Delhi District Court
State vs Rinku Etc on 13 October, 2014
FIR No. 551/13
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 356/379/34 IPC
State Vs.Rinku etc
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPLAV DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: NORTH WEST04, DELHI
FIR No.551/13
Case ID:- 02404R0245892014
State Vs. Rinku & Ors
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 356/379/34 IPC
Date of Institution of case : 10.02.2014
Date of Judgment : 13.10.2014
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 10.11.2013 b) Offence complained of : U/s 356/379/34 IPC c) Name of Accused, his : 1) Sh. Rinku parentage & residence S/o Sh.Jaipal R/o Plot No.10, Sunday Bazar Road, Begumpur, Delhi. 2) Nitin Verma, S/o Sh. Dinesh Verma, R/o C-35, Balbir Vihar, Aman Vihar, Delhi d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted 1/7 FIR No. 551/13 PS Keshav Puram U/s 356/379/34 IPC State Vs.Rinku etc BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
1. That on 10.11.2013 at about 1:40 p.m., near H.No. A-2/117, Sector-05, Rohini within the jurisdiction of PS Keshav Puram, the accused persons namely Rinku & Nitin used criminal force to complainant Smt. Namrata Pandey while attempting to commit theft and committed theft of golden chain which the complainant was wearing and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 356/379/34 IPC within the cognizance of this Court.
2. The Court took cognizance of the above-said offence u/s 356/379/34 IPC and as a prime facie case was made out against the accused persons for offence punishable u/s 356/379/34 IPC, charge was accordingly framed against accused Rinku and Nitin on 24.05.2014 and 13.10.2014 respectively to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 356 & 379 read with Section 34, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Sections:
a. Section 356 : The accused assulated or used any criminal force to any person, that such person was either wearing or carrying any property and that accused committed such assault in an attempt to commit theft of such property.
b. Section 379 IPC :- The accused removed the movable property and that removed it out of the possession of another person without his consent 2/7 FIR No. 551/13 PS Keshav Puram U/s 356/379/34 IPC State Vs.Rinku etc with dishonest intention.
c. Section 34 IPC:-
i) That the criminal act or a series of acts which include omissions and need not necessary be an overt act should have been done not by one person but by more then one person.
ii) That the doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting into the commission of criminal offence should have been in furtherance/ advancement/ promotion of common intention of all such persons.
iii) This Section deals with constructive criminal liability which provides that where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. If the common intention leads to the commission of the criminal offence charged, each one of the persons sharing the common intention is constructively liable for the criminal act done by one of them ....... Nand Kishore v State of M.P (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 378: (2011) 12 SCC 120;
Brathi v State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 519.
4. To prove its case, prosecution started its evidence with the testimony of Smt. Namrata pandey as PW-1.
5. PW-1 Smt. Namrata Pandey, W/o Sh. Anil Kumar Pandey deposed that on 10.11.2013 at about 1:50 p.m, when she reached in the street of her house at the same time two persons came on one motorcycle and the person who was pillion rider snatched her gold chain from her neck and that she can identify the said persons if shown to her. PW-1 Smt. Namrata Pandey further deposed that her husband who was behind her made phone call at 100 3/7 FIR No. 551/13 PS Keshav Puram U/s 356/379/34 IPC State Vs.Rinku etc number, that the police officials came and recorded her statement which is Ex. PW-1/A, that she has shown to police officials the place of incident exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B, that out of the said persons one of them is present today in the Court, the witness pointed towards accused Rinku and stated that he had snatched her gold chain. PW-1 Smt. Namrata Pandey further deposed that she can identify the other accused person who had snatched her gold chain and that her gold chain has not yet been recovered.
Ld. APP for the State was permitted to cross examine the witness u/s 154 of Evidence Act and the accused Nitin present today in the Court is shown to the witness who on seeing him stated that he was not the same person who had snatched her gold chain on the date of incident. The witness denied the suggestion that she has compromised with the accused Nitin and due to which she was not identifying him. This witness was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity. It is clear from the aforesaid testimony that prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused Nitin but has successfully established the identity of accused Rinku as the assailant who snatched the gold chain from the neck of the complainant.
