Delhi District Court
State vs . Jameel Khan on 20 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. KARAN CHOUDHARY, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-05 SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
STATE Vs. JAMEEL KHAN
Cr. CASE No. : 4024/2020
Unique Case ID : DLSE020118982020
FIR No. : 459/2020
Police Station : Sarita Vihar (Case QR Code)
Section(s) : 380/411 IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution 29.09.2020 Name of the complainant Seema Prasad Date of Commission of 20.07.2020 and 29.07.2020 offence Name of the accused Jameel Kjan S/o Yaar Mohd. R/o H. No. 1374, Chhatta Rajan, Farash Khana, Hauz Qazi, Delhi.
Offence complained of 380/411 IPC Plea of accused Not Guilty Case reserved for orders Not Reserved Final Order Convicted u/s 380 IPC and Acquitted u/s 411 IPC Date of order 20.10.2022 Cr. Case No. 4024/2020 State vs. Jameel Khan Page 1 of 7 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2020 at about 6:00AM at Apollo Hospital, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar accused Jameel Khan entered said premises and stole mobile phone and purse of complainant. Further, that on 29.07.2020 accused Jameel was found in possession of Apple and Oppo Mobile phone and Two laptops (Lenovo and HP model) which accused Jameel retained knowingly or having reason same to be stolen, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar. As such, it is alleged that the accused Jameel committed the offence punishable under Sections 380/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC").
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the charge-sheet against the accused was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial. On his appearance, a copy of charge- sheet was supplied to him in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the present accused, charge under Sections 380/411 IPC was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined following witnesses:
PROSECUTION WITNESSES (PWs) PW-1: Ms. Seema Prasad, Complainant PW-2: HC Niranjan, 1st IO PW-3: HC Lakhan Singh, 2nd IO PW-4: Ct. Naveen, Accompanying IO Cr. Case No. 4024/2020 State vs. Jameel Khan Page 2 of 7
4. PW - 1 Seema Prasad is the complainant in the present matter. She deposed that on 20.07.2020 her mother was admitted to apollo hospital room no. 2519 at 5th floor for knee replacement operation. She stayed with her mother. On 22.07.2020 at about 6Am she went to washroom and came out at 6:30AM and noticed her hand bag (containing PAN card, DL, ₹15,000 cash, Apple iPhone 11 Pro, Oppo Mobile, Phone charger, HDFC debit card, ICICI debit card and credit card) was missing. She had kept said bag near bed of her mother. She inquired from hospital staff but no clue found. Then she lodged e-FIR regarding theft. On 27.07.2020 police contacted her and she went to spot with police. On checking CCTV it was found that one man wearing mask went inside room and came out holding bag in hand. Police prepared site plan. She handed over box of said iphone Mark A and purchase receipt of Oppo mobile Mark B. She was informed about recovery of stolen articles in august 2020 and got them released on 4.08.2020. Two photographs showing both mobiles and ₹5,500 cash correctly identified by witness Ex. P1(colly). Two photographs showing accused with hand bag, shown to witness and witness has correctly identified her hand bag. During cross examination PW1 stated she didn't remember when her statement was taken by the police. PW1 admitted that nothing was recovered from accused in her presence. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
5. PW - 2 HC Niranjan deposed that on 22.07.2020 he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as HC. He was 1 st IO of the case. He received message regarding e-FIR. He went to apollo hospital and met complainant and recorded her statement. He checked CCTV footages. He prepared site plan Ex. PW2/A. Cr. Case No. 4024/2020 State vs. Jameel Khan Page 3 of 7
6. PW - 3 HC Lakhan Singh deposed that on 24.07.2020 he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as HC. On that day he received present case for investigation. He put both phones on surveillance. He received detailed CDR and CAF that Oppo mobile was used by accused Jameel. Thereafter, he alongwit;h Ct. Naveen went to accused house and apprehended him. He prepared arrest memo Ex.PW3/A and personal Search Memo Ex.PW3/B and seizure memo of mobile phone Ex.PW3/C and seizure memo of laptop Ex.PW3/D. Disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW3/E. Photographs of accused Jameel from CCTV of hospital are PW3/F and PW3/G. Witness has correctly identified accused present in court. Witness has correctly identified Photographs Ex. P1(Colly). During cross examination PW3 stated that he had arrested accused behind D.S. Door, Palla, Haryana. He used his personal vehicle. He had made DD entry of departure. He did not remember when he left PS. Local Police was not informed regarding apprehension of accused. He stated that it was residential place with public person present but non joined. No notice was served owing to paucity of time. He alonwith Ct. Naveen caught accused Jameel. He denied the suggestion that recovery was planted on accused. He denied the suggestion that accused was lifted from house. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW - 4 Ct. Naveen deposed that on 29.07.2020 he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as constable. On that day he joined investigation alongwith IO PW3. He alongwith IO apprehended accused Jameel from behind D.S. Door, Palla, Faridabad, Haryana. On personal search IO found Apple iphone 11 max pro and Oppo Mobile and ₹5,500 cash, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW3/C. After interrogation accused Jameel was arrested and searched Cr. Case No. 4024/2020 State vs. Jameel Khan Page 4 of 7 video memo Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. His discosure statement was recorded i.e. Ex.PW3/E. IO recovered 2 laptops from his tenant room and seized same vide memo Ex.PW3/D. Witness has correctly identified accused present in court. During cross examination PW4 stated that they reached Palla, Faridabad by private vehicle of IO however he did not remember the registration number. They reached around 7-8pm. And returned to PS at 11pm. He denied the suggestion that he did not join investigation and same was conducted in PS. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
8. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed keeping in view the submissions of Ld. APP.
9. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 281 r/w 313 CrPC. The accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated and he does not wish to lead any defence evidence.
10. I have heard the ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
11. It is argued by the ld. APP for the State that the evidence of police witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offences charged against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
12. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel has argued that the complainant has seen accused and not identified the accused and hence, nothing has come on record against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offences.
Cr. Case No. 4024/2020 State vs. Jameel Khan Page 5 of 713. The accused has been charged for the offences under Section 380/411 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 380 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused committed theft from the Apollo Hospital of articles of complainant. Alternatively, for the offence under Section 411 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused dishonestly received or retained stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen.
14. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is, the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own feet.
15. PW1 has correctly identified her hand bag which is the hand of accused photograph taken from CCTV of Apollo Hospital i.e. Ex. PW3/F and PW3/G. From said Photographs from the CCTV taken from Apollo Hospital it is clearly seen that accused entering the room and coming out with stolen hand bag of PW1 from the room. PW2 and PW3 has correctly identified the accused. The said hand bag contained items as have been deposed by the PW1 which were later recovered from the accused.
Cr. Case No. 4024/2020 State vs. Jameel Khan Page 6 of 716. In the view of the above discussion and in the totality of circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts qua the accused Jameel Khan in regards to offence u/s 380 IPC. Hence accused Jameel Khan is convicted u/s 380 IPC & acquitted for the offence u/s 411 IPC. Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Pronounced in the open court on 20.10.2022 in presence of accused person.
This judgment contains 7 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
(Dr. Karan Choudhary) Metropolitan Magistrate-05/South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi Cr. Case No. 4024/2020 State vs. Jameel Khan Page 7 of 7