Delhi District Court
State vs . Ashu @ Ajit on 28 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. APOORVA RANA, M.M-10,
DWARKA COURT (SOUTH WEST), NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSW02-006295-2017
Cr. Case 2110/2017
STATE Vs. ASHU @ AJIT
FIR No. 28/2016
P.S Kapashera
28.09.2022
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 2110/2017
Date of commission of offence : 27.01.2016
Date of institution of the case : 20.03.2017
Name of the complainant : Sh. Rupesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Jai Bagwan
R/o H. No. 222,
Mahipal Pur, New
Delhi.
Name of accused and address : Ashu @ Ajit
S/o Sh. Ramnath
Singh
R/o Plot No. 1100,
House of Vijay
Yadav, Gali No. 2,
Kapashera, New
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 407/411 IPC Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Final order : Acquitted State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.1 / 21 Date reserved for judgment : 29.08.2022 Date of judgment : 28.09.2022 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused Ashu @ Ajit, pursuant to charge sheet filed qua him under Section 407 IPC (hereinafter IPC for sake of brevity) subsequent to the investigation carried out at P.S: Kapashera, in FIR no. 28/2016.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.01.2016, at unknown time, at Busy Bees Logistics Company, Samalkha, New Delhi, the accused was entrusted with property as a carrier/driver and he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of three mobile phones (make Intex, Micromax, Xolo) and one laptop (make HP), which belonged to company Busy Bees Logistics. The same were seized by the police officials and thereafter, an FIR was registered qua the accused. After investigation, the police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable u/s 407 IPC.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing the arguments, charge for offence punishable u/s 407/411 IPC was framed qua the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, the accused vide his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, had admitted the genuineness of copy of FIR no. 28/2016 alongwith certificate u/s State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.2 / 21 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex P/A/1.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. The prosecution, in support of the present case has examined six witnesses in total.
5. PW-1 was Sh. Rupesh, i.e., the complainant in the present case, who inter alia deposed that accused was working as driver for the vehicle of complainant, TATA 407, bearing registration no. DL1LP1064 and the said vehicle was booked on a contract with a company named Express Bees, in Samalkha. That, on 27.01.2016, after receiving call from the security staff of Express Bees company, he was informed that few articles were missing from the vehicle bearing no. DL1LP1064, which were given to the accused Ashu @ Ajit. That, PW1 thereafter enquired about the said fact from the accused and during enquiry, the accused disclosed that he was using a stolen mobile phone which was taken by him from the above said vehicle, while he was delivering the articles. The said PW thereafter deposed that he reached at the room of the accused, where he found one new HP laptop, three mobile phones (of make Xolo, Micromax and Intex), along with 4-5 chargers and headphones, in possession of the accused. The said PW also deposed that one Cellotape having the print of company and original seal of the company were also produced by the accused before the complainant and the accused disclosed that all the above mentioned articles were taken by him from the aforesaid vehicle, while he delivered the same to parties concerned. The said PW thereafter called at 100 number, State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.3 / 21 consequent to which, police reached at the spot and the said PW handed over the case property and the accused to the police. Through him, his statement was exhibited as Ex PW1/A, site plan was exhibited as Ex PW1/B, seizure memo was exhibited as Ex PW1/C, arrest memo of accused was exhibited as Ex PW1/D, personal search memo of accused was exhibited as Ex PW1/E, disclosure statement of accused was exhibited as Ex PW1/F and attendance sheets of the drivers at his company were marked as Mark-X(colly).
6. PW-2 was Sh. Pramod Kumar Singh i.e., Senior Security Officer at Busybees Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd., who deposed that in the month of 2016, he received a complaint that some customers were not getting their respective articles like Laptops, mobile phone, charger etc., upon which he enquired and came to know that the articles were picked up from the warehouses of Snapdeal but were not delivered to their respective customers. That, he checked the CCTV footages and weight of the boxes containing articles and found that some body was changing the articles in between the conveyance. He doubted the driver of the vehicle who was collecting the articles and informed about the same to the Transport Manager of the Busybees Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The said PW thereafter deposed that the transport manager of the company called the owner of the vehicle and the said PW, along with owner Rupesh, went to the house of the accused. That, PW2 stayed outside the house of the accused but Rupesh entered his house and found laptops, mobiles, chargers, headphones etc. That, Rupesh thereafter called at 100 number, consequent to which police reached at the spot State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.4 / 21 and seized the articles recovered from the accused. Through him, one envelope containing case property namely, charger and HP laptop, was exhibited as Ex P1 (colly) and another envelope containing case property namely, three mobile phones, was exhibited as Ex P2 (colly)
7. PW-3 was Ct. Kaptan Singh, who deposed that on 29.01.2016, complainant Rupesh Kumar came to the police station and gave a complaint to the IO, regarding a laptop and mobile phones stolen by the accused person Ashu and produced the accused along with him and case property, that is, laptop, charger and the mobile phones before SI Yaqub Khan, upon which IO Yakub Khan registered the case and conducted investigation in the matter. The said witness thereafter deposed with respect to the investigation conducted by the IO in the present matter.
