Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Asif, Etc. on 6 December, 2010
1/6 FIR No.753/2006
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
FIR No. 753/2006
State Vs. Mohd. Asif, etc.
U/s. 411/34 IPC
PS. Welcome
1. Sl. No. of the case 707/07 dated 03.12.2007
2. Date of commission of offence 21.09.2006
3. Date of Institution 23.11.2006
4. Name of the complainant HC Amar Singh
No.1863/N.E., AATS, NE,
Delhi.
5. Name of the accused 1. Mohd. Asif S/o Mohd.
Yameen R/o D12, Gali
No.13, Chauhan Bhangar,
Seelam Pur, Delhi.
2.Arshad @ Azeem S/o
Mohd. Yameen R/o R2/12,
Gali No.20, Braham Puri,
Delhi.
6. Offence Complained or proved U/s 411/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Arguments heard /Order reserved on 06.12.2010
9. Date of such order 06.12.2010
10. Final Order Acquitted
2/6 FIR No.753/2006
J U D G M E N T
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.09.2006 HC Amar Singh along with Ct. Dariyab Singh, Ct. Neeraj Kumar posted at AATS/N.E. were on patrolling and in crime detection and at about 5 p.m. were present near Jheel Park, Welcome where a secret information was received to HC Amar Singh about two boys who would come on a stolen motor cycle from the side of Shayam Lal college and would go to Jafrabad via Subhash Park. On this information, HC Amar Singh prepared a raiding party of above said police officials and held nakabandhi on road no.65, opposite Muskan Restaurent near Khatta, Welcome and started checking the vehicles. At about 5.30 p.m. both the accused came on motorcycle bearing No.DL 9SJ 0208. On the pointing out of secret informer, they were stopped and interrogated. Accused Arshad was found driving the vehicle and he could not produce any document of motorcycle. On further interrogation, they disclosed that they had stolen the said motorcycle from Amroha Nurshing Home, Amroha, U.P. and were going in search of customer. HC Amar Singh confirmed from P.S. Amroha that FIR No.1407/2006 U/s 406 IPC was registered at P.S. Amroha regarding the theft of said motorcycle. The motor cycle was taken into possession. Rukka was prepared by HC Amar Singh and sent to P.S. through Ct. Neeraj and on the basis of rukka present FIR No.753/2006 was registered at P.S. Welcome. ASI Surender Pandey 3/6 FIR No.753/2006 to whom further investigation was handed over came at the spot. He prepared the site plan, arrested both the accused persons, deposited the case property in the malkhana, got deposited the case property in P.S. Kotwali, Amroha and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet U/s 411/34 IPC in the court for trial.
2. Accused put their appearance. Copies of challan were supplied to them. After hearing, charge U/s 411/34 IPC was framed on 17.01.2008 by my Ld. Predecessor to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses. PW1 is HC Amar Singh who has stated that on 21.09.2006 he was posted in AATS. On that day he along with Ct. Dariyab Singh and Ct. Neeraj Kumar were on patrolling and at about 5 p.m. when they reached near Jheel Park, Welcome, he received a secret information about two boys who used to steal vehicles and who would come on a stolen motor cycle from the side of Shayam Lal college and would go to Jafrabad. On this information, he formed a raiding party of above said police officials and held nakabandhi opposite Muskan Restaurent near Khatta, Welcome and started checking the vehicles. At about 5.30 p.m. both the accused came on motorcycle bearing No.DL 9SJ 0208. On the pointing out of secret informer, they were stopped and interrogated. Accused Arshad was found driving the vehicle and he could not produce any document of motorcycle. On 4/6 FIR No.753/2006 further interrogation, they disclosed that they had stolen the said motorcycle from Amroha Nurshing Home, Amroha, U.P. and were going in search of customer. He confirmed from P.S. Amroha that FIR No.1407/2006 U/s 406 IPC was registered at P.S. Amroha regarding the theft of said motorcycle. The motor cycle was taken into possession. Rukka was prepared by HC Amar Singh and sent to P.S. through Ct. Neeraj and on the basis of rukka present FIR No.753/2006 was registered at P.S. Welcome. ASI Surender Pandey was entrusted with further investigation of this case and he reached at the spot. The motor cycle, accused persons and documents of this case were handed over by HC Amar Singh to ASI Surender Pandey who prepared the site plan and arrested both the accused persons. Thereafter HC Amar Singh was relieved from the spot.
4. PW2 is Ct. Daryao Singh and P.W.3 is Ct. Neeraj. They have deposed on the same lines as P.W.1. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed as the case property was not produced in this case by MHCM, P.S. Welcome as the same had already been sold in public auction on 18.03.2008 by the order of learned M.M., P.S. Amroha. The summoning of remaining witnesses if summoned and examined could not have improved upon the prosecution case.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and have perused the evidence on record.
6. Before adverting to the factual matrix, it is important to 5/6 FIR No.753/2006 discuss the legal requirement of Section 411 IPC. It is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the person under section 411 IPC to prove that:
(a) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused.
(b) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it and
(c) that the accused had knowledge that the property was a stolen property.
7. Now coming to the facts of the case, in this case the motor cycle was recovered by the officials of AATS/NE, Delhi. In the present case, P.W.1., P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the material witnesses and are witnesses of recovery of motorcycle from accused persons. Neither the motor cycle has been identified by the recovery witnesses or its owner nor any document of its ownership has been placed on record. There is nothing on record except the disclosure statements of accused that the motor cycle belongs to Dr. Anish Ul Haq. Hence, the main ingredient of Section 411 IPC has not been proved on record. Secondly, the case property has not been produced in the court. The same has not been identified by the witnesses who had affected the recovery. All these facts and circumstances create a doubt. Hence, there is not sufficient evidence on the record to connect the accused with the commission of crime.
8. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable 6/6 FIR No.753/2006 doubt and accordingly both the accused persons are acquitted of the offence charged with. Bail bonds and sureties of accused are treated as the ones U/s 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 06.12.2010 (ANKUR JAIN)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI