Delhi District Court
Sate vs . Tashlim Etc. on 13 August, 2014
FIR No. 747/06
PS Narela
U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC
Sate Vs. Tashlim etc.
IN THE COURT OF SANDEEP GUPTA
METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No.747/06
U/s 457/380/511/34 IPC
PS: Narela
State vs. Tashlim etc.
Date of Institution of case:-23.10.07
Date of Judgment reserved:- 13.08.14
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 13.08.14
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. :02404R0601472007 Date of commission of offence :02.12.06 Name of complainant :Sh. Rajender Singh, S/o Sh. Gordhan, R/o H.No.30, Village Bhorgarh, Delhi. Name and address of accused :Tashlim S/o Sh. Yamin R/o H.No.33, Village Kureni, Delhi.
Rajesh S/o Sh. Jai Kumar, R/o Village Shahpur, Delhi.
Offence complained of :457/380/511/34 IPC Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty Date of order :13.08.2014 Final order :Acquitted BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
The accused persons have been sent to face trial under Section 457/380/511/34 Indian Penal Code Page No.1 of 8 FIR No. 747/06 PS Narela U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC Sate Vs. Tashlim etc. (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on
02.12.06 at about 2:30/3:00 a.m. at H.No.30, Village Bhorgarh, near Jatav Chaupal, Narela, Delhi they both in furtherance of their common intention committed house lurking trespass & house breaking in the house of complainant namely Rajender Singh in night to commit theft on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no. 747/06 was registered at Police station Narela and the accused persons have been charged with the offence under Section 457/380/511/34 IPC
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and charge was framed against the accused persons for the offence u/s457/380/511/34 IPC on 17.09.11, to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
4. PW 1 is Sh. Om Parkash, S/0 Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh, R/o H.No.27, VPO, Bhorgarh, Narela, Delhi. He deposed that he was a teacher by profession and did not know anything about this case.
Ld. APP for the State sought permission of the Page No.2 of 8 FIR No. 747/06 PS Narela U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC Sate Vs. Tashlim etc. court to cross examine this witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State he admitted that on 02.12.06 in the night at about 02:30 am or 3:00 am when he was sleeping at his aforesaid house, he heard the noise and came out from the house and came to know that two boys had been apprehended by his neighbours and those two boys had attempted to commit theft at the house of his neighbour Rajender. He also admitted that PCR van took those two boys to hospital as the crowd gave beating to those two boys. He denied the suggestion that he had seen those two boys at that time. He denied the suggestion that being compromised the matter with accused persons, he had intentionally not identified the accused persons. He has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
5. PW2 is Sh. Rajender, S/o Late Sh. Govardhan, R/o H.No.30, Village, Bhorgarh, Narela, Delhi. He deposed that in December 2006 he was present at his house and at night and they all were awakened and heard a noise at the gate. Thereafter, they saw two boys were climbing on the roof. Thereafter, they climbed on the room of his brother's house. Thereafter on raising the alarm, public persons were gathered and apprehended the said Page No.3 of 8 FIR No. 747/06 PS Narela U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC Sate Vs. Tashlim etc. two boys. Thereafter, public persons called the police and handed over the said two boys to the police. He further deposed that he did not know anything about this case. This witness could not identify the accused persons who entered into his house.
Ld. APP for the State sought permission of the court to cross examine this witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State he denied the contents of the seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He admitted that the arrest memos Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D and personal search memos Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F bears his signature at point A. He admitted that the boys firstly climbed over the roof and thereafter, proceeded towards the roof of Chander Bhan and thereafter proceeded towards the roof of Maan Singh and they apprehended them at the roof of Maan Singh. He denied the suggestion that they came to know that the names of the said boys were Tashlim and Rajesh. The witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A from portion A to A1 where it is so recorded. He also admitted that the said boys had broken the locks of his house and entered his house with the intention to commit theft. He denied the suggestion that being won over by the accused persons, he has intentionally not identified the accused persons. He Page No.4 of 8 FIR No. 747/06 PS Narela U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC Sate Vs. Tashlim etc. further denied the suggestion that he alongwith public persons apprehended both the accused persons.
MHC(M) had produced the case property i.e. one pulinda sealed with the seal of NR. Same was opened and out of which one broken Pajero lock and one broken Harrison lock and one rod were taken out. Witness correctly identified the same.
During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he admitted that such kinds of locks were easily available in the local market. He denied the suggestion that the case property has been planted upon the accused persons in the present case.
6. PW3 is Sh. Maan Singh S/o Late Sh.
Govardhan, R/o H.No.176, Village Bhorgarh, Narela, Delhi. He deposed that in the year 2006, he was asleep in his house at the night time and heard the noises at his main gate. He opened the gate and found some neighborers outside. They immediately rushed towards the terrace and from there, they came back alongwith two persons who were stated to be thieves who had entered the house of his brother Rajender.
Ld. APP for the State sought permission of the court to cross examine this witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. Page No.5 of 8 FIR No. 747/06 PS Narela U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC Sate Vs. Tashlim etc. APP for the State, he deposed that he did not know whether IO had seized one iron rod alongwith two broken iron locks vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that his involvement was only to the extent as deposed by him in his examination in chief. He further deposed that he could not identify the said iron rod and broken locks. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused. He was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
7. It is a matter of record that all public witnesses examined had turned hostile in the present case and no other eye witness was examined by the prosecution and accordingly after perusing the record, prosecution evidence was closed on 15.05.2014 and in the absence of any incriminating evidence/testimony of any public witness on record against the accused persons, their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C were dispensed with.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the parties as well as perused the record.
9. It is noteworthy that to convict the accused in the present case testimony of eye witnesses/public witnesses are very crucial to sustain the conviction of the accused. As already discussed above, the three public witnesses examined by the prosecution completely turned hostile and Page No.6 of 8 FIR No. 747/06 PS Narela U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC Sate Vs. Tashlim etc. did not allege anything against the accused persons. These witnesses did not support the case of prosecution at all and completely exonerated the accused persons from the allegations levelled by the prosecution in the present case. They also failed to identify the accused persons. All other witnesses cited by the prosecution are formal in nature whose no amount of evidence can tantamount to conviction of the accused persons. Thus, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the alleged offence. It is further noteworthy that even the seized case property i.e. the broken locks as well as one iron rod has not been any where shown to have been recovered from the accused person as the seizure memo Ex.PW1/B does not bear the signatures of any of the accused persons. As already discussed above that all the public witnesses examined by the prosecution failed to identify the accused persons as the alleged offender, hence there is no evidence on record to connect both the accused persons with the alleged offence.
10. Therefore, after scanning the entire record, in the absence of any incriminating testimony of any eye witness/public witness on record against the accused persons, in my considered opinion, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the present case beyond doubt Page No.7 of 8 FIR No. 747/06 PS Narela U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC Sate Vs. Tashlim etc. against the accused persons and hence, the accused persons Tashlim and Rajesh are hereby acquitted from charges u/s 457/380/511/34 IPC.
11. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
SANDEEP GUPTA METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI DELHI ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 13th August, 2014.
Page No.8 of 8 FIR No. 747/06 PS Narela U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC Sate Vs. Tashlim etc. FIR No.747/06 U/s 457/380/511/34 IPC PS: Narela State vs. Tashlim etc. 13.08.2014 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Tashlim and Rajesh on bail alongwith Ld. Counsel.
I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Vide separate judgment dictated to the steno in the open court, accused Tashlim and Rajesh are acquitted of the said offence U/s 457/380/511/34 IPC At request, bail bond of accused Tashlim and Rajesh are extended in terms of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Page No.9 of 8