Delhi District Court
State vs Yograj Singh on 12 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANAMIKA:
MM-06, NDD, PHC, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Yograj Singh
FIR No.: 222/2016
P.S.: South Campus
U/Sec.: 380/457/511 IPC
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of 57895/2016 dt. 20.07.2016 institution Date of commission of offence 23.05.2016 Name of the complainant HC Ranbir Singh Name of the accused Yograj Singh S/o. Sh. Resham Singh R/o. H.No. 1/7, Moti Bagh, near Nanakpura, Gurudwara, Delhi.
Nature of offence complained of U/s. 457/380/511 IPC Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 02.04.2024 Final Order Convicted Date of order 12.04.2024
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. In the present case, accused is facing trial for offences punishable under Section 380/457/511 IPC on the allegations that on 23.05.2016 at about 4:00 a.m. at Shop No.141, PNB ATM, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS South Campus, accused had committed house breaking into the abovesaid shop/ATM booth/premises at night and attempted to commit theft of money from the said ATM machine.FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 1
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 20.07.2016 and cognizance of the offence under Section 457/380/511 IPC was taken on the same day. Copy of charge-sheet was also supplied to accused on the same day and charge for offences punishable under Section 457/380/511 IPC was framed upon the accused on 17.08.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses till date.
4. PW-1 & PW-2 are formal witnesses. PW-1 has proved the FIR Ex. PW1/A (OSR) and endorsement on rukka Ex.
PW1/B. PW-2 has proved the DD No.6A as Ex. PW-2/A (OSR).
5. PW-1 H.C. Mukesh Kumari and PW-2 H.C. Sharmila were not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
6. PW3 is Shri Prem Vir Singh, Technical Executive of Transaction Solutions International India Pvt.Ltd., located at Plot No. 316, 3rd Floor, DLF Prime Towers, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi was examined asPW-3, who has deposed that on 23.05.2016 he was in E-surveillance Monitoring Team and his shift duty hours were from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. He has further deposed that while he was sitting at his office looking at FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 2 screens, at about 4:00 a.m., he saw one sikh person entered ATM of PNB bank and was trying to cut the lock of the back room via aari/blade and after cutting, the said person entered the said back room where UPS, DVR, battery were installed/kept. He has further deposed that thereafter, the said person comes out from the said room and tried to break open the chest door of the ATM with the help of screw driver. He has further deposed that the said person was successful in opening the outer lock of the ATM. He has further deposed that he immediately called at 100 number. He has further deposed that the police personnel asked him to come to the said ATM but he requested them to visit PS in the morning after finishing his duty. He has further deposed that after finishing his duty, he went to PS and saw the said person who was trying to open the ATM machine and has correctly identified him. He has further deposed that he handed over one CD of the CCTV footage to the I.O. which was prepared from the original DVR and the said CD is the true copy of sid original DVR and the said DVR was working properly at the time of incident and no body had the opportunities to interfere/modify with the same. The said CD is Ex. P-1 and the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-3/A, bearing his signature at point A. PW-3 correctly identified the accused in the Court.
7. Thereafter, PW-3 was cross-examined on 14.09.2017.
8. PW-4 is Constable Praveen Kumar who has FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 3 deposed that on the date of incident he was posted as Constable in PCR Van, Eagle 61 located at Sangam Cinema. The driver of the said PCR Van was Constable Naveen. They had received a call that one person was trying to open the ATM Machine of Punjab National Bank. As they got the number of the caller, they called him and asked to tell them continuously the movements of said accused in the said ATM Shop and not to hung up the phone. Accordingly, the caller told them that accused was continuously moving in the said shop in order to see whether somebody is coming or not. Upon asking whether the accused is carrying any weapon with him, the caller replied that he is carrying a screw driver and a blade (Aari) in his hand. Thereafter, the caller was asked to immediately inform them when accused would go inside after checking outside arrival of anybody. As soon as the caller told them that the said person had gone inside, PW-4 along with Constable Naveen went inside the shop and caught hold of him and after seeing them accused initially tried to hide himself at the corner of the shop and thereafter, tried to escape from there but he was caught successfully by him. They found the ATM Machine to be in open condition and one lock lying near the ATM Machine. The accused was carrying one screw driver and one blade in his hand. The accused also fell down due to the pits on the road while trying to escape and sustained some injuries on his leg. Thereafter, local Police came at the spot and accused along with screw driver, blade and lock was handed over to the I.O. which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/A, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he was called by the I.O.
FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 4where his statement was recorded.
9. With the permission of the Court, Ld. APP asked the witness whether I.O. had sent the accused to Safdarjung Hospital for medical treatment, to which he could not reply satisfactorily. However, he voluntarily deposed that he had heard the I.O. saying that accused will be taken to hospital as he had received injuries. PW-4 also correctly identified the accused in the Court. However, he did not remember the date of incident. PW-4 correctly identified screw driver, Aari and broken door handle as Ex. PW-4/B collectively.
10. Thereafter, PW-4 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel on 25.09.2023.
11. PW-5 is Head Constable Ranbir Singh who deposed that in the intervening night of 22-23.05.2016, while he was posted in P.S. South Campus, during emergency duty, D.D. No. 6A was assigned to him regarding breaking of lock of ATM Machine Room. Thereafter, he along with constable Yash Kumar reached at Shop No. 141, Satya Niketan where PCR Van Eagle- 61 was already stationed and PCR officials Constable Naveen and Constable Praveen had already apprehended one person whose name was later on disclosed as Yog Raj (accused in the present case). PW-5 correctly identified accused Yog Raj in the Court. He further deposed that thereafter they visited the ATM Machine Room where they found one screw driver, one aari and FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 5 one broken lock which were seized vide seizure memo, already Ex. PW-4/A, bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that the accused has suffered injuries in his leg at the time of fleeing away from the spot and he was sent to Safdarjung Hospital. Thereafter, he had made a call to the caller who had informed him that he was on his duty and would give his statement later on. After that he came back at the spot and prepared rukka on the basis of aforesaid D.D. entry. The rukka is Ex. PW-5/A, bearing his signature at point A. PW-5 got registered the present FIR through Constable Yash Kumar, who after registration of case handed over him original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex. PW-5/B, bearing his signature at point A, at the instance of Constable Yash Kumar. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/C and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-5/D, both bearing his signatures at point A respectively. Thereafter, he had recorded disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex. PW-5/E, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, accused was taken to Police Station and case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Subsequently, he had recorded statement of the witnesses. Meanwhile, eye witness/caller came to Police Station and he had recorded his statement and collected CCTV footage of the incident. The still photographs of CCTV footage were marked as Mark-X collectively. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the Court. After completion of investigation, PW-5 had prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the Court. Since, case FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 6 property had already been exhibited as Ex. PW-4/B collectively, hence its production was dispensed with.
12. Thereafter, PW-5 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel on 25.10.2023.
13. PW-6 is Constable Naveen who deposed that on 22.05.2016 he was on duty from 08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m. on PCR Van Eagle-61. On that day, at around 4:25 a.m. he had received a wireless communication that one person at Shop No. 141, Satya Niketan, Punjab National Bank ATM was trying to steal money from the ATM Machine and the said person had already broken one door of the said ATM and was trying to break another one. Upon receiving the communication, he along with In-Charge/Van Constable Praveen Kumar reached at the spot and found that accused was trying to break open the ATM Machine and upon seeing them he panicked and fled away from there. However, while running away, he lost his balance and fell into a ditch (gadda) on the road due to which he suffered an injury. Thereafter, he along with constable Praveen apprehended the accused. Meanwhile, I.O. along with other police officials came at the spot and he handed over the accused to him. After that I.O. inquired about his whereabouts and came to know his name as Yograj Singh, aged about 23 years. Thereafter, I.O. arrested the accused. One screw driver of green colour holder and yellow covering having length of around one foot, one iron saw (aari) sharpened on both edges having length of around 1 foot and one FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 7 broken lock of golden colour were seized from the spot. Thereafter, the accused was sent for medical examination to Safdarjung Hospital along with Constable Yash Kumar. PW-6 further deposed that I.O. tried to search for the eye-witness around the alleged spot, however, the same could not be found. After that he received another wireless communication call and left the spot. He further deposed that when his duty got over, he reached Police Station South Campus and his statement was recorded by the I.O. Identity of accused was not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
