Delhi District Court
State vs . Devashish Sen Gupta on 5 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 06,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Serial No. : 746/2 dated 6.5.2004
Unique Identification No. 2406R1001392004
State Vs. Devashish Sen Gupta
FIR No. 54/03
P. S. Rama Krishna Puram
U/s 454/380/511/474 IPC & 103 DP Act
JUDGMENT:
1.Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution 746/2 & 3.4.2003
2.Date of commission of offence 7.2.2003
3.Name of the complainant Sh. Narayan Shresht
4.Name of the accused Devashish Sen Gupta S/O Subodh Kumar Sen Gupta R/O H.No. F 85 Mohd. Pur Village New Delhi.
Also at: B1/66 S.J. Enclave New Delhi 29
5.Nature of offence complained of U/s 454/380/511/474 IPC & 103 DP Act
6.Plea of the accused person Pleaded not guilty
7. Date reserved for order 5.7.2012
8.Final Order Acquitted
9.Date of such order 5.7.2012 Date of Institution : 3.4.2003 Date of order reserved : 5.7.2012 Date of pronouncement : 5.7.2012 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Accused is acquitted of the offences with which he has been charged, for FIR No. 54/03 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 1 of 3 the reason that the complainant was not traceable. This case was not based on circumstantial evidence.
2. Prosecution Story was that on 7.2.2003 at about 3 PM to 4.15 PM at house No. 167 Sector 1 R.K.Puram N. Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS R. K.Puram, accused committed lurking house tress pass by entering into the house of complainant with the intention to commit the theft and while he was doing so, he broke upon the lock of the door for committing theft of house hold belongings of the complainant thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 454/380/511 IPC . Further on the above said date and time he also found in possession of scooter No. DL8SG 5646 Bajaj Chetak(Forged number plate) for which he could not produce any proof of ownership and thus he committed an offence punishable U/S 103 D.P.Act.
3. Police registered the FIR in this case on the basis of complaint made by the complainant. Investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed against accused under the offences with which accused has been charged.
4. After finding prima facie case against the accused summons were issued against him by the court. Subsequently, charge was framed to which accused pleaded not guilty and claim trial and case was subsequently fixed for PE.
5. In this case, PW Narayan Shresht was the complainant of the case and he was not traceable, despite being directed to be served through IO /DCP concerned. The said witness was therefore, struck off from the list of witnesses. Thus PE was closed as trial in this case would not have resulted in the conviction of the accused person, if rest of the witnesses had deposed against him and their testimonies remained unchallenged. Accordingly statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was not FIR No. 54/03 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 2 of 3 recorded. After hearing final arguments, the case is fixed for judgment.
6. The net result was there was no incriminating evidence against accused as mentioned in section 454/380/511/474 IPC & 103 DP Act.
7. Thus, in the absence of any incriminating evidence, accused can not be convicted in this case.
8. Keeping in mind the discussion made above, I find that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 454/380/511/474 IPC & 103 DP Act. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the commission of the offences punishable U/s 454/380/511/474 IPC & 103 DP Act. Previous bail bond will remain on record till expiry of six months from now as per section 437A Cr. P.C. This is done as accused did not furnish fresh bail bond. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open court ( PRASHANT SHARMA ) today i.e.5.7.2012 M.M.06, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
5.7.2012
FIR No. 54/03
P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 3 of 3
State Vs. Devashish Sen Gupta
FIR No. 54/03
P. S. Rama Krishna Puram
U/s 454/380/511/474 IPC & 103 DP Act
5.7.2012
Present : Ld. APP for State.
Accused in person with counsel.
Complainant did not turned up before the court despite being directed to be served through SHO/DCP concerned and therefore she was struck off from the list of witnesses.
Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature. Even if testimony of rest of the witnesses goes unrebutted then also it will not lead to conviction of accused. Further, I am of the view that in view of previous ordersheets, sufficient opportunities have granted to the prosecution to examine its witnesses. Accordingly, PE closed.
Request of Ld. APP for the State for granting another opportunity to examine its witnesses stands declined in the facts and circumstances of the case.
There is no incriminating evidence against the accused so requirement for recording the statement U/S 313 Cr.p.c dispensed with.
Vide my judgment of even date accused is acquitted for the commission of offence U/s 454/380/511/474 IPC & 103 DP Act. Previous bail bond will remain on record till expiry of six months from now as per section 437A Cr. P.C. This is done as accused did not furnish fresh bail bond. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
( PRASHANT SHARMA ) M.M.6, Saket Courts, New Delhi 5.7.2012 FIR No. 54/03 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 4 of 3