Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak on 4 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
State Vs. Deepak
FIR No. 471/15
PS. Kamla Market
u/s. 394/34 IPC
Case ID No. 26/16
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 03.11.2015
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Nandan
3) The name & parentage of accused : Deepak
S/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 394/34 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 04.11.2016
Date of Institution : 12.04.2016
Judgment reserved on : 04.11.2016
Judgment announced on : 04.11.2016
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
FIR No. 471/15, PS. Kamla Market, U/s. 394/34 IPC, State Vs. Deepak 1/8
1). Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 03.11.2015 at about
10:45PM, at Minto road red light, near Kali Mata temple, Kamla Market,
Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Kamla Market, accused Deepak
alongwith his associates i.e. one JCL and another namely Nonu (who
could not be traced and arrested) in furtherance of their common intention,
robbed the complainant of his scooty bearing registration no. DL 7SBY
7926, after wrongfully restraining him and giving beatings to the
complainant Nandan and his friend Maikal and while committing robbery,
accused also caused hurt to complainant and thereby, accused Deepak
committed offence u/s. 394/34 IPC.
2). After completion of investigation, charge sheet 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 20.05.2016,
charge was framed against the accused Deepak for offence u/s 394/34 IPC to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3). In support of its case, the prosecution got examined four witnesses.
PW1 Nandan, deposed that he used to sell bangles; it was third day of the
month; he did not remember the exact month, however, it was the year 2015;
at about 11.00pm, he alongwith his friend Maikal were going to his house
from Hanuman Mandir, Connaught place on his scooty bearing registration
no. DL 7SBY 7926. He further deposed that when at about 11.00pm, they
reached at Minto road, red light; Abhishek @ Kala Bacha, who is resident of
Paharganj, alongwith his two associates came on a black colour scooty;
Abhishek @ Kala was driving the scooty; Abhishek @ Kala and his
FIR No. 471/15, PS. Kamla Market, U/s. 394/34 IPC, State Vs. Deepak 2/8
associates started grappling with them; they gave beatings to him and his
friends and robbed his scooty. He further deposed that Abhishek @ Kala
Bacha inflicted injury on his face by knife; his friend Michal ran away on
seeing the knife. He further stated that after committing the robbery,
Abhishek @ Kala Bacha alongwith his associates fled away with his scooty;
he made call at 100 number; PCR arrived there and took him to LNJP
hospital, where he was medically examined. He further stated that he can
identify Abhishek @ Kala Bacha and other boys who were with Abhishek @
Kala Bacha, if shown to him. He further deposed that none of those boys are
present in the court. He deposed that none of the associates of Abhishek @
Kala Bacha is present in the Court.
4). PW1 Nandan was cross examined by Ld. APP for State on the ground
that he was resiling from his previous supplementary statement and at the
point of identification of the accused Deepak. In his cross examination by
Ld. APP for State, he denied that he had stated to the police in his statement
dated 04.11.2015 that police had searched the associate of Abhishek namely
Deepak and Mami, but they could not be traced out. He denied that accused
Abhishek @ Kala was interrogated by the police and he had disclosed the
name of his associate i.e Deepak and Mami. He further stated that he did not
make any statement dated 20.01.2016 to the police. He denied that on
20.01.2016, he had visited the PS Kamla Market, where he had identified the accused Deepak, who was sitting with the IO in the police station. He denied that he was not identifying the accused Deepak in the Court, intentionally and deliberately. When Ld. APP for State drew the attention of the witness FIR No. 471/15, PS. Kamla Market, U/s. 394/34 IPC, State Vs. Deepak 3/8 towards the accused Deepak, present in the court, witness stated that he did not know the accused Deepak and he was not with Abhishek @ Kala at the time of the commission of the robbery of his scooty. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
5). PW2 HC Rakesh Kumar, the then Duty officer at PS Kamla Market, deposed of registering the present FIR, copy of which is Ex. PW2/B. PW3 HC Vijay Singh, the then MHC(M) at PS Kamla Market, deposed of making relevant entry regarding deposit of case property at serial no. 993/2827 and also for release of the scooty on superdari, copy of entry in register no. 19 is Ex. PW3/A.
