Delhi District Court
State vs . Ishtkar @ Sameer on 3 September, 2015
State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer
FIR No.537/14
PS Palam Village
IN THE COURT OF DR. PANKAJ SHARMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars:
FIR No. 537/14
PS Palam Village
U/S : 457/380/411/34 IPC
State V/s Istkar @ Sameer
C.No. 97/2
U.ID No. 02405R0038372015
Date of Institution: 01.04.2015
Name of the Complainant Danish
S/o Sh. Islam Malik
R/o RZF535/2, Gali No. 46,
Sadh NagarII, Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
Name and address of accused (1)Ishtkar @ Sameer
(Acquitted vide order dated
29.06.2015)
(2) Amarjeet @ Machchi @
Amit
S/o Sh. Singheswar
R/o Village Nasirpur, Satbir Ka
Makan, New Delhi.
Charge framed against accused Amarjeet
@ Machchi @ Amit U/S 380 IPC
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquitted
Date for announcing the orders 03.09.2015
C No.97/2 Page No. 1 of 12
U.ID No. 02405R0038372015
State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer
FIR No.537/14
PS Palam Village
JUDGMENT: The brief facts and pre trial procedure
1. Charge u/s 380 IPC was framed against accused Amarjeet @ Machchi on 15.04.2015 that on 05/06.11.2014 at night he committed theft of four mobile phones, mobile phone Samsung White Colour model No. 7562, mobile Samsung Blue Colour, mobile LG pink colour,one kurta containing Rs. 30,000/ of complainant Danish at his house RZF535/2, Gali No. 46, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi, along with co accused Mohd Adil(being JCL) as disclosed by him within the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village and thereby he was charged for the aforementioned offence, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
2. To prove the charges, prosecution cited 8 witnesses in the list of witnesses and examined six of them. Thereafter PE stood closed.
3. PW1 ASI Pavitra was the duty office on the relevant date and time, who proved on record the FIR Ex.PW1/A and endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the rukka.
4. PW2 Danish deposed that he is a student. The incident took place in the month of 5th 6th November, 2014. He along with his family were sleeping in their house. When they woke up in the morning, four mobile phones of make LG, two of Samsung and one of Nokia were C No.97/2 Page No. 2 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0038372015 State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer FIR No.537/14 PS Palam Village found stolen from our house along with cash of Rs. 30,000/. Cash amount of Rs. 30,000/ was kept by him in his kurta. His purse and ATM card were found on the roof. Thereafter, when they tried to locate their missing articles same were not found and then they made call to the police. Main gate of their house was bolted from inside when they went to asleep. Police took his statement Ex.PW2/A and also inspected their house and roof. Site plan was prepared by the police Ex.PW2/B. Only one phone of Samsung was found later on by the police as he had handed over the bill of the same to the police. He had released his phone on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW2/C. The photographs of his mobile phone were taken at the time of superdari. He correctly identified the photographs of case property Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.
In cross examination, he told to the police in his statement and rukka that his purse and ATM card were found on the roof. He affirmed that there were three persons who owned the four stolen mobile phones. He affirmed that the other persons who owned the two mobile phones are his sisters and they were present there when the police came at their house. He further affirmed that there is no stamp of the vendor on the bill mark A. He denied the suggestion that he is not having any original bill of his mobile phone or that the copy of the bill mark A is fabricated. He denied the suggestion that he cannot produce the original bill of the mobile phone. He affirmed that the mobile phone shown in the photographs Ex.P1 - Ex.P3 is easily available in the market. He further denied the suggestion that neither four mobile phones, nor Rs. 30,000/ were stolen from his house.
