Delhi District Court
State vs Kaushal Kumar on 13 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA,
JMFC-05, SED, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
DLSE020090132018
Cr. Case No. -: 5006/2018
FIR No. -: 146/2017
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 356/379/411 IPC
STATE
VS.
KAUSHAL KUMAR & ANR
1. Name of Complainant :- Ms. Tulsi
D/o Sh. Mohan Lal
2. Name of Accused Person :- 1) Raju @ Kalu S/o
Shri Ram Avadh Vyas
and;
2) Kaushal Kumar S/o
Shri Chander Sain
Gupta
3. Offence complained of or proved :- 356/379/411 IPC
4. Plea of Accused Persons :- Not guilty
5. Date of Commission of offence :- 02.05.2017
6. Date of Filing of case :- 23.03.2018
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 23.08.2024
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 13.11.2024
Aridaman
9. Final Order :- Acquitted singh
cheema
Digitally signed by
Aridaman singh
cheema
Date: 2024.11.13
FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 18 16:23:22 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. In brief, the allegations against the accused are that on 02.05.2017 at about 02:15PM on road in front of Splendar Forum, Jasola, Delhi, accused Raju @ Kalu used criminal force upon complainant Ms.Tulsi in order to commit theft of her mobile phone make Redme 4 (Xiomi) Note having IMEI No. 864238033620007 and IMEI No. 864238033620015 from her hand which she was carrying and also committed theft of said mobile of the complainant. On 01.06.2017, accused Kaushal Kumar was found in possession of stolen mobile phone make Redme 4 (Xiomi) belonging to complainant Ms. Tulsi which he retained knowingly or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen one. FIR was registered. Investigation was undertaken. Accused persons were arrested and charge sheet was filed against them.
2. After the compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charge was framed against the accused Raju @ Kalu U/s 356/379 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and charge was framed against the accused Kaushal Kumar U/s 411 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 05 witness: - Aridaman singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2024.11.13 16:23:36 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 18 3(a). PW-1 is Ms. Tulsi. She deposed that on she resides alone on the above mentioned address and she is a graduate in B.Com. From January till July 2017, she was working as Beauty Adviser for ITC. At present, she is working in Urban Company.
On 02.05.2017, she had gone to Copia Tower, Jasola at the head office of ITC. Around 02:15 pm, she had left for Jasola Metro Station from Copia Tower by foot. In front of Splendor Farm, one man crossed her from the front and thereafter, from behind again came towards her with stone in his hand. She was holding two mobile phones at that time. He tried to snatch both her mobile phones but was only able to snatch her Redmi Xiomi Note 4 mobile phone of golden colour bearing mobile no.9911894337 and IMEI Nos. as mentioned by her in her hand written complaint. She ran behind the said man to catch hold of him but he threw the stone at her which did not hit her and he fled away. One passerby offered to help her and they tried to chase the said man in the e-Rickshaw of the passerby but could not caught hold of him.
Thereafter, she went to PS Sarita Vihar and gave her hand written complaint which is on record and is Ex.PW1/A. Upon her said complaint, the present FIR was registered. Thereafter, one police official accompanied her back to the spot of the incident and prepared site plan of the spot at her instance. Her mobile phone was released and handed over to her upon her application to this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 21.07.2017. She saw that certain photographs of the accused Kaushal Kumar were contained in her above mentioned Aridaman singh mobile phone and therefore. (Accused Kaushal Kumar was present in cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh the court that day and was correctly identified by the witness). cheema Date: 2024.11.13 16:23:43 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 18 Photographs of her mobile phone are present on judicial record and are Ex.PW1/B (colly 4 photographs). She stated that she can identify the man who had stolen her mobile phone.
The said man was present in the court that day in a green shirt and black trousers. Accused Raju @ Kalu was present in the court today and was correctly identified by the witness.
