Delhi District Court
State vs Ajay Mouriya Ors on 30 May, 2024
____________________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
PRESIDED OVER BY : SH. VISHAL PAHUJA
CNR No. DLST01-000494-2014
SC NO. 6803/16
STATE VS. AJAY MOURIYA AND OTHERS
FIR NO. 59/2014
PS: SAKET
U/S: 394/395/307/120B/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Ajay Mouriya
s/o Sh. Ram Bharan,
r/o Village Sangrampur,
PS Kotwali Nagar,
Pratap Garh (UP).
2. Suresh @ Dablu,
s/o Late Gulab Singh,
r/o D-1210, Pocket-1, Ratiya Marg,
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
3. Vijay Kumar Mishra @ Vicky
s/o Uma Sankar
r/o Village Jagar Ganj, VPO Gonda,
Distt. Pratap Garh.
Uttar Pradesh.
4. Durgesh (Proceedings abated),
s/o Sh. Ram Bahadur,
r/o Village Gonde, Distt. Pratap Garh,
Tehsil - Sadar,
Kotwali, UP ...Accused persons
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.05.2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ ORDER : 30.05.2024
FINAL ORDER : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 1/191. This is the prosecution of accused persons namely Ajay Mouriya, Suresh @ Dablu and Vijay Kumar Mishra pursuant to charge sheet filed by PS Saket U/s 394/395/307/120B/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 59/2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.02.2014, on receipt of DD no. 73B regarding robbery, SI Jagdish Kumar along with Ct. Suresh reached at the spot i.e. H.no. E-55, Saket, New Delhi, where they found the almirah and doors of the house opened and the blood was scattered on the floor of the room and blood was present on the pillow. On inquiry, it transpired that victim/injured namely Pushpa Goel has been taken to Max Hospital by her relatives. SI Jagdish Kumar reached at the Max Hospital and found victim Pushpa Goel admitted vide MLC no.
3561/14. As per the said MLC, the victim was unfit for statement and injury was found to be dangerous. Thereafter, SI Jagdish Kumar reached back at the spot and found Smt. Pooja Goel, daughter in law of victim Pushpa Goel present there and recorded her statement as Ex. PW2/A.
3. As per the statement of Smt. Pooja Goel, on 01.02.2014 at about 04.20 PM while she was sleeping at the first floor of H.no. E-55, Saket, New Delhi, she heard the noise of her mother-in-law namely Pushpa Goel who was at the ground floor. On hearing the hue and cry, Smt. Pooja Goel ran towards the ground floor and saw her mother-in-law sitting near the staircase in pool of blood. It is stated that she saw Dablu, son of their maid Maya who fled away from the spot after seeing her having a bag in his hand. On FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 2/19 hearing noise, neighbourers came at their residence and called at 100 number. Neigbourers took the injured to hospital. While going to the hospital, injured told the complainant that Dablu along with 2-3 associates came and committed the said offence of robbery and caused injuries to her. On the basis of this complaint, the present FIR has been registered.
4. During the investigation, accused persons were arrested. Various exhibits were seized by the Investigating officer. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After the conclusion of the investigation carried out in the present case, police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons namely Ajay Mouriya, Suresh @ Dablu and Vijay Kumar Mishra @ Vicky for commission of offence U/s 394/395/307/120B/34 IPC.
5. Vide Order dated 08.05.2014, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned took cognizance of the offence qua accused persons namely Ajay Mouriya, Suresh @ Dablu and Vijay Kumar Mishra @ Vicky and called them to face the trial. They were supplied with the charge sheet and other relevant documents in compliance to section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the present matter was received by way of committal to the Court of Sessions on 17.05.2014.
6. Accused Durgesh was subsequently arrested. Supplementary charge sheet was filed against the accused Durgesh for commission of offence punishable u/s 394/395/307/120B/34 IPC and the same was also committed and FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 3/19 received by the court of sessions on 06.02.2015.
CHARGE
7. Vide order dated 18.08.2015, charge for the offences punishable u/s 120B, 394 IPC r/w section 120B and 307/34 IPC was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court against the accused persons namely Ajay Mouriya, Suresh @ Dablu, Vijay Kumar Mishra @ Vicky and Durgesh who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, the matter was listed for recording of the prosecution evidence.
