Delhi District Court
State vs . Gautam @ Sachin on 7 March, 2020
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. FAHAD UDDIN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
01(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI - 110054
FIR No.69/18
PS Maurice Nagar
State Vs. Gautam @ Sachin
U/s 356/379/34 IPC
Unique Case ID No. 12303/18
(a) Sr. No. of the Case 12303/18
(b) Date of offence 13.06.2018
(c) Complainant Ranjeet Singh
(d) Accused Gautam @ Sachin
(e) Offence 356/379/34 Arms Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted of the offence U/s 356/379/34 IPC
(h) Date of Institution 10.09.2018
(i) Date when judgment 25.02.2020
was reserved
(j) Date of judgment 07.03.2020
FIR no.69/18
PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 1 of 15
DOJ 07.03.2020
2
Judgment
1.The present chargesheet was filed against accused Gautam @ Sachin S/o Virender Singh, PS Maurice Nagar for commission of offence U/s 356/379/34 IPC.
2. It is the allegations against the accused person that on 13/06/2018 at about 3:50 am, at Road/Pathway Near Gumbaj, Kamla Nehru, Bonta Park, Delhi, when the complainant namely Ranjeet Singh alongwith his friend Omkar Singh had gone to Kamla Nagar Ridge for morning walk . The complainant had entered Bonta park from the gate opposite VC office and when after entering into the Park, he took the right turn , two boys suddenly came near him from his behind and snatched his mobile phone I Phone 10 from his hand having mobile no. 9811638400 and ran away. Accordingly on the said allegations the present FIR no. 69/2018 was registered at PS Maurice Nagar for commission of offence U/s 356/379/34 IPC. During the course of investigation accused Gautam @Sachin was arrested in the present case and complainant is alleged to have identified the accused Gautam @Sachin as one of the boys who committed the aforesaid offence against the complainant and hence after completion of investigation , the present chargesheet was filed against the accused person in the said background.
3. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused Gautam @ Sachin was produced before the court. Copy of chargesheet alongwith documents were also supplied to the accused person. Thereafter charge U/s 356/379/34 IPC was framed against accused Gautam @ Sachin vide order dt. 01.10.2018 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR no.69/18PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 2 of 15
DOJ 07.03.2020
3
Prosecution Evidence:
4. To prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution relied on the following documents:-
(i) Complaint made by the complainant Ranjeet Singh to police Ex.PW-
1/A, Site Plan Ex.PW-1/B.
(ii) Disclosure Statement of accused Gautam@ Sachin in FIR no. 81/18 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Ex.PW-2/A, arrest memo Ex.PW-2/B and personal search memo Ex.PW-2/C.
(iii) Interrogation of accused made by IO in FIR no.69/18 Ex.PW-4/A, Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW-4/B.
(iv) Rukka Ex.PW-5/A, DD no. 15 A Ex.PW-5/B.
(v) FIR no. 69/18 U/s 356/379/34 IPC as Ex.PA-1, TIP Proceedings dt.
18.07.2018 Ex.PA-2 and previous involvement report Ex.PA-3.
Further to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution got examined 5 witnesses.
5. PW-1 is Ranjeet Singh (Complainant herein) who stated in his examination that he was doing the business of construction. On 13.06.2018 at about 03:50am, he alongwith his friend Omkar Singh visited Kamla Nehru Bridge for taking morning walk and entered Bonta Park from the gate in front of VC Office and took right turn after entering the park. Suddenly, two boys came in front of him and snatched his mobile I phone 10 from his hand and ran away. He made a complaint to the police in this regard already mark X now Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW-1 stated that he pointed to the IO, the place of incident and IO prepared site plan at his instance Ex.PW1/B. His mobile phone has not been recovered till date. He stated that he cannot identify the accused at this point of time.
FIR no.69/18PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 3 of 15
DOJ 07.03.2020
4
6. During examination of PW-1 Ranjeet Singh, he was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the Court as he was resiling from his earlier statement given to the Police. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State PW-1 failed to identify the accused present in the Court as one of the person who had snatched the mobile phone. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had identified the accused earlier. The witness was also confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Ex.PW-1/A wherein it was so written from point A to A, that the witness had seen the accused and identified him, to which witness stated that it is wrong, he had not stated so, he had not given any such statement to the IO. PW-1 denied the suggestion that IO had recorded his statement in the present case regarding the identification of accused dt. 19.07.2018. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that he deliberately and intentionally not identifying the accused in the Court as he had been won over by the accused or he was deliberately and intentionally not disclosing the true and correct facts before the Court due to the aforesaid reason.
7. In his cross examination by Ld. LAC for accused PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had not visited the Bonta park on the alleged day of incident or that nothing as stated by him had happened on the alleged date of incident. No other fact was deposed to by PW-1.
