Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjeet Singh Etc on 2 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, RISHABH
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.07.02
17:22:40
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
+0530
State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr.
FIR No : 171/09
U/s : 457/380/34 IPC
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 9627/19 2. Date of commission of offence : 21.12.2015 3. Date of institution of the case : 16.06.2009 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused 1. Ranjeet Singh s/o Sh.
Mahender Singh
2.Narottam s/o Purshotam (absconder).
3.Sonu s/o Sh. Inder Singh
6. Offense complained or proved : U/s 457/380/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 29.05.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 02.07.2025 State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 1
1. The accused namely, Ranjeet Singh and Sonu are facing trial for offences u/s 457/380/34 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 16.06.2009 at about 1:10 A.M. at bus stand Major Bhupinder Nagar, Outer Ring road Delhi, accused Ranjeet Singh and Sonu along with their co-accused Narottam (since absconder) in furtherance of common intention of each other committed the lurking house breaking of the temporary stall (khokha) belonging to complainant Smt. Arhul Devi and committed the theft of articles in the nature of bidi , cigarettes and tobacco from the said stall. Allegedly, one HC Dharambir who was on duty along with one Ct. Ajay at near CRPF Camp Keshopur picket was informed by one passerby about the acts of house breaking and theft by the accused persons, to which they reached the spot and saw that one Maruti Van no. DL-9CB-4956 was parked near the spot and the accused persons were putting the articles from the stall of the complainant inside the said van. The team of police comprising HC Dharambir and Ct. Ajay informed about the occurrence to PS Vikas Puri and thereafter, ASI Ramphal Singh arrived at the spot. The statement of HC Dharambir was recorded, on the basis of which the rukka was prepared and FIR was registered. Thereafter, the investigation was initiated by ASI Ramphal Singh and during its course, the Maruti van and the case property were seized by him. The accused persons were also arrested and were sent to judicial custody. The investigation proceeded further and the statements of witnesses were recorded. The site plan was also prepared at the instance of complainant HC Dharambir. The accused persons were admitted to bail in due course. After completion of investigation, State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 2 the present charge sheet was filed for conducting the trial of accused persons for the alleged offences.
2. The cognizance of the offences was taken vide order dated 10.08.2009 and thereafter, in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. the copy of charge sheets and documents were supplied to accused persons. Vide order dated 17.02.2010, charge for offences u/s 457/380/34 IPC was framed against all accused persons to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial of the case thereafter, commenced and when the matter was at the stage of PE, accused Narrotam evaded the process of law leading to issuance of coercive process in the nature of NBWs and proceedings u/s 82 Cr. PC against him and he was declared an absconder on 28.05.2022. The matter proceeded further for trial of accused Ranjeet Singh and Sonu for the alleged offences and during the course of the trial, seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
3. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimonies have remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, offences u/s 457/380/34 IPC has been proved beyond doubt.
4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials. It has further been argued that the police officials namely HC Dharambir and Ct.
State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 3 Ajay had demanded bribe from the accused persons by illegally stopping their van and when they refused for the same, they were falsely implicated by planting the present case upon them. It has also been argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused persons be given the benefit of doubt and are therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
5. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and defence, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief.
PW-1 Arhul Devi was the complainant in the present case. She deposed that she used to run a wooden khokha for selling bidi, cigarette, pan and tobacco etc. at near Major Bhupinder Singh Nagar Bus stand, Outer Ring Road, Delhi and on 15.06.2009, she closed her stall at around 10 PM. She further deposed that and in the intervening night at about 2:00 AM she came to know from her cousin brother that some persons had broken her khokha. She further deposed that she went to the khokha and found the same was lying opened and large quantity of bidi, cigarettes, tobacco and one steal bucket were missing from there and in the meantime, she saw three persons were already apprehended by the police along with Maruti Van and the said van was containing her stolen articles. She further deposed that on counting the articles, she found that there was one steel bucket, two packets of Anand bidi no. 999, one packet of Naseeb bidi no. 555, one packet of Kamla bidi no. 796, 15 packets of Sundri bidi no. 777, 14 bundles of Kisan bidi no. 59, three packets of cigarette no. 10 filter, 48 pieces of Dilbagh gutkha, 52 pieces of Shikhar gutkha and 18 State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 4 pieces of Shehnai gutkha etc. and said articles were recovered from the Maruti Van. She further deposed that the said articles were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW 1/A and thereafter, she was made to affix her thumb impressions on the arrest memos of accused persons along with their personal search memos which are Ex. PW 1/B to Ex. PW 1/G respectively. She correctly identified the part case property i.e. steel bucket, two packets of Anand bidi no. 999, one packet of Naseeb bidi no. 555, one packet of kamla bidi no. 796, 15 bundles of Sundari bid no. 777, 14 bundles of Kisan bidi no. 59, three packets of cigarette no. 10 filter, 48 pieces of Dilbagh gutkha, 52 pieces of Shikhar gutkha, 33 pieces of Bahar gutkha, 42 pieces of Tiranga gutkha, 21 pieces of Paras gutkha, 23 pieces of Passpass gutkha and 18 pieces of Shehnai gutkha which are Ex. P1. During her cross-examination, she stated that her articles were lying at the Police Booth when she arrived at the spot. She admitted that she had not seen the accused persons taking away the articles from her khokha.
