Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Juber on 21 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02 (NORTH) DELHI
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0015261996
State Vs. Mohd. Juber
FIR No. : 9/94
PS : Maurice Nagar (Crime Branch)
U/s. 379/411/414 IPC
Date of institution: 09.04.1996
Judgment Reserved on: 21.04.2011
Date of Judgment: 21.04.2011
JUDGMENT
a) Serial No. of the case 02401R0015261996
b) Date of commission 21.01.1994 to 14.01.1966
of the offence
c) Name of the complainant Dr. R.K. Shiv Puri
d) Name of the accused person, Mohd. Juber S/o Mohd. Ali R/o
and his parentage and address. 234/ Arya Kanya Road, Shastri Nagar, Faizabad, UP
e) Offence complained or U/s. 379/411/414 IPC proved
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
g) The final order Acquitted
h) Date of such order 21.04.2011 FIR No. 09/94 PS Maurice Nagar Page 1 of 9 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. The FIR in the present case was registered on written complaint of one Dr. R.K. Shiv Puri. He alleged that he had parked his vehicle no. DL1C5424 at Central Library Ground, University of Delhi on 21.01.94. When he came back vehicle was found missing. After registration of FIR, investigation was started. The case was sent as untraced. On 14.01.96 one SI Shiv Shanker informed that one Mohd. Juber has been arrested in connection with another case being FIR No. 24/94, PS Maurice Nagar and had got recovered vehicle no.
UP07E5286 (having earlier fake no. RJ27A0527) (of which original no. is DL1C5424) and which was produced by one Vijay Kumar Mittal. Accused Mohd. Juber was arrested in the present case. During further investigation it was found that the person who had helped in preparation of fake documents namely Madan Mohan Mishra has been murdered at UP. He made disclosure statement about the present case. The accused was chargesheeted for the offence punishable u/s. 379/411/414 IPC.
2. After appearance of the accused, Sec.207 Cr.PC was complied with. Charge was framed against the accused on 16.08.99 for the offence punishable u/s. 411/414 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 HC Harpal Singh, PW2 Vijay Kumar Mittal, PW3 Parbhat Kumar Mittal, PW4 HC Mehak Singh, PW5 Neeraj Kumar Singhal, PW6 ASI Tilak Raj, PW7 Vijay Pal Singh, PW8 B.K. Kharbanda, PW9 SI Kaushal, PW10 Kulbhushan, PW11 Om Dev Singh, PW12 FIR No. 09/94 PS Maurice Nagar Page 2 of 9 Dr. R.K. Shiv Puri and PW13 Retd. SI Shiv Shanker.
4. Statement of the accused u/s. 313 Cr.PC was recorded. He did not lead any defence evidence.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have perused the record.
6. PW1 is initial IO. He had received complaint Ex.PW1/A and prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B.
7. PW2 deposed that he had purchased vehicle no. RJ27A0527 from Praduman Jain and RC was in the name of Prabhat Kumar Gupta. He got transferred the vehicle in his name and number was UP07E5286. He produced the RC Ex.PW2/A which was seized alongwith vehicle and number plate vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Pointing out memo is Ex.PW2/C. He deposed that vehicle was sold to him through one Pappu.
8. PW3 deposed that he alongwith his brotherinlaw had purchased vehicle no. RJ27A0527 for sum of Rs. 1.14 lacs and later on sold the same to P.K. Jain.
9. PW4 deposed that on 10.1.96, Inps. Udaivir Singh Rathi was having information regarding persons who were indulging in theft of cars. He prepared raiding party of which PW3 was also a member. They reached at Tanga Stand at Mori Gate. At 5.05 pm they apprehended accused Ombir Singh who disclosed that he alongwith coaccused Mohd. Juber has committed theft of various cars and the same were sold at Muzzafar Nagar, UP. Accused Ombir Singh was arrested. on 14.1.96, accused Mohd. Juber was also arrested. He FIR No. 09/94 PS Maurice Nagar Page 3 of 9 also made disclosure about committing theft of cars. Accused Mohd. Juber also disclosed that the cars were sold through Bablu, Om Dev and Pradeep Jain. He deposed that one Maruti Van no. UGU5540 was recovered from the place 61, Janki Dass, Muzzafar Nagar. Two more vehicles were recovered from different places. One more car was recovered from Rohini. Accused Ombir Singh and Mohd. Juber were arrested in his presence and personal search memos are Ex.PW4/A. In crossexamination he stated that he does not remember the name of the person from whom the vehicle was recovered.
