Delhi District Court
In Another Case Titled As Mousam Singh ... vs . State Of West on 9 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05,
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Sh. Deepak Vats.
State v. Chanderwati
FIR No. 670/16
Police Station : Vikas Puri
Under Section: 380 IPC
Date of institution : 17.07.2017
Date of reserving : 29.11.2019
Date of pronouncement: 09.12.2019
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 5559/17
b) Date of commission of offence : 09.12.2016
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Bhuvan Bhardwaj, s/o Sh.
Ashok Sharma, r/o Shop no.
53 1st Floor, Main Market, Sub-
hash Nagar, New Delhi.
d) Name, parentage and ad- : Chanderwati w/o Sh. Shri Ram
dress of the accused r/o Peepal wala Chowk Mo-
hand Garden.
e) Offence complained of : Section 380 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Convicted
h) Date of final order : 09.12.2019
State v. Chanderwati FIR No. 670/16 PS: Vikas Puri u/s: 380 IPC 1
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.12.2016 at about 7:30 pm accused committed theft of Nascafe 7 Pieces (200 gm each), Nivea Lotion, 2 pieces (200 ml each), Nivea Cream (2piece, 200 ml) Bajaj Hair Oil (500 ml) at Reliance Fresh, Ground Floor, A Block, Vikas Puri, from the said grocery shop. Thus, it is alleged that accused has committed offence under section 380 IPC.
2. After investigation chargesheet was filed. Copy of the same was sup- plied to the accused. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences un- der Section 380 IPC vide order dated 11.08.2017 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses.
4. PW-1 Sh. Bhuvan Bhardwaj is the complainant in the present case and has deposed that on 09.12.2016 he was working as Area Manager, West District, Reliance Fresh and was present at Reliance Fresh, Ground Floor, Grocery Shop. He deposed that at about 7:30 to 7:45 pm, accused Chandrawati had stolen gro- cery items and kept the items under her clothes. He further stated that Ms Rita , one of the lady security guards at the grocery shop, checked accused and recov- ered 7 pieces of Nescafe Coffee, 2 pieces of Nivea Lotion, 2 pieces of Nivea Cream and Hair oil from the possession of accused. Security team made a call at 100 number. He deposed that police reached at the spot and recorded his statement State v. Chanderwati FIR No. 670/16 PS: Vikas Puri u/s: 380 IPC 2 which was exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A. PW 1 exhibited seizure memo as Ex. PW 1/B, arrest memo as Ex. PW 1/C, personal search memo as Ex. PW 1/D and disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW1/E. Witness correctly identified the accused.
5. PW-2 Smt Rita Devi has deposed on the lines of PW 1. She further de- posed that she saw accused hiding certain items picked up from the grocery store in her salwar. She further deposed that one item fell down during the hiding and she saw the same. She further deposed that the accused threw the hidden items on the ground and started running away from the shop and was caught.
6. PW3 W/Ct Yogita has joined the investigation and deposed that she searched the accused and found Rs. 500/-, Chutki and earing rings.
7. PW4 ASI Jagdish Chander has proved the FIR vide Ex. PW 4/A and endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW 4/B He also proved certificate of Indian Evi- dence Act vide Ex. PW 4/C.
8. PW 5 ASI Rajender Singh is the IO of the present case and proved the Rukka vide Ex. PW 5/A. He deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him. He further deposed that after completion of the investigation he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the court.
9. Accused had admitted the DD NO. 54 B U/s 294 r/w 313 r/w 281 Cr. PC and the same was exhibited as Ex. A-1.
State v. Chanderwati FIR No. 670/16 PS: Vikas Puri u/s: 380 IPC 3
10. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of u/s 313 Cr PC of accused was recorded wherein she deposed that she has been falsely implicated in the present case and had not done anything wrong. Accused opted not to lead DE. Thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.
11. I have heard the submissions of Dr. Yadvender Singh Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Sunil Prashar Ld. Legal Aid counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
12. Ld. APP submitted that prosecution has proved its case against the ac- cused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the eye witnesses have clearly deposed regarding the theft committed by the accused and therefore, it is prayed that accused be convicted.
