Delhi District Court
State vs Mona Etc. on 13 March, 2008
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94
PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 420/379/411 IPC
IN THE COURT OF DR.SHAHABUDDIN, M.M.
COURT ROOM NO.105, ROHINI COURTS DELHI
State vs Mona etc.
FIR No : 263/94
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 420/379/411 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. SL. No. of the case : 188A/2
B. Date of Institution in : 17.09.1994
the court
C. Date of commission of : 25.05.1994
offence
D. Name of the : Smt Gayatri Devi
complainant
E. Name of the accused , : (1)Smt Mona W/o Late Sh
Pratap R/o Jhuggi
their parentage and
Uttam Nagar, Delhi,
residence
(2)Smt Kanta W/o Shri
Kuldeep R/o D-102
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
F. Offences proved : U/s 420/380/34 IPC
G. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final Order : Convicted
I. Date on which : 12.03.2008
judgment reserved
J. Date of such judgment : 13.03.2008
K) BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The main prosecution case against the accused is that on 25.05.1994 at about 6.15 PM, both the accused, in Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94 PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/379/411 IPC furtherance of their common intention, cheated Smt Gayatri Devi W/o Sh Nand Kishor at her house No. 250, Mubarakpur Road Prem Nagar III Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sultanpuri Delhi by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing her to deliver her 'kundal' and golden 'chain'. It is further alleged against both the accused that, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed theft of 'kundal' and 'golden chain' belonging to Smt Gayatri Devi from her house at the aforesaid address which was used for human dwelling. In this way, a chargesheet was filed against both the accused after completion of entire investigation for the offences U/Ss 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short called as IPC hereinafter) or alternatively u/s 411 IPC.
2. Accused appeared in the court and they were supplied the copies of documents relied upon in the chargesheet as per mandate of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short called as Cr.P.C hereinafter).
3. On 30.06.2000, a charge was framed against both the accused for the offences U/Ss 420 & 380 of IPC both read with section 34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94
PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 420/379/411 IPC
4. From the side of prosecution, PW1 HC Chand Singh, PW2 Inspector Sh R.P.Tiwari, PW3 Smt Gayatri Devi and PW4 Sh Nand Kishor were examined and then remaining prosecution evidence (in short P/E) was closed.
5. On 11.01.2005, statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations against them as false and incorrect and both the accused wanted to lead defence evidence (in short D/E).
6. However, DW1 accused Kanta produced herself as her own defence evidence as per provisions of section 315 CrPC. No other DW was produced on behalf of any of the accused thereafter and hence, the D/E was closed.
7. Fresh oral final arguments were heard on 12.03.2008 in this matter from Ld.APP for the State and from Ld. defence counsel Sh C.P.S.Sidhu on behalf of both the accused.
8. Written synopsis of final arguments on behalf of both the accused dated 15.02.2008 filed by Ld. counsel Sh C.P.S.Sidhu is already on record.
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94
PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 420/379/411 IPC
9. The main submissions of Ld. APP for State were to the effect that on the basis of entire material on record, the case stands well proved against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offences u/s 420 and 380 IPC respectively both read with section 34 IPC and that they should be punished strictly as per law.
10. On the other hand, the main submissions of Ld. defence counsel orally as well as in the written synopsis of final arguments on record were to the effect that both the accused were falsely implicated in this case; that prosecution has made completely a false story against both the accused; that there are material contradictions in the depositions of PW's examined in this case; that no independent and reliable person of the locality was joined by investigating officer (in short I/O) during investigation of this matter; that both the accused were searching for residential tenanted house for sister-in-law of Smt Mona and in that process, they had visited some street time and again when they were suspected by one lady i.e. the complainant herein Smt Gayatri Devi and that both the accused were falsely implicated in this case at the behest of the complainant. On the the basis of these submissions mainly, acquittal of both the accused was prayed for.
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94
PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 420/379/411 IPC
11. I perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival submissions.
12. Before proceeding further on merits of this case, I refer to the provisions of law for which charge was framed against both the accused in this matter.
13. Section 420 IPC provides as under:-
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
14. Section 380 IPC provides as under:-
"380. Theft in dwelling house, etc. - Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
15. Section 34 IPC provides as under:-
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94 PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/379/411 IPC "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
16. Now turning to the evidence on record, PW1 HC Chand Singh deposed mainly to the effect that on 25.05.94, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri, Delhi as duty officer and recorded FIR in this case of which copy is on record as Ex.PW1/A. In his cross examination conducted by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that IO recorded statement of Smt Gayatri Devi in his(PW1) presence and handed over that statement to him(PW1) and on the basis of which he (PW1) recorded FIR in this matter. One suggestion about overwriting regarding time of recording of FIR put to this witness in his cross examination was denied by him. I am of the considered view that this witness was not shaken in his cross examination on material point of recording FIR in this matter.
