Delhi District Court
State vs . Devinder Singh on 4 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -08 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 201/22
PS: Chandni Mahal
U/s 380/411 IPC
State v. Devinder Singh
CIS No. 10269/2022
Date of Institution of case : 22.07.2022
Date when Judgment reserved : Not reserved
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 04.01.2023
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 201/22 PS: Chandni A Serial No. of the case :
Mahal Date of the commission of b : 23.06.2022 the offence c Name of the Complainant : Sh. Raju S/o Naresh Devindar Singh S/o Shikander Singh, R/o Name of Accused person and d : Village Othiya, PS Raja his parentage and residence Shanshi, District Amritsar, Punjab.
U/s 380/411 Indian Penal
e Offence complained of :
Code
Plea of the Accused and his
f : Pleaded not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquittal
h Date of Order : 04.01.2023
State Vs. Devinder Singh
FIR No. 201/22
PS Chandni Mahal
1/14
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. In brief, the accused has been sent to face trial upon the allegations that on 23.06.2022 at about 2.45 pm at Shop No. 925, Kucha Rohilla Khan, Tehra Behram Khan, Dariyaganj, Delhi, accused Devinder had committed theft in a dwelling house of a purse (Brown coloured) containing Aadhar Card, Rs. 200/- (100x2) and Labour Card belonging to the complainant namely Sh. Raju and were caught red handed at the spot and the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of accused, which accused retained knowingly or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen one and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 380/411 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC).
2. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused. Copy of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused under section 207 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and thereafter charge under section 380/411 IPC was framed against him on 06.09.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined three (03) witnesses to substantiate allegations against the accused.
State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 2/14
4. PW-1 Raju has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he is working at a tea stall at Kucha Rohila, Tehra Beram Khan, Daryaganj, Delhi. He deposed that he did not remember, date, month and year of the incident. However, on the day of the incident he had gone to serve/supply tea and when he returned to his stall, he saw a mob was there. Further, he deposed that some unknown persons informed him that the accused had stolen money from the tea stall chest (galla). Somebody called the police and accordingly police officials reached the spot. He did not see the person who was stealing money from the chest of his stall. He does not know anything else.
After seeking due permission from the court, the witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he cannot tell the date of incident is 23.06.2022. The attention of the witness was drawn towards his complaint Ex. PW1/A, on which he denied that he was present at the spot on the day of incident. He further denied the suggestion that on that day at about 2:45 pm, one boy came to his stall and asked him to pack the tea. He further denied that when he turned, the boy stole his brown color purse containing Aadhar Card, E-Shram Card and Rs. 200/-.(Confronted with portion B to B1 in Ex. PW1/A wherein so recorded). Thereafter, the said boy started running and he raised alarm Pakdo-Pakdo Chor-Chor and his nephew State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 3/14 Rahul who was coming in front side, apprehended the said boy i.e., accused namely Devender with his help (Confronted with portion C to C1 in Ex. PW1/A wherein so recorded). Attention of witnesses was again drawn towards the accused standing in the Courtroom, on which the witness states that he cannot identify and recognize the said person/accused. He further denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the accused at his instance. He further denied that he had been won over by the accused. He admitted that he was not present at the tea stall on the day of the incident. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not tell the exact date to the Court to save the accused for punishment in this case. He deposed that he does not know whether police officials recorded his statement or not. He further denied that IO prepared a site plan exhibited as Ex. PW1/B at his instance. He deposed that he does not know whether any crime team visited at the spot or not. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely just to save the accused. An opportunity for cross-examination of the witness given to the accused, however the same is not availed.
