Delhi District Court
State vs . Yad Ram on 14 February, 2013
State Vs. Yad Ram
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CENTRAL-05, DELHI
STATE Vs. YAD RAM
FIR No. : 515/04
P.S. : Nabi Karim
Date of institution of case : 14.02.2005
Date of matter reserved for judgment : 02.02.2013
Date of judgment : 14.02.2013
JUDGMENT
a) Offence complained of : U/s 411 IPC b) Name of complainant : Smt. Kanta Rani c) Name of accused no.1 : Yad Ram @ Kalu his parentage, S/o Sh. Kundan Lal, local & permanent residence R/o: 3244 Budha Basti, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. e) Final order : Acquitted BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 26.12.2004 at Road No. 29, Baba Ram Dev Marg, Pashim Puri, Delhi accused was found in possession of motorcycle no. DL 6S R 6524 which he retained knowingly or having reason to believe FIR No. 515/04 Page No. 1 of 7 State Vs. Yad Ram the same to be stolen property and thereby he committed an offence punishable U/s 411 IPC.
2. Accordingly, on 24.05.2007 Charge U/s 411 IPC was framed against the accused Yad Ram to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. A. Smt. Kanta Rani was examined as PW-1 who is the complainant in the present case. According to her, she has lodged her complaint to the Duty Officer, PS Nabi Karim vide Ex.PW1/A. As per the complaint, on 21.12.2004 at about 04:00 pm she had parked her motorcycle no. DL6 SR 6524 under her house i.e. C-36, Chinnot Basti, Nabi Karim, Delhi and the same was stolen by someone. She has deposed that police had inspected the site and prepared site plan at her instance.
B. HC Prem Chand was examined as PW-2. PW-2 has deposed that on 26.12.2004, he along with HC Laxmi Narayan had reached at House no C-36, Chinnot Basti at where IO inspected the site, at the instance of complainant, and prepared the site plan.
C. Ct. Vinod Kumar was examined as PW-3. PW-3 has deposed that on 26.12.2004, he along with ASI Jai Bhagwan and HC Babu Lal were checking the vehicles at Road no. 29, Baba Ramdev Marg, Pashimpuri, Delhi and at about 7:00 pm, one motorcyclist came who was going towards Raghuvir Nagar. He deposed that on seeing the police party he tried to turn along with his motorcycle but he fell down. Thereafter, they apprehended him along with his motorcycle no. DL6SR 6524 and he FIR No. 515/04 Page No. 2 of 7 State Vs. Yad Ram was asked to produce the proof of ownership of the said motorcycle but he failed to produce the same and to give satisfactory answer. He further deposed that his name was revealed as Yad Ram. He deposed that the said motorcycle was found stolen one and the same was taken in possession and IO ASI Jai Bhagwan prepared a rukka and the same was handed to him and he got the case registered. He further deposed that IO arrested and interrogated the accused and his disclosure statement was recorded.
D. SI Jai Bhagwan was examined as PW-4. He deposed that on 26.12.2004, he along with Ct. Vinod and HC Babu Lal were checking the vehicles at Road No. 29, Baba Ramdev Marg, Pashimpuri Delhi. He deposed that at about 07:00 p.m., one motorcyclist came who was going towards Raghuvir Nagar and on seeing the police party he tried to turn along with his motorcycle but he fell down. He deposed that they apprehended that person along with his motorcycle no. DL6SR 6524 said person was asked to produce the proof of owner ship of the said motorcycle but he failed to produce the same. Thereafter, his name was revealed as Yad Ram. He further deposed that the said motorcycle was found stolen one and the same was taken in to possession and rukka was prepared and the same was handed to Ct. Vinod who got the case registered. He further deposed that he arrested and interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement.
E. HC Laxmi Narayan was examined as PW-5. PW-5 deposed that on 26.12.2004, investigation of the case was handed over to him. He deposed that he along with complainant Kanta Rani and Ct. Prem Chand reached at the spot i.e. C-36, Chinnot Basti, Nabi Karim Delhi. He deposed that he inspected the site at the instance of complainant and prepared site plan vide Ex.PW5/A. He deposed that he searched FIR No. 515/04 Page No. 3 of 7 State Vs. Yad Ram for the stolen motorcycle no. DL6SR 6524 and the accused but the same could not traced. He further deposed that on 27.12.2007, an information regarding the recovery of aforesaid motorcycle and arresting of accused was received at PS Nabi Karim vide DD No. 10 A as the accused along with aforesaid motorcycle was arrested by the police of PS Punjabi Bagh. He deposed that he arrested the accused by obtaining production warrants and with the permission of Court vide memo Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C. He further deposed that he also interrogated the police officials/recovery witness of PS Punjabi Bagh and collected the statement from ASI Jai Bhagwan and the stolen motorcycle from the malkhana of PS Punjabi Bagh and deposited the same in PS Nabi Karim.