PW-2 Retired SI Dabloo Oraon was the Duty Officer and has proved the factum of registration of FIR Ex. PW 2/A vide endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW 2/B. PW-3 Const. Ajay Kumar deposed that on 16.06.2009 while he alongwith HC Dharambir was on picket duty at CRPF Camp, Outer Ring Road, Vikas Puri, then at about 01.10 AM, one passersby informed HC Dharamvir that some persons had broken the khokha and were putting the articles of khokha in a van. He further deposed that he alongwith HC Dharamvir went at the spot, i.e., Bus Stand Major Bhupinder Singh Nagar at Outer Ring Road where they saw that one van bearing State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 5 registration No. DL-9CB-4956 standing there and accused Ranjeet Singh was sitting on the driver seat. He further deposed that other accused namely, Sonu and Narottam, were picking the articles, i.e., biri, cigarettes, pan, gutkhas etc. and were putting the same in van. He further deposed that HC Dharamvir apprehended all the accused persons and informed the PS and thereafter ASI Ramphal alongwith Const. Sewa Ram came to the spot. He further deposed that HC Dharamvir handed over the accused persons and recovered case properties to ASI Ramphal and meanwhile, owner of khokha namely Smt. Arhul Devi came to the spot and identified the stolen articles articles, i.e. steel bucket, biri, cigarettes, pan, gutkhas, filters etc. He further deposed that IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PWI/A. He further deposed that IO seized the Maruti Van vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/H, arrested the accused persons and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G respectively. The cross- examination of PW 2 was deferred on 29.03.2016 but subsequently this witness never stepped again in the witness box and in view of the submissions of Ld. APP for the State, his name was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 03.03.2023.
PW-4 Retd. ASI Dharambir deposed that on 16.09.2009, he along-with Ct. Ajay Kumar was on picket duty at Major Bhupinder Singh Marg CRPF Camp, Keshopur, Outer Ring Road, Vikas Puri. He further deposed that on that day, at about 1.10 AM, one passerby informed him that some persons had broken the khokha and were putting the articles of khokha in a van. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Ajay went at the State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 6 spot, i.e., Bus Stand Major Bhupinder Singh Nagar at Outer Ring Road where they saw that one van bearing registration No. DL-9CB-4956 standing there and accused Ranjeet Singh was sitting on the driver seat. He further deposed that other accused namely, Sonu and Narottam, were picking the articles, i.e., biri, cigarettes, pan, gutkhas etc. and were putting the same in van. He further deposed that he apprehended all the accused persons and informed the PS and thereafter ASI Ramphal alongwith Const. Sewa Ram came to the spot. He further deposed that he handed over the accused persons and recovered case properties to ASI Ramphal and meanwhile, owner of khokha namely Smt. Arhul Devi came to the spot and identified the stolen articles articles, i.e. steel bucket, biri, cigarettes, pan, gutkhas, filters etc. He further deposed that IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PWI/A. He further deposed that IO seized the Maruti Van vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/H, arrested the accused persons and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G respectively. During his cross examination, he stated that there was a police booth at CRPF Camp and he was sitting outside the booth alongwith Ct. Ajay. He further stated that he asked the name and address of the person who informed him about the incident but he refused to give his name and address and went away. He further stated that informant did not tell him about the registration number of any vehicle. He further deposed that he reached at the spot in three to four minutes by walking. He further deposed that the spot was at Major Bhupender Singh. CRPF Camp, Outer Ring Road. He admitted that the accused persons did not resist or try to flee away. He State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 7 deposed of having not checked any document of the van bearing registration no. DL9CB-4956. He further deposed that he asked some public witnesses to join the investigation and that none agreed and went away. He denied that they demanded money from the occupants of the car and since they refused, some quarrel took place, thereafter, all accused persons were implicated in the present case.
