Delhi District Court
State vs . Abhishek Singh @ Rahul on 22 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT SOUTH
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 850/15
PS Fatehpur Beri
State Vs. Abhishek Singh @ Rahul
JUDGMENT
UID No. 02406R0066622016 a. Sl. No. of the case : 25/2/16 b. Date of commission of offence : 20/21.11.2015 c. Name of the complainant : Vijay Singh d. Name of the accused, his parentage and address : Abhishek Singh @ Rahul S/o Mithilesh Singh R/o Flat No. 134, Block-1st, Bhoot Nath Colony, Kankar Bagh, Patna, Bihar.
e. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty f. Offence complained of or proved : 394/411/34 IPC g. Final order : Acquitted FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-1/19 h. Date of Institution : 17.02.2016 i. Judgment reserved on : 08.08.2016 j. Judgment delivered on : 22.08.2016 BRIEF FACTS:
1. As per prosecution version, on 21.11.2015 on receipt of DD No. 6A, SI Ram Niwas alongwith Ct. Naresh reached at the spot i.e. M. G. Road, Near Ghitorni Red Light from Gurgaon side where he found SHO PS Fatehpur Beri, HC Yudhvir and Ct. Ravi Kant on the spot. It is stated that complainant Vijay Singh also met them at the spot. It is stated that complainant Vijay Singh gave his statement.
2. Complainant in his statement stated that he is working as driver with one Jasvinder Singh on his car Ertiga bearing No. DL-3CBU-9173. He further stated that today i.e. 20/21.11.2015 in the night, he was going to his home from DLF phase -III, Gurgaon, Haryana via M. G. Road. He stated that at about 11:30 PM, when he reached just ahead of Ghitorni Red Light, two boys standing at corner of the road signaled him to stop the car. He stated that he stopped the car assuming them as passengers. He stated that the boys asked him to drop them at Andheria more whereupon he told fare to be Rs. 10/- each. He stated that one boy sat besides him and other bay sat on rear seat. He stated that he might have drove about half a kilometer, the boy sitting FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-2/19 adjoining his seat put knife on his neck and made him stop the car at a side which was deserted one. He stated that both the boys started slapping him and snatched his mobile phone make Samsung colour black having SIM number 8826678276 and his old purse containing photocopy of his DL, Voter I card, Rs. 300/- in cash and some visiting cards. He stated that boys made him de-board the car after beating and threatening him. He stated that boy sitting besides him drove the car towards Mehrauli side. He stated that he raised alarm and informed about the incident to his wife by taking phone from security guard who in turn informed his employer Jasvinder Singh. He stated that he suffered internal injuries and that he wants himself to be medically examined. He stated that the boy who put knife on his neck might be around 20-21 years and other boy might be around 22-23 years. He stated that he can identify both the boys.
3. It is stated that FIR u/sec 394/397/34 IPC was got lodged by SI Ram Niwas by sending tehrir in the PS through Ct. Naresh. It is stated that investigation after registration of FIR was taken up by SI Ram Niwas.
4. It is stated that during investigation, IO inspected spot at instance of complainant and prepared site plan. It is stated that during investigation, IO got information from owner of above-said vehicle that as per GPS, vehicle has entered Noida, UP, thereafter entered District Bulandsahar. It is stated that thereafter further location of vehicle could not be tracked. It is stated that during investigation IO along-with complainant and staff went to village Salempur Jat, FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-3/19 Govindpura, Sham Nagar, Kevli and Hasanpur Bakswa of District Bulandsahar to trace vehicle but to no avail. It is stated that on 21.11.2015 at about 01:00 PM on receipt of information from secret informer, IO prepared raiding party consisting of complainant, secret informer and staff and recovered looted car bearing No. DL-3CBU- 9173 at about 02:30 PM and also apprehended accused Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Rahul and Amit Kumar near M. K. Garden, Dera Road, New Delhi. It is stated that accused Amit Kumar was sitting on driving seat and accused Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Rahul was sitting on adjoining seat.
