Delhi District Court
State vs . Yash Sharma & Ors. on 29 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK SHERAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 146/09
P.S. Defence Colony
U/s 392/411/34 IPC
STATE VS. Yash Sharma & Ors.
JUDGMENT :
a. Sl. No. of the case : 83/01
b. Date of Institution : 04.07.2009
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 24.05.2005
d. Name of the complainant : Deepak
e. Name of the accused and his : (i) Yash Sharma @ Monty
parentage and address S/o Naresh Chand Sharma
R/o H. No. 508, Chirag
Delhi, New Delhi.
(ii) Manoj
S/o Narain Singh
R/o J548, Krishna Park,
Deoli Gaon, New Delhi.
(iii) Bunty Singh
S/o Raj Pal Singh
R/o F34, Khan Pur, Deoli
Gaon, Near PNB, New
Delhi.
FIR NO. 146/09 PAGE 1 OF PAGE 7
PS DEFENCE COLONY
f. Offence complained of : U/s 392/411/34 IPC
g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h. Order reserved : 29.10.2013
i. Final Order : Acquitted
j. Date of such order : 29.10.2013
1. All the accused persons in this case were sent up for trial for the commission of offence u/s 392/411/34 IPC.
2. The facts in brief are that on 24.05.05, the mobile phone Motorolla Black colour and a brown colour purse containing Rs.195 and two polo cards were robbed from the possession of complainant Deepak. All accused persons were caught red handed while fleeing from the spot after committing the robbery and the robbed Motorolla mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Yash Sharma @ Monty and the purse containing the said articles was recovered from possession of accused Bunty Singh. On the complaint of complainant FIR was lodged. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused persons were arrested and after completing other formal investigation the challan was presented before the court for trial u/s. 392/411/34 IPC against the accused persons.
3. A prima facie offence having been made out against the accused FIR NO. 146/09 PAGE 2 OF PAGE 7 PS DEFENCE COLONY persons, charge was framed against them on 18.07.09, U/s. 392/411/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case the prosecution has examined only three witnesses namely Sh. Safdar Ali as PW1, SI Rajesh Malik as PW2 and ASI Om Prakash as PW3.
5. PW1 Safdar Ali testifies that he was the registered owner of TSR bearing no. DL 1RK 6909. He further stated that he had given the TSR on hire for amount of Rs.270/ for one shift of 12 hours. His TSR was taken into possession by the police. He informed the police of PS Defence Colony regarding accused Bunty. He got the TSR released on superdari vide superdaginama Ex.PW1/A. Photographs of the said TSR are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The TSR is marked as Ex.P3.
PW1 was crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel. In cross examination he stated that he does not know accused Manoj nor he has seen accused Manoj at any point of time.
6. PW2 SI Rajesh Malik testifies that in the intervening night of 2324.5.2009 he along with Ct. Tarkeshwar was on patrolling duty and was present at NBlock Market, at about 4.30 a.m. they saw a TSR bearing no. DL 1 PK 6909 was being chased by a maruti Esteem car bearing no. UP 14W 7777. The persons sitting in Maruti FIR NO. 146/09 PAGE 3 OF PAGE 7 PS DEFENCE COLONY Esteem were shouting "chorchor, pakdopakdo". The complainant was also sitting in the car. He stated that when TSR moved towards N Block gate near Market, its driver found the gate closed and all the four occupants of the TSR alighted from it and started trying to flee from there. He further stated that they immediately parked their motorcycle near the TSR and started trying to nab the said occupant. He further stated that somehow they managed to apprehend the three occupant of the TSR and their names were revealed as Monty, Bunty and Manoj. He further stated that the fourth associate of the accused persons managed to flee from the spot. He further stated that in the mean time the car chasing the TSR also reached there. One of them was Ct. from PS CR Park and another person was found to be the complainant in this case. He stated that the accused persons along with their fourth associates had committed robbery of mobile phone and purse at Mool Chand Flyover, of the complainant. He stated that on search of accused persons, one purse containing Rs.195/ and some cards were recovered from the possession of accused Bunty who was driving the TSR and one Motorola Mobile phone of black colour was recovered from the possession of Monty and same were identified by the complainant to be his own mobile phone which was robbed by the accused persons. He further testified that one bag containing some documents belonging to Bank of India, clothes including cap etc. were recovered from TSR. He sated that accused Manoj was found bearing election card issued in the name of Kundan FIR NO. 146/09 PAGE 4 OF PAGE 7 PS DEFENCE COLONY Singh Negi. He stated that cash of Rs.2,200/ were also recovered from the pocket of pant kept in the said