Delhi District Court
State vs Gopal Yadav Etc on 23 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA
ACMM (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS:NEW DELHI
Cr. Case no. 5284073/16
STATE Vs. Gopal Yadav Etc
FIR NO 197/10
PS Mahendra Park
Unique ID no. of the case : DLNT02-000668-2012
Date of commission of offence : 05.03.2015
Name of complainant : Sh. Gulshan Kumar
Name and address of accused : (1) Gopal Yadav, S/o Sh.
Harender Yadav, R/o H.No. 75,
Matawali Gali, Old Mauz Pur,
Delhi.
(2) Bajrangi Rana, S/o Sh. Bhola
Rana, R/o H.No. 277, Katra
Gulkhan Near Robin Cinema,
Sabji Mandi, Delhi-110007. (PO)
(3) Akhilesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Sohan
Shah, R/o Village Shripur
Dharampur, PS Sudhali Distt.
Motihari, Bihar, present address
Bagga Bond Patri, Ajamigate
Delhi. (PO)
(4) Amit, S/o Sh. Mahavir
Choudhari, R/o Village
FIR No.197/2010 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Gopal & Ors. Page No. 1 of 5
Udabdhuya, PS Musli Dharaki,
Distt. Samaspitpur, Bihar, present
address Bagga Bond Patri,
Ajamigate Delhi. (PO)
Offence complained of : u/s 120B/414 IPC & u/s 212 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Institution of case: 24.01.2012
Date of Judgment reserved: 23.03.2024
Final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.09.2010 the complainant gave his complaint regarding the theft from his office namely C Com Electronics. As per the complainant, on 01.09.2010 he had locked his godown at around 07.00 PM and on 02.09.2010 while on morning walk he was informed by the guard that one truck no. DL-1LC has left his godown with the goods and four boys have taken the same and one big bag is lying outside. Upon opening the godown 62 cartons of video game and remote were missing which was valued around Rs. 3.5 lacs.
Thereafter the case u/s 454/380/34 IPC was registered.
2. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet under section FIR No.197/2010 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Gopal & Ors. Page No. 2 of 5 173 Cr.PC was filed by the IO for offences punishable u/s 120B/414 IPC & u/s 212 IPC. The cognizance of offence was taken and copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused. After compliance of provisions U/s 207 Cr.P.C. the charge was framed against accused for the offence 120B/414 IPC & u/s 212 IPC on 14.12.2021 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Matter was then listed for PE. Prosecution listed as many as seventh witnesses of which only complainant Gulshan Kumar was the star witness.
4. As per the chargesheet the accused concealed the stolen property i.e. 58 Cartons of gatta petties containing video games and remote bearing the mark of Sorro (which was stolen from house no. C15 Cottage Road Adarsh Nagar Delhi, hence it is only the complainant who can depose regarding the date and time of offence, the manner in which the property was taken away description of the stolen property, identity of the accused. Since, the complainant did not appear as the witness of the prosecution, prosecution is failed to prove aforesaid fact. All the other witnesses corroborate the testimony of PW Gulshan Kumar and are not indepent witnesses in nature.
5. It is pertinent to mention that apart from the above stated FIR No.197/2010 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Gopal & Ors. Page No. 3 of 5 witness namely Gulshan Kumar, all remaining prosecution witnesses cited were formal witnesses and were related only to the investigation of the present FIR.
6. Therefore, vide order dated 23.03.2024, the prosecution evidence was directed to be closed as there was no other material prosecution witness cited in the list of witnesses who could have connected the accused with the offence in question.
7. Since, there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was dispensed with and matter was fixed for hearing of final arguments on the same date.
8. I have heard Ld. Sub. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also gone through the judicial file.
9. In the instant case there is no material prosecution witness cited in the list of witnesses apart from witness/complainant namely PW Gulshan Kumar, who could have linked the accused with the crime in question. The other cited witnesses were related to only investigation of the present FIR. Thus, recording of their evidence would have been a wasteful exercise and therefore, the prosecution evidence was closed. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court FIR No.197/2010 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Gopal & Ors. Page No. 4 of 5 in the case titled as "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration, 1996, JCC 507" wherein it has been held that in cases where the trial court is certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, it is concluded that prosecution has failed to prove the charges for offences punishable u/s 120B/414 IPC & u/s 212 IPC against the accused namely Gopal Yadav, S/o Sh. Harender Yadav. Accordingly, accused stands acquitted in respect of the above stated charges.
11. Therefore, in light of the facts, circumstances and evidence, the accused Gopal Yadav is acquitted for the offence of Section 120B/414 IPC & u/s 212 IPC.
12. File be consigned to record room.
(This judgment contains 05 pages and (Niharika Kumar Sharma) all have been signed by undersigned)A.C.M.M.(North)/Rohini Courts Delhi/23.03.2024 FIR No.197/2010 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Gopal & Ors. Page No. 5 of 5