Delhi District Court
St. vs . Anwar @ Annu on 31 July, 2012
-:1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
St. Vs. Anwar @ Annu
P S Binda pur
U/S 379/411 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. FIR No. : 7/12
2 Date of Institution : 26.04.2012
3 Name of the accused, and
his parentage and residence : Anwar @ Annu s/o
Sh.Yamin R/o WZ 50, JJ
Colony, Pankha Road, Uttam
Nagar, Delhi.
4 Date when judgment : 30.07.2012
was reserved
5 Date when Judgment : 31072012
was pronounced
6 Offence Complained of : 379/411 IPC
7 Plea of accused : Not pleaded guiltly
8 Final Judgment : Convicted u/s 411 IPC
Present : Ld. APP for State.
Accused from JC with Sh. L.S.Gautam , ld counsel for accused from DLSA.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The accused is facing trial on the allegations that on 12.3.2012 at about 7.30 p.m at police picket on Budh Bazar Road near A1 Block, FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:2 Janak Puri, the accused was found in possession of motorcycle bearing no. DL 4S BM 9964 which he dishonestly received or retained in his possession knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property theft of which took place on 3.12.2011 between 6 a.m to 7 a.m from front of B 119, DDA Flats, Binda pur, Delhi from possession of complainant Ramesh Kumar. For the said offence FIR No. 7/12 was registered. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed agaisnt the accused.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C accused was charged with commission of offence u/s 411 IPC vide order dated 10052012 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case.PW1 Ramesh Kumar is the complainant. PW2 H C Sukhi Ram was with IO at the spot of apprehension of the accused. PW3 Constable Rajesh Kumar assisted HC Jai Singh for formal arrest of the accsued from the court of Ld. ACMM Ms. Ravinder Bedi, Tis Hazari court on 13.3.2012. PW4 H C Amar Singh was MHCM from PS Janak Puri. PW5 H C Karan Singh is MHCM from P S Binda Pur . PW6 H Chet Ram who prepared tehrir on the written complaint of complainant and marked the investigation to H C Jai Singh. PW7 Constable Vimal Kumar is DD writer who recorded information of stolen motorcycle herein. PW8 H C Jai Singh is the IO of this case who on recept of DD no.79 B formally arrested the accused. PW9 SI Sundeep Kumar is the first IO FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:3 who apprehended the accused with offending motorcycle with the help of police official. PW10 H C Ombir and PW11 Constable Sumeet Rangi who were on duty at picket for checking the vehicles and apprehended the accused with offending motorcycle.
4. The version of the prosecution as adduced in its evidence is that on 3.12.11 PW1 Ramesh Kumar had parked his motorcycle bearing no. DL 4SBM 9964 in front of his house on the road at about 6 a.m and when he saw at about 7 a.m his motorcycle was missing. He tried to search out the motorcycle but it could not be found and then he went to the P S and gave his complaint Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which first IO PW 6 HC Chet Ram prepared tehrir Ex PW 6/A and handed over the same to duty officer for registration of FIR. Further investigation after registration of FIR was handed over to PW 8 HC Jai Singh who reached at the spot. Site plan Ex.PW1/B was prepared at instance of the complainant. The complainant later on got the motor cycle released on superdari vide superdarinama EX.PW1/C. Photographs of the motorcycle have been proved as Ex. P1 to P6 while negatives are collectively Ex. P7. That on 12.3.2012 PW9 SI Sundeep Kumar, alongwith PW 2 H C Sukhi Ram, PW10 H C Ombir and PW11 Ct. Sumeet Rangi were on picket duty at Budh Bazar Raod A 1 Janak Puri and were checking the vehicles. At around 7.30 P.M the accused came from the side of Pankha Raod side on motorcycle bearing no. DL 4S BM 9964 Hero Honda CD Deluxe black colour PW9 stopped the motorcycle for checking with help of staff and on enquiry the accused could not produce any document of ownership of the said motorcycle and on checking by PW9 from PCR /Auto Match, FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:4 the said motorcycle was found stolen one from the area of PS Binda pur in case FIR 7/12. The motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A and the accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/B, personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW2/C. From his personal search Rs. 5010/ were found in cash. PW9 recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW2/D qua other stolen motorcycle from City Centre Rohini and the accused led the police party at near slip road Pankha Road behind Tilak Pul bus stand and got recovered motorcycle no. DL 8S AF 0440 which was also seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW2/E and IO prepared kalandra in this regard u/s 41.1D. Thereafter the accused was taken to P S and got medically examined and put in the lock up. Intimation was give to PS Bindapur rergarding arrest of the accused and recovery of the stolen motorcycle from his possession vide DD no. 79B. That on 13.3.2012 PW8 H C Jai Singh received DD No.79 B Ex.PW7/A regarding recovery of motorcycle no. DL 4sBM9964 by staff of P S Janak Puri then he alongwith PW3 Constable Rajesh formally arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW3/A from Tis Hazari court and the accused was sent to J/C. On 16.3.2012 the said motorcycle was taken to P S binda Pur from P S Janak puri and IO collected all the relevant documents including seizure memo of said motorcycle. The case property was transferred through Road Certificate no. 133/21/12 from Mal Khana P S Janak Puri to P S Binda Pur. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in court against the accused.
