Delhi District Court
State vs Mahinder Kumar on 12 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANUJ KAUSHAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04/CENTRAL: DELHI
STATE VS. MAHINDER KUMAR
FIR No. 485/2020
Case No. 9157/2021
P.S. : SARAI ROHILLA
U/s 356/379/34 IPC
Date of institution of case : 02.09.2021
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 12.11.2024
Date of judgment : 12.11.2024
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 02.12.2020 b) Offence complained of : U/s 356/379/34 IPC c) Name of complainant : Ram Kishan d) Name of accused, : Mahinder Kumar his parentage : S/o Sh. Surja Ram local & permanent residence R/o:- H.No. 181, A-Block Jakhira Sarai Rohilla Delhi e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty f) Final order : Acquitted BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
1. Briefly stated, it is the prosecution's case that on 02.12.2020 at around 09:20 am, at Vaishno Mata Mandir on the way to Gulabi Bagh, accused alongwith co-accused (already declared proclaimed offender) in furtherance of FIR no. 485/2020 State Vs. Mahinder Kumar Page no. 1 of 4 their common intention snatched the mobile phone make MI Redmi 6A belonging to the complainant Ram Kishan in order to commit its theft and on 06.03.2024, accused were declared PO because accused failed to appear in the court in pursuance of the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C and later on apprehended by the police in the present case and thereby accused committed offences punishable under Section 356/379/174A/34IPC.
2. On the basis of material filed along with the charge-sheet, charge u/s 356/379/174A/34IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 24.04.2024 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case the prosecution proposed to examine 6 witnesses. PW/complainant Ram Krishan was deleted from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dt. 12.11.2024 as he was unserved through DCP and his name was deleted from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dt. 12.11.2024.
4. Since the star witness of the prosecution was deleted from the list of prosecution witnesses, the remaining prosecution witnesses were dropped as they were all formal witnesses who had merely joined the investigation at different stages and none of them witnessed the alleged offence and whose testimony, even if accepted unrebutted, would not have been sufficient to prove the allegations against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, keeping in view the right of the accused persons to speedy trial and the guidelines echoed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from time to time that when it becomes fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial for completing the formality only to pronounce the conclusion on a future date, the trial was truncated and PE was FIR no. 485/2020 State Vs. Mahinder Kumar Page no. 2 of 4 closed.
5. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, recording of his statement u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
6. Final arguments were heard and record of the case has been perused.
7. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"i) The onus of 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.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
8. It is a settled law as well as matter of common knowledge that evidence of complainant and other public witnesses is the best available evidence and the case can be proved beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimony of said witness only. In the present case, there is no evidence to bind the accused with the scene of crime as the complainant had already deleted from the list of FIR no. 485/2020 State Vs. Mahinder Kumar Page no. 3 of 4 prosecution witnesses. No other eye witness of the incident has been cited by the prosecution. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that even if testimony of the remaining witnesses sought to examined by the prosecution is accepted to be the truth still the identity of the accused could not have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
9. In view of the above discussion, the case against accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, accused is entitled to be acquitted in the present matter.
10. Original documents, if any, be returned to the entitled parties and also any endorsement on the documents be cancelled.
11. Accordingly, accused Mahinder Kumar stands acquitted U/s 356/379/34 IPC in the present case.
12. Original documents, if any, be returned to the entitled parties and also any endorsement on the documents be cancelled.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed
by MANUJ
TODAY ON 12th NOVEMBER 2024 MANUJ KAUSHAL
KAUSHAL Date:
2024.11.12
17:02:43 +0530
(MANUJ KAUSHAL)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
FIR no. 485/2020 State Vs. Mahinder Kumar Page no. 4 of 4