Delhi District Court
Fir No. 358/01 St vs . Sanjay Puri And Ors Ps: Sarojini Nagar on 18 March, 2011
Page no. 1/11
FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Sanjay Puri and Ors.
FIR NO: 358/01
P. S. Sarojini Nagar
Date of institution of case : 16.05.2002
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 11.03.2011
Date of judgment : 18.03.2011
Advocates appearing in the case :
Sh. Ashesh Changkum, Ld. APP for State
Sh. Ajay Malviya counsel for all accused persons
JUDGEMENT U/S 355
Cr.P.C
.:
a) Date of offence : 05.09.2001
b) Offence complained of : U/S 380/411/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Sh. Omi Uttam
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : 1). Sanjay Puri
local & permanent residence S/o Sh. A.R. Puri
R/o A604, Mod Apartments
Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi
2). Sanjay Singh
S/o Sh. Inder Dev Singh
R/o Village Dallupura,
Near Vasundhara Enclave
New Delhi
3). Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Inderjeet
R/o Village Dallupura,
Near Vasundhara Enclave
New Delhi
Page no. 2/11
FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar
e) Plea of accused : They are falsely implicated.
g) Final order : Accused Sanjay Singh and Anil
Kumar is acquitted, however
accused Sanjay Puri is convicted.
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was lodged on the complaint of complainant Sh. Omi Uttam dated 05.09.2001 that his servant Smt. Anju had informed him on telephone at his shop at Karol Bagh at about 5.30 PM that somebody had arrived at home from Mumbai and he went from home towards the shop to meet the complainant but complainant told her that nobody had come to meet him and thereafter, when complainant returned to his home B2/3, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi at about 7.15 PM, his daughter Neha told him that her mother's Almirah was open and jewellery was missing from the Almirah. Complainant's wife namely Smt. Pooja Uttam gave the detailed list of stolen articles on next day i.e. 06.09.2001 to the police, according to which many gold, diamond and silver articles amounting to value of Rs. 20,64,000/ had been stolen. After lodging of the FIR, investigation was started.
2. The accused Sanjay Puri was arrested on 18.03.2002 from village Jhandpura, Noida by IO Inspector R.S. Dahiya. Accused gave disclosure statement in which he admitted to have stolen the jewellery from house of complainant by misrepresenting as his relative before the servants of complainant. The accused Sanjay Puri named the coaccused Anil Kumar and Sanjay Singh to be his co associates who had assisted him in commission of theft. On disclosure statement of Page no. 3/11 FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar accused Sanjay Puri, accused Anil Kumar and accused Sanjay Singh were arrested on 19.03.2002 by Inspector R.S. Dahiya. After disclosure statement of accused Sanjay Puri dated 18.03.2002, accused Sanjay Puri pointed out to the place of theft as per pointing out memo dated 19.03.2002 and also got recovered many articles of jewellery and gini coins etc. from shop no. 32, Umrao Singh Mahavir Prasad Jain Jewellers, Bhogal New Delhi on 23.03.2002 and also got recovered more articles like mobile phone Nokia Model 5110 and five wrist watches from his tenanted accommodation Room no. 29, Karare Apartment Sector11, Noida as per 2nd seizure memo dated 23.03.2002. IO filed application for TIP of accused Sanjay Puri but he refused to join TIP on 20.03.2002. After arrest of other accused persons, disclosure statements and pointing out memos of accused Sanjay Singh and accused Anil Kumar were recorded but nothing was got recovered from them. The TIP proceedings for case property was conducted before the Ld. MM, Sh. V.K. Yadav in which Smt. Pooja Uttam, the wife of complainant correctly identified the case property i.e. Seven gold ginies,one pair of gold tops, a big gold 'kara', two gold bangles with hook, a ginny chain, three silver and gold bangles, three sets of gold 'karas' and a gold Cartier chain to be belonging to her.
3. After recording statement of witnesses and completion of investigation, IO filed chargesheet against all the accused persons. Charge was framed u/s 380/411/34 IPC against all the accused persons on 31.07.2002 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 13 PWs to prove its case against accused persons.