bag. He stated that since the place of occurrence was found belonging to the PS Defence Colony, they took the accused persons to the police station Defence Colony along with complainant and the TSR. They handed over the recovered articles to the Duty Officer. He stated that he along with Ct. Tarkeshwar came to the police station and resumed their duty leaving behind the complainant and accused persons at PS Defence Colony. IO recorded his statement. The case property Ex.P1 i.e mobile phone and Ex.P2 purse containing the recovered articles were shown to the witness which he correctly identified. PW2 was crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel. In his cross examination he stated that N and M Block Mark is one and half Km form the PS. He further stated that only two persons including complainant were present in the car. He stated that on 2324.05.09 was on night shift duty. He made DD entry of departure at PS Ex.PW2/XA. He stated that he got the information at N Block, G. K. 1, New Delhi that the accused persons are being chased at about 4.30 a.m. He stated that he have not taken the accused persons to G. K. Police Station because according to the complainant the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of PS Defence Colony. He negated the suggestion the the complainant was not present with him. He further negated the suggestion that the accused Yash Sharma was not present at N Block Market. He stated that there was no FIR NO. 146/09 PAGE 5 OF PAGE 7 PS DEFENCE COLONY chowkidar present at N Block at that time and he had not inquired about any chowkidar/guard at the spot. He negated the suggestion that the accused Yash Sharma was not present at the spot and that is why he did not inquire about chowkidar/guard.
7. PW3 ASI Om Prakash testifies that on 24.05.09 he was posted as DO at PS Defence Colony and had recorded case FIR no. 146/09. Copy of the fir NO. 146/09 IS eX.pw3/a. Endorsement on Rukka is Ex.PW3/B. PW3 was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Colony. In his cross examination he stated that ASI Mukhtiar Singh presented the tehrir at PS at about 6.40 a.m. and he handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR at about 6.206.30 a.m.
8. After recording the evidence of PWs, the PE was closed as the complainant in the present case is not traceable and no further evidence could have proved the offence against the accused persons.
9. After closing of prosecution evidence, statements of accused Yash Sharma, Manoj and Bunty was recorded U/s 281 r/w section 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements, accused Yash Sharma, Manoj and Bunty have denied to have committed the offence and claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence.
FIR NO. 146/09 PAGE 6 OF PAGE 7 PS DEFENCE COLONY
10. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons and also perused the record.
11. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to prove either of the offence of robbery or possession of stolen property. The main witness allegedly robbed by the accused persons has not been examined by the prosecution. The complainant Deepak could not be produced by the prosecution, since he remained unserved despite issuance of process through Investigation Officer and DCP. Resultantly, there is no proof that any complaint was ever lodged with regard to the offence of robbery. The complainant was the only witness who could have proved the complaint lodged by him with the police which triggered off the investigation in the present case. Thus the basis of the prosecution itself has remained unproved.
12. In the result, I find that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and they have given the benefit of doubt and therefore accused Yash Sharma @ Monty, Manoj and Bunty Singh are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 392/411/34 IPC for which they all stand charged.
Announced in the Open Court (DEEPAK SHERAWAT)
On 29.10.2013 Metropolitan Magistrate06
South East District/New Delhi
FIR NO. 146/09 PAGE 7 OF PAGE 7
PS DEFENCE COLONY
FIR No. 146/09
P.S. Defence Colony
U/s 392/411/34 IPC
29.10.2013
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
All accused are on bail with counsel.
Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court, all the accused persons are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 392/411/34 IPC for which they all stand charged.
All the accused persons are released on bail on furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount. Bail bonds furnished. Same are accepted. As per section 437A of the Cr.P.C, as amended vide the Amendment Act, which came into force on 31.12.2009, the accused as well as the surety shall remain bound by the personal and the surety bond respectively for a period of six months from today.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Deepak Sherawat)
MM/South East/ 29.10.2013
FIR NO. 146/09 PAGE 8 OF PAGE 7
PS DEFENCE COLONY
FIR NO. 146/09 PAGE 9 OF PAGE 7
PS DEFENCE COLONY