Delhi District Court
State vs . Bijender @ Subhash Etc. on 21 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA:
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR No.: 335/2008
PS: Desh Bandhu Gupta Road
U/s 382/34/411 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act
State Vs. Bijender @ Subhash Etc.
Unique ID No.: 02401R0115702009
J U D G M E N T:
_____________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 60/2
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Singh R/o H. No. 9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Ghore Wali Gali, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of
offence : 13.12.2008
(d) Name of the accused : 1. Bijender @
Subhash S/o Sh.
Chunni Lal R/o 753,
Ajay Nagar, near Loko
Station, Rewari,
Haryana.
2. Jai Prakash
S/o Sh. Jagdish R/o
H. No. E-48, Aruna
Nagar, Majnu Ka Tila,
Delhi-54.
State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc.
FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 1 of 26
3. Bharat
S/o Sh. Narayan Dass
R/o H. No. N-68/97,
Aruna Nagar, Majnu
Ka Tila, Delhi-54.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 382/34/411 IPC &
25/54/59 Arms Act.
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 18.07.2016
(h) Final Order : All accused persons
are acquitted.
(i) Date of such order : 21.07.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The accused persons namely Bijender @
Subhash, Jai Prakash and Bharat were sent up for trial for the alleged offences under section 379/411/34 IPC and section 25 Arms Act.
2. The version of the prosecution is that on 13.12.2008, at about 4:30 PM, at Filmistan Bus Stand, near State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 2 of 26 East Park Road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station DBG Road, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of the purse belonging to the complainant Sh. Manoj Kumar containing Rs.760/- cash alongwith some documents after making preparations to cause death or hurt/ fear of death or hurt in order to the committing of such theft. The complainant raised alarm and the accused accused persons were apprehended by the police officials who were on patrolling duty. The stolen purse of the complainant containing Rs. 750/- was recovered from the possession of accused Bijender. Accused Bharat was found in illegal possession of one button operated knife in contravention of the Gazette Notification of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and a surgical blade was recovered from the possession of accused Bijender @ Subhash. On the complaint of the complainant the present FIR was registered and the accused persons were arrested.
State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 3 of 26
3. Thereafter, investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed against all the accused persons. The accused persons appeared before the Court and on 23.01.2010 charge for the offence under section 379 IPC was framed against all accused persons and charge for the offence under section 25 of Arms Act was framed against against accused Bharat and charge for the offence u/s 411 IPC was framed against accused Bijender @ Subhash to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 24.07.2014 charge was amended and additional charge for the offence under section 382/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 07 witnesses.
5. PW-1, Ct. Raj Kumar deposed that on 13.12.2008, he was posted at Police Station DBG Road and on that day, State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 4 of 26 he was on patrolling in the area alongwith Ct. Rambir, Ct. Rajpal and SI Maninder Singh. At about 4.30 pm when they were going from East Park Road to Filmistan and reached near the Police Booth, they heard the noise of Chor-Chor and saw that three persons were running towards East Park Road and one person was chasing them. He further deposed that they immediately apprehended all the said three persons who disclosed their names as Jai Prakash, Bijender and Bharat. The person chasing them disclosed that the said persons had picked his pocket. The cursory search of the said three persons was taken by them. From accused Bijender, one purse of black and white design was recovered, which was identified by the complainant. In the cursory search of accused Jai Prakash, one surgical blade was recovered which was kept in a match box in the right pocket of his pant. From accused Bharat, one knife was recovered from the back pocket of his jeans. The sketch of knife was prepared and its measurements were taken. The knife was 23.5 cms long having blade of length 11 cms. The State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 5 of 26 sketch of the knife is Ex. PW1/A. The knife was kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of MS. The purse was also checked and seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B. The surgical blade in the match box was kept in a cloth pullanda and it was also sealed with the seal of MS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. PW 1 further deposed that seal after use was given by SI Maninder Singh to him. Thereafter, SI Maninder Singh prepared rukka on the statement of the complainant and he took the same to the Police Station and got the present FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he handed over a copy of FIR and originak rukka to ASI Prem Pal Singh, who came at the spot. IO prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses. The accused persons were arrested by ASI Prem Pal Singh. The arrest memo of accused Jai Prakash is Ex. PW1/D and his personal search memo is Ex. PW1/E. Accused persons were got medically examined and their disclosure statements were also recorded by the IO. Disclosure statement of accused Jai Prakash is Ex. PW1/, State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 6 of 26 the disclosure statement of accused Bharat is Ex. PW1/G and the disclosure statement of accused Subhash is Ex. PW1/H. Purse is Ex. P1. Surgical blade is Ex. P2. Buttondar knife is Ex. P3.