F. HC Lalit Tomer was examined as PW-6. He was posted as MHC(R) at Punjabi Bagh. He has produced the original cancellation file in respect of FIR no. 1108/04 U/s 411 IPC PS Punjabi Bagh vide Ex.PW6/A containing original rukka, carbon copy of FIR, arrest memo Ex.PW5/B and personal search memo Ex.PW5/C of accused Yad Ram, seizure memo of motorcycle no. DL 6SR 6524 make Kawasaki Calibur Ex.PW6/B, pointing out memo, disclosure statement of accused Yad Ram Ex.PW6/C and site plan of place of recovery of motorcycle Ex.PW5/A. G. HC Babu Lal was examined as PW-7. He deposed that on 26.12.2004, he alongwith ASI Jai Bhagwan and Ct. Vinod were checking the vehicles at road no. 29, Baba Ramdev marg Paschimpuri Delhi. He deposed that at about 07:00 pm, one motorcyclist came from Paschimpuri side and was going towards Raghuvir Nagar and on seeing the police party he tried to turn along with his motorcycle but he fell down. He deposed that they apprehended him along with his motorcycle no DL 6SR 6524. As FIR No. 515/04 Page No. 4 of 7 State Vs. Yad Ram per PW7, that person was interrogated and was asked to produce the proof of owner ship of the motorcycle but he failed to produce the same, the name of said person was revealed as Yad Ram. He deposed that the said motorcycle was found stolen one and the same was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B. He deposed that IO ASI Jai Bhagwan prepared a rukka and it was handed to Ct. Vinod who got the case registered. He further deposed tha IO arrested and interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW-6/C.
4. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and the incriminating circumstances were explained to accused. In his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. accused Yad Ram has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence. He deposed that he was lifted from his house by the police officials and was present case was planted upon him. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, defence evidence was closed and arguments of both the parties were heard.
DECISION OF THE CASE AND REASON THEREOF
5. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. The reasons for aforesaid conclusion are as follows:
A. The fact of recovery of stolen motorcycle from the possession of the accused is based entirely on the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vinod Kumar, PW4 Jai FIR No. 515/04 Page No. 5 of 7 State Vs. Yad Ram Bhagwan and PW7 HC Babu Lal. As per the said witnesses, they were present at Road No. 29, Baba Ramdev Marg, Pashim Puri, Delhi and were checking the vehicles. As per them, accused was going towards Raghubir Nagar and on seeing the police party, he tried to turn with motorcycle but fell down. He was apprehended and was found with the stolen motorcycle DL 6SR 6524. However, it is to be noted that during their cross examination, contradictions have appeared regarding the circumstances under which the accused was apprehended. PW4 has deposed in his cross examination, that the accused was not wearing helmet, whereas, PW7 has deposed that the accused was wearing helmet. Further, PW3 has deposed that first of all, accused was touched by SI Jai Bhagwan at the time of apprehending. PW4 SI Jai Bhagwan has also corroborated the same. However, PW7 has deposed that accused was touched first of all, at the time of apprehending by Ct. Vinod. Thus, doubt has been created whether the accused was at all arrested with the stolen bike in the manner as alleged by the said witnesses.
B. Further, all the three witnesses have deposed that accused fell down on the earth but he did not sustain injury. It is surprising as to that no injury was received by the accused despite motorcycle was running at the speed of 40-45 km/hr. as stated by PW7. Further, the place of incident is a public place and the time of incident is that of 07.00 p.m. but there is no public witness to corroborate the testimonies of police witnesses. Though police witnesses are competent witnesses, however, in view of aforesaid contradictions inter-se the testimonies of police eye-witnesses the lack of public witnesses becomes important.
In view of aforesaid observations, the recovery of the stolen vehicles has FIR No. 515/04 Page No. 6 of 7 State Vs. Yad Ram not been conclusively proved by the prosecution. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is acquitted for the offence U/s 411 IPC charged against him.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SACHIN SANGWAN)
TODAY ON 14th FEBRUARY, 2013 MM-05(CENTRAL),DELHI
FIR No. 515/04 Page No. 7 of 7