Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Indian panel code in State vs . Amit @ Mittu on 13 February, 2014Matching Fragments
-
1. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on the statement of complainant Akila, zero FIR No. 07/2012 under Section 392/393/394/397 of Indian Panel Code was registered. On receipt of zero FIR, present FIR was registered at PS GRP Faridabad, Haryana. Complainant Akila and her son-in-law Gulam Nasir alleged that they were travelling in Sampat Kranti, Uttar Pradesh (Train No. 12448) in coach No. HA-1. Train had left from Nizamuddin Railway Station at about 8:15 P.M. and after 15-20 minutes thereafter two unknown armed robbers entered the train and at the pointing out of revolver, they had snatched mobile phone make Videocon, wrist watch, purse containing ` 10,000/-, PAN Card, driving licence and other documents and gold chain, ear rings, ladies purse containing ` 10,000/- to ` 11,000/- from them and they had also threatened to kill them. Accordingly, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 392/393/394/397 of Indian Panel Code was registered. During investigation, statement of TTI Brijesh Kumar and Attendant Anil Kumar Gupta were also recorded who alleged that the robbers had entered the train between Okhla and Tuglakabad Railway Station. When they entered the coach, Attendant Anil Kumar Gupta raised objection, consequently both the robbers chased him by showing their respective weapon, consequently Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta locked himself in a bathroom. Similarly, TTI Brijesh Kumar also locked himself in Cabin B. They had robbed the passengers who were travelling in Cabin A and thereafter, they went in Coach AC-II and ran away after pulling the chain.
2. After completing investigation, challan was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392/393/394/397 Indian Panel Code.
3. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, case was committed to the Court of Sessions on September 24, 2012. Thereafter, case was assigned to this Court on September 29, 2012. Accordingly, case was registered as Sessions case No. 58/12.
4. Vide order dated November 21, 2012, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 392/397 of Indian Panel Code was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
14. From the above, I am of the view that testimony of the above said witnesses is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the involvement of accused in the alleged incident. Prosecution has failed to produce any State Vs. Amit @ Mittu other cogent admissible evidence to prove the involvement of accused.
15. Pondering over the going discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the culpability of accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under Section 392/397 of Indian Panel Code, thus, I hereby acquit the accused Amit @ Mittu from all the charges.