Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/183/2006 on 18 January, 2012
S/v Ajay Kumar & Rishi Kumar
FIR No. 183/06
PS: Model Town
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
S/v Ajay Kumar & Rishi Kumar
FIR No. 183/06
PS: Model Town
U/S 356/379/34 IPC
C/No. 151/06
U.ID NO. 02404R0476582006
JUDGMENT:
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 151/06
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.06.2006
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 31.01.2006
D. NAME OF THE : Smt. Kashmiro Singh
COMPLAINANT W/o Sh. Rishpal Singh
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : (1) Rishi Kumar
S/o Sh. Kailash Singh
: (2) Ajay Kumar
Sh. Kanhiya Lal
F. OFFENCE COMPLAINED
OF : U/s 356/379/34 IPC
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquitted
I DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 18.01.2012
U.ID No. 02404R0476582006 Page No. 1
S/v Ajay Kumar & Rishi Kumar
FIR No. 183/06
PS: Model Town
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision:
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution and as unfolded from the chargesheet are that on 31.03.2006 at about 01.10 pm near the crossing at Chabra General Store, G3/77, Model TownIII, Delhi both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, snatched / stole a gold chain along with locket measuring three tolas of the complainant namely Mrs. Kashmiro Singh and also used criminal force against the complainant in committing theft of the gold chain which was worn by her around her neck. During investigation, the accused persons were arrested on the basis of their disclosure statements. However, stolen chain and the locket were not recovered. During TIP proceedings, the accused persons refused to participate in the same stating that they have already been shown to the witness. Therefore, adverse inference was taken against them and on conclusion of investigation, the present challan against both the accused pesons U/s 356/379/34 IPC was filed in the court.
2. In compliance of Section 207 Cr. P. C., the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to both the accused persons. Prima facie charge u/s 356/379/34 IPC was made out against both the accused persons namely Rishi Kumar and Ajay Kumar. Accordingly, on 05.06.2007 the charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution only examined two witnesses. PW1 Smt. Kashmiro Singh is the complainant and she has proved her complaint as Ex.PW1/A. She has deposed on oath that on 25.03.06 at about 01.15 pm near Chhabara Kirana Store , CBlock, Model Town, two persons on a motorcycle snatched the gold chain along with a locket that she was wearing. However, in her testimony she has deposed that she cannot identify the accused persons to be the perpetrator of the present offence. Thereafter, she was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for U.ID No. 02404R0476582006 Page No. 2 S/v Ajay Kumar & Rishi Kumar FIR No. 183/06 PS: Model Town the State but despite that nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from her testimony as she persisted that she cannot identify the accused persons.
4. PW2 Ct. Rakesh Kumar has deposed that on 31.03.2006 on receipt of DD no. 13A regarding chain snatching, he along with IO / SI Ishwar Singh went to the spot i.e. G3/77, Model TownIII where they met the complainant Smt. Kashmiro Singh. He has further deposed that IO recorded her statement and thereafter, he took the rukka to PS for getting the FIR registered.
5. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that complainant / PW1 Smt. Kashmiro Singh is the sole eyewitness to the incident of chain snatching. However, she has failed to identify the accused persons to be the culprits in the present case. The remaining witnesses are admittedly formal witnesses who were not likely to substantiate the prosecution version regarding the present offence committed by the accused persons as it is not denied that the stolen property was not recovered from the possession of the accused persons. Thus, their examination would have been a futile exercise. Hence, PE was closed.
6. In the instant case, there was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, therefore, their respective statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were dispensed with. Therefore, the case was listed for final argument.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons. I have carefully perused the case file.
8. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
9. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients as mentioned U/s 356/379/34 IPC:
(i) That subjectmatter of the offence is movable property;
(ii) it was moved out of the possession of any person without his U.ID No. 02404R0476582006 Page No. 3 S/v Ajay Kumar & Rishi Kumar FIR No. 183/06 PS: Model Town consent;
(iii) The accused did it with a dishonest intention; and
(iv) The accused used criminal force on the complainant with an intention to move the movable property.
10. In the instant case the prosecution has examined two witnesses and out of them PW1 / complainant Smt. Kashmiro Singh is the most important and vital witness being the sole eyewitness to the incident. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the stolen property / chain was not recovered. Therefore, the only allegations in the instant case against the accused persons are in respect of the offences u/s 356/379 IPC. The identity of the accused in a criminal trial is of paramount importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability, unless his identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt. The complainant / PW1 Smt. Kashmiro Singh has failed to identify the accused persons to be the perpetrator of the present offences. She was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State but despite that nothing incriminating against the accused persons could be extracted from her testimony. The prosecution through the testimony of PW1 / complainant Smt. Kashmiro Singh has proved the incident of chain snatching of the complainant beyond any reasonable doubt. However, the identity of the accused persons has not been established. Thus, merely by establishing the incident, the accused persons cannot be convicted unless they are identified to be the culprits of the said offences.
11. Even as per the story of the prosecution, the only witness who could have identified the accused persons is the complainant. But in the instant case she has not identified either of the accused person. The respective disclosure statements of the accused persons is not admissible in evidence as they are barred u/s 25/26 of Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, there is not even an iota of incriminating evidence on record against either of the accused person to convict them for the offences u/s 356/379/34 IPC. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the onus placed upon it and accordingly, both the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
U.ID No. 02404R0476582006 Page No. 4S/v Ajay Kumar & Rishi Kumar FIR No. 183/06 PS: Model Town
12. In view of the above discussion, both the accused persons namely Rishi Kumar and Ajay Kumar are acquitted for the offence U/s 356/379/34 IPC. Bail bonds are canceled and sureties be discharged. Original documents, if any, be returned to the persons entitled, after canceling the endorsement, if any, on the said documents. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open open court (DHEERAJ MOR)
today i.e. on 18.01.2011 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ROHINI COURTS/DELHI
U.ID No. 02404R0476582006 Page No. 5