8. During trial, accused Durgesh died and the proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 17.11.2022.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
9. Prosecution examined total nineteen (19) prosecution witnesses (hereinafter referred to as PW) to prove its case:
10. PW1 Pushpa Goyal who was the injured/victim deposed that in February 2014 at 03:30 pm, while she was sleeping, she heard the noise of bell and on opening the door she found that accused Suresh @ Dablu, son of her domestic help namely Maya was present there. PW1 further deposed that when she enquired about the reason to come there he replied that he had to check the fitting of LPG stove in the kitchen and in the meanwhile he pushed her inside the room. PW1 further deposed that accused Suresh @ Dabloo was accompanied by 2-3 persons. PW1 further FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 4/19 deposed that she became unconscious and later on she found herself in the hospital. This witness failed to identify the accused during the trial. As the witness did not support the case of the prosecution, she was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state. PW1 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
11. PW2 Pooja Goyal is the complainant who deposed in view of her complaint Ex. PW2/A. This witness also stated that she had not seen Dabloo. This witness did not support the case of prosecution in its entirety, she was also cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state. PW2 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
12. PW3 Sh. Vipin Goyal deposed that he is running a jewellery business at Khanpur, Delhi. PW3 further deposed that on 01.02.2024, at about 04-04.30 PM, while he was at his shop, he received a call from his wife Smt. Pooja who informed that something had happened with his mother. PW3 immediately shut the shop and he along with his father and brother returned to their home where he came to know that his mother had already been removed to Max Hospital, Saket. PW3 further deposed that police officials were present at his house and during inquiry he came to know that his mother was assaulted by a knife by the son of his maid/servant Maya and she had sustained injury on her neck. As the witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was also cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state. PW3 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 5/1913. PW4 Sh. Vikram Singh deposed that in the year 2014, however, he do not remember the month and date, at about 04.30 PM, when he along with his wife left their house for shopping and had covered a distance of about 500 meters, meanwhile, his wife received a call from Mrs. Pooja, daughter-in-law of their neighbour Sh. Krishan Chand Goyal who stated that something had happened to her mother-in-law. PW4 further deposed that he immediately returned back and he along with his brother entered the house of Smt. Pooja Goyal and noticed that blood was lying there and wife of Sh. Krishan Chand was lying in injured condition near staircase. PW4 further deposed that he along-with his brother took the injured to Max hospital where she was medically examined. PW4 had informed Vipin Goyal about the said incident who reached the hospital along with his father. PW4 further deposed that police had made inquiries from him and his statement was recorded. As the witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was also cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state. PW4 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
14. PW5 Ms. Sunita Agarwal deposed that on 01.02.2014 she was present at her house and on that day at about 04.30 PM, she heard noise 'chor chor' from H.no. E-55, situated on their right side. PW5 further deposed that she along with her husband rushed towards H.no. E55 and saw that the neighbourer Arun was getting Smt. Pushpa r/o E-55 shifted to Max Hospital. PW5 further deposed that injured Pushpa while being shifted to hospital stated that son of her maid along with three associates, entered their house on the pretext of repairing gas connection, FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 6/19 she took them inside the house and they all assaulted her and had asked to deliver the key of their house. PW5 further deposed that she further told that accused persons have caught hold of her from her hair and struck against the wall and searched the house. PW5 further deposed that accused persons put the mattress on her and ran away. Statement of PW5 was recorded by the police. PW5 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
15. PW6 Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal deposed more or less on the same lines as that of PW5 Sunita Aggarwal. PW6 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
16. PW7 Sh. Arun Verma also deposed more or less on the same lines as that of PW5 and PW6. PW7 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
17. PW8 Ct. P. Patil exhibited on record photographs of scene of crime as Ex. PW8/A (P-1 to P-12) and negatives as Ex. PW8/B (P13 to P24). PW8 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
18. PW9 Ct. Pankaj Kumar deposed that on 01.02.2024 at about 04.50 PM, SI Jagdish was entrusted a call vide DD no. 73B regarding robbery at H.no. E-55, Saket and thereafter, they reached at the aforesaid premises where at the ground floor, the room was lying open, household articles were lying scattered, almirah was also lying open, blood was lying on the floor and one cushion stained with blood was also lying there. PW9 further FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 7/19 deposed that beat staff as well as mobile staff also reached there and one women namely Pooja met them who told that someone had committed robbery in their house and her mother in law had been taken to the hospital by the neighbours. PW9 further deposed that SI Jagdish recorded the statement of Smt. Pooja and prepared rukka on which FIR was registered. PW9 further deposed that SI Jagdish inspected the scene of crime, prepared rough site plan, seized blood stained cushion cover, lifted blood