Delhi District Court
State vs . Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur on 16 January, 2020
1/21
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUMARI
MM02: WEST: TIS HAZARI COURTS:NEW DELHI
FIR No.465/09
PS: Rajouri Garden
U/s. 380/457/411/34 IPC
State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur
Date of Institution of case :08.03.2010
Date of Judgment reserved : 09.01.2020
Date on which judgment pronounced : 16.01.2020
JUDGMENT
1) Unique ID no. of the case : 60364/16
2) Date of commission of offence : 2526.12.2009
3) Name of complainant : Sh. Sanjay Bhutani
S/o Sh. Jugal Kishore Bhutani
R/o Q57, Near Janta Market,
Rajouri Garden, Delhi
4) Name and address of accused :1. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur S/o Harish Kumar R/o H. No. C182, JJ Colony, Madipur, Delhi 2 Tek Singh @ Ravi Singh @ Thaggu Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh, R/o H.No. C277, JJ Colony, Madipur, Delhi (Already discharged vide order dated 09.04.2010)
3. Tek Bahadur Thapa @ Vinod S/o Sh. Prem Bahadur R/o H.No. C277, JJ Colony, Madipur, Delhi (Already Discharged FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 2/21 vide order dated 09.04.2010)
4. Tilak Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, H. No. C155, J.J. Colony, Madipur, Delhi (already declared PO vide order dated 27.04.2010).
5) Offence complained of : U/s 380/457/411/34 IPC 6) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 7) Final Order : Acquitted 8) Date of order : 16.01.2020. BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION Brief facts
1. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on intervening night of 2526.12.2009 at unknown time at H.No. Q57, 1st Floor, Rajouri Garden accused alongwith coaccused Tilak Singh (declared P.O.) in furtherance of their common intention committed the lurking house trespass by night by entering into the house of the complainant Sh. Sanjay in order to commit the offence of theft and committed theft of several articles including jewellery and a car bearing registration no. DL4CR8511 and thereby committed offence u/s 380/457/34 IPC.
Alternatively, on 08.01.2010, at H.No. C182, JJ Colony, Madhi Pur, Delhi the above mentioned articles as per seizure memo mark A ( running into 4 pages) were recovered from his house upon his instance which accused had dishonestly received or retained knowing or having the reasons to believe the same to be stolen property, thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 3/21 Trial
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against the accused for offences u/s. 380/457/411/34 IPC was filed in the court and after complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C., arguments on charge was heard. Vide order dated 22.07.2010, charge was framed U/s. 380/457/411/34 IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled legal propositions.
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and also perused the record carefully.
5. PW 1 Sanjay Bhutani stated that he was in the business of medical surgical equipments. On 23.12.2009 he alongwith his wife Anubha and his daughter Shreya went to Jammu and Kashmir after leaving house maid namely Amrita at his abovementioned house. On 26.12.2009 at about 6.00 to 6.30 am he received a telephonic call from his FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 4/21 house maid Amrita that his vehicle bearing no. DL4CR8511 which was parked in front of his house was stolen by someone. After sometime, he again received a telephonic call that the main door of his abovementioned house was also found broken. The servant quarter in which Amrita used to reside is on 3rd Floor of his abovementioned house and they used to reside on 1st Floor.
After receiving the calls, he alongwith his wife and daughter rushed to Delhi. They came at Delhi by flight. At about 3.304.00 pm on the same day i.e. 26.12.2009 they reached their house and found that 8 gold set, 10 gold karas, 8 gold ring, 8 gold coins, cash of Rs. 1,60,000/ ( approximately), some silver items, my DL, passport of his daughter and his laptop were missing. His household articles were also scattered. All almirahs were also found in broken condition. He made complaint regarding the same to police, the same is already marked as mark X, the same is now Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. His above mentioned car was found in Khayala area. Only approximately 20 % stolen articles were recovered. After recovery of his jewelery articles, the same were taken on superdari by him and his wife vide superdarinama Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. He had also taken his above mentioned car in question vide superdarinama Ex PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. He had given relevant documents of ornaments to the police ( colly 8 pages). Same were collectively marked as Mark Y. On that day, he had brought recovered case property i.e. vehicle bearing no. DL4CR8511 and recovered ornaments. The vehicle FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 5/21 was parked in the parking of Tis Hazari Courts Complex i.e. P1.
