Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu & Ors. on 26 April, 2012
State Vs. Sonu & Ors.
FIR No. 54/11
PS Palam Village
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ SHARMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-10, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars:
FIR No. 54/11
PS Palam Village
U/S 380/457/411/34 IPC
State V/S (i)Sonu
(ii)Sumit (discharged)
C/No. 40/2
Date of Institution: 11.05.2011
Name of the Complainant Dr. Sanjay Bhat s/o Nandl Lal
Bhat r/o 120 C , Pocket-2,
Sector-2, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Name and address of accused 1. Sonu s/o Mast Ram R/o
D-3/52, Vinod Pur, Vijay
Enclave, Dabri, New Delhi.
Offence complained of U/S 411 IPC
Plea of accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date of reserve for orders 09.04.2012
Date for announcing the orders 26.04.2012
The brief facts and pre trial procedure
1.Charge U/S 411 IPC was framed against the accused Sonu with the allegations that on 22.01.2011 from house no. D 3/52, Vinod Puri, Vijay Enclave C/No. 43/2 Page No. 1 State Vs. Sonu & Ors.
FIR No. 54/11PS Palam Village you got recovered A TV, Inverter and stablizer which were stolen properties from from the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village along with other stolen properties pertaining to different cases which the accused restained dishonestly knowing and having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
2. To prove the charges, prosecution cited 11 witnesses in the list of witnesses but could examine only 7 out of them. PE stood closed on 07.09.2011. Thereafter, statement of accused Sonu U/S 313 CrPC was recorded in which, accused pleaded their innocence.
3. PW1 HC Narender Singh deposed that on 06.03.2011 at about 1 PM ASI Ragender received a secret information that the thieves who had committed theft at Jwelery shop at Dabri would go to dispose of the stolen jewellary articles via Palam Dabri Mor. He along with ASI Ragender, SI PC Yadav, SI Tilak Raj, ASI Ravinder, HC Mahak Singh, HC Ombir, Ct. Yogender, Ct. Bijender, Ct. Devendere and Ct. Vikel Singh reached at Dabri Mor. ASI Ragender directed them to take their position at the left and right side of the Palam Dabri Road. At about 02.30 PM three person came from Palam on foot. On the pointing out by the secret informer, ASI Ragender apprehended the accused Sonu with the help of Ct. Devender. He apprehended the accused Sumit with the help of ASI Ravinder. Ct. Bijender and HC Ombir apprehended the accused Rajan. IO took cursary search of the accused Sonu and silver jewellary of different make and description were recovered from him. IO kept the jewellary articles in a plastic jar and sealed the same with the seal of RS and the same was given no. Ex. A-1.
C/No. 43/2 Page No. 2 FIR No. 54/11PS Palam Village Jewellary articles were also recovered from the accused Sumit and Rajan and sealed with the same seal. IO recorded disclosure statement of all the accused persons Ex. PW1/A to PW1/B. Thereafter ASI Ragender sent HC Ombir , SI Talak Raj, HC Mahak Singh with accused Rajan to Mathura for recovery of stolen articles. Thereafter they went to house of accused Sonu at his instance where the accused got recovered the stolen jewellary articles pertaining to his share and case of Rs. 3,50,000/- from iron Almirah. Thereafter accused opened another room and got recovered 10 plastic katta in which saree, suit and shawl were kept. The same were sealed with seal of RS and seized, given the serial number and were taken in possession. Accused disclosed that katta no. 1, 2 and 3 contained the clothes stolen from Calcutta Saree Emporium RZ 36 A/1, Raj Nagar. The accused also got recovered one Stablizer make of Bluebird company, TV make of Daewoo Company 14 inch, one battery of Sonic Company , inverter make of Luminuous company and disclosed that same were stolen from gali no. 3 Mahavir Enclave and the same were sealed with the seal of RS, given the serial number and taken in possession. Accused also got recovered two rod, one L type and one pointed rod, same were also seized. Certain other recovery were also effected at the instance of accused pertaining to other cases. Case property deposited with Malkhana. On 08.03.2011 the accused was taken to spot where the pointing out memo Ex. PW1/C of the place of theft was prepared. Case properties were correctly identified by PW1.
