Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/67087/2016 on 9 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : WEST-05, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 107/2014
P.S. : Vikas Puri
Unique Case ID No. 67087/2016
State
v.
1) Rahul @ Sunil S/o Sh. Dara Singh
R/o E-5, Deep Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Delhi.
2) Kunal @ Kannu @ Parkash, S/o Sh. Mahender
R/o H. No. 123, Part-4, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
Date of institution of case : 17.04.2014
Date of reserving the judgment : (not reserved)
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.08.2016
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 392V/17.4.14
2. Date of Commission of Offence: 13.02.2014
3. Date of institution of the case: 17.04.2014
4. Name of the complainant: Sh. Pawan Gupta
5. Name of the accused: Rahul @ Sunil and Kunal
@ Kannu @ Parkash
FIR No. 107/14 1 of 7
PS Vikas Puri
6. Offence complained or proved: 392/34 IPC
7. Plea of Accused: "Not Guilty"
8. Final Order: Acquitted
9. Date of Final Order: 09.08.2016
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is the prosecution of accused Rahul @ Sunil and Kunal @ Kanu @ Parkash for offences punishable u/s 392/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) on a charge sheet filed by the Police Station Vikas Puri subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 107/14.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 13.02.2014 at about 3.00 am near AG-1 Block, Main Najafgarh Road, Vikas Puri, Delhi both accused persons alongwith one another co-accused (not arrested yet) in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of Rs.3200/- from complainant Pawan Gupta, robbery of Rs.700/- from Rakesh Yadav and robbery of Rs.700/- from Sanjay Mandal. Both accused persons were arrested. Charge-sheet in the Court was filed after completion of investigation.
3. Accused persons were summoned after the Court took cognizance of the offences. The copies of charge sheet and relevant documents were FIR No. 107/14 2 of 7 PS Vikas Puri supplied to accused persons in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.PC).
4. Prima facie case was made out and charge for offence U/s 392/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 10.09.2014 to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed up for recording of prosecution evidence.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined the following witnesses :-
PW-1 Sh. Pawan Gupta is the complainant on whose statement the present FIR has been registered. He is an eye witness / victim in the present matter. PW1 failed to identify both accused persons in the Court. He deposed that he cannot identify the persons who had robbed him as it was night time.
PW-2 Sh. Rakesh Yadav and PW-3 Sh. Sanjay Mandal are the two other eye witnesses / victims. Both of them also failed to identify both accused persons in the Court. They deposed that they cannot identify the persons who had robbed them as it was night time.
PW-4 Sh. Const. Sudhir Kumar had gone to the spot alongwith IO and he had also taken the rukka from spot to the PS for registration of FIR. He identified his signature on site plan and narrated on the lines of prosecution version.
6. The eye witnesses namely PW1 Pawan Gupta, PW2 Rakesh Yadav FIR No. 107/14 3 of 7 PS Vikas Puri and PW3 Sanjay Mandal have not identified any of the accused persons. They have categorically stated in their depositions that the persons who had robbed them had come in muffled face and they cannot identify those persons as it was night time and darkness. No other eye witness is cited in the list of witnesses. PW1 Pawan Gupta, PW2 Rakesh Yadav and PW3 Sanjay Mandal are the main eye and star witnesses of the prosecution on which case hinges upon. However, none of them has identified any of the accused persons in the Court. No fruitful purpose shall be served by examining the remaining witnesses. The prosecution evidence is hereby closed. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination under section 313 Cr.PC is therefore dispensed with.
7. This Court has carefully perused the case record and have heard arguments advanced by Learned APP for the State as well as by Learned Defence Counsel.
8. At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the ingredients of the offences charged :
Section 392 IPC. Punishment for robbery.
Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. Section 34 IPC. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common FIR No. 107/14 4 of 7 PS Vikas Puri intention.
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
9. Coming back to the facts of the present case. The prosecution has examined three eye witnesses. PW1 Pawan Gupta, PW2 Rakesh Yadav and PW3 Sanjay Mandal are the said eye witnesses and the prosecution case hinges upon their testimony alone. All the three eye witnesses have deposed in the Court that the persons who had robbed them were in muffled face and there was darkness at the place of alleged offence due to night time. None of the above-named three eye witnesses has identified any of the accused persons in the Court during their deposition. Further, no recovery of the alleged robbed money has been effected from any of the accused persons. The accused persons were charged for the offence as they refused to go for Test Identification Parade.
10. All the remaining witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the list of witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses and they are not ocular witnesses and could not prove the culpability of accused persons. None of the remaining witness is an eye witness to the incident and no other witness is competent enough to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. The complicity of accused could have been proved by the ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. The FIR No. 107/14 5 of 7 PS Vikas Puri ocular witnesses are not examined and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. It is well settled law that to convict the accused on circumstantial evidence, there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of accused and nothing else.
11. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence 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 may be , cannot take place of proof. Every benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused.
12. In case titled as Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
13. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited Judgment, this Court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The Court needs to protect the right of accused person to have speedy justice and acquit the accused forthwith as there is nothing incriminating against accused. Accordingly, accused persons namely Rahul @ Sunil FIR No. 107/14 6 of 7 PS Vikas Puri and Kunal @ Kannu @ Parkash are acquitted for offences punishable u/s 392/34 IPC .
14. Bail bonds u/s 437A of Cr.PC is to be furnished which would remain valid for a period of six months.
Announced in open Court (SUSHIL KUMAR)
on 09th day of August 2016 Metropolitan Magistrate
West-05, Delhi
FIR No. 107/14 7 of 7
PS Vikas Puri