Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/452/2003 on 15 January, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH : MM :
NEW DELHI
FIR No. 34/03
P.S. Hauz Khas
U/s 454/380 IPC
State v. Iqbal Singh
JUDGMENT :
a. Srl. No. of the case : 452/2 b. Date of Institution : 09.05.03
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 21.01.03 d. Name of the complainant : Ritesh Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar e. Name of the accused and his : Iqbal Singh parentage and address S/o Sh. Krishan Lal R/o Village Mehrana, PO Dahar, Tehsil & District Panipat Haryana f. Offence complained of : U/s 454/380 IPC g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty h. Order reserved : 15.01.10 i. Final Order : Acquitted j. Date of such order : 15.01.10 Brief reasons for the decision of the case:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on receiving DD no. 16A regarding theft from Ct. Ravinder 2 Kumar on 21.01.03, S.I. Amar Singh along with Ct. Netra Pal went to the spot at 1C, First Floor, Jiya Sarai where complainant Sh. Ritesh Kumar met them and handed over accused apprehended by him along with recovered Rs. 600/ from him stating that the accused committed theft in his house by breaking lock so on the basis of his statement F.I.R. was registered. The investigation of case was conducted and during the investigation site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested and after completing the other formal investigation, the challan was presented before the court for trial.
2. Accused was summoned to face the trial so copy of challan as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C., was supplied to him. Thereafter, case was fixed for consideration of charge.
3. On hearing arguments and on perusal of record, prima facie charge for the offence U/s 457/380 I.P.C. was made out against the accused. Accordingly charge was framed against the accused vide order dated 23.07.04. Thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined four witnesses namely Ct.3
Netra Pal as PW 1, Ritesh Kumar the complainant as PW2, H.C. Sarwan Kumar as PW3 and Retd. S.I. Amar Singh as PW4.
4. A. PW1 Ct. Netrapal testified that on 21.1.2003 on receipt of DD no. 16A from Ct. Ravinder, he along with S.I. Amar Singh Ct. Netra Pal went to C1, Jiya Sarai where complainant met them along with his friend and accused. I.O. recorded the statement of complainant and recovery of six currency notes of Rs. 100/ each were effected from the pocket of accused which were seized vide memo Ex. PW 1/A. PW 1 identified the 6 currency notes of Rs. 100/ each collectively as Ex. P1 collectively.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW 1.
4. B. PW 2 Ritesh Kumar, the complainant has testified that on 21.1.2003 he left his room at first floor, Jiya Sarai. with his friend Pradeep and when they returned at 3.00 PM, they found the door of the room opened and when they entered into the room, the accused was found inside the room so he apprehended him. PW 2 further testified that on checking Rs. 600/ which were kept in his jacket were found missing and same were recovered from accused. PW 2 further testified that accused opened his room by opening lock with master key as bunch of keys was found in the room. Thereafter police recorded his 4 statement Ex. PW 2/A and seized the currency notes vide memo Ex. PW 2/B. Police also arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 2/C. PW 2 also identified the 6 currency notes of Rs. 100/ each collectively as Ex. P1.
During cross examination PW 2 testified that police did not seize the lock of room and jacket nor any bunch of keys or any key was handed over by him to the police on the day of incident. PW 2 denied the suggestion to the effect that the currency notes were planted upon the accused by the police or no recovery has been effected from the accused. Further, PW 2 also denied the suggestion to the effect that accused was not arrested at the premises.
4. C. PW 3 H.C. Sarwan Kumar testified that he was Duty Officer on 22.07.09 in P.S. and registered F.I.R. no. 34/03 Ex. PW 3/A. He also put his endorsement Ex. PW 3/B on rukka.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW 1.
4. D. PW 4 Retd. S.I. Amar Singh testified that on receipt of DD 16A on 21.1.03 he along with Ct. Netra Pal went to the spot 1C, Jiya Sarai, New Delhi where complainant with his friend met them and produced accused Iqbal while stating that the accused entered into his house by breaking the lock and after ransacking the 5 house took away 600 rupees i.e. 6 notes of Rs. 100/ each kept in the pant which were recovered from the back pant pocket of accused so same were seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/B. PW 4 further testified that he prepared rukka Ex. PW 4/A on statement of complainant Ex. PW 2/A and got the F.I.R. registered through Ct. Netra Pal. Thereafter he prepared site plan Ex. PW 4/B and arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 2/C. PW 4 also identified the 6 currency notes of Rs. 100/ each collectively as Ex. P1.
