Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajay @ Karan on 28 July, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Ajay @ Karan
JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR No. of the case : 36/12
(b) The date of commission of : 16-02-2012
offence
(c) The name of complainant : Praveen Kumar s/o Sh. Girvar
Singh r/o A 66 Sheesh Ram
Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
(d) The name, parentage etc. of : Ajay @ Karan s/o Sh. Vijay
accused Shankar r/oA 629, JJ Colony,
Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of/ : U/S 379/ IPC
proved
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The date of institution : 13-04-2012
(h) The final order : Convicted
(i) The date on which order was : 28-07-2012
reserved
(j) The date of such order : 28-07-2012
k) Brief statement of the reasons
for the decision
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.2.2012 at about 11.30 p.m near gate No. 2 Metro Station East Uttam Nagar the accused committed theft of one purse containing documents, ICard and Rs.430/ from worn pant of complainant Praveen Kumar. For the said offence FIR no.
FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan 2 36/12 u/s 379/411 IPC was registered. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed accordingly against the accused.
2. Copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 cr.p.c. Charge was framed against the accused for offence u/s 379 IPC on 10.05.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. PW1 Praveen Kumar is the complainant and is the eye witness of the case. PW 2 Ct Rajender Kumar assisted the IO in investigation of the case and arrest of the accused from the spot. PW3 Ct Sudhir Singh is a spot witness and reached at the spot with PW 4 HC Kalyan Sahai while they were patrolling in the area. PW 5 HC Maman Singh MHC R produced the record of DD no. 40 A regarding spot arrest of the accused. PW 6 SI Samsher Singh registered FIR no. 36/12 being the duty officer on the relevant date. PW 7 HC Karan Singh produced the register no.19 being the duty officer. PW 8 HC Jagdish Prasad is the IO of the case.
4. The version of the prosecution as adduced in its evidence is that on 16.2.2012 PW1 Sh. Praveen Kumar Singh, the complainant was coming to his house at about 11.30 in the night after finishing his duty when he reached near gate no. 2 East Uttam nagar Metro station, the accused took away his purse black colour from the rear pocket of his worn pant containing his I card of Crown Plaza Hotel Rohini and Rs.430/ cash. The accused started to run towards Pankha Road and PW1 chased him. The accused lost his balance FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan 3 near Himalya Sagar restaurant and fell down on the road. In the mean time PW3 Constable Sudhir Singh and PW4 H C Kalyan Sahai who were on patrolling duty reached near Himalya Sagar where the accused was apprehended by the public persons. The accused was handed over to the police officials by members of the public. In the mean time, PW8 H C Jagdish Pd. and PW2 Constable Rajinder Kumar came to the spot on receipt of DD No. 40 A Ex. PW5/A. The accused alongwith the recovered purse were produced before the IO. IO recorded statement of PW1 Ex.PW1/A and prepared rukka Ex. PW8/A. PW3 Constable Sudhir was sent with tehrir for registration of FIR to the P S and duty officer PW6 SI Shamsher Singh registered FIR 36/12 Ex.PW6/A on the basis of rukka. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/D. Stolen purse was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. IO prepared site plan Ex. Pw8/B. The accused was sent to lock up and case property was deposited in the mal khana. Purse has been identified by the witnesses as Ex. P1. Currency notes have been proved as Ex.P2 collectively and I Card as P 3.
5. The prosecution evidence was closed thereafter as all the material witnesses had been examined and list of witnesses had been exhausted.
6. Statement of the accused u/s 281/313 Cr.P.C was recorded by putting entire incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused. The accused stated that he had been falsely implicated. The accused chose not to lead any DE and the matter was accordingly posted for final FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan 4 arguments.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and the ld. defence counsel from legal aid and have gone through the record.
