Delhi District Court
State vs . Shagir Ahmed, on 17 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHUBIR SINGH
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 32/16
FIR No. 860/15
PS. Seelampur.
U/s. 394/397/411 IPC.
Instituted on 29.02.2016
Argued on 17.01.2019
Decided on 17.01.2019
Final Order Convicted u/s 379/324 IPC.
State Vs. Shagir Ahmed,
S/o. Sh. Naseer Ahmed,
R/o 108, 30 Foota Road,
Ashok Vihar, Near Madina
Masjid, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP
JUDGMENT
1. The charge sheet runs to the effect that on 16.11.2015, an incident of pickpocketing had taken place with the complainant Rakesh Kumar while he was traveling in a bus and the bus had reached and stopped at Dharampura Red Light. The statement of the complainant runs to the effect that on the said day when he boarded the roadways bus from Shastri Park Chowk for Shahdara and when it stopped at the red light as above, a copassenger apprised him that the boy who had just deboarded had stolen his purse. The complainant immediately rushed towards him and apprehended him near foot over bridge in front State Vs. Shagir Ahmed FIR No. 860/15 Page No. 7 of 7 of Seelampur Metro Station. A number of public persons gathered there. The complainant had caught hold of him by graping him from behind and at that time, the accused took out a blade and caused sharp injuries with it on both hands of the complainant. However, he failed to free himself from the clutches of the complainant. Some public persons searched the person of the accused and at that time the complainant threw away the blade. On search, the purse of the complainant containing Rs.500/ (five notes of Rs. 100/ denomination each), his identity card and driving license were recovered from the accused. Someone dialed at 100 number and the PCR came there and took the accused as well as the complainant to Jag Pravesh Hospital. On the basis of this complaint, FIR u/s 379/324/411 IPC was lodged and after completion of the investigation, the Final Report u/s 173 Cr. P.C was filed for the offences u/s 394/397/411 IPC.
2. Vide order dated 07.05.2016, the accused was charged with for the offences punishable u/s 394/397/411 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution got examined six witnesses in support of the case. These include complainant Rakesh Kumar as PW1, PW2 SI Manoj Kumar Tomar as Duty Officer who has proved the FIR as Ex. PW2/B, Ct. Vipin as PW3 who had accompanied ASI Data Ram to the spot as State Vs. Shagir Ahmed FIR No. 860/15 Page No. 7 of 7 well as to the Jag Pravesh Hospital and is the witness to the arrest of accused by the first IO/ASI Data Ram vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C, personal search of the accused Ex. PW1/D and also witness to the recording of the statement of the accused by the IO shown exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. In the presence of this witness, the injured Rakesh Kumar had handed over the purse with the currency notes which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/B. PW4 ASI Data Ram is the first IO whereas PW6 Inspector U.Balakrishnan is the second IO who had filed the charge sheet in the Court. PW5 Dr. Meghali Kelkar, CMO Jag Pravesh Chand Hospital has proved the MLC of the injured/complainant as Ex. PW5/A.
4. Statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C was recorded as on 06.12.2018 whereby all the incriminating material was put to him to which he pleaded ignorance and claimed having been falsely implicated. However, he opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
5. File perused. Ld. Counsels heard.
6. As per the prosecution version, the accused had pickpocketed the complainant and on being apprised by some copassenger that the boy (i.e. the accused) who just deboarded the roadways bus at Dharampura Red Light had committed this offence, the complainant caught him just a few paces away. This complainant / victim was State Vs. Shagir Ahmed FIR No. 860/15 Page No. 7 of 7 examined as PW1 and he has extensively deposed almost verbatim the prosecution version thereby touching upon each and every minute detail. His deposition well includes as to how he was apprised of the alleged happening, how he chased and apprehended the accused, how the accused inflicted injuries on both of his (complainant) hands with the help of a blade while he had grappled him from behind and how the stolen purse containing Rs.500/ and the driving license were recovered from the accused on being frisked with the help of some public persons. His deposition further runs to the effect that thereafter someone dialed 100 number and a PCR came there and those police officials took the complainant as well as the accused to Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital. The statement of the complainant recorded there in the hospital has been proved as Ex.PW1/A and the recovered articles have been established on record as Ex.PW1/B onwards. During the entire cross examination, it was not at all put to the complainant that the accused was not traveling in the same bus as that of the complainant or that he was not apprehended there at the Dharampura Red Light or that PCR officials had not taken both of them to the Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital from the spot. In the name of defence, it has simply been reiterated time and again that he has been falsely implicated. As a matter of fact, the complainant and the accused are / were strangers to each other. Hence, there was scope for any sort of enmity etc. It is also not the case in defence that any of the police officials involved in the State Vs. Shagir Ahmed FIR No. 860/15 Page No. 7 of 7 investigation of the present case was having any grudge against him or that they allegedly falsely implicated him. Thus apparently the defence of simply saying that he was falsely implicated does not make any sense more so when the accused was caught hold immediately after picking the pocket of the complainant just a few paces away from the bus both of them were boarding.
