Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay on 6 February, 2012
In the Court of Sh. Satish Kumar Arora : MM(Central)-04
Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi
FIR No. 32/06
U/s 379/511 IPC
PS HNRS
State Vs. Sanjay
JUDGMENT:
A Sl. No. of the case 02402R 0339702006 B Date of institution 21/04/06 C Date of commission of 02/04/06 offence D Name of the complainant Yogender Yadav through State
E Name of the accused & his Sanjay s/o Sh. Ram Nath r/o Village parentage and address Matera, PO Bikhapur, PS Bela, Distt.
Etawah, UP
F Offence complained of U/s 379/511 IPC
G Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
H Order Reserved on 06/02/12
I Final order Convicted
J Date of such order 06/02/12
Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1 Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present case FIR
proceedings against the accused are as follows:-
On 02.04.06 at about 8.30 pm when the complainant PW 4 Yogender Yadav was trying to board Habibganj Express Train at Platform no. 1, Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station (in short, HNRS), he felt some sensation in the back pocket of his wearing pant. He turned back and saw the accused putting his hand in his back pocket and trying to remove his purse. He immediately caught hold of the accused and raised alarm. In the meantime, the police officials of PS HNRS came to the spot and the accused was handed over to them by the complainant. PW2 HC Inderpal on the statement of complainant Yogender Yadav prepared rukka Ex. PW2/A and got the present case FIR registered. After completing the necessary investigation, charge sheet for the offence u/s 379/511 IPC was filed in the court against the accused for trial.FIR No. 32/06, PS HNRS S/V Sanjay Page No. 1 of 3
2. Upon appearance of the accused, copies as required under section 207 Cr. P.C. were supplied and case was fixed for consideration on charge. After hearing arguments and on perusal of record, prima facie case against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC was found to be made out. Charge was framed accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then listed for PE.
3. In order to substantiate and prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses.
PW1 Ct. Udai Bhan participated in the investigation with the IO.
PW2 HC Inderpal is the IO of the case.
PW3 HC Mahavir Singh is the DO who on 02.04.06at about 9.35 pm recorded the FIR Ex. PW3/A on the basis of rukka sent by HC Inderpal through Ct. Udai Bhan.
PW4 Yogender Yadav is the complainant. He is the star witness for the prosecution and in his testimony, he stated that on 02.04.06 at about 8.30 pm when he was trying to board Habibganj Express Train at Platform No. 1, HNRS, he felt some sensation in his back pocket and on turning back saw the accused having his hand in his back pocket and trying to remove his purse therefrom. He further stated that he caught hold of the accused and raised alarm. He further stated that on hearing his alarm, police came there and he handed over the custody of the accused to the police. He further stated that his statement Ex. PW4/A was recorded and police also prepared site plan Ex. PW4/B at his instance. He further stated that the accused was arrested in his presence vide arrest and personal search memo Ex. PW1/A & B respectively. In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated as a scuffle took place between him and the accused.
4. In his statement recorded u/s 281 CrPC, accused denied the entire incriminating evidence against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. As no witness was examined by the accused in his defence, matter was finally heard.
5. Heard the Ld. APP for the state and the accused and FIR No. 32/06, PS HNRS S/V Sanjay Page No. 2 of 3 perused the judicial record carefully.
As is apparent, the star witness for the prosecution who is the complainant / PW4 Yogender Yadav had categorically reiterated his statement given by him to the police about his apprehending the accused at the time when the accused was trying to pick his pocket by putting his hand into the back pocket of his wearing pant. Except the suggestion that on account of some scuffle between the complainant and the accused, accused has been falsely implicated, there is nothing in the cross examination of the complainant so as to disbelieve of what he had stated in his testimony recorded in the court. The testimony of the other prosecution witnesses who are the IO and the accompanying constable provides the corroboration to the sole testimony of the complainant. Thus, through the testimony of the complainant, prosecution establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was caught red handed while he was attempting to commit theft of the purse from the back pocket of the complainant.
6. In view of the foregoing, I hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC. He is accordingly convicted of the offence. Copy of this judgment be supplied forthwith to the convict without any cost. Be put up for hearing the convict on the quantum of sentence on 16.02.2012 at 2.00 pm. Announced in open Court on 06.02.2012 (SATISH KUMAR ARORA) MM (Central)-04 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 32/06, PS HNRS S/V Sanjay Page No. 3 of 3