Delhi District Court
State vs . Kamrul on 29 July, 2015
MS. ARCHANA BENIWAL
IN THE COURT OF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTHEAST) 08
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Kamrul
FIR No: 12/13
U/s: 356/379/411/34 IPC
PS: AMAR COLONY
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 518/2/23.08.14 b The date of commission : 07.01.2013 c The date of Institution of : 10.04.2013 the case d The name of complainant : Aman Thakur e The name of accused, his :Kamrul S/o Karamat Parentage & Address R/o House no. 693, Phase III, JJ Colony Madanpur, Khadar, New Delhi f The offence complained : 356/379/411/34 IPC of g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty h Arguments heard on : 17.07.2015 i The final order : Acquittal j The date of judgment : 29.07.2015 Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that 07.01.2013 at FIR No. 12/13, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Kamrul Page No. 1 of 8 about 08.15 pm at Astha Kunj Park, East of Kailash near Nehru Place Metro Station, New Delhi the accused Kamrool along with his associate/JCL Bhanu committed theft of a laptop, mobile phone and a purse containing an ATM card belonging to complainant Aman Thakur by use of criminal force upon him to snatch the same. A case was registered upon the complaint given by the complainant Aman Thakur. During course of investigation, the IO came to know that in FIR no. 15/13, the coaccused/JCL Bhanu had got recovered one HP Laptop from the bushes of Astha Kunj Park, which belonged to the complainant in the present case. During investigations, police apprehended accused Kamrool and coaccused/JCL Bhanu. The investigation in the case finally culminated into the filing of charge sheet against the accused persons. Since, the accused persons appeared to be below 18 years of age, the IO produced both the accused persons before the Juvenile Justice Board II, however, vide orders dated 09.04.2013, accused Kamrul was found to be above 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence and was directed to be produced before the Court.
2. After culmination of investigations and filing of the chargesheet in the present case, the Court took cognizance FIR No. 12/13, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Kamrul Page No. 2 of 8 of the offence and proceeded against the accused Kamrul. Upon appearance of accused, copy of chargesheet as required under section 207 Cr. P.C. were supplied and case was fixed for consideration on charge. After hearing arguments and on perusal of record, prima facie case for the offence punishable u/s 356/379/34 IPC was found to be made out against the accused Kamrul. Charge was accordingly framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In support of its case, prosecution has produced and examined 4 witnesses.
4. PW 01 Aman Thakur is the complainant. He deposed that on 07.01.2013 in evening, while he was returning from his office from Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, and going towards Nehru Place Metro Station to meet his friend, on the way near Astha Kunj Park, 23 boys snatched his laptop bag and ran away from the scene of offence. He further deposed that his laptop bag was containing one laptop make HP, one Mobile phone make Intex and his wallet containing his ATM card and voter ID Card and also cash of Rs. 100/. Thereafter he went to police station and lodged his FIR No. 12/13, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Kamrul Page No. 3 of 8 complaint Ex.PW 1/A. He handed over the bill of his laptop to the police. The witness identified the case property from the Photographs Mark Ph1 to Mark Ph.4. However the complainant failed to identify accused Kamrul before the court as the incident had occurred at night time.
5. During his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he could not state with surety that accused Kamrul was amongst those boys who had snatched his laptop bag. Also he stated that his mobile phone and wallet had not been recovered in the present case.
6. PW 02 Ct. Mukesh testified that on 12.01.2013 he had joined investigation of the case FIR no. 15/13 along with ASI Bua Lal and during the investigations, accused/JCL Bhanu had got recovered one HP Laptop from the bushes of Astha Kunj Park which the IO had seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/A. The IO had arrested the accused Kamrool in his presence vide memo Ex.PW 2/B. He identified the accused in the court and also the case property from the photographs on judicial record which are Ex.PH1 to PH4.
7. In his cross examination, he deposed that he had apprehended the accused at the instance of the FIR No. 12/13, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Kamrul Page No. 4 of 8 complainant who was present in the Astha Kunj Park below the ISKON Temple parking. He denied preparing the seizure memo and disclosure statement at the police station itself. He could not tell whether the same had been signed by the accused persons or not, when the same was prepared. He admitted that no date had been mentioned on the seizure memo.
8. PW 03 SI Kailash Singh deposed that on 10.01.2013, present case was marked to him for investigation after registration of FIR. He had prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW3/A at the instance of complaint. He had also collected the invoice of the Laptop mark X. PW03 was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel, despite opportunity.
9. PW 04 Retired SI Bua Lal, deposed along the lines of the prosecution story. He deposed that they had found two persons sitting around the bushes in Astha Kunj Park at the time of searching for the accused persons. One of persons was identified by the complainant as one of the offenders who had snatched his laptop bag. However, found to be a JCL/coaccused Bhanu. Both these persons were interrogated. Formal search of Kamrul was made and one mobile phone (Nokia C1) was found from the right pocket FIR No. 12/13, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Kamrul Page No. 5 of 8 of the accused Kamrul's trousers. On the identification of complainant, the said mobile phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. On the disclosure statement of the JCL Bhanu, one laptop(HP) was recovered from the park and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. Parents of the both accused persons called at the spot and undertaking were taken vide Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E. Accused Bhanu was found to be a juvenile as per his school record. Accused Kamrul was found major as per his bone xray certificate. PW 04 was not cross examined despite opportunity.
10. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC wherein he admitted the factum of registration of FIR no. 12/13 Ex.A1 and rukka Ex. A2 in terms of section 294 Cr.PC.
11. In his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him and pleaded false implication and stated that case property had been planted upon him by the police. However, accused Kamrul chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
12. Final arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for accused heard. Entire judicial record carefully perused.
FIR No. 12/13, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Kamrul Page No. 6 of 8
13. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution is required to independently prove that the accused is the one who used criminal force on the complainant and snatched his laptop containing laptop, mobile phone and purse containing ATM card of the complainant.
14. The complainant/PW1 in his testimony categorically failed to identify the accused as the person who used criminal force on the complainant and snatched his laptop containing laptop, mobile phone and purse containing ATM card. He was the only eyewitness to the offence in question. His mobile phone, make Intex was never recovered from the possession of accused Kamrul. Another mobile phone, make NOKIA has been recovered from his possession which does not pertain to the present case. The recovered case property i.e. laptop of the complainant has also not been recovered from his possession. The same has been recovered at the instance of the coaccused Bhanu who is a JCL. There is no other eyewitness to the alleged offence except the complainant who has admittedly failed to identify the accused Kamrul as the person who had snatched his laptop bag by use of criminal force upon him, hence, all the necessary ingredients of the offence as against the accused FIR No. 12/13, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Kamrul Page No. 7 of 8 punishable u/s 356/379/34 IPC have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, there being no credible evidence adduced by the prosecution or the investigating agency in the present case.
15. It is the basic principle of criminal law that in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence, all the ingredients of that offence should be established against him beyond reasonable doubt and the burden upon accused is not so onerous and the standard expected of him is that of preponderance of probabilities.
16.In view of the foregoing discussion, court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove all the charged offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused Kamrool is held not guilty and is accordingly, acquitted of the charged offences punishable u/s 356/379/34 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court on 29.07.2015 (ARCHANA BENIWAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SE)08 SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI FIR No. 12/13, PS: Amar Colony State vs. Kamrul Page No. 8 of 8