Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar Fir No. 585/97 on 18 February, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH M.M DELHI
State Vs Anil Kumar FIR No. 585/97
P.S. A/V
U/s 392/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case : 506/2
b. Date of Commission of offence : 15.9.97
c. Name of the Complainant :Sh Tej Bahadur
d. The name of the accused person : 1.Anil Kr S/o Late
Hoti Lal
2. Ramesh Kr S/o
Gomal Singh
(Acquitted)
3. Mukesh Kr S/o Sh
Bharat Singh
(Acquitted)
e. The offence complained of or proved : 392/34 IPC f. The plea of the accused person :pleaded not guilty g. Final order : Acquitted h. Date of order :18.2.08 DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE :16.7.95 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :18.2.08 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :18.2.08 i. Brief Facts of the Case The accused is facing trial for offences punishable U/s 392/34 IPC. The case of prosecution as per challan U/s 173 Cr.PC is that the accused -2- along with co accused namely Ramesh Kr and Mukesh Kr committed theft of one purse containing Rs. 62/- from the possession of Sh Tej Bahadur by putting him into fear of death voluntarily and by wrongfully restraining him on 15.9.97 at about 11.40 P.M at Haryana Canal Patti near F Block Pull, A/V Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS A/V and thereby committed offences punishable U/s 392/34 IPC within the cognizance of this Court.
Earlier accused Ramesh Kr and Mukesh Kr were arrested and present accused namely Anil Kr was declared PO. Charge was framed against both the said accused namely Ramesh Kr and Mukesh Kr but ultimately both the said accused were acquitted by Ld Predecessor of this Court vide order dt. 19.11.98. Subsequently, the present accused namely Anil Kr was arrested and file was called from the Record Room. After compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC, the charge in respect of offence U/s 392 IPC was framed against the present accused on 20.2.04 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. -3-
To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as one witness i.e PW-1 HC Samim Haider.
Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused hence statement U/s 281/313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
I have heard Ld Substitute APP for State and accused in person. I have also carefully considered the respective submissions made on their behalf as well as the material available on record.
PW1 HC Samim Haider is merely DO who has proved copy of FIR NO. 585/97 as PW1/A. Admittedly, he is not a witness to the alleged offence. The only material witness relied upon by prosecution in this regard was Tej Bahadur but he has not been examined by prosecution despite grant of sufficient opportunities. Summons issued to said PW even through office of DCP N/W recd back unserved with the report that he is not traceable. Earlier also, summons were repeatedly issued to said PW at the time when accused Ramesh Kr and Mukesh Kr were -4- facing trial but said PW could not be served even at that time. Since all other PWs cited by prosecution were either formal in nature or were police officials in whose presence no incident took place and since no other eye witness to the offence alleged, has been cited by prosecution, prosecution evidence was closed as no useful purpose would have been served in examining the said witnesses.
In view of the fact that prosecution has failed to examine PW Tej Bahadur/complt and has also not examined any other witness who allegedly saw the occurrence, Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused herein for offence U/s 392 IPC. Consequently, accused Anil Kr is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. His bail bonds are cancelled. His surety stands discharged. Original documents if any be returned against proper receipt and identification after cancellation of endorsement if any. File be consigned to R.R. Announced in open Court. (Vidya Prakash) Dt. 18.02.08 Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi.