Delhi District Court
State vs . Ankit Parcha on 20 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARCHANA BENIWAL, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH EAST) 08, SAKET COURTS, SAKET, DELHI
STATE Vs. Ankit Parcha
FIR No : 495/14
U/s : 457/380/411/34
PS : AMAR COLONY
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 0246R0223972014
b The date of commission : 27.06.2014
c The date of Institution of the case : 04.09.2014
d The name of complainant : Vijay Seth
e The name of accused and his : Ankit Parcha S/o Sh. Gyan Chand
his parentage R/o House no. A5/200 JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, New Delhi.
f The offence complained of : 457/380/411/34 IPC
g The plea of all the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on : 13.01.2016
i The final order : Acquitted.
j The date of judgment : 20.01.2016.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The facts as per the prosecution case are that the complainant Vijay Seth reached his office on 27.06.2014 at 8 am and found his entire office ransacked. His camera bag containing camera make Nikon D 300 S body, three lenses of 100 to 300 Nikon and 1024mm Nikon and 1805mm Nikon Flash were missing along with one music system with two speaker and about 30 CD/DVDs. He called the police and FIR was got registered. During investigation of FIR no. 494/14 of Police Station Amar Colony, one Camera and its accessories belonging the complainant were recovered from the possession of JCL Bhanu and on his disclosure statement, accused Ankit Parcha was arrested in the present case. After completion of investigations, chargesheet against the accused Ankit was filed in the present case.
2. Copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused. Charge for commission of offence punishable u/s 457/380/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which FIR No. 495/2014 PS: Amar Colony State Vs. Ankit Parcha 1 of 5 he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses which are as under :
4. PW1/Vijay Seth deposed that his statement was recorded by the police vide Ex.PW 1/A. He testified that on 27.06.2014, he reached is office at 8 a.m., at 416 A Basement Sant Nagar, East of Kailash New Delhi and found its main door open and his office ransacked. His camera bag containing camera make Nikon D 300 S bod, three lenses of 100 to 300 Nikon and 10247mm Nikon and 1805mm Nikon Flats were missing, along with his wallet of CD/DVD's(approximately 30 in number). He informed the police and police reached at the spot and recorded his statement Ex.PW 1/A and prepared site plan Ex.PW 1/B. He identified the recovered articles Nikon D 300 S body, three lenses of 100 to 300 Nikon and 1024mm Nikon and one 1805 mm Nikon Flats vide Ex.P1 (Colly). He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
5. PW 02 SI Om Prakash deposed that on 24.07.52014, he was carrying out investigation in FIR no. 494/14 PS Amar Colony along with Ct. Sanjay Dubey, HC Hari Singh, HC Praveen and Ct. Kamal. During investigation, through mobile phone surveillance, accused / JCL Bhanu was apprehended who got recovered the case property in the present case. On the disclosure statement of JCL Bhanu, accused Ankit Parcha, along with two other JCL Rahul and Vijay was apprehended. PW 02 recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ankit Parcha and arrested him and informed the IO HC Ashwani of FIR no. 495/14 PS Amar Colony. He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. PW 03 Ct. Sanjay Dubey deposed on the lines of PW02 as he was along with PW 02 during investigation. He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7. PW 04 HC Ashwini Kumar deposed that on receipt of DD no. 9A, he along with Ct. Satbir met the complainant. He prepared the rukka on the back of complaint Ex.PW 1/A and site plan at the instance of the complainant. Accused was arrested in FIR 494/14 in which recovery of case property was effected. He was cross FIR No. 495/2014 PS: Amar Colony State Vs. Ankit Parcha 2 of 5 examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. PW 05 Ct. Satbir testified that he had got the present case FIR registered on the basis of rukka prepared by PW 04. He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. PW 06 SI Lalit Kumar deposed that on 24.07.2014, he along with PW 02 had questioned JCL Bhanu during which it was disclosed that he was involved in the present case as well along with some other cases. Upon his disclosure statement two other JCLs were also apprehended. The case property was recovered at the instance of JCL Bhanu from his house in the presence of his mother which was seized in the present case. Accused Ankit was arrested at the instance of JCLs Bhanu, Rahul and Vijay. He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. Statement of accused was record u/s 294 Cr.PC wherein he did not dispute the factum of registration of FIR no.495/15 Ex.A1.
