Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj on 11 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Manoj Kumar
FIR No. : 198/2021
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 380/411/451 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 7813/2021
B. Date of Commission of offence 15.06.2021
C. Date of FIR 16.06.2021
D. Date of charge-sheet 19.09.2021
E. Name of the complainant Sonal Maan Singh
F. Name of the accused persons, their parentage Manoj S/o Sh. Amardev, R/o Begabond, Green
and residence Park Metro station, Hauz Khas, South, Delhi.
G. Offence complained of or proved 380/411/451 IPC
H. Date of framing of charges 20.09.2022
I. Date of commencement of evidence 07.12.2022
J. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
K. Date on which judgment is reserved 18.09.2023
L. Final Order Acquitted
M. Date of Judgment 11.10.2023
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. : 198/2021 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 380/411/451 IPC Page no.1 of 10
Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of the prosecution arises out of the complaint dated 16.06.2021 of complainant Dr. Sonal Maan Singh that on 15.06.2021 at about 6.45 pm she got a call from her caretaker Satya Bhama from her institute CICD (the Centre for Indian Classical Dance) located at B20 Gulmohar Institutional area, Hauz Khas that she and her servant Kamal had heard noises from the terrace of said property. When Kamal went to the terrace he found stone and an empty sack lying near iron pipe on terrace. He also saw some persons running away to the back portion of the said property. She rushed from her residence immediately to call Hauz Khas police station. SHO went to the portion of the property and saw some broken windows and all the fittings missing and evidence vandalized. The empty sack was filled and broken pipes were found. On the basis of complaint, FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant. Statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused was arrested. After completing the investigation, charge- sheet was filed against accused. Cognizance of the same was taken.
Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 20.09.2022 charge was framed against accused for the offence u/s 380/411/451 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined four State Vs. Manoj FIR No. : 198/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 380/411/451 IPC Page no.2 of 10 witnesses. PW1 is Kamal Goswami , PW2 is Sonal Maan Singh and PW3 is HC Inderpal and PW4 is HC Dharmveer.
4. PW2 Sonal Maan Singh deposed in her testimony that she run an institute in the name of Centre for Indian Classical Dances, B26, Gulmohar Institutional area, Delhi. She had further deposed that on 15.06.2021 at about 06.45 pm, she received a call from caretaker Satya Bhama that she and the servant Kamal heard some noises from the terrace of abovesaid institute. She had further deposed that thereafter Kamal went upstairs and opened the door, he saw 2-3 persons running from the terrace. She had further deposed that he tried to stop them but they ran away. She had further deposed that Kamal also saw that one sack containing stones, broken pipes and copper wires were lying on the terrace. She had further deposed that when Kamal told about the incident to Satya Bhama, she made a call to her. She had further deposed that she immediately rushed towards the institute and after reaching there, she made a call to one of the trustee (Board member of our institute) Mr. Ganga Kumar who is an IAS. She had further deposed that he came subsequently and also examined the terrace and he made a call to SHO PS Hauz Khas and DCP. She had further deposed that thereafter, SHO arrived around at 8 pm and inspected the spot. She had further deposed that she made a written complaint regarding the same to the police on 16.06.2021 which is Ex.PW2/A.
5. PW1 Kamal Goswami had deposed in his testimony that on 15.06.2019 at about 06.00 pm he was present at CICD Hauz Khas as he was State Vs. Manoj FIR No. : 198/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 380/411/451 IPC Page no.3 of 10 doing his duty of security guard there. He had further deposed that in the meantime he heard noise from the roof of the building so he went at the roof of the building and opened the door and saw three persons present there. He had further deposed that when they saw him they started running towards the other building. He had further deposed that he tried to chase then he stopped there as the three persons jumped on the roof of adjacent building. He had further deposed that he saw that one big stone was lying by which all the three persons were trying to break AC pipe. He had further deposed that thereafter he informed to the owner of building Dr. Sonal Maan Singh. He had further deposed that three persons were taking the AC pipe away but seeing him they left the AC pipe on the roof and ran away. He had further deposed that the site plan Ex.PW1/A was prepared at his instance and he also signed seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and also disclosure memo Ex.PW1/D and recovery site plan Ex.PW1/E.
6. PW4 HC Dharmveer deposed in his testimony that on 22.07.2021 he alongwith Ct. Inderpal was searching for accused in the present case. He had further deposed that when they reached near DDA Park, at the garbage bin upon the pointing out of secret informer accused was found at the said garbage bin. He had further deposed that upon inquiring accused, it was found out that accused alongwith co-accused Beti and Madan had committed theft of AC copper pipes from V26 in front of the garbage khata. He had further deposed that accused produced some copper pipes and said that remaining copper pipes had been sold by accused and they seized the said pipes produced by accused.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. : 198/2021 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 380/411/451 IPC Page no.4 of 10
He had further deposed that he seized the said AC pipes vide Ex.PW1/B. He had further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW1/D. He had further deposed that he prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW1/E. He had further deposed that accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/. He had further deposed that personal search of accused was conducted vide Ex.PW3/A. He had further deposed that when the present FIR was registered, he had prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant vide Ex.PW1/A. Witness had correctly identified the accused in the court & also the case property Ex.P1. PW3 HC Inderpal had also deposed the same as PW4 HC Dharmveer.
Statement of accused
7. The examination of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no concern with the alleged case property.
8. Accused did not lead defence evidence. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
10. It is argued on behalf of the Ld. APP for the State that there is sufficient material on record that accused had committed theft and further the sack containing broken pipes were also found from the possession of accused.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. : 198/2021 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 380/411/451 IPC Page no.5 of 10
Thus the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and is fit for conviction.