In her cross-examination she stated that she had handed over the bill of her mobile phone to the IO. She denied the suggestion that she had not handed over the bill of the mobile phone to the IO and therefore, it was not on record. A print out of the bill of mobile was on record and Mark.PW1/D1. She admitted that bill Mark.PW1/D1 does not bear stamp, seal of the company or sign of authorized signatory. She does not remember the date on which she had submitted the above mentioned bill in this Hon'ble Court, due to lapse of time. Police recorded her statement once only at police station Sarita Vihar on 02.05.2017.
She denied the suggestion that her mobile phone contained photos of several persons other than accused Kaushal also. There were around 10-15 photos of accused Kaushal in her phone. However, she could not tell the exact number of photos as she did not count. She denied the suggestion that she was falsely deposing that she saw photos of accused Kaushal in her phone on the day when she received her phone in this Hon'ble Court. She admitted that she had not placed on record any documentary evidence to show that she had Aridaman seen photos of accused Kaushal in her phone. She admitted that singh cheema police had not recovered her mobile phone from accused Kaushal in Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema her presence. Date: 2024.11.13 16:23:48 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 18 She further admitted that there was only one person who snatched her mobile phone. She denied the suggestion that the man who had stolen her mobile phone was not accused Raju. She admitted that she made a PCR call at around 02:15 pm from her other mobile phone but she does not remember the number due to lapse of time. Her other mobile phone belonged to her father but she does not remember its make and type. She denied the suggestion that she did not have a second mobile phone at that time. She denied the suggestion that she did not make PCR call. She had gone to PS Sarita Vihar for lodging complaint at around 02:30 pm. She denied the suggestion that she had given her written complaint at PS Sarita Vihar after a long delay. The incident had happened at point A as marked on the site plan which is Mark.PW1/D2. She denied the suggestion that the accused Raju had been falsely implicated in the present case by her. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
3(b) PW2 ASI Lakhan, deposed that on 01.06.2017, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as HC. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present alongwith IO/SI Benkatesh Kumar. Thereafter, on that day, he alongwith IO reached Living Style Mall and thereafter IO apprehended accused Kaushal. Thereafter, IO interrogated him. Thereafter, IO arrested Accused Kaushal vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A. IO also conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW2/B. IO recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW2/C. IO also seized one mobile phone of make MI from the possession of the accused vide Aridaman singh seizure memo Ex. PW2/D. Thereafter, they came to the PS alongwith cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 18 Date: 2024.11.13 16:23:53 +0530 the accused. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. The accused was put in lockup after his medical examination. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement. (Accused Kaushal was present in the court and correctly identified by the witness).
Four photographs of the case property annexed with the chargesheet were shown to the witness and witness correctly identifies the same. The photographs are already Ex. PW1/B. In his cross-examination he stated that he does not remember the DD entry with regard to our departure from the PS. IO did not join any public witness during the investigation. IO did not collect any CCTV footage with regard to the incident. He admitted that Accused was not apprehended at the spot and he was apprehended after 20/25 days. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation and that the case property was planted against the accused and all the documents were prepared at the PS. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
Ld. LAC for accused Raju had adopted the cross-examination of accused Kaushal.
3(c). PW3 HC Sashipal Yadav, deposed that on 02.06.2017, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as Ct. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO/SI Benkatesh Kumar. On that day, he alongwith IO took accused Kaushal Kumar to house of co- accused Raju @ Kalu, however, he was not present at his house. Thereafter, they came back to the PS. Thereafter, on the same Aridaman day, IO received secret information with regard to Accused Raju @ singh cheema Kalu. Thereafter, he alongwith IO reached near Apollo metro station. Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2024.11.13 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 18 16:23:57 +0530 Where co-accused Raju @ Kalu was present and he was apprehended by the IO and thereafter IO arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A. His personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW3/B. IO recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW3/C. Thereafter, they came to the PS. MLC of accused was got conducted and he was put in lockup. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement. Both the accused persons are present in the court and correctly identified by the witness.
