Delhi District Court
Title State vs . Raju Sharma on 5 July, 2019
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 03, EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 644/2015 Unique Case ID No. 10789/2016 Title State Vs. Raju Sharma Name of complainant Yashveer Singh Name of accused Raju Sharma S/o Devraj Sharma Date of institution of challan 04.09.2015 Date of arguments 05.07.2019 Date of pronouncement 05.07.2019 Date of commission of offence 05.07.2015 Offence complained of Under Section 392/411 IPC Offence charged with Under Section 392 IPC Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Final order Acquitted BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE: This is a case of robbery of Rs. 1500/ filed by one Yashvir against accused Raju Sharma. The date, time and place of incident shown is 05.07.2015 at about 11.00 p.m. near EDM Mall. When the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of this case, the FIR No. 644/2015 State Raju Sharma PS Gazipur 2 prosecution examined complainant Yashvir alongwith certain police officials to establish its case. The accused pleaded false implication, but chosen not to lead any evidence in his defence. Both the sides have been heard. Upon perusal of the record, I proceed to dispose off the case through the present Judgment.
2. For better appreciation of the fact, some portion of examination in chief of complainant Yashvir is reproduced as under: "I am residing at the aforementioned address. On 05.07.2015, I went to my home i.e. aforementioned address from Khoda Village. I was sitting in a tempo (TSR). The tempo driver alighted me at the wrong side i.e. Mall side instead of Anand Vihar ISBT side. In the meanwhile, accused Raju Sharma(accused present in court and correctly identified by the witness), came towards me and asked me where I had to go. I replied that I was going to Badaun, UP. Accused stated that he would drop me in a private bus for Rs. 200/ fare. Thereafter accused moved towards Ghazipur Mandi side and I followed him. He took me near the liquor shop(Theka) and taken out knife, shown the knife to me and thereafter accused took out Rs. 1500/ from my back side pocket. After accused took out money from FIR No. 644/2015 State Raju Sharma PS Gazipur 3 my pocket, I caught hold hand of accused in which he was holding knife. In the meanwhile, police official came there. Police recovered Rs. 1500/ from the accused and handed over to me. Police official handed over me Rs. 1500/ and they did legal procedure. My complaint is Ex.PW1/A bearing my signatures at point A. Recovery memo of cash is Ex.PW1/B bearing my signatures at point A."
3. The aforesaid shows that after showing knife, accused had taken the money from the complainant. This claim, however, is in clear contradiction with the claim of HC Vikas who has indicated that accused had taken the money after slapping the complainant.
4. It appears that accused was apprehended by public and even as per claim of complainant, the police official recovered the amount from the accused and given the amount to the complainant. Despite this, there is nothing to show as to how the so called knife was not recovered. This shows that the story projected by the complainant is faulty.
5. Despite the claim that accused was apprehended by public persons as appearing in the deposition of HC Vikas, no public person was joined in the investigation. This clearly is doubtful.
FIR No. 644/2015 State Raju Sharma PS Gazipur 4
6. Interestingly, the complainant claims that police had recovered the amount and given to the complainant, but HC Vikas claims that IO had seized the said money. If this is so, the claim of complainant is clearly faulty.
7. Despite the fact that complainant was having his mobile, he did not call at 100 number. This shows that in reality no incident had happened against him. A very convenient story has been projected that a police official came at the spot. The said police official i.e. HC Vikas says that he was on patrolling duty, but he has not provided the details thereof, so as to indicate as to whether he was assigned the said area or not. In such circumstances, his presence on the spot itself is doubtful.
8. The complainant says that he had signed all the documents in the police station (see the crossexamination of complainant). It shows that all the writing work had been by the police in the police station.
9. The complainant states in his crossexamination that site plan was not prepared in his presence, whereas, IO claims that he had FIR No. 644/2015 State Raju Sharma PS Gazipur 5 prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. This is also contradictory.
10. The aforesaid discussion shows that there is sufficient contradictions in the story projected by the prosecution and on such story, a finding of guilt cannot be returned.
11. Since the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused, it cannot claim a verdict of conviction. As such, accused is acquitted from the charge. Accused to furnish bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ for the purpose of Section 437A Cr.PC. Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH Announced in open Court on 05.07.2019. KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date:
2019.07.05 SINGH 16:33:08 +0530 Rakesh Kumar Singh Metropolitan Magistrate03 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi FIR No. 644/2015 State Raju Sharma PS Gazipur