Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/153/1997 on 2 June, 2014
FIR No. 153/97 PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411 IPC DOD: 02.06.2014 IN THE COURT OF POORAN CHAND: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No. 153/97 PS: DBG Road U/s 379/411/34 IPC Unique ID No.: 02401R1352562008 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 339/2
(b) Name of complainant : Raju Kalakar, s/o Harish Chand, r/o 30, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence: 08.04.1997
(d) Name of the accused : (1) Umardin s/o Kamruddin r/o 143, Mohalla Purva Fayaz Ali, Delhi Gate, District Meerut, UP.
(2) Shaukat s/o Kalmu r/o 45, Mohalla Purva Fayaz Ali, Delhi Gate, District Meerut, UP.
(3) Islamuddin s/o Nizamuddin r/o 364, Mohalla Purva Fayaz Ali, Delhi Gate, District Meerut, UP.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 379/34 IPC (f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) Final arguments heard on : 07.05.2014. (h) Final Order : Convicted (i) Date of such order : 02.06.2014 BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The accused Islamuddin (Since PO), Shaukat Ali, and Umardin are facing trial for the offence u/s 379 IPC on the allegations that on 08.04.1997 at about 07:15 PM, in front of Master Prithvi Nath Stadium, Near Ajmal Khan Park, within the jurisdiction of PS DBG Road, you all FIR No. 153/97 PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411 IPC DOD: 02.06.2014 committed theft of one Maruti car no. DL8CA-3796.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 379/411/34 was prepared against the accused persons and filed in the Court.
3. After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 16.05.1997, charge was framed U/s 379/34 IPC against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of accused Umardin and Shaukat have been recorded under section 281 Cr.P.C. in which the stand of the accused persons are of general denial. Accused person have stated that they are innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the police officials. However, the accused has chosen not to lead any DE.
5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and of accused persons. I have also perused the record carefully.
Evidence Held:
6. A total of five witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
7 PW1 Ct. Mukesh deposed that on 08.04.1996 he was posted at PS DBG road and on that day, he along with Ct. Sunil Kumar were on patrolling duty near Netaji Subhash Marg, Ajmal Khan Road. He deposed that they entered the part through gate no. 1 and heard the noise of chor chor. A maruti car, white colour was taking turn near Prithvi Nath Stadium, there were three persons in the said card. He deposed that they came towards the car towards the front side and on seeing them one of FIR No. 153/97 PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411 IPC DOD: 02.06.2014 occupants of the car ran away. He deposed that accused Amaruddin correctly identify was driving the said car and the accused Shaukat Ali was sitting on the back side. He deposed that they immediately stopped the car and in the meantime the car owner came and they caught hold of accused persons. The accused Amarddin had used master key and master key consists of seven keys which were in ring, which were taken out from the car. He deposed that SI Raj Kumar also with them and he had joined them when they were at Netaji Subhash Market and the master key was seized and sealed with the seal of RKT. Seizure memo of key of he car and personal search memos Ex. PW1/A and PW1/D bore his signatures. He deposed that accused persons disclosed that third occupants of the car who had ran away was Islamuddin and Islamuddin was arrested from Meerut on 09.04.1997 and he was also with police party which had arrested accused Islamuddin and disclosure statements are Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F. 8 PW2 Dharamvir deposed that on 09.04.1997 he was posted at PS DBG road. SI Raj Kumar arrested accused Islaumddin from Meerut and brought him to PS. He deposed that he was present at the PS and disclosure statement of Islamuddin on Ex. PW2/A was recorded, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW1/C and those documents bore his signatures.
9 PW3 SI Sanjay Singh deposed that on 08.04.1997 he was posted at PS DBG Road and on that day he was working as Duty officer. He deposed that on that day, at 7:15 p.m. Ct. Sunil Kumar came with a ruqqa sent by SI Raj Kumar for registration of FIR and on the basis of ruqqa he registered the FIR Ex. PW3/A and made endorsement on the ruqqa Ex. PW3/B and he handed over the copy of FIR and ruqqa in original to Ct. Sunil Kumar.
