Delhi District Court
State vs . : Brijesh & Ors. on 11 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF VINOD KUMAR:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 03 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Cr. Case No: 12952/2022
State Vs. : Brijesh & Ors.
FIR No : 203/2022
U/s : 380/411/34 IPC
P.S. : Rajinder Nagar
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 12952/2022
2. Date of commission of offence : 19.07.2022
3. Date of institution of the case : 16.09.2022
4. Name of the complainant : Vaibhav Kumar Singh through State
5. Name of accused, parentage & : (1) Brijesh S/o Sh. Gorakh
(2) Abhishek @ Abhi S/o Sh. Santosh
6. Offense complained or proved : 380/411/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 10.05.2023
9. Final order : Both accused persons are convicted
10. Date of final order : 11.05.2023
1 The accused persons are facing trial for offences u/s 380/34 IPC and u/s 411
IPC for the allegations that on 19.07.2022 between 07:30 PM to 10:55 PM at H.No. 1/94, 3rd floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed the theft of laptop silver colour with charger, next IAS and Card holder containing Adhar Card, DL, Slice Card and PAN card of complainant Vaibhav Kumar and one laptop each of Acer Predator of the roommates FIR No. 203/22 P.S. Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Brijesh & Ors. Page 1 of 9 of complainant. On 19.07.2022, accused Brijesh was found in possession of stolen next IAS bag containing one laptop Acer Predator, silver colour laptop on HP make, charger of laptop belonging to the complainant and his roommates and on 20.07.2022, accused Abhishek @ Abhi was found in possession of stolen laptop Acer Predator, one card holder containing Visa Plattinuim Card of SBM, Security Card and slice card of the complainant which they dishonestly received or retained knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Therefore, the trial was proceeded against both the accused persons to the offences u/s 380/34/411 IPC.
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Court and on the basis of material available on record, charges for offences u/s 380/34/411 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish guilt of both the accused persons, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all. After prosecution evidence, the statement of both the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to both the accused persons. Both the accused persons did not lead any evidence in his defence.
4. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of both the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, both the accused persons deserves to be convicted for the alleged offences.
5. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel has contended that both the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the police. It has also been argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have not established either the identity of both the accused persons and they are being falsely implicated in the present case.
FIR No. 203/22 P.S. Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Brijesh & Ors. Page 2 of 96. Prior to delving into the merits of contentions advanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material witnesses in brief. 6.1 PW-1 is the Complainant Sh. Vibhav Kumar Singh who deposed that on that day, he alongwith his two roommates namely, Naveen Tyagi and Khagendra Singh Chauhan left their room for reaching to coaching center and when they came back, they found that their room was opened and the articles i.e. one HP-Laptop with charger, one IAS bag, one card holder containing his aadhaar card, DL, PAN card and slice card were not found in the room and the same were stolen from the room and his abovesaid roommates also found their laptops make ACER each in their room and the matter was reported to the police and police came and inspected the site and prepared site plan and police checked the CCTV cameras installed nearby the spot and found that the person who stolen their above articles from their rooms was seen in CCTV camera carrying the bags and police arrested the thieves and recovered thier above stolen articles and thereafter they got released their stolen/recovered articles on superdari and the photographs of the recovered/received articles were provided to the police at the time of receiving said articles.
During cross-examination by ld. LAC for both the accused persons, he admitted that he had not seen the accused persons while actually stealing their goods from their rooms and that the recovery of their goods was not effected from the possession of accused persons in his presence. He further deposed that he had not joined the proceedings of seeing the footage of CCTV camera with the police, however police had told him the fact that the person who stolen their above articles has been captured in CCTV camera. He further deposed that police had not made any enquiry from their neighbour or landlord in his pretense. He denied that the accused person had not committed the theft of his articles or that the complaint had been lodged falsely or that he was deposing falsely.
6.2 PW2 is Sh. Naveen Tyagi who is the roommate of PW-1/Complainant Vaibhav Kumar Singh and he deposed that on that day, they left their room for reaching to coaching center and when they came back, they found that their rooms were opened and the articles i.e. one HP-Laptop with charger, one IAS bag, one card holder containing aadhaar card, DL, PAN card and slice card belonging to PW-
FIR No. 203/22 P.S. Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Brijesh & Ors. Page 3 of 91/Complainant Vaibhav Kumar Singh were not found in the room and the same were stolen from the room and he and PW-3 Khagendra Singh Chauhan also not found their laptops make ACER each in the rooms and the matter was reported to the police and police come and inspected the site and prepared site plan. He further deposed that police checked the CCTV cameras installed nearby the spot and found that the person who stolen their above articles from their rooms was seen in CCTV camera and carrying the bags and police arrested the thieves and recovered their above stolen articles and thereafter they got released their stolen/recovered articles on superdari and the photographs of the recovered/received articles were provided to the police at the time of receiving said articles.
