Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikram @ Ravi on 6 September, 2014
Page No. 1 of 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SINGLA
MM03(SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Vikram @ Ravi
FIR No. : 183/2011
P.S. : Hauz Khas
U.S. : 356 / 379 / 34 IPC
J U D G M E N T
a. Sl. No. of the case and : not mentioned.
date of its institution b. Name of the complainant : Mamta Garg W/o Sh. Manoj Garg R/o 49, Mandir Wali Gali, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi.
c. Date of commission of
offences : 18.05.2011
d. Name of the accused : Vikram @ Ravi S/o Sh. Jagdish
M281, Mangolpuri, New Delhi.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 356/379 IPC
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Case reserved for orders : 06.09.2014
h. Final order : Acquitted.
i Date of such order : 06.09.2014
FIR No. 183/11 State Vs. Vikram @ Ravi
Page No. 2 of 4
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. By way of this judgment, I shall dispose off present FIR which was lodged on the complaint of Ms. Mamta Garg.
2. The brief fact of the case are that on 18.05.2011 at about 8AM, near bus stand Yusuf Sarai, Aurbindo Marg, accused along with co accused namely Monu (since not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention committed theft / snatched the gold chain of the complainant and thus thereby accused committed the offences punishable u/s. 379/356/34 IPC.
3. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the Court. Copies were supplied to accused and after completion of necessary formalities, on 18.07.2014 charge for commission of the above said offences were framed upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. PW1 is complainant who has supported the case prosecution and deposed that on 18.05.2011 her chain was snatched by pillion rider and both the persons were wearing helmet and she could not note down the regd. no. of the motorcycle nor could see the accused persons. She failed to identified the accused. Ld. APP FIR No. 183/11 State Vs. Vikram @ Ravi Page No. 3 of 4 cross examined this witness, but nothing favourable to prosecution could come.
5. Complainant failed to identify the accused and deposed that she never saw the accused during course of investigation nor accused were shown to her by police despite she was specifically asked by Ld. APP as to whether she had identified the accused in the police station.
6. Since complainant stated that she was accompanied by two of her friends namely Urmila and Anju. They were summoned. Anju Chopra remained unserved through IO as well as SHO and it was reported that her address is not traceable and she had left the Delhi and is not in touch with anyone. Urmila could also not identified the accused and deposed on the line of PW1.
7. No other prosecution witnesses were examined by prosecution as all other witnesses were formal in nature and they reached at the spot after the incident and their testimonies are also formal in nature. Therefore their testimonies are dispensed with.
8. Statement of accused was dispensed with as nothing came against the accused.
FIR No. 183/11 State Vs. Vikram @ Ravi Page No. 4 of 4
9. The only evidence for which accused was forwarded to the court was that he refused to participate in TIP and he was identified by the accused in PS but complainant denied to have ever seen any accused in PS or anywhere else. In such circumstances, accused Vikram @ Ravi is acquitted of the offence for which he has been charged with.
10. File be consigned to record room after compliance of provisions of 437 CrPC.
11. Jail Superintendent is directed to release the accused from the custody if not wanted in any other case.
Announced in open court (Ankita Singla)
on 06.09.2014 MM(03)/South District/Saket
FIR No. 183/11 State Vs. Vikram @ Ravi