Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu on 8 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH SUKHJEET SINGH, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Sonu
FIR No. : 356/2021
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 392/34/342 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 9508/2021 B. Date of Commission of offence 26.10.2021 C. Date of FIR 27.10.2021 D. Date of charge-sheet 18.12.2021 E. Name of the complainant Zakir Hussain Singh
F. Name of the accused persons, their 1) Sonu S/o Kishan Bahadur R/o Jhuggi parentage and residence Vasant, near pani ki tanki, New Delhi
2) Raj Kumar S/o Dil Kumar (already PO)
3) Sonu Thapa S/o Bal Bahadur (already PO) G. Offence complained of or proved 392/34/342 IPC H. Date of framing of charges 01.09.2022 I. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty J. Date on which judgment is reserved 08.01.2025 K. Final Order Acquitted L. Date of Judgment 08.01.2025 State Vs. Sonu FIR No. : 356/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 392/34/342 IPC Page no.1 of 6 Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.10.2021 at about 09.50 PM at footpath AIIMS Hospital near U-turn Arbindo Marg, Delhi accused alongwith other co-accused persons in furtherance of common intention nabbed the complainant and put the iron blade on the stomach of the complainant and forcibly took out Rs. 50,000/- from the pocket of his pant and accused also wrongfully confined the complainant. On the complaint, FIR was registered in the case. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused persons. Cognizance of the same was taken.
Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 01.09.2022 charge was framed against accused Sonu S/o Kishan Bahadur for the offence u/s 392/34/342 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dt. 16.04.2024 accused Raj Kumar and Sonu Thapa are declared proclaimed persons. Hence the judgment is passed qua accused Sonu S/o Kishan Bahadur only.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined three witnesses. PW1 is ASI Ram Niwas Meena, PW2 is SI Bishan Ram and PW3 is SI Mahipal. The other witnesses being merely formal in nature were not summoned and PE was accordingly closed. Reliance can be placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Satish Mehra vs. Delhi State Vs. Sonu FIR No. : 356/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 392/34/342 IPC Page no.2 of 6 Administration & Anrs. reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "in 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 formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
4. PW1 ASI Ram Niwas Meena had deposed in his testimony that on 27.10.2021 he was working as Duty Officer and his duty hours from 12 midnight to 8 am. At around 2 am he received a rukka through Ct. Sita Ram and he endorsed the rukka which is Ex.PW1/A and FIR was lodged on the basis of same which is Ex.PW1/B (OSR) and the same were handed over to the SI Mahipal. He has brought the original FIR registration of year 2021 (from 351-
400).
5. PW2 SI Bishan Ram had deposed in his testimony that on 02.12.2021 he was posted as ASI at PS Hauz Khas. He was marked the present file for further investigation. The investigation was already completed by the previous IO SI Mahipal. He had compiled the documents and filed the charge- sheet before the Court. He had seen the accused during bail proceedings. Witness has correctly identified the accused.
6. PW3 SI Mahipal had deposed in his testimony that on 26.10.2021 at about 09.40 pm he received a DD no. 132A. After receiving the same he alongwith Ct. Sita Ram went to the place of incident i.e. Aurobindo Marg, AIIMS hospital, U-turn where they met complainant who briefed him about the State Vs. Sonu FIR No. : 356/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 392/34/342 IPC Page no.3 of 6 incident and handed over the accused i.e. Sonu to him. Thereafter he recorded the statement of complainant and prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW1/A and handed over the same to Ct. Sita Ram for registration of FIR. He went to PS and returned back to the spot after registration of FIR. After the interrogation accused Sonu told that other co-accused Namely Sonu Thapa and Raj Kumar could be apprehended at INA Nala. Thereafter they went there and accused Sonu pointed out towards the other co-accused and thereafter both the co- accused were apprehended. Thereafter they came back at the PS. Thereafter cursory search of all the accused was conducted. One iron blade was recovered from accused Rajkumar and thereafter he prepared the sketch memo of same vide Ex.PW3/A and the said blade was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. During the personal search of accused Rajkumar, the photocopy of Aadhar card of complainant alongwith cash of Rs. 2,000/- was also recovered and same was seized vide Ex.PW3/C. During the personal search of accused Sonu Thapa, the cash of Rs. 2,000/- was also recovered and same was seized vide Ex.PW3/D. He had also prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW3/E. Thereafter all the accused were arrested and personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW3/F to Ex.PW3/K. Disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW3/L to Ex.PW3/N. Thereafter the accused persons were medically examined. After that he had recorded supplementary statement of complainant and recorded the statement of Ct. Sita Ram u/s 161 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, he got transferred and file was handed over to MHC(R). Witness has correctly identified the accused as well as the case property.
State Vs. Sonu FIR No. : 356/2021 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 392/34/342 IPC Page no.4 of 6
Statement of accused
7. The examination of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case.
8. Accused did not lead defence evidence. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused persons were heard and case file was perused.
10. It is the case of prosecution that on 26.10.2021 at about 09.50 PM at footpath AIIMS Hospital near U-turn Arbindo Marg, Delhi accused alongwith other co-accused persons in furtherance of common intention nabbed the complainant and put the iron blade on the stomach of the complainant and forcibly took out Rs. 50,000/- from the pocket of his pant and accused also wrongfully confined to complainant. It is pertinent to mention that in the present case the complainant Zakir Hussain is not examined as a witness. Since his presence could not be secured after issuing several process through IO/SHO/DCP concerned, then vide order dated 30.06.2023 he was dropped from the list of witnesses in the present case. Since the complainant is not examined in the case, it could not be proved in the case that the accused nabbed the complainant and put the iron blade on the stomach and also it cannot be proved that accused has wrongfully confined the complainant. Further there is no other witness available on record who had witnessed the incident. Thus, the State Vs. Sonu FIR No. : 356/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 392/34/342 IPC Page no.5 of 6 eye account of incident is also not available. Further PW3 SI Mahipal had arrested accused only after receiving information vide DD No. 132A and accused was handed over to him by the complainant. Further, there is no recovery of case property from the accused Sonu S/o Kishan Bahadur which can point out about his role in the said case.
11. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. There is no material on record to assume that accused Sonu S/o Kishan Bahadur had nabbed and put iron blade on complainant and confined the complainant. It is apparent from the above discussion that the allegations against the accused have not been proved.
Conclusion & Decision
12. Thus, considering the entire material on record I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s 392/34/342 IPC against the accused Sonu S/o Kishan Bahadur beyond reasonable doubt. Keeping in mind the above-mentioned discussion, accused Sonu S/o Kishan Bahadur is acquitted for the commission of the above-mentioned offences.
Digitally
signed by
SUKHJEET
SUKHJEET SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.10
17:22:44
Announced in the open court (SUKHJEET SINGH)
+0530
In Delhi on 08.01.2025 JMFC-06,SOUTH/SAKET DELHI
State Vs. Sonu FIR No. : 356/2021 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 392/34/342 IPC Page no.6 of 6