Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinay Kumar on 19 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Presided by: Ms. Vijeta Singh
State Vs. Vinay Kumar
FIR No. 240/96
U/S 392/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Case ID No. of the case. :02403R0008681997
2. The date of commission :.27.05.1996 of the offence.
3. Name & address of complainant :Sh. Baldeep Chadha S/o Sh.
Mahender Singh Chadha, R/o H35/7, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
4. Name & address of accused :1. Vinay Kumar S/o Sh.
Jarnail Singh R/o RZ 135B, Narsingh Garh, H. No. 652, Janta Flats, G. T. B. Enclave, Delhi. (declared Proclaimed Offender dated 15.03.2008).
2. Smt. Bimla W/o Hari Ram R/o H. No. 595, PocketD, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
3. Raj Kumar S/o Bira Ram R/o D576, Gali No. 06, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 1/13 FIR No. 240/96
5. Offence complained :U/s 392/34 IPC
6. The plea of the accused and :Dispensed with his examination.
7. The final order. :Acquitted
8. The date of such order. :19.01.2013.
9. Date of institution. :
10. Date on which the judgment :15.01.2013 has been reserved.
BRIEF FACTS/ STATEMENTS OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION.
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.05.1996 at about 07.35 pm near quarters behind PS, Kamla Market accused Vinay (since declared P.O.), Bimla and Raj Kumar robbed the complainant Sh. Baldev Chadha of gold chain and purse containing Rs. 1500/ along with documents in furtherance of their common intention and therefore, committed offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC.
2. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Ld. Predecessor of this Court who took cognizance of offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC and summoned the accused. On 24.05.1997 documents as State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 2/13 FIR No. 240/96 per section 207 IPC were furnished to all the accused.
3. Since Ld. Predecessor of this Court was of the prima facie opinion that offences punishable u/s 394/34 IPC were made out against all the accused, Ld. Predecessor of this Court framed charge against the accused not formed sections vide order dated 23.05.2000.
4. In support of its case the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
I. PW1 Lady Ct. Chanchal who inter alia deposed that she joined investigation on 28.05.1996 and disclosure statement of accused Bimla was recorded in her presence. The same was tendered as Ex. PW1/A in evidence. She was duly cross examined by Counsel for accused Bimla and Raj Kumar.
II. PW2 Sh. Baldev Chadha/complainant who inter alia deposed that on 06.12.1996, he was going to Bangla Sahib Gurudwara in his car Maruti 800 bearing no. 6748 at about 07.0007.30 pm, when he reached near Regal Cinema one lady asked for lift till Kalibari; that o 02 persons came on scooter and stopped infront of the car of the accused and represented that they are police officials and have information of misdeed in the car of the complainant and so he would have to to go to ITO with them; that he may also be jailed; that they demanded Rs. 50,000/ from the complainant; that one person sat in the car and they started going towards ITO; when they reached Bengali Market, the complainant was State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 3/13 FIR No. 240/96 advised to call home to bring money; that complainant made a call to his brother Amardeep Chadha from shed and informed him about the incidents; that he asked his brother to come near New Delhi Railway Station; that the person in the car took away the chain and purse of complainant; that they all waited under shed at the Railway Station and when the complainant went to contact his brother and returned to the shed, all the accused had left; that after 810 days,complaint was filed at PS, M. Marg. The witness also relied upon Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B, Ex.
PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D. But failed to identify the accused persons in the Court. Despite cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness failed to identify any of the accused. . He stated that documents aforementioned were signed by him at the instance of the police. He also denied whether the Driving Licence and visiting cards were recovered from the accused in his presence from the purse. He deposed that he had seen his articles in the Police Station itself and were not recovered in his presence. He failed to recall the number the scooter used in the offence and recovery of any money from accused Vinay. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined. III. PW3 Amardeep Chadha brother of complainant who deposed that he had received call from his brother and he went to New Delhi Railway Station, Ajmeri Gate side where he met his brother who was alone and nervous. The rest of the deposition were made by him being hearsay are not being reiterated. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined. State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 4/13 FIR No. 240/96 IV. PW3 Insp. Indrawati Rathore/Duty Officer who proved registration of Zero FIR at PS, Tilak Marg and the same is Ex. PW3/A. V. PW4 Sh. Rakesh Sharma who was called as a witness as he was the previous owner of the scooter bearing no. DL4SC 8786 which allegedly had been used in the incident. He relied upon Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B, Ex. PW4/C1 to Ex. PW4/C3. As per his deposition, he had sold the vehicle through a dealer who had never met the purchase. He was duly cross examined and discharged.
VI. PW5 Insp. Suman Pushkarna who reached the spot on receipt of Zero FIR. He relied upon Ex. PW5/A (seizure memo of scooter). He also tendered Ex. PW5/B (personal search memo of accused Vinay) in evidence. He was not cross examined despite opportunity. VII. PW6 ASI Surender Singh who had participated in investigation along with IO and he proved pointing out memo Ex. PW6/A. He was duly cross examined and discharged.
5. It is pertinent to mention herein that during pendency of trial, accused Vinay stopped appearing and vide order dated 15.03.2008, he was declared Proclaimed Offender.
State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 5/13 FIR No. 240/96
6. Since despite several opportunities, the prosecution failed to conclude prosecution evidence, the same was closed by the order of this Court dated 28.04.2012.
7. Examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as nothing incriminating was found against the accused Raj Kumar and Bimla. The accused did not lead DE.
8. Final arguments of accused Bimla and Raj Kumar was heard on 15.01.2013. No arguments were led by prosecution despite opportunity.
9. To secure conviction u/s 392/34 of the Code, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the following essential ingredients:
a. That all the accused in furtherance of common intention. b. Voluntarily caused/attempted to cause to the complainant death/hurt/wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death/instant hurt/instant wrongful restraint.
c. In order to commit theft/in committing the theft, or in carrying away/attempting to carry property obtained by theft.
In the considered view of this Court, the star witness of prosecution was PW1/victim himself. PW1 failed to identify any of the accused. During State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 6/13 FIR No. 240/96 cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, the witness even testified that no recoveries of stolen articles were effected in his presence and that documents tendered by him in evidence were all signed at the instance of the police officials. As per him, all the articles were seen by him at the police station. All other witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal in nature. Their testimony is not sufficient to fasten liability against the accused Bimla and Raj Kumar. Hence, accused Bimla and Raj Kumar are acquitted with charge offences with as prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
10. File be consigned to records to be revived as and when accused Vinay is arrested.
Announced in the open Court (Ms. VIJETA SINGH)
on 19.01.2013 MM04/Patiala House Courts
New Delhi.
State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 7/13
FIR No. 240/96