Delhi District Court
State vs . Shakeel on 14 November, 2014
STATE vs. SHAKEEL
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SHAHDARA), KKD COURTS DELHI.
FIR No.258/2012
PS : Jagatpuri
U/s 379/356/411 IPC
State vs. Shakeel
a) Serial No. of the case : 02402R0270532012
b) Date of Institution : 19.09.2012
c) Date of commission of offence : 26.07.2012
d) Name of complainant : Smt. Richa Gambhir
W/o Sh. Praveen Gambhir
e) Name of the accused, and : Shakeel Ahmad
parentage and address S/o Lt. Sh. Mukhtar
Ahmad
R/o H.No.622, Navjeevan
Samiti, Kodi Colony,
Tahirpur, Delhi.
f) Offence complained of : U/s 411 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Date of judgment reserved : 17.10.2014
i) Final order : Acquittal
j) Date of such Order : 14.11.2014
JUDGEMENT
1. The case of prosecution is that on 19.06.2012 on receipt of DD no.27A SI Dinesh/IO reached on the spot i.e. Hari singh Gurudwara Road where he met the complainant Smt. Richa Gambhir and beat Ct. Mahesh.
FIR NO.258/2012 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 1/5
STATE vs. SHAKEEL
Complainant informed IO that she was coming from Ghaziabad to meet his brother residing in Delhi. She was walking with her daughter at Jagatpuri at Hari Singh Gurudwara road House no.333, Ram Nagar, Delhi one boy came on motorcycle and snatched the gold chain from her neck and fled away. Someone called at 100 no. IO recorded the statement of complainant and prepared and thereafter got registered case FIR no. 258/2012 U/S 379/356 IPC against the unknown person. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to SI Rahul. IO/SI Rahul came to know that accused namely Shakeel was arrested by SI Dinesh in FIR no. 322/12m U/S 186/353/332/307/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. The accused was formally arrested in the present case and made disclosure statement to the effect that he was involved in the present snatching incident. Statements of witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared and after completion of all necessary investigation challan U/S 173 Cr. P.C was presented in the court for trial.
2. Accused Shakeel was produced before the court to face trial and copy of challan as required U/S 207 Cr.P.C, was supplied to him. Thereafter case was fixed for framing of charge.
3. After hearing arguments and on perusal of record, charge U/S 411 IPC was framed against the accused on 23.11.2012. Thereafter case FIR NO.258/2012 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 2/5 STATE vs. SHAKEEL was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined the following witnesses. The first and foremost witness of the prosecution is PW1/Ms. Richa Gambhir who is the complainant in the present case. Her deposition is contradictory to the chargesheet. As per chargesheet after snatching incident someone called at No.100 and informed the police about the incident whereas PW1 deposed that she had made call at 100 no. Further, PW1 could not identify the accused. She deposed that at the time of incident, the snatcher was wearing the helmet.
5. PW2/Ms. Saloni Gambhir is another eye witness of the incident but she also failed to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. PW2 deposed that one boy came on motorcycle and snatched her mother's chain from her neck. He above said boy fled away from the spot with his motorcycle. The boy was wearing helmet and she was not able to see him.
6. PW4/Ct. Naresh, PW7/Ct. Mahesh chand and SI C.P. Singh are the witnesses of recovery. PW4 and PW7 deposed that they accompanied SI C.P. Singh at the time of recovery of golden chains from the accused Shakeel. Both the witnesses deposed that at that time wife FIR NO.258/2012 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 3/5 STATE vs. SHAKEEL and sister of accused were present in the house but they failed to depose whether they were made witnesses of seizure memo of the gold chains by IO or not. PW4 & PW7 categorically deposed that though many public persons gathered on the spot but IO did not join them in the investigation. PW9 also deposed that the family members of the accused were present in the house when we went there along with him. He further deposed that he had not tried to make the wife of accused as the witness on the seizure memo of accused. He also deposed that he had not called any neighbour as witness to the recovery. There is not a single public witness of the said recovery which creates doubt on the recovery.
7. PW8/SI Dinesh Kumar is the first investigating officer of the case. The accused was was already in his custody in case FIR no.322/12. The eye witnesses of the prosecution failed to identify the accused as the person who had snatched the chain from the neck of the complainant. The recovery of the case property from the possession of accused is also doubtful as there is no public witness of the said recovery. No departure entry of PW4, PW7 & PW9 is placed on record regarding their departure from the police station Jagatpuri to the house of accused Shakil for the said recovery. Prosecution failed to establish its case U/S 411 IPC against the accused.
FIR NO.258/2012 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 4/5
STATE vs. SHAKEEL
8. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused. Therefore accused Shakeel is acquitted of the offence punishable U/S 411 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in Open Court (SUNIL BENIWAL)
14.11.2014 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Shahdara Distt., KKD Courts, Delhi
FIR NO.258/2012 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 5/5