Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu Kumar on 31 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. RENU CHAUDHARY
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04, EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.725/13
PS Shakarpur
State Vs. Sonu Kumar
CNR No. DLET020004292013
(a) Sr. No. of the case 2289/2016
(b) Date of offence 04.08.2013
(c) Complainant Sh. Ramesh Kumar
(d) Accused, parentage and Sonu Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar
address R/o H. No.834, Gali No.3, Valmiki
Basti, Near Asharm Mod, New Bus
Stand, Ghaziabad U.P and at Village
Dalu Pura, H. No.1, PS New Ashok
Nagar, Delhi
(e) Offence complained of Section 457/380/511 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquittal
(h) Date of institution 16.09.2013
(i) Date when judgment was 02.05.2022
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 31.05.2022
FIR No.725/2013 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Page No.1 of 10
JUDGMENT
1. Present chargesheet has been forwarded by the SHO, PS Shakarpur against the accused to face trial for the offences under Section 457/380/511 IPC.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was made by the complainant Sh. Gurucharan Singh stating that on 04.08.2013 at about 10.00 p.m, at U75, Ground floor, Shakarpur, he had left to have kachori to a nearby shop after closing the glass door of his bicycle repairing shop and when he returned the glass door of the shop was found broken and accused was present in the shop trying to remove the cycle therefrom. After seeing the complainant, accused tried to flee away from the spot but with the help of police he was apprehended and arrested in the present case & remaining investigation was completed.
3. Consequently, the case was registered and after completion of investigation the final report was filed for offences under Section 457/380/511 IPC against accused Sonu Kumar & subsequently, the cognizance was taken by Ld. Predecessor v.o.d. 26.09.2013.
4. After taking cognizance, accused was summoned. On appearance of accused, copy of the chargesheet as well as documents annexed therewith were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C & the case was listed for arguments on charge.
FIR No.725/2013 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Page No.2 of 10
5. After hearing the parties, charge for the offences U/Sec.457/380/511 IPC was framed upon the accused v.o.d. 15.10.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The matter was then listed for PE & the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 04 witnesses which are as under:
PW1 Gurcharan Singh, the Complainant
PW2 Ct. Manjeet, Police Witness
PW3 Retd. SI Sumer Singh, Duty Officer
PW4 SI Ranvir Singh, Investigating Officer
It is pertinent to mention that Ct. Manoj, arresting witness, could not be examined as prosecution witness owing to his death during the pendency of the case.
7. PW1 deposed that on 04.08.2013, at about 10.00 p.m, he had left to have Kachori to a nearby Kachori shop after closing the glass door of his shop and when he came back, he saw that the glass door of his shop was broken and the accused was present inside the shop trying to remove his cycle therefrom. PW1 further deposed that after seeing the complainant, the accused tried to run away from the shop but with the help of a police official who was present near the spot, the accused was apprehended whose name was later on revealed as Sonu Kumar. PW1 further deposed that the accused had entered into his shop in order to steal cycle therefrom. Subsequent thereto, accused was arrested vide Ex.PW1/B and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW1/C. The statement of the witnesses was recorded as Ex.PW1/A. PW1 correctly FIR No.725/2013 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Page No.3 of 10 identified the accused present in the Court. PW1 was crossexamined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein PW1 stated that site plan of the place of incident was prepared at his instance but no public person was joined as a witness by the police. The witness further deposed that he does not remember whether broken glass pieces were taken into possession by the police. PW1 denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
8. Thereafter, Ct. Manjeet appeared in the witness box as PW2 & deposed that on 04.08.2013, while he was on emergency duty, SI Ranvir Singh received DD No.99B & PW2 alongwith SI Ranvir Singh went to the place of incident i.e. H. No. U75, Ground floor, Shakarpur, Delhi where Ct. Manoj & complainant Gurucharan were present with the accused & the glass of the complainant's shop was found broken. PW2 further deposed that the statement of complainant was recorded & rukka was handed over to PW2 for registration of FIR. Thereafter the copy of FIR & original rukka was given to the IO at the spot & accused was arrested vide Ex.PW1/B and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW1/C after which accused was taken for his medical examination. PW2 correctly identified the accused present in the Court & was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. PW2 deposed that he did not make any departure or arrival entry at the PS. The witness further testified that he does not remember whether broken piece of glass were taken into possession by the IO. PW2 further deposed that public persons were asked to join the investigation but none joined, however no notice was served upon them by the IO.
