Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Chauhan on 30 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSE010000012006
Session Case No.1117/2016
FIR No.669/2005
Police Station: Hauz Khas.
State
Versus
1) Anil Chauhan @ Sandeep @ Vikas @ Waqar
Son of Late Desh Raj,
Resident of Village Dekar Gaon Center,
District Sonitpur,
Tezpur, Assam.
2) Arif @ Akram
Son of Jumma @ Bundu
Resident of Mohalla Sarai Qazi,
Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh.
3) Shahzad
Son of Shahnawaz,
Resident of House No.36, Sabzi Wali Gali,
Sarai Behleem,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
4) Mursalin @ Mamu @ Salim
Son of Sirajuddin
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 1 of 48
Resident of House No.1019, Mandir Wali Gali,
Rashid Nagar,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
5) Gulsher @ Naushad
Son of Rafiq Ahmed
Resident of F-528, Ganga Nagar,
Mawana Road,
Meerut, U.P.
6) Salim
Son of Jamaluddin
Resident of House No.60, Gali No.12,
Zakir Nagar, Okhla, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 18.02.2006
Judgment reserved on : 13.08.2024
Date of Decision : 30.09.2024
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station Hauz Khas before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offences under sections 379/411/34/413/414/468/ 471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused persons, namely, Anil Chauhan @ Sandeep @ Vikas @ Waqar, Gulsher @ Naushad, Arif @ Akram, Shahzad, Saleem and Mursalin for having committed the said offences and to proceed with committal of the case. Accused persons, namely, Gulsher and Salim were declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 05.05.2008.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 2 of 482. As per the police report, on 01.12.2005, this case FIR was registered against unknown persons in the police station Hauz Khas for the offence punishable under section 379 IPC.
3. As per the police report, on 01.12.2005 Dr. Poonam Mishra had come to the police station Hauz Khas and had presented a written complaint to the Station House Officer of the police station regarding the theft of Car No.PB 08 AM 1200. It is, inter- alia, stated by the complainant that her vehicle Zen VXI was parked outside house L-1/6, Hauz Khas Enclave and it was last seen at 9.30 a.m. on 30.11.2005 and the details of the car are, Chasis No.715219, Engine No.244332, Vehicle Description:
Maruti Zen VXI(PS) Colour: Jour Pearl Silver, Car having registration number PB 08 AM 1200.
4. It is further reported in the police report that on the complaint, Assistant Sub-Inspector Rambir Singh of police station Hauz Khas had made an endorsement and sent it for registration of the case and the investigation of this case was assigned to Head Constable Vinay Lal.
5. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of the investigation, Head Constable Vinay Lal had prepared the site-plan, examined the witnesses, and made efforts SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 3 of 48 to trace the vehicle and had arrested the accused persons and had also sent the WT message on all India bases.
6. It is further reported in the police report that on 16.12.2005, Special Team, Crime Branch had arrested notorious auto-lifter Anil Chauhan and his associate Gulsher in Case FIR No.1084/05 under sections 307/186/353/411/468/471/120B IPC, the police station Prashant Vihar and during the course of interrogation and investigation, the accused had confessed having stolen the car involved in the present case and delivering the same to their receiver Mursalin @ Salim @ Mamu resident of Meerut. It is further reported in the police report that further investigation of the case was taken up and assigned to Sub- Inspector Bhagwati Prasad.
7. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of the investigation, Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad had recorded statements of witnesses and had arrested accused Anil Chauhan and Gulsher in this case on 22.12.2005 and their police custody remand was obtained; that on 03.01.2006 on the basis of secret information, the accused persons, namely, Arif @ Akram, Shahzad, Saleem and Mursalin Mamu @ Salim were apprehended from opposite Shahababad Sabzi Mandi, Main Road Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP and one Maruti Zen Car bearing registration Number DL9CM446 was recovered from their possession; that on verification, the chassis and engine number of SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 4 of 48 the car were found tampered; that on interrogation, the accused had confessed that the recovered car is the same which was stolen in the present case and they had tampered the chassis and engine number of the car and accordingly, on the basis of confessional statement of the accused persons, the pointing out memo and circumstantial evidences, Sub-Inspector Bhagwan Prasad had arrested the accused persons in this case and the documents regarding their arrest were prepared.
8. It is further reported in the police report that all the accused persons were found to be the member of the most notorious gang of auto-lifters and at the instance of the accused persons Mursalin and Shahzad, four more stolen vehicles were recovered besides many incriminating documents and all the accused were having previous involvements in cases of similar nature and were thus habitual criminals; that the recovered vehicles Maruti Zen DL 9CM 446 and Maruti Esteem without number, the chassis and engine number of which were tampered had been deposited in Forensic Science Laboratory Physics Department vide receipt No.FSL-2006/P-440 Rohini for deciphering the original Chassis and Engine number of the vehicles.
9. It is further reported in the police report that while checking the Chassis and Engine numbers, in Forensic Science Laboratory, the engine number on the Block of the Maruti Zen SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 5 of 48 car was found to be 244332 which was the stolen Maruti Zen car of the present case and thus, the vehicle recovered was apparently the stolen car of this case and as soon as report will be available, will be attached on the judicial file.
10. It is further reported in the police report that the registration No.DL 9CM 446 was verified from Transport Authority Palam and it was found to be a fake registration number on verification.
11. It is further reported in the police report that from the facts and circumstances, statement of the witnesses, and the investigating conducted so far, sufficient evidence has been collected against the accused persons (1) Anil Chauhan @ Sandeep @ Vikas @ Waqar, (2) Gulsher, (3) Arif @ Akram, (4) Shahzad, (5) Saleem and (6) Mursalin @ Mamu @ Salim to proceed against them for the offences 379/411/34/413/414/468/ 471/120 B IPC and accordingly, challan under those sections was prepared and submitted before the Court and the accused persons were in judicial custody and case properties were in Malkhana.
12. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer had filed the charge sheet before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 6 of 4813. On the police report, on 25.02.2006, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offences under sections 379/411/34/413/414/468/471/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
14. On the date of taking cognizance, all the accused persons were also produced from judicial custody before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Copies of police report and other documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused persons.