5. It is stated that complainant on seeing both the accused told that at the time of incident, accused Abhishek Kumar Singh was sitting on the rear seat and accused Amit Kumar was sitting besides him and that both of them bet him. It is stated that complainant further stated that Amit Kumar put knife on his neck and made him stop the car in a side. It is stated that complainant stated that accused Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Rahul snatched his purse and mobile. It is stated that complainant further told that both the accused made him de-board car forcefully and Amit Kumar drove vehicle towards Mehrauli.
6. It is stated that IO took search of accused Abhishek Kumar Singh whereupon mobile and purse of complainant containing copy of DL of complainant, cash amount of Rs. 300/- and some visiting cards were found which were identified by complainant. It is stated that the said articles were taken into possession vide separate memo. It is stated FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-4/19 that on evidence being found against accused persons, accused were arrested and that their disclosure statements were recorded. It is stated that both the accused identified place of incident. It is stated that weapon of offence and voter I card alongwith SIM card of complainant was tried to be recovered but could not be recovered.
7. It is stated that complainant could not get himself medically examined on 21.11.2015 and that is why he was got medically examined on 22.11.2015 whereupon his injury was opined to be simple. It is stated that Section 323 IPC was added in the case because of the same. It is stated that during investigation, date of birth record of accused Amit Kumar was procured and on basis of the same, he was declared JCL by court vide order dated 03.12.2015. It is stated that during investigation, complainant told that bill of his mobile make Samsung has been misplaced but that the phone has been purchased in name of his mother in law Smt. Urmila Devi and SIM card put into the same also belonged to his mother in law. It is stated that IO procured CAF and CDR of mobile number 8826678276 from Bharti Airtel office. It is stated that IMEI number of recovered mobile was got matched with IMEI number of CDR taken by IO and which matched and CAF was found in name of Smt. Urmila Devi. It is stated that IO procured details of GPS from Balaji Tele Services Pvt. Ltd with regard to vehicle No. DL-3CBU-9173. It is stated that abovesaid vehicle was released on superdari by order of the court. It is stated that appropriate proceedings against JCL Amit Kumar shall be FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-5/19 filed before concerned JJ Board.
8. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before court on 17.02.2016.
9. Provisions of Section 207 Cr. P. C. were complied with on appearance of accused before court. Initially cognizance of offence u/sec 397 IPC interalia was also taken and matter was committed to court of Sessions but Ld. ASJ Sh. V. K. Yadav vide order dated 28.04.2016 discharged accused for offence u/sec 397 IPC.
10. Thereafter prima facie case having been made out, charge u/s 394/34 IPC & Section 411/34 IPC in alternate was framed against accused on 17.05.2016 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. Prosecution examined following witnesses to prove its case:-
PW 1: Vijay Singh
PW2: HC Devendar Kumar
PW3: Smt. Simran Kaur
PW4: Gulshan Sharma
PW5: Pavitar Kumar
PW6: Surender Kumar
PW7: Jasvinder Singh
PW8: Ct. Naresh
PW9: HC Yudhvir Singh
PW10: SI Ram Niwas
PW11: Ct. Ravi Kant
FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-6/19
PW12: Smt. Urmila Devi
PE was closed on 05.08.2016 by the order of court on submissions made by Ld. APP for the State.
Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 08.08.2016 in which all incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing in evidence against accused were put to accused to which accused stated that witnesses produced by prosecution are false and interested witnesses. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that he has nothing to do with present case. He stated that nothing has been recovered from his possession or at his instance. He stated that allegedly recovered articles were planted upon him in the PS. No DE was led by accused.
I have heard final arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record.
Decision and Brief Reasons for the Same Before disclosing my opinion with respect to present case i.e. whether prosecution has been able to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt or not, I will discuss evidence led by prosecution.
