Delhi District Court
State vs . Surender @ Sonu Etc. on 2 June, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANAGWAL: M.M, ROOM NO: 102,
ROHINI DELHI.
STATE VS. SURENDER @ SONU ETC.
FIR NO. 858/96
P.S RAJOURI GARDEN
U/S 356/379/411/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
a)Serial No of the case : 157/87
b)Date of commission of offence : 28.9.96
c)Name of the complainant : Smt. Annu Bhalla,
W/O Sh. Ukesh Bhalla
R/O J-3/67 A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
d)Name parentage and : (1) Surender @ Sonu
address of accused S/O Sh. Jeet Singh
R/O A-150, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
(2) Manjeet Pal @ Bitto ..... (Since deceased)
S/O Lekh Raj
R/O H.No. WZ 442, M.S Block,
Hari Nagar, Delhi.
e)Offence complaint of : 356/379/411/34 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Final Order : Acquitted
h)Date of order : 2.6.07
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION.
1. Brief facts of this case are that on 28.9.96 Smt. Anu Bhalla along with her mother Smt. Sarla and her sister Sunita went to market. At about 3.3.0 pm when they were returning back, two persons came on scooter and the person who was sitting on the rear seat of the scooter, snatched the gold chain from the neck of Smt. Anu Bhalla. On the complaint of Smt. Anu Bhalla present case was registered and accused person were arrested and lateron released on bail. During investigation both the accused made disclosure about theft of gold chain in the present case and accused Manjeet got recovered the chain i.e case property from his house No. WZ 442, M- Block, Hari Nagar, Delhi. On completion of investigation challan was put in the court. -2-
2. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offence under Section 356/379/411/34 IPC was framed against both the accused on 8.6.98, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case prosecution examined following PW's:-
PW1 Smt. Sarla PW2 Smt. Sunita PW3 Smt. Anu Bhalla PW4 HC Joginder Singh
PW 1 Smt. Sarla is the mother of the complainant and was with her daughter Smt. Anu Bhalla when chain was snatched from her neck.
PW2 Smt. Sunita is sister of the complainant and was with Smt. Anu Bhalla when the chain was snatched fro her neck.
PW3 Smt. Anu Bhalla is the complainant and the person from whose neck the chain was allegedly snatched by the accused persons.
PW 4 HC Joginder Singh was posted at P.S Rajouri Garden. He proved his signature at point A on disclosure statement Ex PW 4/A and seizure memo of chain as Ex PW 4/B. He identified the chain as Ex P1.
4. In their statement recorded under Section 281 Cr.P.C, both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and claimed false implication. However, both the accused opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
5. It may be mentioned here that during the trial of this case it was reported -3- that one of the accused Namely Manjeet Pal has expired. His death verification report was called and same was established. Vide order dated 11.12.06 proceedings against Manjeet Pal stand abated. Now case is only pending against accused Surinder.
Arguments heard on behalf of both the parties and file perused.
6. In order to prove its case prosecution was required to prove that :
(a) both the accused persons were the persons who snatched the chain from the neck of the complainant Smt. Anu Bhalla ;
(b) the chain was recovered from their possession.
7. To establish that both the accused persons were the persons who snatched the chain from he neck of the complainant Smt. Anu Bhalla prosecution has examined PW 3 Smt. Anu Bhalla, complainant , PW 2 Smt Sunit, sister of the complainant and PW1 Smt. Sarla mother of the complainant who were also present at the spot when the incident took place. PW1 Smt. Sarla stated that she cannot identify the accused persons present in the court however she reaffirmed the fact that two boys came on the scooter and snatched the chain from the neck of her daughter Anu Bhalla. PW1 was also cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State. PW2 Smt Sunita also failed to identify the accused persons in the court but like PW1 she also reaffirmed the case of the prosecution stating that two boys came on the scooter and snatched the chain from the neck of her sister Anu Bhalla. This witness was also cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State. PW3 Smt. Anu Bhalla is the complainant who stated in her examination in chief that " when we were returning back at about 3.30 pm, two persons came on scooter one person who was sitting on the rear seat of the scooter snatched the chain from my -4- neck. The accused persons were shown to me by the police. Both the accused persons present in the court were shown to me by the police. Both the accused persons might be the same person who were present at the spot involved in the occurrence."
Testimony of this witness shows that this witness is in the state of confusion in identifying the accused and is not stating in clear terms that both the accused persons present in the court were the persons who were involved in snatching of the chain.
8. Apart from this witnesses further stated in her cross-examination that " I am identifying the accused present in the court as I have been shown by the IO." which means that the witness is not stating according to her own knowledge that the accused persons were the same persons who snatched the chain . She has pointed out towards the accused persons only on the basis of the fact that those persons were shown to her by the IO in the P.S , in the capacity of the accused involved in the snatching of her chain. No where in her testimony she has stated that the both the accused persons were the same persons who snatched the chain from her neck. Testimony of this PW is not beyond reasonable doubt and she failed to identify the accused persons. Hence, it cannot be said with confidence that both the accused persons were the same persons who were involved in snatching of the chain and accused is entitled for the benefit of this doubt.
9. Further, there is nothing in the testimony of prosecution witness that chain in question was recovered from the possession of the accused Surinder. As per the allegations of prosecution, the same was recovered from the possession of accused Manjeet pal, who has already expired and proceeding against him were abated and there is no independent evidence against accused Surinder to connect him with the -5- alleged recovery. Ld. APP also moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling the material witnesses Sh. Paramjeet Singh, MM and HC Jaswant Singh who was posted as Duty Officer. Vide that application Ld. APP submitted that in view of judgment "Rajdev Sharma Vs State of Bihar prosecution evidence in the present case was closed but that judgment was overruled by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court P.Ramacandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka 2002 (4) SCC 578 and on that basis he want to examine those two witnesses which could not be examined since prosecution evidence was closed in view of that judgment. On this I am of the view that no purpose will be served to call MM who conducted the TIP of the chain and D.O HC Jaswant since, material witness i.e complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and and both the witnesses which prosecution wants to examine were not 'the witnesses to the incident or the witnesses to the recovery.
In view of above discussion, I hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused. Hence in the present circumstances, accused Surender is acquitted of the charge under Section 365/379/411 IPC. Bail bond and surety bond cancelled. Documents if any be returned. File be consigned to record room. Announced in open court on 2.6.07 (Sanjay Khanagwal) Metropolitan Magistrate:
Rohini, Delhi.