Delhi District Court
State vs . Satish @ Raja & Anr. on 12 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST): SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Satish @ Raja & Anr.
FIR No. 454/06
U/s 411/482/34/174 A IPC
P.S. G.KI
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 151/2/14
Unique Identification No. : 02406R1026832007
Date of Institution : 12.03.2007
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 07.10.2015.
Date of judgment : 12.10.2015
Name of the complainant : Shri Arvind Grordiya
s/o Late Shri Narayan Prasad
r/o E/2A, G.K.I, New Delhi
FIR No. 454/06
P.S. G.KI Page No.1 of 18
Date of the commission of offence: 29.12.2006
Name of accused : 1. Satish @ Raja @ Azad
s/o Shri Bani Singh
r/o A653, Ghroli Dairy,
Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, New
Delhi.
2. Prem, S/o Nandi Ram
R/o H. No. 1785, Gali No. 54
B, Molar Bandh Extn.,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 379/411/468/471 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 411/482/34 IPC
(Accused Satish Charged for
offence u/s 174 A also)
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Both accused acquitted.
Date of Institution : 21.03.2007
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 07.10.2015
Date of judgment : 12.10.2015
FIR No. 454/06
P.S. G.KI Page No.2 of 18
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on a complaint of complainant namely Shri Arvind Garodiya in which he stated that he parked his car on 28.12.2006 at 11.30 pm outside his house E2/A, G.KI and when he got up on 29.12.2006, he found that his car was missing and the same had chasis no. 830898 and engine no. 3361968 bearing registration no. DL 9CN 5199 make Maruti Alto and further that the owner of the car was bookitfree. Com Ltd.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against both the accused under Section Section u/s 411/482/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, accused Satish @ Raja was arrested and charge for the aforesaid offences alongwith offence FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.3 of 18 u/s 174 A IPC was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter, prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in order to prove its case.
PW1 HC Devender Tanwar deposed that on 29.12.2006, he was posted at PS G.KI and upon receiving complaint Ex PW1/A from SI Arvind given by complainant Arvind Garodiya, he endorsed the same vide Ex PW1/B and got the FIR registered and further investigation of the case was marked to him. He went to the spot alongwith complainant and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant vide Ex PW1/C. Thereafter, he searched for the accused and the stolen property but could not find. Thereafter, he sent the wireless message regarding the stolen car and on 12.01.2007 he received information from PS Lajpat Nagar vide DD no. 10A regarding the recovery of stolen car involved in the present matter. Thereafter, he obtained the concerned documents from IO HC Jeet Singh of PS Lajpat Nagar and obtained the recovered car from MHC(M), Lajpat Nagar on 16.01.2007 vide RC Mark 1A. The car was having fake number plate having registration no. DL 9CN 4132 and the same was seized vide seizure FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.4 of 18 memo Ex PW1/D. On 24.01.2007, accused Satish was formally arrested from Patiala House court vide Ex PW1/E and he was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex PW1/F. In his disclosure statement, he disclosed the name of coaccused Prem, who had accompanied him at the time of theft and therefore, on 16.02.2007, PW1 arrested accused Prem from his house in Badarpur vide memo Ex PW1/G and his personal search was conducted vide Ex PW1/H and thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC. Case property was deposited in malkhana and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Accused Prem was identified by the witness in the court. Car was exhibited through photographs Mark A and A1. The fake number plate was Ex P1.
During the crossexamination by LAC for accused Prem, PW1 stated that on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Satish, accused Prem was arrested from his house. He had recorded the disclosure statement of accused Prem on 16.02.2007 and after investigation and arrest of accused Prem, no evidence was found against him.
During the cross examination by LAC for accused Satish, PW1 stated that he did not visit the place of recovery of vehicle and it was correct that he did not verify the factum of recovery and he did not remember, FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.5 of 18 if he had clicked the photographs of the vehicle with the fake number plate or without the fake number plate. Further, he had removed the number plate of vehicle with the help of screw driver and he did not make any person as a witness to the same and did not record any separate statement in this regard.
