Delhi District Court
State vs . Ved Prakash & Ors. on 7 February, 2023
THE COURT OF MS CHAKITA SRIVASTAVA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -01(SHAHDARA), KKD
COURTS DELHI
Cr. Cases 85944/2016
FIR No. 138/2015
PS GTB Enclave
State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors.
ID No. DLSH02-000414-2016
Date of commission of offence 18.02.2015
Date of institution of the case 20.01.2016
Name of the complainant Neeraj Pal
Name of accused and address (i) Ved Prakash
S/o Sh. Manbir Singh
already acquitted vide order
dated 23.11.2022
(ii) Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Ganga Ram
already acquitted vide order
dated 23.11.2022
(iii) Vikas Kumar
S/o Sh. Munish Kumar
R/o C-1/111-112, Nand Nagri,
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved 356/379/34 IPC against
accused Vikas
Plea of the accused Not guilty
Final order Acquitted
Date of judgment 07.02.2023
FIR No. 138/2015 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page No.1 of 5
JUDGMENT
1. The factual background of the present case as per the FIR on 18.09.2015 at atbout 11:50 a.m. at near Chacha Sweets Janta Flat, GTB Enclave, the accused Vikas Kumar alongwith co- accused Sajid in furtherance of common intention had snatched the mobile phone make of Oplux XON -5 Silver colour belonging to the complainant Neeraj Pal and has committed an offence u/s 356/379/34 IPC.
2. On 01.07.2019 the charge U/sec 356/379/34 of IPC was framed against accused Vikas Kumar, the charge was read over and explained to the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case the prosecution has adduced as many as four witnesses to prove the case. In this case, the statement of the accused Vikas Kumar was framed on 01.12.20222 and submitted that he did not want to lead DE.
EVIDENCES
3. Only the examination of important Pws are being reproduced herein in brief. The same are as follows:-
PW1 had stated that on 03.04.2015, he had joined the investigation in the present case alongwith HC Lalit and Ct. Pradeep and HC Ved Prakash. Accused Ved Prakash (acquitted) had produced one mobile phone Oplux XON -5 of Silver colour which was given to him by Manoj R/o C-1/111. Thereafter, accused Manoj (acquitted) was taken into custody and he had stated that he was given the mobile phone by accused Vikas.
FIR No. 138/2015 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page No.2 of 5 Thereafter, accused Vikas was arrested at the instance of accused Manoj (acquitted). Thereafter, all the accused persons were arrested and personally searched. Their disclosure statement was recorded. The witness has correctly identified the case property and the SIM cards.
PW2 Ct. Pradeep and PW3 HC Ved Prakash had stated in the similar lines as PW1.
PW 4 had stated that in the month of February or March 2015, he was outside his house near Shriram Sweets and he was talking on the mobile phone while walking, his mobile phone Oplux XON -5 of Silver colour was snatched by the pillion rider of the motorcycle and who had fled away. He further submitted that he was not sure of the colour of the motorcycle and thereafter, he alongwith his brother went to the PS and made a complaint. After around two weeks, he got a phone call from PS stating that they had recovered his phone and he was called to the PS for panchnama. He was asked to identify his mobile phone. The police told that the culprits who snatched the mobile phone had been caught and whether he can identify them upon which he told to the police that he had not seen the snatchers as both of them were wearing helmet at the time of commission of the offence. He was asked to identify the motorcycle but he was unable to identify the same. Thereafter, he received his mobile phone.
FIR No. 138/2015 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page No.3 of 5 POINT OF DETERMINATION
4. Whether the accused Vikas Kumar in furtherance of common intention had snatched the mobile phone of the complainant and thereby committed an offence u/s 356/379/34 of IPC?
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION FOR ACCUSED VIKAS KUMAR
5. The main and prime witness in the present case i.e. PW4 Neeraj Pal had stated that he could not identify the accused persons who had snatched his mobile phone as they were wearing the helmet at the time of commission of offence and he had further submitted that he cannot identify the motorcycle on which the accused person had came and committed the offence.
DECISION ON DETERMINATION
6. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredients of the offence beyond any doubt unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, and it always rests on the prosecution.
7. In light of the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that the prosecution witness PW4 has failed to identify the accused person and shoulder the burden of proving the guilt of the accused Vikas Kumar beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 138/2015 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page No.4 of 5 ORDER
8. Considering the discussions made above and after much deliberation, it can be safely presumed that the prosecution has failed to drive home the guilt of the accused Vikas Kumar and he is hereby acquitted of the offences under sections 356/379/34 of Indian Penal Code and set at liberty forthwith, subject to furnishing bail bonds U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. Original case property be returned to the rightful claimant. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement if any stands cancelled.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on dated: 07.02.2023 (Chakita Srivastava) Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (SHD) Karkardooma Court/Delhi FIR No. 138/2015 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page No.5 of 5