Delhi District Court
State vs . Abu Vakar Ali on 10 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
DLST020088732020
CR CASES/1933/2020
STATE Vs. ABU VAKAR ALI
State v. Abuwakar Ali
FIR No. 229/2020
Police Station : Saket
Under Section : 457/380/411/34 IPC
CNR Number: DLST020088732020
Date of institution : 13.08.2020
Date of reserving : Not reserved
Date of pronouncement : 10.05.2022
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 1933/2020
b) Date of commission of : 14/15.06.2020
offence
c) Name of the complainant : Aman Tomar
s/o Mr. Pappu Tomar,
r/o F-99, Dakshinpuri,
New Delhi.
d) Name, parentage and : Abuwakar Ali
address of the accused s/o Mr. Irfan Ali
r/o Harun's Jhuggi, Shiv Park,
Khanpur, New Delhi
State Vs. Abuwakar Ali
FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 1 of 18
e) Offence complained of : Offence punishable under
Section 457/380/411/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section
457/380 IPC and convicted for
the offence punishable 411 IPC.
h) Date of final order : 10.05.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, the accused Abuwakar Ali is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 457/380/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') in the instant case FIR No.229/2020 Police Station Saket, New Delhi under Section 457/380/411/34 IPC for the reasons mentioned below.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 14.06.2020 at about 9.00 PM, complainant closed his meat shop No.15, J-Block Market, Saket, New Delhi and went to his home. On the next day i.e. 15.06.2020, when the complainant reached his shop at about 11.00 AM found that the lock of the shutter of his shop was broken and the shutter was lifted/raised from one side under which there were two stones. When the complainant entered the shop, he noticed that the articles were scattered and Rs.3,000/- which were kept inside the drawer, in a cloth bag, were missing. Upon search, complainant also found that two CCTV cameras and one mobile make Redmi MI 7A were missing from his shop. Thereafter, upon complaint of the complainant, the present FIR State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 2 of 18 was registered.
3. Vide order dated 14.12.2020, charge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 457/380/411/34 IPC was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Vide order dated 05.02.2021, in compliance with the provisions of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of (i) Endorsement by Duty Officer (ii) FIR bearing No.229/2020 under Section 457/380 IPC, police station Saket (iii) certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and (iv) GD No.41A dated 15.06.2020, which were admitted by the accused and, therefore, exhibited as Ex.A-1, Ex.A-2, Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 respectively. Accordingly, PW Duty Officer Head Constable Naresh Kumar Meena was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses.
5. The prosecution in all examined five witnesses. PW-1 Mr. Aman Tomar is the complainant/victim in the present case. PW-2 Constable Shri Ram had accompanied the investigating officer to the spot. PW-3 Head Constable Wasim had accompanied the investigating officer to the spot. PW-4 ASI Deepak Prashad is the investigating officer. PW-5 Sub-Inspector Jitender Malik had apprehended the co-accused.
6. PW1 Sh. Aman Tomar is the complainant. He deposed that he was having a meat shop in J-Block, Saket. On 14.06.2020 at about 9.00 PM, he closed his shop bearing No.15, J-Block, Saket State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 3 of 18 and put a lock on the shutter. On 15.06.2020 at about 11.00 AM, he came to his shop and found that the lock of the shutter of his shop was broken and two pieces of stone were kept beneath the shutter. Thereafter, he entered inside his shop and found that all the articles of his shop were scattered. He checked the articles of his shop and found that Rs.3000/- and one mobile phone make Redmi MI 7A were missing. The said money had been kept in a cloth bag and the said mobile phone had been kept inside the drawer of his counter, SIM number 9650409570 and 9650409670 were being used in the said mobile phone. There were two CCTV cameras installed inside his shop which were also found inoperative. He asked nearby shopkeepers as to whether they were aware of the incident of the theft in his shop, whereupon a person aged about 50 years informed him that some police officials came to his shop after the alleged incident in night time and lifted out two boys and took them to the police station. Thereafter, he went to the police station, Saket where he narrated the incident which had occurred in his shop. ASI Deepak Prasad informed him while pointing out two boys sitting in the police station that the said boys had been apprehended from near his shop. Thereafter, ASI Deepak Prasad inquired from him about the incident whereupon, PW1 narrated the entire facts to ASI Deepak Prasad which were redudec into writing Ex.PW1/A. IO had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PW1/B. Broken lock was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. Photographs of the place of incident were clicked by the police. PW1 correctly identified the photographs (from inside State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 4 of 18 as well as outside) of the spot of occurrence Ex.PW-1/D (colly). PW1 had handed over photocopy of mobile purchase bill Mark-A to the IO. Details of CCTV camera was also provided by him to the IO Mark-B. He correctly identified the accused. Witness was duly cross-examined.
