Delhi District Court
Dharamveer vs . State on 30 July, 2012
Dharamveer Vs. State
CR No. 63/12
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of :
Dharamveer
S/o Late Shri Suraj Bhan
R/o House No.P13/1, URI Enclave,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State ... Respondent
CR No. 63/12
Date of Institution: 22.05.2012
Reserved for orders on: 13.07.2012
Judgment announced on: 30.07.2012
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 08.05.2012 whereby the petitioner has been charged under relevant provisions of law.
2. Brief facts of the case are that as per the prosecution story complainant Ms. Sunita Bahuguna got recorded her statement that on 31.8.2011 at about 1.001.30 PM she along with her husband after locking her house had gone to Jaipur and she CR No.63/12 -:1:- 30.07.2012 Dharamveer Vs. State CR No. 63/12 had gone to her office and at about 10.35 p.m., when she returned from her job, she found the bolt of her house broken, goods lying scattered in the house and her articles were stolen. FIR was lodged under section 380 IPC and on 03.10.2011 file was closed and untrace report was sent. Thereafter, on 06.10.2011, the petitioner Dharambir was interrogated in some other FIR 185/11 under section 457/380 IPC and he made a disclosure statement regarding the present case. The disclosure statement, the petitioner disclosed that he along with Prasanjeet, Nand Kishore and Deepak Sarkar had committed theft in question. Coaccused were arrested and their statement were recorded and articles were recovered according to the disclosure of coaccused. After filing of chargesheet charge has been framed against the all the accused persons.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order present petition has been preferred.
4. It has been contended that the petitioner is working as a government servant as a Fittergeneral Mechanic, HSMES (Military Engineering Services) and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is further contended that one of the coaccused has been discharged. It is further submitted from the entire charesheet that no offence under section 457/380 IPC is made out and the impugned order is CR No.63/12 -:2:- 30.07.2012 Dharamveer Vs. State CR No. 63/12 not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Ld. APP has contended that the petitioner/accused has committed theft in the present case and he admitted his involvement in the present theft in his disclosure of this fact in another FIR and there is strong suspicion that the petitioner/accused is involved in the present case and rightly has been charged.
6. I have heard counsel of both the parties and have gone through the records.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no prior meetings of mind and the accused has been wrongly charged and in the absence of evidence on record, no charge can be framed and in the present case, the charge has been framed on the basis of the disclosure statement of coaccused which is hit of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this regard, he has relied upon: Kamal Kishore v. State (Delhi Admn.), CrR 51/1996 (19/02/1997), 1997(2) AD (Delhi) and Arunwan Thamvaro (Ms) vs. State, 2005 II AD (Cr.) DHC 591 (Delhi High Court) CRLMC No.2511 of 2004.
8. In the present case, the accused has made the disclosure statement that said coaccused along with petitioner has committed the theft and on the basis of the disclosure statement CR No.63/12 -:3:- 30.07.2012 Dharamveer Vs. State CR No. 63/12 of coaccused who were apprehended, and arrested on the basis of the disclosure of the petitioner, the said coaccused made disclosure statement and the recovery of the stolen articles has been effected from the possession of coaccused. So it cannot be said that the disclosure statement of coaccused is hit by section 25 whereas in Kamal Kishore case, it has been observed that:
"In the present case, the learned Magistrate has framed the charge against the present petitioner only on the basis of the disclosure statement which has not led to discovery of any fact which was not know to the prosecution before recording the statement of the petitioner. No recovery at the instance of the petitioner has been made. No independent witness has deposed that the petitioner has shared the booty or was involved in the incident in question except as alleged by the coaccused. There is no corroborating evidence on record corroborating the above allegation against the present petitioner."
9. In the present case, recovery has been effected of the stolen articles from the coaccused namely Deepak Sarkar and Nand Kishore in terms of their respective disclosure statements.
Therefore ratio of Kamal Kishore (supra) as well as Arunwan
(supra) are not applicable to the present case. From the above
CR No.63/12 -:4:- 30.07.2012
Dharamveer Vs. State
CR No. 63/12
discussion, I am of the opinion that this petition is devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed.
10. A copy of the order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information and compliance.
11. File of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya)
on the 30th Day of July 2012 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts
New Delhi/30.07.2012
CR No.63/12 -:5:- 30.07.2012