Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit @ Bhugla on 4 July, 2012
In the Court of Sh. Sunil Kumar, MM, Rohini District Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Amit @ Bhugla
FIR No.40/11
PS Jahangir Puri
The date of institution of case: 2.04.2011
The date of reserving the order: 04.07.2012
The date on which Judgment pronounced: 4.07.2012
JUDGMENT
Unique Identification No. : 02404R0114012011 Date of commission of offence : 5.02.2011 Name of the complainant : Mahesh Chand Tiwari, S/o Sh. S.N. Tiwari, R/o G744, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
Name & address of accused : Amit @ Bhugla,
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar,
R/o H4/B398, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : 379/411 IPC
Final order : Convicted
Date of order : 4.07.2012
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1 In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on
522011 at about 6.00pm in front of H.No.G744, Jahangir Puri, Delhi accused Amit @ Bhugla had committed theft of a gas cylinder and on the aforesaid date, time and place the said gas cylinder was S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.1/12 recovered from his possession knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
2 In compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Primafacie charge U/s 379 IPC and alternatively for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC was made out against the accused Amit. Accordingly, on 2942011 the charge was framed by the then ld. Predecessor of this court. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3 In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 05 witnesses.
4 PW1 Mahesh Tiwari is the complainant in the present case and he has deposed that on 522011 on the celebration of the birthday of his grandson, cook/halwaies were preparing the food in the street near his house and two cylinders were simultaneously being used. He has further testified that at about 6.00pm they found that the accused present in the court was taking away half used cylinder on his shoulder. He has further testified that accused present in the court was apprehended with the help of police official. He has further deposed that IO recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A which bears his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that accused present in the court was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He has further deposed that accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW1/E. He has further deposed that the cylinder was S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.2/12 released on superdari by his wife. He has further deposed that IO recorded his statement.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused he has stated that the accused was apprehended at the distance of 100 meters from his house. He has further deposed that he came to know regarding the theft of the cylinder through one halwai. He has further deposed that Ct. Satvir apprehended the accused and many public persons gathered at the spot. He has further deposed that IO prepared the site plan at his instance. He has further denied that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. 5 PW2 Mrs. Sheel Kumari, wife of the complainant and she has deposed that on 11211 she had taken the cylinder on superdari vide superdginama Ex.PW2/A which bears her signatures at point A. This witness has not been crossexamined on behalf of the accused despite having been opportunity provided to him.
6 PW3 Ct. Satvir has deposed that on 5211 he was on patrolling duty in the area of H Block, Jahangir Puri and during patrolling when he reached at Kushal Cinema he heard a noise of "PakroPakro" and saw that accused present in the court was carrying a cylinder on his shoulder and the complainant was tried to chase him. He has further deposed that he apprehended the accused present in the court and brought him to the Police Station along with cylinder. He has further deposed that complainant was with him at that time and IO recorded the statement of complainant and made a rukka and S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.3/12 left for spot. He has further deposed that he got the case registered and came back at the spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to the IO. He has further deposed that IO seized the said cylinder vide memo Ex.PW1/B which bears his signatures at point B. He has further deposed that IO arrested the accused and his personal search was also conducted vide memos Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/D1 which bears his signatures at point B. He has also proved the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW1/E. He has further deposed that IO recorded his statement. He has also proved the case property i.e cylinder which was recovered from the possession of the accused present in the court when shown to him in the court.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite having been opportunity provided to him.
7 PW4 ASI Laique Ahmedduty officer who has proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW4/A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite having been opportunity provided to him.
8 PW5 HC Shamsher, IO of the case and he has deposed that on 05.02.2011, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri and on that day, the Complainant Mahesh Chander Tiwari and Ct. Satvir brought the accused who is present in the court with case property i.e. Indane Gas Cylinder. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of the Complainant vide Ex. PW1/A and attested by him at S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.4/12 point B. He has further deposed that he seized the cylinder, prepared the memo vide Ex.PW1/B which bears his signatures at point C. He has further deposed that he prepared the rukka vide Ex. PW5/A which bears his signatures at point A and he handed over the rukka to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR and he came to the spot along with the complainant and the accused. He has further deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant vide Ex.PW5/B which bears his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that he arrested the accused and prepared arrest memo and personal search memo PW1/C & PW1/D1 which bears his signatures at point C. He has further deposed that the accused also made disclosure statement vide Ex. PW1/A which bears his signatures at point C and he recorded statement of the witnesses. He has further deposed that the photographs of the cylinder are shown to the witness and correctly identified by him. He has further deposed that after completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and submitted the same before the Court.
This witness has not been crossexamined on behalf of the accused despite having been opportunity provided to him.
9 Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.PC was separately recorded. All the incriminating evidence against him were put to him for seeking his explanation. In the said statement, the accused has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, he chose not to lead evidence in his defence. Therefore, the case was listed for final S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.5/12 arguments.
