Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/174/1999 on 30 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVEEN GUPTA, MM,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
1. FIR No. : 174/99
2. Date of Offence : 24.05.1999
3. Name of the complainant : D.K. Mukhopadhyay,
4. Name, parentage and Address
of the accused : 1. Lalit s/o Sh. Nain Singh,
r/o House N0. 234, Karan Vihar,
PartII, Kirari Extension,
Nangloi, Delhi.
2. Radhey Shyam
S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o House N0. C 75, Jaidpur
Extension, Badarpur,
New Delhi.
5. Offences complained of : Section 380/411 of the Indian
Penal Code.
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
7. Sentence or final order : Accused Lalit and Radhey
Shyam are acquitted.
8. Date of order : 30.07.2011.
FIR No. 174/99
PS: Mandawali
State v. Lalit etc. ` 1/9
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.05.1999, when Ct. Ashok and Ct. Chittermal were on patrolling duty and reached at National Highway at around 6 am, they noticed a tempo bearing no. DL 1 LC 9121 parked on the service road near Khichripur Pull on which some persons were loading goods; when they reached there, those persons started running; they apprehended one accused there; the tempo was containing copper wire; thereafter, intimation was sent to the PS and Investigating Officer arrived at the spot; Investigating Officer interrogated the accused Devender; he took the tempo to Dharam Kata and got the same weighed and copper wire was found to be of 900 Kg; he seized wire vide memo Ex. PW1/A and the tempo vide memo Ex. PW1/B; thereafter, the case property was inspected by the officials of DVB; on receipt of complaint from senior officer of the concerned department regarding the theft of copper wire, duty officer registered the present FIR. During investigation, owner of the vehicle produced accused Jamuna before the Investigating Officer. Subsequently, Investigating Agency filed the challan qua accused Devender and Jamuna u/s 379/411/34 IPC. In the challan, it was stated that above mentioned accused persons had committed the alleged offence alongwith other coaccused persons namely Radhey FIR No. 174/99 PS: Mandawali State v. Lalit etc. ` 2/9 Shyam, Shailender and Lalit.
2. During trial of the present case supplementary challans qua accused Lalit and qua accused Radhey Shyam were filed on 16.01.2004 and 29.11.2004 respectively. The copies of chargesheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Further, charge under section 380/411 IPC was framed against accused Devender on 10.11.2000, against accused Jamuna on 05.03.2001 and against accused Lalit and Radhey Shyam on 22.04.2006.
4. In support of its version, prosecution examine 14 witnesses. PW1 is Ct. Chitter Mal, alleged witness to the recovery of the case property; PW2 is Ct. Mukesh Kumar, constable accompanying the 1st Investigating Officer; PW3 is Surender Pal, owner of the impugned vehicle; PW4 is HC Devraj, Duty Officer; PW5 is Sh. Mahender Pal and PW6 is D.K. Mukhopadhyay, who had identified the case property as belonging to the DVB; PW7 is Ct. Veerpal Singh, MHC(M); PW8 is Anil Kumar, who had weighed the case property; PW9 is S.S. Verma and PW10 who had identified the case property FIR No. 174/99 PS: Mandawali State v. Lalit etc. ` 3/9 as belonging to the DVB; PW11 is SI Braham Dutt, 1st Investigating Officer; PW12 is HC Ashok Kumar, alleged witness to the recovery of the case property; PW13 is SI Bikram Singh, 2nd Investigating Officer; PW14 is Ct. Bhanwar Singh, constable involved in the investigation qua accused Lalit.
5. During trial, accused Devender and Jamuna had pleaded guilty and they had already been convicted and sentenced. Considering the above mentioned, this judgment has been passed qua accused Radhey Shyam and Lalit only.
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Radhey Shyam and Lalit were recorded wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against them. Accused persons, however, did not opt to lead evidence in defence.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have perused the record.
8. Now, PW1 submitted that on 24.05.1999, he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Ashok; when they were riding on National Highway FIR No. 174/99 PS: Mandawali State v. Lalit etc. ` 4/9 slip road, they saw 45 people loading something in a tempo from DVB office; on reaching the place, he saw the person on driver seat and other 34 persons loading something into a Tata 407 tempo; and they stopped the motorcycle and tried to approach the tempo; the driver as well as other persons started running away. They tried to chase them and apprehended one person [accused Devender]; the number of tempo was DL 1C 9121; after sometime SI Braham Dutt and Ct. Mukesh reached at the spot. They got the wires weighed, the same was found to be 9 quintals of copper wire; the said wires were packed in 18 gunny bags and sealed with the seal of BDT; thereafter, owner of the truck Mohd. Sharif reached at the PS and produced the driver of the truck Jamuna and he was also arrested in this case. IO prepared seizure memo of the copper wire Ex. PW1/A and of the tempo Ex. PW 1/B; personal search memo of accused Devender Ex. PW 1/C and of Jamuna Ex. PW 1/D; pointing out memo Ex. PW 1/E and Ex. PW 1/F and recorded disclosure statements of accused Devender and Jamuna vide Ex. PW 1/G and Ex. PW1/H. He identified the case property Ex.P1.