10. PW5 deposed that he had purchased vehicle no. RJ27A0527 in 1994 through one Pappu from Mohd. Juber for Rs. 1.14 lacs. Later on it was transferred in the name of his brotherinlaw Prabhat Kumar Mittal. He did not identify accused. Nothing has come out in crossexamination by Ld. APP.
11. PW6 deposed that he had participated in case FIR No. 24/94 with IO SI Shiv Shanker on 10.1.96. He deposed that Insp. Udaivir had information that the person who had committed theft would come to bus stand Kashmere Gate. A raiding party was constituted. At about 5.00 pm at the instance of informer one Ombir Singh was apprehended. Ombir disclosed that his friend Mohd. Juber and one Mishra used to steel car and sell the same. Ombir was arrested and was taken on police remand. On 13.1.96 he took them to Muzzafar Nagar, UP and from there one car no. BHR5764 was got recovered at his instance. The car was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B. On the next day accused Juber was apprehended and he was also brought to Muzzafar Nagar. Mohd. Juber got recovered 23 stolen cars. They came back to Delhi and deposited recovered FIR No. 09/94 PS Maurice Nagar Page 4 of 9 cars in the malkhana. Thereafter, one car was recovered from Rohini. Further, one more car was recovered from Muzzafar Nagar on instance of both the accused on 16.1.96 and another car on 18.01.96 which was also seized.
12. PW7 is from RTO Dehradun. He produced record of vehicle no. UP07E5286 and as per which it was registered in the name of Vijay Kumar Mittal. Old no. was RJ27A0527. Copy of record is Ex.PW7/A.
13. PW8 is from Oriental Insurance Co. The insurance co. had taken the vehicle on superdari. He was partly examinedinchief.
14. PW9 was duty officer and had recorded Fir. Copy of which is Ex.PW1/A.
15. PW10 deposed that he had purchased the vehicle from Oriental Insurance Company. He produced the vehicle.
16. PW11 is Om Dev. He is completely hostile. He says that he does not remember anything. In crossexamination by Ld. APP for State, he stated that he does not know accused Mohd. Juber. He does not know any Satya Prakash. He denied that any vehicle was seized in his presence.
17. PW12 is complainant and deposed about parking the vehicle and its theft. He proved his complaint Ex.PW1/A.
18. PW13 is the IO. He deposed that on 10.01.96, he received secret information that one person indulging in sale and purchase of stolen cars was in Delhi and can be apprehended. DD No. 16 was got recorded regarding this. Insp. Udaiveer Singh was also informed and a raiding party consisting of PW8, HC Tilak Raj, Ct. Rakesh and Ct. Sudhir under supervision of Insp. Udaiveer FIR No. 09/94 PS Maurice Nagar Page 5 of 9 Singh was prepared. They reached at ISBT at about 5.00 p.m. They found accused Ombir there at Tanga Stand. He was apprehended on the instance of secret informer. Ombir revealed that Mohd. Juber had sold him seven stolen cars in 1994 out of which four were caught by the police at Unao UP and three were sold in Muzzafar Nagar through one Omdev. One of the said vehicle was having registration no. BHR5764. He also disclosed that Rs. 1,000/ was paid as commission to Mohd, Juber. Accused Ombir was arrested in case FIR No. 24/94, PS Maurice Nagar. His personal search was conducted. He made disclosure statement Ex.PW4/B. He was taken on police remand. On 12.01.96 they reached Muzzafar Nagar. On 13.01.96 Omdev (PW7) was called and he joined the investigation. PW8 deposed that accused Ombir led the police team to North Gandhi Nagar and got recovered car no. BHR5764 which was required in case FIR No. 24/94 PS Maurice Nagar. Thereafter, accused led police party to the house of Ashish Tayal at H.No. 215/1, Civil Lines, Muzzafar Nagar from where they came to know that he was residing at Rohini. When they were returning they got information that Mohd. Juber had gone to village Kaserva Kala to meet accused Ombir. The police party reached village Kaserva Kala where one Udayveer met them and informed that Juber had gone to Samli. The police team reached at Samli and on identification of Ombir, Juber was apprehended from bus stand in connection with the present case. He also made disclosure statement regarding providing stolen vehicles to accused Ombir Singh for sale. He also disclosed that some more stolen cars had been sold to him through Omdev, Pradeep Jain and Rameshwar Dayal @ Pappu. He also FIR No. 09/94 PS Maurice Nagar Page 6 of 9 disclosed that these vehicles were sold through these persons on pretext that the vehicle were auctioned by banks through one Mishra. Accused Juber was also arrested. His disclosure statement is Ex.PW4/C. Photocopy of which is Ex.PW5/A. He deposed that they all returned to Muzzafar Nagar where the accused Ombir led them to Bagh Janki Dass from where he got recovered one stolen car of case FIR No. 347/93, PS Maurice Nagar. Accused Juber led the police party to Patel Nagar from where car no. UP07E5286 (original no. DL1C5424) required in case FIR No. 9/94, PS Maurice Nagar was recovered and was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Cars were deposited in malkhana of PS Maurice Nagar. He further deposed about recovery of various other cars required in other cased.