During cross-examination by ld. LAC for both the accused persons, he admitted that he had not seen the accused persons while actually stealing their goods from their rooms and that the recovery of their goods was not effected from the possession of accused persons in his presence. He further deposed that he had not joined the proceedings of seeing the footage of CCTV camera with the police, however police had told him the fact that the person who stolen their above articles has been captured in CCTV camera. He further deposed that police had not made any enquiry from their neighbour or landlord in his pretense. He denied that the accused person had not committed the theft of his articles or that the complaint had been lodged falsely or that he was deposing falsely.
6.3 PW3 is Sh. Khagendra Singh Chaauhan who is the roommate of PW- 1/Complainant Vaibhav Kumar Singh and he deposed that that on that day, they left their room for reaching to coaching center and when they came back, they found that their rooms were opened and the articles i.e. one HP-Laptop with charger, one IAS bag, one card holder containing aadhaar card, DL, PAN card and slice card belonging to PW-1/Complainant Vaibhav Kumar Singh were not found in the room and the same were stolen from the room and he and PW-2 Naveen Tyagi also not found their laptops make ACER each in the rooms and the matter was reported to the police and police come and inspected the site and prepared site plan. He further deposed that police checked the CCTV cameras installed nearby the spot and found that the person FIR No. 203/22 P.S. Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Brijesh & Ors. Page 4 of 9 who stolen their above articles from their rooms was seen in CCTV camera and carrying the bags and police arrested the thieves and recovered their above stolen articles and thereafter they got released their stolen/recovered articles on superdari and the photographs of the recovered/received articles were provided to the police at the time of receiving said articles.
During cross-examination by ld. LAC for both the accused persons, he admitted that he had not seen the accused persons while actually stealing their goods from their rooms and that the recovery of their goods was not effected from the possession of accused persons in his presence. He further deposed that he had not joined the proceedings of seeing the footage of CCTV camera with the police, however police had told him the fact that the person who stolen their above articles has been captured in CCTV camera. He further deposed that police had not made any enquiry from their neighbour or landlord in his pretense. He denied that the accused person had not committed the theft of his articles or that the complaint had been lodged falsely or that he was deposing falsely.
6.4 PW-4 is Sh. Ram Avtar who is the Principal and deposed that admission register of child Abhi S/o Santosh (accused in this Case) as per which date of birth of Master Abhi is 29.03.2004 who taken admission in class Second in aforesaid school.
During cross-examination by ld. LAC for both the accused persons he denied that Ex. PW4/A was false and manipulated or that he was deposing falsely.
6.5 PW-5 is Ct. Akash who deposed that on that day, he alongwith PW-6/IO/SI Bijender Singh went to spot where PW-1/complainant Vaibhav Kumar Singh met them and he had given his complaint to IO and he prepared rukka by making endorsement on the complaint and gave to him for registration of the FIR and he went to P.S. and got registered the FIR. He further deposed that he again returned at spot and he handed over the copy of FIR, rukka and certificate u/s- 65 B Evidence Act to IO and IO inspected the site at the instance of complainant and prepared site plan and efforts were made to trace the accused and stolen articles but the same could not be FIR No. 203/22 P.S. Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Brijesh & Ors. Page 5 of 9 trace out. He further deposed that on 19.07.2022, he received secret information the accused Brijesh was apprehended and from his possession, two stolen laptop and charger were recovered. He further deposed that IO took the same in possession by sealing with the seal of BS and IO interrogated the accused Brijesh, who made his disclosure statement and the accused Brijesh was arrested and IO prepared the site plan of recovery place and the case property was deposited in Malkhanna. He further deposed that the accused Brijesh disclosed the name of his associate as Abhishek @ Abhi who was with him at the time committing theft of present case and accused Brijesh got apprehended his associate Abhishek @ Abhi and his search was taken and he was found in possession of stolen ACER predator and one blue colour card holder which was found containing platinum card issued in the name of Vaibhav Kumar Singh and the same was taken into possession by sealing with the seal of BS.
During cross-examination by ld. LAC for both the accused persons, he deposed that he was in police station when IO received the DD entry and the number of departure entry was 41A and he had not remembered the time of leaving station to the spot and other roommates of complainant were present at that time and he had not remembered the colour of laptop and he had not remembered the time of his subsequent visit of spot and IO had requested the public person but they refused to become the part of proceedings and IO had not taken any action against them. He denied that the accused persons were not apprehended in the manner deposed by him or that no case property was recovered from their possession or that he was deposing falsely.
