Delhi District Court
State vs . Dalip Singh Etc on 21 July, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/ NEW DELHI.
State Vs. DALIP SINGH ETC
FIR No: 263/01
U/s: : 392/34 IPC
P.S. : TUGLAK ROAD
JUDGEMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case : 146/1
2. Date of commission of offence :21.11.2001
3. Name of the complainant :Sh. Ram Kishan S/o Sh.
Lakhi Ram R/o 34/117, Tirlok Puri, New Delhi
4. Name of accused :(1) Dalip Singh S/o Sh.
Shadi Lal R/o B-28,Chajju Ram Hospital Dal Mill wali gali, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (2)Mukesh S/o Late Sh.
Madan Lal R/o E-17. New Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi (3)Rajat Singh S/o Sh.
Virpal Singh R/o 9626, Gali No. 12, Multani Dhadha, Pahargunj, Delhi
5. Offence complained off: :U/s 392/34 IPC
6. Plea of the accused :pleaded not guilty
7. Final Arguments heard on :21.07.2010 2
8. Final Order :Acquitted
9. Date of such order :21.07.2010 BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2001 at about 3.35 PM at bus route no. 410, bus stand infront of Vice President of India residence, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention used criminal force against complainant Ram Kishan while committing theft of Rs. 2300/- belonging to the complainant and they were caught while running away with the stolen money and the said money was recovered from their possession. After investigation, a challan U/s 392/34 IPC was filed against all the accused persons.
2. Charges were framed against all three accused persons namely Dalip Singh, Mukesh and Rajat Singh for the offences 392/34 IPC on 07.04.2005 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 6 witnesses. HC Nathu Ram was examined as PW 1, Sh. Ram Kishan who is the complainant in the present case was examined as PW 2, Ct. Umesh Chand was examined as PW 3, SI Parasnath was examined as PW 4, ASI Alka Sharma was examined as PW 5 and SI Ghan Shyam Lal was examined as PW 6.3
4. The documents were exhibited as
(i) Copy of FIR was exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A.
(ii) The complaint was exhibited as Ex. PW 2/A.
(iii) The seizure memo of recovered amount was exhibited as Ex.
PW 2/B.
(iv) Personal search memos of accused persons were exhibited as Ex. PW 2/C, Ex. PW 2/D and Ex. PW 2/E respectively.
(v) All three accused persons were arrested vide memos Ex. PW 3/A to Ex. PW 3/C respectively.
(vi) The complaint was endorsed by SI Parasnath vide memo Ex. PW 4/A.
(vii) The site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant Sh. Ram Kishan vide memo Ex. PW 4/B.
(viii) The true copy of DD entry no. 10 was exhibited as Ex. PW 5/A.
5. Statement of accused persons namely Dalip Singh, Mukesh and Rajat Singh recorded separately wherein the accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons led defence evidence.
6. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar was examined as DW 1. Thereafter, DE was closed.
7. Final arguments heard from the Ld. APP for State and from the Counsel for accused.
8. Except PW 2, Sh. Ram Kishan who is the complainant in the 4 present case, all other witnesses are formal. PW 2, Sh. Ram Kishan had supported the case of the prosecution in his chief examination, however, when he was cross examined, he deposed that he had written whatever asked by the two police personnels to him at police station Tuglak Road. He further deposed that the police obtained his signatures on some blank papers and whatever, he had stated in his evidence was instructed to him by the police personnels. PW 2 further deposed that he had not seen any of the accused persons personally at the time of occurrence of the offence and he cannot identify the accused persons.
9. PW 2 is the only eye witness who was present at the time of commission of offence and saw the accused persons as per prosecution story. However, he had completely damaged the prosecution case by stating that whatever, he had written in his complaint to the police, it was done at the instance of police. His signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police. He had not seen the accused persons at the time of occurrence of offence. This deposition of PW 2 is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaskaran Singh v State, 1997 SCC (Cri.) 651 held: "When the evidence of first informant is found to be full of contradictions, exaggerations and improvements, he cannot be held to be a truthful witness."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagadish Prasad v State, 1994 Cr LJ 1106 (SC) held: "When the testimony of the eye witness is clouded with grave suspicion and discrepant in material particulars, recording of conviction of the accused is not proper."
512. In view of the above discussions and relying upon the abovesaid rulings, I am of the considered view that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons namely Dalip Singh, Mukesh and Rajat Singh beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled law that the benefit of doubt always go in favour of accused persons. The accused Dalip Singh, Mukesh and Rajat Singh are acquitted for offence U/s 392/34 IPC. Bonds are discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court PRITAM SINGH Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi 21.07.2010