6. PW 2 Anubha Bhutani stated that on 23.12.2009 she alongwith her husband Sanjay and her daughter Shreya went to Jammu and Kashmir after leaving house maid namely Amrita who used to reside in servant quarter which is on 3rd Floor of her abovementioned house and they used to reside on 1st Floor. On 26.12.2009 at about 6.00 am she received a call on her mobile from her tenant who used to reside on 2 nd Floor that the main door of her abovementioned house was found broken and the lights of the house were on and the household articles were scattered. Her husband also received call.
After receiving the calls, she alongwith her husband and her daughter rushed to Delhi at about 3.304.00 pm on the same day i.e. 26.12.2009. They came at Delhi by Flight. They reached at their house and found that 8 gold set, 10 gold karas, 8 gold ring, 8 gold coins, cash of Rs. 1,60,000/ ( approximately), DL of her husband, passport of her daughter, laptop and some silver items were missing. Their car was also stolen. All almirahs were also found in broken condition. Her husband made complaint regarding the same to police.
After recovery of ornaments, she had identified the same during judicial TIP in Tis Hazari Court. After recovery of her jewelery articles, the same were taken on superdari by her vide superdarinama already Ex. PW1/B bearing her signature at point B. On that day, he had brought recovered case property which FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 6/21 was taken by her on superdari.
The case property i.e. brought by witness is 8 necklaces, 6 silver items i.e. (5 payal and one like key ring/ chhala), one big locket, 11 gold ear rings, one ring, four artificial small locket and few broken silver items ( two broken silver karas of small size). Case property is i.e. Ex. P2.
7. PW3 ASI Jai Prakash stated that on 26.12.2009, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as ASI as duty officer. His duty was from 4.00 pm to 12.00 mid night. On that day at about 7.35 pm HC Rajender handed over to him rukka. On the basis of rukka, he registered the present FIR and the copy of the same is. Ex PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. He made endorsement on rukka i.e. Ex. PW3/B bearing his signature at point B. After registration of the FIR, investigation of the case was handed over to SI Ram Kishore as per direction of concerned SHO.
8. PW4 HC Rajender Prasad stated that on 25/26.12.2009, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as HC and his duty hours were from 8.00 Pm to 8.00 AM. On 26.12.2009 in the morning, he received DD No. 9A Ex. PW4/A. After that he reached at the spot i.e. Q57, Janta Market, Rajouri Garden, Delhi where he noticed that the latches of main door of first floor was broken and inside the house, all the almirahs were in open condition and the articles of house were scattered. The crime team of West District was called. They inspected the site and lifted the finger prints. The owner of house was not found there and he came to know that FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 7/21 the owner alongwith family went to Jammu & Kashmir. He contacted them through mobile. The information was conveyed to concerned SHO and the above mentioned DD was kept pending. The information in the PS Rajouri Garden received that the stolen Santro car bearing DL 4CR 8511 was in abandoned condition in Vishnu Garden which was in the jurisdiction of PS Khyala. In the evening, complainant came at the PS and he recorded the statement of complainant Sanjay already Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. He made endorsement on the complaint Ex. PW 4/B bearing his signature at point A and thereafter, the present FIR was registered. After registration of FIR, the investigation of the present case was handed over to SI Ram Niwas. After that he along with IO SI Ram Niwas went at Vishnu Garden where the above said car was found in abandoned condition and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/C bearing his signature at point A. The above mentioned car was deposited in the malkhana. They tried to search the accused persons and remaining case property but in vain. IO recorded his statement. He was relieved from the spot.
At this stage, four photographs which were already annexed with the file shown to witness who correctly identified the same as the photographs belonging to the above mentioned car. The photographs are collectively Ex. P3.
