Delhi District Court
State vs Kirpal Singh on 31 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE06, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs Kirpal Singh
FIR No : 104/00
U/s : 379/411 IPC
PS : Parliament Street
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 61/02
b) Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0009992000
c) The date of commission of the
offence : 23.04.2000
d) Name of the complainant : Sh. Jaswinder Singh
e) Name, parentage & address
of accused : Kirpal Singh S/o Sardar Hazara Singh
R/o 122, Golden Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab.
f) Offences complained of : 379/411 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : Acquitted
i) Date of institution of case : 04.09.2000
j) Date of final arguments : 29.01.2014
k) Date of Judgment : 31.01.2014
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case chargesheet was filed by the State under Sections 379/411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as 'IPC') against the accused Kirpal Singh. The case of prosecution against the accused Kirpal Singh is that on 23.04.2000 at 06:20 AM, near Cabin Pingalwada Golak, Gurudwara, Bangla Sahib, New Delhi, accused committed theft of CC No. 61/02 FIR No. 104/00 Page no. 1 of 10 Rs.14,195.75 paisa from Golak of Gurudwara and the said currency belonging to the Gurudwara was recovered from the possession of accused Kirpal Singh which accused retained dishonestly knowing or having reasons to believe that such property was stolen property and he thereby committed offences punishable under sections 379/411 IPC.
2. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, Ld. Predecessor Court took cognizance of the offences under sections 379/411 IPC against the accused. Upon appearance of the accused, the documents were supplied to him in compliance of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Cr.P.C.'). Charge under section 379/411 IPC was consequently framed against accused Kirpal Singh by Ld. Predecessor Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 24.05.2006. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. PW1 is complainant Jaswinder Singh who deposed that he was working as Sewadar in All India Pingalwara Charitable Society, Registered, Amritsar (Punjab) for mare than 20/22 years. In April 2000, he was on duty in Gurdwara Bangla Sahib, Stall Pingalwara. On the said day when he came to attend his duties, he saw that accused Kirpal Singh had been apprehended by the persons (Sangat). It was about 06:00 AM and he was told by Sangat that accused was found committing theft from the Golak of the Gurudwara while opening the Golak with the help of keys. Thereafter, he informed police at 100 number. Police came and took the accused to Police Station, CC No. 61/02 FIR No. 104/00 Page no. 2 of 10 Parliament Street. His statement Ex. PW1/A as stated above was recorded by the police. He further deposed that he had not signed any other documents. The notes in question were counted in his presence in the office of Manager, Gurudwara Bangla Sahib in presence of Major Singh and was found to be about Rs.22,000/. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact number or denomination of the currency notes. He could not identify the said notes due to time lapse. During cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, PW1 stated that he never saw accused committing alleged theft of money. Further, during cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW1 stated that accused left the services of Pingalwara Society on 01.01.2000 and Sardar Gyan Singh used to keep the keys of Golak with him and used to open the same in presence of Sardar Major Singh and him.
4. PW3 is HC Rambir Singh, who deposed that on 23.04.2000, he was posted at Police Station, Parliament Street and on receipt of a call, he alongwith Ct. Raj Singh reached at Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, Parliament Street where one Jaswinder Singh met them. SI Yog Raj also reached there. Jaswinder gave a statement to the IO and produced one person Kirpal Singh who was apprehended while stealing money from the Gulak (after opening its lock) of the above said Gurudwara. PW3 thereafter, took the rukka to Police Station and came back with a copy of FIR. The IO seized the currency vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A1 and lock and keys vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A2. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/A3. The case property i.e. one lock (Heman make) with keys Ex. P1 and P2, coins of CC No. 61/02 FIR No. 104/00 Page no. 3 of 10 Rs.1, 2, 5 etc. Ex. P3 (colly) and currency notes of Rs.10, 20, 50, 100 & 500 Ex. P4 (colly) were correctly identified by the witness.