11. It is argued on behalf of accused that none of the witness has seen the accused stealing the AC pipes. Accused is falsely implicated in the case and nothing was recovered from him. The case property is planted against him. Accused was a garbage picker and therefore the sack was lying near the garbage box.
12. Section 380 prescribes punishment for theft in dwelling house, building, tent or vessel. Section 379 prescribes punishment of theft. To prove the charge of theft the prosecution must prove that the accused removed the movable property form the possession of someone without the latter's consent and did so with the dishonest intention or motive. The offence under section 380 IPC is aggravated form of offence of theft and in that the theft of property is committed in a building , tent or vessel. For proving the charge under Section 411 IPC, prosecution had to prove that the stolen article was recovered from the possession of accused and he knowingly/dishonestly retained or received stolen property in question, belonging to complainant.
13. It is the case of prosecution that on 15.06.2021 accused entered into the terrace of the building/institute of complainant located at B26, Gulmohar Institutional Area, Hauz Khas and had committed theft of AC pipes and further pipes were also recovered from the possession of accused. According to complainant PW2 Sonal Maan Singh she runs an institute in the State Vs. Manoj FIR No. : 198/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 380/411/451 IPC Page no.6 of 10 name of Centre for Classical Dance. On 15.06.2021 at about 6.45 pm she received a call from caretaker Satya Bhama that she and her servant Kamal heard noises from the terrace of the said institute. Thereafter Kamal went upstairs and saw 2-3 persons running from the terrace. Kamal also saw one sack containing stones, broken pipes and copper wires lying on the terrace. In her cross-examination she had admitted that police had not recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. She also stated that she did not remember whether police persons had prepared any documents in her presence or not. The testimony of complainant appears completely to be hearsay evidence as she herself not seen the accused running over her terrace. It is clear from her testimony that she reached at the spot after receiving a call from the caretaker Satya Bhama. Thus her testimony does not suggest any incriminating circumstances against the accused.
14. As per the prosecution PW1 Kamal Goswami went to the terrace and saw 2-3 persons running away. In his testimony he had stated that on the alleged date of incident he heard loud noises from the roof of the building when he went at the roof of the building he saw 3 persons present there and after seeing him they started running towards other building. He also deposed that when he tried to chase them but he stopped as the three persons jumped at the roof of other adjacent building. He also deposed that one big stone was lying there by which accused persons were trying to break the AC pipe. On cross- examination by Ld. APP, witness had admitted that one garbage house is situated at Hauz Khas Park. He denied the suggestion that IO arrested the State Vs. Manoj FIR No. : 198/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 380/411/451 IPC Page no.7 of 10 accused at his instance and recovered the AC pipe from his possession. He also denied the suggest that stolen case property i.e. AC pipes were recovered from the possession of accused in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that disclosure statement was recorded by IO in his presence however he had admitted his signatures on disclosure statement Ex.PW1/D. He further failed to identify the accused and had stated that he saw the accused from the backside. The testimony of PW1 Kamal Goswami shows that he did not see the persons who were present on the terrace of the building. It appears from his testimony that the three persons ran away immediately seeing him on the roof. Thus, it may be possible that witness Kamal Goswami did not see the person who was trying to break the AC pipe when he reached at the terrace . Witness had clearly denied that AC pipes were recovered from possession of accused by the IO in his presence. No other public witness is examined in the case by the prosecution in whose presence the AC pipes were recovered by the IO. It is also clear from the testimony of witness that he had not seen the accused cutting the AC pipes. As the sole witness turned hostile, there is nothing on record to show that the case property i.e. AC pipes were recovered from the possession of the accused. No other witness is examined by the prosecution who would have seen accused cutting the said AC pipes. In the absence of any proof of fact that the accused had cut AC pipes, the entire story of the prosecution becomes shaky and appears to be not worthy of any credence.
15. According to IO PW Dharmbir and PW3 HC Inderpal had arrested the accused on the basis of secret information received from secret informer. It State Vs. Manoj FIR No. : 198/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 380/411/451 IPC Page no.8 of 10 is pertinent to mention that apart from caretaker, Kamal Goswami no public person was joined in the investigation. Kamal Goswami had himself denied recovery in his presence. In the seizure memo also, there is no evidence of any other independent witness who was asked to join in the investigation for the recovery of alleged AC pipes which makes the entire recovery proceedings doubtful. Though IO HC Dharmbir had stated that the case property has been recovered from the open space behind the garbage, however it may be possible that since accused is a garbage picker, there must be broken pipes lying near the garbage house and merely for the same reason IO had implicated him. Further in the absence of testimony of independent witness in the recovery proceeding, the possibility of planting case property can also not be denied.
16. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. There is no material on record to assume that accused had committed theft of those AC pipes from the terrace of the building of the complainant or he had retained the same knowing the same to be stolen property. It is apparent from the above discussion that the allegations against the accused have not been proved.
Conclusion & Decision
17. Thus, considering the entire material on record I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s State Vs. Manoj FIR No. : 198/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 380/411/451 IPC Page no.9 of 10 380/411/451 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Keeping in mind the above-mentioned discussion, accused is acquitted for the commission of the offence U/s 380/411/451 IPC.
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 11.10.2023 MM-06,SOUTH/SAKET DELHI State Vs. Manoj FIR No. : 198/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 380/411/451 IPC Page no.10 of 10