C No.97/2 Page No. 3 of 12U.ID No. 02405R0038372015 State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer FIR No.537/14 PS Palam Village
5. PW3 Constable Mahesh deposed that on 31.01.2015, he was posted at PS Palam Village as Ct. On that day, he along with Ct. Kapil and Ct. Rakesh joined the investigation of this case with IO HC Bharat Lal. On that day, they went to Mangol Puri, Y Block, in the investigation of this case and reached at house No. 566, Y Block, Mangol Puri, where the owner of the said house met. IO inquired from him and he told that boy namely Ishtkar was residing in his house on rent and he had vacated his house threefour years back and he can tell his present address. Thereafter, he took them to House No. 668, Y Block, Mangol Puri and called Ishtkar, who was present in the house. IO investigated the matter from him and asked him about the mobile phone. Ishtkar produced one mobile phone of Samsung of white colour from his house and told that he had purchased the said mobile phone from his friend Adil for Rs. 3000/ threefour months back. IO seized the mobile phone through seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. He was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B. His personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW3/C. IO recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/D. Thereafter, he took them to the address of Adil(since JCL), however, he does not not remember the said address. IO investigated the matter from Adil, who disclosed that the said mobile phone which he had sold to Ishtkar was stolen one and he along with one Amarjeet @ Machchi had committed the theft of mobile phones and Rs. 30,000/ in a house in gali No. 46, Sadh Nagar, Palam. He was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded by the IO. Adil had also pointed out the place of theft in Gali No. 46. Amarjeet @ Machchi was not found despite C No.97/2 Page No. 4 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0038372015 State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer FIR No.537/14 PS Palam Village making efforts to search him. Thereafter, both the accused persons were got medically examined and were produced in the Court. Mobile phone was deposited in malkhana. His statement was recorded by the IO. He correctly identified the photographs of case property Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.
In cross examination he affirmed that there is only disclosure statement of Adil regarding the complicity of Amarjeet @ Machchi. He affirmed that Amarjeet @ Machchi was not arrested in his presence.
6. PW4 Constable Rakesh deposed that on 31.01.2015, he was posted at PS Palam Village as Ct. On that day, he along with Ct. Kapil and Ct. Mahesh joined the investigation of this case with IO HC Bharat Lal. On that day, they went to Mangol Puri, Y Block, in the investigation of this case and reached at house No. 566, Y Block, Mangol Puri, where the owner of the said house met. IO inquired from him and he told that boy namely Ishtkar was residing in his house on rent and he had vacated his house threefour years back and he can tell his present address. Thereafter, he took us to House No. 668, Y Block, Mangol Puri and called Ishtkar, who was present in the house. IO investigated the matter from him and asked him about the mobile phone. Ishtkar produced one mobile phone of Samsung of white colour from his house and told that he had purchased the said mobile phone from his friend Adil for Rs. 3000/ threefour months back. IO seized the mobile phone through seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. He was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B. His personal search was carried out vide memo C No.97/2 Page No. 5 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0038372015 State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer FIR No.537/14 PS Palam Village Ex.PW3/C. IO recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/D. Thereafter, he took them to the address of Adil(since JCL), however, he does not remember the said address. IO investigated the matter from Adil, who disclosed that the said mobile phone which he had sold to Ishtkar was stolen one and he along with one Amarjeet @ Machchi had committed the theft of mobile phones and Rs. 30,000/ in a house in gali No. 46, Sadh Nagar, Palam. He was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded by the IO. Adil had also pointed out the place of theft in Gali No. 46. Amarjeet @ Machchi was not found despite making efforts to search him. Thereafter, both the accused persons were got medically examined and were produced in the Court. Mobile phone was deposited in malkhana. His statement was recorded by the IO. He identified the photographs of the case property Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.
In cross examination he stated that they reached at the house of Ishtkar on the basis of call detail of stolen mobile phone. He denied the suggestion that the IEMI Number of mobile phone recovered from the possession of accused Ishtkar is not same as the IEMI number of stolen mobile phone. He affirmed that IEMI number mentioned in the mobile bill is not similar to the IEMI number mentioned in the call record. He stated that he cannot tell that the IEMI number of mobile phone can be easily exchanged with any other IEMI number of mobile phone through software applications. He denied the suggestion that the case property is falsely planted upon the accused and the recovered mobile phone does not belong to complaint and that is why its IEMI number is different from the complainant's IEMI number.
