Delhi District Court
State vs . : Munchun Jha on 22 June, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF AISHWARYA SHARMA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 01 (SOUTH WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
State Vs. : Munchun Jha
FIR No : 00616/2022
U/s : 454/380/411 IPC
P.S. : Palam Village
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 12189/2022 2. Date of commission of offence : 20.08.2022 3. Date of institution of the case : 11.10.2022 4. Name of the complainant : State 5. Name of accused & parentage : Munchun Jha S/o Sh. Dhirender Jha 6. Offense complained or proved : 454/380/411 IPC 7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Date on which order was reserved : 22.06.2023 9. Final order : Acquitted 10. Date of final order : 22.06.2023 JUDGMENT
1. The accused is facing trail for offences U/S 454/380/411 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 20.08.2022 at about 11:30 AM, the complainant and her parents had gone to NOIDA after locking their house, in connection with some work and when they returned to their house at about 5:20 Pm, the complainant saw that the window of her house was broken and as soon as she entered inside her house after opening the gate, she saw that one boy had jumped FIR No.00616/2022 State Vs. Munchun Jha 2 from balcony located at the backside of her house. The complainant also saw that all the things inside her house were lying scattered and one laptop make HP along with its bag of grey and black colour having HP Logo was missing. She also found that her passport along with HDFC Debit Card, Music System (Alexa) make Amazon along with it's charger of black and white colour was missing and thereafter, complainant filed eFIR regarding the same, pursuant to which the police visited the spot and prepared spot map. During investigation on 21.08.2022, upon receiving secret information, police apprehended the accused near Pakoda Park, Nasir Pur, Mahavir Enclave New Delhi and police recovered one laptop bag of black and grey colour having HP mark and found inside that bag one laptop make HP and one music system Alexa along with its charger of black & white color, however, police did not associate any public witness in raiding party. The recovered articles were found to have been stolen from the house of the complainant. After completion of the investigation, the present chargesheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused for the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offences, the copy of chargesheet was supplied to accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and charges for offences U/S 454/ 380/411 IPC were framed against accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed and trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused, the only material/ public witness cited and examined by prosecution in this case is complainant/PW1 Ms. Ekta Mishra. Today the complainant had compounded the offence U/S 411 IPC qua the accused and accordingly, the accused was acquitted of the same. Qua commission of offence U/S 454 /380 IPC, Complainant deposed that on FIR No.00616/2022 State Vs. Munchun Jha 3 20.08.2022, she along with her parents was residing at RZD67, Upper Ground Floor, Street No.4, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi and on that day, she along with her parents locked the above mentioned flat and left for NOIDA at about 11:30 Am and when they returned at their apartment at 5:20 pm, the complainant observed that the window of her flat was broken. When the complainant entered inside her flat, she heard voice of someone jumping from the balcony on the ground from her flat, however, she could not see the said person. Complainant further deposed that she observed that the belongings of her house were scattered all over in her flat and on checking, one HP Laptop, her Passport, Music System (Alexa), Charger and mouse of Laptop, one laptop bag and one Debit Card of HDFC Bank were found missing and then complainant lodged present e FIR regarding the same. During investigation she also handed over the invoice of her laptop, bag and mouse to the police which is Mark X and the handing over memo of the same is EX. PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A. she stated that she received back her HP Laptop, bag, mouse, its charger and Alexa Music system and produced photographs of the same which are EX. P1 (Colly). Thereafter, the complainant was crossexamined. During her cross examination, she admitted that she had not seen the accused committing theft of her articles. She also admitted that she could not identify the accused. She denied the suggestion that no property was stolen from her house. She also denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused and she is deposing falsely.
4. The only public witness of the occurrence cited by prosecution in the present case is the complainant and she has compounded the offence U/S 411 IPC against the accused and with respect to the remaining offences, the complainant stated that she had not seen the accused committing theft of her articles and she FIR No.00616/2022 State Vs. Munchun Jha 4 even did not identify the accused. During her examination in chief also, the complainant has nowhere stated that she had seen the accused escaping from her house by jumping from balcony. There is no eye witness of the commission of theft and the prosecution has not even produced any electronic evidence of the same. Since, the only material witness cited in the present case has admitted there being no direct witness of the occurrence and had failed to identify the accused, there being no possibility of establishing guilt of accused on the testimony of remaining official witnesses, examination of remaining official witnesses was dispensed with, thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. Since, no incriminating material had come on record against the accused during testimony of PW1 qua commission of offence U/S 454/380 IPC, therefore, recording of statement of accused U/S 281 Read with Section 313 Cr. PC was dispensed with. Thereafter, final arguments were advanced.
5. I have carefully gone through the record and evidence. The present case emerges out of a complaint purportedly made by the complainant against accused with allegations that on 20.08.2022 at about 5:20 PM, window of her house RZD 67 Upper Ground Floor, Gali No. 4 , Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi, was broken and theft of one laptop make HP, one Bag make HP, Passport, HDFC Bank Debit Card, Music System Make Alexa with it's charger was committed from her house and the accused had effectuated his escape by jumping from the back balcony of the house of the complainant and out of these articles, one laptop make HP, one Bag make HP, and Music System Make Alexa with its charger were recovered from the accused on 21.08.2022 at 7:30 Pm near Nasir Pur Village, New Delhi, thus, the accused is facing trial for commission of offences U/S 454,380,411 IPC.
6. In the present case, from testimony of PW1, it is clear there is no direct FIR No.00616/2022 State Vs. Munchun Jha 5 witness or electronic evidence of the occurrence which could associate the accused from the alleged theft and could establish that the accused committed lurking house trespass or house breaking and committed theft of above mentioned articles belonging to the complainant. In absence of any incriminating evidence given by PW1/Complainant, the prosecution could never hope to prove the allegations leveled against the accused. The testimony of remaining witnesses even if taken together would also be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused, accordingly, examination of remaining official witnesses is accordingly dispensed with. The occurrence of incident accordingly stands not proved by the prosecution.
7. The right to speedy trial is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. The present case pertains to FIR dated 20.08.2022, thus, continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused, would tantamount to violation right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ram Chandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its powers available under criminal procedure code to give effect to the right to speedy trial of the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057.
8. Further, in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration &Anr. 1996 SCC 507, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that valuable time of courts should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure, when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
9. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 SCC (CRI.) 258 that the accused is FIR No.00616/2022 State Vs. Munchun Jha 6 entitled to benefit of doubts where the onus of proving ingredients of the offences is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of the offences, thus, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubts.
10. In view of the above discussion, since, nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, the accused Munchun Jha is acquitted for offences punishable U/S 454 & 380 IPC and for offence U/S 411 IPC, accused is acquitted by this court as the same has been compounded by the complainant vide her separate statement recorded today in the court.
11. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trail stands canceled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands canceled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on (Aishwarya Sharma)
this day i.e. 22nd June, 2023 MM 01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 6 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Aishwarya Sharma)
MM 01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
FIR No.00616/2022 State Vs. Munchun Jha