Delhi District Court
State vs . Puran Etc on 25 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA, ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS,
DELHI
FIR No. 274/2009
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0304002009
Police Station Mukherjee Nagar
Under Section 457/380/511/34 IPC
State Vs. Puran Etc
JUDGMENT
(a) Sr. No. of case 5289965/2016
(b) Date of offence 01.09.2009
(c) Complainant Gaurav Pahwa
s/o Sh. Om Prakash Pahwa
(d) Accused 1. Puran Singh s/o Mehar Chand
r/o H.No. H-256, NPL, Kingsway Camp
Delhi.
2. Vikram s/o Sh. Kishan Kumar
r/o K-333, Sunder Nagri, Nand Nagri,
Delhi.
(e) Offence Sec. 457/380/511/34 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order Acquitted for the offence(s) u/s
457/380/511/34 IPC
(h) Date of institution 30.09.2009
(i) Date when judgment 25.02.2017
was reserved
(j) Date of judgment 25.02.2017
1. Accused Puran Singh and Vikram stood trial for the offence(s) U/s 457/380/511/34 IPC
2. Facts in brief necessary for the disposal of the present case are that on 01.09.2009 at about 10.15 PM at house no. 2007, 1st floor, Outram Lane, within the jurisdiction of PS Mukherjee Nagar, accused Puran Singh and Vikram in furtherance of their common intention committed the offence of lurking house trespass/ house breaking in order to commit the theft and also attempted to commit the theft of inverter and thereby they both committed an offence punishable u/s 457/380/511/34 IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court against the accused whereupon cognizance was taken. After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C, arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 04.02.2010, passed by Ld. Predecessor, charge was framed against both the accused for offence u/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to mention that accused Vikram stopped appearing before the court despite execution of NBWs and process u/s 82 CrPC. Hence, vide order dt. 12.08.2016 he was declared 'Proclaimed Offender'.
4. Prosecution in support of its case has examined three witnesses.
5. PW-1 Sh. Nitin Malhotra deposed that on 01/02.09.2009 he came to meet his brother-in-law at house no. 2007, Outram Lane, Delhi and was sitting with him in the room. He further stated that in the meantime, around 10.15 PM he heard noise from outer corridor and came out from the room and saw that corridor was bolted from outside and someone was stealing the inverter and one person was moving outside the house. He further deposed that he and his brother-in-law broke the bolt and saw that one person was trying to cut the wire of inverter. They raised alarm and public persons gathered at the spot. He further deposed that he caught hold of accused and public persons started beating him. He further deposed that his brother-in-law Gaurav made PCR call and police officials reached at the spot. The witness further stated that the other person who was moving outside the house was also apprehended and handed over both the accused persons to the police officials. IO recorded the statement of his brother in law Gaurav. Both the accused persons revealed their name as Puran and Vikram and they were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D. The witness could not identify the accused persons in the court. Ld. APP for the State sought permission to cross-examine the witness with regard to the identity of the accused persons. During his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State the witness did not identify the accused persons and he denied that he had been won over by the accused persons and due to this he was not identifying the accused persons. During his cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, the witness deposed that no cutting tool was recovered from the possession of the accused persons.
6. PW-2 is complainant Gaurav Pahwa, who deposed that in the year 2009, he alongwith his brother-in-law Nitin Malhotra was sitting in drawing room and at about 10.30 PM he heard a noise from the outer corridor. Thereafter, they came out of the room and saw that someone was stealing the inverter. They apprehended two boys who were stealing the inverter and called PCR van. He handed over both the boys to the IO. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW-2/A. He could not identify accused Puran in the court. Ld. APP for the State sought permission to cross-examine this witness and during his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, the witness did not identify accused Puran despite being pointed out by Ld. APP for the State and he denied that he handed over accused Puran to the IO on 01.09.2009. He denied that the disclosure statements of both the accused persons were recorded in his presence.
7. PW-3 is Retired HC Ombir Singh who deposed that in the midnight of 01/02.09.2009 after receipt of DD no. 92-B he alongwith IO went to Outram Lane, however, he did not remember the house number of the complainant where he met complainant who handed over both the accused to the IO. He further stated that the IO recorded statement of complainant and prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to the PS and again came back to the spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to the IO. He further stated that IO recorded disclosure statement of both the accused, arrested them and took their personal search. During his cross-examination, the witness did not remember the exact time when he left the PS.
8. No other witness was examined by the prosecution as the prosecution evidence was closed because the star witnesses namely PW-1 Nitin Malhotra and complainant PW-2 Gaurav could not identify the accused Puran and the co-accused Vikram was declared P.O. The remaining witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses are formal witnesses who were not present at the spot at the time of incident. Hence, PE was closed and statement of accused Puran u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. In the case in hand, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Nitin Malhotra and PW-2 Gaurav Pahwa who were the only alleged eye witnesses to the incident, however, both of them failed to identify accused Puran as a person who committed the offence. The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution and mentioned in the list of witnesses are formal in nature and they were not present at the spot at the time of alleged offence.
11. Hence, there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Puran alongwith his associates committed the offence of lurking house trespass in order to commit theft or that he attempted to commit theft of inverter in the house of the complainant. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Puran and he is entitled to be acquitted.
12. Accordingly, accused Puran Singh is acquitted for the offence u/s 457/380/511/34 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court today on 25.02.2017 (MANISH KHURANA) ACMM (NORTH): ROHINI