Page no. 4/11
FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar
4. PW1 Sh. Omi Uttam, the complainant stated that on 05.09.2001, his maid servant Anju had informed him telephonically that some acquaintance of his from Mumbai had arrived from airport at home and wanted to meet him so he left from home towards the shop of complainant at about 3 to 3.15 PM. But complainant stated that he never reached at the shop and when complainant returned home at 7.15 PM, his daughter Neha told him that jewellery of his wife had been stolen from the cupboard. The wife of complainant was at Nainital at that time, so he informed her telephonically and she stated that she could give the details of jewellery only on her return. Complainant exhibited his statement recorded before Police as Ex.PW1/A and the list of jewellery provided on the next day i.e. 06.09.2001 as Ex.PW1/B. He stated that he received message from police after 7/8 months that some of the jewellery had been recovered. Thereafter, he took the jewellery on superdari. The superdarinama has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/C. He exhibited the case property i.e. one gold kara' as Ex.P1, three pink and white bangles as Ex.P2, P3 and P4, one pair kara' Ex.P5/1 and Ex.P5/2, one pair kara Ex.P6/1 and 2, one pair kara phool patai Ex.P7/1 and 2. One pair kara Ex.P8/1 and 2, one gini chain having a photo of laxmi, Ex.P9, one cartiar chain Ex.P10, one pair of tops Ex.P11/1 and 2 and seven golden ginnis now Ex.P12/1 to 7.
5. PW2 Smt. Pooja Uttam, the wife of complainant stated that she was informed by her husband telephonically on 05.09.2001that theft had been committed in their house, so she came from Nainital to Delhi on 06.09.2001 in the evening and prepared the list of stolen articles and handed it over to the police. She also correctly identified the case property in court.
Page no. 5/11
FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar
6. PW3 HC Prakash Chand, the DO exhibited copy of FIR as Ex.PW3/A. The most important witness i.e. PW4 Ms. Anju, the maid servant of complainant stated that she was working in the house of complainant when the other servant i.e. Raju told her that some relative of complainant had arrived from Mumbai and he wanted to talk to complainant Sh. Omi Sahab, so she gave telephone number of complainant to the relative and after talking from his mobile phone in English, the accused Sanjay Puri sat in the room of complainant and told the maid servant Ms. Anju to bring the tea demanded towel and stated that after refreshing himself, he will go to the shop to meet complainant Sh. Omi Sahab. PW4 stated that the accused bolted the room from inside and after 15/20 minutes, he came out and stated that he can not take tea and he will take tea with Sh. Omi Sahab at shop so he went away. Thereafter, she saw that cupboard of the room was open and she informed the daughter of complainant i.e. Ms. Neha who told her father on telephone about theft. PW4 further stated that the guard of adjoining kothi told them that accused had come to their house in TSR. PW4 stated that after the theft, Omi Sahib had told her that accused had been arrested and he asked her to accompany him to the police station to identify the accused and when she went to PS Mayapuri, accused Sanjay Puri was sitting in the chamber of police officer Sh. Dahiya and she immediately identified him to be the same person who had come to their house on the date of theft and had stolen the valuables by impersonating himself as the relative of Sh. Omi Sahib. She correctly identified accused Sanjay Puri in Court. She was duly cross examined and discharged. Page no. 6/11
FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar
7. PW5 Sh. Raj Kumar Dass, the servant of complainant Sh. Omi Uttam stated on oath that he and the maid servant Ms. Anju were present at the house when accused Sanjay Puri had arrived at the house and told himself to be the relative of Sh. Omi Sahib. He also stated that accused talked to Sh. Om Sahib on his mobile phone after taking the phone number from them and then he demanded towel and ordered for one cup of tea and went inside the room of Omi Sahib and bolted the room from within. After 15 to 20 minutes, he came out of the room and stated that he will take tea with Omi Sahib at the shop and he went away. He stated that after sometime, the guard of nearby kothi told him that the guest had come by autoricksaw which was waiting outside and he had gone away by the same autoricksaw. PW5 further stated that thereafter, Ms. Anju told that cupboard of memsahib i.e. Smt. Pooja Uttam was open and in the evening Omi Sahib came and found that the jewellery was missing. PW5 also stated that on 08.04.2002, he went to PS Mayapuri where accused Sanjay Puri was sitting and he immediately identified the accused to be the same person who had come to the house and stolen away the property. He correctly identified the accused Sanjay Puri in court. He was also duly cross examined and discharged.
