Delhi District Court
State vs . Akhilesh Kumar & Ors. on 4 January, 2008
State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.: 190/91
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : ROHINI: DELHI.
State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.: 190/91
PS : Janak Puri
U/s 380/411 IPC
JUDGMENT :-
(a) Sl. No. of the case : 329/02 of 2003
(b) Date of commission of the offence : 1/2.4.91
(c) Name of the complainant if any : State
(d) Name of the accused person,
and his parentage and Address : Akhilesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Satish Giri
R/o E-2/30 Chanakya Place
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
ii).Ashwani Kumar
S/o Sh. Baldev Raj
R/o R2 Q12 Vikas Vihar
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
(Already convicted on 05.03.1992)
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 380/411 IPC
(f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final Order : Convicted.
(h) The date of such order : 04.01.2008
Date on which judgment reserved:- 04.01.2008 Date of judgment:- 04.01.2008 State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.: 190/91 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION:
The prosecution case in brief is, that in the intervening night of 1/2.04.1991 a theft of gas cylinders and other items etc. took place from the house of Gurmukh Singh which was recovered on 10.05.1991 from the house of accused Akhilesh Kumar at the instance of accused Ashwani Kumar (since convicted) and both the said accused dishonestly retained the said items knowingly or having reasons to believe the same to be the stolen property and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 411 IPC.
2. During the course of proceedings accused Ashwani Kumar moved an application for pleading guilty to the offence. Vide order dt. 05.03.1992 accused Ashwani Kumar was convicted and sentenced by the Ld. Predecessor Court.
3. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined five witnesses namely PW-1 Gurmukh Singh, PW-2 SI Sultan Singh, PW-3 SI Biksal Bending, PW-4 Ct. Bal Krishan and PW-5 SI Jaswant Singh.
PW-1 Gurmukh Singh, who is the complainant and proved his complaint made to the police Ex.PW-1/A, consumer subscription voucher Ex.P-1, P-2, P-3, two gas cylinders Ex.P-1/1 to Ex.P-1/4, gas stove Ex.P-5.
State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.: 190/91 PW-2 SI Sultan Singh, who is the IO of the case, who deposed on the investigational aspects and also deposed that accused Ashwani Kumar (since convicted) was apprehended and his disclosure statement was recorded and pursuant to the disclosure statement recovery of gas cylinders and gas stove were made from House No. A-51 Anup Nagar of accused Akhilesh Kumar and proved the pointing out memo Ex.PW-2/A and further deposed that accused Akhilesh Kumar was arrested and also proved the gas stove Ex.P-1 and the gas cylinders Ex.P-1 to P-3.
PW-3 SI Biksal Bending, who is the part IO of the case and deposed regarding the investigational aspects.
PW-4 Ct. Bal Krishan, who deposed that on 02.04.91 he joined investigation with IO SI Jaswant Singh and deposed regarding investigational aspects.
PW-5 SI Jawant Singh, who is the IO of the case, who deposed on the investigational aspects and also proved the rukka Ex.PW-5/A, site plan Ex.PW-5/A besides proving the other memos and the case property.
4. Statement of accused Akhilesh Kumar was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he has denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not prefer to lead State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.: 190/91 any defence evidence.
5. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record and the relevant provisions of the law.
6. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on record I find that corroborative, consistent, reliable and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case has been produced by the prosecution.
7. The testimony of PW-2 SI Sultan Singh clearly goes to show that it was the accused Akhilesh Kumar who was found in possession of the stolen gas cylinders and the recovery of which was made at the instance of co-accused Ashwani (since convicted) pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him.
PW-2 SI Sultan Singh in his examination-in-chief has inter-alia deposed that "On 10.05.91 I was posted as ASI in PS Janakpuri. On that day I alongwith Ct. Vishnu Bai and Ct. Hans Raj were in patrol duty and were present in C- 1 Janakpuri. At about 3.15 pm we reached Pankha Road near C-1 Janakpuri. In the meanwhile one Mantu Kr supplier of gas alongwith Ct. Ravinder Singh handed over to me accused Ashwani Kumar today present in court alongwith gas cylinder and a cycle. Mantu told the police party that he had gone to supply gas cylinder at H.No. D62A Chanakya Place and from there he collected empty cylinder after delivery of filled cylinder. When he had gone to collect money after putting empty gas cylinder in State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.: 190/91 the cycle, accused ran away with his cycle and cylinder and he was apprehended by Mantu with the help of Constable Ravinder. I recorded statement of Mantu Kumar and statement of Ct. Ravinder. I recorded misc. statement of Ashwani Kumar in which he had disclosed regarding other offences. Thereafter accused Ashwani Kumar led the police party to H.No. Ex-2/30 Chanakya place Uttam Nagar and pointed out towards Akhilesh Giri to whom he had sold 2 gas cylinders of Indan Co. and one gas stove which was sold to him. The gas cylinders were having Sl. Nos 510095B and Sl. No. 565031. The gas stove was handed over alongwith one regulator of gas and all the property was taken into possession vide mark-B. Accused led the police party to H.No. A-51 Anup Nagar from where aforesaid gas cylinders and gas stove was stolen. Pointing out memo Ex.PW-2/A was prepared. I also arrested accused Akhilesh today present in court pointed out correctly."
There is nothing in his cross-examination so as to impeach his creditworthiness. Inspite of incisive cross-examination nothing material has been brought out on the record so as to discredit the testimonies of the said witness.
The fact that the case property, the gas cylinders Ex.P-1/1 to 4 and gas stove Ex.P-5 were identified by the complainant PW-1 Gurmukh Singh.
The careful perusal and analysis of the cross-examination of PW-2 SI Sultan Singh clearly indicates that the accused Akhilesh Kumar has no where disputed or denied his presence or the recovery of the stolen gas cylinders, on the date, time and place of arrest.
In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that as far as the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence is concerned the same is sufficiently established by the cogent and reliable evidence and in the ultimate State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.: 190/91 analysis, the prosecution has been able to bring the guilt home to the accused Akhilesh Kumar beyond reasonable doubt and there is no room for hypothesis consistent with that of innocence of the accused. I therefore, hold the accused Akhilesh Kumar guilty for the offence punishable U/s 411 IPC and convict him thereunder.
Announced in the open Court This on the 4th Day of January, 2008 (Two spare copies attached) (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI, DELHI.
State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.: 190/91 IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : ROHINI: DELHI.
State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.: 190/91 PS : Janak Puri U/s 380/411 IPC Order on Sentence:-
I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Ravi Kumar Ld. Counsel for the accused Akhilesh Kumar on the quantum of sentence. Sh. Ravi Kumar Ld. Counsel for the accused Akhilesh Kumar stated that accused is 35 years of age and is a poor person and works as a farmer and is having the aged parents to look after and is having four children and is the sole bread earner in the family and has suffered a protracted trial running for the last seventeen years and is not a previous convict and deserves leniency.
While Ld. APP stated that the accused be dealt with strictly and substantive punishment be given to deter him from committing the same offence in future.
Having regard to all the facts & circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, all the facts & circumstances of the accused's family and accused not being a previous convict, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice can be met by sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment (S.I) for six months u/s 411 IPC.
Announced in the open Court This on the 4th Day of January, 2008 (Two spare copies attached) (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI, DELHI.