Delhi District Court
State vs . Jitender @ Rajesh on 1 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH VAIBHAV CHAURASIA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04: NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 28/2011
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs. Jitender @ Rajesh
Date of Institution: 23.06.2011
Date of Judgment: 01.07.2023
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 528662/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 31.01.2011
(c) Name of the complainant : Smt. Kusum Lata
(d) Name of Accused, his : Jitender @ Rajesh
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Munish Ram,
R/o House No. 10665/8
Andha Mughal Pratap Nagar,
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s: 379/356/482/34 IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Acquittal
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE
DECISION
1) The accused Jitender @ Rajesh S/o Sh. Munshi Ram had been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Section 379/356/482/34 IPC of the Indian Penal Code FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 1 of 25 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') on the allegations that on 31.01.2011, at about 2:20 p.m., near C-6/154, Keshav Puram, Delhi, accused alongwith other associates (who could not be apprehended) in furtherance of their common intention, used criminal force to Smt. Kusum Lata in committing theft of her two gold chains which she was wearing. Further, on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused alongwith other associate (who could not be apprehended) in furtherance of their common intention used a motorcycle bearing no. DL- 8S-5611 at the time of commission of above offence, though the actual registration number of the abovesaid motorcycle is DL 8SAM 5642 and on 28.04.2011, accused got recovered a number plate reflecting the above said fake number i.e. DL- 8S 5611 from his house situated at 10665/8, Andha Mughal Pratap Nagar.
2) After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court, cognizance of the offences was taken, the accused was summoned and after that his entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet along with the documents was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against the accused Jitender @ Rajesh for the commission of offences under Section 379/356/482/34 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor to which accused FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 2 of 25 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses.
5) PW-1 SI Jagbir Singh No. 2667/D Posted at Special Branch, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi deposed that on 31.01.2011, he was posted as SI and working as did. his working hours were 8.00 was to 4.00 p.m. On that day at about 3.40 pm he received one rukka from Ct. Lokender who was sent by Sl Nahar Singh. He accordingly registered the FIR no. 28/11 U/s 356/379/34 IPC. The FIR was got registered through computer installed at PS Keshav Puram on the basis of tehrir sent by Sl Nahar Singh. A printout of the FIR bearing no. 309/09 was obtained and was handed over to Ct. Lokender and another printout was retained to be tagged in FIR register maintained as per rules. The printout of FIR EX. PW-1/A was the same which was got registered by him in the present case on the basis of information fed into the computer which was being used for similar purposes in routine and was under his lawful control. He further certify that nothing abnormal took place during that period so as to affect the accuracy and correctness of the information fed into the computer. He have brought the FIR register which has the similar printout. The same was compared with Ex. PW1/A. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 3 of 25
6) PW-2 Smt. Kusum Lata (complainant) deposed that on 31.01.2011, at about 2.15 or 2.30 PM, he was coming on foot to his house from market. When he reached near house no. 154, C-6 block, a motorcycle came from his opposite direction on which two persons were sitting and they were bearing helmets. The pillion rider snatched his two gold chains worn up by him and thereafter started fleeing away with their motorcycle. He chased them and at that time pillion rider who was holding his both chains in his hand, turned his face towards him and at that time he had seen him. Thereafter, they fled away. He went to his house and made PCR call. He gave statement to police. Same is Ex.PW2/A which bears his signature at point A. The registration number of motorcycle on which both the