14. Thereafter, PW-6 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel on 18.01.2024.
15. PW-7 is Retired ASI Yash Kumar who deposed that in the intervening night of 22-23.05.2016, while he was posted in P.S. South Campus, D.D. No. 6A was assigned to Head Constable Ranbir Singh regarding breaking of lock of ATM Machine Room. Thereafter, he along with I.O./Head Constable Ranbir Singh reached at the spot where PCR Van Eagle-61 was already stationed there and PCR staff Constable Naveen and Constable Praveen had already apprehended one person, who later on disclosed his name as Yog Raj. Identity of the accused was not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel. PW-7 further deposed that thereafter, they visited ATM Machine Room where they found one screw driver, one aari and one broken lock which were seized by the I.O. vide seizure memo, already Ex. PW-4/A, FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 8 bearing his signature at point C. He further deposed that accused had suffered injuries in his leg at the time of fleeing away from the spot and he was sent to Safdarjung Hospital. Subsequently, I.O. had made a call to the caller, who had informed him that he was on his duty and would give his statement later on. Thereafter, I.O. came back at the spot and prepared rukka on the basis of aforesaid D.D. entry and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Meanwhile, he got the present FIR registered and handed over him copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, I.O. prepared site plan Ex. PW-5/B, bearing his signature at point B. I.O. arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-5/D, both bearing his signatures at point B. Subsequently, I.O. recorded disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW-5/E, bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, I.O. took the accused to Police Station and case property was deposited in the Malkhana. After that his statement was recorded by the I.O.
16. Since, the case property had already been exhibited as Ex. PW-4/B collectively, hence its further production was dispensed with.
17. Thereafter, PW-7 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel on 18.01.2024.
18. Since, no witness remained to be examined, prosecution evidence was closed by the Court on 18.01.2024.
FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 919. Despite opportunity, accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
20. Statement of accused was recorded Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.02.2024 wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. However, he declined to lead any evidence in defence.
21. Final arguments were advanced at length by Ld. APP for the State and by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
22. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
23. This being a criminal case, the burden of proving guilt of accused lies upon the prosecution for which the standard required is beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the accused has been charged with offence for attempt to commit theft in a building used for custody of a property i.e. ATM Machine containing cash. A reading of Section 380 IPC shows that in order to establish guilt of the accused, it has to be shown that theft was committed in a dwelling house or a place used for custody of a property. Theft is therefore, essential for offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. The ingredients of the offence of theft are : -
(a) Intention to take the movable property dishonestly;
(b) It should be taken out of possession of a person (in FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 10 the present case, out of a dwelling house);
(c) Without consent of the owner of the movable
property; and
(d) Moves such property for taking.
24. Section 457 IPC defines punishment for lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment. In the present case, the alleged house trespass/house breaking was made in order to commit theft.
25. House trespass is defined under Section 442 of the IPC which requires criminal trespass by entering into a building used as a place for custody of a property.
26. Lurking house trespass is defined under Section 443 IPC which involves precaution being taken by the accused to conceal such house trespass from a person who has right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building/dwelling house.
27. House breaking is defined under Section 445 IPC which involves entrance into the house by any of the ways described in the said provision.
28. Criminal trespass defined under Section 441 IPC is an essential ingredient of house trespass as defined in Section 442 IPC.FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 11
29. Now, it is to be examined if the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for offences punishable under Section 380/511/457 IPC.
