Delhi District Court
Fir No.340/2014 (State vs . Murtaza Ali & Ors.) Ps Sagarpur on 24 February, 2022
FIR No.340/2014 (State vs. Murtaza Ali & Ors.) PS Sagarpur
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU SHREE, MM03, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CC No.49868/2016
State Vs. Murtaza Ali @ Balle & Ors.
FIR No. 340/2014
P.S. Sagarpur
JUDGMENT
1. Date of the Commission of offence : 02.08.2014.
2. Date of Institution of the case : 09.10.2014.
3. Date of reserving the judgment : 17.01.2022.
4. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.02.2022.
5. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Phool Chand.
6. Name of Accused, their Parentage and address
: 1. Murtaza Ali @ Balle S/o Sh.
Shamsher Ali,
R/o H. No.771/420, Gali No.12,
Ram Gopal Market,
New Delhi.
2. Mohd. Azad Saifi S/o Mohd. Shahid
Saifi,
R/o RZ16H, Harizan Basti,
Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur,
New Delhi.
3. Chandrika Paswan s/o Late Sh. Jhapsi
Paswan,
R/o RZ10, Gali No.3, Kailash
Puri Main,
New Delhi.
7. Offences complained of or proved : U/s 392/411/34 IPC.
8. Plea of accused : Not Guilty.
9. Final order : Acquittal.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') is that Page No. 1 /5 FIR No.340/2014 (State vs. Murtaza Ali & Ors.) PS Sagarpur the instant FIR was registered on the complaint of one Sh. Phool Chand alleging that on 02.08.2014 at around 9.15 P.M. while the complainant was walking from Gandhi Market towards his home situated at aforementioned address and reached near Deep Model Public School, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi, three persons, aged about 23 24 years, approached him from behind, whose faces he could not see and held his neck from behind and started giving him beatings through fist blows and kicks and they also snatched his mobile phone make Nokia 301 (black colour) having SIM No.9871456201 and IMEI No.352356065219149 from his hand, Rs.500/ and one gold chain weighing about three tolas, which was being worn by him at the time. Investigation of the case was marked to SI Chetan Mandia who after investigation of the case filed chargesheet on 09.10.2014.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet and materials on record, prima facie case was made out, therefore, cognizance of the offences were taken and accused persons were summoned and upon their appearance before the court they were supplied with copies of chargesheet and other documents sought to be relied upon by the prosecution and compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. made and vide order dated 19.03.2021, charges u/s 392/411/34 IPC were framed against accused no.1 and 2, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and not fining enough material against accused no.3 for framing charge u/s 392 Cr.P.C., charge u/s 411 IPC was framed against accused no.3, to which he has also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was listed for PE.
In their joint statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC., accused admitted the genuinessnes of the FIR and record of TIP Proceedings and accordingly, examination of the formal witnesses to prove the same was dispensed with.
3. On 17.01.2022, complainant stated that he had received his stolen property from the malkhana of the police station and he wished to compound the offence u/s 411/34 IPC with the accused persons on humanitarian grounds and statement of complainant was recorded separately to this effect and in view thereof, the offence u/s 411/34 IPC against the accused was compounded which led to their acquittal for said offences.
Page No. 2 /5FIR No.340/2014 (State vs. Murtaza Ali & Ors.) PS Sagarpur
4. To prove its case against accused no. 1 and 2 for having committed offences u/s 392/34 IPC, on 17.01.2022, prosecution examined the complainant Phool Chand S/o Sh. Chhotu Gupta as PW1 who testified to the effect that on 02.08.2014, at around 9.15 P.M., he was walking from Gandhi Market towards his home situated at aforementioned address and when he reached near Deep Model Public School, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi, three persons approached him from behind, whose faces he could not see and they held his neck from behind and started giving him beatings through fist blows and kicks and they also snatched his mobile phone make Nokia 301 (black colour) from his hand, Rs.500/ cash and one gold chain being worn by him at the time. Thereafter, he went to the police station and gave his oral complaint which was reduced to writing in his presence and he signed it at point A after being read over the contents of the same. The said complaint has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. PW1 further deposed that the site plan Ex.PW1/B of the spot was prepared by the IO at his instance. He further deposed that he handed over original bill/invoice dated 23.06.2014 of his mobile phone Ex.P1 to the police which was duly seized by the police vide seizure memo now Ex.PW1/C. PW1 correctly identified his snatched gold chain in the photographs Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 which were shown to him. He also correctly identified photograph of the mobile phone make Nokia 301 (black colour) Ex.P4. During his testimony, PW1 Started resiling from his earlier statement and failed to identify the accused no.1 and 2 and at the request of the Ld. APP, PW1 was declared hostile and Ld. APP for State was allowed to cross examine him and during his cross examination by Ld. APP, PW1 denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons as he had been won over by the accused persons namely Murtaza Ali @ Balle and Mohd. Azad Saifi. The complainant (PW1) was not cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity given.
5. On 17.01.2022, upon submission of the Ld. APP for State, prosecution evidence was closed as the complainant had turned hostile and the case against the accused could not stand without the support of his testimony against the accused. On the same day, since no evidence had come on record against the accused persons, the Page No. 3 /5 FIR No.340/2014 (State vs. Murtaza Ali & Ors.) PS Sagarpur requirement of recording of statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with. Accused persons chose not to lead DE. DE was closed accordingly and final arguments were heard in the matter.
6. During final arguments, it was argued by Ld. APP for the State, that the case against the accused persons stood proved in view of the evidence led by the prosecution. Accordingly, he argued that the offence against accused persons were proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons deserved to be convicted.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. defence counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to bring out a case against the accused persons and that there was no eye witness to the incident except PW1 i.e. complainant and the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution at all. He further argued that the accused had been falsely implicated in the case and were liable to be acquitted.
8. This Court has read the case file meticulously, perused the material on record and duly considered the arguments advanced.
9. In the present case, the sole eyewitness to the incident is the complainant i.e. PW1, who had turned hostile. In his testimony, PW1 resiled from his earlier statement wherein he had stated that he identified the accused Murtaza Ali @ Balle and Azad Saifi to be the persons who had snatched his mobile and other items after holding his neck from behind and after giving him beatings. There is no other eye witness to the incident who could identify the accused to be the perpetrators of the crime and no other sterling piece of evidence was put forth by prosecution which could establish guilt of the accused.
10. Thus, in the light of above said discussion and reasons, in the opinion of this Court, the case of the prosecution could not be established beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, accused Murtaza Ali @ Balle and Azad Saifi are found not guilty for having committed offences u/s 392/411 IPC and resultantly, they both stand acquitted in the present case for the said offences. In light of the statement of complainant regarding compounding of offences, accused Murtaza Ali @ Balle, Azad Saifi and Chandrika Paswan stand acquitted for the offences u/s 411/34 IPC.
Page No. 4 /5FIR No.340/2014 (State vs. Murtaza Ali & Ors.) PS Sagarpur
11. Accused are directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each under Section 437A Cr.PC.
Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court
on 24.02.2022 (Manu Shree)
MM03/PHC/NDD/24.02.2022
Certified that this judgment contains 5 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Manu Shree) MM03/PHC/NDD/24.02.2022 Page No. 5 /5