6. PW2, Ct. Rambir deposed that on 13.12.2008 he was posted at Police Station DBG Road and on that day, he was on patrolling in the area alongwith Ct. Raj Kumar, Ct. Rajpal and SI Mahinder Singh. At about 4.30 pm when they were going from East Park Road to Filmistan and were near the police booth, they heard the noise of Chor-chor and saw that three persons were running towards East Park Road and one person was chasing them. They immediately apprehended all the said three persons. They disclosed their names as Jai Prakash, Bijender and Bharat. The person chasing them disclosed that the said persons had picked his pocket. From accused Bijender, one purse of black and white design was recovered, which was identified by the complainant. In the cursory search of accused Jai Prakash, State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 7 of 26 one surgical blade was recovered, which was kept in a match box. From the accused Bharat, one knife was recovered from the back pocket of his jeans. The sketch of knife was prepared and its measurements were taken. He further deposed that the knife was 23.5 cms long, having blade of length 11 cms. The sketch of knife is Ex. PW1/A. The knife was kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of MS. The purse was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B. The surgical blade in the match box was kept in a cloth pullanda and it was also sealed with the seal of MS and seized vide memo Ex. PW1/C. Seal after use was given by SI Maninder Singh to Ct. Raj Kumar. Thereafter, SI Maninder Singh prepared rukka on the statement of the complainant and Ct. Raj Kumar took the same to Police Station and got the present case registered. After registration of FIR IO ASI Prem Pal Singh came at the spot and prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses. The accused persons were arrested by ASI Prem Pal Singh. The arrest memo of accused Subhash @ Bijender is Ex. PW2/A and his State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 8 of 26 personal search memo is Ex. PW2/B. The disclosure statements of the accused persons were also recorded by the IO. Purse is Ex. P1. Match box containing one surgical blade is Ex. P2. Buttondar knife is Ex. P3.
7. PW3, retired SI Pratap Singh deposed that on 13.12.2008 he was posted at Police Station DBG Road as duty officer and on that day at about 6.25 pm, he received a rukka for registration of FIR through Ct. Raj Kumar sent by SI Mahinder. On the basis of the rukka, he recorded the FIR of this case which is Ex. PW3/A. Further investigation was marked to ASI Prem Pal. He further deposed that he gave a copy of FIR with original rukka to Ct. Raj Kumar for giving the same to the IO.
8. PW4, HC Ranjeet Singh deposed that on 13.12.2008, he was posted at Police Station DBG Road and on that day vide entry No. 1649, in the register no. 19, he had received one purse alongwith two pullandas duly sealed State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 9 of 26 with the seal of MS as well as the personal search articles of accused persons, from the IO SI Maninder Singh. He further deposed that he deposited the said articles in the malkhana. He produced the original Register no.19 and copy of the relevant entries is Ex.PW4/A.
9. PW-5, Ct. Rajpal deposed that on 13.12.2008 he was posted at PP Shidipura, Police Station DBG Road and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Raj Kumar, Ct. Rambir and SI Maninder were on patrolling duty in the area and present near East Park Road, Filmistan Police Booth. At about 4.30 pm, they heard noise of "Chor-Chor Pakro -Pakro" and they noticed that three persons were running towards East Park Road and they were being chased by another person. The person who was chasing them was shouting, "Chor-Chor Pakro-Pakro". They apprehended all the three persons whose names were disclosed as Jai Prakash, Bijender and Bharat. The name of person who was chasing the accused persons was disclosed as Manoj. Manoj complained that the State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 10 of 26 accused persons had picked his pocket. Search of accused persons was conducted and the stolen purse of the complainant Manoj was recovered from the possession of accused Bijender. The purse was identified by Manoj. The purse was found containing total Rs. 760/- and some documents. From the formal search of accused Jai Prakash, one surgical blade was recovered which was kept in a match box. From the formal search of accused Bharat one button operated knife was recovered. The sketch of knife was prepared and total length of knife was found as 23.5 cms, the width of blade being 2.5 cms, the length of handle being 12.5 cms and the length of blade being 11.00 cms. The sketch of knife is Ex. PW1/A. The surgical blade in the said match box was kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of MS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. The knife was also kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of MS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. The purse of the complainant containing cash and documents was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. The seal after use was State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 11 of 26 handed over to Ct. Raj Kumar. He further deposed that IO recorded the complaint of the complainant Manoj and prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Raj Kumar for getting the case registered and Ct. Raj Kumar went to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. The investigation of the case was marked to ASI Prem Pal. Thereafter Ct. Raj Kumar and IO ASI Prem Pal reached at the spot. He further deposed that the accused persons, the prepared documents and the seized case property were handed over to IO ASI Prem Pal. IO arrested the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW5/B and their personal search was conducted vide personal search memos Ex. PW1/E, Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW5/C. The disclosure statements of the accused persons were also recorded which are Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/H. The case properties are Ex. P1, P2 and P3.
