Delhi District Court
Fir No.245/2019 (State vs . Azad) Ps Sagarpur on 16 April, 2022
FIR No.245/2019 (State vs. Azad) PS Sagarpur
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU SHREE, MM-03,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
CrC No.6389/2019
State vs. Azad
FIR No. 245/2019
P.S. Sagarpur
JUDGMENT
1. Date of the Commission of offence : 21.05.2019
2. Date of Institution of the case : 19.07.2019
3. Date of reserving the judgment : 16.04.2022
4. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.04.2022
5. Name of the Complainant : Mukesh Sah
6. Name of Accused, his Parentage : Azad and address S/o Sh. Safiq Ali R/o RZ-B-96/1, Gali No.12B, Kailash Puri, Sagarpur, New Delhi.
7. Offences complained of or proved: U/s 392/411/34 IPC
8. Plea of accused : Not Guilty.
9. Final order : Acquittal.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') is that the instant FIR was registered on the complaint of one Mukesh Sah alleging that on 21.05.2019 at about 7.00 P.M. when he was walking gali No.5, Indra park, Sagarpur two persons approached him from behind and one of them strangulated him from behind and the other took away his mobile phone make HTC of black Page No. 1 /5 FIR No.245/2019 (State vs. Azad) PS Sagarpur colour having SIM No.7321955915 and both fled from the spot. Complainant narrated the said incident to two police officials who were approaching towards him from the front and the police officials went around in search of the culprits and after some time made a phone call to the complainant and called him and presented two boys and asked the complainant if they were the culprits and the complainant identified the two boys and also identified his mobile phone which was got recovered from the possession, whose names were later revealed as Aditya Singh (CCL) and Azad. Investigation of the case was conducted by IO ASI Jagbir Singh and on the basis of complaint of the complainant, he got the FIR registered against the accused for the offences u/s 382/411/34 IPC which was marked to ASI Jagbir Singh and accused Azad and Aditya were arrested in the matter. Accused Aditya disclosed his age to be 17 years and therefore, on the direction of SHO concerned, he was was produced before JJB-II, Daryaganj and where he was declared as CCL and sent to Child Rehabilitation Centre, Mukherjee Nagar. After completion of the investigation of the case, IO/ASI Jagbir Singh filed the charge-sheet against accused Azad on 19.07.2019.
2. On the basis of the charge-sheet and materials on record, prima facie case was made out, therefore, cognizance of the offences were taken and accused Azad s/o Safiq Ali was produced from JC and upon his appearance, he was supplied with the copies of chargesheet and other documents sought to be relied upon by the prosecution and compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was made and vide order dated 06.12.2019, charges u/s 392 r/w section 34 IPC and u/s 411 IPC were framed against accused Page No. 2 /5 FIR No.245/2019 (State vs. Azad) PS Sagarpur Azad, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was listed for PE.
3. To prove its case against the accused for having committed offences u/s 392/34 and 411 IPC, on 17.01.2022, prosecution examined the complainant Mukesh Sah as PW1, who testified to the effect that on 21.05.2019, he was living alongwith his family at RZ-26A, Gali No.5, Indra Park, Sagarpur, New Delhi and on the said day at about 7.00 P.M., while he was roaming around on his street and two persons came, one of whom strangulated him and the other took his mobile phone having SIM no.7321955915 from his pocket and thereafter they ran away. Thereafter, on the same day, police called him to the police station and showed him his mobile phone which was lying in the police station and he identified the said mobile phone to be his. Thereafter, police recorded his statement/complaint which is Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that police prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/B, seizure memo of the mobile phone Ex.PW1/C, arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW1/D. PW1 further deposed that the SIM card belonged to his brother. PW1 further deposed that he could not identify the accused as he did not see them at the time of incident. Since PW1 started resiling from his earlier statement and failed to identify the accused, at the request of the Ld. APP for State, he was declared hostile and Ld. APP for State was allowed to cross examine him and during his cross examination by Ld. APP, PW1 denied the suggestion that right after the incident, two police officials had come to his street to whom he had narrated the incident of snatching of his mobile and that the same police officials had later produced two accused persons Page No. 3 /5 FIR No.245/2019 (State vs. Azad) PS Sagarpur before him who he identified to be culprits who had snatched his mobile phone. He denied that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons as he had been won over by the accused and said he knew nothing about the arrest memo of the accused having his signatures and stated that his signatures were taken on a few blank papers by the police official.
4. On 13.04.2022, upon submission of the Ld. APP for State, prosecution evidence was closed as the complainant had turned hostile and the other witnesses sought to be relied upon by prosecution were formal in nature. On the same day, since no evidence had come on record against the accused, the requirement of recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with. Accused Azad chose not to lead DE. DE was closed accordingly and final arguments were heard in the matter.
5. During final arguments, it was argued by Ld. APP for the State, that the case against the accused stood proved in view of the evidence led by the prosecution. Accordingly, he argued that the offences against the accused were proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused deserves to be convicted.
6. On the other hand, the Ld. defence counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to bring out a case against the accused persons and that there was no eye witness to the incident except PW1 i.e. complainant and the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution at all. He further argued that the accused had been falsely implicated in the case and were liable to be acquitted.
7. This Court has read the case file meticulously, perused the material on record and duly considered the Page No. 4 /5 FIR No.245/2019 (State vs. Azad) PS Sagarpur arguments advanced.
8. In the present case, the sole witness to the incident is the complainant himself who deposed as PW-1 and during his testimony turned hostile. He failed to identify the accused in court and TIP of accused was also not conducted by the IO during investigation, No other eye witness was produced who could identify the accused to be the perpetrator of the crime and no other sterling piece of evidence was put forth by prosecution which could establish guilt of the accused.
9. Thus, in the light of above said discussion and reasons, in the opinion of this Court, the case of the prosecution could not be established beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, accused Azad S/o Sh. Safiq Ali is found not guilty for having committed offences u/s 392/34 & 411 IPC and resultantly, the accused stands acquitted in the present case for the said offences.
10. Accused Azad is directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- under Section 437A Cr.PC.
Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court
on 16.04.2022 (Manu Shree)
MM-03/PHC/NDD/16.04.2022
Certified that this judgment contains 5 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Manu Shree) MM-03/PHC/NDD/16.04.2022 Page No. 5 /5