Delhi District Court
State vs . Kamal Kishor on 4 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR, MM03, SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 335/14
U/s : 379 IPC
P.S. : Bindapur
State Vs. Kamal Kishor
JUDGMENT:
a) Sl. No. of the Case : 400/6
b) Name & address of the : Smt. Mithlesh Kumari
complainant. W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o VPO Kurawali PS, Kurawali Distt.
Main Puri (U.P.)
c) Name & address of : Kamal Kishor S/o Sh. Sita Ram Singh
accused R/o H.No. 4379 Pahari Dheeraj, Gali
Data Ram, Bara Tuti Chowk, Sadar
Bazar Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of : 17.04.2014
offence
e) Offence complained off : U/s 379 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Convicted
h) Date of such order : 04.05.2016
Date of Institution : 12.05.2014
Final arguments heard on : 04.05.2016
Judgment Pronounced on : 04.05.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.1/12
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 17.04.2014 at about 6.30 PM at Pillar No. 651, Main Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, accused Kamal Kishor committed theft of purse containing gold chain, two pair of earings, one ring and Rs. 6,000/ cash and when he was seen and was about to be apprehended, he handed over the purse to his unknown accomplice (since not arrested). Police recorded statement of complainant Smt. Mithlesh Kumari on the basis of which present FIR was registered and investigation was carried out.
2. After investigation, challan for offence punishable U/s 379 IPC was filed. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC was framed against the accused on 28.07.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as six FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.2/12 witnesses.
5. PW1 Mithlesh Kumari is the complainant. She deposed that on 17.04.2014, she along with hers sons had come to the marriage of his behnoi's daughter. When they reached at Mahavir Enclave Part III, at about 6.30 pm near metro pillar, one person came and after opening the chain of her purse, he took the small purse in which there was a gold chain of 10 gm, one pair of gold jhumki 8 gm, one pair of gold jhumki 6 gm, one gold ring 3 gm and Rs. 6000/. She further deposed that they caught that person with the help of her children and he threw that purse aside. She further deposed that one other person took that purse and ran away from the spot. Somebody had called the police and the police came. Accused was handed over to the police. Police recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A. She further deposed that police also arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/B.
6. PW2 Saurav deposed that on 17.04.2014, he had come with FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.3/12 his brother and mother to the marriage of his cousin sister at Delhi. He further deposed that after alighting from the metro, they reached at metro pillar no. 651. When they were taking rickshaw one person came and took out the small purse from the purse of his mother. The time would have been 6.30 pm. He further deposed that his mother shouted and they along with his mother caught him. He further deposed that accused threw the purse on the road in the public which was picked by somebody and that person ran away from the spot and they could not see the other person. He further deposed that somebody had called the police, police arrived and the accused was handed over to the police. He further deposed that the police also arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/B. In the purse there was gold chain, two pairs of gold jhumki, one gold ring and Rs. 6000/.
7. PW3 ASI Rajpal is the duty officer who registered the present FIR Ex. PW3/A. FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.4/12
8. PW4 Ct. Ajay Kumar is the DD Writer in this case who recorded DD Entry i.e. 97B Ex. PW4/A.
9. PW5 Ct. Ajay has joined the investigation with the IO.
10. PW6 HC Rajesh Kadian is the IO of this case. He recorded the statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A and prepared the rukka Ex. PW6/A. He got registered the FIR Ex. PW6/B and recorded statement of the accused Ex. PW5/A. He also arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW5/B.
11. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence was put to accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C and his explanation was recorded wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence. He further stated that he came to attend tehravi of the his uncle (Chacha) Prem Kishor at G4/422, Dalmil Road, Uttam Nagar, and reached there at about 11.30 am. After FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.5/12 attending the program he was going back at 5/5.30 pm. He further stated that at that time his BP was low and he was feeling nausea, therefore, to hold himself he laid his hand on the back side of rikshaw and suddenly the people started shouting and he was grabbed by people. He further stated that he do not know what happened, but he came to know that allegation of theft has been levelled against him. He further stated that there was no other person with him. Accused also examined two witnesses in his defence. DW1 is Sh. Tarun Goel and DW2 is Sh. Amar Singh Chauhan.
12. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Counsel for accused and have carefully gone through the material on record.
13. The case initiated with the complaint/statement of the complainant Smt. Mithilesh Kumari that on 17.4.2014, she along with her two sons Saurabh and Ashu had come to Delhi to attend a marriage. When they were present on the main Najafgarh Road, FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.6/12 Near Metro Pillar No. 651 about 6:30 pm, a boy aged about 38 years, opened the chain of her purse and took out a small purse containing a gold chain weighing 10 grams and one pair of earrings weighing 8 grams and another earrings weighing 6 grams along with a lady ring weighing 3 grams and Rs. 6000/. The complainant had seen the said boy taking out her purse. The said boy gave the purse to another person who fled away from the spot with the purse.
14. On this complaint Ex. PW1/A, the present case FIR has been registered.
15. Said Smt Mithilesh Kumari/complainant is PW1. She has deposed more or less on the same lines as per Ex. PW1/A. The accused has been correctly identified by the complainant/PW1 in the court. As per the case of the prosecution also, the accused was caught at the spot.
16. PW1 Smt Mithilesh Kumari has been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, but it is seen that the crossexamination FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.7/12 is not so much effective demolishing the case of the prosecution as narrated by PW1. PW1 stood to the crossexamination, supporting her complaint and case of the prosecution candidly. She has specifically denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
17. PW2 Saurabh is the son of the complainant who had been accompanying her on the date, time and place of the incident. He has corroborated his mother PW1 in all respect.
18. Similar is the crossexamination of PW2 as is that of PW1. PW2 has also supported the case of the prosecution in all respects.
19. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused was passing through near the Metro Pillar No. 651, there the complainant suddenly caught off his hand and got him falsely implicated in the present case.
20. In support of this contention, accused has examined two FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.8/12 witnesses in his defence.
21. DW1 Tarun Goyal has deposed in his examination in chief that on 17.4.2014, it was the "tehrvi" of his father. Accused was present there. Accused left the house of DW1 Tarun Goyal at about 5:30 pm. After about half an hour he received a call from the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. After about 23 days, DW1 had a talk with the tauji of the accused to whom he informed about the incident, happened with the accused.
22. DW1 has been crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he deposed that accused was known to him through his tauji. Accused is doing a private job at Sadar Bazar.
23. DW2 Sh. Amar Singh Chauhan has deposed that he was coming from Kaushambi and was to go to Bal Udyan Marg. When he came down through the stairs of Uttam Nagar East Metro Station and reached near the road, where so many rikshaw were standing, accused Kamal Kishore was leaning with support of FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.9/12 back part of the rikshaw. DW2 asked the accused as to why he was standing there. Accused was too much drunk. Accused disclosed that he had gone to attend tehrvi of someone and there he took liquor. Suddenly one lady came and grabbed the hands of the accused and told that he had stolen her purse. She raised alarm. Many people gathered there.
24. This witness DW2 has also been crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he deposed that the time could have been 5:306:00 pm. DW2 know the accused as his father is known to him. DW2 knew the father of accused for last 30 years. After the incident, DW2 had not met the father of the accused except in the first week of April, 2016. DW2 did not tell the father of the accused about his apprehension by police on that day or thereafter.
25. I have carefully gone through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and particularly those of the public witnesses either examined by the prosecution or by the accused FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.10/12 in support of his case.
26. So far as the testimony of DW2 is concerned, same is not believable for the reason that though he knew father of accused, but for unexplained reasons, he did not informe the father of the accused about his so called false implication in the present case at the hands of the complainant immediately or immediately thereafter. DW2 had also stated that accused was heavily drunk but there is no such explanation given in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
27. The testimony of DW1 is also not believable for the reason that he is known to him through his tauji. So far as the presence of the accused at the spot at the relevant time is concerned, neither DW1 nor DW2 disputed the same. The possible timing when the accused left the house of DW1 and also the time as stated by DW2 when he reached at the Uttam Nagar East Metro Station, is the same as stated by the prosecution.
28. This court after consideration of the material on record and FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.11/12 the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 finds no reason as to why they would implicate the accused in the present case, when they are not from Delhi. So far as the possession and detention of jewellery as stated by the complainant/PW1 is concerned, it is very much possible that she might be carrying the same as she had come to Delhi to attend a marriage function. The accused has been caught red handed at the spot by the complainant and her son and they have specifically deposed that after taking out the purse, accused threw the same towards his accomplice who fled from the spot with the purse. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 is quite believable, natural and they have also stood the test of crossexamination. Hence, it is held that prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he has been charged by this court. The accused is accordingly held guilty for the charged offence. Dictated & Announced in Open Court (Kishor Kumar) On the 4 day of May, 2016 MM03/SouthWest/Delhi th 04.05.2016 FIR No: 335/14 state v. Kamal Kishor Page No.12/12