Delhi District Court
State vs . Laxman on 24 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS KIRAN BANSAL
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE I: EAST DISTT.
KARKARADOOMA COURTS :NEW DELHI
State Vs. Laxman
FIR No: 119/10
PS: Ananad Vihar
U/s: 379/411 IPC
JUDGMENT
a) Sr number of the case : 67/10
b) Date of commission of offence : 16.03.2010
c) Name of complainant , if any : Sh. Sanjay Pandey,
S/o Sh. Kapileshwar Pandey,
R/o D216, NSA Colony,
Delhi.
d) Name & address of accused : Laxman
S/o Sh. Ramesh Sahni,
R/o Gali no. 9, Vishawas Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi &
also at Village Sugana, PS Raj
Nagar, District Madhubani, Bihar.
e) The offence complained of : U/s 379/411 IPC.
f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final order : Convicted
h) The date of such order : 24.05.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The prosecution case is that on 16.03.2010, accused was found in possession of one stolen battery make NELCO bearing serial no. A108P & L098P near MCD office, NSA Colony, Shahdara, Delhi which was stolen from the Tempo bearing no DL1LF8930 while parked in front of complainant, namely, Sanjay Pandey's house at near MCD Office, NSA Colony, Shahdara, Delhi and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 379/411 IPC and within my cognizance.
2. On the complaint of complainant, the FIR was registered for the offence U/s 379/ 411 IPC against the accused. After completion of the investigation challan was prepared and filed in the Court.
3. Subsequent to the filing of the challan, cognizance was taken against the accused Laxman and copies were supplied to him. After perusal of the challan U/s 173 Cr. P. C, the charge for the offence U/s 379/411 IPC was framed against the accused on 24.05.2011, to which the accused Laxman pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, hence the matter was thereafter listed for PE.
4. PW1 is Sh. Sanjay Panday who deposed that on 15.03.2010 at about 05.00 p.m he parked his Vikram Tempo bearing registration no. DL1LF8930 in front of his house and on that day at about 12.15 a.m when he came out from his house, a boy was sitting in his tempo. He further deposed that, thereafter, he raised the alram Chor Chor and called his neighbour Yogesh Chand Sharma and after that he alongwith his neigbour Yogesh Sharma apprehended the accused after chasing 10 steps when accused was trying to run away. He further deposed that, thereafter, he took back the accused to the tempo and found that battery of tempo was taken out from the tempo and one of the battery was lying on the seat of the tempo and the other was on the ground. He further deposed that he called the Police and Police took him, his neighbour and accused to the PS. He has proved his statement Ex PW 1/A, arrest memo Ex PW 1/B, personal search memo Ex PW 1/C. The case property is Ex P1.
5. The testimony of PW2 was not concluded & hence, cannot be read for the disposal of the case.
6. PW3 is Ct. Nagender who deposed that on 16.03.2010 after receiving DD no. 3A, he alongwith IO/SI K.K. Sharma reached at D216, New Sanjay Amar Colony where he met one Sanjay Pandey who complained regarding the theft of his three wheeler Battery. He further deposed that thereafter complainant had handed over the accused and the recovered batteries to him. He has proved the seizure memo of the batteries and disclosure statement of accused which is Ex PW 3/A.
7. PW4 is ASI Krishan Pal who deposed that on 16.03.2010, he was posted as duty officer at PS Anand Vihar from 12.00 night to 08.00 a. m. He has proved the FIR no. 119/10 as Ex PW 4/A and endorsement on the rukka vide Ex PW 4/B.
8. PW5 is SI K.K. Sharma who deposed that on 15/16.03.2010 he was on night emergency duty at PS Anand Vihar and on that day after receiving a PCR call vide DD no. 3A regarding the apprehension of a thief at the back side of MCD office, Karkardooma, he alongwith Ct. Nagender reached at the spot where complainant Sanjay Pandey was present alongwith Yogesh Sharma. He further deposed that, thereafter, complainant Sanjay Pandey handed over the accused and the two recovered batteries from him. He has proved the rukka Ex PW 5/A, site plan Ex PW 5/B.
9. Thereafter, after the completion of the Prosecution Evidence. PE was closed and Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded without oath and after putting all the incriminating evidence upon him to which he pleaded innocent and stated that nothing had been recovered from his possession and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused did not lead any defence evidence, the matter is thus listed for the purpose of the final arguments and the arguments heard and entire record have been perused.
10. I have heard the submission of Ld. APP for the State and the accused himself. I have also carefully perused the record.
11. The court has carefully examined the entire material available on record including the testimony of the PWs recorded before the Court. In the present case, the testimony of PW1 is categorical and consistent and without any contradiction. He has clearly stated that he had apprehended the accused red handed and when he had apprehended the accused, one of the batteries of the tempo was kept on the seat of the tempo and other was kept on the ground. Though the accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated but no reason has come forward, as to why, any independent witness would falsely implicate him. The seizure memo of batteries Ex.PW2/A which was proved by Ct. Narender whose signature at point B shows that those batteries were of Nalko made. PW1 in his cross examination also stated that the batteries were purchased from Nalko Batteries.
12. In view of the testimonies of PW1, PW3 & PW5, the accused Laxman is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/s 379 IPC.
Announced in the open court.
Today i.e on 24.05.2012 (KIRAN BANSAL) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI EAST/KARKARDOOMA CORTS DELHI.
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL ADDITIONAL CHIEF OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI EAST KARKARDOOMA COURT DELHI State Vs. Laxman FIR No. 119/10 PS: Anand Vihar U/s: 379/411 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE 24.05.2012 Pr: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Laxman produced from JC.
Sh. Jagdeep Kumar Sharma, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the convict. Arguments heard on the point of sentence.
Arguments heard by Ld. APP for state on the point of sentence as well as also the submissions on behalf of convict. Ld. APP for the State submits that the allegations against the convict has been duly proved by the prosecution and looking into the nature of allegations and the offence, it is prayed that the convict be admitted to maximum sentence.
Heard, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the convict person on the point of sentence. It is stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not been involved in any other criminal activity earlier and have no criminal background. Ld. counsel for convict prayed for taking lenient view against the convict.
The court has also given due regard to the fact that the convict is unmarried person of age about 21 years and only earning member doing work of screen printing in his family having old father & mother and one younger brother. He is an illiterate person and having no previous conviction. Giving due regard to the facts and circumstances observed by this court, accordingly, the convict Laxman S/o Ramesh Sahni is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of RI for 1 year & 3 months and fine of Rs. 200/ ID of fine SI for 4 days. Ordered accordingly. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C P. C. be granted to the convict. Fine not paid.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convict free of cost. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 24.05.2012.
(KIRAN BANSAL) ACMM-I/EAST/KKD