5. PW4 is Major Singh, who deposed that on 23.04.2000, he was working as Sewadar in All India Pingalwara Charitable Society (Registered), Amritsar, Punjab and was working with the said society since February 1999. On 23.04.2000, he was on duty at Stall Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, Pingalwara. Jaswinder Singh the other Sewadar also came alongwith him to Gurdwara Bangla Sahib on the said day at about 06:00 AM. After paying homage in the gurudwara they were returning to their cabin when they saw the gathering of many public persons (sangat) near their cabin of Pingalwara and they both reached and saw the accused Kirpal Singh and accused was holding the money allegedly stolen from the Golak in a cloth. The Golak was also found open and the lock was open. Accused was beaten up by the persons/ sangat. Police was called and accused was handed over to the police alongwith stolen notes, coins etc. and keys and lock. PW4 had signed on the seizure memo of notes, seizure memo of lock and keys Ex. PW1/A1 and PW1/A2, respectively. Entire case property was correctly identified by the witness. PW4 was crossexamined in detail by Ld. Counsel for accused and was discharged thereafter.
6. PW5 is Retd. SI Prakash Chand, who was duty officer on 23.04.2000. His duty hours were from 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM. He proved the registration of FIR Ex. PW5/A and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW5/B. CC No. 61/02 FIR No. 104/00 Page no. 4 of 10
7. PW6 is HC Raj Singh, who deposed that on 23.04.2000, he was posted at Police Station, Parliament Street and he remained involved in the investigation in this case. He deposed that IO sent him to the hospital for examination of the accused. He handed over the MLC of accused to the IO.
8. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed by Ld. Predecessor Court on 12.08.2011. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was consequently recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused which was denied by him. The accused took a defence that he had been falsely implicated by PW1 and PW4 in the present case as they had personal grudges against him. He stated that on the given date and time of alleged incident, his medical condition was such that he could not even walk properly, let alone running. Thereafter, the matter proceeded for defence evidence.
9. The accused examined himself as DW1 and Sardar Joga Singh as DW2. DW1 deposed that on 23.04.2000, at about 06:30 to 07:00 AM, he alongwith Sardar Joga Singh went to Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, New Delhi for the purpose of advertising his newly made society, "Bhagat Puran Sewa Sadan" registered with the Registrar of Society, Punjab. DW1 stated that he was earlier working with All India Pingalwara Charitable Society up to 31.12.1999 and resigned from the said society w.e.f. 01.01.2000. At the time of his resignation the said society gave no dues certificate and experience certificate to him which are Ex. PW4/D1 and Ex. PW4/D2, respectively. DW1 further stated that on 23.04.2000, he was not medically fit and could CC No. 61/02 FIR No. 104/00 Page no. 5 of 10 not walk properly. His medical prescription slip running into 3 sheets was exhibited as Ex. DW1/A. DW1 further stated that Sardar Jaswinder and Sardar Major Singh who were the employees of the aforesaid Pingalwara society met him out side the Banglasaheb Gurudwara and stopped him to make the publicity of his newly constituted society and during that process they also gave beatings to him. DW1/accused stated that he had not committed any theft or offence on the given day and the police had registered a false case against him on the behest of the officials of Pingalwara Society. He further deposed that nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession and the recovery in this case had been planted. He further deposed that at the time of his jamatalashi, police recovered a sum of Rs.8000/. His medical was got done by the police on his request on the said date. He further deposed that both Sardar Jaswinder and Major Singh had worked with him prior to the alleged date of incident and they knew him very well. He further stated that Jaswinder Singh had already undergone five years in Jail and Major Singh had embezzled an amount of Rs.3,27,000/ of the society. DW1 further stated that the main object of the aforesaid officials of society of Pingalwara was that he should not able to run the parallel society under the name and style of Bhagat Puran Singh Sewa Sadan. DW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the Stated and discharged.
10. DW2 is Sardar Joga Singh who deposed on the lines of DW1/accused Kirpal Singh. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and discharged. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and the matter was CC No. 61/02 FIR No. 104/00 Page no. 6 of 10 fixed for final arguments.