He was cross-examined on behalf of accused Kaushal and stated that he does not remember the DD entry with regard to our departure from the PS. IO did not join any public witness during the investigation. IO did not collect any CCTV footage with regard to the incident. He admitted that Accused was not apprehended at the spot and he was apprehended after 20/25 days. He admitted that the case property was not recovered in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation and that the case property was planted against the accused and all the documents were prepared at the PS. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. Accused Raju had admitted that abovesaid cross-examination.
3(d). PW4 SI Shailendra Sharma, deposed that on 02.05.2017, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as SI. On that day, after receiving DD No. 24A, he alongwith Ct. Rahul reached the spot, i.e., in front of splendor forum, Jasola. After reaching the spot, they met complainant and she gave her complaint which is already Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW4/A and handed over the same to Aridaman singh Ct. Rahul for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to the PS, got cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 18 Date: 2024.11.13 16:24:03 +0530 the FIR registered and came back to the spot and handed over to him original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter, he prepared site plan which is already Ex.PW1/D2. Thereafter, he recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant. Thereafter, he searched for the accused, however, no clue was obtained. Thereafter, they came to the PS. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to SI Benkatesh Kumar.
He was cross-examined on behalf of accused Kaushal and stated that he did not make any separate DD entry with regard to departure to the spot. They left the PS at about 02.20 PM and reached the spot at about 02.30 PM. He did not join any public witness or any other eye witness at the spot during his investigation. No guard was present at the Splendor Forum and even the CCTV camera did not capture the road, where the incident took place. Again said, on the basis of my estimation of the positioning of the CCTV camera, he without checking the footage concluded that CCTV camera would not have been covering the spot of incident. He admitted that the site plan does not bear the signature of the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and not conducted a fair investigation.
Accused Raju had adopted the above cross-examination and denied the suggestion that all the proceedings have been conducted at the PS and documents have been prepared at the PS. 3(e) PW5 HC Rahul Kumar, deposed that on 02.05.2017, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as Ct. On that day, after receiving DD No. Digitally signed by Aridaman 24A, he alongwith IO/SI Shailendra Sharma reached the spot, i.e., in Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
2024.11.13 16:24:09 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 18 front of splendor forum, Jasola. After reaching the spot, they met complainant and she gave her complaint to IO. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to the PS, got the FIR registered and came back to the spot and handed over to IO original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan. Thereafter, IO recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant. Thereafter, they searched for the accused, however, no clue was obtained. Thereafter, they came to the PS. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement.
In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Kaushal he stated that he did not make any separate DD entry with regard to departure to the spot. They left the PS at about 02.20 PM and reached the spot at about 02.30 PM. IO did not join any public witness or any other eye witness at the spot during investigation. No guard was present at the Splendor Forum and even the CCTV camera did not capture the road, where the incident took place. He admitted that the site plan does not bear the signature of the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Raju he adopted the cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused Kaushal Kumar. He further stated and denied the suggestion that all the proceedings have been conducted at the PS and documents have been prepared at the PS. (3f). PW-6 Inspector Benkatesh Kumar, deposed that on 01.06.2017, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as SI. On that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. Thereafter, he Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh alongwith HC Lakhan reached Living Style Mall and thereafter he singh cheema cheema Date:
2024.11.13 16:24:13 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 18 apprehended accused Kaushal on the basis of secret information as well as location disclosed in the CDR. Thereafter, he interrogated him and arrested him vide arrest memo already Ex. PW2/A. He also conducted his personal search vide already Ex. PW2/B. He recorded his disclosure statement vide already Ex. PW2/C. He also seized one mobile phone of make MI from the possession of the accused Kaushal vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/D. Thereafter, they came to the PS alongwith the accused Kaushal. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. The accused was put in lockup after his medical examination. Efforts were made to trace the co-accused and the accused Kaushal had identified the address of accused Kalu @ Raju. Then the accused Kaushal was produced before the court and remanded to JC. An application for getting the TIP conducted of accused Kaushal was moved before the said court and TIP proceedings were conducted on 02.06.2017, in which he had refused to participate. Then he was sent to JC.