9. PW5 Ct. Vinod stated that on 08.01.2010 he was posted at P. S. Rajouri Garden as Constable. On that day he along with HC Mange FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 8/21 Ram and Ct. Chander Prakash joined the investigation in FIR No. 05/10, P. S. Rajouri Garden. When they reached at Mehta Chowk, one secret informer informed HC Mange Ram that accused involved in the above said case was about to come at Raghubir Nagar Ganda Nala in the stolen Maruti800 car. They along with secret informer reached at Ganda Nala, Raghubir Nagar where at the instance of the secret informer they apprehended accused Inder Khatri ( correctly identified by the witness) present in the court. On interrogation, accused disclosed his involvement in the other case. Accordingly, they reached at the C182, first floor, JJ Colony, Madipur, along with the accused where at the instance of the accused, two bags were recovered. After opening one bag which was made up of Jute, one small bag was found. The same was opened and it was found containing jeweleries. The second bag was having clothes. IO prepared the pullandas of the recovered jewellery and sealed with the seal of MR. IO seized the same vide seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW5/A which bears his signature at point A. IO also seized the clothes vide seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW5/1 which bears his signature at point A. IO HC Mange Ram recorded his statement. IO also prepared the site plan of recovery i.e. Ex. PW5/B which bears his signature at point A.
10. PW6 HC Amit Kumar stated that on 26.12.2009, he was posted at Crime Team, West District as HC Finger Print Proficient. On that day, he along with ASI Jai Singh and photographer HC Devender went to house No. Q57, 1st Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. There he FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 9/21 developed and lifted 9 chance print from the room where occurrence had taken place.
Again they visited Vishnu Garden, Main Chowk infront of B 1/109,Vishnu Garden and there he lifted two chance print from driver side mirror of Centro Car bearing No. DL4CR8511. He prepared the report and gave the same to HC Rajinder. The reports were Ex. PW6/A & Ex. PW6/B both bearing his signatures at point A. Later on, chance print were sent to Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
11. PW7 ASI Mange Ram stated that on 08.01.2010, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as HC. On that day, he along with Ct. Chandra Prakash and HC Vinod were involved in investigation of case FIR No. 05/10, PS Rajouri Garden, Delhi and one secret information informed them that the stolen vehicle i.e car in case FIR No. 05/10 would come at Ganda Nala, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. Upon this, he arrested the accused Inder Kumar Khatri along with stolen vehicle in case FIR No. 05/10 at Ganda Nala Raghubir Nagar at the instance of secret informer. The accused was interrogated and he made disclosure of his involvement in present case with his associates. In pursuance of his disclosure, the accused led them to his house i.e C182, J.J. Colony, Madipur, Delhi and got recovered one jute bag containing large quantity of jewelery from under the bag kept in his room. He prepared details of recovered jewelery and thereafter, put the jewelery in the same bag. He made pullanda of the bag and the same was sealed with the seal of MR and took it into FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 10/21 possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/A bearing his signatures at point B. The accused had also got recovered one car board bag containing some clothes etc. He prepared site plan of recovery i.e. Ex. PW5/B bearing his signatures at point B and pointing out memo of place of recovery i.e. Ex. PW5/C bearing his signatures at point B. He deposited the case property in malkhana and informed the IO of the present case about the recovery. ( The witness correctly identified the accused in the court). He could identify the case property, if shown to him.
The case property is already Ex. P2 (colly).
12. PW7 (sic) Ct. Chand Parkash stated that on 08.01.2010, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as Constable. On that day, he along with HC Mange Ram and Ct. Manohar were busy in investigation of case FIR no.5/2010, PS Rajouri Garden and one secret informer met HC Mange Ram at Mehta Chowk and informed that one thief would come near ganda nala Raghbir Nagar in stolen vehicle in case FIR no.5/2010. HC Mange Ram along with them reached there and arrested the accused Inder Kumar in a stolen Maruti 800 car. During interrogation, the accused Inder Kumar made disclosure of his involvement in the present case and in pursuance of his disclosure, accused led them to his house no. C182, J J Colony, Madi Pur and got recovered jewellery from his house. Recovered jewellery was kept in a jute bag and bag was kept in a cloth and pullanda was made of the same which was sealed with the seal of MR. Same was taken into FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 11/21 possession vide seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point C. Accused also got recovered one cardboard bag containing some clothes etc. IO prepared site plan of recovery already Ex.PW5/B, pointing out memo of recovery already Ex.PW5/C, both bearing his signature at point X. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court.
13. PW8 Retired SI Jai Singh stated that on 26.12.2009, he was posted as ASI in Crime Team, West District. On that day, on receiving of information of theft, he along with HC Amit Kumar and photographer HC Devender went to the spot i.e. house no.Q57, First Floor, Rajouri Garden. There HC Amit Kumar lifted nine chance prints and HC Devender took photographs of the chance prints. He prepared his reports at the spot and handed over the same to IO HC Rajender. His reports were already Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B. They sent the chance prints to Malviya Nagar, FSL.
