Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Junaid on 31 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR ,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (SHAHDARA) , DELHI.
ID No. 234-18
Sessions Case No. 39/18
Assigned to Sessions on 10.05.2018
FIR No. 683/2017
Police Station Jafrabad
Under Section U/S 392/34 and 397 IPC &
25/27 of Arms Act
Charged Under Section U/S 392/34 and 397 IPC &
25/27 of Arms Act
State Vs 1. Junaid
S/O Jaheer
R/O 215, Gali No.5,
Ambedkar Basti,
Maujpur,Delhi-110053.
2. Jakir @ Chuhi
S/O Wasi Ahmed
R/O 12/53, Gali No.2,
Vijay Mohalla,
Maujpur,Delhi-110053.
Arguments heard on 31.01.2020
Date of Judgment 31.01.2020
Final Order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case are that on 10.12.2017, at about 11.45 PM,complainant Hemant alongwith his friend Saurav, after celebrating birthday party of their friend, were coming to his house. And when they reached near Crescent School, on the motor cycle, the complainant felt to ease himself and went nearby place. It is stated that meantime two boy came and they all of a sudden put a knife to complainant and snatched his mobile phone make S.C. No.39/18 State Vs Junaid etc Page 1/7 VIVO and wallet from his pocket containing Rs.18,500/-, PAN Card, Adhar Card and Election card. The complainant apprehended one of the assailant Junaid and other assailant fled away from the spot. The complainant made a call at 100 number, police came there and he handed over the said boy( accused Junaid) to the police. He has also handed over the knife, desi katta and his wallet. The police recorded his statement..
2. The investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency. The other accused Jakir was apprehended on 12.12.2017 near Tent Wala School, Zafrabad, Delhi and he was found in possession of one live cartridge which he had kept in left side pocket of his hand. During investigation the statement of the witnesses were recorded. IO collected the documents, prepared the challan for the alleged offence U/S 392/397/34 IPC and 25/27/54 of Arms Act and filed the charge sheet in the Court of Ld. Illaqa Magistrate. The charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. was committed U/S 209 Cr P C to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (Shahdara), Delhi for the trial of offence U/S 392/397/34 IPC and 25/27/54 of Arms Act. The accused were also sent to face the trial. The case was marked to this Court for trial by th Ld District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi.
3. After considering the material on record and hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld Counsel for accused persons, prima facie case for the offence punishable U/S 392/397/34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act were made out S.C. No.39/18 State Vs Junaid etc Page 2/7 against the accused persons. Accordingly, charge was framed for the offence U/S 392/397/34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act against both the against persons. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and have claimed trial.
4. The material witnesses for prosecution are the complainant, PW1 Sh Hemant Singh and his friend PW2 Sh Saurav. PW3 Ct Naveen Kumar, PW4 Ct Sachin Kumar and PW ASI Satbir singh as well as Sh R.P Meena Addl D.CP are the police officials.
5. The statement of accused persons, under section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded so as to enable them to personally explain the fact with regard to recovery of weapons of offence such as knife, desi katta an live cartridge. The incriminating evidence were put to the each accused separately to which they have denied, as being incorrect and have stated that no recovery was effected from them and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
6. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the record and the arguments advanced by them. Before adverting to the facts of the case I would like to mention certain settled proposition of law that to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt by establishing an unbroken chains of events, leading to commission of the offence. It is further a settled proposition of law that S.C. No.39/18 State Vs Junaid etc Page 3/7 once this chain is broken or a plausible theory of another possibility is shown, the accused becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt which ultimately leads to his/her acquittal. Emphasis supplied upon case titled as Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes 55.
7. It is to be borne in mind that the most important aspect of any successful prosecution is clear establishment or proof of identity of the accused being the assailant who has committed the alleged offence. This aspect of identify becomes the most primordial when the accusation against the accused has been for the serious offence like the present one. It is also stated to be first and most important connecting link in the chain of events which are required to be proved by the prosecution before it could take its case towards the other connecting links for the purpose of proving the ingredients with which accused persons have been charged with.
8. Before analyzing further the facts of case I would like to discussed the ingredients of the offences with which the accused persons have been charged with. The accused persons have been charged with offences U/S 392/34 IPC
9. To constitute an offence u/s 392 of IPC following ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution.
(i) That accused committed theft and caused or attempt to cause to some person death, hurt or wrongful restraint of fear of instant death, hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
(ii) That he did above in committing such theft, or in order to commit such theft or in carrying away or attempting S.C. No.39/18 State Vs Junaid etc Page 4/7 to carry away the property obtained by such theft and acted as in voluntarily.
(iii) That accused committed extortion and at the time of committing it in presence of the person so put in fear that person to instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
(iv) That he inducted the person so put in fear to deliver up then and there the thing extorted.
10. Similarly Section 397 IPC requires, which deals with the offence of robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt requires, the following ingredients to be established:-
(i) Commission of Robbery or Dacoity by the accused persons
(ii) At the time of commit robbery or dacoity, the accused person used deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
(iii)The above acts were done during the commission of robbery or dacoity.
11. Section 25 of Arms Act 1959 deals with punishment of various offence including possession, manufacture, sale, transfer or conversation of any arms and ammunition as defined in Section 2 of the Act. The necessary ingredients for punishment under Section 25 is only that the accused should be found in possession or carries any fire arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 3 of Arms Act 1959.
12. Here in the present case, so far as identity of accused persons are concerned, PW1 Sh Hemant Singh and PW2 Sh Saurav have not identified the accused person as the assailants. So far as recovery of knife and fire arm is S.C. No.39/18 State Vs Junaid etc Page 5/7 concerned. The same were handed over to the IO, as deposed by the IO, by the complainant himself. The IO himself has not recovered the knife and fire arm from the possession of accused Junaid . So the witness of recovery of knife and fire arm, who can prove the fact is the complainant himself. But once the complainant has not identified accused persons then the recovery of fire arm and knife from accused Junaid become suspicious and creates doubt regarding the prosecution story.
13. So far as the recovery of cartridge from accused Jakir @ Chuhi is concerned. The complainant has not identified this accused as the person from whose possession the recovery of live cartridge was effected was arrested in his presence. So, the recovery live cartridge from accused Jakir @Chuhi become suspicious and creates doubts.
14. In Ashrafi Vs State, AIR 1961 All 153, it has been held that the Test identification is designed to furnish evidence to corroborate the evidence which the witness concerned tenders before the Court. It is further held in Budhsen Vs State AIR 1970 SC 1321 that it is considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witness in Court as to the identity of the accused who are stranger to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. In the present case none of the accused has been identified by eye witness/complainant and recovery of weapon is also doubtful.
S.C. No.39/18 State Vs Junaid etc Page 6/715. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case so as to complete the chain much less to prove the same beyond the pale of reasonable doubt. Resultantly, both the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted of the charges.
16. In view of the statutory requirement of section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused persons are directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the court, for a period of 6 months, to appear before the appellate court, if so required.
Digitally signed17. File be consigned to record room by JAGDISH KUMAR Location: JAGDISH Shahdara KUMAR District, Karkardooma Courts ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN Date: 2020.02.10 15:58:18 +0530 COURT ON THIS 31.01.2020 (JAGDISH KUMAR ) ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-04 SHAHDARA, KKD:DELHI S.C. No.39/18 State Vs Junaid etc Page 7/7