Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil Kumar on 17 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Case No. 169/11
Unique Case ID No. : 02402R0331112005
State Vs. Sunil Kumar
FIR No. : 44/05
PS : Vivek Vihar
U/s. 379/411 IPC
Date of institution: 07.06.2005
Judgment Reserved on: Not Reserved
Date of Judgment: 17.07.2013
JUDGMENT
a) Serial No. of the case 02402R0331112005
b) Date of commission 8.2.2005 of the offence
c) Name of the complainant Inderjeet Yadav
d) Name of the accused person, Sunil Kumar S/o Gajraj Singh and his parentage and R/o Village Bamrouli PS Data address. Distt Fatehpur, Delhi
e) Offence complained or u/s. 379/411 IPC proved
f) Plea of the accused Plead not guilty and claimed trial
g) The final order Acquitted
h) Date of such order 17.07.2013 FIR No. 44/05 PS Vivek Vihar Page 1 of 3 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. A report of theft was lodged by one Inderjeet who alleged that on 8.2.2005 he alongwith accused who was his helper had gone to one house in Vivek Vihar to affix electricity wire. They had to wait as the owner was going out somewhere. In between mobile phone of complainant was stolen.
Complainant alleged that accused had committed the theft of the mobile phone. After registration of the case, investigation was taken up. Mobile phone was got recovered at instance of the accused. Accused was arrested. Chargesheet was filed u/s. 379/411 IPC.
2. After appearance of the accused, Sec.207 Cr.PC was complied with. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 379/411 IPC on 19.4.2008 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined PW1 who had recorded FIR being duty officer and PW2 Sh. Bhairo Singh was partly examined.
4. Despite opportunities, prosecution failed to bring the complainant into the witness box. Testimony of complainant was vital for the case of prosecution. NonÂexamination of complainant has left a dent in the case of prosecution. Only complainant could prove the charge. Summons to complainant remained unserved even through DCP. Complainant was untraceable.
5. As it would have been futile to record further evidence, the prosecution FIR No. 44/05 PS Vivek Vihar Page 2 of 3 evidence was closed. Statement of accused was also dispensed with.
6. Prosecution has failed to prove the charge. Therefore, the accused is hereby acquitted. The bail bond already furnished by the accused is accepted further for the purpose of Sec. 437A Cr.PC. This bond shall remain in force for a period of six months.
7. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court (SANJAY BANSAL)
today on 17.07.2013 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Shahdara, Delhi
FIR No. 44/05 PS Vivek Vihar Page 3 of 3