Delhi District Court
3.Title State vs . Lalit @ Leela And Ved Prakash @ on 18 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Sh SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA : METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
1.FIR No. 122/2010
2.Unique Case ID No. Not alloted.
3.Title State Vs. Lalit @ Leela and Ved Prakash @
Raju
3(A).Name of complainant Kawaljeet Kaur s/o Sh Avtar Singh
r/o B220, Janta Colony, Shivaji Vihar, Delhi.
3(B).Name of accused 1. Lalit @ Leela s/o Chand Ram
r/o H. No. 1154, Jhajjar Road, Near Kath
Mandi Rohatak, Haryana.
2. Ved Prakash @ Raju s/o Sh Nahal Singh r/o
Balmiki Mohalla, Village: Tikari Kalan,
Delhi.
4.Date of institution of challan 13.10.2010
5.Date of Reserving judgment 18.03.2011
6.Date of pronouncement 18.03.2011
7.Date of commission of offence 411/34 IPC
8.Offence complained of Under Section 411/34IPC
9.Offence charged with Under Section 411 /34 IPC
10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
11.Final order Accused convicted U/sec 411/34 IPC
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.08.2010 between 01:00 AM to 04:00 PM, in front of H. No. B-220, Janata Colony, Shivaji Vihar, Delhi, Maruti car bearing No. DL-2CV-9151 Wagaon R belonging to the complainant Kawaljeet Kaur was stolen on 30.08.2010, from PVC Market, Tikari Kala, Village from vacant plot, both accused persons in furtherance in their common intention got the stolen car recovered seized vide seizure memo A, which both have retained dishonestly knowing or having reason to believe the same be to stolen property.
2. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed, copies were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 cr.p.c and on the basis of record, charge u/s 411/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons on 27.10.2010, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused persons has examined five witnesses.
PW1 Kwaljeet Singh deposed that he was the registered owner of Wagon-R and he had parked his car on 20.08.2010 at about 09:00 PM at in front of his house near Star Public School. He search for the car but in vain. On 29.08.2010, he lodged a complaint to SHO PS Khayala which is exhibited as EX. PW 1/A and after registration of FIR , IO accompanied him to the place of occurrence and prepared site plan at his pointing out and he also handed over the IO copy of RC in his favour Ex. PY. Upon recovery he took the car on superdari.
PW2 SI Vimla deposed that On 29.08.2010, she was posted at PS Khayala, and was on duty as DO having duty hours 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM. On that day she received rukka through HC Dharmender by himself. on the basis of rukka she recorded FIR No 122/10 and dictated the contents of FIR to computer operator and computerized copy of the same is Ex PW 2/A. After registration of the FIR and original rukka was handed over to HC Dharmender for investigation proposes.
PW3 Ct. Jag Jeevan and PW4 ASI Phool Kumar and PW5 Ct. Vinod Kumar are the recovery witnesses examined by the prosecution and all the above witnesses have deposed that On 30.08.2010 they were posted at PS Nihal Vihar and they were on patrolling duty and while patrolling at about 03.00 PM when they were present at Shiv Ram Park on the basis of secret information received accused persons namely Ved Prakash and Lalit were apprehended while in possession of stolen motorcycle. Both the accused persons were arrested in Kalandra U/s 41.D Cr. PC and 102 Cr. PC. Both accused persons made disclosure statements thereby disclosing their involvements in vehicle theft cases and their disclosures are Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B. Pursuant to disclosure both the accused persons led them to PVC Market and pointed us towards a vacant plot at PVC market, Tikri Kalan and got recovered one Wagon R car bearing no. DL-2CB-9151. The car was checked and was found in damaged conditions and PW4 checked the engine and chasis number of the car and made inquiries and came to know that regarding the theft of the car FIR No. 122/10 has been registered at PS Khyala. PW4 seized the car vide memo Ex. PW3/C. They have identified the photographs of the car are collectively Ex. P-2 and the identity of the car was not disputed by the accused person being by superdar i.e PW2.
4. No other PW was examined. PE was closed and Statement of both the accused was recorded on 07.02.2011. wherein the accused persons stated that they has been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused persons does not want to lead evidence in their defence.
5. I have heard the ld. APP for the state, Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the entire material available on record.
6. Here it would be appropriate to refer the case law reported as " Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was observed as under:-
" In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 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" .
7. It has been argued that no public witnesses have been joined to witness recovery and there are contradictions in the statement made by the PWs during cross-examination. On the contrary Ld. APP for the State submits that the members of the raiding party requested the public persons for joining the raid and sincere efforts have been made to join them and the recovery witnesses have deposed in corroboration to each other.
8. So far as arguments raised in respect of non-joining of public witnesses, it is well- settled law that the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that public witnesses have not been joined. Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled Ambika Prasad & Anr Vs. State reported in 2002(2) Crimes 63 SC wherein it has been held ' Independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or to assist the investigation. In any case if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, prosecution cannot be blamed at and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses'.
