Delhi District Court
State vs Ayub on 8 January, 2025
THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ RAI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
1. FIR No. 44640/2019 PS Bhajanpura
2.Unique Case no. 754/2020
3.Title State Vs. Ayub
3(A).Name of complainant Rahul Mishra
S/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar Mishra
3(B).Name of accused Ayub
S/o Abdul Kalim
R/o H. No. A-216/9A Gali no. 9, Maujpur,
Delhi
4.Date of institution of challan 25.04.2020
5.Date of Reserving judgment 08.01.2025
6.Date of pronouncement 08.01.2025
7.Date of commission of offence 22.12.2019
8.Offence complained of U/s 411 IPC
9.Offence charged with U/s 411 IPC
10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
11.Final order Acquitted under Section 411 IPC
12. Date of receiving of judicial file 25.04.2020
in this court
JUDGMENT
1. The present prosecution case was put into action with the complaint of the complainant Rahul Mishra, alleging that on 22.12.2019 between 08.30 p.m. and 09.00 p.m. vehicle bearing no. DL5SCD 3251 belonging to the complainant Rahul Mishra was stolen from H. No. 5/23, Gali no. 13, Near Delhi Darbar within the jurisdiction of PS Bhajanpura, Delhi. On the basis of the same the present complaint State Vs. Ayub Page 1 of 4 FIR No. : 44640/2019 got registered and subsequently, on 07.01.2020 the said motorcycle was recovered at their instance at about 07.15 p.m. at Sonia Vihar Pusta, Harampur which accused received or retained having knowledge or reason to believe the same to be stolen property. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed U/s 411 IPC.
2. On 25.04.2020, cognizance was taken and accused person was supplied the chargesheet. Thereafter, charge for the offence punishable U/s 411 IPC was framed against the accused on 26.04.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution had named total 9 witnesses in the charge sheet. Complainant Rahul Mishra was to be examined as PW1. But State was unable to secure his presence despite ample opportunities. As per report of DCP concerned, complainant was not traced at the said address. He was accordingly dropped on 19.12.2024. Hence, no purpose shall be served by summoning the remaining witnesses who are formal in nature. In the absence of the testimony of the complainant, there is no material on record to establish the identity of the accused as well as the case property or any material to link the accused with the incident. In the absence of the testimony of the complainant, the original complaint remains unproved. Further, in the absence of testimony of complainant, the version of the prosecution cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Also disclosure statement of accused is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. State also cannot rely upon Section 27 Indian Evidence Act since the recovery had already been effected as per the case of the prosecution before the recording of disclosure statement. Identity of accused as well as of the motorcycle thus remain unproved. There is no other witness or material on record to link the accused person with the crime in question. Remaining witnesses are of formal nature who merely prove the registration of FIR, apprehension of accused and the investigation conducted. They do not carry forward the case of the prosecution and therefore no purpose would be served by examining the formal witnesses. Thus there are important missing links in the chain of circumstances which create holes in the prosecution story.
State Vs. Ayub Page 2 of 4 FIR No. : 44640/2019
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and others 1996 JCC 507 had held that "in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date".
5. Considering the same, the prosecution evidence was closed vide separate order dated 19.12.2024. The recording of statement of the accused under Sec. 313 CrPC was dispensed with for want of incriminating evidence against the accused.
6. It is the cardinal principle of criminal law that the accused person is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. It is further rule of Evidence in Criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the story of the prosecution cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in the absence of testimony of complainant.
7. Hence, in view of the above, accused Ayub S/o Sh. Abdul Karim stands acquitted for the offence U/s 411 IPC as the State fails to establish the identity of accused person and the incident. Surety of accused, if any, stand discharged. Original documents be released to the rightful person after due acknowledgment. Superdarinama, if any, stands cancelled. File be consigned to the Record Room as per rules.
Announced in the (PANKAJ RAI)
Open Court on 08.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate First Class-01
KKD Courts, Delhi/08.01.2025
Note:- Digital signature already expired and new digital signature have been applied for and not issued till date.
State Vs. Ayub Page 3 of 4 FIR No. : 44640/2019
State Vs. Ayub Page 4 of 4 FIR No. : 44640/2019