Delhi District Court
State vs . Satbir Singh & Ors. Fir No. 742/97, U/S : ... on 20 December, 2012
State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. FIR No. 742/97 PS: Model Town U/S 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 343/06
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.10.1999
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 16.05.1998
D. NAME OF THE : Sh. Sachin Gupta
COMPLAINANT S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : (1) Satbir Singh
S/o Sh. Tazi Ram
(2) Rashid Ali @ Rana
S/o Sh. Jamsed Ali
(since deceased)
F. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF: U/s 379/411/34 IPC
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Accused Satbir Singh
acquitted
I DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 20.12.2012
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision:
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution and as unfolded from the chargesheet are that on 04.12.1997, the present FIR u/s 379 IPC was lodged at PS Model Town by the complainant Sh. Sachin Gupta, regarding theft of his white colour Maruti car bearing no. DL 1CB6062, which was stated to be stolen by some unknown person on 03.12.1997 State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town between 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm from the front of Apsra Banquet Hall, GTK Road, Delhi. Subsequently on 15.05.1998 at time unknown, within the area of PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, both the accused persons namely Satbir Singh and Rashid Ali @ Rana were arrested by the police officials of AATS, North District, with a stolen vehicle of another FIR. In that regard an FIR No. 97/98, u/s 411/34 IPC, PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi was registered. Both the accused persons separately disclosed about the commission of the present offence also and accused Rashid Ali @ Rana got recovered the aforesaid stolen maruti car from his house situated in Shastri Nagar, Meerut, U.P. The stolen car was recovered with a false /forged number plate bearing No. AS 25A 0629. After conclusion of the investigation, the present challan u/s 379/411/34 IPC against both the accused persons was filed in the court.
2. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie charge u/s 411 IPC was made out against both the accused persons. Accordingly, on 16.10.2001 charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. During trial of this case, the accused Rashid Ali @ Rana expired and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 12.02.2008. Thereafter, the case proceeded in respect of the trial of accused Satbir Singh only.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined only four witnesses.
5. Sachin Gupta (PW1) is the complainant and he has proved his complaint regarding theft of his maruti car bearing State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town No. DL1CB6062 that was stolen on 03.12.1997, from front of Apsra Banquet Hall, GTK Road, Model Town, Delhi. He has proved his complaint dated 04.12.1997 as Ex. PW1/A. He has further deposed that in May 1998 he was informed by the police officials that his car has been recovered by the police officials of PS Bara Hindu Rao. He has further testified that he got released his above said car on superdari. He brought his car in the court and the same is Ex. P1.
6. HC Ramvir Singh (PW2) is a recovery witness of the stolen vehicle and he has deposed that on 15.05.1998, he was the member of investigating team in case FIR No. 97/98, PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. He has testified that during interrogation in the said FIR, both the accused persons disclosed about the commission of the present offence. He has further deposed that the accused persons got recovered the above said stolen car from the house of the coaccused Rashid Ali Rana situated at 325/11, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, U.P. He has further deposed that at the time of recovery of the said car, it was bearing forged number plate having no. AS25A0629. The copy of the seizure memo of the stolen car Ex. PW2/C. He has correctly identified the accused Satbir Singh.
7. SI Mukesh Kumar (PW3) is the IO of the case and he formally arrested accused Satbir Singh, after AATS, North District, Delhi got recovered the stolen car from Meerut, U.P. at the instance of the accused persons on 16.05.1998. He got transfered the stolen car from Malkhana of PS Bara Hindu Rao to PS Model Town, Delhi.
8. Inspr. Balbir Singh (PW4) is also one of the recovery witness of the stolen vehicle and in respect of the present case, he has materially deposed on similar lines as that of PW2 HC Ramvir Singh. Therefore, his testimony that is in consistence State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town with PW2 HC Ramvir Singh is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. He has testified that the accused Rashid Ali led the police party to his house situated in Shastri Nagar, Meerut and he got recovered the stolen maruti car. Thereafter, PE was closed.
9. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All the incriminating evidence against him, were put to him for seeking his explanation. In the said statement, he has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He preferred not to lead evidence in defence. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
10. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have carefully perused the case file.
11. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
12. In order to bring home guilt of the accused u/s 411 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients of the said section:
(i) that the property in question is stolen property;
(ii) that the said property is identical with the property said to be stolen.
(iii) that the accused received or retained such property;
(iv) that the accused while receiving or retaining such property knew or had reason to believe the same to be stolen property; and
(v) that the accused acted dishonestly.
State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town
13. The complainant Sh. Sachin Gupta (PW1) has duly established that his maruti car was stolen on 03.04.1998 and subsequently, the said stolen maruti car (Ex. P1) was recovered in the month of May, 1998. It is an admitted fact that the accused Satbir Singh did not have any relations with the complainant Sh. Sachin Gupta and therefore, there was no occasion for the accused Satbir Singh to bonafidely retain, receive or possess the maruti car Ex. P1. Hence, if the prosecution succeeds to establish the that the accused Satbir Singh retained or received the stolen car, then in all probabilities it can be conclusively inferred that he was possessing it with a dishonest intention.
14. Now, the only point of contention that survives is whether the stolen car was recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused Satbir Singh or not. The prosecution has alleged that the stolen car Ex. P1 was recovered from Meerut, U.P. at the instance of the accused Rashid Ali @ Rana (since deceased). As per the prosecution, accused Satbir Singh and coaccused Rashid Ali both separately disclosed about receiving of the stolen vehicle. The disclosure statement /confession given by the accused to police, while in their custody, is irrelevant until same is covered u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, only those confessional statements are relevant which leads to discovery of the facts. The provisions of the said Section are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true.
The disclosure statements of both the accused persons were recorded by the same police officials on the same date i.e. 15.05.1998. Further, both the accused persons were also arrested at the same time. However, no evidence has been State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town led to establish as to who gave the disclosure statement prior in time. It is also not clear whether the said disclosure statements were given simultaneously or not. As per the disclosure statement of the accused Satbir Singh Ex. PW2/A, he handed over the stolen vehicle to the accused Rashid Ali @ Rana. The disclosure statement of the accused Rashid Ali @ Rana was also apparently recorded at the same time, wherein he disclosed that he can get the stolen car recovered from his car situated at Meerut, U.P. Since, the prosecution has failed to establish the sequence in which the said disclosure statements were recorded, therefore, it is not convincingly established that the information regarding position of the stolen car was within the knowledge of the IO or not, prior to the disclosure of the accused Satbir Singh. Only the information that is distinctively and exclusively in the knowledge of the accused that results in the discovery of the fact, is relevant and admissible against him. If, the disclosure statement of the accused Rashid Ali @ Rana was recorded prior in time then the said information ceases to be in his exclusive domain and any statement of the coaccused recorded thereafter cannot be used for the purpose of Section 27 Evidence Act, 1872. The Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1956 SC 217, has held that "the statement of the second accused who gain information later is inadmissible".
15. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the recovery of the stolen vehicle was got effected by the accused Rashid Ali @ Rana (since deceased) alone from his house and the accused Satbir Singh did not accompany the recovery witnesses. In the wake of discussion in the preceding para, the disclosure statement of the accused Satbir Singh and consequent recovery of the stolen vehicle at the instance of the accused Rashid Ali @ Rana (since deceased) is of no State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town importance and it is not sufficient to bring the accused within the purview of Section 411 IPC.
16. The alleged recovery of the stolen car is stated to be effected on 16.05.1998 from house No. 325/11, Sector11, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, U.P. at the instance of the accused Rashid Ali @ Rana (since deceased) by the police officials of AATS, North Delhi. The said place of recovery is admittedly a residential area. However, no efforts were made to join any public witness of the neighbouring house of the said locality. Had the recovery witnesses would have made effort they could have easily joined public/independent witness at the time of recovery. However, in their wisdom they preferred not to join any public witness despite of their availability. The recovery witnesses have also failed to advance any justifiable reason for non joining of independent /public witness at the time of alleged recovery of the car from the accused. Hence, story of the prosecution is further shrouded in suspicion.
