Delhi District Court
3. Title Of The Case : State vs Ajay @ Vijay on 20 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI : ACMM0I
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
1. Case No. : 1357/P
2. Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0851272005
3. Title of the Case : State Vs Ajay @ Vijay
FIR No. 267/2005
PS : Paharganj
U/s 380/411 IPC
4. Date of Institution : 14.09.2005
5. Date of reserving judgment : 04.12.2012
6. Date of pronouncement : 04.12.2012
J U D G M E N T :
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 1357/P
b) The date of commission
of offence : 16.07.2005
c) The name of complainant : Smt. Krishna Arora
W/o Sh. Surender Kumar Arora
R/o 1381, Gali Mote Wali, Sangatrashan,
Paharganj, Delhi
d) The name of accused : Ajay @ Vijay
S/o Sh. Barkau Darkar
R/o Vill. Suriyawa PS & Teh.Dhanupura
Bazar, Distt. Allahabad (UP)
e) The offence complained of : 380/411 IPC
FIR NO. 267 of 2005 State Vs Ajay @ Vijay Page 1 of 4
f) The offence charged with : 411 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) The final order : Convicted
i) The date of such order : 04.12.2012
j) Brief facts of the decision of the case :
1. The present case was registered on statement (Ex.PW1/A) of complainant Smt. Krishna Arora (PW1) to the effect that when she woke up at 05.30 AM on 03.06.2005, she found that a sum of Rs. 4000/, two gold chains, one pair of tops, three gold rings were found stolen from the room of her house No. 1381, Gali Mote Wali, Sangatrashan, Paharganj, Delhi. On her statement, rukka was prepared on 03.06.2005. A case U/s 380 IPC was got registered. On 16.07.2005, one HC Ram Pal arrested the present accused in FIR No. 351/2005 U/s 25 Arms Act. From his personal search, one gold chain was recovered. The accused disclosed to have been committed theft at the house of the complainant herein. The gold chain was seized. The accused was arrested in this case also. Coaccused could not be attested. TIP of the case property was got conducted. Section 411 IPC was added thereafter. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court.
2. Copy of chargesheeted was supplied to the accused. On the basis of record, the court framed charge for commission of offence punishable U/s 411 IPC only against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. FIR NO. 267 of 2005 State Vs Ajay @ Vijay Page 2 of 4
3. The prosecution has examined the complainant Smt. Krishna Arora as PW1; Duty Officer/HC Dharamvir Singh as PW2; HC Raj Pal as PW3. The prosecution also examined Ct. Ram Kumar who had apprehended the accused in FIR No. 351/2005, U/s 25 Arms Act as PW4. The TIP proceedings (Ex.PW5/B) were proved through Sh. A.K.Kuhar, Ld. ASJ as PW5. The IO of this case namely SI Mool Chand (then ASI) was also examined as PW6.
4. The incriminating evidence was explained to the accused in his statement U/s 281 Cr.P.C wherein the accused denied of incriminating evidence submitting that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No DE was led.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State & Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused Ajay &@ Vijay and perused the file carefully.
6. None of the witnesses of the prosecution were cross examined by the defence. The testimonies of the witnesses have remained unrebutted and un controverted. PW1 proved her complaint (Ex.PW1/A) and also produced gold chain (Ex.P1). The said stolen gold chain was recovered from the possession of the accused by PW3/HC Raj Pal in case FIR No. 351/2005 U/s 25 Arms Act. On inquiry, the accused disclosed that he had stolen the same from the house of the complainant herein. This witness had sealed the gold chain (Ex.P1) vide memo (Ex.PW3/A) and he also recorded disclosure statement of this accused. He also informed ASI Mool Chand/PW6. The testimony of PW3 is corroborated by PW4/Ct. Ram Kumar. He was also the witness of the recovery of the stolen gold FIR NO. 267 of 2005 State Vs Ajay @ Vijay Page 3 of 4 chain (Ex.P1). Both the witnesses were not cross examined by the defence. The complainant had identified the gold chain during the TIP proceedings (Ex.PW5/B).
7. Accordingly, the case of the prosecution is proved that the accused retained gold chain (Ex.P1) knowing the same to be the stolen property from the possession of PW1 thereby committed offence punishable U/s 411 IPC. He is accordingly convicted for the same. Be heard separately on point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (MANISH YADUVANSHI) on 04.12.2012 ACMM01 DELHI
It is certified that this judgment contains 04 (four) pages and each page bears my signature.
(MANISH YADUVANSHI) ACMM01 DELHI FIR NO. 267 of 2005 State Vs Ajay @ Vijay Page 4 of 4