Delhi District Court
State vs Anchal on 5 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
DLSE020046642015
JUDGMENT
STATE VS. ANCHAL AND ANOTHER FIR No. : 408/13 U/s 392/411/34 IPC PS : BADARPUR A. CNR NO. : DLSE020046642015 B. CIS No. of the Case : 92875/2016 C. Date of Institution : 27.02.2025 D. Date of Commission of : 16.11.2013 Offence E. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ajay Sharma F. Name of the Accused : (1) Anchal W/o Lt Sh. Krishan persons, his Parentage & Kumar R/o Village Karala, Addresses Mohalla Bazar Panna, P.S. Kanjhawala, New Delhi.
(2) Manoj Kumar S/o Sh.
Narayan R/o G-206, Lal Kuan Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi, Permanent Add: Kirthal, P.S. Ramola, Distt Baghpat, UP.
G. Offence complained of : U/s 392/411/34 IPC
H. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial
I. Order reserved on : Not reserved
J. Final order : Acquittal
K. Date of such order : 05.05.2025.
Digitally
signed by
Vivek Vivek beniwal
Date:
FIR No. :408/2013 beniwal 2025.05.06 STATE Vs. ANCHAL & ANOTHER
15:21:19
PS : Badarpur +0530 Pages 1 of 6
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case:
1. The present FIR under Section 392/411/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was registered on a complaint of Sh. Ajay Sharma against accused persons stating that on 16.11.2013 at 12.30 midnight to 1.00 AM (midnight) at Road going towards Aashram in front of Sibbal Cinema, Badarpur under Badarpur Flyover, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Badarpur, both accused in furtherance of common intention robbed the complainant Ajay Sharma of his mobile phone make Samsung Dous (white color) and his gold chain. Matter was reported to the police.
2. FIR was registered and matter was investigated by IO/SI Dhananjay Kumar who filed charge sheet against the accused upon which cognizance was taken on 27.02.2015.
3. Accused persons were summoned to appear before the Court after which they entered their appearance on 27.02.2015.
Copy of charge sheet in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. was supplied to accused.
4. Charge was framed vide order dated 18.03.2024 for the offence punishable u/s 392(II)/34 IPC against accused against accused persons to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. As per proceedings dated 18.03.2024, accused has admitted the genuineness of documents i.e. FIR No. 408/2013 Digitally signed by FIR No. :408/2013 STATE Vs. ANCHAL & ANOTHER PS : Badarpur Vivek Vivek beniwal Date: Pages 2 of 6 beniwal 2025.05.06 15:21:25 +0530 dated 16.11.2013 Ex.A1.
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence.
7. The complainant Sh. Ajay Sharma deposed as PW1. He deposed that on 16.11.2013, at about 12:30 midnight to 1:00 AM, he was going alone towards Ashram in front of Sibbal Cinema, Badar Pur under Badar Pur flyover in his Alto car bearing registration No. HR-10-7245 and then his car broke down. He stepped outside from his car to look out for help, however, there was no person present. Thereafter, he went ahead for about 1 KM to look out for the mechanic, however there was no mechanic. He came back to his car and realized that his Mobile phone make Samsung white in colour and his gold chain were not there. By mistake he had not locked his car. He left his car there and went back to home. On the next day, in the morning, he came back to the spot with the mechanic and got his car repaired. Thereafter, he found his articles inside his car only after the thorough search.
8. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. The complaint Ex.PW1/1 was read over to PW1 to which he denied in toto. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed the same before the police. He also denied the suggestion that on 16.11.2013, at about 12:30 midnight to 1:00 AM, he was going alone towards Ashram in front of Sibbal Cinema, Badar Pur under Badar Pur flyover in his Alto car bearing registration No. HR-10-7245 and thereafter his car broke down, then both the Digitally signed by Vivek FIR No. :408/2013 Vivek beniwal STATE Vs. ANCHAL & ANOTHER beniwal Date:
PS : Badarpur 2025.05.06
15:21:31
Pages 3 of 6
+0530
accused person namely Anchal and Manoj Kumar robbed his mobile phone Samsung white in colour and also his gold chain. He further denied the suggestion that he had asked for help to accused persons for pushing the car or that there was verbal altercation between him and accused persons on the date of the incident or that accused persons had committed robbery with him on the date of the incident. He further denied the suggestion that he deliberately concealing the true facts or making wrong statements as he had been won over by the accused. He also denied the suggestion that he deliberately not identifying the accused persons as he had been won over by the accused persons. This witness also denied the preparation of seizure memo Ex.PW1/2. This witness also denied the suggestion that the police prepared the seizure memo of the case property i.e. Gold Chain in the present matter in his presence or that accused Manoj Kumar and Anchal were arrested by the police in his presence and police prepared the arrest memo in his presence or that he had signed on the arrest memo. This witness further denied the suggestion that police prepared the personal search memo of the accused Manoj Kumar in his presence.
9. As the most material witness i.e. PW1 had failed to support the case of the Prosecution, the Prosecution evidence stood as no purpose would be served by examining the other witnesses.
10. Accordingly, the Prosecution Evidence has been closed. Recording of the statement of the Accused Section 313 read with FIR No. :408/2013 Digitally STATE Vs. ANCHAL & ANOTHER signed by PS : Badarpur Vivek Pages 4 of 6 Vivek beniwal beniwal Date:
2025.05.06 15:21:36 +0530 Section 281 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as nothing incriminating had come on record. The Accused opted not to lead evidence in defence. The same was accordingly closed. Final Arguments have been heard. Record has been carefully perused.
11. PW1 during his deposition has completely failed to support the case of the Prosecution, by having not identified the Accused persons as the person who had robbed his mobile phone make Samsung Dous and gold chain. Despite being confronted with the Accused persons for identification, the witness PW1 denied the accused persons being the one who had robbed his mobile phone and gold chain.
12. It is trite law as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govind & Ors. v The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [ 104 (2003) DLT 510] that where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal trial to continue. It has been further held that 'it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts'. Clearly, as no person can be indicted for a crime, where his identity and complicity is also not established beyond any shadow of doubt, trial in such cases ought not to continue only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to defer the pronouncement upon conclusion for a future date. It also pertinent to note the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v Delhi Administration & Anr.(decided on 31.7.1996) as per which the Digitally FIR No. :408/2013 signed by STATE Vs. ANCHAL & ANOTHER PS : Badarpur Vivek Vivek beniwal Date: Pages 5 of 6 beniwal 2025.05.06 15:21:42 +0530 time of the court should not be wasted merely for completion of procedure, where there is no chance of the trial culminating into a conviction.
13. The PW1 has denied the Accused being the perpetrator, therefore, no purpose would have served by dragging feet, as the case of the Prosecution failed at the threshold.
14. For the above discussed reasons, the Prosecution having failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts, against the Accused Anchal and Manoj Kumar, they are hereby acquitted for the offences reported.
15. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed by Dictated and announced Vivek Vivek beniwal Date:
in the open Court on 05.05.2025 beniwal 2025.05.06 15:21:47 +0530 (VIVEK BENIWAL) ACJM (SOUTH EAST):
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI FIR No. :408/2013 STATE Vs. ANCHAL & ANOTHER PS : Badarpur Pages 6 of 6