Delhi District Court
State vs . Paramjeet Singh on 12 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08 (SE), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI STATE Vs. PARAMJEET SINGH FIR NO. : 426/96 P.S. : G.K.-I U.S. : 379/411 IPC Date of institution of case : 31.03.97 Date on which case reserved : 25.02.2012 for judgment Date of judgment : 12.03.2012 JUDGEMENT U/S 350 Cr.PC.: a) Date of offence : 30.10.96 b) Offence complained of : U/s. 379/411 IPC c) Name of accused, his parentage : (1) Paramjeet Singh S/o Sh. Avtaar Singh R/o R-42, G.K.-I, New Delhi. d) Plea of accused : Pleaded guilty e) Final order : Acquitted Counsels for the Parties: For the State : Ms. Nidhi Bala For the Accused : Sh. Arun Vohra BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:- 1.
In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 20.10.96 at about 06.35 PM Near B-2, G.K. Enclave, New Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS- G.K.-I, accused committed theft of Car bearing No.DDQ-7637 belonging to complainant Sh. Gulal Sikand and on on the same day, he got the said car recovered from R-Block, Guru Nanak Market which he had FIR No. 426/1996 U/s. 379/411 IPC PS-G.K.-1 1/7 dishonestly received or retained knowingly or having reasons to believe the same to be a stolen property and thereby committed offence punishable under section 379/411 IPC. Accused was arrested for being involved in non bailable offence, however, later on, he was released on bail by the court order.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused in the Court. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed by him. Charge for the offence punishable U/s. 379/411 IPC was framed against the accused on 18.12.2004, to which he pleaded not guilty & claimed trial.
3. Thereafter case was listed for prosecution evidence. In order to substantiate its version, prosecution filed the list of as many as eight witnesses including the complainant.
4. PW1 HC Prem Singh deposed that on 20.10.96 he was posted as Duty Officer, having his duty hours from 04.00 PM to 12.00 AM. On that day, he received a written complaint from the complainant , on the basis of which he recorded the FIR. He proved the copy of FIR Ex Pw1/A (OSR), bearing his signatures at point A and his endorsement on it Ex PW1/B. Investigation of the case was handed over to HC Rajbir.
5. PW2 Dr. Gulal Sikand deposed that on 20.10.96, he had lodged a complaint Ex PW2/A regarding theft of her car bearing No. DDQ 7637, stolen from B-2, GK Enclave, New Delhi. She further deposed that during the course of investigation, said car was recovered and got the same FIR No. 426/1996 U/s. 379/411 IPC PS-G.K.-1 2/7 released on Superdari by her husband. Police had also prepared Site Plan Ex PW2/B on her pointing out. She also identified the case property Ex P1. PW3 Dr. P.S. Sikand deposed to the line of PW2. He also proved the Superdarinama Ex PW3/A and identified the case property Ex P1.
6. PW4 SI Rajbir Singh deposed that on 20.10.96, duty officer handed him over rukka Ex PW2/A and copy of FIR Ex PW1/A for investigation of the case. He further deposed that he visited the spot and prepared site plan on his own after going through the FIR. Thereafter SI Rishipal informed him that the accused had made a disclosure statement wherein he had disclosed of committing theft in the present case. He further deposed that after said information, he went to SI Rishipal and received the relevant papers Ex PW5/A and B. Accused was formally arrested vide slip Ex PW4/A, bearing his signatures at point A. he also prepared Site Plan Ex PW2/B, bearing his signatures at point A. He also recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. He also identified the accused and case property Ex P1.
7. During cross examination he deposed that SI Rishipal had arrested the accused and also recovered the stolen car. He had formally arrested the accused. He was not present at the time of recovery. He admitted that the said car was brought to PS by SI Rishipal. He admitted that he neither visited the spot nor make the site plan of the spot from where the said car was recovered. He also deposed that the complaint regarding theft was reported at about 06.30 PM and he visited the site at about 08.00 PM before the car was recovered by SI Rshi Pal. He deposed that he received the information regarding recovery of car from SI Rishipal between 09.30 PM to 10.00 PM when he returned to PS. He denied that FIR No. 426/1996 U/s. 379/411 IPC PS-G.K.-1 3/7 he was deposing falsely.
8. PW5 SI Rishipal deposed that on 20.10.96, he was on emergency duty, on receiving D.D. No. 14A regarding an accident at R Block, GK-I, at about 07.35 PM, he along with Ct. Umesh reached at spot. There a vehicle bearing No. DL2 CA4738 was found standing in accidental condition. He arrested the accused at the spot in that case i.e. FIR No. 428/96. On investigation, he came to know that the said car was stolen one. Accused gave a disclosure statement , wherein he disclosed that he had also committed theft of the car involved in the present case. He also got the said car recovered, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW5/A, bearing his signatures at point A. He also recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide Ex PW5/B, bearing his signatures at point A. He also identified the accused and case property Ex P1.
