Delhi District Court
Dr Anil Kumar Thakur vs The State on 8 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal Number : 21/2015
Unique ID No. 02406R0247912015
Dr Anil Kumar Thakur
.........................Appellant
versus
The State
..........................Respondent
Date of institution of Appeal : 06/08/2015
Date of Allocation : 07/08/2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 27/08/2015
Date of Judgment : 08/09/2015
Particulars related to impugned order
FIR No.. : 188/2013
Under Section : 380 of IPC
Date of impugned order : 15/07/2015
Name of learned Trial Court : Sh Tarun Yogesh,
Ld ACMM, South District
Saket, New Delhi.
Memo of Appearance
Sh Rahul Sharma, Ld Counsel for Appellant.
Sh Praveen Rahul, Ld Addl P.P for State
JUDGMENT
1. The present is a judicial verdict on an appeal filed against the judgment, dated 15/07/2015, passed by the Ld Trial Court.
Dr Anil Kr Thakur Vs State CA no. 21/15 Page 1 of 92. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant, namely, Dr Anil Kumar Thakur, against the judgment, dated 15/07/2015, vide which Ld Trial Court had convicted the appellant and vide order, dated 30/07/2015, had sentenced the accused to undergo RI for a period of four years alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine appellant was to undergo further imprisonment for six months.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a written complaint was filed by one Sh Yogesh, Ahlamd of the court of Ms Monika Saroha, Ld MM, Mahila Court, Saket, at PS Saket, wherein he had alleged regarding the theft of judicial file, on 25/04/2013. Matter was marked to SI Jai Pal Singh for investigation. An FIR was registered u/s 380 of IPC at PS Saket. During investigation, IO prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant, obtained the CD of CCTV footage of the incident, statement of witnesses were also recorded. Accused, Dr Anil Kumar Thakur, was arrested at the instance of secret informer, on 18/05/2013, and his disclosure statement was recorded. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s 380 of IPC. Ld Trial Court took the cognizance of the offence and framed the charge u/s 380 of IPC against the accused, wherein accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution evidence was led and, thereafter, accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.Pc, wherein he denied the allegations made against him. After hearing the arguments, Ld Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo RI for four years alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment of six months was imposed upon the convict.
4 Aggrieved from the said order, appellant has preferred this appeal on various grounds. Ld Counsel for appellant had contended that findings of Ld Trial Court are based on surmises and conjectures and are against the principles of law. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that there is unexplainable delay in lodging the complaint and Dr Anil Kr Thakur Vs State CA no. 21/15 Page 2 of 9 registering the FIR and delay in registration of FIR has caused enormous prejudice to the appellant. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had failed to appreciate that delay in lodging the complaint creates substantial doubt on the case of the prosecution i.e. why the complaint was not lodged immediately, on 21.12.2012. It has further been argued that no complaint was lodged when the accused applied for the certified copies of the said judicial file, on 15/12/2013, further no complaint was lodged, when the accused, repeatedly, approached the Certifying Agency on various dates . It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had failed to appreciate that no reliance could be placed on the alleged video footage in as much as the manner in which the said copy, vis-a-vis of alleged Footage, was produced before the Ld Trial Court. It has further been alleged that Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that the only person, has been stated to be present, on the alleged date of incident, who saw the video footage of a total duration of 10 minutes only and she did not know the appellant, prior to the incident, and the file was not clearly visible; as to whether it was judicial file or appellant's personal file, then the identification becomes doubtful. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had failed to appreciate that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and coupled with other facts, the evidence led by the prosecution, had shattered the case of the prosecution. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had relied on presumptions while convicting the accused and substantial facts were ignored. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that fair and impartial investigation is the fundamental right of the accused.
5 I have heard Ld Counsel for the appellant and Ld APP for State and have gone through the Trial Court record.
6 It is well settled preposition of criminal law that prosecution has to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Dr Anil Kr Thakur Vs State CA no. 21/15 Page 3 of 9Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Tika Vs. State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 155, wherein it has been held that:-
"One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view, in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases, is that an accused is presumed to be innocent, unless, that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence which may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged."
7 Reference can be made to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Balraj Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, 1976 Cr.L.J. 1471 (DB) (Punjab) in which it was observed as follows:-
"The guilt of accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record. Even if, there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole, the prosecution may be true, but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted".
8 In Bhikari Vs State of U.P. AIR 1966 SC1, the Supreme Court has held that:-
"Undoubtedly, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence with the requisite mens rea. Once it is done, the accused can rebut this presumption either by leading evidence or by relying on the prosecution evidence itself. If upon evidence adduced in the case, either by the prosecution or by defence, a Dr Anil Kr Thakur Vs State CA no. 21/15 Page 4 of 9 reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court, regarding one or more ingredients of the offence including mens rea, then he would be entitled to the acquitted."
9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. AIR 2012, Supreme Court 37 has held that:-
"It is settled legal preposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions/improvements/embellishments etc had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The court after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses. 10 It is well settled through a catena of judicial pronouncements that, burden of Proof means the obligation of a party to prove his allegations during a trial. This phrase is employed to signify the duty of proving the facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause. In criminal cases, as every man is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, the burden of proof always lies on the party who takes the affirmative in pleading, unless a different provision is expressly made by statute. Thus, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by clear, convincing and unimpeachable evidence.
11 Thus, the prosecution had to discharge its burden by bringing clear evidence against the accused regarding the commission of the offences as mentioned in the charge framed u/s 380 of IPC.
