Delhi District Court
Court In State Of Haryana vs Jagbir Singh And Anr Decided On 26 ... on 20 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 861/06
P.S. : Shalimar Bagh
Unique ID No. : 0240R0586692008
State
Vs.
Rekha
W/o Rakesh
R/o 186, Janta Flat,
Sector 16, Rohini,
Delhi.
Date of institution of case : 13.03.2008
Date of reserving the judgment : Not reserved
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.03.2015
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 68/2/SB 2. Date of Commission of Offence: 20.11.2006 3. Date of institution of the case: 13.03.2008 4. Name of the complainant: Karan Bajaj 5. Name of the accused: Rekha 6. Offence complained or proved: 380 IPC 7. Plea of Accused : "Not Guilty" 8. Final Order: Acquitted 9. Date of Final Order: 20.03.2015 FIR No. 861/06 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 1 of 5 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Succinctly, the facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 20.11.2006 at about 8.45 p.m. at Subhiksha LSC, DPBlock, Pitam Pura, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Shalimar Bagh, accused Rekha committed theft in a shop Subhiksha used for custody of property. The accused was arrested, and upon completion of investigation challan was prepared u/s 380 IPC and filed in court for trial.
2. The copies of charge sheet and annexed documents were supplied to the accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offence U/s 380 IPC was framed against the accused on 01.11.2010 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the case was adjourned for recording of prosecution evidence.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
PW-1 HC Govind deposed that on 20.11.2006 he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh as duty officer and has proved the FIR Ex. PW 1/A and endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW 1/B. PW 2 Karan Bajaj deposed that in the month of November 2006, he was working as store Manager at Subhiksha Trading Service Ltd. Company at outlet at DP Block local shopping complex, Pitam Pura. Between 7/8 p.m. one of guard at the outlet informed him that one lady is taking away the goods from the shop despite being stopped, she could not be apprehended being a lady. He reached at FIR No. 861/06 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 1 of 5 the exit gate and while the lady was going out in the barricades way the goods hidden by her in the salwar hidden pocket started falling down and at the end of the barricades zig zag she was stopped. She was asked to show the bill. He cannot say if she produced the bill or not. The goods were mainly cosmetic articles. Police was informed and IO recorded his statement Ex. PW 2/A. The seizure memo of the goods Ex. PW 2/B. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW 2/C and Ex. PW 2/D. The said witness has correctly identified the case property as Ex. P-1.
5. PW Karan Bajaj sho is the complainant and main eye witnesses to the incident has turned hostile and has not identified the accused. He has also not identified his signatures on the seizure memo. The remaining unexamined witnesses are either police officials or formal witness who are not ocular witnesses and could not prove the culpability of the accused. Thus, the prosecution evidence was closed. As nothing incriminating was found on record against the accused which could warrant examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C., accordingly it was dispensed with.
6. I have carefully perused the case record and have heard arguments advanced by ld APP for the state as well as by ld defence counsel.
7. The accused Rekha in the present case are charged for the offence U/s 380 IPC on the allegations that on 20.11.2006 at about 8.45 p.m. at Subhiksha LSC, DP Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Shalimar Bagh, accused Rekha committed theft in a shop Subhiksha used for custody of property FIR No. 861/06 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 1 of 5
8. To prove the case against the accused persons, the prosecution was obliged to prove the following ingredients:-
-That the accused committed theft in a shop
9. The prosecution has not examined only two witnesses i.e. PW-1 HC Govind Singh and PW-2 Karan Bajaj to prove its case. PW 1 proved the FIR of the case. PW 2 Karan Bajaj who is the complainant in the present case and the main eye witness has turned hostile. No other eye witness has been cited or examined to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The complicity of the accused could have been proved by the ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. The ocular witnesses turned hostile and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. It is well settled law that on convict the accused on circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused and no other. It was held by the Apex court in State Of Haryana vs Jagbir Singh And Anr decided on 26 September, 2003 in Appeal (crl.) 1721 of 1996 that:
"In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed thus: "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a FIR No. 861/06 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 1 of 5 chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
10. It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof. No evidence has come on record to prove the culpability on the part of accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled to be exonerated.
11. In the light of above discussion and observations, accused Rekha is hereby acquitted for the offences charged in the present case. Bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged. Documents, if any be returned after cancellation of endorsement on the same.
12. File after necessary compliance be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court ( SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI )
20th day of March, 2015 Metropolitan Magistrate,
Rohini Courts: Delhi
FIR No. 861/06 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 1 of 5