Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Paharia. on 2 June, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: MM01(SE) /
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Sanjay Paharia.
FIR No. : 114/2014
U/s : 380/454/411 IPC
PS : Hauz Khas
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 265/2/2014
b) Date of institution of the case : 03.11.2014
c) Date of commission of offence : 30.01.2014.
d) Name of the complainant : Ms. Nidhi Kulpati
e) Name & address of the : Sanjay Paharia
accused person. S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o F3/164, Shiv Durga Vihar,
Lakharpur, Faridabad, Haryana.
f) Offence charged with : 380/454/411 IPC
g) Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 02.06.2017
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 02.06.2017
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The prosecution filed a charge sheet with the allegations that on 30.01.2014 between 10:30 am 02:30 p.m, accused committed theft of jewelery articles and cash after breaking into the house No. P85, Second Floor, South ExtensionII, New Delhi of complainant Nidhi Kulpati. It is further the case of prosecution that part of the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of accused on 22.8.2014. On these allegations, the accused has been sent to face trial for offences under Sections 380/454/411 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused person was consequently summoned. Thereafter, a formal charge U/s 380/454/411 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, two witnesses were examined by prosecution.
4. PW1 Ms.Nidhi Kulpati is the complainant who deposed about theft of gold and diamonds articles / jewellery and cash of Rs. 7,000/ taking place in her house on 30.01.2014 in her absence. She proved her complaint Ex.PW1/A.
5. PW2 Sh. Akshat is the son of the complainant and sole eye witness examined by prosecution to prove its case who deposed as follows :
" That I was in 12th class at the time of incident. Presently I am in 3 rd year of graduation. I was coming to my home after taking my examination. I saw the main door of my house opened. I went inside and saw the house in ransacked condition and the belonging of my mother were scattered. For entering my house, I used the stairs case where I had a glimpse of a person who was sweating. His pocket appeared full from outside appearance. He was coming down stairs. I thought him to be a delivery boy. Later on, after seeing the condition of my house, I realized that he might be the thief and ran after him but he had vanished from the spot. Today, I cannot identify the accused as the incident is old and I had merely a glimpse of him".
The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP qua point of identity. However despite being pointed out, he failed to identify the accused.
6. Record transpires that during course of trial, (vide his separate statement recorded u/s. 294 CrPC) accused admitted the FIR Ex A1, Report of TIP proceedings of case property Ex A2 and his Arrest Memo Ex A3. Therefore, the said documents were directed to be read into evidence without formal proof of same in terms of section 294 CrPC
7. PE was closed by order of this court on 02.06.2017 and memorandum of statement of accused Sanjay Paharia U/sec. 281 Cr.PC was recorded. Accused did not lead defence evidence in his favour.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. Record reveals that on 30.03.2017, the complainant had appeared before the court and has given in writing that she does not want to proceed with the case. Therefore, it is clear from her statement that complainant had compounded the present case unilaterally for offence u/s 411 IPC. Since compounding is a unilateral act (Y.P.Bajju vs State of Kerala & Ors. On 30.10.2007, Kerala High Court), therefore matter stands compounded u/s. 411 IPC. Accused stands acquitted u/s 411 IPC.
10. The accused has also been charged for offences U/sec. 380/454 IPC and examined PW2 (the sole eye witness) to prove the said charges. However, it is clear from his testimony, that he failed to identify the accused as perpetrator of the alleged offences. Despite his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he failed to identify the accused. The identity of accused is the most vital aspect of any criminal trial. Since, sole eye witness has refused to identify the accused as perpetrator of the offence, the whole prosecution version crumbles and nothing survives thereafter for offences U/sec. 380/454 IPC.
11. Hence, in view of the above said discussions, accused Sanjay Paharia is hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court
on 02.06.2017 (Anuj Agarwal)
MM03(SD)/Delhi / 02.06.2017