Delhi District Court
State vs Jonny on 15 June, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH: ACMM: ROHINI: DELHI.
IN RE:
FIR No. : 782/06
P. S. : Janak Puri
State Versus Jonny
(a) Serial No. of the case : 28/2
(b) The date of commission of the offence: 21.12.2006
(c)The name of the complainant if any: Sh. Sanjay Kumar
(d) The name of the accused person, and his
parentage and residence: Jonny
S/o J. A. Nox
R/o Flat no. 18,
Site-II, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 380/411 IPC
(f) The plea of the accused and his
examination ( if any): Pleaded not guilty &
claimed trial.
(g) The final Order: Conviction
(h) The date of such order: 15.06.2007.
JUDGMENT :-
Brief resume of the facts of the case of prosecution is that on 21.12.2006 at about 2pm at House no. C-1/110 Janak Puri, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Janak Puri, accused dishonestly removed one speaker from the vehicle of one Nikhil Bole without his consent.
Contd...
2
2. Accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Copies were supplied to the accused. Charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case against the accused for the offence alleged, prosecution examined nine witnesses namely Sh. Subhash Chand Khurana as PW1, HC Raj Kumar as PW2, Ct. Surender as PW3, Sh. Sanjay Kumar, complainant as PW4, Sh. Sushil Malik as PW5, Sh. Nikhil Bole as PW6, HC Hari Prakash as PW7, HC Babu Lal as PW8 and ASI Balram as PW9.
4. On examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., he pleaded innocence and false implication but denied to lead defence evidence.
5. I have heard the submissions of the Ld. APP and DLSA counsel for accused and have perused the case file.
6. The cited and examined eye witness PW4 Sanjay Kumar during his deposition has stood his ground and deposed in material corroboration with the presented case of prosecution. He deposed of having seen the accused having entered the premises in question on the fateful afternoon alongwith a minor boy. As per PW4 Sanjay, the accused Jonny removed the speaker of Car of PW6 Contd...
3Nikhil which was placed near the gate of the premises. Having seen accused Jonny removing the speaker and minor boy removing some other articles PW4 came down stairs. PW4 was able to apprehend accused Jonny while minor boy was able to abscond. Speaker Ex. P-1 was identified by PW4 to be one stolen by accused Jonny and PW6 identified it belonging to him. PW1 Subhash also reached the place of apprehension of accused Jonny within moments of apprehension of accused Jonny. Statement of PW 4 Sanjay Ex. PW4/A, was recorded beneath which Tehrir Ex. PW 9/A was scribed. Speaker Ex. P-1 was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. Personal search of accused Jonny was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/C.
7. The Ld. Defence counsel pointed out that PW4 in his cross- examination stated that he had first seen the accused while he was going down stairs from top floor and when he had been at the gate of the third floor i. e. his residence. By deposing of said fact it cannot be presumed that PW4 could not have seen the accused committing the theft, or that he was telling untruth. PW4 was not having any grudge and previous enmity against the accused nor was knowing the accused prior to the occurrence. The testimony of PW4 finds embroidery of truth and cannot be brushed away lightly. PW4 has proved of accused having removed the car speaker Ex. P-1 from inside the premises and said speaker has been proved to be the article owned and belonging to PW6 Nikhil. Said article was removed out of possession of its owner without implied or Contd...
4express consent of its owner.
8. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused Jonny beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is accordingly held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under section 380 IPC. Let accused be heard on sentence.
(Gurvinder Pal Singh) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi.
Pronounced in the open court on this 15th day of June, 2007.
Contd...
5IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH: ACMM: ROHINI: DELHI. IN RE:
FIR No. : 782/06 P. S. : Janak Puri State Vs Jonny Order on sentence 15.06.2007 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict in JC.
Sh. Robin Kamra, DLSA counsel for accused.
Heard on quantum of sentence. File perused.
Convict is stated to be of age 32 years, married having wife and two infant children to support. It is stated that there is no previous adverse record of antecedents of convict and he is neither a previous convict nor facing any criminal trial. Convict is stated to be a bus driver by profession and victim of circumstances. Convict submits he was under influence of liquor at the time of occurrence. Convict had been arrested on 21.12.2006 and he is in judicial custody since 22.12.2006 and has been convicted for offence of theft under section 380 IPC for stealing car speaker of Nikhil from his place of residence.
Considering the entire set of facts and circumstance I accordingly sentence the convict for commission of offence u/s 380 IPC to RI of six months. Considering his economic condition of convict no fine is imposed. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the convict and period of detention undergone be reduced from period of sentence. Superintendent Jail be accordingly directed for compliance. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict immediately free of cost. Car Speaker Ex. P-1 having been solely claimed by PW6 Nikhil, and it be released to him after expiry of period of appeal or decision of appeal, if any, whichever is later. File be consigned to record room.
(Gurvinder Pal Singh) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini,Delhi. Pronounced in the open court on this 15th day of June, 2007.
Contd...