Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Parshad on 28 August, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN, MM08
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT
State Vs. Ram Parshad
FIR No.353/07
PS: Kirti Nagar
U/S: 457/380/411/34 IPC
Sr. no. of the case : 374/10
Date of commission of offence : 24/25.08.97
Date of institution of the case : 27.10.97
Name of the complainant : Swatantra Gupta
Name of accused and address : Ram Prasad S/o
Devinder Dass R/o
Village Jagdishpur,
Adhapur PS M.
Samastipur (Bihar)
Offence complained of or proved : U/S 457/380/411/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 28.08.2010
J U D G M E N T:
1. Brief facts of the prosecution story is that on 24/25.08.1997, the accused have committed lurking house trespass FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 1/14 2 by night by entering the house no.D39 M.S. Garden, Delhi belonging to Swatantra Gupta after sunset and before sunrise in order to commit the offence of theft and committed theft of Rs.4 1/2 lacs and some coins. The accused was found in possession of Rs.4,31,950/ with the denomination of notes of Rs.100/ & Rs.50/ and one big & small coin of golden colour and two big coins of silver colour and six small coins of silver colour belonging to complainant.
2. Charge was framed against the accused U/S 457/380/411/34 IPC on 11.11.1997 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Two other coaccused persons were sent to Juvenile Court for trial.
3. Prosecution has cited 10 witnesses in support of its case and all of them have been examined.
4. PW1 ASI Sudhir Bhalla deposed that on 25.08.97 as per telephonic information made by SHO, he went to the house no.D 39 Mansarover Garden. He deposed that he along with policephotographer and CTDS Expert SI Mohar Singh reached the above mentioned premises and took five chance prints Q1 to Q5. He deposed that Q1 was developed with the help of grey powder on a plastic bag, Q2 from iron box, Q3 from Steel almirah and Q4 FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 2/14 3 & Q5 from steel almirah. He deposed that Q2 to Q5 were developed with the help of grey powder and thereafter sent to Finger Print Bureau for comparison and the report is Ex.PW1/A
5. PW2 Swatantra Gupta deposed that on 25.08.97 when he woke up in the morning he found kunda of his main gate broken and kundi of the store room was found removed. He deposed that when he entered in store he found that steel almirah and locker was opened and from there some currency note bag containing approximately 4.5 lacs and some assorted coins of silver were missing. He deposed that he informed the PS and gave his application to the police. He deposed that on 18.08.97 two servants of his house Vijay Kumar and Ram Babu had left his services and he came to know before they left the job that accused Ram Parshad visited his house 23 times to meet them. He deposed that he suspected all of the three accused and on inquiry he came to know that accused Ram Parshad had misguided Vijay and Ram Babu toleave the job on the pretext of training them for furniture shop job. He deposed that the currency notes which were missing from his house were in the denomintion of bundles of Rs.100/ and silver coins included one coin of Tirupati Balaji. He deposed that Vijay Kumar and Ram Babu were fully aware of his keys and the FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 3/14 4 place where he kept. He deposed that he informed about his doubts on the accused persons and police officials checked up their hide outs in Delhi in Furniture Block and they came to know that they fled away to Bihar. He deposed that all three accused were apprehended by the police from their native village Jagdishpur District Samastipur, Bihar alongwith money and coins.
6. In his cross examination PW2 Swatantra Gupta stated that police recorded his statement twice on 25.08.97 and he did not accompany the police to Bihar. He deposed that he do not know whether coins are available in themarket or not. He deposed that he had purchased one coin from Balaji Mandir but he do not know whether other coins at Mandir for sale is available or not. He stated that rest of the coins were presented to him by his relatives on various occasions and he do not know if the same are available in the market. He stated that the case property belongs to him and his monthly salary is more than 10 lacs. He stated that he had not noted down the serial number of the currency notes and do not know the serial number of the currency notes but the currency notes were in 100 & 50s etc.
7. PW3 Virender Singh deposed that on 28.08.97 he along with SI anand Prakash went to the Samastipur, Bihar for FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 4/14 5 investigation and reached to PS on 29.08.97 where IO obtained the assistance from the Incharge of PS Samastipur. He deposed that he along with Upender Shah and SI B.P. Roi went to village Jagdish Pur where accused Ram Babu S/o Baleshwar Dass, Vijay Kumar S/o Bindeshwar Dass and Ram Parshad S/o Devender Dass were arrested and after interrogation their personal search was conducted. He deposed that disclosure statement of all the accused were recorded and on pointing out of accused Ram Parshad one brief case of green colour was recovered in which Rs.4,31,950/, two golden coins and eight silver coins were recovered. He deposed that all the recovered articles were taken into possession and they came back at Delhi after obtaining transit remand from the local court at Samastipur. He deposed that IO recorded his statement.
