Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Rohid @ Hasim on 27 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03
(SOUTHEAST), DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms.Akanksha Garg
State vs. Mohd. Rohid @ Hasim
FIR No.02/2019
Police Station : Hazrat Nizamuddin
Under Section : 379/411 IPC
Date of institution : 10.05.2019
Date of reserving : 27.05.2023.
Date of pronouncement: : 27.05.2023
JUDGMENT
a) Cr Cases Number : 19634/2019
b) Date of commission of : 03.01.2019
offence
c) Name of the complainant : Dalip Paswan
d) Name, parentage and : Mohd Rohid@ Hasim
address of the accused S/o Sh. Mohd. Sameer
R/o H.NO.858,Gali no.26 Jafrabad
Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : 379/411 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of final order : 27.05.2023
State v. Mohd. Rohid @ Hasim FIR No.02/2019 P.S.: H.N.Din Page 1 of 5
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, the accused namely Mohd. Rohid@ Hasim is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') in the instant case, Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 03.01.2019 at about 6.00PM inside bus at bus stand Mathura Road, Dargah Nizamuddin within jurisdiction of PS H.N.Din, New Delhi, accused committed theft of a mobile phone make MI A5 Golden colour having IMEI No.868684040945620 belonging to complainant Sh. Dalip Paswan and found in possession of stolen mobile phone which he has dishonestly retained in his possession, knowingly or having reasons to believe that it to be a stolen property and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.379/ 411 IPC.
CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED
3. Vide order dated 16.03.2020, charge for the offence punishable under Section 379/411 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
4. The complainant Dalip Pawan and PW Raju are star witnesses of the incident. However, summons issued to them were received back with the report that they were not traceable. The said witnesses have remained untraceable, despite several sufficient opportunities afforded to the prosecution. They were even summoned through IO/SHO and DCPSouth East, but it also yielded no fruitful results. The remaining witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses, who are State v. Mohd. Rohid @ Hasim FIR No.02/2019 P.S.: H.N.Din Page 2 of 5 admittedly not the eyewitness to the incident and thus, their testimonies were not likely to substantiate the culpability of the accused. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would have been served by examination of the said witnesses. Hence, PE was closed.
5. Prosecution evidence has been closed vide detailed order of even date. Examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. The submissions of Ld. APP and learned counsel for the accused have been heard and considered. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and prosecution has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. PW Dalip Paswan and Raju who were the star witness of the prosecution and could have identified the accused and the case property have failed to depose about the facts of the case as the prosecution failed to secure their presence before this court as they remained unserved through the DCP concerned. This court is of the opinion that prosecution shall stand on its own leg and merely by raising the presumption, the case of the prosecution can not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Therefore, no admissible incriminating evidence against the accused in respect of the offence punishable U/s 379/411 IPC have come on record. Hence, his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with. Support is drawn from the State v. Mohd. Rohid @ Hasim FIR No.02/2019 P.S.: H.N.Din Page 3 of 5 law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr."(1996 JCC 507), wherein it has been held that:
"When 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 procedures to pronounce the conclusion on the future date."
8. In a criminal trial, the identity of the accused and the case property is of utmost importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability, unless the identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt. In the facts of the given case, the identity of the accused and the case property could only be established by the complainant who was the only eyewitness to the alleged incident. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature and the identity cannot be established from their testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident was neither committed in their presence nor it is the case of the prosecution.
9. The prosecution has a duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no duty on an accused to purge him of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused is given the benefit of the doubt. A Court cannot draw an inference of guilt from mere suspicion. Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot take the place of legal proof.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under: "6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved, and something that `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how State v. Mohd. Rohid @ Hasim FIR No.02/2019 P.S.: H.N.Din Page 4 of 5 strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof."
11. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Accordingly, the accused acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 379/ 411 IPC. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 27.05.2023. Digitally signed by AKANKSHA AKANKSHA GARG GARG (AKANKSHA GARG) Date: 2023.05.27 15:38:24 +0530 Metropolitan Magistrate03 (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi 27.05.2023 State v. Mohd. Rohid @ Hasim FIR No.02/2019 P.S.: H.N.Din Page 5 of 5