Delhi District Court
State vs . on 29 June, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 1 (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
State
Vs.
Ashraf Saifi
FIR NO. 327/11
P.S. Gandhi Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 0240R0377492011
2. Date of institution : 12.12.2011
3. Name of the complainant : Sunil Kumar Batra
4. Date of commission of offence : 20.10.2011
5. Name of accused : Ashraf Saifi
S/o Sh. Kamruddin,
R/o House No. 1/128,
C. G. Old Tejab Mill,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi
6. Offence complained of : Section 411 IPC
7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the Judgment : 28.06.2012
9. Final order : Convicted
10. Date of such Judgment : 29.06.2012
Page no. 1 of 6 State Vs. Ashraf Saifi ; FIR No. 327/11
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND :
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2011, at H. No. 9/3416, Gali no. 7, Old Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi a theft of motor cycle no. DL13SA8555 make Splendor, Black colour, belonging to the complainant Sunil Kumar was committed by unknown person. On 20.10.2011, at Seelampur Phatak, Near police picket, Delhi, accused Ashraf Saifi was found in possession of above said stolen motor cycle, by Constable Rakesh, Constable Sudhir and ASI Shiv Murti. First Information Report 327/11 in short ('FIR') was registered at police station Gandhi Nagar for the above said stolen motor cycle under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"). After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 379/411 IPC.
2. In light of the above stated facts and proceedings, after making compliance of provisions of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C") vide order dated 13.01.2012, finding a primafacie case, this court has framed charge for the offence punishable under section 411 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. For proving its case, the prosecution has produced ten witnesses, namely, Constable Rohit Sharma (PW1), Sunil Kumar Batra (PW2), Constable Rakesh (PW3), HC Kripal Singh (PW4), Constable Sudhir Page no. 2 of 6 State Vs. Ashraf Saifi ; FIR No. 327/11 3 (PW5), Head Constable Joginder (PW6), ASI Shiv Murti (PW7), Rajiv (PW8), SI Prem Singh (PW9) and HC Raj Kumar (PW10).
4. Statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. When accused was briefed on all the incriminating evidence and documents, he denied the allegations and mentioned that he was lifted by police from factory and has been falsely implicated in this case and this case property has been planted upon him. However, accused opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
5. I have heard the State through Sh. M.A. Khan, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sh. Dinesh Yaduvanshi, Counsel for the accused, from Delhi Legal Service Authority. Record is also gone through.
6. Learned APP for the State argued that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the accused may be convicted. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated and no public person was joined at the time of alleged recovery of stolen motor cycle and therefore, the accused may be acquitted.
7. PW2 Sunil Kumar has deposed that on 17.10.2011, at about 8.30 PM, he had parked his motorcycle bearing No. DL13SA8555, make Page no. 3 of 6 State Vs. Ashraf Saifi ; FIR No. 327/11 4 splendor super of black colour outside of his house, i.e., 9/3416, Gali no. 7, Old Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and at about 9.00 pm, he came out of his house and then found his motorcycle was missing from the parking place. He searched his motorcycle on his own but no clue was found. He further deposed that on 18.10.2011, he made his complaint Ex. PW2/A to police station. PW9 SI Prem Singh has deposed that on 18.10.2011, complainant came at police station and got recorded his statement regarding the theft of the motorcycle and he made his endorsement on statement of complainant and prepared the rukka Ex PW9/A. He also deposed that he alongwith complainant reached at the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/B and thereafter, he searched the motorcycle and accused but he could not found either of them. He also deposed that he sent the wireless massage regarding the theft to NCR. Hence, Sunil Kumar and SI Prem Singh have proved that said motorcycle was stolen by someone from the outside of house of complainant.
