Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda on 12 March, 2013
FIR No:347/1997
State Vs. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 347/1997
PS: Dabri
U/s: 457/380/411 IPC
State V. Rajesh @ Pankaj
Date of institution of the case : 09.10.1997
Date on which Judgment was reserved : Not Reserved
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 995/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 01.06.1997
c) Name of the Complainant : Sh. Surender Singh
S/o Sh. Jaman Singh
R/o D97/2, Dashrath Puri
New Delhi
d) Name of accused and address : Rajesh @ Pankaj @
Pakoda
S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
FIR No:347/1997
State Vs. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda
R/o Village Lakhan Majra,
Distt. Rohtak Haryana.
e) Offence complained of : u/s 457/380/411 IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded guilty
g) Final order : Convicted
h) Date of such order : 12.03.2013
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Sh. Surender Singh on the allegation that on 01.06.1997 at about 5:25 pm in the house of his sister at H.No.D97/2, Dashrath Puri, Dabri, New Delhi he found that back side gate of his sister's house was opened and theft of certain household articles including one colour T.V make Onida was committed by some unknown person. At his complaint FIR No:347/1997 State Vs. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda the present complaint was registered u/s 457/380 IPC.
2. During investigation, the said Onida colour T.V. was recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh @ Pankaj on 10.08.1997 whereas other articles were not recovered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Rajesh @ Pankaj for the offence u/s 457/380/411 IPC.
3. After taking cognizance, accused was summoned. Copy of chargesheet was supplied to accused. Vide order dt.24.10.1997, on the basis of prima facie evidence, charge for the offence u/s 411 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Thereafter accused remained absent. On 19.12.2001 accused FIR No:347/1997 State Vs. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda was declared P.O. Five PW's were examined u/s 299 Cr.PC and thereafter file was consigned to record room vide order dt.31.08.2004.
5. Thereafter, on 07.02.2013 an application was moved before this court stating that accused was apprehended in another case FIR No. 97/95 PS:R.K. Puram and in that case he was running in judicial custody. Thereafter, accused was produced before this court on production warrants and he was again taken into custody in the present case on 12.02.2013 and matter was fixed for prosecution evidence for today.
6. Today, accused submits that he want to plead guilty in the present case. Accused Rajesh @ Pankaj pleaded guilty vide separate statement. Court is satisfied that accused pleaded guilty voluntarily and without any undue influence etc. I have perused the charge sheet and documents attached with it. There is sufficient evidence on record filed FIR No:347/1997 State Vs. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda by prosecution against the accused disclosing the offence u/s 411 IPC. Keeping in view the documents placed on record and plea of the accused, the accused Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh is convicted for the offence u/s 411 IPC.
Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence. Announced in the open court on this 12th day of March' 2013 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 5 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
FIR No:347/1997 State Vs. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI FIR NO: 347/1997 PS: Dabri U/s: 411 IPC State V. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda 12.03.2013 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Rajesh @ Pankaj produced from J/C. I have heard the convict and Ld. APP for the State. Ld. APP for the State submitted that convict is involved in heinous offence therefore, he is liable to get maximum punishment. On the other hand convict stated that he is very poor person. He is aged about 38 years. He is the only earning member of his family and working in a furniture shop as carpainter. He is having wife and old aged mother to maintain. He is already in Judicial Custody for about 5 months in this case. He apologize for his guilt. Therefore, a lenient view may be taken against him.
FIR No:347/1997 State Vs. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda In view of the argument of both the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court comes as the conclusion that convict is a poor person and apologized for his guilt, therefore, in view of reformative theories of punishment, a lenient view is taken against convict. He is already in custody for about 5 months. Convict Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh is sentenced in this case with simple imprisonment for the period which he had already undergone during his custody for the offence u/s 411 IPC in case FIR No.347/1997 PS: Dabri. Convict be released from custody, if not required in any other case.
Copy of order be supplied to the convict.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI FIR No:347/1997 State Vs. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda FIR NO: 347/1997 PS: Dabri U/s: 411 IPC State V. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda 12.03.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Rajesh @ Pankaj produced from J/C. Vide separate statement recorded today accused Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda pleaded guilty for the offence u/s 411 IPC. Accused Rajesh @ Pankaj is convicted and sentenced vide separate Judgment and order on sentence of even date for the offence u/s 411 IPC. Convict be released from custody, if not required in any other case.
File be consigned to record room.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI FIR No:347/1997 State Vs. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda FIR NO: 347/1997 PS: Dabri U/s: 411 IPC State V. Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda STATEMENT OF ACCUSED Rajesh @ Pankaj @ Pakoda S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh R/o Village Lakhan Majra, Distt. Rohtak Haryana.
On S.A. I pleaded guilty in the present case and admit my guilt. I pleaded guilty without any fear, force and coercion and without pressure from any side and a lenient view may kindly be taken by this Hon'ble Court.
RO & AC ( Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH)
M.M. Dwarka Courts
12.03.2013