Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Almas @ Allu @ Salman on 16 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR ,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (SHAHDARA) , DELHI.
ID No. 534-2018
Sessions Case No. 77/18
Assigned to Sessions on 23.10.2018
FIR No. 650/2017
Police Station Jafrabad
Under Section U/S 394/397/411/34 IPC 25/27
Arms Act
Charged Under Section U/S 392/397/34 IPC
State Vs 1. Almas @ Allu @ Salman
S/O Afrar Khan
R/O H.No.C-216, Gali No.8,
III Floor Chauhan Bangar,
Delhi-110053
2. Farukh
S/O Mohd Mahir
R/O Farhat Ka MakaanGali
No.9/5, Akhade Wali
Gali,Chauhan Bangar, Delhi-
110053
Arguments heard on 16.04.2019
Date of Judgment 16.04.2019
Final Order Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case are that complainant Mohd Yasir S/O Zeeshan Haider gave his statement in Police Station on 14.11.2017, that he is student of 10th class, at about 4.45 pm, he was returning home after attending tuition classes from Braham Puri, Gautam Puri, Delhi. He was on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL1SY-7127, KTM Duke and when he reached at Ghonda Chowk, near Kalyan Showroom, all of a sudden three persons came on a S.C. No. 77/18 State Vs Almas & Ors Page 6/6 motorcycle and over-took his motorcycle and stopped their motor cycle in front of his motorcycle. Due to which, he was compelled to stop his motorcycle. As soon as he stopped his motorcycle, two of those three motorcycle riders came to me, one of them took out country made pistol and hit its butt on his forehead and they tried to rob his motorcycle. They had taken the key of his motorcycle. They tried to start his motorcycle, but could not succeed. In the meanwhile, he noticed that a PCR came from the front side. On seeing the PCR, the assailants started running, but one of them was apprehended by the police whose name was revealed as CCL X. The CCL X had hit the butt of country made pistol on his forehead. He has stated that the country made pistol was also recovered from the said CCL-X. The PCR took him and the said CCL -X to Jag Pravesh Hospital, Delhi where he was medically examined.
2. After registration of FIR, on the above said statement, the investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency and the accused were arrested. During investigation the statement of the witnesses were recorded. IO collected the documents, prepared the challan for the alleged offence U/S 394/397/411/34 IPC 25/27 Arms Act and filed the charge sheet in the Court of Ld. Illaqa Magistrate. The charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. was committed U/S 209 Cr P C to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (Shahdara), Delhi for the trial of offence U/S 394/397/411/34 IPC 25/27 Arms Act. The accused were also sent to face the trial.
3. After considering the material on record and hearing S.C. No. 77/18 State Vs Almas & Ors Page 6/6 the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld Counsel for accused, my Ld Predecessor found a prima facie case for the offence punishable under section U/S 392/397/34 IPC against the accused persons . Accordingly, charge was framed for the offence U/S 392/397/34 IPC against the accused persons to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the record and the arguments advanced by them. It is a settled proposition of law that to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt by establishing an unbroken chains of events, leading to commission of the offence. It is further a settled proposition of law that once this chain is broken or a plausible theory of another possibility is shown, the accused becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt which ultimately leads to his/her acquittal. Emphasis supplied upon case titled as Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes 55.
5. It is to be borne in mind that the most important aspect of any successful prosecution is clear establishment or proof of identity of the accused being the assailant who has committed the alleged offence. This aspect of identify becomes the most primordial when the accusation against the accused has been for the serious offence like the present one. It is also stated to be first and most important connecting link in the chain of events which are S.C. No. 77/18 State Vs Almas & Ors Page 6/6 required to be proved by the prosecution before it could take its case towards the other connecting links for the purpose of proving the ingredients with which accused persons have been charged with.
6. Before adverting further I would like to discussed in ingredients with which the accused persons have been charged with.
7. To constitute an offence u/s 392 of IPC following ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution.
(i) That accused committed theft and caused or attempt to cause to some person death, hurt or wrongful restraint of fear of instant death, hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
(ii) That he did above in committing such theft, or in order to commit such theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by such theft and acted as in voluntarily.
(iii) That accused committed extortion and at the time of committing it in presence of the person so put in fear that person to instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
(iv) That he inducted the person so put in fear to deliver up then and there the thing extorted.
8. Similarly Section 397 IPC requires which deals with the offence of robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt requires the following ingredients to be established:-
(i) Commission of Robbery or Dacoity by the accused persons
(ii) At the time of commit robbery or dacoity, the accused person used deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
(iii)The above acts were done during the commission of robbery or dacoity.
9. In the present case Mohd Yasir is the complainant who S.C. No. 77/18 State Vs Almas & Ors Page 6/6 has been examined as PW1 . The witness has not identified both the accused in the Court. Though one of the accused Almas was identified by him during the TIP while another accused Farukh has refused to participate in TIP proceedings. Now question arises whether the identification of accused Almas in judicial TIP have relevance because the witness has not identified the accused Almas in the Court. In this regard the witness himself has clarified, the circumstances in which he had identified the accused in TIP proceedings in his examination that he was shown the photographs of both the accused persons by the police before joining TIP. In that eventuality, the TIP proceeding before the judicial Magistrate became futile. The witness has also clarified the fact why he has identified the accused in TIP proceedings, as witness has deposed that he was asked by the police official to identify the accused. Even on perusal of file there is glaring defect in the investigation as the IO has brought on record the supplementary statement, being recorded U/S 161 Cr P C, that witness (PW1) has seen the accused in the Court on 08.12.2017. Once IO has got conducted TIP of the accused on 07.12.2017 then there was no occasion for recording supplementary statement of witness regarding identification of accused persons in court on 08.12.2017.
10. I had put a quarry to Ld Addl PP for the State to brought to my notice any evidence which connect the accused persons with the alleged offence. The Ld Addl PP S.C. No. 77/18 State Vs Almas & Ors Page 6/6 has fairly submitted that there is no evidence on record which can connect both the accused persons with the alleged offence.
11. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case and they have fully succeeded to disprove the case of the prosecution.
12. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case so as to complete the chain much less to prove the same beyond the pale of reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the accused is entitled to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted of the charges.
13. In view of the statutory requirement of section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused is directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court, for a period of 6 months, to appear before the appellate court, if so required.
14. File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMARJAGDISH Location: Shahdara District, ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN KUMAR Karkardooma Courts Date: 2019.04.18 14:21:26 +0530 COURT ON THIS 16.04.2019 (JAGDISH KUMAR ) ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-04 SHAHDARA, KKD:DELHI S.C. No. 77/18 State Vs Almas & Ors Page 6/6