8. PW6 HC Bir Singh was the witness of arrest of accused Sanjay Puri who was arrested on 18.03.2002. PW6 exhibited the disclosure statement of accused Sanjay Puri as Ex.PW6/A in which he disclosed that he alongwith his co associate Sanjay Singh and Anil Kumar had committed theft in many Kothis of posh localities. The arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Sanjay Puri has been exhibited as Ex.PW6/B. He further stated that on 19.03.2002, Page no. 7/11 FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar accused Sanjay Singh and Anil Kumar were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/C1 and Ex.PW6/C2 and their personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/D1 and Ex.PW6/D2. Disclosure statement of accused Sanjay Singh and Anil Kumar are Ex.PW6/E1 and Ex.PW6/E2 and pointing out memo of place of theft by Anil Kumar is Ex.PW6/F and by Sanjay Puri Ex.PW6/G. The seizure memo of girvinama by which the accused had pledged the stolen jewellery to jeweller Sh. Mahavir Prasad has been exhibited as Ex.PW6/K1 and girvinama has been exhibited as Ex.PW6/K2. He was also cross examined and discharged.
9. PW7 Ct. Satyawan stated that on 17.04.2002, IO seized the TSR no. DL1RC0542 in his presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. PW8 Sh. Mahavir Prasad Jain, the jeweller of shop no. 32, Bhogal, Delhi, stated that accused and his mother were earlier residing in Defence Colony and had also come to purchase some golden articles earlier also. He stated that accused Sanjay Puri pledged some jewellery ornaments against Rs. 35,000/ and he issued girvinama (pledge receipt) to accused. Thereafter, he was told by police that it was stolen property and he handed over the pledged jewellery and girvinama to the police. He identified his signature at the girvinama.
10. PW9 SI Arvind Verma stated that he had received DD no. 79B on 05.09.2001 about theft at house no. 2/3, S.J. Enclave and he went for investigation where he recorded statement of complainant Sh. Omi Uttam as Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement over it i.e. Ex.PW9/A and handed it over to Ct. Bini Thomas for lodging the FIR. He prepared site plan i.e. Ex.PW9/B at the pointing out of Page no. 8/11 FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar complainant Sh. Omi Uttam. He stated that, after interrogation of maid servant Ms. Anju, he got the sketch of suspected accused made out and made efforts to search the accused but later on the case was transfered to District Investigation Unit (DIU).
11. PW10 SI Naresh Malik stated that he was posted as SI in DIU and joined investigation of present case alongwith Inspector R.S. Dahiya on 21.03.2002. He stated that accused was taken on PC remand and he pointed out to many houses in which he had committed theft including the house of Sh. Omi Uttam. He also stated that accused had pointed out to shop no. 32, Umrao Singh Mahavir Prasad Jain Jewellers where Mahavir Prasad Jain was sitting and accused disclosed that he had pledged the stolen jewellery to him for Rs. 35,000/ and thereafter, Mahabir Prasad Jain produced the jewellery articles which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A and girvinama was taken from possession of Mahabir Prasad Jain vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/K1.
12. PW11 Sh. V.K. Yadav Ld. ASJ, Tis Hazari stated that the TIP of case property was conducted on 24.04.2002 in his presence after mixing the stolen property with other articles and the witness Ms. Pooja Uttam had correctly identified the jewellery articles mentioned in the TIP proceedings which are Ex.PW11/B.
