Delhi District Court
State vs . Modh. Nadimuddin on 7 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SONIKA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, EAST
DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.76/2016
PS: Shakarpur
State Vs. Modh. Nadimuddin
CNR No. DLET02-007729-2017
(a) Sr. No. of the case 662/2018
(b) Date of offence 10.06.2016
(c) Complainant Sh. Ajeet Kumar
(d) Accused, parentage and 1. Modh. Nadimuddin, S/o Sh.
address Wohibuddin, R/o H. No. C-16, Gali No.
4c, Aram Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
(e) Charges Framed Section 411 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of institution 10.11.2017
(i) Date when judgment was 04.02.2023
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 07.02.2023
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF
THE CASE
1. Present charge-sheet has been forwarded by the SHO, PS Shakarpur against the accused to face trial for the offences under Section 411 IPC.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the FIR No. No. 76/2016 State Vs. Modh. Nadimuddin Page no.1/5 present FIR was registered upon receiving the complaint made by the complainant regarding theft of Laptop, Mobile and Rs. 5,000/- from his room. Thereafter, during investigation, on 10.06.2016 at unknown time at V-Mart, Laxmi Nagar Market, Delhi, the accused was found in possession of stolen mobile phone make Samsung belonging to the complainant, which the accused was retaining or received dishonestly and knowing or having reason to believe that the same to be a stolen property. Consequently, present FIR was registered and after completion of investigation, the final report (charge sheet) for the offences under Section 380/411 IPC was forwarded against accused.
3. Cognizance was taken by Ld. Predecessor v.o.d.
10.11.2017 and after taking cognizance, copy of the charge-sheet alongwith documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was listed for arguments on charge.
4. After hearing the parties, charge was served upon accused for the commission of offence under Section 411 IPC v.o.d. 04.11.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution's evidence. It is pertinent to mention that accused admitted the genuineness of FIR (Ex. C-1), without its contents. As a result of which, the examination of the concerned witnesses were dispensed with. It is pertinent to mention here that several attempts were made to serve the summons FIR No. No. 76/2016 State Vs. Modh. Nadimuddin Page no.2/5 upon the complainant Sh. Ajeet Kumar, but the process was received back un-served. Thereafter, summons was ordered to be served through DCP concerned but again, the same were received back unserved and hence the witness was dropped from the list of witnesses.
6. HC Gajender entered into the witness box as PW-1, wherein he deposed that on 11.01.2016, he was posted as HC at PS Shakarpur and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Jai Veer was present on day emergency in PS. He further deposed that at about 01:00 p.m., he received DD No.49B regarding theft of a mobile and other items and he immediately went to H. No. H-65, Gali No. 3, Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi but complainant was not present there. He further deposed that on inquiry, it came to know that the complainant had left for PS and he also came back to PS. He further deposed that complainant narrated the whole incident and gave him a written complaint about the theft of a mobile phone, laptop and cash of Rs. 5,000/-, Ex. PW-1/A. He further deposed that he made his endorsement on the said complaint Ex. PW-1/B and produced the said rukka before DO concerned and got the case registered vide FIR no. 76/2016 u/sec. 380 IPC and the copy of the same was collected and placed on file, Ex. PW-1/C. He further deposed that thereafter, the investigation of the case was transferred to some other IO. PW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused.
7. It was noted that as the material witness i.e. the FIR No. No. 76/2016 State Vs. Modh. Nadimuddin Page no.3/5 complainant was not traceable, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and procedure would be a futile exercise as well as wastage of judicial time and resources. The prosecution could never be able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the mobile phone recovered form the possession of the complainant was received or retained by him dishonestly and having knowledge of the same to be stolen property. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs." 1996 JCC 507, as follows:
"In cases where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
8. Hence, PE was closed v.o.d 03.02.2023. Statement of accused U/Sec. 281 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein accused denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that he is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged.
9. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have carefully perused the material available on record.
10. It is a settled legal principle that the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and has to stand upon its own legs. The burden of proof in a criminal trial always rests upon the prosecution and the same never shifts on the accused.
11. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC. Since the testimony of FIR No. No. 76/2016 State Vs. Modh. Nadimuddin Page no.4/5 the complainant could not be recorded as he was not traceable through DCP concerned and was consequently dropped from the list of witnesses, the fact regarding theft, for which the present case FIR was lodged in the police station and consequently, the accused having the possession of a stolen property could not be established. All the other witnesses are police officials/formal witnesses and their examination could have been supplementary step to join the link of investigation and the sequence of events. But, in the absence of examination of material witness i.e. the complainant, the other witnesses are of no help to the prosecution.
12. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 411 IPC against accused. Consequently, accused namely Modh. Nadimuddin acquitted from the offences under Section 411 IPC.
Pronounced in the open court ( SONIKA) on 7th Day of February 2023 MM-04/East/KKD/Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 05 pages and each page is checked and signed by me.
(SONIKA) MM-04/East/KKD/Delhi 07.02.2023 FIR No. No. 76/2016 State Vs. Modh. Nadimuddin Page no.5/5