Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjit @ Raman on 2 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS.AMBIKA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
FIR No. 307/15
State V/s Ranjit @ Raman
U/S 457/380/411 IPC
PS: Civil Lines
CC No. 295/2C
U. ID No.0240IR0522582015
Date of Institution : 26.09.2015
Date of commission of offence : 08.08.2015
Name of the complainant : Sh. Deepak
Name and address of accused : Ranjit @ Raman S/o Sh. Sankar
Lal R/o B-37, Aruna Nagar, Majnu
ka tilla, Delhi
Offence charged with : u/s 457/380/411 IPC
Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Convicted u/s 457/411 IPC
Acquitted u/s 380 IPC
Date on which order has been reserved : 23.03.2016
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 23.03.2016
JUDGMENT
1 The Prosecution has filed the charge sheet against the accused namely Ranjit @ Raman S/o Sh. Shankar Lal, for the offences u/s 457/380/411 IPC. The FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 1/11 case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
2 That on 08.08.2015 at about 3.30 AM, at jhuggi no. 81, Press Road, behind Vidhansabha, Civil Lines, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, the accused Ranjit @ Raman committed the offence of lurking house trespass by entering into the said house and committed theft of two mobile phones, two silver coins, one pair of anklet, Rs. 1000/- and one purse containing PAN Card, ADHAR Card etc.. which were received or retained by the accused knowing or having reasons to believe that it was a stolen property and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s 457/380/411 IPC.
3 Upon completion of investigation the challan was filed in the court. The cognizance of the offences was taken and the charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 457/380/411 IPC on 18.11.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 Prosecution in support of its case examined the following witnesses:-
5. PW-1 HC Atar Singh has deposed that on 08.08.2015, he was posted at PS Civil Lines and was working as duty officer and at about 6.40 AM, he received one rukka brought by Ct. Dharmender sent by ASI Veer Singh. On the basis of the same, he recorded the FIR of the present case and the copy of the same is Ex. PW1/A. He also made endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW1/B
6. PW-2 Deepak has deposed that on 08.08.2015 at about 3.30 AM in the night his mother and father were sleeping outside his home while he alongwith his sisters and aunt (Taiji) were sleeping inside the house. At that time, one person entered into their house and took one mobile phone make Intex Cloud X3 having SIM No. 9650237142 and 8447763235, another mobile MTS Rokstar FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 2/11 MI51 having SIM No. 9310346443, one pair of silver anklet of 3 tolas, two silver coins, cash of Rs. 1000/-, one purse containing his Aadhar Card, Voter I-Card, PAN Card and 7 slips of Webnet Infotech. He heard some noise and woke up. On seeing him, that person started running away from there. He raised alarm. In the meantime, his neighbour informed him that, the thief has ran towards Chandrawal. He called the police and one patrolling Constable Narender Singh and Nityanand caught him who had entered in his house. Accused revealed his name as Ravi @ Ranjit. He gave statement to the police which is Exh. PW2/A. Accused was also arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Exh PW2/B. Personal search of the accused was also conducted in his presence vide personal search memo Exh. PW2/C. The case property was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Exh. PW2/C. At his instance the site plan Exh. PW2/D was prepared by the police. He correctly identified the accused present in the court that day. He also identified the case property which are Ex. P1 and Mark 2A.
7. PW-3 Ct. Nitayanand has deposed that on 08.08.15, he was posted as Constable at PS Civil Lines, Delhi and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Narender were on patrolling duty and at about 3.30 am, they reached at Delhi Jal Board quarter and when they reached near Pir Baba Majar, he heard the noise " Chor Chor" and saw that complainant was chasing to the accused. They apprehended the accused. On interrogation the accused disclosed his name as Ranjit S/o Sh. Shankar Lal. Complainant Sh. Deepak also reached there. Complainant had stated that accused had stolen two mobile phones, two silver coins, one pairs of payal and Rs. 1000/-. He made call at PS and informed about the incident after sometime, ASI Veer Singh alongwith Ct. Dharmender reached there. IO had interrogated to the accused. The recovered case property from the possession of the accused was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. IO recorded the statement of complainant and FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 3/11 prepared rukka and handed over same to him for registration of FIR and FIR was got registered. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.PW3/A. Accused had pointed out the place of incident and pointing out memo Ex.PW3/B. He correctly identified the accused present in the court that day
8. PW-4 Ct. Jatin has deposed that on 07.08.2015, he was posted at PP Majnu ka tilla of PS Civil Lines, Delhi and on that day he was working as DD Writer and his duty hours were from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM and at about 4.35 AM, he had received a PCR call through wireless set no. NOV.-50 regarding house theft at jhuggi no. 81, Press Road, behind Vidhan Sabha, Delhi. He recorded the said information in rojnamcha vide DD no. 5 PP dated 08.08.2015. The copy of said DD entry is Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter, the said DD entry is marked to ASI Veer Singh for taking necessary action.
