Delhi District Court
State vs . Amarjeet Singh on 11 August, 2014
Page No. 1 of 13
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SINGLA
MM03(SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Amarjeet Singh
FIR NO. : 271/04
P.S. : Hauz Khas
U.S. : 379/411 IPC
J U D G M E N T
a. Sl. No. of the case and : 3RD 708292004
date of its institution
b. Name of the complainant : Lala Ram Meena S/o Sh. Shagini Lal L95/3, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
c. Date of commission of
offence : 14.05.2004.
d. Name of the accused : Amarjit Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh,
R/o Village Shahabad, Mohd. Pur, Delhi
e. Offence complained of : U/s 379/411 IPC
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Case reserved for orders : 26.07.2014
h. Final order : Convicted u/s. 411 IPC
& Acquitted u/s. 379 IPC.
i Date of such order : 11.08.2014
FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh
Page No. 2 of 13
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. By way of this judgment, I shall dispose off present FIR which was lodged on the complaint of Sh Lala Ram Meena.
2. The brief fact of the case are that on 14.05.2004 at 6PM at Rose Garden, Service Road, New Delhi, accused committed theft of a motorcycle no. DL 3S Q 1507 Make Splendor Hero Honda belonging to the complainant Lala Ram and on 29.09.2004 at Mohd. Pur, New Delhi the above said motorcycle was found in the possession of accused and the said stolen motorcycle which the accused retained knowing or having reason to believe that the same was stolen property and thereby accused committed the offences punishable u/s. 379 / 411 IPC.
3. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the Court. Copies were supplied to accused and after completion of necessary formalities, on 18.12.2004 charge for commission of the above said offences was framed upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined (12) twelve witnesses. It is pertinent to mention here that ASI Nanhe Ram & FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 3 of 13 ASI Kameshwar Prasad both were examined as PW10. Statement of accused was also recorded U/sec. 313 Cr.PC whereby accused persons denied the story of the prosecution. The relevant and material extract of evidence produced by the prosecution are as mentioned in the paragraphs below.
5. PW1 HC Rajender Singh deposed that on 29.9.2004 he was working as a duty officer in PS Shalimar Bagh from 5PM to 1AM ; on that day he received rukka from Ct. Ramesh sent by HC Nanhe Ram ; on the basis of the same he recorded the FIR Ex PW1/A and after registration of the same, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to him.
6. PW2 Lala Ram is complainant and he deposed that on 13.5.2004 he had parked his motorcycle no. DL3SQ 1507 outside of Dear Park, Hauz Khas ; at 6PM, he came from the park and found the same missing ; he made the complaint to PS Hauz Khas ; his statement Ex PW2/A was recorded by the IO ; later on he had given the chasis no and engine no to IO ; site plan was prepared by IO at his instance ; the motorcycle was in the name of Ashok Kumar as he had purchased the same from him ; in the FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 4 of 13 month of October , he recd. the information from PS Hauz Khas regarding the recovery of the same motorcycle ; then he reached in PS and had identified his motorcycle at PS ; later on the same was released to the regd. owner of the same on superdari in his presence and he had brought the same which was exhibited in his evidence as Ex P1.
7. PW3 Ct. Ram Kripal deposed that on 6.10.2004 he was posted as Ct in PS Hauz Khas and on that day he had joined the investigation of this case with IO and accused Amarjit was arrested in this case in Patiala House court in his presence ; arrest memo was prepared in his presence vide memo Ex Pw3/A in the court campus.
8. PW4 HC Sher Singh deposed that on 14.5.2009 he was posted at PS Hauz Khas as Head Constable and on that day he was working as duty officer from 4PM to 12 night ; he recd. Rukka sent by ASI Kameshwar Prasad ; on the basis of which he recorded the FIR Ex PW4/A and handed over the same to HC Laxman.
9. PW5 Ashok deposed that he is the regd. owner of the motorcycle bearing no. DL3SQ1507 make Hero Honda which FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 5 of 13 was stolen and after the recovery of said he had got the same released on superdari by executing superdarinama Ex PW5/A and today he had brought the same which is parked in court premises. Motorcycle is Ex P1.
