Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh @Sonu on 31 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETIKA KAPOOR, MM-06, SOUTH WEST
DWARKA, DWARKA COURT, DELHI
DLSW020185922018
FIR Number : 036936/2017
P.S. : Dwarka North
U/s : 379/411 IPC
STATE Vs. SURESH @ SONU
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 3873/2018
b) Name & address of the Complainant : Pooja Rani, D/o Shankar Lal,
R/o N 53, Gurudwara Road, Gali
No. 7, Mohan Garden, Delhi.
c) Name & address of the accused : Suresh @ Sonu S/o Azad Singh,
R/o H. No. 329, Harijan Chowk,
Village Paprawat, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of offfence : 21.11.2017
e) Offence complained of : 411 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquittal
Date of registration of FIR : 21.11.2017
FIR No. 036936/2017 State Vs. Suresh @ Sonu Digitally signed Page 1 of 10
NEETIKA by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2024.02.07
17:22:07 +0530
Final arguments heard on : 18.01.2024
Judgment Pronounced on : 31.01.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The accused person Suresh @ Sonu is facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) in connection with the case FIR No. 036936/2017 registered at P.S. Dwarka North.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2017 from Mangal Bazar Dwarka Mor, one Honda Activa Scooty bearing No. DL4SCM 5953 belonging to the complainant was stolen and an online e-FIR in regard to the same was registered. Investigation of the online FIR was marked to HC Rajesh. Statement of complainant was recorded and site plan was prepared by the IO. Thereafter, on 08.02.2018, IO had received information from Crime Branch Dwarka regarding recovery of case property from accused persons and thereafter, HC Rajesh alongwith Ct. Deepak went to PS Crime Branch Dwarka. Subsequently, accused Suresh @ Sonu and Praveen @ Pinu were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. IO formally seized stolen scooty. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and based on the material collected, accused Suresh @ Sonu was found responsible for the commission of offences punishable under Section 411 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, case file was handed over by the IO to SHO of Police Station Dwarka North who after following the codal formalities, prepared and filed the instant challan against the accused.
3. On finding sufficient material on record against accused, he was summoned before this court and on his appearance, copies of the challan and other documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as Cr.P.C).
FIR No. 036936/2017 State Vs. Suresh @ Sonu Digitally signed by Page 2 of 10NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.02.07 17:22:15 +0530
4. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused Suresh @ Sonu under Sections 411 of I.P.C., charge was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defense to make.
5. Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 06 witnesses.
(i) PW-1 Pooja Rani is the complainant who identified the stolen scooty from the photographs on record.
(ii) PW-2 Reshma is the mother of complainant and registered owner of the stolen scooty
(iii) PW-3 Vicky is an eye witness to recovery of the scooty from the accused.
(iv) PW4 HC Rajesh is the first Investigating Officer of the case.
(v) PW5 ASI Shree Om is the Investigating Officer of PS Crime Branch Dwarka who had arrested the accused on secret information and prepared a kalandra u/s 41D Cr.P.C.
(vi) PW6 HC Suraj is the MHC(M) who had brought the register No. 19 to prove the deposition of the case property in malkhana vide entry No. 1318 which is Ex.PW6/A(OSR).
6. During the course of prosecution evidence, accused had admitted certain documents relied upon by the prosecution u/s 294 Cr.P.C. which are : 1. present E-FIR 036936/17 PS Dwarka North dated 21.11.2017 which is Ex.P/A/1, certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.P/A/2, DD No. 21 dated 21.11.2017 which is Ex.P/A/3, DD No. 37B dated 08.02.2018 which is Ex.P/A/4, kalandra u/s 41.1(d) Cr.P.C. which is Ex.P/A/5 and RC No. 89/21/18 dated 15.02.2018 which is Ex.P/A/6.
Digitally signedFIR No. 036936/2017 State Vs. Suresh @ Sonu NEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR Page 3 of 10 KAPOOR Date: 2024.02.07 17:22:20 +0530
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution was put to accused by recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence and preferred not to lead any evidence in his defense. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for State Sh. Pushpendra Verma, and Sh. Umesh Kumar, Ld. Defence counsel for the accused and have gone through the records carefully.
9. On the basis of evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 07.02.2018 at unknown time in front of H. No. 329, Paprawat village, Najafgarh, at instance of accused one Honda Activa Scooty bearing registration No. DL4SCM 5953 belonging to complainant was recovered from possession of accused which was stolen on 21.11.2017 from Mangal Bazar Dwarka Mor which he had received or retained knowing the same to be stolen property, as alleged?
(ii) Final order.
10. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the reasons for my findings, my findings on the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No. 1: No
Final order: The accused Suresh @
Sonu is acquitted as per the operative part
of the judgment.
