Delhi District Court
Ravinder Pal Singh vs The State on 2 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Crl. (A) No. 21/02/16
UID No. 54408/2016
P.S. Janak Puri
Ravinder Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Gurdeep Singh
R/o B14, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi
......... Appellant
Versus
The State
(NCT of Delhi)
....... Respondent
Date of filing:23.05.2016 Date of arguments: 27.04.2017 Date of Order:02.05.2017 J U D G M E N T
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of the conviction dated CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 1 of 12 03.03.2016 and order on sentence dated 25.04.2016 in FIR No.424/11, under Section 379/411 IPC, Police Station Janak Puri, passed by Ms. Charu Aggarwal, Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 379 and 411 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by complainant/Sh. Montu Chauhan on 10.12.2011 in the Police Station Janak Puri alleging that he had parked a black colour Pulsar motorcycle outside the District Park Janak Puri. That after sometime when he returned back, his bike was found missing. The FIR under Section 379 IPC was registered. The matter was investigated and during investigation on 04.04.2012, accused Ravinder was arrested alongwith stolen motorcycle during vehicle checking at main road, CRPF Camp near Shahpura by the police. After completion of investigation, CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 2 of 12 charge sheet for commission of the offence under Section 379/411 IPC was filed.
3. The alternate charge for the commission of the offence under Section 379 or 411 IPC was framed on 09.08.2012, to which the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After completion of trial, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 379 and 411 of IPC. Thereafter, vide order on the point of sentence, the convict was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 379 IPC and further sentenced to go imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 411 IPC.
4. The appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment of the conviction dated 03.03.2016 and order on sentence dated 25.04.2016 has filed the present appeal. It is stated that the impugned order is illegal, perverse and bad in the eyes of law. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to observe that the CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 3 of 12 prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to observe that there was no independent corroboration of the entire prosecution version. That except the complainant/Montu Chauhan, rest of the witnesses were police officials. That the ownership of the alleged stolen vehicle was not proved by the prosecution. That the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly drawn the presumption under Section 114 IPC of the Indian Evidence Act. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the contradictions and the improvements in the statements of the witnesses. It is prayed that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Ld. Trial Court may kindly be set aside.
5. The notice of the appeal was issued to the State. The Ld. Additional P.P. for the State had accepted the notice on behalf of the State. The Ld. APP for the State has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 4 of 12 in the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have carefully gone through the record and heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the appellant/accused and Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State.
7. The perusal of the record reveals that in the present case vide order dated 09.08.2012, the charge for commission of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC was framed upon the accused and in the alternate, the charge for commission of the offence under Section 411 IPC was also framed. The perusal of the order of the charge reveals that the alternate charge under Section 379 or 411 IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Ld. Trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for commission of both the offences punishable under Section 379 and 411 IPC. The conviction of the appellant/accused for both the offences despite framing of the alternate charge is not sustainable in the CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 5 of 12 eyes of law. The Ld. Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant/accused for the commission of both the offence punishable under Section 379/411 IPC despite framing alternate charge.
8. It is also not out of place to mention that there is no witness or evidence on record to connect the accused with commission of the offence under Section 379 IPC. The perusal of the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC reveals that no incriminating evidence for commission of the offence under Section 379 IPC was put to the appellant/accused. The PW1 Sh. Montu Chauhan has also not deposed anything against the appellant/accused for commission of the offence under Section 379 IPC. None of the prosecution witness has deposed anything incriminating, sustainable in the eyes of law regarding the offence under Section 379 IPC. There is no material on record on the basis of which the presumption against the accused U/s 114 of Evidence Act could be raised for CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 6 of 12 commission of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.
9. In view of the above, it is clear that there is no evidence at all, on record to convict the appellant/accused for commission of the offence under Section 379 IPC. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 379 IPC is set aside.
10.The appellant/accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC on the allegations that stolen motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the accused during vehicle checking at Shahpura, near CRPF Camp, Main Road, Tilak Nagar, Delhi on 04.04.2012. The prosecution to prove its case has examined recovery witnesses of the motorcycle i.e. PW4 Ct. Vikram Ditya, PW5 Ct. Anil Kumar and PW7 SI Joginder Singh. All the three police officials have deposed about the recovery of the stolen motorcycle from the possession of the accused on 04.04.2012 during police checking. All the three police officials stood test of cross examination and during their lengthy cross examination CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 7 of 12 nothing material is extracted to make their testimony unreliable. The minor contradictions emerged in the testimony of the police officials are bound to happen. The case of the prosecution could not be thrown away merely on the minor contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. To raise shadow of doubt about the story of the prosecution, the contradiction should be material, which goes to the roots of the case. The material contradictions relating to the facts in dispute is considered just to create shadow of the doubt about the story of the prosecution. In the present case, the counsel for the appellant/accused could not point out any material contradictions regarding facts in issue.
11.The Ld. Counsel for the appellant/accused has raised a contention that no public witness was joined in investigation or at the time of recovery of the motorcycle, which creates a shadow of doubt. The Indian Evidence Act does not differentiate between the testimony of police witnesses or the CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 8 of 12 public witnesses. The testimony of the police officials is equally reliable if it inspires the confidence of the court. If there is no other reasons to disbelieve the testimony of the police witnesses, their testimony could not be thrown away merely on the basis that they are police officials. The stolen motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the accused during late night hours at about 1.40 AM, therefore, at that time there is every likelihood of the absence of the public witnesses. The accused has fails to point out in the cross examination of the witnesses that despite availability of the public witnesses, they were not asked to join the investigation by the police officials. It is a matter of common knowledge that now a days the public witnesses are not willing to join the investigation for one reason or the another. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused has fails to point out that non joining of the public witnesses has caused any serious prejudice to the case.
12. The submissions regarding non recovery of the keys of the CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 9 of 12 stolen motorcycle from the possession of the accused does not create a shadow of doubt. It is not proved on record by the accused that the keys of the motorcycle were there, but despite that same were not seized by the investigating officer. The running of the motorcycle even without keys is not such a impossibility, which raised doubt upon running of motorcycle. The prosecution is not required to prove each minor details to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the material facts to establish the guilt of the accused. The recovery of the stolen motorcycle has been proved by the prosecution by examining the recovery witnesses who stood test of cross examination. The other witnesses relating to the investigation examined by the prosecution have also supported the story of the prosecution regarding recovery of the stolen motorcycle. PW1/complainant has also proved the theft of his motorcycle for which he had lodged a complaint. CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 10 of 12
13.In view of the above discussion, the conviction of the appellant/accused for the commission of the offence under Section 411 IPC is upheld.
14.The appellant/accused had remained in judicial custody from 04.04.2012 to 17.05.2012. Appellant/accused is facing the trial in the present case since 26.04.2012. The appellant/accused has undertaken not to repeat the offence again in future. The appellant/accused has undertaken to lead a good life. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstance, a lenient view is taken. The order of sentence dated 25.04.2016 is modified. The appellant/accused Ravinder Pal Singh is sentenced to go imprisonment for the period already undergone by him during investigation/trial of the case.
15. The personal bond and surety bond of appellant/accused are extended for a period of six month under Section 437A Cr.P.C.
16. Appeal file be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 11 of 12
17. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this order. Announced in the open court today i.e. 02nd May, 2017 (DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE03 (WEST), DELHI CA No. 54408/2016 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State 12 of 12