On the same day, i.e., 02.06.2017, efforts were then made to trace accused Raju @ Kalu and on the basis of information, he was apprehended between Apollo metro station and the railway track. He arrested him vide arrest memo already Ex. PW3/A. His personal search was conducted vide already Ex. PW3/B. He recorded his disclosure statement already Ex. PW3/C. At the instance of accused Raju @ Kalu, the spot of commission of incident was identified and pointing out memo was prepared, which is Ex. PW6/A. Thereafter, his MLC was conducted and he was put in lockup. He was produced before the court and an application for TIP was moved on 03.06.2017 Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh and in the TIP proceedings conducted on 03.06.2017, accused Raju singh cheema cheema Date:
2024.11.13 16:24:18 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 18 @ Kalu refused to participate in the said proceedings and thereafter, he was remanded to JC. He issued the notice u/s 91 CrPC to the Nodal officer of the relevant Telecom companies and received the reply from Nodal officer Vodafone mobile servies Ltd., alongwith CAF and CDR and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (which is already Ex. A5 (Colly)). A perusal of the CAF form disclosed that the SIM in the stolen mobile phone was registered in the name of Ms. Archana Devi who is the sister of accused Kaushal Kumar. The mobile phone got released to the complainant on superdari. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded u/s 161 CrPC and chargesheet was prepared. He filed the chargesheet in the court.
Both Accused persons were present in the court and correctly identified by the witness.
Witness has also stated that he can identify the case property which was recovered from accused Kaushal Kumar if shown to him. At that stage, the witness was shown 04 photographs of the mobile phone, Ex. P1 and he had correctly identified the same.
In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Raju he stated that he does not remember the DD entry with regard to our departure from the PS. He admitted that Accused was not apprehended at the spot and he was apprehended after 20/25 days. He admitted that no public persons were joined in the arrest/apprehension of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation and that the case property was planted against the accused and all the documents were prepared at the PS. He denied the suggestion that he Aridaman singh was deposing falsely. cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2024.11.13 16:24:23 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 18 In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Kaushal he adopted the aforesaid cross examination. He further stated and admitted that that no public persons have been made witness to the alleged recovery proceedings qua accused Kaushal.
4. P.E. was then closed by the Ld. APP for State. Statement of accused u/s 313 C.P.C. has been recorded in which he has simply denied all the evidence put to him and has not taken any particular defence. Accused choose lead evidence in defence.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
5. I have heard Learned APP for the State and Learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record. Ld. APP for the State has stated that the prosecution witness have supported the prosecution story and accused is liable to be convicted. Ld. Counsel for accused Kaushal has stated that prosecution is unable to prove that the stolen mobile phone belong to the complainant as no original bill has been placed on record and no public persons were made witnesses as accused Kaushal was arrested from mall and he is liable to be acquitted. Ld. LAC for accused Raju has stated that complainant person had stated that there was one person who had snatched his mobile phone and how can the complainant can identify both the accused persons. Ld. LAC for accused Raju has stated that accused Raju has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is Aridaman singh liable to be acquitted. cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2024.11.13 16:24:28 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 18
6. It is relevant here to discuss the ingredients of theft as mentioned /s 378 IPC. Section 378 Indian Penal Code mentions:
Theft:
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1 -- A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2 -- A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3 -- A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4 -- A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5 -- The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
7. It is relevant here to discuss the ingredients of criminal force as mentioned in section 350 IPC. Section 350 Indian Penal Code mentions: 350. Criminal force.--
"Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, Aridaman singh or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he cheema will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2024.11.13 16:24:33 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 18 the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other."
8. Needless to state, under criminal law, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the offences charged beyond and reasonable doubt. The higher threshold is to be rebutted by the defence by punching holes in the case of prosecution/complainant.
