Delhi District Court
Page 1 Of 5 State vs . Sadab Anish & Ors on 21 September, 2013
Page 1 of 5 State Vs. Sadab Anish & Ors
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMITABH RAWAT, MM-08 (SE)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 507/2001
U/s : 379/411 IPC
P.S : Lajpat Nagar
State Vs. Sadab Anish & Ors
Unique Case ID No.02403R0158562002
JUDGEMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case : 578/5
2. Date of institution of the case : 10.07.2002
3. Name of complainant : Sh. Sunil Sanger, r/o H.No.H-118,
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
4. Date of commission of offence : 18.08.2001
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address : 1) Sadab Anish s/o Sh Sahid Anish
r/o H.No.A-57, Okhla Vihar,
New Delhi. (Already
Proclaimed Person vide order
dated 05.06.2013)
2) Nayyar Habib s/o Sh Muzaffar
Habib, r/o House of Prem
Chand, Village Anangpur, Sector
- 37, Faridabad, HR.
6. Offence complained of or proved : 379/411 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted - Nayyar Habib
9. Date of which order was reserved : 21.09.2013
10.Date of pronouncement : 21.09.2013 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE FIR No.507/2001 PS Lajpat Nagar Page 2 of 5 State Vs. Sadab Anish & Ors
1. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Sh Sunil Sanger lodged a written complaint on 18.08.2001 to the SHO, PS Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi regarding theft of his Maruti Esteem Car bearing No.DL-3CE9371 and other belongings, between 08.45-09.00 PM from the public road near National Heart Institute, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The FIR under Section 379 IPC was registered, but despite the attempts neither the culprit nor the stolen vehicle could be recovered. Subsequently, on 09.05.2002 both the accused persons were arrested in case FIR No.327/2002 under Section 379/411/34 IPC were arrested, who made their disclosure about involvement in this case and got the stolen car recovered. On the basis of the information from PS Kalkji, accused were arrested in this case and the case property was got transferred to PS Lajpat Nagar. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court against accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 379/411/34 IPC.
2. Copies of documents were supplied to accused . Vide order dated 07.08.2002 learned predecessor Court framed a charge punishable for the offence under Section 379/411/34 IPC against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. It is important to note that during trial, accused Sadab Anish absconded and declared a Proclaimed Person vide order dated 05.06.2013. The prosecution examined 04 out of 09 witnesses in all. For the reasons mentioned in the order sheet dated 21.09.2013, prosecution evidence was closed as the case property has not been produced and the complainant is not traceable at the given address. After closing of prosecution evidence, the FIR No.507/2001 PS Lajpat Nagar Page 3 of 5 State Vs. Sadab Anish & Ors statement of accused persons under Section 281 Cr. P.C. has been recorded on 21.09.2013 wherein he pleaded innocence, however he has not not led any evidence in the defence.
4. I have heard arguments of Ld. APP (substitute) for the State, accused in person and have also perused the record very carefully.
5. The witnesses have appeared in the witness box and deposed as under:-
6. PW1 Sh Sunil Sanger is the complainant himself, he has proved his complaint as Ex.PW1/A and also deposed that he had taken the insurance claim. The case property has not been produced in the Court.
7. PW2 ASI Mahender Singh is the initial IO of this case. He proved on record his endorsement as Ex.PW2/A on complaint Ex.PW1/A. He also proved the site plan as Ex.PW2/B. He recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the untrace report on 20.09.2001.
8. PW3 ASI Parkash Singh is the formal witness viz Duty Officer in this case. He proved on record the copy of FIR as Ex.PW3/A and his endorsement as Ex.PW3/B.
9. PW4 Constable Azad Singh is the recovery witness posted over at PS Kalkaji. Though, this witness was examined twice on 18.09.2002 and 16.10.2002 but could not concluded for want original case FIR No.327/2002, FIR No.507/2001 PS Lajpat Nagar Page 4 of 5 State Vs. Sadab Anish & Ors PS Kalkaji and case property as well. Hence, it could not read into evidence.
10. Section 101 of Evidence Act,1872 states that "whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
11. In this regard in Dr. S.L. Goswami V/s State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 258 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is pulpably false that burden does not become any the less."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1984 (4) SCC 116 held that "It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot drive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view. What some cases have held is only this: where various links in a chain are in themselves complete than a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where is any infirmity or lacuna in the FIR No.507/2001 PS Lajpat Nagar Page 5 of 5 State Vs. Sadab Anish & Ors prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court."
13. While, the facts of the instance case are considered in the light of the above settled proposition of law, it is seen that there are many discrepancies which are fatal to the case of the prosecution.
14. Firstly, it is observed that both the complainant is not traceable at the given address and case property has not been produced before the Court even during examination of either witnesses. Though, the sole material and recovery witness PW4 examined, but since his examination could not concluded, same cannot be read into evidence. Also, the case property has not been produced in the Court at any stage during trial.
15. In view of above discussion, the accused Nayyar Habib is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379/411 IPC giving him benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to Record Room with liberty to get the same revived on apprehension/production of accused Sadaab Anish.
Announced & dictated in (Amitabh Rawat) the Open Court on 21.09.2013. MM-08/South-East Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi FIR No.507/2001 PS Lajpat Nagar