Delhi District Court
State vs . Naresh @ Pappu. on 11 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Naresh @ Pappu.
FIR No. 272/08.
U/s. 356/379/411/34 IPC.
PS Mukharjee Nagar, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
a) The sl. no. of the case : 132/2.
b) The Unique ID No. of the case : 02404R0222682008.
c) The date of commission of the : 07/08/2008.
offence
d) The date of institution of case : 06/10/2008.
e) The name of the complainant : Ms. Pranshu.
f) The name & address of accused : Naresh & Pappu
S/o Sh. Udaiveer Singh,
R/o. Jhuggi No. 25, Kishore
Market, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi.
g) The offence complained of : U/s. 356/379/411/34 IPC.
h) The plea of the accused : pleaded not guilty.
i) The date of reserving the order : 25/06/2012.
j) The final order : Convicted.
k) The date of such order : 02/07/2012.
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07/08/2008 between 8:20 pm and 8:25 pm, at Red Light, Hakikat Nagar Chowk, within the jurisdiction of PS Mukharjee Nagar, accused Naresh @ Pappu alongwith his associate Neeraj FIR No. 272/08 PS Mukharjee Nagar 1 (since not arrested) in furtherance of his common intention used criminal force for committing theft of one mobile phone of black colour make Nokia from the possession of complainant Ms. Pranshu. Accused Naresh @ Pappu was apprehended at the spot by the public persons and the battery of the above said mobile phone was recovered from his possession. The information was given to the police and after investigation, the challan was filed by the police.
2. Complete set of copies was supplied to the accused and after hearing arguments, charge was framed against the accused for trial of offences U/s. 356/379/411/34 IPC, by my Ld. Predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 Ms. Pranshu, who has proved her complaint Ex. PW1/A, given to the police, also proved the seizure of battery of snatched mobile phone vide memo Ex. PW1/B, arrest of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/C, personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/D and also identified the case property in court. PW.2 is HC Satbir Singh, Duty Officer, who has proved the copy of FIR vide Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW2/B. PW.3 is HC Rajeev, DD writer, who had recorded DD No. 22A in rojnamacha register and proved the copy of the same vide Ex. PW3/A. PW.4 is Constable Mritunjay Singh, who was on duty at the spot at the time of incident and deposed about the incident taking place. PW.5 is IO SI (now Inspector) Anil Kumar, who had investigated the case, made FIR No. 272/08 PS Mukharjee Nagar 2 endorsement Ex. PW5/A on the statement Ex. PW1/A and proved site plan vide Ex. PW5/B, disclosure statement of accused Naresh vide Ex. PW5/C and also identified the case property in court vide Ex. P1. PW.6 is Constable Mukesh, who had joined the investigation alongwith IO SI Anil Kumar, got the case registered at PS and deposed about the proceedings conducted at the spot by the IO. PW.7 is retired SI Ranbir Singh, formal IO of the case, who had searched for accused Neeraj and after completion of investigation, prepared the challan.
4. Statement of accused was recorded separately U/s. 313 CrPC, wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication in this case, however, he did not wish to lead evidence in support of his defence.
5. I have heard arguments from Ld. APP for State, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and also gone through the evidence and documents on record carefully.
6. To prove the offence U/s. 356/379/411/34 IPC the prosecution has to prove that accused Naresh @ Pappu alongwith coaccused Neeraj (since not arrested) in furtherance of his common intention used criminal force upon the complainant Ms. Pranshu and snatched her mobile phone or dishonestly received or retained the battery of the same in his possession knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in total.