8. PW-2 is ASI Bharat Sharma who stated in his examination that on 10.07.2018, he was posted as ASI at Operation Cell, North Distt. On that day, he was on the investigation of FIR no. 81/18, PS Maurice Nagar. During the investigation, accused Gautam @ sachin had made disclosure of the present case. He recorded the same Ex.PW2/A and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW2/B, conducted his personal search Ex.PW2/C all bearing his signatures FIR no.69/18 PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 4 of 15 DOJ 07.03.2020 5 at point A. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. PW-2 stated that he had informed this fact to the PS vide DD no.15A dt. 10.07.2018. IO recorded his statement in the present case.
9. In his cross examination by Ld. LAC for accused PW-2 stated that it is correct that the spot was a busy public place and people were coming and going there. It is correct that no public witness is cited as PW. It is further correct that the name of the public persons who refused to join investigation is not mentioned and no notice was served to them. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the accused was not apprehended at the spot and lifted from his house and was falsely implicated in the present case or that accused had not made any disclosure regarding the present case and that all the proceedings were carried out while sitting in the PS. No other fact was deposed to by PW-2.
10. PW-3 is Ct. Balkesh who stated in his examination that on 13.06.2018, he was posted as Ct. at PS Maurice Nagar. On that day, DD no.7A regarding snatching was assigned to IO/SI Rohit. After receiving the DD he alongwith the IO went to the spot i.e Kamla Nehru bonta Park where complainant Ranjeet Singh was present. IO recorded his statement. Thereafter, IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him with direction to get the FIR registered. He accordingly went to the PS and handed over the same to DO. After sometime DO handed over him copy of FIR and original ruuka with direction to hand over the same to IO/SI Rohit for further investigation. Accordingly PW-3 returned back to the spot and handed over the same to the IO for further investigation. They searched for the accused persons however, they could not be found. Accordingly, they returned to the PS. PW-3 stated that IO recorded his statement.
FIR no.69/18PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 5 of 15
DOJ 07.03.2020
6
11. In his cross examination by Ld.LAC for accused PW-3 stated that he got the wireless call at about 03:50am. He alongwith the IO went to the spot by the private vehicle. However, he did not remember the make, number or model of the vehicle. At the spot, complainant alongwith his friend was present but he did not know the name of his friend. PW-3 stated that IO had not recorded the statement of his friend in his presence. Rukka was prepared in his presence. PW-3 denied the suggestion that no call was assigned to the IO and he did not accompany the IO to the spot and no rukka was prepared and handed over to him. No other fact was deposed to by PW-3.
12. PW-4 is SI Ram Chander who stated in his examination that on 11.07.2018, he was posted at PS Maurice Nagar. On that day he alongwith IO went to THC, where accused Gautam @ Sachin who was brought on production in the court from another case, was arrested in the present case by the IO. IO interrogated accused Gautam vide memo Ex.PW4/A and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW4/B both bearing his signatures at point A. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. PW-4 stated that IO recorded his statement in this regard.
13. In his cross examination by Ld. LAC for accused PW-4 denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation with IO in the present case and came to THC and that the accused was not arrested in his presence.
14. PW-5 is SI Rohit who stated in his examination that on 13.06.2018, he was posted at PS Maurice Nagar as a SI. On that day, investigation of present case was assigned to him. Accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Balkesh reached at the spot i.e Kamla Nehru Ridge with complainant Ranjeet Singh.
FIR no.69/18PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 6 of 15
DOJ 07.03.2020
7
He recorded the statement of complainant already Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Balkesh with direction to get the FIR registered. He accordingly went to the PS. PW-5 stated that he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant already Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. After sometime Ct. Balkesh came to the spot and handed over him copy of FIR and original ruuka for further investigation. They searched for accused however, he was not found. Accordingly, they returned to the PS and recorded the statement of witnesses. On 10.07.2018, information regarding arrest of accused Gautam @ Sachin (who made disclosure regarding the present case to the special staff) was given to the PS vide DD No. 15 A which is Ex. PW5/B. Thereafter, on 11.07.2018 accused Gautam was produced in the Court and he was interrogated and arrested in the court with the permission of the court. Disclosure statement is already Ex. PW4/A and arrest memo is Ex. PW4/B both bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, the permission to conduct TIP of accused was obtained from the Court however, accused refused his TIP. TIP proceeding are already Ex. PA2. PW-5 stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court. Accused was correctly identified by the witness.