8. PW4 Ct. Yogeshwar Dutt deposed that on 06.10.97 he received the finger prints of Ram Pd. and his associates Vijay Kumar & Ram Babu , complainant Swatantra Gupta, his wife Shakuntla and son Sithartha and girl Surbhi to deposit in the Finger Print Bureau and after depositing the same obtained the receipt and handed over to IO.
9. PW5 Upender Kumar deposed that he is working as FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 5/14 6 servant in the factory of Swatantra Kumar (complainant). He further deposed that he along with police officials and one manager went to Samastipur, Bihar. He further deposed that Pramod also accompanied him from Delhi. He further deposed that he was told to show the house of accused Ram Parshad and theywent to the house of accused and on checking one suit case was found and thereafter, all of them came back at the PS Samastipur. He has further deposed that in the house of the accused brief case was not opened in his presence. It is further submitted that he was sent to his house from PS and on the next day they came back along with accused and brief case at Delhi. Ld. APP cross examined him wherein he stated that case property mentioned in seizure memo was not shown to him. He further admitted that accused Ram Parsad belong to his village. He was also cross examined by defence counsel wherein he stated that Pramod who accompanied them from Delhi remained at PS Samastipur and did not visit the house of the accused.
10. PW6 HC Suraj Singh deposed that on 24.08.97 on the complainant of complainant Swatantra Gupta regarding theft of Rs.4,50,000/, the registered the FIR.
11. PW7 Pramod Kumar Shah deposed that on 28.08.1997 FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 6/14 7 he along with Upender and three police officials went to village Jagdishpur along with accused Ram Prasad and on the pointing out of accused of his house, one attachi of green colour was recovered containing Rs.4,31,950/, one big coin of golden colour, one small coin of golden colour and two big coins of silver and six coins of silver and one of them was square in shape.
12. PW8 SI Naresh Kumar Sharma is the Finger Print Expert who deposed that on 22.09.97 he received a case FIR no.353/97 and note sheet of the case and developed chance prints were sent to him. He deposed that he gave them a reminder on 23.09.97 for sending the specimen finger prints of inmates and accused. He deposed that on 07.10.97 he found that chance prints mark Q1 was identical with the left middle finger marked S1 on the finger impression slip of Smt. Shakuntala (inmate), the chance print marked Q2 was identical with right middle finger mark S2 on the finger impression slip of Ram Prasad S/o Devender Dass. He deposed that chance print Q3 is not identical with the inmates. He deposed that palm prints of accused were not sent so it could not be compared. He deposed that chance print Q4 & Q5 were unfit for opinion and he submitted vide report vide Ex.PW8/A.
13. PW9 SI B.P. Roy deposed that on 29.08.1997 he was FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 7/14 8 posted at Muffasil PS Samastipur Bihar as Incharge PS. He deposed that on that day he along with Ct. Virender reached at PS and he produced an application before him for giving assistance to them for investigation of this case. He deposed that he along with ASI R.K. Singh and other staff assisted the IO and they all reached at Jagdishpur, Adharpur and accused Ram Babu, Vijay Kumar and Ram Parsad were arrested there. He deposed that they all made their disclosure statement and case property i.e. Rs.4,31,950/, two golden coins & eight silver coins were recovered from a green colour attachi from the house of accused Ram Parsad and taken into possession.
14. PW10 SI Anand Prakash deposed that he along with complainant reached at his residence and prepared rough sketch of the spot at the instance of complainant, called the crime team and photographer. He deposed that finger prints were taken from the spot and photographs were also taken. He deposed that he recorded statement of complainant and tried to search all the three accused and came to know that they had gone to their village. He deposed that on 28.08.97 he visited the village of all the accused i.e. Jagdishpur, Bihar along with Ct. Virender and SO B.P. Rao Samastipur. He deposed that on 29.08.97 he found all three FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 8/14 9 accused and arrested them and conducted personal search. He deposed that disclosure statement of all the accused were recorded and on the pointing out of accused Ram Prasad, the case property was recovered. He deposed that he prepared seizure memo and at the time of recovery two public persons also joined in the recovery namely Upender Kumar Shah and Parmod Kumar Shah. He deposed that he recorded the statement of all the witnesses and came to Delhi after taking transit remand from the court of Samastipur. He deposed that he took the finger prints of all the accused, complainant and family member of the complainant and same were sent to FSL through Ct. Yogeshwar Dutt and collected the report.