PW-5 HC Sewa Ram deposed that on 16.06.2009 while he was on emergency duty, ASI Ramphal, received DD no. 4A regarding lurking house trespass in a Khokha at about 1:30 AM night pursuant thereto, he alongwith ASI Ramphal reached at Bhupender Singh Bus Stand Outer ring road Vikas Puri, where they met Ct. Ajay and HC Dharambir and one Maruti Van bearing no. DL-9CB-4956 was also found with three persons and some articles were there in the van. He further deposed that they also found three accused who were already apprehended by Ct. Ajay and HC Dharambir and the owner of the said Khokha had also came on the spot. He further deposed IO collected the case property containing 14 articles which included one steel bucket and tobacco products of different brands in a white colour Katta and same were sealed with the seal of "RK" and seal was handed over to him by the IO after use. He further deposed that IO prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR and that he went to the PS and got the FIR registered. He further deposed IO prepared site plan in his presence. He further deposed IO arrested the accused persons in his presence and presence, conducted their personal search and recorded their disclosure statements. Through him, disclosure statement of accused Narottam was State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 8 exhibited as Ex. PW 5/B, disclosure statement of accused Sonu as Ex. PW 5/C, pointing out memos as Ex. PW 5/D and Ex. PW 5/E, seizure memo of stereo recovered at the instance of accused Narottam as Ex. PW 5/F and seizure memo of stereo recovered at the instance of accused Sonu as Ex. PW 5/G. PW-6 HC Devender deposed was the MHCM, who deposed that as per entry 2437 dated 16.06.2009 in Register No.19 vide Ex.PW6/A, IO/ASI Ram Phal had deposited the case property seized by him.
PW-7 Retired SI Ramphal was the IO in the present case and he deposed about the proceeding of investigation conducted by him. His testimony is similar to that of PW-5 and hence, same is n ot being reproduced to avoid any repetition of evidences. During his cross-examination, he stated that when he reached at the spot HC Dharambir and Ct Ajay were already there at the spot. He admitted that no public persons were associated in the investigation and no notice was given to the public persons as the it was night time i.e around 2:00 AM. He further stated that HC Dharambir and Ct. Ajay have not disclosed the name of secret informers to him. He admitted that there was a police booth near the spot and distance between the spot and police booth is about 50 foot. He admitted that site plan does not bear the signatures of complainant. He admitted that case property seized can also be purchased from the market. He further deposed that no bill of stolen articles was given by the complainant. He denied that Khokha was demolished by the MCD. He denied that site plan was prepared while sitting at the PS. He denied that accused persons denied the bribe asked from them when they were State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 9 stopped at barricade. He denied that no such recovery has been effected from the accused.
6. This is the entire evidence on record.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
7. The statements of the accused persons u/s Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidences were put to them. The accused persons controverted and denied the allegations leveled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused persons further opted not to lead evidence in their defence, hence, DE was closed.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
8. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused persons have been indicted for the offences u/s 457/380/34 IPC.
9. For the sake of repetition, it is again reiterated that sum and substance of the allegations as levelled against accused persons are that both the accused persons namely, Ranjeet Singh and Sonu in furtherance of their common intention with co-accused Narrotam (since absconder) committed the lurking house breaking into the stall / khokha of the complainant Arhul Devi and had stolen the articles in the nature of bidi, cigarettes State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 10 and tobacco from said stall, thereby constituting offences u/s 457/380/34 IPC.
