Delhi District Court
State vs Kamaluddin on 27 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS- 06, SHAHDARA,
KKD, DELHI
STATE Vs Kamaluddin & Ors.
CR NO: 373/2013; 79359/2016
FIR NO: 35/2011 PS Seemapuri
CNR No.: DLSH020009352012
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
Kamaluddin (already declared PO)
S/o Jamaluddin
R/o H.No. 2/34, Jhuggi, Jahangirpuri
&
Sajan @ Shahjahan
S/o Ravijul Rehman
R/o H. No. E-44/B-261, Jhuggi, New Seemapuri,
Delhi ... Accused persons
1 Name of Complainant Jai Kumar
2 Name of Accused Kamaluddin and Sajan
3 Offence complained of 411 IPC
4 Plea of accused Not Guilty
5 Date of Commission of offence 15.03.2011
6 Date of Registration 30.06.2012
7 Date of Reserving Order 27.03.2025
8 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2025
9 Final Order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Factual Matrix
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 27.01.2011, in between 09.30 AM to 02.11PM, at A-20, I Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, Sh. Jai Kumar (hereinafter referred as 1 of 5 Digitally signed AISHWARYA by AISHWARYA SINGH SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date: 2025.03.27 15:36:29 +0530 State vs Kamaluddin & Ors, FIR No. 35/2011 CR No. 373/2013 79359/2016 ; SP complainant) returned at his house and when he opened the door, he found that window's grill of the room was broken by someone and found that gold and silver jewellry, mobile phones and other household articles were stolen. Thereafter, complainant called at 100 no. Subsequenlty, two persons namely Kamaluddin and Sajan @ Shahjan (hereinafter referred as accused persons) were arrested in the present case.Thereafter, on the complaint of complainant, FIR was registered on the complaint at the PS. Investigation and Trial Proceedings
2. After the completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused for the offences U/s 457/380/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC"). The Ld. Predecessor took the cognizance in the matter.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Kamaluddin was declared PO vide order of Ld. Predecessor dt. 03.10.2019. Therefore, separate order has been passed with respect to proceedings qua absconding accused.
4. The accused entered appearance before this court and in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC") he was supplied the copy of the chargesheet as well as documents relied upon in the same.
5. Thereafter, upon finding prima facie case against the accused Sajan @ Shahjahan, charge under Sections 411 of the IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial (co-accused already declared PO).
Page 2 of 5 Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SINGH SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date: 2025.03.27 15:36:34 +0530
State vs Kamaluddin & Ors, FIR No. 35/2011 CR No. 373/2013 79359/2016 ; SP Prosecution Evidence
6. During the course of trial accused had admitted the genuineness and correctness of the registration of FIR and TIP proceedings without admitting the contents thereof as per the mandate of Section 294 CrPC therefore, the relevant prosecution witnesses were accordingly dropped from the list of witnesses.
7. It is pertinent to mention that during the stage of prosecution evidence of the trial, the complainant/Jai Kumar failed to appear before the court despite several opportunities and coercive process through DCP concerned and recovery witness Asif turned completely hostile in the present case despite extensively being cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State. The remaining witnesses are formal in nature. There are no other eye-witnesses to the incident nor digital evidence/CCTV footage. It is evident that even if all the other prosecution witnesses, which are formal in nature, are examined even then the fate of the case shall not change and the case of the prosecution will not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8. In the absence of examination of material prosecution witness i.e. the complainant, the prosecution cannot prove the commission of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt by the accused in order to secure conviction. The fate of the case is destined to result in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
9. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. Continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that the prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused, would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P. Page 3 of 5 Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SINGH SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date:
2025.03.27 15:36:41 +0530 State vs Kamaluddin & Ors, FIR No. 35/2011 CR No. 373/2013 79359/2016 ; SP Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka 1 that the court should exercise its powers available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right to speedy trial of the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra2.
10. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anr3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure, when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
11. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 4 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution cannot discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offence in the absence of examination of its material prosecution witness i.e. the complainant who failed to appear before the court despite several opportunities and coercive process through DCP concerned and recovery witness Asif turned completely hostile in the present case despite extensively being cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State. Thus, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
12. In view of the aforesaid, no incriminating evidence has come forth against the accused. The remaining witnesses are the 1 AIR 2002 SC 1856.
2 AIR 2008 SC 3057.
3 1996 JCC 507.
4 1972 SCC (Cri.) 258.
Page 4 of 5 Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SINGH SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date: 2025.03.27 15:36:46 +0530
State vs Kamaluddin & Ors, FIR No. 35/2011 CR No. 373/2013 79359/2016 ; SP formal witnesses, whose testimony cannot prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are no other eye witnesses or CCTV Footage/digital evidence. Therefore, there is no evidence to cogently implicate the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is hereby found not guilty for the commission of offence punishable under section 411 IPC.
ORDER: Acquitted Accused Sajan @ Shahjahan shall furnish personal bond and surety bond as per the mandate of Section 437A CrPC upon which previous bonds shall be cancelled and previous surety shall be discharged.
Announced in Open Court on 27.03.2025.
(This judgement contains 5/Five signed pages.) Digitally signed
by AISHWARYA
AISHWARYA SINGH
SINGH KASHYAP
KASHYAP Date:
2025.03.27
15:36:51 +0530
(Aishwarya Singh Kashyap)
MM/JMFC 06/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
27.03.2025
Page 5 of 5