4. PW2 ASI Ragender Singh deposed that on 06.03.2011 at about 1 PM he received a secret information that the thieves who had committed theft at Jwelery shop at Dabri would go to dispose of the stolen jewellary articles via Palam Dabri Mor. He along with SI PC Yadav, SI Tilak Raj, ASI Ravinder, HC Mahak Singh, HC Ombir, Ct. Bijender, Ct. Devendere and Ct. Vikel Singh reached at C/No. 43/2 Page No. 3 State Vs. Sonu & Ors.
FIR No. 54/11PS Palam Village Dabri Mor. He directed them to take their position at the left and right side of the Palam Dabri Road. At about 02.30 PM three person came from Palam on foot. On the pointing out by the secret informer, he apprehended the accused Sonu with the help of Ct. Devender. HC Narender apprehended the accused Sumit with the help of ASI Ravinder. HC Bijender and HC Ombir apprehended the accused Rajan. He made cursary search of the accused Sonu and silver jewellary of different make and description were recovered from him. He kept the jewellary articles in a plastic jar and sealed the same with the seal of RS and the same was given no. Ex. A-1. Jewellary articles were also recovered from the accused Sumit and Rajan and sealed with the same seal. He recorded disclosure statement of all the accused persons Ex. PW1/A to PW1/B. Thereafter PW2 sent HC Ombir , SI Talak Raj, HC Mahak Singh with accused Rajan to Mathura for recovery of stolen articles. Thereafter they went to house of accused Sonu at his instance where the accused got recovered the stolen jewellary articles pertaining to his share and case of Rs. 3,50,000/- from iron Almirah. He sealed the same with the seal of RS. Thereafter accused opened another room and got recoverred 10 plastic katta in which saree, suit and and shawl were kept and the same were taken into possession and sealed with the seal of RS. Accused disclosed that katta no. 1, 2 and 3 contained the clothes stolen from Calcutta Saree Emporium RZ 36 A/1, Raj Nagar. The accused also got recovered one Stablizer make of Bluebird company, TV make of Daewoo Company 14 inch, one battery of Sonic Company , inverter make of Luminuous company and disclosed that same were stolen from gali no. 3 Mahavir Enclave and the same were seized vide Ex. PW2/A. PW-2 sealed the kattas of sarees with the seal of RS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B. Accused also got recovered two rod, one L type and one pointed rod and seized the same. Certain other recovery were also effected at C/No. 43/2 Page No. 4 State Vs. Sonu & Ors.
FIR No. 54/11PS Palam Village the instance of the accused pertaining to other case. Case property was deposited in malkhana. On 08.03.2011 accused Sonu, Rajan and Sumit were taken to spot where the pointing memo was prepared. On 10.03.2011 he produced the accused in court and SI Virender arrested the accused in this case. PW1 correctly identified the case properties.
5. PW3 Ct. Bijender deposed that on 06.03.2011 he had joined the investigation of case FIR no. 28/11 of PS Dabri along with ASI Ragender, SI PC Yadav, SI Tilak Raj, ASI Ravinder, HC Mahak Singh, HC Ombir, Ct. Yogender, HC Narender and Ct. Devender and Ct. Vikel Singh and reached at Dabri Mor. PW3 further deposed that on the secret information that the thieves who had committed theft at Jwellary shop at Dabri would go to dispose of the stolen jewellary articles via Palam Dabri Mor. ASI Ragender directed them to take their position at the left and right side of the Palam Dabri Road. At about 2.30 PM on the pointed out by the secret informer, ASI Ragender apprehended the accused Sonu with the help of Ct. Devender. He apprehended the accused Sumit with the help of ASI Ravinder. PW3 with HC Ombir apprehended the accused Rajan. IO took cursory search of the accused and silver jewellary of different make and description were recovered from him. IO kept the jewellary articles in a plastic jar and sealed the same with the seal of RS Ex. A-1. Jewellary articles were also recovered from the accused Sumit and Rajan. IO recorded disclosure statement of all the accused persons Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter he along with HC Ombir, SI Tilak Raj, HC Mahak Singh with accused Rajan to Mathura for recovery of stolen articles. There they had recovered stolen articles at the instance of Rajan. IO recorded the statement of PW3.