offenders came was DL8S 5611. In the month of April, 2011, he received notice regarding joining of TIP. He went to Central Jail and identified one person during TIP. He cannot identify that person now due to lapse of about one year. At that stage, accused Jitender @ Rajesh present before the Court that day was shown to the witness. After seeing accused witness states that she was not able to identify accused. She further states that due to lapse of time she was not able to recognize that person. his gold chains could not be recovered by police during investigation. He was informed that the number plate affixed on the motorcycle was reflecting FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 4 of 25 a fake number when offence was committed with him. However, he did not know the actual registration number of that motorcycle. He cannot identify the driver of motorcycle who was driving it at the time of incident. At that stage, it was observed that the motorcycle was in the name of accused Jitender Kumar. He can identify the number reflecting fake number i.e DL8S 5611. At that stage, MHC(M) produced one sealed packet bearing the seal of DLP. Same was opened after breaking the seal. One number plate reflecting number as DL8S 5611 was taken out from the cloth parcel and shown to the witness. After seeing the number plate witness states that that was same number plate which was being affixed to the motorcycle on which both the offenders came and snatched his gold chains. Number plate is Ex.P1. MHC(M) further states that he has also brought the motorcycle bearing the registration no. DL8SAM 5642 and it was parked in the parking of Court premises. At that stage, witness alongwith MHC(M), Naib Court and accused are sent to see the motorcycle. After about 10 minutes all these persons came in the Court Room after seeing the said motorcycle. Witness states that that was same motorcycle which was of black colour and used in commission of offence. Motorcycle Ex P2. Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP wherein he deposed he had stated before Ld MM during TIP that the person who was identified by him was the same person who was pillion rider and had snatched his gold chains. He denied FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 5 of 25 that he had identified the culprit who was driving the motorcycle at the time of commission of offence. Confronted with the portion A1 to A2 of the statement mark A where it was recorded that witness had identified the driver of motorcycle. He denied that that day he was not identifying accused deliberately. Vol. at that time the person who was identified by him during TIP was quite healthy and he was not able to identify accused present in the Court. He denied that he was deposing falsely. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel Ms. Sunila Choudhary. During her cross- examination, she stated that she had identified the motorcycle on the basis of its colour and its registration number. She admitted that the number plate actually affixed on the motorcycle Ex. P-2 which has been shown to her, was different from the number place which was affixed on the motorcycle on the date of commission of offence. She could have identified number appearing on the number plate at the time of commission of offence and she could not identify the said motorcycle otherwise. She denied the suggestion that the motorcycle Ex. P2 was not the same motorcycle which was used in the commission of offence involved in this case. She further denied that she was deposing falsely that Ex. P2 was the same motorcycle used in the commission of offence.
7) PW-3 Ct. Lokesh No. 524/NW deposed that on 31.01.2011, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram. On that day, on receiving FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 6 of 25 the DD no. 21 A, regarding chain snatching upon which, he alongwith SI Nahar Singh went to the spot i.e. C-6/154, Keshav Puram, Delhi where they met complainant Kusum Lata and IO recorded her statement and prepared the rukka and handed over to him for the registration of the FIR. He went to PS and present FIR was registered and returned to the spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to the 10. 10 prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. IO recorded his statement. He was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel Sh. Madan Mohan. During his cross-examination, he stated that complainant was alone when they reached at the spot. He denied that he had not joined the investigation of the present case or that he was deposing falsely.
