcibly took away the mobile phone Make Infinix Hot 8 which belonged to the complainant Mithun, while he was carrying his mobile phone in his hand and had committed the offence punishable u/s 304/3 (5) of BNS. Further, on the above said date, time and place both accused persons namely Amit and Vijay in furtherance of their common intention got recovered above mentioned case property I.e. mobile phone (make Infinix Hot 8) which belonged to the complainant which both accused persons namely Amit and Vijay had dishonestly retained or received knowing or having reasons to believe that the same was stolen property and had also committed the offence u/s 317(2) /3 (5) BNS. Hence, the present case was registered for the said offences.
2. Chargesheet in this matter was filed in the court on 13.09.2024 for the offences u/s 304(2)/317(2)/ 3(5) of BNS against both accused persons namely Amit and Vijay, whereupon Cognizance was taken in this matter.
On 18.12.2024, court copy of chargesheet and relevant documents attached with it were supplied to both accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C.
3. Moving further, vide order dated 18.12.2024 charge u/s 304(2)/317(2)/ 3(5) of BNS was framed against both accused Digitally FIR No. 373/2024 RAHUL signed by RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Date:
2025.02.12 17:06:53 State vs. Amit and Ors. 2/ 11 +0530 persons namely Amit and Vijay, which was read over and explained to both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
It is pertinent to mention here that on 12.02.2025, Complainant Mithun has made a statement before the Court that he had compounded/settled the present matter with both accused persons namely Amit and Vijay for the offences u/s 317(2)/ 3(5) of BNS and therefore, they both are acquitted for the offence u/s 317(2)/3 (5) of BNS vide order dated 12.02.2025.
Thereafter, matter was taken up for recording of Prosecution evidence.
PW 1 Complainant/Mithun: He deposed that on 30.08.2024, he was going from Main Wazirabad road to Loni Gol Chakkar. Two persons came on his motorcycle and the pillion rider snatched his mobile phone make Infinix Hot 8 having IMEI No.358274100410116 of blue colour from his hand. He came to know later on, regarding recovery of his mobile phone and he received the same from the Court. He does not remember the exact date and time but someone snatched his mobile phone and he received his mobile phone from the court. Police officials did not record his statement. He further deposed that he does not want to depose anything more. He further failed to identify the accused persons whether they are present in the court or not.
Witness has turned hostile.
During cross examination by Ld. APP for the State witness deposed that he had done Diploma in mechanical Engineering. He had denied the suggestion that police official recorded his FIR No. 373/2024 Digitally signed by RAHUL PS Jyoti Nagar RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.02.12 State vs. Amit and Ors. 3/ 11 17:07:00 +0530 statement which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A on his own version. He further denied that when the accused persons snatched his phone and tried to escape from the spot, in the meanwhile, A PCR van came there and chased the accused persons and apprehended them or that motorcycle upon which accused persons came at the spot make Splendor of black colour and its registration no. was UP 14DN 3211 or that mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused who was sitting as pillion rider.
Witness was confronted with the statement Ex. PW1/A from point A to A1 in vernacular language upon which witness denied the same having made to the police. He further denied the suggestion that police official recorded his supplementary statement which is Mark X. He further denied that police officer arrested accused Amit and Vijay in his presence vide arrest memos Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C respectively, both bearing his signatures at point A. Witness was confronted with the statement Mark X from point A to A1 in vernacular language upon which witness denied the same having made to the police.
On pointing out by Ld. APP for the State towards his finger to the accused persons who are present in the court and after seeing the accused persons, witness failed to identify the accused persons.
Witness denied the suggestions made by the Ld. APP. Witness was not cross examined despite opportunity given.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
FIR No. 373/2024 SAINI Date:
2025.02.12
17:07:06
PS Jyoti Nagar +0530
State vs. Amit and Ors. 4/ 11
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, Prosecution examined eight witnesses as follows:-
PW1 Complainant/Mithun During the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses including the Complainant and the police witnesses following documents were got exhibited on court record:
Ex.PW1/A Complaint given by Complainant Ex.PW1/B Arrest memo of accused Amit Ex.PW1/C Arrest memo of accused Vijay It is pertinent to note that in total 08 witnesses had been cited by Prosecution including only one public witness i.e. complainant Mithun.
6. It is vital to mention here that the star witness to this case was the Complainant Mithun since he was the only eye witness to the case as well as the victim. To the utter dismay of Prosecution, complainant turned hostile to the Prosecution case.
Thus, no eye witness account of the incident could come on record.
7. After recording of the testimony of the only available eye witness in this matter i.e. Complainant Mithun, it was observed that even though he admitted the incident in question he failed to identify the accused persons despite being pointed out by Ld. APP for the State. The other witnesses were not examined by the Prosecution as they were also not eye witnesses and would only depose regarding the investigation conducted by them.
FIR No. 373/2024 Digitally
signed by
PS Jyoti Nagar RAHUL RAHUL SAINI
Date:
SAINI
State vs. Amit and Ors. 5/ 11
2025.02.12
17:07:14
+0530
8. Moving further, as already mentioned above, Complainant has failed to provide the requisite support to Prosecution case. Despite being cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State, not even an iota of evidence could be culled out from his testimony. Neither did he identify the accused persons nor was he able to give any description of the accused persons.
The main evidence produced by the IO is thus only the disclosure statements. Thus, as such apart from the alleged disclosure statements of the accused persons, there is no material evidence against them which makes the Prosecution case weak beyond repairs.
9. From the aforesaid testimony itself, the case of the Prosecution was rendered full of doubts in regard to the commission of the alleged incident by the accused persons. In view of the above deposition, it is apparent that despite examining relevant witness including the public witness, no evidence could be brought by the Prosecution against the accused persons.
10. The other witnesses were not examined by the Prosecution as they were not the eye witnesses and would only depose regarding the investigation conducted by them. In these circumstances, the recording of testimony of the remaining witnesses i.e. the other police witnesses as cited by the Prosecution and other formal witnesses, was dispensed with as they were not witnesses to facts and could have only deposed Digitally signed by FIR No. 373/2024 RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Date:
2025.02.12 State vs. Amit and Ors. 6/ 11 17:07:21 +0530 with respect to the investigation carried out. With respect to the dropping of the said witnesses, it is relevant to take a note of an order of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the matter titled as In Re : Speedy Trial of Undertrial Prisoners (dated 22.10.2018) wherein it has been held that :
"We direct all the Trial Courts to consider the possibility of pruning the list of witnesses in consultation with the Public Prosecutor as well as the Defence Counsel so that the number of witnesses required to be examined can be reduced at the threshhold."
11. Moving further, as already mentioned above, Complainant has turned hostile on the identity of accused persons and nothing incriminating against accused persons could come on record. Admittedly, there are no independent eye-witnesses except complainant cited by the Prosecution. Thus, his testimony could not help the Prosecution case to establish the guilt of the accused persons.
12. Therefore, since no incriminating evidence or circumstance was found against both the accused persons, recording of their statement under section 313 Cr. PC. was also dispensed with. Accused persons preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence and therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing of final arguments, which were duly addressed by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons as well as Ld. APP for the State.
With respect to the above stated trial proceedings in this matter, reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of FIR No. 373/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL SAINI State vs. Amit and Ors. 7/ 11 2025.02.12 SAINI Date:
17:07:29 +0530 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [104(2003) DLT 510] wherein it was held that:-
"...In cases whise ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal Prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date..........."
Thus, keeping in view the above said guidelines this court proceeded to expedite the matter.
