Delhi District Court
State vs . Raunak Ali & Ors. on 25 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR, MM-03, SOUTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROOM NO.11, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI.
FIR No. : 139/13
U/s : 379/411/482/34 IPC
P.S. : Bindapur
State Vs. Raunak Ali & Ors.
JUDGMENT:
a) Sl. No. of the Case : 02/6 & 425587/16
b) Name & address of the : Sh. Prahlad Kumar Soni
complainant. S/o Sh. Dal Chand Soni, R/o
H.No. G-48, School Road,
Arya Samaj Road, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi.
c) Name & address of :1.) Raunak Ali @ Babu
accused S/o Sh. Mahmood Hassan
R/o Mohalla Noor Sarai,
Kotawali, District Sambhal,
U.P.
2.) Raj Kumar @ Sotta
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal
R/o H. No. A-613, Pankha
Road, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of : 29.03.2013
offence
e) Offence complained off : U/s 379/411/482/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.1/19
g) Final Order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 25.04.2018
Date of Institution : 25.05.2013
Final arguments heard on : 25.04.2018
Judgment Pronounced on : 25.04.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: -
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 29.03.2013, both accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, were found in possession of one TATA Sumo white colour engine no. 820332 chasis no. 39669, registration no. whereof was found to be DL 9CA 6984 on which false number plate UP 21G 1350 had been put up, from open plot near in front of M/s Om Prakash Petrol Pump, Wazoi Road, Hapapat Nagar, Sambhal, U.P., recovered at the instance of accused persons, which they both dishonestly retained in their possession knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, theft of which had taken place on the intervening night of 24/25.03.2013 from front of G-48, School Road, FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.2/19 Uttam Nagar, belonging to complainant Prahlad Kumar Soni.
2. With these allegations, charge-sheet was filed in the court. Court took cognizance, summoned the accused, copy of charge-sheet was supplied to them and on the basis of material on record, charge for the offence punishable u/s 411/482/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on dated 06.06.2013 to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined nine witnesses in all.
4. PW-1 Sh. Prashant Kumar Soni is the complainant, has deposed that he is registered owner of TATA Sumo bearing no. DL 6CA 6984 white colour. In the intervening night of 24/25.03.2013, he had parked his said TATA Sumo outside his house at about 10.00 PM. In the morning, he found his TATA Sumo stolen from that place. He FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.3/19 made call to the police on 100 no. He gave complaint to the police Ex. PW1/A. Police visited his house and prepared the site plan mark X at his instance. After 3-4 days, PW1 was informed by the police that his TATA Sumo car has been recovered. PW1 had seen the car in the PS with forged number plate UP 21G 1350. The witness PW1 had identified the TATA Sumo car in the photographs Ex. P1 to P3. RC of the car is mark Y. The TATA Sumo car was also produced and exhibited as Ex. P4.
5. PW2 Ct. Sudhir had accompanied ASI Banwari Lal to Dwarka Court on 28.03.2013. ASI Banwari Lal had taken 3 days police custody remand of accused persons. Accused persons were interrogated in the PS. They disclosed their involvement in the theft of TATA Sumo no. DL 6CA 6984 from School Road, Uttam Nagar. Disclosure statement of accused Raunak Ali Ex. PW2/A and that of accused Raj Kumar Ex. PW2/B were recorded. They had disclosed that the said TATA Sumo was concealed by them at Sambhal, U.P, FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.4/19 District Muradabad and can get the same recovered.
PW2 Ct. Sudhir further deposed that on 29.03.2013, he along-with ASI Banwari Lal, ASI Devender, ASI Suresh and HC Bhoop Singh and HC Vijay Pal, Ct. Arvind went to Sambhal along-with accused persons. They recovered TATA Sumo bearing no. DL 6CA 6984 at the instance of accused persons. The fake registration number plate with no. UP 21G 1350 had been put up on the said TATA Sumo. The car was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C and fake number plate was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D. In the evidence of PW2, fake number plate with registration no. UP 21G 1350 was produced, correctly identified by PW2 and the same is Ex. P5.
6. PW3 Ct. Laxman has deposed that on the intervening night of 24/25.03.2013, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM. He accompanied ASI Banwari Lal on receiving DD no. 13B to the spot i.e. G-48, School Road, Uttam Nagar where complainant met them and he FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.5/19 told regarding theft of his TATA Sumo no. DL 6CA 6984 in the night. On the evening of 25.03.2013, complainant came to the PS and gave his complaint, on the basis of which present case was registered.