5. During recording of prosecution evidence the accused did not dispute the registration of FIR no. 7/12 PS Bindapur and the statement of duty FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:5 officer concerned was accordingly dispensed with.
6. Accused was examined U/s 281/313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused. The accused submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused chose not to lead any DE and the matter was thereafter fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for the accused and have perused the material on record. In the present case, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 12.3.2012 at about 7.30 p.m at police picket on Budh Bazar Road near A1 Block, Janak Puri, the accused was found in possession of motorcycle bearing no. DL 4S BM 9964 which he dishonestly received or retained in his possession knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property theft of which took place on 3.12.2011 between 6 a.m to 7 a.m from front of B 119, DDA Flats, Binda pur, Delhi from possession of complainant Ramesh Kumar. To discharge its onus the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. The prosecution has examined PW1 Ramesh Kumar, complainant to prove the factum of theft of Motorcycle bearing no. DL 4 SBM 9964. PW1 Ramesh Kumar has stated that on 3.12.11 he had parked his motorcycle bearing no. DL 4SBM 9964 in front of his house on the road at about 6 a.m and when he saw at about 7 a.m his motorcycle was missing. He tried to search out the motorcycle but it could not be found and then he went to the P S and gave his complaint FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:6 Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which first IO PW 6 HC Chet Ram prepared tehrir Ex PW 6/A and handed over the same to duty officer for registration of FIR. PW1 was informed later on that his motorcycle had been recovered. He took his motorcycle on suprdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW1/C. The prosecution has also established that FIR 7/12 was registered in respect of theft of the said vehicle. The prosecution has thus been able to establish that the vehicle, motorcycle was stolen from possession of PW1 on 3.12.2011. The prosecution has also examined PW9 SI Sundeep Kumar, alongwith PW 2 H C Sukhi Ram, PW10 H C Ombir and PW11 Ct. Sumeet Rangi to establish the factum of recovery of the stolen motorcycle from possession of the accused on 12.03.12 at about 7.30 p.m at police picket on Budh Bazar Road near A1 Block, Janak Puri. PW9 SI Sandeep Kumar has stated that on 12.3.2012 he, alongwith PW 2 H C Sukhi Ram, PW10 H C Ombir and PW11 Ct. Sumeet Rangi were on picket duty at Budh Bazar Raod A 1 Janak Puri and were checking the vehicles. At around 7.30 P.M the accused came from the side of Pankha Raod side on motorcycle bearing no. DL 4S BM 9964 Hero Honda CD Deluxe black colour. PW9 stopped the motorcycle for checking with help of staff and on enquiry the accused could not produce any document of ownership of the said motorcycle and on checking by PW9 from PCR /Auto Match, the said motorcycle was found stolen one from the area of PS Binda pur in case FIR 7/12. The motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A and the accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/B, personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW2/C. From his personal search Rs. 5010/ were found in cash. PW9 recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW2/D qua other stolen motorcycle from City Centre Rohini and the accused FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:7 led the police party at near slip road Pankha Road behind Tilak Pul bus stand and got recovered motorcycle no. DL 8S AF 0440 which was also seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW2/E and IO prepared kalandra in this regard u/s 41.1D. Thereafter the accused was taken to P S and got medically examined and put in the lock up. Intimation was give to PS Bindapur rergarding arrest of the accused and recovery of the stolen motorcycle from his possession vide DD no. 79B. PW 9 SI Sandeep has been cross examined at length but nothing materially damaging the version of the prosecution could be elicited on record. The testimony of PW 9 SI Sandeep has been corroborated on record in material particulars by testimonies of PW 2 H C Sukhi Ram, PW10 H C Ombir and PW11 Ct. Sumeet Rangi who have deposed along the same lines. The prosecution witnesses have been cross examined at length but nothing materially damaging the version of the prosecution could be elicited on record. The version of the prosecution has remained creditworthy and believable and the prosecution witnesses have corroborated each other in material particulars. The prosecution has thus been able to establish that the stolen motorcycle was recovered from possession of the accused.
