IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR, MM-3 (NORTH), ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI. UID No. [CASE NUMBER] FIR No. 596/14 U/s. : 392/411/34 [ACT] P.S. : [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. JUDGMENT
1. Sl. No of the case :522/2 2. Date of institution of the case :15.05.2009 3. Date of the commission of the offence :17.09.2008 4. Name of the accused :1. [ENTITY] S/o Sh.[ENTITY] R/o Jhuggi no.40, C- Block,[ENTITY], Delhi. 2. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] R/o Jhuggi no.C-536, 3rd Floor, [ENTITY], Delhi. 3. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] R/o Jhuggi 38/106, C.D. Park, [ENTITY], Delhi 5. Name of the complainant : [ENTITY] 6. Offence complained of : 392/411/34 [ACT] 7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Final order : Acquitted 9. Date of such order : 27.07.2016 STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
The story of the prosecution in brief are that on 25.07.2014 at about 3:00 PM in 500wali Gali, C-Block, [ENTITY], Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station [ENTITY], all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of a gold chain from the possessions of complainant Sh. [ENTITY] by wrongfully restraining him under fear of hurt. Further, that on 21.08.2014 at the instance of accused [ENTITY], part of gold chain was recovered from the possession of accused [ENTITY] and on 25.08.2014 a part of gold chain was recovered from the possession of accused [ENTITY] which they received and retained having reasons to believe the same to be a stolen property.
2. After the investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed in the court for judicial verdict. Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons, arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 22.03.2016, charge for the offences under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against all the accused persons to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. During prosecution evidence in support of its version, the prosecution has examined two witnesses out of total nine witnesses as cited in the list of witnesses
4. PW1 Sh. [ENTITY], who is the complainant in the present case, has deposed that on 25.07.2014 at about 2:00pm, he alongwith his friend [ENTITY] were going back to their house after purchasing vegetables and when they reached in one gali of [ENTITY], while [ENTITY] was drivng the motorcycle at a very slow speed and he was pillion rider at that time one person came from back side and pressed his neck by hand so tightly that he loose his senses for a while and he snatched his gold chain weighing about 23 gms ad ram away and when [ENTITY] stopped the motorcycle and he had seen back no one was seen and he could not even see the clothes and physical description of that boy. That someone from public called at 100 number. That the police officials came at the spot and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. This witness was cross- examined by the Ld. APP for the [ENTITY] wherein he stated that the person, who snatched his chain was not apprehended by him. That he had not gone to the BJRM Hospital on 07.08.2014 and he had not seen the accused [ENTITY] near BJRM Hospital nor he was arrested in his presence. The witness is pointed out towards the accused persons but the witness stated that he does not know them. That he had never seen the accused persons prior to the day of evidence. The witness denied the suggestion that he entered into any out of court settlement with the accused persons. The witness has entirely denied the story of the prosecution. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite being opportunity for the same.
5. PW2 Sh [ENTITY], who is the another eye witness to the incident has stated that on 25.07.2014 at about 2/2:30pm he alongwith his friend [ENTITY] were going back to their house after purchasing vegetables and when they reached in gali of [ENTITY], he was driving the motorcycle at a very slow speed and [ENTITY] was the pillion rider, at that time, [ENTITY] gripped him so tightly that he thought that he was telling something to him and he stopped the motorcycle at some distance and when they got down and removed their helmet, no one was seen at the back and [ENTITY] told him that someone had snatched his gold chain from his neck by pressing his neck. That someone from public had called at 100 number and police came to the spot and recorded his statement. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the [ENTITY] wherein he stated that he had not gone to Rohini Court on 09.09.2014 and not seen any persons in the custody of the police. The witness is pointed out towards the accused persons but the witness stated that he does not know them and cannot say whether accused [ENTITY] was the same person, who had snatched the gold chain of [ENTITY]. That he had never seen the accused persons prior to the day of evidence. The witness denied the suggestion that he entered into any out of court settlement with the accused persons. The witness has entirely denied the story of the prosecution. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite being opportunity for the same.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of prosecution evidence, it is submitted by complainant Sh. [ENTITY] and the accused persons that they want to compound the present case qua the offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] and seek permission for the same. Accordingly, in view of their submissions and separate statement of the complainant, the offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] stands compounded and all the accused persons are acquitted for the offence u/[SECTION] [ACT].
