Delhi District Court
State vs . Haseen Ahmed @ Penda on 20 October, 2014
State vs. Haseen Ahmed @ Penda
IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Haseen Ahmed @ Penda
FIR No. 210/05
U/sec. 411 & Sec. 174A IPC
PS: Gandhi Nagar
Date of institution of case: 14.11.2005
Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved
Date on which judgment is delivered: 20.10.2014
Unique I. D. No. 02402R0591532005
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 174/02
b) Date of commission of the offence : 05/06.06.2005
c) Name of the complainant : Vivek Ahluwalia
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Haseen Ahmed @ Penda,
S/o Pir Mohd,
R/o Village Bhamuiya, PS Kadar
Chowk, Distt Bhadaiyu, UP,
e) Offence complained of or proved : Sec. 379/411 & 174-A IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Convicted
h) Date of such order : 20.10.2014
FIR No. 210/05 Page No. 1 of 7
State vs. Haseen Ahmed @ Penda
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case: Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 06.06.2005 a DD Entry No. 7-A regarding theft of a Motor Cycle bearing no. DL-7SW-7165 was recorded at the police station Gandhi Nagar. The said DD Entry was marked to HC Safruddin for investigation, who immediately reached the spot and recorded the statement of complainant Vivek Ahluwalia, wherein he stated that on 05.06.2005 he had parked his Motor Cycle bearing number DL-7SW-7165 in front of his house but on the next day i.e. 06.06.2005 morning, he found his Motor Cycle missing. On the basis of his statement, FIR bearing No. 210 under sections 379 IPC was registered. Later on, the stolen Motor Cycle was recovered by the Badaun Police, UP from the possession of the accused Haseen Ahmed. Formal intimation about the recovery of the stolen motor cycle was given to Gandhi Nagar Police Station and a DD Entry No. 23A in this regard was recorded at Gandhi Nagar Police Station. Thereafter, IO/HC Safruddin seized the Motor Cycle vide seizure memo, interrogated the accused with the permission of the court, recorded his disclosure statement, arrested him and recorded the statement of witnesses' u/sec 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court. FIR No. 210/05 Page No. 2 of 7 State vs. Haseen Ahmed @ Penda Consequently, the accused was summoned to face the trial and the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused as per the norms.
However, when the case was at the pre-charge stage, he stopped appearing before the court. Consequently, he was declared as a proclaimed offender by the ld. Predecessor Judge by an order dated 3rd December, 2013. Subsequently, on 14.12.2013, the accused surrendered before the court and was admitted to bail by the Ld. Predecessor Judge.
On 25.09.2014 charge u/s 411 IPC framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the supplementary challan under section 174A IPC was submitted, cognizance of which was taken on 20.10.2014. Copy of the supplementary challan was also supplied to the accused as per norms. Accordingly charge u/sec 174A IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular to which he pleaded guilty and did not claim trial.
With a view to connect the accused with the offence under section 411 IPC, the prosecution has examined only one witness.
PW1/SI Rakesh Kumar is the Duty Officer, who recorded the FIR bearing No. 210/05 Ex.PW1/A and made an endorsement to this effect on the rukka Ex. PW1/B. FIR No. 210/05 Page No. 3 of 7 State vs. Haseen Ahmed @ Penda Ld. Legal Aid Counsel, in the midst of the prosecution evidence, moved an application for pleading guilty. It is stated by the ld. Counsel for the accused that he is willing to plead guilty to the charge leveled against him. It is no more res-integra that an accused can plead guilty at any stage of trial and in this regard reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra etc vs. Sukhdeo Singh and Anr 1992 AIR 2100=1992 SCR (3) 480.
I have explained the consequences of pleading guilty and the allegations leveled by the prosecution in vernacular to the accused, however, it is stated by the accused that he is pleading guilty without any force, pressure or undue influence and that he has understood the allegations.
I am of the considered view that the accused has understood the nature of the allegations levelled against him and that plea of guilt is made voluntarily without any pressure or undue influence after understanding the allegations, hence the same is accepted. Accordingly, the accused Haseen Ahmed @ Penda, in view of the statement recorded separately, is held guilty and convicted for the offence charged with.
FIR No. 210/05 Page No. 4 of 7 State vs. Haseen Ahmed @ Penda Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence. Announced in open Court on 20thth day of October, 2014 (Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKDCourts/Delhi 20.10.2014 This judgment contains 5 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKDCourts/Delhi 20.10.2014 FIR No. 210/05 Page No. 5 of 7 State vs. Haseen Ahmed @ Penda IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Haseen Ahmed @ Penda FIR No. 136/08 U/sec. 411 & 174A IPC PS: Gandhi Nagar 20.10.2014 Present: None for State Convict in person with Legal Aid Counsel Sh. Manoj Kumar Attari. ORDER ON SENTENCE Learned counsel appearing for the convict has stated that the offence was committed way-back in the year 2005, i.e. almost 9 years ago; the accused belongs to a poor stratum of society; physically challenged and has a family to support. He further stated that non-appearance before the court was neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of having met with an accident. He, therefore, requests that keeping in view the time lapse and the physical disability, a lenient view may be taken while sentencing the convict.
I have heard the arguments and perused the records very carefully. The object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. The convict is a physically challenged person with 50% locomotive disability. FIR No. 210/05 Page No. 6 of 7 State vs. Haseen Ahmed @ Penda Further, perusal of the record shows that he has already undergone custody for 15 days. There is nothing on record to suggest that he is previous convict. Therefore, keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the considered view that the convict deserves leniency and the ends of justice would be met, if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in custody. Accordingly, the convict is sentenced as under;-
For the offence u/sec 411 IPC- to undergo simple imprisonment for the period already undergone by him in custody.
For the offence u/sec 174A -to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of court. Bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged. Original documents, if any be handed over to the person entitled thereto on acknowledgment after cancellation of endorsement, if any. Superdaginama cancelled. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in open Court on 20thth day of October, 2014 (Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKDCourts/Delhi 20.10.2014 FIR No. 210/05 Page No. 7 of 7