Delhi District Court
State vs . Bhure on 2 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. P. SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
02/WEST DELHI
STATE Vs. Bhure
FIR No. : 306/07
U/SEC : 356/379 IPC
PS : Hari Nagar Delhi
Unique Case ID No.: 02401R1474262008
JUDGMENT
Serial no. of the case 1341/II/08
Date of commission of offence '05.06.2007
Date of institution of the case '18.08.2008
Name of the complainant Smt. Charanjeet Kaur w/o Sh.
Kuldeep Singh
Name of accused, parentage & address Bhure s/o Sharif r/o Village
Dhekwara Tehsil, Amroha, Police
Station Khat, District Muradabad, U.
P.
Offence complained of or proved Section 356/379 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of arguments '29.11.2011
Final order Accused Bhure is convicted.
Date of Judgment '02.12.2011
1. The facts of this case are as follows: On 05.06.2007 the complainant Charanjeet Kaur had gone to Fateh Nagar Gurudwara to offer prayers. After offering her prayers the complainant came out of the Gurudwara and was on her way back to her house via the Jail Road. At about 06:15 PM when she was at the Jail Road, the accused allegedly came from behind and snatched her handbag/purse. The complainant raised a hue and cry. The accused Bhure was apprehended by PW6 HC Ashok with the help of public persons. The bag was recovered from the possession of the accused. IO PW5 SI Narayan Singh alongwith PW4 Ct. Jasmer arrived at the spot. Statement Ex. PW2/A of the complainant was recorded. The purse was taken in police possession. FIR was registered. Investigation commenced.
2. After the usual investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused on 18.08.2008. Copies were supplied to the accused. And subsequent to the compliance with the provision of Section 207 of CrPC, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 356/379 IPC was framed against the accused on 10.11.2009 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. After framing of charge, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence. During the course of prosecution evidence, the prosecution got examined six witnesses. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Bhure under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05.10.2011 wherein the accused Bhure stated that he had been falsely implicated and that he was innocent. The accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
4. The six prosecution witnesses that were examined during the course of the trial are as follows: 1) PW1 HC Hari Ram, MHC(M) of police station Hari Nagar, a formal witness; 2.)PW2 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur, the complainant; 3.) PW3 ASI Bal Kishan, duty officer, who has exhibited and proved on record FIR Ex. PW3/A; 4.) PW4 Ct. Jasmer, who arrived at the spot alongwith the IO; 5.) PW5 Retd. SI Narayan Singh, who had arrived at the spot on receipt of the information; 6.) PW6 HC Ashok Kumar, who apprehended the accused at the spot itself with the help of public persons.
5. I have heard the rival submissions at Bar and have gone through the records of this case.
6. In the present case, the most material witness of the prosecution was PW2 Charanjeet Kaur. The complainant Charanjeet has categorically deposed that on 05.06.2007 at about 06:15 PM when she was at the Jail Road, the accused had come from behind and had snatched her purse. She further deposed that she raised a hue and cry and the accused Bhure was apprehended with the help of public persons and her handbag containing Rs. 300/ was recovered. She has proved on record her complaint Ex. PW2/A on which basis the present FIR came to be registered. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. However there is nothing in the entire cross examination of the complainant to create any doubt in the case of the prosecution.
7. The other material witness of the prosecution was PW6 HC Ashok. This witness had apprehended the accused at the spot of the incident itself with the help of public persons. In his testimony this witness has deposed that on the date of the incident he was on duty from 05:00 PM till 11:00 PM at the Fateh Nagar Gurudwara. He has further testified that at about 06:15 PM he heard a lady shouting chorchor le gaya mera purse le gaya and then he apprehended the accused with the help of public persons and recovered the purse which was containing three currency notes of Rs. 100/ each. He further testified that the accused was later on handed over to the IO. He deposed about the arrest of the accused and the preparation of the seizure memo. It is to be noted that this witness has categorically identified the accused as the very same person who had been apprehended by him with the help of public persons soon after the alleged incident. Ld. Counsel for the accused during the course of arguments pointed out contradictions in his testimony. However, as we shall presently see, the argument regarding the contradictions in his testimony does not hold any water.
8. PW5 IO SI Narayan Singh alongwith PW4 Ct. Jasmer had arrived at the spot on receipt of information about the incident vide DD No. 34A. It has come in their testimony that at the spot they met Ct. Ashok and the complainant. They have further deposed that Ct. Ashok handed over the accused as well as the stolen property. These witnesses have further deposed about the arrest of the accused, seizure of the case property and preparation of the seizure memo. They also deposed about the preparation of the rukka and the registration of the FIR. Both these witnesses were cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel but there is nothing in the cross examination of these two witnesses to create any doubt in the case of the prosecution.
9. The remaining witnesses are only formal in nature. PW1 HC Hari Ram who was the MHC(M) of PS Hari Nagar at the relevant time deposed that the IO had deposited one lady purse, three currency notes of Rs. 100/ each and one passport size photograph of a lady and regarding which he had made a relevant entry in Register No. 19 which is Ex. PW1/A. PW3 ASI Balkishan being a duty officer was only a formal witness. He proved on record the FIR Ex. PW3/A.
10.Having taken note of the evidence on record, I shall now deal with the arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel. It was argued by Ld. Defence counsel that there is apparent inconsistency in the testimony of the complainant Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 HC Ashok Kumar. It was submitted by him that the complainant in her testimony stated that the accused was apprehended by the public persons; whereas PW6 HC Ashok has deposed that it was he who had apprehended the accused with the help of public persons. It was therefore, argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this inconsistency goes to prove that the police witness PW6 HC Ashok was never present at the spot and that he was only a planted witness. This argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused cannot be accepted for the following reasons. It is correct that the complainant PW2 Charanjeet Kaur has stated in her evidence that the accused was apprehended with the help of public persons. It is also true that PW2 Charanjeet Kaur did not mention the name of PW6 HC Ashok as the one who was amongst those persons who had apprehended the accused. However, this does not mean that PW6 HC Ashok Kumar is a planted witness. It is to be noticed that the incident took place on 05.06.2007 and the complainant PW2 Charanjeet Kaur was examined in the court on 17.01.2011. That is, she was examined in the court after a gap of nearly four years of the incident. Nobody is expected to remember to the exact detail, something that had transpired years ago. It is only a normal discrepancy in the light of the fact that the human memory is not perfect and due to lapse of time the same is subject to failings and erosion. A witness cannot narrate everything with photographic memory and there are bound to be some normal discrepancies in the testimony of a witness; however truthful he may be. Thus, it is but normal that a person of ordinary intelligence is likely to suffer failings of memory. The human mind cannot reproduce everything with all minute details as the memory gets faded away by passage of time. Human memory is very weak and short. Everything sinks into oblivion with the passage of time. Nobody is in a position to reproduce everything in the same way in which he saw it without additions and subtractions therefrom. Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal failings of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. What is required is that the Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted in Bur Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab AIR 2007 SC 157 and in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Another, AIR 1981 SC 1390.
11.Even otherwise, the complainant PW2 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur, being the victim of the incident is unlikely to spare the real culprit and implicate an absolutely innocent person. In fact she would be keen to ensure that the person who caused her harm is brought to book and does not go unpunished. If an innocent persons is punished, the victim of the crime would never feel satisfied since he/she would want the real culprit and not an innocent person to be punished for the offence committed with him/her.
12.It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the case property was never sealed by the police at the time of its seizure. Ld. Counsel for the accused drew the attention of the court to the testimony of PW1 HC Hari Ram by pointing out that the case property was not at all sealed when it was deposited in the malkhana. This argument of counsel for the accused also cannot be accepted. The basic purpose of sealing of a case property is to ensure that the very same case property which is seized at the spot is produced before the court and not a different one. In the case at hand, it has been none of the defence of the accused that the real case property was not produced before the court and its base some other case property has been produced. Even otherwise, the complainant has categorically identified the case property as the very same one that had belonged to her and which had been snatched by the accused. The complainant being a victim of the crime would not identify a wrong case property and falsely implicate the accused.
13.It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that there are neither any police witness nor any public witness who state that the recovery was effected in their presence. This argument also cannot be accepted. PW2 Charanjeet Kaur has categorically stated that the recovery of the purse in question was effected at the spot itself in her presence. On this aspect her testimony could not be rendered doubtful by any amount of cross examination by the defence. PW2 Charanjeet Kaur is a very material witness and her testimony cannot at all be washed out. Section 134 of the Evidence Act lays emphasis on the quantity of the evidence and not the quality of evidence. The testimony of the complainant PW2 Charanjeet Kaur on this score inspires absolute confidence. Even otherwise on the aspect of recovery of the stolen property, even PW6 HC Ashok has categorically deposed that the same was recovered in his presence from the accused after his apprehension. Hence, I do not at all find that the recovery in the present case is a tainted one.
14.Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that PW4 Ct. Jasmer has deposed that the purse was seized in his presence but the same was not recovered from the accused in his presence. It was therefore, argued that this creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. This argument of counsel for the accused is not in consonance with the record of the present case. As per the case PW4 Ct. Jasmer had arrived later on alongwith the IO at the spot after receipt of the information about the incident vide DD No. 34A. Therefore, under the given circumstances, where PW4 Ct. Jasmer arrived at the spot much after the incident there can be no question of the recovery of the case property being effected from the accused in his presence.
15.Ld. counsel for the accused further contended that the accused had not at all committed the offence. It was submitted by him that there was lot of rush at that time and in the commotion he happened to collide against the complainant just by chance. This argument of counsel for the accused cannot be accepted. It is entirely one thing to say that the accused had collided against the complainant but it is entirely another thing to say that the accused had snatched the purse from the hands of the complainant. In the commotion one may happen to hit against another person but that cannot lead to a situation where the other person manages to take away and snatch a purse from the hands of a lady and thereafter run away with the same.
16.From the evidence on record what stands established is that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused Bhure beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Bhure is convicted for the offence under sections 356/379 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT M. P. SINGH ON 02nd December, 2011 MM02WEST /DELHI