Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev Kumar on 31 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PAWAN KUMAR: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01 (SOUTHEAST), SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar FIR No. 01/02 U/s 379/411/34 IPC P.S. Lodhi Colony J U D G M E N T Serial No. of the Case : 247/2 Unique Identification No. : 02406R0725582006 Date of Institution : 04.07.2002 Date on which case reserved for judgment : 16.07.2014 Date of judgment : 31.07.2014 Name of the complainant : Shri Kailash Chand Gupta s/o Late Sh. Jagat Singh Gupta R/o D/23 Palika Niwas, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.
Date of the commission of offence: 02.01.2002 FIR No. 01/02 P.S.Lodhi Colony Page No.1 of 9 Name of accused : Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sukhbir Singh R/o Village Idrish Pur P.S. Doghat Zila Bagpat,U.P. Guddu @ Jitendra S/o Prakash Chandra R/o Village Loom,P.S. Chapprauli Zila Bagpat,U.P. Offence complained of : U/s 379/411/34 IPC Offence charged of : U/s 379/411/482/34 IPC Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. Final order : Acquitted Date of Institution : 04.07.2002 Date on which case reserved for judgment : 16.07.2014 Date of judgment : 31.07.2014
The accused Sanjeev Kumar is facing trial for the offence punishable U/s 379/411 IPC. The present case FIR was registered on the statement of Shri Kailash Chanda Gupta (hereinafter referred as 'the complainant'). The complaint was made regarding theft of car bearing registration No. DL6CF 1482 from the parking of his Residence D23 Palika FIR No. 01/02 P.S.Lodhi Colony Page No.2 of 9 Niwas, lodhi Colony. The accused was apprehended by the official of PS Loni, Ghaziabad (U.P.) Colony and was found in possession of the alleged stolen vehicle with the fake no. plate. The information was given to the concerned police station and the investigation was conducted.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present accused and Guddu. The proceeding qua accused Guddu stood abated vide order date 20.12.2012. The copy of charge sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. After considering both the parties, charge was framed U/s 379/ 411 IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 6 witnesses.
PW1 Ct. Manju was the duty officer on 02.01.2002. on that day she recorded the FIR Ex.PW 1/A on the Rukka sent by IO.
PW 2 K.C. Gupta is the complainant and deposed that his Maruti 800 car bearing DL6CF 1484was parked in the compound of residential area Palika Niwas Lodhi Colony and in the morning the same was found missing. He made complaint to the police Ex. PW 2/A. The police came to the FIR No. 01/02 P.S.Lodhi Colony Page No.3 of 9 spot and prepared the site plan Ex. Pw 2/B at his instance. Copy of the RC is Ex.Pw2/C. PW3 Ct. Rajendra Singh was the member of the police party which apprehended the accused. He deposed that on 08.04.2002 he along with SI P.K. Sharma , Hc Mahipal Singh and HC Suresh Chand on patrolling duty and reached at Beta Hazipur near village Pulia. They saw one vehicle white colour Maruti car bearing no. DL6CF 8441 coming from the side of Pulia. On signal to stop by showing torch they tried to turned back the car. They stopped the car after chasing 1520 steps from Puliya and found two persons sitting inside it. SI PK Sharma interrogated the accused and on asking they fail to produce the document of the aforesaid vehicle and disclosed that the alleged vehicle was stolen from Delhi. After investigation, it was revealed that the number plate bearing no. DL6CF8441 is fake. IO seized the vehicle and the fake number plate vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He identified both the accused persons in the court. He also identified the case property i.e. two number plates bearing nos. DL6CF8441.
PW4 SI Suresh Chand Sharma was also the member of the police party who recovered the alleged car. He deposed on the lines of PW3 and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
PW5 SI Raj Rani Sharma deposed that on 08.04.2002 the Incharge FIR No. 01/02 P.S.Lodhi Colony Page No.4 of 9 Pramod Sharma had apprehended the accused at Pulia, Beitha, PS Loni, Ghaziabad with Maruti Car bearing no. DL6CF8441 without claiming ownership. The witness had prepared the parcha of the accused persons and recorded their statement. She identified both the accused in the court.