30. Eye-witness/PW-3 is the star witnesses of the prosecution. He has deposed that on 23.05.2016, he was on the e- surveillance monitoring team at the relevant time and at 4:00 a.m., he saw the accused cutting the lock of the back room of the ATM of PNB using a blade and after cutting the same, the accused entered into the back room where the UPS, DVR and other instruments were kept. The eye witness has also clearly deposed that the accused was successful in opening the outer lock of the ATM. The said statement/evidence given by the prime eye witness shows that the offence of lurking house trespass/house breaking by night as discussed above, was committed by the accused on the date and time of the alleged incident.
31. It is also pertinent to note that the evidence given by PW-3 has been supported by the police witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW-2 has corroborated the factum of receiving the phone calls by the witness at 4:25 a.m., which is closely around the time of the incident. The document Ex. PW-2/A has also been proved on record qua the D.D. entry pertaining to the information received in this regard. PW-4 has also submitted that PCR call was received regarding the act of the accused and it was informed that the accused was trying to open the ATM Machine.
FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 12At the same time information was also given of the accused carrying a screw driver and a blade (aari), which was used in the commission of the offence. PW-4 has also deposed that when he reached the spot upon the aforesaid information, he was apprehended along with the said screw driver and the blade. The witness also found the ATM Machine in open condition. The aforesaid objects used in the commission of the offence i.e screw driver and the blade along with the lock that was opened by the accused and recovered from the spot was seized by the I.O. vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/A, which has also been proved on record by the witness/PW-4. PW-4 also identified the said articles in Court as Ex. PW-4/B. Hence, the entire chain of events starting from the entering of the accused in the ATM premises by cutting the lock to his apprehension and arrest by the concerned Police Official has been established without any lacuna if the entire evidence on record is read in entirety.
32. As already discussed above, the eye witness/PW-3 has deposed that the accused had tried to break the chest door of the ATM and was successful in opening the outer lock. PW-4, who reached the spot in pursuance of the information received from PW-3 has identified the objects used in the commission of offence and has testified regarding the ATM Machine being in open condition when the accused was apprehended. Hence, it is clear that the accused had made an attempt to take out the cash from the ATM Machine as he was not authorized to open the same. This leads to the inference that the accused had made an FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 13 attempt to commit theft in a premise that was used for the safe custody of the ATM Machine, which was containing cash.
33. Apart from the testimony of the witnesses, who appeared in the Court, the eye witness has also proved on record the CD containing the CCTV footage of the incident Ex. P-1 along with the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex. PW-3/A. Perusal of the said CCTV footage clearly shows that the accused illegally entered into the premises of the ATM by breaking open the lock and also opened the outer lock of the ATM Machine in his attempt to break open the ATM. Hence, all the allegations made by the prosecution and the testimony given by PW-3 are unambiguously corroborated by the CCTV footage filed on record which has further buttressed the case of the prosecution.
34. All the prosecution witnesses have remained unshaken in their testimony. PW-3, who is the prime witness of the present case, has also been consistent in his deposition, even during his cross-examination. He has correctly identified the accused in the Court. Apart from that, the face of the accused can be clearly seen in the CCTV footage filed on record and there is no material to show any tampering with the said footage. It is also worth mentioning that the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC has admitted his presence at the spot although, he has denied the allegations against him. The admission of the accused regarding his presence at the spot, the unshaken FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 14 testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the CCTV footage collected during investigation have established the entire sequence of events right from the breaking of lock of the ATM premises by the accused till his apprehension by the Police. The accused has not brought forth any evidence or witness in his favour.
35. Thus, as a cumulative effect of all the points discussed above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Yog Raj and accordingly, he is convicted for offences punishable under Section 457 IPC and Section 380/511 IPC.
Copy of judgment be supplied to the convict, free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
(Typed upon dictation directly Anamika
on court computer and Anamika Date:
2024.04.12
announced in the open 17:12:23
Court today dated 12.04.2024) +0530
(ANAMIKA)
Metropolitan Magistrate-06 (NDD)
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
FIR No.222/2016 P.S. South Campus State vs. Yograj Singh Page No. 15