and broken pieces of bangles and also seized them vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B respectively. PW9 further deposed that from there they went to the hospital where the duty constable handed over a sealed parcel stated to be containing clothes of injured Pushpa which was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW9/C. PW9 identified the case property i.e. cushion cover as Ex. P1 and broken bangles and blood gauze piece lifted from the spot as Ex. P2. PW13 SI Jagdish Kumar deposed qua the manner and his involvement in the present case being the first Investigating Officer. PW13 deposed more or less on the same lines as that of PW11 Ct. Pankaj. PW13 also relied upon the documents exhibited on record by PW9 and PW11. In addition to that, PW13 further exhibited on record the rukka as Ex. PW13/A, site plan as Ex. PW13/B, applications made by PW13 to doctor regarding status of witness as Ex. PW13/C and Ex. PW13/D. PW13 further deposed that on 04.02.2014 he recorded the statement of injured Smt. Pushpa and thereafter, the investigation of the present case was transferred to SI Prasoon. PW9 and PW13 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 8/1919. PW10 Ct. Rajbir deposed that on 01.02.2014 he was working as duty constable in Emergency of Max Hospital. PW10 further deposed that at about 05.00 PM, injured Pushpa Goel w/o Sh. Kishan Chand r/o E-55, Saket was brought in the hospital who was medically examined vide MLC no. 3561/14. PW10 further deposed that the doctor handed over him sealed parcel stated to be containing clothes of injured alongwith sample seal and he produced the same to SI Jagdish and the said exhibits were seized vide memo Ex. PW9/C. PW10 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
20. PW11 Dr. Manish Mehta proved and exhibited on record the MLC no. 3561 dated 01.02.2014 of patient Pushpa Goel as Ex. PW11/A. PW11 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
21. PW12 ASI Om Prakash was the duty officer who proved and exhibited on record the DD no. 73B and DD no. 79B as Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW12/B respectively, endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW12/C, computerized copy of FIR as Ex. PW12/D and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW12/E. PW12 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
22. PW14 SI Amit deposed qua his limited role in the investigation. This witness arrested accused Durgesh vide memo Ex. PW14/B and recorded his disclosure statement as Ex. PW14/C. PW14 further deposed that accused Durgesh took the police to the place of incident where injured Pushpa Devi identified him as one of the robber and at his instance pointing FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 9/19 out memo was prepared as Ex. PW14/F. Apart from the above, this witness exhibited on record some documents pertaining to the proceedings carried by him and filed the charge-sheet as well supplementary charge-sheet in the court. PW14 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
23. PW15 Sh. Sanjay Singh, Nodal Officer, Aircel Ltd., proved and exhibited on record the documents pertaining to the CDR of mobile phone no. 9716108422 as Ex. PW15/A to Ex.PW15/E. PW15 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
24. PW16 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., proved and exhibited on record CDR of mobile phone no. 9910193319 as Ex. PW16/A, subscriber detail of the said mobile phone as Ex. PW16/B and certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW16/C. PW16 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
25. PW17 Sh. Amit Sharma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Communications Ltd., proved and exhibited on record the CDR of mobile no. 8010424148 for the period 01.11.2013 to 01.02.2014 as Ex. PW17/A (Colly). The said mobile phone was registered in the name of Suresh Singh. PW17 also exhibited on record the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW17/B. PW17 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
26. PW18 Sh. Ajit Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Limited, proved and exhibited on record the CDR of mobile FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 10/19 no. 7309748457 for the period 10.01.2014 to 03.05.2014 as Ex. PW18/A (Colly) and certificate u/s 65B of The Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW18/B. PW18 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
27. PW19 Insp. Proshun deposed qua the manner and his involvement in the present case being the Investigating Officer of the present case. PW19 deposed that on 07.02.2014, he along- with a raiding team went to Allahabad Railway Station and at the instance of secret informer, arrested accused Ajay Mouriya at about 8.30 pm, at railway station gate. This witness exhibited on record the arrest memo of accused Ajay Mouriya as Ex. PW19/A, his personal memo as Ex.PW19/B and disclosure statement as Ex.PW19/C. PW19 further deposed that upon his cursory search, one bag was recovered that was taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW19/D. PW19 further deposed that on 10.02.2014, he got 8 days PC remand of accused Ajay Mouriya vide application Ex. PW19/E and at his instance, the pointing out memo of place of occurrence was prepared where he took his position at the time of commission of crime vide memo Ex. PW19/F. PW19 further deposed that on 11.02.2014, accused Suresh @ Dablu surrendered in the court and he was arrested vide memo Ex. PW19/H, his personal search memo is Ex. PW19/I. PW19 further deposed that two mobile phones make Nokia and Samsung were also recovered from his possession that were seized vide memo Ex. PW19/K. PW19 further deposed that accused Suresh @ Dablu got recovered one bag from bushes of Tuglakabad Fort that contained wire, screw driver and tester, black tape and two small knives. PW19 prepared sketch of FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 11/19 recovered knives as Ex. PW2/DA and Ex. PW13/X. The said case properties were seized vide memo Ex. PW19/M. PW19 also seized the telephone wire and knives as Ex. PW19/N.