6. During the prosecution evidence, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the Ld. Counsel for accused Nitin that the complainant/ star witness PW-1 Smt. Narmata is not supporting the prosecution and resiling from her statement recorded earlier regarding the identity of the accused as the snatcher, that no material could be extracted from the cross examination of the aforesaid witness by the State and that the witness has turned hostile in 4/7 FIR No. 551/13 PS Keshav Puram U/s 356/379/34 IPC State Vs.Rinku etc toto qua accused Nitin. It is submitted that there is no other eye witness of the incident and there is no circumstance available on record to prove that accused person namely Nitin assaulted or used criminal force upon the complainant in an attempt to commit theft or committed theft of gold chain belonging to the complainant from her possession. It is submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution against the accused as remaining witnesses are all police witnesses who are formal in nature and the identification of the accused Nitin as snatcher or theft which is necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused can not be proved at all by the remaining prosecution witnesses.
7. Submission heard on behalf of State and defence. Record perused.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that submissions of the Ld. Counsel for accused are not baseless. Considering the record, the fact that nothing was recovered or discovered from or at the instance of accused Nitin, the fact that the complainant/star witness PW-1 Smt. Narmata is not supporting the prosecution as she failed to identify the accused Nitin to be the snatcher and is resiling from her statement recorded earlier as well as the fact that there is no other eye witness of the incident to establish the fact that accused Nitin assaulted or used criminal force upon the complainant in an attempt to commit theft or committed theft of gold chain belonging to the complainant from her possession which is necessary a element for completion of offences u/s 356/379/34 IPC, no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution evidence. Moreover, in the absence of any recovery made on 5/7 FIR No. 551/13 PS Keshav Puram U/s 356/379/34 IPC State Vs.Rinku etc instance of accused Nitin even the liability u/s 411 IPC can not be fastened upon this accused. Hence, the prosecution evidence is closed and recording of statement of accused persons is also dispensed with as there is no substantially incriminating circumstance available on record.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and present circumstances, as no substantially incriminating material is available on record, accused namely Nitin is hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 356/379/34 IPC levelled against him.
In respect of accused Rinku, it is submitted that he wants to settle the matter with the complainant for offence punishable u/s 379 IPC and is admitting all the allegations leveled by prosecution qua ofence u/s 356 IPC and accordingly, parties were granted time to negotiate settlement. After due deliberations with accused, the complainant submitted that she has settled the matter with the accused Rinku of her own free will. Separate statement of accused Rinku and complainant are recorded regarding the amicable settlement of case for offence u/s 379 IPC. In view of the voluntarily settlement of the matter u/s 379 IPC which is compoundable in nature, accused Rinku is acquitted for the offence u/s 379 IPC. It is pertinent to mention that accused Rinku has admitted all the allegations qua the offence punishable u/s 356 IPC. Considering that the accused Rinku is admitting all the allegations made qua Section 356 IPC voluntarily and without any force, fear or influence, this Court is of the view that continuing the prosecution evidence further would be futile exercise. Accordingly, prosecution evidence qua accused Rinku is also closed. Statement of accused Rinku regarding his admission of guilt is recorded alongwith the settlement statement.
6/7 FIR No. 551/13PS Keshav Puram U/s 356/379/34 IPC State Vs.Rinku etc In view of the voluntarily admission of guilt for offence u/s 356 IPC, the accused Rinku is convicted for commission of said offence.
Submission heard on aspect of sentence. Record perused. Considering that the convict Rinku has been only about 21 years of age, that he is the sole bread earner of his family, that he was in custody for more than six month and that justice demands that an opportunity be given to such young people for reformation, the accused Rinku is sentence with simple imprisonment for the period already undergone in custody.
Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS)
on 13.10.2014 MM-04/NORTH WEST:DELHI
13.10.2014
7/7