Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagjeet Singh Raghav on 1 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K.AGRAWAL, MM(East)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 539/2009
U/S 380/411 IPC
PS: Shakarpur
STATE VS. JAGJEET SINGH RAGHAV
JUDGMENT
a. Serial number of the case : 2237/09
b. Date of commission of the offence : 25.09.2009 & 06.10.2009
c. Name of the complainant : Sh. Sheel Sunder
d. Name of the accused person : Jagjeet Singh s/o Sh. Rajender
his parentage and address Singh r/o House No. 30/D,
Sector93, Noida, U.P.
e. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
f. Offence complained/proved : U/S 380/411 IPC
g. Final order : ACQUITTED
h. Date of Institution : 02.12.2009
i. Judgment reserved on : 19.03.2011
j. Judgment delivered on : 01.04.2011
Brief reasons for the decision of the case:
1. In brief the story of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 25.09.2009 & 26.09.2009, at House No. D57, 3rd Floor, FIR No. 539/2009 Page No.1 of 8 Dyanand Block, articles i.e. laptop, two mobile phone out of which one make Nokia 7210 and other make Nokia 6131, purse containing Rs. 400/, two debit cards of ICICI & SBI bank, one credit card of PNB, one pan card, DL, insurance of motorcycle, RC and motorcycle bearing No. DL 7SBC 7614 belonging to the complainant Sheel Sunder were stolen by unknown person. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against the unknown person u/s 380 IPC. During investigation, on 06.10.2009 at about 8.00 P.M. at SP2, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, the accused Jagjeet Singh Yadav was arrested on the information of secret informer and he was found in possession of one motorcycle belonging to the complainant Sheel Sunder. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the accused u/s 380/411 IPC.
2. On the basis of available evidence, charge was framed against the accused only u/s 411 IPC on 19.02.2010 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses in all.
3. PW1 is HC Siya Ram, Duty Officer, who stated that he registered the present FIR. The copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/A and endorsement FIR No. 539/2009 Page No.2 of 8 on rukka is Ex. PW1/B.
4. PW2 is Sheel Sunder, complainant of the present case, who stated that his articles namely, one laptop, two mobile phone out of which one make Nokia 7210 and other make Nokia 6131, purse containing Rs. 400/, two debit cards of ICICI & SBI bank, one credit card of PNB, one pan card, DL, insurance of motorcycle, RC and motorcycle bearing No. DL 7SBC 7614 were stolen from his house in the intervening night of 25.09.2009 & 26.09.2009. He made complaint to the police vide Ex. PW2/A on 26.09.2009. He further stated that on 06.10.2009, police officials came to his house with the accused and informed him about recovery of his above said motorcycle. He got the same released on superdari. The pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of the accused vide Ex. PW2/B. The case property i.e. motorcycle is Ex. P1.
5. PW3 is HC Jai Kumar who stated that on 06.10.2009, he along with Ct. Dig Pal and ASI Surender Pal was on checking duty at Vikas Marg and at about 7.45 P.M., on information of secret informer, accused was apprehended who was coming on a motorcycle. The accused failed to give plausible explanation FIR No. 539/2009 Page No.3 of 8 regarding possession of motorcycle and thereafter when dikki of vehicle was opened it was found that the vehicle was registered in the name of PW2 Sheel Sunder. Thereafter, the accused along with motorcycle was brought to PS and upon interrogation, the accused made disclosure statement vide Ex. PW3/B about his involvement in the present case. The accused was arrested vide Ex. PW3/C and personally searched vide Ex. PW3/D and the motorcycle was seized vide Ex. PW3/A. The witness correctly identified the accused as well as case property Ex. P1.
6. PW4 is SI Sandeep Kumar who prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant vide Ex. PW4/A regarding theft of articles belonging to the complainant. No further investigation was carried by him.
7. PW5 is Ct. Daya Ram who joined investigation along with ASI Surender Pal and on 26.09.2009 they reached at the house of complainant where the statement of the complainant was recorded and the present FIR was registered by him on directions of IO.
8. PW6 is Ct. Digpal who was present along with PW3 HC Jai Kumar and ASI Surender Pal on 06.10.2009 at the time of vehicle FIR No. 539/2009 Page No.4 of 8 checking at Vikas Marg. His evidence is on the same lines of PW 3 and the same is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.
9. PW7 is HC Narender Kumar who filed the present challan in the court and no investigation was carried out by him.
10. PW8 is ASI Surender Pal who is IO of the present case and he stated that on 26.09.2009, he received D. D. No. 14/A, regarding theft of articles belonging to the PW2 Sheel Sunder. He reached at the spot and recorded the statement of PW2 and got registered the present case through PW5. Thereafter, investigation was carried out by PW4. He further stated that on 06.10.2009, the investigation of the case was once again assigned to him. On the same date during vehicle checking at Vikas Marg, on the information of secret informer, the accused was apprehended and motorcycle bearing No. DL 7SBC 7614 was recovered from his possession. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and motorcycle was seized. The accused also made disclosure statement vide Ex. PW3/B. Pointing out memo vide Ex. PW2/B was prepared at his instance regarding the place of theft. He correctly identified the accused.
FIR No. 539/2009 Page No.5 of 8
11. Thereafter, PE was closed. Statement of the accused u/s 281 Cr.P.C. r/w section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 22.02.2011 wherein, accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery has been effected from his possession. No Defence Evidence was lead by the accused.
12. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed by both sides. It was argued by Ld. APP for the state that the accused deserves to be convicted in view of the prosecution evidence.
13. On the other hand, on behalf of the accused, Ld. counsel has submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of witnesses which creates a doubt on prosecution story. He further stated that there is no public eye witness of alleged recovery. There is no D.D. entry of departure of police officials and the whole case has been framed against the accused. Accordingly, he has prayed for acquittal of the accused.
14. Having heard arguments on behalf of both the parties, since the charge against the accused is only u/s 411 IPC so the question before this court is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the recovery of alleged stolen FIR No. 539/2009 Page No.6 of 8 vehicle was effected from the accused or not.
15. I have perused the evidence on record carefully. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the incident of theft of the motorcycle. The alleged recovery from the accused was effected by police during vehicle checking. There is no public eye witness. From the statement of PW2 it comes to the notice that the police officials came to his house on 06.10.2009 along with the accused. However, the IO did not mention this fact in his examination. In fact, from the perusal of statement of IO, PW8, it comes to the notice that the accused was arrested only at 9.30 P.M. on 06.10.2009 and further the documentation took about one and half hours. PW3 stated that the accused was taken for medical examination and he came back along with accused only at about 12 in mid night. So it is impossible that the police officials could have reached the house of complainant on 06.10.2009 itself after apprehending the accused. Even the complainant does not remember the time when the police officials came to his house. It also comes to the notice that the investigation of this case was assigned to PW8 on 06.10.2009 only and on the same date the recovery of motorcycle was effected from the accused while the IO FIR No. 539/2009 Page No.7 of 8 was on vehicle checking duty and not conducting investigation of the case. It is pertinent to mention that the date of theft was 26.09.2009 i.e. about 10 days back.
16. PW3 has also stated in his crossexamination that all the documentation was done in PS itself, however, PW8 IO of the case denies this. The aforesaid discussions clearly casts shadow of doubt on the prosecution story.
17. In view of the above said findings, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is hereby acquitted. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on Dated: 01.04.2011 (A. K. AGRAWAL) MM(East)/KKD/01.04.2011 FIR No. 539/2009 Page No.8 of 8