Delhi District Court
State vs . Sachin & Anr. on 12 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR, MM-3 (NORTH),
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI.
UID No. 02404R0074662015
FIR No. 519/14
U/s. : 392/394/411/482/34 IPC
P.S. : Bhalaswa Dairy
State Vs. Sachin & Anr.
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. No of the case : 268/2/15
2. Date of institution of the case : 23.01.2015
3. Date of the commission of the offence: 11.10.2014
4. Name of the accused : 1. Sachin
S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar
R/o H. No.195, Shiv
Mandir Colony, Alipur,
Delhi.
2. Sidharth @ Nanu
S/o Sh. Bachchan Singh
R/o Ashish Sharma Ka
Makaan near Dayal Market,
Alipur, Delhi.
5. Name of the complainant : Sh. Vikas Kumar
6. Offence complained of : 392/394/411/482/34 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of such order : 12.02.2016
STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
The story of the prosecution in brief are that on 11.10.2014 at about 2:00 PM near Bhalaswa Jheel Road at Kachcha Road, Mukandpur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bhalaswa Dairy, accused Sachin @ Nanu and Sachin in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of one motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-8SAM-4216 by putting the complainant Sh. Vikas Kumar Verma under the fear of instant wrongful restraint or of hurt and then caused hurt to the complainant while committing robbery. Further, that on 15.10.2014 the abovesaid motorcycle FIR No.519/2014, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 1/7 was recovered from the Shradhanand Colony, Bhalaswa Dairy was recovered which they received and retained having reasons to believe the same to be a stolen property. Further, both the accused persons have used fake number plate with the number DL-8AT-1210 instead of DL-8SAM-4216.
2. After the investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed in the court for judicial verdict. Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons, arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 26.02.2015, charge for the offences under sections 392/394/411/482/34 IPC was framed by the predecessor of this Court against both the accused persons to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. During prosecution evidence in support of its version, the prosecution has examined only two witnesses out of total thirteen witnesses as cited in the list of witnesses
4. PW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar, the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing no.DL-8SAM-4216 of make Bajaj Discover. That he knew complainant Vikas as he was working with him. That he do not remember the date but on that day, Vikas has gone to his house to take meal and after sometime he received call of Vikas that the motorcycle has slipped and he suffered injuries and then he told him that someone taken away the motorcycle. That he went to the PS in this case but his statement was not recorded. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he stated that Vikas had not told him that two persons stopped him and inflicted injuries on his head by a stone and snatched his motorcycle FIR No.519/2014, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 2/7 from him and he had not told the same to the police. The witness has denied the story of the prosecution. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
5. PW2 Sh. Vikas Verma, who is the complainant in the present case, has deposed that he do not remember the date, month or year but on that day, he was going to godown from his home on the m/c no. DL 8SAM 4216 of make Bajaj Discover which was belonging to his employer Ashok Khanna. That he was driving the m/c in a speed and on the way, he lost balance and m/c skidded due to which he fell down and suffered injury on his head and he became unconscious and when after about 10-20 minutes, he regained his consciousness, he found the said m/c missing. That Police officials met him there and obtained his signature on blank paper on the bottom of the page. That after some day, M/c was recovered by the police which was got released by his employer. That no incident of robbery had taken place with him. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he pointed towards the accused persons and the witness stated that he does not know them. The witness has denied the entire story of the prosecution. The witness stated that he had not given any statement to the police or that no such incident had taken place with him. That he had seen the accused persons for the first time in the court today and he never met them. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite being opportunity for the same.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of prosecution evidence, it is submitted by the registered owner of the case property i.e. motorcycle Sh. Ashok Khanna and accused Sachin and Sidharth @ Nanu that they want to compound the present case qua the offences u/s FIR No.519/2014, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 3/7 411/482/34 IPC and seek permission for the same. Accordingly, in view of their submissions and separate statement of the complainant, the offences u/s 411/482/34 IPC stand compounded and both the accused persons are acquitted for offence u/s 411/482/34 IPC.
