Delhi District Court
State vs . Sachin Kumar on 18 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. RASHMI GUPTA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : 09 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 824/15
PS: Burari
New Case No 296026/16
U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC
State Vs. Sachin Kumar
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case : 02401R058677-2015
2. Date of Commission of the offence : 01.07.2015
3. The name of the complainant : Babloo Kumar, S/o Shri Prem
Raj
4. Name & address of accused : Sachin Kumar, S/o Shri
Chunni Lal, R/o D Block Kh.
No. 15/22 Near Masjid Harit
Vihar Burari, Delhi.
5. Date of institution of FIR : 01.07.2015
6. Date of receipt of this case in : 29.10.2015
this court
7. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the case for order : Not reseved
9. Date of Decision : 18.03.2017
10. Final order : Convicted
State Vs. Sachin Kumar, FIR No 824/15, PS Burari Page No.1 of 6
Brief Reasons for such Decision:-
1. The accused Sachin Kumar has stood trial for offences u/s 457/380/411/34 IPC.
2. Challan in the case was filed after completion of investigation and thereafter cognizance of the offence u/s 457/380/411/34 IPC was taken and thereafter copy of challan was supplied to the accused Sachin Kumar. On the basis of prima facie evidence charge was framed against the accused for the offence U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC on 01.12.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Bablu has been examined as PW-1. HC Vijay Kumar has been examined as PW-2. Ct. Dhirender has been examined as PW-3. HC Chander Pal has been examined as PW-4. Ct. Sandeep has been examined as PW-5. Lakshman Pandey has been examined as PW-6. HC Sukh Pal Singh has been examined as PW-7. Ct. Vinod Kumar has been examined as PW-8. ASI Jai Singh has been examined as PW-9.
4. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Sachin Kumar U/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused and he was questioned on the same. He denied all the allegations and stated that he was innocent and had been implicated falsely in the present case. He stated that he was arrested from his house and no such recovery was effected. The accused opted not to lead any Defence Evidence.
State Vs. Sachin Kumar, FIR No 824/15, PS Burari Page No.2 of 6
5. I have gone through the rival submissions of both the parties as well as material on record carefully.
6. It has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that through witnesses examined by it as mentioned above it has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant Babloo Kumar (PW-1) and other prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. No such fact has emerged during the cross examination of the witnesses so as to rebut their testimony. Recovery of silver chain was effected in the presence of HC Chander Pal (PW-4) and Ct. Sandeep (PW-5). These recovery witnesses have also deposed regarding the same in the court and they have also identified the accused. Absence of public witnesses during recovery does not create any doubt in the case of the prosecution. Thus, the accused Sachin Kumar deserves to be convicted in the present case. Prosecution had relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2006.
7. On the other hand, it has been argued by Shri Pankaj Sharma Ld. Counsel from DLSA that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye witness to the case and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged recovery was effected two months after the incident. No public witness was joined during the alleged recovery. No family member of the accused had been made a witness to the recovery inspite of the fact that the alleged recovery was effected from the house of the accused. The accused was arrested in the present case when he was in custody State Vs. Sachin Kumar, FIR No 824/15, PS Burari Page No.3 of 6 in some other case. Provisions of section 100 Cr.P.C. have not been followed. Inspite of the presence of family members of the accused in the house of the accused at the time of recovery they were not made a witness to the recovery. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sapna Talwar & Anr. Vs. State in Crl. A.357/2009.
8. As per prosecution on receipt of DD no. 13B, dt. 01.07.2015 received by constable Dhirender, HC Lakshman Pandey alonwith Ct Vinod went to the spot. There HC Lakshman pandey recorded the statement of complainant of Bablu Kumar which is EX. PW1/A and prepared a Rukka and handed over the same to Ct Vijay who went to the PS and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, finger print expert was called on the spot and no chance print could be obtained and the report regarding the same had been submitted by ASI Jai Prakash. Therafer the matter was being investigate by IO/HC Sukhpal. During the investigate in FIR No. 980/15 PS Burari while the accused Sachin was on PC remand he disclosed about the commission of the present offence thereafter he was arreseted in the present case. On the same day i.e. 05.09.2015 the accused got recovered from his house Silver Chain belonging to the complainant which was among the stolen property in the presence of HC Chander Pal and Ct. Sandeep. The said Seziure Memo has been proved as Ex. PW4/A. The complainant Bablu Kumar correctly identified the Silver Chian in the TIP proceedings conducting by Sh. Arul Verma. Ld. MM. That accused Sachin Kumar disclosed about having been commited the present offence alongwith his associates namely Gautam@ Didi and Amit @ Monu Kabadi. As Gautam@ Didi was found to be a Juvinile so report regarding him was submitted in State Vs. Sachin Kumar, FIR No 824/15, PS Burari Page No.4 of 6 JJB. Despite effort no clue was found against other associate of the accused Sachin namely Amit@ Monu Kabadi.
9. Charge had been framed against the accused Sachin for offences U/s 457/380/411 IPC. No eye witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the offence of house breaking and theft. Neither there is any report regarding the chance prints lifted from the spot which could match the finger prints of the accused. Thus, the offence U/s 457/380 IPC is not made out. The discussion regarding offence U/s 411 IPC follows.
From amongst the stolen articles silver chain had been recovered from the house of the accused Sachin. The recovery had been effected by IO/HC Sukhpal and it was witnessed by HC Chander Pal and Ct. Sandeep. The recovery memo bears signatures of the accused Sachin. The recovery memo dated 05.09.2015 has been duly proved by the prosecution and the same is Ex. PW4/A. The recovery witnesses ie. HC Chander Pal (PW4) and Ct. Sandeep (PW5) have also correctly identified the accused in the court apart from IO/HC Sukhpal (PW7). The complainant Babloo Kumar (PW1) had also correctly identified the recovered silver chain in the TIP proceedings conducted in the presence of the then Ld. Link MM. Thereafter, the complainant had got it released after furnishing indemnity bond. Pointing out memo which was prepared at the instance of the accused has also been proved and the same is Ex. PW4/B. The cause for non joining of the public persons and the family members of the accused Sachin in the process of recovery has been duly explained by the recovery witnesses. In their cross examination they had stated that the public persons were requested to join the recovery proceedings but State Vs. Sachin Kumar, FIR No 824/15, PS Burari Page No.5 of 6 they refused to participate. The family members of the accused Sachin also did not agree to participate in the recovery proceedings.
Reliance has been placed upon the the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2006 wherein it has been observed that " Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case". Thus, in view of the above, accused Sachin is convicted for offence U/s 411 IPC.
10. Thus, the accused Sachin Kumar stands convicted in FIR No. 824/15, PS Burari for offence U/s 411 IPC.
11. The convict has faced the trial from custody.
12. To be heard on point of sentence on 20.03.2017 at 4.00 PM.
(Announced in open Court on 18.03.2017) (Rashmi Gupta) MM-09/Central/THC 18.03.2017 The judgment contains 06 pages and all the pages bears my signatures.
(Rashmi Gupta) MM-09/Central/THC 18.03.2017 State Vs. Sachin Kumar, FIR No 824/15, PS Burari Page No.6 of 6