9. PW-5 Ct. Narender Singh has deposed that on 08.08.2015, he was posted at PP Majnu ka tilla of PS Civil Lines, Delhi and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Nityanand were on patrolling duty and at about 3.30 am they reached at Delhi Jal Board quarter and when they reached near Pir Baba Majar, he heard the noise " Chor Chor" and saw that complainant was chasing to the accused. They apprehended the accused. On interrogation the accused disclosed his name as Ranjit S/o Sh. Shankar Lal. Complainant Sh. Deepak also reached there. Complainant had stated that accused had stolen two mobile phones, two silver coins, one pairs of payal and Rs. 1000/-. Ct. Nitayanand made call at PS and informed about the incident after sometime, ASI Veer Singh alongwith Ct. Dharmender reached there. IO had interrogated to the accused. The recovered case property from the possession of the accused was taken into possession through seizure memo already Ex.PW2/C. IO recorded the statement of FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 4/11 complainant and prepared rukka and handed over same to Ct. Nitayanand for registration of FIR and FIR was got registered. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.PW3/A. Accused had pointed out the place of incident and pointing out memo Ex.PW3/B. He correctly identified the accused present in the court that day
10. PW-6 ASI Veer Singh has deposed that on 08.08.2015, he was posted at PP Majnu ka tilla of PS Civil Lines and on that day, he was on emergency duty and his duty hours were 8 PM to 8 AM. On that day, on receiving DD no. 5 PP regarding theft at about 4.35 AM, he alongwith Ct. Dharmender reached on the spot i.e jhuggi no. 81, Press Road, behind Vidhansabha Bhawan, Civil Lines, Delhi, where Smt Laxmi Devi met them and informed that a person had committed theft in her house and run towards Delhi Jal Board and Deepak had chased him. Thereafter they also run towards Delhi Jal Board and when they reached near Peer Baba, they saw that accused was apprehended by Deepak alongwith Ct. Nityanand and Ct. Narender. During interrogation, accused had disclosed his name as Ranjeet @ Raman. The accused was handed over to him alongwith recovered case property i.e two mobile phones, Rs. 1000/-, silver coins, silver pajeb, voter I-card, ADHAR Card and slip of the coaching centre etc... The statement of complainant Deepak was recorded which is Ex. PW2/A and he make his endorsement upon the same and prepared rukka. The rukka was handed over to Ct. Dharmender for the registration of FIR. He went to PS and after registration of FIR, he returned back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him. The recovered case property were sealed with the seal of VST and pullanda was prepared and same was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. The site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant Ex. PW2/D. Accused Ranjeet @ Raman, was arrested and FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 5/11 his personal search was conducted vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded which is Ex. PW3/A. Accused had also pointed out the place of incident and pointing out memo was prepared which is Ex. PW3/B. The case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was sent to the lockup. He recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr. PC. Thereafter, accused was produced before the court and he was sent to J/C. He had also collected the departure DD entry of Ct. Nityanand and Narender DD no. 38 PP dated 07.08.2015 Ex. PW6/A. After completion the investigation, chargesheet was filed before the court. Case property was released on superdari by the order of the Court. He correctly identified the accused present in the court that day
11. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused u/s 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.PC were recorded by the court in which he has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case . However, he has not led any evidence in their defence .
12 I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and have gone through the record carefully. After going through the complete evidence and records of this case, I am of the view that before reaching at any conclusion, relevant Sections be reproduced herein below for ready reference:
380. Theft in dwelling house, etc.- Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
457. Lurking house- trespass or house-breaking by night in order to FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 6/11 commit offence punishable with imprisonment.- Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
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".
