Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh on 7 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST), SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Rajesh
FIR No. 66/04
U/s 201/411 IPC
P.S. G.K.1
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 126/2/14
Unique Identification No. : 02403R0580092004
Date of Institution : 26.07.2004
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 28.10.2015
Date of judgment : 07.11.2015
Name of the complainant : Rohit Bishnoi
s/o Shri Surinder Kumar Bishnoi
r/o H. No. 1915/4, Gurgaon,
Haryana
FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh
P.S. G.K.1 Page No.1 of 19
Date of the commission of offence : 22.03.2004
Name of accused : Rajesh
s/o Sh. Ram Chander
r/o House No. D290, Shiv
Durga Vihar, Faridabad,
Haryana
Offence complained of : U/s 379/411/34 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 201/411 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
Date of Institution : 26.07.2004
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 28.10.2015
Date of judgment : 07.11.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on a complaint wherein the complainant has stated that his car FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.2 of 19 which was in the name of Sunil Kumar Bishnoi make MARUTI 800 bearing registration number DL9C1521 of milky white colour was stolen from S Block, Park, G.K.1. Further that the vehicle was parked on 09.03.2004 at around 08:45 PM and the same was found missing on 22.03.2004.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against the accused under Section U/s 201/411 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. To prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. PE was closed on 18.08.2015 and subsequently statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.10.2015.
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter.
PW1 Rohit Bishnoi (Complainant) deposed that the incident FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.3 of 19 had occurred at about 3 to 4 years ago when his car bearing registration Number DL3C1521 was found stolen from G.K.1, and he had reported the matter to the police vide his complaint Ex. PW1/A and later he again mentioned that the registration number of the car was DL9C1521. The car was Ex. P1 and the site plan prepared on the instance of the complainant was Ex. PW1/B. Opportunity to crossexamine PW1 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to PW1.
PW2 Surinder Kumar Bishnoi (superdar) deposed on the lines of PW1. He further mentioned that the stolen car was released to him vide superdarinama Ex. PW2/A and the car was Ex. P1.
Opportunity to crossexamine PW2 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to PW2.
PW3 ASI Dharampal deposed that on 24.05.2004 while he was posted as Head Constable at PS Chitranjan Park. At around 09:00 PM, he alongwith Ct. Mehak Singh and Ct. Ravinder were on patrolling duty and received information from secret informer that a person shall come near Savitri Cinema, G.K.II on a Maruti 800 car at about 09:15 PM. The barricades were installed near Savitri Cinema and at around 09:30 PM they found a person coming in a Maruti Car. The front side number plate was not FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.4 of 19 there and the number plate of the back side was bearing No. HR10E5969. Thereafter, they stopped the car and inquired about the paper and the driver / accused could not produced the same. The chassis number and the engine number of the car was checked and upon verification the aforesaid car was found stolen from the area of PS G.K.1 and it was further found that the rare number of the car was DL9C1521 which was wanted in case FIR No. 66/04. Accused was searched and a knife was recovered from the pocket of his wearing pant and accused was arrested in FIR No. 136/04, PS C.R. Park. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Later accused was arrested vide Ex. PW3/A by SI Sandeep Singh in case FIR No. 66/04 of PS G.K.1. The personal search of the accused was got conducted vide Ex. PW1/B (wrongly mentioned). Thereafter, he handed over the copy of the seizure memo of the said car to IO / SI Dalip Singh, which was Ex. PW1/C. The original seizure memo was stated to be annexed with the file of FIR No. 136/04, PS C.R. Park. Photographs of the stolen vehicle were Ex. PW1/C1 to Ex. PW1/C10.