Summary of arguments
13. Ld. APP for the State has vehemently argued that the accused persons be convicted for the offences with which they have been charged as the said offences are heinous in nature and leaving the accused persons free without any penalty being imposed upon them would rather make them commit similar offences again. Further, it was argued by Ld. APP that it is no more res integra that even in case of hostile witnesses conviction of the accused persons can be secured on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Ld. APP for the State prayed that accused persons deserve to be held guilty.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has strongly opposed the contentions of Ld. APP for the State stating that Prosecution has been unable to bring even an iota of valid evidence against both accused which points out towards their guilt. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for both accused FIR No. 373/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar Digitally State vs. Amit and Ors. 8/ 11signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
SAINI SAINI 2025.02.12 17:07:36 +0530 persons that merely because the complainant initiated the criminal proceedings in this matter, accused persons cannot be held liable for it as the complainant has himself failed to identify the accused persons. Thus, Ld. Counsel for both accused persons has strongly pressed upon setting the accused persons at liberty by acquitting them.
15. Accordingly, this court has heard the rival submissions advanced by the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for both accused and has also perused the entire record carefully.
Brief reasons for the decision
16. At the outset, before proceeding further on to discussing the weight and relevancy of evidence led by the Prosecution, this court deems it appropriate to first highlight the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, i.e. one, that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and two, that the burden upon the Prosecution lies to the extent of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove all the ingredients which constitute the offence so that all reasonable doubts in the case of the Prosecution are removed. It may be noted that strongest of suspicion upon the accused, does not lead to the guilt of the accused. Thus, keeping in view the above stated aspects and principles of criminal jurisprudence this court shall proceed to decide upon the innocence or guilt of the accused persons.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
FIR No. 373/2024 SAINI Date:
2025.02.12
PS Jyoti Nagar 17:07:42
State vs. Amit and Ors. 9/+0530
11
17. Coming to the facts of the case, Prosecution has cited 08 witnesses in the list of witnesses annexed with the chargesheet. Out of these witnesses, only one is prime public witness and rest of the witnesses cited by the Prosecution are formal witnesses, who might have played some part in the investigation but were not first hand witnesses to the alleged incident. Certainly, the guilt of the accused persons could not have been proved by the Prosecution from the mere testimony of said formal witnesses inasmuch as, the alleged incident was never committed in their presence.
Complainant has specifically stated in his deposition that he could not identify the accused persons. Moreover, there is no other eye-witness to the incident of snatching of the mobile by the accused persons namely Amit and Vijay.
18. Even other circumstances and documents available on record pointed out towards lack of sufficient incriminating evidence against them. The hostility in the testimony of the Complainant in the witness box coupled with the lack of other sufficient material on record makes the Prosecution case weak beyond repairs, especially because there are no other independent eye witnesses to the case. Also, no CCTV footage or any other independent evidence has been collected from the spot which can link the accused persons with the alleged offence. Conviction of the accused persons cannot be secured with a mere disclosure statements unless vital evidence establishing guilt of the accused persons are brought in the court.
19. It is already settled in law that the burden upon the Prosecution is to bring home the guilt of the accused persons on Digitally signed FIR No. 373/2024 RAHUL by RAHUL SAINI Date:
PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI 2025.02.12
17:07:59 +0530
State vs. Amit and Ors. 10/ 11
the basis of evidence collected during investigation and when the star witness to the case is himself turned hostile, there remains no scope of doubt with respect to the lack of sufficient proof by Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Moreover, as per the tenets of criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt in the case of the Prosecution goes to both accused persons.
Conclusion
20. Therefore, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that Prosecution has failed to discharge the burden imposed upon it by law of proving the guilt of both accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. In these circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that accused Amit S/o Satish and Vijay S/o Mohan Singh are not held guilty for the offences U/s 304(2)/ 3 (5) of BNS and accused persons namely Amit and Vijay had already been acquitted for the offence u/s 317(2)/3 (5) of BNS vide order dated 12.02.2025 on the basis of separate statement made by the complainant Mithun. Accordingly, both accused persons namely Amit S/o Satish and Vijay S/o Mohan Singh stand acquitted in the present case.
RAHUL Digitally signed by RAHUL SAINI SAINI 17:08:08 +0530 Date: 2025.02.12 Announced in the Open Court (Rahul Saini) on 12.02.2025 Judicial Magistrate First Class-08, Shahdara District, Karkardooma 12.02.2025 [This judgment contains 11 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] FIR No. 373/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar State vs. Amit and Ors. 11/ 11