Delhi District Court
State vs Anita on 13 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 469/2018)
FIR No. 832/2015
Police Station Kashmere Gate (Metro)
Charge-sheet filed under Sections Sec. 379 read with Sec. 34
IPC & Sec. 411 read with
Sec. 34 IPC
Charges framed against accused Sec. 379 IPC read with Sec.
persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu, 34 IPC & Sec. 411 IPC.
Kavita, Laxmi and Kamla.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 413 read with Sec. 34
persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu IPC.
& Kavita.
State Versus 1. Anita
W/o Sumai Lal
R/o Jhuggi Kathputli Colony,
Shadi Pur Depot, Delhi
2. Imla
W/o Late Babaria
R/o Jhuggi Kathputli Colony,
Shadi Pur Depot, Delhi
3. Kamla
W/o Late Prem
R/o Jhuggi Kathputli Colony,
Shadi Pur Depot, Delhi
4. Kavita
W/o Dinesh
R/o House no. 2313, Faridpuri,
Anand Parvat, Delhi
State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 1 of 17
5. Indu
W/o Nilesh
R/o Jhuggi Kathputli Colony,
Shadi Pur Depot, Delhi
6. Laxmi
W/o Bharat
R/o Jhuggi Kathputli Colony,
Shadi Pur Depot, Delhi
...Accused persons.
Date of Institution of case 21.12.2017
Date of Arguments 13.08.2024
Judgment reserved on 13.08.2024
Judgment pronounced on 13.08.2024
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu, Kavita, Laxmi and Kamla are facing trial under Sec. 379 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC & Section 411 IPC. Additionally accused persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu & Kavita are also facing charges under Sec. 413 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC. The story of prosecution is that on 11.07.2015, at about 12:30 PM at Chawri Bajar Metro Station, accused persons namely Anita Imla, Indu and Kavita, Kamla and Laxmi in furtherance of their common intention had committed theft of Rs. 1,30,000/- belonging to one complainant Ms. Kiran Chadha. Further, accused persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu & Kavita habitually received and dealt in property which they knew or have reasons to believe to be the stolen property. Further, accused namely Kavita got recovered Rs. 20,000/- from State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 2 of 17 her jhuggi and remaining five accused persons were also found in possession of stolen money in sum of Rs. 15,000/- each from the boxes kept inside their respective jhuggis.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of this case are that on 11.07.2015, complainant gave a complaint at Police Station regarding theft of purse containing Rs. 1,30,000/- on which Duty Officer registered the case and handed over the copy of FIR to IO HC Ramesh Kumar for further investigation. IO HC Ramesh Kumar proceeded to investigate the matter with complainant. IO HC Ramesh Kumar alongwith complainant went to place of incident i.e. Chawari Bazar Metro Station and checked the CCTV footage where complainant was seen being surrounded by ladies. After identification of accused persons by complainant, IO HC Ramesh Kumar obtained CCTV footage from control room and made efforts to trace the accused persons.
3. On 17.08.2015, IO HC Ramesh Kumar alongwith W/SI Babita and W/Ct. Rinku proceeded for patrolling at Kashmere Gate Metro Station where six ladies were seen in suspicious condition. IO HC Ramesh Kumar interrogated those ladies and brought them to police station and after interrogation their names were revealed as Laxmi, Kamla, Anita, Kavita, Indu and Imla. On identification by complainant Ms. Kiran Chadha, abovesaid six ladies were arrested, their personal search was conducted and disclosure statements were recorded.
4. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was recovered from each accused except accused Kavita from whose possession an State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 3 of 17 amount of Rs. 20,000/- was recovered. IO seized the recovered currency notes. Accused persons were produced before the Court and were sent to JC and thereafter Section 411/34 IPC was added. Thereafter IO prepared charge sheet and filed before the Court of Ld. MM.
5. Vide order dated 0 5 . 0 5 . 2 0 1 8 , copies of the charge- sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C were supplied to the accused persons. Vi d e o r d e r d a t e d 0 4 . 0 7 . 2 0 1 8 , the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
6. Vide order dated 05.04.2019, the Ld. Predecessor was pleased to frame charges under Sec. 379 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC & Sec. 411 IPC against all the accused persons while additional charge under Sec. 413 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC against accused persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu and Kavita.
7. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 06 witnesses. However, the prosecution has not examined complainant Smt. Kiran Chadha. Complainant Smt. Kiran Chadha has compounded the offences punishable under Section 379/411/34 IPC with accused persons and the proceedings under Section 379/411/34 IPC against accused persons were disposed off by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 12.11.2022. The effect of compounding after framing of charge amounts to acquittal. Thus, due to the compounding of offences under Sec. 379/411/34 IPC, all the six accused persons were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 379/411/34 IPC. Since accused persons State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 4 of 17 namely Laxmi and Kamla were facing trial only under Sec, 379/411/34 IPC, they stood acquitted on 12.11.2022. Thus, only four accused persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu and Kavita are facing trial in the present case under Section 413/34 IPC. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs:-
8. PW-1 HC Ramesh Chand is the Duty Officer. He deposed that he made endorsement on the complaint of complainant Kiran Chadha who came in PS with her complaint Ex. PW1/A. He also proved copy of FIR no. 832/2015, Ex. PW1/B. He also proved certificate under Section 65-B Evidence Act, Ex. PW1/C. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
9. PW-2 Sh. Tejpal Singh deposed that on 18.08.2015, he was posted at Dossier Cell, Railway and Metro and on that day IO/SI Babita brought accused persons namely Imla, Laxmi, Kamla, Kavita, Anita and Indu and he had taken fingerprints of all the accused persons on the request of IO. He further deposed that fingerprints of all accused persons were obtained on bio matrix system and were sent online to finger print bureau. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them .
10. PW-3 SI Rohit Ranjan deposed that he was posted as Sub Inspector at CISF Control Room, Shastri Park at the relevant time. He further deposed that he gave CD, Ex. PW3/A and certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW3/B. State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 5 of 17 He further deposed that CD Ex. PW3/A was played in the Court and same was found in running condition. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he did not prepare CD Ex. PW3/A and it was prepared by S.P. Srivastava under his supervision. He further deposed that he did not remember whether the requisition letter vide which he was directed to prepare the CD was given to the IO or not alongwith CD and certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act. He further deposed that the user ID and password to run the computer system in control room always remains in his possession. He further deposed that the date and timings of the footage could not be altered or manipulated. He further deposed that he had not personally seen CD Ex. PW3/A at the time of preparation of CD. He further deposed that user ID and password of the computer system remains same and same was also in the knowledge of the concerned staff. He further deposed that he did not remember the date and time on which CD Ex. PW3/A and certificate under Section 65-B Evidence Act was given to the IO. He further deposed that he did not remember the time taken in preparing the CD and certificate under section 65B Evidence Act. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
11. PW-4 HC Rinku Mann deposed that on 17.08.2015, he was posted as Ct at PS Kashmere Gate. He further deposed that on receiving DD no. 14 B, Ex. PW4/1, he alongwith SI Babita and HC Ramesh reached Kashmere Gate where they found six ladies namely Kavita Laxmi, Indu, Anita, Imla and Kamla roaming at the metro station. He further deposed that on being suspicious, all the six ladies were interrogated regarding their presence at metro State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 6 of 17 station but they could not reply satisfactorily. He further deposed that all the six ladies (accused persons in the present matter) disclosed that they had committed theft and can point out jhuggis where they had kept stolen money and could also recover the stolen money from there. He further deposed that they recovered Rs. 20,000/- at the instance of accused Kavita from her jhuggi. He further deposed that remaining five ladies accused persons got effected the recovery of Rs. 15,000/- each from the boxes kept inside their respective jhuggis. In his cross examination, he deposed that he did not remember as to how many documents were signed by him. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact point where accused persons were found roaming. He further deposed that he could not tell platform number, ticket gate or entry gate or escalator where accused persons were found roaming. He further deposed that complainant of the case was found sitting in the DO room of the PS. He further deposed that no departure entry was made by IO in his presence regarding departure from PS to jhuggis of accused persons. He admitted that jhuggis of accused persons were situated in a very dense crowded area. He further deposed he was not able to recollect whether IO had requested the residents near jhuggis of accused persons to join investigation or not. He further deposed that he did not know the jhuggi number of jhuggis of accused persons. He further deposed that he could not tell as to who was living in front of jhuggis of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he was unable to tell the aforesaid facts as he had never visited the said area. He further deposed he was not able to recollect the number of gypsy. He State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 7 of 17 further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that recoveries were not made in his presence or that no documents were prepared in his presence or that he had never gone to the spot or that he had signed on all the documents while sitting in PS at the instance of the IO.