6.6 PW- 6 is SI Bijender Singh who is the IO and deposed that on that day, he received DD No. 41A and thereafter he alongwith PW-5 Ct. Akash went to alleged spot where PW-1/complainant Vaibhav Kumar Singh met them and he gave his complaint to him and he prepared rukka by making endorsement on the complaint and he gave it to PW-5 Ct. Akash for registration of the FIR and he went to P.S. and got registered the FIR and he inspected the site and efforts were made to trace the accused and stolen articles but the same could not be trace out. He further deposed that on 19.07.2022, on the basis of secret information, the accused Brijesh was FIR No. 203/22 P.S. Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Brijesh & Ors. Page 6 of 9 apprehended and from his possession, two stolen laptop and charger were recovered and he had taken the same in possession by sealing with the seal of BS and he interrogated the accused Brijesh and the accused was arrested and he prepared the site plan of recovery place and case property was deposited in Malkhanna and the accused Brijesh disclosed the name of his associate as Abhishek @ Abhi as he was with him at the time committing theft of present case and accused Brijesh got apprehended his associate Abhishek @ Abhi and his search was taken and he was found in possession of stolen ACER predator and one blue colour card holder which was found containing platinum card issued in the name of PW-1/complainant Vaibhav Kumar Singh and the same was taken into possession by sealing with the seal of BS and the apprehension memo of CCL and he recorded the statement of witnesses.
During cross-examination by ld. LAC for both the accused persons he deposed that he was in police station when IO received the DD entry and the number of departure entry was 41A and they left police station at about 10:30 am and other roommates of complainant were not present at that time and colour of the laptops were silver and black and he had requested the public person but they refused to become the part of proceedings and he had not taken any action against them and no CCTV Camera was found installed nearby the spot. He denied that the accused persons were not apprehended in the manner deposed by him or that no case property was recovered from their possession or that he was deposing falsely.
6.7 PW- 7 ASI Santosh Yadav he deposed that on that day, he received rukka through PW-5 Ct. Aakash sent by PW-6 SI Bijainder, on the basis of which the FIR in the instant case was registered on computer installed in DO room, which was kept in the safe custody and supervision of SHO and there was no chance of any type of tampering in the contents feed in the computer system and after registration of FIR, one copy of FIR alongwith original complaint duly endorsed by him and the copy of FIR and original complaint were handed over to PW-5 Ct. Aakash for handing over the same to PW-6 SI Bijender Singh to whom, the investigation was marked and he had brought the register of FIR.
FIR No. 203/22 P.S. Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Brijesh & Ors. Page 7 of 9During cross-examination by ld. LAC for both the accused persons he denied that the FIR is ante date and time or that he was deposing falsely.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, wherein the accused has denied all the allegations qua present case and further deposed that all the PWs examined in this case have deposed falsely. It is a false case, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused has denied to lead any evidence in his defence.
This is the entire evidence on case record.
8. I have carefully gone through the record and evidence. The present case emerges out of a complaint purportedly made by the complainant against accused persons with allegations that the accused persons dishonestly removed the articles belonging to the complainant and his roommates without their consent from their house and received/retained the same knowing the same to be stolen property.
9. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prosecution and defence and have also gone through the case record carefully. Having discussed the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the con- tentions advanced on behalf of the parties.
The perusal of records shows that the instant case has been registered at the instance of PW-1/Complainant Vaibhav Kumar Singh. On perusal of the testimony of PW-1/complainant Vaibhav Kumar Singh, it shows that he supported his allegations made in the complaint to the police during deposition before the Court. Perusal of case records shows that firstly, the case property was recovered from the possession of accused Brijesh and then secondly, the case property was recovered from the possession of accused Abhishek @ Abhi on the next day, who was nabbed at the instance of accused Brijesh. Perusal of testimonies of PWs also show that the accused persons have not disputed the identity of recovered case properties.
10. PW-2 Naveen Tyagi and PW-3 Khagender Singh Chauhan have also supported the version of PW-1/complainant Vaibhav Kumar Singh in their testimonies. All FIR No. 203/22 P.S. Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Brijesh & Ors. Page 8 of 9 public witnesses have corroborated their statements made to the police thus proving the manner of alleged theft.
11. Perusal of testimonies of PW-6/IO/SI Bijender Singh and PW-5 Ct. Akash show that after registration of FIR, accused Brijesh are nabbed on the very same day with case property and thereafter, accused Abhishek @ Abhi was also nabbed on the next day at the instance of accused Brijesh and case property was also recovered from his possession also, thus obviating the apprehension of plant recovery.
12. The Ld. Defence counsel has cross examined the PWs at length but failed to bring on record any material inconsistencies showing the accused persons' false implication in the instant case. The contradictions, if any, are minor in nature.
13. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place accused persons namely, Brijesh and Abhishek @ Abhi have committed the aforesaid offences, therefore, the accused persons stand convicted for offences u/s 380/411/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court (Vinod Kumar)
on 11th day of May, 2023 MM-03 (Central), THC, Delhi
FIR No. 203/22 P.S. Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Brijesh & Ors. Page 9 of 9