14. PW9 SI Govind Sahay stated that on 27.01.2010, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as SI. On that day, on the instructions of the IO, he had taken case property for TIP and case file of the present case to court no.150, Tis Hazari Courts from PS Rajouri Garden vide RC No.5/21/10 and after TIP proceedings, he took back the copy of TIP proceedings of case property, case property and case file to PS Rajouri Garden and handed over the same to IO.
FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 12/21
15. PW10 SI Raj Pal stated that on 08.01.2010 he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as SI. On that day he was present at PS Rajouri Garden. He alongwith the IO SI Ram Kishore was in the investigation of the present case. HC Mange Ram produced the accused Inder Kumar Khatri before the IO. IO interrogated the accused and after the investigation, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused i.e. Ex.PW10/B bearing his signature at point A. Therefore he alongwith the IO took the accused to B109, Vishnu Garden, Delhi where the accused left the stolen car. IO prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of the accused i.e. Ex.PW10/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they took the accused to the place of incident i.e. Q57, First Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. IO prepared pointing out memo of the same i.e. Ex.PW10/D bearing his signature at point A. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court.
16. PW11 Inspector Ram Kishore, stated that on 26.12.2009, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as SI. After registration of the FIR, the case file was marked to him for further investigation. He visited the spot i.e. Q57, 1st Floor, Rajouri Garden where HC Rajender met him. HC Rajender handed over to him two crime team reports. The complainant Sanjay Bhutania was also present there. Complainant Sanjay Bhutania and HC Rajender joined the investigation. He inspected the site at the instance of complainant and prepared site plan Ex. PW11/A bearing his signature FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 13/21 at point A. He interrogated the complainant and recorded his supplementary statement. He alongwith HC Rajender reached at Vishnu Garden i.e. H. No. B/109. He found the vehicle no. DL4CR8511 make Hyundai parked there as abandoned. The said vehicle was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/C bearing his signature at point B. One iron rod was found in the vehicle. The said iron rod was taken into possession vide separate seizure memo already Ex. PW4/D bearing his signature at point B. He recorded the statement of HC Rajender and crime team staff. He made efforts to arrest the accused person but accused could not be traced out.
On 08.01.2010, he was present in PS. HC Mange Ram came at PS alongwith accused Inder Kumar. Witness correctly identified the accused Inder Kumar in the court.
HC Mange Ram produced the accused Inder Kumar and goods which were the case property of his case and the same was recovered at the instance of accused Inder Kumar, which were seized by HC Mange Ram in case FIR No. 5/10, PS Rajouri Garden, u/s 102 CrPC. The details of said stolen/ recovered goods is mentioned in the seizure memo already Ex. PW5/A. He arrested the accused Inder Kumar in the present case vide arrest memo already Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. He interrogated the accused Inder Kumar who made his disclosure statement already Ex. PW10/B bearing his signature at point B. The accused Inder Kumar pointed out the place of occurrence ie. Premises no. Q57, Rajouri Garden, 1st Floor, Delhi vide pointing out the memo FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 14/21 already Ex.PW10/D bearing his signature at point A. The accused Inder Kumar also pointed out the place i.e. B109, Vishnu Garden, where he had left the stolen vehicle no. 8511 as abandoned. He prepared the pointing out memo in this regard, which were already Ex. PW10/C bearing his signature at point B. The accused was put behind the bar. On the next day, PC remand of accused was taken. Efforts were made to arrest the co accused persons but they could not be traced out. He obtained the NBWs of the accused Tek Singh @ Ravi Singh.
On 10.02.2010, information was received that Special Staff had arrested the accused Tek Singh @ Ravi Singh and Tek Bahadur Thapa in a case No. 33/10, u/s 399/402 IPC, PS Vikaspuri and both the accused persons had made their disclosure statements regarding committing theft of present case.
