Delhi District Court
State vs . : Ajay @ Charshi on 4 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST)07, SAKET, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 582/14
U/s : 392 IPC
PS : Sun Light Colony
State Vs. : Ajay @ Charshi
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 254/3/14
b The date of commission : 12.09.2014
c The date of Institution of the case : 15.12.2014
d The name of complainant : Avinash
e The name of accused Ajay @ Charshi S/o Late Sh. Mool
Chand R/o T49, Kohli Camp,
Khijrabad, New Delhi.
f The offence complained of : 392 IPC
g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on : 04.11.2015
i The final order : Convicted
j The date of judgment : 04.11.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 12.09.2014 at about 7:30 pm in front of Modi Computer Institute near Flyover Bhogal, Sunlight Colony within jurisdiction of P.S. Sunlight Colony, he in order to commit theft of bicycle which is belonging to the complainant Avinash caused wrongful restraint and hurt to him and dishonestly took away his bicycle from the possession of the complainant Avinash without his consent. Investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed for offence punishable u/s 392 IPC in the court on 15.12.2014.
2. Charge for commission of offence punishable u/s 392 IPC was framed upon the accused on 27.03.2015 . Accused pleaded not guilty for the same and claimed trial.
FIR No. 582/14 1 of 5 3 In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined 4 witnesses.
PW1 is Avinash, who is the complainant/victim in the present case has deposed in his deposition that on the day of incident after parking his bicycle at the place of incident, the accused identified by him in the court, came there and asked the complainant to hand over his cycle to him. However the complainant refused, upon which he was pushed by the accused who then took away the bicycle without complainant's consent and thereafter fled away with the bicycle. He proved his complaint as Ex. PW1/A, seizure memo of bicycle Ex. PW1/B, arrest of accused vide Ex. PW1/C, personal search memo vide Ex. PW1/D and site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex. PW1/E as well as the punchnama and photographs of the case property Ex. P1.
PW2 is seller of bicycle to complainant who proved the sale receipt Ex. PW2/A. PW3 Ct. Kamal Chand was along with IO during investigation and deposed about steps taken by IO during investigation till registration of FIR.
PW4 IO SI Avinash Kumar deposed about the steps taken during investigation i.e. proceeding to the spot after receipt of DD No. 17 A about the happening of crime, he proved rukka prepared by him Ex. PW4/B, site plan Ex. PW4/C, disclosure statement after apprehension of accused on 19.10.2014 Ex. PW4/D and pointing out memo Ex. PW4/E. It is further pertinent to mention that the accused admitted the registration of FIR without contents as Ex. PA1 vide statement dated 09.07.2015 and hence the concerned witness for the same was dispensed from formal examination. 4 Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him and he took the plea that he took away the bicycle of the complainant because the latter refused to pay back money owed by him towards FIR No. 582/14 2 of 5 the accused.
5 On the available evidence charge u/s 392 IPC was leveled against the accused. Section 392 IPC inter alia provides punishment for robbery defined u/s 390 IPC. Section 390 IPC inter alia provides that theft is robbery when in order to commit theft or in committing the theft, the offender voluntarily causes wrongful restraint.
6 In the present case it is clear from the evidence of PW1 complainant that the bicycle was taken away from him without his consent by pushing him away thus causing wrongful restraint to the complainant. Even the accused has admitted in his explanation u/s 313 Cr.P.C that he took away the bicycle belonging to the complainant without his consent. Hence as this evidence was not rebutted by the accused in his cross examination nor the investigation was impeached by the accused, allegation u/s 392 IPC is proved against him. Accordingly accused is convicted for offence u/s 392 IPC. Let the accused be heard separately on the point of quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (Ashok Kumar)
Court on 04.11.2014 MM(South East)07,
Saket, New Delhi.
FIR No. 582/14 3 of 5
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST)07, NEW DELHI FIR No. : 582/14 U/s : 392 IPC PS : Sun Light Colony State Vs. : Ajay @ Charshi ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Presence : Ld. APP for the State.
Convict on person with Ld. LAC Sh. Rabindra Tiwary. Vide separate judgment, the accused has been convicted for offence u/s 392 IPC.
Heard on point of sentence.
Ld. APP for the State says that no leniency should be shown in sentencing the convicts and maximum sentence should be imposed upon them as provided under law.
Ld. LAC submits that convict Ajay @ Charshi has already suffered J/C for 4 months in the present case and he is bachelor, has family to support consisting of old aged widowed mother and brother and sisters. Convict is helper by profession. The convict is not a previous convict. Hence leniency be shown in sentencing the convict.
I have heard the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State. The purpose of sentencing after conviction is a balancing act. On one hand, punishment should be sufficient to deter the accused not to repeat the offence in future and become a good member in the society. On the other hand, the punishment should not be too harsh which results in accused becoming a hardcore criminal.
The convict has been held guilty of robbing a bicycle which was FIR No. 582/14 4 of 5 ultimately recovered by the complainant and he has already suffered 4 months J/C during the pendency of the case. Also there is no document filed by the prosecution to establish any previous involvement and previous conviction against the accused. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case I sentence the convict to the period already undergone in judicial custody by him. A separate copy of judgment and order on sentence by provided to Counsel of convict free of cost. . File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (ASHOK KUMAR)
Court on 04.11.2015 MM07, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET, NEW DELHI,
FIR No. 582/14 5 of 5