10 I have heard Ld. APP for the State and accused himself in the present case. I have carefully perused the case file. 11 Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials. It is further argued that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the recovery, if any, is the planted one upon the accused. It is further argued that there is material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses which is fatal to the case of Prosecution. It is further argued that since the Prosecution could not establish the case against the accused for the alleged offence beyond shadow of doubt, it is, therefore, prayed that the accused may be acquitted of the alleged offence.
12 On the contrary, Ld. APP for the State has submitted that every discrepancy in statements of the witnesses could not be fatal to the Prosecution case. It is further argued that the discrepancies which does not effect the Prosecution case materially does not create infirmity and there is no material discrepancies/contradictions in the Prosecution case. It is further argued that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused. Hence, it is, prayed that the accused may be convicted accordingly.
13 The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.6/12 stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
14 In order to substantiate its case the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients as mentioned U/s 379 IPC:
(i) The accused removed the movable property;
(ii) He removed it out of the possession of another person without his consent.
(iii) He did so with a dishonest intention.
15 In the instant case, PW1 Mahesh Chand Tiwari has proved his complaint exhibited as PW1/A dated 5.2.2011 regarding the theft of his gas cylinder. He has specifically deposed in his statement that he apprehended the accused with the help of police official i.e Ct.
Satbir red handed at the spot along with his gas cylinder. The said witness has correctly identified the accused to be the culprit of the offence of theft. PW3 Ct. Satbir has also stated in his statement that the accused present in the court was apprehended red handed along with stolen gas cylinder on hearing the noise of "PakroPakro" while he was on patrolling duty in the area of HBlock, Jahangir Puri.
PW5 HC Shamsher has proved the present FIR that was lodged on the basis of aforesaid complaint of complainant. The accused has S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.7/12 failed to impeach the credibility of the complainant as it is an admitted fact that there is no previous enmity between the complainant and the accused. There is no reason for any reasonable person to implicate an innocent person in a false case, unless he has some ulterior motive to trap the accused for ulterior gain. Therefore the testimony of said witness/complainant inspires sufficient confidence and there is no reason to discard his otherwise credible statement. Further, the accused has failed to impeach the credibility of the said witnesses despite opportunity for crossexamination of the said witnesses provided to him. It is a settled law that the quality of witness is more important than the quantity. The testimony of single witness if it is straightforward, cogent and if believed is sufficient to prove the prosecution case and the conviction can be based on such a single witness. There is no insistence upon by the statute that the testimony of a reliable witness can be discarded merely because the same is not corroborated by another witness. 16 PW1Mahesh Chand Tiwari (Complainant) has correctly identified the accused to be the person who was involved in the commission of the offence of the theft on 5.02.2011 upon him. The testimony of the complainant/PW1 Mahesh Chand Tiwari clearly reflects that the conduct of the accused falls within the S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.8/12 ambit/purview of all the ingredients of the offence u/s 379 IPC. Hence, the identity of the accused has been proved and established. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offence U/s 379 IPC have been duly established beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused Amit @ Bhugla. Further, as far as for the offence u/s 411 IPC is concerned, the same is not made out against the accused, as per the statement of complainant the accused was apprehended red handed at the spot along with stolen gas cylinder. Accordingly, he is hereby convicted for the offence U/s 379 IPC.
The copy of this Judgment be given to the convict free of cost. Announced and dictated in the open court today i.e. on 4.07.2012.
Sunil Kumar MM/Rohini Courts Delhi/4.07.2012*rk S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.9/12 S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.10/12 In the Court of Sh. Sunil Kumar, MM, Rohini District Courts, Delhi State Vs. Amit @ Bhugla FIR No.40/11 PS Jahangir Puri ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. A.P.P for the State.
Convict Amit @ Bhugla in person along with ld. counsel. Vide separate detailed judgment dated 472012, the accused Amit @ Bhugla has been convicted for the offence U/S 379 IPC.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Ld. counsel for the convict has submitted that the convict Amit @ Bhugla is not a previous convict. He is having a family to support and he is the main bread earner of his poor family. Ld. counsel for the convict has submitted that the convict has already remained in JC for about 78 months and same in itself has been enough punishment for him and has prayed that a lenient view may kindly be taken against the convict.
On the contrary, ld. A.P.P for the State has submitted that the convict may not be shown any leniency and may be awarded maximum punishment, as prescribed in the law.
After hearing the arguments, on perusal of the material on record and seeing the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that a leniency is warranted in awarding the sentence to the convict in this case. Accordingly, for the offence u/S 379 IPC the convict Amit @ Bhugla is directed to undergo for the period as already undergone by him with a fine of Rs.2,500/. In S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.11/12 default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 15 days. Fine paid. His bail bond stands cancelled and surety is discharged. Documents of his surety, if any be /2/ returned forthwith after cancellation of endorsement on it.
A copy of judgment as well as order on sentence be given to the convict at free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced and dictated in the open court today i.e. on 6.07.2012 Sunil Kumar MM/Rohini Courts:Delhi/672012 *rk S/v Amit @ Bhugla, FIR No.40/11, PS J.Puri Page no.12/12