FIR No. 272/08 PS Mukharjee Nagar 3
7. Regarding the incident, the prosecution has examined PW1/complainant Ms. Pranshu, who deposed that on 07/08/2008 between 8:20 pm and 8:25 pm, she took a rikshaw from Vishwa Vidhyalaya Metro Station for Indira Vihar and reached at Hakikat Nagar Red Light and while she was sitting in the rikshaw and talking on her mobile phone make Nokia black colour, one person came and snatched her mobile from her hand and started running towards Hudson Lane and one person who was with the said person also started running with him. She deposed that she raised alarm and alighted from the rikshaw and ran behind them. The traffic police official who was present at the spot and the public persons also ran behind the said snatcher and apprehended him. She deposed that the snatcher threw the mobile phone on the ground due to which the battery of the phone came out and the back side cover was broken. She further deposed that the second person lifted the remaining portion of the mobile phone from the ground and ran away from the spot. Mobile battery and back cover remained at the spot. She deposed that the person who snatched her phone, revealed his name as Naresh @ Pappu, was apprehended and was beaten up by the public persons. She deposed that in the meantime someone informed the police, police came at the spot and recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A. The witness correctly identified the accused. She further deposed that the police prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/B at her instance, seized the battery and broken cover vide Ex. PW1/B, arrested the accused and got conducted his personal search. The witness has correctly identified the case property produced by MHC(M) in sealed pullanda with the seal of AKP.
FIR No. 272/08 PS Mukharjee Nagar 4
In her cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW1 stated that she was sitting in rikshaw when the accused Naresh snatched her mobile phone and the rikshaw was standing at Hakikat Nagar Red Light. She further stated that the accused could only ran away for about 1012 steps and thereafter he was apprehended by the traffic police official and the public persons. She stated that the police had arrived at the spot within 1015 minutes. She denied the suggestion that accused Naresh had not snatched her mobile phone and the same had accidentally fallen on the ground due to which the same was broken. She further denied the suggestion that accused Naresh had just lifted the battery and back side cover from the ground and in the meantime public persons and traffic official apprehended him. She further denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
The testimony of PW1/complainant Ms. Pranshu gets more strength by the corroborative version of PW4 Constable Mritunjay, who was on duty at the spot i.e. Hakikat Nagar Red Light at the time of incident and ran behind the accused persons after hearing the alarm raised by the complainant and took the custody of accused Naresh @ Pappu, who was apprehended by the public persons and handed over him to IO SI Anil Kumar.
8. The police proceedings have been proved by PW5 IO SI (now Inspector) Anil Kumar. He deposed that on 07/08/2008, on receipt of DD No. 22 A dated 07/08/2008, he alongwith constable Mukesh reached at the spot i.e. Red Light, Hakikat Nagar Chowk, Kingsway Camp, where beat constable FIR No. 272/08 PS Mukharjee Nagar 5 Mritunjay alongwith accused Naresh @ Pappu and complainant Ms. Pranshu met him. He deposed that Ms. Pranshu handed over to him the battery and back side cover of her snatched mobile phone which was kept in the pullanda and sealed with the seal of AKP and taken into possession. He further deposed that the statement Ex. PW1/A of the complainant was recorded and the same was endorsed by him and handed over to PW6 constable Mukesh for registration of case at PS. He deposed that the site plan Ex. PW5/B was prepared by him at the instance of the complainant and in the meantime constable Mukesh came back at the spot after registration of case and handed over to him the copy of FIR and original rukka. He further deposed after interrogation accused Naresh was arrested, his personal search was got conducted and his disclosure statement was also got recorded. He further deposed that the statement of complainant Ms. Pranshu and PW4 constable Mritunjay were recorded and thereafter both of them left the spot and he alongwith PW6 constable Mukesh and accused Naresh went to Vishwa Vidhyalaya Metro Station in search of coaccused Neeraj and the remaining case property, however nothing was found. He further deposed that after medical examination of accused Naresh, he was put in lockup and the case property was deposited in malkhana of PS Mukharjee Nagar. He further deposed that the further investigation of the case was handed over to PW7 retired SI Ranbir Singh. The witness correctly identified the case property i.e. battery of stolen mobile phone and its back side cover vide Ex. P1. FIR No. 272/08 PS Mukharjee Nagar 6
In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW5 stated that after reaching at the spot he met constable Mritunjay, accused Naresh and complainant Ms. Pranshu. He further stated that many public persons were asked to join the investigation but none had agreed. He stated that the rukka, seizure memo, site plan, arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statement of the accused and his conviction slip were prepared by him. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Naresh.