7. PW-2 Constable Shri Ram deposed that he was posted as Constable at PS Saket. On that day, he went to the place of incident alongwith the IO where he met complainant Aman Tomar. IO recorded his stated and he himself went the PS for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, IO came back at the place of incident and called crime team and the crime team inspected the spot. Thereafter, IO had seized the broken lock of Harrison vide memo Ex.PW-1/C. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and HC Wasim had started searching for the accused and the case property, in the areas of Saket and Pushp Vihar. During that period, one secret informer came in contact with the IO who disclosed that accused persons would come to sell the stolen property in Pushp Vihar. Thereafter, PW2 alongwith the IO reached at Macchi Market road, Pushp Vihar and after seeking them, two boys had started running, whom they had apprehended. One boy disclosed his name as Abu Vakar Ali, from whom they found one bag on which Rajora Collection, Khanpur, Delhi was written. When they checked the bag, they found two CCTV cameras make MI, one green pollypack which was filled with coins of Rs.5/- which were 200 in number and Rs.2020/- (500X1, 200X1, 100X10, 50X1, 20X2, 10X13). Thereafter, IO State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 5 of 18 seized the recovered articles vide memo Ex.PW2/A. The name of other boy was Ali Hussain and they found one Redmi mobile, black in colour from the pocket of his pant/trouser and the IO had seized the vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/B. Since the accused Ali Hussain was minor, IO called SI Jitender Malik, JWO.One iron rod and one mobile phone make Samsung was also found from the possession of accused Abu Vakar Ali. IO has prepared the sketch of iron rod Ex.PW-2/C. IO had seized the iron rod and Samsung mobile vide memos Ex.PW-2/D and Ex.PW-2/E. IO also prepared the site plan of place of recovery vide Ex.PW-2/F. He deposed that CCL Ali Hussain was handed over to JWO, SI Jitender Malik. He deposed that the IO had arrested the accused Abu Wakar Ali and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW-1/G and Ex.PW-1/H, thereafter, IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW-2/I. He identified one iron rod, one broken lock make Harrison, one hook, one Samsung mobile, coins (200) of Rs.5/- alongwith green polythene/packet of Chaini Tobacco and cash Rs.2020/- produced by the MHCM in the court. He also identified one cloth bag/thaila and Rajora Collection, Khanpur, Delhi, one mobile phone make Redmi MI-7A and two cameras, two CCTV cameras produced by the MHCM in the court. He was duly cross- examined.
8. PW-3 HC Wasim deposed that he was posted as Head Constable at PS Saket. On that day, he joined the investigation alongwith Ct. Shri Ram and ASI Deepak and went to find out the State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 6 of 18 accused persons as IO had received the secret information that accused persons would come in Pushp Vihar to sell the stolen property and they can be apprehended, if raided. When they reached Machhi Market, Pushp Vihar, two persons started running after looking them, they had apprehended both of them. One of them had disclosed his name as Abu Wakar Ali and he was having one cloth bag/thaila on which Rajora Collection Khanpur was written. They had checked that bag/thaila and found two CCTV Cameras, coins of denomination of Rs.5/- and Rs.2020/-. When the accused was informally searched one iron rod, one mobile phone make Samsung were also recovered from his possession. Thereafter, the other boy disclosed his namely as Ali Hussain and they recovered one Redmi Mobile phone from accused Ali Hussain who disclosed his age 16 years. Accused disclosed that they both are brothers and also disclosed about the incident. IO had given the information regarding the CCL in the PS and SI Jitender Malik, JWO came at the spot. Thereafter, IO had seized the recovered articles through seizure memo already Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, IO had interrogated the accused and after interrogation, accused Abu Wakar Ali was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H respectively. Thereafter, IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW2/I. CCL Ali Hussain was apprehended by SI Jitender Malik and prepared the documents regarding his apprehension. IO had also prepared the recovery site plan Ex.PW2/F. After medical examination, accused was State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 7 of 18 kept behind the bars. PW3 correctly identified accused Abu Wakar Ali.
