Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikas & Anr on 25 April, 2015
State Vs. Vikas & Anr
IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Vikas & Anr
FIR No. 324/04
U/sec. 381/411 IPC
PS: Gandhi Nagar
Date of institution of case: 17.11.2004
Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved
Date on which judgment is delivered: 25.04.2015
Unique I. D. No. 02402R0410702004
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 153/02 b) Date of commission of the offence : 28. 08.2004 c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Amarjeet
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : 1. Vikas, S/o Sh. Rakesh Dikshit R/o Prem Nagar B, Poni Road, Shukla Ganj, District Unnav, UP.
2. Guddu Chaubey @ Raj Kumar, S/o Sh. Narayan Roop Chaubey R/o Town Dera Pura, District, Kanpur, Dehat, UP.
e) Offence complained of : Sec. 381/411 IPC
f) Offence proved of : Sec. 411/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
FIR No. 324/04 Page No. 1 of 6
State Vs. Vikas & Anr
h) Final order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 25.04.2015
j) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.08.2004, the complainant Sh. Amarjeet lodged the FIR/Ex.PW1/A regarding theft of cash worth Rs.2,56,000/- against his servant/employee Vikas at Police Station Gandhi Nagar. The said FIR was assigned to SI Dharam Pal for investigation. On 19.09.2004, accused Vikas was arrested. On interrogation, he made a disclosure statement wherein he admitted his involvement in the offence and disclosed that he had given Rs. 1,50, 000/- to Guddu Chaubey and Rs. 50, 000/- to Avnish Tiwari. He further stated that he could get the co-accused arrested and could get the cash recovered. Pursuant to the disclosure statement, accused Vikas got recovered Rs.15,000/-. On 12.10.2014, accused Guddu Chaubey was arrested and Rs.7,000/- were recovered at his instance. On 29/10/2014, accused Avnish was arrested but was subsequently released as nothing incriminating was found against him.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 381/411 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) was filed before the court against the accused persons namely Vikas and Guddu Chaubey @ Raj Kumar. Consequently, the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. On their appearance in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to them as per norms.
Thereafter, the charge under section 411/34 of the IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 324/04 Page No. 2 of 6State Vs. Vikas & Anr With a view to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution has examined only two witnesses.
PW1/Head Constable was the Duty Officer, who recorded the FIR No. 324/04/Ex. PW1/A and made an endorsement/Ex. PW1/B to this effect on the rukka.
PW2/Constable Kailash Chand accompanied the IO during investigation.
During the course of trial, summons sent to complainant Amarjeet received back un-served with the report that "not residing at the given address". Thereafter, summons were issued through the DCP concerned, however, the same also received back un-served with the report "not residing at the given address". Therefore, he was dropped from the list of witnesses and the PE was closed as no useful purpose would be served by examining the rest of the witnesses, who are formal in nature and the request of the ld. APP for the State to examine remaining witnesses was declined. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that "...In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date............."
FIR No. 324/04 Page No. 3 of 6State Vs. Vikas & Anr Since there was no incriminating circumstance against the accused persons, their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were also dispensed with.
I have heard the ld. APP and the ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and have also perused the records very carefully.
It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence, that the accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution is under legal obligation, to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. At the conclusion of the trial, the prosecution can succeed only on discharging its burden of proving the case against the accused. Strongest of suspicion, does not constitute the proof required. Keeping in view the principle of law laid down in cateena of judgments by the superior courts, now let us see, as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The sole contention of the ld. Defence counsel is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the cash allegedly seized from the accused persons was stolen property within the meaning of section 410 of the IPC.
Before I advert to submission made by the ld. Defence counsel, I first propose to refer to certain relevant provisions of the IPC.
Section 411 of the IPC deals with dishonestly receiving stolen property. It reads as under:
FIR No. 324/04 Page No. 4 of 6State Vs. Vikas & Anr Sec. 411- Dishonestly receiving stolen property-
Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
The term 'stolen property' is defined in Section 410 of the IPC. Sec. 410 of the IPC reads as under:-
Sec.410. Stolen property--Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which 1[***] criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", 2[whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without 3[India]]. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.
Thus, in order to make out an offence under Section 411 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the property in question is a stolen property.
In the present case in hand cash worth Rs. 15,000/- and Rs.7,000/- was seized vide seizure memo dated 19/09/2004 and 12/10/2004 respectively and charge under Section 411 of the IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Vikas and Guddu Chaubey @ Raj Kumar on the footing that they were found in possession of the cash knowing or having reason to believe that it was stolen property. It is elementary that there can be no offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property FIR No. 324/04 Page No. 5 of 6 State Vs. Vikas & Anr unless the property which is alleged to be the subject of such receiving, answers the description of "stolen property" defined under section 410 of the IPC.
To prove its case prosecution has examined only two witnesses which, however, did not include the first informant of the incident i.e. the complainant Sh. Amarjeet. The witness is reportedly not traceable. Therefore, the recovery of the stolen cash alleged to have been made at the instance of the accused persons does not connect them with the crime as no evidence is adduced by the prosecution to show that the cash had, in fact, been stolen from the shop of the complainant Sh. Amarjeet or that the same belonged to him.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I give benefit of doubt to the accused persons Consequently, the accused namely Vikas and Guddu Chaubey @ Raj Kumar are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Bail bonds be treated as one under section 437A of the Code for a period of six months from today. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in open court on April 25, 2015.
(Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 25.04.2015 This judgment contains 06 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 25.04.2015 FIR No. 324/04 Page No. 6 of 6