Delhi District Court
State vs . Narender Singh Rajput And Anr. on 4 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUJ KUMAR SINGH
METROPOLITAN MEGISTRATE03 (SOUTH DISTRICT),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
eFIR No. 000683/2019
PS - Neb Sarai
State Vs. Narender Singh Rajput and Anr.
JUDGMENT
(a) Case No. CR5612/2019
(b) Date of offence 09.09.2019
(c) Particulars of complainant Sh.Sourab S/o Sh. Gagan
R/o H. No. A187, Devli Village,
Near Devli Apartment, New
Delhi.
(d) Particulars of accused 1.Narender Singh Rajput @
Rahul S/o Sh. Bala Singh Rajput
R/o H. No. 4/183, Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi.
2. Vicky Gupta S/o Sh. Dilip
Gupta R/o H. No. 3/180, Devli
Village,
New Delhi.
(e) Offences U/s 379/411/34 IPC
(f) Plea of accused person Pleaded Not Guilty
(g) Final Order Compounded u/s. 411 /34 IPC &
Acquitted u/s. 379 /34 IPC.
(h) Date of Institution 23.11.2019
(i) Date when judgment was 04.02.2020
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 04.02.2020
1. Briefly stated, both the accused persons have been chargesheeted in this case by the police on the allegations that on 9.9.2019 at about 11 to 11.30 PM in front of House No. A187, Devli Village, Near Devli Apartment, within the jurisdiction of PS Neb Sarai, both the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of mobile phone make Redmi Note 7 of blue colour belonging to complainant Sh. Sourab and secondly on 10.09.2019 the above mentioned mobile phone was got recovered from the possession of both the accused persons which they retained knowing to be the stolen or having reason to believe it to be stolen mobile phone. As per the version of the prosecution, accused persons thus committed the offences punishable u/s. 379/411/34 IPC.
2. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court by the police and in compliance of provision u/s 207 CrPC, accused was supplied with all the documents. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.02.2020, charge in respect of the offences u/s. 379 / 411 / 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE In order to prove its case, prosecution examined three witness:
3. Complainant Sh. Sourabh has been examined as PW1, who deposed that " I am living in the present address and doing private job. On 9.9.19 at about 11 11.30 PM, I was sitting on a bike in front of my above mentioned address and my mobile phone make Redmi Note 7 blue colour was kept on bike. Thereafter, two boys came on motorcycle and one of them inquired me regarding some address. Thereafter, they were left the spot. After sometime I noticed that my mobile phone was missing . It might be possible that the above said two boys stolen my mobile. Thereafter I searched them however they were not traceable. I did not see registration no. of motorcycle which was used by the accused persons at that time. Thereafter, my cousin brother namely Raju lodged an eFIR regarding the incident on my behalf. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan at my instance. After one day I was informed by the IO that my phone has been recovered from accused persons. Thereafter my brother moved application for release of mobile phone and same was release to me. I can produce the mobile phone. Identity of case property is not disputed by ld defence counsel."
4. Despite specific pointing out by the Ld. APP for State towards the accused persons , witness failed to identified both the accused persons.
5. PW2 Sh. Raju deposed that " I am living in the present address and doing private job. On 9.9.19 at about 1111.30 PM, mobile phone of my cousin namely Saurabh was stolen. Thereafter, I lodged an eFIR on behalf of my cousin at PS Neb Sarai. I am not the witness of incident. I only lodged the eFIR on behalf of my cousin."
6. PW3 Rakesh deposed that " I am living in the present address and doing private job. On 9.9.19 at about 1111.30 PM, My brother Saurabh was sitting on a bike in front of my above mentioned address and his mobile phone make Redmi Note 7 blue colour was kept on bike. Thereafter, two boys came on motorcycle and one of them inquired from him regarding some address. Thereafter, they left the spot. After sometime my brother noticed that his mobile phone was missing. Thereafter, the present eFIR was lodged by my cousin brother. After one day my brother was informed by the IO that his phone has been recovered from accused persons. Thereafter I moved an application for release of mobile phone and same was release to me vide superdarinama Ex PW3/A bearing my signature at point A respectively. I can produce the mobile phone. Identity of case property is not disputed by ld defence counsel. The above said mobile phone was purchased by me and the same was handed over to my brother for use."
7. Vide their joint statement recorded u/s. 294 CrPC, both the accused persons, admitted the eFIR No. 000683/19 (without contents) as Ex A1, DD No. 18B (without contents) dt. 11.9.2019 , PS Neb Sarai as Ex A2 and register no. 19 MHCM of PS Neb Sarai as Ex A3. Therefore, the above mentioned documents were directed to be read in evidence without their formal proof.
8. Furthermore, the complainant Saurabh and superdar namely Rakesh settled the matter with the accused for the offence u/s 411 /34 IPC by making a separate statement to this effect for compounding the offence. In the facts and circumstances as revealed on record, the offence u/s 411/34 IPC stood compounded by the Court vide order dated 04.02.202 and both the accused persons stood acquitted for the said offence.
9. As far as offence u/s 379/34 IPC is concerned, since the complainant being the sole eye witness of the incident in question failed to identify both the accused persons being the actual culprit who committed the theft of mobile phone in questionon the date of incident, hence, this court deemed it futile to record further prosecution evidence in this case by examining the remaining witnesses who happened to be police officials and were merely the official witnesses. The prosecution evidence was therefore closed by the Court vide order of the even date on 04.02.2020.
10. Since nothing incriminating evidence has come on record against qua accused person, hence their statement u/s. 313 CrPC is dispensed with.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
11. Since the complainant who is material prosecution witness i.e. PW1 (complainant himself) being the only eye witness of the incident in question failed to support the case of the prosecution and failed to identify both the accused being the actual culprit responsible for the theft of mobile phone in question, hence, the Court has no hesitation in hereby arriving at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the accused persons completely for the offence u/s 379/34 IPC. Accordingly, both the accused persons are hereby acquitted of the offence u/s 379 /34 IPC consequentially.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Anuj Kumar Singh)
on 04.02.2020 MM03(South District)/Saket Courts
New Delhi/04.02.2020