Delhi District Court
State vs Nitin Kumar on 16 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAHIL MONGA:
JMFC-06, PHC, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Nitin Kumar
FIR No.170/18
Cr. Case No.1603/21
CNR No. DLND02-004239-2021
Police Station: South Campus
Under Section:363 IPC
Date of institution of the case : 10.03.2021
Date on which judgment is delivered : 16.04.2025
a) Date of commission of the 06.08.2018
offence
b) Name of the complainant Sh. Tarkeshwar
c) Name of the accused and Nitin Kumar S/o Sh. Hemant
his parentage Kumar
d) Offence complained of U/s 363 IPC
e) Offence charged of U/s 363 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order ACQUITTED
h) Date of such order 16.04.2025
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION: -
1.It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.08.2018 at about 03.15 am at house No. 8211, Moti Bagh-I, accused enticed the minor daughter of the complainant and took her out from the lawful custody of her guardian without their consent. Thereaftr Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA State Vs. Nitin Kumar Page No.1 of 5 MONGA FIR Date:
No.170/182025.04.16 15:38:42 +0530 an FIR bearing no. 170/18 was registered against the accused and after the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Accused appeared before this court and after compliance under section 207, charge under section 363 IPC was framed against him to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has cited as many as Sixteen (16) witnesses.
3. PW-1/complainant Tarkeshwar in his deposition resiled from the facts of the case. He was cross-examined by learned APP for the State with the leave of the court. PW2 and PW3 in their deposition have not supported the case of the prosecution.
4. PW-1/complainant Tarkeshwar as well as PW2 to PW3, who are the star witnesses to the incident have not supported the case of the prosecution and have not deposed any incriminating fact against the accused in their evidence and victim Mansi has been dropped from the list of witnesses as she has remained unserved through DCP. Therefore, the version of the prosecution has remained uncorroborated by any independent material witness.
5. After the examination of the PW-1/complainant Tarkeshwar as well as PW2 to PW3, PE was closed as no useful purpose would be served by examining the rest of the witnesses, who are formal in nature and the request of the learned APP for the State to examine remaining witnesses was declined. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
2025.04.16 15:38:46 +0530 State Vs. Nitin Kumar Page No.2 of 5 FIR No.170/18 vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that:-
"...In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date..........."
6. Since there was no incriminating circumstance against the accused, recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Code was also dispensed with.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned APP for the State and have perused the records very carefully.
Arguments
8. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that the PW-1/complainant Tarkeshwar as well as PW2 to PW3 cited by the prosecution to prove its case have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused may be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
Decision and brief reasons for the same
9. The rule that every accused person is presumed innocent Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
2025.04.16 15:38:50 State Vs. Nitin Kumar Page No.3 of 5 FIR No.170/18 +0530 until he is proved guilty and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is fundamental to the system of justice practiced in this country and in several other countries. Indeed it is entrenched in the Constitution that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty.
10. Onus is, thus, on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person facing the trial is, in fact, the same person who committed the offence.
11. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the identity of the accused in the case of Ashraf vs State held as under:-
"....However, in case a witness is completely hostile with regard to identity of the accused even in his examination-in-chief and nothing could be elicited from him to show the involvement of the accused in the offence in the cross-examination by the APP, such a testimony cannot be accepted and made the basis of the conviction....."
12. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined the complainant/PW-1/complainant Tarkeshwar as well as PW2 to PW3, who are the material witnesses to the incident. The complainant stepped into the witness box as PW1 and exhibited his statement. He during his examination-in-chief has resiled from his previous statement made in the complaint and therefore Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA Date: State Vs. Nitin Kumar Page No.4 of 5 MONGA 2025.04.16 FIR No.170/18 15:38:54 +0530 he was declared hostile. PW2 and PW3 have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Rest witnesses are formal in nature and nothing incriminating could be brought on record from their testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident was neither committed in their presence nor it is the case of the prosecution.
Result
13. In the case in hand, the star prosecution witnesses have failed to bring on record any incriminating material against the accused which could indicate complicity of the accused in the crime. Thus, in my considered opinion, there is no material on record to connect the accused with the crime and therefore, no offence against the accused could be established.
14. In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the identity of the culprit, the accused's constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved is not overcome, and he is entitled to an acquittal. The constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defence put up but on the strength of the evidence for the Prosecution.
15. Consequently, accused Nitin Kumar is ACQUITTED of the offence punishable U/s 363 IPC. Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
2025.04.16 Announced in open 15:38:58 +0530 Court on 16.04.2025 (Sahil Monga) JMFC-06/PHC/Delhi
16.04.2025 State Vs. Nitin Kumar Page No.5 of 5 FIR No.170/18