Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Criminal Case/942/2014 on 10 March, 2015

                       IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN,
  METROPOLITAN MAGISTERATE­01, SOUTH, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI

State  v.  Balvinder 

FIR No.942/14

PS Safdarjang Enclave 

U/s 380/411 IPC 

                                        JUDGMENT
Date of Institution                       : 27.01.2015

Date of Commission of offence             : 29.11.2014 

Name of the complainant                   : Rakesh Kapoor S/o Sh. Om Prakash 

Name & address of the accused             : Balvinder S/o Sh. Bachchan Singh 
                                            R/o 101/F­7A, Gali No.5, Krishna Nagar, 
                                            New Delhi 

Offence complained of                     : 380/411 IPC 

Plea of accused                           : Pleaded not guilty

Final Order                               : Acquitted

Date of reserve for orders                : 10.03.2015

Date of announcing of orders              : 10.03.2015

Briefly stated the facts of the case are:

      The prosecution story is as under:­

1) That on 29.11.2014 at unknown time at B­2/72A, SJ Enclave, New Delhi accused Balvinder by dwelling the said house committed the theft of 10 iron State v. Balvinder Page 1 FIR No.942/14, PS Safdarjang Enclave rods and the same were recovered from his possession and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 380/411 IPC.

2) Accused was produced from judicial custody. Copies were supplied to the accused. Charge u/s 380 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses as under:­

(i) PW1 Rakesh Kapoor was complainant/eye witnesses who deposed before the court that on 29.11.2014 at about 7.30 pm he saw one unknown person trying to flee away along with 10 iron rods. He was caught by him and police was called. Police came and took the accused to PS and his complaint was recorded. Accused was arrested. Police seized the iron rods in his presence. Police prepared site plan at his instance.

Witness refused to identify the accused before the court and stated that it was dark and he had not seen him properly.

In his cross examination by learned counsel for accused it is stated by witness that at the time of apprehension of accused, three persons were present there.

(ii) PW2 Sushil Anand deposed that his house was undergoing construction.

State v. Balvinder Page 2 FIR No.942/14, PS Safdarjang Enclave There was a loud noise regarding thief. He saw from his terrace that crowd was gathered there. He came to know that a boy had stolen 10 iron rods from the place of construction. The matter was reported to the police.

(iii) HC Anil Kumar deposed before the court that on 29.11.2014 at around 7:30 pm IO received a call regarding theft. He along with IO HC Sanjay reached at the spot where they found one person namely Rakesh Kapoor was apprehending a person namely Balwinder and told that this person Balvinder had stolen 10 iron rods of 2 ft. each in length. IO recorded the statement of Rakesh Kapoor. IO gave him the Tehrir. After registration of FIR he came back on the spot along with the original tehrir and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO Sanjay Kumar. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Balwinder in his presence. IO seized the iron rods in his presence. IO arrested the accused and the personal search of the accused was also conducted.

In his cross examination by Legal Aid Counsel it is stated by witness that when he reached at the spot one person namely Rakesh Kapoor was there. The disclosure statement of the accused was written in the PS while the investigation got conducted on the spot. Complainant gave the complaint on the spot to the IO.

4) The star witness/complainant in the present case turned hostile. PW2 and State v. Balvinder Page 3 FIR No.942/14, PS Safdarjang Enclave PW3 were formal witnesses. Remaining witnesses were formal witnesses. Remaining PE was dispenses with. Statement of accused was also dispensed with.

5) Arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the state and learned counsel for the accused.

6) The star witness of the present case i.e. complainant Rakesh Kapoor who was only eye witness as well, turned hostile and did not support the version of prosecution. He refused to identify the accused before the court. Hence, falsifying the version of the prosecution.

7) In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, accused Balvinder is acquitted of the offence u/s 380 IPC. File be consigned to record room.




Announced in the open court                      (PURVA SAREEN)
     th
on 10  March, 2015                         MM­01/SOUTH/SAKET COURT
                                                      NEW DELHI




State v. Balvinder                                                             Page 4
FIR No.942/14, PS Safdarjang Enclave