Delhi District Court
State vs Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar & Ors. on 26 March, 2018
THE COURT OF SH DHARMENDER SINGH, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
STATE Versus Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar & Ors.
FIR No. 53/04
PS: Vasant Kunj
U/s 448/511 & 34 IPC
CC No. 48025/16
1. Date of commission of offence : 17.01.2004
2. Name of the complainant : Sh. Suraj Prakash Aggarwal
3. Name of the accused, and their : 1) Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Vishambhar Swaroop
Bhatnagar, resident of 89 D,
Narmada Apartment,
New Delhi.
2) Parminder Kumar (Absconder),
S/o Sh. Mahak Singh,
resident of Village,
Bhanswal, P.S. Garhi Pukhta
Distt. Mujjafar Nagar, U.P.
3) Pradeep Kumar,
S/o Sh. Karan Singh
resident of H. No.332,
Vivek Vihar Colony, Shamli,
Distt. Mujjafar Nagar, U.P.
4. Offence Complained of : U/s 448/511 & 34 IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final Order : Acquitted
7. Date of Reserving Judgment : 26.03.2018
8. Date when judgment was : 26.03.2018
pronounced
FIR no. 53/04
State Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar & Ors.
PS Vasant Kunj
Page 1 of 5
JUDGMENT
1. As per case of prosecution on 17.01.2004 in between 2:30/03:00 pm at House no.B-3/3281, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi belonging to complainant, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention broken the lock of door of said house and they also tried to break open the inner gate to take illegal possession of said property.
2. Qua the above incident, FIR was lodged and case was investigated by police. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court. On the basis of charge sheet and annexed documents cognizance of offences was taken and accused persons were called to face trial and on their appearance, provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C were complied.
3. After hearing the parties, notice / charge in respect of offences u/s 448/511 & 34 IPC was framed and served upon accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During course of trial, in order to prove its case prosecution examined two witnesses.
PW-1/Complainant Sh.Suraj Prakash Aggarwal. He deposed that he is owner of flat bearing no. B-3/3281, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and he purchased the same from DDA, in the year 1989 and received the possession of the same in the year 1996. He deposed that since getting the possession of said flat, said flat is vacant and is locked by him. He deposed that on 17.01.2004 few people came at said flat and broken the lock of main gate and when they were trying to FIR no. 53/04 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar & Ors.
PS Vasant Kunj Page 2 of 5 break the next lock, this witness received the telephonic call from society about said incident. This witness called the police by dialing 100 number, however, before reaching the police at the spot, said accused persons ran away from spot. On 17.01.2004, this witness gave complaint to police and same is Ex.PW1/A. In cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, this witness stated that he was not present at the spot when accused persons were breaking the locks of his premises and he was informed by his next door neighbor, whose name he does not remember. He deposed that he did not see any of the accused persons while trying to trespass in said premises and he cannot identify any of the accused persons. He deposed that after receiving the information from his next door neighbour, he called the PCR and when he reached at the premises, no one was present there.
PW-2 Sh. Satya Narayan Aggarwal. He deposed that he purchased the flat bearing no. B-3/3281, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi from Sh. S.P. Aggarwal (complainant). As per Ld. APP for the State this witness was resiling from his earlier statement, so, this witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act after taking permission of the Court.
In cross-examination by Ld. APP, he deposed that he did not state to police in his statement Mark-X that accused Pradeep Kumar and Parminder attempted to break open the lock of said flat.
No other witness was examined on behalf of prosecution despite several opportunities. After giving several opportunities, PE was closed.
FIR no. 53/04State Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar & Ors.
PS Vasant Kunj Page 3 of 5
5. In absence of any incriminating material against accused persons, statement of accused u/s 313 read with Section 281 Cr.PC was dispensed with.
6. During proceedings of this case, accused Parminder stopped appearing before Court and in accordance with the procedure of law, he was declared absconder.
7. In this matter prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 17.01.2004, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention broken the lock of door of house of complainant and they tried to break open the inner gate to take illegal possession of property of complainant, however, no evidence has come on record regarding the said act of accused persons. PW-1 complainant has stated in his cross-examination that he was not present when the accused persons were breaking the locks of his premises. He deposed that he was informed by his next door neighbour, whose name he does not remember. PW-2 Sh. Satya Narayan Aggarwal also stated in his cross- examination that he did not make statement to police that accused Pradeep Kumar and Parminder attempted to break open the lock of property. No other witness was examined on behalf of prosecution. In these circumstances prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons.
Accordingly, both accused persons namely Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar and Pradeep Kumar are acquitted. Their bail bond and surety bond are cancelled. Sureties are discharged.
FIR no. 53/04State Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar & Ors.
PS Vasant Kunj Page 4 of 5 In terms of directions given as per law, accused persons are required to furnish bail bond & surety bond in terms of Section 437 A Cr.PC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance and be revived as and when accused Parminder is arrested or produced before the Court.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (DHARMENDER SINGH)
COURT ON 26.03.2018 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05
PHC/NDD, DELHI
FIR no. 53/04
State Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar & Ors.
PS Vasant Kunj
Page 5 of 5