Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Rashid @ Raju on 19 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS.CHARU AGGARWAL: MM(05):
NORTH DISTT. TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
STATE VS. MOHD. RASHID @ RAJU
FIR No. 321/07
PS : Kotwali
U/s: 379/411 IPC
Unique ID No. : 02401R0811552007
1. Sl. No. of the case : 000623/K/10
2. Date of commission of offence : 14.07.2007
3. Name of accused and address : Mohd. Rashid @ Raju
S/o Sh. Abdul Rehman
R/o Pooja Colony, Loni,
Distt. Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh.
4. Offence complained of : 379/411 IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Acquittal
7. Date of such order : 19.08.2011
JUDGMENT
1. The FIR of the present case was registered against accused u/s 379/411 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) at the behest of complainant Paramjeet Singh.
Page 1
2. The case of the prosecution is that complainant is Head Constable in Jammu and Kashmir Police. On 14.07.2007, complainant alongwith his wife had come from Jammu and Kashmir to Delhi for the treatment of his wife in All India Medical College. On the above date, he alight in the bus route no. 729. Bus was crowded. At that time, complainant realized that cash of Rs.17500/, photocopy of his Icard were missing, thereafter, the present case was registered.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court. Accused was summoned. Vide order dated 23.08.2007, notice u/s 379/411 IPC was served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was fixed for PE.
4. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined 5 witnesses.
5. PW1 is DO, who has proved the registration of FIR Ex.PW1/A.
6. PW2 is complainant, who has proved his complaint as Ex. PW2/A. He has deposed on the same lines as stated in his complaint. He stated that after some days of theft, he came to know about the recovery of money and got the same released.
7. PW3 is HC Ravinder Singh, who has stated that on 14.07.2007, IO recorded the statement of complainant and prepared the rukka. Rukka was handed over to this PW for registration of FIR, Page 2 accordingly, FIR was registered.
8. PW4 is HC Praveen Kumar, who states that on 25.07.2007, he alongwith HC Dhani Ram was present at Lower Subhash Marg. Accused was already arrested in FIR no. 332/07, in which he gave disclosure regarding the theft of this case. From the search of accused, one note of Rs.1000/ and 7 notes of 500 (Total Rs.4500/) were recovered from the possession of accused. Same were taken into possesion vide memo Ex. PW4/B. One photocopy of Icard of complainant also got recovered from the accused. 9 PW5 is IO/ASI Dhani Ram, who stated that on 14.07.2007, he alongwith Ct. Ravinder was on patrolling at Red Fort Chowk, there they met complainant who told regarding the theft of Rs.17500/ and photocopy of his Icard no. 43715. This PW recorded the statement of complainant and prepared the rukka which was handed over to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR, accordingly, FIR was registered. On 25.07.2007, accused was arrested in FIR 332/07, u/s 25 Arms Act. During investigation of FIR no. 332/07, accused made disclosure Ex. PW4/A regarding the theft of this case. Rs.4500/ and photocopy of I card of complainant were recovered from the possession of accused. Same were seized by this PW. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted by this PW.
10. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement u/s 313 Page 3 Cr.P.C. of accused was recorded to which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
11. I have heard Ld. APP and Ld. Defence Counsel.
12. The FIR of the present case was registered at the behest of complainant Paramjeet Singh. As per the case of prosecution, some unknown person had committed theft of Rs.17500/ and photocopy of I card of the complainant. After almost 9 days of the alleged incident, accused was arrested on 25.07.2007 by the IO in this case. The basis of arrest of accused in this case is disclosure statement of accused given by him in FIR no. 332/07, u/ s 25 Arms Act. IO also recovered Rs.4500/ and photocopy of Icard of complainant from the possession of accused. Now, I have to consider whether the recovery effected from accused shown by the prosecution is sufficient to convict the accused in this case. The prosecution has not proved that the cash of Rs.4500/ allegedly recovered from accused were of complainant only. The possibility that the same were of accused himself cannot be ruled out. Now, let us come on the recovery of photocopy of Icard from accused. PW2 the material witness of this case has admitted in his cross examination that at the time of incident he was carrying his original I card in his bag. The possibility again which comes in my mind that at the time of lodging of complaint, complainant must have given the photocopy of his Icard to the IO which the IO later on might have Page 4 planted upon the accused to solve the case in hand.
13. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case, therefore, accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 379/411 IPC. Bail bonds and surety bonds cancelled. Sureties stood in the present case are discharged. Endorsement, if any, on any document regarding this case be cancelled. Originals, if any, be returned to the rightful claimant. Accordingly, file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Charu Aggarwal)
th
on 19 of August, 2011 MM(05)/North
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 5