Delhi District Court
State vs . Rizwan @ Pandit on 29 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST): SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Rizwan @ Pandit
FIR No. 12/09
U/s 411/174A IPC
P.S. Jamia Nagar
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 171/2/14
Unique Identification No. : 02406RO414712010
Date of Institution : 20.03.2010
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 28.07.2015
Date of judgment : 29.07.2015
Name of the complainant : Sh. Akhlaq Ahmad
s/o Shri Abdul Sattar
r/o A176/1, Shaheen Bagh,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 12/09
P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 1 of 13
Date of the commission of offence : 14.01.2009
Name of accused : Rizwan @ Pandit
s/o Mohd. Yameen
r/o GBlock, Gadhha Colony
Khajoor Wali Masjid, Jaitpur
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 380/411/174A IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 411/174A IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Convicted
Date of Institution : 20.03.2010
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 28.07.2015
Date of judgment : 29.07.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on a complaint of the complainant namely Sh. Akhlakh Ahmad FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 2 of 13 wherein he has stated that he was residing with his family at House no. A176/1, Shaheen Bagh, and was employed at UAE with a company namely Alpha Life Maintenance Service East. On 14.01.2009, in the night at around 11:30 PM and all the members of his family were sleeping and the door of the house was open. In the early hours on 15.01.2009, he found that the suitcase kept in his room containing one passport, one visa, one air ticket from Delhi to Abu Dhabi, one international SIM Card, one passbook and cheque book of SBI Bank of Branch Okhla, one passbook and cheque book of SBI of Branch New Friends Colony, cheque book of Canara Bank and two cheque book of Standard Chartered Bank alongwith ATM card of Abu Dhabi Bank, clothes and amount of (750 Dir ham), some documents, four mobile phones of make Nokia were found missing and another bag containing clothe was also found missing.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 3 of 13 against the accused under Section Section 411 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During Trial, accused was declared Proclaimed Offender vide Order dated 19.07.2014 and was subsequently arrested on 17.04.2015 and therefore after filing of supplementary chargesheet, additional charge for the offence punishable U/s 174A IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in order to prove its case.
PW1 Akhlakh Ahmad (Complainant) deposed that on 14.01.2009, while he was sleeping in his house alongwith his family members, on the next date in the morning at around 05:00 AM he found that his suitcase containing articles mentioned in his complaint were found missing and the same was found to be stolen. On 16.01.2009, he gave his statement to the Police Ex.PW1/A and IO prepared the site plan at his instance vide Ex.PW1/B. Opportunity to cross examine PW1 was granted to the accused ,but he did not questioned anything to PW1.
PW2 HC Subhash Chander deposed that on 20.01.2010, he FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 4 of 13 had arrested the accused in case FIR no. 15/10 U/s 25/54 Arms Act. During his disclosure statement, accused had disclosed of committing of theft in the present matter and therefore he recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW2/A and the pointing out memo was prepared vide Ex.PW2/B. IO recorded his statement and thereafter he handed over the accused alongwith disclosure statement and pointing out memo to HC Shyam Lal.
Opportunity to cross examine PW2 was granted to the accused ,but he did not questioned anything to PW2.
PW3 HC Raj Kumar deposed that on 16.01.2009, he was posted at PS Jamia Nagar and upon receiving original Tehrir and copy of FIR from Duty Officer and upon his directions had handed over the same to HC Harphool Singh and therefore reached at House no. A76/1, Shaheen Bagh and handed over the same to HC Harphool Singh and joined the investigation of the present matter.
Opportunity to cross examine PW3 was granted to the accused ,but he did not questioned anything to PW3.
PW4 Constable Devender Singh deposed that on 21.01.2010, he was posted at PS Jamia Nagar and joined the investigation alongwith HC Shyam Lal and IO arrested the accused Rizwan after interrogation at PS. FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 5 of 13 Thereafter, PW4 alongwith IO and accused reached at house at GBlock, Gaddha Colony, Jaitpur from where accused got recovered stolen clothes from his house. The same were seized vide Ex.PW4/A and accused was arrested vide Ex.PW4/B. Accused was identified by the witness and case property (two pair of jeans and two shirts) was Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
Opportunity to cross examine PW4 was granted to the accused ,but he did not questioned anything to PW4.
PW5 HC Rajender Singh deposed that on 16.01.2009, he was posted as Duty Officer and upon receiving rukka from IO HC Harphool Singh, he registered the present FIR vide Ex.PW5/A and endorse the rukka vide Ex.PW5/B. Opportunity to cross examine PW5 was granted to the accused ,but he did not questioned anything to PW5.
PW6 Constable Sunil Kumar deposed that on 20.01.2010, accused Rizwan was arrested by HC Subhash Chander in case FIR no. 15/10 and during interrogation accused disclosed of committing theft in the present matter. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW2/A and thereafter accused had taken them to G50, Shaheen Bagh and upon pointing out of the accused, pointing out memo was prepared vide Ex.PW2/B. FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 6 of 13 Opportunity to cross examine PW6 was granted to the accused ,but he did not questioned anything to PW6.
PW7 HC Mange Lal deposed that on 05.02.2009, case file of the present matter was marked to him for investigation and thereafter, he tried to search the stolen property and accused persons were not traced and therefore he had filed an untraced report in the Court on 02.04.2009 and the file was given to MHC(R) of PS Jamia Nagar.
Opportunity to cross examine PW7 was granted to the accused ,but he did not questioned anything to PW7.