8) PW-4 Ct. Suresh, 3657/DAP deposed that on 18.04.2011, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram. On that day, on the calling of the IO/SI Devilal upon which he went to the Tihar Jail where he met SI Devilal. Thereafter, they went to the jail no. 3 and IO produced the order to the jail superintendent for interrogation and arrest of the accused. Thereafter, accused Jitender @ Rajesh present before the court(correctly identified by the witness) and IO interrogate the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo PW-4/A bearing his signature at point A and also recorded the disclosure statement Ex- PW4/B, bearing his signature at point A. Accused refused to FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 7 of 25 sign the abovesaid document. IO recorded his statement. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
9) PW-5/SI Rakesh Duhan, No.D-3296, District Anti Robbery Cell, North-West, Delhi deposed that on 28.04.2011, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram as SI and on that day, he joined investigation with the 10 namely SI Devi Lal. The accused was on police remand for two days and was present at PS at that time. At that time when the accused was interrogated, he was present with the IO alongwith other police officials namely Ct. Sunit and Ct. Naseem. The 10 recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused wherein it was disclosed by the accused that he can get recovered the motorcycle which was used at the time of the offence mentioned in the present FIR and also the fake number plate which he used at that time. It was also disclosed by the accused that he can get the jeweller apprehended to whom he sold the case property in the present matter and also get the accused persons apprehended, who were with him at the time of the offence in the present FIR. It was also disclosed by the accused that he can point out the place of offence. The disclosure statement of the accused is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. As per the disclosure of the accused, the 10 took the accused at B- Block, Mangol Puri, Khushi Jewellers. He also accompanied the 10 at that time. At FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 8 of 25 that time the shop was closed and it was get to know from the neighbourers that the shop was closed since last 20-25 days. The 10 prepared the pointing out memo of the said shop which is Ex.PW-5/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they all alongwith the accused reached at the residence of the accused at Andha Mugal, wherein he pointed out towards the motorcycle make Bajaj Discover bearing registration number DL-8SAM-5642 which was used in the commission of the offence. The said motorcycle was seized by the 10 vide memo Ex.PW-5/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, a fake number plate bearing number DL- 8S-5611 was recovered on the pointing out of the accused from the first floor of his house, which was used at the time of commission of the offence herein. 10 seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-5/D bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, on the pointing of the accused a raid was conducted for the apprehension of another accused namely Rajeev at Gali No.6, House No.10627, Andha Mugal but he could not be found there. Thereafter, 3-4 raids were conducted at the instance of the accused for apprehending the accused Rajeev but he could not be found. The accused also pointed out the place of offence i.e. Block C-6, in front of H.No.154, Keshav Puram. 10 prepared a pointing out memo which is now Ex.PW-5/E bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter they all came back to PS. 10 recorded his statement and thereafter he was set free. The accused was FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 9 of 25 present in the Court that day, (correctly identified by the witness). He can identify the above mentioned motorcycle and the fake number plate recovered by the IO, if shown to him. At that stage, it was considered that the motorcycle and the fake number plate was already exhibited as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in the testimony of PW-2, hence the identification of the case property at that stage was dispensed with.
10) He was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel Sh Madan Mohan. During his cross-examination, he stated that IO made the departure entry before they left for the investigation alongwith accused. He did not remember the departure entry number. At that stage, the judicial file was shown to the witness to look for the departure entry which could not be find out by him. He did not know about the vehicle in which they went for investigation as the same was arranged by IO. It was an eight seater car. He admitted that the area of Andha Mugal is thickly populated. He did not remember the house number of the accused from where the fake number plate was recovered. Vol. It was situated in Gali No.8. He did not remember the house of the accused was build up in how many floors/storeys. When they visit the house of the accused, his family members were present there. The seizure memos were prepared at the house of the accused. The case property was sealed at the house of the accused itself. He admitted that after he case property was sealed, there was no signature of FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 10 of 25 any other person except IO. The pullanda containing the fake number plate was shown to the witness and he was asked whether the colour of the particulars mentioned in alphabetical and numerical was different to which he replied yes Vol. The colour of the particulars seems to be faded from one side. He further stated that at the time of investigation, IO requested the public persons to join the same but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. The motorcycle was recovered from Gali No. 6 outside the house of the brother-in-law (Sala) of accused. IO searched for the owner of the said motorcycle. He did not know whether the IO collected the documents of the motorcycle from the owner. He admitted that on the seizure memos there were no signatures of any public witness. Vol. IO requested the family members/relatives of the accused to sign on the seizure memo but they did not agreed and IO made a remark in that regard on Ex.PW-5/C at point X. Thereafter, they all came back to PS. IO made an arrival entry. He did not know the number of arrival entry. At that stage, the witness was shown the judicial file to look for the arrival entry but he could not find out the same. He denied that no investigation was conducted by IO and they never visited the spot alongwith the accused. He further denied that all paper work was done while sitting at PS. He further denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 11 of 25
