Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj & Ors on 28 March, 2014
State Vs. Manoj & ors
FIR No. 89/12
PS Palam Village
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ SHARMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars:
FIR No. 89/12
PS Palam Village
U/S :380/411/34 IPC
State V/s Manoj & another
C/No. 187/2
U.ID No. 02405r0093272012
Date of Institution: 08.05.2012
Name of the Complainant Smt. Bimla Devi,
w/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh
r/o WZ420/80B, Maidayal
Building, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
Name and address of accused (1) Parmod Kumar
s/o Sh. Ramchander
r/o WZ420/C3, Gali No.8,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
(2) Maoj, s/o Sh. Mahavir
r/o WZ420/10A, Maidayal
Building, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
Charge framed against accused
Parmod Kumar U/S 380/411/34 IPC
Charge framed against accused Manoj u/s 380/34 IPC
Plea of accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date of reserve for orders 28.03.2014
Date for announcing the orders 28.03.2014
C/No187/2 Page No. 1
U.ID No. 02405R0093272012
State Vs. Manoj & ors
FIR No. 89/12
PS Palam Village
The brief facts and pre trial procedure
1.Charge U/S 380/411/34 IPC was framed against the accused Parmod Kumar that on 14.04.2012 at about 11.00PM at house no. WZ420/80B, Mai Dayal Building, near Palam Railway Station, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village, accused Parmod Kumar alongwith his friend Manoj s/o Mahavir in furtherance of their common intention, committed theft on above said address and the stolen property was recovered from the possession of accused Parmod Kumar which was belonging to complainant Smt. Bimla Devi s/o Sukhvir Singh which he has knowledge the above said property are stolen property and thus thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 380/411/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. Further charge u/s 380/34 IPC was framed against accused Manoj that on 14.04.2012 at about 11.00AM at house No. WZ420/80 B, Mai Dayal Building, near Palam Railway Station, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village, accused Manoj with his friend Parmod Kumar s/o Ram Chander in furtherance of his common intention committed theft on above said address and thus thereby committed offence punishable u/s 380/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
3. To prove the charges, prosecution cited 07 witnesses in the list C/No187/2 Page No. 2 U.ID No. 02405R0093272012 State Vs. Manoj & ors FIR No. 89/12 PS Palam Village of witnesses and examined six witnesses out of them. PE stood closed on 20.03.2014. Thereafter, statement of accused persons U/S 313 CrPC was recorded in which accused persons pleaded their innocence. No defence evidence was led by both the accused persons.
4. PW 1 Smt. Bimla Devi deposed that she is a house wife and on 14.04.2012 she was in her house at first floor while she was resting, she heard a noise from her second floor. After hearing the noise she went on second floor and found the lock of her room was broken and the lights were switched on. Meantime she found two persons were present in her house and one person was holding her computer and another was holding the speaker. She immediately apprehended one of the accused namely Parmod and other accused namely Manoj who get succeeded to flee from the spot, residing in her neighbourhood. The accused Parmod who was apprehended by her along with computer, after her raising shouts the neighbours gathered there. Thereafter she made a call to her husband who was on duty at that time. Her husband called at 100 number and police reached the spot thereafter. She handed over the accused Parmod along with computer to the police. Police recorded her statement at her home which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. Accused was arrested by the police vide arrest memo. Arrest memo of accused Parmod Kumar is exhibited as Ex. PW1/B bearing her signature at point A. Arrest memo of accused Manoj is exhibited as Ex. PW1/C bearing her signature at point A. Personal search of the accused persons were conducted by the police. Personal search of accused Parmod Kumar is C/No187/2 Page No. 3 U.ID No. 02405R0093272012 State Vs. Manoj & ors FIR No. 89/12 PS Palam Village exhibited as Ex. PW1/D bearing her signature at point A. Personal search of accused Manoj is exhibited as Ex. PW1/E bearing her signature at point A. She further deposed that her computer was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F bearing her signature at point A. Her two computer speakers and woofer were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/G bearing her signature at point A. She correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court. She further identified the case property which is Ex. P1 (colly).
5. PW 2: Sukhbir Singh deposed that he is a constable in Delhi Police at PS Desh Bandhu Gupta Road. On 14.04.2012 he was on election duty. On that day at about 11.00 PM his wife namely Bimla Devi called him and informed that a theft occurred at her house. Thereafter he called at 100 number. After calling at 100 number, at about 11.45 PM he reached at his house and found that the local police were present at his house. IO SI K.C. Meena inquired regarding ownership of the computer which was seized by the IO as the case property of the present case. The documents regarding ownership of the computer were missing that is why he did not provide the documents regarding the ownership of the computer to the IO. He handed over affidavit regarding the same to the IO. IO prepared the document regarding the same which is Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. Accused Parmod was arrested by the IO in his presence present in the court. He received information from his wife regarding another accused namely Manoj accompanied with accused Parmod, he is residing in his neighbourhood. Accused Manoj was arrested by the C/No187/2 Page No. 4 U.ID No. 02405R0093272012 State Vs. Manoj & ors FIR No. 89/12 PS Palam Village IO. He further correctly identified both the accused persons and also correctly identified case property which is Ex.P1 (colly).