During cross examination PW 4 testified that no key was found with the accused on search and he had not taken the jacket in which the money stated to be kept by complainant. PW 4 further testified that he did not ask for description of the notes from the complainant and he had not put any identification mark on the notes. PW 4 further testified that complainant identified his currency notes and money from the purse of the accused. PW 4 denied the suggestion to the effect that the currency notes seized by him were belongs to accused and same were with other notes in the purse of accused. PW 4 further testified that he did not prepare any pullanda for keeping the recovered notes nor sealed them and also not taken the lock into his possession which was allegedly opened by the accused.
5. Statement of accused Iqbal Singh was 6 recorded U/s 281 Cr.P.C wherein he has denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
6. I have heard the ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record and the relevant provisions of the law.
7. It is the case of prosecution that on 21.01.03 on receiving DD no. 16A from Ct. Ravinder Kumar PW 4 reached at the spot along with PW1 where PW 2 along with his friend Pradeep met them and PW2 produced the accused along with 6 currency notes of Rs. 100/ each. PW 4 recorded the statement of PW 2 Ex. PW 2/A and got the case F.I.R. Ex. PW 3/A registered through PW 1 and thereafter PW 4 arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW 2/C.
8. To prove its case prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses and out of them material witness is PW1, PW 2 and PW4.
9. PW 1 testified that Ct. Ravinder Kumar handed over the DD 16A on 21.1.03 to PW 4, thereafter they reached on spot. This testimony of PW 1 is not 7 corroborated with the testimony of PW 4 as he has not deposed about the handing over of DD by Ct. Ravinder Kumar to him. It is further pertinent that prosecution has failed to examined the witness on whose information DD16A was written as PW 2 had not called the police on spot as he has not deposed a single word about any information regarding calling of police on spot. In view of this, DD 16A is not proved on record as prosecution has not examined the DD Writer. Further Ct. Ravinder who has handed over the DD to PW 4 also not examined in this case. Hence, the linking evidence is missing.
10. Further PW 2 deposed that accused has opened the door of his room by opening the lock with the master key as subsequently the bunch of key was found in the room and he handed over the bunch of key to the police next day. On the other hand, PW4/IO testified that PW2 disclosed him that accused entered into his house by breaking the lock but he has not seized the lock. Further PW4 also testified that he found lock of house was not broken but it was opened with the key but no key was found with accused. PW4 has not testified anything about handing over of the bunch of key to him by PW2. Admittedly, neither the lock nor its key was seized by the PW4 during investigation. In view of this, it is doubtful that accused entered into the house of PW2 by opening the lock.
811. From the testimony of PW 2, it is clear that he had recovered the currency notes prior to reaching on spot of PW 4 and PW 1 but PW 1 deposed that recovery of currency notes was effected from the pocket of accused in their presence. On the other hand, PW 4 deposed that PW 2 identified the currency notes from the purse of accused. Further PW2 admitted that case property i.e. currency note of Rs. 600/ has not been sealed by the I.O. This testimony of PW 2 is corroborated with I.O./PW4 who also testified that he has not sealed the currency notes recovered from the possession of accused. PW4 also deposed that he did not put any identification mark on the currency note allegedly recovered from the possession of accused. In view of this, it is clear that currency note produced in the court in unsealed condition, further currency notes were not sealed on the spot and it was produced in the court in unsealed condition. The seizure memo of currency notes Ex. PW2/B also did not bear the number of currency notes recovered from the accused. In view of this discussion, the identity of currency notes is disputed and therefore it can be said beyond reasonable doubt that the currency notes produced in the court were the same which have been recovered from the possession of accused. In these circumstances, prosecution has failed to establish the lurking house tress pass in the house of 9 complainant and the commission of theft of Rs. 600/ from the jacket of PW2 by accused.
12. In view of above discussion, accused Iqbal Singh is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 454/380 I.P.C. or for which he stands charged.
Announced in the Open Court
On 15.01.2010 (RAVINDER SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate:
New Delhi.
10
FIR No. 34/03
P.S. Hauz Khas
U/s 454/380 IPC
15.01.2010
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Final arguments heard.
Put up for order at 3.30 PM.
(Ravinder Singh)
M.M./N.D./ 15.01.2010
At about 3.45 PM
Present: As before.
Vide my separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court accused Iqbal Singh is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s. 454/380 I.P.C.
Bail bond of accused is cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Documents, if any of the accused and surety be returned after cancellation of endorsements. The file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
(Ravinder Singh) MM//ND/ 15.01.2010