10. PW6 Ct. Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 29.09.2004 he was posted as Constable with AATS / North West ; on that day he along with HC Naresh Kumar, HC Nanhe Ram and Ct. Vijender were on vehicle checking duty ; at 4PM when they were present at Prem Badi Pul near red light signal ; a secret information was received that some persons will come on stolen motorcycle with a fake no. plate of UP registration with the purpose to commit some offence in the said area ; on the same information IO prepared the raiding team ; requested some public person to join the same but they all refused ; at about 5PM one motorcycle was found coming having regd. no. UP 151317 and at the pointing out of secret informer ; the same was stopped ; the accused present in court was sitting on back seat of the said motorcycle and one Saiffuddin riding the same ; they were asked to show the document of the vehicle but they could not produce any such documents ; on FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 6 of 13 inquiry it was found that the said motorcycle was stolen one ; IO thereafter arrested them ; seized the said motorcycle ; after the registration of FIR ; disclosure statement Mark A of accused was recorded ; then accused led the entire raiding team to his house and got recovered the stolen motorcycle of this case from his room ; the same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Mark B ; on inquiry the actual no. of the motorcycle was found as DL3SQ1507 and IO recorded his statement.
11. PW7 ASI Naresh Kumar & PW8 HC Vijender Singh deposed in the line of PW6 Ct. Ramesh Kumar.
12. PW9 HC Bachhu Ram deposed that on 29.9.2004 he was posted at PS Hauz Khas ; he had recd DD No. 45A regarding the recovery of stolen motorcycle in the present case. On 04.10.2004 he had moved the application in the court for production of accused. On 6.10.2004 he had formally arrested the accused vide memo Ex PW3/A ; he also interrogated the accused with permission of court. On 10.10.2004 the alleged motorcycle was brought in PS Hauz Khas vide RC No. 147/21. On 20.10.2004 he had also seized the fake no. plate vide memo Ex PW9/A ; he FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 7 of 13 prepared the challan and filed before the court through SHO.
13. PW10 Retd. SI Kameshwar Prasad deposed that on 14.5.2004 he was posted as ASI at PS Hauz Khas ; on that day he was present in the PS ; he was given a complaint regarding the theft of the motorcycle bearing no. DL3SQ1507 ; he endorsed upon his complaint vide memo Ex PW2/A ; prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered ; the case was regarding DD No. 28A ; he also accompanied the complainant to the spot and further investigation was marked to HC Laxman who recorded his statement.
14. PW10 Retd. ASI Nanhe Ram also deposed in the line of PW6 Ct. Ramesh Kumar. This witness should be recored as PW11.
15. PW12 HC Laxman deposed that on 14.5.2004 he was posted as HC at PS Hauz Khas ; on that day at 9.45PM ; he recd. an information from duty officer that the investigation of the present case has been assigned to him ; he obtained the copy of FIR, tehrir and proceeded towards the spot along with complaint ; at the spot he prepared the site plan and tried to search out for the case FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 8 of 13 property and accused but he could not trace the case property and accused ; then after one month i.e. on 15.6.2004 he filed the untrace report before the court.
16. Vide separate statement u/s. 294 CrPC, accused admitted the genuineness of the seizure memo Mark B and site plan Mark C.
17. In order to prove the charge u/s. 411 IPC the prosecution was required to prove the following :
(1) The property in question is stolen property ; (2) The same was recovered from the possession of accused ; (3) Accused was found in possession of the stolen motorcycle with knowledge or reasons to believe that the same is stolen.
18. In order to prove the 1st ingredient , prosecution produced PW2 Lala Ram and PW5 Ashok. PW2 deposed that on 13.05.2004 he had parked his motorcycle bearing regd. no. DL3SQ1507 out side the Dear Park at Hauz Khas ; when he came out at 6PM from the park, he found his above motorcycle missing. Thereafter this person made complaint to the police. PW2 further deposed that he had purchased the same from PW5 Ashok. PW2 proved his complaint Ex PW2/A. PW5 Ashok deposed that the motorcycle FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 9 of 13 which was stolen is in his name and he get the same released from the court on superdari vide superdarinama Ex PW5/A. Both these witnesses were not cross examined and their testimonies remained unrebutted. Hence this fact is proved that recovered motorcycle was stolen property and a complaint was made in this regard.
