Delhi District Court
Dd No. 69B/12 Ps Ndrs State vs Sandeep Kumar Page No. 1 Of 6 on 3 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND BANSAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Central)-04
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
JUDGMENT
State .... Prosecution
Versus
Sandeep Kumar S/o Lal Babu Mehto
R/o H.No. 317, Gali no. 8, Laxmi Nagar
Delhi .... Accused
(a) DD No: 69B/12 (Case ID No.R0620762012)
(b) Date of Institution: 04.10.2012
(c) Date of Offence: 03.10.2012
(d) Offence complained of: U/S 103 Delhi Police Act
(e) Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(f) Argument heard and
reserved for order: Not reserved
(g) Final Order: Convicted
(h) Date of Judgment: 03.09.2013
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
BRIEF FACTS AND PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
1. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 03.10.2012 at about 10:30 pm, at Ajmeri Gate side, near ATM the accused Sandeep Kumar was found in possession of a trolley bag and failed to give any satisfactory reply regarding the ownership of the said trolley bag which was suspected to be a stolen property.
DD No. 69B/12 PS NDRS State vs Sandeep Kumar Page No. 1 of 6 The IO of the case seized the articles, prepared the Rukka, got the DD registered, arrested the accused, conducted his personal search, and investigated the matter and finally, filed the kalandra under section 103 DP Act against the accused.
2. Court took cognizance of the offence on the kalandra filed by the IO and proceeded against the accused. He was supplied with copy of Kalandra and annexed documents. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, notice U/s 251 Cr.PC for the offence punishable u/s 103 DP Act was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter then was listed for prosecution evidence.
3. To bring the guilt of the accused home, the prosecution produced and examined two witnesses.
PW1 HC Gorakh Nath testified that on 03.10.2012, he was posted at PS NDRS and was on patrolling duty with Ct Satyajeet at Ajmeri Gate Side. At about 10.30 pm, when they were patrolling in the area, they noticed that accused was coming from the side of MCO carrying one trolley bag. On seeing them, accused tried to change his way and tried to go towards parking. On suspicion, they stopped him and inquired about the trolley bag but he did not give any satisfactory answer about the ownership of said trolley bag nor he was able to tell the description of articles contained in the said trolley bag. They opened the trolley bag, checked the same and found it containing 5 jeans pants, 3 T shirts, 3 underwear, 3 vest, one towel etc. He took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. He prepared the kalandra u/s 103 D P Act. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and conducted personal DD No. 69B/12 PS NDRS State vs Sandeep Kumar Page No. 2 of 6 search vide memo Ex. PW1/B & C respectively . After medical examination, accused was sent to lock up as accused failed to produce any surety. He made a DD entry regarding all the proceedings which is Ex. PW1/D. Witness correctly identified the accused in the Court.
PW 2 Ct. Satyajeet reiterated the assertions made by PW1. He also correctly identified the accused in the Court.
Both the witnesses were cross examined by Defence Counsel.
4. After prosecution evidence was led, the statement of accused was recorded u/s 281 Cr. P.C. on 09.04.2013 wherein all incriminating material existing on record including exhibited documents were put to the accused. The accused denied the entire prosecution case. Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter and no trolley bag was recovered from him. He preferred not to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
5. Final arguments advanced by Ld. APP and the accused heard. I have carefully gone through the entire material placed on record by both the parties.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
6. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has been found in the possession of a trolley bag without any satisfactory answer therefor and the trolley bag was suspected to be stolen and therefore, he has committed an offence u/s 103 D P Act. It is the argument of the Ld. APP that the prosecution has proved its case through the un-rebutted testimony DD No. 69B/12 PS NDRS State vs Sandeep Kumar Page No. 3 of 6 of police witnesses and so, the accused be held guilty.
It is the defence of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter and there being no public witness of the alleged offence, case of the prosecution falls short of the required standard of beyond reasonable doubt and so, he deserves not to be held guilty.
7. The testimony of PW1 HC Gorakh Nath, corroborated by the seizure memo proves that the accused was found in possession of the alleged trolley bag. Further, this fact remains un-challenged that the accused was not the owner either of the trolley bag or the material found inside it. The accused has also failed to lead any evidence to that effect. There is not even a single suggestion in the cross-examination of PW1 that the accused was the owner of the property and has therefore, not liable for the alleged offence. No such explanation has been given by the accused even at the time of recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. It is the defence of accused that no such bag was ever recovered from his possession. The accused has failed to challege the testimony of both the prosecution witnesses in this respect of recovery of the bag from the accused. Nothing material to controvert the fact of recovery could emerge from the cross examination of both the prosecution witnesses. The defence has also failed to challenge the proceedings conducted by IO in any way whatsoever and the Court has also not found any significant contradiction in the prosecution case. It reasonably suggests that the accused was in possession of the trolley bag without any authority and also without any satisfactory reply or explanation.
DD No. 69B/12 PS NDRS State vs Sandeep Kumar Page No. 4 of 6
8. The only defence of the accused is that no public witness was made a part of the investigation and therefore, the same cannot be considered to be beyond the shadow of doubt. In the opinion of the Court, only this defence, in the light of other circumstances of the case, cannot be considered. There is no second opinion to the observation that most of the public persons present on the railway platform are the passengers who have to travel from one one place to another and they are always in a hurry to get the status of their tickets checked or confirmed, or to catch their train on time etc. No such person is ever interested to become a part of the police investigation of a matter. This dis-interest is further strengthened by the lack of resources available with an ordinary person to travel back to the city to appear as a witness, in a country like India, where an 'Ordinary Prudent Man' is constantly under burden to earn his livelihood and fight the challenge of survival.
9. It is the basic principle of criminal law that in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence, all the ingredients of that offence should be established against him beyond reasonable doubt and the burden upon accused is not so onerous and the standard expected of him is that of preponderance of probabilities.
FINAL ORDER
10. The overall circumstances of the case, and the above discussion into law and facts goes on to conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by proving all the necessary ingredients of the offence under section 103 Delhi Police Act. At the same time, the DD No. 69B/12 PS NDRS State vs Sandeep Kumar Page No. 5 of 6 accused have failed to raise any doubt in the mind of Court on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Consequently, the accused Sandeep Kumar is hereby convicted for the offence u/s 103 Delhi Police Act.
Announced in Open Court (ARVIND BANSAL)
on 3rd September, 2013 MM (Central)-04,
Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi
DD No. 69B/12 PS NDRS State vs Sandeep Kumar Page No. 6 of 6