Delhi District Court
State vs . Hemant And Rahul on 8 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ KR. SINGH: MM03(SOUTH DISTT.)
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Hemant and Rahul
FIR No. : 244/17
U/S : 379/356/411/34 IPC
PS : Neb Sarai
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 529/2 dt. 11.09.2017 b) Date of institution of the case : 12.09.2017 c) Date of commission of offence : 10.05.2017 d) Name of the complainant : Ms. Suman Singh
e) Name & address of the : 1. Hemant S/o Manwar Singh accused persons H.No. 744, 3rd Floor, Flat No. 303, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Rahul @ Chala S/o Sh. Jagdish R/o H. No. G78, Sangam Vihar New Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 356/379 /411 IPC R/W sec. 34 IPC g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. h) Arguments heard on : 08.11.2017 i) Final order : Acquitted j) Date of Judgment : 08.11.2017 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused Hemant and Rahul have been sent to face trial with the allegations that on 10.05.2017 at about 1.30 PM at Bandh Road, near Bikaner Sweet, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi ,within the jurisdiction of PS Neb Sarai, both the accused in furtherance of their common intention, committed theft of mobile phone make Samsung Galaxy J7 belonging to complainant and found in possession of stolen mobile phone. Hence committed an offence u/s 356/379/ 411 IPC r/w sec. 34 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/sec. 173 CrPC was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. Perusal of file reveals that a formal charge for commission of offence U/s 356/379/ 411 IPC r/w sec. 34 IPC. was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, only one witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1 Ms. Suman is complainant who deposed as under :
"On 10.5.17 at about 1.30PM, when I was going to my friend home at L Block Sangam Vihar, two boys came on white colour scooty ( whose registration number, I do not remember) and snatched my mobile phone make Samsung Galaxy. I cannot identify the boys who snatched my mobile.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP , however nothing material could be elicited from her as "Witness fails to identify the accused persons despite being pointed out specifically by Ld. APP."
5. PE was closed by order of this court on 08.11.2017. Since nothing incriminating came against both the accused, their statement u/s. 313 CrPC were dispensed with.
6. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
7. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
8. In the instant case, PW1 i.e. complainant Ms. Suman has not identified the accused as perpetrator of the offence. The identity of accused is the most vital aspect of any criminal trial. Since, the complainant has refused to identify the accused as perpetrator of the offence, the whole prosecution version crumbles and nothing survives thereafter.
9. Firstly, offence u/s 379 / 411 / 34 IPC was compounded by the complainant with the accused persons by separate mediation settlement order.
10. Since the complainant did not identify the accused persons, therefore, PE was closed by order of this court as allegations against accused could not have been proved in view of their non identification. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Apex Court in "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. & Anr. 1996 JCC 507, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is held that "in a case where, 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 the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
11. In view of non identification of accused persons by complainant, there is nothing on record to suggest that alleged offences were committed by accused persons, hence I have no hesitation in holding that prosecution has failed miserably to prove guilt of accused person beyond all reasonable doubts. Accused Hemant and Rahul deserve to be acquitted for the charges U/s 356/379/411 IPC r/w section 34 IPC leveled against them. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court (Anuj Kumar Singh) on 08.11.2017 MM03(SD)/Delhi / 08.11.2017