Delhi District Court
State vs . Rohit @ Dhudum on 29 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. HIMANSHU TANWAR: MM-10: SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI FIR No.65/2019 U/s 356/379/34 IPC PS Kalindi Kunj State vs. Rohit @ Dhudum Date of Institution of case 28.05.2019 Judgment Reserved on 25.04.2023 Date of Judgment 29.04.2023 The institution Sr. No. of the case 20161/2019 The date of commission of offence 24.02.2019 Details of complainant Sh. Anureeta, w/o Akash Kumar, r/o H.No.D-1/382, Vishwakarma Colony, Jaitpur Extn, Part II, New Delhi. Details of accused person Rohit @ Dhudum, s/o Sh. Jay Bhagwan, r/o Aliya Farms, Basantpur Village, Faridabad,Haryana. Subhash Sharma, s/o Sh. Rameshwar Sharma, r/o H.No.D-34, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi (proceedings abated) The offence complained of 356/379/34 IPC The plea of accused person Pleaded not guilty The final order Acquitted The date of such order 29.04.2023 State vs. Rohit @ Dhudum FIR No.65/2019 PS Kalindi Kunj Page No1. of 5 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2023.04.29 14:43:47 +0530 By this judgment the court shall dispose of the case u/s 356/379/34
IPC.
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1) The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 24.02.2019 at about 01:15 PM, at Pushta Road in front of Faiz Motor's Show Room Khadda Colony, Jaitpur Part-II, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kalindi Kunj accused along with co-
accused Subhash (expired) in furtherance of thier common intention sntached the hand pursue (containing Rs.3000/- approx., PAN Card, two ATM Cards) of complainant Smt. Anureeta and he thereby committed an offence 356/379/34 IPC.
2) After the accused produced in the Court, copy of chargesheet and other documents were supplied to him. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused u/s 356/379/34 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
3) (i) In the prosecution evidence, PW-1 Mrs. Anurita in his examination-in-chief, deposed that on 24.02.2019 at around 01- 01:15 PM, she was going towards Kalindi Kunj metro station and when she reached in front of Faiz Motor Showroom, Khadda Colony, Jaitpur, Part II, New Delhi, two persons came on motorcycle from the backside and snatched her purse containing some cash of around Rs.3,000/-, PAN Card, two ATM Cards and other documents. Thereafter, she called the PCR at 100 number. After some time, PCR VAN arived at the spot. She gave her State vs. Rohit @ Dhudum FIR No.65/2019 PS Kalindi Kunj Page No2. of 5 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2023.04.29 14:43:55 +0530 written complaint to the police officials, Ex.PW1/A. Police officials also prepared site plan. She could identify the accused persons as considerable time has elapsed and she had not seen the face of the accused persons.
(ii) In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, denied the suggestion that she is not identifying the accused as she has been won over by the accused and that she is not identifying the accused as she has been threatened by the accused. She also denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely at the instance of the accused to save him.
PW-1 in her cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused denied the suggestion that no such incident had ever taken place.
4) Thereafter, all the other witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses, they being formal in nature and prosecution evidence was closed as PW-1 had categorically failed to identify the accused. Statement of accused person u/s 313 Cr. P. C. was dispensed with and nothing incriminating could be found against the accused person in the testimony of PW-1. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
5) I have heard the submissions addressed by Ld. APP for state and the Ld. LAC for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
6) Ld. LAC for accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other State vs. Rohit @ Dhudum FIR No.65/2019 PS Kalindi Kunj Page No3. of 5 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date:
2023.04.29 14:44:02 +0530 hand, Ld. APP has submitted that though the witness has failed to identify the accused, circumstances may be taken into consideration to convict the accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
7) It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence.
Further, it is a settled proposition of the criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial files prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot drive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness if any in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and its never shifts to the accused and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubts entitles the accused to acquittal.
8) In the present case at hand, there were allegations of snatching handpursue of the complainant containing Rs.3,000/- approximately, PAN Card and two ATM Cards against the accused Rohit. The complainant/PW-1 was examined by the prosecution and she had categorically failed to identify the accused as considerable time has elapsed and she had not seen the face of the accused persons during the commission of offence. Further, no other evidence have been put forth to establish the identity of hte accused qua the charged offence.
State vs. Rohit @ Dhudum FIR No.65/2019 PS Kalindi Kunj Page No4. of 5 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2023.04.29 14:44:07 +0530
9) All remaining witnesses mention in the list of witnesses were formal in nature and were not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and therefore, they were dropped from the list of witnesses.
10) Hence in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts as identity of accused had not been established by the prosecution in commission of the alleged offences.
11) Accused Rohit @ Dhudum is acquitted for offences u/s 356/379/34 IPC.
12) Proceedings against accused Subhash were already abated vide order dated 28.02.2020.
Digitally signed byANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT HIMANSHU
TANWAR
HIMANSHU
TANWAR
Date: 2023.04.29
On 29.04.2023 14:44:13 +0530
(HIMANSHU TANWAR)
MM-10, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET: NEW DELHI
State vs. Rohit @ Dhudum FIR No.65/2019 PS Kalindi Kunj Page No5. of 5