PW6 ASI Khazan Singh deposed that on 02.01.2002 he received the copy of the FIR and complaint for the investigation. Thereafter, he went to the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/B. After investigation, he could not trace out the vehicle and the accused and accordingly he filed the untrace report on 31.01.2002. On 29.04.2002 an information was received from PS Loni, Ghaziabad regarding recovery of the case property in the present case. He went to the PS Loni and recorded the statement of recovery witnesses and collected the relevant documents. He arrested the accused persons vide memos Ex. PW6/A & PW6/B. He also recorded the disclosure statements of the accused persons Ex. PW6/C & PW6/D. He seized the recovered Maruti Car and the fake number plates vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/E.
5. On examination of material prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed. All the incriminating circumstances came in prosecution evidence put to the accused while recording the statement U/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.PC. He denied the incident and plead false implication by the police. FIR No. 01/02 P.S.Lodhi Colony Page No.5 of 9
6. I have carefully perused the case record and have heard arguments advanced by Learned APP for the state as well as by the accused.
7. The charge has been framed against the accused for commission of offence punishable U/s 379/411/482/34 IPC. Further the case of the prosecution against the accused is that he committed the theft of a Maruti car and the same was recovered from the possession of the accused persons and further they used the car with a fake number plate. The car was recovered by the police of PS Loni, Ghaziabad.
8. As far as the allegations of offence under Section 379 IPC is concerned, there is no evidence to establish that the accused has committed the theft of the alleged car. Further, there is no eye witness on this aspect as the car was alleged to be found missing from the parking on the next day.
9. PW3 & PW4 are the prosecution witnesses who recovered the alleged case property from the possession of the accused. It is deposed that they were posted at PS Loni, Ghaziabad on 08.04.2002 when the alleged car was recovered from the accused persons. In the present case, the alleged case FIR No. 01/02 P.S.Lodhi Colony Page No.6 of 9 property i.e. car and the fake number plates were seized by PW6/IO. The said case property was not seized at PS Loni, Ghaziabad where the same was got recovered from the accused persons. There is no such seizure memo on the record. Even Malkhana Register No.19 of PS Loni, was not produced during the evidence to establish that the alleged case property was seized and deposited in the Malkhana at PS Loni.
10. PW3 identified the case property i.e. fake number plates. The number plates were produced in the court in unsealed condition on which 313/09 and 271/10 were written. It is not clear from the testimony of PW6 that whether he deposited the said case property in sealed condition or not. Furthermore, the alleged car was not produced in the court. PW2, the complainant deposed that he had already received the compensation amount from the Insurance Company. There is no superdaginama on the record and it shows that the vehicle was still in the Malkhana. Despite that the case property was not produced. Non production of case property is fatal to the case of prosecution.
11. PW3 & PW4 are witnesses to the recovery of the alleged case property. PW3 was not cross examined as the counsel was not present. PW5 FIR No. 01/02 P.S.Lodhi Colony Page No.7 of 9 was not the member of the police party and also not witnessed the recovery of the alleged car. She prepared the parcha against the accused persons after recording their statements. However, during cross examination she replied that the accused persons were arrested at 9.30 pm from the public place. She further stated that IO requested some public persons to join the investigation but they refused and left the spot without disclosing their identities. As per PW5, no notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was given to the public persons. It is very difficult to understand as to how a witness not present at the time of recovery narrated the incident of recovery in detail.
12. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused persons.
13. The testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy. The unreliable testimony of police witnesses and non production of the alleged stolen vehicle, creates the doubt regarding the recovery of the alleged car from the accused. Thus, this court is of the considered view that the FIR No. 01/02 P.S.Lodhi Colony Page No.8 of 9 benefit of doubt in the present case be given to the accused and he is entitled to be exonerated on the charges against him in the present case.
14. Hence, prosecution has failed miserably to prove the presence of the accused at the time of incident and the fact that he was found in possession of stolen property. Hence, the accused Sanjeev Kumar stands acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 379/411/482/34 of Indian Penal Code.
Pronounced in open court (PAWAN KUMAR)
on 31.07.2014 MM01 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:31.07.2014
FIR No. 01/02
P.S.Lodhi Colony Page No.9 of 9