Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay on 30 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Sanjay
FIR No.855/04
U/s. 379/114/34 IPC
PS Jahangirpuri
The date of institution of case: 11.01.2005
The date of reserving the order: 30.08.2012
The date on which Judgment pronounced: 30.08.2012
JUDGMENT
Unique Identification No. : 02401R0560602005 Date of commission of offence : 19.11.2004 Name of the complainant : Sh. Dayanand Gupta, S/o. Sh. Jagan Nath Prasad, R/o.Tiwariyan, Chhibramau, District Kannuaj, UP.
Name & address of accused : Sanjay,
S/o. Sh. Kanhaiya Lal,
R/o A456, Sangam Park,
Model Town, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 379/411/34 IPC
Final order : Convicted U/s. 379 IPC
Date of order : 30.08.2012
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1 Brief resume of facts of the present case are that on
19.11.2004 at about 6:45 pm, at Mukundpur Chowk within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangirpuri, the accused Sanjay alongwith his State vs. Sanjay FIR No. 855/04 PS Jahangirpuri Page No.1of8 companion Vijay (who could not be arrested) committed theft of Rs. 800/ from the possession of one Daya Nand Gupta by way of pick pocketing and was apprehended at the spot with one note of Rs. 100/ (part of stolen amount) and thus committed offence u/s 379/411/34 of Indian Panel Code (hereinafter mentioned to as "IPC").
2 After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. Copies of chargesheet were supplied to the accused in compliance to the section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter mentioned to as Cr.P.C). Prima facie a charge U/S 379/34 of IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, on 25.01.2005, the charge were framed by the ld. Predecessor of this court. The accused pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed trial.
3 In support of the version, the prosecution has examined three witnesses as cited in the list of witnesses.
4 To prove the offence U/s. 379 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that accused is the same person, who had committed theft of Rs.800/ from the possession of complainant Daya Nand Gupta. The prosecution in this case has examined three witnesses in total. Regarding the incident, the prosecution has examined PW2 Dayanand Gupta, the complainant in this case, who has deposed that the on 19.11.2004, he boarded in a private bus at Jahangirpuri for going to Nirankari Mela. When the bus reached at Mukundpur State vs. Sanjay FIR No. 855/04 PS Jahangirpuri Page No.2of8 Chowk Red Light at about 6.45 pm, he started alighting from bus, a person aged about 4045 years, came in front of him and meanwhile the accused Sanjay, whose name was later on disclosed put his hand in right side pocket of his jacket and took out Rs.800/ (8 currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/ each and two of those currency notes having the turmeric spot). When the accused Sanjay was taking out the money from his pocket, he saw him and caught his hand. When he caught his hand, he called his associate named Vijay and Vijay tried to snatch Rs.800/ but Vijay took Rs. 700/ from accused Sanjay and one currency note of Rs.100/ remained in the hand of accused Sanjay. Meanwhile, the accused Vijay ran away. He apprehended the accused Sanjay and called the PCR van and handed over the accused Sanjay along with the currency note of Rs.100/ recovered from the accused Sanjay. Police recorded his statement vide Ex.PW2/A and sealed the currency note of Rs.100/ in a pullanda and took in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, the Police officials arrested the accused Sanjay. He also proved the case property Ex. P1.
During crossexamination, he denied that the above currency note was planted upon the accused and that he had deposed falsely.
The Court further observed and asked a particular question, to which, he replied that "he could recognize the above said currency note as mine as it was smeared with turmeric but the above said note is not having turmeric".
State vs. Sanjay FIR No. 855/04 PS Jahangirpuri Page No.3of8 5 To prove the police proceedings, the prosecution has examined PW1HC Govind Singh, the Duty Officer, who has deposed that on 19.11.2004, he was deputed as Duty Officer. On that day, at about 9.05 pm, Ct. Ashok Kumar brought a rukka sent by SI Ranbir Singh and on the basis of the same, he registered the present case FIR u/s. 379/411/34 IPC. He further deposed that the copy of the FIR Ex. PW1/A is in his handwriting and after registration, the copy of FIR and rukka were handed over to Ct. Ashok Kumar. He also made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW1/B. During crossexamination, he deposed that it took about half an hour in registration of FIR and he had informed to SHO regarding the incident.
