Delhi District Court
State vs Laxman on 4 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Karuna Mann, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 6687/2018
Unique Case ID No. -: DLSH020119992018
FIR No. -: 179/2017
Police Station -: Harsh Vihar
Section(s) -: 392/34/411 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
11. LAXMAN (abated vide order dated 21.05.2024)
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
2. RAHUL
S/o Mahesh
R/o A-165, Gali no. 5, Mandoli Ext. Delhi
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Neeraj Sharma
2. Name of Accused : Laxman and Rahul
411 IPC (qua accused
Offence complained of or Rahul) 392/34 IPC ( qua
3. :
proved accused Laxman and
Rahul)
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
Date of commission of
5. : 14.06.2017 and 15.06.2017
offence
6. Date of Filing of case : 15.08.2017
7. Date of Reserving Order : Not reserved
8. Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2025
9. Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by -: Sh. Nadeem, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Anuj Chaudhary and Sh. RL Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
CR Case No. 6687/2018 State Vs. Laxman & Anr Page No. 1 of 6 Digitally signed by KARUNA KARUNA MANN Date:
MANN 2025.04.04 16:36:37 +0530 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION -:
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 14.06.2017, at about 10:15 PM, complainant Neeraj was going to untie the tent at Mandoli Ext., suddenly two persons came from behind and asked the complainant to all his belongings. It is alleged that both the accused persons took the mobile phone of complainant.
It is further alleged that one of the accused ran away from the spot, however, the other accused person got apprehend by complainant. Thereafter police was called and upon enquiry, the apprehended accused revealed his name as Laxman and there after, on the instance of accused Laxman the other accused was apprehended and on his search, one mobile phone was recovered and upon enquiry his name was revealed as Rahul. As such, it is alleged that the accused Laxman and Rahul committed the offence under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and further accused Rahul has committed the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC").
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused were summoned to face trial.
3. On their appearance, a copy of charge-sheet were supplied to them in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case, charge under Section 411 IPC qua accused Rahul and Section 392/34 IPC qua accused Laxman and Rahul was framed. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, the CR Case No. 6687/2018 State Vs. Laxman & Anr Page No. 2 of 6 Digitally signed by KARUNA KARUNA MANN MANN Date:
2025.04.04 16:36:43 +0530 accused Laxman got expired and proceedings against him stands abated vide order dated 21.05.2025.
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Neeraj Sharma (complainant) PW-2 : Avneesh (MHC(M) PW-3 : ASI Upender (IO) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A : Complaint Ex. PW1/B : Recovery site plan Ex. PW1/C : Site Plan Ex. PW1/D : Seizure memo Ex. PW1/E & : Arrest memo Ex. PW1/F Ex. PW1/G & : Personal search memo Ex. PW1/H Ex. P1 : Case property Ex. PW2/A : Copy of register no.
Ex. PW3/A : Rukka
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS
Ex. A1 : FIR
Ex. A2 : Certificate under Section 65B IEA
Ex. A3 : DD No. 79B
5. PW1 Neeraj Sharma is the complainant being the star witness of the prosecution. He deposed on oath that one day at about 10:15 PM, he was going to open/untie the tent at gali no. 16, Mandoli Ext., in the meantime, two persons came from behind and caught hold of his neck. He became unconscious and fell on the ground. He further deposed that those two persons robbed his mobile phone.
Thereafter, he deposed that after he woke up, he came to know the the accused persons were apprehended by the police. The witness did CR Case No. 6687/2018 State Vs. Laxman & Anr Page No. 3 of 6 Digitally signed by KARUNA KARUNA MANN MANN Date:
2025.04.04 16:36:49 +0530 not identify the accused and turned hostile. Further, in his cross examination done by Ld. APP for the State, the accused Rahul was shown to the witness and he stated that he had not seen the accused robbing his mobile phone.He even he failed to identify his mobile phone when produced before the Court.
6. Since the prosecution had cited only one independent/public witness, the complainant itself, in the present matter and rest of the prosecution witnesses were all police officials, prosecution evidence was closed vide separate order, keeping in view the submissions of the Learned APP.
7. It is worth noting that the material witness in the present case was the complainant PW 1. Apart from them, there is no other public witness. Apart from above-mentioned witness there is no other witness who can identify the accused or prove the offence with which accused person has been subjected to trial. Even the TIP of the accused Rahul was not conducted during investigation.
8. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against accused person, due to not identifying the accused persons by the material witness, the prosecution can never hope to prove the allegations levelled against the accused person(s). Remaining witnesses in the present case are official/police witnesses, whose testimonies even if taken together would also be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused person
9. Prosecution evidence was closed, vide order dated 15.02.2025, as recording of any further prosecution evidence in the present case would have resulted in to wastage of judicial time, money, resources and would have also caused unnecessary harassment to the accused person(s) who has anyhow faced the Digitally signed CR Case No. 6687/2018 State Vs. Laxman & Anr Page No. 4 of 6 by KARUNA KARUNA MANN Date:
MANN 2025.04.04 16:36:54 +0530 ordeal of the trial in the present case for almost last seven years. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that: -
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
10. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused person. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2017 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused person would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Mahrashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057.
Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Abr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
11. Thereafter, since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused Rahul in the testimony of eye witness/victim, recording of his statement under Section 313 CrPC was dispensed with vide order dated 15.02.2025. Thereafter, he stated Digitally signed CR Case No. 6687/2018 State Vs. Laxman & Anr Page No. 5 of 6 by KARUNA KARUNA MANN Date:
MANN 2025.04.04 16:37:02 +0530 that he does not wish to lead evidence in his defence and the same was closed.
12. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus proving the ingredients of offence and identity of the accused person and thus, the accused person is entitled to benefit of doubt.
13. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the charges alleged against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence under Section 392/34 IPC qua accused Rahul and Laxman and offence under Section 411 IPC qua accused Rahul beyond reasonable doubt. The star witness of the prosecution i.e. the complainant has turned hostile. The identity of the accused Rahul as the assailant is not proved by the complainant in his testimony. There is no evidence to link the accused person(s) with the crime charged against him. Further, the ingredients of the offences are not fulfilled from the material on record.
14. In view of the above discussion, since the complainant has not identified the accused and there is no other direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused person, the accused person namely, LAXMAN (abated) and accused RAHUL S/o Mahesh is hereby found not guilty. Accordingly, accused RAHUL is hereby ACQUITTED of the offence under Section 392/34/411 IPC.
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by KARUNAKARUNA MANN MANN Date:
2025.04.04 16:37:16 +0530 Announced in Open (KARUNA MANN) Court in presence of accused.
Judicial Magistrate First Class- 07 This judgment Shahdara District, Karkardooma contains 6 signed New Delhi, 04.04.2025 pages.
CR Case No. 6687/2018 State Vs. Laxman & Anr Page No. 6 of 6