7. In the meanwhile, the perusal of the record reveals out that PW1 Sh. Ashok Khanna and PW2 Sh. Vikas Verma, who is the complainant/ injured/star/eye witness of the case, do not support the case of the prosecution by not supporting the case by not identifying the accused persons during their respective testimonies. It is also revealed that there is no other eye witness to the alleged offences u/s 392/394/34 IPC and the other witnesses are those who took part in the investigation of the case. Accordingly, PE was closed.
8. Thereafter, statement of both the accused persons were recorded u/s 281Cr.P.C., in which they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and denied of leading any evidence in their defence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State, Ld. defence counsel and perused the entire material available on record.
10. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials. The only material witnesses i.e. PW1 Ashok Khanna and the complainant/PW2 Sh. Vikas Verma have not supported the story of the prosecution. It is further argued that since the complainant/ injured, who is the star witness, failed to identify the accused persons as the snatcher/culprint, as per the FIR No.519/2014, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 4/7 case of prosecution, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is further argued that since the prosecution could not establish its case against the accused persons for the alleged offences beyond shadow of doubt, it is, therefore, prayed that the accused persons be acquitted of the alleged offences.
On the contrary, the Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the accused persons can be convicted for the alleged offences.
11. In the present case, the accused persons have been charged for the offences under Sections 392/394/411/482/34 IPC, out of which offence u/s 411/482/34 IPC already stands compounded and to connect the accused persons with the offences u/s 392/394/34 IPC, all the ingredients of the abovesaid offences have to be proved beyond shadow of doubt. Initially, the onus to prove its case is on the prosecution therefore, the prosecution has to prove that accused persons have committed theft of mobile phone and cash amount etc. and caused injuries on the person of the complainant and also forged the number plate of the stolen motorcycle.
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the testimonies of witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sh. Aashok Khanna and the complainant/PW-2 Sh. Vikas Verma and and found that nothing substantial and convincing against the accused persons have come in their testimonies. No other material witness was examined by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons.
In case law reported as Sadhu Singh vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes 55, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under:-
FIR No.519/2014, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 5/7" In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have.
If the prosecution appears to be improbably or lacks " credibility, the benefits of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused" .
In the present case also the word credibility as mentioned in the above mentioned case law is found lacking on behalf of the Prosecution. Remaining officials are the police officials, who came into picture only after occurrence of the incident and the conviction can not be based on the sole testimony of the police officials, if examined.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Narain Singh @ Lala vs. State of Delhi 2005 (1) LRC 294 (Del) (DB), has also ruled that:
" There must be a chain of evidence so complete as to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in their catena of decisions has emphasized and also ruled that:
" Criminal trial- benefit of doubt- when on the basis of the evidence appearing on record, two views are possible, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt."
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts against the accused persons for the alleged offences.
FIR No.519/2014, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 6/7There is no convincing evidence on the record, which could substantiate any charge upon the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons, the identity of the accused persons remained unestablished and accordingly, allegations for commission of the offences u/s 392/394/34 IPC remained unproved and unestablished.
14. Under the aforesaid discussions, it can safely be concluded that in the present case the evidence on the record is not at all sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty of the alleged offences, as the prosecution story is highly doubtful and the benefit of doubt is the right of the accused. It is also an established law of the land that the accused should not be convicted in doubtful circumstances. Even, if there are two views possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be accepted. Since, the prosecution has failed to establish a case against the accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, I am also not inclined to convict the accused persons in doubtful circumstances. Consequently, after giving the benefit of doubt, I hereby acquit accused Sachin and Sidharth @ Nanu for the offences punishable U/s 392/394/34 IPC.
15. Case property, if any, be destroyed in accordance with rules on expiry of period of Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
The necessary bail/surety bonds furnished by the accused persons/sureties in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C alongwith latest passport size photos and residential proof. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUNIL KUMAR)
COURT ON 12.02.2016 MM-03(NORTH)/ROHINI
DELHI
FIR No.519/2014, PS Bhalaswa Dairy Page 7/7