15. In his cross examination by Ld.LAC for accused PW-5 stated that he received the information through PCR call vide DD No. 7A. The information was received early in the morning however, he did not remember the exact time however, it was about 5:00 a.m. They went to the spot in a private vehicle. He did not remember the exact time when they reached at the spot. PW-5 stated that the complainant alongwith his friend was present at the FIR no.69/18 PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 7 of 15 DOJ 07.03.2020 8 spot when they reached there. He had not recorded the statement of his friend Omkar as he had not witnessed the incident. PW-5 stated that Public persons were present at the spot however, none became the witness of this incident. PW-5 stated that it is correct that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused. No CCTV camera was installed near on the spot. PW-5 denied the suggestion that he had not carried out proper investigation of the present case and had not visited the spot and that accused had not been identified by the complainant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that accused has not made any disclosure regarding the present matter. No other fact was deposed to by PW-5.
16. It may be noted on 24.05.2019, the accused Gautam @ Sachin had admitted the genuineness and correctness of the documents i.e. FIR no. 69/18 U/s 356/379/34 IPC Ex.PA-1, TIP Proceedings dt. 18.07.2018 Ex.PA-2 and previous involvement report Ex.PA-3, U/s 294 Cr.P.C and accordingly the other witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses vide separate statement of Ld. APP for the State.
17. On examination of all the prosecution witnesses, PE was closed on 28.01.2020 and matter fixed for recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
Statement of Accused.
18. On 11.02.2020, the Statement of the Accused Gautam @ Sachin under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded whereby all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the statement of accused recorded U/s FIR no.69/18 PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 8 of 15 DOJ 07.03.2020 9 313 Cr.P.C , the accused stated that the present case is false and fabricated. He has been falsely implicated and no such incident had taken place. All the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and falsely deposed against him. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. However, the accused did not wish to lead DE and hence vide order dated 11.02.20 itself , the opportunity to lead DE was closed.
Final Arguments.
19. Final arguments were heard on behalf of State as well as for the accused person . In the final arguments Ld. APP for the state submitted that on the basis of the evidence oral as well as documentary, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused person be convicted for the offence U/s 356/379/34 IPC. On the other hand Ld. LAC for the accused submitted that no case against the accused is made out, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and hence the accused be acquitted of the offence complained of.
Findings:
20. As aforesaid, It is the allegations against the accused that on 13/06/2018 at about 3:50 am, at Road/Pathway Near Gumbaj, Kamla Nehru, Bonta Park, Delhi, when the complainant namely Ranjeet Singh alongwith his friend Omkar Singh had gone to Kamla Nagar Ridge for morning walk . The complainant had entered Bonta park from the gate opposite VC office and when after entering into the Park, he took the right turn , two boys suddenly came near him from his behind and snatched his mobile phone I Phone 10 from his hand having mobile no. 9811638400 and ran away. Accordingly on the said allegations the present FIR no. 69/2018 was registered at PS Maurice FIR no.69/18 PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 9 of 15 DOJ 07.03.2020 10 Nagar for commission of offence U/s 356/379/34 IPC. During the course of investigation accused Gautam @Sachin was arrested in the present case and complainant is alleged to have identified the accused Gautam @Sachin as one of the boys who committed the aforesaid offence against the complainant and hence after completion of investigation , the present chargesheet was filed against the accused person in the said background.
The relevant sections of law may be reproduced as under:-
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
356.- Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting to commit theft on any property which that person is then wearing or carrying , shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
378. Theft. - Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent ,moves that property in order to such taking , is said to commit theft.
379. Punishment for theft.- Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years ,or with fine or with both.
21. As aforesaid the prosecution to prove its case against accused Gautam @ Sachin has got examined 5 witnesses. PW-1 is Ranjit Singh, who stated in his examination that on 13.06.2018, at about 3:50am he alongwith his friend Omkar Singh had visited Kamla Nehru Bridge for taking morning walk and FIR no.69/18 PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 10 of 15 DOJ 07.03.2020 11 entered Bonta Park from the gate in front of V.C. office and took right turn after entering the park. Suddenly two boys came in front of him and snatched his mobile I phone 10 from his hand and ran away. He made a complaint to the police in this regard which is Ex.PW1/A. He pointed out to the IO, the place of incident and IO prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW1/B. PW1 stated that his mobile had not been recovered till date. He further stated that he cannot identify the accused at this point of time. PW1 was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State with the permission of court as he was resiling from his earlier statement given to the police. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, PW1 failed to identify the accused Gautam @ Sachin present in the court as one of the persons who had snatched the mobile phone. In his further cross examination by Ld. APP for the State PW1 denied the suggestion that he had identified the accused earlier. He was also confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A recorded u/s 161 CrPC, wherein it was mentioned that the witness had seen the accused and identified to which the witness stated that he had not given any such statement to the IO. He further denied the suggestion that IO had recorded his statement in the present case regarding the identification of accused dt. 19.07.2018.
