Delhi District Court
State vs . Imran on 24 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST): SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Imran
FIR No. 351/2014
U/s 380/454/511 IPC
P.S. Jamia Nagar
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 22/2B/14
Unique Identification No. : 02406R0174642014
Date of Institution : 17.07.2014
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 03.11.2014
Date of judgment : 24.11.2014
Name of the complainant : Zeesan
s/o Shri Mohd. Dilshad
r/o H. No.22A, Meharaj Manzil,
Room No.2, Abul Fazal EnclaveI
FIR No. 351/2014
P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.1 of 13
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
Date of the commission of offence : 18.05.2014
Name of accused : Imran @ Bablu Kashmri
s/o Shri Zareen Khan
th
r/o H. No. M104/A, 4 Floor
Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia
Nagar, New Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 380/454/511 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 380/454/511 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Convicted.
Date of Institution : 17.07.2014
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 03.11.2014
Date of judgment : 24.11.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.2 of 13 registered on a complaint of Zeesan who had stated that on 18.05.2014 at about 02:00PM when he was sleeping in his house and while doing same, he had forgotten to bolt the door from inside but it was shut but he suddenly felt loud voice of falling of some objects and was awaken due to the same where he found that one person had entered his house and was trying to search something in his almirah, he raised voice, due to which the said person started running outside the house and tried to escape from the terrace of his house to another house but due to alarm was caught hold by public. Thereafter, public persons started giving that person beatings and he made a call at 100 number who was later found to be the accused and upon searching nothing was recovered from his possession and the accused tried to commit theft in the house of the complainant.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against the accused under Section 380/454/511 IPC to which he pleaded not FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.3 of 13 guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses in order to prove its case.
PW1 Shri Zeesan deposed that on 18.05.2014 at about 02:00PM he was sleeping in his room at his residence and door of his room was closed but not bolted that is when he sensed some commotion and heard the sound of something fallen because of which he was awaken and saw the accused present in his room and was searching his almirah and thereafter upon seeing the complaint, accused started running away towards the terrace through the stairs upon which the complainant started chasing the accused and apprehended him on the terrace and public persons gathered who even started giving beatings to the accused. Meanwhile, brother of the complainant Furkan called the police. Police reached the spot and accused was handed over to the police and police interrogated the accused. Statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/A was recorded and police prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant and accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW1/B & Ex.PW1/C. Further accused was apprehended before he could commit theft. Therefore, FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.4 of 13 nothing was recovered from his possession.
During the crossexamination, PW1 stated, he was residing at the address given on record for three years and that there were eight room situated on the ground floor which all were on rent and even the rooms of the other building was also on rent and that he was not knowing the persons residing in adjacent room. Further at the time of incident no person was present on the ground floor and that his brother gone out 15 minutes before the incident and other friends of his brother were present in the street but they did not enter the building when he raised the alarm, and he did not know the names of his friends. Further police reached the spot after 20 minutes of the accused being apprehended and at that time public person gathered at the spot but police did not record the statement of any other person apart from complainant and his brother. Further the statement of the complainant was recorded at 03:00PM in the police station. He also deposed that he does not remember as to how many papers were signed by him and he had read statement recorded by police and that other papers signed by him were not read by him.
PW2 Shri Furkan deposed that on 18.05.2014 at about 02:00PM while he was standing in street outside of his house, he heard noise of his brother Zeesan (complainant) who was shouting "chor chor pakro FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.5 of 13 pakro" and upon hearing the same, he rushed towards his house and saw his brother Zeesan running behind the accused who had come from the other side of terrace. Thereafter accused was apprehended, further that public persons had gathered at the spot and had given beatings to the accused. Thereafter, he called the police on 100 number and accused was handed over to the police. Police recorded his statement.
During the crossexamination, PW2 stated, there are about 2025 rooms in the house where he was residing and all rooms are on rent and he was not aware as to who was residing in other rooms. Further there are 8 rooms on the ground floor and no other person was present in other rooms of the ground floor. Also he was standing at the distance of around 20 steps from his room from where stairs were not visible and he had not seen the person entering the building from the place where he was standing for about 1015 minutes. No one else had chased the accused apart from his brother. Public persons gathered at the spot and IO had not recorded statement of another person. He further stated that police reached the spot at about 02:45PM and at that time many public persons were present and police did not record the statement of his friends. Statement of complainant PW1 was not recorded in his presence. Police did not obtain signature of the complainant on any paper in his presence. He stated, his statement was FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.6 of 13 recorded at the police station at about 03:30PM and police did not obtain his signature on any document.
