Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Saddique on 22 February, 2023

       IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE­03
            (SOUTH­EAST), DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
                      Presided by: Ms.Akanksha Garg


State vs. Saddique
FIR No.142/2016
Police Station : Hazrat Nizamuddin
Under Section : 379/511 IPC


Date of institution         : 12.01.2016
Date of reserving           : 22.02.2023
Date of pronouncement: : 22.02.2023.
                                    JUDGMENT

a)    Cr Cases Number                         :   2705/2017

b)    Date of commission of                   :   Intervening night on 11.03.2016
      offence                                     and 12.03.2016,

c)    Name of the complainant                 :   Sh. Bashir Ahmed Shala

d)    Name, parentage and                     :   Saddique
      address of the accused                      S/o Sh. Jamaluddin
                                                  R/o village Hathiya, PS Barsana,
                                                  Distt. Mathura, UP

e)    Offence complained of                   :   379/511 IPC

f)    Plea of the accused                     :   Accused pleaded not guilty

g)    Final order                             :   Acquitted

h)    Date of final order                     :   22.02.2023



 State v. Saddique          FIR No.142/2016                    P.S.: H.N.Din   Page 1 of 5

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

1. Vide this judgment, the accused namely Saddique is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 379/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') in the instant case, Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin for the reasons mentioned below.

CASE OF PROSECUTION

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 11.03.2016 and 12.03.2016, the accused attempted to steal motorcycle bearing registration no. DL­3SCG­8685 Passion Pro Black colour from the house of the complainant at Temple road, Bhogal and thereby committed offences u/s 379/511 IPC.

EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

4. The complainant is star witness of the incident. However, summons issued to him were received back with the report that he was not traceable. The said witness has remained untraceable, despite several sufficient opportunities afforded to the prosecution. He was even summoned through IO/SHO and DCP­South East, but it also yielded no fruitful results. The remaining witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses, who are admittedly not the eye­witness to the incident and thus, their testimonies were not likely to substantiate the culpability of the accused. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would have been served by examination of the said witnesses. Hence, PE was closed.

5. Prosecution evidence has been closed vide detailed order of even date. Examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

6. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. The submissions of Ld. APP and learned counsel for the accused, have been heard and considered. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and prosecution has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Perusal of record reveals that the only material against the accused is his disclosure statement. The complainant who was the star witness of the prosecution and could have identified the accused and the case property has failed to depose about the facts of the case as the prosecution failed to secure his presence before this court as he remained unserved through the DCP concerned. This court is of the opinion that prosecution shall stand on its own leg and merely by raising the presumption, the case of the prosecution can not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Therefore, no admissible incriminating evidence against the accused in respect of the offence punishable U/s 379/511 IPC has come on record. Hence, his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with. Support is drawn from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr."(1996 JCC 507), wherein it has been held that:

"When 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 procedures to pronounce the conclusion on the future date."

8. In a criminal trial, the identity of the accused and the case property is of utmost importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability, unless the identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt. In the facts of the given case, the identity of the accused and the case property could only be established by the complainant who was the only eye­witness to the alleged incident. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature and the identity cannot be established from their testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident was neither committed in their presence nor it is the case of the prosecution.

9. The prosecution has a duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. A Court cannot draw an inference of guilt from mere suspicion. Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot take the place of legal proof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under:­ "6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved, and something that `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not State v. Saddique FIR No.142/2016 P.S.: H.N.Din Page 4 of 5 be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof."

11. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Accordingly, the accused Saddique is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 379/ 511 IPC.

Announced in open Court on 22.02.2023                                    Digitally signed by
                                                    AKANKSHA AKANKSHA GARG
                                                    GARG     Date: 2023.02.21
                                                             16:14:32 +0530
                                               (AKANKSHA GARG)

Metropolitan Magistrate­03 (South­East), Saket Courts, New Delhi/22.02.2023 State v. Saddique FIR No.142/2016 P.S.: H.N.Din Page 5 of 5