Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak on 20 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NORTH ROHINI COURTS,DELHI
State Vs. DEEPAK
FIR No. 731/14
PS. M. Town
U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC
CIS No. 5284143/2016
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 17.10.2014
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Sh. Ramesh Madan
3) The name & parentage
of accused : Deepak @ Tinda
S/o Than Singh
R/o Jhuggi no. N
12B/11B, Kabir
Nagar, Delhi.
4) Offence complained of : U/s 457/380/511/34
IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Convicted
7) The date of such order : 20.12.2021
Date of Institution : 01.12.2014
Judgment reserved on : 17.12.2021
Judgment announced on : 20.12.2021
___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. DEEPAK FIR No. 731/14 PS. M. Town 1 of 10 U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2014 at about 9:25 p.m. in house no. 63, Old gupta Colony, Model Town, the accused with his associate Ajay ( Since JCL) in furtherance of common intention committed house breaking by entering the house of Sh. I.M. Malik and attempted to commit theft in the aforesaid house. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for offence u/s. 380/457/511 r/w Section 34 IPC was filed against the accused Deepak @ Tinda.
2) After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C, arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 02.02.2015, charge for offences u/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC were framed against the accused Deepak @ Tinda, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its case, the prosecution got examined seven witnesses.
4) PW1 complainant/Ramesh Madan deposed that on 17.10.2014 at about 9:30 p.m. he came to know from some person that some movements were going on in house no. 63, Old Gupta colony, Delhi. He reached there within 1015 minutes ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. DEEPAK FIR No. 731/14 PS. M. Town 2 of 10 U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC and PCR van was already reached there. That the door of that house was bolted from inside. Then the door was broken by 45 persons and from inside the house, the accused along with one another boy was apprehended. That the owner of the house has expired and his son was posted in Ranchi and his wife had shifted to Bombay, therefore, he was looking after their home. His statement was recorded by the police which is Ex. PW 1/A which bears his signatures at point A. Accused was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW 1/B and PW 1/C respectively which bears his signatures at point A. That the broken lock was not seized in his presence and seizure memo Mark A does not bears his signatures. He failed to identify the broken lock. He correctly identified the accused in the court on 03.03.2015. He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
4) PW 2 Narender Gulati stated that on 17.10.2014 at around 9:00 p.m., there was some noise coming out of house no. 63, old Gupta colony which belongs to Mr. Inder Malik. When he came out, he saw some people gathered outside the house. He was told that two boys have been seen entering the house. He rang no. 100 and after some time control room people and local police arrived at the spot. Thereafter the door of the house broken and two boys were seen inside the house. Accused ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. DEEPAK FIR No. 731/14 PS. M. Town 3 of 10 U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC persons were apprehended by the local police. He correctly identified the accused in the court on 03.03.2015. His statement was recorded by the IO. Thereafter, he went home being late night. He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
5) PW 3 Meenu deposed that on 17.10.2014, she was present at the home and at about 9:00 p.m., she heard hue and cry. She came down and people were talking that someone is there inside in house no. 63 belonging to Sh. I.M. Malik. She remained there for 30 minutes and police reached the spot. She had not seen the accused persons. She had also not seen whether the accused persons were arrested by the police. She did not remember anything else. She was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for State as she was resiling from her earlier statement and not supporting the case of the prosecution. She was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
6) PW 4 HC Jai Bhagwan deposed that on 18.10.2014, he was posted as duty officer at PS Model Town from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m. and at about 12:05 a.m. a rukka was sent by ASI Radhesh through Ct. Mithan Lal to him on the basis of which he registered the FIR Ex. PW 4/A bearing his signature at point A. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. DEEPAK FIR No. 731/14 PS. M. Town 4 of 10 U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC He made endorsement on the original rukka vide Ex. PW 4/B bearing his signature at point A and copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Ct. Mithan Lal for handing over to the IO. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
7) PW 5 Ct. Kapil deposed that on 17.10.2014 at about 9:35 p.m., he received a call from wireless operator regarding house trespass, which he entered into a rojnamcha vide DD entry no. 79 B and informed ASI Radhesh. He proved the copy of original rojnamcha containing original entry no. 79 B as Ex. PW 5/A signed by him at point A. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
