Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajeev Puri on 4 February, 2011
Page 1/7
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Rajeev Puri
FIR NO: 244/02
P. S. Sarojini Nagar
Date of institution of case : 02.07.2002
Date on which case reserved : 21.01.2011
for judgment
Date of judgment : 04.02.2011
Advocates appearing in the case :
Sh. Ashesh Changkum, Ld. APP for State
Sh. Anil Gujral counsel for accused Rajeev Puri
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C
.:
a) Date of offence : 18/19.06.2009
b) Offence complained of : U/S 379/411/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : HC Har Lal
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : Rajeev Puri
local & permanent residence S/o Late Sh. Manohar Lal Puri
R/o C84Z, DDA Flat
Jahangirpuri
Delhi.
e) Plea of accused : He is falsely implicated.
g) Final order : Accused is acquitted
FIR No. 244/02 St Vs. Rajeev Puri PS : Sarojini Nagar
Page 2/7
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. That complainant HC Har Lal Singh, Ct. Raj Pal and HC Gangotri Prasad were standing at Raj Nagar Chowk, Vinayak Mandir on night duty on the night of 19.06.2002 and were checking the vehicles when suddenly one scooter no. DL3SZ3752 came near them from BD Block, Sarojini Nagar and on giving signal to stop, the driver of the scooter left the scooter and ran away but the pillion rider who was a small boy of 11 years was caught at site. The boy was carrying two stepneys of a scooter. On interrogation, the boy told that the stepneys had been stolen by him from BD Block, Sarojini Nagar with help of the driver of scooter whose name was Rajeev Puri and who was the uncle of the boy. After a few minutes, one person namely Kajal Chakravorty R/o BD866, Sarojini Nagar came at the spot and identified the stepneys of his scooter and told that the stepneys had been stolen from his scooter no. DLAS23A0147 Bajaj Classic and he told that one tyre was of make Dunlop Maxi Life WV513 December 1995 and other tyre was of make Secura ANC 85 CEAT no. Z40645 November 2001. He stated that he was going to lodge the FIR at PS Sarojini Nagar but he had seen the police officials with the thief and the stepneys of his scooter and he has identified the stepneys to be of his own scooter. The time was about 3 PM in the night of 18/19.06.2002.
2. The prosecution story goes further that thereafter one of the Constables was sent to lodge FIR at the police station and the boy was arrested and after making site plan, seizure memo, pointing out memo etc. and after recording disclosure statement of the boy Ajay Arora, the accused Rajeev Puri was arrested from near Kamal Cinema at the instance of Ajay Arora, at about 7 FIR No. 244/02 St Vs. Rajeev Puri PS : Sarojini Nagar Page 3/7 AM in the morning of 19.06.2002. Necessary documents of arrest of accused Rajeev Puri were made by the IO. After investigation and recording statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C, the chargesheet was filed against accused Rajeev Puri. Accused Ajay Arora being juvenile was sent for inquiry to Juvenile Justice Board.
3. On the basis of prima facie evidence produced by prosecution, charge was framed against accused Rajeev Puri by Ld. Predecessor Court on 27.09.2004 u/s 379/411 IPC. Perusal of the charge dated 27.09.2004 reveals that inadvertently due to clerical error, both the charges have been mentioned as 379/34 IPC whereas perusal of contents of charge reveal that the Ld. Predecessor Court had framed the charge in alternative, against accused for receiving stolen property, which is punishable u/s 411 IPC, meaning thereby that accused was charged with offence of 379 IPC or in the alternative for receiving stolen property u/s 411 IPC, by the Ld. Predecessor Court. Hence, the charge dated 27.09.2004 stands corrected to the effect that in the second charge which has been framed in the alternative, the word 'Section 379 IPC' shall be read as 'Section 411 IPC'. Rest of the charge remain as it is. This court is of opinion that no prejudice is caused to the accused by this clerical correction since accused has been properly defended in this case and accused had been well informed about the charges against him.
4. The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined six witnesses on its behalf who were duly cross examined by Sh. Anil Gujral, the counsel for accused.
FIR No. 244/02 St Vs. Rajeev Puri PS : Sarojini Nagar Page 4/7
5. After closure of PE, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.01.2011 in which accused stated that he was falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence. Accused gave explanation that he was returning with Ajay Arora, the nephew of his wife, from Sarojini Nagar market to home after taking eye drops for his fatherinlaw, when police stopped him and asked for his driving licence, he requested that he will bring the driving licence from his house, so the police officials kept the child and vehicle at the spot but when he returned back, police had falsely made out case of theft against him and the child. Accused preferred not to lead defence evidence, hence final arguments were heard and case was fixed for order for today. BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF:
6. PW4 Kajal Chakrovorty has stated in his examinationinchief that he used to park his vehicle outside his house no. BD866, Sarojini Nagar and he was in habit of checking his vehicle once in the night but when on the night of 18/19.06.2003, he saw from his house, he was surprised to see that one stepney and one front wheel of his vehicle was missing. He went out from his home to lodge the FIR but at some distance near Vinayak Mandir, he came across PCR Van and police officials who had caught hold of a boy aged 9 to 10 years alongwith both the wheels which he identified to be the wheels of his scooter. He took the wheels on superdari thereafter. He exhibited the superdarinama Ex.PW4/A and correctly identified the stepney and front wheel in court.
FIR No. 244/02 St Vs. Rajeev Puri PS : Sarojini Nagar Page 5/7
7. The examination in chief of PW1 HC Gangotri Prasad, PW2 Ct. Raj Kumar and PW3 HC Har Lal is on the same lines. All the PWs have stated that they were on night duty from 12 to 5 AM in the night of 18/19.06.2002, when they stopped one scooter and the driver ran away but child Ajay Arora was caught with two stepneys of the scooter. Thereafter, Ajay Arora had taken them to Kamal Cinema and pointed out towards accused Rajeev Puri who was apprehended. Arrest memo and personal search memo of accused has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/Aa. Seizure memo of scooter DL3SZ3752 and two scooter stepneys had been exhibited as Ex.PW3/B.
8. PW1 HC Gangotri Prasasd has stated in his crossexamination that the driver of the scooter was wearing helmet but pillion rider was not wearing helmet. PW3 HC Har Lal who was also present with PW1 and PW2 at the spot when juvenile Ajay Arora was arrested, stated in his cross examination that the driver of the scooter was not wearing helmet. There is inconsistency between the statements of PW1 and PW3, though both were purportedly present at the site on the date of incident. PW1 denied the suggestion that accused Rajeev Puri was not the driver of the scooter on the date of incident.
9. PW2 HC Raj Kumar stated in his cross examination that at the time of arrest of accused Rajeev Puri at about 6.30 AM, near Kamal Cinema, no statements of public witnesses were recorded. He denied the suggestion that such tyres are easily available in market.
FIR No. 244/02 St Vs. Rajeev Puri PS : Sarojini Nagar Page 6/7
10. IO ASI Arvind Kumar was examined as PW6. He stated that he had reached the spot after receiving DD no. 6A about arrest of one person. He stated that the accused Rajeev Puri was arrested after the disclosure statement of juvenile Ajay Arora which has been exhibited as Ex.PW6/D. The pointing out memo of place of theft was prepared at the instance of juvenile Ajay Arora, which is Ex.PW6/E. The disclosure statement of accused Rajeev Puri is Ex. PW6/F.
11. During crossexamination, IO has admitted that nothing was recovered from accused Rajeev Puri after his disclosure statement and no new fact came to the knowledge of IO after disclosure statement of Rajeev Puri. He admitted that the place of theft was pointed out by juvenile Ajay Arora before arrest of accused Rajiv Puri.
12. On the basis of above said discussion of examination and cross examination of PWs, it is clear that the recovery of case property was made from juvenile Ajay Arora. PW1 has stated that the scooter driver had run away from site and he was wearing helmet. Hence, it seems that nobody had seen accused Rajeev Puri with juvenile Ajay Arora at the time of arrest of the juvenile with case property. The accused was arrested subsequently on the following day after disclosure statement of juvenile Ajay Arora and after pointing out by Ajay Arora. It is clear that there is no eye witness of the theft of the case property. Hence, accused is acquitted of the charge under section 379 IPC.
FIR No. 244/02 St Vs. Rajeev Puri PS : Sarojini Nagar Page 7/7
13. As far as charge under section 411 IPC is concerned, the alleged recovery of case property i.e. two stepneys of the scooter was made from juvenile Ajay Arora who had been sent to Juvenile Justice Board. No recovery was made from accused Rajeev Puri and he was merely arrested after the disclosure statement of juvenile Ajay Arora. Disclosure statement or confession made by accused or coaccused in police custody is not relevant evidence as per section 26 of Evidence Act. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the recovery of stolen property from accused Rajeev Puri. Since, recovery was neither made from accused Rajeev Puri nor at the instance of accused Rajeev Puri, hence, disclosure statement made by accused has no value in eyes of law. Hence, the accused also stands acquitted of the charge u/s 411 IPC. The bail bond and surety bond stands discharged. Endorsement and superdari stands cancelled. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH )
TODAY ON 04th FEBRAUARY, 2011 MM07(SOUTH) NEW DELHI
FIR No. 244/02 St Vs. Rajeev Puri PS : Sarojini Nagar
Page 8/7
FIR no. 244/02 PS: Sarojini Nagar
04.02.2011
Present: Ld. APP for State
Accused in person
Vide separate judgement, accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 379/411/34 IPC. The bail bond and surety bond stands discharged. Endorsement and superdari stands cancelled. File be consigned to Record Room.
( TYAGITA SINGH )
MM07(South)Saket
04.02.2011
FIR No. 244/02 St Vs. Rajeev Puri PS : Sarojini Nagar