17. The prosecution has failed to examine any public witness of alleged recovery, therefore the version of the prosecution has remained uncorroborated by an independent material witness. The recovery witness that are examined by the prosecution in the present case are police witnesses, who are interested in the success of the prosecution case and therefore, the probability of him being guided by the extraneous factors, other than truth, cannot be ruled out. The police witnesses cannot be straightaway termed as unreliable witnesses, however, when there is a possibility of joining any public witness in the investigation and still no genuine efforts are made to join the independent person as witness, then the testimony of the police witness does not lend sufficient credence/reliability, unless it is corroborated by independent material witness. In view of State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town above discussion it is duly established that genuine efforts were not made by the IO of the case to join the public witness. The non joining of the public witness at the time of alleged recovery of the car creates doubt in the story of the prosecution as held in Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration 1987 CC 585 Delhi High Court
18. The reliance can also be placed upon the findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Harjit Singh V. State of Punjab [2002]SUPP1SCR581wherein it is held: ".........50 Apart from the versions of eyewitnesses discussed above, the trial court attached importance to the fact that on a disclosure statement of accused Satinderpal Singh, pistol alleged to have been used by Inderjit Singh was recovered under memorandum Ext. P19. We have referred to the statement of Investigating Officer Puran Singh (PW9). He is unable to explain the reason for not procuring the attendance and signature of independent witnesses on the disclosure statement Ex.PV and memorandum of recovery Ext. PU1. We have noted that these memoranda have been signed only by two police officers Faqir Chand and Virsa Singh. It is unbelievable that all the accused persons who have alleged to use their firearms/weapons kept all the arms concealed in an open field in a gunny bag under the heap of straw. In the absence of independent witnesses and the alleged place of concealment being accessible to the public, the evidence of disclosure statement and the consequent recovery of arms and weapons do not at all inspire confidence. In any case, it is not a piece of evidence which could be relied on by the trial court to convict the accused by treating it as eyewitness account."
I also find support from case titled as Aslam Parwez V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2003CriLJ2525 Hon'ble Supreme State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town Court has held:
"10......In view of these features of the case, we are of the opinion that the testimony of three police personnel, namely, PWs 10, 11 and 1 does not inspire confidence and it will be highly unsafe to place reliance upon the same in order to convict the accused specially when the public and independent witnesses did not at all support the prosecution case on any material particular."
19. Keeping in view the fact that the version of the recovery witnesses has remained uncorroborated by any other independent witness regarding the alleged recovery of the stolen car, it will be highly unsafe to rely upon their version to pass the order of conviction against the accused. It has been held in 1975 CAR 309 (SC) that "Prosecution case resting solely on the testimony of head constable and no independent witness examinedprosecution story appearing improbable and unnatural. Held that the prosecution case can not be said to be free from reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted".
20. In the light of above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of the recovery of stolen car from or at the instance of the accused Satbir Singh. Thus, the prosecution case suffers from material and fatal infirmities and therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
21. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to lead convincing and clinching evidence against the accused namely Satbir Singh to bring him within the four corners of the offence U/s 411/34 IPC, accordingly, the aforesaid accused is acquitted for the offence U/s 411/34 IPC. He is directed to furnish fresh personal bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in like amount, in accordance with State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town Section 437A Cr.P.C. He has submitted that his previous bail bonds and surety bonds be extended for next six months. The said request is allowed and they are accepted for next six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Announced in the open court today i.e. on 20.12.2012.
(DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI/DELHI State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town FIR No. 742/97 PS: Model Town U/S 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors.
20/12/12.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Satbir Singh on bail with his Ld. Counsel. Statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. separately recorded. The accused has submitted that he does not want to lead evidence in defence. Accordingly, DE is hereby closed.
Final arguments heards.
Case file perused.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, accused Satbir Singh stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 411/34 IPC. He is directed to furnish fresh personal bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. He has submitted that his previous bail bonds and surety bonds be extended for next six months. The said request is allowed and they are accepted for next six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/20.12.2012 State Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors. FIR No. 742/97, U/s : 379/411/34 IPC, PS: Model Town