Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajaj Malik on 25 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT ARORA
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
EAST: KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
FIR No. : 389/04
PS : Preet Vihar
U/s : 379/411 IPC
STATE VS. AJAJ MALIK
JUDGMENT
A New Number of the case 3906/16 B Name of the complainant Sh. Arun Kumar s/o Sh. Tirath Singh C Name of the accused & Ajaj Malik s/o Sh. Abrar Ahmad R/o his parentage and Near Kabristan, Kasba Kichha, District address Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand D Offence Complained of U/s 379/414 IPC E Date of commission of 10.12.2005 offence.
F Date of Institution 02.06.2008
G Offence Charged U/s 414 IPC
H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
I Order Reserved on 24.09.2018
J Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2018
K Final Order Acquitted of offence u/s 414 IPC
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION PROSECUTION'S CASE 1 The prosecution story as unfolded in the charge-sheet is as under:
2 On 28.07.2004, complainant Arun Kumar reported theft of his vehicle make Indica car bearing no. DL-1YA 0255 which was stolen on 26.07.2004 outside his house and within the jurisdiction of PS Preet State Vs. Ajaj Malik FIR No. - 389/04 Page No. 1/9 Vihar. On the basis of his complaint present FIR u/s 379 IPC was registered. Efforts were made to trace the vehicle however, same could not be traced and on 14.09.2004 untrace report was filed. Later on an intimation was received from police Head Quarters Uttaranchal that the stolen car has been recovered by the officials of PS Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar in FIR No.0/2006 u/s 41/102 Cr.PC and 411 IPC. Investigation were reopened, ASI Jagat Singh obtained the relevant documents from the concerned PS and recorded the statement of the eye witnesses namely Sandeep Arora, Wahid Khan and Maqbool Hassan, who stated that on 10.12.2005 Ajaj Malik (accused) has brought the said Indica car to one Rehan Mistri at Rampur Rudrapur Road for the purpose of denting and painting. They stated that the accused while handing over the car to Rehan Mistri has stated that the car belongs to him and he will pick up the same after the job work of denting painting is completed. Thereafter, accused Ajaj Malik was arrested who made a disclosure regarding his involvement in committing theft of the vehicle. Later on section 414 IPC was added as it was alleged that the accused had intentionally left the stolen vehicle at the shop of Rehan Mistri with the intention to dispose the same. Upon completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the accused.
3 On the basis of the charge-sheet and after compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. a charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 414 IPC and read out to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Ajaj Malik FIR No. - 389/04 Page No. 2/9PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 4 To bring home the guilt against the accused prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in all.
5 A brief glance at the evidence lead by the prosecution is as under:
6 PW1 is Arun Kumar complainant who deposed regarding the theft of his car and proved his complaint as Ex.PW1/A. 7 PW4 is Ct. Sanjeev who deposed that duty officer handed over FIR and Rukka to him and he handed over the same to the IO. PW5 is the Bhagwat Prasad, first IO of this case. He deposed regarding the recording of the statement of the complainant on the basis of which present FIR was registered, preparation of site plan. He deposed that he filed an untraced report and later on never joined the investigation.
8 PW2 is SI Heera Singh who was posted at PS Kotawali, Rudrapur. He deposed that on 24.12.2005 he alongwith SI B.L. Verma received a secret information that some stolen vehicle can be recovered from a garage at Indra Colony. A raiding party was prepared and a raid was conducted at the garage and there he found one Indica car having engine no. 50136. A Maruti Car, scooter and cycle were also recovered. He deposed that articles were also seized u/s 41.1 (2) Cr.PC. He further deposed that the said car was brought by accused Ajaj Malik at the garage for denting painting and the said car was stolen from the area of PS Preet Vihar. PW7 is Insp. B.L. Verma who was also posted at Kotawali Rudrapur. He also deposed in State Vs. Ajaj Malik FIR No. - 389/04 Page No. 3/9 consonance with the testimony of PW2. He deposed regarding the receipt of secret information on the basis of which an Indica car (subject matter of the present case) alongwith other vehicles were recovered from a garage from Indra Colony. Seizure memo was proved as Ex.PW7/A. He deposed that during investigation he came to know that the owner of the garage is Rehan. During cross- examination he admitted that some parts of said Indica car were intact and some parts were in dismantled condition.
