Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj @ Munna on 18 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR, MM-3 (NORTH),
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI.
UID No. 02404R0359672010
FIR No. 484/09
U/s. : 356/379/411 IPC
P.S. : Jahangir Puri
State Vs. Manoj @ Munna
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. No of the case : 164/2
2. Date of institution of the case : 25.05.2010
3. Date of the commission of the offence : 20.08.2009
4. Name of the accused : Manoj @ Munna
S/o Sh. Dharampal
R/o J-159,
Jhangir Puri, Delhi.
5. Name of the complainant : Smt. Sarita Sharma
6. Offence complained of : 356/379/411 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Final order : Convicted u/s 356/379
IPC Acquittal u/s 411
IPC.
9. Date of such order : 18.07.2016
STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE
DECISION :-
Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution and as unfolded from chargesheet are that on 20.08.2009 at about 1:15PM near Primary School, I-Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangir Puri, accused Manoj @ Munna alongwith co-accused (not arrested) in furtherance of his common intention used criminal force in committing theft and actually committed theft of gold chain without the consent of complainant namely, Smt. Sarita Sharma from her possession. Further, on the said date and place accused was found in possession FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/12 of the abovesaid gold chain which he had retained/received having reasons to believe the same to be a stolen property. On the basis of DD No.32-A regarding snatching, the present FIR U/s 356/379/411 IPC was registered at PS Jahangir Puri, Delhi. On conclusion of investigation, the challan under sections 356/379/411 IPC was filed in the court.
2. The accused was summoned by the court for facing trial for the aforesaid offences. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie case U/s 356/379/411 IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, on 03.11.2010 charges were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charges. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of total twelve witnesses as cited in the list of witnesses.
4. PW1 Ct. Sanjay has deposed that on 28.08.2009 he alongwith SI Balkar reached at BJRM Hospital main gate after receiving DD no.13A there at a tea stall some public persons were gathered and one couple apprehended the accused present in the court, and hand over the accused to them. The witness has proved the pointing out memo Ex.PW1/A. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/12 Defence counsel despite giving an opportunity in this regard.
5. PW2 Smt. Sarita Sharma, who being the complainant in the present case has deposed that on 20.08.2009 at about 1:00p, she came back from BJRM Hospital to her house on a rickshaw and when she reached near Primary School, I-Block, Ramgarh two boys came in front of her rickshaw and one boy pressed her neck from behind and another boy i.e. accused present in the court snatched her gold chain and flee away inside Ramgarh and therafter she got down from the rickshaw and follow the accused persons and shouted "Pakro-Pakro" but the accused persons succeed to fled away. That she made a call at 100 number and PCR van came at the spot and she narrated the incident to them. That thereafter on 27.08..2009 she again went to the BJRM Hospital alongwith her husband and saw the accused on the tea shop and told her husband that this is the person, who snatched her chain and then her husband apprehended the accused and handed over him to the police. That police officials recorded her statement and that of her husband. That IO reached the spot and prepared site plan at her instance. The witness has proved the documents i.e. her complaint as Ex.PW2/A, accused was interrogated vide memo Ex.PW4/A, arrest and personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW4/B and piece of her gold chain snatched by accused Manoj @ Munna and recovered from her possession as Ex.P1. This witness was FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/12 cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
6. PW3 ASI Pradeep Kumar was examined being the Duty Officer at the relevant time. This witness has recorded the present FIR as Ex.PW3/A and also made endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/B. This witness was not cross- examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite giving an opportunity in this regard.
