Delhi District Court
State vs . Irfan Etc. on 21 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04, DISTRICT
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Jitendra Pratap Singh, DJS
State Vs. Irfan etc.
FIR No. 13/11
PS. CR Park
U/s. 394/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) SI No. of the case : 92883/16
2) The date of commission of offence : 18.01.2011
3) The name of the complainant : Sh. Ajay Agnihotri
4) The name & parentage of accused : 1) Irfan
S/o Sh. Zulfikar
(Expired/proceedings against
him abated vide order dated
08.10.2013)
2) Imran @ Montu
S/o Sh. Khaleel
5) Offence involved : 394/347/34 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquitted
8) The date of such order : 21.04.2022
FIR No. 13/11 State Vs. Irfan etc. Page no. 1 of 9
Date of Institution : 19.04.2011
Judgment reserved on : 21.04.2022
Judgment announced on : 21.04.2022
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The accused persons Irfan and Imran @ Montu have been sent to face trial with the allegations that on 18.01.2011 at 8.30 PM at Ring Road, Opp. Paramount Dental Clinic, CR Park, they both with common intention had committed the theft of the articles i.e. laptop, Rs. 5000/ one pendrive, internet data card, debit/ATM cards belonging to the complainant Mr. Ajay Agnihotri, gave beatings to him and also wrongfully confined him in the vehicle bearing No. DL 7CAQ 7956 for the purpose of extortion. The accused persons had also withdrawn Rs. 23,000/ by using two ATM cards belonging to the complainant and for obtaining the PIN number of said ATM cards, both accused gave beatings to the complainant. Initially the FIR was registered for the offence punishable u/s 392 IPC however during the investigation Section 394 IPC was added in this case.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and both the accused were consequently summoned. Charge for the offence punishable U/s 394/34 FIR No. 13/11 State Vs. Irfan etc. Page no. 2 of 9 IPC and 347/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish its case prosecution has examined 13 witnesses.
4. PW1 Mr. Ajay Agnihotri is the complainant who deposed that on 18.01.2011, he boarded a Wagon R Car whose occupants were claiming that they were going to Gurgaon from CR Park flyover. On asking of its driver, he sat in the middle of the back seat. The car immediately took a Uturn. Two of the occupants of the car caught hold of him and another threatened him with a knife. The occupants took his Debit/ATM cards, laptop, data card and a sum of Rs. 5000/ from his office bag. On demand of the said persons, the complainant told incorrect PIN numbers, upon which one person went to the ATM but the ATM did not accept the PIN. The said person made a call to other occupants of the car. It is stated that there were total four persons in the car excluding the complainant. He further stated that he was beaten up by the said offenders upon which he gave them the correct PIN and thereafter they withdrew a total sum of Rs. 31,900/ from his accounts using the ATM/Debit cards. Subsequently, the said persons threw his bag and made him to get down from the car near flyover. From there he reached Gurgaon and on the next day gave his statement Ex.PW1/A to the police. The FIR was lodged only when the matter was published in FIR No. 13/11 State Vs. Irfan etc. Page no. 3 of 9 the media. That the police showed him sketches of some persons but they were not the offenders.
5. The complainant in the court failed to identify the car or the accused persons as the offenders. In the cross examination by the Ld. APP for the state, he admitted that on 10.03.2011 he had visited the Saket court complex and thereafter identified two persons who were stated to be the offenders by the police whose names were disclosed as Imran and Irfan.. The witness was cross examined in detail by the Ld. Defence counsel.
6. PW2 Mr. Sanjay Mishra has been examined to prove the presence of the complainant at Nehru Place on the day of incident. He proved his letter Ex.PW2/A given to the police in this regard.
7. PW3 Sh. Tarsem Lal Wahi has produced the bank account statements of Mr. Ajay Agnihotri in which Mrs. Asha Agnihotri was reflected as joint account holder. He proved the copy of account Number 2231000100240708 Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and copy of the signature card of account holders Ex.PW3/C from which the money was withdrawn through the ATM.
8. PW4 Ms. Gitu Moni Sharma has produced the statement of account Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A7 and the certificate of Bankers Book FIR No. 13/11 State Vs. Irfan etc. Page no. 4 of 9 of Evidence Act Ex.PW4/B for the account of ICICI Bank in the name of the complainant.
9. PW5 SI Satish Chander has produced the record pertaining to vehicle No. DL 7CA Q 7956 Ex.PW5/A.
10. PW6 HC Vinod Kumar deposed that on 17.02.2011 he alongwith SI Ram Niwas had apprehended the accused namely Irfan, Imran and Lal Mohd. in case FIR No. 65/11, U/s. 399/402 IPC & 25 Arms Act. Accused Irfan and Imran disclosed their involvement in the present case and their disclosure statement Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B were recorded. He was only able to identify one of the accused in the court.