During crossexamination, PW3 stated that he had made the departure entry before leaving the police station for patrolling duty and further that he had made entry for all three of them. He had received secret information when they were present at MBlock, G.K.II and he did not FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.5 of 19 remember if he had informed the SHO regarding the secret information. He had reduced the information in writing and barricades were already lying at the place where they were checking the vehicles. The secret informer had not informed about the colour of the Maruti Car and he had not asked any police personal to join the police team as it was crowded place the vehicle in question can be seen only from a short distance and further he had noted down the engine number and chassis number of the said car in his proceedings after sending information at 100 number. The PCR did not come to the spot and he had only inquired regarding the aforesaid fact from the Computer Operator. He prepared the rukka and had sent Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR. He prepared the site plan, arrest memo, personal search memo and seizure memo of the vehicle. He had sent Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR at around 10:30 PM and he returned back to the spot after about one and a half hour and meanwhile he had completed the aforesaid proceedings i.e. before coming of Ct. Ravinder to the spot. HC Ram Niwas was informed regarding the recovery of knife who came alongwith Ct. Ravinder. Thereafter, he handed over the knife to HC Ram Niwas who conducted the proceedings regarding the same. He did not remember as to who had taken the rukka written by HC Ram Niwas for registration of FIR and he had not done any witting work after Ct. Ravinder came back to the spot.
FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.6 of 19 Further he had taken signatures of Ct. Ravinder on certain documents and he did not remember if HC Ram Niwas had signed any documents on the spot. He did not remember the number of documents prepared by HC Ram Niwas on the spot and it was Ct. Mehak Singh who had driven the car alone to the police station. Further that they had left the spot at around 11:45 PM and accused alongwith other police officials came to the police station on foot. He had deposited the case property at Malkhana and had handed over the accused to HC Ram Niwas and accused was sent to lockup at PS Kalkaji. Lastly, that he had sent rider for getting the copy of the FIR No. 66/04 from PS G.K.1 and further that SI Dalip Singh came to the police station on the next day, but no proceedings were conducted by him and that accused was arrested by SI Dalip Singh only on 28.05.2004.
PW4 HC Mahinder Singh proved the FIR Ex. PW4/A which was registered on rukka Ex. PW4/B. PW5 Ct. Mehak Singh deposed on the lines of PW4 and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
During his crossexamination PW5 stated, that he alongwith Ct. Ravinder Singh, started patrolling together and HC Ram Niwas met them at MBlock market. They started from police station at around 09:00 PM and since they were on routine patrolling duty no departure entry was made and FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.7 of 19 the distance between the police station and MBlock, Market was about 200 metres. Further that he had heard the conversation between secret informer and HC Ram Niwas. Thereafter, HC Ram Niwas informed about the information received about him, but he do not remember if the same was also shared by senior officials. There were public persons in the are of raiding party was constituted by HC Ram Niwas who had requested public persons to join the investigation but they all refused and left the spot. Further all the police officials were in their uniform and accused do not try to run away from the spot and he tried to take vehicle back. At the time of incident PW5 was standing near the barricade and HC Ram Niwas and Ct. Ravinder was stopping the vehicle when the inquiry was made from the accused he came out of the car and was interrogated upon recording the same. Further that HC Ram Niwas did not ask any public persons to participate in the proceedings done by him. After apprehension of the accused and HC Ram Niwas had inquired from PCR about the whereabouts of the car. Further that they remained at the spot till 11:30 PM. During investigation it was found that the vehicle was stolen from the jurisdiction of PS G.K.1 and he did not remember if any information to the police officials of PS G.K.1 was given from the spot by the IO. No senior police officials from the police station came to the spot. The papers used for conducting the proceedings were with HC Ram Niwas.
FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.8 of 19 PW6 HC Ravinder Singh deposed that on 24.05.2004 while he was posted as Ct. at PS C.R. Park, he alongwith IO / HC Dharampal, HC Ram Niwas and Ct. Mehak Singh were on patrolling duty at MBlock, G.K.1. On that day, at about 09:00 PM, upon receiving the secret information by HC Dharampal, that a persona namely Rajesh, who was a car lifter shall go to Savitri Cinema from G.K.1 in a stolen Maruti 800 car bearing Reg. No. HR10E5969. IO requested the public persons to join but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter IO prepared the raiding party. Barricades were put and at around 09:30 PM they saw a white colour vehicle make Maruti 800 which did have any number plate on the front side and thereafter upon pointing out of the secret informer the vehicle was stopped and the accused (was correctly identified by the witness) came out and was asked to produce the documents. But the accused tried to flee way from the spot and was managed and apprehended by them. The rare number of the vehicle mention the number HR10E5969. The engine number and chassis number of the vehicle was verified from PS G.K.1 and the same was found stolen from the said jurisdiction. The original number of the vehicle was found to be DL9C1521. HC Ram Niwas conducted the personal search of the accused and a button actuated knife was recovered from his possession and separate proceedings in respect to the knife was FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.9 of 19 conducted by HC Ram Niwas. HC Dharampal prepared the rukka and gave the same to him for registration of FIR to PS C.R. Park after registration of FIR PW6 returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. Aforesaid vehicle was seized vide Ex. PW1/C and accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted and vehicle was Ex. P1.