PW-1 Vijay Singh is the complainant who deposed that he is a driver by profession and presently working as driver with Jaswinder Singh R/o Kalkaji. He deposed that on 20/21.11.2015, he was coming back from DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon after dropping father of Jaswinder Singh in vehicle bearing No. DL-3CBU-9173 Ertiga Car. He deposed that when he reached FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-7/19 near Ghitorni, two boys signaled him to stop his car. He deposed that for 10 Rs. each he get them sit in the car. He deposed that one of them sat near him while other sat on the back seat of the car. He deposed that after sometime boy who was sitting besides him took a knife and put the same on his neck. He deposed that the boys started beating him and boy who was sitting on back seat took his purse and mobile phone from his pocket. He deposed that after beating him, boys took him out of the car and ran away alongwith the car. He deposed that he ran behind the car but in vain. He deposed that there was GPS in his car. He deposed that he took mobile phone of someone and called his wife. He deposed that he told his wife to narrate the incident to Jaswinder Singh. He deposed that Jaswinder Singh also called at 100 number. He deposed that police team reached there and took him to P.S. Fatehpur Beri and recorded his statement vide Ex.PW1/A. He deposed that Jaswinder got tracked the vehicle and police recovered the same. He deposed that he did not go alongwith the police team in the search of vehicle and accused. He deposed that nothing else had happened in his presence. He in his cross examination by state exhibited site plan vide Ex. PW-1/B. He admitted in his cross examination by state that Jaswinder Singh told him that vehicle had entered into Noida. He further exhibited seizure memo of car bearing No. DL-3CBU-9173 vide Ex. PW-1/C in his cross examination by state. He further exhibited seizure memo of mobile phone and purse in his cross examination vide Ex. PW-1/D. He further exhibited arrest and personal search memo of accused vide Ex. PW- 1/E and Ex. PW-1/F. He exhibited site plan of recovery vide Ex. PW-1/G in FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-8/19 cross examination by state. He exhibited pointing out memo of the spot vide Ex. PW-1/H in cross examination by state. He though exhibited documents from Ex. PW-1/C to Ex. PW-1/H but he in cross examination by state stated that he had signed the documents at PS and that he signed the same without going through the same. He is hostile so far as recovery proceedings of case property in the present case are concerned. He in his cross examination by state identified accused as the boy who was sitting on the back seat of the car who snatched his purse and mobile. He correctly identified the case property vide Ex. P1 (mobile phone), Ex. P2 (purse) and Ex. P3 (car bearing No. DL-3CBU-9173) in his cross examination by state.
PW-2 HC Devender Kumar is Duty Officer who exhibited copy of DD No. 6A vide Ex. PW-2/A, computerized copy of FIR vide Ex. PW-2/B, endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW-2/C and Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW-2/D. PW-3 Smt. Simran Kaur deposed that she is a housewife. She deposed that her husband works as driver and is driving vehicle of Jaswinder Singh for last six years. She deposed that on 20/21.11.2015 at about 12:15 A.M (midnight), her husband called from an unknown number on her mobile phone No.9953545299 and told her that two boys had robbed the car from his possession and also snatched his mobile phone and purse. She deposed that her husband further told her that he did not remember the number of Jaswinder and directed her to call him and inform him about the incident. She deposed that she called on the mobile phone of Jaswinder and informed him about the incident as stated by her husband.
FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-9/19 PW-4 Gulshan Sharma deposed that in the year 2015, he was working in Reliance Security Services Pvt. Ltd. as Field Officer. He deposed that security personnel from their company were deployed in Vasant Kunj, Chhattarpur areas at different Kothis. He deposed that he used to check in night hours. He deposed that on 20/21.11.2015, at about 12/12.30 am, while he was on field checking in Vasant Kunj Farm House area, he saw one boy who was standing on the road and giving signals to stop the vehicles. He deposed that he stopped his motorcycle. He deposed that the boy came to him and he was in worried condition. He deposed that he told him that he was robbed at point of knife by two persons and robbers even robbed his mobile also. He deposed that he asked for mobile to call his family and also enquired about the way to Police post which he told him. He deposed that he told to his wife regarding the incident. He deposed that he told him to accompany to his house if he could wait for half an hour, however, he left the place and he also left.
