Delhi District Court
State vs . Naval Kishore Sinha on 21 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MITTAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE03, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Naval Kishore Sinha
FIR No: 30/10
PS: Tuglak Road
U/s: 380/411 IPC
1.Serial No. of the case : 63/2/12 2. Date of commission of offence : 22.03.2010 & 25.04.2010 3. Name of the complainant : Ms. Hemalatha Patil
4. Name of the accused & parentage : Naval Kishore Sinha, S/o Sh. Mohan Pal Sinha.
5. Date when judgment was : 29.01.2014 reserved.
6. Date when judgment was : 21.02.2014 pronounced.
7. Offence complained of : U/s 380/411 IPC or proved.
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Final Judgment : Accused is acquitted.
FIR No: 30/2010 PS: Tuglak Raod State Vs. Naval Kishore Sinha Page 1 of 4 Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. The prosecution was set into motion on the complaint of complainant / PW2 Ms. Hemalatha Patil dated 22.03.2010. In her complaint, she that on 22.03.2010, she was participating the World Wate Day organized by Water Aid at India Islamic Culture Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. She further stated that during that meeting her hand bag consisting a number of articles like Axis bank credit card, PAN Card, two mobile phones (both NOKIA), vehicle key of her two wheeler etc. was missing / stolen. On the basis of complaint of the complainant, an FIR No. 30/10, u/s 380 IPC was registered at PS Tuglak Road, New Delhi.
Thereafter, the investigation was carried out by the police. However, it is stated in the charge sheet that no clue could be found regarding the accused / stolen property. It is further stated in the charge sheet that on 26.04.2010, the accused Naval Kishore Sinha was found in possession of one mobile phone make NOKIA 6510 belonging to the complainant of the aforesaid FIR and therefore, he was charged with the offence u/s 411 IPC. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed in the Court against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 380/411 IPC. However, the accused has been charged during trial for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC only on 05.08.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and therefore, the matter was fixed for the prosecution evidence.
2. The prosecution has examined five (5) witnesses to prove its case and they are : PW1 HC Jaipal Singh, PW2 Ms. Hemalatha Patil, PW3 Constable Sheshpal Singh, PW4 Constable Sahid Mohd., PW5 HC Raghubir SIngh. FIR No: 30/2010 PS: Tuglak Raod State Vs. Naval Kishore Sinha Page 2 of 4 Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused denied the evidence which has come on record, and chose not to lead defence evidence and therefore the matter was fixed for final arguments.
3. I have heard final arguments from both the sides and carefully perused the record. To prove the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the property which has been recovered from the possession of the accused was stolen. In the judgment titled as Mahabir Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 642, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as "The essential requirement of the offence of receiving stolen property is that the property seized from the possession of the accused must be proved by the prosecution to be stolen". In this case, the most important / star witness of the prosecution to prove the fact that the property / mobile phone recovered from the possession of the accused was stolen from the possession of the complainant, was the complainant herself. However it may be noted that the evidence of complainant / PW2 can not be read because, the evidence of complainant / PW2 was not completed. The complainant / PW1 was partly examined in chief on 29.08.2011 and her further examinationinchief was deferred for the want of supplementary statement of the witness and the case property and thereafter the PW2/ Complainant did not turn up in the Court for her evidence. A number of opportunity were granted to the prosecution to secure the appearance of the witness / PW2 Complainant in the Court. However, the prosecution failed to bring that witness in the Court for completion of her evidence. Therefore, it may be said that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the mobile phone FIR No: 30/2010 PS: Tuglak Raod State Vs. Naval Kishore Sinha Page 3 of 4 which has been recovered from the possession of the accused was stolen from the complainant.
4. The evidence of other PWs i.e PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5 are not sufficient to prove the case of prosecution against the accused. The evidence of PW1 HC Jaipal Singh is formal in nature and he has proved copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B. PW3, PW4 and PW5 are the police officials who has deposed regarding the seizure of the mobile phone Ex.P1 from the possession of the accused. A careful perusal of the evidence of these witnesses shows that there is number of inconsistencies / lacunae / contradictions in their evidence. From their evidence, it has come on record that no sincere efforts were made to join the public persons / independent witnesses when the alleged recovery was effected from the possession of the accused. The IO of the case ASI Dharam Pal has not been examined by the prosecution in the prosecution evidence. PW3 has deposed due to his crossexamination that public witnesses were present / passing through when the alleged recovery was effected from the possession of the accused.
5. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and it has to stand on its own legs and it can not draw any benefit / advantage from the weakness of the defence of the accused. Consequently the accused Naval Kishore Sinha is acquitted of the charge / offence punishable u/s 411 IPC framed against them.
File be consigned to record room after necessary formalities.
Announced in the open Court (DHEERAJ MITTAL)
on this 21 day of February, 2014
th
MM03/PHC/ NDD/ New Delhi
FIR No: 30/2010 PS: Tuglak Raod State Vs. Naval Kishore Sinha Page 4 of 4