Delhi District Court
3. Pile Ae State vs . Zaki Ali. on 30 March, 2022
-- RES COURT OR SU RUPINDER SINGH DUEMAN MEP ROP OLLPAN MAGISTRATE, NORTH BAST DISTRICT, KARKARBDOOMA COURTS, DELHI - LER No. . 72172020, PS Bhajanpura > Unique Case no. 373/202 3. Pile ae State Vs. Zaki Ali. 3(A). Name of complamant Saifulla, s/o Maulana Allauddin, r 39, Gali No. 10, Mohan Puri, Mau) 2B). Name of accused Zaki Ali, s/o Mohd. Ansaar, r/o > -292, Gah no 4, Noor Elahi, Ghonda, Dethi. 4Date of institution of challan 03.02.2021 5. Date of Reserving, judgment 30.03.2022 6.Date of pronouncement 30.03.2022 / Date of commission of offe nec 29.12. 2020 "Offence complained of U/s 380 V5 i (PC po ¥ Offence charged with U/s 380; (451/511 IPC 1G. Plea of the accused Ploaded not guilty Pinalorder Acquitted U/s 380/48 1/ 1c h2. Date of receiving, of judicial 03.02.2021 Plein this court -- ae Brictly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.12.2020 at cabye xi SRO EVES , x eyes poe re, wy . ry £4 - . about O7:00 AM, aceused Zaki All attempted to enter inte house bearing Wo, 1-39, Gali na. 10, Mohan Parl, Maujpur, Delhi within 4 the jurisdiction of PS Bhajanpura, and belonging to the complainant Saifulla and upon being seen by the complainant, accused fled from the spot and thus thereby committed offences punishable under section 380/45 1/S 11 EPC. After preparing: the site plan and completion of investigation, charpgeshect was filed by the Investigating Officer under sechians B8O0/S5)1 IPC. On 15.12.2021, charge was framed U/s 380/45 1/STE IPC agamst the aceused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial Prosecution had named total 6 witnesses im the charge-sheet. | have perused the material on the record and have heard Ue submissions of Ld. APP for the State and La. Counsel for) aceused, rowed is Complainant, Saifalla, He has deposed that he 3s residing, al B39, Gali NO. 10, Mohgry Puri, Maujper, Dells a oe REN Honour unity since: birth, Ne further deposed that he docs nol remember the exa "the { Wher the exact date of the Incident us it was three ve: as . . . . . . : - ° aid Incident, He further stated that his Sipnattres were obtained 6m blank paner by ' by police personal who were passing through street im front of his house, He denied seeing any person entering | @ His oly ese Phew Piyptbpesay Aedes no deage _ 4 Se mates shap. tle Airther dertied knowledge abont the FIR no. 72L06 Pp fod PS hajanpura and failed to identify the accused present in court, He also stated that he is not aware against whom the PIR. was filed Thereafter, Ld. APP for the State sought permission to pat questions to witness as he was resiling from his previous st& tes sens seh WR SEES given to the Poliee. In his cross cxamination by La. APP, be Re BSR admitted that he used to run a mobile shop at the abovesaid address )-39, Gali NO. 10, Mohan Puri, Maujpur, Delhi-33. Ne was also confronted with his previous statement. Though he acs Ty OE his signatures on the statément, he denied that on 29.02.28 O around 07:00 AM one boy was entering into his house at the above caid address for the purpose to committing thell there. He also th: yt denied seeing anyone enter the house. However, he did adrrul tant he saw someone from baelk flecing the spat. He farther demicd Ghd Sho he saw the face of the said person whe was Aecing away Pram EAS spot, Lie alge denied that the said person whe fed away fram the spot on 29.12.2020, was passing through ihe street and thereuicr wis apprehended by the pales at his instance and the said person disclosed fis nume as 4ukt Als Te s fated that police officials *
Sat prouphi one person before him whose name ke came to know as x IVY &;
'Sater AL S alawiar : sented weengeene _--
"ak Al, Te denied that the said person was apprchended at bie instance, He also dented making any call to the polies. He dented eb that an 360,12.2020 at around 03:30 PM police officials were present in the area of Nour e dlabi Gali NO. 10, Mohan Pur and he was shouting 'Chor Chor Chor'. He further denied that the site plan mark X1 was prepared at bis instance. He stated that he cannot identify Zaki All. Despite his attention being drawn by Ld. APP for 'lic State to look for the accused in the Court, he failed to identily the accused person in court. He denied the suggestion that he was won over by the accused and was deposing falsely at his instance.
Admittedly, PW Saifulla is the star prosecution witnesses. Ho was upon him to prove that his property 5 had been trespassed by the aceused with the intention io commit theft. However, he failed fo identify the accused in Court. He further denied that accused was arrested at his mstance and stated that police officials brought same person before him whose name he was informed as Zaki Al. He denied making any call to the police, Even in the cress exanmunaiioan by the Ld. APP for the State, nothing incriminating bas beer hronplt against fie accused. 'There is not even an iota of direct ar circumstantial evidence linking the accused with the alleged offinee. Phe remaining, witnesses arc all official witnesses, whose iustimonies can at best prove that an PIR has been registered and accused was apprehended tt the present matter. However, as d WOVEN, AS LIS complainant has deposed that accused was nol apprehended at his instanee and the police officials aftcr apprehending sore ons branght the said person belore him, therefore, ineriminating has been proved against the avcused by the prosecution,
2 Phe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra vy. Administestion and others 1996 JCC 407 had held that "ys 8 case where, there is ao prospect of the case ending is convietian, the valuable time of the court should 20% wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose af formany oes x completing the procedure fo pronounce the conclusies of 8 farture date".
9 Considering the same, in view of the failure of the comple aceuged and denial of knowledge af the presen EIS identify the 7 . 4 5 ; ; He EEE E GE ia eR E NED aPoae ok ovtexgs a woe (21220 PS Bhajanpura, the prosecution evidence Stout lased. Yhe statement of the accused was dispersed with as there Was nothing, Ine crrenallag, apainst the accnsed, fa. (tis settled principle af ectininal liw { (hat an acensed ix presumed Hnocent anti praved guilty by a Court of cammpetent jurisdiction, The prosecution is sippased fo prove its case beyond reasonable ; oo. 6S faronee ' at joy hits. Reference 1 this respect can be | Weel GaN be hac Lran'hle Punjab d& | baryana High Court in ae:
Ae.
me ot Sates £ CON Sadiy ives Peta Fe eo S yy fee pepe " ee uyes as ys pee af Pat} ab EGE? (4) Crime SS as under
"Endl criminal reicl, if is for the prosecution to « beyond cull reasonable doubt. tf is for the proses:
f jhe crtire distance from may fave fo muest 2 p rosecHiion appedes to be imprabuble or lacks eve benefit of doubt i ocesstrily has to go to the accused.
in view of the above, accuscd sali Alt S/o Mau the offences punishable ' eands acquitted for SQ0/AS1/5 LE IPE.
37) ' , > ¥ . ay erga cage teow |g surety stands discharged. Bail bonds cance 2"
g*a any, be returned alter Ce neellatiorn of cridorsemiecn. - ifany, stands canceled.
sHetaied & Announced m Mi open Court on 30.03.2022 iis certified that thas judpenent eauinilis SES GG} pases an SEE PY Se MAE LIEC, o Raping NA § AdM-ULN opti Baal s AG