Delhi District Court
State vs Ashish @ Ashu on 29 October, 2020
CNR No. DL CT020099442018
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DL CT020099442018
CIS No.3567/18
State Vs Ashish @ Ashu
FIR No. 436/15
PS. Nabi Karim
U/s. 380/511 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 25.08.2015
2) The name of the complainant : Vinod Kumar
3) The name & parentage of accused : Ashish @ Ashu S/o. Late Dinesh,
4) Offence complained of : 380/511 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6) Final order : Acquitted.
7) The date of such order : 29.10.2020
Date of Institution : 14.03.2018
Judgment announced on : 29.10.2020
Digitally signed
by KAPIL
KAPIL KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2020.10.29
17:14:03
+0530
State Vs. Ashish @ Ashu; CIS No. 3567/18; FIR No. 436/15; PS Nabi Karim; U/s. 380/511 IPC 1/6
CNR No. DL CT020099442018
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1) The case of prosecution against the accused is that on 25.08.2015 at 2
AM in front of house no. 6570 Gali no.15, Pardhan Chowk, Nabi Karim, Delhi he attempted to commit theft in the house of the complainant namely Vinod Kumar.
2) After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. In compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.PC, documents supplied to the accused. Arguments on point of charge were heard. Vide order dated 24.08.2018, a charge for the offence u/s. 380/511 IPC was framed upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its case, prosecution has examined nine witnesses. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded in which he denied all the allegations and opted not to lead DE.
4) I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
5) It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
6) The complainant of the present case namely Vinod Kumar was examined as PW1 by the prosecution. PW1 deposed that around 3 years ago, one day, he was sleeping on the roof of his house and on that day at Digitally signed by State Vs. Ashish @ Ashu; CIS No. 3567/18; FIR No. 436/15; PS Nabi Karim; U/s. 380/511 IPC KAPIL 2/6KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2020.10.29 17:14:14 +0530 CNR No. DL CT020099442018 about 2 AM he heard noise of his neighbours who were gathered around a boy. He deposed that he was apprised by his neighbour that the boy whom they have caught was trying to commit theft. He deposed that after sometime police arrived at the spot and made inquiry from him and neighbours. He deposed that his signatures were taken on some papers. He deposed that he does not know the person who was apprehended by his neighbours and he cannot identify him.
7) Since the complainant not supported the case of the prosecution at all qua the identification of the accused and to the entire incident as such, as mentioned in the complaint, and accordingly he was crossexamined by Ld APP for the State. In the crossexamination also nothing came out as to the benefit of prosecution. The complainant even denied the FIR by deposing that he did not make any statement to police. When the rukka Ex.PW1/A was put to the witness he submits that his signatures were taken on blank papers. He denied that on 25.08.2015 he saw accused standing near the water tank of his house. He denied that the accused started running through roof of house no. 6569 and 6570 and thereafter jumped in the gali and was apprehended by neighybours. When the site plan Ex.PW1/B was put to the complainant he again deposed that his signatures were taken on blank papers. He denied that he deliberately not identifying the accused.
8) Perusal of testimony of complainant reveals that the police took his signatures on blank papers. The complainant denied the complaint and the FIR. He had not identified the accused. He denied that he saw accused on Digitally signed by State Vs. Ashish @ Ashu; CIS No. 3567/18; FIR No. 436/15; PS Nabi Karim; U/s. 380/511 IPC KAPIL3/6 KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2020.10.29 17:14:28 +0530 CNR No. DL CT020099442018 the roof of his house. The testimony of complainant turns out to be fatal for the case of the prosecution as the entire case and the proceedings of the case has been denied by the complainant. All the documents prepared during the investigation including the rukka and the site plan are proved to be false documents.
9) The neighbours of the complainant namely Tilak Raj and Sunil Kumar were examined as PW2 and PW3 by the prosecution. These witnesses deposed that on 25.08.2015 at about 2 AM they woke up after hearing the noise of "chor chor".They deposed that the accused jumped in the gali from the roof of house no. 6570 and thereafter apprehended. In the crossexamination both these witnesses deposed that they had not seen the accused entering or coming out from the house of the complainant or any other house. Both PW2 and PW3 were not reexamined on this aspect.
When PW2 and PW3 did not see the accused entering or coming out from the house of the complainant or jumping from any roof than their testimony qua the identification of accused is of no consequence as the attempt to theft in the house of the complainant or trespass is nowhere coming on record by virtue of their testimony.
10) PW4 Ct Diwakar,PW5 Ct Vinond,PW6 ASI Ishwar,PW7 SI Hari Kishan ,PW8 Retired SI Randhir Singh and PW9 ASI Parmod Kumar deposed as to the proceedings of the investigation. Their testimony are formal in nature as they had not seen the accused entering into the house of the complainant or attempting to commit any theft in the house of the Digitally signed by KAPIL State Vs. Ashish @ Ashu; CIS No. 3567/18; FIR No. 436/15; PS Nabi Karim; U/s. 380/511 IPC KAPIL4/6 KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2020.10.29 17:14:35 +0530 CNR No. DL CT020099442018 complainant. Moreso, when the complainant specifically denied the presence of accused in his house on the day of incident and did not identify the accused the proceedings qua the investigation would be of no consequence.
11) In view of the testimony of the complainant and neighbours of the complainant it is came on record that the police took the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers and thereafter those papers were used in the proceedings of the investigation. The alleged attempt to theft on the part of the accused not proved on record. The prosecution is not able to discharge its burden of proof. In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v.
State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to Digitally signed by KAPIL State Vs. Ashish @ Ashu; CIS No. 3567/18; FIR No. 436/15; PS Nabi Karim; U/s. 380/511 IPC KAPIL5/6 KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2020.10.29 17:14:42 +0530 CNR No. DL CT020099442018 prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
12) The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused was upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused.
Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
13) Accordingly, the accused is certainly entitled to have benefit of doubt and thus the accused Ashish @ Ashu is hereby acquitted of the charges framed in the present case. File be consigned to record room subject to compliance of section 437 A Cr.PC.
Digitally
signed by
KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2020.10.29
17:14:50
+0530
Announced in open court (Kapil Kumar)
on 29.10.2020 MM5/Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi,
State Vs. Ashish @ Ashu; CIS No. 3567/18; FIR No. 436/15; PS Nabi Karim; U/s. 380/511 IPC 6/6