8. PW-4 was Sh. Satish Kumar, who was a private vendor in Busy Bees Pvt. Ltd company, deposed that one Tata 407, bearing registration no. DL1LP1064, belonging to one Rupesh Kumar, was hired by Busy Bees Pvt. Ltd company, which vehicle was given to one Ashu Kumar, who used to transport company's goods from one warehouse to another. That, after sometime, some complaints were received regarding shortage of shipment from the company and in this regard, the said PW informed the owner of the vehicle Rupesh Kumar. That thereafter, Rupesh Kumar cautioned the driver and went to the house of accused where he recovered three mobile phones and one laptop from the possession of the accused. That, Rupesh State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.5 / 21 Kumar took the recovered items to the police station and gave the same to the police officer. The said PW also deposed that the security manager from Busy Bees Pvt. Ltd company also came to the police station and produced the receipts of the laptop and mobile phone and gave the same to the police officer. He further deposed that the said mobile phones were given in his presence.
9. PW-5 was SI Yakub Khan, who was the IO in the present case, deposed on similar lines as PW3. The said PW additionally deposed that when the complainant had come to the police station along with his complaint, security manager Pramod Singh of Busy Bees Pvt. Ltd company also came at the PS and produced the invoice of the laptop and identified that the laptop belonged to Busy Bees Pvt. Ltd company and further acknowledged that he was searching for the bills of the mobile phones. He further deposed with respect to the investigation conducted by him in the present manner. Through him, tehrir of complainant was exhibited as Ex PW5/A and the charge sheet was exhibited as Ex PW5/B.
10. PW-6 was HC Rambir, i.e., the MHC(M) in the case, who deposed that on 29.01.2016, the case property in the present matter was deposited by SI Yaqub Khan and the same was mentioned in register number 19 at entry no. 1261. Through him, copy of entry made in register no. 19 was exhibited as Ex PW6/A (OSR).
11. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, PW at serial no. 5, DO / HC Rohtash Lamba, as per list of State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.6 / 21 prosecution witnesses was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by him was dispensed with.
12. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, P.E was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 281 Cr.P.C. read with section 313 Cr.P.C.:
13. Statement of the accused u/s 281 Cr.P.C. read with section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused further opted to not lead evidence in his defence and hence, DE was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
14. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 407/411 IPC has been proved beyond doubt.
15. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.7 / 21 that the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant. Arguing further, Ld. Counsel has submitted that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant vis-a-vis the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, thus, rendering them unreliable and incredible. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be given the benefit of doubt and is therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
16. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused have been heard. The evidence and documents on record have been carefully perused.
17. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused Ashu @ Ajit has been charged for the offence u/s 407/411 IPC. Section 407 IPC provides for offence of criminal breach of trust by a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper. In order to attract liability under section 407 IPC, prosecution is required to prove that the accused was entrusted with some property; that he was entrusted with property in the capacity of a carrier, wharfinger or a warehouse keeper; and that the accused committed criminal breach of trust in respect of such property. Further, Section 411 IPC provides punishment for the offence of dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property, knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property.
State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.8 / 2118. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal. Now, careful scrutiny of the evidence placed on record brings to light the fact that the case of the prosecution is fraught with multiple inconsistencies as mentioned below:-
(1) Incongruous and inconsistent testimonies of various prosecution witnesses:
19. First and foremost, there is inconsistency with respect to how complainant Rupesh received the complaint regarding his driver/accused from the Busy Bees Company. On one hand, in his complaint Ex PW1/A, complainant has stated that on 27.01.2016, vendor Satish telephonically informed him about the theft of articles by the driver of his vehicle, while, on the other hand, during his testimony as PW1, complainant Rupesh deposed that on 27.01.2016, he had received a call from security staff of the said company, who informed him that few articles which were given to accused had gone missing from his vehicle, TATA 407, i.e, the vehicle which was given by the complainant to Busy Bees Company on contract with accused as its driver. Admittedly, Satish was a co-vendor of Busy Bees Company, and thus, could not have been one of the security staff State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.9 / 21 persons of the said company. Further complicating things, PW2 Pramod Kumar, deposed in his testimony that the transport manager of Busy Bees Logistic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had called the complainant Rupesh, i.e., the owner of the vehicle, regarding the theft of certain articles by his driver. In light of the statement of PW2 given by him during his cross-examination, the transport manager of the company was one person namely Deepak Kumar, who thus, had purportedly informed complainant Rupesh about the activities of accused. Thus, there is utter confusion with respect to the manner of receipt of information of conduct / activities of accused by the complainant. In such a scenario, the manner in which the complainant received the said information has been shrouded with clouds of suspicion and skepticism.