11. PW7 Inspr. Ram Niwas corroborated the statement made by PW6 HC Vinod.
12. PW8 Ct. Manoj deposed that he got the complainant medically examined from the AIIMS Hospital. Thereafter, he collected the MLC.
13. PW9 Ct.Sandeep deposed that on 21.02.2011 after getting permission of the court both the accused Imran and Irfan were interrogated by the IO and thereafter they both were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B. Their disclosure statements Ex.PW9/C FIR No. 13/11 State Vs. Irfan etc. Page no. 5 of 9 and Ex.PW9/D respectively were also recorded and two days police custody was obtained.
14. PW10 HC Arvind deposed that on 22.02.2011 he joined investigation in this case with IO SI D.P.Singh and Ct. Jaswant Singh. On that day both the accused i.e. Irfan and Imran led them to place of the incident where IO prepared the pointing out memos Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B respectively.
15. PW11 HC Jaswant Singh corroborated the testimony of PW10 HC Arvind. He further proved the pointing out memos prepared by the IO as Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C.
16. PW12 HC Vijay handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to the IO SI D.P.Singh after its registration by the duty officer.
17. PW13 Inspr. D.P.Singh is the IO of this case. He corroborated the deposition of PW6 HC Vinod Kumar, PW9 Ct. Sandeep, PW10 HC Arvind and PW11 Ct. Jaswant. He prepared and proved the documents Ex.PW13/A, site plan Ex.PW13/B, MLC Ex.A3, the document Ex.PW13/C relating to the vehicle in question and the photograph of CCTV footage Mark Y. The other document proved by PW13 was the application Ex.PW13/D for TIP. PW13 identified the accused Imran @ Montu correctly in the court.
FIR No. 13/11 State Vs. Irfan etc. Page no. 6 of 9
18. It is relevant to mention that on 06.09.2018 the accused made a statement admitting the endorsement of duty officer, FIR No. 13/11, MLC No. 243151 and TIP proceedings conducted by Ld. MM as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 respectively.
19. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the trial the accused Irfan had expired and the proceedings against him were abated vide order date 08.10.2013.
20. Upon completion of P.E., statement of accused Imran u/s 313 Cr.PC was then recorded. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. He has chosen not to lead defence evidence.
21. It has been argued by the Ld APP for State that in view of the testimony of complainant who has identified the accused Imran in the court during his production, the case of prosecution stands duly established and therefore, the accused should be convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 347/394 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
22. On the other hand the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused argued that the witness did not identify the accused in the court during his testimony and therefore, the accused should be acquitted.
FIR No. 13/11 State Vs. Irfan etc. Page no. 7 of 9
23. I have heard the respective submissions and have perused the record.
24. The case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of the complainant PW1 Mr. Ajay Agnihotri. In his examination in chief dated 28.09.2012, this witness has categorically stated that he could not see the face of any of the four offenders clearly and properly. In his cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State this witness admitted that on 12.03.2011 he had identified two persons in the Saket Court whose names were revealed by the police as Imran and Irfan. There is no material to show that the accused Imran was the same person who was identified by the complainant on 10.03.2011 as the offender in the Saket Court. Furthermore the complainant admitted the suggestion of defence counsel that on 10.03.2011 it was on asking of the police that he had told them that the persons being produced before the court looked similar to the persons who were present in the Wagon R car at the time of the incident. He conclusively did not say that those two persons were the offenders.
25. In the present trial, the accused Imran has not been conclusively identified by the complainant. The identity of the offenders forms the bedrock of the case of the prosecution. When the same remains unestablished, there cannot be any finding of guilt. In the instant case, the identity of the accused Imran @ Montu has not been FIR No. 13/11 State Vs. Irfan etc. Page no. 8 of 9 established as the offender by the complainant. No other evidence connects the said accused with the alleged offences. Admittedly, the record of the CCTV footage mark Y is also not clear about the identity of the person using the ATM Card. No article belonging to the complainant has been recovered from the accused. There is brought no material by the prosecution to connect the accused Imran @ Montu with the alleged offence.
26. As a consequence to above said discussion, the court is of the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Imran @ Montu is hereby acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable U/s 394/347/34 IPC. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court (JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH) on 21.04.2022 MM4/South East/ Saket Courts Delhi FIR No. 13/11 State Vs. Irfan etc. Page no. 9 of 9