15. On 10.03.2006, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence under section 413 IPC to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session and therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session.
16. On 18.01.2012, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused, the charge was framed against the accused Anil Kumar Chauhan for his having committed offences punishable under section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code and the charges were also framed against the accused persons Arif, Shehzad and Mursalin for their having committed offences punishable under sections 413/414/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 7 of 4817. The charges were read over and explained to all the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offences charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
18. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Vinay Pal, PW2 Babu Lal, PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitrar, PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder, PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan, PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Dharampal, PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad, PW8 Parshuram Singh. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/I, Ex.PW3/J, Ex.PW3/K, Ex.PW3/L, Ex.PW3/M, Ex.PW3/N, Ex.PW3/O, Ex.PW3/P, Ex.PW3/Q, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW8/A and 'Pullanda' Ex.P7/1 (colly) were also tendered in evidence.
19. On 16.01.2023, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and for their statement.
20. On 20.09.2023, this Court examined accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 8 of 48 were recorded. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. During their examinations under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused Anil Kumar Chauhan took the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and had sold his one plot in Ganga Nagar, Meerut. It is further stated by the accused that he had come to house of Gulsher (Proclaimed Offender) to take the consideration amount of said plot as money was lying there. It is further stated by the accused that when he was staying at his home, the police had implicated him along with him in this case and had also taken away his money around 2.5lacs. It is further stated by the accused that initially he was shown arrested in FIR No.1084/2005 of the police station Prashant Vihar and thereafter, he was implicated in number of cases. The accused Shahzad took the defence that he has been falsely implicated in this case after lifting him from G.G. Mall, where he was watching movie "Dosti" along with Mursalin from 06.00-09.00 p.m., when they came out after watching movie, the police picked them from outside the mall and implicated them in this case on 28.12.2005. During the examination of the accused Mursalin, he took the defence that he has been falsely implicated in this case after lifting him from G.G. Mall, where he was watching movie "Sathi" along with Mursalin from 06.00-09.00 p.m., when they came out after watching movie, the police picked them from outside the mall and implicated them in this case on 28.12.2005.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 9 of 48The accused persons did not express their desire to lead evidence in his defence.
21. I have heard Mr. A.T. Ansari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Islam Khan, counsel for the accused Anil Chauhan, Mr. Faheem Alam, counsel for the accused Shehzad and Mr. Raees Khan, counsel for the accused Mursalin and Arif and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
22. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Vinay Pal, PW2 Babu Lal, PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitrar, PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder, PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan, PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Dharmpal, PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad, PW8 Parshuran Singh; and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/I, Ex.PW3/J, Ex.PW3/K, Ex.PW3/L, Ex.PW3/M, Ex.PW3/N, Ex.PW3/O, Ex.PW3/P, Ex.PW3/Q, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW8/A and 'Pullanda' Ex.P7/1 (colly), learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that from the evidence led by the prosecution, the case set up by the prosecution has been proved against the accused persons. It is further submitted that six SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 10 of 48 persons were charge-sheeted for trial, out of which two persons, namely, Saleem and Gulsher jumped the trial. It is further submitted that the present case for theft of Maruti Zen car was registered. It is further submitted that Gulsher and Anil Chauhan were arrested in connection with another FIR, wherein, they had made disclosure statement regarding involvement in the offence of theft of car in the present case and also got recovered other stolen cars, keys of cars and other incriminating material. It is further submitted that at this stage, he is not pressing offence under section 468 IPC as motive to commit the crime is not proved by any evidence, however, he is pressing section 471 IPC for using forged number plate. It is further submitted that on the disclosure statement of accused persons Anil Chauhan and Gulsher, other accused persons were also arrested and 15 days PC remand was obtained. It is further submitted that at the time of recovery of stolen car, the accused persons were found sitting in the car fitted with fake number plate. It is further submitted that chasis number of the Esteem car recovered from the accused persons was found to be tampered with.
23. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused Anil Chauhan has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Vinay Pal, PW2 Babu Lal, PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitrar, PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder, PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan, PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Dharmpal, PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad, PW8 SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 11 of 48 Parshuram Singh and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/I, Ex.PW3/J, Ex.PW3/K, Ex.PW3/L, Ex.PW3/M, Ex.PW3/N, Ex.PW3/O, Ex.PW3/P, Ex.PW3/Q, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW8/A and 'Pullanda' Ex.P7/1 (colly) and submitted that the accused Anil Chauhan has been charged with offences under sections 379/411 IPC, however, there is no evidence against him. It is further submitted that other accused persons were not arrested at the instance of the accused Anil Chauhan. It is further submitted that no recovery was affected from the accused Anil Chouhan. It is further submitted that the complainant had never come to the witness box to prove the present case.
24. Learned counsel for accused Arif and Mursalin has submitted that as per the prosecution case itself, no car was recovered from the accused Arif and only keys etc., were recovered from him. It is further submitted that there is no evidence at all against the accused Arif. It is further submitted that the accused Mursalin has been shown to be receiver of stolen properties. It is further submitted that the case-properties were never produced in the Court.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 12 of 4825. Learned counsel for accused Shahzad has submitted that the complainant was never examined in the Court. It is further submitted that in the disclosure statement, there was no name of the accused Shahzad. It is further submitted that no public person was joined in the investigation/recovery of stolen cars by the investigating officer.
26. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
27. The accused Anil Chauhan has been charged for the offences punishable under sections 379/411 I.P.C. Sections 379 and 411 IPC read as follows:
379. Punishment for theft: Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
411. 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 fine, or with both.
28. The accused persons Arif, Shehzad and Mursalin have been charged for the offences punishable under sections 413/414/468/471/120B I.P.C. These sections read as follows:
413. Habitually dealing in stolen property-
Whoever habitually receives or deals in property SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 13 of 48 which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
414. Assisting in concealment of stolen property- Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating-Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record]-Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy-(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 14 of 4829. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
30. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined eight (8) witnesses.
31. PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Vinay has deposed that on 01.12.2005 on the instructions of SHO, he had received the present case file from duty officer for further investigation and during the investigation, he had recorded the statement of witnesses. It is further deposed by PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Vinay that on 01.12.2005 he had prepared site-plan (Ex.PW1/A) at the instance of the complainant Dr. Poonam Mishra and had also flashed the wireless message on all over India regarding the stolen vehicle. It is further deposed by PW1 Assistant Sub- Inspector Vinay that on 14.12.2005, he had handed over the case file to MHC(R) as the investigation of the present case was transferred to special team, Crime-Branch by the order of Senior Officers.
32. PW2 Babu Lal, LDC, Transport Authority, South West Zone, Palam, Delhi has deposed that as per record, the name of the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. DL9CM 4460 is Arvind Marvah son of Swarn Nath resident of House No. B-14, G.D. Housing Society, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I and had SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 15 of 48 proved that this vehicle was LMV car made by Maruti Udyog Ltd. It is further deposed by PW2 Babu Lal that its chasis No. MA3EYD 81S00583480, engine No. F8DN 3214877 and the colour was P-Silver. It is further deposed by PW2 Babu Lal that the said vehicle was registered in the Transport Authority, South- West, Palam on 10.10.2005 vide computer generated record (Ex.PW2/A) and he had identified the signatures of record keeper of authority at point A with stamp. It is further deposed by PW2 Babu Lal that Arvind Marvah was the second owner in the series of purchasers and as per record, Vehicle No. DL9CM 0446 was registered in the authority on 31.12.2004 and the owner of the said vehicle was Raj Rishi Majumdar son of M.K. Majumdar resident of F-15A, Flat No. 2, 1ª Floor, Gurudwara Road, Madhu Vihar, Parpar Ganj.
33. PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran has deposed that on 17.12.2005 he had joined the investigation with Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad in case FIR No.1084/05 of police station Prashant Vihar and two persons, namely, Anil Chauhan and Gulsher were in police custody in the said case. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that Anil Chauhan and Gulsher had made disclosure statements of theft of different cars from Delhi area and in the meanwhile, investigation of this case was also marked to Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 16 of 4834. PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran has further deposed that on 22.12.2005, the accused Anil Chauhan and Gulsher were also arrested in the present case. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that the accused Gulsher was arrested vide memo (Ex.PW3/A) and the accused Anil Chauhan was arrested vide memo (Ex.PW3/B). It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that both the accused persons were produced in the Court and fourteen days police custody remand was obtained.
35. PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran has further deposed that during police custody remand on 03.01.2006, Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad had received secret information that the accused Mursalin, an associate of the accused persons, was coming to Ghaziabad for the delivery of the stolen vehicle. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub- Inspector N.K. Pavitran that Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad had informed the senior officers and after taking permission, had formed a raiding team consisting of Assistant Sub-Inspector Ravinder Singh, Head Constable Rajiv Mohan, Head Constable Raginder, Constable Sanjay Sen, Constable Baljit and others including him. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub- Inspector N.K. Pavitran that at about 04.00 p.m., they had departed from their office to Ghaziabad and in the Prashant Vihar market, Sub-Inspector Bhagwati had asked 4-5 public persons to join the raiding party after disclosing secret information to them SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 17 of 48 but none had agreed and had left the place without informing their names and addresses. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that as per secret informer, they had reached at Sabji Mandi, Shahibabad and at about 06.15 p.m., one Maruit Zen car No.DL9CAM 0446 had come near the tea- vendor, which had come from the Shahibabad area. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that secret informer had pointed out towards the Maruti Zen car and Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad had given signal to the members of the raiding party to surround the car and they had surrounded the said car by their vehicles. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that four occupants were found in the car and they were taken out from the car and they had disclosed their names as Mursalin, who was driving the car, Shahzad who was sitting with the driver, Salim and Arif, who were found on the rear seat. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that they were asked about the documents of the vehicle but they could not produce any document. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that the accused Gulsher and Anil Chauhan were also with them during the whole proceedings, who had accompanied them from their office. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that the accused Gulsher and Anil Chauhan had identified the aforesaid four persons/occupants of the car and had also identified the car, which was stolen by them from the Hauz Khas area.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 18 of 4836. PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran has further deposed that the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad had arrested the above-said four persons, namely, Mursalin vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/C), Shahzad vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/E), Salim vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/l) and Arif vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/G). It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that he had conducted personal search of the accused persons, namely, Mursalin vide memo (Ex.PW3/D), Shahzad vide memo (Ex.PW3/F), Salim vide memo (Ex.PW3/J) and Arif vide memo (Ex.PW3/H). It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub- Inspector N.K. Pavitran that before that on the formal search of the accused Mursalin, four keys of different cars were recovered from his possession and same were seized by the investigating officer vide memo (Ex.PW3/K). It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that the accused persons Mursalin and Shahjad had disclosed that the said different cars have been parked by them in the factory at Mawana. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that disclosure statements of the afore-said accused persons were also recorded at the spot. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub- Inspector N.K. Pavitran that Maruti Zen was also seized by Sub- Inspector Bhagwati Prasad vide memo (Ex.PW3/L), thereafter, at the instance of the accused persons Mursalin and Shahjad, they had reached at factory at Mawana, District Meerut where at their SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 19 of 48 instance, four cars i.e. two Santro, one Toyota Qualis and one Esteem car were recovered. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that Santro cars were seized by the investigating officer vide memo (Ex.PW3/M & Ex.PW3/N) and Toyota Qualis was seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/O) and Esteem car was seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/P). It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that at the instance of the accused Mursalin, they had reached at his house at Meerut and the accused Mursalin had produced the documents related to the 'total loss vehicles' and some forged documents. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that the investigating officer had seized all the documents vide memo (Ex.PW3/Q) and the investigating officer had mentioned all the descriptions of the documents in the seizure memo. PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that had identified the signatures on the seizure memos as well as contents of the documents. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K.Pavitran that the relatives of the accused persons were informed about their arrest and thereafter, they all had returned to Delhi with the accused and had seized articles and all seized articles were deposited in the malkhana and the accused were produced in the Court after their medical examination.
37. PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran was again examined on 23.07.2022 qua the accused Anil Chauhan.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 20 of 48During his examination, he has deposed that the accused Anil Chuahan was also arrested in case FIR No.1084/2005 of the police station Prashant Vihar by the investigating officer Sub- Inspector Bhagwati and had made disclosure statement of theft of cars from different places in Delhi. It is further deposed by PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran that the accused Anil Chauhan was arrested in present case on 22.12.2005 vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/B). PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran had correctly identified the accused Anil Chauhan.
38. PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder has deposed that on 03.01.2005, he had joined the investigation with Inspector K.P. Singh, who had formed the raiding party consisting of Sub- Inspector Bhagwati, Head Constable N.K. Pavitran, Head Constable Rajiv Mohan, Constable Devender, Constable Vijender, himself and other police officials. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder that Inspector K.P. Singh had briefed them that he was having a secret information that four persons would come in a Maruti Zen at Shahibabad, Sabji Mandi, Ghaziabad, UP, which was stolen vehicle. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder that around 03.30-04.00 p.m., they had departed from their office and on the way in the Prashant Vihar Market, Inspector K.P. Singh had requested four-five persons to join the raiding party but none had agreed and had left the place without informing their names and addresses. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder that at about SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 21 of 48 05.00 p.m., they had reached at Shahibabad and at about 6.15 p.m., one Maruti Zen had come from the side of Mohan Nagar and stopped near a tea stall. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub- Inspector Ravinder that at the instance of the secret informer, they had reached near the said Maruti zen and at that time, Anil Chauhan and Gulsher were already with them in the police remand and had also identified the occupants of Maruti zen.
39. PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder has further deposed that the occupants of Maruti zen had disclosed their names as Mursalin, Shahzad, Arif and Salim and Sub-Inspector Bhagwati had conducted proceedings against the apprehended persons. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder that four keys of vehicles were recovered from the possession of Mursalin. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder that Maruti zen was also seized by Sub-Inspector Bhagwati and all the four persons, namely, Mursalin, Shahzad, Arif and Salim were arrested by Sub-Inspector Bhagwati. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder that they had reached at Mawana and at the instance of accused Mursalin, four vehicles i.e. two Santro cars and one Qualis and one Maruti Esteem were recovered from the factory at Mawana Road and the said vehicles were also seized by Sub-Inspector Bhagwati. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder that Sub-Inspector Bhagwati had conducted all the proceedings and thereafter, they had returned to Delhi. PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder had identified SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 22 of 48 the accused persons Arif and Shahzad, however, the accused Mursalin was not present but his identity was not disputed by counsel for the accused and during his examination, he had deposed that he can also identify the accused Anil Chouhan, Gulsher and Salim (since P.O), if shown to him. During his examination-in-chief, some leading questions were put to PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder with the permission of the Court. PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder had admitted that the disclosure statement of the accused Anil Chouhan @ Sandip @ Vikas @ Waqar dated 17.12.05 in case FIR No.1084/05 of the police station Prashant Vihar, (Ex.PW4/A). PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder has further admitted that Anil Chouhan had made the disclosure statement in his presence and Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad had recorded the above-said disclosure statement in detail vide memo (Ex.PW4/A). PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder has also admitted that disclosure statement of Gulsher @ Naushad dt. 17.12.05 in case FIR No.1084/05 of the police station Prashant Vihar vide memo (Ex.PW4/B). PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder has further admitted that Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad had interrogated the accused Gulsher @ Naushad on 17.12.05 and had recorded his statement in detail and had recorded his disclosure statement vide (Ex.PW4/B). PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder has voluntarily stated that his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., was not recorded by the investigating officer in this case and has also admitted the fact that they had gone to Shahibabad on 03.01.2006 not on 03.01.2005.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 23 of 4840. PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan has deposed that on 16.12.2005 he along with Sub-Inspector Bhagwati, Assistant Sub-Inspector Ravinder, Head Constable N.K. Pavitran, Constable Suresh and other staff had reached at ESI Hospital, Rohini and they had arrested two accused persons, namely, Anil Chouhan and Gulsher in case FIR No.1084/05 of the police station Prashant Vihar. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that both were interrogated by Sub- Inspector Bhagwati who had recorded disclosure statement of the accused Anil Chouhan vide memo (Ex.PW4/A) and disclosure statement of the accused Gulsher vide (Ex.PW4/B). It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that original disclosure statements of case FIR No.1084/05 of the police station Prashant Vihar were produced by the Ahlmad of the concerned Court and the same were seen and returned. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that both the accused persons had made disclosure statements regarding theft of the different vehicles and they had also pointed out the places of theft. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that the accused Anil Chouhan had pointed out the place of theft at Hauz Khas vide (Ex.PW5/A) and both the accused persons had disclosed that they had handed over the vehicles to Mursalin. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that on 22.12.05, the accused persons Gulsher and Anil Chouhan were arrested in the present case vide SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 24 of 48 (Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B). It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that on 03.01.06, he along with Sub- Inspector Bhagwati, Assistant Sub-Inspector Ravinder, Head Constable N.K. Pavitran, Constable Suresh and other staff had reached at Shahibabad at about 06.00 p.m., on the secret information. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that the accused persons Anil Chouhan and Gulsher were with them during their police custody remand. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that at about 06.00 p.m. at the instance of the accused Anil Chouhan, one Maruti zen bearing no. DL9CM 446 was apprehended by them. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that Mursalin, Shahzad, Arif and Salim were found in the said Maruti zen, Mursalin was found at the driving seat of the car and all four persons were taken into custody by Sub-Inspector Bhagwati and they were interrogated by the investigating officer and they had confessed that the said Maruti zen was handed over to them by Anil Chouhan and Gulsher and they had also confessed that the accused persons Anil Chouhan and Gulsher had handed over many stolen vehicles to them. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that four keys of the cars were recovered from the possession of the accused Mursalin, who had produced the same from the dashboard of Maruti Zen. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that four vehicles were kept by the accused Mursalin at his factory at Mawana and the recovered keys belonged to the said stolen vehicles. It is further SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 25 of 48 deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that the accused Mursalin had also confessed that he used to prepare new vehicles from the 'total loss vehicles'. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that Sub-Inspector Bhagwati had seized the keys vide (Ex.PW3/K) and the accused Mursalin was arrested vide (Ex.PW3/C), his personal search was taken vide memo (Ex.PW3/D), the accused Shahzad was arrested vide (Ex.PW3/E), his personal search was taken vide memo (Ex.PW3/F), the accused Arif was arrested vide (Ex.PW3/G), his personal search was taken vide memo (Ex.PW3/H) and the accused Salim was arrested vide memo (Ex.PW3/I), his personal search was taken vide memo (Ex.PW3/J). It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that disclosure statement of the accused Mursalin was recorded vide memo (Ex.PW5/B), disclosure statement of the accused Shahzad was recorded vide memo (Ex.PW5/C), disclosure statement of the accused Arif was recorded vide memo (Ex.PW5/D 4 pages) and disclosure statement of the accused Salim was recorded vide memo (Ex.PW5/E).
41. PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan has further deposed that said Maruti zen was also seized by the investigating officer vide memo (Ex.PW3/L), thereafter, they had reached at Mawana factory. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that at the instance of the accused Mursalin & Shahzad, four vehicles i.e, two Santro cars, one Qualis & one SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 26 of 48 Esteem car were recovered. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that the said Santro cars were seized vide memos (Ex.PW3/M & Ex.PW3/N), the Qualis car was seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/O) and the Esteem car was seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/P). It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that at the instance of the accused Mursalin, they had reached at his residence at Meerut and at his instance, some documents related to the stolen cars, some of the documents were original documents of the stolen cars and some documents, which were prepared after tampering with the original documents and/or cars which were seized by Sub-Inspector Bhagwati vide memo (Ex.PW3/Q). It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan that they had returned to Delhi with above said all seized articles and seized articles were deposited in the malkhana, thereafter, the accused persons, namely, Mursalin, Shahzad, Arif & Salim were produced in the Court on the next day and they were sent to judicial custody in this case and they were also arrested in case FIR No.366/05 of the police station Greater Kailash. PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan has correctly identified accused persons Arif and Shahzad in the Court and has deposed that he could identify the accused Mursalin, if shown to him but the accused was not present on that day and identity of the accused Mursalin was not disputed.
42. PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Dharampal has deposed that on 01.12.2005, upon receipt of rukka (mark X) SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 27 of 48 through Head Constable Vinay Pal, he had recorded formal FIR and the carbon copy of the FIR on record (Ex.PW6/A) consisting of three pages bears his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Dharampal that after registration of the case, he had handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to Head Constable Vinay Pal as he was entrusted with the investigation of the case and he had made endorsement (Ex.PW6/B) on rukka.
43. PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad has deposed that on 16.12.2005, he was also the investigating officer of the case FIR No.1084/2005, Prashant Vihar (Crime Branch) under section 186/353/307/411/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act and in that case, he arrested two accused persons, namely, Anil Chauhan and Gulsher (PO). PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad has further deposed that he could identify the accused if produced before him, however, the accused was not present and the identity of the accused Anil Chauhan was not disputed by the defence counsel Mr. Islam Khan.
44. PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad has further deposed that during the investigation in case FIR No.1084/2005, the accused persons Anil Chauhan and Gulsher had disclosed their involvement in number of cases of vehicle theft including the present FIR No.669/2005. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that he had recorded their disclosure statements SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 28 of 48 in the aforesaid FIR vide disclosure statement (Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B) and on the basis of disclosure statement, the case file of case FIR No.669/2005 of the police station Hauz Khas was taken up for investigation and the same was also marked to him. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that the accused persons Anil Chauhan and Gulsher were formally arrested vide memos (Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/A), in the case on 22.12.2005 and 14 days police remand were taken. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that the accused had disclosed that the stolen car was delivered by them to Mursalin and Shahzad, both resident of Meerut, UP and efforts were made to arrest Mursalin and Shahzad.
45. PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad has further deposed that on 03.01.2006, on the basis of secret information that Murshaleen, Shahzad and others would come opposite Sabzi Mandi, Sahibabad at about 06.00 p.m. in the stolen car, a raiding team was constituted comprising of himself, Assistant Sub- Inspector Ravidnder, Head Constable Rajeev Mohan, Head Constable Rajender, Constable Vijender, Constable Sanjay Sain, Constable N.K. Pavitran and others under the supervision of Inspector K.P. Singh. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that he had requested some passersby near PVR, Prashant Vihar to join the investigation but all had left after giving genuine excuses. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that the team departed in three private vehicles SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 29 of 48 along with both the accused persons and had reached at about 05.00 p.m. near Sabzi Mandi, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad and a trap was laid. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that at about 06.15 p.m., one Maruti Zen car bearing registration No. DL9CM 446 was seen coming from Mohan Nagar side and the said vehicle had stopped near Tea Stall and on the pointing out of informer, the said vehicle was intercepted with the police vehicles. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that four occupants were found in the said car. PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad has correctly identified the accused Mursalin and had stated that he was on the driving seat and has also correctly identified the accused Shahzad in the Court and stated that he was in the front seat. PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad has also correctly identified the Arif @ Akram in the Court and had stated that the accused Saleem and Arif @ Akram were sitting on the backseat of the car. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that all the accused persons were made to come out of the car and the accused persons Anil Chauhan and Gulsher had identified them and the said car was stolen by them and delivered to the accused Mursalin and Shahzad.
46. PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad has further deposed that the car was checked by him and the raiding team and the chasis and engine number of said car was found tampered which were mentioned in seizure memo. PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad has further deposed that he had seized the car vide seizure SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 30 of 48 memo (Ex.PW3/L). It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that he had arrested all four accused persons vide memos (Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/G & Ex.PW3/I) and their personal searches were also conducted vide memos (Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/H & Ex.PW3/J).
47. PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad has further deposed that during the search of the accused Mursalin, four different type of car keys were recovered from right side pocket of his wearing pant. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that the accused Mursalin had stated that these are the keys of stolen vehicles which are parked in his factory at Mawana Road, Meerut, UP and he had seized the car keys vide memo (Ex.PW3/K). It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that he had recorded disclosure statement of the accused Mursalin and Shahzad vide memos (Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C) at the spot and they had disclosed that the stolen four vehicles are parked at factory, Mawana Road, Meerut which they could get recovered. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that on the basis of disclosure statement, he along with raiding team and the accused persons, had left for Mawana Road, Meerut immediately and at the instance of the accused, had recovered four vehicles i.e. one Maruti Esteem, one Innova and two Santro cars. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that said cars were seized vide memos (Ex.PW3/M, Ex.PW3/N, Ex.PW3/O and Ex.PW3/P) and while returning, the SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 31 of 48 accused Mursalin had taken the police team to his residence at Mandir Wali Gali, Rashid Nagar, Meerut and had got recovered certain incriminating documents/articles (two chasis plates) like papers having chasis impressions, insurance papers etc. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that the said documents were seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/Q) and they had returned to Delhi with the accused persons and had recovered case properties. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that the case properties were deposited with Malkhana of the police station Hauz Khas and the detailed disclosure statement of the accused Arif @ Akram was recorded at the police station vide memo (Ex.PW5/D) and disclosure statement of the accused Saleem was recorded at the spot on 03.01.2006 vide memo (Ex.PW5/E). It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that during the course of investigation, he had found that the chasis number of one Maruti Esteem was also tampered and both cars, namely, Zen and Maruti Esteem were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for deciphering original chasis and engine numbers. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that the chasis and engine numbers of Maruti Esteem could not be retrieved, however, the engine number of Zen car was retrieved and was found to be stolen vehicle of the present case and had recorded statement of witnesses in the case also. PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad has correctly identified Chasis impression document, one stamp paper of Rs.10/- (Transport Department), one insurance paper of SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 32 of 48 vehicle no. UP 32AH 3223, one RC of vehicle No. UP 32AH 3223, Ex.P7/1 (colly) and had stated that the aforesaid documents were seized from the house of the accused Mursalin. It is further deposed by PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad that the accused persons Anil Chuahan and Gulsher (PO) had also pointed out the place of the occurrence/theft of vehicle from Hauz Khas in case FIR No.1084/2005, vide pointing out memo (Ex.PW5/A). PW7 Assistant Commissioner of Police has correctly identified all the accused persons present in the Court and has deposed that during investigation of the present case, he had recorded the statements of the accused persons and had prepared the charge-sheet and had filed the same in the court.
48. PW7 Assistant Commissioner of Police has further deposed that the letter received from the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District along with a letter from DCP South, report of MHC(M) police station Hauz Khas, New Delhi, copy of FIR no. 313/2018, release order, Superdarinama dated 14.08.2006, intimation about recovery of stolen vehicle Maruti Zen bearing no. PB 08 AM 1200 and along with other documents has been filed along with status of case property i.e. vehicle i.e. Maruti Esteem car was burnt in Auto Pond, Pushp Vihar, Saket, New Delhi on 29.05.2018 and the FIR no. 313/2018 under section 436 IPC was registered in the police station Saket, South District, New Delhi and he has proved the report of MHC(M) (Ex.PW7/A).
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 33 of 4849. PW8 Parshuram Singh, Assistant Director Physics, Forensic Science Laboratory Rohini has deposed that on 31.03.2006 he was posted as Senior Scientific Assistant Physics at Forensic Science Laboratory Rohini and a request dated 08.02.2006 was received from the inspected special team Crime Branch Prashant Vihar regarding examination of two cars i.e. One Maruti Zen with registration No. DL 9CM 446 and one Maruti Esteem without registration number in connection with FIR No.669/2005 of the police station Hauz Khas was received at Forensic Science Laboratory and the request along with Exhibits were deposited by Constable N.K Pavitran. It is further deposed by PW8 Parshuram Singh that Ex.1 was Maruti Zen registration No. DL 9CM 446, Engine No. G10BBN244332 and Chasis No.MA3EYE32500667906 mentioned above and Ex.2 was Maruti Esteem without registration number and bearing partial chasis No.MA3EBE41SO. It is further deposed by PW8 Parshuram Singh that he had examined both the exhibits and after chemical treatment to (Ex.1), he was of the opinion that no other number could be deciphered other than the existing number and the Engine number appeared to be original however, erasure marks were observed at the place of Chasis number. It is further deposed by PW8 Parshuram Singh that before chemical treatment, the chasis number was xMA3EYE32S00667906x, whereas, after treatment it turned out to be xMA3EYE3250071- 219x and X indicate the character which could not be deciphered.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 34 of 48It is further deposed by PW8 Parshuram Singh that engine number of Ex.2 was not legible due to erasure and after chemical treatment the number deciphered as G13-N----7- x indicates the character which could not be deciphered.
50. PW8 Parshuram Singh has further deposed that before chemical treatment, the chasis number was xMA3EBE41S0------, whereas, after treatment no it turned out to be xMA3EBE41S004-7-42xE5. As per PW8 Parshuram Singh, X indicates the character which could not be deciphered. PW8 Parshuram Singh had prepared his report dated 31.03.2006 (Ex.PW8/A) which is available on record and the exhibits were returned in unsealed condition along with the sealed report.
51. In the light of the charge framed against the accused and the arguments advanced before the court, following are the points for determination:
1. Whether the accused intended to take dishonestly the aforesaid car out of the possession of the complainant Dr. Poonam Mishra without the consent of the complainant and has committed theft by such act.
2. Whether after committing theft of the aforesaid car, dishonestly received stolen property, SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 35 of 48 knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
3. Whether the accused habitually receives or deals in property which they know or have reason to believe to be stolen property.
4. Whether the accused voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which they know or have reason to believe to be stolen property.
