Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/76/2014 on 16 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF Ms.RUBY NAHAR, MM-11, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
State v Istafa Jamal
FIR No. 76/14
U/s 392/34 IPC
PS: Old Delhi Railway Station
Unique Case I.D Number 02401R0204422014
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 30/1R/15
Date of commission of offence 4.03.2014
Date of institution of case 02.05.2014
Name of the complainant Sh. Raju Patel
Name of Accused, parentage & Istafa Jamal S/o Mohd. Akhtar R/o Mohalla
Address Hakkani, Naubat Khane ke pass, PS Amroha,
District J.P Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
Offence complained Section 392 read with 34 IPC
Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of Arguments 01.02.2016
Final Order Acquitted
Date of Judgment 16.02.2016
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of the case FIR No. 76/14 registered at PS Old Delhi Railway Station under section 392 read with 34 IPC on the complaint of Sh. Raju Patel.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 04.03.2014 at about 11:30 am at running Shaheed FIR No. 76/14, State v. Istafa Jamal Page 1/8 Express, Shahdara Railway Station, accused Istafa Jamal alongwith two other co-accused (since not apprehended) in furtherance of common intention committed robbery on the person of the complainant Sh.Raju Patel by manhandling and snatching Rs. 25,000/- from him, Rs. 11,000/- from Manoj Kumar and Rs. 7,000/- from Sh. Brijesh Singh. It is further alleged that two of the accused jumped from the running train and ran away but accused Istafa Jamal was apprehended by the complainant with the help Sh. Brijesh Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar and accused was produced at P.S GRP, Moradabad wherein, on the basis of the complaint of the complainant Sh. Raju Patel, Sh. Brijesh Singh and Sh. Manoj Kumar zero FIR was registered and transferred to PS Old Delhi Railway Station for further investigation.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court. Cognizance of the Offence was taken and accused was produced from JC in court. Copy of chargesheet complete in all respect was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C').
4. Prima facie case under section 392 read with 34 IPC was found to be made out against the accused. Accordingly, charge for the said offence was framed against the accused vide order dated 22.07.2014. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 76/14, State v. Istafa Jamal Page 2/8EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL
5. The prosecution examined five witnesses to establish the allegations leveled against the accused.
6. PW1, Sh. Brijesh Singh entered the witness box and deposed that on 04.03.2014, he alongwith Raju Patel, Manoj kumar and younger brother of Manoj Kumar namely Karunesh reached at Old Delhi Railway Station from Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, they all boarded Shaheed Express Train from Old Delhi Railway Station to go to their home. He further stated that when train was leaving from Shahdara Railway Station, three persons including one transgender boarded the train. Allegedly, they started beating the passengers and took their money & belongings. He stated that they robbed Rs 7000/- from him, Rs 25,000 from Raju Patel and Rs. 11,000/- from Manoj and after robbing they tried to jump from the moving train but accused Istafa Jamal was apprehended with the help of public persons and was locked inside the bathroom. Thereafter, a call was made at 100 number and at Moradabad Railway Station, accused was handed over to the police persons. Complaint Ex.PW1/A was prepared by PW1, on which Raju Patel and PW1 appended their signatures and Manoj Kumar & Karunesh appended their thumb impression.
7. PW2, Dr. Abdul Kadir proved the MLC of the accused i.e Ex.PW2/A. FIR No. 76/14, State v. Istafa Jamal Page 3/8
8. PW3, Constable Naresh deposed that on 29.03.2014 he collected the articles recovered in the personal search of the accused from PS Moradabad, UP. He further deposed that he handed over the said articles to the Investigating Officer, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and the IO recorded his statement.
9. PW4, SI Madhup Kumar has deposed that on 25.03.2014 he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS GRP Moradabad. He further deposed that on the said date complainant Raju Patel alongwith some other passengers came at PS GRP Moradabad and handed over accused Istafa Jamal alongwith written complaint, on the basis of which a zero FIR was registered and the case was transferred to concerned PS. PW4 prepared a report of the present case i.e Ex.PW4/A and correctly identified the accused.
