Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Razi on 14 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, SAKET COURTS,
DELHI
Presided over by- Mr. Bhavaya Karhail, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 86690/16
FIR No. -: 1215/2015
Police Station -: Jamia Nagar
Section(s) -: 380/457/411/174A IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
MOHD. RAZI
S/o Sh. Mohd. Yunus,
R/o H. No. P-287, Nafees Road,
Near Rajdhani tent house,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
... Accused
1. Name of Complainant :- Smt. Sama.
2. Name of Accused Person :- Mohd. Razi
3. Offence complained of or :- 380/457/411/174A IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused Person :- Not Guilty.
5. Date of Commission of :- 15.08.2015
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 13.10.2015
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 05.10.2024
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 14.10.2024
9. Final Order :- Acquittal u/s 411 IPC
Convicted u/s 380/457 IPC
FIR No. 1215/2015 State v. Mohd. Razi Page 1 of 9
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 15.08.2015, at about 03.00 AM, at jhuggi opposite S-18/12, Kaccha pusta, jogabai Extn., within jurisdiction of PS Jamia Nagar, Accused Mohd. Razi S/o Mr. Mohd. Yunus entered the abovesaid house and committed theft of certain belongings of the complainant and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 380/457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"). Further, the abovesaid accused was found in possession of the abovesaid property and thereby committed offence u/s 411 IPC for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Jamia Nagar.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable U/s 457/380/411 IPC was filed on behalf of the IO and the Accused was consequently summoned. On their appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to them in terms of section 207 of CrPC. Perusal of file reveals that charge for commission of offences u/s 380/457/411 IPC was framed against the Accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During the course of the trial, accused was declared proclaimed person vod 11.03.2020. Separate charge was framed against him u/s 174A IPC on 18.11.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, vide separate statement recorded on 02.02.2024, accused pleaded guilty u/s 174A IPC.
FIR No. 1215/2015 State v. Mohd. Razi Page 2 of 9PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the Accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Ms. Shama (Complainant in the present case) PW2 :- Ms. Rabia (eye witness) PW3 :- HC Rakesh Kumar (participated in investigation) PW4 :- ASI Gulab Singh (IO) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Complaint of complainant.
Ex. PW1/B :- Site plan.
Ex. PW1/C :- Recovery memo.
Ex. PW1/D :- Arrest memo.
Ex. PW1/E :- Personal search memo.
Ex. P-1 :- Photographs.
Ex. P-2 :- Negatives of photographs.
Ex. PW3/A :- Disclosure statement.
Ex. PW4/A :- Tehrir
5. Vide separate statement as recorded on 01.09.2022, the accused admitted the copy of FIR, MLC bearing No. 11111/15 of Mohd. Razi and Rabia.
6. PW-1/Ms. Shama deposed that she was residing as a tenant and working as domestic help. On 15.08.2015, PW-1 along with her children were present in the above said house. At about 3am FIR No. 1215/2015 State v. Mohd. Razi Page 3 of 9 accused Mohd. Razi entered into her house and took her black coloured bag and when he was about to flee away he put his foot her daughter. Thereafter, she woke up and raised alarm and also caught hold of the accused. You were correctly identified by PW-1 in court as the same person who was present at the time of incident and also resides pear her house. Thereafter, PW-1 called the police at 100 number. PW-1 handed over the accused to the police. Thereafter, police recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. Police prepared the site plan Ex.PW 1/B. Police seized the recovered back vide memo Ex.
PIN 1/C. Police arrested die accused vide memo Ex.PW 1/D. Police conducted personal search of the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/E. Police recorded my statement. PW-1 correctly identified 2 photographs of bag containing aadhar card and other documents along with 2 negative in corut. Photographs are Ex.P1 (Colly) and negatives at Ex.P2 (Colly). PW-1 had taken the above said bag and the articles contained therein were got released by her vide superdarinama Ex.PW1/F.
7. PW-2/Ms. Rabiya deposed that she is residing at above mentioned address. On 15.08.2015, PW-2 was present in her above said house along with her mother. At about 3 am (night) you entered in side their house and was taking away black bag containing documents and when he was trying to flee away from our house he kept his foot on PW-2 . Thereafter, PW-2 woke up and raised alarm and with the help, of family members she apprehended him. Her mother called at 100 number. PW-2 correctly identified you in court. PW-1 correctly identified 2 photographs of bag containing aadhar FIR No. 1215/2015 State v. Mohd. Razi Page 4 of 9 card and other documents along with 2 negative in corut. Photographs are Ex.P1 (Colly) and negatives at Ex.P2 (Colly). PW-1 had taken the above said bag and the articles contained therein were got released by her vide superdarinama Ex.PW1/F.
