Delhi District Court
State vs Imran on 13 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITU RAJ
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01
EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: : State v. Imran & Anr.
FIR NO. : 246/2005
CNR No. : DLET020000342005
P.S. : Mayur Vihar
Date of commission of offence : 08.07.2005
Name of Informant/complainant : Chanchal Aggarwal
Name of accused : (1) Imran (2) Mohd. Alam
Offence/s complained of : s. 324 IPC
Cognizance under section/s : s. 394/397/411/34 IPC
Charges framed under section/s : s. 392/394/34 IPC & 411 IPC
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty
Date of hearing Final Arguments: : 13.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 13.01.2025
Final Order : Acquittal
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP
For the accused. : Sh. Rahul Mishra
Present : Pritu Raj
J.M. F.C.-01,
KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 246/2005 State vs. Imran & Anr. Page 1
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused persons namely Imran and Mohd. Alam are facing trial for of- fences u/s. 392/394/34 IPC whereas accused Imran is also facing trial for the ad- ditional offence u/s. 411 IPC.
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the prosecution of the case is that on 07.07.20225, at about 09.15 pm, when the complainant was coming on his scooter from Trilok Puri and reached behind the Gurudwara, he stopped after hearing a noise. When he turned his head back, someone attacked him on his nose as a result of which, he fell from the scooter. He also claimed that he was assaulted with wooden stick and the accused persons had a big knife with which he stabbed and robbed of his belongings. The complainant fainted and when he regained his consciousness, he found public persons standing there. He was taken to Kukreja Hospital for treatment and subsequently, his statement was recorded by the Police.
3. On the written application of the complainant, Mayur Vihar P.S. registered in relation to the above incident FIR no. 246/2005 on 09.07.2005 and, after inves- tigation, submitted the charge sheet on 10.09.2005 against the accused persons u/s. 394/397/411/34 IPC. Cognizance was taken vide. order dated 10.09.2005 and accused Mohd. Alam entered appearance on 22.09.2005 whereas accused Imran entered appearance on 17.12.2005.
4. Charges u/s. 392/394/34 IPC were framed against accused Mohd. Alam and Im- ran, whereas charge us/. 411 IPC was framed against accused Imran on FIR No. 246/2005 State vs. Imran & Anr. Page 2 25.05.2007, and read over to the accused persons, in Hindi, to which they de- nied the incident and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, exam- ined ten witnesses including the complainant as PW-03. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed on 25.04.2024 and SA of accused persons was recorded on 28.06.2024 in which they stated that they have been implicated in the present case and chose not to lead DE. Final arguments were heard on be- half of both sides on 13.01.2025 and the matter was fixed for judgment vide. or- der of the same date.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
6. The primary issue to be decided in the present case is whether the prosecution has been able to prove it's case against the accused persons beyond all reason- able doubt.
7. In the present case, perusal of the list of witnesses arrayed by the prosecution in the list of witnesses shows that the same contains the complainant as the star witness. Perusal of the testimony of the said witness i.e. PW-03 shows that he has failed to identify the accused persons when called upon to do so in Court. He failed to identify the accused Mohd. Alam and Imran despite the said ac- cused being present in court and despite their identity being specifically sug- gested to him. Therefore, the identity of the offender/accused has not been es- tablished. Moreover, this witness had failed to identify the accused persons in FIR No. 246/2005 State vs. Imran & Anr. Page 3 TIP proceedings conducted on 23.08.2025 and on 19.11.2005 qua accused Mohd. Alam and Imran, respectively. Other witnesses are formal in nature. As regards, the offence under s. 411 IPC, the complainant has brought nothing on record to show that he is the owner of the scooter bearing registration number HR29G9463. While he has stated that in his examination in chief that the scooter was recovered from the possession of accused Imran and he was in- formed about it by the police, a perusal of testimony of PW-04 shows that the accused was allegedly apprehended when he was sitting on the said scooter out- side the CNG Petrol Pump. In the considered opinion of this court, given the fact that the scooter was parked at a public place i.e. CNG Petrol Pump and the accused Imran was merely sitting on it, the same is not sufficient to discharge the burden that he had received or retained the scooter knowing to be it stolen property. It is not the case of the prosecution that the keys of the scooter had been recovered from accused Imran which would go on to show that the ac- cused was in the exclusive possession of the said accused. In fact, PW-02 had admitted in his cross examination that the scooter was not registered in his name. Such being the case, it was imperative upon the prosecution to array the actual owner of the scooter as a witness to prove the claim that the scooter did not belong to the accused Imran and was stolen. The same has not been done for reasons best to known to the prosecution. Hence the charge under s. 411 IPC also stands negated.
8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the primary burden in order to bring FIR No. 246/2005 State vs. Imran & Anr. Page 4 home the guilt of the accused regardless of ample proof of any crime being committed, unless the identity of the accused as the person committing the crime is established, the accused cannot be convicted of the offences charged. It is well settled that the burden which lies on the prosecution is to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and not merely on the preponderance of prob- abilities. The case of the prosecution must stand on its own two legs. Reliance in this regard is placed on S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P, 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"...... In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the ac- cused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the ac- cused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negate it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
9. The accused Mohd. Alam and Imran are hereby acquitted of the offence pun- ishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC & accused Imran is acquitted of the of- fence u/s. 411 IPC
10. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2025.01.13
17:24:25
+0530
Announced in open Court (PRITU RAJ)
on 13th January, 2025 Judicial Magistrate-01
East, KKD Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 246/2005 State vs. Imran & Anr. Page 5