11) PW-6 Inspector Pankaj Kumar deposed that on 05.04.2011, he was posted as SI at Special Cell, Northern Range, Rohini, Delhi. On 05.04.2011, one secret information was received regarding accused Jitender @ Suja (accused was present in the Court that day, correctly identified by the witness), who was wanted in case bearing FIR No. 251/2010, u/s 394 IPC, PS Deshbandhu Gupta Road, will be coming in the area of Anand Parvat. The said information was received by Inspector Braham Jeet Singh, who shared the said information with senior officials and upon which he received directions to constitute a raiding team. A raiding team consisting of himself and ASI Khem Singh, ASI Naresh, ASI Om Prakash, HC Vinay, HC Jaibir, Constable Vikas and Constable Dharamvir. Thereafter they all went in the government gypsy near to Kamal restaurant, Anand Parvat. Raiding team was suitably deployed by him. At about 10:45 was, one black colour Lancer car bearing registration number DL-7ST-0777 was seen coming and the secret informer also pointed towards the same. The abovesaid car was signalled to stop. The accused Jitender @ Rajesh @ Suja was found driving the abovesaid car and who was apprehended by them. The accused disclosed his involvement in two separate incidents, one of DBG Road and the other at Sarai Rohilla where he had committed robbery. The said facts were got verified from the respective police stations. Thereafter the accused was arrested u/s 41(1) (a) Cr.PC and the above said FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 12 of 25 car was also taken into police possession. Copy of the Kalandra is marked as Mark X1 bearing his signature at point A and B. Arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused are respectively marked as Mark X2 and Mark X3, both bearing his signature at point A. The accused upon interrogation disclosed his involvement in several other cases including the one in the present case regarding which he had disclosed that about two months ago from near C-6 Block, Keshav Puram, they had snatched two chains from the neck of one lady and at that time he was driving the motorcycle and his other associate namely Rajiv who was riding pillion, snatched the said chains. He further disclosed that they had used one Discover motorcycle while committing the offence regarding the present case. Disclosure statement recorded by him is marked as Mark X4 bearing his signature at point A. Information regarding the said apprehension was conveyed to the PS and after the arrival of the concerned IO, photocopy of the relevant documents was handed over. His statement was recorded by the IO in the present case.
12) He was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel Sh. Madan Mohan. During his cross-examination, he stated that there were separate rooms in the office of Special Cell and there was not a single hall in which all officers used to sit. He was called by Inspector Braham Jeet Singh in his room situated in the office of Special Cell. Written order was not given and FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 13 of 25 only verbal directions were issued for constituting the raiding team. A departure entry was recorded. The said departure entry was not there in the present judicial file. He did not remember the DD Number of the said departure entry. They left the office of Special Staff at about 09:30 AM. They reached the spot within 30 minutes i.e. at around 10:00 AM. The entire raiding team was in one vehicle i.e. the government gypsy bearing registration number DL-1CM- 1346. The registration number of the said vehicle was not mentioned in his statement u/s 161 CPC. He admitted that the spot was a busy public place. No employee or customer from the Kamal restaurant was joined in the investigation. Vol. The raiding team was deployed across the road in front of Kamal restaurant. At the time of apprehension of accused, he produced one RC of the abovesaid Lancer car which was in the name of some other person. He did not remember the name of the said person. He did not remember the specific model of the abovesaid car but it was an old one. Public persons were asked to join the investigation after the apprehension of the accused but they all left citing their genuine reasons. No written notice was served upon those public persons. The documents were prepared at the spot while sitting in the government gypsy. Information regarding the arrest of the accused was conveyed to his wife namely Smt. Poonam on mobile phone. Due to lapse of time, he did not remember the mobile number. They reached the office of FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 14 of 25 Special Cell at about 05.30-06:00 PM. Arrival entry was also recorded by him and it was DD No.25 dated 05.04.2011. The said DD entry was not there in the present judicial file and might be available in the file relating to the above stated Kalandra which was prepared by him. He denied that they had not gone to the place of apprehension in the manner as deposed or that no proceedings were conducted in the manner as deposed by him or that the accused was falsely arrested from his house in order to falsely implicate him or that he was deposing falsely.