6. PW4 Ct. Anil Singh Rana deposed that on 05.03.2011 he along with SI Narender Singh and complainant Dr. Sanjay Bhatt went to spot. IO prepared site C/No. 43/2 Page No. 5 State Vs. Sonu & Ors.
FIR No. 54/11PS Palam Village plan Ex. PW4/A at the instance of complainant and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter IO inquired to kabadies and sought clue from secret informers but nothing could be known about the stolen property or the offender. IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C.
7. PW5 ASI Devender Kumar who was Duty officer deposed that on 05.03.2011 SI Narender brought rukka and on the basis of rukka he registered FIR no. 54/11 Ex. PW5/A and made endorsement on rukka. He proved the FIR no. 54/11 Ex. PW5/A.
8. PW6 SI Birender deposed that on 29.03.2011 he got deposited the case property Ex. P-1 in malkhana.
9. PW7 Dr. Sanjay Bhat deposed that on the intervening night of 27/28.02.2011 a theft took place in his clinic Krishna dental Care at Mahaveer Enclave, Gali No. 3, L-1/F, near Shiv Bani Public School. One inverter and battery, TV, Stabliser, chair, towel and table sheet were found missing. On 05.03.2011 he lodged cokmplaint Ex. PW7/A. IO came to his clinic and prepared site plan Ex. PW4/A. After some time he received information from police that the stolen articles had been recovered. IO recorded his statement. PW7 correctly identified his case properties Ex. P-1.
Statement of accused and defence
10. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons U/S 313 CrPC was recorded. He denied all the evidence put to him and claimed his innocence. Further accused Sonu took the defence of false implication by planting the case property. He did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal C/No. 43/2 Page No. 6 State Vs. Sonu & Ors.
FIR No. 54/11PS Palam Village propositions
11. It is submitted by the counsel for the accused that the accused Sonu has been falsely implicated in this case and recovery of articles was planted upon the accused by the police. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that in case FIR No. 54/11, the alleged theft at the place had occurred on 28.02.2011 and FIR was registered on 05.03.2011 and accused was arrested on 06.03.2011. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that accused was picked up by police on 04.03.2011 and thereafter the crime branch registered case FIR nos. 53/11 and 54/11 against accused and allegedly effected recovery on his disclosure statement. It is submitted by the counsel for the accused that no public person was made witness by the police. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused that there is material contradiction in the version of witnesses and same can be easily inferred from the testimony of witnesses. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused that seizure is disputed. It is submitted by counsel for the accused that in both FIR Nos. 53/11 and 54/11 against the accused, there is no call at 100 number made by the complainant to the police and there is no effort made on the part of the police to make any public persons as witness. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that if seen in totality the present case is an abuse of power of the police and accused is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the present case.
12. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State vehemently opposed the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the accused. Ld. Defence counsel further submitted that theft had taken place at the clinic of the complainant and he made a complaint to the police immediately and there is no delay on the part of the complainant and on 05.03.2011 he made a written complaint to the police C/No. 43/2 Page No. 7 State Vs. Sonu & Ors.
FIR No. 54/11PS Palam Village exhibited as Ex. PW7/A. Police registered the case on 05.03.2011. On privileged information received from secret information to PW2, accused persons were apprehended. It is further submitted by Ld. APP for the State that on 08.03.2011 pointing out memo has been prepared and recovery has been effected from the house of the accused and in TIP proceedings the stolen goods were identified by the complainant and all the PWs deposed in terms of the chargesheet and there is no material contradiction in consistency in the testimony of PWs. Ld. APP for the State submitted that accused is notorious and he is involved in this case. Ld. APP submitted that the testimony of recovery witness is firm and unshaken and same is enough to bring home the guilt of the accused.