FIR No.725/2013 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Page No.4 of 10
9. Thereafter, Retd. SI Sumer Singh entered into witness box as PW3 who proved the FIR as Ex.PW3/A & his endorsement thereupon as Ex.PW3/B stating that on 05.08.2013 at around 12.15 a.m, Ct. Manjeet Singh handed him over a rukka sent by SI Ranbir Singh on the basis of which the present FIR was registered & copy of the same alongwith original rukka was handed over to Ct. Manjeet Singh to be given to the IO. The witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
10. Thereafter, SI Ranvir Singh entered the witness box as PW4 & deposed that on receiving DD No.99B, dated 04.08.2013 (Ex.PW4/A), he alongwith Ct. Manjeet went to the spot i.e U75, Shakrpur, Delhi and met with complainant Gurcharan and beat Ct. Manoj who had apprehended the accused. It is further deposed that the glass of the shop of the complainant was found broken and the statement of the complainant was recorded vide Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter rukka was prepared vide Ex. PW4/B and the same was handed over to Ct. Manjeet for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, the site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant vide Ex.PW4/C and in the meanwhile, Ct. Manjeet came back to the spot along with copy of the FIR and original rukka after which the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/C, disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex. PW4/D and supplementary statement of the complainant and Ct. Manoj was recorded. PW4 further deposed that accused was taken to LBS hospital for his medical examination and thereafter, he was sent to the lockup. PW4 FIR No.725/2013 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Page No.5 of 10 correctly identified the accused present in the Court. PW4 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused wherein he deposed that he did not make any entry regarding his departure at PS to the place of incident. PW4 deposed that except the complainant, no public witness was present at the spot & that the passerby were requested to join the investigation but none agreed, however no notice was served upon them. During further crossexamination, PW4 deposed that he had not made any inquiries from the Ganesh Kachori Wala & did not seize either the stone used to break the glass or the broken pieces of the glass from the spot. PW4 further stated that he did not check if the cycle lying at the complainant's shop was locked or unlocked. The witness denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the presence case.
11. After the completion of PE, Statement of Accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C r/w Sec. 281 Cr.P.C was recorded v.o.d 19.11.2019 wherein accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. He further denied the allegations so levelled against him by the complainant/prosecution. Accused did not wish to lead defence evidence and hence, the defence evidence was closed vide order dated 19.11.2019.
12. After closing Defence Evidence, the matter was listed for final arguments.
FIR No.725/2013 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Page No.6 of 10
13. It was argued by the Ld. APP for the State that prosecution witnesses have successfully proved the factum of commission of offence by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. He further stated that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and hence, the accused is liable to be convicted and punished as per law.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case as there are several discrepancies and material contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses which create grave suspicion about the prosecution's case.
15. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties & gone through the case file carefully & throughly. I have considered the testimony of witnesses & perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record.
16. It is a well settled legal principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts & has to stand upon its own legs. The prosecution cannot draw any strength from the case of the accused howsoever weak it may be. It is also a well settled principle of law that the burden of proof in a criminal trial always rests upon the prosecution & the same never shifts on the accused.
FIR No.725/2013 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Page No.7 of 10
17. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused secretly entered the shop of the complainant by breaking the glass of the main door & had attempted to commit theft of the cycle belonging to the complainant. Strangely the said case property i.e. cycle of the complainant was not seized by the IO during the investigation of the present case, for the reasons best known to the IO. It is admitted by the IO during his deposition as PW4 that the case property was not seized during the investigation. In fact the stone used for breaking the glass of the door as well as the broken pieces of the glass were also not collected or seized by the IO. It has gone unexplained as to why the said articles were not seized during investigation. This is a lacuna which dents the case of the prosecution & deprecated the veracity of the prosecution's case.
18. The prosecution has not placed on record the departure entry of the PWs so as to establish their presence at the spot. PW2 & PW4 have categorically deposed that they have not made any entries of their departure from as well as arrival at the PS on the date of incident. Therefore, there is no entry on record to establish the presence of the PWs at the spot.
Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides as follows:
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No.II - The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered:
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether FIR No.725/2013 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Page No.8 of 10 posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the office concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines & Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained".
Therefore, it is incumbent upon a police official that whenever he leaves the police station, he is required to make a departure entry in the Daily Diary Register as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934. In the instant case, there is no documentary evidence which can prove the presence of the police witnesses at the date, time and place of alleged incident. The prosecution was under obligation to prove the presence of police officials at the date, time and place of incident but nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution to show the presence of the recovery witnesses at the site on the date and time of incident.
19. In the present case, no public witness has been joined by the investigating agency at the stage of investigation despite the fact that the alleged incident took place at a crowded place. It has been admitted by PW2 & PW4 in their depositions that no public witness joined the investigation & no notice was served upon any of them for the said purpose. Admittedly, the kachori wala where the complainant went after closing his shop was also not examined or interrogated by the prosecution. In view of the same, the lack of any effort to join any public witness cast a serious dent on the reliability of the prosecution's story & creates a doubt in the mind of the Court as to the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution.
FIR No.725/2013 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Page No.9 of 10
20. The omission of the part of the prosecution to seize the case property & the broken pieces of glass of the door and failure to explain the said omission has landed the case of the prosecution in the swirl of serious doubt & the possibility of the investigation being motivated cannot be ruled out. The testimonies of the various PW's is grossly insufficient so as to even prima facie presume that the accused broke the door of the complainant's shop & secretly entered therein as well as attempted to steal the cycle of the complainant & the entire case of the prosecution is filled with unexplained discrepancies & lacunae.
21. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, accused Sonu Kumar is entitled to the benefit of doubt & is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec. 380/457/511 IPC.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by Renu Renu Chaudhary
Chaudhary Date: 2022.05.31
15:47:22 +0530
Pronounced in the open court ( RENU CHAUDHARY)
on 31st Day of May 2022 MM04/East/KKD/Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 10 pages & each Digitally signed page is checked & signed by me. Renu by Renu Chaudhary Chaudhary Date: 2022.05.31 15:47:32 +0530 ( RENU CHAUDHARY) MM04/East/KKD/Delhi 31.05.2022 FIR No.725/2013 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Page No.10 of 10