Delhi District Court
State vs Sikander on 2 May, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAL: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE: KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Case ID Number 02402 R 057779 2005
Sessions Case Number 19/2006
F.I.R. Number 505/05
Police Station Nand Nagri
Under Sections 328/379/411/34 IPC
th
Committed to Sessions on 30 January 2006
th
Arguments heard on 24 April 2008
nd
Date of Decision 2 May 2008
In the matter of:
State
VERSUS
1. Sikander
S/o Gulzar
R/o H.No. 234, G.No.3P,
Harijan Basti, Mandoli, Delhi.
2. Deepak Kumar
S/o Chander Bhan
R/o H.No. 234, G.No.3P,
Harijan Basti, Mandoli, Delhi.
3. Sahil @ Sokeen Khan
S/o Gulsher Khan
R/o G.No.3, 80 Gaz Plot,
Mandoli, Delhi. ..... Accused
Page 1 of 9
2
J U D G M E N T
Accused Sikander and Deepak Kumar have been charged in respect of offences U/s.328/34 and U/s.379/34 IPC IPC and accused Sahil @ Shokeen Khan has been charged in respect of offence U/s.411 IPC. Allegations against accused Sikander and Deepak Kumar are that on 25.07.2005 at about 8.30 PM, at Jail Road Patri, Bank Colony, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, both accused in furtherance of their common intention, administered stupefying intoxicated unwholesome drug to complainant Udham Singh and Chander Bahadur to inhale with intent to cause hurt to them and to commit and facilitate the commission of offence of theft knowing it to be likely that they (accused) would thereby cause hurt to Udham Singh and Chander Bahadur. Secondly, on the aforementioned date, time and place, within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, both accused in furtherance of their common intention committed the offence of theft by taking mobile phones, ATM Card, ICards, Driving License, cash amount and other articles from Udham Singh and Chander Bahadur. Allegation against accused Sahil @ Shokeen Khan is that on 06.09.2005, he got recovered the stolen mobile phone from one Adesh Kumar to whom he (accused) had sold it for Rs.1000/ Page 2 of 9 3 knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Accused pleaded not guilty in respect of the charges framed against them.
2. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses in support of the case. They are PW1 Udham Singh, PW2 Chander Bahadur, PW3 Adesh Kumar @ Babbu, PW4 Ct. Arjun Singh, PW5 SI Sarif Ahmed, PW6 Ct. Maheshpal, PW7 ASI Rati Ram, and PW8 ASI Jalbir Singh.
3. PW1 Udham Singh deposes that on 25.7.2005 he was working in DESU. On that day, at about 8.30 PM he was coming back to his house from his duty via Jail Road, near Bank Colony. He was walking on pavement due to water logging on the road. In the meantime, someone came from behind and caught hold of him from his neck and kept both the hands on his mouth and nose and as a result thereof, he became unconscious. After about 1015 minutes, he regained consciousness. On checking his pocket, he found that his mobile, purse containing Rs.700/, ICard, ATM Card and hand bag containing his lunch box and bank cheque book were missing. He lodged the complaint. In the meantime, when police was making enquiries, a person Page 3 of 9 4 named Bahadur reached there and narrated the similar incident happened with him. The witness could not identify the accused. However, PW1 identifies the mobile phone. Opportunity has been given to accused to cross examine the witness. However, that opportunity has not been availed of by them.
4. PW3 Adesh Kumar deposes that he had purchased a mobile phone from accused Sahil for Rs.1000/ and asked the accused to give the documents regarding the ownership of mobile but he did not give the same. Accused pointed out his house to the police and PW3 handed over the mobile phone to police. Police seized the mobile vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. PW3 identified the mobile phone Ex. PW3/1 produced by MHC(M). In cross examination by Ld. counsel Sh. R.P. Singh for accused, PW3 denies that accused Sahil has not sold the mobile phone to him or that he (accused Sahil) did not point out his (PW3's) house.
5. PW8 ASI Jalbir Singh deposes that on 06.9.2005 he was posted as ASI at PS Nand Nagri. On that day, one mobile make Nokia 3315 was kept Page 4 of 9 5 for observation. On inquiry, it came to know that the same was being used by one Adesh at 80 Gaj plots at Mandauli. The witness went to the house of Adesh while searching. Adesh met there. The said mobile was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW3/A. The said mobile was given to the witness by by Sahil @ Shaukin.
Shaukin. On further inquiry from
from Adesh, he told
told that
that he had
purchased the said mobile from Sahil. Accused Sahil present in the court was arrested in this case. On interrogation, he made disclosure statement Ex. PW6/A. His arrest memo as well as personal search memo Ex. PW6/C and PW6/D were prepared. Thereafter, accused Deepak and Sikander present in the court were arrested at the instance of accused Sahil. Accused Deepak and Sikander were interrogated. Their disclosure statements were recorded. Disclosure statement of accused Deepak is Ex. PW6/B. Disclosure statement of accused Sikander is Ex. PW8/A. Accused Sikander disclosed that he had already given three more mobiles mobiles to Sahil. At the instance of accused Sikander, three mobiles were recovered from the shop of Sahil. The same were taken into possession U/s.102 Cr.P.C vide memo Ex. PW6/H and PW6/L. PW8 identified the mobile phone Ex. PW3/1.
PW8 identified the mobile phone Ex. PW3/1 The same was produced by Adesh Kumar, which he (accused) purchased Page 5 of 9 6 from accused Sahil. Other mobiles which were recovered from the shop of accused Sahil and from the house of accused Sikander, which were taken into possession U/s.102 Cr.P.C., do not connect with this case. The witness recorded statement of witnesses. Further investigation of this case was entrusted to ASI Rati Ram, who prepared the chargesheet and submitted the same before the Court. Opportunity has been given to accused to crossexamine the witness. However, that opportunity has not been availed of by them.
6. In the statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C, all the three accused have stated that they have not committed any offence and they are innocent. Accused have not led any evidence in their defence.
7. I have heard final arguments from both the parties i.e Ld. Addl. PP Shri Ramesh Kumar for State and accused in person. I have perused record file carefully.
8. It is the cardinal principle of criminal law that chain between offence and offender should be proved by the prosecution. PW1 Udham Singh has and offender should be proved by the prosecution. PW1 Udham Singh has Page 6 of 9 7 given description about the incident which happened to him. However, he has failed to recognise the assailants/ offenders. has failed to recognise the assailants/ offenders. Similarly, PW2 Chander Bahadur has described the incident. However, he has not named any of the three accused as assailants/offenders. Thus, chain link between offence and accused Sikander, Deepak Kumar and Sahil is not established.
9. Mobile phone identified by PW1 Udham Singh is alleged to have been recovered from PW3 Adesh Kumar @ Babbu. PW3 Adesh Kumar @ Babbu has deposed that on 18.5.2005 he had purchased a mobile phone from accused Sahil for Rs.1000/. He (PW3) asked the accused Sahil to give the documents regarding the ownership of mobile but he did not give the same.
10. Section 411 IPC provides as below:
"Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."Page 7 of 9 8
11. In the present case as already noted, the mobile phone is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of PW3 Adesh Kumar @ Babbu. It is stated to have been purchased by him for Rs.1000/ from accused Sahil. PW3 Adesh Kumar @ Babbu deposed that he asked Sahil to give documents regarding ownership of the mobile phone but he did not give the same. I am of the considered view that this piece of evidence does not prove that accused Sahil knew or had reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Thus, I am of the considered view that offence U/s.411 IPC is not proved against accused Sahil.
12. In view of the above discussion, offences U/s.328/34 and U/s.379/34 IPC are not proved against accused Sikander and Deepak Kumar as chain link between offence and offender is not established. Further, offence U/s.411 IPC is not proved against accused Sahil @ Sokeen Khan. Hence, the three accused namely Sikander, Deepak Kumar and Sahil @ Sokeen Khan are acquitted of offences, with which they were charged.
13. Accused are on bail. Their personal bonds and surety bonds are Page 8 of 9 9 cancelled. Sureties are discharged. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court Today: 02.5.2008 (MAHAVIR SINGHAL) Additional Sessions Judge Karkardooma Courts Delhi110032 Page 9 of 9