Delhi District Court
Case Titled Satish Mehra vs . Delhi Administration & Anrs. Reported ... on 13 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Azad @ Lala
FIR No. 367/2005
PS Moti Nagar
U/s 411/482 IPC
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of the case : 113/2/17
Unique case ID No. : 02401R0111832013
Date of Institution : 06.03.2013
Date of Commission of Offence : 10.08.2005
Name of the complainant : Satish Kumar Saini
Name & address of the accused : Azad @ Lala
S/o Sh. Chullu
R/o Kidwai Nagar Town,
PS Dadri, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P.
Offence complained of : U/s 411/482 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted for offence U/s 411 IPC
Convicted for offence U/s 482 IPC
Date of reserve for judgment : 13.05.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 13.05.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case u/s 411/482 IPC. FIR No. 367/2005, PS Moti Nagar U/s 411/482 IPC 1 /7
2. The story of the prosecution is that in between 10.08.2005 and 14.08.2005 the complainant Satish Kumar Saini and his family had gone out of Delhi by leaving their Wagon-R Car bearing no.DL-2CAC-5965, chasis no.310127 outside their house i.e. E-16, Moti Nagar, Delhi. When they returned on 14.08.2005 they found that the vehicle was not present there as the same had been stolen. On that he lodged a complaint in the PS. Later on, on 20.12.2012 the car of the complainant was recovered from the possession of the accused Azad @ Lala at Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. However, the same was found with a different number plate i.e. DL-3CZ-9834. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the Court. Documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against him vide order dated 01.06.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the request of Ld. APP for State on 13.05.2015 the charge was altered and apart from Section 411 IPC, charge for the offence U/s 482 IPC was also added. However, the accused pleaded guilty for commission of offence U/s 482 IPC.
4. In order to prove the charge U/s 411 IPC against the accused, the prosecution could examine only two witnesses i.e. PW1 ASI Surender Singh and PW2 Ct. Rajan.
5. PW1 ASI Surender Singh stated that on 14.08.2005 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as HC. It is stated that on that day at about 06:00 PM complainant FIR No. 367/2005, PS Moti Nagar U/s 411/482 IPC 2 /7 namely Satish Kumar Saini got registered FIR in the present case and the investigation was marked to him by the then SHO. It is stated that thereafter, he alongwith the complainant reached at E-16 in front of house of complainant. It is stated that he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/A at the instance of the complainant. It is stated that thereafter, he alongwith the complainant tried to search the Wagon-R Car bearing no. DL-2CAC-5965 (case property in the present case) nearby the spot but could not succeed. It is stated that thereafter, a wireless message was sent to SSPs in India and all SHOs in Delhi vide Ex.PW1/B bearing the signatures of the then DCP at point A. It is stated that thereafter, CRO proceedings, NCRB proceedings and enquiry was also conducted from Transport Authority, Tilak Marg vide Ex.PW1/C, PW1/D, PW1/E. It is stated that he continuously made efforts to search the culprit alongwith the case property with the help of secret informers but despite best efforts he could not succeed and thereafter, he prepared an untrace report at the direction of the then SHO and the said untrace report was filed before the then Ld. MM. A copy of the said untrace report was also given to the complainant. It is stated that during the investigation he recorded the statement of witnesses.
6. PW2 Ct. Rajan stated that on 10.01.2013 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as Constable. It is stated that on that day he alongwith IO HC Ram Avatar reached at PS Jewar, Distt. UP for the investigation in the present case. It is stated that thereafter, IO obtained some relevant documents from SI Rajveer Singh, PS FIR No. 367/2005, PS Moti Nagar U/s 411/482 IPC 3 /7 Jewar, UP. It is stated that IO recorded the statement of SI Rajveer and some other staff from PS Jewar, UP. It is stated that SI Rajveer showed one car bearing a fake number i.e. DL-3CZ-9834 (correct no. DL-2CAC-5965) to them and he further told them that the said car was a stolen property from the area of PS Moti Nagar. It is stated that they took the photographs of the said car and the same were taken with the help of private photographer. Thereafter, SI Rajveer removed the said fake number and handed over the custody to them. It is stated that IO seized the said case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. It is stated that IO also seized the fake number plate DL-3CZ-9834 in his presence vide Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter they came back to Delhi alongwith case property and seized fake number plate and the said case properties were deposited in the Malkhana. It is stated that IO recorded his statement. This witness correctly identified four photographs of the car bearing no.DL-3CZ-9834 as Ex. P1 (Colly) as of the same vehicle which was seized in his presence vide memo Ex. PW2/A. During cross-examination, he could not tell the number of DD by which they went for the investigation of the case. He could not recall the DD entry number at PS Jewar, UP regarding their arrival and departure.
7. Sh. Satish Kumar Saini is the complainant/owner of the case property in the present case. Summons issued to complainant received back with the report that he has expired. The SHO has also filed on record copy of death certificate of the complainant alongwith death verification report. As the complainant has expired, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording FIR No. 367/2005, PS Moti Nagar U/s 411/482 IPC 4 /7 testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. In the absence of the testimony of complainant, the prosecution can never successfully prove that the car in question was stolen from the possession of the complainant. Unless it is proved that vehicle was a stolen one, the case U/s 411 IPC cannot be proved. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offence U/s 411 IPC.
8. After the testimony of above stated two witnesses, on 13.05.2015 accused voluntarily pleaded guilty for commission of offence U/s 482 IPC. In view of the voluntarily plea of guilt made by the accused, he has been convicted for offence U/s 482 IPC.
9. Since the factum of theft has not been proved, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. When factum of theft is not proved, then the property cannot be termed as stolen one. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences U/s 411 IPC. Hence, PE was closed. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs. reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "in case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the FIR No. 367/2005, PS Moti Nagar U/s 411/482 IPC 5 /7 conclusion on the future date". Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, as such, recording of statement of accused is also dispensed with. It is to be noted that accused has already pleaded guilty for commission of offence punishable U/s 482 IPC.
10. Brief submissions addressed by the Ld. APP for state and by the Ld. Defence Counsel have been heard and the documents on record carefully perused.
11. The essential ingredients to prove the offence under Section 411 IPC are:-
1. The property should be in possession of the accused.
2. Such property should be 'stolen property' i.e it should have been transfered by theft, extortion or robbery, or which has been criminally misappropriated.
3. The accused had received the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property
12. In the case in hand, the complainant from whose possession the vehicle was stolen, could not be examined in the Court due to his death. Thus, the factum of theft could not be proved. In these circumstances, the car in question cannot be termed as stolen property.
13. In view of the above discussion, Court is of the opinion that guilt of accused qua offence punishable U/s 411 IPC has not been proved and thus he is entitled to be acquitted for commission of offence punishable U/s 411 IPC. Accordingly, accused Azad @ Lala is acquitted under Section 411 IPC. However, on his voluntarily plea of guilt for offence U/s 482 IPC, he has been convicted for offence U/s 482 IPC.
FIR No. 367/2005, PS Moti Nagar U/s 411/482 IPC 6 /7
14. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
15. Accused has already furnished the fresh bail/surety bond in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in sum of Rs. 10,000/- each. The same has been accepted.
16. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 13.05.2015 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 7 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
FIR No. 367/2005, PS Moti Nagar U/s 411/482 IPC 7 /7