PW-5 Pavitar Kumar deposed that he is working as Accountant in Balaji Tele service Pvt. Ltd. since 2014. He deposed that Phoenix Secure brand GPS is installed in the vehicle bearing registration No. DL 3CBU 9173. He deposed that he had handed over the data from over server regarding that GPS from 20.11.2015 (23:00 Hrs.) to 21.11.2015 (05:00 Hrs.). He exhibited data in 16 pages vide Ex. PW5/A. He also exhibited certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW5/B. FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-10/19 PW-6 Surender Kumar deposed that on 03.02.2016, he was posted as Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. He deposed that he received notice of IO SI Ram Niwas dated 03.02.2016 regarding CDR and CAF of mobile bearing no.8826678276 vide notice Ex.PW6/A and he handed over the certified copy of CAF vide Ex. PW6/B and the certified copy of voter I- card of Smt. Urmila vide Ex. PW6/C. He also handed over CDR of mobile bearing No. 8826678276 for period 10.11.2015 to 25.11.2015 vide Ex. PW6/D (running into three pages). He further exhibited certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW6/E. PW-7 Jasvinder Singh is owner of Maruti Ertiga bearing registration No. DL-3CBU-9173. He deposed that driver of same is Vijay Singh. He deposed that on intervening night of 20/21.11.2015, he received call from wife of Vijay Singh who told him that Vijay had called her from the phone of any other person and asked her to inform him that some boys had robbed the Maruti Ertiga after using knife. He deposed that she also told him that they had also snatched the purse and mobile of driver Vijay Singh. He deposed that he called at 100 number. He deposed that thereafter he received call from P.S. He deposed that he informed them about the incident and also told that there was GPS installed in Maruti Ertiga and same can be traced through GPS. He deposed that next day he went to P.S. Fatehpur Beri where he saw his Maruti Ertiga bearing registration No. DL-3CBU-9173. He deposed that he took the same on superdari vide indemnity bond vide Ex. PW7/A. He deposed that a panchnama was prepared while releasing the vehicle vide Ex.PW7/B. FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-11/19 PW-8 Constable Naresh deposed that on 20/21.11.2015 he was posted as Constable at P.S. Fatehpur Beri. He deposed that on that day he was on night emergency alongwith SI Ram Niwas and at about 01:00 A.M., DD No.6 A was received and thereafter he alongwith SI Ram Niwas went to the spot i.e. MG Road near Ghitorni Red Light. He deposed that meanwhile SHO of P.S. Fatehpur Beri also reached there alongwith HC Yudhvir and Ct. Ravi Kant. He deposed that they also met with complainant Vijay Kumar. He deposed that IO inquired from him and recorded his statement. He deposed that IO prepared the rukka on the statement of the complainant and handed over the same to him. He deposed that he went to P.S. Fatehpur Beri and after registration of FIR came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. He deposed that thereafter IO called the owner of vehicle namely Jasvinder Singh who informed that GPS was installed in the said vehicle and as per GPS location of the vehicle was in the Noida. He deposed that thereafter he alongwith IO, SHO, HC Yudhvir, Ct. Ravi Kant and complainant went to Noida. He deposed that after arrival at Noida they came to know that vehicle had entered into District Bulandshaher. He deposed that thereafter location of vehicle was not traceable. He deposed that they tried to search the vehicle in four-five villages namely Saleempur Jat, Kakor Govindpura, Shyam Nagar and Kevli Village. He deposed that when they reached Village Hasanpur, secret informer informed that vehicle had come there but had also left the village. He deposed that thereafter in process of searching the vehicle they went to Faridabad through Noida and came back at P.S. Fatehpur Beri. He deposed FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-12/19 that on 21.11.2015 at about 01:00 P.M, IO received secret information that the vehicle was coming towards Delhi from side of Dera Village. He deposed that thereafter he alongwith IO, HC Yudhvir, Ct. Ravi Kant, complainant and secret informer went to Dera Village. He deposed that they took their position near M.K. Garden near Dera Village. He deposed that there IO asked four-five public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He deposed that at about 02:30 P.M., when they saw one vehicle coming from Dera village side, secret informer told them that it was the same vehicle. He deposed that they stopped the vehicle after putting the barricades in front of the same and the vehicle was bearing registration No. DL-3CBU-9173. He deposed that there were two persons sitting in the vehicle and who were apprehended by IO with their help. He deposed that one of the boy who was driving the vehicle disclosed his name as X (since juvenile) and other who was sitting next to X disclosed his name as Abhishek Singh @ Rahul . Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court. He deposed that the complainant also identified accused and co-accused (since juvenile) and told them that X was sitting on the front seat and accused was sitting in the middle seat at the time of incident. He deposed that the complainant had also told them that X (since juvenile) had put knife on his neck, accused alongwith X (since juvenile) had beaten him and accused had snatched his purse and mobile. He deposed that IO conducted cursory search of accused and found mobile phone and purse belonging to complainant in pocket of accused. He deposed that IO took into the FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-13/19 possession the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/D. He deposed that IO also seized the vehicle vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/C. He deposed that IO arrested accused and X (since juvenile) and thereafter they came back at P.S. Fatehpur Beri. He deposed that IO recorded his statement. He identified case property before court vide Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 (in unsealed condition).
PW-9 HC Yudhvir Singh deposed in almost similar terms as PW-8 has. He correctly identified accused before court. He exhibited arrest memo and personal search memo of co-accused (since juvenile) vide Ex. PW-9/A and Ex. PW-9/B respectively. He exhibited disclosure statements of accused persons vide Ex. PW-9/C (colly) and Ex. PW-9/D (Colly).
PW-10 SI Ram Niwas is IO who has also deposed in similar terms as that PW-8. He exhibited photographs of car bearing No. DL-3CBU- 9173 vide Ex. PW-10/X. He further corroborated medical examination report of complainant vide Ex. C-1. He corroborated Ex. PW-5/A (colly) and Ex. PW- 5/B (colly). He also corroborated Ex. PW-6/B, Ex. PW-6/C and Ex. PW-6/E. He correctly identified accused before court.
PW-11 Constable Ravi Kant also participated in the investigation of the case and has deposed in similar terms as that PW-8. He has not exhibited or proved any documents on record. He correctly identified accused before court.
PW-12 Smt. Urmila Devi deposed that in the year 2014, she purchased one mobile phone make Samsung colour black and that she also took a SIM card No. 8826678276 in her name and her son in law was using FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-14/19 this mobile. She deposed that she tried to search out for mobile bill but the same could not be found. She deposed that her statement was recorded by IO in this regard.
After going through evidence as adduced by witnesses examined by prosecution, I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons as to why I have arrived at this conclusion are as follows:-
Qua offence u/sec 394/34 IPC, complainant/PW-1 is the sole eye witness with whom alleged incident took place. Complainant is consistent in so far as description of incident is concerned in his deposition before court vis a vis his statement Ex. PW-1/A but complainant is completely hostile so far as recovery of robbed articles is concerned. Complainant has not identified accused before court in his examination in chief but in cross examination by state, he has identified accused before court. Defence counsels argued that identification of accused before court in cross examination by state was at instance of Ld. APP for the state and that version of complainant so far as identification of accused is concerned cannot be believed and relied upon for purpose of conviction of accused u/sec 394/34 IPC is concerned. I find force in submissions of defence counsels as in case complainant was sure regarding identification of accused at the time of his examination in chief, he should have identified accused in his examination in chief itself and he should not have identified accused in cross examination done on behalf of State. No question has been asked by Ld. APP for state to complainant/PW-1 for not identifying FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-15/19 accused earlier in his examination in chief. Had there been any explanation tendered by complainant /PW-1, scenario could have been different but keeping in mind what has been deposed by PW-1/complainant in his cross examination by state i.e. with regard to recovery aspect of case property in present case and even in his examination in chief i.e. complainant has deposed in his examination in chief that he had not gone with police team in search of vehicle and accused and nothing else had happened in his presence, identification of accused by complainant in cross examination by state does not inspire sufficient confidence in version of complainant so as to convict accused for offence u/sec 394/34 IPC. Complainant in his cross examination by state has denied that he identified both the boys. This statement of complainant is in context when accused were apprehended and alleged recovery was effected from accused. In the scenario when complainant does not know accused prior to the incident (complainant in Ex. PW-1/A or in his examination in chief has not stated that he knew accused before hand) and in the scenario when complainant is declining to have identified accused at the time of alleged apprehension of accused and thereafter recovery from accused, test identification parade of accused was a must and first time identification before court and that too in cross examination by state makes version of complainant doubtful so far as identification of accused is concerned.