5. Whether the accused committed forgery, intending that the shall be used for the purpose of cheating.
6. Whether the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used the fake number plate as genuine which they know or have reason to believe to be a forged.
7. Whether the accused is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 36 of 48 conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
52. As noted above, the present case FIR was registered at the police station Hauz Khas on the complaint of one Dr. Poonam Mishra regarding theft of her car Maruti Zen bearing registration number PB-08-AM-1200 and the accused Anil Chauhan has been charged for the offences punishable under sections 379 and 411 IPC.
53. Section 379 IPC provides for punishment for theft, however, the offence theft has been defined under section 378 IPC. The essential ingredients of the offence under section 378 IPC are as follows:
(1) Dishonest intention to take property. (2) The property must be movable. (3) It should be taken out of the possession of another person.
(4) It should be taken without the consent of that person.
(5) There must be some removal of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it.
54. From the terminology of section 378 IPC, it is quite clear that in order to obtain conviction for the offence of theft, the prosecution has to prove that any movable property was SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 37 of 48 moved out of the possession of any person without his consent and the accused did it with the dishonest intention.
55. It is noteworthy here that the complainant Dr. Poonam Mishra from whose possession the stolen car i.e. Maruti Zen bearing registration number PB-08-AM-1200 was moved out, was never examined by the prosecution. The complainant Dr. Poonam Mishra had never entered into the witness box to prove the fact that vehicle number PB-08-AM-1200 was owned by her and it was taken away from her possession without her consent by the accused Anil Chauhan with the dishonest intention.
56. In absence of the evidence of the owner/person having possession of the stolen car, I am of the clear opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the car recovered from the possession of the accused persons Arif, Shehzad and Mursalin was a stolen car.
57. During the course of arguments, it argued on behalf of the prosecution that since, stolen car has been identified from the evidence FSL, therefore, non-examination of the complainant is not relevant.
58. As per the testimonies of PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad, he along with his raiding team had intercepted and seized one Maruti Zen car bearing registration no. DL9CM446 from the SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 38 of 48 accused persons. The prosecution has examined PW2 Babu Lal from Transport Authority, who has produced the record of vehicle no. DL9CM4460 and DL9CM0446 and as per testimonies of PW2 Babu Lal, engine and chasis numbers of the above-said vehicles do not match the vehicle recovered from the accused persons and those vehicles were Alto and Baleno and not Zen, however, such evidence is not conclusive to prove theft. The prosecution has also examined PW8 Parsuram, Assistant Director from FSL, Rohini, where, the recovered car bearing registration no. DL9CM446 was sent for examination and as per his testimonies, the chasis no. was found to be tempered with but his evidence is not conclusive to prove that it was the car stolen in the present case. Moreever, as noted above, in absence evidence of the owner or the person having possession of the stolen car, it can not be held that the car recovered from the accused persons was owned by the complainant Dr. Poonam or that it was stolen or moved out from her possession.
59. It is important to note here that the investigating officer officer has not joined any public person in the investigation/seizing the stolen car. As per the testimonies of PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran, on receiving of secret information, the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad, after informing senior officers, formed a raiding party and requested 4-5 public persons in the Prashant Vihar market to join the investigation but none had agreed. This SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 39 of 48 was such a strange behaviour in investigation on part of the investigating officer as the raid was to be conducted at Subzi Mandi, Shahibabad, whereas, the investigating officer was requesting public persons to join the investigation at Prashant Vihar market. Moreover, as per the testimonies of PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran and PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad, the recovered car was intercepted and stopped near a tea stall. The tea-vendor was a natural and independent witness and could have been easily joined in the investigation/recovery but he was also not joined in the investigation.
60. Another offence the accused Anil Chauhan has been charged with is under section 411 IPC. Section 411 deals with dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property. In order to bring home guilt of a person under this section, the following elements must be established:
1.The property must have been stolen
2.The accused must have received, retained, bought or sold the stolen property
3.The accused must have known or had reason to believe that the property was stolen
4. The act of receiving, retaining, buying or selling the stolen property must have been done dishonestly.
61. It is important to note that the mere receipt of stolen property is not enough to attract the provisions of section 411. The accused must have the knowledge or reason to believe that SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 40 of 48 the property was stolen, and must have acted dishonestly in receiving, retaining, buying or selling it.
62. As noted above, the car alleged by the prosecution to be stolen in the present case was not recovered from the accused Anil Chauhan. The prosecution has set up the present case on the allegation that the accused Anil Chauhan, when arrested in connection with another FIR, had made disclosure statement for his having been involved in the present case. As per the testimonies of the investigating officer and his accompanying staff, in pursuance of the secret information and at the instance of the secret informer, the car Maruti Zen was recovered and the accused persons were arrested and at the same time they have asserted that the accused Anil Chauhan was also there with them. But, it is not clear case of the prosecution/investigation officer that the car was recovered in pursuance to the disclosure statement. Even otherwise, in absence of the independent witnesses, as noted above, which could have been easily joined in the investigation, the recovery of the Maruti Zen car becomes doubtful. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the necessary ingredients to obtain conviction of the accused Anil Chauhan are not established beyond reasonable doubt.
63. The accused persons Arif, Shehzad and Mursalin have also been charged for the offence under section 468 IPC.
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 41 of 48The essential ingredients of the offence under section 468 are as follows:
(1) There should be a forgery in respect of the document or electronic record in question.
(2) The intention of the forgery should be that the forged document or electronic record is to be used for the purpose of cheating.
(3) There should be forgery with particular intent- Ram Naryan v. CBI (2003)3 SCC 641.
64. There is no evidence on behalf the prosecution to establish the intention of the forgery to be that the forged document or electronic record is to be used for the purpose of cheating. It is very difficult task to establish such intention as for proving such intention cogent evidence is required. Even otherwise, during the course of final arguments, It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that they were not pressing offence under section 468 IPC as motive to commit the crime was not proved by any evidence. Therefore, offence under section 468 IPC is not proved for want of evidence.