5. PW-2 Rahul has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he worked in the tea shop in the same house. On date and time unknown, when he was returning to his tea shop at the address, his uncle told him that someone had stolen his purse State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 4/14 and he had filed the police complaint regarding the same. He went to PS and he signed some papers in the PS. After seeking due permission from the court, the witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State. During cross-examination, PW-2 was confronted with his statement from point X1 to X1 recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C by the IO. The statement exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. He admitted that the incident is dated 23.06.2022 and happened around 2.45 pm at Shop no. 925, Kucha Rohila Khan. He does not remember that on the day of the incident his uncle Raju was running/following the accused persons by shouting 'chor chor pakdo pakdo'. He denied the suggestion that he along with his uncle caught the accused red handed and later on his name was revealed as Devinder Singh. He admitted that his uncle told him that the accused Devender had come to his tea shop and had stolen his purse from the galla of said shop when he was busy preparing the tea. He further denied that the above said purse was recovered from the possession of accused Devender during his cursory search which was found containing Rs.200/- and Aadhar card of his uncle and some other documents also. He does not know who had informed the police about the incident. He further denied that police officials arrived at the spot and he along with his uncle handed over the accused along with case property to IO. He does not remember when and where the police officials State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 5/14 recorded his uncle's statement/complaint. He further denied that police officials recorded his statement and his uncle's statement at the spot. Attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused and the witness had failed to identify the accused. Attention of the witness drawn towards the photographs of said shop and witness has correctly identified the said shop. The photographs are Ex.P-1. He deposed that does not remember whether any crime team arrived at the spot on the day of incident and had taken the photographs of said shop. He cannot identify the purse of his uncle. He further denied that he is deliberately not telling the exact facts of the case as he has been won over by the accused. An opportunity for cross-examination of the witness given to the accused, however the same is not availed.
6. PW-3 SI M K Khan has deposed in his examination-
in-chief that on 23.06.2022, after receiving DD no. 50A Mark X1, he alongwith CT. Amit went to the spot i.e., Kucha Rohilla, Tiraha Bairam Khan, Daryaganj, Delhi. After reaching the spot, he met complainant namely Raju and Rahul alongwith the accused whose name was later revealed Devender Singh s/o Sh. Sikander Singh. Complainant Raju handed over the custody of accused to him and narrated him the whole incident. Thereafter, he carried out a cursory search of the accused and one brown color leather purse was recovered from possession of the accused which was found State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 6/14 containing the Aadhar card of the complainant and employment /labor card and Rs.200/- (100X2). Thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant Ex.PW1/A and prepared tehrir from point X to X1 and handed over the same to Ct. Amit for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct. Amit came back at the spot along with a copy of FIR and original rukka / tehrir and handed over the same to him. In the meanwhile, he called the crime team at the spot who prepared the scene of crime inspection report and also took the photographs of the tea shop / stall alongwith galla / chest from which you stole the purse of the complainant and handed over the same to him. The photographs are Ex.P1. He recorded the statement of the crime team u/s 161 Cr.P.C and they were discharged. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW1/B. He seized the recovered purse containing Aadhar card of the complainant and employment /labor card and Rs.200/- (100X2) vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and prepared pullanda and sealed it with the seal of MKK. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B and carried out personal search of accused vide search memo Ex.PW3/C. He recorded disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex.PW3/D. The accused was taken to LNJP hospital for his medical examination by Ct. Amit and thereafter, put behind the bars in the lock up of the PS and he deposited the case property in the malkhana. He recorded the State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 7/14 statement of Rahul and Ct. Amit and supplementary statement of complainant Raju. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet before the concerned court. He has correctly identified the accused. He has correctly identified the purse along with Aadhar card and Labour Card and Rs.200/- as the one which was recovered from possession of accused on the date of incident Ex.P2.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-3 stated that he admitted that the incident had not taken place in his presence. He denied that there is no recovery from the accused. He further denied that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the PS. He admitted that no public witness joined in the investigation. He admitted that no notice was served to the public persons to join the investigation. He admitted that no MLC is on record in the judicial file. He further denied that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case. He further denied that he is deposing falsely.
7. The prosecution evidence was closed on 03.01.2023.
Statement of the accused u/s 313 read with section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He also submitted that he did not want to lead defence evidence. Final arguments in the matter were heard.
State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 8/14 DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. LAC for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record. Before adverting to the appreciation of evidence for deciding the present case, the applicable penal provisions are reproduced in verbatim as follow:-
Section 380 IPC. Theft in a dwelling house, etc.--Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 411 IPC. 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 fine or both.
9. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favor of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
10. After scanning the material on record, it is reflected that a person named Raju is the complainant / victim / eye-
State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 9/14 witness of the alleged theft of a brown purse belonging to the complainant from his shop. The said complainant was examined as PW-1. Another eye-witness namely Rahul was also cited as witness by the prosecution and is examined as PW-2. Testimony of the complainant and eye-witness Rahul has sealed the fate of the prosecution's case. The entire prosecution case for the commission of offence of theft and alleged recovery of case property was based on the statement of the complainant whereby he narrated the incident to police authorities. Prosecution case of the commission of offence of theft and alleged recovery of case property cannot be considered to be standing on its own legs without the testimony of the complainant asserting the facts mentioned in his statement before the police /IO.
11. It is pertinent to observe that the star witness of the prosecution i.e. Complainant and eye-witness Rahul who are the only eye-witness of the alleged offence did not support the case of the prosecution, and could not even identify the accused in the Court and has failed to depose as per the prosecution version. The complainant has completely resiled from his earlier statements given to the police and even stated deposed that he doesn't remember anything about the accused who committed the alleged offence. He was even cross- examined by Ld. APP u/s 154 Cr.P.C wherein also he deposed against the story of prosecution and evn confronted with her State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 10/14 statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Further, the statement of the complainant recorded by IO u/s 161 Cr.P.C cannot be considered to be the conclusive proof of the commission of alleged offence. Furthermore, the disclosure statement of the accused regarding the said offence cannot be the sole proof of the establishment of the fact of alleged offence. The complainant has denied the facts recorded in his initial complaint i.e. Ex. PW1/A. In view of the above discussion, the accused cannot be held guilty on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offences.
12. Investigation officer of the present case was examined as PW-3. Other police witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses of the prosecution vide order dated 03.01.2023. IO and the remaining witnesses who were not examined could at best reproduce the investigation proceeding conducted after the commission of the alleged offence as they are not the eye- witnesses. Here, it is apt to refer to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors." 1996, JCC 07 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been observed that:-"in a case, where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date."
State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 11/14
13. Considering the overall facts of the case and discussion made therein above, it cannot be considered as the proof beyond reasonable doubt to hold the accused guilty of the offence u/s 380 IPC.
14. Now, coming to the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC is concerned, the complainant has categorically stated in his deposition that he was not present at the relevant time at the date of incident at his shop. He deposed that he came to his shop and saw a mob. Neither he has exhibited and proved a recovery memo of case property wherein he signed as witness. He even does not remember giving any complaint to the police. With respect to the alleged recovery of case property, the complainant did not utter a single word in his testimony, this put the story of recovery proceeding of case property under the shadow of doubt. Neither, the allegedly recovered articles from the accused were identified by the complainant as the robbed/stolen property before the Court. Here, it is pertinent to observe that it is a settled legal proposition that the case property must fall within the definition of stolen property as defined u/s 410 IPC for making out a case U/s 411 IPC, which is not the fact situation in the present matter. The prosecution has even failed to establish that alleged recovery was stolen property belonging to the complainant, accordingly there is no material on record State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 12/14 to implicate the accused for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
15. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ganga Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 7 SCC 278 that:
"The settled position of law is that the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing evidence. Hence, if the prosecution in a given case adduces evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court cannot acquit the accused on the ground that there are some defects in the investigation, but if the defects in the investigation are such as to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, then of course the accused is entitled to acquittal because of such doubt."
16. In the case at hand, neither the complainant nor public witness Rahul has not supported the case of the prosecution, there is nothing incriminating to suggest that the accused had committed the offence of theft or retained any stolen property belonging to the complainant. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of offence alleged against the accused in the present matter beyond a pale of reasonable doubt.
17. Prosecution has failed to discharge its burden qua the offences punishable under Section 380/411 IPC. Accordingly, accused namely Devindar Singh S/o Shikander Singh stands acquitted of all the charges in the present case.
18. Bail bond and surety bond discharged. Original documents be returned to entitled parties. Bail bonds u/s State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 13/14 437A of Cr.PC are to be furnished which would remain valid for a period of six months.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by MEENA
MEENA CHAUHAN
today i.e. 04.01.2023 CHAUHAN Date:
2023.01.04
16:49:20 +0530
(MEENA CHAUHAN)
Metropolitan Magistrate-08 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi [This judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Devinder Singh FIR No. 201/22 PS Chandni Mahal 14/14