Delhi District Court
Cr CASES/89866/2016 on 26 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
MM-01, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. Neeraj etc.
FIR No. 74/2012
Police Station : Lodhi Colony
Under Section: 379/411/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
a) Crl. Case No. : 89866/2016
b) Date of Institution : 14.08.2012
c) Date of commission of : 26.06.2012 and 09.07.2012
offence
d) Name of the complainant : Sh. Mujammil Siddiqui
S/o Nausad Siddiqui
e) Name of the accused and : Manish @ Dinesh his parentage and address S/o Leela Kishan R/o H.No. 30, Dhobi Ghat, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi
f) Offence complained of : Section 411 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Date when reserved for : 26.11.2018 judgment
i) Date of pronouncement of : 26.11.2018 judgment
j) Final judgment : Acquitted State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 1 of 15 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Accused Manish @ Dinesh S/o Leela Kishan stood for the trial for commission of offences punishable u/s 411 IPC. As per case of prosecution, on 09.07.2012 accused was found in possession of original RC of Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CJ-6806 and he retained the same knowing or reason to believe that it was a stolen property (the same was stolen from Mehar Chand Market on 26.06.2012).
2. Vide order dated 30.11.2012, accused Manish @ Dinesh was charged for commission of offences punishable u/s 411 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
3. Other two accused persons Neeraj and Devender @ Deva were acquitted on the basis of compounding between the parties on 01.05.2013.
4. The matter was put to prosecution evidence. State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 2 of 15 Prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case against accused:-
PW1 Sh. Muzammil Siddiqui deposed that on 26.06.2012 at about 11.00 PM, he parked his car bearing No. DL-8CJ-6806 Esteem in front of his shop No. 1B, Mehar Chand Market, New Delhi and when he returned back on the next day morning at about 10:00 AM, he found that his car was missing from that place where he had parked. PW1 deposed that then, he asked the public persons and his friends about the missing of his car but no clue was found. PW1 deposed that then, he made a complaint Ex.PW1/A at PS Lodhi Colony. PW1 deposed that after three days of the incident, Duty Officer Ram Kishan told him that his vehicle was recovered from Fatehpur Beri and all the three accused persons were apprehended by the police. PW1 deposed that after three months, he got released his vehicle on superdari through Court order. PW1 deposed that he saw the two accused namely Neeraj and Dev first time in the PS Lodhi Colony.
State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 3 of 15 PW1 deposed that he brought the stolen vehicle parked outside the Court. The case property is Ex.P1 and RC of the said vehicle is Ex.P2.
During cross-examination by the counsel for defence, he stated that in his complaint Ex.PW1/A he had not mentioned missing documents like RC and pollution certificate as kept in the vehicle prior to date of incident. Witness admitted that he was not registered owner of vehicle. Witness stated that accused Manish @ Dinesh is known to him being resident of same locality. Witness denied the suggestion that he falsely implicated the accused Manish in the present case and RC of the vehicle was planted upon the accused Manish.
PW2 Ct. Ram Charan deposed that on 09.07.2012, HC Ram Kishan and SI Manoj came to the Saket Court where the accused Manish @ Dinesh surrendered before the Court of Sh. Ankit Singhla and the accused was interrogated with the permission of the court. PW2 deposed that SI Manoj recorded the disclosure statement State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 4 of 15 of the accused Ex.PW2/A and the accused was taken into police custody with the permission of the Court and thereafter, accused took them to his house No. 30 Dhobi Ghat Lodhi Colony and the accused produced the RC of vehicle bearing No. 6806. PW2 deposed that IO seized the RC and prepared seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. PW2 deposed that the accused pointed out the place of incident from where the alleged vehicle was stolen and IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW2/C During cross-examination by accused, he stated that he along with HC Ram Kishan and the accused went to the house of accused at about 05:30-06:00 PM. He admitted that house of accused was situated in a residential locality and IO had not asked any public person from the neighbourhood to join the investigation at the time of recovery of the RC. PW2 stated that house of the accused was single storey and built up, area was about 20-25 sq. yd. and he cannot tell whether the main door of the house was of wood or iron. He cannot tell the State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 5 of 15 colour or the paint of the house of the accused. He did not enter into the house of the accused as the IO and accused went inside the house. PW2 stated that 5-7 public persons gathered at the spot, however, he cannot tell whether they were relatives of the accused or not. PW1 admitted that he had not seen the accused handing over the RC to the IO. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation of this case and signed the documents at the instance of the IO or aforesaid RC was planted upon the accused at the instance of the complainant or he deposed falsely.