8) PW 6 ASI Radhesh deposed that on 17.10.2014, he was posted as ASI at PS Model Town. On that day he was on emergency duty. On that day, on receipt of DD no. 79 B at about 9:35 p.m. regarding house trespass he along with Ct. Meetha Lal went to the spot where complainant Ramesh Madan met them. Complainant and persons who were present at the spot handed over the accused to them. Accused Deepak was correctly identified by the witness in court on 11.01.2017. Complainant told that accused Deepak @ Tinda and CCL Ajay committed house breaking in the house of his neighbour, then he recorded ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. DEEPAK FIR No. 731/14 PS. M. Town 5 of 10 U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC his statement. PW 6 made endorsement which is Ex. PW 6/A bearing his signature at point A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Meethan Lal and he also prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex. PW 6/B bearing his signature at point A. He clicked photographs of the spot by his camera which is Ex. PW 6/C1 to Ex.PW 6/C10. He stated that no tempering made with the photographs after taking the same. Then he seized central lock which was broken by the accused persons vide memo mark A and Ex. PW 6/D bearing his signature at point B. After that, he interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW 6/E bearing his signature at point A. PW 6 formally arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex. PW 1/B and Ex.PW 1/C bearing his signature at point B respectively. He further stated that proceedings qua CCL Ajay was conducted by JWO/SI Amit Rathee separately. He recorded statement of other public witnesses present at the spot. He correctly identified the case property i.e. the broken lock. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
9) PW7 Ct. Mithan Lal deposed that on 17.10.2014, he was posted at PS Model Town as constable. On that day, he along with SI Amit Rathi reached at the spot of incident after receiving DD no. 79 B, where they found complainant Madan and two ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. DEEPAK FIR No. 731/14 PS. M. Town 6 of 10 U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC persons, namely Deepak @ Tinda and Ajay. That the complainant stated to IO that above said persons were trying to enter the premises after breaking open the locks. IO recorded the statement of complainant and prepared tehrir already Ex. PW 6/A and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He went to PS and returned to the spot after getting registered the FIR. He handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. IO seized the lock in broken condition after putting it in a white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'RK' vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 6/D which bears his signatures at point B. After interrogation, IO arrested the accused Deepak @ Tinda vide arrest memo already Ex. PW 1/B and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW 1/C which bears his signature at point C. The disclosure statement of accused was recorded which is Ex. PW 6/E which bears his signature at point B. Accused Ajay was found to be juvenile. Therefore, his apprehension memo was prepared. IO recorded his statement. He correctly identified the accused Deepak in the court on 08.03.2019. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
10) After Prosecution evidence, statement of accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. R/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. wherein accused ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. DEEPAK FIR No. 731/14 PS. M. Town 7 of 10 U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC pleaded innocence and false implication in the present case. It is stated by the accused that he do not want to lead DE.
11) I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
12) In "Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, MANU/SC/0121/1973", Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"Para 26. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. DEEPAK FIR No. 731/14 PS. M. Town 8 of 10 U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC have the benefit of that doubt......"
13) Coming back to the facts in the present case, accused Deepak @ Tinda has been charged for attempt of committing house breaking by night in order to commit theft. The prosecution examined PW1 Ramesh Madan who is the complainant in this case and other public witnesses. PW 1, PW 2 and other police witnesses I.e PW 6 and PW 7 totally corroborate the testimonies and depositions of each other. Only PW 3 did not support the case of the prosecution as she turned hostile but the evidence on record and the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution totally connect the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, no prosecution witness has been cross examined by the ld. Defence counsel to shake the veracity of the prosecution witnesses.
14) It is fundamental 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. The general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts. It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. DEEPAK FIR No. 731/14 PS. M. Town 9 of 10 U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC There is no controversy to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt occurring in the prosecution case.
15) In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances and material available on record, the prosecution has proved the charges u/s 457/380/511/34 IPC against the accused Deepak @ Tinda beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, he is convicted for the offences u/s 457/380/511/34 IPC.
Announced in open court on 20th December 2021 (Mayank Goel) MM-03: North:Rohini 20.12.2021 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. DEEPAK FIR No. 731/14 PS. M. Town 10 of 10 U/s. 457/380/511/34 IPC