Delhi District Court
State vs . Brij Kishore on 27 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH BHUPINDER SINGH: ACMM01(C)
THC: DELHI
State vs. Brij Kishore
FIR NO. : 108/18
U/S : 356/379/341 IPC
PS : Paharganj
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 7956/18
b) CNR no. : DLCT020204932018
c) Date of institution of the case : 14/06/2018
d) Date of commission of offence : 02/05/2018
e) Name of the complainant : Smt. Heena Mehta
f) Name & address of the : Brij Kishore S/o Deen Dayal
accused R/o H. No. B12, 2nd Floor, Double
Storey, Motia Khan, Paharganj,
Delhi
g) Offence charged with : 356/411 IPC
h) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
i) Arguments heard on : 27/07/2018
j) Final order : Acquitted
k) Date of Judgment : 27/07/2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused Brij Kishore has been sent to face trial with the allegations that on 02/05/2018 at about 12:00 a.m. Sadar Thana Road, Outside Gali no. 2, Multani Dhanda, within the jurisdiction of PS Paharganj, accused snatched one mobile phone make Samsung J7 Prime from the possession of complainant Smt. Hina Mehta and thereby alleged to have committed the offences U/sec. 356 IPC. Further, the case of prosecution is that the aforesaid snatched mobile phone was recovered from his possession which he received or retained knowingly or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property and FIR No. 108/18 State Vs Brij Kishore 1 of 4 thereby alleged to have committed the offence U/sec. 411 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. A formal charge for commission of offence U/s 356/411 IPC was framed to accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1 Const. Kapil Kumar has deposed that on 12/05/2018 complainant Heena Mehra reached at PS and produced the accused apprehended by her. He further deposed that IO recorded her statement, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. He further deposed about seizure of mobile phone vide memo Ex. PW1/A, recording of disclosure statement Ex. PW1/B, arrested and personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/C & Ex. PW1/D. He correctly identified the accused and photographs of mobile Ex. P1.
5. PW2 Ms. Heena Mehta is the complainant and the star witness of the prosecution. She deposed that on 02/05/2018 at about 12:00 a.m. when she along with his sister and brother were near gali no. 2, suddenly one person came from the back side and snatched her mobile phone and fled away from the spot. She further deposed that she called her jija and searched for accused and the accused was apprehended the accused on DGB Road near bus stand and went to PS where she made complaint. She further deposed about preparation of site plan Ex. PW2/B, seizure memo of her mobile phone Ex. PW1/A, arrest and personal search memo of accused Ex. PW1/C & Ex. PW1/D respectively. She deposed that the accused present in the court was not the person who was apprehended by her and accused was someone else.
The witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP with the permission of court. During crossexamination she denied the suggestion that the accused is the FIR No. 108/18 State Vs Brij Kishore 2 of 4 same person who snatched her mobile phone.
6. PW3 Surjit Singh deposed that in the night of 1205/2018 he was at his home and Suman came to his house and narrated the incident. He went to the spot, searched for accused and apprehended the accused and took him to PS along with snatched mobile phone. He further deposed about seizure of mobile phone and arrest of accused. He deposed that the accused present in the court was not the person who snatched the mobile phone and apprehended by them but was someone else.
The witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP with the permission of court. During crossexamination she denied the suggestion that the accused is the same person who snatched mobile phone of Heena.
7. Since both the material witnesses failed to identify the accused, therefore, PE was closed by even date order of this court as accusation against latter could not have been proved in view of his non identification.
8. Since no incriminating evidence came on record against accused, therefore, his statement U/sec. 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with.
9. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
10. In the instant case, both the material witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW3 have failed to identify the accused as perpetrator of the offence. The identity of accused is the most vital aspect of any criminal trial. Since the complainant/eye witnesses FIR No. 108/18 State Vs Brij Kishore 3 of 4 herself has refused to identify the accused as perpetrator of the offence, the whole prosecution version crumbles and nothing survives. As per the complainant, the accused facing trial was not the person who had snatched of her mobile and was handed over to Police. Nothing could be elucidated from the complainant despite having been crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State on the point of identity of the accused. Remaining witnesses examined or proposed to be examined by the prosecution are formal in nature and could not throw any light on the point of identity of the accused as the one who had snatched the mobile of the complainant.
11. There is nothing on record to suggest that alleged offence were committed by accused Brij Kishore. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the allegations against accused and he is accordingly acquitted for the charges U/sec. 356/411 levelled against him. Ordered accordingly. Digitally signed by BHUPINDER BHUPINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2018.07.27 16:47:35 +0530 Announced in the open court (Bhupinder Singh) on 27/07/2018 ACMM01(C)/THC/Delhi 27/07/2018 FIR No. 108/18 State Vs Brij Kishore 4 of 4