Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh Kumar on 13 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MR. LOVLEEN : LD MM-02
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Unique I.D. No. : 02403R0054742011
FIR No. : 46/10
P.S : Chanakya Puri
Date of commission of offence : 11-05-2010
Date of institution of challan : 07-04-2011
Name of complainant : Sh. Ranjan Jha s/o Sh. Mojilal Jha
Name of accused : Rajesh Kumar
s/o Sh. Satbir Singh
r/o Village Kathura, PS Baroda,
District Sonepat,
Haryana.
Offence complained of : U/s 419/420/379 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not Guilty.
Arguments heard/ order
reserved : 13-01-2016
Final order : Acquitted
Date of such order : 13-01-2016
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 11-05-2010 at about 6.45 p.m. at Forest, S.P. Marg, Near Sulabh Shauchalaya, the accused cheated the complainant Sh. Ranjan Jha by impersonating himself to be as officer of Delhi Police and told the complainant to keep all the valuables like purse, mobile and gold chain in his bag and thereafter the accused ran away FIR No. 76/10 page 1 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar with these articles. FIR was registered. Investigation was undertaken and chargesheet was filed against the accused.
2. After the compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges were framed against the accused Rajesh Kumar U/s 419/420/379 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However during trial, accused.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses: -
3(A). PW-1 is HC Bhairu Sahai (DO), who registered the present FIR Ex.PW1/A on the basis of Rukka and endorsement sent by IO SI Bhupesh.
Ld. Defence counsel did not prefer to cross-examine this witness. 3(B). Complainant Sh. Ranjan Jha was also examined by the prosecution but was inadvertently referred to as PW1. Henceforth, he shall be referred to as PW1A. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that in the year 2010 and probably in the month of October, he was coming from Hotel Taj and was waiting for bus near the bus stand, suddenly one person came and slapped him twice and thrice and showed him some knife and snatched all his belongings i.e. Purse, gold chain, mobile phone no. 9810881874. He further deposed that his purse was containing about Rs.10,000/-, Pan card, RC and his voter ID card and two cheques. He took the help of the passerby and FIR No. 76/10 page 2 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar called at 100 no. After sometime the police official came at the spot and he narrated the whole incident to the police officials and also showed the spot where the incident happened. PW1 further deposed that thereafter he went to PS along with the police officials. His statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded. He was also called at the PS two-three times after the said incident. He could not identify the accused during trial.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW1A admitted that he has never seen the person (accused) and he has never given any statement to the police in respect of the person, who was standing in the court as accused. He had not read (his statement) before signing it but the same was written in his dictation. He had read the statement its contents as were narrated by him. He had also told him that he is from Delhi Police. He denied the suggestion that no incident has happened with him at any time. 3(C). PW-2 is Ct. Ravi Attkan. In examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 25-06-2010, he was posted at Chankaya Puri PS as a constable and at about 4-5 p.m., he alongwith Ct. Vinod and ASI Sheel Kumar went to Village- Kathura, PS Baroda, Sonepat, Haryana and as they didn't get any constable in the said police station so they went to house of Satbir Singh (father of the accused) for the search. After that they searched the house but they didn't get anything.
PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
FIR No. 76/10 page 3 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar
3(D). PW-3 is Ct. Vinod Kumar. In his examination in chief, PW-3 deposed that on 25-06-2010, he was posted at PS Chankaya Puri as constable. On that day aat about 4 to 5 pm, he alongwith ASI Sheel Kumar and Ct. Ravi went to PS Badau at Haryana. PW-3 again said PS Baroda. There they have not got the assistance of any other constable, who can go with them. After that accused told them the way of his house. After that they reached at the home of the accused where they met with his father and they searched the house of the accused via search memo already Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point B but they could not get anything from the house.