On 15.02.2010, he obtained production warrant of both the accused persons and thereafter both the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW11/B and Ex. PW11/C bearing his signature at point A respectively. Both the accused persons were interrogated with the permission of concerned court. The accused Tek Singh Thapa made his disclosure statement regarding the commission of the theft in the present case. The disclosure statement is Ex PW11/D bearing his signature at point A. The accused Tek Singh @ Ravi Singh made his disclosure statement regarding the commission of the theft in the present case. The disclosure statement is. Ex PW11/E bearing his signature at point A. During investigation, the finger print of all three arrested FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 15/21 accused persons were obtained and these were sent to finger print bureau. The TIP of the case property was got conducted during investigation through SI Govind Singh as he was on leave at that time. Copy of the TIP proceedings was collected i.e. Ex. PW11/F (running into 2 pages). Statement of witnesses were recorded. The accused persons were in JC and stipulated period u/s 167 was going to expiry so he filed the charge sheet with request to file supplementary chargesheet.
During further investigation, he collected the finger print report from finger print bureau i.e. Ex. PW11/G. The result of finger print bureau was positive to accused Inder Kumar. Thereafter, he filed the supplementary chargesheet.
The accused Tilak Singh was intentionally absconding and avoiding his arrest. The proclamation against the accused Tilak Singh was got published and thereafter, he filed the second supplementary charge sheet against him as showing P.O. He could identify the case property i.e. stolen car bearing no. DL4CR8511, if shown to him. The photographs already Ex. P3 (colly) placed on record were shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the car in photographs.
17. PW12 HC Sunil Kumar stated that on 09.02.2010, he was posted as HC at Special Staff, West District. On that day, one secret informer visited the office of Special Staff and met SI Manoj Kumar and gave information regarding presence of Tek Singh @ Thaggu alongwith FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 16/21 his associates at Vikaspuri Block on a vacant land at about 1010.15 pm. Thereafter, one raiding party was constituted alongwith secret informer, they all left in Government vehicle for the spot and reached at CRPF Camp at around 9.45 pm. IO tried to join public persons in the investigation, but none agreed. Thereafter, five persons namely Tek Singh @ Thaggu, Tek Bahadur Thapa, Kishan, Mohan and Kamal, who were planning for a dacoity, were apprehended with arms. An FIR no. 33/10 u/s 399/402IPC and 25 of Arms Act was registered at PS Vikaspuri. Further investigation of the case was marked to ASI Nirakar, who arrested the abovesaid persons at the spot. Said arrested persons also disclosed about committing offences in the area of Paschim Vihar and Rajouri Garden and their disclosure statements were recorded. Accused Tek Singh @ Thaggu and Tek Bahar also identified H. no. Q57, Janta Market, Rajouri Garden as one of the places where they committed offence. On inquiry, it was found that present FIR was already registered at PS Rajouri Garden regarding the offence disclosed by accused Tek Singh and Tek Bahadur. The information regarding disclosure was shared with concerned official of PS Rajouri Garden.
18. PW13 SI Nirakar Kaushik stated that on 10.02.2010, he was posted as ASI Special Staff West District. On that day, the investigation of case FIR No. 33/10 was marked to him by the Special Staff Inspector. Thereafter, he went to NDMC Flat, Boundary Wall, Vikaspuri. Where he met with SI Manoj Kumar alongwith his staff who FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 17/21 had apprehended five persons namely Tek Bahadur Thapa, Tek Singh Thaggu, Krishan, Mohan and Kamal. SI Manoj Kumar handed over all the five persons and stated to him that these persons were planning for a dacoity. Thereafter, he formally interrogated all the five persons and arrested all the five accused persons. He also recorded their disclosure statement, however, only two disclosure statement (photocopy) of accused Tek Singh Thaggu and Tek Bahadur Thapa are on record. The same were marked as Mark X and Y. Thereafter, he alongwith police staff accompanied the accused Tek Bahadur Thapa and Tek Singh Thaggu who took them to Q57, Janta Market, Rajouri Garden and pointed out towards the said house as the place where they have committed robbery. He has also prepared the pointing out memo of accused Tek Singh Thaggu and Tek Bahadur Thapa which were marked as Mark Y1. Thereafter, the accused also took them to C182, JJ Colony, Madipur where they found out that no case of theft was registered. He informed the PS Rajouri Garden regarding the apprehension of accused persons/ involvement in theft case. Thereafter, the accused persons were produced before the court after their medical examination. On the next day, SI Ram Kishore met with him and he handed over all the documents to him. Thereafter, his statement was recorded.
