Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit@Kunal on 14 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05,
DISTRICT- NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Sh. SAURABH GOUYAL, DJS
State Vs. Rohit @ Kunal
FIR no. 436/2015
PS SB Dairy
U/s. 392/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) Case ID : 5292673/2016
2) The date of commission of offence : : 01.04.2015
3) The name of the complainant : Smt. Neena
Sharma W/o Sh.
Sanjay Sharma
R/o SD-410,SFF
Flat TV Tower
Apartment,
main Road,
Pitampura,
Delhi.
4) The name & parentage of accused : Rohit @ Kunal
S/o Sh. Jokhu
Ram R/o C-
12/12, SB
Dairy, Delhi.
5) Ld. APP for the State : Dr. Deepak
Saini
5) Offence involved : 392/34 IPC
6) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not
guilty
7) Final order : Acquit
8) Judgment reserved on : 29.08.2023
9) Judgment announced on : 14.10.2023
State Vs Rohit @ Kunal FIR no. 436/15 6 of 6
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly, the allegations of the prosecution are that on 01.04.2015, at about 1:30/1:40 pm in front of gate of Ryan International School, Sector 25, Rohini, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS. SB Dairy, accused Rohit @ Kunal alongwith his associate Sandeep in furtherance of their common intention had robbed gold chain of complainant Smt. Neena Sharma from her neck by put her in fear of instant hurt and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
2. Investigation was conducted into the allegations. Upon completion thereof, charge sheet was filed. The accused was summoned. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was done by providing copy of the charge sheet and annexed documents to the accused.
3. Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused person, a formal notice for the offence punishable U/s 392/34 A IPC was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
State Vs Rohit @ Kunal FIR no. 436/15 6 of 6
5. PW-1 W/Ct. Sudesh has deposed on 08.07.2015, he was posted at PS S.B. Dairy as DD writer. His duty hours from 08.00AM to 4.00 PM. On that day, he received information through telephone from SI Pukhraj that in FIR NO. 689/15 accused Monu @ Kapil, Rohit and Kunal were arrested and there disclosure statement also recorded. He reduced said information in original rojnamcha number vide DD no. 36B. The copy of the same is Ex. PW1/A(OSR).
6. PW-2 W/HC Sunita has deposed that on 01.04.2015, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS S.B. Dairy and his duty hours were from 08.00 a.m. to 4.00 pm. At about 3.40 p.m. rukka was brought by Ct. Mahesh which was sent by IO/SI Mahesh Kumar. On receipt of which he registered the present FIR through CIPA Operator under his supervision and nothing adverse happened in the computer system during that period. He has brought the original register pertaining to the abovesaid FIR. Computerized copy of the same is Ex. PW2/A (OSR). I made endorsement Ex.PW2/B on the rukka. After registration of FIR, the original tehrir, copy of FIR was handed over to Ct. Mahesh for further handing over the same to IO. He issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW2/C.
7. PW-3 Dr. Sanjay Sharma has deposed that on 01.04.2015, at about 1: 30 pm, he alongwith his wife Smt. Meena Sharma went to the Riyan International School Rohini where his daughter did study. When they were standing outside the main gate of the school and waiting for her daughter. Suddenly two persons came on the Bajaj State Vs Rohit @ Kunal FIR no. 436/15 6 of 6 motorcycle. They were not wearing helmet. The said two persons came towards and snatched the gold chain from his wife. They pushed his wife and she fell down. Thereafter, both accused persons ran away from the spot on motorcycle. PW-3 failed to identify the accused before the court. PW-3 further submits that they made call at number 100. Police came at the spot. They were taken to the hospital. Police recorded their statement.
8. PW-4 Ms. Neena Sharma has deposed that on 01.04.2015, at around 1.30 pm, she along with her husband went to the Rayan International School, Rohini where their daughter studied. They were standing outside the main gate of the school and waiting for their daughter. At around 1.40 pm, two persons came on a bike and rider of the bike was wearing the helmet, they came near her and snatched the gold chain from her neck. Thereafter, they pushed her and she fell down. Her husband tried to catch them but both persons ran away from the spot in a very high speed on the same motorcycle. PW-4 failed to identify the accused before the court. Thereafter, her husband made a call at 100 number. Police came at the spot. They took them to the hospital. Thereafter, police recorded his statement Ex PW-4/A. Later on, Police prepared the site plan at her instance.
9. Ld. APP for the State asked some leading question from PW-4, after taking permission from the court. PW-4 denied the suggestion that she is deliberately not identifying the accused person. PW-4 further denied the suggestion that she has made a compromise with the accused person outside the court. Court has put the question to State Vs Rohit @ Kunal FIR no. 436/15 6 of 6 PW-4 that she visit the jail premises on 24.07.2015 for identification of the accused? PW-1 replied yes. Further court has put the question to PW-4 that she identify the accused before the Ld MM on 24.07.2015? PW-4 replied that she do not remember correctly due to passage of time.
10. Since, the star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 did not support the case of prosecution and did not identify the accused, the identity of the accused is under question. PW-1 W/Ct. Sudesh and PW-2 W/HC Sunita were formal witnesses, who were not present on the spot at the time of incident. Remaining prosecution witnesses were dropped as they were all formal witnesses. Examining the remaining formal witnesses would have been a futile exercise at the cost of judicial time and resources as their testimonies, even if accepted unrebutted, would not have been sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, PE was closed on 29.08.2023, considering the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Anr: 1996 JCC 507.
11. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, recording of his statement u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
12. Final arguments were heard and record of the case has been perused.
13. It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system State Vs Rohit @ Kunal FIR no. 436/15 6 of 6 that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused but, the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
14. In view of the hostile testimony of PW-3 i.e. Dr. Sanjay Sharma and PW-4 i.e. Neena Sharma (complainant), prosecution failed to link the accused with the allegations made in the chargehseet and the identity of the accused could not be established. PW-1 and PW-2 were the police witnesses. The prosecution is not able to prove the offence u/s 392/34 IPC against the accused. Therefore, in view of hostile testimony of the eye witnesses and the fact that the eye witness has failed to identify the accused, the offences U/s 392/34 IPC cannot be proved. Therefore, this court did away with the necessity to recording testimonies of remaining formal prosecution witnesses and recording statement of accused (SA) and hereby acquits the accused Rohit @Kunal S/o Sh. Jokhu Ram of charges u/s 392/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2023.10.14
16:10:22 +0530
Pronounced in the open (SAURABH GOYAL)
Court on 14.10.2023 MM-05 (North), Rohini Courts
New Delhi
This judgement contains 6 signed pages.
State Vs Rohit @ Kunal FIR no. 436/15 6 of 6