13. Sh. Sunil Prashar, Ld. LAC for accused submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that there is nothing on record to show that accused has committed the theft at the time of alleged inci- dent. He submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and accused deserves to be acquitted on this ground.
14. I have heard the submissions of Dr. Yadvender Singh Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Sunil Parashar , ld. Legal Aid counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
15. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and State v. Chanderwati FIR No. 670/16 PS: Vikas Puri u/s: 380 IPC 4 convincing evidence. Since, there is a strong presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and rebuttal of the same always lies upon the prosecution. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
16. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 and held that accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In another case titled as Mousam Singh Roy & ors. vs. State of West Benga (2003) 12 SCC 377 wherein it was held that burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. It was further observed that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
17. In the present case, accused was allegedly caught on the spot at the time of commission of the offence. PW 1 Sh. Bhuwan Bhardwaj and PW 2 Ms. Reeta Devi have correctly identified the accused. Case property has also been cor- rectly identified by the prosecution witnesses. The recovery of the stolen articles has also been proved by the prosecution vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/B, which was also prepared on the date of alleged incident. PW 2 was the eye witness, who has lucidly deposed regarding commission of the offence by the accused. She has State v. Chanderwati FIR No. 670/16 PS: Vikas Puri u/s: 380 IPC 5 stated that she saw the accused picking up items which were case property in the present case and hiding the same in her Salwar. She also deposed that one of the said items fell down which was seen by PW 2 and thereafter on the personal search of the accused the articles which are the case property in the present case were recovered from her. The testimony of PW 2 has been corroborated by the PW 1, who has also clearly deposed regarding the involvement of accused in the present case and recovery from her. The investigation was conducted with prompti- tude. The documents regarding investigation namely seizure memo, arrest memo were recorded without any delay which further strengthened the case of the prose- cution. No substantial discrepancy has emerged in the testimony of the prosecu- tion witnesses, which could raise any doubt on the case of the prosecution. Ac- cordingly, it may be said that the prosecution has discharged the initial onus lay upon it to prove the guilt of the accused. Now it was for the defence to disprove the case of the prosecution either by shacking by the testimony of the prosecution wit- nesses in cross examination or by leading defence evidence.
18. Accused has not led any defence evidence. The focus of the Ld de- fence counsel during cross examination of prosecution witnesses was to point out that crucial piece of evidence i.e. CCTV Footage has not been placed on record by the prosecution and that there were other public persons available at the place of incident none of whom has been examined by the prosecution and that only inter- ested witnesses have been examined. Ld. Defence counsel has further stressed that the accused was not having sufficient money at the time of incident and be- cause of the same false case has been leveled against her.
19. As regards the CCTV Footage, PW 1 has stated in his testimony that he handed over CCTV Footage to the IO however no such CD has been tendered in evidence by the prosecution. On the contrary IO ASI Rajender Singh/ PW 5 State v. Chanderwati FIR No. 670/16 PS: Vikas Puri u/s: 380 IPC 6 stated that CCTV Cameras were installed but they were not working at the relevant time, thus he did not produce the same during the trial. Also, it is not disputed that other public persons were available at the place of incident and they were not made witness. However, in the opinion of this court both the above discrepancies in the case of the prosecution are not fatal to its case. It is settled law that where evi- dence available on record, is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused, minor discrepancies in the investigation does not render the case of the prosecution un- believable.
20. Further PW 1 and PW 2 have clearly deposed regarding the commis- sion of theft by the accused and thus non examination of any other public witness is immaterial. Furthermore, the counsel for accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case, there is nothing available on the file, which could suggest the reasons as to why accused has falsely implicated in the present case. There is no proof of the enmity of the accused with the prosecution witnesses. In fact there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused was even known to the complainant or police officials prior to the incident.
21. In view of the above discussion, the irresistible conclusion is that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of accused. Accordingly, accused is held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s 380 IPC.
22. Put up for arguments on sentence.
23. Copy of this order be given to the accused free of cost.
Announced in open Court on 09.12.2019. DEEPAK Digitally signed by
DEEPAK VATS
VATS Date: 2019.12.10
23:06:05 -0500
(Deepak Vats)
Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (South-West)-
09.12.2019
State v. Chanderwati FIR No. 670/16 PS: Vikas Puri u/s: 380 IPC 7