FIR No. 036936/2017 State Vs. Suresh @ Sonu Digitally signed Page 4 of 10
NEETIKA by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2024.02.07
17:22:29 +0530
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
POINT NO. 1
11. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 411 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Section 411 IPC is reproduced herein below:
"Dishonestly receiving stolen property.-Whoever dishonestly received 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."
12. It is trite that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused must be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the case at hand, is to be weighed keeping in view these legal standards.
13. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined, PW-1 Pooja Rani who being the complainant stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 21.11.2017 she alongwith her mother had gone to Dwarka Mor market and had parked her scooty bearing No. DL4SCM 5953 at Dwarka Mor Auto stand. After some time, when she came back she found the scooty to be missing. She lodged an e-FIR in this regard. She gave her statement to the IO which is Ex.PW1/A on 24.11.2017. Witness correctly identified the scooty from the photographs on record which are Ex.PW1/B(colly).
14. In order to corroborate testimony of PW1 prosecution examined, PW2 Reshma who stepped into the witness box and supported the version of PW1 and FIR No. 036936/2017 State Vs. Suresh @ Sonu Digitally signed by NEETIKA Page 5 of 10 NEETIKA KAPOOR Date:
KAPOOR 2024.02.07 17:22:36 +0530 identified the stolen scooty from the photographs on record. Witness was not cross- examined despite opportunity.
15. Perusal of testimony of PW1 and PW2 clearly reveal that they had not seen the person who had stolen the scooty on the day of the alleged incident and were thus not eye witnesses to the incident. Witnesses were also not present at the time of recovery of the case property from the accused persons and as such their testimony is not sufficient to prove the factum of recovery of case property from the accused.
16. In order to prove its case, prosecution further examined PW4 HC Rajesh who being the IO stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 21.11.2017 investigation of the case was handed over to him and during investigation, he had recorded the statement of complainant which is Ex.PW1/A and also prepared site plan which is Ex.PW4/E. He further deposed that on 08.02.2018 he had received information from crime branch Dwarka regarding recovery of case property from the accused persons and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Deepak went to PS Crime Branch and obtained the documents from the IO. Later, he arrested accused persons namely Suresh @ Sonu and Praveen @ Pinu vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively. Witness also recorded disclosure statements of the accused persons which is Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. Witness correctly identified accused Suresh @ Sonu in the court. On completion of investigation witness has filed the charge-sheet in the court.
17. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he had recorded the statement of complainant on 24.11.2017. Site plan was also prepared at instance of complainant but the same does not bear her signatures. No CCTV cameras were found installed near the spot. No eye witness was found in and around the spot. He admitted that he was not an eye witness to recovery of the case property from the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and the recovery of the case property had been falsely planted upon the accused.
18. From the testimony of PW4, it is evident that the case property Digitally signed FIR No. 036936/2017 State Vs. Suresh @ Sonu NEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR Page 6 of 10 KAPOOR Date: 2024.02.07 17:22:44 +0530 was not recovered by him during investigation and he himself was not an eye witness to the recovery but was merely informed by IO of PS Crime Branch Dwarka that the case property had been recovered at instance of accused. Thus, testimony of PW4 itself is also not sufficient to prove the factum of recovery of case property from the accused and same requires corroboration.
19. In order to corroborate testimony of PW4, prosecution examined PW5 ASI Shree Om who stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 07.02.2018, he was posted as ASI at Crime Branch Dwarka and at about 5:45 pm was informed by a secret informer that accused Suresh @ Sonu who is a habitual dealer of stolen property had reached Kabristan Section 24 Dwarka who can be caught if a raid is conducted. Witness shared the information with Inspector Sunil Jain and on his instruction prepared a raiding team including himself, ASI Sant Raj, ASI Kuldeep, ASI Rajender, ASI Mahesh, ASI Suresh, HC Ram Kumar, HC Ganga Dhar, HC Rajiv, Ct. Om Prakash and Ct. Kuldeep. Crime team left for the spot alongwith the secret informer and reached Kargil Chowk where the witness requested public persons to join the raiding party but all of them refused. At about 6:30 pm the team reached in front of Kabristan Sector 24 Dwarka and after some time saw a WagonR car (red in colour) without a number plate. Secret informer identified the driver of the WagonR car and accused and left the spot. He was apprehended and on interrogation, he disclosed his name as Praveen @ Pinu. He failed to produced any document of ownership and disclosed that he had stolen the vehicle from Surajkund Faridabad. Witness on inquiry learnt that the WagonR car was a stolen property in case FIR No. 747/17 PS Surajkund. Accused Praveen @ Pinu was arrested in kalandra u/s 41.1(d) Cr.P.C. vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A. Personal search memo was also prepared which is Ex.PW5/B. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded which is Ex.PW5/C wherein Praveen @ Pinu disclosed his involvement in other cases and disclosed that he had sold one scooty bearing registration No. DL4SCM 5953 to his friend namely Suresh @ Sonu. Thereafter, witness alongwith Praveen @ Pinu went to house of accused at H. No. 329, Paprawat Village, Najafgarh and at instance of accused Praveen and Suresh recovered FIR No. 036936/2017 State Vs. Suresh @ Sonu Digitally signed Page 7 of 10 NEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.02.07 17:22:52 +0530 the stolen scooty without a number plate vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. Accused Suresh @ Sonu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/F. Witness went back to crime branch Sector 17 Dwarka and informed the concerned IOs regarding recovery of case properties of different cases. Witness deposited the case property in malkhana. During investigation, HC Rajesh reached the office of Crime Branch and witness handed over the custody of accused and seizure memo to him. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. Witness also correctly identified the scooty from the photographs which are Ex.PW1/B.
20. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness deposed that all public persons had refused to join investigation. He admitted that though public persons were present at the spot, however, he did not obtain signature of any public persons on the recovery of case property or the arrest memos. He admitted that at the time of seizure of the case property from residence of accused Suresh, his family members and neighbours were present. Witness did not serve any notice to any public persons to join investigation. Accused Suresh @ Sonu was arrested at around 3:45 am. Witness failed to state the time when he had reached PS Crime Branch or when he had deposited the case property in malkhana. Witness further failed to state the time when he had shared the information of arrest and recovery of case property to HC Rajesh. He denied the suggestion that accused Suresh @ Sonu had been falsely implicated in the present case and that no recovery has been made from his instance.
21. Perusal of testimony of PW5 reveals that he had initially arrested Praveen @ Pinu on secret information and at his instance had recovered the stolen case property from Paprawat Village, Najafgarh from possession of accused Suresh @ Sonu and thereafter, had arrested accused Suresh @ Sonu in kalandra u/s 41.1(d) Cr.P.C. Perusal fo kalandra u/s 41.1(d) which is Ex.P/A/5 reveals that recovery of case property was effected from accused in presence of his family member namely Vicky who had also signed seizure memo Ex.PW5/D. In order to corroborate the testimony of PW5, prosecution examined PW3 Vicky who stepped into the witness box but failed to Digitally signed FIR No. 036936/2017 State Vs. Suresh @ Sonu NEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR Page 8 of 10 KAPOOR Date: 2024.02.07 17:22:59 +0530 support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by simply stating that police persons had obtained his signatures on some blank papers.
22. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State witness denied the contents of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. from point A to A1. Witness also failed to identify the accused in the court. Witness also failed to identify the case property from the photographs on record. He denied the suggestion that case property was recovery from the accused in his presence.
23. PW3 in his testimony failed to corroborate the version of PW5 and failed to prove the factum of recovery of the stolen property from accused beyond reasonable doubt. Except PW3, there is no other independent public witness to corroborate the factum of recovery of case property from the accused. Testimony of PW3 does not support the prosecution story and testimony of PW4 and PW5 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, site plan prepared by the IO is not sufficient to prove the factum of recovery on the part of the accused. While it shows the location of the incident which is undisputed, it could not be inferred that the case property had been recovered from the accused which he had retained or received knowing the same to be stolen property.
24. There is no other witness to establish the guilt of the accused. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the act of theft or recovery of stolen property on the part of the accused in the present case and, therefore, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that stolen scooty of complainant was recovered from possession of accused Suresh @ Sonu which he had retained or received knowing the same to be stolen property. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Thus, this point is answered in the negative and are decided against the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER
25. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, since the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for commission of offence FIR No. 036936/2017 State Vs. Suresh @ Sonu Page 9 of 10 Digitally signed NEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.02.07 17:23:07 +0530 punishable under section 411 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, accused Suresh @ Sonu is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.
26. Personal bonds/surety bonds stand cancelled. Endorsement, if any is also cancelled. Sureties stand discharged. Superdarinama, if any stands cancelled. Original documents, if any be returned to the rightful claimant against proper receipt as per rules.
27. The accused has already furnished personal and surety bonds as per the mandate of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has undertaken that they shall put in his appearance before the appellate court within the prescribed period in case an appeal is filed and admitted for hearing. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced and signed in the open court on 31th day of January, 2024 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.02.07 17:23:15 +0530 (Neetika Kapoor) MM-06/SWD/Dwarka Court New Delhi/31.01.2024 **It is certified that this judgment contains 10 pages, and each page bears my signature**.
FIR No. 036936/2017 State Vs. Suresh @ Sonu Page 10 of 10