Delhi District Court
State vs Balraj @ Bunty on 3 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, MM-03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI CNR No. : DLSW02-023609-2019 FIR No. : 350/2017 U/s : 356/379/34 IPC P.S. : Bindapur State versus Balraj @ Bunty a) ID. No. of the Case : 11609/2019 b) Name & address of the : Dr. Safar Ali complainant S/o Sh. Chitru Ali R/o H.No.B-272, Gali No.28, Mahavir Enclave, Part-2, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. c) Name & address of : Balraj @ Bunty accused person. S/o Sh. Laxmi Narayana R/o H.No. A-731, JJ Colony, Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. d) Date of Commission of : 30.05.2017 offence e) Offence complained of : 356/379/34 IPC f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final Order : Acquitted State v/s Balraj @ Bunty Page 1 of 5 Cr. Case No. 11609/2019 h) Date of Institution : 15.05.2019 i) Judgment Pronounced on : 03.09.2022 JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. The prosecution version in brief is that on 30.05.2017 at around 05:00PM when the complainant Dr. Safar Ali had gone to phal mandi (fruit market), Uttam Nagar to purchase fruits and while he was buying fruits from a rehri, two boys snatched his mobile phone Gionee F103 Pro bearing IMEI no. 861597039996312 and one Airtel SIM card bearing no. 8826119080 and one Jio SIM card bearing no. 7800208716. One of those boys was namely Balraj @ Bunty, but the complainant does not know the name of the other boy. After snatching complainant's phone, accused Balraj had handed over the phone to the other boy who had fled away. The complainant had caught hold of accused Balraj and he called the police at 100 no. and when police arrived, he handed over the custody of accused Balraj to the police and thereafter an FIR bearing no. 350/2017 was registered u/s 356/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'IPC') at PS Bindapur. The investigation of the case was thereafter handed over to the Investigating Officer HC Rajbir Singh.
Proceedings before the Court
2. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet u/s 356/379/34 IPC was filed against the accused Balraj @ State v/s Balraj @ Bunty Page 2 of 5 Cr. Case No. 11609/2019 Bunty. After taking cognizance of the offences, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter 'CrPC'). On finding prima facie case against the accused, charge under sections 356/379/34 IPC was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, prosecution examined the complainant Dr. Safar Ali as PW-1 who deposed that he did not know anything about the present case. The witness was thereafter declared hostile at the request of Ld. APP for the State. Ld. APP for the State had thereafter cross-examined the witness, however, despite the cross-examination, the witness failed to recognize the accused. Ld. Defence counsel did not cross- examine the said witness despite been given an opportunity.
5. Since the complainant, who was the only eye-witness to the incident had turned hostile, and other witnesses cited by the prosecution were formal witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed vide separate order dated 22.08.2022. The statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC was also dispensed with since nothing incriminating had appeared on record against him. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
6. It is argued by Sh. Manish Kaushik, Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has proved its case as the evidence of State v/s Balraj @ Bunty Page 3 of 5 Cr. Case No. 11609/2019 hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offences charged against the accused.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that the main witness, i.e., the complainant, has turned hostile and nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused be acquitted for the offence charged.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter.
Findings of the Court
9. It is well settled that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the section on by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
10.Perusal of the statement of PW-1, i.e., the complainant, who is the main witness of the prosecution reveals that he was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution version and stated that he did not know anything about the incident and he further failed to identify the accused. Though it is a settled law that evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded completely as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, however, in the present case, as stated earlier, State v/s Balraj @ Bunty Page 4 of 5 Cr. Case No. 11609/2019 the complainant did not support the prosecution version and he had further failed to identify the accused and despite his cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, nothing beneficial to the prosecution has emerged out of the same. Thus, in the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution at all.
11.Thus, in the opinion of this court, there is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence and to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
12.Thus, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The accused Balraj @ Bunty is hereby acquitted of the offence charged, i.e., u/s 356/379/34 IPC.
13.This judgment contains five pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
14.Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
Digitally signed by ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Deeksha Deeksha Sethi Date:
TODAY I.E. ON 03.09.2022 Sethi 2022.09.03 15:54:39 +0530 Deeksha Sethi Metropolitan Magistrate-03 South-West District/New Delhi 03.09.2022 State v/s Balraj @ Bunty Page 5 of 5 Cr. Case No. 11609/2019