7. PW4 HC Charan Singh has deposed that on 26.03.2013, he was busy in investigation of FIR no. 140/13, PS Bindapur along-with Ct. Amrik and Ct. Sudhir near Himalay Sagar restaurant, Uttam Nagar. He had arrested both accused persons in the court in FIR no. 140/13 vide arrest memo of accused Raunak Ali Ex. PW4/A, arrest memo of accused Raj Kumar is Ex. PW4/B. Personal search memo of accused Raunak Ali is Ex. PW4/C and of Raj Kumar is Ex. PW4/D. Accused Raunak Ali gave a disclosure statement Ex. PW4/E and disclosure of accused Raj Kumar is Ex. PW4/F. They disclosed that they committed theft of one car TATA Sumo, white colour. Accused disclosed that they committed theft of TATA Sumo from G Block, School Road, Uttam Nagar and handed over the said car to their friend Mussai. FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.6/19 Pointing out memo of the place of theft are Ex. PW2/C. Accused Raj Kumar was arrested vide memo Ex. PW4/G and his personal search is Ex. PW4/H. Raunak Ali was arrested vide memo Ex. PW4/I and his personal search memo is Ex. PW4/J. Disclosure statement of Raj Kumar is Ex. PW4/K and disclosure of accused Raunak Ali is Ex. PW4/L.
8. PW5 Retd. SI Shamsher Singh had recorded the present FIR on dated 26.03.2013 Ex. PW5/A. He made endorsement Ex. PW5/B on the rukka.
9. PW6 Ct. Jagbir Singh had recorded the DD entry of theft of TATA Sumo Ex. PW6/A.
10. PW7 Ct. Uttam Kumar has deposed that on 28.03.2013, he joined the investigation of present case along with ASI Banwari Lal and Ct. Sudhir and came to Dwarka Court. IO obtained three days of PC of both accused persons. Both the accused were interrogated in the PS and FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.7/19 they disclosed that the Tata Sumo car bearing No. DL 6CA 6984 stolen from School Road, Bindapur is now parked at Sambhal, U.P., at the residence of Raunak Ali. Disclosure statement of both the accused persons was already recorded, in which they made false claims in their disclosure recorded on 27.03.2013. Accused persons also disclosed that they had placed a forged number plate of UP 21G 1350 on the aforesaid Tata Sumo. On 29.03.2013, he along with ASI Banwari Lal, ASI Devender, ASI Suresh, HC Bhoop, HC Vijay Pal, Ct. Arvind, HC Rohtash and Ct. Sudhir went to Sambhal, Distt. Muradabad, U.P., along with the accused persons where the aforesaid Tata Sumo was recovered at the instance of accused persons. The original registration number of the said Tata Sumo was carved on the glasses of the window i.e. DL 6CA 6984. The said car was taken into police possession. The duplicate number plate was also taken into police possession. Accused persons also got recovered other stolen vehicles from Rama Park, Rohini Border which were also seized vide memo already Ex. FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.8/19 PW7/A, PW7/B, PW7/C, PW7/D and PW7/E. The aforesaid Tata Sumo was sent to Delhi along with Ct. Arvind.
11. PW8 Ct. Arvind deposed that on 29.03.2013, he joined the investigation of present case along with ASI Banwari Lal. On that day, he along with ASI Banwari Lal, ASI Devender, ASI Suresh, HC Bhoop, HC Vijay Pal, Ct. Uttam Kumar, HC Rohtash and Ct. Sudhir went to Sambhal, Distt. Muradabad, U.P., along with the accused persons where the aforesaid Tata Sumo was recovered at the instance of accused persons. The original registration number of the said Tata Sumo was carved on the glasses of the window i.e. DL 6CA 6984. Accused persons also disclosed that they had placed a forged number plate of UP 21G 1350 on the aforesaid Tata Sumo. He took the aforesaid Tata Sumo to Delhi.
