Delhi District Court
State vs . Michael Messi Page No. 1 Of 5 on 16 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF
MS. ARCHANA BENIWAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTHEAST) 08
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
J U D G M E N T
FIR No.: 94/10 Police Station: Amar Colony I D No. 02406R0477142010 U/s 379/411/34 IPC State Versus Michael Messi & Ors .... Accused A. Sr. No of the Case : 115/2/23.04.2014 B. Date of Institution of case : 15.04.2010 C. Date of Commission of Offence : 25.02.2010 D. Name of the complainant : Laxman E. Name of the Accused & his :
Address & Parentage
1. Michael Messi S/o Sh. Sashi Messi R/o House no. J37 no. 02, Sudhar Basti, Sunlight Colony, Delhi
2. Imran S/o Mohd. Rafiq R/o Jhuggi no. S53 33 Gandhi Camp Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi
3. Suraj S/o Shyam Singh R/o FIR No. 94/10, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Michael Messi Page No. 1 of 5 Shop no. 23, Okhla Subzi Mandi, New Delhi.
F. Offence complained of : u/s 379/411/34 IPC. G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.
H. Order reserved on : 16.11.2015. I. Final order : All accused persons acquitted. J. Date of such order : 16.11.2015.
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.02.2010 on receipt of DD no. 17 A, HC Bua Lal along with Ct. Mahendra reached at Khoti no. B5 Captain Gaur, Marg where Ct. Vinod Kumar, Ct. Ajmr along with the complainant met them. Three persons namely Imran, Suraj and Michael Messi were produced along with seized purse, which they had allegedly stolen from the possession of the complainant. Upon the complaint of the complainant, present case was registered. The accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the court.
Charge framed against the accused:
2. Prima facie offence was made out and charge was framed against all the accused persons punishable under section 379/34 IPC. In addition to it charge for the offence punishable under section 411 FIR No. 94/10, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Michael Messi Page No. 2 of 5 IPC was also framed against the accused Michael Messi, to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Evidence led by the Prosecution Evidence:
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 3 witnesses.
PW1/ Lakshman Singh is the complainant in the present case. He deposed regarding the incident. However, he had failed to identify either of the accused persons in the court who had committed the theft of his purse containing some cash and cards. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State, on the point of identity of the accused persons, wherein also he could not identify the accused persons with certainty as the offenders who had committed the theft from his person on the date of incident.
4. PW 02 and PW 03 are the formal / police witnesses who deposed in tune with the case of the prosecution.
5. As the sole eyewitness of the prosecution had failed to identify the accused persons in the court as the ones who had snatched his purse on the date of incident, the examination of the formal/ police witnesses was dispensed with and prosecution evidence was closed. Since there was no evidence against the accused persons, recording of their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC was also dispensed FIR No. 94/10, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Michael Messi Page No. 3 of 5 with.
Decision and Reasons:
6. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and counsel for accused persons and perused the records of the case and carefully scrutinized the relevant evidence brought on record.
7. In the instant case the only eyewitness has failed to support the case of the prosecution to its dismay. He was declared as hostile and cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as he had failed to identify the accused persons in the court as the ones who had committed theft of his purse on the said date and time. As a result, since there was no prospect of the case ending in conviction of the accused persons, the examination of the remaining formal witnesses was dispensed with.
8. In a case titled as Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is held that " in a 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 the future date"
9. Therefore, in ultimate analysis as a result of trial, this court is of FIR No. 94/10, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Michael Messi Page No. 4 of 5 the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case in entirety against the accused and the accused persons Michael Messi, Suraj and Imran are acquitted of the offence under section 379/411/34 IPC with which they were charged. They are set at liberty.
Announced in the Open Court on 16.11.2015 (ARCHANA BENIWAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SE)08 SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 94/10, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Michael Messi Page No. 5 of 5