6. PW3 Ct. Subodh Kumar deposed that on 14.04.2012 he was posted at PS Palam Village. On that day at about 11.30 PM he received DD no. 61 B regarding one thief was apprehended by the complainant. He along with SI Kailash Chand Meena went to the spot. Complainant Bimla Devi met them at the spot. Complainant Bimla Devi handed over the case property to the IO and her statement was recorded by the IO SI K.C. Meena. The accused was handed by the complainant, his name revealed as Parmod. Thereafter IO prepared a tehrir and same was handed over to him for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he returned back to the spot and original rukka and copy of FIR was handed over to IO. Accused Parmod Kumar was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. Personal search of the accused Parmod was conducted by the IO vide Ex. PW1/ D bears his signature at point B. Case property i.e Computer and two computer speakers and buffer system recovered from the possession of the accused was seized by the IO vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G both bears his signature at point B respectively. Disclosure statement of accused Parmod was recorded by the IO vide Ex. PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. He correctly identified both the accused persons and the case property.
7. PW4 Ct. Raghubir Singh deposed that on 20.04.2012 he was posted at PS Palam Village. On that day he joined the investigation along with SI K.C. Meena and went to the house of the complainant.
C/No187/2 Page No. 5U.ID No. 02405R0093272012 State Vs. Manoj & ors FIR No. 89/12 PS Palam Village Thereafter they along with complainant went to the house of accused Manoj Kumar where on instance of complainant accused Manoj Kumar was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/C bears his signature at point B. Personal search of the accused was conducted which is already Ex. PW1/E bearing his signature at point B. IO interrogated the accused Manoj Kumar and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point A. Pointing out memo was prepared by the IO which is Ex. PW4/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter he along with SI K.C. Meena and the accused Manoj returned to PS. Accused Manoj was sent to lock up after his medical examination.
8. PW5 SI Shanti Prakash deposed that on 14.04.2012 he was posted as DO at PS Palam Village with duty hours since 08.00 PM to 08.00 AM. On the said day he received a call regarding apprehension of accused at WZ 420/80, BMD Building Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony. On this information he registered DD No. 61 B dt. 14.04.2012 PS Palam Village which is Ex. PW5/A (OSR). On 15.04.2012 at about 01.50 AM he received a rukka sent by SI K.C. Meena through Ct. Subodh and on the basis of said rukka he recorded the FIR no.89/12, U/s 380/411/34 IPC and copy of the same is Ex.PW5/B bearing his signatures at point A (OSR). He also made his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW5/C bearing his signature at point A and the copy of FIR and original rukka were given to Ct. Subodh for further transmission.
9. PW: 6 SI K.C. Meena deposed that on 14.04.2012 he was posted at PS Palam Village as SI. On that day, during the night emergency duty C/No187/2 Page No. 6 U.ID No. 02405R0093272012 State Vs. Manoj & ors FIR No. 89/12 PS Palam Village he received DD No. 61B already Ex.PW5/A regarding the apprehension of thieves at house No. WZ420/80, Maidayal Building near Railway Station Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi. He alongwith Ct. Subodh reached at the spot, where complainant Smt. Bimla Devi met them and produced one accused Pramod Kumar alongwith one computer and two speakers and woofer system. He recorded her statement already Ex.PW1/A and wrapped the computer alongwith speaker and woofer system in a cloth and sealed the same with the seal of KC. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/F & Ex.PW1/G by me. (Vol. He had prepared two separate pulandas, one of computer and other of speaker and woofer system). He prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/A and sent Ct. Subodh to the PS for registration of the case. After the registration of the case, Ct. Subodh returned back to the spot and handed over to him the original tehrir and computerised copy of FIR. Accused Pramod was arrested by him vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/B and personally searched vide memo already Ex.PW1/D. He interrogated the accused Pramod and recorded his disclosure statement already Ex.PW3/A in which he had disclosed that he alongwith his associate Manoj were committing the theft in the house and Manoj had fled away from there. He prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Smt. Bimla Ex.PW6/B. Accused Pramod was produced in the Court and was sent to JC. Case property was deposited in malkhana. He futher deposed that on 20.04.2012, accused Manoj was arrested at the instance of the complainant Smt. Bimla vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/C and he C/No187/2 Page No. 7 U.ID No. 02405R0093272012 State Vs. Manoj & ors FIR No. 89/12 PS Palam Village was personally searched vide memo already Ex.PW1/E. He had recorded disclosure statement of accused Manoj already Ex.PW4/A. Accused Manoj had pointed out the place of theft vide pointing out memo already Ex.PW4/B. The accused was produced in the Court and was sent to the JC on next day. He further deposed that on 22.04.2012, Sukhbir Singh husband of the complainant had produced one affidavit regarding the ownership of computer which was seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/A. The affidavit is Ex.X1. He recorded the statements of witnesses during investigation. After the completion of the investigation he prepared the challan and filed the same in the Court through SHO. He deposed that he can identify the case property if shown to him. He correctly identified case property i.e. already Ex.P1. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court.