11. Final arguments were heard on behalf of State as well accused in detail. It was argued on behalf of State that all the witnesses have deposed in sync with each other and the recovery of case property from the accused is duly proved. Per contra it was argued on behalf of accused that the case property had been planted upon the accused and that seizure of the recovered case property was vitiated for failure of the police to seal the same properly. It was also argued that there are various discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses, as such benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
12. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution is required to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal. Keeping in view the totality of facts, circumstances of the case and arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties, this court is of the opinion that the accused is entitled to be acquitted for the charges framed against him due to following reasons:
i. Not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution, who had seen the accused committing alleged theft of Rs. 14,195.75/ from the Golak of Gurudwara Bangla Sahib. ii. PW1 Jaswinder Singh and PW4 Major Singh are the star witnesses of prosecution, however both of them had admittedly CC No. 61/02 FIR No. 104/00 Page no. 7 of 10 not seen the accused committing theft from the Golak of Gurudwara.
iii. PW1, during his examination had stated that he was told by Sangat (group of persons) that accused had stolen cash from the Golak of Gurudwara by opening its lock with the help of keys. However, the said information is merely hearsay which is not admissible in evidence. Moreover, not a single person from Sangat had been examined by the prosecution to prove the case of theft against the accused.
iv. In asal tehrir, complainant Jaswinder Singh stated that he did not know the accused and his name was later on revealed to him at the time of arrival of police. However, during cross examination, PW Jaswinder Singh admitted that he knew accused Kirpal Singh before the date of incident as he used to work with him at All India Pingalwara Charitable Society at Amritsar. PW1/Jaswinder Singh was further confronted on material aspects by Ld. APP for State regarding time and manner of apprehension of accused.
v. The fact that accused Kirpal Singh had left the services of Pingalwara Charitable Society with effect from 01.01.2000 is duly proved vide documents Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D4. Moreover, the said fact is affirmed by both PW1 and PW4. Thus, the accused was not the employee/sewadar of Pingalwara Charitable Society on 23.04.2000 i.e. the date of alleged incident, as such the accused could not have been in the CC No. 61/02 FIR No. 104/00 Page no. 8 of 10 possession of keys of the Golak of Gurudwara.
vi. It is the case of prosecution that Golak of Gurudwara was opened with the help of keys. Moreover, it is deposed by PW1 Jaswinder Singh that only Sardar Gyan Singh was having the authority to open and close the Golak of Society and he also used to keep the keys of the same with him. PW4 Major Singh had further deposed that keys of the Golak of Gurudwara were kept by him and he used to open the same under the supervision of Sardar Gyan Singh. The prosecution has also failed to explain as to how the Golak was allegedly opened by accused, when keys of the same were used to be kept by PW4 and Sardar Gyan Singh. The prosecution failed to examine Sardar Gyan Singh for clarifying the status of keys and also failed to show that any duplicate keys were made from the original keys kept by PW4. vii. It is mentioned in asal tehrir that the accused after opening the lock of Golak and taking out the cash from the same started running away and was caught by the persons of Sangat. It is however, admitted by PW1 as well as PW4 that accused had met with a major accident before the date of alleged incident and he was having rods in both of his legs and was not in a position to even walk properly, let alone running. This discrepancy fortifies the defence made by the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by members of Pingalwara Society. viii. With respect to alleged recovery of cash, lock and keys from the accused in presence of PW1 and PW4, it may be noted CC No. 61/02 FIR No. 104/00 Page no. 9 of 10 that all the above mentioned case properties was produced in the Court by MHC(M) in unsealed condition. Seizure of case property is thus vitiated for failure of police to properly seal the same. Chances of fabrication of the case property thus cannot be ruled out beyond doubt.
ix. Moreover, PW4 during his cross examination has deposed that the cash amount, lock and keys allegedly seized from the accused were sealed by the police in a paper envelope in his presence and the same were later on countersigned by him and PW Jaswinder Singh. However, the fact that the case property was produced in unsealed condition belies the testimony of PW4 to that effect.
13. Keeping in view the totality of facts, circumstances of the present case and aforementioned reasons, this court is of the view that there were material discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and lack of proper investigation by the police, which has allowed benefit of doubt to be given to the accused. The prosecution has certainly failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused Kirpal Singh S/o Sardar Hazara Singh is hereby acquitted of the offences under section 379/411 of Indian Penal Code.
Announced in the open Court (Akash Jain)
on 31.01.2014. Metropolitan Magistrate06,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi
CC No. 61/02 FIR No. 104/00 Page no. 10 of 10