9. Reliance is also placed upon judgment titled Appa Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 1988 SC 696 wherein it has been held 'These days people in the vicinity where the occurrence took place avoid to come forward to give evidence and civilized persons are in sensitive when crime is committed even in their presence and they withdraw both from the victim and vigilance'.
In view of the above settled law it is clear that the prosecution case can not be thrown away merely on the ground that no public witnesses have been joined and it is also settled that the testimonies of police officials could be believed if the same have same reliability and confidence.
10. Thus in view of the above settled law even if no public witness have been joined in the investigation at the time when recovery was effected. In my considered opinion, in view of the above settled law, it is clear that the prosecution case can not be thrown away merely on the ground that no public witnesses have been joined and it is also settled that the testimonies of police officials could be believed if the same have same reliability and inspire the confidence of court.
11. The next question which is required to be answered is whether the testimony of recovery witnesses is trustworthiness or otherwise. In this regard the law is well settled to the effect as held in " SUKHDEV YADAV & ORS VS STATE OF BIHAR" (2001)8 SCC 186 that "
once the trustworthiness of evidence stated in a case stands satisfied, the court should not hesitate in accepting the same. If the evidence in its entirety appears to be trustworthy it can not be discarded mearly on the ground of presence of minor variation in evidence. When the witnesses are examined after a long gap minor contradiction commission and discrepancies are bond to occur in the testimony of witness.
12. Further, in judgment titled as Leela Ram vs State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525 it is was observed that there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirely.
Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishments, there may be, but variations by reason therefore, should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not be obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.
13. Here it is further that observed that PW 1 Kawaljeet Singh has duly proved the factum of theft of her Maruti Wagon-R Car No. DL-2CV-9151 and also deposed about the lodging of the FIR Ex PW1/A and has also produced the case property as Ex P-1, PW2 SI Vimala, duly proved the factum of recording of FIR Ex PW 2/A. I have already discussed the testimonies of recovery witnesses i.e of PW4 ASO Phool Kumar, PW5 Ct. Vinod Kumar and PW 3 Ct. Jagjeevan wherein all the witnesses have duly deposed about the factum of recovery of stolen Maruti Wagon-R Car No. DL-2CV-9151 from the possession of accused.
Here it is further observed that none of the recovery witnesses have been cross examined despite an opportunity being given to the accused persons. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
14. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts to the effect that on 30.08.2010, both accused persons in furtherance in their common intention got the stolen car recovered seized vide seizure memo PW3/C, which both have retained dishonestly knowing or having reason to believe the same be to stolen property.
Accordingly accused persons Lalit @ Leela and Ved Prakash @ Raj stands convicted for the offence U/sec 411/34 IPC.
Be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the (Sunil Kumar Sharma)
Open Court on 18.03.2011 Metropolitan Magistrate
THC,-Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains eight pages and each page bears my signature.
(Sunil Kumar Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate THC,-Delhi IN THE COURT OF SH SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA : METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (WEST) -11 TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI STATE VERSUS Lalit @ Leela and Ved Prakash @ Raju F.I.R. No 122/2010 U/s 411/34 IPC P.S. Khayala 18.03.2011 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Lalit @ Leela and Ved Prakash @ Raju produced from JC alongwith Vinay Kumar, legal aid counsel for the accused.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced today in the open court accused persons namely Lalit @ Leela and Ved Prakash @ Raju stands convicted for the offence U/sec 411/34 IPC.
Heard on the point of sentence.
The Ld. APP for the State has vehemently argued that in view of the gravity of offence, maximum sentence be inflicted upon the accused persons. Conversely, it is argued by the Ld. Legal Aid counsel for accused persons that convicts are of young age having families to support. Ld. Counsel for the convict s prays for a lenient view.
Heard.
The judgment indicates the fact that on on 21.08.2010 between 01:00 AM to 04:00 PM, in front of H. No. B-220, Janata Colony, Shivaji Vihar, Delhi, Maruti car bearing No. DL-2CV-9151 Wagaon R belonging to the complainant Kawaljeet Kaur was stolen on 30.08.2010, from PVC Market, Tikari Kala, Village from vacant plot, both accused persons in furtherance in their common intention got the stolen car recovered.
Having regard to facts, of the case and aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I am of the considered view that the convicts deserves some leniency and infliction of maximum punishment shall not meet the ends of justice.
The records reveals that the convict has remained in JC from 05.09.2010 till date.
In my considered opinion the ends of justice shall met if the both the convicts are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody and both the convicts are also sentence to deposit a fine of Rs 500/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three days.
Fine not paid.
Conviction warrants be prepared accordingly.
Copy of judgment and copy of order on point of sentence be provided to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to Record room.
(Sunil Kumar Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate (West )-11., Delhi 18.03.2011