Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh Etc. Fir No.60/07 on 14 December, 2018
State vs. Rakesh etc. FIR no.60/07
1
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
ROHINI COURTS NORTH DISTRICT, DELHI
Presided Over by : GAGANDEEP SINGH
STATE Vs. Rakesh etc. Date of Institution 15.05.2007
FIR No. 60/07 Judgment Reserved on 24.09.2018
PS Alipur Date of Judgment 14.12.2018
Under 380/411/34 IPC
Section
JUDGMENT
a) New Regn. No. of the case 5288966/16
b) Date of offence Between 6.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. on night of
17.02.2007 to 18.02.2007
c) Name of the complainant Bhavesh Chaudhary, S/o Sh. Jai Narain, R/o
H.No.31, Shri Ram Colony, Ashok Vihar,
Delhi.
d) Name & address of the accused (1) Rakesh, S/o Tejveer Singh, R/o Jhuggi
No.J263, Lakhi Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Proclaimed Offender)
(2) Ram Kewal, S/o Sh. Jokhan Lal, R/o
Jhuggi No.20A/104, Udham Singh Park,
WPIA, Delhi.
(3) Mani ram S/o Sh. Mehto, R/o Jhuggi
No.20B/384, Udham Singh Park, WPIA,
Delhi.
(4) Rajinder Prasad, S/o Sh. Pancham, R/o
Jhuggi No.20/11, Udham Singh Park, WPIA,
Delhi.
(5) Chhattar Pal, S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop, R/o
J381/382, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
State vs. Rakesh etc. FIR no.60/07
2
a) New Regn. No. of the case 5288966/16
e) The offence complained of 380/411/34 IPC
f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order Acquitted
h) Date of order 14.12.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.The FIR in question was got registered on the statement of complainant Bhavesh Chaudhary recorded on 20.02.2007. He claimed that he was working as supervisor in Bikaner Assam Roadline India Ltd. They were having godown at Village Bakauli where the consignments used to be stored. On 17.02.2007, he left the said godown after locking it and returned on 18.02.2007 at about 12.00 noon. He found the main gate of the godown to be opened. Thereafter, the stock was checked and supari bags were found to be to be stolen. On checking, the twelve supari bags with GR No.379570x120, forty six supari bags with GR No.5264x100 and two supari bags with GR No.6090x10 were found missing. The FIR was got registered and investigation was thereafter taken up. Accused Chhatar Pal was thereafter arrested on 01.03.2007 and from his custody two stolen supari bags were recovered. Subsequently, all the remaining accused persons arrested in FIR no.98/07, PS Alipur wherein they disclosed their involvement in the present matter. They all got recovered 26 supari bags from their premises i.e. A97, Wazirpur Industrial Area, State vs. Rakesh etc. FIR no.60/07 3 Delhi. On the basis of the said material, the accused persons were arrested and final report was filed.
2. The cognizance upon the same was taken by Ld. Predecessor on 15.05.2007 and all the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. The charge was framed against all the accused persons for the offence u/s 411/34 IPC on 23.05.2008 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. One of the accused Rakesh during the course of trial absconded and was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 30.08.2013.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case against remaining four accused has examined ten witnesses in all.
4. PW1 Bhavesh Chaudhary is the complainant. He deposed that on 17.02.2007, he was working with Bikaner Assam Roadlines India Ltd. company as a supervisor. The company was having godown at Village Bakauli. At about 8.00 p.m., when he came back to the said godown, he found sacks of supari to be stolen. Police was called. IO came at the spot and his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. He also provided the stock list which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. After 45 days of the lodging of FIR, 27 supari bags were recovered which he got released on superdari. He identified the case property in the court.
5. PW2 Ct. Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 20.02.2007, IO handed over to him the State vs. Rakesh etc. FIR no.60/07 4 FIR and original rukka which he handed over to IO SI Mohd. Ismyle at the place of occurrence.
