Delhi District Court
State vs . Raju on 5 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR MALIK: MM
(WEST) -02 TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
State Vs. Raju
FIR No. 901/14
PS: Rajouri Garden
U/S: 380/457/511 IPC
Unique Case ID No. :02401R052112014
Date of institution of case :16.10.2014
Date on which case reserved for :05.05.2016
judgment
Date of judgment :05.05.2016
JUDGMENT U/S 380/457/511 IPC
a)Date of offence :18.08.2014.
b)Offence complained of :U/s 380/457/511 IPC
c)Name of accused, his parentage :Raju
& Residence S/o Sh. Rajesh
R/o W-52B, Jhuggi No.
141, T-Huts, Raghubir
Nagar, Delhi.
d)Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
e)Final Order :Convicted
JUDGMENT
FIR No.901/14 State Vs. Raju Page No. 1 of 8
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. On 18.08.2014 after receiving the DD No. 9A SI Suresh Chand along with Ct. Sunil reached at F-175, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi and met complainant Padam Aggarwal. SI Suresh Chand recorded the statement of Padam Aggarwal. Complainant stated that on 18.08.2014 he was sleeping along with his family, at about 03:15 AM he heard some noise at the balcony at roof of his house.
Complainant saw that one person got entered into his house and complainant raised the alarm of Chor-Chor. When complainant went out of room, the said person jumped from the balcony to ground. The said thief was lying on the ground in gali. The neighbours also woke up and came in the gali. That thief suffered the injuries while jumping from the balcony. Complainant called to police. That thief was taken to Guru Govind Singh Hospital. On the complaint, the IO/SI Suresh Chand got the FIR registered U/s 380/511 IPC and started investigation. IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant, arrested the accused - Raju and while taking personal search of the accused one stolen mobile phone also got recovered from his possession. IO seized the stolen mobile phone. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused. The statement of witnesses was recorded and on FIR No.901/14 State Vs. Raju Page No. 2 of 8 completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court U/s 380/511 IPC.
2. The cognizance of offence was taken and copy of charge sheet were supplied to accused. After compliance of provisions U/s 207 Cr.P.C. the charges were framed against accused Raju on 08.12.2014 U/s 457/380/511 IPC to which accused not pleaded guilty and claimed trial.
3. Matter was then listed for PE. Prosecution has produced as many as Five witnesses to prove its version.
4. The prosecution got examined Padam Aggarwal as PW1 who deposed that on 18.08.2014 he was sleeping at his house along with his family and at about 03:15 AM he heard some noise at the balcony at roof of his house. PW1 saw that one person got entered into his house and he raised the alarm of Chor-Chor. When PW1 went out of room, the said person jumped from the balcony to ground. The said thief was lying on the ground in gali. The neighbours also woke up and came in the gali. That thief suffered the injuries while jumping from the balcony. PW1 called the police through his mobile phone. PW1 further deposed that the leg of aforesaid person got broken and that persons was taken to Hospital. The name of that person was revealed as Raju. FIR No.901/14 State Vs. Raju Page No. 3 of 8 PW1 correctly identified the accused in the court and proved his complaint as Ex.PW1/A. PW1 affirmed the site plan as Ex.PW1/B, seizure memo of mobile phone with IMEI No. 352772036333266/352772036383261 as Ex.PW1/C, disclosure statement of the accused as Ex.PW1/E, arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW1/F and personal search memo of the accused as Ex.PW1/G.
5. The prosecution got examined ASI Pradeep Kumar as PW2 who deposed that on 18.08.2014 on receiving rukka from Ct. Sunil Kumar he registered the FIR No. 901/14 and proved the same as Ex.PW2/A. PW2 also proved the endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW2/B.
6. The prosecution got examined HC Vinod Kumar as PW3 who deposed that on 18.08.2014 at about 03:50 Am, he received the information from PCR Control Room. Ct. Neetu informed that one person namely Raju @ Rajesh entered into the house No. F-175, J.J. Colony, Raghubir Nagar and when he tried to flee away he got injured. PW3 proved the DD No. 9A as Ex.PW3/A.
