Delhi District Court
Fir No. 168/19 Ps Khyala State vs . Prhlad @ Sonu @ Vijay U/S 392/24 Ipc 1 /4 on 31 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SMT. SHAGUN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
State v. Prahlad
FIR No. 168/19
PS Khyala
U/s 392/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
Case ID No. : 8669/2019
Date of Institution : 02.11.2019
Date of Commission of Offence : 25.05.2019
Name of the complainant : Sh. Raj Kishore Thakur
Name & address of the accused : Prahlad @ Sonu @ Vijay
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal, r/o: H. No. U-
1/50, Budh Vihar, Phase-1,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 392/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment : 31.10.2022
Date of announcing of judgment : 31.10..2022.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this Court shall dispose of the present case in FIR No. 168/19 PS Khyala U/s 392/34 IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2019 at about 06.30 PM, the complainant Sh. Raj Kishore Thakur was going towards his office from his FIR No. 168/19 PS Khyala State Vs. Prhlad @ Sonu @ Vijay u/s 392/24 IPC 1 /4 house on his motorcycle and carrying a laptop bag containing cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and when he reached at Keshopur Ganda Nala in the meantime at about 06.30 pm accused alongwith his other associates came and there and committed theft of his aforesaid laptop bag and while committing theft they voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to the complainant and committed an offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC. Accordingly, after completing the formalities, investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed in the Court against the accused persons.
3. Documents were supplied to the accused person and thereafter charge under Section 392/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined only one witness i.e. PW-1 Sh. Raj Kishore Thakur (complainant/eye witness).
5. PW1 Sh. Raj Kisore thakur did not support the case of proseuction by deposing that he could not identify the robbers as the incident had taken place within 15- 20 second. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of State by Ld. APP after taking permission from the Court. During cross-examination, attention of this witness was specifically drawn towards the accused Pahalad @ Sonu @ Vijay but he could not identify the accused, rather stated that he could not FIR No. 168/19 PS Khyala State Vs. Prhlad @ Sonu @ Vijay u/s 392/24 IPC 1 /4 identify the accused as the incident had taken place within 15-20 seconds.
6. The only eye witness/complainant could not identify the accused despite specific question regarding identity being put to him by the Ld. APP. Thus, victim Sh. Raj Kishore Thakur did not support the prosecution story, so carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together would be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 392/34 IPC and they are police officials/ formal in nature. Hence, PE is closed. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs. reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "in case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date". Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, as such, recording of statement of accused is also dispensed with.
7. Brief submissions addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for accused have been heard and the documents on record have been carefully FIR No. 168/19 PS Khyala State Vs. Prhlad @ Sonu @ Vijay u/s 392/24 IPC 1 /4 perused.
8. In the case at hand, the complainant who alleged to have seen the accused could not identify him in the court. Since, the complainant/eye witness did not support the prosecution story and failed to identify the accused, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had wrongfully restraint the complainant and committed theft of his laptop bag which contained cash of Rs.1,00,000/-.
9. In view of the above discussion, the charge against the accused has not been proved. Accordingly, the guilt of the accused has not been proved. Thus, accused is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Prahlad @ Sonu @ Vijay r/o: U-1/50, Budh Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi stands acquitted for committing offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC.
10. Personal bond of accused is accepted in terms of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedby SHAGUN
SHAGUN Date:
2022.10.31 17:35:46 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SHAGUN) COURT ON 31.10.2022 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI Containing 4 pages all signed by the presiding officer. Digitally signed by SHAGUN SHAGUN Date:
2022.10.31 17:35:53 +0530 (SHAGUN) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 168/19 PS Khyala State Vs. Prhlad @ Sonu @ Vijay u/s 392/24 IPC 1 /4