17. PW2 Inspector R.P.Tiwari deposed mainly to the effect that on 25.05.94, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri Delhi; that on that date, Smt Gayatri Devi and her husband came to police station alognwith both the accused (who were also identified by this witness in the court on the date of his deposition on Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94 PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/379/411 IPC 12.03.2003) and that both the accused were produced before him (PW2); that statement of Smt Gayatri Devi Ex.PW2/A on record was recorded by him (PW2) bearing his signatures at point A; that he(PW2) endorsed that statement vide Ex.PW2/B and before that endorsement, searches of both the accused were conducted; that from the personal search of the accused Mona, golden earrings were recovered and from the personal search of accused Kanta, a golden chain was recovered; that case property was sealed using the seal of RPT; that accused present were arrested and their personal searches were conducted through Delhi Home Guard Lady Ct Ms Sudesh; that their personal search memos were prepared which are Ex.PW2/E and PW2/F respectively on record; that at the pointing out of complainant, site plan Ex.PW2/G was prepared; that judicial TIP of the case property was got conducted. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld. defence counsel and several questions were put to him as regards presence of some other public persons on the spot; as regards names of those persons; as regards bringing the accused persons by the complainant and her husband to the police station; as regards personal searches of the accused by the Lady Constable in the police station; as regards the time taken in the personal searches of the accused; as regards preparation Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94 PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/379/411 IPC of site plan; as regards certain points mentioned in the site plan; as regards giving notice to the complainant of judicial TIP etc. From the careful perusal of entire deposition of this witness, I am of the considered opinion that he was not shaken in his cross examination on material points deposed by him in his examination in chief and more particularly pertaining to arrest of accused in this matter and recovery of stolen articles from their possession when they were produced before this witness by complainant and her husband.
18. The next witness is PW3 Smt Gayatri Devi who is the complainant in this matter. She deposed in her examination in chief mainly to the effect that on 25.05.1994 at about 6.15 PM, she was present at her house; that in the meantime two ladies (who were told to be present in the court on the date of her deposition on 10.09.2003 being accused in this matter) namely Mona and Kanta came inside her house and sat inside her house; that both the accused told her that they had come from 'Vaishno Devi' and then induced her (PW3) that there was a big problem 'Grah' on her (PW3) husband and both the accused took her earrings and neck chain of gold and kept the same with them and asked her (PW3) to go to Kitchen for making tea for them;
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94
PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 420/379/411 IPC
that when she came out from kitchen with tea, she found both the accused missing; that in the meantime, her husband also came in the house and she narrated entire incident to her husband and she (PW3), in the company of her husband, caught both the accused persons in third street of Prem Nagar and took both of them to the police station and handed over both of them to the police; that police officials conducted searches of both the accused; that her earrings were recovered from accused Mona and her neck gold chain was recovered from accused Kanta; that police took both the case property items into possession vide Seizure Memos Ex.PW2/C and PW2/D respectively bearing her signatures at point A; that she identified the case property items in the judicial TIP in the court. She also identified case property items in the court on the date of her deposition. This witness was cross examined by Ld.APP for the state on point of production of receipt of purchasing the case property items and to my considered opinion, she gave correct response about the receipt Ex.P1 already on record. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld. defence counsel on behalf of accused and she was asked several questions in her cross examination almost on the same lines as so asked in the cross examination of PW2. From the careful perusal of her entire deposition, I am of the Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94 PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/379/411 IPC considered opinion that she was not shaken at all in her cross examination on the material point of theft committed by the accused herein in the dwelling house of this witness by inducing her and by adopting the fraudulent means in doing so. She was also not shaken on the main point of apprehending both the accused by this witness in the company of her husband and about the recovery of stolen articles form their possession.
19. The last witness examined in this case on behalf of the State is PW4 Sh Nand Kishor who is the husband of the complainant. In my considered opinion and on the basis of his entire deposition, I am again of the considered opinion that he had satisfactorily corroborated the material facts deposed by his wife i.e. PW3 in her deposition. I am further of the considered opinion that PW4 was also not shaken at all on the main points regarding apprehending both the accused by this witness in the company of his wife i.e. PW3 and also on the point of possession of stolen articles by the accused at the time when they were apprehended. No other PW was examined on behalf of the State.
