Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Aadil@ Rahim on 6 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR ,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (SHAHDARA) , DELHI.
ID No. 92-19
Sessions Case No. 18/19
Assigned to Sessions on 20.02.2019
FIR No. 331/2018
Police Station Anand Vihar
Under Section U/S 392/34 and 397 r/w
Section 120-B IPC
Charged Under Section U/S 392/34 and 397 r/w
Section 120-B IPC
State Vs 1. Aadil@ Rahim
S/O Mohd Umar
R/O Near Badi Masjid,
Pasonda Ghaziabad UP.
2. Mohd Ishaq
S/O Nisar Ahmad
R/O Amir Garden Colony
Lishadi Village
P.S Lishadi Gate, Meerut U.P
3. Shadab @ Salman
S/O Nawab
R/O H. No. 249, Illiyas Dairy,
Police Chowki Karan Gate,
Pasonda, Ghaziabad UP.
4. Deepak
S/O Roop Chand.
R/O Vill- Basantpur Saithli,
Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad UP.
Arguments heard on 06.01.2020
Date of Judgment 06.01.2020
Final Order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case are that on 23.09.2018, complainant Jasdev Singh alongwith his wife Smt. S.C. No.18/19 State Vs Aadil @ Rahim Page 1/7 Prabhdeep Kaur were going to Cross River Mall Delhi to watch movie in a Honda Civic car bearing No. DL7CF-3799. At about 8 pm, prior to going to movie, he got filled air in the tyres of his car. Then, they decided to go to Mahagun Mall, Vaishali, U.P. He took u-turn from Cross-River Mall Traffic Light and stopped his car for urination. Thereafter, when complainant again boarded the car to proceed further. In the meanwhile, two persons came on motorcycle from wrong side, they stopped their motorcycle by the side of his car. The person, who was driving the motorcycle, asked the complainant about some address, by that time, complainant rolled down half windowpane of his car. The person, who asked about the address, took out key of his car from the opened window of his car and the other boy, who was pillion rider snatched his gold chain from his neck. When the complainant resisted, in the meanwhile, one other person also came there on other bike and he took out pistol and threatened the complainant and his wife and he also asked for the gold chain of his wife. The complainant handed over the gold chain of his wife to that person.
2. Thereafter, all those persons fled away on the motorcycle, and took u-turn after covering some distance and returned to complainant's car and told him that they had thrown the key of his car on the way a little ahead of his car and thereafter, they fled away. The complainant moved on for some distance and found the key of his car, which was lying on the road. The complainant lifted his key and drove his car. The complainant gave his statement to the police.
S.C. No.18/19 State Vs Aadil @ Rahim Page 2/73. 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 392/397/ 120-B IPC and 25/27/54 of 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 392/397/120-B IPC and 25/27/54 of Arms Act. The accused was also sent to face the trial. The case was marked to this Court for trial by th Ld District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi
4. After considering the material on record and hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld Counsel for accused persons, prima facie case for the offence punishable U/S 392/34 r/w Sec 120-B IPC and 397 IPC was made out against the accused persons. Accordingly, charge was framed for the offence U/S 392/34 r/w Sec 120-B IPC against the accused No.2 to 4 and U/S 397 IPC against accused Adil to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and have claimed trial.
5. The material witness for prosecution are the complainant Sh Jasdev Singh and his wife Smt Prabhdeep Kaur. The complainant in this case has been examined as PW1. Summons were sent to PW Prabhdeep Kaur through SHO concerned. It was reported that she has taken divorced S.C. No.18/19 State Vs Aadil @ Rahim Page 3/7 from PW 1 Jasdev Singh and her present whereabouts are not know and despite efforts witness ( wife of PW1) could not be traced out. Other witnesses are police officials.
6. 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. Before adverting to the facts of the case I would like to mention certain 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.
7. 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 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.
S.C. No.18/19 State Vs Aadil @ Rahim Page 4/78. Before analyzing further the facts of case I would like to discussed the ingredients of the offences with which the accused persons have been charged with. The accused persons have been charged with offences U/S 392/34 IPC
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In the present case no recovery was affected from the S.C. No.18/19 State Vs Aadil @ Rahim Page 5/7 accused persons. Though the witnesses PW1 Jasdev Singh has identified the accused persons in the judicial TIP proceedings but while PW 1 examined in the Court, he has categorically deposed that the accused person present in the Court were not the persons who have committed the offence. The TIP is the evidence which falls in the category of only corroborative evidence.
12. In Ashrafi Vs State, AIR 1961 All 153, it has been held that the Test identification is designed to furnish evidence to corroborate the evidence which the witness concerned tenders before the Court. It is further held in Budhsen Vs State AIR 1970 SC 1321 that it is considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witness in Court as to the identity of the accused who are stranger to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings.
13. Moreover, PW1 in the cross examination has deposed that on 28.11.2018 he went to P.S for joining the TIP proceeding with the IO of the case. On the way to the Mandoli jail for TIP of accused persons, he was told by the IO that the accused persons involved in this incident have been apprehended by them and IO had also shown the photographs of culprits, who was apprehended by police and on the basis of that photographs, which was shown to him he had identified one person in TIP proceedings. So the identification of accused Shadab @ Salman and Deepak have lost its trustworthiness. So far as refusal of S.C. No.18/19 State Vs Aadil @ Rahim Page 6/7 accused Aadil @ Rahim to join the TIP has also give force to the plea of accused Adil @ Rahim that his photographs were shown to the witness by the police. So this refusal, in the given circumstances cannot be construed against accused Adil @ Rahim.
14. The other witnesses are the police official and the statement of those police witnesses are not helpful to the prosecution for connecting him to the present case.
15. 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 persons are entitled to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted of the charges.
16. In view of the statutory requirement of section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused persons are directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the court, for a period of 6 months, to appear before the appellate court, if so required.
17. File be consigned to record room Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR JAGDISH Location:
Shahdara District, ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN KUMAR Karkardooma Courts Date: 2020.01.08 COURT ON THIS 06.01.2020 11:35:25 +0530 (JAGDISH KUMAR ) ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-04 SHAHDARA, KKD:DELHI S.C. No.18/19 State Vs Aadil @ Rahim Page 7/7