PW3 Ct. AnishurRehman deposed that on 18.05.2014 while he was posted at P.S. Jamia Nagar and was on emergency duty, a call was received by SI Amit Bhati that a thief has been apprehended by crowd who had committed theft in the house of the complainant. Thereafter he along with IO went to the spot where he found the accused was apprehended by the crowd. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of the complainant and got the case registered through Ct. AnishurRehman. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded in his presence which is Ex.PW3/C. During the crossexamination, PW3 stated, his duty hours were from 08:00AM to 08:00PM and information of DD No.31A was received at about 03:00PM and he did not remember the exact time when they left for spot. Further they reached the spot within 10 minutes where crowd was already present. He did not remember if IO recorded the statement of the complainant and his brother but IO had recorded the statement of complainant on road. Rukka was prepared but he could not say, if any other document was prepared before rukka by the IO and he could not say the FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.7 of 13 exact time when they returned to the spot. Further IO prepared many documents which he was unaware and he had signed all the documents prepared by the IO. He left the spot after one and half an hour but was unaware about exact time of reaching police station. He further stated that no injury was sustained by the accused. He did not remember the exact time when his statement was recorded by the IO.
PW4 HC Roshan Lal deposed that he was posted as duty officer and recorded the present FIR Ex.PW4/A. Opportunity to crossexamine PW4 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to PW4.
PW5 SI Amit Bhati (IO of this case) deposed that on 18.05.2014 while he was posted at P.S. Jamia Nagar on emergency duty from 08:00AM to 08:00PM, upon receipt of DD no.31A regarding apprehension of accused, he along with Ct. Rehman reached the house of the complainant and met the complainant who handed over the accused to him. He recorded statement of complainant Ex.PW1/A and interrogated the accused, prepared the rukka Ex.PW5/A and got the present case registered FIR Ex.PW5/A. Site plan Ex.PW5/B was prepared and accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. Thereafter disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW3/C was recorded and returned to the police station and got FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.8 of 13 the accused medically examined. Thereafter accused was sent to lockup. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed.
During the crossexamination, PW5 stated, he received the call from police station and reached the spot at 03:35PM and upon reaching he met the complainant, his brother and some public persons. He had asked few public person to give statement who did not agree for the same. Further there were eight rooms in the premises and all were locked when he reached there. He recorded the statement of complainant at about 03:40PM. Statement of the brother of the complainant was recorded after registration of FIR and he remained at the spot till 05:30PM. Information of arrest of accused was given to his relative and that statement of Ct. Rehman was recorded on the date of incident and his supplementary statement was recorded on the next day.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused for explanation.
6. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused. FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.9 of 13
7. Before appreciating the evidence, it is pertinent to mention that, to bring home the guilt of the accused and to prove the offence U/s 380 IPC, prosecution had to prove that the accused had removed the movable property out of the possession of the complainant without his consent with dishonest intention and the same was removed from a building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or for the custody of the property Further to constitute the offence U/s 454 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused had committed house trespass by entering and remaining unlawfully in the house of the complainant and such entry was surreptitious. Further, in this case since the accused was apprehended while committing the offence the prosecution was required to prove that the accused had attempted to commit the aforesaid offence and in such attempt he did an act towards the commission of the offence.
8. Learned APP for the State had argued that all the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and all the witnesses in their testimonies have corroborated the story of prosecution and the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused is liable to be convicted.
FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.10 of 13
9. On the other hand, the Ld. LAC for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case since the prosecution witnesses have given contradictory statement and the complainant in his statement before the Court has stated that his statement was recorded at the police station that is when the IO stated that the statement of the complainant was recorded at the spot and further PW2 has stated that the statement of complainant was not recorded in his presence and none of the documents were prepared in his presence or signed by the complainant. Ld. LAC has further argued that despite of the fact that the place of occurrence was a public place, the IO has not recorded the statement of any public witness.
10. I have heard Learned LAC for accused and Learned APP for the State and gone through the material available on record and has considered the testimony of various witnesses and gone through the evidence on record. I am of the considered view that in this case prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt as the witnesses have corroborated the story of prosecution in substance. Further in the present matter, the accused has entered the dwelling houses with the intention to commit theft, which is substantially proved if we perused the statement of PW1 who had caught the FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.11 of 13 accused red handed and apprehended him after chasing him. During the statement of accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. he has accepted the fact of entering the house of the complainant. PW2 has also corroborated the statement of PW1 by saying that accused was apprehended by the complainant while chasing. The minor contradictions pointed out by the Ld. LAC for accused does not shatter the story of the prosecution anywhere and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable U/s 380/454/511 IPC.
11. The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
"The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal, cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
No material contradiction has been brought about in their FIR No. 351/2014 P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.12 of 13 testimonies despite extensive cross examination by ld. LAC for accused.
12. On the basis of facts and circumstances, the charge against the accused stands proved. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/s 380/454/511 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN)
on 24.11.2014 MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:24.11.2014
FIR No. 351/2014
P.S. Jamia Nagar Page No.13 of 13