Delhi District Court
Fir No 528/07 State vs . Jagdish on 26 February, 2008
FIR No 528/07 State Vs. Jagdish
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : DELHI
STATE Vs. Jagdish Date of Institution 18/12/07
FIR No. 528/07 Judgment Reserved 26/02/08
on
PS- Kashmere Gate Date of Judgment 26/02/08
Under 379/511 IPC
Section
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case 171/2
b) Date of offence 03/11/07
c) Name of the complainant Bhoop Singh
d) Name & address of the accused Jagdish S/o Moti
Prashad Mehto R/o
Kali Bagh, district-
Bitya, West
Champaran, Bihar.
e) The offence complained of 379/511 IPC
f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order Convicted
h) Date of order 26/02/08
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Brief case of prosecution against the accused is that on Contd........
FIR No 528/07 State Vs. Jagdish
2
03/11/07, at about 9:15 PM at shop No. 2715, Lothian road, within
the jurisdiction of PS Kashmere Gate, the accused attempted to
commit theft in shop No. 2715, Lothian Road, by breaking open lock of the said shop and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 379/511 IPC
2. On filing of chargesheet by police personnel, this court supplied necessary copies to accused and after prima facie finding grounds to presume that accused persons committed offence punishable Under Section 379/511 Indian Penal Code, framed charge against him to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined two witness in support of its case.
Summary of statement of accused U/S 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately on 30/01/08. The accused did not lead any evidence and final arguments on behalf of parties were heard.
Contd........
FIR No 528/07 State Vs. Jagdish 3
4. I have considered final arguments of Learned APP for the state, learned Sh. L.N. Jha, Legal Aid counsel for the accused, and have also perused the record.
5. It has been rightly submitted by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that accused attempted to commit theft in the shop by breaking open lock of the shop.
6. Submissions of learned defence counsel that police officials investigating the matter, including the IO and his team, have not been examined by the prosecution in the present case and, therefore, accused is entitled for honourable acquittal is not acceptable to me.
7. To my mind, it is not number of the witnesses but the quality of their evidence which is required to be seen in a case. Testimony of a lonely witness, if found reliable and trustworthy is sufficient for Contd........
FIR No 528/07 State Vs. Jagdish 4 proving a case. On the other hand testimony of hundreds of hostile or not trustworthy witnesses may be incompetent to prove a case.
8. In the present case also, PW2 Bhoop Singh who as working as watch man in the area concerned has categorically deposed that he saw the accused cutting lock of shop with the help of a saw(aari). He further deposed that he apprehended the accused and called police at 100 number and handed over him to police. This witness has also deposed about the investigation conducted by the police. Nothing material, which can help the accused, has come out in his cross examination by learned defence counsel, and his testimony has remained unshaken.
9. There is no enimity between the accused and PW2 Bhoop Singh. Hence, there is no possibility for false implication of accused by PW2. Even accused, in his statement recorded U/s 281 Cr. P.C. has not taken any such stand and simply stated that prosecution witnesses Contd........
FIR No 528/07 State Vs. Jagdish 5 are false and interested.
10. Testimony of PW2 is also corroborated by PW1, who is owner of shop, lock of which was broken by accused to the extent that on information regarding incident, he went to spot where accused was already apprehended.
11. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is convicted for offence U/s 379/511 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 (AJAY PANDEY) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI.
Contd........
FIR No 528/07 State Vs. Jagdish 6 IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY PANDEY, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI.
In Re:-
STATE Vs. Jagdish FIR No. 528/07 PS- Kashmere Gate Under Section 379/511 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE.
1. Learned APP prays for maximum sentence to convict. Convict, on the other hand, prays for leniency and states himself to be the only bread earner in his family and has to support his ailing parents.
2. Arguments considered.
3. Convict also pledges not to repeat the offence in future. Convict was apprehended at the spot and is in JC since last about 3 and a half month. Accordingly, convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 4 month. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C be given to convict. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 (AJAY PANDEY) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI.
Contd........