12. PW9 SI Banwari Lal deposed that on 25.03.2013, on receipt of DD no. 13-B, he alongwith Ct. FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.9/19 Laxman went to the spot, where he met complainant Prahalad Kumar Soni who told him that his TATA Sumo car bearing registration no. DL 6CA 6984 had been stolen from outside his house and he is searching it at his own level. The said DD no. was kept pending. Thereafter, late night complainant came to PS Bindapur and handed over a written complaint to PW9 and he prepared the rukka upon the same and got the FIR registered and collected the copy of FIR and original rukka from the DO. During day time, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW9/B at the instance of the complainant. Thereafter, he made efforts for the recovery of case property but in vain. On 26.03.2013, HC Charan Singh informed him about the apprehension of two accused persons who had made disclosure about their involvement in the present FIR. On 27.03.2013, both accused persons were formally arrested, their personal search was conducted and their disclosure statements were recorded. On 28.03.2013, he obtained three days PC of both accused persons and during this period recorded their supplementary disclosure FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.10/19 statement which are already Ex. PW2/A and PW2/B. Thereafter, PW9 along-with Ct. Sudhir, Ct. Uttam, ASI Devender, ASI Suresh, Ct. Arvind, HC Vijay Pal, HC Rohtash and Ct. Sudhir went to Sambal, U.P. District Muradabad along-with both accused persons. At Sambal, both accused persons got recovered TATA Sumo Car. However, accused persons have placed fake number plate on the aforesaid Sumo Car and fake no. plate was UP 21G 1350. However, the original registration no. of said TATA Sumo car was carved on the glasses of the windows of the said TATA Sumo car. The said TATA Sumo car was taken into police possession. Accused persons also got recovered various other vehicles including one Maruti 800, one Maruti Alto, one Zen, one Wagon R, two motorcycles and one scooty. These vehicles were also taken into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW7/A to PW7/E. Thereafter, accused persons along-with case property were got back to PS Bindapur and case property was deposited in PS malkhana. He also got clicked the photographs of the recovered TATA FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.11/19 Sumo car. He also recorded statement of all witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC.
13. After closure of prosecution evidence statements of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded in which both accused stated themselves to be innocent. They did not lead DE.
14. I have heard. Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Counsel for accused and have carefully gone through the record.
15. As per case of the prosecution, the accused were apprehended in case FIR No.140/13, PS Bindapur, under section 379/411/34 IPC. In that case, both accused persons allegedly made disclosure Ex. PW4/E (Raunak Ali), Ex. PW4/F (Raj Kumar). In the said disclosure Ex. PW4/E, the accused Raunak Ali disclosed that about 3-4 days ago, he along with accomplice Raj Kumar stole a Tata Sumo white color and sent the same to his brother Mushaid resident of village Pavi FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.12/19 Sadikpur, Distt. Ghaziabad for the purpose of selling it and that they can get Mushaid apprehended. The said disclosure statement Ex. PW4/E and PW4/F are dated 26.03.2013.
16. It is further seen from the record that the IO of the case again recorded the disclosure of accused persons Ex. PW4/L (Raunak Ali) and PW4/K (Raj Kumar). In the disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar Ex. PW4/K, it is recorded that Tata Sumo car number DL 6CA 6984 was stolen by him along with Raunak Ali and they both first took it to Loni Border and from there it was sent at Sambal to one Faizan Ali and that they can get it recovered and Faizan Ali apprehended. These disclosure statements are of dated 27.03.2013. The IO has again recorded disclosure of accused persons in the present case Ex. PW2/A (Raunak Ali) and Ex. PW2/B (Raj Kumar). In the disclosure statement Ex. PW2/A, it is allegedly disclosed by Raunak Ali that the Tata Sumo white color was sent by both of them through Loni Border to Sambal and that it is parked in front of M/s Om FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.13/19 Prakash Petrol Pump, Bijai Road, Hayat Nagar, Sambal and that both number plates have been changed and UP number plate have been affixed. The disclosure statements Ex. PW2/A and PW2/B are of dated 28.03.2013.
