Delhi District Court
Title State vs . Manoj Kumar on 21 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 467/2004 Unique Case ID No. 6323/16 Title State Vs. Manoj Kumar Name of complainant Pankaj Kuma Name of accused Manoj Kumar S/o Hari Nandan Date of institution of challan 11.10.2004 Date of Reserving judgment 18.09.2017 Date of pronouncement 21.09.2017 Date of commission of offence 19.09.204 & 02.05.2007 Offence complained of U/s. 379/411/174A IPC Offence charged with U/s. 379/174A IPC Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Final order Acquitted BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE: A chargesheet was filed against accused Manoj Kumar alleging therein that he was caught red handed with stolen purse and therefore the police invoked Section379/411 IPC. Accused did not appear in court whereafter, proceeding u/s82 CrPC was concluded. Lateron accused apprehended.
2. The Ld. Predecessor upon being satisfied framed a charge under Section379/34 IPC and Section174A IPC. Prosecution on its turn examined HC Amar Singh, ASI Hukam Chand & ASI Jaipal Singh respectively as PW1, PW2 & PW3. Accused taken a defence of false FIR No. 467/2004 State Vs. Manoj Kumar 1 of 3 implication and that being unaware about court date, he could not appear in the court. The accused however chosen not to lead any defence evidence. Both the sides have been heard.
3. PW1 HC Amar Singh is the witness of arrest of the accused in the year 2013. Arrest is not a requirement of offence punishable under Section174A IPC. Primarily, the prosecution is required to establish that a proclamation was published in accordance with the law and all conditions of such publication were complied with. No such witness has been produced by the prosecution. If the prosecution had produced any such witness, the accused would naturally have a right to cross examine him to show that no such publication was really made. PW2 ASI Hukam Chand basically filed a chargesheet for Section174A IPC. This witness can hardly be of any help regarding publication of proclamation. In the absence of any witness to this effect, prosecution could not claim to have established the guilt.
4. Ld. APP however has invited my attention towards Section 82(3) CrPC and argued that the same raises a conclusive presumption regarding compliance of conditions of publication. I have gone through the said provision and the order passed by the Ld. Predecessor on 22.09.2007 regarding PO declaration. The order shows the satisfaction of court that one month had elapsed and the accused had absconded. The same however nowhere says that proclamation was duly published on a specified day in the manner specified in the concerned provision. In such circumstances, Section82(3) cannot be invoked. Offence under Section174A IPC remained unestablished.
FIR No. 467/2004 State Vs. Manoj Kumar 2 of 3
5. So far as theft is concerned, the charge shows that the accused alongwith his two associates in furtherance of common intention committed theft of purse of the complainant. The prosecution however has not been able to produce the said complainant as a witness during the trial. The only witness produced by the prosecution is ASI Jaipal Singh who was IO of the case. Apart from his own claim that he was on paroling duty in the area, there is no supporting document for this. He had not seen the commission of theft. As per claim in examination in chief, he claims that accused was handed over to him. He also claims that complainant alongwith Ct. Satender and 34 persons had brought the accused before him. He also claims that on a cursory search of accused, stolen articles were recovered from the accused. This court is of the opinion that this is doubtful. If a person alongwith public apprehends the culprit red handed, the first reaction would be to search and find the article which was stolen. It is highly doubtful that the complainant and public persons did not do so and left it to be lateron searched by the IO. In the available circumstances, nonjoining of public persons by the IO is clearly fatal for the prosecution. The version projected by the investigating agency is doubtful.
6. This court on the analysis of circumstances and available materials of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused and therefore, the accused is acquitted from the charges in the present case. Accused to furnish bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/ for the purpose of Section437A CrPC. Announced in open Court on 21.09.2017.
Rakesh Kumar Singh
Metropolitan Magistrate03 (East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 467/2004 State Vs. Manoj Kumar 3 of 3