7. PW4 Sh. Deepak Sharma has deposed that on 20.08.2009 his wife came at house from BJRM Hospital and narrated about the incident regarding the snatching of her gold chain by an unknown person. That on 27.08.2009, the complaint was lodged with PS as in between they were considering the matter alongwith the family members. That on 28.08.09 she went to BJRM Hospital alongwith his wife and there his wife pointed out towards a person, who was sitting at a tea shop stating that he was the person (accused present in court) who snatched away her chain. That he apprehended the accused with the help of other public persons and took him to PS Jahangir Puri. That the accused was interrogated in his presence vide statement Ex.PW4/A. That the accused was arrested and personally searched by police in his presence vide memo Ex.Pw4/B and Ex.PW4/C. That a piece of broken chain of his wife was recovered and was got released on supardari, which was identified by his wife during TIP. That this witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/128. PW5 WHC Kaushal has deposed that on 20.08.2009 at about 1:40pm, Wireless Operator gave an information in respect of PCR call regarding chain snatching and she made an entry in Rojnamcha against DD no.32A vide Ex.PW5/A. That she transmitted the copy of the said DD Entry to SI Balkar through Ct. Pradeep. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite giving an opportunity in this regard.
9. PW6 HC Jasbir Singh has deposed that on 29.08.2009 he joined the investigation of the present case with SI Balkar Singh and went to the house of accused Manoj, who got recovered a broken piece of gold chain from there. That the chain was sealed with the seal of BS and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/A. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite giving an opportunity in this regard.
10. PW7 ASI Jasvinder Singh has deposed that on 28.08.2009 being DO at about 8:40am a call was received at PS through Smt. Sarita Sharma regarding snatching of chain and in his regarding he made entry in rojnamcha against DD no.13A vide Ex.PW7/A. That the copy of said DD was handed over to SI Balkar Singh for necessary action. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite giving an opportunity in this regard.
FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/1211. PW8 Ct. Biran Yadav has deposed that on 27.08.2009 DO of the PS Jahangir Puri had handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him on which he went to the spot and gave the same to the IO. That the IO recorded his statement and relieved him from the investigation. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite giving an opportunity in this regard. Thereafter, PE was closed.
12. The statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence against the accused were put to him for seeking his explanation. He has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused opted not to lead defence evidence, hence the matter was listed for final arguments.
13. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials. It is further argued that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the recovery, if any, is the planted one upon the accused. It is further argued that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses, which is fatal to the case of Prosecution. There is delay of seven days in registration of the FIR which is fatal to the prosecution case. It is further argued that since the Prosecution could not establish the case against the accused for the alleged offences beyond FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/12 shadow of doubt, it is, therefore, prayed that the accused may be acquitted of the alleged offences.
14. On the contrary, Ld. APP for the State has submitted that every discrepancy in statement of the witnesses could not be fatal to the Prosecution case. It is further argued that the discrepancies which does not effect the Prosecution case materially does not create infirmity and there is no material discrepancies/contradictions in the Prosecution case. Each and every delay in registration of the FIR does not create doubt upon the prosecution case. It is further argued that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused. Hence, it is, prayed that the accused may be convicted accordingly.
15. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the accused, Ld. APP for the State and perused the material on record carefully.
16. The accused has been charged with the offences under section 356/379/411 IPC. Section 356 IPC provides for the punishment for using assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried or worn by a person and section 379 provides for the punishment for theft. Section 411 IPC provides punishment for receiving of stolen property.
17. In order to prove its case for the charges for offences u/s 356/379/411 IPC, the prosecution has proved that the FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/12 accused in order to commit theft of gold chain from the possession of Smt. Sarita Sharma, who has been examined as PW-2, used criminal force and actually committed the theft of the gold chain. PW2 has deposed in the court that on 20.08.2009 at about 1:00pm when she was coming back to her home, two boys came in front of her rickshaw and the accused came from behind and pressed her neck and snatched her gold chain from her neck. After seven days i.e. on 20.08.2009 when she alongwith her husband PW4 Sh. Deepak Sharma were going to BJRM Hospital, she spotted the accused at Tea Shop and told the same to her husband, who apprehended the accused at the spot and handed over him to the police. From the testimony of PW2 and PW4 it is clear that PW-2 Smt. Sarita Sharma the complainant/eye witness had the sufficient opportunity to observe the accused. No reason has been adduced before the court, which might have lead to any indication that PW- 2 Smt. Sarita Sharma deposed against the accused because of any previous animosity or to falsely implicate the accused. The facts deposed by the complainant PW2 Smt. Sarita Sharma is corroborated by the statement made by PW1 Ct. Sanjay and PW4 Sh. Deepak Sharma. The statement of all the said witnesses have remained unrebutted and unchallenged even during the cross- examination. Therefore, the deposition of PW1, PW2 and PW4 appear to be natural and inspires confidence.
