Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu @ Jitender on 6 January, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Sonu @ Jitender
FIR NO: 208/07
P. S. Sarojini Nagar
Date of institution of case : 21.06.2007
Date on which case reserved : 23.12.2010
for judgment
Date of judgment : 06.01.2011
Advocates appearing in the case : Sh. Ashesh Changkum,
Ld. APP for State
Sh. Virender Uniyal
Counsel for accused.
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C
.:
a) Date of offence : 25.04.2007
b) Offence complained of : U/S 379/411 IPC
c) Name of complainant : HC Roop Ram
d) Name of accused, his : Sonu @ Jitender
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Surender Singh
R/o H. no. RZB 157, Gali no. 8
Gurudwara Road, Mahaveer Enclave
New Delhi.
e) Plea of accused : He is falsely implicated.
g) Final order : Accused is convicted
FIR NO. 208/07 Page 1/5 PS : Sarojini Nagar
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
The accused Sonu @ Jitender was caught red handed while trying to run away after stealing the mobile phone make Motorola W220 (Silver and Black Colour), near Safdarjung Hospital Bus Stand on 25.04.2007 by complainant Sh. Anil Rai and accused was handed over to IO HC Roop Ram and present FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. 25.04.2007. The complainant stated that when he was standing near Safdarjung Hospital Bus Stand, accused came near him and requested for his mobile phone to make a call but as soon as complainant took out the mobile from his pocket, the accused took the mobile from him and tried to run away with the mobile but he was caught after following for some distance with assistance of public persons, and after complaint to police, the accused was handed over to IO on his arrival. It is further stated in the chargesheet that after making the pullanda of mobile phone, seizure memo, recording statement of complainant and arrest memo etc., the accused was sent with constable Mukesh for medical examination to Safdarjung Hospital but taking advantage of the crowd in the hospital, accused ran away from the custody of Ct. Mukesh. After search for many days, accused was caught on 04.05.2007 near Delhi Haat by SI Virender Prakash, Ct. Mukesh and IO HC Roop Ram in pursuance of secret information and another case FIR no. 209/07 u/s 224 IPC was framed against accused and the accused was rearrested by the IO and after investigation, chargesheet was filed in present case.
2. Charge was framed against accused u/s 379 IPC and alternatively u/s 411 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution has examined FIR NO. 208/07 Page 2/5 PS : Sarojini Nagar 5 witnesses on its behalf. PW1 HC Vijay Singh is the DO who recorded present FIR on 25.04.2007 after receipt of rukka from Ct. Mukesh and he exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A.
3. PW2 is complainant Anil Rai who stated that when he was standing at bus stand near Safdarjung Hospital Ring Road and was waiting for a bus at about 3.30 PM on 25.04.2007, accused came to him and asked for mobile phone but as soon as he took the mobile phone from his pocket, accused snatched it and ran away from the spot but he was soon apprehended with the help of public persons and on arrival of police, he was handed over to the police. PW2 has exhibited his statement given to IO, as Ex.PW2/A and the Invoice / Bill of mobile phone Motorola W220 as Ex.PW2/B and the mobile phone as Ex.P1. He has correctly identified the accused in court. PW2 also exhibited the seizure memo of mobile, arrest memo of accused and personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E. He stated that the mobile phone was gifted by his wife Aisha on their marriage anniversary. PW3 Smt. Aisha W/o Sh. Anil Rai has supported the statement of PW2.
4. PW4 is IO HC Roop Ram who investigated the present case. He has exhibited the endorsement made on the statement of PW2 as Ex.PW4/A and arrest memo of accused dated 04.05.2007 as Ex.PW4/B and personal search memo dated 04.05.2007 as Ex.PW4/C and the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW4/D and the site plan as Ex.PW4/E. FIR NO. 208/07 Page 3/5 PS : Sarojini Nagar
5. PW5 SI Virender Prakash is the IO of FIR no. 209/07 registered against accused u/s 224 IPC since accused had run away from the custody of Ct. Mukesh. PW5 has testified that on receipt of secret information, he alongwith Ct. Mukesh and HC Roop Ram assumed position at Delhi Haat at about 8 PM on 04.05.2007 and apprehended the accused at the instance of the secret informer and thereafter, accused was rearrested in this case by the IO HC Roop Ram vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/B and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/C. PW5 has testified to his signatures at point B on both the documents. Despite being duly represented by his private counsel, accused has failed to crossexamine PWs despite grant of opportunity. After closure of PE, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case but he preferred not to lead defence evidence, hence case was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard from both sides. BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF
6. As per evidence led by prosecution discussed above, no discrepancies are found in the case of prosecution. The complainant PW2 has given statement on oath that accused had tried to run away after snatching his mobile phone but he was caught soon after theft with the help of public persons and handed over to the police. PW2 has correctly identified the accused in court. It has been stated by PW4 and PW5 that accused had escaped from custody of Ct. Mukesh at the time of his medical examination and was caught and rearrested after about 10 days by PW5 with assistance of Ct. Mukesh and HC Roop Ram on 04.05.2007. During final FIR NO. 208/07 Page 4/5 PS : Sarojini Nagar arguments, it has come to fore that accused has already been convicted in case FIR no. 209/2007 u/s 224 IPC by Ld. Predecessor Court vide judgement dated 20.09.2007 since accused had pleaded guilty to the offence of running away from custody of Ct. Mukesh. All this shows the conduct of accused. All the evidence led by prosecution has pointed to one and only one conclusion that it is the accused himself who had committed the theft of mobile phone and was caught red handed and duly identified by the complainant and other PWs. The case property was also recovered from possession of accused and has been identified by the complainant and exhibited in court. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed theft of mobile phone Motorola W220 IMEI no. 351967010542095, which is an offence punishable u/s 379 IPC. Hence, accused stands convicted u/s 379 IPC.
Fix for arguments on sentence on 10.01.2011.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 06th January, 2011 MM07(SOUTH) NEW DELHI FIR NO. 208/07 Page 5/5 PS : Sarojini Nagar