22. PW2 is SI Bharat Sharma who stated in his examination that he was on the investigation of FIR no.81/18 PS Maurice Nagar. During the investigation accused Gautam @ Sachin made disclosure statement of the present case. He recorded the same which is Ex.PW2/A and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW2/B, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He stated that he had informed this fact to the PS vide DD no.15A dt. 10.07.2018. in his cross examination by Ld. LAC for accused PW2 stated that it is correct that no public witness was cited as PW and the name of public persons who refused to join the investigation is not mentioned and no notice was served FIR no.69/18 PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 11 of 15 DOJ 07.03.2020 12 to them. PW3 Ct. Balkesh stated in his examination that on 13.06.2018, DD no.7A regarding snatching was assigned to IO/SI Rohit. After receiving the DD he alongwith the IO went to the spot I.e Kamla Nehru Bonta Park, where complainant was present. IO recorded his statement. Thereafter IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him with direction to get the FIR registered. After getting the FIR registered, he handed over the same to IO/SI Rohit for further investigation. They searched for the accused persons. However, they could not be found and accordingly they returned to the PS. In his cross examination by Ld. LAC for accused PW3 stated that at the spot complainant alongwith his friend was present but IO had not recorded the statement of his friend in his presence. PW4 SI Ramchander stated in his examination that on 11.07.2018 he alongwith IO went to THC where accused Gautam @ Sachin was brought on production warrant from another case. He was arrested in the present case by the IO. IO interrogated accused Gautam vide memo Ex.PW4/A and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW4/B. PW5 SI Rohit who stated in his examination that on 13.06.2018, he alongwith Ct. Balkesh reached at the spot I.e Kamla Nehru Ridge with complainant Ranjit Singh. He recorded the statement of complainant which is Ex.PW1/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW5/A and handed over the same to Ct. Balkesh to get the FIR registered. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex.PW1/B. They searched for accused. However, he was not found. Accordingly, they returned to the PS and recorded the statement of witnesses. On 10.07.2018 the information regarding arrest of accused Gautam @ Sachin was received vide DD no.15A which is Ex.PW5/B was received. On 11.07.2018 accused Gautam was produced in the court and he was interrogated and arrested in the present case. Disclosure statement of accused is Ex.PW4/A and arrest memo is Ex.PW4/B. Thereafter, the permission to conduct TIP of accused was obtained from the court,however, accused refused his TIP, the proceedings for the same are Ex.PA-2. PW5 FIR no.69/18 PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 12 of 15 DOJ 07.03.2020 13 stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses and after conclusion of investigation he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court. PW5 stated that he had not recorded the statement of friend of complainant namely Omkar as he had not witnessed the incident. He stated that it is correct that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused and no CCTV camera was installed near the spot.
23. Thus, after appreciation of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses as well as the documents relied upon by the prosecution, this court is of the view that no case u/s 356/379/34 IPC is made out against accused Gautam @ Sachin. Since the main witness of the prosecution Ranjit Singh ie. the complainant failed to identify the accused in the court as one of the person who had snatched the mobile phone. He further denied the suggestion that he had identified the accused earlier. Beside PW1 all the witnesses are police witnesses who had not seen the occurrence of incident by themselves. The friend of complainant namely Onkar Singh has not been cited as a witness by the police in the present case as per testimony of PW3 and PW5. PW5 SI Rohit in his cross examination has specifically stated that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused. No CCTV camera was installed at the spot. On disclosure statement made in case FIR no. 81/18 which is Ex.PW2/A accused was arrested in the present case and the complainant Ranjit Singh has denied in his cross examination that he had not given any such statement u/s 161 CrPC which is Ex.PW1/A regarding the identification of accused dt. 19.07.2018. Thus there is no eye witness in the present case who has identified the accused Gautam @ Sachin while committing the offence u/s 356/379/34 IPC. No public witness has been cited as prosecution witness in the present case. No CCTV footage was installed FIR no.69/18 PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 13 of 15 DOJ 07.03.2020 14 near the spot. PW1 is a hostile witness and his testimony is not sufficient to convict the accused in the present case.
24. It may be noted that in the Judgment titled as " SL Goswami v. State of MP" reported as 1972 CRI, L.J 511 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that"- In our view the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be discharged by the prosecution i.e. to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution.
25. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of accused , the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as NallapatiSivaiah v. Sub. Divisional officer, Guntur reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC).
FIR no.69/18PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 14 of 15
DOJ 07.03.2020
15
26. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the present case , it may be concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused Gautam @ Sachin beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly benefit of doubt goes to the accused person and hence, the accused Gautam @ Sachin stand acquitted of the offence U/s 356/379/34 IPC accordingly.
Judgment Pronounced in open Court.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN
UDDIN Date:
2020.03.18
16:25:49 +0530
Announced in the open court (FAHAD UDDIN)
today itself Metropolitan Magistrate-01
(Central), Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi/07.03.2020
FIR no.69/18
PS Maurice Nagar Page no. 15 of 15
DOJ 07.03.2020