Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Khalil & Ors. on 27 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS,DELHI
State Vs. Mohd. Khalil & Ors.
FIR No. 790 /2014
Case 5288302/2016
PS Jahangir Puri
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 24.09.2014
2) The name of the complainant : Lakhan @ Babbu
3) The name & parentage of accused : 1) Mohd. Khalil
S/o Sheikh Musharaf
2) Gautam
S/o Sh. Jattan
3) Azmat
S/o Sh. Mehboob
4) Offence involved : u/s. 392/34 IPC & 411
IPC
5) The plea of accused Deepak : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 27.11.2018
Date of Institution : 14.11.2014
Judgment reserved on : 27.11.2018
Judgment announced on : 27.11.2018
FIR No. 790/14, PS. Jahangir Puri, CIS No. 5288302/2016, State Vs. Mohd. Khalil & Ors. 1/6
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1.Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 24.09.2014 at about 8.00 pm, at Shah Alam bandh road, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Jahangir Puri, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention robbed the complainant Lakhan @ Babbu of his purse containing money i.e. Rs.190/ and documents and also robbed mobile phone of the associate of the complainant namely Ranjeet by wrongfully confining them and giving them beatings. It is further the case of prosecution that soon after the incident, police officials apprehended accused Mohd. Khalil and Gautam and purse of the complainant was recovered from the possession of accused Mohd Khalil.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court against the accused. After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C, arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 05.03.2015, charge was framed against the accused Mohd. Khalil, Gautam and Azmad for offence u/s 392/34 IPC & alternatively for offence u/s 411 IPC against the accused Mohd. Khalil. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined one witness. PW1 Ranjeet deposed that in the year 2014, he was in a vehicle loaded with a kingfisher bear; that he was posted as labour on the said vehicle FIR No. 790/14, PS. Jahangir Puri, CIS No. 5288302/2016, State Vs. Mohd. Khalil & Ors. 2/6 and when they reached at Jahangir Puri, they met some boys who snatched his mobile phone and cash Rs.300/ from him; that those boys were three in number; that incident occurred in the night around 8.00pm and he cannot identify said three boys as the matter is old.
4. PW 1 was cross examined by Ld. APP for State on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he stated that he cannot say whether the said boys also snatched the mobile phone and purse of the driver Lakhan. He stated that he had not given any statement to the police. He denied that mobile phone of Lakhan was recovered from accused Mohd Khalil or that he alongwith police official had visited the spot or police official had prepared the site plan or that police official apprehended the accused Ajmat. He also denied that he identified the accused at that time or that recovery of the snatched articles was effected in his presence or in the presence of Lakhan. He further stated that matter is old and he did not see the face of the accused at the time of incident due to the darkness. He denied that accused person present in the Court today had snatched his mobile phone and the cash. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
5. In the present case, summons were issued several times to the complainant/PW Lakhan, however, he remained unserved every time. He is reportedly not found residing at the given address. Therefore the FIR No. 790/14, PS. Jahangir Puri, CIS No. 5288302/2016, State Vs. Mohd. Khalil & Ors. 3/6 said witness remained untraceable and not examined by the prosecution in evidence. Another eyewitness PW1 Ranjeet also failed to support the prosecution case, who deposed that he could not see the face of those boys at the time of incident due to darkness and he cannot identify them. He also denied of recovery of any snatched articles either in his presence or in the presence of Lakhan. He also denied of giving any statement to the police. Meaning thereby, he also cast serious doubt over the alleged recovery of purse of complainant from the possession of accused Mohd. Khalil and also cast doubt over the veracity of documents i.e arrest memo, seizure memo etc prepared by IO during the course of investigation. In these circumstances, no fruitful purpose would have been served by keeping the matter pending for PE anymore. Hence, after hearing submissions of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused persons, prosecution evidence is closed.
6. Since there was no incriminating evidence made available on record against the accused, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.
7. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
8. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on FIR No. 790/14, PS. Jahangir Puri, CIS No. 5288302/2016, State Vs. Mohd. Khalil & Ors. 4/6 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.
9. In the present case, the complainant/PW Lakhan and PW Ranjeet are the most material witnesses for the prosecution case, who could have testified regarding the incident in question, alleged recovery of purse from the possession of accused Mohd. Khalil as well as could have identified the accused persons in the Court during the trial. However, complainant/PW Lakhan remained untraceable despite issuance of summons to him a number of times. Another eye witness/PW1 Ranjeet also failed to support the prosecution case, who not only failed to identify the accused persons in the court but also made doubtful the alleged recovery of purse from the possession of one of the accused namely Mohd. Khalil. He stated that he had not seen the face of assailants at the time of incident due to the darkness; he denied that accused persons present in the court had snatched his mobile phone and the cash; he also denied of giving any statement to the police; he also denied of any recovery from the possession of Mohd. Khalil; he also denied that police apprehended accused Ajmat and he identified the accused at that time. He also denied of recovery of snatched articles in his presence or in the presence of Lakhan. In these circumstances and material available on record, it is clear that the said eye witness/PW1 Ranjeet not only failed to support the prosecution FIR No. 790/14, PS. Jahangir Puri, CIS No. 5288302/2016, State Vs. Mohd. Khalil & Ors. 5/6 case for offence u/s 392/34 IPC against all the accused persons but also made doubtful the alleged recovery of purse from the possession of accused Mohd. Khalil. In view of such a doubt created by the said witness, finding of guilt of the accused persons cannot be recorded.
10. 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.
11. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s 392/34 IPC against all the accused persons and also for offence u/s 411 IPC against the accused Mohd. Khalil. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Khalil, Gautam and Azmat are acquitted of the said offence(s).
Announced in open Court (SACHIN GUPTA)
on 27th Day of November, 2018 MM3/North District
Rohini Courts/Delhi,
27.11.2018
FIR No. 790/14, PS. Jahangir Puri, CIS No. 5288302/2016, State Vs. Mohd. Khalil & Ors. 6/6