PW-3 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
3(E). PW-4 is SI Bhupesh Kumar. In his examination in chief, he deposed that on 11-05-2010, he was posted as SI at PS Chanakya Puri. On the said date, he received the DD no.31 through Ct. Daya Singh regarding snatching of purse, money and phone etc. on the receipt of aforesaid DD entry. He alongwith Ct. Narender went to the spot at Sulabh Sochalaya, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. On reaching the spot, he met the complainant Ranjan Jha s/o Moje Lal and said complainant told him regarding the incident happened with him. PW-4 further deposed that accused told him that he has come from Taj Hotel and he has stopped at the Sulabh Sochalaya to urinate at its back side. Thereafter, a person came and told him that he is from Crime Branch, Delhi Police and as this is a crime prone area hence, the accused should deposit his valuable things i.e. mobile, purse etc. in his bag. The accused also FIR No. 76/10 page 4 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar showed him his I-card pertaining to be on Delhi police and on seen the same the complainant believed him to be police officer and deposited his purse, mobile etc. After freshing up, he asked for his belongings from the said accused. But the accused did not returned the said belongings to the complainant and rather showed him the knife to put him in fear and took all his belongings with him and escape from the spot. In the meantime, SHO Chanakya Puri also came at the spot. He recorded the statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A and he prepared tehrir upon the same Ex. 4/A bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he sent Ct. Narender along with the rukka to the PS for registration of FIR. In the aforesaid Tehrir, he mentioned in the investigation case in the present case shall be marked to SI Satish Chand. After sometime Ct. Narender came along with SI Satish Chand and he handed over the complainant to the SI Satish Chand and SI Satish Chand recorded his statement and he permitted to leave the investigation.
PW-4 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
3(F). PW-5 is SI Satish Chand. In his examination in chief, PW-5 deposed that on 11-05-2010, he was present at the police station Chanakya Puri and at about 9.40 p.m., Ct. Narender came to him alongwith copy of an FIR which was sent by the Duty Officer. He had read the FIR and he went to the spot i.e. SP Marg, Near Sulab Shauchalya, Opposite Taj Palace Hotel alongwith Ct. Narender. He reached the spot at about 9:50 pm. On the spot, SI Bhupesh Kumar and complainant Sh. Ranjan Jha were present. He had interrogated FIR No. 76/10 page 5 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar SI Bhupesh Kumar and asked him to leave investigation. Thereafter, he interrogated the complainant about the incident to which he told him everything about the said incident that had happened with him. Thereafter, he had prepared the Site Plan Ex.PW5/A which bears his signatures at point-X at the instance of the complainant. PW-5 further deposed that he had recorded the statement of Ct. Narender and the complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he searched locally the whereabouts of the accused, but he could not find him at or near the spot. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Narender had gone to the police station. PW-5 further deposed that on 13-06-2010, accused Rajesh (correctly identified by the witness) was arrested while he alongwith Ct. Mann Singh was on local search near the said spot which is a very dense forest area. He prepared arrest memo Ex. PW5/B which bears his signatures at point A. He had prepared personal search memo after his personal search Ex. PW5/C bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, he recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW5/D bearing his signatures at point A. On his personal search, he recovered fake Delhi Police Identify Card from the accused and prepared a seizure memo Ex. PW5/E bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, they went to the room of the accused at Najafgarh alongwith the accused and they did not find anything with regard to this case in his room. He had prepared the house search memo Ex. PW5/F bearing his signatures at point A. He got medically examined the accused at RML Hospital, New Delhi and brought him to the police station and locked him up and thereafter, he recorded the statement of Ct. Mann Singh under Section FIR No. 76/10 page 6 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar 161 Cr.P.C. Before taking the accused to his house, the accused took him to the spot where the incident took place and he prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW5/G which bears his signatures at point A. The witness was shown the seized fake identity card to which he correctly identifies the same. The same I-
Card is now Ex. P-1.
PW-5 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
3(G). PW-6 is HC Maan Singh. In his examination in chief, he deposed that on 13-06-2010, he was posted as constable at PS Chanakya Puri. On that day, he was present in the PS. Chitha Munshi asked to him to report to ASI Satish Chand in the PS. Accordingly, he reported to ASI Satish Chand. Accused Rajesh was sitting in the room of the ASI Satish Chand along with him. ASI Satish Chand interrogated the accused and arrest vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B which bears his signatures at point B. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/C which bears his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he along with the IO and accused went to the spot and IO prepared the site plan memo of the spot which is Ex. PW5/G which bears his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he along with IO and accused went to the house of the accused at Nazafgarh. IO took the cursory search of the house vide memo Ex. PW5/F which bears his signatures at point B. However, nothing incriminating was recovered during the search. Thereafter, they came back at the PS. After the medical examination, accused was lodged in the Police lockup, IO recorded his statement. Accused Rajesh Kumar was FIR No. 76/10 page 7 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar correctly identified by the witness. During the personal search of the accused one Delhi police I-Card, one BSF I-card along with the other articles were recovered from the possession of the accused. IO seized the recovered of Delhi police I-card in the name of Ravinder vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/E which bears his signatures at point B. the said recovered Delhi police I-card is shown to the witness and correctly identified by the witness. The card is Ex. P-1.