With regard to offence u/sec 411/34 IPC, complainant is totally hostile so far as recovery of case property in present case is concerned. Complainant in his examination in chief as mentioned earlier FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-16/19 stated that he did not go with police team in search of vehicle and accused and nothing else had happened in his presence. Complainant in his cross examination by state has denied that both the boys sitting in the car were apprehended and they disclosed their name as JCL X and Abhishek Singh @ Rahul. He further denied that he identified both the accused. He denied that police took car into the possession. He has denied that from cursory search of accused Abhishek Singh @ Rahul his mobile phone make Samsung and one black colour purse were recovered. He denied that purse was containing photocopy of his DL , some visiting cards and Rs. 300/-. He denied that IO took mobile phone and purse into possession. He denied that IO arrested both accused persons and prepared site plan of recovery. He in the last stated that he signed the documents at PS. He further stated that he had signed the documents without going through the same. In these circumstances, even though police officials who allegedly participated in recovery proceedings and arrest of accused deposing almost consistently, version of prosecution becomes doubtful and seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D also become doubtful as they bear signatures of complainant /PW-1.
Second aspect so far as offence u/sec 411/34 IPC is concerned is production of case property before court. Perusal of seizure memo of mobile and purse of complainant Ex. PW-1/D does not show that the same were sealed at time of its alleged seizure. This part of case property for the first time was produced in cross examination of complainant/PW-1. The production of same before court in deposition of PW-
FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-17/19 1 also does not show that case property was sealed when it was produced before court. In circumstances of present case when complainant has denied his participation in alleged recovery proceedings, non sealing of case property does not but indicate that tempering in case property cannot be ruled out and accused cannot be convicted of offence u/sec 411/34 IPC.
Though prosecution has tried hard to prove its version of following of robbed vehicle by way of technical corroboration by examining PW-5 Pavitra Kumar who is accountant in Balaji Teleserve Pvt. Ltd but has failed to prove the requisite GPS data produced before court vide Ex. PW- 5/A (Colly) as certificate u/sec 65 B of Indian Evidence Act produced in support of Ex. PW-5/A (Colly) vide Ex. PW-5/B does not comply with conditions of certificate required u/sec 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. Further veracity of this data is shattered in view of what has been stated by PW-5 in his cross examination. PW-5 in his cross examination has stated that he does not have control over GPS. He further stated that server in which data is stored is installed in Amritsar and same is not in his control or possession. In view of what has been stated by PW-5 in his cross examination, evidentiary value of Ex. PW-5/A becomes nullified.
Veracity of CDR with regard to mobile number 8826678276 (number of mobile allegedly used by complainant) tried to be proved on record by state also becomes shattered in view of what has been stated by PW-6 (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited) in his cross examination. PW-6 in his cross examination stated that data of CDR is stored on server which is station in Noida and server is maintained by IT FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-18/19 Department of Bharti Airtel. So evidentiary value of Ex. PW-6/D stands nullified.
Thus in view of my aforesaid discussion, it can be said that state has not been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly accused is acquitted for offences under section 394/34 IPC and Section 411/34 IPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SONU AGNIHOTRI)
Dt. 22.08.2016 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
District South
Saket Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 850/15 PS Fatehpur Beri Page-19/19