Delhi District Court
State vs . Rohit Pal on 17 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK KUMAR II, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 136/17
PS. Dwarka North
U/s. 356/379/34 IPC
State Vs. Rohit Pal
JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 7773/17.
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16/10/2017.
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 18/05/2017.
D. NAME OF THE : Anita Bhargav
COMPLAINANT W/o Sh. Anurag
Bhargav
E. NAME OF THE : Rohit Pal S/o Sh.
ACCUSED Kailash Pal
F. OFFENCE
COMPLAINED OF : 356/379/34 IPC
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquitted.
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 17/07/2018.
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution and as stated in the charge sheet are that on 18/05/2017 at about 8:45 AM, in the back of Sulakhul Mandir, Old Palam, Dwarka, New Delhi the accused herein alongwith coaccused (since not arrested) had used criminal force against the complainant Anita Bhargav and committed the theft State Vs. Rohit Pal FIR No.136/17, P.S. Dwarka North U/s 356/379/34 IPC Page No. 1/5 of gold chain which she was wearing. During the course of investigation, the accused herein was apprehended, the statement of witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared and other steps were taken towards the completion of investigation. On conclusion of the investigation, the challan under section 356/379/34 IPC against the accused was filed in the court.
2. Thereafter, the accused was summoned by this court for facing trial under the aforesaid sections. In compliance of Section 207 CrPC., the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie charge under section 356/379/34 IPC was made out against the accused Rohit Pal and on 12/03/2018 the charge was framed against him by this court. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In the instant case, the prosecution has examined one witness in support of its case. PW1/complainant Anita Bhargav deposed that on 18.05.2018 while she was going on her scooty to Gym, the gold chain which she was wearing was snatched by two bike borne assailants and she further deposed that she cannot identify the accused as they ran away from the spot in friction of seconds and that she was not able to see their face as they were wearing helmets. Her statement was recorded by the police is Ex.PW1/A. Site plan was preapred at her instance as Ex.PW1/B. As the witness was resiling from his earlier statements recorded during the investigation under Section 161 CrPC Ld. APP was permitted to cross examine the said witness. In his cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State nothing incriminating could come from the witness qua the accused herein. The witness has completely resiled from her statement and had not supported the case of prosecution. State Vs. Rohit Pal FIR No.136/17, P.S. Dwarka North U/s 356/379/34 IPC Page No. 2/5
4. On 17.07.2018, in his statement recorded under Section 294 r/w 291A CrPC, accused admitted the genuineness of the copy of FIR, certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, DD No. 14A and TIP proceedings dated 22.08.2018 as Ex.P/A/1 to Ex.P/A/4 respectively.
5. In the instant case, there is only one alleged eyewitness of the incident i.e. complainant Anita Bhargav. However, the complainant has turned hostile and has failed to identify the accused. The said witness was also crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State, but despite that nothing incriminating evidence against the accused could be extracted from her. The remaining witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses, who are admittedly not the eyewitness to the incident and thus, their testimonies were not likely to substantiate the culpability of the accused. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would have been served by examining the said remaining witnesses. Nothing incriminating could also not come on record in the statement of the accused recorded u/s 294 r/w 291A CrPC. Hence, PE was closed.
6. In the case in hand, the prosecution has examined one witness.
But the said witness has deposed nothing incriminating against the accused in respect of the offence under Section 356/379/34 IPC. Since, there was no incriminating evidence against the accused on record, therefore, the statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC was dispensed with and DE was also closed and the final arguments were heard.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and the accused. I have carefully perused the case file.
State Vs. Rohit Pal FIR No.136/17, P.S. Dwarka North U/s 356/379/34 IPC Page No. 3/5
8. Cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. Burden of proving guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. Benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused under section 356/379/34 IPC the prosecution is required to prove that the accused has used the criminal force in furtherance their common intention upon the complainant in order to commit theft.
10. The said complainant/PW1 was vital witness for proving the prosecution version as the entire case of the prosecution was based upon the foundation laid down by the statement given by the complainant to the police. Therefore, not only the complaint of the complainant Anita Bhargav but also the prosecution version has remained unproved. The involvement of the accused has not been established.
11. The accused cannot be convicted on presumptions or surmises, rather, all the ingredients as mentioned under section 356/379/34 IPC are required to be established. But in the instant case, the prosecution witness has not uttered even a single word against the accused regarding the alleged involvement of accused.
12. There is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against the accused to fix her liability under section 356/379/34 IPC by leading State Vs. Rohit Pal FIR No.136/17, P.S. Dwarka North U/s 356/379/34 IPC Page No. 4/5 convincing and cogent evidence and thus have failed to discharge the onus placed upon it. Hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
13. In the light of the above discussion, the accused Rohit Pal is acquitted of the offences under section 356/379/34 IPC. Personal bonds stands canceled and surety stands discharged. Original documents, if any, be returned to the persons legally entitled, after canceling the endorsement, if any, on the said documents.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedDEEPAK by DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2018.07.17 16:42:23 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DEEPAK KUMARII) TODAY i.e. 17/07/2018 MM06/DWK/NEW DELHI State Vs. Rohit Pal FIR No.136/17, P.S. Dwarka North U/s 356/379/34 IPC Page No. 5/5