6. PW3 HC Subhash deposed that on 15.03.2007, one secret informer met ASI Shamim Khan and informed that 56 persons involved in robbery would come at nursery of Forest Department at Seed Farm Road. ASI Shamim Khan prepared raiding party consisting of ASI Shamim Khan, HC Virender, Ct. Bane Singh, Ct. Arvind Tyagi and himself. They took the weapons from the malkhana and proceeded to the spot at Seed Farm Road in govt. vehicle. The public persons were requested to join the investigation but none agreed. Thereafter, they took their positions by hiding themselves in nursery of Forest Department. At about 8.00 p.m., five persons came in a tempo and jumped over the wall of the nursery. The secret informer gave the signal. Accordingly, all the said persons were apprehended. The driver of the Vikram tempo was able to flee from the spot. The apprehended persons were accused Ram Kewal, Mani Ram, Rakesh and Rajender. From their possession, illegal weapons were recovered. On the next day, at about 6.45 a.m., pursuant to the disclosure statement of the said accused persons, they got recovered 26 supari bags from their godown at A97, Wazipur Industrial Area, Delhi. The said recovered sacks were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Accused persons were arrested vide memos Ex.PW3/B to Ex.PW3/E.
7. PW4 Raj Kumar deposed that in the year 2007, accused Chhattar Pal was inducted State vs. Rakesh etc. FIR no.60/07 5 at his house as a tenant and he stayed there for about six months.
8. PW5 Om Prakash Sethi deposed that he was the owner of premises No.A97, Wazirpur Industrial Area and the second floor of the said premises was taken on rent by accused Ram Kewal and Mani Ram. The said room was taken on rent on 01.03.2007. The Rent Agreement was yet to be executed, but in the meanwhile, they were arrested.
9. PW6 Retd. SI Ajeet is the duty officer who proved the registration of FIR as Ex.PW6/A.
10. PW7 SI Dinesh Dahiya deposed that on 16.03.2007, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He along with Ct. Bane Singh went to the spot where the IO ASI Shamim Khan produced the accused Rakesh, Rajender, Ram Kewal and Mani Ram. They were arrested in the present mater. He recorded their disclosure statement vide Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/D. Further investigation was again handed over back to ASI Mohd. Ismail.
11. PW8 HC Arvind deposed that accused Chhattar Pal was arrested in case FIR No.69/07, PS Alipur on 28.02.2007 and his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A was recorded. They, thereafter, went to his residence i.e. J38182, Jahangir Puri where accused got recovered two supari bags which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. On 16.03.2007, he along with HC Virender, Ct. Subhash and Ct. Bane Singh along with IO and accused persons went to A97, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Second floor from where State vs. Rakesh etc. FIR no.60/07 6 accused Rajender, Ram Kewal, Mani Ram and Rakesh, already arrested in case FIR No.98/07 pursuant to their disclosure statement, got recovered 26 supari bags.
12. PW9 Kiran Kumar is the owner of the godown in question which was rented out to M/s Bikaner Assam Roadlines Company India Ltd. by him in NovemberDecember, 2006.
13. PW10 Retd. SI Shamim Khan deposed that on 15.03.2007, on receipt of secret information, he prepared raiding party consisting of Ct. Subhash, HC Virender, Ct. Arvind and Ct. Bane Singh. They went to Seed Farm Road, Alipur from where they apprehended four accused persons. One of the accused managed to flee from the spot. Illegal weapons were recovered from the possession of accused persons. He prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, the investigaion was handed over to SI Dinesh Dahiya. He proved the documents i.e. rukka Ex.PW10/A, seizure memo Ex.PW10/B, seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and disclosure statement Ex.PW10/C etc. prepared by IO ASI Mohd. Ismail in present matter.
14. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. All the accused persons claimed innocence and false implication. They claimed that they were picked up from their house and no recovery was effected from their possession.
15. The defence evidence was led on behalf of the accused Ram Kewal who himself State vs. Rakesh etc. FIR no.60/07 7 entered into the witness box. He deposed that they have been already acquitted in FIR No.98/07 in which they were originally arrested.
16. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for all the accused and gone through the record.
17. It was argued on behalf of the accused Chhattar Pal that the case property in the present case was produced in unsealed condition. It was further argued that the IO in the present case has not been got examined. As far as the other accused persons were concerned, it was argued that the FIR in the present case is delayed by three days for which there is no explanation at all in the entire testimony of PW1 or other investigating officers. Further, it was argued that the identity of the case property is not proved. The recovery is also doubtful as despite availability, no public witness was joined to the proceedings.