18. On the careful analysis of the deposition of the FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/12 witnesses, Court is of the opinion that there is no doubt as to the identity of the accused as the accused was apprehended by the complainant PW2 Smt. Sarita Sharma and PW4 Sh. Deepak Sharma. Moreover, under section 134 of Evidence Act, no particular number of witness is required for proof of any fact. In other words, it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence, which is determining, if the accused would be convicted or acquitted.
19. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that there was unexplained delay of seven days in registration of the FIR, which has caused doubt upon the veracity of statement of PW2 and PW4 and make their evidence doubtful.
20. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has submitted that each and every delay does not affect the evidenciary value of the statement of the witnesses unless it caused prejudice to the accused or make the court believe that the complainant or the prosecution has taken undue advantage or manipulated the circumstances of the case. Delay in registration of FIR in such cases must be appreciated with pragmatic human approach as in the present society people always try to avoid participating in the proceeding before police as well as court. They just want to keep themselves aloof unless the circumstances force them to come before police as well as court. In the present case, when the accused alongwith his associate ran FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/12 away from the spot with the chain of the complainant. She might have given up the hope of getting back her gold chain so, she might have decided not to report the matter to the police on the day of incident. When PW2 after seven days had spotted the accused at a tea shop, she said the fact of offence with the husband and apprehended the accused at the spot, so from the testimony of PW2 and PW4, it does not seems that they might have manipulated with the facts of the case. Further more, no prejudice has been caused to the accused for the delay in registration of the FIR as PW2 and PW4 have not been cross-examined regarding the delay in registration of the FIR whereas had any prejudice been caused to the accused it must have put the same in the cross-examination of PW2 and PW4. This fact has not been put in the cross-examination of other prosecution witnesses and in the statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC.
21. I find force in the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and also from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Harivadan Babubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2013 (3) JCC 1958 SC in which it has been held that in each delay in registration of the FIR is not fatal to the registration of the case unless it cause prejudice to the accused or the charges of manipulation of facts by the complainant does not seems to be present. In the present case, I do not find any such circumstances nor such contentions have been raised by the accused during trial. I FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/12 do not find any infirmity in the testimony of PW2 and PW4.
22. After the apprehension and arrest of the accused in the present case, gold chain of the complainant was recovered from the possession of the accused from his house at his instance in the presence of PW6, who deposed that on 29.08.2009, accused has taken IO SI Balkar Singh and PW6 HC Jasbir Singh to his house in the kitchen and he himself took out broken piece of gold chain which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW6/A after converting the same into a pullanda. The chain was got released on supardari by PW2 and she produced the same during her testimony, so the recovery of the chain is also proved against the accused. Though IO of the present case was not examined but non examination of IO does not casts doubt on the testimony of PW6 from whose testimony recovery of the gold chain is proved.
It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Delhi in case titled as Sunil Mashi vs. State NCT of Delhi, 2015 (1) JCC 52 Delhi, that the accused could be the person who committed theft or who received the stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen but cannot be both. In the present case offence u/s 379 IPC is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. So his conviction cannot be held u/s 411 IPC for receiving stolen gold chain of the complainant.
FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/1223. In the present case, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the charges of the offences u/s 356/379 IPC against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubts and in view of the discussion herein above, accused Manoj @ Munna is convicted for the offences punishable under section 356/379 IPC. Since the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC, therefore, charge u/s 411 IPC against the accused does not remain stand. Hence, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
Let, the accused be heard on the quantum of the sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUNIL KUMAR) COURT ON 18.07.2016 MM-03(NORTH)/ROHINI DELHI FIR No.484/2009, PS Jahangir Puri Page 12/12