Delhi District Court
State vs . Kishan Lal on 11 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHIVALI SHARMA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
EAST: KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
FIR No. : 432/13
PS : Pandav Nagar
U/S : 379/34 IPC
STATE Vs. Kishan Lal
JUDGMENT :
A Unique ID No. of the 3284/16 case B Name of the Sh. Praveen Sharma s/o Late Sh. complainant Om Prakash Sharma C Name of the accused persons & their Kishan Lal s/o Sh. Shyam Lal r/o parentage and House no.103, Gali No.5, Jagatpuri, addresses Delhi. D Offence Complained 379/34 IPC of E Date of commission of 09.10.2013 offence. F Date of Institution 22.08.2014 G Offence Charged 379/34 IPC H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty. I Order Reserved on 08.01.2019 Date of 11.01.2019 Pronouncement K Final Order Both the accused convicted for offence u/s 392/34 IPC
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION FIR No.432/13 State vs Kishan Lal Page 1 of 9 PROSECUTION'S CASE 1 The story of the prosecution is that on 09.10.2013 at about 7.15 pm at DDA Park, near Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar Phase I, Delhi , accused Kishan Lal in furtherance of his common intention with his associates (not arrested) had committed theft of a laptop black colour (Wildcraft Coy) belonging to complainant Praveen Sharma. Thereby he is alleged to have committed offences punishable u/s 379/34 IPC. FIR 2 On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint Ex.
PW 1/A present FIR bearing number 432/13 u/s 379/34 IPC was lodged on 09.10.2013.
NOTICE 3 After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr. P.C was filed on 22.08.2014.
4 On the basis of the charge-sheet and after compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C., a charge for the offence punishable under section 379/34 IPC was framed against the accused Kishan Lal and read out to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 30.09.2016.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 5 To bring home the guilt against the accused prosecution has examined 04 witnesses in all:
6 PW1 is complainant Praveen Sharma who deposed that on FIR No.432/13 State vs Kishan Lal Page 2 of 9 09.10.2013 at about 6.30-7 pm he was going to meet his lawyer residing in Delhi Police Apartment Mayur Vihar Phase I in his car bearing no.DL 2C AJ 0392. When he reached at Mayur Vihar Phase I Market area, one person knocked at window glass of his car and informed him that the car was on fire. He was in the mid of heavy traffic and was thus moving very slowly. Slowly he moved his car towards the side of the road and stopped his car at empty space. While moving towards the empty area he saw accused Kishan Lal standing alongwith the person who had knocked his window glass. He saw them talking in a very friendly manner and making gestures with their hands to show that they were friendly and known to each other. The moment he parked his car by the side of the road, accused Kishan Lal rushed towards them and asked him to come out of the car as it was on fire. He came out and saw plenty of oil spilled at the bonnet of his car. Accused asked him to open the bonnet to check what had happened. While he was doing so, he heard a knocking sound from the back of his car and saw that the person who had knocked on the window glass earlier was running with his laptop bag lying on the back seat of his car. The bag contained his HP laptop issued by his employer New Holland Fiat India Pvt. td. Since he had seen that accused Kishan Lal was known to the said thief he caught hold of him and made a call at 100 number. Police arrived at the spot and accused Kishan Lal was handed over to them. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A. Disclosure statement of accused Ex.
FIR No.432/13 State vs Kishan Lal Page 3 of 9PW 1/B was also recorded in his presence and accused was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW 1/C and D. IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW 1/E at his instance. His laptop bag was not recovered.
7 PW 3 Ravinder Negi is a witness from the employer of the complainant New Holland Fiat India Pvt Ltd. Greater Noida. He stated that complainant was an employee of said company with employee ID 63149. The company had provided a Laptop HP Elite Book 6070 for official work to the complainant. The copy of invoice of the said laptop is Mark A, the copy of the document vide which the laptop was issued to complainant Praveen Sharma is Mark B and photo ID Card is Mark C. 8 PW 4 ASI Shokeen Pal is the IO of the case and PW 2 Ct. Ashu is Ct. who had accompanied the IO to the spot on the date of the incident. Their depositions are in consonance with each other.
9 They deposed that on 0910.2013 on receipt of D.D. No. 53B (Ex. PW 4/A) regarding apprehension of a thief who had committed theft of Laptop at Supreme Enclave they went to the spot i.e. DDA Park red light where the complainant Praveen Sharma met them. He told about the incident to them and handed over accused Kishan Lal to the IO. IO recorded statement of complainant Ex. PW 1/A and prepared rukka Ex. PW 4/B and handed over to PW 2 for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, IO prepared site plan Ex. PW 1/E at the instance of complainant. Accused was arrested and personally FIR No.432/13 State vs Kishan Lal Page 4 of 9 searched vide memo Ex. PW 1/C and D and his disclosure statement Ex. PW 1/B was also recorded. IO tried to search the co-accused and the stolen property but they could not be found. After completion of investigation IO filed a charge sheet. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 10 Statement of accused persons was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
on 04.10.2018 wherein the entire incriminating evidence proved on record against them was put to him. He stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the present case DEFENCE EVIDENCE 11 The accused examined one Sanjay as DW 1 in support of his defence.