C No.97/2 Page No. 6 of 12U.ID No. 02405R0038372015 State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer FIR No.537/14 PS Palam Village
7. PW5 Constable Kapil deposed that on 06.11.2014, he was posted at PS Palam Village as Ct. On that day, he joined the investigation of this case along with HC Bharat Lal after receiving DD No. 13A. He went to house No. RZF535/2, Gali No.46, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, where complainant Danish met us and told us about the theft of his mobile phone and cash Rs. 30,000/ from his house. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He went to the PS Palam Village and got the FIR registered through DO. After registration of FIR, he along with copy of FIR and original rukka returned back at the spot and handed over the same to the IO. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. On 31.01.2015, he along with Ct. Mahesh joined the investigation of this case with IO HC Bharat Lal. On that day, he went to Mangol Puri, Y Block, in the investigation of this case and reached at house No. 566, Y Block, Mangol Puri, where the owner of the said house met. IO inquired from him and he told that boy namely Ishtkar was residing in his house on rent and he had vacated his house threefour years back and he can tell his present address. Thereafter, he took them to House No. 668, Y Block, Mangol Puri and called Ishtkar, who was present in the house. IO investigated the matter from him and asked him about the mobile phone. Ishtkar produced one mobile phone of Samsung of white colour from his house and told that he had purchased the said mobile phone from his friend Adil for Rs. 3000/ threefour months back. IO seized the mobile phone through seizure C No.97/2 Page No. 7 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0038372015 State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer FIR No.537/14 PS Palam Village memo Ex.PW3/A. He was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B. His personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW3/C. IO recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/D. Thereafter, he took them to the address of Adil(since JCL), however, he does not remember the said address. IO investigated the matter from Adil, who disclosed that the said mobile phone which he had sold to Ishtkar was stolen one and he along with one Amarjeet @ Machchi had committed the theft of mobile phones and Rs. 30,000/ in a house in gali No. 46, Sadh Nagar, Palam. He was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded by the IO. Adil had also pointed out the place of theft in Gali No. 46. Amarjeet @ Machchi was not found despite making efforts to search him. Thereafter, both the accused persons were got medically examined and were produced in the Court. Mobile phone was deposited in malkhana. His statement was recorded by the IO. Thereafter, on 01.02.2015 accused Amarjeet @ Machchi was arrested from his house i.e. Village Nasirpur, Satbir Ka Makan, New Delhi vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter, accused Amarjeet @ Machchi was interrogated and IO recorded his disclosure statement in his presence Ex.PW5/B. On 02.02.2015, accused Amarjeet @ Machchi took them to the place of theft, where he committed theft of the mobile phone and cash i.e. House No. RZF535A, Gali No. 46, Sadh Nagar. IO prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused Amarjeet Ex.PW5/C. He correctly identified the accused Amarjeet @ Machchi. IO recorded his statement.
In cross examination he affirmed that he does not remember the model of the mobile phones. He affirmed that the mobile phone C No.97/2 Page No. 8 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0038372015 State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer FIR No.537/14 PS Palam Village shown in the photograph is easily available in the market. He affirmed that house of the accused Amarjeet @ Machchi is in thickly populated area. He affirmed that no signature of any public witness were obtained on the arrest memo of Amarjeet @ Machchi. One laptop was recovered from the possession of accused but the said laptop was not pertaining to the investigation of present case. Neither any mobile phone, nor any cash of the present case was recovered from accused Amarjeet @ Machchi. He affirmed that there is only disclosure statement and pointing out memo of place of occurrence are against accused Amarjeet @ Machchi. He denied the suggestion that accused Amarjeet is falsely implicated in the present case.
