Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit on 3 August, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI
STATE VS. AMIT
FIR NO: 114/07
P. S. NDLS
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Serial No. of the case : 135/07
b) Date of offence : 8.4.2007
c) Offence complained of : 379/411 IPC
d) Name of complainant : Amol Patil
e) Name of accused, his : Amit S/op Ram Nath R/o 1212
parentage & residence Ram Darwar , Phase I Chandigarh.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final order : Convicted
h) Date of institution of case : 24.4.2007
i) Date on which case reserved : 3.8.2007
for judgment
j) Date of judgment : 3.8.2007 ( After Lunch)
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1- Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been facing trial on the allegation that on 8.4.2007 at about 4.20 pm at PF No. 6/7 south end , NDLS, within the jurisdiction of PS NDLS he committed the theft of Purse containing articles as per seizure memo mark A of the complainant Amol Patil without his consent and same was later on found in his possession Contd..........
/2/ which he dishonestly received or retained knowing or having reason to believe that the same was stolen property and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 379/411 IPC has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2- The accused was supplied with copies of charge-sheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 379/411 IPC vide order of this court dated . When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3- To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses in support of its case.
4- PW1 HC Ram Kumar and PW4 Ct. Parveen Kumar are the witnesses of recovery of case property from the possession of accused. Both of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and they have deposed that on 8.4.2007 they were posted at PS NDLS on that day they were on patrolling at PF No. 6/7 NDLS . At about 4.20 pm when they reached at South End , they heard the noise of chor chor and reached there , apprehended accused Amit whom they correctly identified. They further deposed that in the meanwhile complainant Amol Patil also reached there he narrated that accused committed theft of his purse and ran away. IO/PW1 Contd..........
/3/ recovered purse of complainant from the possession of the accused, purse containing pan card, two military canteen smart card, photocopy of I card and cash of Rs. 1000/- ( two notes of Rs. 500/-) vide memo Ex. PW1/B. IO/PW1 recorded the statement of complainant and made a rukka which is Ex. PW- 1/A and handed over it to Ct. Praveen/PW4 for registration of FIR. He went to PS and after registration of FIR came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to IO/PW1. Both of them have further proved site plan Ex. PW- 1/C , arrest/personal search of accused vide memos Ex. PW1/D and E and recording of statement of witnesses.
- PW2 Amol Patil who was the complainant in the present case have fully supported the case of the prosecution and had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property when the same was produced before him. He also reiterated the facts told by PW1 and PW4 and also proved the document prepared during the investigation. 6- PW3 HC Vijay Pal has deposed about registration of FIR in the present case and has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW 3 /A and endorsement on the original rukka as Ex. PW3/B. 7- In his statement recorded on 3.8.2007, the accused has pleaded guilty and admitted the offence in question and has also filed an application Ex. C-1 to this effect.
Contd..........
/4/ 8- I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 9- In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused , wherein accused has admitted the offence in question for which he has been charged by filing application pleading guilty, I have come to the conclusion that it was only accused who on the date , time and place mentioned above have committed offence of committing theft of purse of complainant Amol Patil and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 379 IPC is stand proved against the accused. Moreover the prosecution has examined all its material witness including the complainant who have fully supported the case of the prosecution and there is no contradiction in their statement. The material witnesses have correctly identified the accused as well as the case property when the same was produced before them during recording of their statements.
10. In the case titled as "State of Maharashtra V/s. Dhruwa Wollen Mills Pvt. Ltd." 1991 Crl J 3142 (Bom.) it is held that:-
"If the substance of accusation is properly explained to the accused and the accused understands fully the implication of the charge and pleads guilty, the Magistrate can record such Contd..........
/5/ plea and convict the accused on accepting such plea. But if the accused is not present before the Magistrate and does not plead guilty, the plea of guilty by other accused on his behalf, is illegal."
11- Hence in view of above discussion coupled with voluntary plea of guilty by accused in his statement as well as by filing application to the said effect, I have come to the conclusion that the accused is found guilty for the offence of committing theft of purse of complainant Amol Patil. Accordingly the accused Amit S/o Ram Nath is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 379 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 3.8.2007.
(SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. AMIT FIR NO: 114/07 P. S. NDLS ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C. The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 379 IPC vide separate judgment of this court dated 3.8.2007.
Heard on the point of sentence.
The accused/convict submits that he belongs to a very poor family. He further submits that he is in J/C in this case since 8.4.2007.. He further submits that he is the only earning member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused, accused is sentenced to 4 months RI in this case U/s 379 IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. is awarded to the accused. Case property be disposed off in accordance with law.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of order be given to the accused, free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 3.8.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI