Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajender Prasad Etc. Fir No.96/07 on 29 October, 2018
State vs. Rajender Prasad etc. FIR no.96/07
1
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
ROHINI COURTS NORTH DISTRICT, DELHI
Presided Over by : GAGANDEEP SINGH
STATE Vs. Rajender Prasad etc. Date of Institution 14.05.2007
FIR No. 96/07 Judgment Reserved on 26.09.2018
PS Alipur Date of Judgment 29.10.2018
Under 380/411/34 IPC
Section
JUDGMENT
a) New Regn. No. of the case 5288924/16
b) Date of offence 16.03.2007
c) Name of the complainant Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Sh. Baidh
Nath Chaudhary, R/o House of Corporation
Bank Building, Nehru Enclave, Alipur, Delhi.
d) Name & address of the accused (1) Rajinder Prasad, S/o Sh. Pancham, R/o
Jhuggi No.20/11, Udham Singh Park, WPIA,
Delhi.
(2) Mani ram S/o Sh. Mehto, R/o Jhuggi
No.20B/384, Udham Singh Park, WPIA,
Delhi.
(3) Ram Kewal, S/o Sh. Jokhan Lal, R/o
Jhuggi No.20A/104, Udham Singh Park,
WPIA, Delhi.
(4) Rakesh, S/o Tejveer Singh, R/o Jhuggi
No.J263, Lakhi Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(P.O.)
e) The offence complained of 380/411/34 IPC
State vs. Rajender Prasad etc. FIR no.96/07
2
a) New Regn. No. of the case 5288924/16
f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order Acquitted
h) Date of order 29.10.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.The FIR in question was got registered on the statement of complainant Naveen Kumar Chaudhary recorded on 14.03.2007. He claimed that he is the Manager with East India Transport Agency, Alipur and their company is having one godown in khasra No.99/3, Alipur where the stock of Supari is usually kept. On 13.02.2007 at about 10.00 a.m., he came at the said godown for delivery and found that 43 sacks of Supari with respect to bilty No.547541x130 to be missing and stolen by someone. He gave information to PCR and tried himself to find out the said stock, but in vain. Later on, his statement was recorded and FIR was got registered. Subsequently, on 15.03.2007, the recovery of 17 said Supari bags was effected subsequent to the disclosure statement of all the accused persons and they were, accordingly, arrested. On completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed.
2. The cognizance upon the same was taken by Ld. Predecessor on 14.05.2007 and all the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. The charge for the offences u/s 411/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 10.07.2007 to which the accused State vs. Rajender Prasad etc. FIR no.96/07 3 persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. One of the accused Rakesh during the course of trial absconded and was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 08.01.2014.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case against remaining three accused has examined eight witnesses in all.
4. PW1 Naveen Kumar Chaudhary is the complainant/Manager in East India Transport Agency, Alipur. He deposed that their company had taken one godown on rent at khasra No.99/3, Alipur from its owner Dinesh Garg, where stock of Supari used to be kept. On 13.02.2007 at about 9.10 a.m., he went to godown for transportation of Supari stock and found the lock of shutter open and shutter was slightly open. The police was called at the spot and 43 Supari sacks were found to be missing. He made efforts to trace out the missing sacks but in vain. On the next day, his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded and the case was got registered. He also handed over the copy of documents with respect to the stolen sacks which were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C.
5. PW2 Dinesh Kumar Garg is the owner of the godown in question. He let out the same to East India Transport Agency in the year 2007.
6. PW3 ASI Satpal Singh is duty officer who proved the registration of FIR as Ex.PW3/A.
7. PW4 ASI Virender Kumar, the duty officer proved the DD No.12A registered on State vs. Rajender Prasad etc. FIR no.96/07 4 13.02.2007 as Ex.PW4/A.
8. PW5 HC Subhash deposed that on 16.03.2007, he joined the investigation with the IO ASI Jagdish, ASI Ismail, HC Virender, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Bane Singh. He took out all the accused persons from lock up who led them to the place of occurrence where pointing out memo Ex.PW5/A was prepared. Thereafter, the accused persons led them to the place of recovery i.e. A97, Second Floor, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi where they got recovered 17 stolen Supari sacks upon which GR No.547541x130 was written. The sacks were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. All the accused persons were arrested vide memos Ex.PW5/C to Ex.PW5/F respectively.
9. PW6 HC Banai Singh is also the recovery witness who was part of investigation on 16.03.2007 and in his presence also, recovery of stolen sacks was effected.
10. PW7 SI Jagdish Chander is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 13.02.2007, DD No.12A was received regarding theft and DD was kept pending for statement of the complainant. On 14.03.2007, the complainant came to PS and gave his statement and thereafter, the FIR was got registered. The site plan was thereafter prepared vide Ex.PW1/E. On 15.03.2007, Investigating Officer in case FIR No.98/07, PS Alipur arrested all the four accused persons who disclosed their involvement in the present case. On 16.03.2007, all the accused persons were interrogated who admitted about their involvement in the present matter. All the accused persons were arrested vide State vs. Rajender Prasad etc. FIR no.96/07 5 memos Ex.PW5/C to Ex.PW5/F respectively. The disclosure statement of all the accused persons Ex.PW7/B was recorded. All of them, thereafter, led the police party to the godown where the theft took place and pointing out memo Ex.PW5/A was prepared. Thereafter, they led the police party to A97, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi where 17 stolen Supari sacks were got recovered. The recovered case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B and they returned back to the PS. The complainant in the meantime came at the PS and identified the case property. He also handed over the copy of stock register which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. Accused persons were produced in the Court and sent to JC. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed.
