Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/677/2000 on 17 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Bablu Kumar
FIR No. 677/2000
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 420 IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 1845/2/10
Date of Institution : 01.10.2002
Date of Commission of Offence : 14.08.2000
Name of the complainant : Smt. Prabha
W/o Sh. B. N. Ojha
R/o GH. -14/355, Paschim Vihar
Delhi
Name & address of the accused : Bablu Kumar
S/o Murat Prasad
R/o B-2/212, Nand Nagri, Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 420 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 08.09.2014
Date of announcing of judgment : 17.09.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
State v. Bablu Kumar U/s 420 IPC 1/7
FIR No. 677/2000 PS Paschim Vihar
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case u/s 420 IPC.
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 14.08.2000 at about 12.30 pm, at GH-14/355, Paschim Vihar, the accused Bablu Kumar cheated the complainant Smt. Shashi Prabha by dishonestly inducing her to deliver two golden bangles to him and thus the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 420 IPC. It has been further alleged that on 02.08.2002, at about 8.30 pm, at Rama Road, during vehicle checking and on basis of secret information, one TSR was stopped and three bosy who were sitting inside the TSR were apprehended along with one bag containing equipments for jewellery cleaning. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under Section 420 IPC was framed against them by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 19.11.2003 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined three witnesses i.e (1) Shashi Prabha (2) W/SI Lata Singh (3) Ct. Jai Prakash.
5. PW-1 Complainant Shashi Prabha has deposed that on 14.08.2000 at around 12.00 - 12.30 pm her door bell ranged. On opening the door, she found two young boys who offered to sell powder for cleaning jewellery and State v. Bablu Kumar U/s 420 IPC 2/7 FIR No. 677/2000 PS Paschim Vihar gold and silver utensils. They also offered to display the procedure for cleaning and to give free sample powder. The witness gave them her lota made of copper and they clean the same. They told the witness that they would clean her gold bangles also but for that they needed boiled water. One of the boys went away while the second boy came inside. The witness gave her bangles to him. He dipped her bangles in the boiled water in the kitchen and went away saying that he had to bring Naushadar. However, the boy did not turn up for some time. The witness looked into boiled water and found that her bangles were missing. She raised noise and her neighbours called the police. The IO arrived and recorded her statement which is Ex. PW1/A. He also prepared the site plan at her instance. The witness could not identify the accused in the court. She expressed her inability to identify the accused saying that they had remained at the spot for a very small period. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for State. During cross examination, she admitted that she had told the IO that she could identify the accused persons. She also admitted that later on she had come to know that the accused persons were arrested by the police and that her supplementary statement was recorded by the IO. However, she denied the suggestion that she had come to Tis Hazari court along with IO and identified the accused persons. She denied the statement Mark A. Despite pointing out by the Ld. APP for State, the witness could not identify State v. Bablu Kumar U/s 420 IPC 3/7 FIR No. 677/2000 PS Paschim Vihar the accused and stated that she cannot identify him due to lapse of time. The witness was not cross examined by the Defence Counsel.
6. PW-2 W/SI Lata Singh deposed that on 14.08.2000 she was posted at PS Paschim Vihar as duty officer. She exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex. PW2/A which she had registered on receiving a rukka on that day at 2.55 pm through Ct. Satpal, sent by IO HC Suresh. She admitted her signatures on the endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW2/B.
7. PW-3 Ct. Jai Prakash deposed that on 02.08.2002 he was posted at PS Kirti nagar and he along with HC Dalbir, Ct. Vinod, Ct. Sukhbir were on patrolling duty. During patrolling HC Dalbir received a secret information that three persons would be coming towards Kirti Nagar in TSR No. DL1RE 2651 with an intention to commit crime. HC Dalbir requested 4-5 passersby to join the investigation but none agreed and left the place without disclosing their names. At about 8.30 pm, they started checking of TSR on road. After sometime, the said TSR came and three persons were found sitting in the same. They revealed their names as Babloo Kumar, Rinku and Mohd. Kaushar. One bag was recovered from the rear seat of the TSR and was found containing jewellery cleaning articles. On interrogation, they made disclosure about their involvement in the present case. The disclosure statement of all the three accused persons are Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C. Witness identified the accused Babloo in the court. State v. Bablu Kumar U/s 420 IPC 4/7 FIR No. 677/2000 PS Paschim Vihar
8. In the cross examination, he stated that the secret information was reduced into writing, however, he did not remember the DD Number. He could not remember who had gone to the police station for giving information. He denied the suggestion that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the accused persons.
9. Thereafter, the PE was closed by the order of the court and statement of accused was recorded in which he denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. No DE was led despite opportunity.
10.I have heard the submissions addressed by the Ld APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
11. Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of law. Section 415 of IPC defines cheating as under :-
"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if her were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to Cheat".
12.Thus, the main ingredients to be proved to establish the offence of cheating are:-
State v. Bablu Kumar U/s 420 IPC 5/7
FIR No. 677/2000 PS Paschim Vihar
1. Fraudulent and dishonest intention to deceive.
2. Inducement to the complainant to deliver any property or consent to deliver any property or to do or omit to do something which he would not otherwise do.
3. Such act/omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the complainant in body/mind/reputation or property.
13.It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
14.In the case at hand, the sole eye witness had failed to identify the accused.
Also, the bangles belonging to the complainant were not recovered from the possession of any of the accused persons. They have been arrested only on the basis of disclosure statement. In fact the IO has not even seized the bag allegedly containing the cleaning powder recovered, which the accused State v. Bablu Kumar U/s 420 IPC 6/7 FIR No. 677/2000 PS Paschim Vihar persons used to fool the public. The IO has also not seized the TSR, nor the TSR has been produced before the court even once during trial. The prosecution has also failed to produce and examine the police officers who had apprehended the accused persons. The only evidence against the accused is the disclosure statement. It is a settled position of law that the disclosure statement is not admissible as evidence and cannot be read as an evidence against the accused. Another evidence against the accused is the pointing out memo of the residence of the complainant, which again is inadmissible in evidence, as the said fact was within the prior knowledge of the IO.
15.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused and failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Babloo Kumar is acquitted under Section 420 IPC.
16.As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount. ANNOUNCED ON 17.09.2014 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court /17.09.2014 State v. Bablu Kumar U/s 420 IPC 7/7 FIR No. 677/2000 PS Paschim Vihar