PW3 tendered superdarinama of the impugned vehicle as Ex. P2. PW4 tendered FIR of the present case. PW5 and PW6 submitted FIR No. 174/99 PS: Mandawali State v. Lalit etc. ` 5/9 that on receipt of information, they checked the transformer and found that some winding of transformer had been stolen. PW6 tendered the identification memo of the case property Ex. PW 6/A. Further, PW5, PW6, PW9 and PW10 submitted that they had identified the case property in the police station. PW8 submitted that on 25.05.1999, he had weighed the impugned tempo and found that total weight of items loaded with the tempo was 900 kg. He tendered the receipt to this effect issued by him vide Ex. PW 8/A. PW11 submitted about the steps taken by him during investigation. He submitted almost on the similar lines as deposed by PW1. He further submitted that after arrest of accused Devender and Jamuna, he tried to search other co accused but could not succeed. PW2 also submitted about the steps taken by the IO, i.e. PW11, during investigation.
PW12 submitted almost on the similar lines as deposed by PW1. PW13 submitted that on 06.07.1999, further investigation of the present case was marked to him; he got accused Lalit, Shailender and Radhey declared proclaimed offender. PW14 submitted that on 01.10.2003, IO formally arrested accused Lalit and conducted his FIR No. 174/99 PS: Mandawali State v. Lalit etc. ` 6/9 personal search vide memo Ex. PW 14/A and Ex. PW14/B respectively.
9. Ld. counsel for the accused persons namely Lalit and Radhey Shyam argued that prosecution has examined two material witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW12 who are stated to be the witnesses to the alleged recovery of case property in the present case but they did not level any allegations against accused Lalit and Radhey Shyam. He further submitted that no complaint of theft had been received by the Investigating Agency prior to recovery of case property as well as within the short span of time of such recovery. He submitted that the above mentioned creates doubt on the case of the prosecution and it appeared that the case property had been planted upon the accused persons Devender and Jamuna although they had already pleaded guilty. He lastly submitted that there was no evidence available on record against accused persons Lalit and Radhey Shyam except inadmissible disclosure statements of accused Devender and Jamuna.
10. Now, the case of the prosecution is that PW1 and PW12 had seen the accused persons loading the case property in the tempo. As per their version, accused Devender was apprehended at the spot while FIR No. 174/99 PS: Mandawali State v. Lalit etc. ` 7/9 other coaccused persons fled away from there; later on, accused Jamuna was produced before the Investigating Agency by owner of the impugned vehicle; further, accused Devender and Jamuna had disclosed about the involvement of accused Lalit, Radhey Shyam and Shailender in the commission of theft of the case property pertaining to the present case. But, during their examination, PW1 and PW12 had not identified accused Lalit and Radhey Shyam as one of the co accused persons who had fled away from the spot. Hence, their testimonies have not been able to connect accused Lalit and Radhey Shyam with the alleged commission of offence.
11.Further, Investigating Officer, PW11, has submitted during his cross examination that he did not noted down the name and address of the guard [of the DVB premises] and did not record his statement. Further, he did not inquire or see inside the compound for clarifying any theft from that place. In the present facts and circumstances, the testimony of the guard could have been the best evidence qua alleged theft of the case property from the premises of DVB, but for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer; he had not made the guard of the DVB premises as one of the witnesses in the present case.
FIR No. 174/99 PS: Mandawali State v. Lalit etc. ` 8/9
12.The prosecution has furnished only one incriminating document against accused Lalit and Radhey Shyam i.e. the disclosure statement of accused Devender and Jamuna, wherein they had disclosed about the involvement of accused Lalit and Radhey Shyam in the alleged commission of offence. The disclosure statement of coaccused persons are inadmissible against accused Lalit and Radhey Shyma as per law. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove that how accused Lalit and Radhey Shyam were involved in alleged commission of theft of the case property.
13.Lastly, it has also been argued that departure and arrival of the police officials have not been proved by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
14.In view of above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Lalit and Radhey Shyam beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I acquit accused Lalit and Radhey Shyam.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Naveen Gupta)
(1+1 Copies) MM/KKD/Delhi/30.07.2011
FIR No. 174/99
PS: Mandawali
State v. Lalit etc. ` 9/9