11. PW8 Ct Arvind is also the recovery witness who was part of investigation on 16.03.2007 with remaining police officials. In his presence, accused persons got recovered the 17 stolen Supari sacks.
12. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. All the accused persons claimed innocence and further stated that they are not concerned with the present case in hand.
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for all the accused and gone through the record.
14. It was argued on behalf of the accused that there is delay of about one month in the State vs. Rajender Prasad etc. FIR no.96/07 6 lodging of FIR which is unexplained. Even the identity of the case property is disputed and the same was never produced in the Court. Lastly, it was argued that the accused persons have already been acquitted in case FIR No.98/07, PS Alipur wherein they were originally arrested vide judgment dated 30.03.2012.
15. The FIR in question was got registered on the statement of complainant as PW1 Naveen Kumar Chaudhary who reported the theft on 13.02.2007 at godown situated in khasra No.99/3, PS Alipur, Delhi. Admittedly, the said information was not converted into FIR and kept pending for one month and reasons for the same are ambiguous. In the original statement of complainant Ex.PW1/A it was claimed that on the very same day he himself tried to find out the culprits. After one month, he went to the PS and gave the statement pursuant to which the FIR was got registered. The said fact is apparently in contradiction to the version given by the PW1 while deposing in court. He categorically stated that on the very next day, police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A on which the case was got registered. Another reason for delay was given by IO PW7 in his cross examination by deposing that the statement of complainant could not be got recorded prior to 14.03.2007 as he had gone to his native village at Gujarat. He further claimed that this fact was recorded by him in his supplementary statement. Admittedly, the said fact is neither recorded either in the original statement nor in the supplementary statement and was introduced by the IO later on in order to cover up the gap. Thus, all the said facts State vs. Rajender Prasad etc. FIR no.96/07 7 reflect delay in the registration of FIR to be unexplained and goes against the case of prosecution.
16. It is also quite apparent from the record that the FIR was registered on 14.03.2007 at about 7.00 p.m., and thereafter, recovery of stolen sacks was got effected within two days which itself raises doubt as to the veracity of the contents of the FIR and recovery effected.
17. The sole evidence produced against all the accused persons is the recovery of 17 stolen Supari Sacks effected pursuant to the disclosure statement on 16.03.2007 of 17 stolen Supari sacks. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution for proving the factum of said recovery are PW5 HC Subhash, PW6 Banai Singh, PW7 SI Jagdish Chander and PW8 Ct. Arvind. It is also quite apparent from their versions that all accused persons were initially arrested in case FIR No.98/07, PS Alipur on 15.03.2007 wherein they disclosed their involvement in the present case. On the very next day in the early morning at about 7.00 a.m., IO PW7 SI Jagdish Chander arrested all the accused persons in the present matter and separately recorded their disclosure statements. Thereafter, all the accused persons led them to the spot of recovery i.e. A7, Second Floor, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi where recovery of 17 stolen Supari sacks was effected. PW7 in his examination in chief further claimed that after recovery, they returned back to PS where complainant identified the recovered Supari sacks. The said version of the IO stands State vs. Rajender Prasad etc. FIR no.96/07 8 rebutted by PW1 Naveen Kumar Chaudhary. He simplicitor deposed that in March, 2007, he was informed about the recovery of 17 stolen Supari sacks by the police officials and he got the same released on superdari. His version is completely silent with respect to the identification done by him in the PS on the very same day of recovery. Thus, the issue of identification of the stolen property is also doubtful. Even otherwise, the recovered stolen property was never produced in the Court, and hence, was never identified by any of the material recovery witnesses.
18. Even otherwise, the alleged recovery of 17 stolen Supari sacks appears to be doubtful. All the above said material recovery witnesses were not able to depose satisfactorily as to the place of recovery, its surroundings and persons present at the spot. It is also quite apparent that despite availability and sufficient time, no public witness was joined others at the time of recovery or subsequent to it. Even, the testimony of IO is silent in this regard. He in cross examination, claimed that no public person joined the investigation at that time as all of them refused. It is not clear whether the said public persons were the other occupants present at the godown or the said persons were mere passerby. It is also quite apparent that the said building was rented and landord/owner was never called to join the investigation at any point of time. PW7 claimed that he recorded the statement of owner/landlord subsequently. But, no such statement has been filed on record along with chargesheet. In these circumstances, the testimonies of State vs. Rajender Prasad etc. FIR no.96/07 9 recovery, witness cannot be termed as trustworthy. Hence, the issue of recovery of 17 stolen Supari sacks is also ambiguous and benefit for the same has to be given to the accused persons.
19. In light of the above said reasons, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the standard of reasonable doubts. Accordingly, all the accused namely Rajinder Prasad, Mani Ram and Ram Kewal are acquitted of the charges charges under section 411/34 IPC.
Digitally signedby GAGANDEEP
GAGANDEEP SINGH
SINGH Date:
2018.11.03
Announced in open Court. 10:53:13 +0530
Delhi, Dated the 29.10.2018 GAGANDEEP SINGH
This Judgment contains 09 pages Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
and each page is signed by me. Rohini/New Delhi