8. PW-3/HC Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 15.08.2015, he was posted at PS Jamia Nagar as Ct. On that day at about 04:00 am, they received a call from 100 number and obtain information regarding the incident then IO as instructed PW-3 accompany him at the place of the incident which is jhuggi Joga Bai Extn. near Masjid. when PW-3 arrived at the scene of the incident accused person was apprehended by some of the lady, he was handed over to us along with torn black color bag. Then IO sent the complain which is already exhibited as Ex PW-1/A to PS for the purpose of registration of FIR. After PW-3 returned to the place of incident, after completing formalities for registration of FIR. Then you were arrested vide arrest memo already exhibited as Ex PW-1/D, the personal search of the accused was conducted vide already exhibited as Ex PW-1/E. disclosure statement of the accused which exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A, pursuant to disclosure a back bag was recovered having artificial jewelery containing (churi,pen,pencil, voter ID), which was seized by seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/C. Thereafter medical examination of the accused was conducted. 2 photographs along with 2 negative after seeing the photographs witness has correctly identified it photographs are already Ex.pl (colly) and negatives at Ex.P2(colly). Accused was correctly identified by PW-3 in court.
FIR No. 1215/2015 State v. Mohd. Razi Page 5 of 99. PW-4/ASI Gulab Singh deposed that on 15.08.2015, he was posted as HC at PS Jamia Nagar. On that day, PW-4 was marked the DD No. 5A at about 03.48 AM with regard to theft. PW- 4 along with Ct. Rakesh went to the spot i.e. near Hari Masjid, Jamia Nagar. There they met the complainant Smt. Sama who had informed them that you had tried to steal her bag, he was apprehended by her and produced the accused to PW-4. His name was later on revealed as Mohd. Razi. The accused had entered into the house of the complainant when she was asleep, tried to steal her bag. While the accused was trying to take away the bag, the daughter of the complainant woke up and apprehended the accused. The complainant gave her complaint, in the handwriting of her daughter, same is already Ex PW1/A. PW-4 then prepared the tehrir now Ex. PW4/A. PW-4 then prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. Same is already Ex. PW1/B. PW-4 also seized the bag which contained clothes and artificial jewellery etc. vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/C. PW-4 arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex PW1/D. PW-4 then personally searched the accused vide personal search memo already Ex. PW1/E. PW-4 recorded the disclosure statement of the accused. Same is already Ex. PW3/A. Photographs of the case property are already on record. Correctly identified by PW-4. Photographs are already Ex. P-1 (Colly) & Ex P-2 (Colly). Accused was correctly identified by PW-4.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
10. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the Accused to personally explain the incriminating FIR No. 1215/2015 State v. Mohd. Razi Page 6 of 9 circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of Accused persons was recorded without oath on 05.09.2024 under section 313 CrPC in which he stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence and matter was listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the Accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there is sufficient material on record to convict the Accused for the said offences.
13. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
14. The onus and duty to prove the case against the Accused persons is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the Accused, he is entitled to be given benefit of doubt resulting in his acquittal. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur, VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC).
15. For proving its case u/s 380/457/411 IPC, the prosecution was required to establish:-
FIR No. 1215/2015 State v. Mohd. Razi Page 7 of 9i. That accused trespassed into dwelling house of complainant with intention of concealing his presence.
ii. that the accused committed theft;
iii. that accused dishonestly received or retained stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen.
16. PW1 very categorically and clearly stated that accused had entered in her house at 03.00 AM on 15.08.2015 and when he was about to flee away, he stepped on her daughter, resulting in his apprehension at the spot itself. PW1 identified the accused during the course of his testimony. She identified her thumb impressions on the site plan, arrest memo, personal search memo of the accused. She further identified her articles from the photographs, Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. In her cross examination, PW1 disclosed that the accused resides in her locality.
17. Further, PW2 Ms. Rabia, one of the daughters of complainant also testified regarding the presence of accused at the given place and time. She also disclosed regarding the act of accused in entering the house and trying to flee away with the belongings of the complainant. She also identified the case property and the accused.
18. PW3/HC Rakesh Kumar, PW4/ASI Gulab Singh who participated in the investigation of the present matter also deposed regarding the steps taken by them concerning the investigation.
FIR No. 1215/2015 State v. Mohd. Razi Page 8 of 919. The documents, i.e., the seizure memo, arrest memo etc. have been proved by the witnesses called by the prosecution. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 who were eye witnesses to the incident is very direct and points out to be guilt of the accused. Despite cross examination, the veracity of PW1 and PW2 has remained intact. The defence is not being able to point out any contradiction or lacuna in the case of the prosecution. No reasonable doubt has been made out from the case of the accused.
20. Resultantly, the Accused namely, Mohd. Razi S/o Sh. Mohd. Yunus is hereby found guilty. He is hereby convicted of the offence under Section 380/457 IPC. Considering the conviction u/s 380 IPC, accused is acquitted under alternative charge framed u/s 411 IPC. Accused had pleaded guilty to offence u/s 174A IPC for which he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500. Fine was paid on 02.02.2024.
Announced in open court on 14.10.2024 in the presence of the Accused.
The judgment contains 9 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Bhavaya Digitally signed by Bhavaya Karhail Karhail Date: 2024.10.14 16:41:45 +0530 (BHAVAYA KARHAIL) JMFC-08 (SE): Saket Courts New Delhi:14.10.2024 FIR No. 1215/2015 State v. Mohd. Razi Page 9 of 9