Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/954/1999 on 6 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
State v. Sanjay @ Manoj & ors
PS - Lajpat Nagar
FIR No. 954/99
U/S. 379/411/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 02403R0693492006
b) Date of commission of offence : 02.12.1999
c) Name of the complainant, if any : Mr. Jasbir Singh Sahani
d)Name & address of accused : (1) Sanjay @ Manoj S/o Mr. Sushil Kumar R/o. G39/41 NOIDA, Distt.
G.B. Nagar (U.P).
(Proclaimed Offender) (2) Mahender S/o Mr. Chander Prakash R/o 64/4 Mehrauli, New Delhi (3) Raj @ Suresh S/o Mr. Ghure Singh R/o C1/78 Karawal Nagar, FIR No. 954/99 State v. Sanjay @ Manoj and Others 1 of 8 Nehru Vihar, Dayalpur, New Delhi (Proclaimed Offender) (4) Surender Kumar @ Ashok S/o Mr. Gurdas Rai R/o 2292, Sector28, Faridabad (Haryana) (Proclaimed Offender)
e) The offence complained off : U/S. 379/411/34 IPC
f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final order : All the accused acquitted
h) Date for which order was reserved for : Not reserved.
i) The date of such order : 06.11.2013.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. On 08.11.99, complainant Mr. Jasbir Singh Sahani made complaint Ex.PW5/A to SHO Police station Lajpat Nagar regarding theft of his vehicle bearing no. DL 3CB 5990 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle in question). On the basis of complaint made by complainant, FIR in the case was registered.
2. Accused Mahender alongwith other coaccused persons namely Suresh @ Raj, Sanjay @ Manoj and Surender Kumar @ Ashok (who are FIR No. 954/99 State v. Sanjay @ Manoj and Others 2 of 8 proclaimed offenders in the case) were arrested in case FIR no. 978/99 U/S 379/411 IPC. All the accused while being in police custody made disclosure regarding the theft of vehicle in question. PW4 HC Balraj recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons, which are Mark X1 to X3. He gave information regarding the involvement of the accused persons to the IO of this case. Later on, all the accused were arrested in this case by PW7 Inspector Pankaj Singh. The accused persons are reported to have disclosed that the vehicle in question was sold to Surender resident of 2292 Sector 28, Faridabad. The police team alongwith accused persons went to the house of accused Surender from where the vehicle in question was recovered. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F.
3. On conclusion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet in the case against the accused persons. They were summoned to face trial in the case. On appearance of accused persons, they were supplied copy of charge sheet alongwith documents and compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C was made.
4. To a charge u/s 411/414/34 IPC, all the four accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 954/99 State v. Sanjay @ Manoj and Others 3 of 8
5. In the course of trial in the case accused Suresh @ Raj, Sanjay @ Manoj and Surender Kumar @ Ashok stopped appearing in the court to face trial in the case. Accordingly they were declared proclaimed offenders.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all. They are as under:
i. PW 1 ASI Manoj, PW 2 SI Nirbhay Singh are the recovery witnesses of the prosecution. In the presence of these witnesses the vehicle in question was recovered from house no. 2292 Sector 28, Faridabad.
ii. PW3 ASI Ramesh, the Duty Officer is a formal witness of the prosecution. He registered the FIR in this case which is Ex.PW3/A. He made endorsement on rukka vide Ex.PW3/B. iii. PW 4 H.C. Balraj is IO of the case FIR no. 978/99. He recorded the statement of accused persons. He gave information regarding the involvement of the accused persons to PW7 Inspector Pankaj Singh, the IO of the present case.
iv. PW5 ASI Gopi Chand is also formal witness of the prosecution. On 08.11.99 on receipt of DD no. 3A, he went to the house of complainant. He recorded the statement of complainant FIR No. 954/99 State v. Sanjay @ Manoj and Others 4 of 8 Ex.PW5/A regarding the theft of his vehicle. He prepared tehrir Ex.PW5/B and got the FIR registered in the case. v. PW6 HC Ashok Kumar joined the investigation of case FIR no. 978/99, PS Lajpat Nagar. In his presence the disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded.
vi. PW7 Inspector Pankaj Singh is the IO of the case who formally arrested the accused persons vide memos Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/C. He recovered the vehicle in question from the house of accused Surender at the instance of the accused persons.
7. Accused Mahender being examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C claimed innocence. He stated that he was lifted from his shop by the police and falsely implicated in this case. Accused denied to lead defence evidence, hence defence evidence was closed.
8. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Sh. Deepak Barua, learned APP for the State and Sh. Mehmood Hussain, learned counsel for the accused and perused the record of the case.
9. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal FIR No. 954/99 State v. Sanjay @ Manoj and Others 5 of 8 law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is also a settled proposition that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution case in a criminal trial throughout the course of the trial rests entirely and entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
10. Accused persons were apprehended on the basis of their disclosure statement in the case. The place of recovery of stolen vehicle has been shown to be House no. 2292, Sector 28, Faridabad. PW7 Inspector Pankaj Singh has admitted in his cross examination that the place of recovery was thickly populated area. PW1 ASI Manoj, a recovery witness of the prosecution, has also admitted that the spot was a residential area. No independent witness has been joined at the time of recovery of the stolen vehicle from the aforesaid premises. The investigating agency has failed to furnish any cogent and sufficient explanation as to why no public person was joined in the investigation of this case particularly at the time of recovery of stolen vehicle FIR No. 954/99 State v. Sanjay @ Manoj and Others 6 of 8 from the premises in question despite their availability. Non joining of independent witness in the recovery of case property creates doubt about the prosecution case.
11. As per the Punjab Police Rules, entry is mandatorily required to be made as regards the hour of arrival and departure of police personnel on duty. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the entry of the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be made immediately. However in the present case no DD entry is shown or proved to have been recorded regarding the arrival and departure of raiding party from Delhi to Faridabad, from Faridabad to Delhi. No police official from local police station has been joined while effecting recovery of alleged vehicle from the possession of accused Surender Kumar @ Ashok. There is nothing on record to suggest that even intimation regarding the recovery of vehicle from the possession of accused was given to the local police station. In these circumstances, the visit of the police team to Faridabad and recovery of vehicle in question from the house of accused Surender Kumar becomes doubtful.
FIR No. 954/99 State v. Sanjay @ Manoj and Others 7 of 8
12. For the reasons discussed above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused persons. All the accused persons deserves to be acquitted. It is ordered accordingly. Bail bond and surety bond of accused is extended for a period of six months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court today i.e. 06.11.2013 (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate South, New Delhi/06.11.2013 FIR No. 954/99 State v. Sanjay @ Manoj and Others 8 of 8