Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Javed@ Tony on 3 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR ,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (SHAHDARA) , DELHI.
ID No. 549-2018
Sessions Case No. 81/18
Assigned to Sessions on 30.10.2018
FIR No. 282/2018
Police Station Anand Vihar
Under Section U/S 392/ 394/397/411/34 IPC
and 25/54/59 Arms Act
Charged Under Section U/S 392/ 394/397/411/34 IPC
and 25/54/59 Arms Act
State Vs 1. Javed@ Tony
S/O Sh Shamsuddin
R/O E-43/A-590,New Seema
Puri, Delhi
2. Javed
S/O Riyasat Ali
R/O D-586, New Seema Puri,
Delhi
Arguments heard on 03.05.2019
Date of Judgment 03.05.2019
Final Order Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case are that complainant Gaurav got recorded his statement in Police Station on 05.08.2018, that he is working as Delivery boy at V-3S Mall Delhi in Mc Donald. He was going to his house on his motor cycle No. DL-5SB A-0944. At about 1.45 am he reached at Manglam Road, Park in front of MTNL office, AGCR Enclave, Delhi. He was intercepted by a motorcycle of red colour bearing registration no. DL 14SD-3556 and there were three boys.
S.C. No. 81/18 State Vs Javed @ Tony & Ors Page 1/7Two boys came down from the motorcycle out of them one boy put a knife on him (complainant). He was taken in the park. And another boy robbed his bag containing his wallet having Rs.4,000/-, aadhar card and some papers, his mobile phone Samsung A 5 with SIM Card nos. 8750114271 and 7011892172. They all fled away, after robbing the complainant. Immediately a police official arrived at the spot and complainant asked him for help and then the police official along with complainant chased towards the said biker had gone after some distance the said motorcycle was found lying on the road as it was struck against the footpath. It was attended by the police and local police was also called.
2. After registration of FIR, on the above said statement, the investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency. During investigation, on the basis of registration number of that motorcycle, it is discovered that motor cycle No. DL 14SD-3556 belongs to Javed alias Tonu son of Shamshuddin. It is also discovered that the offence was materialised by accused Javed son of Riayasat Ali, Azam (since not arrested) and CCL-F. The accused were also arrested, a mobile Samsung phone has been recovered from accused Javed alias Tony. During investigation the statement of the witnesses were recorded. IO collected the documents, prepared the challan for the alleged offence U/S 394/397/411/34 IPC 25/27 Arms Act and filed the charge sheet in the Court of Ld. Illaqa Magistrate. The S.C. No. 81/18 State Vs Javed @ Tony & Ors Page 2/7 charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. was committed U/S 209 Cr P C to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (Shahdara), Delhi for the trial of offence U/S 394/397/411/34 IPC 25/27 Arms Act. The accused were also sent to face the trial.
3. After considering the material on record and hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld Counsel for accused, my Ld Predecessor found a prima facie case for the offence punishable under section U/S 392/397/34 IPC against the accused persons . Accordingly, charge was framed for the offence U/S 392/397/411/34 IPC against both the accused persons and a separate charge for an offence U/s 25 of the Arms Act 1954 was framed against accused Javed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the record and the arguments advanced by them. It is a settled proposition of law that to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt by establishing an unbroken chains of events, leading to commission of the offence. It is further a settled proposition of law that once this chain is broken or a plausible theory of another possibility is shown, the accused becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt which ultimately leads to his/her acquittal. Emphasis supplied upon case titled as Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes 55.
S.C. No. 81/18 State Vs Javed @ Tony & Ors Page 3/75. It is to be borne in mind that the most important aspect of any successful prosecution is clear establishment or proof of identity of the accused being the assailant who has committed the alleged offence. This aspect of identify becomes the most primordial when the accusation against the accused has been for the serious offence like the present one. It is also stated to be first and most important connecting link in the chain of events which are required to be proved by the prosecution before it could take its case towards the other connecting links for the purpose of proving the ingredients with which accused persons have been charged with.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Singh AIR 2004 SC 299, has observed that " that in cases of robbery the accused is a unknown person and the only evidence which may connect him with the crime is the evidence of identification in a test identification parade, and in some cases evidence of recovery of the articles which are the subject matter of robbery. Cases of robbery, therefore, mostly depend on such evidence."
7. Before adverting further I would like to discussed in ingredients with which the accused persons have been charged with.
8. To constitute an offence u/s 392 of IPC following ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution.
(i) That accused committed theft and caused or attempt to S.C. No. 81/18 State Vs Javed @ Tony & Ors Page 4/7 cause to some person death, hurt or wrongful restraint of fear of instant death, hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
(ii) That he did above in committing such theft, or in order to commit such theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by such theft and acted as in voluntarily.
(iii) That accused committed extortion and at the time of committing it in presence of the person so put in fear that person to instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
(iv) That he inducted the person so put in fear to deliver up then and there the thing extorted.
9. Similarly Section 397 IPC requires which deals with the offence of robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt requires the following ingredients to be established:-
(i) Commission of Robbery or Dacoity by the accused persons
(ii) At the time of commit robbery or dacoity, the accused person used deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
(iii)The above acts were done during the commission of robbery or dacoity.
10. In the present case Gaurav is the complainant who has been examined as PW1. The witness has not identified the accused person in the Court. He has also deposed that none of them present in the Court was apprehended by the police in his presence or on his identification. So far as the seizure of mobile phone Mark -B/PW1, arrest memo Mark C/PW 1 and seizure memo of wallet is concerned PW 1 has deposed that his signatures were obtained on the blank paper Mark E/PW1. PW2 Shahnawaz has deposed that the motor cycle allegedly involved in the commission was repaired by him but he has not identified the accused S.C. No. 81/18 State Vs Javed @ Tony & Ors Page 5/7 persons as the person who have come to collect the motor cycle from him after it was repaired.
11. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case and the alleged recovery was planted upon the accused. On perusal of statement of complainant it reveal that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police official. In that circumstances the recovery has become highly suspicion. In these circumstances, the Ld Counsel for the accused persons have succeeded to disprove the case of the prosecution. Though the police official are competent witnesses and their testimony should not be discarded ordinarily being they are police personnel but simultaneously when the public/independent witnesses have discarded the version of police official then relying upon the sole testimony of police personnel is not save.
12. In the present case, both the witnesses have demolished the case of the prosecution regarding identification of both the accused persons as well as recovery of the articles vide Mark-D/PW1, Mark-E/PW1 and Mark-F/PW1. The probability cannot be ruled out the planting of case property upon the accused persons.
13. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case so as to complete the chain much less to prove the same beyond the pale of S.C. No. 81/18 State Vs Javed @ Tony & Ors Page 6/7 reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the accused is entitled to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted of the charges.
14. In view of the statutory requirement of section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused are directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court, for a period of 6 months, to appear before the appellate court, if so required.
15. The case property be kept with the rightful person.
16. File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMARJAGDISH Location: Shahdara District, ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN KUMAR Karkardooma Courts Date: 2019.05.08 COURT ON THIS 03.05.2019. 10:41:19 +0530 (JAGDISH KUMAR ) ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-04 SHAHDARA, KKD:DELHI S.C. No. 81/18 State Vs Javed @ Tony & Ors Page 7/7