Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/419/2000 on 7 November, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH EAST DELHI, SAKET
State v. Manish Kumar
FIR No. 70/2000
PS HNDIN
U/s 379/411 IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 419/10/10
Date of Institution : 03.06.2000
Date of Commission of Offence : 20/21.02.2000
Name of the complainant : Sh. Manzoor Ahmed
S/o Abdul Rahim
r/o Q-1-A, Jangpura, Extension
New Delhi
Name & address of the accused : Manish Kumar
S/o Giriraj Prasad
r/o House No. 86, Jawahar Nagar
Loni Road, New Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 379/411 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 16.10.2012
Date of announcing of judgment : 07.11.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case u/s 379/411 IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of State v. Manish Kumar U/s 379/411 IPC FIR No. 70/2000 , PS HNDIN 2 20/21-02-2000 the accused had stolen one maruti van bearing no. DL1Y-3268 from the possession of Manzoor Ahmad, the complainant dishonestly and without his consent which was found in his possession. Thus, accused Manish Kumar is alleged to have committed offence punishable under section 379/411 IPC.
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant Manzoor Ahmed, an FIR bearing number 70/2000 under section 379/411 IPC was lodged at Police Station HNDIN.
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 03.06.2000. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a charge for the offence punishable under section 379/411 IPC was framed against accused Manish Kumar, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 29.01.2002.
6. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 12 witnesses, of which Manzoor Ahmed is the complainant. All the other remaining witnesses are formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the incident, sufficient only to prove that the vehicle was stolen and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS-
State v. Manish Kumar U/s 379/411 IPC
FIR No. 70/2000 , PS HNDIN
3
HNDIN vide FIR bearing No.70/2000.
7. The complainant Manzoor Ahmed was summoned through IO/ SHO as well as through DCP concerned. However, the summons were received back unserved with the report that the said witness had left the place. Thus, vide order dated 20.07.2012, the said witness was dropped from the list of witnesses.
8. PW-1 is ASI Saroj Sharma who has exhibited the F.I.R. As Ex PW1/A.
9. PW 2 Ct. Maan Singh has deposed that on 21.02.2000, he had received the rukka from SI Sushil /kumar for registration of FIR. He came to PS HNDIN and after registration of the FIR, went back to PP Jangpura along with copy of FIR and rukka and gave it to the IO.
10.PW 3 HC Vir Dass has deposed that on 21.02.2000, he received a DD no. 8 regarding the recovery of stolen car DL1Y 3268. he went to the Patiala House court with HC Munim Dutt and formally arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/A.
11.Thereafter, since the complainant is unserved even through the DCP concerned carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. As such, the PE was State v. Manish Kumar U/s 379/411 IPC FIR No. 70/2000 , PS HNDIN 4 closed and statement of accused was recorded wherein the accused pleaded innocence. The accused did not lead evidence in his defence.
12.I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld APP for state and carefully perused the documents on record.
13.Section 411 IPC says that "Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".
14.Section 379 IPC says that "whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".
15.In absence of the testimony of complainant the prosecution can never prove the factum of theft of the maruti van beyond reasonable doubt. Only that the FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
16.Accordingly, the guilt of the accused has not been proved and thus he is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Manish Kumar is acquitted under Section 379/411 IPC.
State v. Manish Kumar U/s 379/411 IPC FIR No. 70/2000 , PS HNDIN 5
17.As per section 437-A of the Cr.P.C, as amended vide the Amendment Act, which came into force on 31.12.2009, the accused as well as the surety shall remain bound by the personal and the surety bond respectively for a period of six months from today.
18.File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
on 05.11.2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
State v. Manish Kumar U/s 379/411 IPC
FIR No. 70/2000 , PS HNDIN