Delhi District Court
State vs . Ved Ram on 31 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 06,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Serial No. : 1067/2 dated 26.05.2004
Unique Identification No. 02403R0310372004
State Vs. Ved Ram
FIR No. 415/98
P. S. R.K.Puram
U/s 379/411 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1.Srl. No. of the case & 1067/2 & 20.09.99 Date of institution
2.Date of commission of offence 7/8.07.98
3.Name of the complainant Sameer Khan, S/o Sh. Mohd. Alam, R/oHouse no. 181, Satya Niketan, New Delhi.
4.Name of the accused Ved Ram @ Vedu @ Ved Parkash S/o Sh. Yad Ram R/o Teacher Colony Maholi Road, PS Kotwali, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
5.Nature of offence complained of U/s 379/411 IPC
6.Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty State v/s Ved Ram PS: R.K.Puram Page 1/6
7. Date reserved for order 31.10.2011
8.Final Order Acquitted
9.Date of such order 31.10.2011
10. Date of receipt of this case in this court: 28.01.2011
11. Date of institution of FIR : 08.07.98 Date of Institution : 20.09.99 Date of order reserved : 31.10.2011 Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2011 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
1. Accused is acquitted of the offences in question due to the fact that complainant remained untraceable despite being tried to be served through IO concerned and DCP concerned.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07/08.07.1998 at about 11.45pm to 08.00am at House no. 181, Satya Niketan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PSR.K.Puram, accused committed theft of car bearing no.
DL2CL0902 belonging to Sh. Sameer Khan and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 379 IPC and on 11.07.1998 accused was retained possession of above said stolen property received from his possession knowing as to be a stolen property and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
3. After supply of copies of documents, charge for the State v/s Ved Ram PS: R.K.Puram Page 2/6 offence u/s 379/411 IPC was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined two prosecution witnesses. PW1 HC Parmanand deposed that on 08.07.98 he was posted with PP Nanakpura , PS R.K.Puram. On that day, he alongwith HC Shambhu Dayal reached to Satya Niketan, House no. 181 and met complainant Sameer Khan, who gave written complaint to IO. He made endorsement on the same and handed over to him for registration of FIR and he got registered the FIR and came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. IO searched for the stolen car but no cloes. His statement was recorded by the IO. PW2 Inspector Sanjay Dutt deposed that in the month of July, 1998 he was posted as SI, Incharge Police Post Nanakpura. On 08.07.1998, the abovementioned FIR EX. PW1/A was registered regarding theft of Maruti Car bearing no. DL2CL0902 by the complainant Mr. Sameer Khan. The investigation of the case was entrusted to HC Shambhu Dayal. On 12.07.1998, information was received telephonically from PSR.K.Puram that the above mentioned car alongwith the accused had been apprehended in Mathura (PP Krishna Nagar). In this regard, DD no. 21 was recorded and the same is Ex. PW1/B. After receipt of DD no. 21, he alongwith Ct.
State v/s Ved Ram PS: R.K.Puram Page 3/6 Devender and complainant Sameer Khan to Mathura where he made application before CJM, Mathura for the release of the stolen vehicle and for transfer of the case and accused to Delhi. He took the case documents from Mathura police. He made formal arrest of the accused and he conducted personal search of the accused vide Ex. PW1/C. He took PC of the accused. On 16.07.1998 and went to Mathura for the recovery of stolen property in the car i.e stereo etc but nothing was being recovered. He produced the accused before the court for judicial custody. He recorded the statement for the wintesses u/s 161 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, handed over the case to HC Shambhu Dayal for further investigation. The seizure of the car no. DL2CL0902 and the arrest of the accused were seized and arrested vide Ex. PW1/D.
6. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 281/313Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused to which he denied and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and did not lead any evidence in defence.
7. Final arguments heard. File perused and considered. Case is fixed for judgment.
8. Complainant Sameer Khan, who was cited as witness in the list of witnesses, in the charge sheet, remained State v/s Ved Ram PS: R.K.Puram Page 4/6 untraceable despite being tried to be served through IO and DCP concerned. The said witness was struck off from the list of witnesses. He was the material witness, whose substantive evidence, could have convicted the accused. In the absence of his testimony, it is not proper and legal to convict the accused on the basis of testimonies of police officials, who had conducted the investigation. Thus prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
9. Keeping in my mind aforesaid discussions, facts and circumstances, accused Ved Ram @ Vedu @ Ved Parkash is acquitted for the offence u/s 379/411 IPC. Bail bond of accused is not cancelled as accused did not furnish fresh bail bond in compliance of section 437A Cr. P.C., and the said bond shall remain valid till six months from now. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Accnounced in the open court on 31.10.2011. (Prashant Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate06 South District/Saket Court Complex, New Delhi/31/10/2011.
State v/s Ved Ram
PS: R.K.Puram Page 5/6
State Vs. Ved Ram
FIR No. 415/98
P. S. R.K.Puram
U/s 379/411 IPC
31.10.2011
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused in person.
Complainant Sameer Khan stuck off from the list of witnesses on 28.07.2011.
Statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C . Final arguments heard.
Vide my judgment of even date, accused Ved Ram is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 379/411 IPC. Bail bond of accused is not cancelled as accused did not furnish fresh bail bond in compliance of section 437A Cr. P.C., and the said bond shall remain valid till six months from now. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
(Prashant Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate06 South District/Saket Court Complex, New Delhi/31/10/2011.
State v/s Ved Ram PS: R.K.Puram Page 6/6