Delhi District Court
Supreme Court Of India In Case Titled ... vs . Delhi Administration on 4 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Manjeet Lot @ Mogli
FIR No. 55/2014
PS Mianwali Nagar
U/s 392/394/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 242/2/14
Date of Institution : 17.04.2014
Date of Commission of Offence : 30.01.2014
Name of the complainant : Sh. Dharamvir
S/o Late Sh. Gopal
Name & address of the accused : A-1 Manjeet Lot @ Mogli
S/o Sh. Krishan Lot
R/o H.No.W-116, Jhuggi No.32,
T-Huts, Sardar Patel Camp No.4,
Jwala Puri, Delhi.
A-2 Sunil
S/o Sh. Rajender
R/o H.No.W-116, Jhuggi No.520,
T-Huts, Sardar Patel Camp No.4,
Jwala Puri, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 392/394/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 04.08.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 04.08.2015
State v. Manjeet Lot @ Mogli etc. U/s 392/394/34 IPC 1 /6
FIR No. 55/2014 PS Mianwali Nagar
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this Court shall dispose of the present case U/s 392/394/34 IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 30.01.2014 at about 11:35 PM at pathway on Main Rohtak Road near Metro Pillar No.336, Jwala Puri, Delhi, three persons robbed a Samsung mobile phone of red colour having no. 9958046889, two small diaries containing Aadhar Card and a sum of Rs.6,450/- from the pocket of complainant Sh. Dharamvir by putting some sharp object on his neck. It was stated by the complainant that he can identify the accused persons if shown to him. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out. 22 days after the incident, police arrested both the accused persons namely Manjeet and Sunil, both of them made disclosure statement regarding offence in question being committed by them in association with their accomplice namely Naresh (who has not been arrested yet). However, nothing could be recovered from them. Both the accused persons refused to take part in judicial Test Idenfification Parade.
3. Charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons in the court.
Documents were supplied to the accused persons and thereafter charges under Section 392/394/34 IPC were framed against them vide order dated 28.06.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined State v. Manjeet Lot @ Mogli etc. U/s 392/394/34 IPC 2 /6 FIR No. 55/2014 PS Mianwali Nagar only one witness i.e. PW1 Sh. Dharamvir.
5. PW1 Sh. Dharamvir stated that on 30.01.2014 his wife Pooja was admitted at Sparsh Hospital, Mianwali Nagar in a delivery case. It is stated by him that on that day he was coming from the hospital after giving meal to his wife. At about 11:30 PM he boarded the bus from Mianwali Nagar for going to Jwala Puri. It is stated that when he got down at Bus Stand Jawala Puri and was going on foot towards his home, three boys came from back side, one of them caught hold him and put some sharp edged object on his neck. It is stated that another two persons came and they have taken out one mobile phone make Samsung and two diaries containing Rs.6,450/-. It is stated that on his resistance one of the accused had given a blow of sharp edged object on his neck due to which he sustained injuries. Thereafter, all the three boys ran away from the spot after taking the diaries, mobile and currency notes. It is stated by him that he informed to the police and police official came and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. It is stated that he handed over blood stained shirt to the police and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B. It is stated by him that he cannot identify the persons who had robbed mobile and currency notes from him after giving injury to him. This witness could not identify the accused persons present in the Court despite being specifically pointed out by Ld. APP.
6. PW1 was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for State after taking permission from State v. Manjeet Lot @ Mogli etc. U/s 392/394/34 IPC 3 /6 FIR No. 55/2014 PS Mianwali Nagar the Court. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he stated to the police in his statement that he can identify those boys if produced before him. He denied the suggestion that he stated to the police that on 26.02.2014 he went to the PS to enquire about progress of his case and he saw that the police official apprehended both the accused persons present in the court and after seeing them he identified and told the police officials that they were the persons who along with a third person put sharp edged object on his neck and taken out the mobile phone, diary and the currency notes from his pocket and ran away. He denied the suggestion that both the accused persons present in the court today are the persons who snatched the mobile, diary, aadhar card and currency notes from his pocket alongwith a third person.
7. The complainant/PW1 Dharamvir is the only eye witness in the present case as another public witness namely Sh. Ranjeet is the father-in-law of complainant/victim Dharamvir, the testimony of Sh. Ranjeet is regarding the fact that complainant/victim PW1 Dharamvir told him about the incident after reaching home, on that he made a call to the police. As the only eye witness/complainant PW1 Sh. Dharamvir failed to identify the accused persons and did not support the prosecution story 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 State v. Manjeet Lot @ Mogli etc. U/s 392/394/34 IPC 4 /6 FIR No. 55/2014 PS Mianwali Nagar an act of accused persons. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences U/s 392/394/34 IPC.
8. The case is at the stage of PE, however, since there is nothing incriminating against the accused, proceeding further and recording the statement of remaining formal witnesses would be futile exercise and wastage of judicial time, resources and money. 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.
9. Brief submissions addressed by the Ld. APP for state and by the Ld. Defence Counsel have been heard and the documents on record carefully perused.
10. In the case at hand, no case property was recovered from the accused persons. The only eye witness i.e. the complainant/victim PW1 Dharamvir could not identify the accused persons in the Court. Since the complainant failed to identify the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons had robbed and voluntarily caused hurt to the State v. Manjeet Lot @ Mogli etc. U/s 392/394/34 IPC 5 /6 FIR No. 55/2014 PS Mianwali Nagar complainant/victim PW1 Dharamvir.
11. In view of the above discussion, the charges against the accused persons have not been proved. Accordingly, the guilt of the accused persons has not been proved and thus they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused persons namely Manjeet Lot @ Mogli and Sunil are acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC.
12. Accused persons have already furnished fresh bail/surety bonds in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The same have been accepted.
13. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 04.08.2015 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 6 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI State v. Manjeet Lot @ Mogli etc. U/s 392/394/34 IPC 6 /6 FIR No. 55/2014 PS Mianwali Nagar