Delhi District Court
Ps: Dabri vs Anoop Singh on 16 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 167/2001
PS: Dabri
U/s 448/380 IPC
State V. Anoop Singh
JUDGMENT
Date of institution of the case : 13/05/2002 Unique Identification Number : R0523722002 Date of commission of offence : 15.02.2001 Name of the Complainant : Smt. Kamla W/o Sh. Netram R/o RZ18/2, Gali No.1, Main Sagar Pur, New Delhi.
Name of accused and address : Anoop Singh
S/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal
R/o RZ48A, Gali No.1,
Main Sagar Pur, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 448/380 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted.
FIR No.:167/2001 Page 1 of 7
Date on which Judgment was reserved: Not Reserved Date of such order : 16.08.2013 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present complaint was registered at the complaint of complainant Smt. Kamla in which she stated that she was residing on rent at RZ18/2, Gali No.1, Main Sagar Pur, New Delhi for last about 10 years. On 15.02.2001 at about 11:00 pm a fire accident occurred in the said house when her husband was at home and she along with her children had gone to her mother's house.
The fire brigade officials ceased the fire and the luggage from the home was also taken outside. On 17.02.2001, their landlord/ accused took her thumb impression on some blank paper on the pretext of taking compensation regarding the fire accident. Thereafter, she went to her mother's house along with children after putting his luggage inside the house and after locking the room. When she returned back, she found that the lock was broken and her luggage was missing. The landlord /accused had put his own lock on her house. At her complaint the present FIR was registered and after investigation challan was filed against accused Anoop Singh, for the offence u/s 448/380 IPC.
FIR No.:167/2001 Page 2 of 7
2. Accused was summoned and charge framed upon accused for the offence u/s 448/380 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and trial commenced.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Ten witnesses and has examined Seven witnesses.
4. PW1 Hari Mohan stated that on 15.02.2001 at about 11:30 pm, he witnessed fire in the house of tenant/ complainant Kamla. The house was owned by Anoop Singh. Goods were being taken out by Anoop and Kamla from the room where the fire took place. The goods were placed in another room safely by Anoop Singh and same was locked by Anoop Singh. Fire was extinguished by the Fire Brigade. Kamla was stating that she had no dispute and she will vacate the tenanted premises. On 17.02.2001 she had given a written consent in this regard. He (PW1) also signed the said consent.
5. PW2 Mahender Singh, PW3 Karan Singh and PW4 FIR No.:167/2001 Page 3 of 7 Ram Singh also deposed the identical version as stated by PW1.
6. PW5 Ct. Anil went to the spot along with IO but he was not properly examined as his further examination was deferred at the request of Ld. APP and thereafter he not turned up. Therefore, is incomplete examination cannot be taken into consideration.
7. PW6 HC Randhir Singh recorded the FIR of the present case, copy of which is Ex.PW6/A and his endorsement on rukka in this regard is Ex.PW6/B.
8. PW7 Dinesh Kumar is the record keeper from Fire Brigade department. He brought the record pertaining to the fire incident of the present case. He stated that as per record, the information was received from PCR at about 2:52 am and the fire broke out at H.No.18/2, Gali No.8 Main Sagar Pur Delhi which was occupied by tenant Netrapal and belonged to owner Anup Singh Tomar. The said entry is Ex.PW7/C.
9. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and FIR No.:167/2001 Page 4 of 7 PE closed. Statement of the accused recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations against him and further stated that he does not want to lead any evidence in his defence.
10. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the case is totally proved against the accused and eye witnesses deliberately not supported the prosecution version, therefore accused be given maximum punishment. On the other hand accused stated that he is falsely implicated in the present case. He neither committed any house trespass nor committed any theft in the house of complainant. He is liable to be acquitted. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and analyzed the statement of witnesses.
11. In this case, Five eye witnesses are cited by the prosecution. During evidence Four of them appeared as PW1 to PW4. All these witnesses not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. These witnesses clearly stated in their examination in chief that at the time of fire incident, the complainant Kamla and accused Anoop both took out the goods from the room and kept them FIR No.:167/2001 Page 5 of 7 at safe place and thereafter, there was no dispute remains left between complainant and accused. None of these witnesses stated anything regarding the alleged trespass or any theft by the accused. During their cross examination by the Ld.APP for the State, they clearly denied the suggestion that accused dispossessed the complainant or committed theft in respect of the articles of tenant Kamla.
12. As per the version of FIR, at the time of fire incident the husband of the complainant was only present in the house of complainant. But her husband neither cited nor examined as a witness. The complainant herself not appeared before the court to give her evidence. Summons to her repeatedly returned unserved with the report that she had left the given address and her present where abouts are not traceable.
13. The other examined witnesses are only formal witnesses. PW6 recorded only FIR and PW7 brought the record of Fire Report regarding the fire incident in question from the concerned department. IO of the case is not examined. These all witnesses are having no direct knowledge about the commission of offence. FIR No.:167/2001 Page 6 of 7
14. There is no any other circumstantial or documentary evidence giving an inference that accused Anoop Singh trespassed the house of complainant or he committed theft of the articles belonging to the complainant from her house. Hence, in view of above said discussion accused Anoop Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Lal stands acquitted in this case for the offence u/s 448/380 IPC due to lack of evidence. Bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for the period of six month starting from today in accordance with section 437A Cr.P.C as no fresh bail bonds furnished by the accused. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 16th day of August 2013 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 7 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
FIR No.:167/2001 Page 7 of 7