13 To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-2 Deepak as the main eye witnesses to the present case and he has deposed that on 08.08.2015 at about 3.30 AM in the night he alongwith his sisters were sleeping inside his house and at that time, one person entered in his house and took two mobile phone make Intex and MTS Rokstar, one pair of silver anklet, two silver coins, cash Rs. 1000/- and one purse containing I-card and some documents. He heard noise and woke up and on seeing him that person started running away from there. He raised alarm and in the meantime, his neighbour informed him that thief had ran towards Chandrawal. He called police and one patrolling constable Narender Singh and Nityanand caught the accused. He identified the accused present in the court that day and deposed that he is the same person who had entered in his house. He also identified the case property as produced in the court day.
PW-3 Ct. Nityanand and PW-5 Ct. Narender have also deposed that on 08.08.2015, they were on patrolling duty and they reached near the Delhi Jal Board and heard the noise 'chor chor' and saw that the complainant was chasing to the accused. They both identified the accused as present in the court that FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 7/11 day. Case property was also recovered from the possession of accused which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C.
14. It is argued by the by the Ld. LAC for the accused that PW-2 Deepak is the sole eye-witness, therefore in absence of any corroboration by any other public witnesses, his testimony should not be the basis of the conviction. However, in my opinion, it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which is to be seen. Further, I would like to add that the testimony of sole witness can be relied if it is clear, coherent, and reliable and to bolster my view, I would like to rely upon the judgments of Ramesh 2004 Cri LJ 70 (Mad); Sunil Kumar 2004 Cri LJ 819 (SC): AIR 2004 SC 552: (2003) 4 Crimes 382 (SC):
(2003) 11 SCC 367; Chittar Lal (2003) 6 SCC 397; Chanan Ram 1999 (10) JT 389 (SC); State v Dhirendra Kumar (1997) 1 SCC 93: AIR 1997 SC 318:
(1996) 10 JT 93: (1996) 4 Crimes 195 (SC), wherein it is held that, conviction can be based on testimony of solitary witness. Even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eye-witness, it may be enough to sustain conviction on the basis of sterling testimony of a competent, honest and trustful witness. Witnesses have to be weighed and not counted in as much as quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. Prudence, however, requires that some corroboration should be sought from other prosecution evidence in support of the testimony of a solitary witness particularly where such witness happens to be closely related to the deceased or the accused is one against whom some motive or ill will is suggested. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i)wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 8/11 court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroborat9n in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness.
15 Where there is a sole witness to the incident his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of the evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence as recorded. [Joseph (2003) 1 SCC 465: AIR 2003 SC 507: 2003 Cri LJ 813 (SC): (2003) 1 Crimes 206 (SC); Chittar Lal (2003) 6 SCC 397: AIR 2003 SC 3590: 2003 Cri LJ 3548 (SC): (2003) 3 Crimes 131 (SC) : (2003) 7 JT 270].
16 In a recent case titled as "Kalu @ Amit Vs. State of Haryana 2301(I) AD SC 641, it has been stated by the Apex Court in para 9 of its judgment that conviction can be based on the evidence of the sole eye witness if his evidence inspires confidence.
17. Applying the aforesaid principles of law in the present case, it is crystal clear that conviction can be the basis of sole eye-witness if it is clear, coherent and reliable. PW-2 Deepak has deposed emphatically on oath that he accused had entered into his house and he got woke up and saw the accused. Further his testimony is corroborated from the testimony of PW-3 Ct. Nityanand and PW-5 Ct. Narender and they have also seen the complainant running after the accused and then the accused found in possession of the stolen case property as per seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. Therefore, the testimony of PW-2 Deepak is clear, coherent and reliable and also found corroboration in the testimonies of PW-3 Ct. Nityanand and PW-5 Ct. Narender and conviction can be based upon his testimony. In the cross-examination, PW-2 Deepak has deposed that he did not see the face of the accused while running away, therefore, it is argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that identity of the accused has not been established.
FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 9/11 However, if we carefully scrutinize the testimony of PW-2 Deepak, it is would be clear that in the examination in chief PW-2 Deepak has deposed that he had seen the accused and on seeing him, accused started running from there and he raised alarm. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that when accused had opened the iron door of the room, he heard the noise and woken up. He further denied the suggestion that accused has not committed theft in his house. It is crystal clear that PW-2 Deepak had seen the accused and on seeing him accused started running away, however he did not see the face of accused when he was running away, however, he had already seen the face of the accused. In the examination in chief, PW2 Deepak deposed that on seeing him, accused started running away. Therefore, the offence u/s 457 IPC is clearly proved from the testimony of PW-2 Deepak. However offence u/s 380 IPC is not made out as in the cross-examination, PW-2 Deepak has deposed that he did not seen the accused while lifting the stolen recovered case property. Therefore, there is not witness to the actual commission of theft. Therefore, offence u/s 380 IPC is not proved by prosecution.