6). PW4 Maikal @ Himanshu, deposed that he was working as sweeper in Panth hospital; police officials came to his house and obtained his signatures on some blank papers; he did not know anything about this case; he had not given any statement to the police regarding this case and he cannot identify the accused involved in the present case.
7). PW4 Maikal was cross examined by Ld. APP for State on the grounds that he was resiling from his previous statement given the the police. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he denied of making any such statement Mark 4A to the police. He even denied of accompanying his friend Nandan on scooty on 03.11.15. He even denied of witnessing any such incident as alleged. He stated that he cannot identify the accused as he did not know anything about this case. He denied of deposing falsely.
FIR No. 471/15, PS. Kamla Market, U/s. 394/34 IPC, State Vs. Deepak 4/8
8). In the present case, complainant/PW1 Nandan and PW4 Maikal were the most material witnesses for the prosecution, who were stated to be the victim/eyewitness of the incident in question, however, complainant PW1 Nandan failed to identify the accused Deepak as one of the assailants involved in the incident in question, who rather denied of identifying the accused Deepak at PS Kamla Market on 20.01.16, as one of the assailants. PW4 Maikal completely failed to support the prosecution case, who denied of knowing anything about the present case, rather stated that his signature were obtained by the police officials on blank papers. Other witnesses cited by the prosecution are only formal in nature, whose testimony, even if remain unrebutted, would not be sufficient to prove allegations against the accused Deepak in the present case. Hence, 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 counsel for accused, Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 04.11.2016.
9). 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.
10). I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
11). 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 FIR No. 471/15, PS. Kamla Market, U/s. 394/34 IPC, State Vs. Deepak 5/8 of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts.
12). In the present case, the complainant/PW1 Nandan as well as PW4 Maikal are the most material witnesses to the prosecution case, who could have testified regarding the incident in question as well as they could have identified the accused Deepak in the Court during the trial. However, they failed to support the prosecution case. Complainant PW1 Nandan denied the involvement of accused Deepak in the offence involved in the present case. He categorically denied the presence of any of the assailants in the Court. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he categorically denied that on 20.01.16, he identified the accused Deepak at PS Kamla Market. He categorically stated that he did not know accused Deepak, who was not present at the time when he was robbed of his scooty. Hence, he failed to support the prosecution case on the point of identity of accused Deepak. Moreover, PW4 Maikal completely failed to support the prosecution case, who deposed that police officials came to his house and obtained his signatures on blank papers. He deposed that he did not know anything about this case and never gave any statement to the police regarding this case. He stated that he cannot identify the accused as he did not know anything about this case. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he even denied of accompanying complainant Nandan on 03.11.15 upon scooty bearing no. DL7S BY 7926. Hence, he also failed to lend any support to the prosecution case. Rather, he cast doubt over the veracity of various documents prepared by the IO by stating that his signatures were obtained by the police officials FIR No. 471/15, PS. Kamla Market, U/s. 394/34 IPC, State Vs. Deepak 6/8 on some blank papers. This became fatal to the prosecution case. The said witnesses were also cross examined by Ld. APP for State, however nothing material elicited from their cross examination which would connect the accused to the incident in question or make him liable for the same.
13). The other witnesses examined or cited by the prosecution are police officials or other formal witnesses who were admittedly not present at the spot at the time of incident in question. They deposed or at the most could have deposed the police/formal proceedings, which is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused in the present case.
14). 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.
15). In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 394/34 IPC against the accused Deepak. There is no evidence available on record against the accused to prove his guilt in the present case. Accordingly, accused Deepak is acquitted of the said offence U/s 394/34 IPC. At this stage, accused Deepak is directed to furnish fresh bail bond in terms of Section 437A of Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Accused through his surety furnished FIR No. 471/15, PS. Kamla Market, U/s. 394/34 IPC, State Vs. Deepak 7/8 requisite bail bond u/s 437A Cr.PC. Bail bond furnished and accepted. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court (SACHIN GUPTA)
on 04th day of November, 2016 MM5/Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi, 04.11.2016
FIR No. 471/15, PS. Kamla Market, U/s. 394/34 IPC, State Vs. Deepak 8/8