In criminal law, a conviction requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any doubts must benefit the accused.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The Appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/State against the Judgment dated 04.10.2016 whereby the Respondent, Amit Kumar has been acquitted by the learned ASJ, Delhi, for the offence under Section 394/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’) in FIR No. 08/2014 dated 01.02.2014, Police Station Anand Vihar Railway Station.

2. The brief facts are that on 31.01.2014 at about 08:00 p.m., the Complainant, Mr. Tej Singh Bhati Singh was going to old Railway Station Anand Vihar from the side of Platform No. 1, when three boys confronted him enroute and tried to snatch his bag. A physical altercation took place between them and the Complainant was pushed to the ground and beaten with a stone, resulting in the injuries on his nose, hand and head. The assailants took away his Samsung Mobile Phone, as well as the purse containing several cards, documents and Rs.9,000/- in cash.

3. The Complainant went to GRP from where he was taken to LBS Hospital in Ambulance and thereafter, shifted to Max Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi. He was treated in the hospital till 03.02.2014.

4. The Statement of the Complainant was recorded on 01.02.2014, on the basis of which, FIR No. 08/2014 under Sections 394 /34 IPC , was registered. The Investigating Officer/SI Joy Kumar, during the investigations, collected the MLC wherein the injuries suffered by the Complainant, were certified as grievous in nature.

5. The IO made the analysis of CDR of the Mobile Number and IMEI number of stolen mobile and traced it to the Accused, Amit Kumar. He was arrested on the basis of secret information and was found to be in possession of robbed Mobile, without any SIM Card. The TIP proceedings were conducted in which he was identified by the Complainant. The Charge-Sheet under Section 394 /411/34 IPC thereafter was filed in the Court on 19.05.2014.

6. On 01.07.2014, Charges under Section 394 /411 IPC were framed against the Respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty.

7. On 31.07.2014, a Supplementary Charge-Sheet under Section 397 IPC was filed by the Investigating Officer. The Charges under /411 were framed against the Respondent on 02.01.2015, to which he pleaded not guilty.

8. The Prosecution in support of its case, examined 13 Prosecution witnesses.

9. PW-2 is the Complainant, who proved his Complaint, Ex.PW-2/A.

10. PW-3, Head Constable Devender Singh registered the FIR, Ex.PW-3/B.

11. PW-13, ASI Surender Singh, the Investigating Officer, who was accompanied by PW-4, Head Constable Maharaj Singh to the hospital from where the MLC of the injured, was collected.

12. The medical record of the injured were proved by PW-1, Dr. Virender Kumar and PW-5, Dr. Harjinder Singh Bhatoe, who had examined the Complainant in the Emergency in the Max Hospital. The summary of treatment is Ex.PW-5/A and the copy of Discharge Summary is Ex.PW-5/B.

13. PW-8, Pawan Singh Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular, proved the cell ID Chart of Mobile No. 9540721499, which had been obtained on the I-card of Smt. Sushma as Ex.PW-8/D.

14. PW-9, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate proved the TIP proceedings of the Respondent as Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B.

15. PW-13, ASI Surender Singh, the first IO, conducted the initial investigations and got the FIR registered.

16. PW-12,