8. In respect of recovery of abovesaid motorcycle, prosecution has examined PW3, PW5 and PW7. PW7 Assistant Sub Inspector Shiv Murti has deposed that on 20.10.2011, he arrested the accused Ashraf saifi in case FIR No. 330/11, u/s. 25 Arms Act, PS Gandhi Nagar and during interrogation, he made a disclosure statement about his involvement in the present case. He has further deposed that motorcycle of the present case, i.e., bearing No. DL13SA8555 was recovered from the possession of the Page no. 4 of 6 State Vs. Ashraf Saifi ; FIR No. 327/11 5 accused Ashraf Saifi and same was taken into possession under section 102 Cr.P.C. through seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. He had handed over the relevent documents of case FIR No. 330/11 to Head Constable Raj Kumar. He has further deposed that accused was arrested and personally searched by HC Raj Kumar in the present case and HC Raj Kumar recorded his statement in this regard. PW3 Ct. Rakesh and PW5 Ct. Sudhir have deposed on the lines of PW7 and have corroborated the version of PW7. PW10 HC Rajkumar has proved that on 21.10.2011, he had arrested the accused Ashraf Saifi in the present case who was already arrested in case no. 330/11, PS Gandhi Nagar. He has also deposed that said motorcycle was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. Prosecution has also examined PW8 Rajiv who is the Alhmed of this Court and he had brought the original record, i.e., recovery memo of motorcycle, pointing out memo and site plan Ex. PW8/B, PW8/C and PW8/D respectively. Recovery witnesses, PW3, PW5 and PW7 have fully supported the case of prosecution and they have deposed regarding recovery of stolen motorcycle of the present case from the possession of accused. They have also correctly identified the accused and case property during their respective evidence. Nothing has come in crossexamination of these witnesses. Defence of the accused is that he was lifted from the factory by the police persons and brought to him at police station and recovery was planted upon him, but accused has not examined any witness from the said factory to show that he was lifted from said factory by Page no. 5 of 6 State Vs. Ashraf Saifi ; FIR No. 327/11 6 the police and his defence is not tenable. Hence, from the testimony PW3, PW5, PW7, PW8 and PW10, it has been proved that accused was found in possession of stolen motorcycle on 20.10.2011 at Seelampur Phatak, Near police pickets, Delhi.
9. PW4 Head Constable Kripal Singh has proved the FIR Ex. PW4/A. PW6 Head Constable Joginder has proved that motorcycle of the present case was deposited into Malkahna of PS Gandhi Nagar by PW7 in case FIR No. 330/11 and on 21.10.2011, same was handed over to PW10 and he deposited the same in said malkahna. The relevant entries mentioned in register no. 19 at serial no. 2712 and 2716 has been proved as Ex. PW6/A by PW6. PW2 has proved that he had taken the motorcycle on supardari and same was produced during his evidence in the court Photographs of the motorcycle has been proved as PW2/C and PW2/D (the identity of the motorcycle has not been disputed by the Ld. Counsel for accused).
10. From the above discussion, it is made clear that prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the offence u/s. 411 IPC.
Announced in the open court ( Sanjeev Kumar )
On 29th Day of June, 2012 Metropolitan Magistrate1(East)
(total six pages) Karkardooma Courts,Delhi.
Page no. 6 of 6 State Vs. Ashraf Saifi ; FIR No. 327/11
7
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 1 (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State
Vs.
Ashraf Saifi
FIR NO. 327/11
P.S. Gandhi Nagar
29.06.2012
Present: APP for the State.
Accused/convict produced from JC with Sh. Dinesh Yaduwanshi, Counsel for accused from DLSA.
Vide separate judgment of the even date, accused is convicted under section 411 IPC.
Heard on the point of sentence. It is urged by Ld. APP for State that since convict has been found guilty, maximum sentence should be awarded to him.
On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. counsel for convict that convict is the first offender and is the only bread winner and earner of his family, therefore, lenient view may kindly be taken.
The convict remained in judicial custody from 21.10.2011 till today. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, convict is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. Page no. 7 of 6 State Vs. Ashraf Saifi ; FIR No. 327/11 8 2 Copy of judgment and order on sentence supplied to convict free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Sanjeev Kumar )
th
On 29 Day of June, 2012 Metropolitan Magistrate1(East)
Karkardooma Courts,Delhi.
Page no. 8 of 6 State Vs. Ashraf Saifi ; FIR No. 327/11