9. During cross examination he deposed that on reaching spot, they found that the accused had caused an accident with a lady but he did not remember the name of that lady. He further deposed that the accused had given the disclosure statement at the spot itself and got it signed by the accused then and there. He was present at the spot for almost two hours. Before he reached there, SI Raghunath was already present there, who briefed him about the accused. He also deposed that no public witness was present at that time and even SI Raghunath did not mention about any eyewitness. He could not tell the time when complainant was sent to the hospital as she had already left the spot before they had reached. He recorded the statement of complainant at the hospital. He further deposed that the accused told him at the spot only about his having committed theft of another car. There was no public witness at FIR No. 426/1996 U/s. 379/411 IPC PS-G.K.-1 4/7 the time of recovery of stolen car from Guru Nanak Market. He admitted that he did not enquire from the shopkeeper of Guru Nanak market. He also did not remember whether was removed by towing or was driven to police station. He admitted that the accused was not under the influence of liquor. He denied that no car was recovered as per disclosure statement. He also denied that he forcibly got the said disclosure statement signed from the accused. He also denied that he was deposing falsely.
10. Thereafter, no other PW was left to be examined hence, PE was closed. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded, wherein entire incriminating circumstances appearing on record against the accused was put to which he denied as false & incorrect however did not lead any evidence in his defence.
11. The main arguments of accused are:-
(1) Accused has been falsely implicated and as many as four FIRs including present one were registered against the accused on the said date of incident.
(2) Accused was never taken to the spot and no recovery was effected from him. Case property of the present case was planted on him. (3) Non-joining of public witnesses also casts a serious doubt over the truthfulness of prosecution story.
12. The main arguments of Prosecution are :-
(1) All the requisite ingredients of Section 379 and 411 IPC are satisfied. (2) Stolen car of the present case was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement at his instance and the case property has been duly identified by the complainant and other witnesses FIR No. 426/1996 U/s. 379/411 IPC PS-G.K.-1 5/7 (4) Public persons generally do not come forward to join the investigation of a police case.
13. The Court has heard the submissions of both side and also gone through the entire record including the testimonies of witnesses. After going through the entire record, the court has no hesitation in holding that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PW5 SI Rishipal Sharma, the sole recovery witness, is highly un-reliable. He has deposed that on receiving D.D. NO.14 A regarding an accident, he along with Ct. Ramesh reached at spot . While conducting the proceedings of said case, he came to know that the car of accused which had met with an accident was stolen one. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused wherein accused allegedly also disclosed of committing theft of car involved in the present case and accused allegedly got the said car recovered on the same day from Gurunanak market. But interestingly prosecution has no other witness to prove that the said car was recovered from Gurunanak market at the instance of accused. Ct. Umesh and SI Raghunath were also present at the spot with SI Rishipal while conducting the investigation of FIR No.428/96, PS GK-I, where the accused while recording his disclosure statement also allegedly disclosed of committing theft of car involved in the present case but none of them have not been made witness in the present case for the reason best known to the Investigating Officer, who considered that only his testimony would be sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. His testimony regarding non-availability of witnesses at the spot i.e. Gurunanak Market also seems to be false. The spot being a market area can not be said to have been deserted at the time of recovery which is stated to have been recovered between 09.00 PM to 10.00 PM. At FIR No. 426/1996 U/s. 379/411 IPC PS-G.K.-1 6/7 the same this witness has also admitted that he did not enqiure from any shopkeeper of the said market regarding the alleged incident which goes on to show his contradictory version regarding the availability of public/independent witnesses at the spot at the time of recovery. No explanation is either coming from this witness as to why he did not make any effort to join the public persons in the investigation of the present case. The failure on the part of the prosecution to join public witnesses especially when they are available also casts a doubt on the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as PREM SINGH VS. STATE, 1996 Crl. L.J. 3604, PAWAN KUMAR VS. DELHI ADMN 1989 Crl. L.J. 127 (Delhi HC), NANAK CHAND VS. STATE OF DELHI, 1992 Crl. LJ 55 (Delhi HC). He has also admitted that he did not remember whether the said recovered car was removed by towing or was driven to the police station. In the given facts and circumstances, the possibility of false implication can also be not ruled out.
14. When the recovery of stolen car is in complete doubt, the applicability of section 27 of Evidence Act does not arise. In view of foregoing reasons, the court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence , accused stands acquitted from the charge framed U/s 379/411 IPC.
15. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced in the Open (MONA TARDI KERKETTA)
Court Today on 12.03.12 Metropolitan Magistrate-08 (SE)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 426/1996 U/s. 379/411 IPC PS-G.K.-1 7/7