PW3 ASI Satyaveer Singh deposed that on 28.06.2012, he along with Ct. Anil Kumar, Ct. Manoj Kumar and Ct. Sombir were on picket duty at Gadaipur, Police post from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM and at about 12.50 PM when they were checking the vehicles by putting barricades, one vehicle make Maruti Esteem bearing No. DL-8CJ-6806 came from the side of Mehrauli and was going towards Faridabad. PW3 deposed that they State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 6 of 15 stopped the vehicle and on checking, they found the back number plate was half broken and name of driver was disclosed as Neeraj. PW3 deposed that they asked for the documents from him but he failed to show any documents and he also inquired the other person who was sitting on the adjacent seat to the driver's seat namely Devender @ Deva and he also could not give any satisfactory answer. PW3 deposed that they interrogated the accused persons and came to know that the said vehicle was a stolen vehicle, which was stolen from the area of Lodhi Colony on the intervening night of 26/27.06.2012. PW3 deposed that he seized the recovered Maruti Car and prepared seizure memo Mark-F. PW3 deposed that thereafter, he informed the duty officer of Fatehpur Beri regarding the incident and at about 1:20 PM, HC Ramesh came to the spot and he handed over the custody of accused persons and recovered stolen vehicle. PW3 deposed that IO recorded his statement and prepared the rukka and handed over the copy to Ct. Manoj for getting the State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 7 of 15 registration of FIR. PW3 deposed that thereafter IO prepared the site plan Mark-A at his instance and IO interrogated both the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statement Mark-B and Mark-C. PW3 deposed that IO arrested both the accused persons and prepared arrest memos Mark-D and Mark-E. The testimony of witness remained unrebutted as nothing was asked during cross-examination.
PW4 HC Ram Kishan deposed that on 27.06.2012, he was on beat duty and the investigation of the present case was assigned to him and during the course of investigation, on 29.06.2012, accused Neeraj and Devender were arrested in FIR No.166/2012 PS Fatehpur Beri. PW4 deposed that on receiving the DD No. 8A regarding the arrest of above said accused persons in PS Fatehpur Beri, he along with Ct. Ram Charan went to the PS Fatehpur Beri where HC Ramesh handed over him copies of site plan, disclosure statement of accused Neeraj and Devender, arrest memos of the accused State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 8 of 15 Neeraj and Devender, seizure memo of the Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL-8CJ-6806 Mark-A to Mark-G. PW4 deposed that thereafter, he made the application for production warrant of the accused Devender and Neeraj and he arrested them and got conducted their personal search and prepared arrest memos of the accused Neeraj and Devender are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. PW4 deposed that he obtained the police custody remand of the accused Neeraj and Devender and he interrogated them and recorded their disclosure statement Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. PW4 deposed that on 07.07.2012, accused Manish surrendered before the Court and thereafter, with the permission of the Court, he arrested him and got conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F. PW4 deposed that he also got his custody through police custody remand and thereafter, he seized the registration certificate of the alleged recovered vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and also prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW2/C of the spot at State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 9 of 15 the instance of the accused Manish. PW4 deposed that he also prepared the pointing out memos Ex.PW4/G and Ex.PW4/H of the spot at the instance of the accused Neeraj and Devender and he prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/I at the instance of the complainant. PW4 correctly identified the accused Manish @ Dinesh. The identity of the case property is not disputed by the defence counsel.
