Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh Sinha on 22 May, 2012
In the Court of Sh. S K Arora, MM(Central)-04, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi
FIR No. 219/06
U/s 379/34 IPC
PS NDRS
State Vs. Rakesh Sinha
JUDGMENT:
A Sl. No. of the case 02402R0589692006
B Date of institution 07/07/06
C Date of commission of offence 28/05/06
D Name of the complainant Complainant Amarnath Pandey through
State
E Name of the accused & his Rakesh Sinha s/o Sh. Surender Prasad parentage and address r/o Hari Shankar Pur Bhagoni, PO & PS Tajpur, Distt. Samastipur, Bihar.
F Offence complained of U/s 379/34 IPC G Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty H Order Reserved on 16/05/12 I Final order Convicted u/s 379 IPC J Date of such order 22/05/12 Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case FIR proceedings against the accused are that on 28.05.06 when the complainant with his family boarded Gorakh Dham Express Train from NDRS, some unknown persons managed to lift the attachee / suitcase of the complainant from his seat and while the person to whom the attachee / suitcase was handed over managed to escape, the accused who handed over the attachee was apprehended by the complainant in the running train itself. The complainant kept the accused in his custody in the running train till he reached his destination at Khalilabad, Basti, U.P. where the complaint Ex.PW1/A with respect to the incident was lodged with GRP, Basti Railway Station and the custody of the accused was also handed over. Subsequently, the matter was sent for registration of FIR and investigation to GRP, NDRS FIR No. 219/06, PS NDRS, S/V Rakesh Sinha Page No. 1 of 5 where the present case FIR came to be registered and investigation was carried out. The accused was arrested and the investigation culminated into the filing of the charge sheet against the accused for trial.
2. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 379/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish and prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined three witnesses.
PW1 Amarnath Pandey is the complainant.
PW2 ASI Bhoop Singh is the DO who on 14.06.06 at about 6:30 pm upon receiving zero FIR from the reader of PS NDRS, recorded FIR Ex. PW2/A and handed over the investigation to HC Jitender.
PW3 HC Jitender is the IO of the Case.
Coming on to the testimony of complainant / PW1 Amarnath Pandey who is the star witness for the prosecution, he stated that on 28.05.06, he boarded Gorakh Dham Express Train from NDRS with his family consisting of his wife and children. He stated that he was to go to his native town and was occupying seat no. 44, 45 and 46 of coach S3 of the said train and when the said train had started moving, accused removed his suitcase and handed it over to some other person. He further stated that whereas he managed to catch the accused, the other person to whom suitcase was handed ran away. He further stated that in the meanwhile, as the train had left the New Delhi Railway Station, he kept the accused in his custody till Khalilabad and handed over the accused to the police officials of Basti, U.P. and also gave his detailed complaint Ex.PW1/A to the officer In-charge of PS Basti. He further stated that he also gave the details of his articles kept by him in his suitcase in his complaint Ex.PW1/A and neither his suitcase nor its contents have been recovered by the police till date. He further stated that police arrested the accused. In his cross-examination by ld. defence counsel, he stated that the train reached at Khalilabad, Basti on 29.05.06 at about 11 am. He stated as correct that the person who managed to take away his suitcase was not seen by him. He further stated that he had not given any complaint to the police officials at Delhi as the train had already left the station FIR No. 219/06, PS NDRS, S/V Rakesh Sinha Page No. 2 of 5 and it was not possible for him to get down from the train. He further stated that when the train had left Delhi, he met some escort officials who advised him to hand over the accused to the police at Kanpur Railway Station or at his native station. He further stated that as his children were with him and one of them was suffering from chicken pox, he opted to take the accused to his native town. He further stated that on 29.05.06 when he reached Khalilabad and took the accused to the police post, they informed him that his complaint would be entertained only by the police station at Basti. He further stated that as the officer in-charge of PS Basti did not meet him on 29.05.06, he gave his complaint on the next day i.e. on 30.05.06. He stated as correct that the accused remained in custody from 28.05.06 to 29.05.06. He denied the suggestion that he had never seen the accused lifting his suitcase or that the accused was apprehended on the basis of suspicion or that the accused did not commit any theft of his suitcase.