PW-6 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
3(H). PW-7 is Ct. Narender. In his examination in chief, he deposed that on 11-05-2010, he was posted at PS Chanakya Puri as constable. On that day, on receipt DD no. 31 A Ex.PW7/A, he along with SI Bhupesh Kumar reached at the spot i.e.S.P.Marg, Dhaula Kuan, Near Sulabh Sochalaya where complainant Ranjan Jha met them. SHO Satish Sharma also reached at the spot. SI Bhupesh recorded the statement of complainant Ranjan Jha and prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got the FIR register. He handed over the copy of FIR along with original rukka to ASI Satish Chand in the PS. Thereafter, he along ASI Satish Chand reached at the spot. ASI Satish Chand enquired from the complainant regarding incident and prepared the site plan Ex.PW5/A at the instance of the complainant. ASI Satish Chand recorded the statement of complainant and my on the spot. ASI Satish Chand tried to trace out the accused and case property however, nothing was came to light.
FIR No. 76/10 page 8 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar
Thereafter, complainant left the spot. He along with IO came at PS. PW-7 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
4. Thereafter PE was closed. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded in which the accused has made simple denial of the evidence put to him and has not taken any particular defence. No evidence was lead in DE by the accused.
5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and accused and perused the record carefully.
6. It is argued on behalf of the state that sufficient material are available against the accused to prove charges beyond reasonable doubts. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the accused that there are material discrepancy in the case of prosecution which entitled the accused for acquittal.
7. Perusal of record reveals that the present FIR was registered at the instance of PW1/complainant Sh. Ranjan Jha regarding an incident of theft of his money and other documents. It was alleged by PW1/complainant that some person impersonated as an official of Delhi Police and committed the theft of his money and articles at the relevant time. After the registration of the present FIR, the police allegedly apprehended the accused and thereafter, FIR No. 76/10 page 9 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar filed the present charge sheet.
8. The perusal of testimony of PW1/complainant reveals that he could not identify the accused as the person, who committed the theft at the relevant time. PW1/complainant was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for State, still PW1/complainant could not depose in favour of the case of the prosecution and against the accused. In fact, PW1/complainant deposed that some person came, slapped him and snatched his belonging at knife point. The said facts, deposed by PW1/complainant, are contrary to the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise, the testimony of PW1/complainant is of no use to the case of the prosecution as he has not been able to identify the accused as the offender.
9. Coming to the testimony of PW-5, who allegedly apprehended the accused during investigation, it is noticed that the said witness is not consistent about the spot of arrest of the accused. In his cross-examination, PW-5 has deposed that the accused was apprehended from the spot, which is a densely forested area, and thereafter one fake identity card pertaining to Delhi Police was recovered from the possession of accused. The testimony of PW-5 is at variance with the case of the prosecution, as is revealed from the case diaries, that the accused was called to the police station and was arrested after the accused admitted his involvement in the present incident. It is apparent that the police official (i.e. PW-5), who arrested the accused is not FIR No. 76/10 page 10 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar sure about the place of arrest of the accused. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to rely upon the sole testimony of PW-5 regarding the alleged arrest of the accused or the recovery of fake identity card from the possession of the accused. More so, when no other witness could depose as to the actual circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused.
11. The testimony of the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution does not further the case of prosecution against the accused.
12. In view of the above observations, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquits the accused of the offences punishable u/s 419/420/379 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the (LOVLEEN) Open Court on 13-01-2016 MM-02/PHC/NEW DELHI FIR No. 76/10 page 11 of 11 PS Chanakya Puri State vs. Rajesh Kumar