13. PW12 SI Neeraj Chaudhary stated that accused Sanjay Puri was arrested on 18.03.2002 in his presence vide memo already Ex.PW6/C and accused Anil and Sanjay were also arrested on the next day in his presence. PW13 retired ACP Sh. R.S. Dahiya the IO from DIU stated that further investigation was started Page no. 9/11 FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar by him in this case on 03.10.2001 and accused Sanjay Puri was arrested from house no. 2, Noida, UP on 18.03.2002 at night after raid in presence of SI Naresh Malik and other police officials. Accused Sanjay Puri was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/A and many articles were recovered from him u/s 102 Cr.P.C. and after disclosure of Sanjay Puri and at the instance of accused Sanjay Puri, the stolen jewellery of present case was recovered from Umrao Singh Jewellers, Shop no. 32, Jangpura, Bhogal which were seized and sealed with seal of 'RSD'. PW2 Smt. Pooja Uttam had correctly identified her articles in TIP.
14. All the witnesses have been duly cross examined by counsel for accused persons but no material irregularity or inconsistency had been brought forward from the cross examination of witnesses. The counsel for accused Sanjay Puri gave suggestion to PW4 Ms. Anju that the person who had actually committed theft in the house of complainant had committed suicide thereafter and accused had been falsely implicated in this case, but PW4 denied the suggestion categorically. She denied the suggestion that she alongwith the person who committed suicide had committed theft at complainant's house.
15. The counsel for accused put suggestion to PW4 during cross examination that she had identified accused Sanjay Puri in police station only at the instance of complainant who had pointed out towards accused and stated to PW4 that he was the person who committed theft. However, this suggestion does not lead to any benefit to accused because accused had also been correctly identified by PW5 Sh. Raj Kumar Dass. PW5 categorically denied the question put by defence counsel that complainant had pointed out to accused Sanjay Puri at police station and then he had identified the accused. He stated that he had Page no. 10/11 FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar identified the accused himself at the police station. He denied the suggestion that the theft was committed by the driver of complainant i.e. Sh. Bir Singh and Ms. Anju and the driver committed suicide thereafter. PW6 in his cross examination stated that 29 cases were pending against accused Sanjay Puri. There is no material inconsistency in cross examination of other PWs.
16. After closure of PE statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They preferred not to lead defence evidence, hence case was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on last date and case was fixed for order for today.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF:
17. After perusal of entire record, and after hearing final arguments, this court is of the opinion that no case of theft is made out against accused Anil Kumar and Sanjay Singh. Neither the witnesses have alleged that there were other persons with accused Sanjay Puri at the time of entering the house nor they have identified them to have accompanied accused Sanjay Puri to the house. PW4 and PW5 who were the eye witnesses had not noted any number of the TSR by which accused Sanjay Puri had arrived at the home of complainant. Nobody had seen the accused Anil Kumar and Sanjay Singh with main accused Sanjay Puri, at time of commission of theft or soon thereafter. Hence, the accused Sanjay Singh and Anil Kumar are acquitted of offence of theft u/s 380 IPC. No recovery has been made at the instance of accused Sanjay Singh and Anil Kumar, hence their disclosure statements have no value in the eyes of law and they are irrelevant evidence hence Page no. 11/11 FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar both accused are also acquitted of the offence of receiving stolen property u/s 411 IPC.