7. The prosecution got examined Ct. Sunil Kumar as PW4 who deposed that on 18.08.2014 he accompanied SI Suresh FIR No.901/14 State Vs. Raju Page No. 4 of 8 Chand and went at the spot i.e. F-175, Raghubir Nagar where they met complainant Padam Aggarwal who produced the accused - Raju. PW4 correctly identified the accused in the court. PW4 further deposed that IO prepared the rukka at which he got the FIR registered and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO/SI Suresh Chand. PW4 further deposed that the IO arrested and carried out the personal search of the accused where IO recovered two mobile phones from the possession of the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. The seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D also bears the signatures of PW4.
8. Prosecution got examined SI Suresh Chand as PW5 who deposed that on 18.08.2014 he received the DD No. 9A and went at the spot i.e. F-175, J.J. Colony, Raghubir Nagar and found that the accused thief got injured while jumping from balcony and was taken to hospital. PW5 proved the rukka as Ex.PW5/A at which Ct. Sunil got the FIR registered. Ct. Sunil was left at hospital for the supervision of the accused. Site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant. PW5 further deposed that after arrest of accused his personal search was conducted during which one mobile phone was recovered pertaining to which one seizure FIR No.901/14 State Vs. Raju Page No. 5 of 8 memo Ex.PW1/C was prepared but due to mistake while writing the colour of recovered mobile phone some overwriting was done and PW5 prepared another seizure memo. Both the seizure memo are already on record which are already Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. Nothing came on record during cross examination of PW5 so as to shatter the testimony of PW5.
9. PE was closed thereafter.
10. All the incriminating evidence/material was then put to accused which he denied in his statement dated 30.03.2016 recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C submitting the present case to be false. He wished however not to lead any defence evidence.
11. Final arguments advanced. I have perused the case record.
12. It is observed by this court that PW1 specifically deposed regarding factum of lurking house tress pass by the accused during night in order to commit the offence at the house of the complainant. The same factum is also proved by PW4 and PW5 as they reached at the house of the complainant on receiving DD No. 9A and found that the accused - Raju got injured at the spot after falling from the balcony the complainant and was taken to Guru Govind Singh Hospital by PCR Van.
FIR No.901/14 State Vs. Raju Page No. 6 of 8
13. It is also observed that the accused was found at the house of complainant without being any reason at odd hours of 03:00 AM for purpose of committing the offence, hence, the accused has committed the offence of theft by entering the house of the complainant, although, the accused was apprehended before completion of offence and the offence remained incohate for which the accused has been booked for the offence U/s 511 IPC also. It is also observed by this court that the PW5 has successfully given the clarification regarding the presence of two seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D.
14. It is also observed that the prosecution has proved the complaint of complainant as Ex.PW1/A and arrest memo of accused who has been arrested at the hospital after being taken by police officials to hospital from the house of the complainant at odd hours of 03:00 AM. The testimony of PW1 proves the present of accused at the house of the complainant beyond any reasonably doubts for purpose of commission of offence. The accused miserably failed to give any dent to the story of prosecution or to raise any doubt on depositions by the prosecution witnesses, whereas, the prosecution has successfully proved the charge U/s 380/457/511 IPC i.e. the factum of incohate FIR No.901/14 State Vs. Raju Page No. 7 of 8 theft by the accused. Prosecution has successfully proved its case U/s 380/457/511 IPC against the accused - Raju. In view of above, this court is of the opinion that accused- Raju is convicted to the offence U/s 380/457/511 IPC.
Copy of this judgment be given dasti to Ld. LAC for the convict free of cost.
Announced in the open Court on this 05th Day of May, 2016 (AJAY KUMAR MALIK) MM(West)-02/THC 05.05.2016 FIR No.901/14 State Vs. Raju Page No. 8 of 8 FIR No. 901/14 PS: Rajouri Garden 05.05.2016 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Sumit Tyagi Ld. LAC for the accused.
Accused - Raju is absent today.
On an application, personal appearance of the accused is exempted for today only.
Arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date, accused - Raju is convicted to the offence punishable U/s 380/457/511 IPC.
Matter is adjourned for orders on quantum of sentence, it be re-listed on 17.05.2016.
(AJAY KUMAR MALIK) MM (West)-02/NEW DELHI 05.05.2016 FIR No.901/14 State Vs. Raju Page No. 9 of 8