Delhi District Court
State vs . Usha on 30 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETIKA KAPOOR, MM-11, SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR Number : 147/19
P.S. : Janakpuri
U/s : 379/511/34 IPC
STATE VS. USHA
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 16734/19
b) Name & address of the Complainant : Devender Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o H. No. 200/11, Karam
Chand, Sunaro Wali Gali,
Dhansa, South-West, Delhi.
c) Name & address of the accused : Usha
W/o Sh. Rahul
R/o Footpath Near
Godewala, Mandir,
Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of offfence : 04.04.2019
e) Offence complained of : 379/511/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquittal
Date of registration of FIR : 04.04.2019
Final arguments heard on : 30.07.2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 30.07.2022
FIR Number : 147/19 State vs. Usha 1/8
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Usha is facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 379/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) in connection with the case FIR No. 157/19 registered at P.S. Janak Puri.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2019 at about 3.00 PM at Pankha Road, Opposite Janak Police Booth inside bus (route no.
711) accused Usha alongwith her accomplice (unidentified) committed theft of a brown coloured purse belonging to Devender Kumar containing his driving license, documents and cash amounting to Rs. 9,500/- and attempted to commit theft of a bag of Anjali Bhatt but was caught red handed and taken to PS by Devender Kumar and Anjali Bhatt and was produced before SI K. Birjeet Singh. Statement of complainant Devender Kumar was recorded and accordingly present FIR u/s 379/511/34 IPC was registered against accused Usha and IO SI K. Birjeeet was appointed as the Investigating Officer.
3. During investigation, IO inspected the site of the incident and having inspected it, prepared a site plan Ex. PW1/C thereof. During investigation, IO arrested the accused from the spot vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D and conducted her personal search where some articles like one gold ear rings, two silver toe rings and cash amounting to Rs. 485/- from the possession of the accused which was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/E. Disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW1/F. Despite best efforts, co-accused could not be traced and the stolen case property was not recovered. During investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and based on the material collected, accused Usha was found responsible for the commission of FIR Number : 147/19 State vs. Usha 2/8 offences punishable under Sections 379/511/34 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, case file was handed over by the IO to SHO of Police Station Janak Puri who after following the codal formalities, prepared and filed the instant challan against the accused.
4. On finding sufficient material on record against accused Usha, she was summoned before this court and on her appearance, copies of the challan and other documents were supplied to her in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as Cr.P.C).
5. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused under Sections 379/511/34 IPC of I.P.C., notice of accusation was put to her, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defense to make.
6. Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence. Despite repeated court summons and notices, Devender Kumar and Anjali Bhatt failed to step into the witness box to support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as one witness. PW-1 IO SI K. Birjeet Singh is the Investigating Officer in the present case.
7. Thereafter, as the complainant and the main eye witness had failed to step into the witness box and depose about the involvement of the accused in the alleged incident. Statement u/s 313 Cr.PC of the accused was dispensed with. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Ld. APP for State and Sh. S.P. Verma, Ld. Defence Counsel and have gone through the records carefully.
FIR Number : 147/19 State vs. Usha 3/8
9. On the basis of evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 04.04.2019 at about 3.00 PM at Pankha Road, Opposite Janak Police Booth inside bus (route no. 711) accused Usha alongwith her accomplice (unidentified) committed theft of a brown coloured purse belonging to Devender Kumar containing his driving license, documents and cash amounting to Rs. 9,500/- and attempted to commit theft of a bag of Anjali Bhatt but was caught red handed on the spot as alleged ?
2. 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 Usha is acquitted as per the operative part of the judgment.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS POINT NO. 1
11. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 379 IPC and 511 IPCit is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Section 379 IPC is reproduced herein below:
Section 378 IPC:Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that FIR Number : 147/19 State vs. Usha 4/8 property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Explanation 1.--A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth. Explanation 2.--A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3.--A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it. Explanation 4.--A person, who by any means causes an animal to moPrevve, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal. Explanation 5.--The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Section 379. 379. Punishment for theft.--Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrip- tion for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 511. - Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.
--Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with 1[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt FIR Number : 147/19 State vs. Usha 5/8 does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the pun- ishment of such attempt, be punished with 2[imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both".
12. To bring home the guilt of a person u/s 379/511/34 IPC, the pros- ecution must prove firstly, the accused must have a dishonest intention to take the property. Secondly, the property must be taken out of the possession of complainant, resulting in wrongful gain by one and wrongful loss to another and thirdly that the property must be moved in order to such taking, which results in obtaining property by deception and taking must be without that person's consent.
13. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined, PW1 SI K. Birjeet Singh who being the sole witness is the star witness of the case.
14. PW-1 SI K. Birjeet Singh stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 04.04.2019, he was posted at PS Janakpuri and was on emergency duty when Devender Kumar and Anjali Bhatt produced the accused in PS before him and informed him that accused Usha had pick pocketed the purse of Devender Kumar and had committed theft of bag of complainant Anjali Bhatt. IO alongwith both the complainants and accused went to the spot i.e. Uttam Nagar Chowk, Opposite Police Booth, Janakpuri and thereafter, came to PS and recorded the statement of Devender Kumar which is Ex. PW1/A. Witness proved rukka and endorsement Ex. PW1/B. Witness also proved the site plan which is Ex. PW1/C as well as the arrest memo and FIR Number : 147/19 State vs. Usha 6/8 personal search of the accused which is Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E respectively. Witness also proved the disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW1/F. Witness narrated the entire investigation done by him.
15. However, perusal of the testimony reveals that he was not the eye witness to the accident. The witness had lodged the FIR only after the incident had taken place and he could not explain in detail the act of theft on the part of the accused. He did not even state that the theft or the attempt to commit theft was made by the accused but merely stated that he was informed by the complainants about the same. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, site plan Ex. PW1/C prepared by the IO is not sufficient to prove the act of theft or attempt to commit theft on the part of the accused. While it shows the location of the alleged incident which is undisputed, the same is not sufficient to form an inference that accused Usha had committed or have committed the theft of articles of Devender Kumar and Anjali.
16. There is no other witness to establish the guilt of the accused. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the act of theft on the part of the accused in the present case. Both the public witnesses failed to appear before the court and to enter the witness box and depose on oath. No other eye witness has been cited by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. Testimony of the IO is not sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Thus, this point is answered in the negative and is decided against the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER:
FIR Number : 147/19 State vs. Usha 7/8
17. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, since the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for commission of offences punishable under sections 379/511/34 IPC of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, accused Usha is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 379/511/34 of IPC.
18. Personal bonds/surety bonds stands 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.
19. 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 he shall put in his appearance before the appellate court within the prescribed period in case an appeal is filed and admitted for hearing. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced and signed in the open court on 30th day of July, 2022.
Digitally
NEETIKA signed by
KAPOOR NEETIKA
KAPOOR
(Neetika Kapoor)
MM-11/DWARKA/DELHI
30.07.2022
It is certified that this judgment contains 08 pages, and each page bears my signature.
FIR Number : 147/19 State vs. Usha 8/8