9. Let us now begin by examining the testimony of PW-1. As per the testimony of PW-1, she had stated in her cross-examination that one person came from behind and snatched her mobile phone. She had admitted in her cross-examination that there was only one person who had snatched the mobile phone but she had also identified the accused from whom the mobile phone was recovered whereas she was not present at the time of recovery. One copy of the bill has been placed on record which is Mark PW1/D1 and that is also in the name of one person namely Naresh Kumar. That there is no original bill in the present case. Even if that the bill to be considered, the same is in the name of one person namely Naresh Kumar. There is no chain of evidence connecting Naresh Kumar to the complainant. Further, coming to the testimony of PW-6, it has been stated that accused Kaushal was arrested on 01.06.2017, whereas the incident is of 02.05.2017 and accused Raju @ Kallu was arrested on 02.06.2017 and no recovery of stolen article was made from accused Raju @ Kallu. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused Kaushal was arrested from a shopping mall still no public persons Digitally were made witnesses and accused Raju @ Kallu was apprehended Aridaman signed by Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
2024.11.13 16:24:37 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 18 between apollo metro station and railway track and there also no public persons were made witnesses. There is no witness to the alleged snatching as well apart from the complainant. PW-6 have admitted that there was no DD entry regarding their departure from the PS. The other witnesses PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 have also deposed that there is no DD entry regarding their departure and no public person was joined during the investigation.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that it has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court :-
"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 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."
As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules it is necessary to record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the police official. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is reproduced as under:-
''22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :-
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. Digitally signed by This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior Aridaman Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
2024.11.13 16:24:41 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 18 to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal. Note :- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
11. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 . However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
12. There is nothing on record which shows that the mobile phone was belonging to the complainant as no bill of the said mobile phone is placed on record. The evidence regarding the ownership of mobile phone is a photocopy of the Flipkart of which original has not been produced and only copy Mark PW-1/D1 placed on record. The photocopy of the bill mentions the name of one person namely Naresh Kumar whereas Naresh Kumar had not been cited as a witness in the present case. There is no link established between Naresh Kumar and complainant to prove that the complainant is the Digitally signed by legitimate owner of the said mobile. No other witness had been Aridaman Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
examined to prove the bill of the mobile. The complainant had 2024.11.13 16:24:45 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 18 identified both the accused persons whereas she herself claim that the mobile phone was stolen by only one person in her cross-examination and she was not present at the place of recovery of the said mobile phone. There is no public witness to the recovery of mobile phone from accused Kaushal and accused Raju @ Kallu was arrested on the disclosure statement of accused Kaushal and no recovery of the said mobile phone is from accused Raju @ Kallu. No public witnesses were joined even when PW-1 has stated in her testimony that one person had helped her in chasing the accused person when the mobile phone was snatched. That public person had not been cited as a witness. There is no DD entry regarding the departure of any of the police officials.
CONCLUSION:
13. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence of Section 411/356/379 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Based on the above-done discussion, this court is of the opinion that there are material shortcomings in the case of the prosecution.
As such, prosecution failed to successfully bring home the guilt of accused namely Raju @ Kalu S/o Shri Ram Avadh Vyas for the offences punishable u/s 356/379 IPC and accused Kaushal Kumar Aridaman singh S/o Sh. Chander Sain Gupta for offence u/s 411 IPC. Accordingly, cheema Digitally signed both the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, accused Raju by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2024.11.13 16:24:50 +0530 FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 18 @ Kalu S/o Shri Ram Avadh Vyas is acquitted u/s 356/379 IPC and Kaushal Kumar S/o Sh. Chander Sain Gupta U/S 411 IPC.
Digitally signedAridaman by Aridaman Announced in open court on 13.11.2024.
singh cheema
singh Date:
cheema 2024.11.13
16:24:55 +0530
(Aridaman Singh Cheema)
JMFC-05/SE District/Saket Court,
New Delhi/13.11.2024
Note: This judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears the Digitally
signed by
digital signature of the undersigned.
Aridaman Aridaman
singh cheema
singh Date:
cheema 2024.11.13
16:25:00
+0530
(Aridaman Singh Cheema)
JMFC-05/SE District/Saket Court,
New Delhi/13.11.2024
FIR No. 146/2017 State v. Kaushal Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 18