PW8 HC Shyam Lal deposed that on 21.01.2010 while he was posted at PS Jamia Nagar, the present case was reopened for the purpose of investigation and the same was marked to him. He was informed by HC Subhash Chander that accused Rizwan @ Pandit was arrested who had disclosed his involvement in the present matter. On the aforesaid information, PW8 arrested the accused vide Ex.PW4/B and thereafter accused took him to Gaddha Colony, GBlock, Jaitpur and got recovered (two pair of jeans and two shirts) from his Jhuggi. The same were seized vide Ex.PW4/A. Accused further informed the PW8 that he had thrown the other articles in Agra Canal. Accused was identified by the witness. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the chargesheet.
FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 7 of 13 During the crossexamination, PW8 stated that he did not play any role at the time of investigation conducted of stolen case property and it is correct that there are many houses situated beside the Jhuggi and many public persons reside there. Further, that none agreed to join investigation and that he had not given any written notice to public persons to join the investigation. Further that no public person has been cited as a witness on recovery memo. Further, that he remained at the spot for about two hours and he did not remember the exact time when he reached the Jhuggi of the accused.
PW9 ASI Harphool deposed that on 15.01.2009, while he was posted at PS Jamia Nagar, he received a call from complainant Akhlakh Ahmad and thereafter he reached the spot for investigation. No investigation was conducted on that day and on 16.01.2009, complainant had come to police station and his statement was recorded and subsequently FIR was registered. Thereafter, he reached the spot with complainant and prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, he search the nearby places but the accused could not be found thereafter had filed the untraced report in the Court.
During the crossexamination, PW9 stated that the place of complainant was a residential area and that he had not examined any public FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 8 of 13 witness.
PW10/ Court witness Constable Rakesh deposed that on 14.07.2014, he had received a process U/s 82 CrPC in the name of accused Rizwan @ Pandit S/o Sh. Mohd. Yameen, R/o GBlock, Gaddha Colony, Near Khujuri Wali Majid, Jaitpur. On 15.07.2014, he visit the aforesaid address and the accused could not be found in the area and therefore he affixed the copy of process on the conspicuous place of the locality and also on the notice board of the Court. His statement was Ex.CW1/A. PW11 HC Abdul Wahid deposed that on 17.04.2015, he alongwith Constable Dilip were on petrolling Duty. At around 10:10 AM, they received a secret information from a secret informer that accused Rizwan who had been declared proclaimed offender. Thereafter, they prepared a raiding party and requested the passersby to join the investigation but none agreed to join the same and left the spot without giving their name and addresses. Thereafter, on pointing out of a secret informer, accused was apprehended and accused was inquired about his name and address. Thereafter, PW11 immediately gave a call to the Niab Court about the verification and declaration of him being a proclaimed offender and after confirming the same, SHO PS Jamia Nagar was informed and accused was arrested U/s 41.1(C) CrPC. The Kalandra was Ex.PW11/A and accused was arrested and his FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 9 of 13 personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C. During the crossexamination, PW11 stated that he has no role in the main chargesheet and that on 17.04.2015, his duty hours from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM. Thereafter, he started his petrolling duty at around 08:00 AM and had made an entry in respect to same in the Roznamcha. Further, that he had not asked the informed regarding his source of information and that it was correct that accused was known to the informer. Further, that he had conducted the raiding party after requesting 10 to 15 persons to join investigation and had stayed at the spot for about 1 hour.
PW12 Constable Dilip Singh deposed on the lines of PW11 and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 CrPC was recorded for the offence punishable U/s 411 IPC on 09.10.2013 and statement of accused U/s 313 CrPC for the offence punishable U/s 174(A) IPC was recorded on 09.07.2015 and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused for explanation.
FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 10 of 13
6. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
7. Before appreciating the evidence, I would like to have a glance at relevant statutory provisions necessary for the disposal of this case.
As per Section 411 IPC :
Dishonestly receiving stolen property--Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with both.
As per Section 174(A) IPC:
"174A. Nonappearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974. Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under subsection (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under subsection (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be published with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
8. Learned APP for the State had argued that all the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and all the witnesses in their testimonies have very clearly deposed that the accused was a receiver of stolen property as the stolen property was recovered from the possession FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 11 of 13 of the accused and further that the during the pendency of the trial accused failed to appear before the Court and was also declared as proclaimed offender and subsequently appeared before the Court only after arrest and therefore accused is liable to be convicted for the offence charged.
9. On the other hand, the Ld. LAC for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case since the prosecution witnesses in their crossexamination has deposed contrary to each other and there is no corroboration between the testimony of the witnesses and that all the witnesses were examined by the prosecution are formal in nature and police official and that despite the fact that the place of recovery was a public place, no public person was joined by the IO during the investigation of the present matter.
10. I have heard Learned Counsel for accused and Learned APP for the State and gone through the material available on record and has considered the testimony of various witnesses and gone through the evidence on record.
11. I am of the considered view that in the present matter FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 12 of 13 prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts as there is no contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses and all the witnesses of the prosecution have corroborated the facts. Further, the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused at the instance of the accused and the same is not disputed by the accused. Prosecution has further proved the offence under Section 174 A IPC against the accused as the accused was declared proclaimed offender by the order of the Court dated 19.08.2014 on the non appearance of the accused and the same was intentional as accused was well aware about the proceedings against him. Therefore, accused is liable to be convicted for the offences alleged against him.
12. In view of above discussion, the accused Rizwan @ Pandit is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 411/174A IPC.
13. Let the parties be heard on quantum on sentence today itself at 2:00 PM.
Pronounced in open Court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN) on 29.07.2015 MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:29.07.2015 FIR No. 12/09 P.S. Jamia Nagar State vs. Rizwan @ Pandit Page No. 13 of 13