13) PW-7 HC Suneet, No.201/East, PS Preet Vihar, Delhi deposed that on 28.04.2011, he was posted as Constable at PS Keshav Puram. On that day, he had joined the investigation of the present case at the instructions of IO / SI Devi Lal. Accused Jitender @ Rajesh (present in the Court that day, correctly identified by the witness) was in the custody of Ct. Naseem and in the presence of SI Rakesh, himself and Ct. Naseem, IO/SI Devi Lal has recorded the disclosure statement already Ex.PW-5/A bearing his signature at point B. The accused took them to the shop where he had sold the chain, however, the said shop was found closed. Pointing out memo of the said shop is already Ex.PW-5/B bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter the accused took them to Gali No.6, Andha Mor and pointed towards one motorcycle make Bajaj Discover which was standing outside the corner house and the FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 15 of 25 accused disclosed that it was the same motorcycle on which crime was committed by them. The motorcycle bearing registration number DL-8SAM-5642 was taken into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW-5/C bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter the accused took them to his house and from under the bed which was there on the first floor of the said house and produced one number plate bearing the number DL-8S-5611 and told that it was the same number plate which was placed by him upon the abovesaid motorcycle at the time of snatching the chain. The said number plate was placed inside a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of 'DLP'. The said number plate was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW-5/D, bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, they went in search of the co-accused namely Rajeev in Gali No.6 where they met the brother and sister of co-accused Rajeev but co-accused Rajeev was not found there. The entire FIR No. 28/2011 proceedings took considerable time. He admitted that pointing out memo of the place of incident which is already Ex.PW-5/E, bearing his signature at point B was prepared at the instance of the accused. He can identify the motorcycle and registration plate, if shown to him. Motorcycle is already Ex. P-1 and the fake registration number plate is already Ex. P-2.
14) He was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel Sh. Madan Mohan. During his cross-examination, he stated that IO made FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 16 of 25 the departure entry before they left for the investigation alongwith accused. He did not remember the departure entry number. At that stage, the judicial file was shown to the witness to look for the departure entry which could not be find out by him. He did not know about the vehicle in which they went for investigation as the same was arranged by IO. It was an eight seater car. He admitted that the area of Andha Mugal is thickly populated. He did not remember the house number of the accused from where the fake number plate was recovered. Vol. It was situated in Gali No.8. He did not remember the house of the accused was build up in how many floors / storeys. When they visit the house of the accused, his family members were present there. The seizure memos were prepared at the house of the accused. The case property was sealed at the house of the accused itself. He admitted that after the case property was sealed, there was no signature of any other person except IO. At that stage, the pullanda containing the fake number plate was shown to the witness and he was asked whether the colour of the particulars mentioned in alphabetical and numerical was different to which he replied yes. Vol. The colour of the particulars seems to be faded from one side. At the time of investigation, IO requested the public persons to join the same but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. The motorcycle was recovered from Gali No.6 outside the house of the brother-in-law (Sala) of accused. IO FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 17 of 25 searched for the owner of the said motorcycle. He did not know whether the IO collected the documents of the motorcycle from the owner. He admitted that on the seizure memos, there were no signatures of any public witness. Vol. IO requested the family members/relatives of the accused to sign on the seizure memo but they did not agreed and IO made a remark in that regard on Ex. PW-5/C at point X. Thereafter, they all came back to PS. IO made an arrival entry. He did not know the number of arrival entry. At that stage, the witness was shown the judicial file to look for the arrival entry but he could not find out the same. The shop at which the accused took them was having the name of Khushi Jewellers. The said shop was situated at Mangol Puri. He did not remember the shop number. He did not remember as to what kind of shops were adjacent to the said shop which was pointed out by the accused. Vol. There was one clinic in front of the said shop. He did not remember to whom does the said clinic belong. IO inquired about the ownership of Khushi Jewellers but he did not remember the details due to lapse of time. He denied that no investigation was conducted by IO and they never visited the spot alongwith the accused. He denied that all paper work was done while sitting at PS. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