12. PW-5 W/SI Babita deposed that on 17.08.2015, she was on patrolling duty at Kashmere Gate, Metro Station. She further deposed that while patrolling six ladies namely Laxmi, Kamla, Kavita, Anita, Indu and Imla were seen in suspicious condition who were brought to Kashmere Gate Metro police station. She further deposed that all abovesaid ladies (accused persons) were arrested on the instance of complainant namely Kiran who identified all the above mentioned ladies. She further deposed that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- were recovered from each accused except accused Kavita from whose possession an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was recovered, from their respective jhuggi and same were taken in possession. In her cross-examination, she deposed that her statement was recorded on 17.08.2015 at Kashmere Gate Metro Station. She further deposed that she made departure entry DD no. 14 B in rojnamcha while leaving for patrolling with HC Ramesh and Lady Const. Rinku. She further deposed that she did not remember the exact time when disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded. She further deposed that this proceedings might been conducted in police station. She further deposed that complainant was relieved after about one hour of arrest of accused persons. She further deposed that she alongwith her other police associates proceeded towards jhuggi of accused State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 8 of 17 persons at around 02:45 PM by government gypsy but she did not remember its number. She denied the suggestion that there was no CCTV camera in the coaches of metro network in the year 2015. She admitted that complainant had not described facial features/description of accused persons in complaint. She further deposed that complainant had mentioned denomination of currency notes as Rs. 500/- in her complaint. She admitted that jhuggi of accused persons were in crowded area. She further deposed that no public persons/resident of J.J. cluster was requested to join search proceedings. She further admitted that no videography was conducted and no site plan of recovery was prepared. She further deposed that she did not know distance between PS Kashmere Gate metro station and Katputli colony. She further deposed that she could not admit or deny that it takes one hour in reaching katputli colony from PS Kashmiri Gate metro station. She further deposed that complainant had not accompanied them to the jhuggi of accused persons. She further denied the suggestion that she had not visited the jhuggi of accused persons since she did not know the neighbours or that she was deposing falsely.
13. PW-6 HC Ramesh Kumar deposed that investigation of the present matter was assigned to him on 11.07.2015 after registration of FIR. He further deposed that complainant met him in the police station and he alongwith complainant went to the place of incident i.e. Chawari Bazar Metro Station and got CCTV footage checked. He further deposed that in the footage, complainant was seen being surrounded by ladies and he made State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 9 of 17 efforts to trace those ladies. He further deposed that he obtained footage from control room, CISF, Shashtri Park, Delhi in a CD Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that on 17.08.2015, he alongwith with W/SI Babita and W/Ct Rinku proceeded for patrolling at Kashmere Gate Metro Station and saw six ladies in suspicious condition. He further deposed that those ladies were also looking similar to the ladies seen in the footage. He further deposed that those ladies were interrogated and brought to the police station and their names were revealed as Laxmi, Kamla, Anita, Kavita, Indu and Imla. He further deposed that Complainant identified those six ladies who committed offence. He further deposed that on identification of accused persons by complainant, he arrested them. He further deposed that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- were recovered from each accused except accused Kavita from whose possession an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was recovered, from their respective jhuggi and same were taken in possession. In his cross examination, he admitted that he had not made departure entry with respect to going to the jhuggi of accused persons for recovery. He further admitted that jhuggi of accused persons was crowded area and number of persons gathered on seeing the police party. He further admitted that complainant had not mentioned denomination of currency notes and facial features of accused persons in her complaint. He further denied the suggestion that the recovery was not effected in presence of complainant or that no statement of complainant was recorded to that effect. He further deposed that he did not know if accused persons were dealing in stolen properties or not. He further deposed he was not able to recollect the number of gypsy He State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 10 of 17 further denied the suggestion that no CCTV footage was preserved or that same could not be played or that they had not gone to the jhuggi of accused persons or that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons or that all the written proceedings was conducted while seating in the police station.
14. After closing of Prosecution Evidence, separate statements of the all the accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all the charges against them. They denied any recovery from them. They also disputed the proceedings conducted by the IO during the investigation of present case. The accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
15. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ms. Sunila Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for all accused persons.
16. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his point, he argued that the accused persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu & Kavita are involved in other cases under Sec. 379/411 IPC and accused persons namely Imla, Kavita & Anita have already been convicted under Sec. 411 IPC and the relevant report has been placed on record in the judicial file. He submits that since the accused persons were habitually dealing stolen property, they State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 11 of 17 should be convicted under Sec. 413/34 IPC.
17. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. She argued that since the accused persons have already compouded the offences punishable under Sec. 379/411/34 IPC with the complainant, the offence punishable under Sec. 411 IPC in the present case cannot be taken into consideration. She further argued that to prove its case against the accused persons under Sec. 413/34 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the conviction of accused persons under Sec. 411 IPC in two or more cases. She further argued that the prosecution has not proved the previous conviction of accused persons as procedure of Sec. 298 Cr.PC. She further argued that since the prosecution has not proved the previous conviction of accused persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu & Kavita, should be acquitted under Sec. 413/34 IPC.
18. Charges under Sec. 379/411/34 IPC have been framed against all the accused persons while additional charge under Sec. 413/34 IPC have been framed against accused persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu & Kavita. These Sections have been elaborated 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.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 12 of 17
413. Habitually dealing in stolen property.
Whoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either de- scription for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
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.
34. Acts done by several person in furtherance of common intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
19. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 13 of 17
20. The prosecution has not examined the complainant Smt. Kiran Ladha as she compounded the offences punishable under Sec. 379/411/34 IPC with all the accused persons on 12.11.2022. The Ld. Predecessor recorded the statements of complainant and accused persons and passed the order of disposal of the case with respect to commission of offences under Sec. 379/411/34 IPC. Thus, all the accused persons stood acquitted under Sec. 379/411/34 IPC on 12.11.2022.
21. Only four accused persons namely Anita, Indu, Imla and Kavita are facing trial under Sec. 413/34 IPC. To prove his case under Sec. 413/34 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the previous conviction of all the four accused persons. The six prosecution witnesses examined in the present case have not proved the previous conviction of the abovesaid accused persons and they have only deposed about the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Agency during the investigation of the present case. Since the accused persons have already compounded the offences punishable under Sec. 379/411/34 IPC, the said proceedings are of no relevance for the purpose of deciding the present case and any commission of offence under Sec. 411/34 IPC in the present case, cannot be read in evidence against the accused persons.
22. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in judgment titled as 'Vaman Narain Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan, (DB Crl. Appeal No. 70/2009)' while acquitting the accused observed as under:-
"99. In short, the Ld. Judge should have waited till the appellant was convicted at State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 14 of 17 least twice for offence under Sec. 411 IPC, should have framed a separate charge under Sec. 75 IPC, should have brought the previous conviction for offence under Sec. 411 IPC to the appellant's notice, and should have recorded his plea about the previous conviction. If the appellant were to deny the said previous convictions, then the Ld. Judge should have recorded the evidence about the previous convictions. Only when the ingredients of Sec. 413 were satisfied, then the Ld. Judge would have been justified in charging an accused for offence under the said Section. However, in the present case, the procedure mentioned above has been ignored by the Ld. Judge. As stated above an injustice has been caused to the appellant. Thus, charge no. 2 is legally unsustainable."
23. Though, the prosecution has placed on record, the previous involvement/conviction record of accused persons but same has not been proved as per the procedure laid down under Sec. 298 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and the documents placed on record cannot be read in evidence against the accused persons. Even if, the said record would have been proved by the prosecution, the same also would have been of no relevance as the conviction of accused persons under Sec. 411 IPC in the present case is necessary and since the accused persons have State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 15 of 17 compounded the offence punishable under Sec. 411/34 IPC with the complainant, it amounted to their acquittal under Sec. 411/34 IPC.
24. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 413/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubts against accused persons namely Anita, Indu, Imla and Kavita, they are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 413/34 IPC. Due to the compounding of offences punishable under Sec. 379/411/34 IPC, all the accused persons namely Anita, Imla, Indu, Kavita, Laxmi and Kamla stood acquitted under Sec. 379/411/34 IPC on 12.11.2022.
25. Bail bonds of the accused persons except bail bonds filed under section 437A CrPC stands cancelled. Their sureties stands discharged. Case property, if any, be released to the rightful owners.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA KHARTA Date: on 13th day of August, 2024 2024.08.13 15:23:46 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:13.08.2024 State Vs. Anita & Ors. FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 16 of 17 State Vs. Anita & Ors.
FIR No. 832/2015, PS Kashmere Gate (Metro) Page No. 17 of 17