Delhi District Court
State vs . Dinesh Mehta on 16 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN YOGESH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Dinesh Mehta
FIR No: 191/15
PS: Saket
U/s: 379/411/468/471 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Unique ID No. of the Case : 02406R0127282015
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 11.02.2015
3. Date of institution of the case : 14.04.2015
4. Name of the complainant : Sh. Arun Kumar
S/o Sh. Ganpat Das
H. No. 150/2, Hari Nagar,
Ashram, New Delhi.
5. Name of accused, parentage : Dinesh Mehta
S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh
H. No. MS61, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
6. Offence complained or proved : U/s 411 & 482 IPC.
7. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Final Order : Convicted.
9. Date of Final Order : 16.07.2015
FIR No. 191/15, PS Saket State Vs. Dinesh Mehta 1 of 8
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION :
01. Accused Dinesh Mehta S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh has been charged for offence U/s 411 IPC upon allegation of having dishonestly received or retained stolen TSR No. DL1RL5401 which was recovered at his instance by policestaff Crime Branch, Chanakyapuri on 16.02.2015. Additionally, he has been also tried for offence U/s 482 IPC upon allegation of having used fake registration number DL1RK9614 upon TSR for intending to defraud.
02. Prosecution's case gathered from chargesheet reveals that information vide DD No. 47B dated 11.02.2015, PS Saket regarding theft of TSR (auto) near gate no. 3, Saket Court was marked to HC Jai Kishan. Upon reaching at the spot, complainant Sh. Arun Kumar met him and his complaint alleging theft of TSR was recorded. HC Jai Kishan prepared tehrir for offence U/s 379 IPC and got FIR registered at PS Saket.
03. During investigation, HC Jai Kishan (IO) prepared siteplan at the instance of complainant and recorded statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 17.02.2015, information was received vide DD No.13B upon which he went to Crime Branch office and obtained relevant documents. Accused Dinesh Mehta was interrogated at Central Jail Tihar with court's permission on 19.02.2015 and his disclosure statement was recorded. After his arrest, accused was produced FIR No. 191/15, PS Saket State Vs. Dinesh Mehta 2 of 8 before court and remanded to judicial custody. Case property was brought at malkhana, PS Saket vide RC No.49/21/15 dated 25.02.2015 and was later on released to complainant. After collecting sufficient evidence against accused, HC Jai Kishan (IO) finalized investigation and prepared chargesheet for offence(s) U/s 379 /411 /468 /471 IPC which was filed in court on 14.04.2015.
04. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused Dinesh Mehta was charged for offence U/s 411 & 482 IPC on 30.04.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
05. Prosecution has examined five witnesses in support of its case. Complainant Sh. Arun Kumar has entered the witnessbox as PW01. Recovery witnesses (Crime Branch, Chanakyapuri) HC Hanuman Singh and Ct. Parminder Singh have deposed as PW02 & PW04 whereas Sh. Deepak Saroha, Asstt. Sudt., Jail No. 3, Tihar and HC Jai Kishan (IO) have testified as PW03 & PW05.
06. Copies of disclosure statement of accused, seizure memo of TSR and road certificate in DD No.14 dated 16.02.2015 U/s 41.1(d) Cr.P.C. Crime Branch, Chankyapuri were mentioned in a list filed by prosecution which was put to accused U/s 294 Cr.P.C. and the documents being not disputed were exhibited as Ex. A1, Ex. A2 & Ex. A3.
07. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Dinesh Mehta has FIR No. 191/15, PS Saket State Vs. Dinesh Mehta 3 of 8 been examined U/s 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. and did not dispute the allegation and testimonies of witnesses examined on judicialrecord.
08. Final submissions have been addressed by either side.
09. Sh. Narender Kumar Yadav, ld. APP for State has adverted to testimonies of recoverywitnesses PWs HC Hanuman Singh and Ct. Parminder Singh (Crime Branch, Chankyapuri) for seeking conviction of accused for offence(s) U/s 411 & 482 IPC.