8. In the present case, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 16.2.2012 at about 11.30 p.m near gate No. 2 Metro Station East Uttam Nagar the accused committed theft of one purse containing documents, ICard and Rs.430/ from worn pant of complainant Praveen Kumar. To discharge its onus, the prosecution has inter alia examined the complainant in support of its case. The complainant PW 1 Praveen Kumar has deposed in his testimony that on 16.2.2012 he was coming to his house at about 11.30 in the night after finishing his duty. That when he reached near gate no. 2 East Uttam nagar Metro station, the accused took away his purse black colour from the rear pocket of his worn pant containing his I card of Crown Plaza Hotel Rohini and Rs.430/ cash. The accused started to run towards Pankha Road and PW1 chased him. The accused lost his balance near Himalya Sagar restaurant and fell down on the road. That he called 100 no and in the meantime police officials came to the spot. That the accused was apprehended at the spot. The witness has also correctly identified the accused as the offender. PW1 has been cross examined at length but nothing materially damaging the version of the prosecution could be elicited on record. The version of PW 1 Praveen Kumar has been corroborated on record by the testimonies of PW 2 Ct Sudhir Singh and PW 4 HC Kalyan Sahai who have both deposed that they reached at the spot near Himalya FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan 5 Sagar restaurant during patrolling and they saw that the accused had been apprehended by the public persons. That they came to know that the accused had committed theft of the purse of the complainant and that in the meantime PW 2 Ct Rajender and PW 8 HC Jagdish came to the spot before whom the accused was produced alongwith the recovered purse which had been stolen by the accused. Furthermore, the version of the prosecution has also been corroborated by the testimonies of PW 2 Ct Rajender and PW 8 HC Jagdish who have both dposed along the same lines. PW 8 HC Jadish has deposed that in the intervening night of 1617/02/2012 he received DD entry 40 A vide Ex PW 5/A regarding apprehending of a pickpocket near Himalya Sagar restaurant. That he and PW 2 Ct Rajender went to the spot where they met the complainant PW 1 Praveen Kumar, PW 3 Ct Sudhir and PW 4 HC Kalyan Sahai who narrated the incident to him and produced the accused and the recovered stolen purse before him. That he conducted the spot proceedings recorded statement of PW1 Ex.PW1/A and prepared rukka Ex. PW8/A. PW3 Constable Sudhir was sent with tehrir for registration of FIR to the P S and duty officer PW6 SI Shamsher Singh registered FIR 36/12 Ex.PW6/A on the basis of rukka. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/D. Stolen purse was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. IO prepared site plan Ex. PW 8/B. The accused was sent to lock up and case property was deposited in the mal khana. PW 2 Ct Rajender has deposed along the same lines. The prosecution witnesses have been cross examined at length but nothing materially damaging the prosecution version could be elicited on record. The spot arrest of the accused also connects the accused with the FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan 6 offence. Furthermore, DD no. 40 A has been proved on record as Ex PW 5/A, Ex PW 5/A records that a PCR call regarding apprehending of a pickpocket in front of Himalya Sagar restaurant was received at PS Bindapur at about 11.58 PM. The complainant in his testimony has stated that he made the PCR call at 100 no when the accused had been apprehended at the spot. The DD no. 40 A also corroborates the version of the prosecution. The version of the prosecution has remained creditworthy and believable and the prosecution witnesses have corroborated each other in material particulars.
9. It has been urged by the accused that he has been falsely implicated. During cross examination of prosecution witnesses, the suggestion of false implication of accused was put to the witnesses. However no material to show any cause or reason for the alleged false implication has been brought on record. There is no hint of any acrimony past or present between the prosecution witnesses and the accused and in these circumstances, even from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent man, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses nor there is any reason to believe that the accused has been falsely implicated.