18. The first issue in question as to when the theft was reported by PW1 Bhavesh Chaudhary. He while deposing in the Court claimed that he reported the matter on the very same day i.e. 18.02.2007 and police recorded his statement on that day itself. But, on the contrary, the record itself reflect that the FIR was recorded only on 20.02.2007 and in the entire FIR, not a single reason has been mentioned as to the delay in lodging of the same. Thus, no explanation has been offered on behalf of the prosecution with respect to the delay in the registration of the FIR.
State vs. Rakesh etc. FIR no.60/07 8
19. The only incriminating evidence produced against all the accused persons is the alleged recovery of stolen sacks of supari. The first recovery was effected on 01.03.2007 pursuant to the arrest of accused Chhattar Pal in FIR No.69/07, PS Alipur. The only recovery witness qua accused Chhattar Pal examined in this regard by the prosecution is PW8 HC Arvind. Per contra, he deposed that the recovery was effected on 28.02.2007 itself vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. Admittedly, the seizure memo reflects that the recovery was effected on 01.03.2007. There is no explanation as to the said material contradiction as to the day of recovery.
20. It is also quite apparent that the first accused Chhattar Pal, in his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A, disclosed about his involvement as well as that of other accused persons in the present matter on 28.02.2007. He was even taken to police custody for apprehending remaining accused persons. But, despite that, none of the accused persons were arrested till 15.03.2007 when they were arrested in case FIR No.98/07, PS Alipur. As per the story of the prosecution, PW10 received the secret information regarding remaining accused again trying to commit robbery at a prime place i.e. Seed Farm Road, Alipur and he along with police staff apprehended the said accused persons with illegal weapons. The said theory or recovery of illegal weapons has already been discarded vide judgment already Ex.PW1/A thereby putting question mark over the genesis of the theory of the prosecution itself.
State vs. Rakesh etc. FIR no.60/07 9
21. It is also hard to believe that the accused persons, despite apprehension of the one of their accomplice Chhattar Pal Singh on 28.02.2007, never tried to remove the case property from their rented premises i.e. A97, Wazirpur Industrial Area nor fled from the area. Rather, it is surprising to note that despite the arrest of one of their accomplice, they again tried to commit robbery in the same area after fifteen days of his arrest. The said theory on the fact of it appears to be unnatural and there is suppression of material facts on the part of the investigating authority. The said recovery, as claimed by the prosecution, was itself put into dock by PW1. He specifically claimed that after 45 days of lodging of FIR, he was informed about recovery of 27 stolen sacks which he identified in the PS. Thus, as per him, the FIR was registered on 18.02.2007 itself and recovery was effected near about 23/24.02.2007. Thus, his version apparently reflects that the recovery was already effected prior to the dates of recovery as reflected in seizure memo Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW3/A. All the said facts put the case of prosecution into doubt.
22. It is also quite apparent that neither of the two recoveries was witnessed by any public witnesses despite availability of sufficient time and area in question being densely populated. The first recovery was effected on 01.03.2007 pursuant to the arrest of accused Chhattar Pal on 08.01.2007. The accused was taken to his tenanted house and two sacks were got recovered on the next day. The testimony of PW8 apparently reflect that no effort was made during all this while to join the public persons in recovery for State vs. Rakesh etc. FIR no.60/07 10 which there is no justifiable reason.
23. The second recovery was effected on 16.03.2007. The accused persons were firstly arrested in 98/07, PS Alipur on 15.03.2007 at about 10.00 p.m. The recovery was effected on the next day in the early morning hours in a densely populated area. Thus, despite sufficient time and availability of the witnesses with the Investigating Officer, no genuine effort was made to join the independent witnesses either prior or after the recovery. At both the places of recovery, none of the other occupants were even asked to join the proceedings despite they being the best witnesses for the same. All the said deficiencies reflect that the alleged recovery to be doubtful.
24. In light of the above said discussion, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the standard of reasonable doubts. Accordingly, all the accused namely Rajinder Prasad, Mani Ram, Ram Kewal and Chhattar Pal are acquitted of the charges charges under section 411/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by GAGANDEEP
GAGANDEEP SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.12.15
Announced in open Court. 12:09:12 +0530
Delhi, Dated the 14.12.2018 GAGANDEEP SINGH
This Judgment contains 10 pages Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
and each page is signed by me. Rohini/New Delhi