Delhi District Court
State vs Santosh on 15 September, 2023
0IN THE COURT OF VINOD KUMAR:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 03 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Santosh
FIR No : 259/2021
U/s : 380/511 IPC
P.S. : Rajinder Nagar
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 1763/2022 2. Date of commission of offence : 03.10.2021 3. Date of institution of the case : 15.02.2023 4. Name of the complainant : Vijay Kumar 5. Name of accused, parentage & : Santosh S/o Pancha Nath Sharma 6. Offense complained or proved : 380/511 IPC 7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Date on which order was reserved : 14.09.2023 9. Final order : Acquittal 10. Date of final order : 15.09.2023 1 The accused is facing trial for offences u/s 380/511 IPC. The genesis of the
prosecution story is that on 03.10.2021 at about 11:15 am at House no. 4/43, First Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction PS. Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, accused was apprehended while attempting the theft in the aforesaid house of complainant Vijay Kumar which was used for human dwelling and for the purpose of custody of property. Pursuant to complaint made by the complainant, the criminal law was set into motion vide registration of case FIR against the accused. After registration of the FIR, the investigation began and after completion of same, the chargesheet was filed for trial of accused for the alleged offences.
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Court and on the basis of material available on record, charges for offences u/s 380/511 IPC were framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 259/2021, PS Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Santosh 1/6
VINOD Digitally signed by
VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2023.09.15
17:14:43 +0530
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined five witnesses in all. After prosecution evidence, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
4. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the alleged offences.
5. Per contra, Ld. LAC for accused has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant and police agency has acted in connivance with the complainant. It is also contended that the police has failed to join the public persons during investigation except the complainant and the case is self-explanatory that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case as the complainant turned hostile during his examination and never stated anything against the accused. With these submissions, prayer has been made for acquittal of accused in the present case.
6. Prior to delving into the merits of contentions advanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material witnesses in brief. 6.1 PW1/Complainant Vijay Kumar deposed that on that day, the main door of his house was closed but the net of outer door was already broken and the main door can be opened through the space of broken net and, his wife told that there was someone inside the house and she immediately get up from the bed but she had not found anyone inside the room and he was called by the police and he visited the same and the police shown him a person and told that they have apprehended that person who had entered in his house with intend to commit theft and police obtained his signatures on some written and blank papers which he signed at the instance of Police without going through the same and he had not known the person who entered in his house and he had not known the accused present.
FIR No. 259/2021, PS Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Santosh 2/6
VINOD Digitally signed by
VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2023.09.15
17:14:49 +0530
During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the state he deposed that statement/rukka was shown to witness and witness correctly identified his signature at point A. He denied the suggestion that he had seen the accused in his house and when he raised noise, he started run away on stairs and he apprehended him whose named revealed Santosh and he had done wooden work in his house with his father and he was attempting to commit theft in his house and he told these facts to the police in his statement. He denied the suggestion that they informed to the police, Police arrived, arrested the accused and inspected the site and he told these facts to the police in his statement. He denied the suggestion that the accused Santosh had attempted to commit theft in his house or that he had settled the matter with the accused and being won over by him and he was not identifying the accused intentionally or deliberately or that he was deposing falsely.
During cross-examination by Ld. LAC for the accused persons he deposed that he had not seen the accused in his house.
6.2 PW2/HC Narender deposed that on that day, PW-3 HC Hotam Singh presented him rukka for registration of the FIR, which was sent by PW-5 ASI Raj Kumar and the FIR was registered to the offences under Section 380/511 IPC and after registration of FIR and the copy of the FIR was retained in the PS as record and one copy of FIR alongwith original complaint duly endorsed by him and certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act were handed over to PW-5 ASI Raj Kumar to whom the investigation was marked and he had brought the register of FIR.
During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel he admitted that except the above deposition. He further deposed that he had not had personal knowledge about the present matter. He admitted that incident of present matter had not happened in his presence.
