Delhi District Court
State vs Jallauddin on 16 December, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS KIRAN BANSAL
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI/EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI.
State V/s Jallauddin
FIR No: 333/98
PS: Anand Vihar
U/s: 414 IPC
JUDGMENT
a). ID No. of the case : 02402R0073082003
b). Sr number of the case : 35/02
c). Date of commission of offence : 29.10.2000
d). Name of complainant, if any : Kumari Meenu Singh
D/o Sh. R.K.Singh
R/o H.No.5A/7, Shastri Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP.
e). Name & address of accused : Jallauddin
S/o Sh. Shamsuddin
R/o 3/7A, Javed Park, Prachina
Society, Opposite Samir Vihar,
Juhapura, Ahemdabad, Gujrat.
f). The offence complained of : U/s 414 IPC
g). The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h). Final order : Acquitted
i). The date of such order : 16.12.2010
State Vs. Jallauddin FIR No. 333/98 U/s: 414 IPC
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The facts of the present case have been disclosed in the complaint of the complainant that on 29.10.2000 at the shop of Babu Dalia at Jai Hind Market, Mirzapur road, the accused voluntarily assisted in disposing or making away with motor vehicle including car bearing no. UP14H6429 by changing its number and selling it away in Gujrat, knowing or having reasons to believe it to be the stolen property and thus thereby, committed offence punishable U/s 414 IPC.
2. On the complaint of the complainant FIR bearing no. 333/98 U/s 414 IPC was registered against the accused, investigation were carried out and challan was prepared and presented in the court after completion of the investigation.
3. Subsequent to the filing of the challan, cognizance was taken and the accused was summoned. Thereafter, the matter was listed for the framing of charge against the accused. The charge for the offence U/s 414 IPC was framed against the accused on 10.10.2001, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and hence the matter was thereafter listed for PE.
4. PW1 HC Surrender Singh who deposed as to be the Duty Officer in the present case. He registered the FIR bearing no. 333/98 on the basis of Tehrir Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he handed over the copy of FIR and original Asal Tehrir to Ct. Harrinder.
State Vs. Jallauddin FIR No. 333/98 U/s: 414 IPC
5. PW2, SI Arun Chauhan who is stated to be the first IO of the present case deposed that on 14.12.98 at about 2.15 am, he received a complaint of Meenu Singh given by the complainant regarding the theft of her car bearing no. UP14H6429. On the basis of this complaint, he wrote rukka Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, he prepared siteplan Ex.PW2/B at the instance of the complainant. He further recorded the suplementary statement of the complainant and statement of Ct. Harender. He also searched the accused as well as the case property but he could not be traced thereafter he filed untace report with this effect.
6. PW3, HC Kanwar Sain who deposed that on 30.10.00 he received the case file of the present case for further investigation. On producing the accused before the court, he formally arrested the accused namely Jallauddin and thereafter accused was sent to JC. He also seized the case property i.e. Car bearing no. UP14H6429 from Malkhana PS Preet Vihar vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and thereafter deposited the same in the Malkhana PS Anand Vihar. He also recorded the statements of other PW.
7. PW4, Ct. Harender Singh who deposed that on 14.12.98 complainant Meenu Singh gave a complaint to SHO PS Anand Vihar. He proved FIR prepared by SI Arun Chauhan on the basis of rukka. Thereafter, he went to the spot along with rukka and copy of FIR to handover the same to IO Arun Chauhan.