PW3Retd. SI Ranbir Singh is the IO of the case, who has deposed that on 19.11.2004, on receipt of copy of DD NO. 30A Ex. PW3/A1, he alongwith Ct. Ashok Kumar went to the spot i.e. Mukundpur Chowk. There, the complainant Sh. Daya Nand Gupta handed over to him the custody of the accused and from the grip of the accused, he recovered the currency note of Rs. 100/, which was belonging to the complainant. The said currency was put in an envelope, which was sealed with the seal of RSY and the same was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/B. He recorded the statement of the complainant vide Ex. PW2/A and prepared a rukka vide Ex. PW3/A and the same was handed over to Ct. Ashok for getting the case registered. After having got the case registered, Ct. Ashok returned with rukka and copy of FIR, which were handed over to him. The accused was interrogated and thereafter, he was arrested and State vs. Sanjay FIR No. 855/04 PS Jahangirpuri Page No.4of8 personally searched vide memos Ex. PW3/B and PW3/C respectively. He did not prepare any site plan as the incident occurred in a moving bus. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana and the accused was put behind the bars. He recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the charge sheet under the supervision of the SHO.
This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity granted to him. Thereafter, PE was closed.
6 Statement of the accused persons U/S 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. All the incriminating evidence were put to the accused for seeking his explanation. In the said statement, the accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has further stated that he is innocent. He has preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.
7 I have heard arguments from both the parties and also gone through the evidence and documents on record carefully.
8 The accused has been charged with the offence under section 379/34 IPC. Section 379 provides for the punishment for theft. In order to prove its case, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused in order to commit theft of Rs.800/, which was carried by the complainant, who has been examined as PW2, the accused committed the theft of Rs.800/. From the first information, State vs. Sanjay FIR No. 855/04 PS Jahangirpuri Page No.5of8 which was recorded, it is clear that the complainant had the sufficient opportunity to observe the accused. No reason has been adduced before the court, which might have lead to any indication that the complainant, PW2 Dayanand Gupta deposed against the accused because of any previous animosity or to falsely implicate the accused as the accused was apprehended red handed by the complainant. The facts deposed by the complainant is also corroborated by the statement made by other witnesses. Therefore, the deposition of the complainant and other witnesses appears to be natural and inspires confidence.
9 On the careful analysis of the deposition of the witnesses, Court is of the opinion that there is no doubt as to the identity of the accused as the accused was caught red handed while committing theft by the complainant PW2 Dayanand Gupta. Moreover under section 134 of Evidence Act, no particular number of witness is required for proof of any fact. In other words, it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence, which is determining, if the accused would be convicted or acquitted. Further, for convicting an accused for an offence, it is also not the requirement that any property need to be recovered from the accused. If the accused was not known to the witness earlier and the witness first time identifies the accused in the court, this is rather a weak kind of evidence as far as identity is concerned, but in the present case the accused had been identified by PW2 Dayanand Gupta, the complainant at the spot and also in the court, which is corroborated by the deposition of other witnesses.
State vs. Sanjay FIR No. 855/04 PS Jahangirpuri Page No.6of8 10 In the present case, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the charges against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubts and in view of the discussion herein above, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 379/34 IPC.
Announced and dictated in the open court today i.e. on 30.08.2012.
(SUNIL KUMAR) MM/Rohini Courts Delhi State vs. Sanjay FIR No. 855/04 PS Jahangirpuri Page No.7of8 IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Sanjay FIR No.855/04 U/s. 379/114/34 IPC PS Jahangirpuri ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict Sanjay in person.
I have heard arguments on the point of sentence from the Ld. APP for State and the convict in person. It is stated by the convict that he is facing trial from last eight years. It is further stated that he is having responsibility to look after his family and that he belongs to a poor family. He further prayed for a lenient view may be taken against him.
On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. APP that the convict deserves maximum punishment as the accused was caught red handed at the spot itself.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, interest of justice would be met if the convict is sentenced to the imprisonment for the period already undergone by him during trial and hence, ordered accordingly. Convict shall be accorded the benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of Judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convict free of cost.
Announced and dictated in the open court today i.e. on 30.08.2012.
(SUNIL KUMAR) MM/ROHINI COURTS DELHI State vs. Sanjay FIR No. 855/04 PS Jahangirpuri Page No.8of8