6.3 PW3/HC Hotam deposed that he was on emergency duty with PW-5 ASI Raj Kumar and he alongwith PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar reached at spot where PW-1 complainant Vijay Kumar met them who produced the accused Santosh and the complainant got recorded his statement regarding attempting theft in his house to FIR No. 259/2021, PS Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Santosh 3/6 VINOD Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR Date: 2023.09.15 PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar by accused who has apprehended by him at spot and PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar prepared rukka and gave him for registration of the FIR and he went to P.S. and got registered the case and after registration of the FIR, he again reached at spot and he handed over the copy of FIR, rukka and certificate u/s- 65 B Evidence Act to PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar and PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar inspected the site at the instance of PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar and prepared site plan and the accused was arrested and the accused was interrogated who made his disclosure statement.
During cross-examination by Ld. LAC for the accused he deposed that he had not remembered the number of his departure and arrival entry. He admitted that the neighbour of complainant were present at spot. He deposed that he had not asked them to join the proceedings nor PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar asked them. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that visited spot with PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar in the manner deposed by him or that he was deposing falsely.
6.4 PW4/SI Vijay Kumar deposed that he received the case file for further investigation and the investigation was almost completed and he got verified the parcha 12 of accused and thereafter he prepared the draft u/s- 173 Cr.P.C and filed the same in the court requesting for trial of accused Santosh to the offences u/s 380/411 IPC.
During cross-examination by Ld. LAC for the accused he denied the suggestion that he had not properly investigated the case and the accused had been falsely implicated in this case.
6.5 PW5/ASI Raj Kumar deposed that on that day, he received DD No. 20A and he alongwith PW-3 Ct. Hotam reached at spot where PW-1 complainant Vijay Kumar met them who produced the accused Santosh and the complainant got recorded his statement regarding attempting theft in his house to him and the complainant produced the accused who was apprehended by him at spot and he prepared rukka and gave it to PW-3 Ct. Hotam for registration of the FIR and he went to P.S. and got registered the case and after registration of the FIR, he again came at spot and he FIR No. 259/2021, PS Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Santosh 4/6 VINOD Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.15 17:14:59 +0530 handed over the copy of FIR, rukka and certificate u/s- 65 B Evidence Act to him and he inspected the site at the instance of complainant and prepared site plan and the accused was arrested and the accused was interrogated who made his disclosure statement and he was transferred and he handed over the case file to MHC(R).
During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel he deposed that he had not remembered the number of his departure and arrival entry. He admitted that the neighbor of complainant were present at spot. He further deposed that he had not asked them to join the proceedings. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or visited spot in the manner deposed by him or that he was deposing falsely.
7. I have carefully gone through the record and evidence. The present case emerges out of a complaint purportedly made by the complainant against accused with allegations that the accused attempted to commit theft in the house of the complainant, whereas on perusal of testimony of PW-1/Complainant Vijay Kumar, it shows that he did not support his allegations against the accused and he did not even identify the accused by recognizing his as culprit, as such there is nothing on record to associate the accused with alleged incident or his identity and as such nothing incriminating against the accused could be elicited from the testimony of this witness. He denied seeing the accused actually committing the alleged offences. This witness is a sole cited eyewitness of the incident. The remaining PWs are formal in nature as they only associated in the investigation but not are eyewitness of the incident and they have not deposed any word regarding the commission of alleged offences.
8. In absence of any incriminating evidence given by PW-1/Complainant, the prosecution can never hope to prove the allegations levelled against the accused. The occurrence of incident accordingly stands not proved by the prosecution. The testimony of the other prosecution witnesses even if taken together would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused persons for the alleged offences.
9. The right to speedy trial is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of FIR No. 259/2021, PS Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Santosh 5/6 VINOD Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.09.15 17:15:04 +0530 the accused. The present case pertains to FIR dated 03.10.2021 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused, would tantamount to violation right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ram Chandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 that the courts should exercise its powers available under criminal procedure code to give effect to the right to speedy trial of the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057.
10. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 SCC (CRI.) 258 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubts where the onus of proving ingredients of the offences is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of the offences, thus, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubts.
11. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place accused Santosh had committed the alleged offences. The accused is accordingly is acquitted for offences u/s 380/511 IPC.
12. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trial stands canceled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands canceled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
on 15th day of September, 2023 VINOD by VINOD
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2023.09.15
17:15:09 +0530
(Vinod Kumar)
MM-03 (Central), THC, Delhi
FIR No. 259/2021, PS Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Santosh 6/6