Delhi District Court
State vs ] Sanjay @ Paras on 15 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, MM-03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI CNR No. : DLSW02-001492-2020 FIR No. : 908/19 U/s : 356/379/411 IPC P.S. : Bindapur State versus] Sanjay @ Paras a) ID. No. of the Case : 270/2020 b) Name & address of the : Smt. Divya complainant W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Trivedi R/o H.No.D-50, Gulab Masjid Wali Gali, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. c) Name & address of : Sanjay @ Paras accused person. S/o Sh. Shiv Charan R/o H.No. Z-314, Gali No. 6, Deepk Vihar Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. d) Date of Commission of : 09.11.2019 offence State v/s Sanjay @ Paras Page 1 of 7 Cr. Case No. 270/2020 e) Offence complained of : 356/379/411 IPC f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final Order : Acquitted h) Date of Institution : 10.01.2020 i) Judgment Pronounced on : 15.10.2022 JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. The prosecution version in brief is that on 09-10.11.2019 at around 09:30 PM, complainant Divya was returning to her home along with her husband via Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar and when they reached near Gulati Chemist Shop, Vani Vihar, one boy came on a motorcycle and snatched her purse which contained one mobile phone, her aadhar card, voter ID card and cash to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-. Later on, they got to know that one snatcher namely Sanjay (accused) was caught at Arya Samaj Road. When they reached there, the complainant identified the snatcher as well as the motorcycle. Upon his personal search, complainant's voter ID, aadhar card and cash of Rs. 1,000/- was recovered. Her husband called the police. An FIR bearing no. 908/19 u/s 356/379/411 IPC PS State v/s Sanjay @ Paras Page 2 of 7 Cr. Case No. 270/2020 Bindapur was registered. The investigation of the case was handed over to the Investigating Officer SI Jagdish.
Proceedings before the Court
2. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet u/s 379/356/411 IPC was filed against accused Sanjay @ Paras. After taking cognizance of the offences, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet along with documents was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under sections 356/379/411 IPC was framed against accused Sanjay @ Paras, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, vide separate statement of the complainant as well as accused, offences u/s 379/411 IPC were compounded and accused Sanjay @ Paras was thus, acquitted of the offences u/s 379/411 IPC vide order dated 19.09.2022. Trial thereafter continued qua the offence u/s 356 IPC against the accused.
5. Prosecution examined two witnesses, i.e., Divya (complainant) as PW-1 and one Rajesh as PW-2. PW-1 has deposed that on 09-10.11.2019 at around 09:30 PM, she was returning to her home along with her husband via Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar and when they reached State v/s Sanjay @ Paras Page 3 of 7 Cr. Case No. 270/2020 near Gulati Chemist Shop, Vani Vihar, one boy came on a motorcycle and snatched her purse which contained one mobile phone, her aadhar card, her voter ID card and cash to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-. Her husband called the police, and her (the complainant's) statement (Ex. PW1/A) was recorded by the IO. She further stated that she had neither seen the accused nor noted the registration number of the motorcycle. She failed to identify the accused. The witness was thereafter declared hostile at the request of Ld. APP for the State. Ld. APP for the State had thereafter cross- examined the witness, however, despite the cross- examination, she failed to recognize the accused. Ld. Defence counsel did not cross-examine the said witness despite being given an opportunity to do so.
6. PW-2 Rajesh Kumar Trivedi had deposed that on 09- 10.11.2019 at around 09:30 PM, he along with his wife namely Smt. Divya (the complainant) were returning to their home and when they reached near Gulati Chemist Shop, Vani Vihar, one boy came on a motorcycle and snatched his wife's purse which contained one mobile phone, her aadhar card, her voter ID card and cash to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-. He thereafter called the police. He further stated that case property was not recovered from the accused in his presence. The witness was thereafter declared hostile at the request of Ld. APP for the State. Ld. APP for the State had thereafter cross-examined the witness, however, despite the cross-examination, nothing State v/s Sanjay @ Paras Page 4 of 7 Cr. Case No. 270/2020 beneficial emerged out of the same. Ld. Defence counsel did not cross-examine the said witness despite being given an opportunity to do so.
7. Since PW-1, the complainant as well as PW-2 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Trivedi, who was an eye-witness to the incident had turned hostile, and other witnesses cited by the prosecution were formal witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 19.09.2022. Statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with since nothing incriminating had appeared on record against him. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
8. It is argued by Sh. Manish Kaushik, Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has proved its case as the evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offences charged against the accused.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that the main witnesses, i.e., the complainant and eye-witness Sh. Rajesh Kumar Trivedi, have turned hostile and nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused be acquitted for the offence charged.
10. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter.
State v/s Sanjay @ Paras Page 5 of 7 Cr. Case No. 270/2020Findings of the Court
11. It is well settled that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Perusal of the statement of PW-1, i.e., the complainant and the eye-witness PW-2 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Trivedi, who are the main witnesses of the prosecution reveals that they were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution version. The complainant also stated that she cannot identify the accused and PW-2 stated that the case property was not recovered in his presence. Though it is a settled law that evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded completely as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, however, in the present case, as stated earlier, the complainant as well as the eye-witness did not support the prosecution version. The complainant had failed to identify the accused and PW-2 stated that case property was not recovered in his presence. Despite their cross- examination by the Ld. APP for the State, nothing beneficial to the prosecution has emerged out of the same. Thus, in the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution at all.
State v/s Sanjay @ Paras Page 6 of 7 Cr. Case No. 270/202013. Thus, in the opinion of this court, there is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence and to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The accused Sanjay @ Paras is, therefore, hereby acquitted of the offence charged, i.e., u/s 356 IPC.
15. This judgment contains seven pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
16. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
Digitally
signed by
Deeksha
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Deeksha Sethi
Sethi Date:
TODAY, i.e., ON 15.10.2022 2022.10.15
16:32:33
+0530
Deeksha Sethi
Metropolitan Magistrate-03
South-West District/New Delhi
15.10.2022
State v/s Sanjay @ Paras Page 7 of 7
Cr. Case No. 270/2020