11. This is the overall prosecution's evidence in this case. Prosecution evidence stood closed vide order dated 24.08.2015.
12. The accused was examined under the provision of section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code') and all the incriminating evidence were put to accused Ankit Parcha. He denied it in its entirety and answered that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he was picked up from house of his Mama by the police without informing his parents. He chose to lead defence evidence.
13. DW01 Sh. Gyan Chand (father of the accused) testified that fourfive persons came to his house at 5/5.30 a.m. on 23.06.2014 and took his mobile phone (DW1's). They further instructed DW 01 to accompany them. Police arrested the accused from his maternal uncle's house and nothing was recovered from either his house or his maternal uncle's house. He was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
FIR No. 495/2014 PS: Amar Colony State Vs. Ankit Parcha 3 of 5
14. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and counsel for accused and perused the records of the case.
15. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved beyond reasonable doubt and the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn from the prosecution's evidence is the conviction of the accused.
16. Now I proceed to consider the rivalised contentions raised at the bar and independently scrutinize the relevant evidence brought on record.
17. In order to bring accused to justice, prosecution has to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence under sections457/380/34 IPC which are :
1. Section 457 IPC states that Lurking housetrespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment - whosoever commits lurking Housetrespass by night, or housebreaking by night in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and it the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
2. Section 380 IPC states that Theft in dwelling house etc., whosoever commits theft in any building tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as human dwelling or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for the term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
18. In the case at hand, there are several missing links in the chain of evidence produced by the prosecution in its case against the accused. PW 1 is the only public witness in the present case. He has not seen the persons who had broken into his office and stolen the case property and other articles which have not been recovered during investigations. There is no eyewitness produced by the prosecution to the incident of lurking house trespass or commission of theft in the office of the complainant.
FIR No. 495/2014 PS: Amar Colony State Vs. Ankit Parcha 4 of 5
19. Further PW 01 in his crossexamination has deposed that though the door of his office had been broken but the lock had been found intact in contradiction to the same PW 05 has deposed that the door had not been broken but the lock to the door had been broken in the present case. The same is a material contradiction. As regards committing the offence of house breaking in order to commit an offence, even the instruments used for breaking into the office of the complainant have not been recovered in the present case.
20. PW 04 has admitted during his crossexamination that no eyewitness turned out in this case regarding the breaking and entering into the office of the complainant.
21. PW 02 and PW 03 have admitted in their cross examination that no recovery has been made from the possession of Accused Ankit Parcha in the present case. Hence there is no evidence against the accused Ankit Parcha produced by the prosecution, except the disclosure statement of JCL Bhanu.
22. The prosecution has failed to produce any eyewitness in order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused present herein had infact committed the offences punishable either u/s 380 IPC or u/s 457 IPC. All the above mentioned infirmities in the prosecution evidence seriously reflects on the varacity of prosecution case the benefit whereof must go to the accused.
23. For the above stated reasons, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused Ankit Parcha and accordingly, accused Ankit Parcha is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 380/457/34 IPC for which he was charged. Endorsement, if any is cancelled, bail bonds for purpose of trial are discharged, documents, if any be returned against proper receipt subject to filing of bail bonds in compliance of Sec. 437 A CrPC.
Announced in the open court (Archana Beniwal)
on 20.01.2016 Metropolitan Magistrate08,
South East, Saket, New Delhi
FIR No. 495/2014 PS: Amar Colony
State Vs. Ankit Parcha 5 of 5