18. Now, reverting back to the offence u/s 411 IPC. PW-2 Deepak, PW-3 Ct. Nityanand and PW-5 Ct. Narender has deposed emphatically on oath that two mobile phones, two silver coins, one pair of ankled, Rs. 1000/- and one purse containing PAN Card, ADHAR Card etc.. were recovered from the possession of accused and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. PW-2 Deepak has identified the goods to be the one stolen from his home. In view thereof, offence u/s 411 IPC is also proved by the prosecution.
19 In the statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, he has simply refuted all the specific circumstances against him without offering any explanation with regard to his non-involvement in the incident in question. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 10/11 but the provisions of Section 313 of the Code are not a mere formality or purposeless. They have a dual purpose to discharge, firstly, that the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence should be put to the accused in accordance with law and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to the accused to explain his conduct or his version of the case. To provide this opportunity to the accused is the mandatory duty of the Court. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, then the consequences in law have to follow, particularly when it would be expected of the accused in the normal course of conduct to disclose certain facts which may be within his personal knowledge and have a bearing on the case. The accused has taken the stand that all the PWs are interested witnesses and their testimony cannot be believed. However, no motive has been brought on record as to why the PWs would falsely implicated the accused. Absolutely nothing has been brought on record to discredit the testimony of the PWs. Therefore, reliance can be placed upon their testimonies.
20 Further, FIR has been prompting registered ruling out any chances of fabrication and embellishment.
21. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has able to prove the ingredient of offence u/s 457 and 411 IPC. However, offence u/s 380 IPC has not been proved as there is not evidence to the effect that any witness has actually seen the accused committing theft. Therefore, accused Ranjit @ Raman is convicted for the offence u/s 457/411 IPC. However, he is acquitted for the offence u/s 380 IPC.
Let they be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court Today on 23rd of March, 2016 (Ambika Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate-06(Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 11/11 IN THE COURT OF MS.AMBIKA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06 CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI FIR No. 307/15 State V/s Ranjit @ Raman PS Civil Lines ORDER ON SENTENCE Present : Ld. APP for the state Convicts Ranjit @ Raman produced from J/C Convicts have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 457/411 IPC while acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 380 IPC vide judgment announced on 23.03.2016. Ld. APP for the state seeks for imposition of maximum imprisonment. On the contrary both the convicts prays for a lenient view.
It is submitted by the convict Ranjeet @ Raman that he is about 23 years of age and has to look after his old aged widowed mother, one unmarried sister and younger brother. He also states that he belongs to a very poor family and all the persons in his family are dependent upon him as he is the sole bread earner of the family.
Further, it is submitted by the convict that he is also repenting for the act done.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the pleas put forth on both sides.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the convict has to look after their families, who are dependent upon him, and he would come on road if the convict is sent to jail, which is not warranted in the interest of society. Also, FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 12/11 as the convict has further submitted that he would not repeat the offence, therefore, I sentence the convict for the offences punishable u/s 457 IPC for the period already undergone by him i.e about 8 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default SI for 10 days. Further, convict is sentenced for the offence u/s 411 IPC for the period already undergone by him. Fine not paid A copy of the judgment dated 23.03.2016 and order on sentence be provided dasti to the convict, free of cost.
Announced in the open court, Today on 02.04.2016 (Ambika Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate -06 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 13/11
FIR No. 307/15
State V/s Ranjit @ Raman
PS Civil Lines
02.04.2016
Present: Ld. APP for the state
Convict Ranjit @ Raman produced from J/C
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Vide my separate order of even date, the convict is sentenced for the offences punishable u/s 457 IPC for the period already undergone by him i.e about 8 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default SI for 10 days. Further, convict is sentenced for the offence u/s 411 IPC for the period already undergone by him. Fine not paid.
A copy of the judgment dated 23.03.2016 and order on sentence be provided dasti to the convict, free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
(AMBIKA SINGH) MM-06(C)/THC/Delhi 02.04.2016 FIR No. 307/15 PS Civil Lines State Vs Ranjit @ Raman 14/11