Delhi District Court
State vs Ishwar Singh & Anr. on 7 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. HEM RAJ, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
WEST - 09, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE V/s ISHWAR SINGH & ANR.
FIR No : 282/99
U/S : 379/411 IPC
P.S : VIKAS PURI
1. Serial No. of the Case : 291/2
2. Unique ID No. of the Case : 02401R0197222000
3. Date of Commission of Offence : 27.07.1999
4. Date of institution of the case : April, 2000
5. Name of the complainant : Arvind Kumar
6. Name of accused & address : 1.) Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Rati Ram
R/o VillNangli Shakrawati
PS Najafgarh, Delhi
2.) Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Prakash Singh
R/o RZ254, Roshan Garden,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
7. Offence complained : U/s 379/411/34 IPC.
8. Offence charged with : U/s 411/34 IPC
9. Plea of Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty
10.Final Order : Acquitted
11.Date of Final Order : 07.09.2013
J U D G M E N T
1 The prosecution had filed a charge sheet against the accused persons FIR No. 282/99 STATE V/s ISHWAR SINGH & ANR. PAGE No. 1/8 namely Ishwar Singh and Anil Kumar on the allegations that on 27.07.1999 at Delhi Gate Bus Stand, Najafgarh, Delhi both the accused persons were found in possession of one stolen Maruti Car bearing no. DL 4CB 9247 knowing the same to be the stolen property. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet against accused persons for commission of offences U/s. 379/411/34 IPC was filed.
2 Accused persons were summoned in the Court. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was made and the charge sheet along with documents were supplied to the accused persons. Vide order dated 18.09.2000, my Ld. Predecessor Sh. A.S. Datir, the then Ld. MM framed a charge U/s. 411/34 IPC against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused persons, prosecution examined total eight witnesses in all. 4 PW1 Arvind Kumar is the owner of the stolen vehicle. PW2 Vijay Kumar is the registered owner of the vehicle. PW3 HC Dharamvir was posted at PS Vikas Puri. PW4 HC Vijay Kumar and PW5 ASI Kuldeep FIR No. 282/99 STATE V/s ISHWAR SINGH & ANR. PAGE No. 2/8 Singh were the members of recovery team. PW6 Ct. Rajeev proved the copy of order dated 27.02.2006., PW7 Ct. Pradeep was the member of recovery team. and PW8 ASI Rishipal was the D.O. 5 Accused were given opportunity to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence recorded in the case against them in compliance with the provisions of Section 313 Cr.PC. Availing this opportunity, accused Anil and Ishwar Singh denied the offence alleged against them and claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated by the police in this case. They did not lead any defence evidence. 6 Ld. APP for State in assisting this court has argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the case. He has drawn attention of the Court to the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution. 7 On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
8 I have carefully heard rival submissions as well as perused the FIR No. 282/99 STATE V/s ISHWAR SINGH & ANR. PAGE No. 3/8 oral and documentary evidence available on record. 9 In Trimbak Vs. The State of Madhya Pardesh, AIR 1954 SC 39, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in order to bring home the guilt of a person under section 411 IPC the prosecution was required to prove the following facts:
(1) That the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) That some person other than the accused had possession of the stolen property before accused got possession of it, and (3) That the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.
10 The term Stolen Property has been defined U/s 410 of IPC.
Section 410 IPC reads as under:
Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", whether the transfer has made,or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.
11 Having gone through the oral and documentary evidence lead by the prosecution and the material available on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the FIR No. 282/99 STATE V/s ISHWAR SINGH & ANR. PAGE No. 4/8 case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons.
A) The story of the prosecution is that PW4 HC Vijay Kumar, PW5 ASI Gurdeep Singh and PW7 Ct. Pradeep along with HC Rajbir and Ct. Ranbir were petrolling in the area of PS Najafgarh and when they reached near Delhi Gate Bus Stand at about 8:15pm, ASI Gurdeep Singh received an information about the two persons coming in a stolen Maruti Car having number plate of bearing number DL 4CC1369 and would go towards Najafgarh side. Public persons were requested to join the investigation but they did not join. Nakabandi was made between Sai Baba Temple and Water Tank and at about 910pm, one car with said number plate came there which was occupied by accused persons who could not produce any documentary evidence regarding the ownership of the car. The car was revealed, later on as stolen from the area of Vikas Puri.
However, I am not inclined to buy the theory of the prosecution, in as much as, the prosecution has neither produced the fake number plate of the car on the record nor produced the keys of the car on the record. When it is the specific case of the prosecution that accused persons were apprehended when they came to the spot while driving the car, the keys of the car and the number plate must have been seized by the IO. The non FIR No. 282/99 STATE V/s ISHWAR SINGH & ANR. PAGE No. 5/8 production of the fake number plate and the keys of the car, which would have lent the corroboration to the prosecution case, leaves a reasonable doubt and the same can not be relied upon. In the judgment of Munesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State, 2011 (124) DRJ 7, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court did not rely upon the recovery of the car from the accused when the keys of the car was not stated to have been recovered from him. I also adopt the same reasoning and do not rely upon the recovery of the car when the keys and number plates have not been proved on the record.
B) Furthermore, PW3 HC Dharamvir has deposed that he went to PS Najafgarh and received the possession of the Maruti Car by RC No. 82/99 and deposited the car with MHCM, PS Vikas Puri. However, the prosecution has not proved the register No. 19 and 21 of PS Najafgarh as well as register No. 19 & 21 of PS Vikas Puri which would have shown on the record that the said car was indeed deposited in the PS Najafgarh and from there, it was transferred to PS Vikas Puri. The absence of the relevant extracts of the aforesaid registers caused a prejudice to the prosecution case.
C) Moreover, it has come in evidence of PW4,5 & 7 that the FIR No. 282/99 STATE V/s ISHWAR SINGH & ANR. PAGE No. 6/8 independent public persons were available at the spot but they had not been joined in the investigation by the police. Although, it is no law that the testimonies of police officials can not be relied upon in the absence of the corroboration from the independent public witnesses, however, the absence of the corroboration assumes importance when the evidence which could have been easily produced on the record but not produced by the prosecution. In such situation, the absence of the corroboration from the independent public witnesses, in my opinion creates a doubt in the story of the prosecution which has happened in the present case also. The reliance is placed on the judgment of "Hiralal Pandey and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.,"
Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2008, decided on 17.4.2012 and Munesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State, 2011 (124) DRJ 7.
D) Another reason is that the prosecution has not proved the departure entry of the police officiols to show that the police party who allegedly recovered the car from the accused persons were present at the spot. This circumstance raise the doubt against the prosecution story. The reliance is also placed on the judgment of Munesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State ( supra).
12 In view of the afore said discussions and the evidence led by FIR No. 282/99 STATE V/s ISHWAR SINGH & ANR. PAGE No. 7/8 the prosecution I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons namely Ishwar Singh and Anil Kumar. Accordingly, the accused persons stand acquitted for the offence under sections 411/34 IPC, they have been charged with. Accused persons be set at liberty forthwith. Their previous bail bonds and surety bond stand canceled and discharged respectively. Original documents, if any, lying on the record be returned to the previous surety after the cancellation of the endorsement, if any, against the acknowledgment. However, B/Bs furnished by the accused persons for the purpose of Section 437A Cr.P.C. shall remain extended for a period of six months from today. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (HEM RAJ)
th
TODAYI.e.ON7 SEPTEMBER2013 MM:09:WEST:THC:07.09.2013
FIR No. 282/99 STATE V/s ISHWAR SINGH & ANR. PAGE No. 8/8