20. Moving on, during his testimony, PW1 deposed that after he had recovered the case property from the accused, he made a call to the police at 100 number, consequent to which the police arrived at the spot and the complainant handed over the case property as well as the accused to the police. Similarly, PW2 Pramod Kumar also deposed on similar lines as regards the 100 number call made by the complainant to the police upon recovery of case property from the accused. Now, the deposition of both these witnesses is in sharp contrast with the earlier complaint of the complainant Ex.PW1/A, given by him to the police, wherein, he has stated that upon recovery of the case property, the complainant had produced the accused along with the said property before the police officials at the police station. Not only this, their deposition on this aspect is also at odds with testimonies of PW3 and PW5, who consonantly deposed that on State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.10 / 21 29.01.2016, the complainant had come to the police station along with the accused and the case property, and had also given a complaint to the IO regarding the offence committed by the accused.
21. Furthermore, PW2 also deposed during trial that he and complainant Rupesh had gone to the house of accused, which fact as such, has emerged for the first time in the prosecution story and is at variance with the otherwise case of prosecution. It is a uniform version of PW1 primarily, and that of PW4 as well, that only PW1 /complainant had gone to the house of the accused. In addition to this, PW4 also deposed with respect to his presence at the police station along with the complainant on the day when the complainant had produced the accused along with the case property before the police officials. He also stated that the security manager from the Busy Bees company had also come to the police station that day and had given the receipt of the laptop and mobile phone to the police officer. PW5 IO/SI Yaqub Khan also testified that security manager Pramod Singh had come to the police station on the said day. Now, first and foremost, it is imperative to mention that no other PW has deposed as regards the presence of PW4 Satish Kumar at the police station on the relevant day. In fact, the testimonies of PW3 and PW5 validate the fact that the complainant alone had come to the police station alongwith the accused and the case property. Next, the averment of PW4 and PW5 regarding the presence of security manager Pramod Kumar in the PS on the said day is rebutted by the very own testimony of PW2 Pramod Kumar who, quite contrarily, deposed that the police had reached at the spot State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.11 / 21 after complainant Rupesh had called at 100 number. The said PW did not even faintly indicate about the production of any receipt of the laptop or mobile phone by him at the police station or that he had gone to the police station during the investigation in the present case, at any point in time and had identified the case property, as claimed by PW5. These irregularities in the testimonies of aforesaid PWs on material aspects pertaining to the proceedings of the case, have raised doubts over the case put forth by them during trial and have created a dent in the overall case of the prosecution.
(2) Identity of recovered property as the stolen property belonging to the company Busy Bees Logistics Private Limited, not established:
22. A careful perusal of record highlights that no account whatsoever of the articles reported to have gone missing or stolen, is forthcoming on behalf of the complainant company. An unexplained incertitude exists with respect to the fact as to what exactly the stolen articles were, and whether they were the same as the ones which were reported to have been stolen. As per seizure memo Ex.PW1/3, one Micromax mobile phone, one Intex mobile phone, one Xolo mobile phone and one HP laptop along with charger, were allegedly recovered from the accused and were seized as case property in the present case. However, prior to their recovery by the complainant from the accused, not a whisper about the said articles purportedly being stolen articles, is observable. The entire record and testimonies of the prosecution witness is absolutely silent on these details of the State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.12 / 21 articles which were found missing by the Busy Bees Company. Evidently, until the same were recovered from accused, complainant too seemed oblivious as to what those missing articles were. This is manifested from the complaint, Ex. PW1/A, filed by the complainant, which is bereft of the aforesaid details or specific identity of the articles in question and wherein, the complainant has just vaguely mentioned that 'some articles', were suspected to have been stolen by the accused. The testimony of the complainant as PW1 also treads a similar path on this aspect. In fact, it has been explicitly admitted by PW1 during his cross examination that he had no proof regarding the articles which were picked up from warehouse for delivery or as regards the invoices of the laptop or mobile phones. Additionally, the only person who could have deposed regarding the identity of the recovered case property as the same property which was found missing, would have been some official concerned from the company. One such person examined on behalf of the company was PW2 Pramod Kumar, who was reportedly working as a Senior Security officer at the aforesaid company. Now, as per his version, a complaint was received by him regarding the fact that products like laptops, mobiles phones, charger etc. were not reaching the customers. However, not only did the said witness not give a detailed account of or identification marks of what particularly these articles were (including the make and model, etc), but, not one complaint in this regard by the concerned company/official or any particular customer as regards theft of these particular articles, has been brought on record by him.