PW2 HC Jeet Singh deposed that on 11.01.2007 while he posted at PS Lajpat Nagar and was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Rajesh and was checking vehicles in front of Gupta Market, Ring Road. At around 7.30 pm, one Maruti 800 car bearing registration No. UP 14V 2570 came from Ashram towards AIIMS, Ring Road and the same was stopped. He found that accused Satish was sitting on the driving seat alongwith another person namely Subhash and thereafter, he inquired about the papers of the vehicle but accused Satish was not able to show the documents and later told that the car was stolen. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka and lodged the FIR u/s 411 IPC and arrested the accused in FIR no. 46/07 and upon disclosure of accused Satish, wherein he stated that on 0101.2007 he was roaming in car make Maruti Alto with his girl friend namely Sunita and another friend namely Prem. Then, suddenly a quarrel took place among them and when police saw the same, they stopped the car and that is when accused Satish absconded from the spot. Thereafter, SI Saroj Tiwari arrested the accused persons namely Sunita and Prem u/s 107/151 Cr.PC. Accused Satish was FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.6 of 18 arrested in the area of New Friends Colony with a wrong name. IO Saroj Tiwari gave the information regarding the stolen car make Maruti Alto bearing fake number plate DL 9CN 4132 to PS G.KI. Photographs of the car were Mark A and accused persons were correctly identified by the witness. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Satish, wherein he had stated that he alongwith accused Prem and Sunita had committed theft of Maruit Alto car from the area of PS G.KI and the same was recovered from the area of PS Lajpat Nagar. The disclosure statement was Ex PW3/A. During the crossexamination by LAC for accused Satish, PW2 stated that disclosure statement of accused Satish was recorded at about 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm. At Gupta market, Ring Road and the same was written by him in the presence of Ct. Rajesh. No public persons were present at that time and he did not remember the exact time, when his statement was recorded by the IO.
Opportunity to cross examine PW2 was granted to accused Prem but he did not question anything to PW2.
PW3 Charan Jeet, Ahlmad alongwith record of FIR no. 46/07, PS Lajpat Nagar brought the judicial file and original disclosure statement of accused Satish @ Raja was seen and exhibited as Ex PW3/A and the FIR pertaining to aforesaid matter was Ex PW3/B and the statement of witness HC Rajesh, Ct. Farkuq Khan, SI Suraj Tiwari and Ct. Ravi Kaushik were also FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.7 of 18 placed on record.
Opportunity to cross examine PW3 was granted to both the accused but they did not question anything to PW3.
PW4 HC Lila Ram deposed that on 24.01.2007 he joined the investigation of the present matter with IO HC Dharamvir and the accused was formally arrested in the court vide arrest memo Ex PW1/E and disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex PW1/F. Accused was identified by the witness.
Opportunity to cross examine PW4 was granted to both the accused but they did not question anything to PW4.
PW5 HC Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 12.01.2007 while he alongwith HC Jeet, Ct. Faroque and Ct. Ravi Kaushik were on patrolling duty and during patrolling met SI Saroj Tiwari near Lal Sai Market and thereafter, went to Gupta Market and upon the instructions of SI Saroj Tiwari, had put barricade on the roads and started checking the vehicles. At about 7.15 pm one Maruti 800 car was coming from the side of Ashram Chowk having registration no. UP 14B 2570 and when IO signaled the car to stop, the accused persons stopped the car but tried to flee away and the person, who was driving the car tried to run towards Lajpat Nagar and the copassenger FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.8 of 18 towards Amar Colony. Thereafter, the driver was apprehended by SI Saroj Tiwari, HC Faruque and HC Jeet Singh and the other accused was apprehended by Ct. Ravi with the help of PW5. After inquiry, the name of driver was revealed as Statish @ Raja and the name of other accused was disclosed as Subhash. Upon searching accused Satish, black colour powder material was found from his right side of wearable pant and the accused revealed the same to be smack. Upon inquiry, both accused revealed that the vehicle was stolen from the area of PS Kalkaji and that the original number of the car was HR 51S 7405. IO seized the vehicle and the fake number plate and recorded the disclosure statement of accused Satish and IO prepared the rukka and FIR was registered through PW5. On the same day, accused Satish had got one wagon R bearing no. DL 9CN 3501 recovered from the area of Noida and one motorcycle Pulser.
During the crossexamination by LAC for accused Satish, PW5 stated that it was correct that no disclosure statement was given by the accused Satish in the present matter and it was correct that during the entire proceedings many public persons were present at the spot.
During the cross examination by learned LAC for accused Prem, PW5 deposed that accused Prem was not present at the time of arrest and he did not know, if accused Prem was involved in the present FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.9 of 18 matter.
PW6 HC Ram Singh deposed that on 29.12.2006 he was posted as DO and upon receiving rukka from SI Arvind Sharma, he endorsed the same vide Ex PW1/B and registered the present FIR Ex PW6/A. Opportunity to cross examine PW6 was granted to both the accused but they did not question anything to PW6.
PW7 SI Arvind Sharma deposed that on 29.12.2006 his duty hours were from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm and upon receiving DD no. 3A regarding theft, he went to the spot and made complainant Arvind Garodiya, who handed over to him the complaint Ex PW1/A which was subsequently handed over to IO HD Devender. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, he had prepared a rukka Ex PW7/A and got the FIR registered. Further investigation was marked to HC Devender.
Opportunity to cross examine PW7 was granted to both the accused but they did not question anything to PW7.
PW8 Ct. Dharmi Lal deposed that 16.02.2007 he alongwith IO HC Devender and Ct. Brij Lal went for search of accused Prem and accused Prem was interrogated by IO where disclosure statement of accused Prem was recorded vide Ex PW8/A and he was arrested and his personal search FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.10 of 18 was conducted vide Ex PW1/G and PW1/H. Accused Prem was correctly identified by witness.
During the crossexamination by learned LAC for accused Prem, PW8 stated that no recovery was affected from accused Prem in his presence and the disclosure statement was recorded at the place of arrest.
Opportunity to cross examine PW8 was granted to accused Satish but he did not question anything to PW8.
PW9 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 01.01.2007 while he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct Vinay Kumar in the area of PS Lajpat Nagar, he found that accused Prem, accused Satish alongwith another lady were sitting inside one car make Maruti Alto bearing registration no. DL 9CN 4132 and all the three were quarreling and meanwhile SI Saroj reached at the spot and upon instructions from him, accused Prem was apprehended but another accused ran away from the spot. Accused Prem was in a drunk condition and the above vehicle was seized in DD no. 20A dt. 01.01.2007, PS, Lajpat Nagar. No documents regarding ownership of the vehicle was found inside the car and the rojnamcha register of DD no. 20 A was Ex PW9/A. He further deposed that the record pertaining to the old documents were destroyed vide order Ex PW9/A ( for the sake of convenient the same shall be read over as PW9/A1). The photographs of the Alto car were FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.11 of 18 identified and marked as A to A1 and the fake number plate was Ex P1.
Opportunity to cross examine PW9 was granted to both the accused but they did not question anything to PW9.
PW10 Ct. Vinay deposed on the lines of PW9 and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
Opportunity to cross examine PW10 was granted to both the accused but they did not question anything to PW10.
PW11 HC Brij Lal deposed on the line of PW8 and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
During the crossexamination by learned LAC for accused Prem, PW11 stated that they reached in the morning hour to arrest the accused Prem but he did not remember the exact time of the same and it was correct that many public persons were present at the spot but IO did not note the name of any persons, nor gave them any notice.
Opportunity to cross examine PW11 was granted to accused Satish but he did not question anything to PW11.
PW12 HC Moti Ram deposed that on 29.09.2014, he was on duty and received the case file pertaining to proclaimed offender namely Satish. Accused Satish was declared proclaimed offender vide order dt. 16.05.2012 and on 15.09.2014 it was brought to his notice that accused FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.12 of 18 Satish was in judicial custody in FIR no. 154/06, PS G.KI. Thereafter, he obtained production warrant against the accused through HC Anil Kumar and accused was formally arrested in the court. He prepared the supplementary charge sheet against accused Satish and the same was Ex PW12/A. Opportunity to cross examine PW12 was granted to accused Satish but he did not question anything to PW12.
