Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Criminal Case/67/2012 on 4 February, 2013

       IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-09,
     SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

                         Presided by: Ms. Manika


State v. Vikas @ Lagarpuria and Anr.

FIR No. 67/12
Police Station: Chhawla
Under Section: 382/365/34 IPC


Unique Case ID Number :RO284922012
Date of institution         : 27.11.2012
Date of reserving           : 04.02.2012
Date of pronouncement : 04.02.2012


                                JUDGMENT

a) Serial number of the case : 292/1/12

b) Date of commission of offence : 19.03.2012

c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Ankit Wasan S/o Sh. Ramesh Wasan R/o Flat No. 456, LIG Flats, Pocket-B, Hastsal, Utttam Nagar, New Delhi

d) Name, parentage and ad- : Sh. Vikas @ Lagarpuria dress of the accused S/o Sh.Surender Singh R/o Village Lagarpuriya PS Sadar Bahadurgarh, District State v. Vikas @ Lagarpuria & Anr.

Jhajjar, Haryana

2) Dheerpal @ Deepak s/o Sh.Jai Singh r/o Village Redubas PS Salawas Distt.Jhajjar, Haryana.

e) Offence complained of : Section 382/365/34 I.P.C.

f) Plea of the accused : Both accused persons plead-

                                        ed not guilty
g)   Final order                      : Acquitted
h)   Date of final order              : 04.02.2013

           BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS
                           FOR THE DECISION

1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2012 at about 02.30 p.m. at Ghumanhera Khaira Road near Devta Wala Mandir Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Chhawla, both the accused persons alongwith their friend namely Mahinder @ Monu in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of the car bear- ing No. DL 1CN- 3532 of the complainant Sh. Ankit Wasan after hav- ing made preparation for restraint in order to the committing of the said theft and also kidnapped the complainant with the intent to cause the complainant to be secretly and wrongfully confined.

2. Vide order dated 10.12.2012, charge for the offence punishable under Section 382/365/34 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as I.P.C.) was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. State v. Vikas @ Lagarpuria & Anr.

3. Prosecution in all examined three witnesses. PW-1 Constable Sombir is the police official who had joined the investigation with the Investigating Officer on 30.09.2012. PW-2 Sh. Dinesh is the passerby from whose mobile phone the complainant had made a phone call to the police at 100 number after his car and mobile phone had been al- legedly snatched by four boys. PW-3 Sh. Ankit Wasan is the com- plainant. He deposed that on 19.03.2012 after finishing his duty he was going from the side of Gurgaon towards Uttam Nagar in his sil- ver coloured car bearing No. DL 1CN-3532. He stated that when he reached between Ghumanhera Mor and Khaira Village near Devta Wala Mandir, one car make Chevrolet Beat bearing No. HR 26BA-... 87 overtook his car and stopped just ahead of his car. He stated that the out of the five persons who were sitting inside the car, three got down and approached him. He stated that the said persons started to threaten him and asked him as to why he was driving the car in a zigzag manner. He stated that they demanded his driving license. He deposed that one of the said boys opened the driver side door of his car and the other came from the other side and sat inside the car on the front seat. He stated that the said boy put a gun on his waist. He stated that the boy who had opened the driver side door pushed him on to the back seat and sat on the driver seat himself. He deposed that the said boys tied his hands and closed his eyes with two cloths. He stated thereafter drove his car for about 10-15 minutes till they reached near the fields where they shifted him from his car into anoth- er car. He stated that they kept driving him around for about 2 to 3 hours and during the said period they took his mobile phone Nokia State v. Vikas @ Lagarpuria & Anr.

C-201, ATM card Standard Chartered Bank and credit car of the HDFC Bank. He stated that when they reached Bajhera village, they threw him outside the car. He stated that thereafter, he took help from one passersby and made a call from his mobile phone to 100 number. He stated that he went to Bajhera picket and informed the police re- garding the incident. He stated that the investigating officer recorded his statement Ex. PW-3/A and prepared site plan Ex. PW-3/B at his instance. He however stated that he could not identify the accused persons as he had not seen their faces. He stated that on 09.11.2012 he was in Pune and no accused was arrested on the said day.

4. Prosecution evidence has been closed vide detailed order of even date. Statement of the accused persons has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused per- sons.

5. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. The respective submissions of Ms.Vandana Chauhan, learned Substitute- Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sh. Pramod Kumar, Advo- cate, learned legal aid counsel for the accused, have been heard and considered.

6. Perusal of record reveals that PW-3 Sh. Ankit Wasan (complainant) is the only eye-witness/material witness in the present case. However, though the said witness has supported the case of the prosecution on other aspects, he has failed to identify the accused persons and rather resiled from his earlier statement despite having State v. Vikas @ Lagarpuria & Anr.

been cross-examined at length by the learned Assistant Public Prose- cutor for State.

7. PW-1 Sh. Ankit Wasan has deposed that he had not seen the faces of the accused persons and therefore could not identify them. He denied that the police recorded his supplementary statement in the present case. He denied the suggestion that the police had recorded his statement on 09.11.2012 or that he had visited the Dwarka Court for some work on the said day. He denied the suggestion of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State that during his visit to the court he had identified the accused persons as the persons who alongwith other co-accused had snatched his Alto car bearing No. DL 1CN-3532 and kidnapped him. He did not even state the time of the incident. Further, he could not state the complete registration num- ber of the Chevrolet Beat car in which the accused persons had al- legedly reached the spot.

8. In view of the fact that the only eye-witness/material witness to the incident as aforesaid cited or examined by the prosecution has resiled from his previous statement and has failed to identify the accused persons as the persons who along with other accused per- son had allegedly kidnapped him and snatched his Alto car, the prose- cution has clearly failed to prove the charge against the accused per- sons. Consequently, the charge under Section 382/34 and Section 365/34 has not been established against the accused persons.

9. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the State v. Vikas @ Lagarpuria & Anr.

accused persons. Accordingly, the accused Vikas @ Lagarpuria and Dheer Pal are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 382/34 and Section 365/34 IPC.

10. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Court on 04.02.2013.

(MANIKA) Metropolitan Magistrate-09 (South-West) 04.02.2013 State v. Vikas @ Lagarpuria & Anr.