7. In the meanwhile, the perusal of the record reveals out that PW1 Sh. [ENTITY], who is the complainant/ injured/star/eye witness of the case and PW2 Sh. [ENTITY], the another eye witness do not support the case of the prosecution by not identifying the accused persons during their testimonies. It is also revealed that there is no other eye witness to the alleged offences u/[SECTION] [ACT] and the other witnesses are those who took part in the investigation of the case. Accordingly, PE was closed.
8. Thereafter, separate statement of all the accused persons was recorded u/[SECTION][ACT], in which the stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and denied of leading any evidence in their defence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the [ENTITY], Ld. defence counsel and perused the entire material available on record.
10. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that all the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials. The only material witnesses i.e. the complainant/PW1 Sh. [ENTITY] and PW2 Sh. [ENTITY] have not supported the story of the prosecution. It is further argued that since the complainant and the another eye, who are the star witnesses, failed to identify the accused persons as one of the snatcher, as per the case of prosecution, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is further argued that since the prosecution could not establish its case against the accused persons for the alleged offences beyond shadow of doubt, it is, therefore, prayed that the accused persons be acquitted of the alleged offences.
On the contrary, the Ld. APP for the [ENTITY] has submitted that the accused persons can be convicted for the alleged offences.
13. In the present case, the accused persons has been charged for the offences under [SECTION] [ACT], out of which offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] already stands compounded and to connect the accused persons with the offences u/[SECTION] [ACT], all the ingredients of the abovesaid offences have to be proved beyond shadow of doubt. Initially, the onus to prove its case is on the prosecution therefore, the prosecution has to prove that the accused persons have committed snatching of gold chain from the possession of the complainant.
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the testimony of the witnesses i.e. complainant Sh. [ENTITY] and PW2 Sh. [ENTITY] and found that nothing substantial and convincing against the accused persons has come in their testimonies. No other material witness was examined by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons.
In case law reported as Sadhu Singh vs. [ENTITY] of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes 55, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under:-
" In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbably or lacks "credibility, the benefits of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
In the present case also the word credibility as mentioned in the above mentioned case law is found lacking on behalf of the Prosecution. Remaining officials are the police officials, who came into picture only after occurrence of the incident and the conviction can not be based on the sole testimony of the police officials, if examined.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Narain Singh @ Lala vs. [ENTITY] of Delhi 2005 (1) LRC 294 (Del) (DB), has also ruled that:
"There must be a chain of evidence so complete as to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in their catena of decisions has emphasized and also ruled that:
"Criminal trial- benefit of doubt- when on the basis of the evidence appearing on record, two views are possible, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt."
15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts against the accused persons for the alleged offences. There is no convincing evidence on the record, which could substantiate any charge upon the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons, the identity of the accused persons remained unestablished and accordingly, allegations for commission of the offences u/[SECTION] [ACT] remained unproved and unestablished.
16. Under the aforesaid discussions, it can safely be concluded that in the present case the evidence on the record is not at all sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty of the alleged offences, as the prosecution story is highly doubtful and the benefit of doubt is the right of the accused. It is also an established law of the land that the accused should not be convicted in doubtful circumstances. Even, if there are two views possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be accepted. Since, the prosecution has failed to establish a case against the accused persons for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, I am also not inclined to convict the accused persons in doubtful circumstances. Consequently, after giving the benefit of doubt, I hereby acquit all accused persons namely, [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] for the offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT].
17. Case property, if any, be destroyed in accordance with rules on expiry of period of Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
The necessary bail/surety bonds furnished by the accused/surety in compliance of [SECTION] [ACT] alongwith latest passport size photos and residential proof.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUNIL KUMAR) COURT ON 27.07.2016 MM-03(NORTH)/ROHINI DELHI