Delhi District Court
State vs . Rohit @ Monty on 23 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR III, KARKARDOOMA
COURT NORTH EAST, KARAWAL NAGAR :DELHI
State Vs. Rohit @ Monty
FIR No. 07/10
U/Section : 379/414/34 34 IPC
PS Shahstri Park
Unique ID No. 02402RO 286252010.
Date of Institution of case : 11.10.2010
Date on which judgment is reserved : 19.06.2014
Date on which Judgment is delivered : 23.06.2014
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the case 69C/10
Date of commission of offence 6.3.2010
Date of institution of the case 11.10.2010
Name of the complainant Shri Ankur Garg
Name of accused, parentage & 1. Rohit @ Monty S/o Shri
address Joginder Singh R/o: H. No. D 3/14,
Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi (Already
convicted)
2. Sandeep @ Monu S/o Shri Rattan
Singh R/o: Village, Gumar, PS
Gannaur, District: Sonepat Haryana
Offence complained of or proved U/S: 379/414/34 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded guilty : Rohit @ Monty
Pleaded not guilty: Sandeep @
FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 1 of 15 pages
Monu
Date of final arguments heard 19.06.2014
Final order Accused Rohit @ Monty (already
convicted vide order dated
19.09.2013)
Accused Sandeep @ Monu
(Acquitted)
Date of Judgment 23.06.2014
j) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case
In brief the prosecution case against the accused is that on
06.03.2010 between 3.15 to 5.25 pm accused persons namely Rohit @ Monti and Sandeep @ Moni had stolen one Honda City car bearing no. DL 2FDS 0024 from Metro Parking, Tis Hazari Court having laptop, brief case containing Rs. 45,000/ cash with some documents and thereafter voluntarily assisted in concealing or disposing the above mentioned car which you knew or had reasons to believe it to be stolen property and had committed an offence punishable under section 379/414/34 IPC. On the compliant of complainant a rukka was prepared, on the basis of which, the present FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court by IO SI Nirbhay Singh Rana through SHO concerned .
2. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons and considering the material available on the record Learned Predecessor of this FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 2 of 15 pages court vide order dated 15.12.2010 framed the charge for offence under Section 379/414/34 IPC, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Rohit @ Monty had already been convicted and sentenced vide order dated 19.09.2013 on pleading guilty.
3. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses. The witnesses are as follows:
PW1 is Shri Ankur Garg/complainant of the present case who deposed that on 6.3.2010 he had gone to meet his counsel at Tis Hazari Delhi and had parked his vehicle i.e. Honda City bearing no. DL 2FDS 0024 at Metro Parking Tis Hazari and had taken the slip no. 017708 from the parking attendant .Inside the car his laptop, brief case containing a few documents relating to property and other important customer documents, Rs. 45,000/ cash and original RC of the car were lying. The contractor also had taken away the keys of the car stating that he had to adjust the car in the metro parking and everybody had given the keys of their car to him. When he returned back to the parking he found that his car was missing and had enquired from contractor and attendant but they failed to give any satisfactory reply. His statement was recorded by the police Ex. PW1/A. The car was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. PW2 HC Gajender Singh was duty officer who had proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW2/A and had made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW2/B. FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 3 of 15 pages PW3 is Ct. Sunil who was working as Ct. at PS Shahstri Park Metro Station. On receipt of information regarding theft of a Honda City car he went to Metro Parking, Tis Hazari and had seized the receipt no. 017708 dated 06.03.2010 vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A and had also seized attendance register vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. PW4 is Santosh Kumar has deposed that on 4.5.2010 he was working in the parking of Tis Hazari Metro Station. His duty was on "In" gate and he was issuing the parking slips . He had issued the slip no. 017708 Ex. P1 on document Ex.PW1/B and on which no. 24 mentioned in circle and date 63 was written by him..
PW5 Sanjeev Kumar, Parking Attendant had deposed that he used to park vehicles in the parking . He had further deposed that at about 1 or 2 pm in the afternoon one car Honda City No. DL 2F DS 0024 came in the parking lot and the owner of the said car handed him over the keys of said car . After one and half hour of parking said car, one person aged about 2223 years having height of about 6 feet with fair complexion and stout physique came and demanded the key of the said car after telling the no. of car and had taken away that car. Thereafter the owner of the vehicle came and had demanded the keys of the car and he stated that he had already handed over the keys of the car to someone. Thereafter police came and had recorded his FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 4 of 15 pages statement Ex. PW5/A. PW5 further identify the accused Rohit @ Monty in the court.
