Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu on 5 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJANI RANGA, CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURT:DELHI
State Vs. Sonu
FIR No. 631/2015
PS: Ashok Vihar
Unique Case Identification No. DLNW02-014354-2019
JUDGMENT
(a) Sr. No. of the case 2941/2019 (b) Date of offences 20.11.2015 (c) Complainant Sh. Gulshan Rai Jain (d) Accused Sonu S/o Sh. Chhote Lal, R/o WP-209,
Wazirpur Village, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
(e) Offence Under Section 457/380/511 IPC
(f) Plea of accused person Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final Order Acquittal
(h) Date of institution 25.05.2019
(i) Date when judgment wasNot Reserved
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 05.08.2024
FIR No. 631/15 State Vs. Sonu Page 1 of 9
Digitally
signed by
RAJANI
RAJANI RANGA
RANGA Date:
2024.08.05
17:11:54
+0530
CJM/NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi
1. Vide this judgment; I shall decide the final outcome in the FIR No. 631/2015, registered at Police Station: Ashok Vihar, on 21/11/2015, wherein alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 457/380/511 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (shall be referred to as 'IPC' in short).
PROSECUTION CASE
2. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.11.2015, at around 11:30 PM, at House no. A-158, First Floor, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS:Ashok Vihar, accused person, namely, Sonu, committed the house trespass as well as attempted to commit theft of articles from the said house belonging to the Complainant, namely, Shri Gulshan Rai Jain. The accused entered into the house of the complainant and on waking up of the complainant as well his wife and shouting, the accused jumped down as well as got injured. The Complainant reported the same to the Police at number 100. The PCR Official arrived at the spot and took the person fell down to the Hospital. Statement of the Complainant was recorded and on the basis of the same, instant FIR was registered. That person was arrested at the instance of the Complainant on the next day.. Investigation was conducted and upon its completion, charge-sheet was filed in the Court on 25.05.2019 against the accused for the alleged FIR No. 631/15 State Vs. Sonu Page 2 of 9 Digitally signed RAJANI by RAJANI RANGA RANGA Date:
2024.08.05 17:12:01 +0530 CJM/NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi commission of the offences punishable under Sections 457/380/511 IPC. Cognizance of the offences was taken on the same day.
CHARGE
3. On 01.02.2020, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 380/457/511 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Therefore, further proceedings were carried out to record the evidence of the prosecution.
WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION/ CLOUSER OF PE/DE
4. The Shri Gulshan Rai Jain and Smt. Usha Jain were examined as PW1 and PW2. They both resiled from their previous statements marked PW1/A and Mark Y respectively, claimed to be recorded during investigation, did not testify anything incriminating against the accused person and had failed to identify the accused person. Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Satish Mehra V. Delhi Administration & Another, (1996) 9 SCC 766, that "When the Judge is fairly certain that 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 procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date.", examination of other witnesses was dispensed with as no purpose would have been served by examining them FIR No. 631/15 State Vs. Sonu Page 3 of 9 Digitally signed by RAJANI RAJANI RANGA Date: RANGA 2024.08.05 17:12:14 +0530 CJM/NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi as Prosecution would not have been able to prove the guilt of all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt even if they would have been examined as the prime witness/Complainant/PW1, being the complainant as well as the victim, and PW2 had resiled from their respective previous statements. Further, as no incriminating evidence came on record against the accused person, recording of statement of the accused person in terms of Section 313 CrPC was dispensed with. Defense evidence was also closed as accused opted not lead evidence in defense.
FINAL SUBMISSIONS
5. The learned APP for the State fairly submitted that the prime witnesses PW1/Sh. Gulshan Rai Jain and PW2/Smt. Usha Jain have not supported the case of Prosecution and case may be decided on the basis of the material available on record.
The learned LADC for the accused person, in crux, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused person. According to him, there is absolutely no material on record against the accused person to convict him as the PW1 and PW2 have not supported its case. The learned LADC for the accused person has pleaded for the acquittal of the accused person.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE FIR No. 631/15 State Vs. Sonu Page 4 of 9 Digitally signed by RAJANI RAJANI RANGA RANGA Date:
2024.08.05 17:12:22 +0530 CJM/NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi
6. Before I proceed with the adjudicatory evaluation of material available on record and comment upon the merits, I deem it appropriate to take on record the brief testimony of the prosecution witness.
7. As testified by the PW1/Sh. Gulshan Rai Jain, on the date of alleged incident, he and his wife were sleeping in the bedroom on the first floor of his said house and at around 11:30 PM, one unknown person entered into his bedroom. His wife/PW2 woke up and saw that unknown person/accused carrying a brief case and was searching in the room. His wife/PW2 shouted "chor-chor" and he also woke up. On seeing that person, he also shouted chor-chor. The said person jumped down from the first floor of his house and fell down after getting struck against the grill and sustained injuries on his head. He could not identify the accused person due to passage of long time. No theft was committed in his house but only an attempt was made. He did not want to pursue this case.
