Delhi District Court
State vs . Hasin@ Munna on 29 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK DABAS
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 237/2015
ID 69163/2016
U/S. 457/380/511 IPC
PS Patel Nagar
State Vs. Hasin@ Munna
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 69163/2016
2. Date of commission of offence 16.3.2015
3. Name of complainant Sh. Suraj Singh
4. Name of accused Hasin@ Munna
s/o. Sh. Md Mumtaj
r/o. H NO. B275, Kathputli Colony
Pandav Nagar, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of u/s. 457/380/511 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 29.11.2016
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 16.3.2015 at about 2.15 AM at H NO. T235/A50, Hill Marg, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi he had committed house breaking by night in said house and had attempted to commit theft from said house.
State Vs. Hasin@Munna; FIR 237/205; Patel Nagar
2. CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Charge for offences punishable u/s. 457/380/511 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined following 5 witnesses:
(a) PW1 is Sh Suraj Singh i.e. complainant.
(b) PW2 is ASI Kuldeep Singh i.e. DO.
(c) PW3 is Sh Inderjeet Singh i.e. brother of complainant.
(d) PW4 is SI Ram Pratap i.e. IO.
(e) PW5 is Ct. Hari Singh. PW5 had accompanied IO to the spot.
4. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded under section 313 cr.p.c. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement under section 313 cr.p.c, accused has stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused had not led any evidence in his defence.
5. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL: Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of house breaking by night and attempt to commit theft in the house of complainant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the State Vs. Hasin@Munna; FIR 237/205; Patel Nagar testimony of PWs and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, Ld LAC had argued that no independent/ public witness was joined in the present case by IO. Ld LAC further argued that accused was falsely implicated in this case and the testimony of material witnesses is shaky and no reliance can be placed upon it. Ld LAC had also argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled of being acquitted in this case.
6. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(a)PW1 i.e. Sh Suraj Singh is the complainant in this case. PW1 in his testimony recorded in court had supported the prosecution version. In his testimony recorded in court, PW1 stated that on the relevant date he was sleeping in his house and he woke up at about 2.00 AM(night) on hearing some noise. PW1 further stated that he contacted his brother namely Inderjeet Singh, residing on first floor, telephonically and asked him to come upstairs. PW1 further stated that he and his brother had reached second floor and saw that accused was trying to jump in order to flee from their house. PW1 further stated that accused was apprehended by them in their house itself. PW1 correctly identified the accused in court. PW1 also deposed regarding recovery of one plass from the possession of accused. PW1 also deposed regarding making a call at 100 number reaching of police at the spot and the proceedings conducted by police. PW1 State Vs. Hasin@Munna; FIR 237/205; Patel Nagar had also stated in detail about the structure of their house. PW1 was cross examined by Ld LAC at length.
(b)Careful perusal and analysis of testimony of PW1 clearly shows that testimony of PW1 is clear, consistent and inspires confidence. No reason has come on record on the basis of which it can be said that complainant had falsely implicated the accused in this case. There was no previous enmity between complainant and accused. PW1 has stated in clear and categorical terms that accused had entered their house and had reached upto second to third floor. The aforesaid act of accused is covered within offence of house breaking as defined in section 445, clause/ explanation 6. PW1 had also stated that he had himself seen the accused breaking lock of back door of third floor with the help of plass. There is no other reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. Testimony of PW2 is of formal nature as he had merely recorded the FIR.
(c) PW3 i.e. brother of complainant has also supported the prosecution case. PW3 had corroborated the version of PW1. PW3 had also deposed regarding receiving of phone call from his brother i.e. PW1, apprehension of accused, recovery of plass from possession of accused, arrival of police etc.PW3 had also correctly identified the accused in court. PW3 was also cross examined at length by Ld LAC. Even in the lengthy cross examination, Ld LAC failed to shake testimony of PW3. The testimony of PW3 is also consistent and State Vs. Hasin@Munna; FIR 237/205; Patel Nagar inspires confidence and there is no other reason to disbelieve it.
(d)PW4 and PW5 have proved the investigation of this case. They had deposed regarding reaching the spot, apprehension of accused registration of Present case, recovery of plass etc. PW4 and PW5 had also corroborated the version of PW1 and PW3 on material aspects.
(e)The argument/ submission of Ld LAC that accused has been falsely implicated in this case is without merits as no reason has come on record during the trial of this case on the basis of which it can said that accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
(f) The prosecution has successfully proved the bundle of facts which constitute offences punishable u/s. 457 read with section 380/511 IPC as prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed house breaking by night in order to commit theft and had also attempted to commit theft in the house of complainant.
7. CONCLUSION: Hence, accused is hereby convicted for offences punishable u/s. 457 IPC read with section 380/511 IPC.
Judgment dictated and DEEPAK DABAS pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI (This judgment consists of 5 pages)
State Vs. Hasin@Munna; FIR 237/205; Patel Nagar IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK DABAS ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 237/2015 ID 69163/2016 U/S. 457 IPC and 380/511 IPC PS Patel Nagar State Vs. Hasin@ Munna 29.11.2016 ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict is present in person.
Sh. Yudhvir Singh, Ld LAC is also present.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as Ld LAC for convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record carefully.
Ld LAC for convict has argued that the convict is a young boy aged about 23 years. Ld LAC further argued that convict is unmarried and his mother as well as 78 younger brothers/ sisters are totally dependent upon him for their bread and butter. Ld LAC has also argued that convict is not a previous convict. Ld LAC further argued that convict is earning his livelihood by pulling a rickshaw and convict belongs to poor strata of the society. Ld LAC further argued that convict had remained in judicial custody for a period of about 10 months during the trial of the present case.
State vs. Hasin@Munna:FIR 237/2015;Patel Nagar On the other hand, Ld APP for State has argued that the convict be given maximum punishment for the offences for which he has been convicted.
In the present case, convict has been convicted for offences punishable u/s. 457 IPC and u/s. 380/511 IPC. Convict is a young boy aged about 23 years. No previous conviction has been alleged/ proved against convict. Convict has already spent a period of about 10 months in judicial custody during the trial of the present case. Convict is sole bread winner for his family. Convict has undertaken not to repeat his conduct.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict is sentenced to SI for the period already undergone by him during the trial of present case. Convict is sentenced accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT DEEPAK DABAS on 29th of November, 2016 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
State vs. Hasin@Munna:FIR 237/2015;Patel Nagar