PW: 6 HC Ravinder Kumar had deposed that on 09.08.2010 he was posted as Ct. at SOS Crime Branch. IO had prepared the interrogation report and he signed the same as witness and same is Ex. PW6/A. IO had formally arrested the accused Rohit vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW6/C. PW7 is HC Kuldeep Singh , Malkhana Mohrar at PS Gannaur who had deposed that he had made the entry of Hero Honda Car with broken number plate DN 4CD 1450 and copy of the said entry is Ex. PW7/A. He had further deposed that thereafter on 25.5.2010 in FIR no. 80/10 under section 302/201 IPC, PS Madhuban Distt: Karnal the said case property was hadned over to SI Krishna Kumar as per the orders of SDJM dated 25.5.2010 the application in this regard is Ex. PW7/B and the order of the court is Ex. PW7/C. PW8 HC Virender Singh who had proved the attested copy of register no. 19 in regard of depositing the case property of the present case vide entry no. 781 dated 2.5.2010 and same is Ex. PW8/A. PW 8 HC Id Mohd. (wrongly written as PW8) had deposed that on 18.08.2010 he was posted as SOS Crime Branch as HC. Accused Rohit @ Monty was arrested vide memo Ex. PW6/B and his disclosure statement Ex. FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 5 of 15 pages PW8/A was recorded. He also deposed that he interrogated the accused Sandeep @ Monu and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/D and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW6/E. PW 9 is HC Ravinder (wrongly written as PW9 instead of PW6).
PW10 is Akhtar Hussain Khan who had deposed that he is a Contractor by profession and is running the firm by name of M/s. Akhtar Enterprises and had employed Shri Anil Kumar S/o Shri Gajender Singh as a supervisor of the said parking who had informed him on 6.3.2010 in evening time that one Honda City car bearing no. DL 2FDS 0024 had been stolen.
PW11 Satish Chand , Record Keeper who had brought the record of vehicle bearing no. DL 2FDS 0024 and had deposed that he said vehicle is in the name of M/s. P.G. International and coy of report is Ex.
PW11/A.
PW12 is Shri Anil Kumar who had deposed that he was
Manager of parking at Metro Parking Tis Hazari from 2004 to year 2010. Further he had deposed that on 6.3.2010 one Honda City car bearing no. DL 2FDS 0024 came and the car owner had handed over the keys of car to his employee namely Sanjeev Kumar.
PW13 ASI Surender Kumar who had deposed that on 6.3.2010, he was post ed at PS Shahstri Park, Metro Station and on receipt of FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 6 of 15 pages DD no. 15A he along with Ct. Sunil went to Tis Hazari Metro parking where complainant Ankur Garg met them. He had recorded the statement of complainant AnKur Gar vide memo Ex. PW1/A and had prepared the site plan Ex. PW13/A at the instance of complainant, produced the slip of parking Ex PW1/A and had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A .
PW14 Shri Sanjay Khangwal, the then Secretary, DLSA, KKD Court. He had proved the TIP application of the IO Ex. PW14/A , TIP proceedings Ex. PW14/B, the certificate of correctness of proceedings is Ex. PW14/C , the application of IO regarding providing copy of proceedings was allowed as per rule is Ex. PW14/D. PW15 Shri Lokesh Kumar, ASE/Works, DMRC has brought the original Licence agreement executed on 8.9.2009 between DMRC and M/s. Akhtar Enterprises in respect of the Tis Hazari Station Metro Parking site for the period of two years and photocopy of the same is Ex.PW15/A. PW16 SI Krishan Kumar had deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted at PS Madhuban District Karnal as SI and was IO of case FIR no. 80/2010 of PS Karnal U/S: 302/34 IPC. On 11.5.2010 he arrested the accused Sandeep @ Monu and during interrogation accused Sandeep @ Monu disclosed that he had purchased one Honda City car of silver colour bearing no. RJ 14 5971 and had taken from his friend Rohit @ Monti and vehicle was used on 21.3.2010. Further he had deposed that in the morning hour, they FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 7 of 15 pages went to Village Bastara to commit murder of Praveen by said car and dead body of Praveen was brought by said car by keeping it in a diggi. After using the said vehicle, it was given to his friend Naveen and Satbeer who were the residents of Village Kheri Tagga, PS Gannaur, District: Sonepat. Thereafter accused Naveen and Satbeer were arrested in case FIR No. 80/10, PS Madhuban. He interrogated the accused Naveen and Satbeer and both disclosed that they had removed the no. plate RJ 14 5971 and put a new no. plate i.e. DL 4CNB 1450 they further disclosed that on 26.03.2010, while they were going towards Delhi side and reached Village Garhikala, G. T. Road where due to mechanical fault in the car it was parked inside the road and no. plate after breaking it was thrown in the nala. Accused Naveen and Satbeer pointed out the place where they left the said car. He had made enquiry there and came to know that said vehicle was deposited in the P.S Gannaur vide DD no. 36 dated 27.03.2010. He