9. PW4 ASI Deepak Prasad deposed that he was on emergency duty and received DD No. 41A and after receiving the same, he alongwith Const. Shri Ram went to the place of incident, after reaching there, he saw that lock and shutter of the shop had been broken by someone and the entire staff of the shop was scattered. Complainant was also present there. He called the crime team at the place of incident and they picked up chance prints from the spot. Thereafter, he had recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW1/A and prepared the rukka of the same Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, he left complainant and Ct. Shri Ram at the spot and went to PS for the registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, the further investigation of the case was marked to him. Thereafter, he along with Head Constable Wasim went to the place of incident and prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW1/B. He had clicked the photographs from his personal mobile phone. Thereafter, he had seized the broken lock vide memo Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Shri Ram and Head Ct. Wasim and complainant went to find out the accused persons as he had received the secret information that accused persons would come in Pushp Vihar to sell the stolen property and they can be apprehended, if raided. When they reached Machhi Market, Pushp Vihar, two persons started running after looking them, they had apprehended both of them. One of them had disclosed his name as Abu Wakar Ali and State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 8 of 18 was having one cloth bag/thaila on which Rajora Collection Khanpur was written. They had checked that bag/thaila and found two CCTV Cameras, coins of denomination of Rs.5/- and Rs.2020/-. When the accused was informally searched, one iron rod. one mobile phone make Samsung were also recovered from the possession of the accused. Thereafter, the other boy disclosed his namely as Ali Hussain and one Redmi Mobile phone was recovered from accused Ali Hussain, who disclosed his age as 16 years. Accused disclosed that they both are brothers and also disclosed about the incident. He had given the information regarding the CCL in the PS and SI Jitender Malik, JWO came at the spot. Thereafter, he had seized the recovered articles through seizure memo Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/C (sketch of iron rod), Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, he had interrogated the accused and after interrogation, accused Abu Wakar Ali was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW2/I and CCL Ali Hussain was apprehended by SI Jitender Malik and prepared the documents regarding his apprehension. He had also prepared the recovery site plan Ex.PW2/F. During investigation, he had recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. he had placed on record, the report of crime team Ex. PW4/X. After completion the investigation of present case, he had prepared the chargesheet and filed before the Hon'ble Court. Photocopy of box of the mobile phone Mark A and Mark B and photographs of the place of incident Ex.PW1/D (colly) produced by the MHCM were State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 9 of 18 correctly identified by the witness in the court. Witness correctly identified accused Abu Wakar.
10. PW5 SI Jitender Malik deposed that he was posted as SI in PS CR Park and had also been assigned duty of JWO. On that day, he had received the information and had gone near Koodedan Machhi Market, Sector 3, Pushp Vihar where ASI Deepak Prasad had handed over him one accused namely Ali Hussain, who disclosed his age as 16 years. IO had apprehended the accused and the entire proceedings were conducted in his presence. They had given the information about the apprehension of CCL to his family member but no one came forward for undertaking. After medical examination, accused was sent to observation house.
11. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied the entire incriminating evidence put to him. He stated that he is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
12. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. The submissions of Mr. Rajat Bansal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Ms. Deepa Rawat, learned legal aid counsel for the accused have been heard and considered.
13. Ld. APP for the State submits that on 14.06.2020, complainant Aman Tomar closed his shop situated at J-Block, State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 10 of 18 Saket and when he came back on 15.06.2020 at about 11.00 AM, he had seen that the lock of the shutter was broken and all the stuff lying in the store was in scattered condition. Somebody had illegally entered inside the shop and committed the theft of two CCTV cameras, Rs.3000/- including 200 coins of denomination of Rs.5/- and the money was lying in a bag which was of "Rajora Collection Khanpur". Later on, the FIR was registered on the statement of complainant and during the investigation of the present case, the case property of the complainant was recovered on the same day from the possession of the accused and it was recovered in the same bag on which "Rajora Collection Khanpur" was written. In addition to it, one iron rod was also recovered from the possession of the accused which he used to use for committing such offences. Two mobile phones make Samsung and Redmi were also recovered from the possession of the accused. He submits that four police officials were also examined in the present case and no major contradictions had come during the cross-examination of complainant as well as the police officials. Hence, the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed the theft by entering inside the property of the complainant and the same case property was recovered from the possession of the accused.