13. Having touched upon the statements of PWs, I shall consider the rival contention of parties. PW1 and PW2 are the recovery witnesses of the prosecution. PW2 ASI Ragender Singh in his examination in chief stated that on receipt of secret information he apprehended the accused persons with the help of Ct. Devender and other police officials and thereafter on searching the person of the accused, silver jewellary was recovered from accused Sonu. Thereafter on the disclosure statement of the accused a search was conducted to his house and stolen jewellary articles and cash of Rs. 3,50,000/- was recovered and in another room 10 plastic katta in which sarees, suits and shawls kept were recovered which was stolen from Calcutta Saree Emporium, RZ-36A/1, Raj Nagar. The accused also got recovered one Stablizer make of Bluebird company, TV make of Daewoo Company 14 inch, one battery of Sonic Company , inverter make of Luminuous company and disclosed that same were stolen from gali no. 3 Mahavir Enclave and the same were seized vide Ex. PW2/A. PW-2 sealed the kattas of sarees with the seal of RS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B. Accused also got recovered two rod, one L type and one pointed rod and seized C/No. 43/2 Page No. 8 State Vs. Sonu & Ors.
FIR No. 54/11PS Palam Village the same. And at the instance of accused persons pointing out memo was prepared. In his cross examination of PW2 Ragender Singh by Ld. Counsel nothing favourable to the accused could be brought out. Instead PW2 remained firmed on his testimony. PW1 HC Narender Singh he is also the recovery witness and stated that in his examination on a secret information received by PW2, he joined the investigation and thereafter accused persons were arrested and IO recovered silver jewellary and Stablizer make of Bluebird company, TV make of Daewoo Company 14 inch, one battery of Sonic Company , inverter make of Luminuous company on the cursory search of the accused in his presence and further on the disclosure statement to the IO from the house of the accused Sonu stolen jewellary articles, 10 plastic kattas in which sarees, suits and shawls kept were recovered which was stolen from Calcutta Saree Emporium, RZ-36A/1, Raj Nagar as stated by accused. And the accused also got recovered one Stablizer make of Bluebird company, TV make of Daewoo Company 14 inch, one battery of Sonic Company , inverter make of Luminuous company and disclosed that same were stolen from gali no. 3 Mahavir Enclave and the same were seized vide Ex. PW2/A. PW-2 sealed the kattas of sarees with the seal of RS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B. In his cross examination PW1 was firmed on his testimony and nothing favourable to the accused had been brought out from his cross examination.
14. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of this case, the recovery of the stolen articles effected at the instance of the accused Sonu from his house and after going through the testimony of recovery witnesses PW1 and PW2, the same is imposition to inspire the confidence of the court regarding the fact of possession of stolen property by the accused dishonestly having knowledge to believe that the same is stolen property. As far as the contention of C/No. 43/2 Page No. 9 State Vs. Sonu & Ors.
FIR No. 54/11PS Palam Village Ld. Defence Counsel that no public person was made witness to this incident of recovery and apprehension of the accused persons, the same does not go to the root of the prosecution case, if the confidence of the court is inspired by other evidence on record which leads to the guilt of the accused. Merely registration of FIR after some days of incident, give rise to some sort of doubt with regard to prosecution case but the fact of recovery of same stolen goods from the possession of the accused and no evidence on record on the part of the accused to satisfy the court regarding the possession of the same again goes against the accused. The contents of Section 411 IPC are satisfied if it appears from the evidence on record that it is in the knowledge of the accused or has reason to be believed that the property is stolen. Attention is paid to the use of both the words "Receipt and retained" in section 411 IPC. It is a fact that property was stolen from the premises of the complainant and it is also in the evidence that property is recovered at the instance of accused herein.
Conclusion
15. In the light of aforementioned discussion, this court is of the view that accused was having knowledge and had reasons that property was stolen and same was recovered at his instance and further the testimony of PW3 and PW4 was inspiring enough to lead a single conclusion of guilt of the accused. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the view that the accused has committed the offence u/s 411 IPC and he is accordingly convicted for the same. Arguments on sentence shall be heard separately.
Copy of the order be given to the accused persons free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court (PANKAJ SHARMA)
today on 26th day of April, 2012 MM : Dwarka : Delhi
C/No. 43/2 Page No. 10