Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay & Anr.; Fir No. 355/07 on 12 March, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 1 (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
State
Versus
Sanjay @ Sonu & Another
FIR NO. 355/07
P.S. Gandhi Nagar
1. Sr. No. of the case : 100/2
2. Date of institution : 05.06.2008
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Raj Kumar Bhati
4. Date of commission of offence : 07.04.2008
5. Name of accused : i) Sanjay @ Sonu
S/o. Ram Kishan Yadav
R/o. Village Koshli,
Distt. Rewari (Haryana).
ii) Sachin Pal @ Dakoo
S/o. Naresh Pal
R/o. Jhuggi Basti,
Gaushala Fatak, Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP.
( In judicial custody)
6. Offence complained of : 379 IPC
State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07
2
7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the Judgment: 24.02.2010
9. Final order : Convicted
10. Date of such Judgment : 12.03.2010
J U D G M E N T
1. The FIR No. 355/07 u/s. 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was registered at PS Gandhi Nagar on the complaint dt. 02.11.07 made by Sh. Raj Kumar Bhati whereby he mentioned that on the intervening night of 10/11.10.2007 at about 11.00 p.m., he parked his aqua green car make Indica bearing registration no. DL3CU3071 in Gali no.2, Krishan Gali, Subhash Road and at about 8.00 a.m., he found it missing. He informed the police at number 100 on 12.10.2007 and made personal efforts to trace out the vehicle. Thereafter, information was given from PS Link Road, Ghaziabad, UP that the stolen vehicle has been recovered from accused persons and consequently they were formally arrested in this case and case property was got transferred by IO. After State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07 3 completing the investigation, accused persons were chargesheeted and summoned for facing the trial.
2. In light of the above stated facts and proceedings, vide order dt. 03.07.2008, Sh. Raj Kumar, the then MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, framed charge u/s. 411/34 IPC against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. For proving its case, the prosecution produced ten witnesses. 3A. PW1, complainant Raj Kumar Bhati, stated on the lines of his first statement Ex.PW1/A dt. 02.11.2007, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Apart from that he stated that site plan Ex.PW1/B was prepared and in the month of April 2008, he was informed by police about the recovery of his vehicle. Thereafter, he went to PS Link Road, Ghaziabad, UP alongwith police staff of PS Gandhi Nagar and identified the stolen vehicle. IO seized his car and he took it on superdari vide superdaginama Ex.PW1/C. Further, he proved the RC of the vehicle State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07 4 Ex.PW1/D. Complainant further correctly identified the vehicle Ex.P1 in the court and filed its photographs Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. 3B. PW2, HC Meena, proved the FIR Ex. PW2/A. 3C. PW3, SI Chavi Ram Singh, testified that on 07.04.2008, FIR no. 152/08, 153/08, 154/08 and Nil/08 were registered at PS Link Road against the accused persons who were apprehended by SI Dharmender and other police party and the stolen car bearing reg. no. DL3CU3071 was recovered from their possession. Thereafter, he conducted the investigation and accused persons disclosed that they have stolen the aforesaid vehicle from the jurisdiction of PS Gandhi Nagar. Therefore, he informed PS Gandhi Nagar about the recovery of the car and handed over the documents Ex.PW3/A to the IO of this case. 3D. SI Dharmender (PW4) testified that on 07.04.2008, he was on patrolling duty with HC Surinder, constable Manphool, constable Harinder and driver Irfan and they were checking the vehicles near T Point, Bharat Electronics Ltd. Secret informer gave information that two persons will come in Indica car from Surya Nagar side and they are State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07 5 having arms and ammunition with them. At about 10.15 p.m., they saw one Indica car bearing registration no. DL3CU3071 coming from Surya Nagar side. They gave signal to stop it. Accused persons tried to ran away and started firing on them. However, they managed to apprehend them and they were asked to show the papers of the vehicle. On inquiry, they disclosed that they have stolen the car 56 months back from the area of PS Gandhi Nagar. Accused Sachin was driving the car. Both the accused persons and vehicle from the photographs Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were correctly identified by the witness in the court. 3E. PW5, constable Sandeep, stated that on 02.11.2007, duty officer handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him and thereafter he went to the spot at Gali no.2, Krishna Gali, Subhash Road and handed over the documents to HC Surinder Pal.
3F. PW6, constable Manphool, narrated the facts mentioned by PW4. 3G. HC Mahinder (PW7) stated that on 26.04.2008, he accompanied HC Surinder Pal to Karkardooma Courts where HC Surinder Pal formally arrested the accused Sanjay and Sachin vide memo Ex.PW7/A and State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07 6 Ex.PW7/B resp. and recorded their disclosure statement Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D. 3H. PW8, constable Harender, deposed on the lines of PW4. 3I. PW9, HC Surender, deposed that on 12.10.2007, after receiving DD No. 20A, he alongwith constable Surender reached at the place of theft where complainant met them and informed about missing of his vehicle. The DD was kept pending as complainant was making efforts to trace out the stolen vehicle. On 02.11.2007, complainant came to PS and on his statement FIR was got recorded. He prepared the site plan. The untraced report was filed. On 22.04.2008, information was received from PS Link Road about the recovery of the car. The accused persons were formally arrested and their disclosure statement were recorded by him. On 03.05.2008, he took possession of the recovered car from the malkhana of PS Link Road vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. 3J. PW10, HC Surender (UP), reiterated the facts mentioned by PW4.