10 PW4 Retd SI Raj Kumar deposed that on 08.04.1997 he was posted FIR No. 153/97 PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411 IPC DOD: 02.06.2014 at PS DBG Road and on that day he along with Ct. Mukesh and Sunil Kumar were on patrolling duty at division no. 2 and when they reached at East Park Road, Ajmal Khan Road Gate no. 1 at around 7:15 p.m. they heard noise of Chor Chor Pakro Pakro in the park. He deposed that they reached at the spot where they saw one Maruti car bearing No DL8CA-3796 was driven by accused Umruddin, accused Shaukat was sitting at the back seat and Islamuddin was sitting besides driver. They apprehended accused Umarddin and Shaukat along with aforesaid Maruti Car. He deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant Raju Kalakar regarding the theft of aforementioned Maruti Car by the aforesaid accused person vide Ex. PW4A, bore his signatures at point A. He prepared the ruqqa Ex. PW4/B and the same was handed over to Ct Sunil for registration of case at PS and Ct. Sunit went to PS. He deposed that he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant vide Ex. PW4/C bearing his signatures at point A. In the meanwhile Ct. Sunil returned back to the spot along with copy of FIR and original ruqqa and the same was handed over to him and he seized key of Maruti card by making a pullanda and sealed it with the seal of RKT vide Ex. PW4/D. He deposed that he also seized Maruti car vide Ex. PW1/A and arrested both the accused persons and conducted their personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/B and PW1/D. He also recorded disclosure statements of both the accused persons vide Ex PW1/E and Ex PW1/F. He deposed that during investigation, he also arrested accused Islamuddin and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW1/C and he also recorded disclosure statement of accused Islamuddin vide Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that accused Umruddn and Shaukat present in the court (correctly identified) and during investigation he recorded the statements of witnesses.
11 PW5 Ct. Sunil Kumar deposed that on 08.04.1997 he was posted at PS DBG Road and on that day, he along with SI Raj Kumar and Ct. Mukesh were on patrolling duty at Division no. 2 and reached at East Park Road, Ajmal Khan Road, Gate no. 1 and at around 7:15 p.m. they heard a noise FIR No. 153/97 PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411 IPC DOD: 02.06.2014 chor-chor, pakro-pakro in the park. He deposed that upon which they reached at the spot and saw on Maruti Car no. DL8CA-3796 was driven by accused Umruddin, Shaukat was sitting at back seat and accused Islamuddin was sitting beside Umruddin. They apprehended the car with all the three accused person and IO prepared ruqqa by recording statement of complainant Raju Kalakar and he got the case registered from PS. He further deposed that thereafter he reached at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original ruqqa to IO, IO seized Maruti car and master key vide Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW4/D, IO arrested all the accused and conducted their personal search vide Ex. PW1/B and PW1/D. This witness is correctly identified the case property.
12. This is all as far as prosecution evidence in the matter is concerned.
13. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by learned APP as also by accused and have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
Arguments advanced & Case law cited:
14 It is argued on behalf of State that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also stated that PW1, PW4 and PW5 are the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution and all the three witnesses have supported the prosecution case and even during the cross examination their testimony remained intact. It is also stated that accused persons are not clear on their defence as sometime they have taken the plea that they were permitted to take away vehicle by the complainant Raju Kalakar and sometime they took the plea that they were permitted by the owner of the vehicle. Hence, it is argued that as prosecution has proved its case u/s 379/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accused be convicted and sentenced as per law. FIR No. 153/97 PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411 IPC DOD: 02.06.2014 15 On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of accused by his counsel Sh. Hari Om Gupta that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the owner of the vehicle has not examined in this case. It is also argued that complainant has permitted the accused persons to take away the vehicle. It is also argued that there are various contradictions in the testimony of police witnesses PW1, PW4 and PW5 and further argued that in view of contradictions the testimony of these witnesses are not reliable. Hence, it is prayed that accused persons are entitled to be acquitted for the charge u/s 379/34 IPC.
