Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit @ Hari Om on 8 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Amit @ Hari Om
FIR No. 962/14
PS. Model Town
CIS No. 2533/18
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 25.12.2014
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Swati Makhija
3) The name & parentage of accused : Amit @ Hari Om
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
4) Offence involved : U/s. 392/394/34 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 08.05.2018
Date of Institution : 15.01.2016
Judgment reserved on : 08.05.2018
Judgment announced on : 08.05.2018
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1.Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 25.12.2014 FIR No. 962/14, PS. Model Town, CIS No. 2533/18 State Vs. Amit @ Hari Om 1/7 at about 8:40 PM, near Shani Mandir, Polo road, Old Gupta Colony, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Model Town, accused Amit @ Hari Om alongwith his associate(who could not be arrested) in furtherance of their common intention, robbed the complainant Ms. Swati Makhija of her bag containing Rs. 1,000/, documents etc while she was going on a rickshaw and while, accused forcibly snatched bag from the possession of complainant, rickshaw overturned and as a result of which, complainant fell down on the road and sustained injuries and thereby, accused committed offence u/s. 392/394/34 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court against the accused. After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C, arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 23.09.2016, charge was framed against the accused Amit @ Hari Om for offence u/s 392/394/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined three witnesses. PW1 Swati Makhija deposed that on 25.12.2014 , she was coming back to her home from CP in a rickshaw; that when she reached near Shani Mandir, at about 8.40 PM, two persons came on a motorcycle; that pillion rider of the motorcycle tried to snatch her FIR No. 962/14, PS. Model Town, CIS No. 2533/18 State Vs. Amit @ Hari Om 2/7 bag from her shoulder; that when she resisted, that person forcibly snatched her purse due to which rickshaw over turned and she fell down on the road and sustained injuries on her hand and legs. She further deposed that her bag was containing her two ATM card, DL, RC of her car, college I card and around Rs. 1,000/. She further deposed that she could not notice the number of motorcycle; that she made a call to her father from police post; that her father came at the spot and took her to Vinayaka hospital. She further deposed that she cannot identify those persons as she could not see them property at the time of incident in question; that she was called at Tihar jail for TIP but she could not identify the accused.
4. PW 1 was cross examined by Ld. APP for State on the ground that she was resiling from her previous statement given to the police. In her cross examination, she stated that she cannot not identify any of those persons as she had not seen any of them at the time of incident. She denied of giving any statement mark A to the IO. She also stated that on 10.03.2015, she did not go to police station nor identify the accused. She denied that she identify the accused on 10.03.2015 at police station. She further stated that she has seen the accused for the first time in the Court and never met him before. She denied that she was deposing falsely.
FIR No. 962/14, PS. Model Town, CIS No. 2533/18 State Vs. Amit @ Hari Om 3/7
5. PW 2 Harish Makhija deposed that on 25.12.2014, he received a call from her daughter Swati that she was robbed of her purse and she sustained injuries; that he went to police post and took her daughter to hospital for treatment and IO recorded the statement of her daughter.
6. PW 3 ASI Babu Khan, the then duty officer at PS Model Town deposed of registering present FIR, copy of which is Ex. PW3/A.
7. In the present case, prosecution has examined the only eyewitness i.e PW1/complainant Swati Makhija, however, she has failed to identify the accused as one of the assailants involved in the present case and she deposed that she had not seen the assailants properly at the time of incident in question. There is no other eye witness who is yet to be examined and other remaining witnesses are formal in nature, whose testimony, even if remain unrebutted, would not be sufficient to prove allegations against the accused persons in the present case. In these circumstances, no fruitful purpose would have been served by keeping the matter pending for PE anymore. Hence, after hearing submissions of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused persons, prosecution evidence is closed.
FIR No. 962/14, PS. Model Town, CIS No. 2533/18 State Vs. Amit @ Hari Om 4/7
8. Since there was no incriminating evidence made available on record against the accused, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.
9. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
10. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts.
11. In the present case, the complainant/PW1 Ms. Swati Makhija is the most material witness to the prosecution case, who is cited as the only eyewitness of the alleged incident involved in the present case. Complainant is also victim in this case. She could have testified regarding the incident as well as identify the accused as one of the assailants in the Court during the trial. However, she failed to identify the accused in the Court as one of the assailants who robbed and caused her injuries on the date of incident in question. Complainant/PW1 categorically stated that she cannot identify those assailants as she could not see them propery at the time of incident.
FIR No. 962/14, PS. Model Town, CIS No. 2533/18 State Vs. Amit @ Hari Om 5/7 The said witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP for State, however nothing elicited from her cross examination which would connect the accused to the incident in question or make him liable for the same. Rather, in her cross examination by Ld. APP for State, PW 1 denied that she made any such statement mark A to the IO. She also denied that she identify the accused in police station on 10.03.2015. Hence, the only eye witness examined by the prosecution failed to support the prosecution case on the point of identification of the accused.
12. Other witnesses examined or cited by the prosecution are police officials or other formal witnesses who were admittedly not present at the given time and place of incident and they deposed or could have deposed the police/formal proceedings, which is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused persons in the present case.
13. It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. There is no controversy to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt occurring in the prosecution case. The general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is FIR No. 962/14, PS. Model Town, CIS No. 2533/18 State Vs. Amit @ Hari Om 6/7 entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.
14. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s 392/394/34 IPC against the accused Amit @ Hari Om. There is no evidence available on record against the accused to prove his guilt in the present case. Accordingly, accused Amit @ Hari Om is acquitted of the said offences U/s 392/394/34 IPC. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open court (SACHIN GUPTA)
on 8th Day of May, 2018 MM3/North District
Rohini Courts/Delhi, 08.05.2018
FIR No. 962/14, PS. Model Town, CIS No. 2533/18 State Vs. Amit @ Hari Om 7/7