8. It is now proposed to consider whether the accused received or retained the stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. In peculiar facts of the present case, the prosecution has established that on 12.3.2012 at about 7.30 p.m at police picket on Budh Bazar Road near A1 Block, Janak Puri, the accused was found in possession of motorcycle bearing no. DL 4S BM 9964. It also appears that the stolen motorcycle is a unique FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:8 article with a unique registration number and no explanation of his possession of the stolen car has been brought on record by the accused. It thus cannot be held that the possession of the accused in respect of the stolen motorcycle was innocent in as much as he knew that the motorcycle was not his. It rather appears that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the motorcycle was stolen property.
9. It has been urged by the accused that the key of the motorcycle in question was not seized and recovered and that the entire recovery has been falsified on this account. It however, appears that PW 2 HC Sukhi Ram, PW PW 9 SI Sandeep Kumar and PW 11 Ct Sumeet Rangi have all stated that the key of the motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the accused. To my mind this is sufficient corroboration of the version of the prosecution. It also appears that in the absence of any other reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses cannot be disbelieved on this short ground. There is thus no merit in this argument of the accused.
10.It has been urged on behalf of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It appears that there is nothing on record even by way of a suggestion to afford any reason as to why the accused was singled out by the complainant and falsely implicated, as alleged by the accused. There is no hint of any acrimony past or present between the complainant and the accused and in these circumstances, FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:9 even from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent man, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant and the plea of false implication does not appear to be believable.
11.It has been urged on behalf of the accused that no public witness was joined in this case by the IO and as such the prosecution version is unbelievable. It appears to be the settled law that merely because public witnesses have not been joined in investigation does not falsify the case of the prosecution. Reference might be made here to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tahir Vs State 1996 SCC 515 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the value of the evidence of police officials and has observed as follows:
"No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force and there is no rule of evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The rule of evidence however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials after careful scrutiny inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of a conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the credit worthiness of the prosecution witnesses."
12. When the test laid down in Tahir Supra is applied to the facts of the present case, it appears that the testimonies of the prosecution FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:10 witnesses have remained credit worthy and believable. The version of the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence and the witnesses have corroborated each other in material particulars and the version of the prosecution has also been corroborated by the documentary evidence on record. It appears that the ratio of Tahir supra is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the non joining of public witnesses does not make the prosecution case unbelievable.
13.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for offence u/s 411 IPC. Let the accused be heard on the quantum of sentence on 04.08.2012.
Announced in the open (SHARAD GUPTA)
th
Court on 31 July 2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:11
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Anwar @ Annu
P.S.: Binda pur
U/s: 379/411 IPC
FIR No. 07/12
ORDER ON SENTENCE
09.08.2012
Present : APP for the State.
Convict is produced from J/C with counsel, Sh. L. S Gautam from DLSA.
Arguments on quantum of sentence heard. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the guilt of the convict stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is established that the convict was found in possession of motorcycle bearing no. DL 4S BM 9964 which he dishonestly received or retained in his possession knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and he is criminal in nature and is not entitled to lenient view and may be punished with maximum imprisonment and fine.
On the other hand Ld. defence counsel has argued that the convict is the only bread earner in his family. He has shown remorse and inclination to rehabilitate himself in his life. He submits that the accused has been in custody since his arrest on 12.03.2012 . Thus, prayed that a lenient view may be taken against the convict.
I have considered the rival contentions and gone through record. Though the convict is convicted u/s 411 IPC but his financial condition and social circumstances are also to be taken into consideration FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:12 by the court. In addition to it the convict has already under gone imprisonment for about 149 days.
Taking into consideration aforesaid facts, including the nature of the offence committed, the remorse of the accused and his inclination to rehabilitate himself in life and considering that the accused has been in J/C since his arrest, a lenient view deserves to be taken against him. Accused is accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. Benefit of section 428 cr.p.c be given to him. He be released , if not required in any other case. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. A copy of the judgment and order be supplied to the convict.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN ( SHARAD GUPTA )
th
COURT ON 9 August ,2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:13
FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu
-:14
FIR No. 7/12 St. VS. Anwar @ Annu