Full Text
CRL.L.P.NO.437/2018
STATE Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for the State.
JAGJIT:SINGH R?s|ondent Throu^h^J- and Mr.KunalSinha, ■) )■■■ IA^oeates with the
' 'Rdspbhdent in person.
„ c ; "WW
A.K. CHAWLA. J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.No.12479/2019 Allowed subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
Crl.L.P.No.437/2018 By the instant petition, the petitioner - State seeks leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. against the
JUDGMENT
CRL.L.P.No.437/2018 2019:DHC:7887 10.04.2018 passed by the learned ASJ,whereby,the learned ASJ has elosed the prosecution evidence noting that the complainant - a material witness, was aged and compelling his presence would result in harassment to an old man. Apparently, it resulted into acquittal of the respondent.
Taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the petition for leave to appeal is granted.
The application stands dispqsed^o Crl.A.No. /20i^Tlbibe:humbefdd^^ 7 iffisiii
Heard. ^
•i r r' ■ •
The short judgment;resulting;into a judgment of acquittal can be taken note ofas follows::;%:> " 'i>, "1. Pwsecutiokitasesin<bn^isitHaton 30.7.2014 at
'l-tv V' ^ «f^ about 9:45 pm complainant Sant'Ram Sareen reached platform no.14at OldDelhiRailwayStation waitingfor
Una Himachal''fBwrgs§,. Accuseid^f^as present there started talking to him dhdibetdme-friend When the train reached on the plat form, complainant and accused went inside the general coach. After sometime accused brought a cold drink namely "Maza"andgave it to complainant, who became unconscious after drinking it. Later on, hefound himselflying on Kurali
Railway Station. He alleged that a voter card, mobile phone, a departmental card ofAirforce and a sum of
CRL.L.P.No.437/2018 Page2of5 Rs. 900/- had also been stolen by the accused. The FIR was registered. CCTVfootage were examined and the complainant identified the accused in CCTVfootage.
Accused was arrested on asecretinformation.
2. Accordingly, a charge was framed under Section 238/394/411 IPC to which accusedpleaded not guilty andclaimedtrial.
3. Prosecution examined PWl Inspector RPF Gulshan Satija, whodpined^ Chand, the Investigating Officefifn/wv He testified that on 8.8.2013, at the instance ofsecret informer, accused was arrested. On his search, one<strip containing seven tablets ofATlVAl2mg werefoundandfew articles were recoveredfrom him.\'PW2\ Ctl?,Balvinder Singh joined investigation. He testified that three dayspolice remand ofaccused was g0nted'--andfrom him one dependent identitycardhavuigthe0chpg0fi0fcomplainantwas recovered. PW[3] lit Nai recorded FIR Ex. Pw3/A.
4. Despite' ^complainant did not appear due to very old age. The complainant is totally dependent upon an Air Force Officer and his address keeps on changing with the transfer ofhis son. Since, the witness was notcoming to the court, ofcourse due to his old age and he being residing outstation with his son, it wasfelt by this court that compelling his appearance would result in harassment to an old man. CRL.L.P.No.4.37/2018 ^ Therefore, prosecution evidence was closed by this court. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is not sufficient to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, in absence ofthe evidence ofcomplainant, who is the sole witness who could have testified about the incident, the evidence ofPWl,PW2andPW[3] is not enough to hold the accused guilty. Accordingly, accused is acquitted. Bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. File be consignedto recordroom." A perusal ofthe fpregoing^^^^^^ ofthe Trial Court would show thatthe vital witness to the prosecution case,whose deposition was most material for tlio prosecution;case, came to be shut for the reason that he was old and dependent upon his son - an Air Force Officer, whose address would change on transfer and therefore, despite various efforts,.the prosecution could not examine him. Closing prosecution eyidence,-v^ipri^i.the'^^ premise, cannot be approved of. More so, when; nith^e prosecution expressed its inability to produce him for his examination nor there was any material to show that;theje^^nati^^ material witness was not at all feasible by'any'means including through video conferencing.Intheabsencethereof,theapproach adoptedbythetrial courtin closingPEcannotbe appreciated. For the foregoing reasons,the impugnedjudgment is set aside andthe matter is remanded backtothe Trial Courtto proceed further for recording of the prosecution evidence and record its findings Page4of[5] CRL.L.P.No.437/2018 afresh,giving due opportunityto the prosecution to lead its remaining evidence.The appealstands disposed ofaccordingly. The partiesto appear beforethe Trial Courton 20.08.2019. k A.K.CHAWLA,J. JULY 24,2019 dm ■:,: x ^ 1 1 • v. ', 1.. '^5 i«jli S'ij > ■' f- A0 hlAv-1- •