PW6 constable Mukesh has deposed similar to the deposition of PW5 IO Inspector Anil Kumar and has corroborated him regarding, registration of case, arrest of accused Naresh, personal search of accused and other proceedings conducted by the IO at the spot.
9. PW1 complainant Ms. Pranshu has deposed about the theft of her mobile phone which was snatched by accused Naresh @ Pappu alongwith coaccused Neeraj (since not arrested) and his apprehension by the public persons at the spot and has proved her complaint Ex. PW1/A. She correctly identified accused Naresh @ Pappu as one of the snatcher of her mobile phone as well as the battery and back side cover of the said mobile phone. Accused Naresh @ Pappu has led no defence to prove that neither had he snatched the mobile phone from the possession of the complainant nor was the battery and back side cover of the said mobile phone recovered from his possession; neither could he discredit the testimonies of the PWs, nor accounted for the FIR No. 272/08 PS Mukharjee Nagar 7 possession of the battery and back side cover of the snatched mobile phone. The court has no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who have corroborated each other in all material aspects about the snatching of mobile phone from the possession of complainant Ms. Pranshu and later recovery of battery and back side cover of the same from the possession of accused Naresh @ Pappu.
10.Hence, in view of the above observation and discussion and the evidence on record, in my opinion, the prosecution has proved its case against accused Naresh @ Pappu beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt that he, in common intention with coaccused Neeraj (not arrested) used criminal force upon the complainant Ms. Pranshu at the time of committing theft of mobilephone from her possession. Therefore, I hereby hold accused Naresh @ Pappu guilty of the offence U/s. 356/379/34 IPC and convict him accordingly. Order on sentence shall be announced after hearing the accused.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL SINGH)
COURT ON 02/07/2012. Metropolitan Magistrate,
(Copies 1 + 1) Delhi
FIR No. 272/08
PS Mukharjee Nagar 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Naresh @ Pappu.
FIR No. 272/08.
U/s. 356/379/411/34 IPC.
PS Mukharjee Nagar, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Ld APP for the State
Convict Naresh Kumar produced from JC.
Ms. Shashi Jaiswal, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused. I have heard submissions on the point of sentence from the Ld. APP for State and from Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused. It is argued that the accused is facing trial for the last 4 years and that he is the only bread earner of his family. It is further stated that he has already remained in judicial custody for more than 15 months i.e. from 07/08/2008 to 06/01/2009 and from 02/04/2011 to 11/07/2012. It is prayed that a lenient view may be taken by the court.
On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. APP that accused has been convicted in this case for committing a serious offence, which does not call for any leniency by the court towards the convict. It is further stated by Ld. APP that convict deserves maximum punishment.
Accused Naresh @ Pappu had used criminal force while committing theft of mobile phone of the complainant and was apprehended at the spot. FIR No. 272/08 PS Mukharjee Nagar 9 However, keeping in view the period of detention, I hereby sentence the convict for RI of the period already undergone by him in JC in this case. Accused/convict be released from custody, if he is not required to be kept in J/C in some other case. File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of Judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convict free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL SINGH) COURT ON 11/07/2012 Metropolitan Magistrate (Copies 1 +1) Delhi FIR No. 272/08 PS Mukharjee Nagar 10 State Vs. Naresh @ Pappu. FIR No. 272/08. U/s. 356/379/411/34 IPC. PS Mukharjee Nagar, Delhi. 11/07/2012 Pr: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused/convict Naresh @ Pappu produced from JC.
Ms. Shashi Jaiswal, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused. Heard submission on the point of sentence. Vide separate order, announced in the open court, the convict is sentenced for RI for the period already undergone by him in JC in this case. Accused/convict be released from custody, if he is not required to be kept in JC in some other case.
File be consigned to Record Room.
MM:DELHI 11/07/2012 FIR No. 272/08 PS Mukharjee Nagar 11