Delhi District Court
State vs . Shakir & Etc. on 30 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL GUPTA, M.M(NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 247/2000
U/s : 379/411/34 IPC
P.S : Bhajanpura
State Vs. Shakir & etc.
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0068972003
J U D G E M E N T
1. Sl. No. of the case : 392/13 (RBT) 2. Date of institution of the case : 08.10.2001 3. Name of complainant : State 4. Date of commission of offence : 01.09.2000
5. Name of accused, parentage & address : 1) Shakir S/o Sh.Sabir R/o 468, Sunder Nagri, Delhi.
: 2) Dinesh Goel s/o Prem Chad Goel R/o 9/266, Rajinder Nagar, Sector3, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.
6. Offence complained of or proved : 379/411/34 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of which order was reserved : 29.01.2014
10.Date of pronouncement : 30.01.2014 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the intervening night of 31.08.2000 and 01.9.2000, in between 10.30 pm to 6.30 pm, at public place/road in front of H.No. C6/50, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, a FIR No. 247/00. 1 of 6 Maruti car bearing No. DL3CM3654 belonging to the complainant Sh. Ajay Sharma was stolen. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of Shri Ajay Sharma on 01.09.2000. During the course of investigation, on 30.09.2000 accused Dinesh Goel got recovered the aforesaid stolen Maruti car from his garage namely Classical Automobile, Lajpat Nagar, Sahibabad, UP at the instance of accused Shakir.
2. After the completion of investigation, the charge sheet against the accused persons Shakir and Dinesh Goel was filed on 08.10.2001. After supplying of documents, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide its order dated 03.08.2004 was pleased to frame a separate charge under Section 379/411 IPC against the accused Shakir and charge under Section 411 IPC against accused Dinesh Goel, to which they pleaded not guilty in respect of the allegations and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses in all.
PW1 is Shri Ajay Sharma, the complainant. He has deposed that on 31.08.2000, at about 10.30 p.m, he parked his Maruti car No. DL3CM3654 of white color in front of his house. On next day, at about 6.30 a.m., he did not found his aforesaid maruti car at the FIR No. 247/00. 2 of 6 aforesaid place. He searched for it but could not trace it. At that time he was working with M/s Kailash Engineers and the aforesaid maruti car was provided to him by the aforesaid company. He proved his complaint dated 01.09.2000 Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that on 19.10.2000, police officials took him to PS Sahibabad, U.P. and from there they took into possession aforementioned car vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that on 02.11.2000, he obtained his maruti car on superdari and proved superdaginama of the same as Ex.PW1/C. This witness has been cross examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW2 is HC Vijay Singh, the Duty Officer. He has deposed that on 01.09.2000 at about 6.35 am, he has received an information through telephone that Maruti car bearing no. DL3CM3654 has been stolen. He recorded the said information vide DD entry no. 35A and proved the same Ex. PW2/A. He has further deposed that about 8.05 am, Ct. Sri Niwas came at P.S Bhajanpura and handed over him a rukka which was sent by SI Ajit Malik for registration of the FIR. He proved his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW2/B, and registered the present FIR No. 247/00. He has also proved the copy of the FIR Ex. PW2/C. FIR No. 247/00. 3 of 6 PW3 is HC Samay Singh. He has deposed that on 06.11.2000, he was posted with P.S Bhajanpura as a constable (Naib Court ) in the Court no. 26 of Sh. Brijesh Garg, Ld. MM. On that day, accused Shakir was formally arrested by HC Mange Ram before the court vide arrest memo ex. PW3/A. He has also proved the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW3/B. PW4 is HC Mange Ram, the subsequent IO of the case. He has supported the prosecution version, and deposed about the steps in detailed taken by him during the course of investigation. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Dinesh Goel Ex. PW4/A. The recovered car was released on superdari to Ajay Sharma vied Superdaginama Ex.PW4/B. He has deposed that on 06.11.00, accused Sakir was produced before the Court and he was interrogated and formally arrested in the present case. He has proved the disclosure statement of accused Sakir Ex. PW3/B and formal arrest memo Ex. PW3/A. On 09.12.00, he was transferred and he handed over the file to MHC(R). Ld. Defence Counsels have crossexamined this witness at length.
4. Thereafter, the PE was directed to be closed by the Court vide order dated 29.01.14. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C FIR No. 247/00. 4 of 6 recorded under section 281CrPC in which both the accused pleaded their innocence, however, they did not lead any evidence in their defence.
4. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel and have gone through the material on record.
5. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that an accused is presumed innocent until he is held guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The onus to prove the case against the accused lies upon the prosecution which has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case of Sadhu Singh vs. State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 as under : " In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused." In this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record the material evidence against the accused for the alleged offences as no recovery witness has been examined by the prosecution. It is to be seen that PW1 Mr. Ajay Sharma is the complainant who has merely deposed about the factum of his vehicle being stolen and getting the same released later, on superdari. He is not witness to the incident of theft or to the recovery of the vehicle. FIR No. 247/00. 5 of 6 PW2 is Duty Officer, and he has deposed regarding registration of FIR only. PW3 was posted as Naib Court at the relevant time with the Ld. Court concerned and he is a witness to the formal arrest of the accused Shakir in the Court. PW4 HC Mange Ram is the 2nd IO. He has deposed about the steps taken by him during investigation but he is also not the witness to the recovery as the recovery was effected by the UP Police Officials. None of the UP Police officials who witness to the alleged recovery has been examined by the prosecution despite grant of several opportunities. In the absence of any testimony on record, to prove the recovery from the possession of the accused persons, there is nothing to show that the alleged offences were committed by the accused persons namely Sakir and Dinesh Goel.
6. As not even an iota of incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused persons, the perspicuous conclusion is a resounding acquittal of the accused persons namely Sakir and Dinesh Goel for the offences complained off. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Dictated & Announced in the open Court on 30.01.2014 ( SUNIL GUPTA ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NE) KKD COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI FIR No. 247/00. 6 of 6