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07 7 were examined as per provisions of section 313 Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating evidence on record was read over to them to know their explanation. They mentioned that prosecution allegations are false and they are not aware about the disclosure statements. It is replied by accused Sachin that he was arrested by police at about 9.00 p.m. at Link road when he was coming back from his work place near Dabar Chowk. Accused Sanjay stated that he went to PS Link Road on one morning since police was visiting his house regularly and he was falsely implicated in this case.
5. I have heard the State through Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Ms. Sangeeta Jain, Ld. counsel for accused Sachin and Sh. Sanjay Kedwal, Ld. counsel for accused Sanjay. Further I have perused the record.
6. Ld. APP summed up that the fact of recovery of stolen vehicle from the accused persons has been proved by the prosecution witnesses PW4, PW6, PW8 and PW10 and as such charge is proved State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07 8 against the accused persons. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel argued that the police did not involve any independent witnesses during recovery and moreover there are contradictions in the testimony of recovery PWs.
7. It is observed that recovery witnesses, PW4 SI Dharmender, PW6 constable Manphool, PW8 constable Harender and PW10 HC Surinder have deposed to the effect that the case property, i.e., car bearing registration no. DL3CU3071 was recovered from the accused persons on 07.04.2008 on the basis of information furnished by the secret informer. All the witnesses have correctly identified the accused persons and stolen vehicle in the court. In view of the consistent evidence given by the aforesaid recovery witnesses, it cannot be said that noninvolvement of the independent witness during recovery is fatal to the prosecution case.
8. No doubt, there are certain contradictions regarding the time of receiving the secret information as PW4 mentioned that they were given State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07 9 information at about 8.30 p.m., whereas, PW6 has mentioned that information was received at about 9.45 p.m. Similarly, PW4 has mentioned that public persons were present at the site of recovery, whereas, PW6 had deposed to the contrary. Further, all the recovery witnesses have mentioned different speed of vehicle allegedly recovered from the accused persons. Now, if the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is carefully examined, it can be seen that they have supported the prosecution case on material points. Minor contradictions qua time of receiving information and speed of recovered vehicle cannot have bearing on the decision of the case.
9. Further, PW1 has proved that vehicle bearing registration no. DL3CU3071, which was recovered from the accused persons, was stolen on 10/11.10.07 and he reported the matter to police immediately thereafter. His testimony is also not challenged. It means that fact of theft of car bearing registration no. DL3CU3071 belonging to complainant is also proved on record. However, the accused persons have not given any explanation in any manner in regard to their State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07 10 possession over the stolen vehicle.
10. In light of the reasons recoded above, it is concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Resultantly, both accused persons are convicted for offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC.
Announced in the open court [Vivek Kumar Gulia]
On 12 Day of March, 2010 MMI (East)
th
(Total ten pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07
11
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 1 (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR NO. 355/07
P.S. Gandhi Nagar
U/s. 379/411/34 IPC
State Vs. Sanjay @ Sonu
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
16.03.2010
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Sachin is produced from Dasna JC with counsel Ms.Sangeeta Jain, from Legal Aid Cell.
Convict Sanjay on bail with counsel.
Heard on the point of sentence. It is urged by Ld. APP for State that since convicts have been found guilty, maximum sentence be awarded to them.
On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. counsel for convict Sanjay that convict is not a previous convict and is young man taking care of his widow mother. Further it is stated that during investigation, convict remained since 26.04.2008 to 03.07.2008. Ld. counsel for convict Sachin submitted that convict is in confinement since date of his arrest i.e. 26.04.2008.
State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07 12 Considering the aforesaid submissions, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if accused Sachin Pal is sentence to imprisonment for the period of custody already undergone by him (approximately 23 months) and convict Sanjay is sentenced to period of custody already undergone by him (approximately 2 months) alongwith fine of Rs. 3000/. Ordered accordingly. In default of payment of fine amount, convict Sanjay shall undergo SI for six months.
Announced in the open court [Vivek Kumar Gulia]
th
On 16 Day of March, 2010 MMI (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07
13
FIR no. 355/07
PS Gandhi Nagar
16.03.2010
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Sachin is produced from Dasna JC with counsel Ms.Sangeeta Jain, from Legal Aid Cell.
Convict Sanjay on bail with counsel.
Separate order on sentence passed. Fine amount of Rs. 3,000/ is paid by convict Sanjay.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Vivek Kumar Gulia MMI(East)/KKD Courts/16.03.2010 State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07