9 PW12 is ASI Gurmani Ram who deposed that he was posted as MHCM Rudrapur, PS Kotwali and on 02.10.2006 he handed over parts of the Indica car to the officials of PS Preet Vihar.
10 PW13 is ASI Jai Kishan. He deposed that during investigation he collected the parts of the Indica car from PS Rudrapur. He deposed that on 20.09.2007 accused was arrested near Vishal Mega Mart on the basis of secret information vide memo Ex.PW3/A. Accused pointed out the place of theft vide memo Ex.PW3/D. PW2 is Ct. Vinod and PW6 is ASI Virender Singh. They are also formal witnesses and they have accompanied PW13 during the arrest of the accused. They deposed in consonance with testimony of PW13. PW6 further deposed that on 02.102007 he alongwith IO went to PS Kotwali Rudrapur and took parts of the Indica car i.e. body with four wheels, chasis, one dash board etc. 11 PW8 is Mohd. Rehan. He is the owner of the garage from where the vehicle was recovered. He had deposed that he was running a State Vs. Ajaj Malik FIR No. - 389/04 Page No. 4/9 workshop at Rudrapur Road and accused was known to him as he was President of Student Union of a college. That on 10.12.2005 accused came to his shop alongwith one Indica car without number plate and handed over the same for repairing. He deposed that accused has told him that he will collect the car after 10-15 days. He deposed that thereafter a demolition drive was conducted and his shop was demolished and then he took the said car to his house for repairing and started repairing the same by dismantling the same. He deposed that on 24.12.2018 police official from Rudrapur came to his house and seized the said Indica car and informed him that the said car was stolen from Delhi. He deposed that he came to know the accused Ajaj Malik had given the stolen car to him for repairing.
12 To prove this aspect prosecution has also examined PW9 Sandeep Arora who deposed that around 12-13 year back while he was present at the shop of PW Rehan for repairing of his scooter, accused came there alongwith one Indica car and handed the same to Rehan for repairing. Similarly, PW10 Wahid Ahmad deposed that he was working with PW Rehan and around 12 years ago accused came at the shop of Rehan and handed over one white indica car for repairing as the same was having dent and damages. Similar is the testimony of PW11 Maqbool Hussain who deposed that he was present at the shop of Rehan to collect his dues and at that time accused Ajaj handed over the white car to Rehan.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 13 Upon completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was State Vs. Ajaj Malik FIR No. - 389/04 Page No. 5/9 recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations made against him and stated that he was falsely implicated. Accused did not opted to lead any defence evidence and accordingly, matter was adjourned for final arguments.
14 Final arguments have been heard and record has been carefully perused. Ld. APP for the State submitted that all the witnesses of the prosecution have supported the prosecution case and, therefore, this is a fit case for conviction. Per contra Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that there are various inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses; the recovery of the car was admittedly effected from the shop of PW8 Rehan and except his oral testimony there is nothing to show, that accused has brought the car at the garage of PW8 Rehan. He argued that the investigation was not properly conducted and was motivated and accused was falsely implicated. He further submits that the photographs of the car shows that at the time of its recovery it was being cut into pieces i.e. dismantled and therefore, it creates a doubt on the version of PW8 that the vehicle was given to him for the purpose of denting/painting. Ld. Counsel submits that had it been so, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why the vehicle was completely dismantled at the time of its recovery.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTION 15 It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on the judicial file by leading cogent, convincing reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond reasonable doubts.
State Vs. Ajaj Malik FIR No. - 389/04 Page No. 6/916 In the present case accused has been charged for the offence U/s 414 IPC with the allegation that on 10.12.2015 he had assisted in concealing/disposing the stolen Indica car having reasons to believe that the same was stolen.
