Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj Kumar @ Sonu on 6 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MANISH KHURANA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
OUTER:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
STATE VS. MANOJ KUMAR @ SONU
JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR no. of the case : 02/2011
(b) Police Station : Prashant Vihar
(c) The date of commission of offence : 01.01.2011
(d) The name of complainant : Deepti Sharma,
w/o Mohit Shukla,
(e) The name of accused : Manoj Kumar @ Sonu,
S/o Sh. Ranjeet Mishra,
R/o H. No. 394,
Village Rithala, Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 379/356 IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
(g) Date of Institution : 25.04.2011
(h) The date on which
judgment was reserved : 06.07.2012
State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Sonu page 1
of 8
(i) The final order : Acquitted
(j) The date of such order : 06.07.2012
(k) The Unique Identification Number : 02404R0110522011
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision: 1 The prosecution story in brief is that on 01.01.2011 at about 1:45/2 pm at Sports Complex, Near Sector9, Rohini, accused Manoj along with his associate Raju (not arrested) used criminal force against the complainant Smt. Deepti Sharma in snatching her purse containing two mobiles, one Titan Watch, credit and debit cards (HDFC, American Express, ICICI Bank and PNB), PAN Card, DL, cash amount of Rs. 750, office access card, office documents, keys and other valuable items and the accused was arrested and chargesheeted for the offence u/s 356/379 IPC.
2 The matter was investigated by the police and a charge sheet U/s 356/379/411 IPC was filed against the accused. In this case, the complainant failed to identify the case property during the TIP proceedings.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Sonu page 2
of 8
3 From the material on record, charge u/s 356/379 IPC was
framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and four witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
5 PW1 HC Ashish Kumar deposed that on 01.01.2000, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Prashant Vihar and registered the FIR of the present case Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that on 09.04.2011, present case was marked to him for further investigation. He got conducted the TIP of the case property and prepared the challan and filed in the court through SHO. 6 PW1 was not crossexamined by accused.
7 PW2 complainant Deepti Sharma deposed that on 01.01.2011 at about 1 pm, he along with his mother was going to market of Sector7, Rohini in rickshaw and when they were going towards Sai Baba Chowk, two persons came on motorcycle and snatched her purse. She could not note down the number of vehicle. She also deposed that State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Sonu page 3 of 8 her purse contained his two mobile phones make Nokia bearing no. 9899788049 and 971883288, debit and credit card, one watch, keys and other valuable items. Thereafter, she made a call at number 100. Police came at the spot and thereafter, she went to PS and got recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A. She could not identify the accused in the court and Ld. APP sought permission to crossexamine the witness as she was found resiling from her previous statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the police and during her crossexamination by Ld. APP, PW2 admitted that the incident took place at about 1:45 pm and two persons came on motorcycle and they were between the age of 2025 years. She admitted that she had mentioned in her complaint Ex.PW2/A that she could identify the accused persons if shown to her. Her statement Mark X was also read over to her but she denied having made any such statement to the police. She denied the suggestion that she had been won over by the accused and for this reason, she was not identifying the accused. She also denied the suggestion that she was not identifying the accused because she wanted to withdraw this case as she had to come to the court and also had to take leave to attend the court. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely. She was read over her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the police but she denied to have made any such statement.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Sonu page 4
of 8
8 PW2 was not crossexamined by accused despite opportunity.
9 PW3 Ct. Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 26.02.2010, he was
posted at Special Staff Outer District, Delhi. On that day, HC Surender Kumar received secret information and accordingly, a raiding party was prepared consisting of HC Surender Kumar, HC Rishi, HC Satish, Ct. Hari Chand and him. On that day at about 7.30 am on service road near Shamshan Ghat, Sector3, Rohini at the pointing out of informer accused was apprehended while he was coming on a Pulsar Motorcycle without number plate and accused was apprehended whose name was revealed as Manoj Kumar and the accused was interrogated and he disclosed that the motorcycle was stolen by him alongwith his accomplice Raju and accordingly accused Manoj was arrested u/s 41(1)(d) Cr. PC. and the motorcycle was seized and accused led them to his residence i.e. H. No. 394, Village Rithala, Delhi and got recovered from Almirah one ladies hand bag which upon checking was found containing one ladies Titan Watch and IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. Accused also made his disclosure statement disclosing his involvement in number of cases and the same is Ex. PW3/B bearing his signatures at point A. State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Sonu page 5 of 8 10 During crossexamination by the accused, PW3 denied that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. He also did not know if the said recovered bag was identified by the complainant during the course of investigation in this case.
11 PW4 Ct. Upender deposed that on 01.01.2011, he was on duty at PS Prashant Vihar and on that day, on receipt of DD No. 36B, he along with HC Ram Niwas went to the place of occurrence at Sports Complex, near Sector9, Rohini where they met complainant Deepti Sharma who made a statement to the IO and IO prepared rukka and got registered the FIR through him. IO tried to search the accused but he could not be traced and IO recorded his statement. 12 PW4 was not crossexamined by the accused. 13 Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused and accused pleaded his innocence. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.
14 I have given a considered thought to the rival submissions made by Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for accused keeping in view the State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Sonu page 6 of 8 material available on the judicial file.
15 It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of the criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial files prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot drive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness if any in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial through out the trial is on the prosecution and its never shifts to the accused and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubts entitles the accused to acquittal.
16 In this case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused, however, the complainant who is also the star witness of the prosecution and the victim i.e. PW2 Deepti Sharma has not supported the case of the prosecution and she could not identify the accused in the court. During her crossexamination by Ld. APP, PW2 denied that she had been won over by the accused or that she was deposing falsely. Complainant categorically denied her statement u/s 161 State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Sonu page 7 of 8 Cr.P.C. recorded by the police and she stated that no such statement was given by her to the police. Further, it is pertinent to mention that during TIP proceedings, the complainant also could not identify the case property allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused. All the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal in nature and are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 17 The prosecution has failed to establish that accused Manoj Kumar @ Sonu used criminal force against the complainant Deepti Sharma and snatched her purse containing valuable articles. 18 Hence in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The accused Manoj Kumar @ Sonu is accordingly acquitted for the offence u/s 356/379 IPC.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 07th day of July, 2012 (MANISH KHURANA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS : DELHI State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Sonu page 8 of 8