20. DW1 accused Kanta herself deposed as her own defence witness in this matter. In her entire deposition, she almost Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94 PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/379/411 IPC narrated the same story that she, in the company of co- accused Mona, was searching for some residential tenanted premises for her sister in law Smt Rita and that both of them came in the same street again and again and then Smt Gayatri Devi suspected them and got both of them involved in this case falsely. In her cross examination conducted by Ld.APP on behalf of the State, she could not give satisfactory answers to the questions put by Ld.APP for the State and more particularly justifying her presence honestly at the place of incident in the company of co accused. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that she has failed to prove her innocence and also the innocence of co accused Mona.
21. Certain submissions have been made in the written synopsis of final arguments filed on behalf of both the accused claiming their innocence by their Ld. defence counsel but I am of the considered opinion that there is no truth in these submissions as regards the case under discussion.
22. On the basis of above mentioned discussion and on the basis of entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution side has been successful in proving the case against both the accused herein for the offences u/s 420 and 380 IPC Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94 PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/379/411 IPC respectively both read with section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I hereby convict both the accused for these offences. Let one certified copy of this judgment be given free of cost to each of the accused.
Now to come up for hearing arguments on point of sentence today on 13.03.2008 at 2.00 PM. ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ( DR. SHAHABUDDIN ) ON 13.03.2008 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS DELHI Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94 PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/379/411 IPC IN THE COURT OF DR.SHAHABUDDIN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:COURT ROOM NO.105, ROHINI COURTS DELHI State vs Mona FIR No : 263/94 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/380/34 IPC ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE 13.03.2008 (2.00 PM) Present: Ld. APP for State.
Both accused/Convicts (in short called as Convicts) present from J/C with Ld. Counsel Sh C.P.S.Sidhu.
1. Arguments on point of sentence heard from both sides.
2. The main submissions of Ld. APP for State were to the effect that both convicts committed serious offences in this matter and that they should be punished strictly as per law.
3. On the other hand, the main submissions of Ld. Defence counsel Sh C.P.S.Sidhu on behalf of both the convicts were to the effect that both the convicts were regularly facing trial of this case for a long time; that both the convicts are ladies; that no previous conviction has been proved against any of the convicts for any other offence by the prosecution side; that they are responsible earning members for their respective families; that they are in the mood of remorse and repentance; that they will not commit any offence in future.
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94
PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 420/379/411 IPC
On the basis of these submissions mainly, a lenient view on point of sentence was prayed for and a further request was made for releasing them on the probation of good conduct.
4. I again perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival submissions.
5. In view of the seriousness of the offences committed by the convicts in this matter, I am of the considered opinion that they do not deserve any leniency to be released on probation of good conduct.
6. However, it is true that no previous conviction has been proved against any of the convicts for any other offence by the prosecution side. It is also true that convicts are ladies. They also appear to be responsible earning members for their respective families. They also undertake not to commit any offence in future. They are also facing trial of this case for a long time as it is a case pertaining to year 1994. In view of the above mentioned reasons, I take a lenient view against the convicts on point of sentence.
7. In view of the above mentioned reasons, I sentence each of the convicts to Rigorous Imprisonment (in short R/I) for a Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94 PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/379/411 IPC period of two years and a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for the offence u/s 420 IPC. I further sentence each of the convicts to R/I for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for the offence u/s 380 IPC. In default of payment of fine by any of the convicts for any of the above mentioned offences, such convict shall further undergo R/I for a period of three month. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The benefit of section 428 CrPC would be available to both the convicts and the period of judicial custody already undergone by any of the convicts during investigation, enquiry, and trial of this case would be set off from the imprisonment as awarded above. Fine not paid today by any of the convicts. Let one certified copy of this order be given today itself 'dasti' free of cost to each of the convicts against due receipt. The case property to remain exclusively with the complainant / superdar if already released on superdari subject to the outcome of any appeal / revision to be filed by any of the convicts against the judgment and order on point of sentence of this court before Ld. Appellate court in future, if any. Bail bonds of both the convicts already stand cancelled because they are already in judicial custody. Their previous sureties stand discharged. Jail warrants be prepared in view of the above order and Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR No : 263/94 PS :Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 420/379/411 IPC both the convicts be sent to judicial custody for undergoing the imprisonment as awarded above. File be consigned to record room as per rules after expiry of period of appeal / revision, as the case may be.
ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 13.03.2008 ( DR. SHAHABUDDIN ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS DELHI Contd....P/Next page