Delhi District Court
State vs . Hariom on 21 January, 2020
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-03, ROHINI COURTS,DELHI
State Vs. Hariom
E-FIR No. 648/17
PS. KNK Marg
CIS no. 4339/18
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 15.07.2017
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Mrs. Aarti Aggarwal
3) The name & parentage of accused : Hariom S/o Late Sh. Ram
Sumiran Tiwari R/o H. no. A-
264, Gali no. 2, Vijay Vihar
Phase-1, Delhi-85.
4) Offence involved : U/s 392/34 and 411 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 21.01.2020
8) Date of Institution : 02.08.2018
9) Judgment announced on : 21.01.2020
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2017 at about 4:10 p.m. near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Rohini, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS KNK Marg, you along with your associates in furtherance of your common State Vs. Hari Om FIR No. 648/17 PS KNK Marg 1 of 4 2 intention, committed theft/robbery of one mobile phone make OPPO F-1, Golden Colour from the possession of the complainant Mrs. Arti W/o Sh. Kapil Aggarwal and both of you accused slapped the complainant while running away from there with stolen property and you were apprehended and found in possession of stolen/robbed mobile phone which you received or retaine knowing or having reason to believe that the same is a stolen property on 11.08.2017 at house no. A-264, Lane no. 4, Vijay Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi and thereby, accused committed an offence punishable u/s 392/34 and 411 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court against the accused whereupon cognizance was taken for the said offences. After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C, arguments on notice were heard and vide order dated 02.11.2019, notice was framed against the accused for offences punishable u/s. 392/34 and 411 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In the present case, complainant/injured was the only material witness for the prosecution, who turned hostile during his examination and stated that she could not see the faces of the snatchers as they came from behind and even after falling down her numbered glasses also fell down. On 17.08.2017, the complainant failed to identify the accused in the TIP proceedings. She failed to identify the accused in the court on 21.01.2020. Other remaining witnesses were formal in nature and could not connect the guilt of the accused. Hence after hearing submissions of Ld. APP for state and counsel for accused, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 21.01.2020.
4. Since there is no incriminating evidence available on record against the State Vs. Hari Om FIR No. 648/17 PS KNK Marg 2 of 4 3 accused, statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr. P.C is also dispensed with.
5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
6. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts.
7. In the present case, the complainant/ injured namely Aarti Aggarwal who is stated to be the most material witness for the prosecution being the only eyewitness as well as victim, turned hostile during her examination. Undoubtedly, the testimony of complainant/eye-witness is material one in such cases and her turning hostile become fatal to the prosecution case as she was the material witness, who could have proved her complaint, deposed regarding the alleged incident, identify the accused in the Court, therefore, allegations against the accused can not be proved. Other witnesses examined or cited by the prosecution are police officials or Nodal officers who at the most could have deposed regarding the police proceedings, which is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused in the present case. None of them are the eyewitness of the incident in question. In these circumstances, accused is entitled to every benefit of doubt accruing in his favour.
8. The complainant/owner of the mobile phone namely Aarti Aggarwal has State Vs. Hari Om FIR No. 648/17 PS KNK Marg 3 of 4 4 voluntarily compounded the matter with the accused for offence punishable u/s 411 IPC. Her statement was recorded on 21.01.2020.
9. It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. There is no controversy to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt occurring in the prosecution case. The general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.
10. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s 392/34 IPC against the accused and complainant compounded the charge u/s 411 IPC. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to accused and he is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 392/34 and 411 IPC. Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bond in terms of Section 437A of Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Accused through his surety furnished requisite bail bond u/s 437A Cr.PC having affixed thereon photographs and address proof of accused as well as surety. Bail bond accepted.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court
on 21st day of January, 2020 Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2020.01.21
17:11:59 +0530
(Mayank Goel)
MM-03: North:Rohini
21.01.2020
State Vs. Hari Om FIR No. 648/17 PS KNK Marg 4 of 4