Delhi District Court
State vs . Akram on 25 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF Ms. AKANKSHA GARG, MM03: SE/
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
FIR NO.513/2015
PS - H. N. Din
U/s 379/411 IPC
State Vs. Akram
JUDGMENT
A. CR. NO. OF THE CASE : 95201/2016
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.01.2016
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 4/5.08.2015
D. NAME OF THE : Humayu Hassan
COMPLAINANT
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Akram
S/o Moin Junna
R/o Vill.Jamalpur,
PS Jamalpur, Distt.
Darbhanga, Bihar
F. OFFENCE : U/s 379/411 IPC
COMPLAINED OF
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquittal
I. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 25.03.2022
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision:
1. The present accused is produced before the court to stand trial for the offences punishable u/s 379/411 IPC.
FIR NO.513/2015 PS- H. N. Din State Vs.Akram Page No. 1/52. It is the case of the prosecution that on the intervening night of 04.08.20155.08.2015 at Dargah H.N.Din, New Delhi, accused Akram committed theft of a suitcase alongwith the articles belonging to the complainant Sh. Humayu Hassan and he was found in possession of a stolen suit case with articles as per seizure memo mark A, belonging to complainant and retained the stolen property after having knowledge or reasons to believe the same to be the stolen property and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 379/411 IPC.
3. The accused appeared before the court on 16.02.2016 and copy of charge sheet was supplied to him as per section 207 Cr.PC. Accused was charged u/s 379/411 IPC on 16.03.2016 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:
PW1 Ct Ishwar has deposed that on 05.08.2015, he had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO/HC Upkar Singh. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. Upon local inquiry, accused Akram was apprehended from near Khankhana Tomb, Mathura road and he was arrested after interrogation and his personal search was conducted vide memos ExPW1/B. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide ExPW1/C. One bag was recovered from possession of accused and the same was opened and found the passport of the complainant, his academic documents, a demand draft of SBI, a cheque book of SBI, a diary and three books in the same. The same were taken into possession vide seizure memo ExPW1/D. Recovered items were identified by complainant. IO had prepared site plan of place of recovery vide Ex FIR NO.513/2015 PS- H. N. Din State Vs.Akram Page No. 2/5 PW1/E. Medical examination of accused was got conducted. Case property was deposited into malkhana. IO recorded his statement and relieved him. PW1 identified the case property. PW1 duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
5. PW2 HC Upkar Singh who is the IO of the present case has deposed that on 05.08.2015 he was posted as HC at PS H.N.Din, the present case was assigned to him for further investigation. Complainant Humayu Hassan and Ct.Ishwar reached at the place of occurrence situated near Dargah Nizamuddin. He prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant vide ExPW2/A. He started searching for the accused but he could not be traced and complainant was relieved and came back to PS. On 05.08.2015 in the evening, complainant again came to PS to know the progress of his case. At about 10.00PM, a secret information was received by him that the accused was going with stolen items and he can be apprehended if raid is conducted. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Ishwar and complainant reached near Khankhana tomb Nizamuddin, Mathura road and accused (present in the court today) was found going towards Nizamuddin Railway station from the side of basti H.N. Din. He was carrying a bag. When secret informer pointed towards accused, he was apprehended and correctly identified by the complainant. Accused was interrogated and the bag was opened and checked and the passport of complainant academic documents, a demand draft of SBI, a cheque book SBI, a diary and three books were found from his possesson. The same were taken into police possession vide seizure memo already ExPW1/D. Those recovered items were identified by complainant. He prepared the site plan of place of recovery vide already ExPW1/E. Accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide already ExPW1/C. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos already ExPW1/A. Medical FIR NO.513/2015 PS- H. N. Din State Vs.Akram Page No. 3/5 examination of accused was got conducted. Case property was deposited into malkhana. He recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. He identified the case property. On next day, accused was produced before the court and he was sent to J/C. After completion of investigation, He had also placed DD No.57, 56B and 36A which are regarding patrolling duty and arrival entry and same are ExPW2/B, P/A/3 and ExPW2/C, he prepared chargesheet and filed the same before the court for judicial verdict.
6. The complainant is the star witnesses and eyewitness of the incident.
However, summons issued to him were received back with the report that he is not traceable at the given addresses. The said witness has remained untraceable, despite several sufficient opportunities afforded to the prosecution. He was even summoned through IO/SHO and DCPSouth East, but it also yielded no fruitful results. The remaining witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses, who are admittedly not the eye witness to the incident of assault and thus, their testimonies were not likely to substantiate the culpability of the accused. Thereafter, PE was closed.
7. Therefore, no admissible incriminating evidence against the accused in respect of the offence punishable U/s 379/411 IPC has come on record. Hence, his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with. Support is drawn from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr."(1996 JCC 507), wherein it has been held that:
"When 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 procedures to pronounce the conclusion on the future FIR NO.513/2015 PS- H. N. Din State Vs.Akram Page No. 4/5 date."
8. Subsequently, the case was listed for final arguments. Arguments heard.
File perused.
9. It is settled proposition of law that burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is the case of the prosecution that on intervening night of 4/5.08.2015 at Dargah H.N.Din New Delhi, accused Akram committed theft of suitcase alongwith articles belonging to complainant Sh. Humayu Hassan and he was found in possession of stolen suit case with articles as per seizure memo mark A belonging to complainant Humayu Hassan and retained the stolen property after having knowledge or reason to believe the same to be stolen property. As such, it was for the prosecution to prove that. The fact that complainant has remained untraceable, has proved fatal to the case of the prosecution.
10. In light of the above said facts and circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and accused Akram is acquitted for the offences u/s 379/411 IPC for which he stood trial.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
Today on 25.03.2022 Digitally signed by
AKANKSHA AKANKSHA GARG
GARG Date: 2022.03.25
15:43:55 +0530
AKANKSHA GARG
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
New Delhi/25.03.2022
FIR NO.513/2015 PS- H. N. Din State Vs.Akram Page No. 5/5