Delhi District Court
State vs . Shakeel Etc. on 16 January, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SHAILENDER MALIK : ACMM/
NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. Shakeel etc.
FIR No. 279/06
U/S: 380/411/34 IPC
P.S.: Shahdara
Date of Institution of case: 10.08.06
Date on which judgment is reserved: 16.01.13
Date on which judgment is delivered: 16.01.13
Unique I.D. No. 02402RO449582006
J U D G M E N T
a) Sl. no. of the case 198/06
b) Date of commission of offence 25.06.2006
c) Name of complainant Sh. Ankit Jain S/o Sh. Anand Kumar R/o C75, Gali no.8, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara, Delhi
d) Name of accused, his parentage Shakeel @ Nawab S/o Sh. Akeel R/o Toli Mohalla, near Dari Factory, Loni, Distt.
Ghaziabad,UP.
Dilshad @ Mota
s/o Sh. Qayum,
R/o Gali no.2, Bajrangbali
FIR NO. 279/06 Page 1 of 7 pages
2
Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi
Sheru son of Sh. Iqbal
r/o Gali no.2, Kabir Nagar
Shahdara, Delhi
e) Offence complained of or proved U/S: 380/411/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Convicted
h) Date of such order : 16.01.2013
j) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case
1. Accused Shakeel @ Nawab son of Sh. Akil, Dilshad @ Mota son of sh. Qayum and Sheru son of Sh. Iqbal Satpal Sharma were sent up to face trial for offence under Section 380/411/34 IPC with the allegations that on 25.06.06, all the accused persons were found in possession of stolen property i.e. Monitor Samsung, UPS Saftek, keyboard, one gas cylinder of Indane and one red colour executive bag which they had retained with knowledge that it is a stolen property. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed.
2. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused free of cost. After considering the material available on record learned predecessor of FIR NO. 279/06 Page 2 of 7 pages 3 this court vide order dated 25.09.06 framed the charge for offence under Section 411 IPC to which all the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution had examined as many as seven witnesses. PW1 is HC Satender who recorded the FIR Ex. PW1/A on the statement of complainant Ankit Jain. PW2 complainant Ankit Jain had testified that on 11.6.06 he had gone to his native village and when returned on 23.6.06 he found the bolt of his door of the house was opened and many articles were scattered and computer monitor Samsung , UPS, Gas cylinder and key board as well as one red colour executive bag was found missing. Witness had proved the registration of the FIR Ex. PW2/A and site plan Ex. PW2/B. PW2 has further testified regarding giving of photocopies of cash memos of the stolen articles which are Ex. PW 2/C to Ex. PW2/E. Witness had also proved seizure memo Ex. PW2/F. PW2 has further testified that subsequently those stolen case property was recovered he took them on superdari vide superdarinma Ex. PW2/G and case property is Ex. P1 to Ex. P4.
FIR NO. 279/06 Page 3 of 7 pages 4
4. PW3 is HC Arvind Kumar who has testified that on 24.6.06, all the accused were arrested in another case FIR No. 280/06 and during investigation of the said case they had made the disclosure statement regarding their involvement in the present case. Disclosure statement all the accused are Ex. PW3/A to Ex. PW3/C . Thereafter, all the accused had gone to the spot and got prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW3/D. PW3 further testifies that thereafter you and your co accused got recovered computer monitor, gas cylinder, UPS, key board and red colour bag from the house of accused Shakeel at house no. 3, gali no. 1, Ambedkar chowk, Kardampuri, said case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/E . PW4 is HC Rajeev whose evidence is also on the same facts as testified by PW3.
5. PW5 is SI Tara Dutt who had investigated initially after the registration of the FIR and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant and had also testified regarding handing over of documents i.e. cash memos of stolen articles by the complainant . PW6 is ASI Yogender who is also witness of recovery and has testified regarding recovery at the instance of all accused. PW7 is HC Sanjay FIR NO. 279/06 Page 4 of 7 pages 5 who proved the relevant entry in register no. 19 and same is Ex. PW7/A. Thereafter, PE was closed.
6. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed. Accused were examined u/s 281/313 Cr.P.C separately and all the incriminating evidence appearing on record against them have been put to them in their vernacular language to which they have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. No evidence was led in defence.
7. I have heard learned APP for the State and Sh. K.P.S. Chauhan, legal aid counsel for accused dilshad @ Mota and sh. Yogesh dhama, counsel for accused Shakeel and Sheru.
8. Having heard the submissions at bar and having gone through the record carefully, since the accused has been charged with for offence under Section 411 IPC therefore prosecution is required to establish the possession of the stolen property with the accused as well as the intention and the knowledge of the accused that articles in possession of the accused are stolen property as defined under Section 410 IPC. Keeping in view the above discussed legal requirement, if we assess FIR NO. 279/06 Page 5 of 7 pages 6 the evidence came on the record. PW2 is Ankit Jain is complainant who has testified regarding theft of computer monitor, UPS, gas cylinder and keyboard as well as executive bag. He in his examination had identified the recovered case property as Ex. P1 to P4. PW3 HC Arvind and PW4 HC Rajeev are witness of recovery. If we go through their evidence both these witnesses testified that accused persons were arrested in another case FIR NO. 280/06 wherein accused made the disclosure statement Ex. PW3/AC regarding their involvement in the present case. These witness have further testified that all the three accused led the police party and thereafter the case property of the present case was got recovered from tenanted premises of accused Shakeel i.e. house no. 3, gali no.1, Ambedkar Chowk, Kardam Puri, Delhi. The abovesaid case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/E. Now if we go through the cross examination of PW3 & PW4 nothing much had been put to the accused and there is nothing in the evidence of these witnesses to disbelieve regarding recovery of the case property. Though it was argued at bar that the alleged recovery is not in the presence of any independent witness and FIR NO. 279/06 Page 6 of 7 pages 7 thus recovery should not be believed. If we assess this argument in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case it would be clear that no doubt recovery is not i n presence of any independent witness but it simply creates doubt and evidence of recovery witness is to be assessed more critically. If we assessed the evidence of PW3 and PW4 their evidence is consistent and specific. Though recovery has not been effected in the presence of any independent witnesses however this fact in itself may not be sufficient to discard the evidence on the record as a whole, specifically when the recovery of case property is well proved despite the cross examination. Thus I find that by the evidence of PW3 and PW4 prosecution has been able to prove the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 411 IPC. Accordingly all the accused are held guilty for offence under Section 411 IPC. Now they be heard on the quantum of sentence after lunch.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
ON 16.01.13 (SHAILENDER MALIK)
ACMMI, NORTH EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
FIR NO. 279/06 Page 7 of 7 pages