With the permission of the Court, the Ld. APP for State put leading question to him as he did not disclose the complete true facts. He admitted that he phoned at number 100 and that PCR Van reached at the spot. He/PW1 denied that the IO recorded his statement, Ex.PW1/A. He specifically denied that the accused Sonu entered into his bedroom, that he picked up a briefcase from the room of his son, that he was searching in his FIR No. 631/15 State Vs. Sonu Page 5 of 9 Digitally signed by RAJANI RAJANI RANGA Date: RANGA 2024.08.05 17:12:29 +0530 CJM/NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi bedroom, that Police Officials took the accused Sonu from his house to the Hospital as he sustained injuries, that accused Sonu was arrested on his identification vide arrest memo, Ex.PW1/B. He volunteered to state that he did not go to the police station and was confronted with the statement Mark X claimed to be his statement recorded in terms of section 161 CrPC wherein it was found so recorded. He failed to identify the accused person who was present in the Court even on his attention drawn specifically towards him and volunteered to state that he saw him for first time in the Court that day.
During his cross-examination by the learned Legal Aid Defense Counsel representing the accused, he stated that accused Sonu did not enter into his room for committing theft.
8. Smt. Usha Jain, wife of the Complainant/PW1, as PW2 also deposed in the same line as deposed by the PW1 regarding the alleged incident and even she stated that she could not identify the person who entered into her house.
With the permission of the Court, the Ld. APP for State put leading question to her also as she did not disclose the complete true facts. She also denied that the IO recorded her statement Mark Y, that accused Sonu entered into her bedroom, that he picked up a briefcase from the room of her son, that he was taking search of her bedroom and that Police FIR No. 631/15 State Vs. Sonu Page 6 of 9 Digitally signed by RAJANI RAJANI RANGA RANGA Date:
2024.08.05 17:12:37 +0530 CJM/NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi Officials took the accused Sonu from her house to the Hospital as he had sustained injuries. She also failed to identify the accused person who was present in the Court even on her attention drawn specifically towards him and volunteered to state that she also saw him for first time in the Court that day.
During her cross-examination by the learned Legal Aid Defense Counsel representing the accused, she stated that accused Sonu did not enter into her room for committing theft.
EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE AND BRIEF OF REASON FOR DECISION.
9. It is pertinent to note that the Prosecution is required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person had committed the offence of which he faced the trial.
10.As per the case of the Prosecution, the Complainant and his wife are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. However, they both examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively did not support the case of the Prosecution and resiled from their previous statements wherein they stated the accused person as the perpetrator of the crime involved. What come out from their testimony is that some person did trespass their house, however, the FIR No. 631/15 State Vs. Sonu Page 7 of 9 Digitally signed by RAJANI RAJANI RANGA RANGA Date:
2024.08.05 17:12:44 +0530 CJM/NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi accused is not that person/perpetrator of the crime as testified by them. They both were also put leading questions by the learned APP for the State. However, nothing incriminating could be elicited from their mouth which could establish the identity of the accused person as the perpetrator of the crime beyond reasonable doubt or prove the guilt of the accused person of which he faced the trial beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the prime witnesses, PW1 and PW2, have not supported the case of the Prosecution that the accused committed the crime of which he faced the trial which is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. It was the obligation on the Prosecution to establish the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime beyond reasonable doubt which it has failed to discharge.
11.It is cardinal principle of law 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 case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. It is apt to refer to the following observation in the case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55:
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from FIR No. 631/15 State Vs. Sonu Page 8 of 9 Digitally signed by RAJANI RAJANI RANGA RANGA Date:
2024.08.05 17:12:52 +0530 CJM/NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
CONCLUSION
12.In view of the above examination of the material available on record and observation that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused, the accused person, namely, Sonu, is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 457/380/511 IPC of which he faced the trial.
13.Bonds accepted in terms of provision of section 437A Cr.P.C, 1973, shall remain in force for six months from today.
Announced in the open Court Digitally signed by RAJANI today i.e. on 05.08.2024.
RAJANI RANGA
RANGA Date:
2024.08.05
17:13:01
+0530
(RAJANI RANGA)
CJM/North-West, Rohini Courts, DELHI 05.08.2024 FIR No. 631/15 State Vs. Sonu Page 9 of 9 Digitally signed by RAJANI RAJANI RANGA RANGA Date:
2024.08.05 17:13:19 +0530 CJM/NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi