Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Puri @ Sanju on 27 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN, MM01 : WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 1030/2004
U/S. 379/411/468/471 IPC
PS Punjabi Bagh
State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 700352016
2. Date of commission of offence 22.11.2004
3. Name of complainant Sh. Ranjeet Rai Gandhi
4. Name of accused Sanjay Puri @ Sanju
s/o. Sh. Arjun Raj Puri
r/o. H.No. 604,
God Apartment, Vasundara
Enclave, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 379/411/468/471 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order 27.1.2020
8. Date of such order Acquitted
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused was sent to face trial on the allegations that on 22.11.2004, between 8.30 to 9.30 pm, at Pal Mohan Garden Apartment, Punjabi Bagh, accused committed theft of Maruti Van no. DL6CD3335 belonging to complainant Sh. Ranjeet Rai Gandhi intending to take it dishonestly without his consent. It is also alleged that in the alternative of above said charge u/s. 379 Indian Penal Code accused was also found in possession of the said stolen Maruti Van on 19.12.2004 at 3.45 pm, near Iron Bridge, Main Road, Shastri Park, Metro Station, which accused had received or retained knowing or State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 1/15 atleast having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. It is also alleged that as same date, time and place accused had forged the number plate of the said vehicle number DL4CH2046, whereas its actual number was DL6CD3335 to cheat the authorities.
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge.
3. CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Charge for offences punishable u/s. 379/411/468/471 IPC was given to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION : In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined following seven witnesses as under :
(a) PW1 is Sh. Ranjit Rai Gandhi. PW1 is the complainant. PW1 deposed that on 22.11.2004, he went to Punjabi Bagh, Pal Mohan Apartment for meeting his friend through car made Maruti Van bearing registration number DL6CD3335 alongwith his wife at about 8.30 pm. PW1 further deposed that he had parked his car just opposite the Pal Mohan Apartment on the side of road and went to his friend's house at Pal Mohan Apartment. He further deposed that he returned from his friend house at about 9.30 pm and found that his car was missing from the place he had parked. PW1 further deposed that he searched his car and made inquiries from public persons, but could not found out. Then, he made call on 100 number and Police Control Room van came at the spot and made inquiry from him.
(b) PW1 further deposed that he went to Police Station Punjabi Bagh State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 2/15 on the suggestion of Police Control Room officials and narrated the entire incident to police officials but these police officials suggested him to wait for 24 days. He further deposed that he inquired the matter from police station Punjabi Bagh regularly. Copy of First Information Report is Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that police official also visited place of theft and prepared site plan at his instance Ex. PW1/B. After one or two months, he was informed by police officials that his stolen car has been recovered and kept in Police Post Madipur. Thereafter, he went to Police Post Madipur and correctly identified his stolen car. He had handed over photocopy of Registration Certificate of his stolen car and the same was taken by police officials on the record at the time of registration of First Information Report, which is Ex. PW1/C. The same is in the name of his mother Smt. Uma Gandhi.
(c) PW2 is HC Raj Singh, who had proved on record the First Information Report bearing no. 1030/4, which is Ex. PW1/A. After registration of First Information Report, investigation was hand over to SI Lakhan singh on the direction of the then SHO.
(d) PW3 is HC Hans Raj, who proved the First Information Report of police station Special Cell, First Information Report No. 175/04, u/s. 411 IPC. The same is Ex. PW3/A.
(e) PW4 is SI Ashok Kumar. PW4 deposed that on 19.12.2004, he was present at his office situated at police station Ashok vihar, at about 2.00 pm, ASI Devender came at his office and asked to join the raiding party constituted by Inspector R.K. Singh including SI Devender, SI Arvind, SI Suresh, SI Bhagwan Singh, ASI Mahender, SI Amar deep Sehgal, HC Jaivir, HC Harpal, Constable Sandeep & other police officials. Then, he joined the said raiding party and Inspector R.K. Singh briefed about the purpose of the raiding party to them. He further deposed that then raiding party arrived at iron bridge, old Delhi by a Government vehicle being driven by ASI Raj Pal, where Inspector R.K. Singh inspected the State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 3/15 raiding place and requested 4/5 passersby to join the investigation after briefing the secret information, but none agrred to join in raiding party and they left the spot without disclosing their namess and addresses. He further deposed that members of the raiding party took their respective position directed by Sh. R.I. Singh and after that they took their position at a Metro Security booth near Shastri Park Metro Station Road. He further deposed that at about 3.45 pm, SI Amardeep Sehgal waved signal towards the raiding party after seeing a Maruti Van.
(f) He further submitted that he alongwith Constable Sandeep and HC Jai Vir stopped the said Van and overpowered the accused namely Sanjay Puri @ Sanju and SI Devender asked the accused to produce the documents of the said Maruti Van regarding the ownership/possession of the same, but the accused could not give any satisfactory reply. He further deposed that SI Devender checked the said Maruti Van and found pollution certificate and photostat copy of the insurance of the said car. He further deposed that after examining the said documents, they found that the original registration no. of the said car was DL6CD3335. Then, SI Devender Kumar verified the status of the said Van from 100 number and they came to know that the said car was stolen from the jurisdiction of Police Station Punjabi bagh. He further deposed that SI Devender prepared the rukka and handed over to HC Jaivir for registration of FIR.
(g) PW4 further deposed HC Jaivir went to PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony and got the FIR registered and came back at the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and original rukka and the same were handed over to the Investigating Officer. He further deposed that Investigating Officer took the said Maruti Van into police possession with fake number plate, vide memo. He further deposed that Investigating Officer also took the documents pertaining to the said Maruti Car, which were recovered from inside of the said State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 4/15 Maruti Van into police possession, vide memo. Investigating Officer arrested the accused, vide arrest memo and his personal search was conducted, vide personal search memo. He further deposed that Investigating Officer recorded his statement and also recorded disclosure statement of the accused. Thereafter, the accused was sent to lockup and case property was deposited in the malkhana.
(h) PW5 is Inspector Devender Kumar. PW5 deposed that on 19.12.2004, he received secret information that one person namely Sanjay Puri would come in stolen van at Loha ka Pul, Purani Delhi and he intimated regarding the same to Inspector R.K. Singh. On the direction of Inspector R.K. Singh, he prepared raiding team comprising himself, SI Amardeep Sehgal, SI Arvind, HC Harpal, HC Jaiveer and some more SIs. He further deposed that they reached at Loha ka pul towards Shastri Park alongwith secret informer. SI Amardeep Sehgal was alongwith informer and one Constable was deputed to stand at Loka ka pul. Remaining members of raiding team stood at the end of Loka ka pul towards Shastri Park side after putting barricades. He further deposed that at about 3.45 pm, SI Amardeep Sehgal indicated about the arrival of suspect in Maruti Van which was pointed out by secret informer. Then, they stopped that Maruti Van at the barricading point. He further deposed that on checking, it was found that there was one copy of Insurance certificate.
(i) PW5 further deposed that from that copy, they ascertain the actual registration number of that Maruti Van which was something like 2046. He further deposed that they got it confirmed by dialing 100 number that the said Maruti Van is stolen and FIR No. 1030/04 has been registered at police station Punjabi Bagh in this regard. They interrogated the accused and prepared rukka and sent to Constable Jaiveer to Special Cel, Lodhi Colony for the registration of First Information Report. After some time, he came back at the spot State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 5/15 alongwith original rukka and copy of First Information Report and produced the same before him. He further deposed that he arrested the accused, vide arrest memo mark X2 and his personal search was also conducted, vide memo Mark X4. The said vehicle was taken into possession vide seizrue memo mark X and the documents of the vehicle were also taken into police possession, vide Mark Xb. Thereafter, accused was brought to PS Ashok Vihar after getting him medically examined. On the next day, he was produced in the concerned court and his police custody remand was obtained. After completing necessary formalities, charge sheet was filed.
(j) PW6 is retired ASI Lakhan Singh. PW6 deposed that on 27.11.2004 he received a Police Control Room Call regarding the theft of a car bearing registration no. DL6CD3335 from the Club Road, Delhi Jal Board. He reached at the spot alongwith one Constable. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared the rukka. He further deposed that he sent the Constable alongwith rukka to PS for registration of FIR. After some time, the Constable came back at the spot alongwith the original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he investigated the present matter.
(k) PW7 is ASI Sandeep Singh. PW7 deposed that on 19.12.2004 he had joined the raiding party which was in the supervision of Inspector R.K. Singh. Thereafter, he alongwith the raiding party reached at iron bridge, Old Delhi by a government vehicle, where Inspector Ishwar Singh requested 4/5 passerby to join the investigation after briefing them about the secret information, but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He further deposed that the members of the raiding party took their position as directed by the Investigating Officer. He alongwith the raiding party members Inspector R.K. Singh, SI Devender and HC Jaiveer took the position at the Metro State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 6/15 Security Booth near Shastri Park Metro Station. He further deposed that at about 3.45 pm, SI Amardeep Sehgal waived the signal towards the raiding party after seeing the Maruti Van DL4CH 2046 in white colour. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Ashok Kumar and HC Jaideep stopped the Maruti Van and apprehended the driver of the Maruti Van namely Sanjay Puri.
(l) PW7 further deposed that SI Devender asked the accused to produce the ownership documents of the said Maruti Van, but he could not give any satisfactory reply. He further deposed that SI Devender checked the Maruti Van and found that the pollution certificate and photocopy of the insurance of the said car. After examination of the documents, it was found that the original registration number of the said car was DL5CD3535. Thereafter, SI Devender Kumar verified the status of the said car and on verification the said Van was found to be stolen from the jurisdiction of police station Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter, SI Devender had prepared the rukka and handed over the same to HC Jaivir for the registration of the First Information Report. He went to the police station and got the FIR registered and came back at the spot alongwith the copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to SI Devender.
(m) PW7 He further deposed that IO had also seized the car, vide seizure memo Ex. PW mark X and IO also seized the documents, which were found in the van, vide seizure memo Mark X1. IO had also arrested the accused, vide arrest memo and SI Devender Kumar had also got conducted his personal search, vide personal search memo.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused has stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused had not led any evidence in his State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 7/15 defence.
6. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND LD. LAC Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of snatching of mobile phone by accused from the hand of complainant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, Ld LAC has submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of witnesses. It is also submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled of being acquitted in this case.
7. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) In the present case, charge for offences punishable u/s. 379/411/468/471 IPC was framed against accused.
(ii)For proving the offence under section 379 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following: (1) that the property in question is movable property; (2) that such property was in the possession of a person; (3) that the accused moved such property whilst in the possession of that person;
(4) that he did so without the consent of that person; (5) that he did so in order to take the same out of the possession of that person;
(6) that he did so with intent to cause wrongful loss to that person or wrongful gain to himself.
(iii) The essential ingredients to prove the offence under Section 411 IPC are:
1. The property should be in possession of the accused.
2. Such property should be 'stolen property' i.e it should have been transfered by theft, extortion or robbery, or which has State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 8/15 been criminally misappropriated.
3. The accused had received the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
(iv) Section 468 IPC describes the forgery for purpose of cheating be read as "Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
This section does not require that the accused should actually commit the offence of cheating. What is material is the intention or purpose of the offender in committing forgery.
(v) Section 471 IPC describes the using as genuine a forged document or electronic record be read as "Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record." What this section requires is the use as genuine of any document which is known or believed to be a forged document; it does not lay down that such use can only occur when the original itself is produced, for the section does not require the production of the original.
There must be:
(i) Fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine.
(ii) The person using it must have knowledge or reason to believe that the document is a forged one.
(vi) Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 9/15 own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
(vii) It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
(viii) In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
(ix) To prove the Maruti Van in question was stolen and recovered from the possession of the accused, prosecution has examined PW1 i.e. the complainant Sh. Ranjit Rai Gandhi. PW1 in his deposition had stated that he had parked his said car just opposite of the Pal Mohan Apartment on road side and went to his friend's house at Pal Mohan Apartment. When he returned from his friend house at about 9.30 pm, he found his car was missing from there, where he parked the same. Then, he made call on 100 number and Police Control Room police van came at the spot and made inquiry from him regarding the theft of his car. Thereafter, he enquired the matter from police station Punjabi Bagh regularly and finally on 27.11.2004 First Information Report was lodged regarding theft of his car which was in the name of his mother Smt. Uma Gandhi. It is pertinent to mention here that the witness was later on informed by the police officials that the vehicle in question was recovered from the possession of accused, however he cannot stated about the same as neither the theft nor recovery was effected in his presence. Thus, from the statement of PW1 only thing that is clear that the vehicle in question belonged to the complainant as it is in the name of his mother and it was stolen.
(x) Now, as per Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 10/15 provides as under: "22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No.II - The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered:
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal.
Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines & Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
(xi) In the present case, the above said provision appears to have not been complied with by the prosecution. As per the prosecution version, at the time of the apprehension of the accused with stolen Maruti Van, PW4 SI Ashok Kumar, PW5 Inspector Devender Kumar and PW7 ASI Sandeep Singh from Special Cell were posted in Special Cell office, but the said DD entry vide which they had left the Sepcial Cell Office for conducting the raid in the instant matter has not been brought on record. In my opinion, the prosecution was under an obligation to bring on record and prove the above said DD entry vide which the above said police officials had left the Special Cell office for conducting the raid, so as to prove the possibility of availability of PW4 SI Ashok Kumar, PW5 Inspector Devender Kumar and PW7 ASI Sandeep Singh from Special Cell at the place of apprehension of the accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution ought to have brought on record & prove the DD entry by which the above said police officials had left the Special Cell Office so as to inspire the confidence regarding their availability/presence at the place of apprehension of the accused, since the said police officials were under bounden duty to enter their departure & arrival from/at the police station by making a D.D. entry in that respect as per the State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 11/15 aforesaid mentioned Punjab Police Rules.
(xii) At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as "Rattan Lal Vs. State" 1987 (2) Crimes 29, wherein the Delhi High Court has observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their action with reservations & thus the matter has to be viewed by the court with suspicion, if the necessary provisions of law are not strictly complied with and then it can at least be said that it was so done with an oblique motive. This failure of the prosecution to bring on record & prove the relevant DD entry as discussed above creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on to the actions of the members of the raiding party.
(xiii) Now as far as its recovery from the possession of accused is concerned, prosecution has produced and examined PW4 SI Ashok Kumar, PW5 Inspector Devender Kumar and PW7 ASI Sandeep Singh from Special Cell. All of them stated that accused was apprehended by them and thereafter during investigation, it was found that the Maruti Van, which has been recovered from the possession of the accused was a stolen vehicle. Admittedly, no public witnesses were joined at the time of recovery of said motorcycle. Facts and circumstances of the case suggests that no sincere efforts were made by police officials concerned to join independent public witnesses in the concerned police proceedings at any of the available stages. In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judgments:
(xiv) In case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992(2) CC Cases 314(HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under: "18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 12/15 the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
In a case law reported as Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 1999 (1) CLR 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under: "3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses form the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner". "4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 13/15 suggestive of the fact that the explanation for nonjoining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
(xv) Thus, though it has been proved that the vehicle in question was a stolen one but prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the same was stolen by the accused and recovered from the possession of accused. Also with respect to fake number plate and using the same by the accused, firstly, the identity of the accused as such of a person who had allegedly stolen the car and was retaining the same in view of abovementioned discussion has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt therefore in the same transaction how the allegations of forging the number plate and using the same can be proved. Secondly, there is no mention of any witness viz. Who would depose that he had helped the accused in getting the alleged forged number plate. There is no photographs of the vehicle in question with the alleged forged number plate.
(xvi) Here, it is not out of place to refer the case law reported as Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court had observed as under: "5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
8. CONCLUSION: (xvii) In nutshell, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for offence punishable u/s. 379/411/468/471 IPC.
Judgment dictated and pronounced (MANU VEDWAN) in the open Court on 27.01.2020 MM01:WEST DISTT:THC:DELHI State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 14/15 FIR No. 1030/2004 U/S. 379/411/468/471 IPC PS Punjabi Bagh State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju 27.01.2020 Present: Ld. Subs. APP for the State.
Accused with ld. Counsel.
Clarification sought.
Vide separate judgment pronounced in the open court today, accused is acquitted for the offences under section 379/411/468/471 IPC. At request, his bail bond, earlier furnished is accepted in compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(MANU VEDWAN) MM01:WEST DISTT:THC:DELHI 27.01.2020 State Vs. Sanjay Puri @ Sanju FIR No. 1030/04 Punjabi Bagh 15/15