Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay Thakur @ Rajender on 4 July, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA, M.M.,
KKD COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 50/03
U/S. 379/411/34 IPC
PS: Bhajan Pura, Delhi
State Vs Sanjay Thakur @ Rajender
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case : 225/03
b. Date of commission of offence : 16.02.03
c. Name of the complainant : Vikram Yadav
d. Name of the accused, his : Sanjay Thakur@Rajender
parentage and address. @ Raju @Langda S/o Sh.
Vikram Singh.
R/o Village-Aurangabad,
PS-Dalchand, District-
Kanpur, U.P.
e. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
f. Offence complained of or proved : 411 IPC
g. Final order : Convicted.
h. Date of institution : 02.06.03
i. Judgment reserved on : 04.07.07.
j. Judgment delivered on : 04.07.07.
I. Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
The accused Sanjay Thakur along with accused Sunil (who has been declared P.O.) was charge sheeted by SHO P.S. Bhajan Pura U/s. 379/411/34 IPC with the allegations that on 19.02.03, complainant Vikram Yadav came to PS-Bhajan Pura and made a complaint that on 16.02.03 he parked his motorcycle no. DL 7S 6067 make Hero Honda Splendor black colour outside his house no. C-9/263. At about 10 pm he found 1 that his motorcycle was stolen by some one. He tried to find out the motorcycle, but failed. On the basis of this complaint, the present case FIR was registered.
On 6.4.03, both the accused were arrested in case FIR No. 99/03 and 100/03, U/s. 25 Arms Act, wherein, they allegedly made disclosure statement in respect of theft of present motorcycle and pursuant to that they recovered the motorcycle from the parking of GTB hospital. They were arrested and pointing out memo was prepared. Further investigation of the case was conducted and during the investigation, site plan was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused was arrested and after completing the other formal investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial.
The copies of challan were supplied to the accused as per section 207 CrPC and since prima facie a case U/s. 379/411 IPC was made out against the accused persons, accordingly a charge was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial accused Sunil @ Dhir Singh concealed his presence and was declared P.O. vide order dated 09.05.07.
The statement of accused Sanjay Thakur was recorded U/s. 313 CrPC wherein he claimed himself innocent on the plea of false implication, he does not prefer to lead evidence in his defence.
2To substantiate the charge prosecution has examined ten witnesses in all. PW-1 Sh. Vikram Yadav, i.e. complainant, who proved his complaint as Ex. PW1/A, PW2 is SI Narender Kumar, DO, who proved copy of FIR as Ex. PW2/A, PW3 is ASI Ram Gopal, in whose presence accused was arrested, PW4 is ASI Shridhar, who recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sanjay Thakur, PW5 is Ct. Krishan Kumar, PW6 is Ct. Raj Yadav, and PW7 is ASI Ram Gopal, in whose present accused made disclosure statement, PW8 is Ct. Ratan Singh and PW9 is HC Rishi Pal Singh, in whose presence accused got recovered stolen motorcycle from the parking of GTB hospital and PW10 is Si Virender Singh, IO, who narrated the steps taken during the investigation and proved various memos prepared by him I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for accused besides going through the evidence on record carefully. Ld. counsel for accused argued that accused has been falsely implicated by the police.
In nut shell the case of prosecution is that accused Sanjay Thakur along with co-accused Sunil Kumar (who has been declared P.O.) pursuant to their disclosure statement, they got recovered motorcycle no. DL 5SL 6067 belonging to complainant Vikram Yadav from parking of GTB hospital. PW1 complainant Vikram Yadav proved his complaint as Ex. PW1/A and identified the motorcycle as P-1. PW5 and PW9 both are 3 material witnesses of the prosecution as in their presence accused Sanjay Thakur got recovered the stolen motorcycle. PW8 deposed that on 10.04.03 the accused got recovered the motorcycle no. DL 5SL 6067 from the parking of GTB hospital and proved the seizure memo as Ex. PW8/C. PW9 HC Rishi Pal also corroborated the testimony of PW8 and deposed that pursuant to PC remand of accused, the accused took them to Kanpur for recovery of motorcycle and later on they disclosed that after theft they parked the motorcycle at GTB hospital parking. PW9 proved the disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW9/A and identified the motorcycle. In his cross examination PW9 deposed that nobody agreed to join the investigation at GTB hospital parking at the time of recovery. Ld. counsel for accused Sanjay Thakur cross examined these witnesses at a length, but nothing came on record, which may diminish the evidentry value of their testimony. Their testimony appears to be reliable and trustworthy. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. PW8 and PW9 further proved the disclosure statement, recovery memo and the stolen motorcycle and identified the case property and accused Sanjay Thakur.
After going through the testimony of PW8 and PW9, I am of the considered opinion that it has been duly proved that on 10.04.03 accused Sanjay Thakur pursuant to his disclosure statement along with co accused Sunil (who was declared 4 P.O.) got recovered motorcycle no. DL 5SL 6067 from the GTB hospital parking, which he dishonestly received or retained in his possession knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, as such I held the accused Sanjay Thakur guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 411 CrPC and convict him therein under.
Announced in the open court.
Dated:-04.07.2007 (SAN JEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA)
Metropolitan Magistrate
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Pr: Ld. APP for state.
Convict Sanjay Thakur from J/C
with counsel.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties in respect of question regarding quantum of sentence to be awarded to the convict.
It is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that as the case of prosecution has been proved against the accused, hence, the convict is not entitled for any leniency rather he deserves for maximum punishment.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for convict submitted that convict is a young person of age about 27 years and belongs to a poor family, and if harsh punishment is awarded to the convict, his entire family will come on the road. It is also stated that 5 no other case is pending against the accused and he is in J/C for last one year and during this period he has learnt sufficient lesson so, he should be given some sympathetic consideration.
Sentencing is a difficult process. While awarding sentence, a balance is to be maintained between larger interest of society as well as the interest of the individual. In this case, although, the offence committed by the convict is not minor one but keeping in view of the entire facts and circumstances and antecedents of the convict as well as the submissions of the counsel for the convict, I sentence the convict Sanjay Thakur RI for a period of one year in Section 411 IPC, i.e. the period, to which he has already undergone. He is given benefit of Section 428 CrPC. He be released from J/C, if not wanted in any other case. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court.
Dated 04.07.2007 (SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA) Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
6