Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikki Sherya on 5 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 06,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Serial No. : 11/2 dated 11.1.2007
Unique Identification No. 02406R1061062008
State Vs. Vikki Sherya
FIR No. 374/06
P. S. Rama Krishna Puram
U/s 379/411/34 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1.Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution 11/2 & 11.1.2007
2.Date of commission of offence 3.6.2006
3.Name of the complainant Anand Sharma
4.Name of the accused Vikki Sherya @ Vikky S/O Ram Singh R/O A 4 MCD Flate Pahla Pusta New Usmanpur Delhi.
5.Nature of offence complained of U/s 379/411 IPC
6.Plea of the accused person Pleaded not guilty
7. Date reserved for order 5.12.2012
8.Final Order Acquitted
9.Date of such order 5.12.2012 Date of Institution : 11.1.2007 Date of order reserved : 5.12.2012 Date of pronouncement : 5.12.2012 FIR No. 374/06 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 1 of 6 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Accused is acquitted of the offences with which he has been charged, for the reason that the complainant was not traceable.
This case was not based on circumstantial evidence.
2. Prosecution Story was that on 3.6.2006 at 10.30 PM at RTR Road Sector 8 Near Swimming Pool, New Delhi accused committed theft of mobile phone Nokia 2300 and same was recovered on 11.11.2006 and he thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 379/411 IPC.
3. Police registered the FIR in this case on the basis of complaint made by the complainant. Investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed against accused persons under the offences with which accused persons have been charged.
4. After finding prima facie case against the accused persons, summons were issued against them by the court. Subsequently, charge was framed to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claim trial and case was subsequently fixed for PE.
5. In this case, prosecution examined seven witnesses, PW1 Ct. Rajesh Kumar had deposed that on 04.06.2006, he had joined the investigation with the IO and had reached at Summing pool, RTR marg, where IO recorded the statement of complainant Anand Shamra, pertaining to theft of his mobile phone. Subsequently, he had got the FIR registered on the basis of rukka and had handed over the copy of FIR to IO. That PW2 Lakhan Lal had proved entries Ex.PW2/A. That PW3 HC Ramesh Tirkey FIR No. 374/06 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 2 of 6 had deposed that he had registered the FIR in question, Ex.PW3/A on the basis of rukka Ex.PW3/B, sent by SI Dilip Singh thorugh Ct. Rajesh.
That PW4 HC Kishan Pal had proved the entry no. 1828 in register no.
19, in case FIR no. 333/06, dated 11.11.2006 and had deposed that mobile phone IMEI no. 355361009179216, was handed over by him to SI Dilip vide RC. no. 135/21/6 dated 22.11.2006. That PW5(inadvertently mentioned as PW4) Ct. Zafar Khan had deposed that on 12.11.2006 he had stated to SI Dilip Singh regarding inquiry of case FIR no. 333/06, that he had joined the investigation with HC Dinesh on 11.11.2006 and had arrested the accused. That mobile phone were seized by IO vide mark A. PW6 HC Dinesh Kumar( inadvertently marked as PW5) had deposed that on 11.11.2006, investigation of case FIR no. 333/06, U/s. 25 Arms Act, PS Inderpuri, was handed over to him and he had reached at the spot, where he had met HC Bachhu Singh, who had handed over a knife with accused to him. That he had recorded disclosure statement of accused mark B regarding commission of offence in question. That he had seized the mobile phone in question vide memo mark A and had informed the police of PS R.K. Puram, and had deposited the case property at PS Inderpuri. Subsequently, documents pertaining to this case were handed over to IO of this case by him. PW7 SI Dilip Singh( inadvertently marked as PW6) had deposed that on 04.06.2006, he had met the complianant and at his instance prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/A but could not find the FIR No. 374/06 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 3 of 6 case property after searching. That on 11.12.2006, he received information from staff of Dhaula Kuan, regarding arrest of accused Vikky with accused Tarun and subsequently had recovered the case property in question. That on next day, he had received the documents in case FIR no. 332/06 and copies of documents FIR no. 333/06. That he had interrogated the accused in the court and had arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW6/A. That subsequently he filed the challan in the court.
6. PW Anand Sharma was the complainant of the case and he could not be served despite being directed to be served through DCP concerned and IO concerned. The said witness was therefore, struck off from the list of witnesses. Thus PE was closed as trial in this case would not have resulted in the conviction of the accused, if rest of the witnesses had deposed against them and their testimonies remained unchallenged, as the said witnessess were formal in nature and did not prove the fact that any case property was infact stolen in this case or that the said stolen property was found in possession of the accused.
7. The net result was there was no incriminating evidence against accused as mentioned in section 379/411/34 IPC.
8. Thus, in the absence of any incriminating evidence, accused persons can not be convicted in this case.
9. Keeping in mind the discussion made above, I find that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offences U/s 379/411/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for FIR No. 374/06 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 4 of 6 the commission of the offences punishable U/s 379/411/34 IPC. Previous bail bond will remain on record till expiry of six months from now as per section 437A Cr. P.C. This is done as accused did not furnish fresh bail bond. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open court ( PRASHANT SHARMA )
today i.e.5.12.2012 M.M.06, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
5.12.2012
FIR No. 374/06
P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 5 of 6
FIR No. 374/2006
P. S. Rama Krishna Puram
5.12.2012
Present : Ld. APP for State.
` Accused with counsel.
Complainant did not turned up before the court despite being directed to be served through DCP Concerned and IO concerned and therefore he was struck off from the list of witnesses.
Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature. Even if testimony of rest of the witnesses goes unrebutted then also it will not lead to conviction of accused. Further, I am of the view that in view of previous ordersheets, sufficient opportunities have granted to the prosecution to examine its witnesses. Accordingly, PE closed.
Request of Ld. APP for the State for granting another opportunity to examine its witnesses stands declined in the facts and circumstances of the case.
There is no incriminating evidence against the accused so requirement for recording the statement U/S 313 Cr.p.c dispensed with.
Vide my judgment of even date accused is acquitted for the commission of offence U/s 379/411/34 IPC. Previous bail bond will remain on record till expiry of six months from now as per section 437A Cr. P.C. This is done as accused did not furnish fresh bail bond. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
( PRASHANT SHARMA ) M.M.6, Saket Courts, New Delhi 5.12.2012 FIR No. 374/06 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 6 of 6