Delhi District Court
State vs . Shambhu @ Raju on 9 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER MOHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04/CENTRAL: DELHI
STATE VS. Shambhu @ Raju
FIR No. 111/2014
Case No. 288004/2016
P.S. : HNRS
U/s 392 IPC & 103 DP Act
Date of institution of case : 22.08.2014
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 09.04.2019
Date of judgment : 09.04.2019
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 19.06.2014 b) Offence complained of : U/s 392 IPC & 103 DP Act c) Name of complainant : O. Nirmala d) Name of accused, : Shambhu @ Raju his parentage : S/o Sh. Bhuneshwar local & permanent residence R/o Village Ghansipura Extn. PS Najafgarh, New Delhi. e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty f) Final order : Acquitted BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
1. As per the prosecution, on 19.06.2014 when PW1 O. Nirmala alognwith her husband and two children came to Nizamuddin FIR No. 111/2014 State Vs. Shambhu @ Raju Pages 1 station in AP Sampark Kranti train and her husband went to purchase some goods, suddenly one person came from behind and snatched her gold chain alongwith pendant which she was wearing and ran away. After receiving information, police came to the spot and registered her complaint Ex.PW1/A, on the basis of which the present case was registered.
2. On the basis of material filed along with the charge-sheet, charge U/s 392 IPC and 103 DP Act was framed against accused Shambhu @ Raju to which he pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 6 witnesses. Vide statement dt. 13.02.2019, accused stated that he shall not dispute the genuineness of his TIP dt. 26.06.2014 and TIP of case property dt. 05.08.2014. Same were accordingly Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 respectively.
4. Complainant Nirmala stepped into the witness box as PW1 and narrated the incident of snatching. PW2 Ct. Rahul deposed that on 23.06.2014 he was posted at PS HNRS as constable alongwith Ct. Sanjeet Kumar (PW3) and Ct. Sunil (PW4) as well as ASI Manohar Lal (PW5 and IO in the present case). While they were checking the Dakshin Express, they saw that on Okhla side passengers were running behind some person which they apprehended and started beating him. They dispersed the crowd and on cursory search of the accused recovered three manke of gold colour from his possession which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. Accused was arrested and his disclosure statement recorded which is ExPW2/B. PW3 and PW4 by and large FIR No. 111/2014 State Vs. Shambhu @ Raju Pages 2 corroborated the testimony of PW2. PW5 SI Manohar Lal got registered the FIR, prepared the site plan, arrested the accused, recorded his disclosure statement, seized the case property. As per the IO, when he was apprehended by the public he was interrogated and he disclosed committing the present case on earlier occasion. After disclosure statement he was taken to his house where he got recovered on piece of chain which was seized by the IO and sealed with the seal DVS. PW6 SI Dharamveer was the witness to recovery of this chain.
5. After conclusion of prosecution, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C r/w 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 09.04.2019 in which accused claimed innocence.
6. No DE was lead by the accused.
7. I have heard ld. LAC Sh. Satish Kumar for the accused and perused the record.
8. Accused has been charged with snatching the gold chain of PW1 O. Nirmala while she was in AP Sampark Kranti at Nizamuddin railway station. However, in her testimony she has stated that she cannot identified the person who has snatched her chain. There is no other eyewitness to the incident. This court has failed to find any circumstantial evidence also to establish that the present accused was involved in the above chain snatching. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to establish any charge u/s 392 Cr.P.C. Accused has also been charged u/s 103 DP Act for possessing a chain which was got recovered from his house on FIR No. 111/2014 State Vs. Shambhu @ Raju Pages 3 09.07.2014. However, as per the TIP proceedings of the case property dt. 05.08.2014 Ex.P2 complainant categorically stated that the chain recovered from the accused which was put to her during the TIP of case property does not belong to her. Therefore, it is clearly established from the failure of TIP of case property that the gold chain which was recovered from the accused was not stolen from the complainant. To establish a case under section 103 DP Act, police should have reason to believe that the property a stolen property and fraudulently obtained. After the failure of TIP of case property police had not lead any evidence to prove that there was a reason to believe that piece of chain a stolen property and fraudulently obtained i.e no other claimant has come forward to claim the stake in the gold chain recovered from the accused. All these factors have made the case of the prosecution doubtful.
9. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid observations, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons. Therefore, accused Shambhu @ Raju is acquitted for the offences under section 392 IPC & 103 DP Act charged against him.
10. Surety also stands discharged. Let documents of surety if any be released forthwith and also any endorsement on the documents be also cancelled. Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2019.05.04 16:42:21 +0530 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (CHANDER MOHAN) TODAY ON 09th APRIL, 2019 MM-04 (CENTRAL), DELHI FIR No. 111/2014 State Vs. Shambhu @ Raju Pages 4