Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak on 3 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR, MM01,
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Deepak
FIR No. 381/2009
P. S. Lajpat Nagar
U/s. 379/411 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1. Srl. No. of the case : 173/15
2. Unique Identification No. : 02406R0549172009
2. Date of institution : 21.10.2009
3. Date of commission of offence : 01.10.2009
4. Name of the complainant : Rajan Suri,
S/o Sh. Suraj Mal Suri
R/o 2/97, Jal Vihar Colony,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Name of the accused : Deepak
S/o Sh.Ram Kishan
R/o 1943, Pillanji Village,
Kotlamubarakpur, New Delhi.
6. Nature of offence complained of : U/s 379/411 IPC
7. Plea of the accused person : accused pleaded not guilty
8. Date reserved for order : 03.02.2016
9. Final Order : Accused is acquitted u/s 379 IPC
FIR No. 381/2009
P. S Lajpat Nagar Page No. 1 of 5
& convicted u/s 174A IPC
10. Date of such order : 03.02.2016
1. The accused Deepak is facing the trial for commission of offences u/s 379, 174A IPC. The present case was registered on the statement of Sh. Rajan Suri (hereinafter to be referred as the complainant). The case of the prosecution in brief is that 01.10.2009 at about 09:55 p.m. the complainant was in the queue at liquor Shop, Lajpat NagarII, then the accused removed the purse of the complainant containing Rs.200/, three coins, RC, D/L and some other cards belonging to the complainant. The accused was apprehended at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the present case FIR was registered and investigation was conducted.
2. On conclusion of the investigation the present charge sheet was filed. The copy of the charge sheet was given to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Prima facie case having been made out, the charge was framed against the accused for the commission of offences u/s 379/174A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. FIR No. 381/2009 P. S Lajpat Nagar Page No. 2 of 5 During the trial the accused voluntarily plead guilty for the offence u/s 174A IPC.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined only one (1) witness.
PW 1 SI Krishan Kumar deposed that on 01.10.2009 at about 10:00 p.m. he prepared DD entry No.69A Ex.PW1/A. On the same day he received a rukka from HC Om Prakash sent by SI Satvir Singh and he endorsed it vide DD No.31A Ex.PW1/B and he registered the FIR Ex.PW1/C.
5. In the present case, the complainant is the sole eye witness of the incident. The complainant was summoned various times and he was reported to be untraceable through concerned SHO and DCP and accordingly, he was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. Since complainant was only eye witness and he could not be examined, therefore, the remaining witnesses were formal in nature and there was no chances of improvement in the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution evidence was closed by the court order.
FIR No. 381/2009 P. S Lajpat Nagar Page No. 3 of 5
6. Statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. of accused was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. The accused refused to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
8. As far as the offence u/s 174A IPC is concerned, the accused voluntarily plead guilty. The plea of guilt of the accused was recorded separately. The nature and consequences of the plea of guilt was explained to the accused. Despite that the accused insist to plead the guilt. In view of the voluntarily plea of guilt, the accused was convicted for the commission of offence u/s 174A IPC.
9. In order to prove the allegation of u/s 379 IPC, the prosecution has cited the only eye witness i.e. the complainant. In the present case, the complainant was the only witness who could have proved the complaint regarding the theft. He was the only eye witness of the incident. The charge has been framed u/s 379 IPC and only complainant could have proved the case of the prosecution against the accused. The remaining prosecution witnesses were FIR No. 381/2009 P. S Lajpat Nagar Page No. 4 of 5 formal in nature. There is no other eye witness of the incident.
10. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
11. In view of nonexamination of the complainant, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed the alleged theft. There is no evidence against the accused qua offence u/s 379 IPC. Hence, accused Deepak is acquitted of offence punishable U/s 379 IPC. The accused stands convicted for the commission of offence u/s 174A IPC.
Announced in open court ( PAWAN KUMAR ) today i.e. 03.02.2016 MM01(SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 381/2009 P. S Lajpat Nagar Page No. 5 of 5