During his crossexamination, PW6 stated that the secret information was given to IO / HC Dharampal by the secret informer, who shared the same information with them and it was reduced into writting by IO. No notice was given to the public persons for not joining proceedings and no public persons was asked to join investigation even during barricades. All the Maruti 800 cars of white colour was checked and thereafter upon the pointing of secret informer PW6 and Ct. Mahek Singh signaled the car to stop and the driver of the vehicle was asked to come on one side. The accused came out and was unable to show any documents and accused tried to run away from the spot. IO had reduced the chassis number and engine of the vehicle. He did not know if IO had informed the police officials of PS G.K.1 about the apprehension of the accused and the vehicle and further that they remained at the spot for about one and a half hour. IO had obtained his signatures on 3 to 4 papers and the witting work was done on the street. He did not FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.10 of 19 remember if any site plan was prepared as he has gone for the registration of FIR to the police station.
PW7 Ct. Dharamveer deposed that on 28.05.2004 he had joined the investigation of the present matter with IO / SI Dalip Singh. Accused was in Court custody and IO had moved an application for interrogation and after seeking permission of the Court disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW7/A. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW1/B. During cross examination PW7 stated that he alongwith IO had gone to Patiala House Court and IO had moved an application for interrogation of the accused before the Court. The accused was produced before the concerned Court by the police officials of PS C.R. Park. He did not know if the IO was given any time for interrogation and the disclosure statement of the accused was written by IO in about 45 minutes. It was correct that the arrest memo does not bear his signature.
PW8 Ct. Ram Lubhaya deposed that on 10.04.2004 while he was posted as Ct. at PS Shashtri Park Metro he alongwith SI Rajender Singh were on patrolling duty and at around 11:30 PM a Maruti Car the number he did not remember, came from Tis Hazari Court side and upon stopping of driver Ravinder was asked to produced the documents but he could not FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.11 of 19 produce the same. He was taken to police station and upon verification the vehicle was found stolen from the area of Paschim Vihar. The disclosure statement of the accused regarding his involvement was recorded which was marked A and accused also pointed out the place from where he had committed the theft vide document mark B. Opportunity to crossexamine PW8 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to PW8.
PW9 Inspector Dalip Singh deposed that on 22.03.2004, he was posted at PS G.K.1. On that day, after registration of FIR the investigation of the matter was marked to him. During investigation he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant vide Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he searched for the accused and the stolen vehicle but could not find the same. Later he received information from the police officials of PS C.R. Park that the stolen car had been recovered from accused Rajesh by them and that he had been arrested. Thereafter on 28.05.2004, accused Rajesh was formally arrested by him and during interrogation the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex. PW7/A. Thereafter, he obtained certain documents from the concerned police officials of PS C.R. Park. He recorded the statement of witnesses obtained the recovered car and deposited the same at Malkhana.
FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.12 of 19 After completion of investigation prepared the chargesheet and filed in the Court.
During cross examination of PW9 stated that one Constable had accompanied him to the Court where the accused was formally arrested but he did not remember his name. Further he did not remember the time when the had moved an application before the Court for the formal arrest of the accused. He had arrested the accused from the Court where he was produced by the police officials of C.R. Park. There were no public persons present outside the Court when the accused was formally arrested and the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded in his own handwriting.
PW10 SI Rajender Singh deposed that at 10.04.2004, he was posted at PS Shashtri Park and on that day accused Ravinder Kumar was apprehended in case FIR No. 04/04, U/s 411 IPC of PS Shashtri Park. Upon interrogation accused Ravinder Kumar had disclosed the name of his associates Sanjeev @ Bittu who had committed the theft of one Maruti Car bearing registration number DL9C1921 and again said DL9C1521 from the area of SBlock, G.K.1. He had further disclosed that he has sold the aforesaid to his uncle namely Rajesh. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement vide memo mark A. Accused Ravinder took him to SBlock, G.K.1 and pointed out the place of occurrence and thereafter PW10 informed about FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.13 of 19 the aforesaid disclosure statement to duty officer of PS G.K.1 and thereafter statement of PW10 was recorded by the IO of the present matter.