moved an application before the concerned court to take the possession of the said vehicle which was deposited. Thereafter by the order of the court he had taken the said car into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/A from PS Gannaur and brought the same to PS Madhuban where he deposited the said car in the malkhana. Car thereafter was sent to FSL, Madhuban. He traced out the owner of the said car through engine and chasis number and informed about the recovery of the said car to the owner but could not recollected the name of the owner of the said car. He further FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 8 of 15 pages identified the original seizure memo (photocop0y Ex. PW16/A) made by him when he brought the said car from PS Gannaur, Distt. Sonepat Haryana where it was deposited U/S: 102 Cr.P.C. Further he had recorded the disclosure statement Ex. PW16/A of accused Sandeep @ Monu on 11.5.2010 while accused Sandeep @ Monu was in custody in FIR no. 80/10 of PS Madhuban.
PW17 SI Shamim Khan had deposed that on 25.03.2010 he was posted at PS North Rohini. on that day, he received the DD no. 62B with regard to robbery of car. Thereafter he went to the spot i.e. at the gate no. 1, Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Sector 6 where complainant Varun Chawla met them who made complaint with regard to robbery of his car bearing no. DL 3CA E 1127 at the point of pistol. He received the information regarding capturing of accused Rohit @ Monti along with above said robbed car. he along with complainant went Gandha Nala near Shamshan Ghat, Rohini where he recorded the statement of complainant and initiated the proceedings and got registered the FIR No. 78/10, PS North Rohini and arrested the accused Rohit @ Monti on the spot and seized the said car. During investigation of the case, he arrested the accused Sandeep @ Monu and other accused Naveen S/o Bhagwan. Thereafter IO of the case SI Nirbhay Singh came on 22.09.2010 and recorded his statement.
PW18 Ct. Meghraj had deposed that on 27.03.2010 he was posted at PSGannaur and on that day, he along with ASI Jai Bhagwan went to FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 9 of 15 pages Village Garhi Kalan, G. T. Road, Sonepat and saw that one Honda City Car was standing at Water point and one broken number plate bearing no. DL 4CNB 1450 was also lying near the car. ASI Jai Bhagwan Checked the engine number and chasis number and made inquiry in respect of the car and it was revealed that the said car was lying abandoned. The said car was taken into possession by ASI Jai Bhagwan U/S: 102 Cr.P.C vide seizure memo Ex. PW18/A. PW19 ASI Jai Bhagwan had deposed that on 27.03.2010 he was posted as ASI at PS Gannaur, District: Sonepat. On that day, he went to village Garhikala, G. T. Road, Sonepat along with Ct. Meghraj where he noticed that one Honda City car was standing in a gali in front of water works. There was no number plate either on the front or back side of the car. He made enquiries and came to know that said car was standing since the earlier night and mat of the dicky was lying outside of the car and it seemed to him that blood spot was on the said mat. Part of the number plate was lying in the nala near the car and number plate was having no. DL 4CNB 1450. He thereafter checked the engine and chasis numbers. No claimant of the car was found there and he seized the car under section 102 Cr.P.C and mentioned the engine and chasis number of the said car in memo Ex. PW18/A. PW20 SI Nirbhay Singh Rana who deposed that on 30.04.2010, he was posted at SOS Crime Branch and on that day, further investigation of FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 10 of 15 pages the present case was assigned to him. He received the case file and recorded the statement of PWs. Further he had deposed that on 15.07.2010, complainant Ankur Garg informed him by telephone that stolen car was recovered by police officials of PS Madhuban, Distt: Karnal,Haryana. He also informed that said information was given to him by SI Krishan Kumar from PS Madhuban. Thereafter he visited PS Madhuban at Haryana and collected the documents. and moved an application before the court for permission to interrogate the accused Sandeep @ Monu in Ambala Jail and permission was granted by Ld. court. Thereafter he went to Ambala Jail where accused Sandeep @ Monu was kept and he interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW6/A where it revealed during the interrogation that one accused Rohit @ Monti was also involved in the theft of vehicle of present case. He formally arrested the accused Rohit @ Monti and kept him in Rohini Jail. Thereafter he arrested the accused Sandeep @ Monu and produced before the court on P/Ws. He again interrogated accused Sandeep @ Monu and recorded his statement Ex. PW6/E. Judicial TIP of accused Rohit was got conducted through witness Sanjeev. During TIP accused Rohit was correctly identified by witness. Thereafter he prepared the challan and filed it before the court through Inspector concerned.
4. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence which came on record were put to FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 11 of 15 pages the accused to which he stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case at the behest of co accused Rohit @ Monty who was arrested and made false disclosure, mentioning his name in his disclosure statement. The police officials in collusion with accused Rohit @ Monti have planted a false case upon him. No evidence was led in defence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for the State and carefully gone through the record.
6. In the present case Ld. APP submitted that keeping in view the Section 30 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has proved the case in as much as the other accused Rohit @ Monty has pleaded guilty and he had been convicted on 19.09.2013 which is sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused Sandeep @ Monu. But the submission of Ld. APP is not maintainable in the eyes of law in as much as Section 30 talks about the confession made by other co accused who is jointly tried for the same offence. Accused in the present case Rohit @ Monty has not made confession during investigation and the accused has been convicted on the basis of plead guilty during the trial and further more it cannot be considered as proved against the other accused. Further the date of offence in the present case is 06.03.2010 and accused Sandeep @ Monu has been arrested on 11.05.2010 whereas the FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 12 of 15 pages car has been recovered abandoned in P.S. Gannaur Haryana bearing no. DL 2FDS 0024 (stolen property) on 27.03.2010 and when accused Sandeep has been arrested in FIR No. 80/10 U/S: 302 IPC on 11.05.2010, PS Madhuban in which the accused Sandeep @ Monu disclosed that he has stolen the vehicle in question along with the accused Rohit @ Monty who has already pleaded guilty and convicted. But in this regard the testimony of PW5 is most important because during the examination in chief he only identified the accused Rohit @ Monty. Here it is not out of mention to place here that both the accused Rohit @ Monty and Sandeep @ Monu had already been acquitted in the FIR bearing no. 80/10 under section 302 IPC as submitted. Moreover the recovery of the stolen vehicle i.e. Honda car bearing no. DL 2FDS 0024 cannot be said to be recovery of facts on the basis of disclosure which can be admitted in evidence and considered as a piece of evidence for which the accused can be convicted on the basis of his disclosure statement because in the instant case, property in question had already been recovered on 27.03.2010 prior to arrest of the accused and there is chance to plant the property in question upon the accused persons as such testimony of PWs comes under shadow of doubts.
7. Further the plea of Ld. APP cannot be considered in respect to the fact that Section 30 of the Evidence Act provided that the conviction of the other accused may be proved against the other co accused simply for the FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 13 of 15 pages reason that the accused has not been convicted on merit and in the instant case, accused has been convicted on the basis of plead guilty in respect to the admission of only his guilt especially when PW5 only identify accused Rohit @ Monty.
8. It is well settled law that the applicability of Section 27 of the statement must be split into its components and to separate the admissible portion. Only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be legal evidence and not the rest which must be excised and rejected. Further Section 27 permits the derivative use of custodial statements in the ordinary course of events. In Indian Law, there is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements have been extracted through compulsion.
9. It is well settled law that many statements recorded during the police custody or before the police cannot be read in evidence untill or unless any fact recovered under section 27 of Evidence Act.
10. After taking into the consideration the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and keeping in view that the accused has already been acquitted in the FIR under section 80/10, U/S: 302 IPC P.S Madhuban, Karnal District wherein accused has also been charged for the commission of FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 14 of 15 pages offence under section 302 IPC while using the property in question which is the case property in the present case as well and also keeping in view the facts that PW5 did not identify the accused Sandeep @ Monu, hence benefit of doubt is given to him. Hence accused stands acquitted. He be released from custody if not wanted in any other case. File be consigned to record room.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 23.06.2014) (RAKESH KUMAR III)
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
KKD COURT, NORTH EAST,
DELHI.
FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 15 of 15 pages
FIR No. 07/10 STATE VS. ROHIT @ MONTY & Ors. Page 16 of 15 pages