Delhi District Court
State vs . Mahender Singh on 31 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02
( CENTRAL ) : DELHI
State Vs. Mahender Singh
FIR No. 37/08
PS: Roop Nagar
U/s. 380/411 IPC
Date of institution: 08.07.2008
Judgment Reserved on: 30.05.2016
Date of Judgment: 31.05.2016
Unique I. D. No. : 02401R0947882008
JUDGMENT
a) Serial No. of the case 126/ST/08
b) Date of commission 26.03.2008
of the offence
c) Name of the complainant Sh. Sewa Singh
d) Name of the accused Mahender Singh S/o Sh. Mangal
person, and his parentage Sain, R/o Vill- Raipura, District
and address. Rampur (UP)
Gali No. 9, House of Raj,
Hyderpur, Delhi.
e) Offence complained or U/s 380/411 IPC
proved
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order Acquitted
h) Date of such order 31.05.2016
FIR No. 37/08 PS Roop Nagar Page No. 1 of 7
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.02.2008, complainant Sewa Singh, Depot Officer of FSD Shakti Nagar made a complaint with regard to theft of one computer monitor, keyboard, moisture meter, 10-15 Kg sample of rice and one sample seal in the godown of FSD Shakti Nagar. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR under section 380 IPC was registered, investigation was carried out and accused Mahender was found in possession of 5 polythenes of rice. Chargesheet was filed against him under section 380/411 IPC.
2. Accused was summoned and after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, charge was framed against him under section 411 IPC on 19.09.2011.
3. Prosecution cited as many as 10 witnesses out of whom 7 witnesses have been examined.
4. PW-1 is complainant Sewa Singh.
FIR No. 37/08 PS Roop Nagar Page No. 2 of 7
5. PW-2 ASI Niranjan Singh, Duty Officer.
6. PW-3 ASI Bachu Singh was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Madhukar and SI Samar Pal and apprehended the accused and recorded his disclosure statement wherein accused Mahender Singh revealed the fact of commission of theft at FCI godown by him.
7. PW-4 SI Samar Pal was on patrolling duty alongwith HC Bachu Singh and Ct. Madhukar and apprehended the accused and recorded his disclosure statement wherein accused Mahender Singh revealed the fact of commission of theft at FCI godown by him.
8. PW-5 HC Rakesh recorded the information received at PS Roop Nagar from PS Sarai Rohilla about involvement of accused in theft case.
9. PW-6 Ct. Madhukar was on patrolling duty alongwith HC Bachu Singh and SI Samar Pal and apprehended the accused and recorded his disclosure statement wherein accused Mahender Singh revealed the fact of commission of theft at FCI godown by him.
10. PW-7 Ct. Naresh Kumar joined the investigation with SI Samar Pal. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed. FIR No. 37/08 PS Roop Nagar Page No. 3 of 7
11. Statement of accused Mahender Singh was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied all the allegations and stated that he did not wish to lead defence evidence.
12. Matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments was heard. I have perused the record carefully.
13. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.02.2008, PW-1 Complainant Sewa Singh received a call in the morning from security guard namely Sunder Lal that in the intervening night of 28/29.02.2008, the theft had taken place in FSD godown. He rushed there and found that theft was committed by breaking up lock as well as glass of window and from inside the office one computer monitor, keyboard, moisture meter, 10-15 kg sample of rice and one sample seal were found stolen. Police came and made a complaint Ex.PW1/A. He also exhibited list of stolen articles which is Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter the story of prosecution is that on 25.03.2008 during patrolling by the police officials of PS Sarai Rohilla in the area of Kalidas Marg, a secret infromation was received by PW-4 SI FIR No. 37/08 PS Roop Nagar Page No. 4 of 7 Samar Pal with regard to carrying of stolen articles on which a raiding party was formed and at about 8.05 PM one TSR bearing no. DL 1RE 9735 came from the side of Bharat Nagar when the TSR reached near Chowki No.2, the same was stopped and two persons namely Mahinder Singh and another Sadaq Ahmed were found sitting in the TSR. The name of TSR driver was Ram Naresh. From the TSR, certain stolen articles were recovered.
14. During the investigation, accused Mahender Singh made disclosure statement with regard to his commission of theft alongwith co-accused Raju @ Kallu at FCI godown 25-30 days back. He also stated that some bags of rice are still lying at his house and he can get the same recovered.
15. Similar is the statement of PW-4 SI Samar Pal and PW-6 Ct. Madhukar. PW-7 Ct. Naresh Kumar has only exhibited pointing out memo Ex.PW4/A which was prepared at the instance of accused Mahender.
FIR No. 37/08 PS Roop Nagar Page No. 5 of 7
16. In the present case, complainant PW-1 had not given the specification of the bags in which the rice samples were packed in his list of missing articles Ex.PW1/B. It is only mentioned that the samples bags of rice approximately 10 to 15 Kg in Jute bags. The number of bags and the measurement of each bag has nowhere been mentioned by the complainant in his list of stolen articles or nowhere else so as to give a clear description of the stolen property. It is alleged against the accused Mahender that the five polythene of rice samples were recorded from him. The seizure memo has not been exhibited in the present case. In none of the testimony of witnesses, it is stated that the witnesses/police officials had visited the house of the accused and five polythene of samples of rice were recovered from his house. Even otherwise, the measurement of the polythene have not been stated. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the complainant has stated in Ex.PW1/B that the samples of rice were in Jute bags whereas in the seizure memo, the samples of rice packed in the polythene have been allegedly recovered from the accused.
FIR No. 37/08 PS Roop Nagar Page No. 6 of 7
17. Since the description of the stolen property is not clear, further it is not proved that it was recovered from the accused (seizure memo not exhibited) and above all the description given by the complainant PW1 does not match with the articles recovered from the accused. I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove that the rice which was allegedly recovered from the accused was a stolen property. The recovery from the accused is also not proved, therefore, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. The accused Mahender Singh is acquitted from the charge framed for the offence u/s 411 IPC.
18. Put up for furnishing of bail bond under section 437-A Cr.PC.
Announced in Open Court (Vandana Jain)
today on 31.05.2016 Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-02/Central/Delhi
FIR No. 37/08 PS Roop Nagar Page No. 7 of 7