PW3 HC Jitender is the IO of the case. He stated that on 28.06.06 while he was posted at PS NDRS, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A upon the accused being produced before the Court on production warrants. He proved the personal search memo and the disclosure statement of the accused as Ex.PW3/B and C respectively. He further stated that the police custody of the accused yielded no results as the case property could not be recovered. Nothing material came in his cross- examination.
4. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him and stated that complainant wrongly apprehended him and took him to Basti from NDRS. Accused also pleaded innocence. However, no witness was examined by the accused in his defence.
5. Ld. Prosecutor and ld. defence counsel were heard and the judicial file was perused carefully. Whereas Ld. APP argued that the prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that he committed theft of the suitcase belonging to the complainant, ld. defence counsel on the other hand argued that there are FIR No. 219/06, PS NDRS, S/V Rakesh Sinha Page No. 3 of 5 material discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant. He further argued that in the absence of any other independent witness having been joined in the investigation, sole testimony of the complainant cannot be made the basis of arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the accused. He also argued that the accused was apprehended on the basis of mere suspicion and in the absence of any recovery having been effected from his possession, prosecution fails to conclusively establish the charge against him.
As to the material discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant, it was submitted by ld. defence counsel that when the accused is alleged to have been apprehended by the complainant at a time when the train was still at NDRS, the custody of the accused by the complainant was not only illegal but also reflected that the complainant was not sure as to whether the accused is the real culprit or not. It was also submitted that the accused as admitted by the complainant himself remained in his custody for two days without any justification. It was further submitted that the complainant was not alone and was accompanied by his wife and children and no explanation has been offered either by the complainant or by the IO as to why the wife of the complainant was not joined in the investigation.
Insofar as the contention of ld. defence counsel that there are material discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant is concerned, the same is devoid of any merits. It is to be seen that the testimony of the complainant of his keeping the accused in his custody for two days is self explanatory in his cross-examination. Complainant had stated in his testimony that he was not traveling alone and was with his wife and children. He had also stated that one of his children was suffering from chicken pox and he was also not having sufficient funds with him so as to de-board the train midway for reporting the matter to the nearest police station. He had also stated that as soon as he got down at Khalilabad on 29.05.06, it was in fact the police officials of the police post Khalilabad who have advised him to produce the accused and lodge his complaint with the officer In-charge, PS Basti, U.P. and the complainant following their advise produced the accused and lodged his complaint on 30.05.06 at PS Basti, U.P. There is nothing in the FIR No. 219/06, PS NDRS, S/V Rakesh Sinha Page No. 4 of 5 testimony of the complainant so as to show or suggest that he was acting with any malafide, rather, the reaction of the complainant in holding the accused with him and to produce him before the police of his native town is the reaction of a normal prudent man in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, complainant was a complete stranger to the accused before the incident thereby ruling out any false implication by him. Also, complainant in his cross-examination had categorically denied the suggestion that he caught the accused on a mere suspicion and had not seen him lifting his suitcase.
As to the non-joining of the independent witnesses including the wife of the complainant, again the said contention is untenable as it is not the quantity but the quality of the evidence which is material and in the given case sole testimony of the complainant is more than sufficient for the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused. As already noted, complainant has been very categorical about the narration of the entire incident in his testimony recorded in the Court and there is nothing in it so as to disbelieve or doubt him. It has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution through the testimony of PW1 Amar Nath Pandey that the accused committed theft of the suit case belonging to the complainant and gave it to his associate who managed to escape from the spot.
6. In view of the foregoing, I hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC. He stands convicted of the offence accordingly. Copy of this judgment be given forthwith to the convict without any cost. Be put up for hearing the convict on the point of sentence on 28.05.12. Announced in the open court on 22.05.2012 (Satish Kumar Arora) MM(Central)-04/THC Delhi FIR No. 219/06, PS NDRS, S/V Rakesh Sinha Page No. 5 of 5