Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh Kumar & Ors. on 6 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR, MM,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors.
PS. Adarsh Nagar
1. FIR No. : 282/10
2. Date of Offence : 21.11.2010
3. Name of the complainant : Sh Sukhdev
S/o Sh. Jagdish
R/o H. no. N-9B/113, Lal
Bagh, Azad Pur, Delhi.
4. Name, parentage and Address : 1. Ramesh Kumar Sharma
of the accused S/o Sh Jawahar Lal
R/o B-27, Lal Bagh, Azad Pur,
Delhi.
2. Vijender Kumar
S/o Sh Hoshpal
R/o H. A-28, Lal Bagh, Azad
Pur, Delhi
5. Offences complained of : 392/411/34 IPC.
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
7. Sentence or final order : Acquittal
8. Date of order : 06.04.2016
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 282/10 Unique ID no. 02404R02044532011 1/5
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused Ramesh Kumar is that on 21.11.2010 at about 11:30 PM in front of Ram Lila ground, Lal Bagh, Railway Raod, Azad Pur Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Adarsh Nagar he along with his associate robbed the complainant Sh Sukhdev of his mobile phone make Nokia and also caused simple hurt to him. The case of prosecution against the accused Vijender Kumar is that on 08.01.2011 he was found in possession of one mobile phone make Nokia which he received or retained having knowledge to be the same as stolen property belonging to complainant Sukh Dev.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. The copy of charge-sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter charge under Section 392/34 IPC was framed against accused Ramesh Kumar and charge under section 411 IPC was framed against accused Vijender Pal to which they pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
3. In support of its version, prosecution examined 1 witness namely Sh Sukh Dev who was the complainant in the present case. He was not able to identify the accused persons. He turned hostile qua the identification of accused. He was the sole eye witness of the present case being the injured. There is no other witness of the prosecution who could establish the identity of accused being offenders of the present case. In these circumstances no purpose would have been served in continuing the prosecution evidence and as such PE was closed.
FIR No. 282/10 Unique ID no. 02404R02044532011 2/5
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was dispensed with, as no incriminating evidence came on record against them.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused persons. I have perused the record.
6. It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused persons are but, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own leg.
7. The charge U/s 392 Cr.PC was framed against accused Ramesh Kumar only. No recovery of stolen property was effected from his possession, hence the charge U/s 411 IPC was not framed against him. The complainant is the sole eye witness of the present case. Complainant stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 21.11.2010 he parked his rehdi at Ram Lila Ground and started moving towards his house. At about 11:30 Pm when he reached in front of Ram Lila Ground two boys came there and collided with him. Quarrel took place between the complainant and those persons. One of them caught hold the complainant from behind and other gave fist blow to the complainant on his back. PW-1 further deposed that his mobile phone and purse FIR No. 282/10 Unique ID no. 02404R02044532011 3/5 containing Rs 800/- was snatched. He deposed that he cannot identify accused persons as it was a night time and was very dark. He turned hostile qua the identification of accused persons and was cross examined by Ld APP. He categorically denied the suggestion of Ld APP that he identify the accused Vijender Kumar while he was sitting in PS. He further denied the suggestion that he identify accused Ramesh Kumar in Rohini Court Complex. When the Ld APP specifically pointed towards accused Ramesh Kumar and asked whether he is the one who robbed you then the PW-1 replied that he is not the same person who robbed me.
8. In view of the testimony of PW-1 the identification of accused Ramesh Kumar Sharma could not be established. There is no other witness of the prosecution who could establish the identity of accused Ramesh Kumar Sharma as the offender in the present case. Complainant categorically deposed that accused Ramesh Kumar Sharma is not the one who robbed him when the Ld APP specifically pointed towards accused Ramesh Kumar Sharma. Accordingly, offence U/s 392/34 IPC not proved against accused Ramesh Kumar Sharma. Accused Ramesh Sharma is acquitted from the charge U/s 392 IPC.
9. The charge u/s 411 IPC was framed against accused Vijender Kumar. Complainant voluntarily compounded the offence with accused Vijender Kumar. In view of the separate statements of complainant and accused Vijender Kumar offence U/s 411 IPC stands compounded and accused is FIR No. 282/10 Unique ID no. 02404R02044532011 4/5 acquitted from the charge U/s 411 IPC.
10. In view of the above discussion both the accused persons Ramesh Kumar and Vijender are hereby acquitted from the charges framed in the present case.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (KAPIL KUMAR)
on 06.04.2016 Metropolitan Magistrate-06
North District, Rohini Courts
Delhi.
FIR No. 282/10 Unique ID no. 02404R02044532011 5/5
FIR No. 282/10 Unique ID no. 02404R02044532011 6/5