Final Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV GARG, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-11, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case 15528/2025 State Vs.Ali Hussain @ Sonu @ Chota Picha
e-FIR No.80022210/2025 PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station
J U D G M E N T
1) The date of commission of offence : 26.02.2025
2) The name of the complainant : Sh. Raj Narayan Verma,
S/o Sh. Jai Govind Verma
3) The name & parentage of accused : Ali Hussain @ Sonu @ Chota Picha
S/o Mr. Md. Soheb
4) Offence complained of : 304(2)/3(5) BNS
5) The plea of accused persons : Not Guilty
6) Final order : Acquittal
Date of institution of Case : 31.10.2025
Judgment reserved on : Not Reserved
Judgment pronounced on : 09.07.2026
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The accused in the present matter is facing trial for the offence under section
304(2)/3(5) BNS.
2. The prosecution story is that 26.02.2025 between 13:00 hrs to 13:20 hrs at
Under Jakhira Flyover Railway Track, the accused alongwith his associate
(not arrested) suddenly and forcefully seized and took away the mobile
phone (make Samsung Galaxy M-11) and purse (containing some currecny
notes and ID Card) from the possession of the complainant namely Raj
Narayan Verma.
e-FIR No.80022210/2025 State Vs.Ali Hussain @ Sonu @ Chota Picha 1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
3. The information of the incident was received in PS Sarai Rohilla Railway
Station, pursuant to which the present FIR was lodged. After concluding the
investigation, the present charge sheet was filed against the accused under
sections 304(2)/3(5) BNS.
4. Charge was framed against the accused as per para 1 to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove the offence against the accused
person, the prosecution has examined one witness.
5. PW-1 Sh. Raj Narayan Verma has deposed that in 26th of 2025, however, he
do not remember the month when the incident took place. He further
deposed that on the day of Shivratri, the complainant was going to his bua's
house in Nehru Nagar from Najafgarh, Delhi. He further deposed that near
Jakhira Bridge railway crossing, two persons already present on the track
attacked him, snatched his mobile phone and wallet, and ran away. He
further deposed that he went to the Police Station and an online FIR was
registered and his statement was recorded by the IO. He further could not
identify the accused due to lapse of time. During cross-examination of Ld.
Subs.APP for the State, the witness failed to identify the accused even after
pointing out towards him.
6. PE was closed as no useful purpose would have served by examining the rest
of the witnesses, who are formal in nature and the request of the Ld. Subs.
APP for the State to examine remaining witnesses was declined.
7. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that:
“…In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or
there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no
e-FIR No.80022210/2025 State Vs.Ali Hussain @ Sonu @ Chota Picha 2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal
prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the
proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not
be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the
proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date………..”
8. Since there was no incriminating circumstance against the accused,
recording of his statement under section 351 BNSS was also dispensed with.
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the accused and the Ld. Subs. APP for the
State and have perused the records carefully. Ld. Counsel for the accused
submitted that the complainant/eye witness could not identify the accused.
Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the identity of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and prays that the accused may be
acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
10. The rule that every accused is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty
and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt is the fundamental canon of the criminal justice
system. Further, in every criminal trial, the identity of the malefactor must be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the
Prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the
offender, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there
can be no conviction without proof of identity of the offender beyond
reasonable doubt.
11. Onus is, thus, on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
person facing the trial is, in fact, the same person who committed the
offence. Furthermore, the commission of some crime has to be proved.
12. However, in the present case, the complainant/eye witness has entirely
demolished the prosecution version by failing to identify the accused present
e-FIR No.80022210/2025 State Vs.Ali Hussain @ Sonu @ Chota Picha 3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
in court. Further, there are no other independent eye witnesses to support the
present case. All other witnesses are formal in nature being police witnesses.
The prosecution failed to bring on record the testimony of any
independent/other public persons on record. Further, there is no other digital
evidence or CCTV footage to link the accused with the present offence.
13. In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the identity of the
culprit and commission of any crime, the accused person’s constitutional
right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved is not overcome,
and he is entitled to an acquittal.
14. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, accordingly, the accused Ali Hussain @ Sonu @ Chota
Picha S/o Mr. Md. Soheb is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s
304(2)/3(5) BNS.
Announced in the open court (VAIBHAV GARG)
today. Judicial Magistrate First Class-11/
Central District/Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi
09.07.2026
[This judgment contains 04 pages and each page bears the signature of
undersigned ]
(VAIBHAV GARG)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-11/
Central District/Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi
09.07.2026
e-FIR No.80022210/2025 State Vs.Ali Hussain @ Sonu @ Chota Picha 4/4
-- 4 of 4 --