17 After careful evaluation of the evidence led by the prosecution I find that the evidence on record is highly insufficient to connect the accused with the said stolen car in any manner whatsoever. Admittedly, the stolen car was recovered at Rampur, Rudrapur Road, from a godown belonging to PW8 Mohd. Rehan. PW7 Insp. B.L. Verma, the concerned police official of UP police who has effected the recovery has deposed that during investigation he came to know that the owner of the garage was Rehan. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused was present at the garage or was associated with the same. As per the prosecution, it is alleged that the accused has handed over the said car to Rehan for the purpose of repair i.e. denting painting. This has transpired during the investigation as Rehan during inquiry disclosed that the stolen car recovered from his shop/garage was given by accused to him for the purpose of repair. Pertinent to note here the testimony of PW8 Rehan. During examination as well as cross-examination he admitted that the car was brought by the accused and was dented from both the sides and accused has asked him to do the denting and painting of the car. He further deposed that the accused had also told him that the car has to be painted with white colour. However, an issue which perplexes the Court is the fact when the car was recovered by PW7 from the garage of Rehan it was in dismantled condition i.e. its engine and other parts State Vs. Ajaj Malik FIR No. - 389/04 Page No. 7/9 were already removed from the chasis. This is evident from the cross- examination of PW7 who admitted that some parts of the car were in intact condition and some parts are in dismantled condition. Now, this raises a serious question on the version of the prosecution as to why the car was in dismantled condition when the same was recovered from the go-down of Rehan, whereas, as per the prosecution and as per the version of PW Rehan the vehicle was given to him for the purpose of denting painting. Moreover, it has also come in the testimony of the witnesses that when the car was brought it was in running condition. Now as admittedly the car was in running condition and was given to Rehan for the purpose of denting painting, why it was been cut to pieces by Rehan. This aspect has neither been investigated by the IO nor any efforts has been made. I have also perused the photograph which has been filed by the MHCM of the car. The photographs makes it clear that the car was being actually cut to pieces for the purpose of selling the same in scraps. Now this raises a serious doubt in the version of PW8 that the car was given to him for the purpose of denting painting by the accused. Admittedly, beside his oral version, there is no documentary evidence i.e. any receipt or estimate memo issued by PW8 to the accused showing that the vehicle was delivered to him by accused. Relying on his oral version is extremely unsafe in the facts and circumstances.
18 The other witnesses examined by the prosecution namely PW9 Sandeep Arora, PW10 Wahid and PW11 Maqbool also do not appear to be trustworthy and their testimony do not inspire confidence. PW9 during cross-examination had admitted that when he had reached the State Vs. Ajaj Malik FIR No. - 389/04 Page No. 8/9 shop of Rehan accused was present there. He deposed that he cannot say that the accused has brought the Indica car at the shop of Rehan as he has not seen him bringing the car. Similarly, PW11 during cross-examination had stated that when he had reached the shop of Rehan the car was already parked there. Thus, the version of these witnesses do not inspire confidence. So far as PW10 is concerned, he was working at the shop of Rehan as a denter and therefore, he was deposing at the instance of PW8.
19 I am of the opinion that the investigation in the present matter has been conducted in a shoddy manner and there is hardly any evidence to prove the charges against the accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 414 IPC.
20 As per section 437-A of the Cr.P.C as inserted vide the Amendments Act which came into force on 31.12.2009, the accused shall furnish fresh personal bond and surety bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- within one week from today which shall remain intact for a period of six months from today.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.09.2018 (AMIT ARORA) ACMM (EAST)/KKD/25.09.2018 Certified that this judgment was directly typed by my personal Digitally signed by AMIT ARORA assistant on computer directly on my dictation.
AMIT DN: c=IN, o=OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE....., 2.5.4.20=5d03bd2902bae524e472 081070b034ee609e5ec0ad1936d ARORA 93a0429d51816814c, ou=HIGH COURT,CID - 6309251, postalCode=110092, st=Delhi, (AMIT ARORA) cn=AMIT ARORA Date: 2018.09.25 15:44:47 +05'30' ACMM (EAST)/KKD/25.09.2018 State Vs. Ajaj Malik FIR No. - 389/04 Page No. 9/9