Delhi District Court
Cr CASES/7642/2021 on 18 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL VERMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No.185/2019
PS - Sunlight Colony
U/s - 356/379/411 IPC
State v. Naresh
JUDGMENT
Part A - The list at a glance A. Serial No. of the Case : 7642/2021 B. Date of Commission of offence : 22.07.2019 C. Date of Institution of Case : 25.10.2021 D. Name of the Complainant : Ms. Nilofer W/o Shri Zia Akhtar E. Name of the Accused : 1. Naresh S/o Shri Bish Ram R/o Gali No.9, Agwanpur, Om Nagar Chowk, Faridabad, Haryana.
2. Dilbar Alam S/o Mohd. Atabul R/o D1545, Om EnclaveII, Gali No.1, Faridabad, Haryana (since abated).
F. Offence charged of : 356/379/34 IPC G. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty H. Final Order : Acquitted I. Judgment reserved on : 18.11.2022 J. Date of judgment : 18.11.2022 State v.Naresh & Ors. FIR No. 185/2019, PS: Sun Light Colony Page No. 1 of 6
Part B - A brief statement of reasons for the decision (As mandated u/s 355(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.07.2019 at about 01.30 PM infront of petrol pump ring road near furniture market within the jurisdiction of PS Sunlight colony accused alongwith coaccused Dilbar Alam (since expired) in further of common intention used criminal force and snatched the bag containing Samsung Tab without sim, two batteriesN6, kanso disposable battery, one remote, one Samsung mobile phone inserting mobile no.9319406595 and Rs.5000/ from the hand / possession of the complainant namely Nilofar without her consent. Present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint given by the complainant.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet qua the accused was filed under Section 356/379/34 IPC. Documents were furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). On the basis of material on record, charge u/s. 356/379/34 IPC was framed upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Vide a separate statement dated 04.03.2022 the accused admitted the genuineness of following documents, which were also exhibited as under :
(i) FIR (without contents) with certificate u/s.65B IEA registered in the present case as Ex. PA1.
(ii) DD No.23 dated 22.07.2019 Ex. PA2.
(iii) DD No.15B dated 07.10.2019 Ex. PA3.
(iv) TIP proceedings dated 21.10.2019 of accused Naresh and Mohd.
Dilbar Alam Ex. PA4 & Ex. PA5 respectively.
State v.Naresh & Ors. FIR No. 185/2019, PS: Sun Light Colony Page No. 2 of 6
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW1 Nilofar deposed that on 22.07.2019 at about 01.00 PM she alongwith her daughters took auto from Golcha hall, Daryaganj to Okhla and when they reached near the petrol pump at Sarai Kale Khan at about 01.30 PM, suddenly two persons came on a bike from her right side and snatched her bag containing her Samsung tab without sim, one mobile phone make Samsung, Rs.500/ cash, cochlear implants and some other accessories/ batteries, screw driver, snugfit and ear hook. The number plate of the said bike was painted with white colour paint. Thereafter, she asked the driver of the auto to follow the bike. However, they were unable to catch the said accused persons and they lost sight of the bike. Thereafter, they went to Okhla at the house of her sister in law and thereafter got the FIR registered on the same day. She failed to identify the accused as the person who had snatched her bag due to lapse of time. She further deposed that she had not clearly seen the face of the said person as the incident took place very fast. This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite availing opportunity.
(ii) PW2 ASI Om Prakash deposed that on 06.10.2019 after the receipt of emergency PCR call, he went to Ring Road opposite to Vinobapuri Metro Station where he met HC Girish, Ct. Ravinder, HC Mulani and Ct. Bharat. One complainant and three accused persons were also present at the spot with one motorcycle. The abovesaid HC Girish handed over the custody of accused person, motorcycle and one mobile phone. Thereafter, the complainant gave a written complainant State v.Naresh & Ors. FIR No. 185/2019, PS: Sun Light Colony Page No. 3 of 6 and on the basis of the same, FIR No. 314/19 PS Lajpat Nagar was registered. He interrogated the said three accused persons namely Naresh, Mohd Dilwar and Balu. During interrogation, accused Naresh and Mohd Dilwar confessed their involvement in present FIR and accordingly he recorded their disclosure statement Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. Thereafter, he arrested the said accused persons vide memo Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D. He correctly identified the accused in the court. This witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused.
(iii) PW3 ASI Shyam Charan deposed that on 22.07.2019 after the present case was marked to him for further investigation, he went to spot, where he met the complainant. He prepared the site plan Ex. PW 3/A. On 07.10.2019 vide DD No. 15B, he received an information about the arrest of the two accused persons and their disclosure statement about their involvement in the present case. Thereafter, on 21.10.2019, both the accused persons were produced before the court and were formally arrested vide memo Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of both accused persons vide memo Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW3/F. On the same date, he moved an application for TIP of the accused persons, however they refused to participate in the same. Thereafter, he obtained the PC of the said accused persons and both the accused persons led them to the place of the incident and pointed out the place where they committed the said offence. Thereafter, he prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW3/G. During interrogation both the accused persons disclosed that they had showed the stolen article to unknown person. During investigation, he recorded the statement of the witnesses and State v.Naresh & Ors. FIR No. 185/2019, PS: Sun Light Colony Page No. 4 of 6 obtained the document. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the court. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
5. Thereafter, Ld. APP for the State pressed for summoning of remaining witnesses. At this stage, the testimony of PW1 is perused by the court which shows that she has not supported the case of the prosecution. In her examination in chief she failed to identify the accused as the person who had snatched her bag. In the list of witnesses of prosecution, PW1 Nilofar is the sole eyewitness whose testimony does not establish that it was the accused who used the criminal force upon her to snatch her bag. The remaining prosecution witnesses are not witness to the incident and even if they were to be examined, the guilt of the accused cannot be proved.
6. Here, it would be beneficial to refer to judgment of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn., (1996) 9 SCC 766, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "[I]n case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formallycompleting the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date".
7. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002 4 SCC 578, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the criminal courts should exercise their available powers such as those under section 258 Cr.P.C. to effectuate the right to speedy trial. While commenting on the right to speedy justice it was observed as under:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from State v.Naresh & Ors. FIR No. 185/2019, PS: Sun Light Colony Page No. 5 of 6 unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial of Summons cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.".
8. In view of the above discussion it is clear that the complainant, who is the sole eye witness, has failed to support the prosecution story. Thus, in order to protect the rights of the accused of speedy justice, this court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the powers conferred upon it under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, in exercise of its power under section 258 Cr.P.C, the proceedings against the accused Naresh are hereby stopped and PE is closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused, recording of statement of accused is also dispensed with.
9. The accused Naresh is accordingly acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 356/379/34 IPC.
Announced in open court Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL VERMA
on 18.11.2022 VERMA Date:
2022.11.18
17:14:38 +0530
(RAHUL VERMA)
Metropolitan Magistrate07,
South East, Saket, New Delhi
State v.Naresh & Ors. FIR No. 185/2019, PS: Sun Light Colony Page No. 6 of 6