8. PW6 HC Bharat Lal deposed that on 06.11.2014, he was posted at PS Palam Village. On that day, on the receipt of DD No. 13A, Ex.PW6/A regarding the theft, he along with Ct. Kapil reached at spot i.e. RZF535/2, Gali No.46, Sadh Nagar, Palam, where complainant Danish met us. He recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A and he made his endorsement Ex.PW6/B on the statement of complainant and sent Ct. Kapil to the PS with tehrir for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Kapil returned back to the spot and handed over original tehrir and computerised copy of FIR. He prepared site plan Ex.PW2/B at the instance of complainant. He recorded statements of complainant and Ct. Kapil. He made efforts to search the thief and the stolen property but no clue was found about the same. He obtained the copy of the bill of mobile phone from complainant mark A. He returned back to the PS C No.97/2 Page No. 9 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0038372015 State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer FIR No.537/14 PS Palam Village and he sent the request to DCP Office, CDR cell South West, Sector19, Dwarka for tacking all the four mobile numbers given by the complainant. On 31.01.2015, location of one mobile phone of Samsung was traced by CDR to be operated by one Ishtkar son of Irshad, r/o House No. 566, Y Block, Mangolpuri and he along with three constables went to the address House No. 566, Y Block, Mangolpuri, where the mobile phone was found being operated. The owner of the house met them and he inquired from him about Ishtkar who informed that Ishtkar was his tenant and he had left his house about 23 years back. He also informed that he can show the residence of Ishtkar where he was presently residing. He took them to House No. 668, Y Block, Mangolpuri, where Ishtkar was found present. He inquired from Ishtkar, from whom one mobile phone of Samsung white coloured was recovered and on further inquiry, he disclosed that he had purchased the mobile phone from one boy namely Adil son of Akhtar. Ishtkar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B. He was personally searched vide memo ExPW3/C. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/D. The mobile phone was seized along with the SIM, the seizure memo of which is Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, they were led to near Masjid in the Y block, where Adil was found near the Masjid. He was apprehended and he inquired from him and he disclosed that he along with one Amarjeet @ Machchi had committed the theft of this case and two mobile phones and cash of Rs. 10,000/ came into his share and two mobile and cash of Rs. 20,000/ were taken by Amarjeet @ Machchi. One mobile phone of Samsung was sold to Ishtkar for Rs. 3,000/ which was C No.97/2 Page No. 10 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0038372015 State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer FIR No.537/14 PS Palam Village already recovered from Ishtkar. Adil was arrested his disclosure statement was recorded. Later on, on inquiry he was found JCL. On 01.02.2015, at the instance of Adil, who was in police custody at that time, Amajeet @ Machchi was arrested from the house of Satbir at Nasirpur Village vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A. He was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/C. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/C. As Adil was found JCL, he was released. Amarjeet @ Machchi was taken on PC and on 02.02.2015, he pointed out the place of theft vide pointing out memo Ex.PW5/C. On 26.03.2015, he obtained the CDR along with CAF from the nodal officer of Airtel of the phone number used by Ishtkar. He recorded the statements of witnesses during investigation. After the completion of investigation, he prepared challan and filed the same in the Court through SHO. Mobile phone was released on superdari to the complainant. He correctly identified the photographs of the mobile phone Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 as well as the accused Amarjeet @ Machchi.
In cross examination, he affirmed that IEMI number in the bill and in the tracking report is same. He denied the suggestion that mobile phone has been planted on the accused and for this reason IEMI number does not match with the tracking report. He affirmed that only one mobile bill was produced by the complainant. He affirmed that statement of other family members of complainant whose mobile phones were also stolen were not recorded. He denied the suggestion that only one mobile phone was stolen and other things reported to be stolen are false and fabricated and made in connivance C No.97/2 Page No. 11 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0038372015 State Vs. Ishtkar @ Sameer FIR No.537/14 PS Palam Village with police officials. He affirmed that complainant did not tell that his vacant purse was lying on the roof. He denied the suggestion that the accused is previously convicted person and an easy prey for police officials to be falsely implicated in any case. He denied the suggestion that the accused was made to sign on some blank papers and on some blank printed formats.
PE stood closed on 03.09.2015.
9. Record perused carefully.
Conclusion
10. Only evidence which the prosecution adduced that co accused has disclosed the involvement of accused Amarjeet @ Machchi in theft of the mobile phone from Palam Colony, Gali No. 6, Sadh Nagar. No recovery has been effected from the accused. Further no evidence has been brought by the prosecution qua accused that he committed theft from the house of complainant. Neither PW1 saw the accused committing the crime nor any other witness produced by the prosecution for corroboration. Prosecution is only relying on the disclosure statement of co accused Adil(JCL). No evidence is on record against accused to link accused with the crime. Accordingly, accused Amarjeet @ Machchi is acquitted for the offence charged for. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the Open Court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
on this 3rd day of September 2015 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi
C No.97/2 Page No. 12 of 12
U.ID No. 02405R0038372015