10. It has been urged by the accused that the recovery in this case is not reliable. It has been urged that there is nothing on record to connect the recovery with the accused. However, this argument of the accused is not corroborated by the record of the case. The complainant PW 1 Prabveen Kumar has stated in his cross examination that the purse was recovered from the accused by the beat constable. All the prosecution witnesses have stated that the recovered FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan 7 purse was seized vide memo Ex PW 1/B and that the purse was duly sealed in a pullinda of white cloth with seal of KS. The duly sealed purse was deposited in the malkhana vide entry no. 876/12, Ex PW 7/A by HC Jagdish and the register no. 19 has been duly produced in court by PW 7 HC Karan Singh MHCM to prove the said fact. It thus appears that the prosecution has duly established through the testimony of PW 1 Praveen Kumar that the accused committed theft of his purse and was apprehended at the spot with the purse, that the purse was duly seized and was duly sealed and that the purse was deposited in the malkhana of PS Bindapur as per rules. Furthermore, the complainant PW 1 has identified the purse, the currency notes and his I Card in court and the positive identification of the purse and its contents by the complainant further fortifies the version of the prosecution. It has been urged by the accused that the I Card of the complainant is manipulated and does not bear the seal of the issuing authority. However, it has been observed that the I Card was issued by a private enterprise and bears the signatures of the issuing authority. It has been observed that the card was not issued by any statutory body or authority and there and there is no hard and fast rule governing the issue of I Cards to their employees by private establishments. Furthermore, the complainant has positively identified his I Card and purse in court and there is no material on record to doubt the veracity of the testimony of PW 1 Praveen Kumar complainant on this point. There is thus no merit in this argument of the accused.
11. It has been urged by the accused that the complainant was wearing a jeans FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan 8 pant at the time of the incident and it is unbelievable that the accused would be able to take out the purse of the complainant from his pocket. To my mind this argument of the accused appears to be a matter of conjectures and surmises. If the argument of the accused is taken at its face value, the most significant implication of the argument would be that the manufacturers of jeans would advertise and sell their products as resistant to theft. However, this is not the case in the real world nor is it a matter of rule that the persons wearing jeans do not get their pockets picked. Furthermore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the accused was caught by the complainant at the spot after he committed theft of the purse of the complainant and it cannot be said that the complainant was totally unaware of the fact of picking of his pocket by the accused. There is thus no merit in this argument of the accused.
12. It has been urged on behalf of the accused that no public witness was joined in this case by the IO and as such the prosecution version is unbelievable. It appears to be the settled law that merely because public witnesses have not been joined in investigation does not falsify the case of the prosecution. Reference might be made here to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tahir Vs State 1996 SCC 515 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the value of the evidence of police officials and has observed as follows:
"No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force and there is no rule of evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of police officials, if found FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan 9 reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The rule of evidence however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials after careful scrutiny inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of a conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the credit worthiness of the prosecution witnesses."
12. When the test laid down in Tahir Supra is applied to the facts of the present case, it appears that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have remained credit worthy and believable. The version of the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence and the witnesses have corroborated each other in material particulars and the version of the prosecution has also been corroborated by the documentary evidence on record. It appears that the ratio of Tahir supra is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the non joining of public witnesses does not make the prosecution case unbelievable.
13. Therefore, in my view the prosecution has established its case against the accused as regards offence u/s 379 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for offence u/s 379 IPC . Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence on 31.07.2012.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN ( SHARAD GUPTA) COURT ON 28th July 2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS, DELHI. FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan 10 IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI. STATE Vs. Ajay @ Karan P.S.: Binda pur U/s: 379 IPC FIR No. 36/12 ORDER ON SENTENCE 04.08.2012 Present : APP for the State.
Convict is produced from J/C with counsel, Sh. Pramod Kumar from DLSA.
Arguments on quantum of sentence heard. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the guilt of the convict stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is established that the convict had committed theft of purse from the pocket of the complainant and he is criminal in nature and is not entitled to lenient view and may be punished with maximum imprisonment and fine.
On the other hand Ld. defence counsel from DLSA has argued that the convict is the only bread earner of his family. He submits that the accused has been in custody for about 5 months and 19 days . Thus, prayed that a lenient view may be taken against the convict.
I have considered the rival contentions and gone through record. The incident of theft are on the rise in the society. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the accused committed theft of the purse from pocket of the complainant in a public place i.e a road . The convict has shown uttered disregard FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan 11 for the law of the land. In these circumstances, no case for taking a lenient view against the accused is made out. The accused is accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period one year . Benefit of section 428 cr.p.c be given to him. He be released , if not required in any other case. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. A copy of the judgment and order be supplied to the convict.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN ( SHARAD GUPTA )
COURT ON 4th August ,2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan
12
FIR No 36/12 State Vs. Ajay @ Karan