During cross examination of PW10 stated that his statement was recorded by IO on 10.04.2004 and IO of the present case had visited PS Shashtri Park after receiving information from duty officer of PS G.K.1. Further that he had informed the duty officer of PS G.K.1 on the afternoon of 10.04.2004. He did not know if accused Ravinder was arrested by the IO of the present matter and that he had produced accused Ravinder before the Court.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 r/w 281 CrPC was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused for explanation.
6. Accused did not examine any witness in his defense.
7. Before appreciating the evidence, I would like to have a glance at relevant statutory provisions necessary for the disposal of this case.
FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh
P.S. G.K.1 Page No.14 of 19
As per Section 201 IPC:
Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender : Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
if a capital offence shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. If punishable with imprisonment for life and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to onefourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
Section 411 IPC reads as under :
Dishonestly receiving stolen property--Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with both.
FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.15 of 19
8. Learned APP for the State had argued that all the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and all the witnesses in their testimonies have very clearly deposed that supported the case of the prosecution and that the stolen vehicle was recovered from the possession of the accused and therefore he is liable to be convicted for the offences alleged.
9. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case since the prosecution witnesses in their crossexamination has deposed that the present case was filed against He has further argued that in the present matter there are glaring contradictions in the testimony of all the witnesses, therefore both the accused are liable to be acquitted. It is argued on behalf of the accused that in the present matter there are contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses and despite the fact that place of apprehension of accused was a busy road which is attempted by the prosecution witnesses, no public witnesses joined for investigation and all the police officials conducted the investigation without following any rules of investigation . Further no effort was made by the police officials of G.K.1 to apprehend the accused despite the fact that information of arrest of the accused was given on the same day and accused was FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.16 of 19 allegedly was formally arrested after four days, in the court itself.
10. I have heard Learned Counsel for accused and Learned APP for the State and gone through the material available on record and has considered the testimony of various witnesses and gone through the evidence on record. I am of the considered view that in the present matter the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses among which apart from PW1 and PW7 all other witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal witnesses. PW1 is the complainant and PW2 is the superdar in the present matter. The basis of the story of the prosecution of the apprehension of the accused starts from the disclosure statement of the another accused namely Ravinder whose disclosure statement was recorded in FIR No. 04/04, U/s 411 IPC, PS Shashtri Park. As per the story of the prosecution aforesaid accused Ravinder Kumar allegedly disclosed in his statement that the vehicle stolen in the present matter was stolen from SBlock, G.K.1 by his associate namely Sanjeev @ Bittu and subsequently sold to the accused of the present matter namely Rajesh. Further the story of the prosecution is based on the investigation conducted by the officials of PS C.R. Park when they received information from secret informer that the present accused shall come near Savitri Cinema, G.K.II alongwith the stolen vehicle and i.e. when they FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.17 of 19 prepared the raiding party and allegedly the accused is apprehended with the stolen vehicle and one button actuated knife. It is further to be considered that in the entire factual matrix of the prosecution despite the fact that the place of recovery, place of apprehension of the accused was a public place. IO of the case who registered FIR at PS C.R. Park did not deemed it fit to join them as witnesses and conducted the entire investigation in an extremely casual manner. Most of the witnesses have deposed contradictory in their statement even to the aspect as to who all had conducted the patrolling duty or constituted the raiding party. Most of the witnesses have given contradictory statement even in respect to the departure entry and the conduct of the accused and information received by them regarding the secret information.
In the present facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the merit of accused beyond reasonable doubts and therefore accused is liable to be acquitted for all the offences charged against him.
11. The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.18 of 19 Supreme Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
"The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal, cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
12. On the basis of facts and circumstances, the charge against the accused stands proved. Accordingly, accused Rajesh is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 201/411 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN) on 07.11.2015 MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts: New Delhi: 07.11.2015 FIR No. 66/2004 State Vs. Rajesh P.S. G.K.1 Page No.19 of 19