17. However, there is very strong evidence of theft and recovery of stolen property at the instance of accused Sanjay Puri. The eye witnesses PW4 and PW5 have correctly identified the accused Sanjay Puri to be the same person who had entered the house of complainant on the date of theft and soon after his going out of the room of the complainant, the cupboard was found open and jewellery articles were found stolen. After the arrest of accused Sanjay Puri and after his disclosure statement and on his pointing out, many jewellery articles were recovered from jeweller shop at Bhogal and from his tenanted room at Karare Apartment Sector11, Noida, and the jewellery had been correctly identified by PW2 Smt. Pooja Uttam in TIP proceedings which have been duly exhibited. Hence, the disclosure statement of accused also become relevant u/s 27 Evidence Act since the stolen jewellery & articles were recorded in consequence of disclosure statement made by accused Sanjay Puri while in custody. Hence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for conviction of accused Sanjay Puri. Hence, accused Sanjay Puri is convicted of offence u/s 380 IPC. Accused had been charged u/s 411 IPC alternatively, but there is no need of giving finding u/s 411 IPC against accused Sanjay Puri since he has already been convicted u/s 380 IPC. Copy of order be given dasti to convict Sanjay Puri. Fix for hearing on quantum of sentence on 21.03.2011.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH )
TODAY ON 18th MARCH 2011 MM07(SOUTH) NEW DELHI
Page no. 12/11
FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar FIR no. 358/01 PS: Sarojini Nagar 18.03.2011 Present: Ld. APP for State All accused with counsel Sh. Ajay Malviya Accused Sanjay Singh and Anil Kumar have been acquitted of this case vide separate judgement but accused Sanjay Puri had been convicted u/s 380 IPC. Bail bond and surety of accused Anil Kumar and Sanjay Singh are discharged. Endorsement if any be cancelled. Original FDR if any be release to Sanjay Singh and accused Anil Kumar. Both the accused Sanjay Singh and Anil Kumar are directed to furnish bail bond and surety bond in tune of Rs. 10,000/ each for their appearance in next Appellate Court as and when they receives summons.
Fix for hearing on quantum of sentence of accused Sanjay Puri on 21.03.2011. Notice be issued to SHO for filing previous conviction record of accused Sanjay Puri at 2 PM. Copy of order be given dasti to accused Sanjay Puri.
( TYAGITA SINGH ) MM07(South)Saket 18.03.2011 Page no. 13/11 FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI 1/2 STATE VS. Sanjay Puri and Ors.
FIR NO: 358/01
P. S. Sarojini Nagar
ORDER ON SENTENCE
28.03.2011
Present : Ld. APP for State
Accused Sanjay Puri with counsel Sh. Ajay Malviya
The convict has been heard on the quantum of sentence. The counsel for convict Sanjay Puri states that though convict was involved in may cases but now the accused has reformed himself and he is working as Process Advisor in Convergys India Company, Gurgaon, Haryana and he is the sole bread earner for the family having aged parents and a wife and one little son, hence the counsel prays that lenient view be taken in favour of the convict since convict has tried his best to settle in society and to earn his livlihood by legal means and now he is no more involved in any fresh cases of similar offences.
Previous involvement record of convict has been filed by SHO PS Sarojini Nagar, according to which convict is involved in 30 criminal cases out of the most of the cases are of theft in house but the SHO has not filed any report of previous conviction of convict in any of these cases.
The counsel for convict states that in the absence of previous conviction record, the court may consider the case of convict for granting him minimum punishment or benefit of probation as per provisions of section 360 Cr.P.C. Page no. 14/11
FIR no. 358/01 St vs. Sanjay Puri and Ors PS: Sarojini Nagar IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI 2/2 STATE VS. Sanjay Puri and Ors.
FIR NO: 358/01
P. S. Sarojini Nagar The convict requests that if he is again sent to jail, his previous efforts towards reform will become a nullity and he will have to begin all over again. The convict undertakes to carry on his efforts of reformation and not to involve in any further criminal cases. On the basis of above stated circumstances, the convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months u/s 380 IPC. Perusal of file reveals that convict Sanjay Puri was arrested on 18.03.2002 and thereafter he was in J/C till his bail bond was accepted on 09.12.2002. The convict has already undergone more than six months in J/C during trial. Hence, no imprisonment remains due now. Therefore, the convict is set at liberty today. Previous bail bond and surety bond stands discharged. Original document if any and endorsement if any be cancelled. Copy of order be given to convict. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH )
TODAY ON 28 March, 2011
th
MM07(SOUTH) NEW DELHI