23. More importantly, not a single receipt has been State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.13 / 21 placed on record on behalf of the Busy Bees company with respect to the recovered articles/case property to show that the same actually belonged to the said company in the first place. The only document forthcoming in this regard is one retail invoice of one HP laptop, Mark Z, which document too, has not been exhibited during trial on account of it not being the original document and has thus, been rendered incapable of being read in evidence. Clearly, no specific identity/serial number of the stolen articles had been revealed by the complainant in his complaint or by the official of the Busy Bees company. For driving home the guilt of the accused, it was necessary that the prosecution established beyond any reasonable doubt that the recovered property was same as the stolen property. However, in the instant case, in absence of distinct identification of the allegedly recovered articles/case property, one cannot conclude with certainty that the said property is the stolen property of the Busy Bees company. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that the fact that recovered articles belonged to Busy Bees company and that the same were stolen property of the said company, has not been successfully established by the prosecution.
(3) Uncertainty as regards the employment of accused as a driver for the Busy Bees company and the entrustment of the recovered articles by the said company to the accused:
24. Quite essentially, the fact that the accused was working as a driver for Busy Bees company is dubitable. In this regard, testimony of PW1 is significant as it is his proposition State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.14 / 21 that one of his vehicle, TATA 407, registered in the name of his mother, was booked on a contract with company Busy Bees (mentioned as Express Bees in his testimony and as Busy Bees in his complaint Ex. PW1/A). However, no such contract has been placed on record either by PW1 himself or the concerned official from the company appearing as PW2. When the said witness was questioned on this aspect during his cross-examination, he deposed that no agreement had been executed between accused and PW1's own company. He further stated that no agreement had also taken place between the Busy Bees company and himself. Furthermore, PW1 deposed during his cross- examination that he was a co-vendor, who had given the vehicle in question to one Satish Kumar, and the said Satish Kumar had entered into a contract with the said company. Thus, it is not the case of the prosecution that there was no agreement at all executed between the concerned parties in this regard. Now, when Satish Kumar appeared during trial as PW4, he deposed that he was a private vendor in Busy Bees Company and that one Tata 407, bearing registration number DL1LP1064, belonging to complainant Rupesh Kumar, was hired by the said company. However, even the said witness failed to place on record any document vide which the accused was hired as a driver by Busy Bees company or any other agreement entered into between the company and Satish Kumar. In light of the aforementioned discrepancies in the version of PW1, PW2 and PW4, the production of a relevant document in this regard, would have rendered the much needed corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution, as discussed above, and the lack of corroboration of the oral averments of the said State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.15 / 21 witnesses, by any documentary proof, leaves the said fact having been not proved.
25. Furthermore, even if it is presumed for a moment that the accused was working as a driver for Busy Bees company, it is not even remotely discernible that the recovered articles were part of the consignment allegedly entrusted to accused for transportation / delivery from company warehouse to their respective destinations. No document has been brought forth on behalf of Busy Bees company showing as to what particular consignment was assigned to the accused at any point of time for purpose of delivery and what precisely its constituents were. In general scheme of things, it is difficult to fathom that no such account would be maintained by a company engaged in a business of the nature as that of Busy Bees company. More surprisingly, no particular day or timeline when the alleged act was committed by the accused or when the articles of the complainant company were observed to have gone missing has been reported as such. PW2 deposed that he had conducted enquiry regarding the said issue and had checked the CCTV footage, after which it came to his notice that the said goods were being changed during conveyance. Yet again, no details as regards from whom, or how, the said enquiry had been conducted are perceptible. No CCTV as mentioned, has been placed on record. In such a backdrop, the fact that the recovered goods were actually entrusted to accused for delivery has not been fortified. As per complaint, Ex. PW1/A, Satish expressed his suspicion as regards theft of articles by driver of complainant. The accused was not caught red handed or captured in any CCTV State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.16 / 21 camera while being indulged in the commission of the alleged act. He was not even reportedly seen by anyone while committing the said act. Rather, the accused has been seemingly roped in by the complainant based on suspicion alone and has been shown to have been in possession of certain articles which have not been proved to be the missing articles belonging to the complainant company, as discussed earlier. Merely because the accused was working as driver for Busy Bees company cannot per se establish his guilt for the alleged act. Though, PW2, appearing as an official Busy Bees company during trial, correctly identified the case property in the present matter, the same, however, in the opinion of this court, cannot be implied to infer that the said property was either the same property as was allegedly entrusted to the accused or was that property of the company which was reported to have been stolen/misappropriated by the accused. In the backdrop of inconsistent testimonies of various PWs and the absence of any corroboration by way of documentary proof, this court is unable to convince itself that the factum of accused working as a driver for Busy Bees company and the entrustment of case property by the Busy Bees company to the accused, in the capacity of his being their driver, can be said to have been established by the prosecution.