14. Ld. LAC for the accused contended that the accused was identified in the police station for the first time. PW-1 in his chief examination stated that there were CCTV cameras in the shop but he could not produce any CCTV footage. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he identified the accused as the State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 11 of 18 police official informed him that the accused committed the offence. PW-2 Constable Sriram admitted in his cross- examination that the accused was not arrested in front of the complainant. No public had witness joined the investigation. There is no mention of iron rod anywhere in the recovery. PW-2 in his cross-examination stated that he left the police station at 11.10 AM on his motorcycle. However, PW-3 in his cross- examination stated that he, IO and Const. Shriram (PW2) left the police station at 1.00 PM. PW-3 in his chief examination stated that the accused was arrested from Macchi Market which was a crowded area, still no public witness was joined. PW-4 IO ASI Deepak in his cross-examination admitted that the shops near the place of incident were having CCTV cameras but no footage was collected by him. No DD entry regarding the secret information was made by PW-4. PW-4 did not record the statement of the TSR driver in which the accused and the police officials went to the police station.
15. The accused has been chargesheeted for offences punishable under Section 457/380/411 IPC. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the said provisions:
"457. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.- whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 12 of 18 extended to fourteen years."
"380 Theft in dwelling house, etc.- whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"411 Dishonestly receiving stolen property.- whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
16. The charge against the accused has been framed under Section 457/380/411 IPC. For proving the offence under Section 457 and 380 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused has committed the house breaking by night in order to commit the offence of theft. The prosecution was also required to prove that the articles mentioned in the complaint i.e. 02 CCTV cameras, 200 coins of denomination of Rs.5/- etc. were stolen by the accused from the shop of the complainant. The prosecution was also required to prove that the accused was found in possession of the mobile phone belonging to the complainant which he dishonestly received or retained in his possession knowing or having reason to believe the same to be a stolen property.
17. To discharge the burden of proof, the prosecution examined the complainant as PW-1 Aman Tomar the complainant is the star witness of the prosecution. He deposed that he was having a meat shop in J-Block, Saket. On 14.06.2020 at about 9.00 PM, he closed his shop bearing No.15, J-Block, State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 13 of 18 Saket and put a lock on the shutter. On 15.06.2020 at about 11.00 AM, he came to his shop and found that the lock of the shutter of his shop was broken and two pieces of stone were kept beneath the shutter. Thereafter, he entered inside his shop and found that all the articles of his shop were scattered. He checked the articles of his shop and found that Rs.3000/- and one mobile phone make Redmi MI 7A were missing. The said money had been kept in a cloth bag and the said mobile phone had been kept inside the drawer of his counter, SIM number 9650409570 and 9650409670 were being used in the said mobile phone. There were two CCTV cameras installed inside his shop which were also found inoperative. He asked nearby shopkeepers as to whether they were aware of the incident of the theft in his shop, whereupon a person aged about 50 years informed him that some police officials came to his shop after the alleged incident in night time and lifted out two boys and took them to the police station. Thereafter, he went to the police station, Saket where he narrated the incident which had occurred in his shop. ASI Deepak Prasad informed him while pointing out two boys sitting in the police station that the said boys had been apprehended from near his shop. Thereafter, ASI Deepak Prasad inquired from him about the incident whereupon, PW1 narrated the entire facts to ASI Deepak Prasad which were reduced into writing Ex.PW1/A. IO had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PW1/B. Broken lock was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. Photographs of the place of incident were clicked by the police. PW1 correctly identified the photographs (from inside State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 14 of 18 as well as outside) of the spot of occurrence Ex.PW-1/D (colly). PW1 had handed over photocopy of mobile purchase bill Mark-A to the IO. Details of CCTV camera was also provided by him to the IO Mark-B. He correctly identified the accused. The witness was cross-examined at length by the counsel for accused.