10. PW5 Ct. Avneesh Kumar entered appearance and proved registration of zero FIR i.e Ex.PW5/A.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that despite numerous efforts service could not be effected upon PW Manoj, Karunesh and Complainant Raju Patel during the trial and consequently, they were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 01.04.2015 and 15.04.2015 respectively. Further the evidence of the Investigating Officer of the case could also not be recorded as he expired on 1.7.2014 i.e. even before the charge was framed in the present case and his death verification report has been placed on record.
FIR No. 76/14, State v. Istafa Jamal Page 4/812. PE was closed on 05.10.2015. Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 19.01.2016. All the incriminating evidence were put to the accused. Accused stated that he is innocent. He has further stated that a quarrel took place between him and the complainant because of which complainant has falsely implicated him in the present case. Accused opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
13. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the record.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS
14. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that in the instant case as per the prosecution there were four eyewitness i.e complainant/ Raju Patel, Brijesh Singh, Manoj Kumar, and Karunesh. Though, the complaint was in the name of Sh. Raju Patel, it was also signed by Brijesh Singh and Manoj Kumar & Karunesh had appended their thumb impression on it. However, except Brijesh Singh prosecution has failed to examine other three witnesses, including the complainant, as all three of them remained unserved despite numerous efforts and therefore, were dropped from the list of witnesses. Moreover, the IO of the case could also not be examined as he had expired during the trial. The other witnesses except PW1 Brijesh i.e PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 are formal witnesses who have merely proved the MLC of the accused, personal search of the accused and zero FIR.
FIR No. 76/14, State v. Istafa Jamal Page 5/815. So far as the testimony of PW1, Brijesh kumar is concerned he has clearly stated that he do not remember as to who robbed the money from Raju Patel and Manoj and out of three persons, third healthy person, robbed money from him. He has also stated that coach was very crowded and besides himself, Raju Patel and Manoj other passengers were also robbed by the accused along with other two persons. However, despite there being other passengers in the coach who were robbed, prosecution has failed to bring on record the statement/ evidence of any other passenger to corroborate the complaint made by the complainant and signed by PW1 Brijesh singh which directly hits at the credibility and veracity of the case put forward by the prosecution.
16. So far as the injuries on the body of the accused, proved by PW2 vide MLC Ex.PW2/A, is concerned, the accused has stated that a quarrel started between him and the complainant &his friends because of which they have implicated him in this false and fabricated case and also gave beatings to him. In the absence of evidence of any other eyewitness including the complainant, the account of quarrel having taken place between the complainant, his associates and the accused cannot be disbelieved absolutely.
17. Moreover, the factum that in the personal search of the accused nothing has been recovered from his possession except a sum of Rs. 20 which were seized by PW3 vide seizure memo PW3/A further negates the prosecution's story.
FIR No. 76/14, State v. Istafa Jamal Page 6/818. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that it is for the prosecution to bring on record the material essential for the establishment of the charge against an accused and there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The burden to prove the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and the prosecution has to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt and if the case put forward by the prosecution lacks credibility and raises suspicion or doubt in the mind of the court, the benefit of the same shall be given to the accused.
19. In this regard it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 wherein it has been observed as under:
"24........... One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused.
27. It needs all the same to be re-emphasised that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact FIR No. 76/14, State v. Istafa Jamal Page 7/8 upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record......."
20. In the instant case, in absence of the evidence of the complainant Sh.Raju Patel, Manoj Kumar and the Investigating officer of the case, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused Istafa Jamal is hereby acquitted of the offence under section 392 read with 34 IPC.
21. Personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- furnished in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C by the accused. The same is duly Accepted for six months from today.
22. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on this 16th day of February, 2016 (Ruby Nahar) MM-11/ Central THC/Delhi FIR No. 76/14, State v. Istafa Jamal Page 8/8