19. The MHC(M) of PS Maurice Nagar given statement that the register no. 19 in respect of the present case had been torn and it was not clear to whom cars were released and where the number plates were deposited. DD No. 29B dated 31.7.05 and 59B dated 30.5.08 were already lodged in this respect. In crossexamination PW8 admitted that local police was not accompanied during the recovery proceedings. He denied the suggestion that both the accused were falsely implicated.
20. The accused in his statement denied the incriminating circumstances. He stated that he has been falsely implicated.
21. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that it is a planted case upon accused persons. No recovery was effected from them. On the other hand Ld. APP argued that prosecution has proved its case.
FIR No. 09/94 PS Maurice Nagar Page 7 of 9
22. The case of the prosecution is that stolen vehicle was sold to one Vijay Kumar Mittal (PW2). However, PW2 himself says that he had purchased it from Praduman Jain but RC was in the name of Prabhat Kumar Gupta. This shows that there is no role of accused Mohd. Juber in this. PW3 Prabhat Kumar says that he had purchased vehicle bearing no. RJ27A0527 alongwith his brotherinlaw Neeraj Kumar Singhal (PW5). However, PW3 does not tell the name of the person from whom the vehicle was purchased. PW5 though says that vehicle was purchased through one Pappu from Mohd. Juber but PW5 has not identified the accused as the same persons from whom the vehicle was purchased. This throws away case of prosecution. Thus, accused Mohd. Juber cannot be connected with the crime.
23. There is no documentary evidence of sale and purchase of the vehicle by the accused. Record from Transport Authority has been brought on record but it does not implicate the accused at all. No role of accused is deducible from this record. There is no documentary evidence that accused had sold any vehicle to anybody. There is no evidence either that number UP07E5286 or RJ27A0527 are fake. There is no evidence that the RC of vehicle bearing no. UP07E5286 is fake. Rather the RC is correct as per the record of RTO. It may be a case of obtaining this number fraudulently but this number is not fake. There is no evidence that accused had any role in obtaining this number fraudulently. There is no receipt or form 29 or 30 or any other similar document on record showing that accused had sold the said vehicle to anybody.
24. The prosecution case has also suffered on account of the fact that PW8 FIR No. 09/94 PS Maurice Nagar Page 8 of 9 Om Dev who is produced as recovery witness has also turned completely hostile. He has not supported the case of prosecution. He denies making any statement to the police.
25. The testimony of IO alone is not sufficient. The IO had stated that vehicles were deposited in the malkhana. However, there is statement of MHC(M) to the effect that no details were available regarding the deposit of the case property and its release as the record had been torn. The uncorroborated of testimony of the IO cannot be relied upon.
26. Thus, considered from any angle, the inescapable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against both the accused. Therefore, the accused is hereby acquitted. The bail bond already furnished by the accused is accepted further for the purpose of S. 437A Cr.PC at the request of the accused. This bond shall remain in force for a period of six months.
27. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court (SANJAY BANSAL)
today on 21.4.2011 Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate02/North/Delhi
FIR No. 09/94 PS Maurice Nagar Page 9 of 9