18. Various contradictions have been brought on record in the testimony of witnesses by the counsel for the accused. The prosecution has not been able to discharge the burden of proof regarding the identity of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was identified in the police station for the first time which casts doubt on the identification of the accused. Although, there are CCTV cameras in the shop of the complainant but he could not produce any CCTV footage. In his cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he identified the accused only when the said official informed him that the accused committed the offence. PW-2 Constable Shri Ram admitted in his cross- examination that the accused was not arrested in front of the complainant. He also deposed that no public witness joined the investigation. Non-joining of said witness at the time of investigation casts serious doubt on the story of prosecution.
19. This court would like to place reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Surender @ Dheeraj v. State 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7506, in which it was observed as under:
"77.The arrests of the accused were all in public places and yet none of the arrests were in the presence of independent public witnesses. Parrot-like statements to the effect that passersby were asked but declined to join are given by the State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 15 of 18 IOs in the present case. This does not convince the Court. In Kehar Singh v. State (1988) 3 SCC 609 : AIR 1988 SC 1883 one of the accused, Balbir Singh, was arrested at the bus stand at Najafgarh, which was a public place but there were no independent public witnesses to the arrest. It was argued by the State that there was no such requirement in the Cr PC. Repelling this contention, the Supreme Court observed:
"It may be as technically argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the presence of public witness under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure is required when there is search and seizure from the house or property of the accused but not when a person is arrested and something is recovered from the personal Search. But it is well-known that in all matters where the police wants that the story should be believed they always get an independent witness of the locality so that that evidence may lend support to what is alleged by the police officers. Admittedly for this arrest at Najafgarh and for the seizure of the articles from the person of this accused is no other evidence except the evidence of police officers. Independent witness in this case would be all the more necessary especially in view of what has been found above as his release after the earlier arrest is not established, and his abscondence is not proved. In such a controversial situation the presence of an independent witness from the public, if not of the locality, would have lent some support to the case of the prosecution.
78.In the present case every arrest is on the basis of both information provided by and identification by a secret informer who is not produced as a PW. Most arrests have taken place from open public places and during times when there is a lot of movement of the public. It is therefore difficult to accept that in every such instance, no independent witness was available. The circumstance of arrest has not been convincingly proved by the prosecution."
20. Further, PW-2 in his cross-examination stated that he left the police station at 11.10 AM on the motorcycle but PW-3 stated that he, IO and PW-2 Const. Shri Ram left the police station at 1.00 PM. PW-3 in his chief examination has also stated that the accused was arrested from Macchi Market which was a crowded area but no public witness had joined the investigation. PW-4 stated that he arrested the accused State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 16 of 18 on secret information but no DD entry regarding the secret information was made by PW-4. Non making or non-production of DD entry also casts doubt on the story of the prosecution. Further, PW-4 did not record the statement of the TSR driver in which the accused and police officials went to the police station.
21. The contradictions raises doubt on the credibility of the story of prosecution. This court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove clinching evidence against the accused to bring him within four corners of the offence punishable under Section 457/380 IPC.
22. For proving the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution has examined PW-4 ASI Deepak Prasad who arrested the accused alongwith the bag/thaila and found two CCTV cameras and coins of denomination of Rs.5/-. Learned APP for the State has contended that in the present case, the case property is unique being the coins and in the small denomination. Further, one mobile phone make Samsung was also recovered from the possession of the accused. MHCM/PW-2 produced the case property and the Samsung mobile phone in the court and the same was identified by the complainant/PW-1.
23. The prosecution has been able to discharge the burden of proof cast upon it qua the offence under section 411 IPC. The prosecution has also been able to prove that the accused was found in possession of the mobile phone and the coins belonging to the complainant which he dishonestly received or retained in his possession knowing or having reason to believe the same to State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 17 of 18 be a stolen property. The accused has failed to produce any document which could rebut the presumption that the mobile phone was a stolen phone. No bill has been produced by the accused regarding the mobile phone.
24. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Abu Wakar Ali for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC of the Indian Penal Code. However the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 457/380 IPC for the lack of evidence.
Dictated and announced in open Court on 10.05.2022.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU RAMAN HIMANSHU SINGH RAMAN Date: SINGH 2022.05.10 17:18:37 +0530 (HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH)
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 10.05.2022 State Vs. Abuwakar Ali FIR No. 229/2020, PS Saket Page 18 of 18