(4) Doubtful circumstances in which recovery is alleged to have been effected.
26. Even otherwise, if, for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the recovered articles are the stolen property of the State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.17 / 21 Busy Bees company, then too, in order to indict the accused for the alleged offence, the prosecution was required to establish that the said articles were recovered from the possession of, or at the instance of, the accused. As per prosecution, said articles were recovered from the house of the accused by the complainant, when he supposedly, visited his house to inquire about the complaint received qua the accused form Busy Bees company. As per complaint Ex.PW1/A filed by the complainant, the accused was residing at Plot no. 1100, house of Vijay Yadav, Gali no. 2, Kapashera, New Delhi. However, quite significantly, the prosecution has failed to place on record the proof of possession of the said house in order to prove that the accused was in possession of the said house. Besides, as discussed above, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 primarily, as regards their visit to the house of the accused, is buried under suspicion due to various inconsistencies in their versions given during trial. Furthermore, the recovery of the same was not even conducted in the presence of any independent / public witness and thus, the story of the prosecution on this aspect, has remained uncorroborated by an independent material witness. The complainant was the only witness to the recovery of the case property, whose testimony is not only engulfed with incredulity, but, who also is interested in the success of the prosecution case and therefore, the probability of his being governed by the extraneous factors, other than truth, cannot be ruled out.
(5) Shoddy investigation by the investigating officer.
27. At this stage, the lackadaisical approach of IO in State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.18 / 21 conducting investigation in the case also needs to be highlighted. A cursory perusal of record reveals that no effort seems to have been made by the IO to cull out and discover the true facts in the case. He has merely acted as a mouthpiece of the complainant by placing on record only as much evidence as was furnished by complainant during investigation, without venturing into anything beyond the same. Not an iota of endeavour appears to have been made to procure the particular days when items were reported to have gone missing from consignments of company and whether at all such times, accused was entrusted with delivery of the same; to procure the list, if any, of articles contained in consignments allegedly entrusted with accused for delivery; to find out if any complaint of non delivery of articles was made by any customer, as claimed; to check if any account of missing items was prepared by officials of Busy Bees company when articles were reported to have been found missing or not delivered; to obtain CCTV at the point of loading in the company office or anywhere else as would render assistance in the case; to examine persons involved in the entire transaction from the time of loading of goods at the company office/warehouse, including co-drivers if any, etc.
28. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the possibility that the complainant has falsely implicated the accused for the alleged offence, cannot be ruled out. As noted above, material contradictions and inconsistencies have crept in the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses and one cannot shy away from the possibility that the present case was a deliberate afterthought on the part of the complainant, aimed at State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.19 / 21 serving his own vested interests. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 601] that, "normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."
The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the complainant. The prosecution has particularly failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was working as a driver for Busy Bees company; that the recovery was genuinely made from the accused; that the alleged recovery was with respect to articles that belonged to the Busy Bees company and were reportedly stolen articles; and that, the said articles were entrusted to the accused in his capacity of driver of Busy Bees company, for purpose of delivery to customers. There is no gainsaying that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the accused for offence u/s 407/411 IPC beyond reasonable State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.20 / 21 doubt, thus, entitling the accused persons to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
29. Accordingly, this court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 407/411 IPC and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Ashu @ Ajit is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 407/411 IPC.
30. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
Announced in open court on 28.09.2022 in presence of accused and Ld. Counsel for APOORVA RANA RANA Digitally signed by APOORVA accused. Date: 2022.09.28 18:16:50 +05'30' (APOORVA RANA) M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/28.09.2022 It is certified that this judgment contains 21 pages, all signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by APOORVA APOORVA RANA RANA
Date: 2022.09.28 18:17:06 +05'30'
(APOORVA RANA)
M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/28.09.2022
State Vs. Ashu @ Ajit Page No.21 / 21