15) PW-8 Retd. SI Nahar Singh, S/o Late Sh. Balwant Singh, R/o village Chatiya deva, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana deposed FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 18 of 25 that on 31.01.2011, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram. On that day, he received DD No. 21A regarding the snatching of the chain. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Lokesh reached at the spot, i.e., C-6/154, Keshav Puram. After reaching there they met with complainant. He recorded the statement of complainant already Ex.PW2/A, bearing his signatures at point A as attesting witness. He prepared the rukka and sent Ct. Lokesh for the registration of FIR. Ct. Lokesh return back at the spot after the registration of the FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A. He searched the accused but could not found. He recorded the statement of witness u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. He had taken the record of the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S-5611 and the same was in the name of Lalit Kumar Sharma, R/o Village Maujpur. He visited Village Maujpur. However, he did not found Lalit Kumar at the said address. He met with owner of the said house namely Gourav, S/o Vinod Sharma. During investigation, the investigation of the present case was marked to another IO by the then SHO. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
16) PW-9 SI Devi Lal deposed that on 04.03.2011, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram and on that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. On FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 19 of 25 06.04.2011, vide DD no. 20-B, he was informed from Special Cell regarding the arrest of the accused Jitender and his involvement in the present case. On the same day, he took documents from Special Cell which was including Kalandra, disclosure statement, personal search memo and arrest memo which are already marked as Mark-X-1 to Mark-X-4. On 13.04.2011, he took permission from the court to interrogate the accused in Jail and on 18.04.2011, he was interrogated by him and arrested in the present case vide arrest memo already Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point B and his disclosure statement was recorded as Ex.PW4/B bearing his signature at point B. On 23.04.2011, Judicial TIP of the accused was conducted through complainant in which complainant correctly identified the accused. On 28.04.2011, police remand of accused for two days was taken by him. During PC, supplementary disclosure statement of the accused was recorded which is already Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point C. At the instance of the accused, he alongwith SI Rakesh, Ct. Sunit, Ct. Naseem and accused went to B-Block, Mangol Puri at the shop of Khushi Jewelers, but at that time, the said jewelery shop was closed. From the neighbourers, they came to know that the said shop was closed since about last 20-25 days. He prepare pointing out memo at the instance of the accused already Ex.PW5/B bearing his signature at point C. Thereafter, they all went to the house of the accused at Andha Mugal, Pratap Nagar, where accused pointed FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 20 of 25 towards a motorcycle make Bajaj Discover bearing registration no. DL-8SAM-5642 which was used in the offence of present case by the accused alongwith his associate namely Rajeev with a fake number plate. Motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW5/C bearing his signature at point C. Thereafter, at the instance of the accused, a registration number plate bearing no. DL-8S-5611 was recovered from the first floor of the house of the accused which was used by the accused at the time of commission of present offence and same was sealed in a white pulanda with the seal of DLP and same was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW5/D, bearing his signature at point C. On the same day, they all went to the house of Rajeev in Gali no. 6, H.No. 10627, Andha Mugal but at that time, Rajeev was not present there. Thereafter, at the instance of the accused they went to the place of incident of present case and pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of the accused which is already Ex.PW5/E, bearing his signature at point C. Thereafter, they came back to PS and case property was deposited in malkhana. On the next day, accused was sent to JC. He recorded statements of witnesses. Finally he prepared charge-sheet and filed before the court. Accused was present in the court that day and correctly identified by the witness. At that stage, MHC(M) has produced one white pulanda duly sealed with the court seal. Same was opened and out of that one registration number plate bearing no. DL-8S-5611 was FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 21 of 25 taken out and shown to the witness. Witness states that that fake registration number plate was recovered from the possession of the accused. At that stage, MHC(M) has produced four photographs of the motorcycle bearing registration number DL-8SAM-5642. Same are shown to the witness and witness states that said motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the accused. Case property is already Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
17) Vide order dated 12.04.2023, statement of accused Jitender @ Rajesh recorded wherein he had admitted the genuineness of entries made in the Register no. 19, Kalandra vide DD No. 25 dated 05.04.2011, already Ex. X-1 to X-4 and TIP proceedings Ex. PX1. Accordingly, witnesses i.e. Ahlmad Court no. 38, Tis Hazari Court and Ld. MM Sh. Dheeraj Mor were dropped from the list of witnesses.
