Delhi District Court
In Reg vs Vinod Kumar on 27 April, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKAS DHULL, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NEW DELHI
In reg
STATE
VERSUS
Vinod Kumar
FIR No:695/1996
U/s 379/411IPC
P.S.:Cannaught Place
JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR no. of the case : 695/1996
(b) The date of commission of offence : 3.8.1996
(c)The name of complainant : Devki Nandan
s/o Som Dutt
r/o H.No.6/234 Khiripur,
Delhi.
(d)The name, parentage, residence of accused :Vinod Kumar
s/o Amar Nath Ahuja
4B Dharma Apartment,
Parparganj,Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of/ proved : U/s 379/411IPC.
(f) The plea of accused : pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Convicted
(h) The date of such order : 27.4.2007
(i) Brief statement of the reasons for the decision :
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 3.8.96 at about 6.45 pm at Super Bazaar , Cannaught Place, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Cannaught Place you committed theft of two boxes of Talcom Power New Lyril Refreshment weighing :2: about 400 grams and had thus committed an offence u/s 379 IPC. For the said offence FIR No. 695/96 was registered at Police Station Cannaught Place.
2. The matter was investigated by the police and charge sheet u/s 379/411 IPC was filed against the accused .
3. From the material on record a charge u/s 379 IPC was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case prosecution had examined 03witness.
5. PW1 Harvinder Singh deposed on oath that on 3.8.96 he was working as Asstt. Manager in G & T Department Super Bazar Department. PW1 further deposed on oath that at about 6.45 pm he was standing near the gate of the market . PW1 further deposed on oath that he saw the accused coming out from the gate. PW1 further deposed on oath that one of the helper namely Hazari Lal asked the accused as to what he was carrying in his hands. PW1 further deposed that another employee Devki Nandan who was just behind the accused observed that accused had hidden something in the upper potion of his pent . PW1 further deposed that accused was apprehended and was searched and from his pent two liril telcom powder of green colour each of 400 gms with the description new liril telcom powder and free liril soap 75 gms was written were recovered from the possession of the accused. PW1 further deposed that security guard Ram Singh called the police and handed over the accused to the police PW1 also identified the case property Ex.P1 and P2 .
6. In his cross examination PW1 deposed that the occurrence had taken place at Super Bazar , Cannaught Place.PW1further deposed in his cross examination that his duty hours were from 10 am to 7 pm. PW1 further deposed that Hazari lal was standing :3: near the gate whereas Devki Nandan was coming behind the accused . PW1 denied that accused had gone to his office where a quarrel took place and due to this reason accused was falsely implicated in this case.
7. PW2 Ram Singh deposed on oath that on 3.8.96 at about 6.45 pm he was present near the gate of Super Bazar , Cannaught Place where he was working as security guard. PW2 further deposed on oath that when accused was coming out of the gate another helper Devki Nandan who was behind the accused searched the accused and from his pent two liril telcom powder of green colour each of 400 gms with the description new liril telcom powder and free liril soap 75 gms was written were recovered . PW2 further deposed that he called the police and handedover the accused to the police . PW2 also identified the case property Ex.P1 and P2.
8. In his cross examination PW2 deposed that his statement was recorded on the spot . PW2 further deposed in his cross examination that he does not remember as to who others were examined.PW2 further deposed in his cross examination that he was alone with the police . PW2 admitted that likewise material Ex.P1 and P2 are available easily in the market.
9. PW3 Ct. Dharmander Pal Singh deposed on oath that on 3.5.96 he was posted at Police station Cannaught Place . PW3 further deposed on oath that he alongwith Sub Inspector Yog Raj had gone to Super Bazar where there was one PCR van.PW3 further deposed on oath that Investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant and produced the accused. PW3 proved on record seizure memo Ex.PW3/A, personal search Ex.PW3/B.PW3 also identified the case property Ex. P1 and P2.
:4:10.In his cross examination PW3 deposed that he had not taken the search of the accused. PW3 deposed that the statement of complainant was recorded in his presence.
11.No other Prosecution witness was examined by the prosecution and accordingly, the prosecution evidence was closed.
12.Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused. Accused submitted that he is innocent and submitted that he he was falsely implicated in this case . Accused further submitted that he was working as tour executive in M Block which is just opposite Super Bazar. Accused further submitted that since it was evening and was raining he went to Super Bazar , Departmental store and due to rain there was mud in his shoes. Accused further submitted that due to mud the floor of the Super Bazaar Departmental store became untidy on which PW1 and PW2 became annoyed. Accused further submitted that his 230 rupees were also taken forcibly by PW1 and PW2. Accused further submitted that he does not wish to lead defence evidence.
13.Accordingly , the matter was posted for final arguments.
14.I have heard ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for the accused and perused the material on record.
15.To prove its case the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 3.8.96 at about 6.45 pm at Super Bazar , Cannaught Place, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Cannaught Place accused had committed theft of two boxes of Talcom Powder New Liril Refreshment weighing about 400 grams to prove the offence u/s379 IPC .
:5:16.In the present case to prove that accused had committed theft of 2 Talcom Powder New Liril Refreshment the prosecution had examined PW1 Harvinder Singh and PW2 Ram Singh who were the eye witnesses regarding the theft.
17.PW1 Harvinder Singh had deposed on oath that accused was taking away with him 2 Liril Talcom Powder and he was searched and from his search 2 Liril Talcom Powder were recovered in the presence of security guard Prem Singh . PW1 had also identified the case property in the court Ex. P1 and P2.
18.The testimony of PW1 Harvinder Singh has been corroborated by PW2 Ram Singh who was also the eye witness to the incident of theft . PW2 had also deposed on oath that 2 Liril Talcom Powder were recovered from the possession of accused . PW2 had also identified the case property in the court Ex.P1 and P2.
19.Accused has not disputed his presence at the spot on 3.8.1996. Further no defence evidence had been lead on record by the accused regarding his presence at the place of incident and regarding recovery of two boxes of Talcom Powder New Liril Refreshment weighing about 400 grams from his possession. In the light of evidence of PW1 and PW2 , admission made by accused that he was present at the time of theft the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had committed theft of two boxes of Talcom Powder New Liril Refreshmen. Accordingly, the accused stands convicted for the offence u/s 379 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TO DAY ON 27.4.2007 (VIKAS DHULL)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NEW DELHI
FIR No: 695/1996
PS: Cannaught Place
u/s 379 IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE
30.4.2007:
Pr: APP for the State.
Convict in person with counsel alongwith surety.
Arguments on the Point of Sentence heard today and record perused.
Ld. APP makes a prayer for maximum punishment to the convict in the light of growing incidents of theft in the society.
On the other hand counsel for the convict makes a prayer for taking a lenient view as he submits that this is the first offfence of the convict and convict is an old aged person having age of 57 years and he has to take care of of his family as well as his old parents also. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the offence in question which is only of 2 telcom powder and to the fact that convict has suffered a long trial of around 11 years and to the fact that no previous involvement has been brought on record against the convict a case for taking a lenient view is made out . Accordingly, the convict is directed to be released on furnishing a probation bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount for a period of 6 months from today. The convict is also directed to make payment of Rs. 3000/- as compensation to the complainant . Personal bond filed . Amount of compensation deposited . Issue notice to the complainant Devki Nandan /Manager Super Bazar , Cannaught Place, through IO to appear in person to collect the compensation amount for 31.5.2007.
(VIKAS DHULL ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE NEW DELHI