Delhi District Court
State vs . Jasbir Singh on 27 April, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE/WEST: DELHI
STATE Vs. JASBIR SINGH
FIR NO. : 572/2000
U/SEC : 356/329 IPC
PS : Paschim Vihar
JUDGEMENT
Date of commission of offence 29.06.2000
Date of institution of the case 30.07.2001
Name of the complainant Smt. Savitri Goyal
Name of accused, parentage & Jasbir Singh@ Jassa, S/o sh. Baldev
address Singh, R/o RZ133A, Khayala, Vishnu
Garden, Delhi
Offence complained of or proved U/S 356/329 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Convicted
Date of Judgment 27.04.2010
JUDGEMENT
1. Accused has been sent up to face trial for the offence punishable under Section U/S 356/329 IPC. It is alleged against the accused that on 29.06.2000 at about 06:30 pm near FCI Colony, B3 Block, Paschim Vihar, FIR 572/2000, PS Paschim Vihar Page 1/5 Delhi, it was found that accused used criminal force on the person of complainant Savitri Goyal and snatched the chain worn by her around her neck.
2. Copies were supplied to the accused. After the supply of the copies, charge for the offence punishable under Section 356/329 IPC were framed against the accused on 26.03.2003 to which he pleaded not guilty and claim trial. Matter was thereafter posted for prosecution evidence.
3. The 5 prosecution witnesses that were examined during the course of the trial are as follows:
I. PW1 Sh. Anil Kumar, neighbour of the complainant, who caught hold the accused red handed.
II. PW2 HC Rajbeer Singh, DO who recorded the FIR. III. PW3 Ct. Satish, Who received the DD from DO and went at the spot.
IV. PW4 Smt. Savitri, complainant and the eye witness. V. PW5 SI Sunil Kumar, IO of the case.
4. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all incriminating evidence was put to accused. The accused controverted and denied the allegations leveled against him. Accused stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. FIR 572/2000, PS Paschim Vihar Page 2/5
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and gone through the entire material available on record carefully.
6. In the present case PW 4 was a material witness who is the complainant, however, she turned hostile. In her testimony she did not recognize the accused in the court. In her cross examination of Ld. APP for the State she deposed that it is correct that boy who came from her back was a Sardar but she further deposed that she does not remember whether the accused boy disclosed his name as Jasbir @ Jassa and she did not recognize accused person present in the court that day. However in her further cross examination she admitted that seizure memo of the chain bears her signature at point B. She further admitted that personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/B and the same bears her signature at point B. It is not the testimony of the complainant that she signed on blank papers, therefore, even if she resiled from her earlier statement to the effect that she did not recognise the accused in the court but in my view when in her cross examination she admitted incident happening on the spot on that day and having signed the personal search of accused in which chain was recovered from the accused and duly recognized the chain recovered, I find that chain of events is not broken just FIR 572/2000, PS Paschim Vihar Page 3/5 because of the reason that the complainant did not identify the accused for the reason that the same chain of event continues when PW1 Anil Kumar caught hold of the accused at the spot and chain was found in the hands of the accused. In her cross examination by Ld. APP for the State although PW4 deposed that she does not remember whether the person Anil Kumar apprehended that boy on hearing her noise but she admitted in her cross examination by the counsel for the accused that she does not remember the name of the person who caught hold of accused, however, her deposition can be used to the effect that a person caught hold of the accused. It was the PW1 who caught hold the accused at the spot. His presence there at the spot has not been disputed, on the other hand his presence at the spot is confirmed on the basis of PW1/A and PW1/B, which bear his signatures. He remained affirm. His testimony remained trustworthy, unshaken and he corroborated the case of prosecution. The whole chain of event is continued from snatching the chain till the accused is apprehended by the PW1. PW4 deposed about snatching her chain by a Sikh person and admitted catching hold of that boy by one another person. PW1 was that person who at the same time caught hold of accused. PW1 identified the accused and further identified chain. Therefore, on the basis of testimony of PW1 and cross examination of PW4 by Ld. APP for the FIR 572/2000, PS Paschim Vihar Page 4/5 State and Ld. Counsel for the accused, it can be safely concluded that it was the accused who snatched the chain of the complainant and was caught red handed at the spot. Therefore, the testimony of PW4 regarding not identifying the accused is not fatal in the present case since this blank has been filled by PW1. Cross examination of PW5 IO was deferred but he was not cross examined later on. Therefore, I am not considering the testimony of PW5 SI Sunil Kumar. On the basis of above said discussion accused Jasbir Singh is held guilt and his offence is proved beyond reasonable doubts. Let the case be fixed up for order on sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL)
th
ON 27 APRIL 2010 MM/WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
FIR 572/2000, PS Paschim Vihar Page 5/5