Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi And Ors on 10 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR CASE/ 5371/2021
STATE Vs. RAVI AND ANR
State vs. Ravi and Anr
eFIR No. 536/2018
Police Station : Saket
Under Section : 379/34 IPC
Date of institution : 19.04.2021
Date of reserving : Not Reserved
Date of pronouncement : 10.10.2023
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the : 5371/2021 case
b) Date of commission of : 26.04.2018 offence
c) Name of the : Ms. Richa Jain complainant
d) Name, parentage and : i) Ravi S/o Sh. Bipender Kumar R/o address of accused 15-A, Sector 4, Pushp Vihar, New persons Delhi
ii) Arpit Kumar S/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar R/o F-18, Saket Courts Residential Complex, New Delhi
e) Offence complained of : 379/34 IPC
f) Plea of accused persons : Accused persons pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquittal
h) Date of final order : 10.10.2023 State vs. Ravi and Anr eFIR No. 536/2018, PS: Saket Page 1 of 5 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. On 26.04.2018 between 07:00 to 08:00 p.m., near Bus Stop, Saket Metro Station, New Delhi, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of a mobile phone (Make Samsung) belonging to the complainant by taking it out of her possession dishonestly and thus, they committed an offence punishable under Section 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").
CHARGE
2. Vide order dated 08.02.2023, charge for the offence punishable under Sections 379/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. Subsequent to framing of charge, summons was issued to the complainant for his testimony. On 14.03.2023, summons issued to the complainant was received back unserved and thereafter, summons was directed to be issued to her through the ACP as well as DCP. Today i.e. 10.10.2023, summons issued to the complainant through the ACP as well as DCP received back unserved. The prosecution is unable to procure the presence of the complainant.
State vs. Ravi and Anr eFIR No. 536/2018, PS: Saket Page 2 of 5
4. Keeping in mind the aforesaid reasons, it was observed that recording of prosecution evidence in the present case would amount to waste of judicial time, money and resources and will also cause unnecessary oppression of the accused persons who have anyhow faced the ordeal of trial in the present case. Thus, the requirement to record the prosecution evidence and statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "the Code") was dispensed with.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5. The record has thoroughly and carefully been perused. The respective submissions of Sh. Naresh Choudhary, Ld. APP for State and Sh. Rajesh Khari, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have been considered.
6. It has been submitted that the complainant did not appear for his testimony in the instant case and, therefore, the prosecution case does not survive in his absence.
7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration [1996 9 SCC 766] has held that:
"But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date"
State vs. Ravi and Anr eFIR No. 536/2018, PS: Saket Page 3 of 5
8. It is further pertinent to note that the right to speedy trial is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. Continuation of trial, even when it is clear that the prosecution cannot prove the case on account of non-appearance of the complainant, would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka [AIR 2002 SC 1856] that the court should exercise its powers available under the Code to give effect to the right to speedy trial of the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2008 SC 3057].
9. As the complainant did not appear, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons and hence, the prosecution can never hope to prove the allegations levelled against the accused persons. The fact that the accused persons did not agree to the test identification proceedings cannot pin the guilt on them beyond reasonable doubt. Remaining witnesses in the present case are official witnesses whose testimony even if taken together would also be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused persons.
10. The complainant has not stood in the witness box and the veracity of her version of the instant complaint has not been tested by way of cross-examination. There are no other witnesses who have witnessed the incident and are material to the case and who could have corroborated the statement of the complainant and established the charge leveled against the accused persons.
State vs. Ravi and Anr eFIR No. 536/2018, PS: Saket Page 4 of 5 Further, the charge framed against the accused persons under Section 379 IPC cannot be established without the testimony of the complainant.
11. In the absence of any incriminating material and evidence, it would not be trite to hold the accused persons guilty. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. S.L. Goswami vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [1972 SCC (Cri.) 258] that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. Since the main eyewitness i.e. the complainant has not deposed in support of the case of the prosecution on account of his non-appearance, the ingredients of Section 379 IPC are not proved by the prosecution. Consequently, both the accused persons are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC.
12. In compliance to Section 437A of the Code, the accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond.
13. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in open Court on 10.10.2023.
Digitally signed by T. T. PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2023.10.10
16:08:49 +0530
(T. Priyadarshini)
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 10.10.2023 State vs. Ravi and Anr eFIR No. 536/2018, PS: Saket Page 5 of 5