Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil on 8 May, 2007
FIR NO. 140/2003P.S. Geeta Colony 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN
ADDITIIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
State Vs. SUNIL
FIR NO. 140/2003
U/s 380 IPC
P.S. Geeta Colony
JUDGMENT
(i) Sl. No. of the case :
(ii) Date of commission of the offence : 27.06.2003
(iii)Name of the complainant : Smt Shanti Devi
(iv)Name of the accused & : Sunil
her parentage & Address S/O Amarjeet
R/o H.no. D 17,
Mansarovar Park,
Delhi.
(v) Offence complained of or proved : 380 IPC
(vi) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(vii)Final Order : Convicted
(viii) Date of such order : 08.05.2007
A brief statement of the reasons of the decision.
1. In brief prosecution case is that on 27.6.03 at about 12 noon Smt Shanti was sleeping in her house at 661/3 Jheel Khuranja since she was not well. The door of her house was open. At about 12.40 pm accused Sunil entered her house and removed her purse which contained Rs. 170/- and a prescription FIR NO. 140/2003P.S. Geeta Colony 2 of a doctor and started walking. On hearing noise, she woke up and apprehended the accused. In the meantime her husband also came. They called the police, handed over the accused with purse. On her statement the case was registered U/s 379/411 IPC. Accused was arrested, her purse was seized and after investigation he was sent for trial.
2. On his appearance after supplying copies of charge sheet and hearing arguments prima facie case was made out against accused of offence punishable U/s 380 IPC. Accordingly charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
3. To prove it case against accused prosecution examined as many as three witnesses Smt Shanti Devi as Pw1, Sh. Itwari Lal as Pw2 and Ct Robin Singh as Pw3.
4. Pw1 Smt Shanti Devi proved her complaint Ex. Pw1/A and stated that when she was sleeping in her house, accused entered and removed her purse. She stated that she apprehended the accused and called the police. She correctly identified her purse and the articles Ex. P1.
5. Pw2 Sh. Itwari Lal is the husband of the complainant.
He stated that on 27.6.03 on hearing noise chor-chor he reached at his house and found that the accused had already been apprehended by the public. He stated that the boy tried to run away from the custody of those public persons but he apprehended him and handed over to the police alongwith the purse. He proved the seizure memo Ex. Pw1/B and the arrest FIR NO. 140/2003P.S. Geeta Colony 3 memo of the accused Ex. Pw1/C. He also identified the case property Ex. P1.
6. Both these witnesses were subjected at the anvil of cross examination but nothing in favour of the accused came from their mouth.
7. Pw3 Ct. Robin Singh reached at the spot with IO ASI Vikram Singh on receipt of DD no. 18A. He stated that complainant and her husband produced the accused with the purse Ex. P1. He further stated that he took the rukka and got the case registered and in his presence the case property was seized and accused was arrested.
8. Accused was examined U/s 313 CrPC. He stated that he was falsely implicated in this case and he did not commit any offence. He stated that he was standing outside the house of the Smt Shanti Devi and was preparing receipt for orphan children. He did not examine any witness in his defence.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld APP for the State and ld counsel Sh. Muninder Singh for accused and have gone through the evidence on record.
10. From the testimony of Pw1 I find that the accused had entered the house of Pw1 when she was sleeping. The door of the house was open, she stated that accused lifted her purse which contained cash and prescription of doctor and started walking but she apprehended him. She stated that her purse was FIR NO. 140/2003P.S. Geeta Colony 4 recovered from the possession of the accused and in the meantime her husband came. Pw2 duly corroborated the testimony of Pw1 on all material points and correctly identified the case property.
11. From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses I find that accused with dishonest intention had entered the house of Pw1 and removed her purse containing cash and prescription with an intention to have wrongful gain. Though accused in his statement stated that he was standing outside the house of Pw1 and was preparing receipt for orphan children, neither any material in this regard is produced by the accused nor any witness was examined. No allegations of enmity were imputed by the accused against Pw1 and Pw2 that they were interested in his false implication.
12. Considering all these facts, in the light of above discussions I am of the view that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore hold the accused guilty and convict him of the offence punishable U/s 380 IPC.
Announced in open court on this 8th day of May ,2007 (SANJIV JAIN) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi.
FIR NO. 140/2003P.S. Geeta Colony 5IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN ADDITIIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KARKARDOOMA COURTS State Vs. SUNIL FIR NO. 140/2003 U/s 380 IPC P.S. Geeta Colony ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide separate judgment accused Sunil has been convicted of offence punishable under Sections 380 IPC.
I have heard the accused on point of sentence. He is young boy aged about twenty years with no record of previous involvement. He has been facing criminal protracted trial since 2003 and earns his livelihood by selling clothes on rehri. Accused states that he has left all bad habits and will reform and rehabilitate himself. Purpose of punishment is to reform and rehabilitate the offender.
Considering his age, antecedents, facts and circumstances of the case, accused is released on probation on furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in like amount for a period of one year. He is also sentenced to pay compensation of Rs. 1500/- in default of payment of compensation amount to go simple imprisonment for one month. He is directed to maintain peace and be of good behaviour and to receive sentence as and when called for. Since the accused has not claimed the case property the same be returned to its rightful owner after expiry of period of appeal or revision. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on this 14th day of May ,2007 (SANJIV JAIN) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi.