Delhi District Court
Fir No. 259/2014 Ps: Odrs State vs Narender Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 /9 on 25 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
PRESIDIING OFFICER: SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
State v. Narender Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 259/2014
PS : ODRS
U/s 392/34/174A of IPC
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 300973/2016
Date of Commission of Offence : 20.07.2014
Date of Institution : 15.03.2016
Name of the complainant : Mr. Shekhar Abhishek
Name & address of the accused : (1) Narender Singh
S/o Sh. Jiley Singh
R/o Village Gadwal, PS Gohana,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
(2) Satish
S/o Sh. Balwant
R/o Kugad, PSGohani Khera, Distt.
Bhiwani, Haryana.
FIR No. 259/2014 PS: ODRS State Vs Narender Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 /9
(3) Sunil
S/o Sh. Zile Singh
R/o Aurang Nagar, PS Bhiwani
Khedra, Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana.
Offence complained of : U/s 392/34/174A of IPC
Plea of accused person : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted U/s 392/34 of IPC and
accused Sunil is convicted U/s
174A of IPC
Date of reserve for judgment : 25.01.2020
Date of announcing of judgment : 25.01.2020
************************************************************* BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused persons namely Narender Singh, Satish and Sunil pursuant to charge sheet and supplementary chargesheet filed by PS Old Delhi Railway Station U/s 392/34/174A of IPC FIR No. 259/2014 PS: ODRS State Vs Narender Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 /9 subsequent to the investigation carried out against them in FIR No. 259/2014.
2. As per the prosecution, on 20.07.2014 at about 10:00AM on running Satyagrah Express Train near platform No. 5, Old Delhi Railway Station, fivesix persons pushed the complainant near the gate and they had taken cash and jewelery of the complainant after opening chain of the suitcase.
On apprehending the theft, complainant raised alarm, after a brief chase two of the said boys were apprehended. On inquiry their names were disclosed as Narender Singh and Satish. However, nothing was recovered from them. During investigation, it was disclosed by accused Narender Singh and Satish that their accomplish accused Sunil and Palaram had fled away with the stolen property. Warrants were issued for arresting alleged accused Sunil and Palaram. However, they could not be found. Consequently, they were declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 14.05.2015. After completion of investigation chargesheet qua offence punishable under Section 392/34 of IPC has been filed against accused FIR No. 259/2014 PS: ODRS State Vs Narender Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 /9 Narender Singh and Satish. Later on, accused Sunil was arrested in the matter. Though, nothing could be recovered from him. However, he refused to take part in TIP. Consequently, after completion of investigation supplementary chargesheet was filed qua him for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 & 174A of IPC.
3. On appearance of the accused persons, documents were supplied to them and thereafter charge under Section 392/34 of IPC framed against accused persons namely Satish and Narender Singh and charge under Section 392/34 & 174A of IPC framed against accused Sunil. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Despite various opportunities, the prosecution failed to examine Sh.
Shekhar Abhishek who was complainant and Ms. Prathibha was the wife of complainant in the present matter. Prosecution could not examine the complainant/main witness Sh. Shekhar Abhishek and Ms. Prathibha despite repeated summons through DCP concerned on several FIR No. 259/2014 PS: ODRS State Vs Narender Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 /9 opportunities on different dates of hearing. Hence, witness/complainant Sh. Shekhar Abhishek and Ms. Prathibha were dropped from the list of the witnesses. In the absence of testimony of complainant Sh. Shekhar Abhishek, the factum of offence could not be proved.
5. In the case in hand, PW/Complainant Sekhar Abhishek and witness Prathibha were the main/star witnesses to prove the factum of robbery and the fact that accused persons were perpetrator of the crime in question. Since the most material witnesses are not available and have been dropped from the array of witnesses, hence there is nothing incriminating against the accused persons, proceeding further and recording the statement of remaining formal witnesses would be futile exercise and wastage of judicial time, resources and money. In the absence of the complainant/ eye witnesses, the prosecution can never successfully prove the factum of offence in question. Even the testimony of the police witnesses who had apprehended the accused persons at the spot cannot tell about the factum of robbery in question.
FIR No. 259/2014 PS: ODRS State Vs Narender Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 /9
6. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs." reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In case where 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". Thus, PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused persons, as such, recording of statement of accused persons is also dispensed with, however, statement of accused Sunil has been recorded under Section 281 of Cr. PC qua offence under Section 174A of IPC.
7. Brief submissions addressed by the Ld. APP for State have been heard and the documents on record carefully perused.
8. In the case in hand, there is no admissible evidence on record to FIR No. 259/2014 PS: ODRS State Vs Narender Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 /9 prove the commission of offence by the accused persons. In absence of the testimony of complainant/eye witnesses, the prosecution has failed to prove that the act/ offence in question was actually committed.
9. The entire present case was rooted on the testimony of the complainant and his wife, however, they have been dropped from the list of witnesses. There is no other iota of incriminating evidence against the accused persons on record qua offence of robbery. The onus to substantiate the case is upon the prosecution. In the present case, prosecution has failed to prove the factum of robbery against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
10. In the present matter, during investigation vide order dated 14.05.2015, accused Sunil was declared Proclaimed Offender due to his non joining the investigation, on the basis of report of process server. The said order is a conclusive proof of the fact that the proclamation was duly published. Reliance being placed upon a case decided by Hon'ble FIR No. 259/2014 PS: ODRS State Vs Narender Singh & Ors. Page No. 7 /9 Rajasthan High Court titled as State Vs. Gajraj (AIR 1953) Rajasthan 65 wherein it was held that as per Section 82 (3) Cr.P.C a statement in writing before the Court to the effect that proclamation was duly published on a specified day in the manner specified in Clause (i) of sub Section (2) shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C have been complied with. Accordingly, in the present case with the order of the Court dated 14.05.2015 it became conclusively proved that process U/s 82 Cr.P.C was duly executed. In the present case all the ingredients of offence punishable U/s 174-A IPC have been duly proved, hence accused Sunil is convicted for commission of offence U/s 174-A IPC.
11. In view of the above discussion, Court is of the considered opinion that guilt of accused persons namely Sunil, Narender and Satish has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 of IPC and thus they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused persons namely Sunil, Narender and Satish are acquitted for offence under Section 392/34 of IPC.
FIR No. 259/2014 PS: ODRS State Vs Narender Singh & Ors. Page No. 8 /9
12. However, accused Sunil is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 174A of IPC.
13. Requirements of Section 437A Cr.P.C have been complied with.
Copy of this judgment be given dasti to convict Sunil free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. GAJENDER Digitally signed by GAJENDER SINGH SINGH NAGAR Date: 2020.01.27 NAGAR 11:54:22 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 25.01.2020 ACMM02 (CENTRAL)DELHI Containing 09 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) ACMM02 (CENTRAL)DELHI FIR No. 259/2014 PS: ODRS State Vs Narender Singh & Ors. Page No. 9 /9