Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Kripal Yadav on 5 July, 2013
-:1 :
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-11 (WEST) DELHI
State vs. Ram Kripal Yadav
FIR No. : 130/06
U/SEC : 408/379/411 IPC
PS : Patel Nagar
JUDGMENT
Serial no. of the case : 1208/II
Date of commission of offence : 21.03.2006
Name of the complainant : Sh.Prem Soni
Name of accused : Ram Kripal Yadav
S/o Sh. Chukesar Yadav,
R/o Jhugg , Kribi Place, Delhi
Cantt.Delhi.
Offence complained of or : U/S 408/379/411 IPC
proved Section
The final order : Convicted
Plea of the accused : Plead not guilty
Date of Institution of Case : 12.05.2006
Judgment Reserved : 05.07.2013
Date of Judgment : 05.07.2013
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of the complainant Sh.Prem Soni. It is stated that on 21.03.2006 at about 8:30 PM at Pusa Chambery near State Bank of India, Delhi the accused being a driver ( servant ) in the employment of complainant Prem Soni , was entrusted with Hundai Accent Car no.DL-4CM-2923 and committed theft State Vs. Ram Kripal Yadav Page 1 of 9
-:2 :
of said car by taking it out of the possession of the complainant. Further on 22.03.2006, at main Patel Road near Patel Nagar Metro Station the accused dishonestly retained the said Hundai Car knowing or having reason to believe that such property was stolen property.
2. After the usual investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused . Copies were supplied to the accused and subsequent to the compliance with the provision of Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code charge for the offence punishable under Section 408/379/411 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused on 13.11.2007 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. After framing of charge, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence. During the course of prosecution evidence, the prosecution got examined following witnesses.
4. PW1 Sh.Prem Soni deposed that on 21.03.2006 at about 8:30 PM when he was going to his house by Honda Accent Car bearing no.DL-4CM-2923 , his driver Ram Kripal Yadav was driving the siad car. He stated when they reached near Pusa chembry , State Bank , the accused told him that the tyre of the car had got flattened ( punctured). He stated he came out of the car and the driver sitting on the driving seat took the car away. He stated in his car he has put the black colour VIP briefcase containing Rs.2 lacs, pass books of PNB, Union Bank of India, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Cheque book of Bank of Punjab Ltd. and other documents. He stated he informed the police and police came at the spot and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. He stated IO arrested the accused and seized the briefcase and key of the car and prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW1/E and he also signed the disclosure State Vs. Ram Kripal Yadav Page 2 of 9
-:3 :
statement. The case property was correctly identified in the court .
In his cross examination he stated that the accused was his employee and he was appointed as driver. He stated accused must be aware of the amount kept in briefcase which was withdrawn from his bank on 20.03.2006. He stated the statement of account of the withdrawal was not handed over to the IO. He stated it to be correct that the briefcase was traced by the police on 22.03.2006 and entire money and documents were available in the briefcase.
5. PW2 Inspector Manoj Kumar deposed that on 21.03.2006 on receipt of DD no. 39 B he reached at 38/2, East Patel Nagar where one person namely Prem Soni met him and he alongwith him reached at Pusa Chembry near SBI. He stated he recorded the statement of Prem Soni and prepared site plan. He stated in search of accused he alongwith complainant Prem Soni he reached at Jhuggi at Kirbi Place, Delhi Cantt. and on pointing out of complainant he knocked the Jhuggi and accused came outside the said Jhuggi and complainant pointed towards him stating that he is accused Ram Kripal , his driver. He stated he inquired from the accused to got recovered the VIP briefcase of black colour and one key of the car of complainant lying in the wooden cot in the Jhuggi. He stated on opening the said briefcase Rs.2 lacs which consist of four bundles of 500 rupees denomination, one cheque book of Bank of Punjab, two passbooks of Punjab National Bank, two passbooks of Union Bank of India, one passbook of Oriental Bank of Commerce and some documents were found in the briefcase. He stated accused was arrested. He stated the Hundai Accent Car was recovered at the instance of accused near metro Pillar Patel Nagar.
State Vs. Ram Kripal Yadav Page 3 of 9-:4 :
In his cross examination he stated that he reached Pusa Chembary alongwith Ct.Jai Bhagwan at about 9:00 PM. He stated signature of complainant was not taken on site plan.
6. PW3 HC Jai Bhagwan deposed that on 21.03.2006 on receipt of DD no.39B he alongwith SI Manoj Kumar reached at 38/2, East Patel Nagar there he met with complainant Prem Soni met him and he alongwith him reached at Pusa Chembry near State Bank, his statement was recorded, rukka was prepared and handed over to him for registration of case. He stated they alongwith complainant Prem Soni reached at Jhuggi Kirbi Place and complainant pointed towards the accused. He stated on inquiry accused got recovered one black colour VIP briefcase under the cot and on checking the briefcase Rs.2 lac, cheque book of bank of Punjab, Passbook of PNB, Union Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce and some other documents were recovered. He stated that complainant Prem Chand Soni identified the said article to his own. He stated that accused handed over one key of car to SI Manoj Kumar and disclosed that the said car was parked near Metro Station Patel Nazgar . He stated the said key was kept in the said briefcase. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded . Accused was arrested and personally searched. He stated accused by walking ahead took them in front of pole no.P-180 Main Patel Road, near Metro Station Patel Nagar and got recovered one Hundai Accent Car no.DL-4CN-2923 and the said car was taken into possession vide Ex.PW1/E .
In his cross examination he stated that they reached at the jhuggi of accused and on knocking the jhuggi accused came outside the jhuggi . He stated inside the jhuggi one lady, one person and children State Vs. Ram Kripal Yadav Page 4 of 9
-:5 :
were there. He stated they asked one or two persons to join the investigation but none join by telling their genuine reasons.
7. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded . In his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied all incriminating evidence submitting that nothing was recovered from his possession. Despite opportunity, he did not opt to lead Defence Evidence.
8. I have heard the rival submissions at Bar and have gone through the records of this case.
9. Ld. counsel for accused argued that no public witness was examined and also raised contradiction in version of witnesses regarding presence of family members at the time of recovery and arrest of accused.
10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the case has been proved against the accused persons and there are no contradictions and dents in the testimony of witnesses.
11. After hearing the rival contentions raised at bar as well as on careful scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt against the accused.
12. In It stands proved from the deposition of complainant Prem Soni who was examined as PW1 that accused committed theft of car of the complainant alongwith one briefcase of complainant containing Rs. 2 lacs , passbooks and other documents and the said articles were found in possession of accused .
13. PW1 Sh.Prem Soni proved that on 21.03.2006 at about 8:30 PM when he State Vs. Ram Kripal Yadav Page 5 of 9
-:6 :
was going to his house by Honda Accent Car bearing no.DL-4CM-2923 , his driver Ram Kripal Yadav was driving the siad car. He proved that when they reached near Pusa chembry , State Bank , the accused told him that the tyre of the car had got flattened ( punctured). He proved that he came out of the car and the driver sitting on the driving seat took the car away. He proved that in his car he has put the black colour VIP briefcase containing Rs.2 lacs, pass books of PNB, Union Bank of India, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Cheque book of Bank of Punjab Ltd. and other documents. He proved that he informed the police and police came at the spot and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. The case property was correctly identified in the court .
14. PW2 Inspector Manoj Kumar proved that on 21.03.2006 on receipt of DD no. 39 B he reached at 38/2, East Patel Nagar where one person namely Prem Soni met him and he alongwith him reached at Pusa Chembry near SBI. He proved that he recorded the statement of Prem Soni and prepared site plan. He proved that in search of accused he alongwith complainant Prem Soni he reached at Jhuggi at Kirbi Place, Delhi Cantt. and on pointing out of complainant he knocked the Jhuggi and accused came outside the said Jhuggi and complainant pointed towards him stating that he is accused Ram Kripal , his driver. He proved that accused got recovered the VIP briefcase of black colour and one key of the car of complainant lying in the wooden cot in the Jhuggi. He stated on opening the said briefcase Rs.2 lacs which consist of four bundles of 500 rupees denomination, one cheque book of Bank of Punjab, two passbooks of Punjab National Bank, two passbooks of Union Bank of India, one passbook of Oriental Bank of Commerce and some documents were found in the briefcase. He proved that the Hundai Accent Car was recovered at the instance of accused near metro Pillar Patel Nagar.
State Vs. Ram Kripal Yadav Page 6 of 9-:7 :
15. PW3 HC Jai Bhagwan corroborated the version of PW 2 .
16. IO who was examined as PW 2 duly supported the complainant version and proved her complaint, arrest of the accused and seizure of the stolen chain.
17. During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence counsel vehemently argued that the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant and the IO and in fact the accused never committed the alleged theft and that recovery if any has been planted upon the accused and he was lifted from his house. It was also submitted that the prosecution story suffers from various loopholes viz. that the police officials failed to join any independent witness during the entire raid/seizure proceeding.
9. However, I do not agree with either contentions of the Ld. Defence counsel.
10. Firstly, I find no reasons as to why the complainant or the police officials would falsely implicate the accused their being no previous rivalry/enmity against them. In fact, there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused was known to the complainant or the police officials prior to incident .
11. Secondly, in the present case, the deposition of the complainant (PW 1) and his complaint Ex.PW1/A is itself sufficient to nail the accused . Furthermore, the law is now fairly well settled that there is no requirement to associate independent witnesses and merely because independent public witness have not been joined, the police official are not to be believed. It is the quality of the evidence that matters and not the quantity.State Vs. Ram Kripal Yadav Page 7 of 9
-:8 :
12. Under the Indian Evidence Act no specific number of witnesses are required to prove a fact and a fact can be proved even by one witness whether he is official or independent public witness depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Law requires that evidence has to be weighed and not counted (Ambika Prasad and Ano. Vs State 2002 (2) CRIMES 63(SC) and ( Krishna Mochi and others Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6SCC81). Reliance can also be placed upon Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,(P&H) 1995(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 475 wherein it was observed that there is no rule of law making it obligatory for the prosecution to examine witnesses of public as independent witnesses to corroborate the statements of the police witnesses. The statements of the police witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are the police officials. There is no blanket bar upon the reliance and credibility of the witnesses belonging to the police department. The Evidence Act does not lay down about any number of witnesses needed for proving a particular fact.
13. Ld.Counsel for accused argued that accused was picked from his house and not arrested from the spot. The arrest of accused from the spot has been proved by complainant and IO.
14. It has been further pleaded that their are major discrepancies in statements made by police witnesses as no public witness or family members were made witness. It has come into deposition of PW3 HC Jai Bhagwan that family members of accused were present at the time of arrest of accused and in case if they have been included in list of witnesses it is questionable if whether they should have acted as State Vs. Ram Kripal Yadav Page 8 of 9
-:9 :
independent witness and deposed in favour of prosecution against accused persons who are there family members.
15. Accordingly, in view of my above discussion, accused Ram Kripal Yadav is held guilty under section 408/379/411 IPC. The accused is hereby convicted in this case.
Announced in the Open court ( Purshotam Pathak) on 5th July, 2013 MM-11, West, Delhi State Vs. Ram Kripal Yadav Page 9 of 9