Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil Etc. on 20 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: MM03(SOUTH DISTT.)
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Sunil etc.
FIR NO. : 13/2002
U/S : 379/411/468/471/34 IPC
PS : Hauz Khas
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 02403R0455402003
b) Date of institution of the case : 23.03.2002
c) Date of commission of offence : 5.1.2002 between 7AM to 8.30AM
d) Name of the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Nath S/o Sh. Surender
Nath, R/o H. No. C2/27, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
e) Name & address of the : 1. Sunil @ Vinod @ Titu
accused S/o Sh. Balraj
R/o D601, Sector6, Sapka Ghar
Society, Pappan Kalan, New Delhi.
2. Sameer @ Idris @ Dilawar
S/o Sh. Mohd. Saifi,
R/o H. No. 23/484, Trilok Puri,
Delhi.
(Already convicted vide order dt. 24.7.08)
f) Offence charged with : 379/411/468/471/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 20.09.2016
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 20.09.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused Sunil @ Vinod and Sameer @ Idris @ Dilawar were sent to face trial with the allegations that on 5.1.2002 between 7AM to 8.30AM outside House No. C2/27, SDA, Hauz Khas, both accused in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of a santro car bearing registration no. DL3CS 8401 belonging to Sh. Rajesh Nath which was recovered from their possession on 9.1.2002 within the jurisdiction of PS Dilshad Garden. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had committed forgery by making a forged number plate with number UP15L3425 which accused persons were found to be using on the said stolen car. Further, as per prosecution case, the accused persons had committed forgery by making a forged RC and Insurance which they were found using as genuine at the time of their apprehension with the said stolen car. Accused persons were sent to face trial for the offences punishable u/s. 379/411/468/471/34 IPC in the instant case.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused were consequently summoned. A formal charge for commission of offences U/s 379/411/468/471/34 IPC was framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Record transpires that during course of trial, accused Sameer @ Idris @ Dilawar pleaded guilty and he was accordingly convicted vide order dt. 24.7.2008 and the present trial continued qua accused Sunil @ Vinod.
4. In order to proves its case, prosecution examined (10) ten witnesses.
5. PW1 Ct. Jitender Kumar deposed that on 5.1.2002 , he was posted as constable at PS Hauz Khas and on that day on receipt of DD No. 3A, he along with SI Amar Singh reached at spot where one Rajesh Nath met him and gave complaint regarding theft of his car and SI Amar Singh recorded his statement , prepared rukka , he took the same to PS and got the FIR registered. The witness further deposed that he returned back to spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to IO, they searched the stolen car but it could not be traced out and IO recorded his statement.
6. PW2 ASI Joginder deposed that on 9.1.2002, he was posted at PS Dilshad Garden and at about 7AM, he along with ASI Niyaz Mehendi, Ct. Satbir, Ct. Mohd. Kalid and Ct. Devender were on patrolling duty in front of Swami Daya Nand Hospital and ASI Niyaz Mehendi received secret information that two persons would come in stolen santro car of grey colour, that public persons were requested to join the investigation but none agreed. The witness further deposed that they started checking the vehicle and at about 7.35AM, one car of above description came from Shahdara side which was got stopped, two persons were sit inside the car, they were asked to produce the papers of car, documents were shown and car was checked which found with two number plates in the dickey. On further inquiry, they informed that this car was stolen from the area of PS Hauz Khas. The car was seized vide memo Ex PW2/A, documents thereof were also seized vide memo Ex PW2/B and seizure memo of number plates is Ex PW2/C. The witness further deposed that both accused were arrested in case FIR No. 8/2002 at PS Dilshad Garden. The RC and Insurance paper is colly Ex P1.
7. PW3 SI Niyaz Mehandi deposed on the line of PW2 ASI Joginder Singh. Besides this, witness further deposed that he prepared sketch Ex PW3/A, recorded the disclosure statement of both accused which are Ex PW3/B and Ex PW3/C and both the accused pointed out Ex PW3/D, the information was given to PS Hauz Khas and necessary documents were handed over to the concerned IO.
8. PW4 HC Satbir also deposed on the line of PW2 ASI Joginder.
9. PW5 Sh. Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 5.1.2002 he was working with Unique Filling Station which is authorized station for issuing pollution certificate to the vehicles and he being the qualified person was authorized to issue pollution certificate after checking of the vehicle. The witness further deposed that one pollution certificate of vehicle no. UP15L3429 vide certificate no. 57189 dt. 5.1.2002 which is Ex PW5/A was issued by him at 5.25PM.
10. PW6 W/HC Chameli is duty officer who lodged the FIR Ex PW6/A and made her endorsement Ex PW6/B on the rukka.
11. PW7 Prem Kumar Sharma is Sr. Clerk from Meerut RTO office who deposed that as per record vehicle no. UP 15L3429 was registered in the name of Umesh Goyal, the particulars of which is Ex PW7/A. As per witness, the said vehicle is a two wheeler of Hero make.
