Delhi District Court
State vs . Chaman Lal on 29 September, 2012
FIR NO. 20/99 S/V Chaman Lal
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K. JANGALA; ACMMNW/ROHINI COURT/DELHI
State Vs. Chaman Lal
FIR No. 20/99
PS: Keshav Puram
U/s 420/511 IPC
JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : 126/2
B) The date of commission : 25.01.99
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : Sh. Rakesh Chand Sharma
D) The name & address of accused : Chaman Lal S/O Sh. Hukum Chand
R/O B4/186, Sultan Puri, Delhi.
Permanent Add:; Village Nodia, P.S.
Bagoda, Distt, Jalore, Rajasthan.
E) Offences complained of : U/s 420/511 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
G) Final order : Acquitted
H) The date of such order : 29.09.2012
Date of Institution: 25.01.99
Judgment reserved on: 29.09.12
Judgment announced on: 29.09.12
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGEMENT:
1. The brief facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered by the police ofifcial of P.S. Keshav Puram for commission of the offence punishable U/S 420/511 IPC against the accused on 25.01.99. The complainant Ramesh Chand Page No. 1 FIR NO. 20/99 S/V Chaman Lal alleged that on 25.01.1999 at 9.00 a.m. at his address i.e. A2/164D, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road, Delhi, the accused attempted to sell brass metallic strips plated with golden colour weighing about ½ kg "as gold metallic strips for money". It is alleged that the accused committed offence punishable U/s. 420/511 IPC. The prosecution after registration of FIR conducted the investigation and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court.
2. After filing of the chargesheet, the copies were supplied to the accused and after completion of necessary formalities, the charge for commission of the offence punishable U/S 420/511 IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution to prove its case has examined PW1 Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, who deposed that on 25.01.99 he was present at his house. It is stated that accused came to his house and showed one polythene bag and taken out yellow colour metallic patti leveled with pure gold and he stated that these pattis are made of gold. It is further stated that the accused told him that he found the same from somewhere which were lying in abandoned condition. It is further stated that accused told him that he is a poor person and if he would show the same to some other person, there is possibility of snatching the same. It is further stated that accused requested the complainant to keep the same patti in his possession and asked him to give some money. On suspicion, the complainant kept the accused in his home and called the police. It is stated that police came and he handed over the accused to police alongwith same gold metallic strips. PW1 correctly identified the accused and the case property in the court. An opportunity for crossexamination of PW1 was given to the accused but Page No. 2 FIR NO. 20/99 S/V Chaman Lal despite opportunity, accused has given nil opportunity for crossexamination.
4. PW2 Ct. Ganga Ram deposed that on 25.01.99 he was posted at PS Keshav Puram and on receipt of DD No. 4A, he alongwith SI Bhupender Singh went to the spot. He stated that the complainant Ramesh Chand Gupta met them and produced the accused Chaman Lal present in the court alongwith one polythene containing metal pattis of gold colour. He stated that IO recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared the seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and IO made endorsement on the statement of the complainant. It is stated that he took the rukka to PS and after registration of the case, he came back at the spot with the copy of FIR and original rukka and he handed over the same to IO SI Bhupender Singh. Accused made disclosure statement vide Ex. PW2/A. PW2 correctly identified the accused as well as case property. An opportunity for crossexamination of PW2 was given to the accused but despite opportunity, accused has given nil opportunity for cross examination.
5. The PW3 HC Hari Nandan deposed that on 25.01.99 he was posted at PS Keshav Puram. He deposed that he received a rukka sent by SI Bhupender Singh through Ct. Ganga Ram. It is stated that he registered the FIR No. 20/99 Ex. PW3/B. An opportunity for crossexamination of PW3 was given to the accused but despite opportunity, accused has given nil opportunity for crossexamination.
6. Statement of the accused was recorded U/S 313 CrPC. However, the accused denied the story of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent. It is further stated by accused that on the day of incident, two passersby met him and gave some golden coloured strips to him and they ran away after giving the same to accused. It is further Page No. 3 FIR NO. 20/99 S/V Chaman Lal stated by the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police. It is stated that he does not want to lead Defence Evidence.
7. I have carefully perused the material on record and have gone through the submissions of Ld. APP for the state and ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. In the present case the prosecution has examined only three witnesses/ PWs to prove its case. It is stated by Ld. APP that in the present case, the testimonies of complainant and other witnesses remains unrebutted and unchallenged,therefore accused is liable to be convicted.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the accused. It is stated that accused in his statement U/s. 313 Cr. P.C. stated that two passersby met the accused and gave some golden coloured strips to him and they ran away after giving the same to accused. It is stated that in these circumstances, accused may kindly be acquitted.
10. The accused has been charged for the commission of offence U/s. 420/511 IPC. Before proceeding further, the necessary provisions of Section 420/511 IPC needs to be perused, which are as under: " Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make alter, or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to sever years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Page No. 4
FIR NO. 20/99 S/V Chaman Lal Section 511 Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment: Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempts does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with [imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both
11. The complainant Ramesh Chand Gupta deposed on oath that on 25.01.99, in the morning, the accused attempted to sale brass metallic strips plated with gold colour to the complainant and it is further stated that accused demanded some money. PW1 correctly identified the accused and case property. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. Even the accused has failed to show any motive of PW1, for deposing falsely against him. PW2 Ct. Ganga Ram is the police official, who had joined investigation with the IO. PW2 also correctly identified the accused and case property in the court. Seizure memo of the case property is also proved.
12. The testimony of PW1 is corroborated with PW2. Accused has failed to cross examine both the witnesses despite opportunity given to him. Therefore contradiction has emerged in the testimony of both PWs. The statement of the accused was recorded U/s. 313 Cr. P.C. The accused in his statement U/s. 313 Cr. P.C. stated that on the date of incident, two passersby came to him and gave the brass metallic strips to him and they ran away. The explanation given by the accused is not believable. The accused has failed to disclose any such reason that the passersby would hand over Page No. 5 FIR NO. 20/99 S/V Chaman Lal the gold metallic strips to him. It is beyond the conduct of a common prudent man that anybody would hand over the gold strips to the accused without any reason. The accused has even failed to explain his presence in the house of the complainant. The accused has lead no evidence to prove the defence taken by him. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of accused U/s. 313 Cr. P.C does not inspire confidence.
p 12. The testimony of the complainant and other witnesses remains unrebutted and unchallenged. The accused has failed to give any explanation regarding story of the prosecution, regarding evidence led by the prosecution and the explanation given by the accused is unbelievable. No evidence has been led by the accused to prove his defence. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the prosecution, I hold that the prosecution has proved the commission of offence U/s. 420/511 IPC by the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts, that on 25.01.99 at 9.00 a.m. in the morning, the accused had showed some yellow colour metallic strips to the complainant and stated that they are made of pure gold and he demanded money from the complainant for the abovesaid brass metallic strips. Accordingly, accused Chaman Lal is convicted for the commission of punishable offence U/s. 420/511 IPC. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court ( Devender Kr.Jangala)
on 29.09.2012 ACMM (N/W): Rohini: Delhi
Page No. 6
FIR NO. 20/99 S/V Chaman Lal
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KR. JANGALA; Ld. ACMM( N/W); ROHINI COURTS;
DELHI.
Order on point of Sentence FIR No. 20/99 PS: Keshav Puram U/s 420/511 IPC S/V Chaman Lal 29.09.12 Present: Ld. APP for State.
Convict on bail with Ld. Legal Aid Counsel Sh. Tarun Walia. Arguments on the point of sentence heard. Record perused. It is submitted by Ld. APP that strict view may kindly be taken against the convict and convict be awarded maximum sentence. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for convict submits that accused is not previously convicted and nor involved in any case. It is further stated that the accused is partially blind and he has faced the sufficient troma of trial for 13 years. It is stated that accused has learnt the lesson. It is further stated that the accused is the sole bread earner of his family, therefore, lenient view may kindly be taken.
I have gone through the material on record carefully and perused the record.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by Ld. Page No. 7 FIR NO. 20/99 S/V Chaman Lal counsel for accused and Ld. APP for State, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice, would be met, if the accused is sentenced for the period already undergone by the him for commission of offence U/s. 420/511 IPC during the investigation and trial of the case. Accordingly, accused is sentenced to go imprisonment for the period already undergone by him during the trial and investigation for commission of offence punishable U/s. 420/511 IPC. Accused sentenced is accordingy. Case Property be confiscated to the State as per rules. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 29.09.12. ( Devender Kr.Jangala) ACMM (N/W): Rohini: Delhi Page No. 8