PW13 Ct. Sunil Pawar deposed that on 16.06.2012 accused Satish was declared proclaimed offender in the present matter and on 15.09.2014 PW13 alongwith HC Anil Kumar were near Chirag Dilli and were searching for proclaimed offender Satish and at around 11.00 am, a secret informer informed that accused was in judicial custody in case FIR no. 154/06 of PS Lajpat Nagar. Production warrants were obtained vide Ex PW13/A for 24.09.2014. Thereafter, on 24.09.2014 accused was arrested formally in the court vide arrest memo Ex PW13/A and his personal search was conducted vide Ex PW13/B. During cross examination by learned LAC for accused, he stated that he came to know regarding the judicial custody of accused from the secret informer but he did not remember, if he had reduced the said information into writing and he had participated in the investigation of charge sheet of section 174 A IPC but had never gone with the IO to collect any FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.13 of 18 documents regarding proclamation. Further that he had seen the order dt. 16.05.2012 and that he was aware that accused has several cases pending against him.
PW14 ASI Anil Kumar deposed on the line of PW12 and 13 and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
During cross examination by learned LAC, he deposed that he had not recorded the secret information and prior to 24.05.2014 no information was conveyed to him and that supplementary charge sheet u/s 174 A IPC was prepared by HC Moti Ram and that he had inquired from him regarding the present matter.
PW15 HC Suresh Kumar deposed that on 12.01.2007, he was posted as DO at PS G.KI and at about 4.15 pm he received information from PS Lajpat Nagar that two accused persons have been arrested in FIR no. 46/07, PS Lajpat Nagar, who had disclosed their involvement in present FIR no. 454/06 and the same was recorded by him vide DD no. 10A which was Ex PW15/A. Opportunity to cross examine PW15 was granted to both the accused but they did not question anything to PW15.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.14 of 18 313 r/w 281 CrPC was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused for explanation.
6. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
7. Learned APP for the State had argued that all the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and all the witnesses in their testimonies have very clearly deposed that the accused persons had stolen the vehicle in question and the same was recovered from their possession and therefore, they are liable to be convicted.
8. On the other hand, the Ld. LAC of the accused Satish has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present matter, prosecution had cited as many as twelve witnesses among which apart from the complainant namely Arvind Garoria, all the other witnesses are formal in nature. He has argued that apart from complainant, all witnesses examined by the prosecution are police officials. But the complainant, being the prime witness of the present matter, was required to appear in the witness box to establish the fact of theft but the same could not be done as the witness was untraceable and was dropped by FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.15 of 18 the prosecution. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients required to establish any offence committed by the accused as the case property was produced in an open condition and without any seal. He has further argued that the material witnesses have not been examined and therefore, accused Satish is liable to be acquitted. Further, accused Satish was declared proclaimed offender on the statement of process server Ct. Harender Kumar, but he was not cited as the witness in the supplementary chargesheet filed under Section 174A IPC and accused was not granted an opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid witness.
Ld. LAC for accused Prem argued that in the present matter accused was arrested merely on the disclosure statement of coaccused Satish and there is nothing incriminating on record to prove that accused Prem had committed the offence and the same is more clear if we perused the testimony of PW1, who in his crossexamination has categorically stated that no evidence was found against accused Prem and he has further argued that PW5 and PW8 have also stated that accused Prem was arrested on the disclosure statement of accused Satish and the same is not admissible in law.
9. I have heard Learned LAC for both the accused and Learned APP for the State and gone through the material available on record and has FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.16 of 18 considered the testimony of various witnesses and gone through the evidence on record.
10. In the present facts and circumstances, where the prosecution has not examined the material witness i.e, the complainant as he was not traceable, the factum of theft does not stand proved. Further, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal in nature and their testimony is not corroborative as there are material contradictions in their statements. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the present matter, prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of both the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, both accused are acquitted for the offences charged against them.
11. The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
"The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal, cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.17 of 18 the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
12. In view of above discussion, the accused Satish @ Raja @ Azad and accused Prem are acquitted of offence punishable U/s 411/482/174A/34 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN) on 12.10.2015. MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:12.10.2015 FIR No. 454/06 P.S. G.KI Page No.18 of 18