12. PW8 Retd. SI Amar Singh deposed that on 5.1.2002, he was posted at PS Hauz Khas and on receipt of DD No. 3A, he along with Ct. Jitender reached at spot , met with complainant Rajesh Nath, recorded his statement Ex PW8/A, prepared rukka Ex PW8/A, handed over the same to Ct. Jitender for registration of FIR , he went to PS, got the FIR registered who came back at spot and handed over the rukka and FIR to him. He prepared site plan Ex PW8/B. The witness further deposed that on 11.1.2002 he received information regarding apprehension of two accused at PS Dilshad Garden, he reached at PS Dilshad Garden, examined all recovery witnesses who recovered the car, complainant was called at PS Dilshad Garden who identified the car bearing no. DL3CS8401, accused changed the number plate and fake number as UP15L3429, he got the car deposited in malkhana with PS Hauz Khas through RC, he seized the fake number plate vide memo Ex PW8/C, he formally arrested both the accused , went to Meerut for verification of regd no. UP15L 3429 and it was found of a mopad and thereafter went to Mayur Vihar PhaseI for verification of pollution certificate and it was found it was pertaining to a mopad and prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the court.
13. PW9 HC Davender Kumar also deposed on the line of PW2 ASI Joginder.
14. PW10 HC Ramjas deposed that DD No. 54B has been destroyed vide order no. 2590/91/HAR/SD vide dt. 4.4.2006 of ACP, Hauz Khas.
15. PE was closed by order of this court on 14.05.2016 and statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he refuted all the incriminating evidence which came on record against him. He chose not to lead evidence in his favour.
16. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
17. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
18. In the present case, the accused Sunil @ Vinod has been charged u/s. 379/411/34 IPC for committing theft of the Santro Car belonging to complainant Rajesh Nath & for being found in possession of said stolen car. However, record transpires that the complainant Rajesh Nath could not be examined as his presence could not be secured despite repeated processes. In the absence of testimony of complainant Sh. Rajesh Nath, there is nothing on record to suggest that any theft took place as alleged by prosecution or the vehicle recovered from possession of accused was stolen vehicle. The nonexamination of complainant is fatal to the prosecution case. Hence the charges against accused u/s. 379/411/34 IPC fails against accused Sunil @ Vinod and he deserves to be acquitted for the said charges.
19. Accused has also been charged u/s. 468/471IPC for forging the number plate and using the same as genuine. However, he deserves to be acquitted for said offence also, as it has been conclusively opined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 1995 II A.D(Delhi) 6 State vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi that: "In any event, number plate of a scooter, like any other thing fixed on its body, is not a 'document', the making of which may be said to be 'forgery' falling within the ambit of Section 463 and Section 464, or the use of which may become punishable under Section 471 IPC."
20. Further, the accused has also been charged for forging RC and Insurance papers & using the same as genuine. The charges for the same were accordingly framed against accused u/s. 468/471/34 IPC. However, no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record for proving that it was accused Sunil @ Vinod who had forged the said papers. No expert evidence was led in this regard by the prosecution. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence regarding the author of alleged forgery, I am of the view that charges u/s. 468/471 / 34 IPC for forging the Insurance and RC also failed against the accused.
21. The only charge which remains against accused is that of using forged RC and Insurance (showing the registration number of vehicle as UP15L3429) as genuine u/s. 471/34 IPC. Prosecution witnesses PW2 , PW3 & PW4 have deposed in no unclear terms about the seizure of said documents from accused vide seizure memo Ex PW2/B. However, no witness has been examined from the concerned Insurance Company who could proved that the Insurance paper which was seized from the accused Sunil @ Vinod is forged. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence in this regard, the charges for using the forged Insurance paper as genuine also fails against accused when very factum of said insurance paper being a forged document has not been proved by prosecution.
22. The witness from RTO Office, Meerut, UP., who was examined as PW7 had deposed that the vehicle no. UP15L3429 is a two wheeler registered in the name of Shri Umesh Goel. Therefore, it is clear that the said RC as seized vide seizure memo Ex PW2/B showing the name of the owner as one Mohd. Sameer of vehicle no. UP15L3429 is a forged one.
23. Further, PW2 , PW3 & PW4 have deposed clearly that accused had shown the said RC (seized vide seizrue memo Ex PW2/B) at the time of their apprehension, the said document being a forged document has also been proved by the testimony of PW7. However, a careful perusal of the seizure memo Ex PW2/B reveals that the same bears the date as 9.2.2002 whereas the case of the prosecution is that the seizure of the stolen vehicle along with forged documents was made on 09.01.2002. Therefore, PW3 i.e. SI Niyaz Mehendi was recalled by this court for clarification regarding the same. However, perusal of his testimony (recorded on 20.09.2016) reveals that the witness failed to clarify the said inconsistency despite specific court questions. Therefore, once the very authenticity of seizure memo Ex PW2/B has come under cloud , the whole prosecution version (qua the alleged recovery of the forged documents from the accused Sunil) crumbles and nothing survives thereafter. Hence accused deserves to be acquitted on this count also.
24. Therefore , in view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence accused Sunil @ Vinod stands acquitted of all the charges leveled against him.
Announced in the open court (Anuj Agarwal)
20.09.2016 MM03/(South Distt) / Saket
New Delhi