10. Adv. Sh. Kishore Kumar, ld. LAC, per contra, has sought acquittal of accused by contending that no independent publicwitness was joined by police personnels Crime Branch during alleged recovery of TSR. He has also adverted to crossexamination of recoverywitnesses (PW02 & PW04) to submit that both witnesses have divergently deposed with respect to have accompanied the accused in his TSR to Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar.
11. Having heard their rival submissions, it would be prudent to discuss the testimonies of witnesses examined by prosecution for adjudicating upon the guilt or innocence of accused.
12. Complainant Sh. Arun Kumar (PW01) in his examinationin chief has deposed to have come to Saket Court in TSR No. DL1RL5401 on 11.02.2015 and parked his vehicle in front of gate no. 3, Saket Court, but the FIR No. 191/15, PS Saket State Vs. Dinesh Mehta 4 of 8 same was found missing at 01:00 PM. He has proved his complaint given to police as Ex. PW 1/A. After few days he was informed about recovery of his TSR and got it released upon panchnama Ex. PW 1/B and indemnity bond Ex. PW 1/C. He has also identified the photographs of TSR bearing fake number DL1RK9614 as Ex. P1 to Ex. P5.
13. Recoverywitnesses HC Hanuman Singh & Ct. Parminder Singh posted at Crime Branch, Chankyapuri, New Delhi have deposed to have gone to Dwarka Mor on 16.02.2015 upon secret information, stopped one TSR No. DL1RK9614 coming from Dwarka Mor towards NSIT at around 08:25 PM and apprehended accused Dinesh Mehta. Upon verifying its chasis number and engine number the correct registration number of TSR was found as DL1RL5401 which was stolen from PS Saket. Both witnesses have deposed about seizure of TSR U/s 102 Cr.P.C. and referred to the seizure memo of TSR, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused, kalandara U/s 41. 1(d) Cr.P.C. and their departure & arrival entry as Mark 'A' to Mark 'F'. Photographs of TSR were identified by both witnesses as Ex. P1 to Ex. P5.
14. Testimonies of both recoverywitnesses has remained consistent in all material aspects during their crossexamination by ld. LAC and inspires the confidence of court. So far as contention raised by defence i.e. whether one or FIR No. 191/15, PS Saket State Vs. Dinesh Mehta 5 of 8 both recoverywitnesses had accompanied accused in his TSR up to Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar, PW HC Hanuman Singh has testified to have sat along with accused Dinesh Mehta in his TSR which was driven by accused up to office of Crime Branch at Malviya Nagar. PW Ct. Parminder Singh has also deposed about TSR being driven by accused for reaching at PS Malviya Nagar while he alongwith HC Hanuman Singh was sitting in the said TSR. Thus, there is no inconsistency revealed from their testimonies and even for the sake of argument, inconsistency, if any, as pointed by ld. LAC can be attributed to errors of perception or observation or due to lapse of memory.
15. It is pertinent to refer to para no. 38 of judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan. AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3150 : "It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labeled as omissions or contradictions...."
"It is in fact, the entirety of the situation which must be taken into FIR No. 191/15, PS Saket State Vs. Dinesh Mehta 6 of 8 consideration. While appreciating the evidence, the court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, rather must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version. The discrepancies may be due to normal errors of perception or observation or due to lapse of memory or due to faulty of stereotype investigation. After exercising such care and caution, and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, embellishments and improvements, the court must determine whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused."
16. Similar observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in earlier case titled State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1393 are also relevant : Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
17. Therefore, testimonies of recoverywitnesses having withstood the rigors of crossexamination without being shaken, prosecution has successfully proved its allegation of recovery of stolen TSR No. DL1RL5401 by policestaff FIR No. 191/15, PS Saket State Vs. Dinesh Mehta 7 of 8 Crime Branch, Chanakyapuri on 16.02.02015 at the instance of accused Dinesh Mehta. Allegation of use of fake registration number DL1RK9614 upon stolen TSR by accused Dinesh Mehta also stands proved in view of testimony of complainant (PW01) and photographs of TSR bearing fake registration number. Accused Dinesh Mehta S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh is hence held guilty for offence U/s 411 & 482 IPC and is accordingly convicted.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 16th July, 2015 (TARUN YOGESH) ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI FIR No. 191/15, PS Saket State Vs. Dinesh Mehta 8 of 8