Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1) The date of commission of offence : 25.08.2015

2) The name of the complainant : Vinod Kumar

3) The name & parentage of accused : Ashish @ Ashu S/o. Late Dinesh,

4) Offence complained of : 380/511 IPC

5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. 

6) Final order                                                     : Acquitted.

7) The date of such order                                          : 29.10.2020

                                  Date of Institution : 14.03.2018
                             Judgment announced on : 29.10.2020



                                                                                KAPIL         KUMAR

                                                                                KUMAR         2020.10.29
                                                                                              17:14:03
                                                                                              +0530

  State Vs. Ashish @ Ashu; CIS No. 3567/18; FIR No. 436/15; PS Nabi Karim; U/s. 380/511 IPC            1/6
 CNR No. DL CT­02­009944­2018


THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:

1)         The case of prosecution against the accused is that on 25.08.2015 at 2

AM in front of house no. 6570 Gali no.15, Pardhan Chowk, Nabi Karim, Delhi he attempted to commit theft in the house of the complainant namely Vinod Kumar.

2) After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. In compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.PC, documents supplied to the accused. Arguments on point of charge were heard. Vide order dated 24.08.2018, a charge for the offence u/s. 380/511 IPC was framed upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:­ "...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to Digitally signed by KAPIL State Vs. Ashish @ Ashu; CIS No. 3567/18; FIR No. 436/15; PS Nabi Karim; U/s. 380/511 IPC KAPIL5/6 KUMAR KUMAR Date: