Delhi District Court
State vs Waseem on 25 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -06, SHAHDARA, KKD,
DELHI
STATE Vs Waseem
CR NO: 5330/2022
FIR NO: 428/2022 PS Seemapuri
CNR No.: DLSH020115872022
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
Waseem
S/o Sh Rafiq
R/o H.No. E-59/113, Kalander Colony, Dilshad Garden, Seemapuri,
Delhi.................................................... Accused
1 Name of Complainant Kareem
2 Name of Accused Waseem
3 Offence complained of 356/379 IPC
4 Plea of accused Not Guilty
5 Date of Commission of offence 07.09.2022
6 Date of Registration 19.07.2022
7 Date of Reserving Order 25.09.2024
8 Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2024
9 Final Order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Factual Matrix
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 07.09.2022 at about 09.30 AM, near J K Bus Stop, Seemapuri, Delhi, Sh. Kareem (hereinafter referred as complainant) while he was crossing the road, suddenly one boy (subsequently identifed as Waseem and hereinafter referred as accused) came behind him and snatched the mobile phone from his hand and fled from the spot. However, complainant shouted 1 of 4 Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP SINGH Date:
KASHYAP 2024.09.25 14:50:00 +0530 State vs Waseem FIR No. 428/2022 CR No. 5330/2022 and tried to chase the accused but all in vain. Thus, FIR was registered at PS Seemapuri on the complaint of complainant for the offence u/s 356/379 IPC.
Investigation and Trial Proceedings
2. After the completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused for the offence U/s 356/379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC"). The Ld. Predecessor took the cognizance.
3. The accused entered appearance before this court and in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC") he was supplied the copy of the chargesheet as well as documents relied upon in the same.
4. Thereafter, upon finding prima facie case against the accused, charge under Sections 356/379 of the IPC was framed upon the accused on 21.11.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
5. The accused admitted registration of FIR as per the mandate of Section 294 CrPC and relevant witness at LOW was accordingly dropped.
6. It is pertinent to mention that during the stage of prosecution evidence of the trial, the complainant/Kareem failed to appear before the court despite several opportunities and coercive process being issued through DCP concerned. The remaining witnesses are formal in nature. Therefore, there are no other eye-witnesses to the incident nor digital evidence/CCTV footage. It is evident that even if all the other prosecution witnesses, which are formal in nature, are examined even then the fate of the case shall not change and the case of the prosecution will not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 2 of 4 Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SINGH SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date: 2024.09.25 14:50:07 +0530 State vs Waseem FIR No. 428/2022 CR No. 5330/2022
7. In the absence of examination of material prosecution witness i.e. the complainant, the prosecution cannot prove the commission of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt by the accused in order to secure conviction. The fate of the case is destined to result in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
8. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. Continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that the prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused, would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka1 that the court should exercise its powers available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right to speedy trial of the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra2.
9. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anr 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure, when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
10. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 4 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution cannot discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offence in the absence of examination of its material prosecution witness i.e. the complainant who failed to appear before the court despite several opportunities and 1 AIR 2002 SC 1856.
2 AIR 2008 SC 3057.
3 1996 JCC 507.
4 1972 SCC (Cri.) 258.
Page 3 of 4 Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP SINGH Date: KASHYAP State vs Waseem FIR No. 428/2022 CR No. 5330/2022
coercive process being issued through DCP concerned thus, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
11. In view of the aforesaid, no incriminating evidence has come forth against the accused. The remaining witnesses are the formal witnesses, whose testimony cannot prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are no other eye witnesses or CCTV Footage/digital evidence and the chain of events remains incomplete. Therefore, there is no evidence to cogently implicate the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is hereby found not guilty for the commission of offence punishable under section 356/379 IPC.
ORDER: Acquitted Accused shall furnish personal bond and surety bond as per the mandate of Section 437A CrPC upon which previous bonds shall be cancelled and previous surety shall be discharged.
Announced in Open Court on 25.09.2024.
(This judgement contains 4/Four signed pages.) AISHWARYA by SINGH Digitally signed AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date: 2024.09.25 14:50:24 +0530 (Aishwarya Singh Kashyap) MM/JMFC 06/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi 25.09.2024 Page 4 of 4