10. The careful perusal of the case record would reflect that in order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimony of PW-1 Arhul Devi and PW-4 Retired ASI Dharambir. The perusal of the testimony of PW-1 Arhul Devi would reflect that she was not present at the spot at that time of incident and rather she was informed by her cousin brother at around 2:00 AM on 16.06.2009 that her stall was broken by some persons, leading to her arrival at the spot where she witnessed one Maruti Van parked nearby in which her articles were loaded and the accused persons were already apprehended by the police. Pertinently, PW-1 has conceded to the fact that the alleged incident was not seen by her and rather on reaching the spot, she was informed by the police that the accused persons had broken her stall and committed theft of articles from there. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 appears to be hearsay in nature and same in itself is of no avail to establish the prosecution story. Moving further, PW-4 Retired ASI Dharambir was cited as the complainant and the alleged eye witness to the incident in question. More specifically, it is the case of prosecution that PW-4 along with Ct. Ajay (PW-3) while on picket duty at near the spot were informed by some passerby regarding the breaking of khokha of Arhul Devi by some persons, to which they reached the spot and saw that the accused persons had already broken the said khokha and were taking away the articles from there and were keeping the same in the Maruti Van which was parked nearby. As per PW-4, the occurrence of the incident was informed to him by some State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 11 passerby and during the course of his cross-examination PW-4 has stated that the said passerby refused to divulge his name and address when inquiry in that regard was made by him. PW-1 has also admitted that some public persons were asked by him to join the investigation but none agreed and left the spot. There is also an admission in the testimony of PW-1 that the accused persons did not resist or tried to flee away when he and Ct. Ajay reached at the spot and also that the police booth at CRPF Camp was at a distance around three to four minutes from the spot. The testimony of PW-4 shall be appreciated in the light of version narrated by PW-1 which is to the extent that when she reached at the spot, her articles were lying at the police booth. These facts cumulatively suggest that by the time PW-1 had reached the spot, the allegedly stolen articles belonging to her were removed from the spot and were taken at the police booth which was around four five to minutes away from the spot. It has not been explained by the prosecution as to what were the circumstances in which the articles of the complainant were removed from the spot and were shifted to the police booth nor any prosecution witnesses have rendered such an explanation. Besides, PW-7 Retired SI Ramphal Singh who was the IO in the present case has stated during his cross- examination that no public persons were found at the spot, it being night time but such version of PW-7 does not inspire confidence as PW-4 has himself conceded to the fact that the public persons were present at the spot when he reached there. Neither PW-4 nor PW-7 have explained as to what prevented them for associating the public persons in the investigation of the case, despite their availability at the spot. The testimony of PW-7 is completely silent regarding the efforts made by him for State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 12 tracing out the person who informed PW-4 regarding the alleged incident. Similarly, PW 7 has also failed to explain the reasons and pressing circumstances under which he did not associate the cousin brother of PW-1 Arhul Devi during the investigation of the case as he might have been a crucial eye witness of the incident. Interestingly, apart from PW-4, the prosecution has also initially examined PW-3 Ct. Ajay Kumar as a witness in the present case, he also being an alleged eye witness to the incident but prior to the completion of the cross examination of PW-3, he was dropped from the list of witnesses on 03.03.2023 on the basis of the submission of Ld. APP for the State to the extent that the prosecution was no more desirous of examining PW-3 in support of its case as his testimony was repetitive in nature. Since, PW-3 was not subjected to the cross-examination, therefore, his limited testimony cannot be read in evidence in support of the story of prosecution. The aforesaid inconsistencies and loopholes makes the story of the prosecution highly doubtful and the benefit of same deserves to be given to accused persons. In the considered view of this Court, the accused persons have been able to probablise their defense that the team of police comprising of PW-2 and PW-4 had falsely implicated them in the present case upon their refusal to accede to their alleged demand for money, thus creating reasonable doubts in the story of prosecution. Therefore, in the light of these facts and circumstances, the case of prosecution fails. It perceives from the record that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the commission of alleged offences of lurking house breaking and theft of articles from the stall of Arhul Devi by the accused persons through any State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 13 cogent and clinching evidences hence, the accused persons deserves to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
11. Accordingly, this Court hereby holds accused Ranjeet Singh and Sonu not guilty for the alleged offences. The accused Ranjeet Singh and Sonu are thus, acquitted of the offences u/s 380/457/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court 02.07.2025.
(Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC-05 South West District Dwarka Courts, Delhi State Vs. : Ranjeet Singh and Anr. FIR No: 171/09 U/s 457/380/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 14