Delhi District Court
Fir No.291/18 Ps Sarita Vihar State vs . Boby Rai @ Chhotu Bangali on 7 May, 2019
:1:
IN THE COURT OF SIDDHARTHA MALIK
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
FIR No:291/18
PS: Sarita Vihar
U/s: 457/380/411 IPC
State
Vs.
Boby Rai @ Chhotu Bangali
S/o Munna Rai
R/o Jhuggi no. 140, New Priyanka Camp.,
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi ... Accused
1. CIS No. of the case : 6827/18
2. Date of commission of offence : 27/28.08.2018
3. Name of the Complainant : Anil Kumar
4. Name of the accused, and
his parentage and residence : Boby Rai @
Chhotu Bangali
S/o Munna Rai
R/o Jhuggi no. 140,
New Priyanka
Camp.Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi
5. Date when judgment : 07.05.2019
was reserved
FIR no.291/18 PS Sarita Vihar State vs. Boby Rai @ Chhotu Bangali
:2:
6. Date when Judgment : 07.05.2019
was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : Section 457/ 380/
411 IPC
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Final Judgment : Acquitted
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on the intervening night of 27/28.08.2018, accused Boby Rai @ Chhotu Bangali (hereinafter referred as accused) committed lurking house trespass/ house breaking by night by entering into the building i.e. shop no.2, F & G Market, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi (which was in possession of complainant Anil Kumar and used as human dwelling after sunset and before sunrise) and committed theft of the laptop make Lenovo Model L412 and laptop bag from the aforesaid house and thereby committed offence punishable U/s 457/308 IPC. Thereafter, during the daytime on 28.08.2018, accused was found in possession of laptop and laptop bag and same was seized vide memo Mark X and thereby committed offence punishable U/s 411 IPC.
FIR no.291/18 PS Sarita Vihar State vs. Boby Rai @ Chhotu Bangali :3:
2. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to the accused. Charge was framed against accused Boby Rai @ Chhotu Bangali for having committed offence punishable under section 457/380/411 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During proceedings, the offence under Section 411 IPC was compounded by the complainant and the present judgment relates only to the offences u/s 457/380 IPC.
3. To prove its case the prosecution has examined only one witness i.e. the complainant Anil Kumar as PW1. During examination, the complainant/PW1 has stated that no one has seen the commission of offence u/s 457/380 IPC and There is no CCTV Footage of the alleged offence. The other public person namely Haseeb has merely identified the stolen laptop. In view of the inability of the eye witness to identify the person responsible for the commission of offence, the prosecution evidence was closed.
4. Statement of accused was dispensed with in view of absence of incriminating evidence against the accused. During final arguments, Ld. APP for State submitted that appropriate order may be passed as per the record. Ld. Counsel for accused submitted FIR no.291/18 PS Sarita Vihar State vs. Boby Rai @ Chhotu Bangali :4: that there is no evidence against the accused and he may be acquitted.
5. Record perused and arguments considered carefully.
6. The case set up by the prosecution is that the accused committed theft in the shop of the complainant during night time and the stolen article was recovered from the accused the next day. As per the prosecution case, only the complainant Anil Kumar and one Haseeb are the eye witness to the offence.
7. The said eye witness Sh. Anil Kumar has been examined as PW1. During examination, the witness has narrated the offence committed in his shop, however, he has failed to identify the accused as the one who committed the alleged offence. During crossexamination also, the witness has specifically stated that no person has seen commission of the offence and the CCTV installed in the shop was not functioning at that point of time. The other public person cited as witness namely Haseeb has only identified the stolen property and he has also not seen the commission of the offence.
FIR no.291/18 PS Sarita Vihar State vs. Boby Rai @ Chhotu Bangali :5:
8. Admittedly, in the absence of identification of the accused by the complainant/ public persons cited as witnesses, the offences remain unproved against the accused.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the accused is acquitted of the offences under Section 457/380 IPC. Accused is directed to furnish bail bond under Section 437 A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.5000/ with one surety of like amount. Bail bond furnished and accepted.
Digitally signed by SIDDHARTHA SIDDHARTHA MALIK MALIK Date: 2019.05.07 15:51:23 +0530 Announced in the open court on (Siddhartha Malik) 07.05.2019 MM05, SouthEast District, Saket Court New Delhi/07.05.2019 FIR no.291/18 PS Sarita Vihar State vs. Boby Rai @ Chhotu Bangali