State Vs. Jallauddin FIR No. 333/98 U/s: 414 IPC
8. PW5 Inspector Vijay Pal Singh who is stated to be the second IO of this case deposed that in the year 2000, he was marked to investigate the case FIR No. 317/99 PS Preet Vihar. On the information of a secret informer, he along with HC Om Prakash and HC Mahboob Mia, (Crime Branch, Ahemdabad) had gone to Ahemdabad, Gujrat where they recovered one Maruti Car bearing no. GJ1BP7239 also bearing engine no. 1662527 and chasis no. 1217063 from one Saleem s/o Sh. Nazir r/o Golden House, Sarkhej, Ahemdabad, Gujrat. This vehicle was found to be involved in another case based on FIR No. 333/98 PS Anand Vihar and its original no. was UP14H6429. He prepared recovery memo Ex.PW5/A. In his interrogation, Mohd. Saleem disclosed that he had purchase the same Maruti car from one Jallauddin s/o Sh. Shamshuddin. Thereafter he arrested the accused Jallauddin and recorded his confessional statement Ex.PW5/B. Thereafter, he handed over the documents to the concerned IO of this case.
9. Thereafter, after the completion of the Prosecution Evidence. No other PW appeared, therefore the PE was closed vide order of the Court dated 16.12.2010. The matter was thereafter listed for the purpose of the recording of the statement of the accused.
10.Statement of the accused U/s 281 Cr.P.C was recorded without oath and after putting all the incriminating evidence upon him to which he pleaded State Vs. Jallauddin FIR No. 333/98 U/s: 414 IPC innocent and stated that no such recovery was effected from him. he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused did not lead any Defence Evidence, the matter is thus listed for the purpose of the final arguments and the arguments heard and entire record have been perused.
11.I have heard the submission of Ld. APP for the State and the accused himself. I have also carefully perused the record. The court has carefully examined the entire material available on record including the testimony of the PWs recorded before the Court.
12.In the present case almost five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Though PW1 HC Surrender Singh who is stated to be the Duty Officer in this case. PW2 SI Arun Chauhan who is stated to be the first IO in this case and who prepared rukka on the basis of complaint and prepared siteplan at the instance of complainant. PW3 HC Kanwar Sain who formally arrested the accused and seized the case property from Malkhana PS Preet Vihar and deposit the same in the Malkhana PS Anand Vihar. PW4 Ct. Harinder Singh he only handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. PW5 Inspector Vijay Pal Singh who is stated to be the second IO of this case who recovered the stolen case property i.e. Maruti Car from Ahemdabad, Gujrat from one seller thereafter he arrested the accused Jallauddin and recorded his confessional statement.
State Vs. Jallauddin FIR No. 333/98 U/s: 414 IPC
13. In the present case, complainant could not be examined as she was not traceable despite issuance of summons through IO as well as through DCP concern. The vehicle as per the evidence of PW5 was recovered from the possession of Mohd. Saleem. Even this witness has not been examined in the present case. The vehicle was admittedly not recovered from the possession of the accused. The only evidence on record, the disclosure statement of accused which is not sufficient to convict the accused. There is nothing on record to establish that the vehicle recovered from Mohd. Saleem was sold by the accused to him. Moreover, Mohd. Saleem has also not been examined by the prosecution as he was also not traceable.
14.Thus, there are many loop holes in the present case which the Prosecution has failed to fill or to satisfy. There are contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution who are only the police witnesses even prosecution did not examine any other public witness or eye witness other than police witnesses to support its case which itself is sufficient ground for the acquittal of the accused in the present case. The prosecution has not been able to link the involvement of the accused at the time of the alleged incident.
15.Thus in totality of the facts and circumstances, of the present case, where the evidence available on record are not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused and where the witnesses have failed to State Vs. Jallauddin FIR No. 333/98 U/s: 414 IPC support the case of the prosecution and it has not been proved on record that the said offence is done by the accused only and so many doubts are raised about the prosecution story, from the evidences available on record and the accused person is very much entitled to the benefit of the doubts and hence, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, thus, the accused Jallauddin is acquitted for the offence U/s 414 IPC. Bail Bond stands canceled, surety bond stands discharged. Endorsement, if any, made on any document be canceled and documents, if any, seized or deposed be released on proper receipt and identification. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 16.12.2010 (KIRAN BANSAL) ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI Karkardooma Courts, Delhi State Vs. Jallauddin FIR No. 333/98 U/s: 414 IPC