Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak @ Deepu & Anr on 20 March, 2018
State vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Anr
IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT-02), SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Anr
FIR No. 491/15
U/sec. 341/323/354/506/509/34 IPC
PS: Vivek Vihar
Date of institution of the case: 11.02.2016
Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved
Date on which judgment is delivered: 20.03.2018
Unique I. D. No. 2900/16
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 9/16 b) Date of commission of the offence : 01.05.2015 c) Name of the complainant : Name withheld
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : 1. Deepak @ Deepu S/o Sh. Ram Singh
2. Karan Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh Both R/o H.No.115, Gali No.3, Jwala Nagar, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of or proved : Sec. 323/341/354/509/506/34 IPC State vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Anr f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Acquitted h) Date of such order : 20.03.2018
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on the complainant of the complainant, the present FIR Ex.PW1/B was registered at PS Vivek Vihar under sections 354-B/323/506/34 IPC.
During the course of investigation, accused persons namely Deepak @ Deepu and Karan Singh were arrested on 01.06.2015 and 09.06.2015 respectively.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 323/354- B/506/356/511/34 IPC was filed before the court. Consequently, the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. On their appearance in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to them as per norms.
Thereafter, charge under section 323/341/354/506/509/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
With a view to connect the accused persons with the crime, the prosecution has examined only one witness.
PW1/Head Constable Meenu was the Duty Officer, who had recorded the FIR/Ex.PW1/B. She has also proved the DD No. 17-A/Ex.PW1/A. During the course of trial, summons sent to the complainant/victim received back un-served. Thereafter, summons was issued through the SHO and DCP concerned, however, the same also received back un-served. Therefore, she was dropped from State vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Anr the list of witnesses and the PE was closed and request of the learned APP for State to examine all the prosecution witnesses was declined as no useful purpose would be served by examining the rest of the witnesses, who are formal in nature. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that "...In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date..........."
Since there was no incriminating circumstance against the accused persons, recording of his statement under section 313 of the Code was also dispensed with.
I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned APP for State and the learned counsel for the accused and have also perused the records very carefully.
Arguments It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the prosecution has failed to examine the complainant/victim despite availing numerous opportunities and in the absence of the testimony of complainant/victim, there is nothing on record to establish that alleged offence was committed by accused persons. He therefore, requested that the accused persons may be acquitted of the charge leveled against them.
Decision and brief reasons for the same State vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Anr It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence, that the accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution is under legal obligation, to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. At the conclusion of the trial, the prosecution can succeed only on discharging its burden of proving the case against the accused. Strongest of suspicion, does not constitute the proof required. Keeping in view the principle of law laid down in cateena of judgments by the superior courts, now let us see, as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution has cited as many as eight (8) witnesses in the list of witnesses annexed with the charge-sheet. Out of these eight, "P" was the complainant as well as the victim. Rest witnesses are formal in nature and the guilt of the accused persons cannot be proved from their testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident was neither committed in their presence nor it is the case of the prosecution.
However, the complainant/victim could not be examined by the prosecution despite availing numerous opportunities. On every occasion, summons received back un- served. Even the summons upon her could not be served through the office of the DCP concerned.
Only one witness was examined by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. She was the Duty Officer, who has proved the FIR/Ex. PW1/B. No doubt the evidence of PW1/Duty Officer has proved the registration of the FIR but the question still is whether it was the accused who had committed the alleged offence.
I am of the considered opinion that, once the first informant is not examined, even if the First Information Report is proved and exhibited through the Duty Officer, all that can be read from the evidence of the Duty Officer is the fact that FIR was State vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Anr in fact recorded at the date and time mentioned by the Duty Officer in his evidence but the contents of the FIR cannot be used to hold the accused guilty of the charge.
Since the complainant/victim could not be examined despite giving numerous opportunities, nothing could come out on the record to prove the incident or the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged. In the absence of any eye witness account as to how the incident has taken pace, accused persons cannot be fastened with any criminal liability as there is no direct evidence to connect the accused persons with the crime.
Therefore, keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused persons namely Deepak @ Deepu and Karan Singh. Therefore, I give benefit of doubt to the accused and accordingly, the accused persons namely Deepak @ Deepu and Karan Singh are acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
Bail bonds furnished u/sec 437-A of the Code shall remain in force a period of six months from today.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in open Court on 20th day of March, 2018 (Babita Puniya) MM(Mahila Court-02/Shahdara KKD Courts/Delhi 20.03.2018 This judgment contains 5 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Babita Puniya) MM(Mahila Court-02/Shahdara KKD Courts/Delhi 20.03.2018 State vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Anr State vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Anr FIR No. 491/15 U/sec. 341/323/354/506/509/34 IPC PS: Vivek Vihar 20.03.2018 Present: Learned APP for the State Both accused on bail with counsel PW/HC Meenu is examined as PW1 and discharged.
No other PW present today.
Bailable warrants issued against the complainant/victim through the worthy DCP received back un-executed with the report "about two years ago, she performed love marriage and shifted to some un-known place".
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused persons that continuance of the prosecution as against the accused persons would not serve any useful purpose and would be a sheer waste of time as the complainant is reportedly not traceable and rest witnesses are formal in nature.
He, therefore, requested that PE may be closed and the accused persons may be acquitted of the charge leveled against them as nothing incriminating has come on record against him.
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned APP for the State that opportunity may be given to the State to examine all the witnesses.
I have heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel. I have also perused the file very carefully.
State vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Anr The prosecution has cited as many as eight witnesses in the list of witnesses annexed with the charge-sheet. Out of these eight witnesses, "P" was the complainant as well as the victim. Rest witnesses are official witnesses.
As per the reports furnished by the DCP, the complainant has performed love marriage and her present whereabouts are not known. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by examining the rest of the witnesses, who are formal in nature. No prejudice will be caused to the prosecution if the evidence is closed as there are no chances of successful prosecution in view of paucity of evidence to prove the charges.
Therefore, in view of the above, PE stands closed and request the request of the learned APP for the State to examine remaining witnesses is declined. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held as under:
"...In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date..........."
As no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused, recording of the statement of the accused persons under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Code) is also dispensed with.
Final arguments heard. File perused.
State vs. Deepak @ Deepu & Anr Vide separate judgment of even date, accused namely Deepak @ Deepu and Karan Singh are acquitted of the charge leveled against him. Bail bond under section 437-A of the Code furnished. Perused and accepted for a period of six months from today.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
(Babita Puniya) MM(Mahila Court-02/Shahdara KKD Courts/Delhi 20.03.2018