Statement of accused and defence
10. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of both the accused persons U/S 313 CrPC was recorded. When all the incriminating evidence has been put to the accused persons to afford them an opportunity to explain the circumstances so put to them, they have not offered a shred of evidence to prove their innocence except by saying that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. Further accused did not lead any defence evidence in support of their claim of innocence.
C/No187/2 Page No. 8U.ID No. 02405R0093272012 State Vs. Manoj & ors FIR No. 89/12 PS Palam Village Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions
11. Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons argued that both the accused persons are innocent and both of them have been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case. Ld. Counsel has submitted that husband of the complainant is in Delhi Police and because of her personal grudge he got both the accused persons implicated in this case. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that there are several investigative lapses committed by the IO which are neither broken lock and nor broken kundi is seized by the IO, nor photographs of the spot were taken by the IO and further, no public witnesses have been made witnesses to corroborate the prosecution story.
12. Arguments heard. Record perused carefully.
13. In view of statement of complainant Smt. Bimla Devi which is of prime significance, she on 14.04.2012 after hearing noise in the night went to the second floor and saw lock and kundi of her room broken but the lights were on and found two persons one of them holding the computer and another was holding the speakers of the computer whom she identified as Parmod and the other one whose name later on revealed fled from the spot . According to her both were her neighbourers. She correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court. She managed to got hold of one of the accused Parmod with the stolen property red handed on the spot and handed over him to the C/No187/2 Page No. 9 U.ID No. 02405R0093272012 State Vs. Manoj & ors FIR No. 89/12 PS Palam Village police and later on after interrogation Parmod revealed the name of Manoj as his co accused and he was also arrested. The accused persons were seen taking the case property by the complainant, she remained firm on her testimony during her examination. In her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that there was personal grudge between her and the accused persons. In her cross examination nothing favourable to the accused persons could be brought forth.
14. Regarding the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, that no independent corroboration of the proceedings of the prosecution case is on record, it is observed that in the night at about 11.00pm, the complainant after hearing the noise went to the second floor and apprehended one of the accused persons red handed, it is very difficult to find a independent person as she apprehended the accused at her home only where no other person could have any of chance to see things.
15. Further with respect to previous enimity to be shown by Ld. Counsel for accused persons has a reason to implicate the accused persons about the complainant and her husband, the same argument is without any rational base and suggestion of which was clearly denied by the complainant and her husband during their examination before the Court.
16. With respect to the investigative lapses, Ld. Counsel for the C/No187/2 Page No. 10 U.ID No. 02405R0093272012 State Vs. Manoj & ors FIR No. 89/12 PS Palam Village defence, it is not on record that kundi and lock which were allegedly broken by the accused persons while entering the room were lying found or was intact with the door and even if they were not collected or they were not seized or photographs of the spot were not taken if the evidence is available that the accused persons shown their complicity in the crime, the investigative lapses would be of no use to the accused persons.
Conclusion
17.Having all the facts observed minutely, this Court is of the considered opinion view that accused Parmod Kumar was caught red handed by the complainant in her home and another accused whom complainant had an opportunity to see and later on identified him in the Court shows that both the accused persons were on the night present in her house and committed the offence of theft in the dwelling house. The fact that accused Parmod Kumar was caught red handed while carrying the case property and where the locks of the doors being broken and the subsequently other co accused Manoj who fled from the spot showing the complainant, lacks the case of prosecution and accordingly, both the accused persons are convicted for the offence u/s 380/34 IPC. Copy of the order be given to the convicts free of cost.
Order on sentence will be pronounced after hearing the convicts.
Announced in the Open Court (PANKAJ SHARMA)
today on 28th day of March, 2014 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi
C/No187/2 Page No. 11
U.ID No. 02405R0093272012