During cross-examination by the counsel for defence, he admitted that he did not associate any public persons who were residing in the vicinity of accused Manish. He admitted that the recovered registration certificate was not in the name of complainant namely Muzamil Siddiqui. He denied the suggestion that he had never visited at the residence of accused Manish @ Dinesh i.e. why he did not associate any public witness at the time alleged recovery. He admitted that he did not give any notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. to the any public person to join the investigation at the time alleged recovery. He denied State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 10 of 15 suggestion that registration certificate was planted upon the accused at the instance of the complainant or accused was falsely implicated or he has personal relation with the complainant as the complainant was car mechanic and running his business in Lodhi Colony or he was deposing falsely.
PW5 ASI Jagbir Singh deposed that on 27.06.2012, he was Duty Officer from 4:00 PM to 12:00 AM and at about 7:15 PM, one rukka was sent by SI Prakash Chand and he recorded FIR Ex.PW5/A and made his endorsement on rukka Ex.PW5/B and thereafter copy of FIR and rukka were handed over to HC Ram Kishan.
The testimony of witness remained unrebutted as nothing was asked during cross-examination.
PW6 Ct. Sandeep deposed that on 27.06.2012, he along with HC Ram Kishan went to PS Lodhi Colony for the search of vehicle make Maruti Esteem bearing No. DL6CJ 6806 but they could not succeed and they State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 11 of 15 returned to the PS. PW6 deposed that on 29.06.2012, an information was received in the PS regarding the apprehension of thief at PS Fatehpur Beri and the vehicle was recovered from his possession.
During cross-examination by the counsel for defence, he stated that he along with IO search regarding the said vehicle in Mehar Chand market, Khanna Market, C.G.O. complex and V.K. Dutt Colony. PW6 stated that they did not have any clue regarding the vehicle and they searched the vehicle by their own. He stated that they conducted the search vehicle in day time, however, he did not remember the exact time of search. He denied suggestion that he had not joined the investigation of the present case or that no documents pertaining to this case were prepared in his presence or that he had no personal knowledge of the case.
5. Statement of accused recorded u/s. 294 Cr.PC has been recorded on 02.11.2018 in which he had admitted the Copy of FIR of PS Lodhi Colony., Copy of FIR of PS State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 12 of 15 Fatehpur Beri, DD No. 8A, dated 29.06.2012, PS Lodhi Colony and Superdarinama of Vehicle bearing No. DL8CJ 6806. The said documents were Ex. A1-A4.
6. Vide order dated 02.11.2018, PE was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 r/w section 281 Cr.PC was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence was put and explain to the accused to which accused stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated by the police in this case. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
7. Final argument heard on 26.11.2018.
8. Heard the submission. Perused the record.
9. As per case of prosecution on 09.07.2012, accused was found in possession of original RC of Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CJ-6806 and he retained the same knowing or reason to believe that it was a stolen property (the same was stolen from Mehar Chand Market on 26.06.2012).
10. As per allegation accused Manish @ Dinesh himself State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 13 of 15 moved application before the Court and he was arrested by the IO of case with the permission of Court. During police custody, the registration certificate of vehicle bearing No.DL8CJ-6806 was recovered from possession of accused from the house of accused. Admittedly, no public witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery and search of the house of accused by IO of the case. Further, the complaint Ex.PW1/A does not find mention the fact of missing of document of vehicle with the vehicle. The name of the accused allegedly came into the knowledge of police during interrogation of other two accused. Accused Manish @ Dinesh was known to the complainant being resident of same locality. In view of the fact that no public witness was associated at the time of alleged recovery of the document of vehicle from the possession of accused and in view of the fact that the details of the missing documents were not mentioned in the complaint of complainant creates doubt in the prosecution version of the case qua the allegation of State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 14 of 15 offence against the accused and it is settled law that benefit of doubt is always given to the accused. Hernce, the Court is of the considered view that allegations against the accused Manish @ Dinesh S/o Leela Kishan is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is acquitted from present case and from charge of offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC.
11. Accused has furnished bail bond and surety bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in terms of Sec. 437A Cr.PC, the same is accepted. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court (RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY) th on 26 November 2018 MM-01(South-East):Saket Courts, New Delhi State v. Neeraj etc. FIR No. 74/2012 Police Station : Lodhi Colony Page 15 of 15