Delhi District Court
State vs . Satish on 8 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. COLETTE RASHMI KUJUR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Satish
FIR No. 616/2000
PS : Uttam Nagar
U/s 379/411/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 26.09.2000
Date of reserving of order : 08.05.2019
Date of Judgment : 08.05.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 6748/2019
2. Name of the Complainant : Shri Saranjeet
S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh
R/o RZT165A, Shukkar
Bazar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
3. Date of commission of offence : 12/13.07.2000
4. Name of accused : Satish Kumar
S/o Sh. Ramphal
R/o 110/111, Aggarwal Colony
Najafgarh, Delhi.
5. Offence charged : U/s 379/411/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted u/s 411 IPC
FIR No.616/2000 State Vs. Satish Kumar 1/8
P.S.Uttam Nagar
Convicted u/s 103 D.P. Act
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. In brief, case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 12/13.07.2000 at House No. RZT165A, Shukkar Bazar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, a theft of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4SW 8330 was committed, belonging to the complainant Sarajneet. Complainant gave statement to the police on the basis of which present FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. During investigation, on 09.08.2000 at main Najafgarh Road near Chicken Corner, accused Satish Kumar was found in possession of the aforesaid motorcycle belonging to complainant.
2. After completion of investigation, the present charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Section 379/411/34 IPC. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused was summoned to face trial. Copies were supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 20.01.2001 FIR No.616/2000 State Vs. Satish Kumar 2/8 P.S.Uttam Nagar charge for offence u/s 411 IPC was directed to be framed against accused Satish Kumar. Charge was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the matter was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution Witnesses were summoned for evidence. Summons were repeatedly sent to complainant/PW Saranjeet but complainant failed to make his appearance before the court despite service through DCP. Hence, he was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses.
6. PW1 Ct. Ajay Kumar apprehended the accused with stolen motorcycle while he was on vehicle checking duty along with AS Karan Singh, HC Bajrang Lal and Ct. Narender on 09.08.2000. Examination of this witness was deferred for want of case property and thereafter he was never examined further. FIR No.616/2000 State Vs. Satish Kumar 3/8 P.S.Uttam Nagar
7. PW2 SI Baljeet Singh recorded statement Ex. PW2/A of complainant Saranjeeet, prepared rukka Ex. PW2/B and got the present FIR registered. He prepared site plan Ex. PW2/C at the instance of complainant. On 10.08.2000, on receipt of DD No.6 Ex. PW2/D, PW2 went to the office of Special Staff, Rajouri Garden and collected the photocopies of seizure memo of motorcycle, disclosure statement of accused Satish and Shankar, pointing out memo and statement of the witnesses. He also formally arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/E.
8. PW3 SI Rajbir Singh was Duty Officer who recorded the present FIR Ex. PW3/A and made endorsement Ex. PW3/B.
9. PW4 was Sh. Inderpreet Singh, Ahlmad, who failed to produce the summoned record of FIR No.816/2000, PS Rajouri Garden.
10. PW5 SI Karan Singh apprehended the accused with FIR No.616/2000 State Vs. Satish Kumar 4/8 P.S.Uttam Nagar stolen motorcycle while he was on vehicle checking duty along with HC Bajrang Lal, ct. Ajay and Ct. Narender. They also asked for ownership documents from accused which he failed to produce.
11. Thereafter, PE was closed and the statement of accused Satish Kumar u/s 313 CrPC was recorded to which accused denied the prosecution version and claimed himself to be innocent but he did not prefer to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
12. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also gone through the documents on record.
13. The accused has been charged for offence punishable under section 411 IPC in this case. Before analysing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, I would like to reproduce section 411 IPC, which is as under:
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property - whoever dishonestly FIR No.616/2000 State Vs. Satish Kumar 5/8 P.S.Uttam Nagar receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason tobelieve 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.
To bring an offence under section 411 IPC, it must be shown that the accused had the knowledge or reason to believe that the property recovered from the person is stolen property. And, to impute knowledge on the basis of circumstances, such circumstances must be duly established before drawing any inference thereon. [Shankar Lal vs. State of M.P., (1990)1 MPW N 76 at 113; Mohan Lal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1718]. There is no eye witness to the incident of theft and to prove theft. The material witness in this case is the complainant. Deposition of the complainant was sine qua non for establishing the charge against the accused as only he could have proved, the factum of any such incident as alleged by prosecution. The complainant was the prime/material witness of the case and his absence has proved fatal for the prosecution as neither the incident nor the identity of accused could be established. As such, in the absence of testimony of complainant, accused cannot be convicted. Nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused. FIR No.616/2000 State Vs. Satish Kumar 6/8 P.S.Uttam Nagar
14. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H) (DB), 1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 662). The prosecution has failed to discharge the said onus. Therefore, no ground is made out to convict accused Satish Kumar for charge under Section 411 IPC.
15. Nevertheless, prosecution witnesses have duly proved on record that accused was found in possession of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL4SW8330 and when PW5 SI Karan Singh asked him about the ownership documents, he failed to account for such possession nor produced any document of ownership. During cross examination of witnesses, nothing material has come on record which FIR No.616/2000 State Vs. Satish Kumar 7/8 P.S.Uttam Nagar could falsify the factum of how he came to be in possession of aforesaid motorcycle and also failed to show any ownership documents. Accordingly, I hold the accused guilty for offence under section 103 D.P. Act.
Pronounced in the open court on 08.05.2019 (COLETTE RASHMI KUJUR) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi FIR No.616/2000 State Vs. Satish Kumar 8/8 P.S.Uttam Nagar