12 In the present matter, CT Vineet, who was posted at PS Saket and, on that day, his duty was in CCTV Control Room, from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. He is examined as PW5, by Ld Trial Court . During his examination, CD Dr Anil Kr Thakur Vs State CA no. 21/15 Page 5 of 9 was played in the Court and Court observed the following points:-
(a) At 0.29 second of video footage, accused is seen entering the Ahlmad Room carrying a piece of paper in his hands wearing red-sweater and blue jeans.
(b) At 1.23 of video footage, accused is seen leaving Ahlmad room with the same piece of paper.
(c) At 2.05 of Video Footage, accused is seen re-entering Ahlmad room carrying a pink file cover with some papers inside in his right hand.
(d) at 5.10 of video footage, the pink cover file with contents is taken from the hands of accused by a police constable who thereafter leaves the Ahlmad room at 5.55 of video footage.
(e) At 19.40 of Video footage, Asst. Ahlmad Ms Damyanti Naik is seen leaving the Ahlmad Room.
(f) At 19.45-48 of video footage, accused is seen carrying tagged bunch of papers (pink cover file not visible) and is seen leaving the room with the tagged bunch of papers.
13 Other material witnesses examined by the Ld Trial Court are PW1 Sh Yogesh, and PW4 Ms Damayanti Nayak, who were posted as Ahlmad and Assistant Ahlmad, during the relevant period.
14 PW1, Yogesh, had deposed before the ld Trial Court that he was on earned leave w.e.f. 10.12.2012 to 20.12.2012 and when on 21/12/2012, he joined his duties, he could not find the file, titled as, Sneh Lata Vs Anil Kumar Thakur, u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act, which was listed for hearing on 21.12.2012. He has further deposed that he was informed by Asst. Ahlmad that on 20/12/2012, the said file was available in the ahlmad room. Thereafter, he searched the same but he did not find the same, so he prepared parcha yadashth and it was fixed for 28/03/2013. Till that date also the said file was not found, despite several efforts. He had further deposed that during the search of that file, he went to CCTV room to see the footage, Dr Anil Kr Thakur Vs State CA no. 21/15 Page 6 of 9 he checked the footage and found that one person entered into the Ahlmad room with empty hand and had taken away one file from Ahlmad room. Thereafter, he informed the said fact to Ld Presiding officer and, thereafter, he lodged a formal complaint to PS Saket, on the basis of which the present complaint was registered. PW1, Sh Yogesh, had identified the person who was seen in the CCTV footage, as accused, who was present before the Court.
15 PW4, Damayanti, had deposed that the case file, titled as Sneh Lata Vs Anil, was fixed for hearing on 21.12.2012 and, as per routine, all the judicial file which was fixed for hearing on next date, she took out the same on 20/12/2012 , as the Ahlamd, Sh Yogesh, was on leave and she was doing all the work of Ahlmad, apart from her work. She had further deposed that, on 20/12/2012, at about 12.30 pm, various applications were on hold so she, alongwith all the misc. applications, went to the Court of Ms Monika Saroha. On 20/12/2012, one person came to inquire about the case file of above said title case and she told that person to see the cause list. On 20/12/2012, Ahlmad, Sh Yogesh, joined his duty and they checked the above said file but they could not find the same. On previous day above said file alongwith all other files were in the Ahlmad room and she checked the same. On 21/12/2012, they searched for the file but they could not trace the same. Thereafter, they prepared the parcha-yadashat. They checked CCTV footage later and found that at the time, when she went to put up the misc. applications, time one person entered into the room and took away one file. This witness had also identified the accused before the Court. 16 In the present matter, PW1, Yogesh and PW4, Damayanti, have identified the accused, namely, Anil Kumar Thakur. There is ample evidence on behalf of the prosecution, to come to the conclusion that accused, Anil Kr Thakur, had entered the Ahlmad room on 20/12/12, as per the evidence of Dr Anil Kr Thakur Vs State CA no. 21/15 Page 7 of 9 PW4, Damayanti, she had seen the relevant case file i.e. case file of accused titled as Sneh Lata Vs Anil Kumar Thakur alongwith other files. The entry of the accused in the Ahlmad room has been proved by the CCTV Footage recorded in CCTV room. In his statement, u/s 313 of Cr.P.C, accused, Anil Kumar Thakur, has not been able to give any explanation on that point i.e. on the point of his entry in the Ahlmad room as well as departure alongwith pink colour file. There is proper identification of the accused in the evidence of PW1, namely, Yogesh as well as by PW4, namely Damayanti. Thus, there was ample evidence before Ld Trial Court to come to the conclusion that it was the accused, Anil Kumar Thakur, who had entered the Ahlmad Room and had taken the judicial file, of case titled as Sneh Lata Vs Anil Kumar Thakur. 17 In view of the facts and circumstances, the prosecution had been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt u/s 380 of IPC.
18 In view of these and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by Ld Trial Court on 15/07/2015. In the present matter, Ld Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for a period of four years alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Appellant has already deposited the fine of Rs.2000/- before ld Trial Court vide receipt no. 496108. Since, it is a case of theft of judicial record file, I do not find any ground for interference in the sentence passed by Ld Trial Court. Ld Trial Court had given benefit of section 428 of Cr.PC and period of custody from 18/05/2013 till 07/06/2013 was set off against the substantive sentence of four years.
19 In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the order of Ld Trial Court and there is no reason to set aside the same, as prayed in the appeal.
Dr Anil Kr Thakur Vs State CA no. 21/15 Page 8 of 920 Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, being meritless. 21 A copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court along with the trial court record. Copy of the Judgment of the appeal be supplied to the accused free of cost.
22 File related to appeal be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Ramesh Kumar) On this 8th of September, 2015. ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) South Distt: Saket Courts: New Delhi Dr Anil Kr Thakur Vs State CA no. 21/15 Page 9 of 9