19. PW14 Inspector Gyanendner Singh, stated that on 02.02.2010, he was posted as SI at Finger Print Bureau, Malvia Nagar, Delhi. On that day, he received copies of scene of crime bearing SL No. FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 18/21 994 A and 994/09 dated 26.12.2009 along with lifts of chance prints mark Q1 and Q2 from Q1 to Q9 respectively.
He also received photographs of the chance prints mark Q1 and Q2 from Q1 to Q9 respectively along with their negatives from police photographer for examination which were developed by West District Crime Investigation Team.
He also received a letter vide FPB diary no. 77 & 128/CW/FPB dated 02.02.2010 and 22.02.2010 respectively from SHO, PS RG in the above mentioned case along with specimen finger prints slips on the following persons:
1. Accused Inder Kumar Khatri.
2. Accused Tek Singh @ Ravi Singh @ Thaggu Singh.
3. Accused Tek Baharu Thappa S/o Prem Bahadur.
Chance prints mark Q8 and Q9 are interse identical means both thumb impressions were of the same person of a same finger and further these are not identical with any of the suspect mentioned in para 1 st (C). Furthermore, chance prints mark Q1 to Q9 were also not identical with the specimen finger impressions of the persons mentioned at para 1 st (C). His detailed report is Ex. PW11/G bearing his signatures at point A.
20. In the present case, the allegations against the accused are that he alongwith his associates committed the lurking house trespass by night by entering into the house of the complainant Sh. Sanjay in order to commit the offence of theft and committed theft of several articles FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 19/21 including jewellery and a car bearing registration no. DL4CR8511. Stolen articles are also alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused from his house.
21. PW4 HC Rajender Prasad deposed that he reached at the spot ie. Q57, Janta Market, Rajouri Garden after having received the DD No. 9A I.e Ex. PW4/A. It has further come in his deposition that crime team of West District was called who inspected the site and lifted the finger prints. As per PW6 HC Amit Kumar, Chance Prints from the recovered stolen car in question were also taken and sent to Finger Print Bureau. Prosecution examined PW14 Inspector Gyanender Singh, Senior Finger Exert who categorically deposed that chance prints lifted from the spot are not identical with any of the accused persons. The Finger Print Report is Ex. PW11/G. There are no eye witness of the incident who can corroborate the case of the prosecution qua the offence of lurking house trespass by night and theft in its material particulars. In such circumstances, accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt so far as allegations of lurking house trespass by night and theft is considered.
22. Accused has been also alternatively charged for the offence u/s 411 IPC on the allegation that stolen articles were recovered at the instance of the accused from his house. Much to the derogation of the case of the prosecution, recovery witnesses have given contradictory versions of the case. For example, during his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 20/21 accused, PW5 Ct. Vinod stated that at the time of recovery, wife of the accused and house owner were present, however, PW7 ASI Mange Ram in his cross examination, contradicted PW5 by asserting that no one was present at the house of the accused when they reached. He went on to depose that PW. Ct. Vinod and Ct. Chand Prakash remained with him during the whole proceedings. Both the versions contradict each other and can not stand together. Further, the accused is stated to be the tenant at the house from where recovery has been alleged to have been effected. PW7 has conceded to have not collected any rent agreement. He also admitted to have not recorded the statement of the landlord. Recovery memory does not bear the signature of the landlord. Thus, there are no evidence to show that the house from which the recovery is alleged to have been effected was in the possession of the accused. There are no independent witness to corroborate the version of the case of the prosecution. In view of the contradictory statements of recovery witnesses bereft of any independent corroboration, the recovery from the accused becomes doubtful and as such he deserves to be given benefit of doubt.
23. It appears also relevant to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that criminal conviction entails enigmatic and stigmatic experiences and exposures for the accused and thus it becomes of paramount importance to demand evidence of unimpeachable character and of unambiguous nature. From the above discussion and findings, in my considered view accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt.
FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur 21/21
24. In view of the forgoing discussions, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused namely Inder Kumar Khatri beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the all the offences charged against him.
25. Bail bond in terms of Section 437 A Cr.P.C has already been obtained from the accused (Since acquitted) in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs. Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I.A.D (Del.) 389. Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2020.01.16 15:22:26 +0530 Announced in open Court on (DEEPAK KUMARI) 16th January, 2020 (total 21 pages) M.M.02(West)/THC, Delhi/16.01.2020 FIR No. 465/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Inder Kumar Khatri @ Veer Bahadur