7. Further, MLC Ex.PW5/A of the complainant / injured also makes it clear that the injuries had been inflicted on both the hands of the complainant. The doctor examined as PW5 has deposed that there were two injuries of the size of 5x0.5x0.5 c.m. incised wound and 1 c.m. lacerated wound on the left and right hand (of the complainant) respectively. As per the very deposition of this doctor, these injuries had been caused by sharp object. Here it is worth mentioning that the medical examination of the complainant / victim was got conducted promptly and neither there was any occasion nor any reasons for any sort of concoction of story on these lines. Entire defence which has been brought on record is having no substance at all even to the extent of raising any prima facie suspicion on the prosecution version. Further, the deposition of the complainant finds due corroboration on the testimony of PW4 (first IO) as well as PW3 the police official who had accompanied the IO during the course of the investigation of the present case.
State Vs. Shagir Ahmed FIR No. 860/15 Page No. 7 of 7
8. However, as far as the charge for the offence under section 394/397 IPC is concerned, it is neither made out nor has otherwise been established on record. As a matter of fact, the offence of theft (i.e. pick pocketing) had already been committed while in the bus whereas the use of weapon i.e. blade and infliction of injuries on the person of the complainant took place subsequently when the accused was chased and apprehended. Thus, the injuries were not caused while committing or attempting to commit the offence within the meaning under Section 394 IPC. The same is the fate of requirements under Section 397 IPC. Thus, the only offence (instead of offence under Section 394/397 IPC) which is made out and stands duly established is that of the offence of theft punishable under Section 397 IPC.
9. As far as the act of infliction of injuries is concerned, it amounts to an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Though, as a matter of fact, no charge for the offence under section 324 IPC was specifically framed against the accused yet the very language of accusation; in general, and the language; in which charges were given to the accused; in particular, makes it clear that the accused was very well informed of as to on what lines the allegations were there against him and as to on what lines he was supposed to put forth his defence. Thus, despite there being no specific charge under Section 324 IPC, in the State Vs. Shagir Ahmed FIR No. 860/15 Page No. 7 of 7 facts and material on record, he can safely and rightly be held guilty thereof; when the requisite ingredients of this offence stand duly established.
10. The appreciation made hereinabove makes it clear enough that the accused had committed the offence of theft (pickpocketing) while traveling in the same bus in which the complainant was traveling, he was apprehended on being chased and there he inflicted injuries on both the hands of the complainant with the help of a blade amounting to an offence punishable u/s 324 IPC. The offences (u/s 394/397 IPC) with which he was charged are not made out. As far as the charge u/s 411 IPC is concerned, it goes as the accused has been found and held guilty for the offence u/s 379 IPC as he had been apprehended with the stolen articles a few moments later and just a few paces away from the bus after committing theft. Accordingly, the accused is held guilty for the offences punishable u/s 379/324 IPC and is convicted accordingly.
Digitally signed by RAGHUBIR Announced in Open Court th on 17 day of January, 2019 RAGHUBIR (RAGHUBIR SINGH) SINGH Addl. Sessions Judge02 SINGHNorth East DistrictDate:
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 2019.01.22 15:08:53 +0530 State Vs. Shagir Ahmed FIR No. 860/15 Page No. 7 of 7