18) The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed upon request of the Ld APP for the State whereafter statement of accused were recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to them who maintained their innocence stating that he had been falsely implicated. The accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 22 of 25
19)Final arguments as advanced by Ld. APP for the State and by Ld. Counsel for the accused have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
20) In the present case, Firstly, Material eyewitness i.e Smt. Kusum Lata could not identify the accused in the code due to lapse of time. Even after being pointed out, complainant failed to identify the accused.
21) Complainant even stated that she cannot identify the driver of the motorcycle who was driving it at the time of the incident. It was deposed by the complainant that the fake number DL8S5611 is same as prosecution stated to have been recovered from the accused. Complainant also had an defined the Baikal in the present case on the basis of colour and registration number. However when complainant was cross- examined by Ld. APP, complainant had stated that "it is wrong to suggest that I had identify the culprit was driving the motorcycle at the time of the commission of the offence." This quote is taken by surprise as to why Mark A and portion A1 to A2 was recorded when judicial TIP was already underway and has been blatantly denied by the complainant. It is not expected that the whole physical constitution of the person would change from 31.01.2011 to the day on which the complainant was deposing i.e. 26.03.2012. Hence the identity of the accused is under serious doubt. FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 23 of 25
22) Further, it has been admitted by the complainant that "it is correct that the number plate actually affixed on the motorcycle Ex. P2 which has been shown to me today, is different from the number plate which was affixed on the motorcycle on the date of commission. I could have identified the motorcycle only on the basis of its colour and the registration number appearing on the number plate at the time of commission of the offence and I cannot identify the set motorcycle otherwise". Therefore such deposition on the part of the witness clearly reflects that the identification of accused as well as the motorcycle and the number plate are under serious doubt. It has been clearly stated that the number plate which was fixed on the motorcycle was different than what has been shown in the court to the witness. It is also important to mention herein that the fake number plate which was seized in the present case was not seized in front of any independent witness as is evident from Ex. PW5/D and in particular only police witnesses have signed i.e SI Rakesh Duhan and Ct. Suneet.
23) Therefore, since the identity of the accused is under serious doubt, the identity of the motorcycle is also under doubt, the recovery of the number plate which is alleged to be fake is under doubt and the same doubt has been casted by the material witness in the present case therefore benefit of doubt FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 24 of 25 has to be given to the accused in the present context. Henceforth accused and is acquitted. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Jitender @ Rajesh S/o Sh. Munish Ram is hereby acquitted for the offences under Section 356/379/482/34 IPC in FIR No. 28/2011 PS Keshav Puram.
24) Accused is directed to furnish personal bond in a sum of Rs.
20,000/- with one surety in like amount in compliance of provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and are further directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon them.
25) File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance with directions to be revived as and when the accused Rajesh is apprehended.
Announced in the open court on 01.07.2023 (VAIBHAV CHAURASIA) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 25 pages and each page bears my signature.
(VAIBHAV CHAURASIA) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 28/2011 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 379/356/482/34 IPC State Vs Jitendder @ Rajesh Page No. 25 of 25