65. The accused persons Arif, Shehzad and Mursalin have also been charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120B IPC. The essential ingredients of the offence under section 120B IPC are as follows:
SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 42 of 48(1) An agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence;
(2) In doing so the accused either did or caused to be done:
(i) an illegal act, or
(ii) an act which is not in itself illegal, by illegal means -
State v. Nalini (1999)5 SCC 253: AIR 1999 SC 2640: 1999 SCC (Cri) 691; Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. C.B.I. (2009)8 SCC 1; Major E.G. Barsay v. State AIR 1961 SC 1762; Ram Naryan v. CBI (2003)3 SCC 641(2003) SCC (Cri) 869.
(3) Such an act done or caused to be done was an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code;
(4) If the act so done was not an offence, then an overt act had been done by one or more parties to such agreements in pursuance thereof.
66. It is well settled that the offence of Criminal Conspiracy under section 120B IPC, in conclusion, is a serious offence that can result in severe consequences for those who are convicted of it. The offence of criminal conspiracy requires the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act and an intention to bring about that illegal act. Over the years, various landmark cases have helped clarify the legal principles surrounding criminal conspiracy and have provided guidance to the Courts in dealing with criminal conspiracy cases. These cases have emphasized the importance of proving the existence of a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 43 of 48 and have established that a person can be held liable for criminal conspiracy even if they did not directly participate in the commission of the crime. No doubt, in case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. In the light of above-said settled propositions of law, I may hold that there is no evidence of behalf of the prosecution to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy between the accused persons. In the charge-sheet also, the investigating officer has failed to specify how the offence of criminal conspiracy is establish from the facts mentioned in the charge-sheet. During evidence also, the investigating officer has failed to point out how the offence of criminal conspiracy has been proved even during his testimonies. In view of the above discussion, I am of the clear view that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy.
67. Further, the accused persons Arif, Shehzad and Mursalin have been charged with the offences under sections 413 and 414 IPC. The essential ingredients of the offence under section 413 are as follows:
(1) The subject-matter of offence was stolen property;
(2) Accused received such property; (3) He dealt in such property; (4) He did it habitually;
(5) He did so knowingly or having reason to believe that it was stolen property.SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 44 of 48
68. The essential ingredients of the offence under section 414 are as follows:
(1) The subject-matter of offence was stolen property;
(2)Accused assisted in concealing, disposing of or making away with such property.
69. As per the testimonies of PW3 Assistant Sub- Inspector N.K. Pavitran, PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder, PW5 Head Constable Rajiv Mohan and PW7 Inspector Bhagwati, the accused persons Mursalin, Shahzad and Arif were apprehended by them with the stolen car and at the instance of the accused persons Mursalin and Shahzad, they had reached at Factory at Mavana District, Meerut and recovered four cars viz., two Santro, one Toyota Qualis and one Esteem car at their instance. It is important to note here that the Esteem car along with the Maruti Zen car (involved in the present case) was sent to the Forensic Department, FSL for deciphering its Engine and Chasis number however, after the process done, the FSL officials could not decipher such numbers, therefore, I may hold that there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to prove that the Esteem car was a stolen car. Even otherwise, the owner of the Esteem car was never produced in the Court by the prosecution to prove that the car was stolen. Similarly, the other three cars viz., two Santro cars and one Qualis car were also not proved to be stolen cars. The owner of these three cars were also not examined by the SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 45 of 48 prosecution during the trial of this case to prove the fact that these cars were owned by them or under their possession or that these cars were stolen. The prosecution has also failed to prove during trial the identities of these vehicles to be stolen cars.
70. Furthermore, the recovery of these four cars from the possession of the accused persons also seems to be doubtful. As per the cross-examination of PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K.Pavitran, no public persons had been joined by the investigating officer in the raid; no photography or videography had taken place in his presence. As per his testimony, the local police also had not accompanied them to the place of incident and he has admitted that no site-plan was prepared at the spot in his presence. As regards raid at the house of Mursalin at Mavana also, as per the testimony of PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector N.K. Pavitran, the local police had not been joined by the investigating officer to conduct the raid at the house of Mursalin and the site- plan was also not prepared and videography and photography was not conducted there and no public person was joined in the raid. As per the cross-examination of PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravinder also, none of the public person had joined the investigation at Sahibabad and Mavana. As per the cross- examination of PW5 Sub-Inspector Rajiv Mohan also, photography or videography of recovery was not conducted by the investigating officer in his presence and this witness also does not remember if the investigating officer had prepared site-plan SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 46 of 48 or not. As per his cross-examination, no site-plan was prepared by the investigating officer at Meerut in his presence and even no public person was joined in the investigation by the investigating officer at Meerut in his presence. In his cross-examination, PW7 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad (investigating officer of this case) has admitted that Sahibabad Mandi was a public place and many public persons were present there and some shops were also situated at the spot. The investigating officer has deposed that he had not asked any shopkeeper to join the investigation. It has been noted above that alleged car was stopped near a tea-shop and the tea vendor could have easily been joined in the investigation but it is not so done by the investigating officer.
71. In the light of the above cross-examination of the police officials, part of raiding party, since, (1) no public person was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of car at Sahibabad Mandi near tea shop, (2) no public person was joined in the investigation in recovery of other cars at Mavana Factory of the accused Mursalin and during recovery at Meerut house, (3) no site-plan of these places of recovery was prepared, (4) the local police was not made part of the raiding/recovery party, (5) photographs and videography was not conducted during recovery process, therefore, the recovery of the stolen cars at Mavana Factory, recovery of keys, cars and other documents becomes doubtful. In view of the above doubts in the process of recovery SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 47 of 48 and apprehension of accused persons, the offence under section 471 IPC also becomes doubtful.
72. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the charge framed the accused persons, so accused persons are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Digitally signed DR by DR RAKESH
KUMAR
RAKESH Date:
KUMAR 2024.09.30
18:20:31 +0530
Pronounced in the open court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR)
th
on 30 of September, 2024. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No.1117/2016 Police Station Hauz Khas State Vs. Anil Chauhan & Ors Page 48 of 48