28. PW19 further deposed that he also prepared pointing out memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Suresh @ Dablu as Ex. PW19/O. PW19 further deposed that at the instance of one secret informer accused Vijay Kumar Mishra was apprehended from near gali no. 3, main road, Mamura Village, Noida, UP. This witness exhibited on record his arrest memo as Ex. PW19/Q, personal search memo as Ex.PW19/R and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW19/P. PW19 further deposed that he prepared pointing out memo of place of occurrence as Ex. PW19/S and got blood sample of accused Vijay from AIIMS hospital and seized it vide memo Ex. PW19/T. This witness identified the accused persons. PW19 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
29. During trial accused persons admitted the genuineness of preparation of documents vide statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. i.e. MLCs of accused Suresh @ Dabloo dated 11.02.2014, 13.02.2014, 15.02.2014, 17.02.2014, 19.02.2014 and 21.02.2014 as Ex. P1 to Ex. P6 respectively, MLCs of accused Ajay Mouriya dated 10.02.2014, 12.02.2014, 14.02.2014 and 18.02.2014 as Ex. P7 to Ex. P10 respectively, MLCs of accused Vijay dated 13.02.2014, 14.02.2014, 18.02.2014, 20.02.2014, 21.02.2014 as Ex. P11 to Ex.P16, TIP proceedings dated 14.02.2014 of accused Vijay Kumar is Ex. P17.
FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 12/1930. No other PW was examined by the prosecution and on the submissions made by the Ld. Additional PP for the state, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 29.04.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
31. Statement of accused persons recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to them. The accused persons controverted and denied the allegations levelled against them. Accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
32. Ld. Additional PP for State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and their testimony has remained unrebutted. That on a combined reading of testimony of prosecution witnesses, offence U/s 120B, 394 IPC r/w section 120B and 307/34 IPC are proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
33. On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for accused persons have stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons. It is argued that the star witnesses of the prosecution have not identified the accused persons as the assailants. It is further argued that no recovery has been effected from the accused persons to connect them with the present case. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, on the aforesaid grounds accused persons deserve to be acquitted.
FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 13/19FINDINGS:
34. Arguments adduced by Ld. Additional PP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons has been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused persons namely Ajay Mouriya, Suresh @ Dablu, Vijay Kumar Mishra @ Vicky and Durgesh are indicted for the offences u/s 120B, 394 IPC r/w section 120B and 307/34 IPC. After appreciating the evidence and going through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses this Court finds the accused persons not guilty for any offence charged herein and they deserves acquittal for the following reasons:-
35. The present case is based upon direct evidence and not circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has examined PW1 Pushpa Goel and PW2 Pooja Goel as its star witnesses who were the injured/eye witness to the incident. Both the witnesses turned hostile in their deposition recorded before the court and failed to identify the accused persons as the assailants in this case. As both the witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, they were cross examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the state. Even during their cross examination by the Ld. Public Prosecutor, both the aforesaid witnesses failed to identify the accused persons present in the court. They categorically denied all the suggestions put by the Ld. Public Prosecutor rejecting the story of the prosecution entirely. In nutshell, the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses are of no help to the case of the prosecution.
FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 14/1936. Prosecution has also examined five independent public witnesses i.e. PW3 Vipin Goel, PW4 Vikram Singh, PW5 Sunita Agarwal, PW6 Naresh Kumar Agarwal and PW7 Arun Verma. Admittedly, none of the aforesaid witness has seen the incident personally and their knowledge about the incident came from PW1 and PW2 who themselves have turned hostile. PW3 and PW4 were cross examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the state and during the cross examination they have denied the suggestion that PW1 and PW2 have told them the name of the accused being the assailant. They also failed to identify the accused persons during the trial. PW5 Sunita Agarwal was cross examined by the accused and during her cross examination she was confronted with her previous statement Ex. PW5/DA in which the statements made by PW5 during examination in chief were not found recorded therein. The entire story stated in the chief by PW5 is considered to be material improvement in the version of PW5 that cannot be relied upon. The testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses otherwise falls in the realm of hearsay evidence, therefore, their testimony cannot be considered and acted upon.
