Delhi District Court
State vs . Samundar Singh on 27 February, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, MM-08
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT
State Vs. Samundar Singh
FIR No.63/08
PS: Kirti Ngr.
U/S: 392/34 IPC
Sr. no. of the case : 393/1
Date of commission of offence : 06.12.08
Date of institution of the case : 07.07.09
Name of the complainant : Inderjeet s/o Satpal ,r/o plot no.
17, Jai Vihar Bapdola, Delhi
Name of accused and address : Samuder Singh s/o Ram
swaroop r/o RZ-AI/21,
Dharampura, Najafgarh, Delhi
Offence complained of or proved : U/S 392/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 27.02.2012
J U D G M E N T:
1. Brief facts of the prosecution story are that on 06.12.08, at about 10:55 am near Rishal Garden Hanuman Mandir, Delhi when the complainant was travelling in a bus no. DL-1PA-5547, the accused along with his co-associate(not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant and removed Rs. 17,000/- kept in the plastic bag underneath the sweater worn by the complainant and after removing money, the accused forcibly pushed the complainant out of the bus.
2. After completing the investigation, IO filed the charge sheet before this court on 07.07.09 upon which the cognizance was taken and the accused was summoned. Vide order dated 03.04.2010 charge u/s 392/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution has cited 6 witnesses in support of its case and out of them 5
FIR NO: 63/08 State vs Samunder Singh
2
witnesses have been examined.
3. PW1 HC Narender Kumar is the duty officer and he proved the FIR on record. PW-2 ASI Ishwar Singh , PW-3 HC Yashpal Singh and PW-4 HC Manoj Kumar are the witnesses of proceedings only.
4. PW-5 Inderjeet is the complainant and he is the star witness of the prosecution case. Perusal of his testimony shows that he completely resiled from his previous statement as he totally failed to support the prosecution case. In his examination before the court, PW-5 failed to identify the accused and deposed that he was not the one who had caused him the injuries. As the witness was resiling from his previous statement, Ld. APP sought permission to cross the witness but even in his cross examination, complainant failed to come out with any incriminating evidence against the accused as Ld. APP failed to extract anything in support of prosecution case. PW-5 categorically denied the suggestion that he had identified the accused in the presence of the police officials as the one who had snatch his cash. He denied the suggestion that he had signed the personal search memo, arrest memo or disclosure statement of the accused at the time of his arrest.
5. As nothing incriminating came on record against the accused, the statement of accused was also dispensed with.
6. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
7. No evidence has come on record against the accused to prove the charges against him. Hence, accused is acquitted in the FIR bearing no. 63/08, PS Nihal Vihar. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Sunena Sharma
court on 27.02.2012 MM-08/West/Delhi
FIR NO: 63/08 State vs Samunder Singh