Delhi District Court
State vs Rajkumar & Ors. on 29 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR, MM01,
SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Versus Rajkumar & Ors.
FIR No. : 827/2004
P.S. : Lajpat Nagar
Under Section : 379/356/411/34 IPC
1.Serial No. of the case : 533/1/14
2.Date of commission of offence : 21.10.2004
3.Name of the Complainant : Ms. Anubhuti Chauhan
R/o J18, Lajpat Nagar III,
New Delhi.
4.Name of the accused, and : 1. Rajkumar
his parentage and residence S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o 15/142AIst Floor, East
of Kailash, New Delhi.
2. Sohan Singh
S/o Sh. Ashok Singh
R/o 16/370,Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi.
3. Vicky S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar
(since Expired and
proceeding qua accused
stood abated)
5.Date when reserved for judgment : 27.10.2014
6.Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 29.10.2014
7.Offence Complained of or proved : 356/379/34 IPC
8.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9.Final Judgment : Acquitted
FIR No. 827/2004 PS: Lajpat Nagar
State Vs. Rajkumar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 5
J U D G M E N T
1. In the present case, the accused person Rajkumar and Sohan Singh are facing the trial for commission of offence punishable U/s 356/379/411/34 IPC. The present case FIR was registered on the statement of Ms. Anubhuti Chauhan (hereinafter referred as 'the complainant') regarding the snatching of her mobile phone on 21.10.2004 near DMS Milk Booth, M block roundabout, Lajpat Nagar III. After snatching the boy fled away on a scooter being driven by other person. The complainant shouted and two boys chased the scooter on the ring road. The accused were apprehended and handed over to the police. The phone was also recovered from the accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the present case FIR was registered and investigation was conducted.
2. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet under section 379/356/411/34 IPC was filed by the IO against the accused Rajkumar, Sohan Singh and Vicky. The proceedings qua Accused Vicky stood abated vide order dated 23.04.2013. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence U/s 356/379/411/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, matter was put to prosecution evidence. Prosecution has examined only two witnesses to prove its case FIR No. 827/2004 PS: Lajpat Nagar State Vs. Rajkumar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 5 against the accused.
PW1 Rahul Rai deposed that on the day of incident when he was with his friend Vedant in the car and reached at round about Lblock Lajpat NagarIII saw the girl shouting that someone has snatched her mobile. On pointing out to the scooterists we chased them and caught them on the service lane of the Ring Road. Thereafter they informed the PCR. He further deposed that the alleged mobile phone was in the possession of accused persons. Thereafter accused persons got arrested in his presence and alleged mobile phone was also got seized. The further examination in chief of PW1 was deferred for want of case property.
PW2 SI Prakash was the duty officer and deposed that 21.10.2004 on receiving rukka brought by Ct. Dinesh sent by SI Neeraj. He recorded the FIR Ex.PW2/B and the rukka is Ex.PW2/A.
5. The Case property was released to the complainant on superdari. The testimony of PW1 could not be concluded for the want of case property. The complainant was summoned number of times even through IO as well as through concerned DCP. The presence of the complainant could not be ensured despite availing number of opportunities. The complainant and other eye witness Vedant could not be served despite being directed to be served through concerned DCP. Court was satisfied with the said reports and with the fact that sufficient opportunities had been availed by the prosecution and accordingly the said witnesses were struck off from the list of prosecution witnesses. Further the case property FIR No. 827/2004 PS: Lajpat Nagar State Vs. Rajkumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 5 was released on superdari to the complainant and the same could not be produced in the court. The said witness was the material witnesses. The remaining witnesses are formal in nature. Since the material witness is not examined and the case property not produced, there was no purpose to examine the formal witnesses, accordingly they were dropped from the list of witnesses and prosecution evidence was closed by the court order.
6. Statement of the accused under Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the materials available on record.
8. The material witness/ complainant could not be served and examined in the court. Furthermore the case property alleged to be recovered at the instance of the accused could not be produced in the court as the same was released on superdari in favour of the complainant. Since the prosecution failed to examine the complainant, therefore, the prosecution could not establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
9. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
FIR No. 827/2004 PS: Lajpat Nagar State Vs. Rajkumar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 5
10. So, keeping in view the above discussion and materials available on record, I am of the considered view that charges against the accused u/s 411/34 IPC is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Rajkumar and Sohan Singh are acquitted for the allegations u/s 356/379/411/34 of Indian Penal Code.
11. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court today (Pawan Kumar) th on 29 October, 2014 Metropolitan Magistrate01, SouthEast,Saket Courts.
New Delhi FIR No. 827/2004 PS: Lajpat Nagar State Vs. Rajkumar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 5