12 DW 1 deposed that he is a Driver of private school van and used to pick up and drop children of Alcon Public School Mayur Vihar Phase I since last 16 years. He knew accused Kishan Lal who was also working as Driver of private van carrying students of the said school. In the evening they also used to pick and drop children of Study Mate near Alcon Public School. He deposed that on one day at about 7/7.30 pm he, Kishan Lal and other drivers were taking tea. There was crowd in front of Alcon Public School. They also stopped to know reason for gathering and came to know that some articles have been stolen. Kishan Lal was falsely implicated in the said case of theft. 13 Final arguments have been heard and record carefully perused.
FIR No.432/13 State vs Kishan Lal Page 5 of 9JUDICIAL RESOLUTION 14 It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on the judicial file by leading cogent, convincing reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond reasonable doubts. The case of prosecution has to fall or stand on its own legs and it cannot drive any benefit from the weakness if any, in the defence of the accused. It is not for the accused persons to disprove the case of the prosecution and onus to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts never shifts and it always remains on the prosecution. Further, benefit of doubt in the prosecution story always goes to the accused and it entitles the accused to acquittal.
15 It is argued by Ld. APP for State that complainant Praveen Kumar who is examined as PW 1 has categorically deposed about the involvement of the accused in the theft of his laptop from his car on 09.10.13 and has also deposed about the role of accused Kishan Lal in the said theft. He has clearly explained the common intention of accused Kishan Lal with the person who had ran away after stealing the laptop of the accused from his car which was evident from their conduct. Merely because the co accused could not be arrested and the stolen laptop could not be recovered is not sufficient to acquit the present accused. It is also submitted that the fact that the complainant was in possession of the said laptop on the date of the alleged FIR No.432/13 State vs Kishan Lal Page 6 of 9 offence is clearly proved by the deposition of PW 3 which is unrebutted and not subjected to any cross examination. In addition to this, accused has been apprehended on the spot and duly identified by the complainant in his examination in chief. There is lengthy cross examination of the witness but he did not falter in his testimony and there is no reason to doubt the same. Moreover, the defence witness examined by the accused is clearly an interested witness being known to the accused. He has also not supported his testimony by any document and has also admitted that despite false implication of accused in the present case by the complainant in his presence neither he made any complaint nor called police at 100 number. He could not even depose about the date of the incident. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the offence charged against the accused is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused is accordingly liable for conviction.
16 Per contra it is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant could not catch hold of real thief who had ran away with his laptop and under some misunderstanding had falsely apprehended the accused who was merely standing there having tea and had gone to the spot ony to see what had happened and why the crowd was gathered there. He has FIR No.432/13 State vs Kishan Lal Page 7 of 9 supported his defence by examining DW 1 who was present at the spot at the time of apprehension of the accused. Nothing has been recovered from the accused and the testimony of DW 1 clearly creates the doubt on the case of the prosecution. The benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Accordingly acquittal of the accused is sought 17 I have heard the submission made and carefully perused the record. The complainant who was examined as PW 1 has clearly specified the role of accused Kishan Lal in the theft of his laptop. He stated that when the associate of the accused has told him that his car was on fire, accused Kishan Lal was present with him and was talking to him in a friendly manner. He also deposed that when he stopped his car accused Kishan Lal rushed towards him and asked hi m to come out and check the bonnet as his car was on fire. When he came outside to check his car the associate of accused Kishan Lal ran away with the laptop which was kept on the back seat of his car. This deposition of PW 1 which has withstood the test of lengthy cross examination clearly shows the common intention of the accused Kishan Lal with his associate/ thief who had ran away with his laptop. Merely because the co accused has not been arrested and laptop has not been recovered, it is not sufficient to doubt the entire case of prosecution and testimony of PW 1. The accused has not come forward with any reason for his false FIR No.432/13 State vs Kishan Lal Page 8 of 9 implication in this case by the complainant. The testimony of DW 1 supporting the case of the accused does not appear to be trustworthy as clearly he is an interested witness being known to the accused. Moreover, he has not made any complaint regarding the false implication of the accused despite his presence on the spot which clearly creates a doubt on his genuineness.
18 In view of the above reasons and considering the overall evidence on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has duly proved the offence u/s 379/34 IPC as charged against the accused namely Kishan Lal beyond any reasonable doubt.
19 Accused is accordingly convicted for offence u/s 379/34 IPC as charged against him.
20 Be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Digitally signed byANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SHIVALI SHIVALI SHARMA Location: East District ON 11.01.2019 SHARMA Karkardooma Courts Delhi Date: 2019.01.11 16:21:17 +0530 (SHIVALI SHARMA) CMM (EAST)/KKD/11.01.2019
Certified that this judgment contains 9 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SHIVALI SHARMA) CMM (EAST)/KKD/11.01.2019 FIR No.432/13 State vs Kishan Lal Page 9 of 9