10. PW-6 Inspector Maninder Singh deposed that on 13.12.2008 he was posted at PP Shidipura, Police Station State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 12 of 26 DBG Road and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Raj Kumar, Ct. Rambir and Ct. Rampal were on patrolling duty in the area vide DD No. 14, Ex. PW6/A and were present near East Park Road, Filmistan Police Booth. He further deposed that at about 4.30 pm, they heard the noise of "Chor-Chor Pakro
-Pakro" and they noticed that three persons were running on East Park Road and they were being chased by one person. The person who was chasing them was shouting, "Chor-Chor Pakro-Pakro". They apprehended all the three persons whose names were disclosed as Jai Prakash, Bijender and Bharat. The name of person who was chasing the accused persons was disclosed as Manoj who complained that the accused persons had picked his pocket. Search of the accused persons was conducted and the stolen purse of the complainant Manoj was recovered from the possession of accused Bijender. The purse was identified by Manoj. The purse was found containing total Rs. 760/- and some documents. From the formal search of accused Jai Prakash, one surgical blade was recovered from his State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 13 of 26 possession which was kept in a match box. From the formal search of accused Bharat one button operated knife was recovered. The sketch of knife was prepared and total length of the knife was found to be 23.5 cms with the width of blade as 2.5 cms and the length of handle as 12.5 cms and the length of blade as 11.00 cms. The sketch of knife is Ex. PW1/A. The surgical blade inside the said match box was kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of MS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. The knife was also kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of MS vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. The purse of the complainant containing the cash and documents was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. The seal after use was handed over to Ct. Raj Kumar. He further deposed that he recorded the complaint of the complainant Manoj which is Ex. PW6/B and made endorsement Ex. PW6/C thereupon and rukka was handed over to Ct. Raj Kumar for getting the case registered. Ct. Raj Kumar went to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. The investigation of the case was State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 14 of 26 marked to ASI Prem Pal. Ct. Raj Kumar and IO ASI Prem Pal reached at the spot. He further deposed that the accused persons and prepared documents and seized case property were handed over to IO ASI Prem Pal.
11. PW7 SI Prem Pal Singh deposed that on 13.12.2008 he was posted as ASI at PP Shidipura Police Station DBG Road and on that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He further deposed that Ct. Raj Kumar came at PP Shidipura and handed over a copy of FIR alongwith original rukka to him. He alongwith Ct. Raj Kumar reached at the spot i.e bus stand, Filmistan Cinema near East Park Road where SI Maninder Singh, Ct. Rajpal and Ct. Rambir met him. Complainant namely Manoj Kumar was also present at the spot. He further deposed that first IO/SI Maninder Singh handed over three accused persons namely Jai Prakash, Bijender and Bharat to him. First IO also handed over him the case properties (two sealed pullandas and one open purse) which were recovered State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 15 of 26 from the possession of the accused persons as informed to him by the first IO. First IO also handed over to him the relevant documents which were prepared by him. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of the first IO. He prepared the site plan of the spot at the instance of the complainant which is Ex. PW7/A. He interrogated the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements which are Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/H. He arrested all three accused persons and also conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PW1/E, Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW5/C respectively. Case properties were deposited in Malkhana. Accused persons were sent to lockup. After completion of investigation he prepared the challan. Thereafter PE was closed.