16 Accused Umardin, Shaukat and Islam were charged for offence u/s 379 r/w section 34 IPC for having committed theft of Maruti car bearing registration no. DL8CA-3796. After permitting the charge accused Islam stopped appearing in the court and coercive method were used to secure present of this accused. Hence, vide order dated 01.02.2006 accused Islam was declared as PO. Presently Umardin and Shaukat are facing trial.
17 The ingredients of the offence of theft are that taking away any movable property dishonestly out of the possession of any person without the consent of that person moves that property is said to commit theft. In the present case accused persons have admitted that they have taken away the vehicle in question with the help of master key. It has also come on record that when they were moving along with stolen vehicle, the complainant was running behind and was crying "Pakro- Pakro". Not only this PW1 Ct. Mukesh, PW4 SI Raj Kumar and PW5 Ct. Sunil Kumar have also followed the accused persons and stopped them and accused Shakut and Umardin were apprehended on the spot and accused Islam succeeded in fleeing away.
18 I have gone through the testimony of PW1 Ct. Mukesh and PW5 Ct. Sunil Kumar, I find no contradictions in the cross examination of FIR No. 153/97 PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411 IPC DOD: 02.06.2014 both these witnesses. These witnesses are eye witnesses as they have apprehended the accused persons on the spot. Sometimes, accused persons have taken the plea that they have been permitted by complainant Raju Kalakar to take away the vehicle and sometimes they has taken the plea that they were permitted by the owner of the vehicle. This defence of the accused persons in other way, admitted the possession of the stolen vehicle by the accused persons. It is also pertinent to mention that no suggestion regarding the master key is given to any of the witnesses. Not only this I am fail to understand why the owner will given the master key to the accused persons to take away his vehicle.
19 Therefore, in view of my above reasons I am of the considered view that both the accused persons with the dishonest intention taken away the vehicle bearing registration no DL8CA-3796 without consent of the complainant who was in possession of vehicle at the relevant time in order to commit theft. Hence accused Umardin and Shaukat are convicted for offence u/s 379/34 IPC. Now they be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Announced in the open court (Pooran Chand)
on 02.06.2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari
Courts:Delhi
FIR No. 153/97 PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411 IPC DOD: 02.06.2014
FIR No. 153/97
PS: DBG Road
U/s 379/411/34 IPC
Unique ID No.: 02401R1352562008
02.06.2014.
Order on Sentence
Present: Ld. APP (Substitute) for State.
Both convicts namely Umardin and Saukat are present along with Ld. Counsel.
It is submitted by both the convicts that they be heard on the point of sentence today itself.
I have arguments on the point of sentence of both the sides. It is submitted by convict Umardin that he is having two minor kids and widowed mother and he is driver by profession and earning his livelihood. Convict is stated to be the only bread earner of his family. On behalf of convict Shaukat it is submitted that he is having seven children, three sons, two daughters and two unmarried sisters, old aged parents and is only bread earner of his family and earning his livelihood by shoe making. It is also argued on behalf of convicts that they are first offender, no previous conviction is on record against both the convicts. They are law abiding citizen and facing trial since last more than 16 years and conduct of the convicts remained up to the mark and they have suffered the agony of trial. Therefore, it is prayed on behalf of both convicts that they be released on probation.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for State has argued that nature of allegation against the convicts are serious in nature and they do not deserve any leniency and maximum prescribed punishment be awarded to both the convicts.
FIR No. 153/97 PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411 IPC DOD: 02.06.2014 /2/ Heard and perused. I have gone through the averments from the record. The conduct of both the convicts remained up to the mark during the trial. No previous conviction is agitating by the State. Both the convicts are first offender.
Keeping in view the family circumstances and financial condition of both the convicts, I am of the considered view that interest of justice will be served if instead of giving substantive punishment to both the convicts, they be released after due admonition. Therefore, while exercising my power u/s 3 of Probation of Offender Act as both the convicts are first offender, they be released after due admonition. Previous bail bonds of both convicts are extended for a period of six months in terms of section 437 A Cr.P.C.
Order accordingly.
(Pooran Chand) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi