Delhi District Court
State vs Krishan Gopal & Anr. on 15 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. HEM RAJ, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
WEST - 09, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE V/s KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR.
FIR No : 863/1998
U/S : 379/411/34 IPC
P.S : VIKAS PURI
1. Serial No. of the Case : 874/2
2. Unique ID No. of the Case : 02401R0138031999
3. Date of Commission of Offence : 19.12.1998
4. Date of institution of the case : 1999
5. Name of the complainant : Sh. Amit Kumar
6. Name of accused & address : 1.) Krishan Gopal @ Raju
S/o Sh. Madan Gopal
R/o ANB269, Mohan Garden
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
2.) Vinod Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahender Pal
R/o ANE16, Mohan Garden,
Sethi Enclave, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi (Since PO).
7. Offence complained : U/s 379/411/34 IPC.
8. Offence charged with : U/s 379/34 IPC
9. Plea of Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty
10.Final Order : Accused Krishan Gopal Acquitted
11.Date of Final Order : 15.05.2013
FIR No. 863/98 STATE V/s KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR. PAGE No. 1/8
J U D G M E N T
1 The prosecution had filed a charge sheet against the accused persons namely Krishan Gopal and Vinod Kumar on the allegations that on 19.12.1998 at about 07.30 PM at H. No. B50 in front of Shanker Garden, Vikas Puri, Delhi, they both in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of car stereo belonging to the complainant Amit Kumar by moving the same dishonestly out of his possession and without the consent of the complainant and they both were caught red handed at the spot. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet against accused persons for commission of offences U/s. 379/411/34 IPC was filed. Later on vide order dated 06.07.2012, accused Vinod Kumar declared an absconder. 2 The accused persons were summoned in the Court. The compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was made and the charge sheet along with documents were supplied to the accused persons. Vide order dated 07.03.2000 my Ld. Predecessor Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, the then Ld. MM framed a charge U/s. 379/34 IPC against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 863/98 STATE V/s KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR. PAGE No. 2/8 3 In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused persons, prosecution examined total five witnesses in all to prove allegations against accused persons.
4 PW1 Amit Kumar is the complainant who deposed that on 19.12.1998 he had parked his Maruti Car bearing no. DL 3XCL 2921 outside his house on the road and he found that the stereo of his car missing and driver side window mirror (window pan) was in broken condition. He deposed that he saw two boys running and he raised noise " chor chor and one Mistry/Mechanic who was coming from the side of temple apprehended those boys and no recovery effected from those boys in his presence. He further deposed that he came to know from the police that his stereo has been recovered and he got the same on released on superdari and police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He was cross examined at length by Ld. APP for the State. He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
5 PW2 HC Darshan was the DO of the case. He proved the FIR as Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW2/B. He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR No. 863/98 STATE V/s KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR. PAGE No. 3/8 6 PW3 Roshan Lal is a public witness who deposed that he did not remember the exact date, month and year, however 67 years ago when he was present at his puncture shop run by him. He deposed that in the night he heard the noise "pakdo pakdo" from the area of Shanker Garden and he went there and one boy son of Sindhi Sahib was present there. He further deposed that he did not remember the name, caught hold one boy and did not remember his figure and he came to know that stereo of his Maruti car was stolen.
He was cross examined at length by Ld. APP for the State. He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
7 PW4 Ct. Virender deposed that on 19.12.1998 at around 09.30 PM, he alongwith ASI Bhoop Singh went to B15, Shanker Garden and met with Amit, Raju and Vinod. He deposed that Amit told them something and one stereo was taken into possession by the IO and they came to PS with accused persons and got registered the case and IO arrested the accused persons.
He was cross examined at length by Ld. APP for the State. IN his cross examination he admitted that after receiving DD No. 23A, they went to Shanker Garden and complainant Amit Kumar met they and produced FIR No. 863/98 STATE V/s KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR. PAGE No. 4/8 Raju and Vinod with stolen stereo and IO took the same stereo in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
8 PW5 Tarun Dhingra inadvertently numbered as PW4 deposed that on 19.12.1998 on hearing the noise of "Chor Chor" at about 07.30 PM, he saw two persons were chasing two boys and he also joined them and overpowered those boys near Dhauli Piau and came to know that one of the person who was chasing is the owner of Maruti Car from this those accused persons have stolen the stereo which was recovered from the possession of accused persons alongwith the console. He deposed that police also came at the spot to whom accused persons were handed over and IO recorded the statement of complainant/owner of the stereo.
He was not cross examined by accused persons.
9 PW6 SI Bhoop Singh inadvertently numbered as PW5 deposed on the lines of PW4 Ct. Virender. He prepared rukka Ex. PW5/A, personal search of accused Vinod Kumar Ex. PW5/B, arrest notices and inspection memos of both the accused persons Ex. PW5/C, Ex. PW5/D, Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Amit FIR No. 863/98 STATE V/s KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR. PAGE No. 5/8 Kumar Ex. PW5/G. He recorded the disclosure statement of both the accused persons Ex. PW5/H and Ex. PW5/I. He was not cross examined by accused Krishan Gopal. 10 In the statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. accused Krishan Gopal denied the offences alleged against him that he committed the theft of stereo from the car of complainant. He claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated in this case by police. He did not lead any defence evidence despite opportunities given to him.
11 Ld. APP for State has argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the case. He has drawn attention of the Court to the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution.
12 On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel argued on behalf of the accused Krishan Gopal that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 13 I have heard rival submissions as well as perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record.
FIR No. 863/98 STATE V/s KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR. PAGE No. 6/8 14 The accused in the present case has been charged with for commission of offences under Section 379/34 IPC. To prove the case against the accused under section 379 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove the following facts:
A. That the property in question was a movable property; B. That such property was in possession of a person; C That the accused moved such property whilst in the possession of that person;
D. That the accused did so without the consent of such person;
E. That the accused did so in order to take the same out of the possession of that person;
F. That the accused did so with intent to cause wrongful loss to that person or wrongful gain to himself
15 To prove the charges against the accused under sections 379/34 the prosecution must have proved on the record that someone has seen the accused committing the theft of the stolen article. PW1 Amit Kumar who was the complainant and PW3 Roshan Lal who was the eye witness had not supported the case of prosecution. They have not identified the accused. Despite lengthy cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, they did not support the case of prosecution. PW4 Tarun Dhingra supported the case of prosecution that on 19.12.1998 at about 07.30 PM, accused persons were being chased by two persons and he also joined them and apprehended the accused from whom the stereo was recovered. However, he could not tell the name of complainant or the accused persons. Moreover in this case, the FIR No. 863/98 STATE V/s KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR. PAGE No. 7/8 case property i.e. stereo console was never produced in the court. It was submitted that the said stereo console was stolen again, however the photographs also not proved on record. In view of the fact that PW1 and 2 have not identified the accused person and that the case property has not been produced on record and was not produced for a single time, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
16 Therefore, in view of the discussions made herein above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Krishan Gopal is hereby acquitted for the offences, he has been charged with. His previous bail bonds stands extended for six months for the purpose of Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room with the direction to prosecution to revive the same as and when accused Vinod Kumar is arrested or produced before the court.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (HEM RAJ)
TODAY i.e. ON 15 MAY 2013 MM:09:WEST:THC:15.05.2013
th
FIR No. 863/98 STATE V/s KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR. PAGE No. 8/8