12. Thereafter the statements of all the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. The accused persons denied the prosecution version and stated State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 16 of 26 that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
13. I have heard arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have also perused the record.
14. The version of the prosecution is that on 13.12.2008, at about 4:30 PM, at Filmistan Bus Stand, near East Park Road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station DBG Road, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of the purse belonging to the complainant Sh. Manoj Kumar containing Rs.750/- cash alongwith some documents after making preparation to cause death or hurt/ fear of death or hurt in order to the committing of such theft and they were apprehended immediately thereafter and the stolen stolen purse of the complainant was recovered from the possession of accused Bijender while accused Bharat was found in illegal possession of one button operated knife in contravention of the Gazette Notification of the Govt. of State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 17 of 26 NCT of Delhi and a surgical blade was recovered from the possession of accused Bijender @ Subhash. The prosecution has therefore contended that all accused persons are liable for the offence under section 382/34 IPC and accused Bharat is additionally liable for the offence under section 25 of Arms Act and accused Bijender is additionally liable for the offence u/s 411 IPC. As against this the accused persons have denied the prosecution version.
15. PW1, PW2 and PW 6 have deposed that on 13.12.2008 they were on patrolling duty in the area when at about 4.30 pm when they were going from East Park Road to Filmistan and reached near police booth, they noticed that noise of chor chor and saw that the accused persons were running towards East Park Road and the complainant was chasing them and they apprehended all the three accused persons. They further deposed that the complainant had complained that the accused persons had picked his pocket and had stolen his purse. They further deposed that State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 18 of 26 from the search of accused Bijender the stolen purse of the complainant was recovered, from the search of accused Jai Prakash one surgical blade was recovered and from the search of accused Bharat one button operated knife was recovered.
16. However no independent public person was joined in the investigation/ proceedings to witness the recovery/ search/ proceedings. The failure on the part of the prosecution to join public witnesses especially when they are available, with no plausible explanation from the prosecution forthcoming for non joining of independent witnesses, coupled with the fact that there are various other contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and other infirmities in the prosecution case, casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh v. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J. 3604, "Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Admn." reported as 1989 CRI. L. J. 127 (Delhi HC) and Nanak State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 19 of 26 Chand v. State of Delhi reported as 1992 CRI. L. J. 55 (Delhi HC).
17. Further a perusal of the record reveals that the seizure memos of the knife, surgical blade and purse and the sketch of knife bears the FIR number, etc. although these documents were prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. It has not been explained as to how and under what circumstances the FIR number appears on these documents. Nothing has been stated by the prosecution witnesses in this respect while deposing before the court. This also creates a suspicion regarding recovery of the alleged the knife, surgical blade and purse from the accused persons. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Admn." Reported as 1989 CRI. L. J. 127 (Delhi HC) in this respect.
18. Further no efforts were made to handover the seal to any independent public person after use. It is State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 20 of 26 averred by the prosecution that the seal of PW 6 was allegedly handed over to PW 1 who is a junior Police Official. The handing over of the seal to any independent public person has not been proved and hence it cannot be ruled out that police had the opportunity to tamper with the case property as the seal was in their possession. This also creates a doubt upon the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh v. State"
reported as 1996 CRI. L. J. 3604 in this respect.
19. The most important point is that the complainant was not produced by the prosecution for his examination despite sufficient opportunities being granted to the prosecution. Thus the complainant has not been examined as a witness in the present case. The story of theft propounded by the police witnesses has therefore not been proved since it was only the complainant who could have deposed qua the factum of theft. The stolen case property was also not produced before the Court. Since, the State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 21 of 26 complainant has not been examined, therefore there is no evidence to establish that the accused persons had picked the pocket of the complainant or that the purse which was recovered from accused Bijender was a stolen purse or that it belonged to the complainant.
20. 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 of 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 prove State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 22 of 26 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. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilises the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt....."
21. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is 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). State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 23 of 26
22. In the judgment titled as Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Versus State of Rajasthan reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
".......Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved and `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 24 of 26 distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702; Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 3206; Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 3249; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh Harijan v. State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 25 of 26 State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979).
23. For the forgoing reasons and in view of the aforesaid legal position, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against all the accused persons Bijender @ Subhash, Jai Prakash and Bharat beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused persons Bijender @ Subhash, Jai Prakash and Bharat are accordingly acquitted for the offences punishable under section 382/411/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Announced in the open court (Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha) on 21.07.2016 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi.
State v. Bijender @ Subhash Etc. FIR NO. 335/2008, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Page No. 26 of 26