17. Entire case of the prosecution revolved around the disclosure statements of the accused persons that at their instance, the car in question Tata Sumo was recovered and that they changed the number plate also. However, the case of the prosecution is found to be clumsy and doubtful as to why the disclosure statements of accused persons have been recorded on daily basis i.e. on 26.03.2013, 27.03.2013 and 28.03.2013. Further, the IO of the case did not verify the facts so disclosed by accused persons in their respective statements, particularly for the present case. Entire case of the prosecution is silent as to what inquiry IO did carry qua the friend of accused Raunak Ali namely Mushaid son of Raees, resident of village Pavi Sadikpur, Distt Ghaziabad, UP at whose house the stolen Tata Sumo car was FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.14/19 parked by both accused persons for the purpose of selling it further. Similarly, there is also no inquiry, investigation or verification done by the IO consequent to fact disclosed by accused Raj Kumar in his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/K with regard to Faizan Ali at whose house the car in question was stated to have been parked. What investigation the IO carried for ascertaining the identity of Mushaid or Faizan and/or what efforts were made by the IO to apprehend these two persons when accused persons disclosed in their respective disclosure statements that they can get them apprehended and the stolen vehicle recovered.
18. PW1 Prahlad Kumar Soni is the complainant whose car had been stolen on the intervening night of 24/25.03.2013. He has deposed in his examination in chief that he had seen his Tata Sumo in the PS which was having a forged number plate bearing No. UP 21G 1350 whereas PW7 Ct. Uttam Kumar deposed that on 29.03.2013, he along with ASI Banwari Lal, ASI Devender, ASI Suresh, HC Bhoop, FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.15/19 HC Vijay Pal, Ct. Arvind, HC Rohtash and Ct. Sudhir went to Sambhal, Distt. Muradabad UP along with accused persons where Tata Sumo was recovered at the instance of accused persons. The original registration number of said Tata Sumo was carved on the glasses of window DL 6CA 6984. The said car was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D. The duplicate number plate was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/E. When the duplicate number plate was seized by the police during investigation from at Sambhal, UP then how come PW1 saw his Tata Sumo car with forged number plate as deposed by him in his examination in chief. Furthermore, PW1 complainant did not state or depose at any point of time that the actual number of his Tata Sumo car was carved on the glasses of the window of said car.
19. The case of the prosecution suffered grave and material contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses which go to the very root of the case of the prosecution FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.16/19 making it unbelievable and statement of the witnesses not trustworthy.
PW9 IO SI Banwari Lal has deposed in his cross examination that they returned to Delhi on 30.03.2013 during day time. The recovered case property i.e. Sumo car was drove back to Delhi by one of the police officials, however, he did not remember his name. In contradiction to PW9, PW8 Ct. Arvind has deposed in his cross examination that he returned to Delhi along with Tata Sumo by attaching the same with crane. The crane was brought from Delhi. PW2 Ct. Sudhir has deposed in his cross examination that the recovered vehicle was brought to Delhi while driving it by Ct. Uttam. The said vehicle broke down on the way and from there it was drove to Delhi by crane. PW2 did not know the number of crane.
20. None of the police witness examined on record by the prosecution could say as to how the alleged stolen Tata Sumo got started, at what time they visited PS at Sambhal FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.17/19 and there whom they met. Whether the police assistance was provided to them or not. None of the prosecution witness could name the Constable who allegedly accompanied them from PS Sambhal. There is no entry shown or filed on record that police party ever visited PS Sambhal on 29.03.2013 prior to alleged recovery of Tata Sumo car. As per case of the prosecution, the Tata Sumo car was found parked in a vacant plot in front of a petrol pump. However, no efforts were made by the IO to join any person from the said petrol pump, nor any other independent public witness was joined to the investigation. The name and particulars of the crane driver, the manner how the crane was secured and what payments were made to the crane driver, nothing like that has come on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The ring of truth is found to be broken at places in the case of the prosecution so much so that it suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies and embellishments. As per IO, the fake number plate was seized and sealed with the seal but the fake registration FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.18/19 number plate was not produced in the Court in sealed condition. In the photographs Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-5, the fake number plate is shown in the photographs, but if we read the statement of the IO, the fake number plate was taken down and was seized and subsequently sealed. The photographs are found to be not in sync with the statement of the IO. No public witness was joined to the investigation.
21. In view of the above, it is held that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, both the accused persons are acquitted of the charged offences.
Digitally signed by KISHOR KISHOR KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2018.04.26 16:23:00 +0530 Dictated & Announced in Open Court (Kishor Kumar) On the 25 day of April,2018 th MM-03/South-West/Delhi 25.04.2018 FIR No: 139/13 State v. Raunak Ali Page No.19/19