37. No recovery of the robbed articles have been effected from the possession or at the instance of the accused persons in this case. PW1 during her cross examination by the Ld. Additional PP for the state stated that she was not aware about the details of the valuables that were robbed. PW2 on the other hand stated during her cross examination that she did not tried to find out as to what all was missing from the house nor she gave any description of the jewellery or the value of the articles that were FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 15/19 missing from the house. PW3 during his cross examination by Ld. Additional PP for the state did not admit the suggestion that he told police that seven chains given by him to his mother PW1 Pushpa Goel were found missing. In view of the aforesaid statements, made by the victim and her family members shows that either nothing was robbed from their house and if any article went missing the same was not recovered from the possession of the accused persons in order to connect their role in commission to the offences therein.
38. As far as recovery of the bag containing few articles including two small knives seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/M at the instance of the accused Suresh @ Dabloo is concerned, there is no independent public person has been made witness to the recovery of the aforesaid article. Admittedly, the recovery has been effected from a public place and the IO did not join any public person at the time of recovery proceedings. Thus, no sincere efforts were made by the police to join any independent public witness which creates a strong dent in the story of the prosecution as far as the recovery of weapon of offence is concerned. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC)".
39. As per the seizure memo, Ex. PW19/M, the knives seized were having blood stains but the Investigating officer did not take any steps to have forensic examination of the same in order to ascertain if the blood group/DNA profile matches with that of victim PW1 Pushpa Goel. In view of the doubtful recovery of FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 16/19 the knives as well as the hostile testimony of the victim and the eye witness, this incriminating circumstance of recovery does not attribute any role of the accused persons and does not connect them to the offence in question.
40. As per the case of prosecution accused Vijay Kumar Mishra was using the mobile number 9716108422 from which he contacted accused Suresh @ Dabloo on his mobile number 8010424148 and he also contacted accused Ajay Mouriya on his mobile no. 7309748457 and entered into criminal conspiracy for committing the robbery.
40.1 PW15 Sanjay Singh, Nodal Officer, Aircel Ltd. exhibited on record the documents pertaining to mobile no. 9716108422 as per which the registered subscriber was Pawan Kumar Mishra. The said Pawan Kumar Mishra or any other person has not been examined by the prosecution to prove that accused Vijay Kumar Mishra was using the aforesaid mobile number at the relevant point of time.
40.2 PW16 Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. exhibited on record the documents pertaining to mobile no. 9910193319 as per which the registered subscriber was Gulab Singh. The said Gulab Singh or any other person has not been examined by the prosecution to prove that accused Suresh @ Dabloo was using the aforesaid mobile number at the relevant point of time as claimed by the prosecution.
40.3 PW18 Ajit Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone exhibited on record the documents pertaining to mobile no. 7309748457, however, he did not placed on record the document pertaining to the registered subscriber to show as to in whose FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 17/19 name the aforesaid mobile was registered. As per the case of prosecution the aforesaid mobile number was under the usage of accused Ajay Mouriya at the relevant point of time, however, no person has been examined by the prosecution to prove that accused Ajay Mouriya was using the aforesaid mobile number at the relevant point of time.
41. In view of the discussion above, it can be seen that the prosecution has failed to establish on record the usage of the aforesaid mobile numbers by the accused persons at the relevant point of time so, the offence of criminal conspiracy amongst them for committing the robbery does not get established beyond reasonable doubt.
42. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt if any in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
43. In view of the discussion above, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The identity of the accused persons itself is under doubt nor any recovery has been effected from their possession to connect them with the present case. Therefore, the FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 18/19 accused persons are entitled to be given benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused persons namely Ajay Mouriya, Suresh @ Dablu and Vijay Kumar Mishra @ Vicky are hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in the present case.
44. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date:
2024.05.30
16:09:40 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA)
COURT ON 30.05.2024 ASJ (FTC) -02
SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS
Containing 19 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
Digitally signed by VISHALVISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date:
2024.05.30 16:09:45 +0530 (VISHAL PAHUJA) ASJ (FTC) -02 SOUTH DISTRICT SAKET COURTS FIR No. 59/14 State v. Ajay Mouriya and others Page 19/19