Delhi District Court
6. It Was Held By Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of ... vs . on 12 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Govind etc.
FIR No. 267/2011
PS Mianwali Nagar
U/s 382/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of the case : 451/2/11
Unique case ID No. : 02401R0535632011
Date of Institution : 18.11.2011
Date of Commission of Offence : 08.10.2011
Name of the complainant : Sh. Yaman Thapa
S/o Sh. Lal Bahadur Thapa
Name & address of the accused : 1). Govind
S/o Sh. Kali Charan
R/o RZ-B-247, Nihal Vihar, Delhi.
2). Pappu
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o B-212, T-Hut, Meera Bagh, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 382/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 12.01.2016
Date of announcing of judgment : 12.01.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case U/s 382/34 IPC. FIR No. 267/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar U/s 382/34 IPC 1 /5
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 08.10.2011 at about 11:30 PM at Peera Garhi Village near Wine Shop, both the accused persons namely Govind and Pappu Singh alongwith their accomplice Arvind (not arrested yet) committed theft of a purse containing Rs.122/-, one PAN Card, two ATM Cards of the complainant Sh. Yaman Thapa after having made preparations of causing death, hurt, restrain or fear of death or of hurt or of restrain to him as one of the assailant was having a knife with him. Accordingly, after completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the Court. Documents were supplied to the accused persons and thereafter charge under Section 382/34 IPC was framed against them. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. After framing of charge, matter was posted for prosecution evidence.
Prosecution has examined only one witness i.e SI Satyavir Singh. PW1 SI Satyavir Singh deposed that on 08/09.10.2011 he was posted in PCR at West Zone. On that day, he was on duty at PCR Van at Peera Garhi from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. At about 11:30 PM he was patrolling at Peera Garhi and when they reached near Vaishno Dhaba, he heard the noise from the side of Vaishno Dhaba, on that he went there. One person met him who was in injured condition, that injured person told him that 3 persons had snatched his purse, one of them ran away and two of them were apprehended. This witness correctly identified both the accused persons. It is stated that he had taken the FIR No. 267/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar U/s 382/34 IPC 2 /5 injured namely Yaman Thapa to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and took the accused persons to the police station and handed over them to the IO. It is stated that his statement was recorded by the IO in this regard. In his cross-examination, it is stated by him that he had not seen the third assailant running from the spot. It is accepted by him that he had not seen the incident (theft). It is stated by him that public had gathered at the spot. It is accepted by this witness that he has no personal knowledge whether any theft was committed or not, however, it is voluntarily stated by him that complainant told him about the theft. He denied the suggestion that he is a planted witness.
5. In the present case Sh. Yaman Thapa (victim/complainant) was the only eye witness of the theft but he remained unserved even through DCP concerned. The other witness i.e. PW1 SI Satyavir Singh, who allegedly caught the accused persons while running away from the spot has stated that he had not witnessed the incident. As one of the eye/material witness stated that he had not witnessed the incident, further the other eye witness/victim has remained unserved even through DCP concerned, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. In the absence of the complainant/victim the prosecution can never successfully prove the factum of theft. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences U/s 382/34 IPC.
FIR No. 267/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar U/s 382/34 IPC 3 /5
6. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs." reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Thus, PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating had come on record against the accused, as such, recording of statement of accused was also dispensed with.
7. Brief submissions addressed by the Ld. APP for State and by the Ld. Defence Counsel have been heard and the documents on record carefully perused.
8. In the case at hand, the complainant/victim Sh. Yaman Thapa from whose possession the case property was allegedly stolen, remained unserved even through DCP concerned and his name was accordingly dropped from the list of witnesses. In absence of his testimony, the factum of theft could not be proved before the Court.
9. The testimony of PW1 SI Satyavir Singh is also of no help to the prosecution as he reached the spot when public had already gathered there. It is not stated by him that he apprehended the accused persons. He specifically denied witnessing the incident of theft. Thus, his testimony is only on the aspect that on hearing some noise he reached the spot where accused persons were already apprehended and he had taken custody of them. Thus, testimony of this witness does not prove the factum of theft after preparation for causing FIR No. 267/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar U/s 382/34 IPC 4 /5 hurt.
10. In view of the above discussion, Court is of the opinion that guilt of accused persons have not been proved and thus they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused persons namely Govind and Pappu are acquitted for offence under Section 382/34 IPC.
11. Fresh bail/surety bonds have been furnished by the accused persons in compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C. Same are accepted. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 12.01.2016 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 5 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 267/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar U/s 382/34 IPC 5 /5