15. In his cross examination he stated that he only received copy of FIR for the investigation in the presence of complaint. He stated that no broken handle or lock of the door was taken into possession and crime team lifted finger prints from the store room. He further stated that complainant did not furnish any documentary evidence in respect of the employment of Vijay Kumar or Ram Babu. He stated that he did not record name of any person from whom police came to know that accused persons had left for Bihar. He deposed that he did not take any person from the public to FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 9/14 10 Bihar whose signature have been obtained on some memos. He deposed that no case property was produced before the Ld. Court of Magistrate at Bihar for seeking transit remand. He stated that he did not inquire from the neighbourhood of the complainant to know whether accused Vijay and Ram Babu ever worked with the complainant. He stated thathe did not prepare any site plan from where the alleged recovery is shown to be recovered and did not record any statement from the neighbourhood of accused persons. He stated that no permission was sought for going to other District/State nor any memo to show the expenses received by him or incurred by him for the purpose of investigation. He stated that till the time alleged recovery was effected, the complainant did not make any statement specifically mentioning the denomination of the currency notes with specific numbers. He stated that complainant did not show any proof that he was keeping the currency notes as alleged in his house or from where he arranged to keep the same in his house. He denied the various suggestion such as nothing was recovered from the accused and that complainant has concocted the story for this own benefit and that no disclosure statement was made by the accused persons.
16. Statement of accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 10/14 11 in which he has stated that he had been falsely implicated and did not wish to lead any defence evidence.
17. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
18. PW1 in his statement has stated that he took five chance prints Q1 to Q5. Chance Print Q2 was lifted from the iron box and as per report of PW8 SI Naresh Kumar Sharma, Finger Print Expert, the chance print marked Q2 were found identical with right middle finger mark S2 on the finger impression slip of accused Ram Parsad. From the statement of aforesaid two witnesses, it is clear that the accused Ram Parsad entered into the house of the complainant. The further corroboration is derived from the testimony of PW2 complainant Swarantra Kumar who has deposed that the incident occurred on 25.08.97 and on 18.08.97 two servants of his house Vijay Kumar and Ram Babu had left his services. He has further deposed that he also came to know before the aforesaid two servants left the job, Coaccused Ram Parsad (correctly identified in the court) visited his house two three times to meet them. From the testimony of all the witnesses, it is clear that accused Ram Parsad visited the house of the accused on the FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 11/14 12 alleged date of incident as there was no occasion for the finger prints of the accused Ram Parsad to be present on the iron box otherwise. Since the presence of the accused in the house of the complainant has been proved by way of scientific evidence, no further corroboration is necessary. The guilt of the accused U/S 457/380 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
19. As far as the recovery of money from the accused Ram Prasad is concerned PW3, Ct. Virender Singh has deposed that one Upender Shah accompanied them from Delhi and he alongwith SI B.P. Roy went to village Jagdish Pur where he found accused Ram Babu and Ram Parshad (accused herein) and they were arrested. He further deposed that accused Ram Parsad and his associates disclosed in their disclosure statement and on the pointing out of accused Ram Parsad, one brief case of green colour was recovered in which Rs.4,31,950/ along with two gold coins and 8 silver coins were recovered. PW5 Upender Kumar stated that he along with two police officials and Pramod went to Samastipur, Bihar and he took him into the house of accused and one brief case was recovered, however, brief case was not opened in his presence.
20. PW7 Pramod Kumar Shah deposed that on 28.08.97 he FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 12/14 13 along with Upender and three police officials went to the village Samastipur along with the accused Ram Parsad and on the pointing out of the accused of his house one attachi of green colour was recovered which contained Rs.4,31,950/. PW10 SI Anand Parkash in his cross examination has stated that no case property was produced before the Ld. Court of Magistrate at Bihar for seeking transit remand. He further stated that it is correct that till the time alleged recovery was effected complainant did not make any statement specifically mentioning the denomination of currency notes with specific numbers. It is further stated that complainant did not show any proof that he was keeping currency notes as alleged notes in his house or from where he arranged to keep the same in his house.
21. All the aforesaid statement of PW10 does not affect the case of the prosecution as it has come on record that complainant was a businessman and an amount of Rs.4,50,000/ along with certain silver and gold coins were not out of his search to keep in his house. Moreover, PW2 complainant Swatantra Kumar in his cross examination has stated that he had a monthly salary of more than Rs.10 lacs. It is further not expected out of a layman that he notes down the serial number of the currency notes which he has in FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 13/14 14 his possession. Practically no person does this. Therefore, it does not go against the case of the prosecution.
22. Further the arguments of learned counsel for accused that the statement of witness PW7 and PW5 regarding the fact that PW7 did not go to the house of the accused are contradictory, is of no avail as it has been observed that PW5 has resiled from half of his statement. Resiling of one of the witness of the prosecution does not demolish the case of the prosecution in totality. The statement of PW7 Pramod Kumar Shah is supported by the statement of PW3 Ct. Virender as well as PW10 SI anand Parkash. The fact of recovery of Rs.4,31,950/ as well as 10 coins have been very well proved by the prosecution. The fact of entering the house of the complainant and committing theft has already been proved in the aforesaid paragraphs. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offence U/S 457/380/411 IPC.
Announced in the open (Vandana Jain)
court on 28.08.2010 MM08/West/Delhi
FIR No.353/97 State Vs.Ram Parshad Page 14/14