19. In order to prove the recovery from the possession of accused, prosecution produced PW6 to PW9. PWs 6,7 & 8 proved that on 29.9.2004 they were on vehicle checking duty at Prem Badi Pul and they saw one motorcycle bearing no. UP151317 coming and the same was stopped and it was found that the said motorcycle was stolen one. These witnesses further deposed that accused Amarjeet was sitting behind the motorcycle and made a separate disclosure statement which is Mark A and on the basis of the same, accused led the entire raiding team to his house and got recovered one motorcycle bearing no. DL958H1528 make Hero Honda Splendor and on inquiry its actual no was found DL3SQ1507 and it was reported to be stolen from the area of PS Hauz Khas. These witnesses were cross examined but nothing FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 10 of 13 could come against the case of prosecution and defence could not point out any material contradictions in their testimonies. These witness proved the seizure memo which was prepared at the time of recovery of motorcycle from the house of accused. This seizure memo is Mark B. Further the genuineness of this seizure memo is not disputed , therefore original was not called for by summoning the Ahlmad as same was stated to be lying in judicial file in case FIR No. 833/2004 from PS Shalimar Bagh.
20. It is argued by ld defence counsel during arguments that since no public witnesses was joined during investigation and thus factum of recovery is not duly proved as non joining of public witness is not explained. Merely the fact that as no public witness was joined, does not discredit the testimony of official witnesses who were the part of the raiding team. Further more it has been suggested by the ld defence counsel that accused was arrested from Prem Badi Pul which further shows that accused was arrested on the day of 29.09.2004 which further fortify the case of the prosecution. No suggestion has been given to police officials for false implication of the accused. Further it has been argued that FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 11 of 13 name of the accused is not figuring in the FIR. This plea is also not sustainable as it is not necessary that name of the offender was known on the day of offence. Further more FIR is not the catena of all the facts. It is further argued that police could have easily called the complainant to accompany them at the time of recovery at the instance of accused and this was not done which shows that accused has been implicated in false case to work out a blind case. To effect the recovery of stolen property, joining the complainant in every cases is not essential and further more non joining of the complainant is not a lacuna which casts shadow on the story of the prosecution case. Further more it is pertinent to note here that the police official who recovered the vehicle in question were not member who were investigating this case. They were in fact not involved in the investigation of this case before recovery of this vehicle, Hence their testimony cannot be doubted. Further no suggestion has also been given how the police officials of other PS came in the possession of this stolen property & why they falsely implicated the accused in this case.
21. Further PW9 HC Bachhu Ram deposed that on 29.09.2004 he FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 12 of 13 received DD No. 45A regarding the recovery of one motorcycle which further fortify the case of the prosecution that motorcycle was recovered on 29.09.2004. The factum of receiving information in the form of DD No. 45A has not been disputed by the ld defence counsel as PW9 has not been cross examined on this point. Hence the factum of recovery of motorcycle on 29.09.2004 from the possession of accused is duly proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the testimonies of PW6 to PW9.
22. Now coming to the 3rd ingredient i.e. knowledge or reason to believe that motorcycle was stolen property no evidence has been led by the prosecution. However, no explanation has been given by the defence how accused came into the possession of stolen motorcycle. Instead during his statement recorded u/s. 313 CrPC , it was put to him that on 29.9.2004 he was caught read handed with another motorcycle at Prem Badi Pur, he simply denied the same without explaining anything. Hence this court is justified in drawing presumption that accused must be having knowledge or reason to believe that property in question is stolen property. Hence, the ingredients of u/s. 411 IPC is duly proved against the FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 13 of 13 accused Amarjeet Singh. He is convicted u/s. 411 IPC.
23. However, no evidence has been led to show that accused committed the theft of motorcycle in question. Hence in the absence of same, he is acquitted u/s. 379 IPC.
24. To come up for arguments on sentence on13.08.2014 Announced in open court (Ankita Singla) on 11.08.2014 MM(03)/South District/Saket FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Page No. 14 of 13 FIR No. 271/2004 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh