Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kumar Etc. on 17 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02 (NORTH) DELHI
Case No. 64/09/CL
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0236552001
State Vs. Anil Kumar etc.
FIR No. : 385/00
PS : Civil Lines
U/s. 342/452/380/511/411/34 IPC
Date of institution: 26.4.2001
Judgment Reserved on: 3.11.2011
Date of Judgment: 17.11.2011
JUDGMENT
a) Serial No. of the case 02401R0236552001
b) Date of commission 3.12.2000
of the offence
c) Name of the complainant Sh. Rakesh Madhok
d) Name of the accused person, and (1) Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Lal
his parentage and address. Singh, R/o 591/21C, Sehdev
Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara
(2) Sukhbir Singh Behl (expired)
(3) Ramandeep Singh S/o Sh.
Sukhbir Singh Behl R/o 17B,
DDA Flats, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi
e) Offence complained or proved U/s 342/452/380/511/411/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Plead not guilty and claimed trial
g) The final order Both acquitted
h) Date of such order 17.11.2011
FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 1 of 12
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
OF THE CASE:
1. One Rakesh Madhok gave statement and alleged that he was having Shop no. 62 at Ashoka Market on rent which he had taken from one Bhagwan Dass in 1974. He had been paying rent since 1992. He alleged that one S.S. Behl took possession of the upper portion of the shop and constructed a room. Sh. Behl filed a case for eviction in which complainant was shown as tenant. Complainant used to send the rent by money order which used to be returned unpaid as it used to be refused by Mr. Behl. He alleged that on 30.12.2010, one Brijesh and Ramesh Chand told complainant that Mr. Behl had called them upside. He alleged that they were put into a room and locked. They were not aware as to what was happening. They were let out at 7.00 p.m. When they came down, he found that shutter of the shop was broken. Complainant called the police. One person came there to put locks who was apprehended. The said person was Anil. It was found that articles of complainant had been removed. On these allegations case was registered u/s. 342/452/380/511/34 IPC. During investigation accused Anil was arrested. He disclosed involvement of Ramandeep and S.S. Behl.
2. Accused S.S. Behl and his son Ramandeep Singh were granted FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 2 of 12 anticipatory bail. Both were arrested and released on bail. It is mentioned in the chargesheet that some case property was recovered at the instance of S.S. Behl. Section 411 IPC was added. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed u/s. 342/452/380/511/411/34 IPC against three accused namely Anil Kumar, S.S. Behl and Ramandeep Singh.
3. After appearance of accused , Sec.207 Cr.PC was complied with. Charge was framed on 25.1.2000 against all the three accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 342/34 IPC and 452/380/511/34 IPC to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 Rajesh Madhok, PW2 HC Kewal Kishan, PW3 Rakesh, PW4 Gopal Sharma, PW5 Ct. Satbir Singh, PW6 ASI Yadav Chand, PW7 Ct. Narender Kumar, PW8 SI Parshu Ram, PW9 Brijesh and PW10 SI Kanta Prasad.
5. Statements of all the three accused u/s. 313 Cr.PC were recorded. They did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter accused S.S. Behl expired and proceedings against him were abated.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have perused the record.
7. PW1 is complainant. He deposed that he was tenant of one Bhagwan Dass in Shop No. 62, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi. He was doing FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 3 of 12 business of tyre retrading since 1974. Uptill 1990 he paid rent to Bhagwan Dass. He deposed that accused S.S. Behl took up roof portion of his shop on rent basis from Bhagwan Dass about 10/12 years back. On 30.12.2000 accused S.S. Behl took two workers Ramesh and Brijesh from his/PW1's shop on the upper portion and confined them. He deposed that accused installed/fitted one rolling shutter in front of his old door and took away all the articles lying in his shop i.e. six tyres, one jack, one tool kit, one drill machine, two rims of tempo, two dies for tyre reading, two mattresses (cotton), three blankets and also clothes of labourers and their suitcase and utensils. At about 10.00 pm on 30.12.2000, PW1 reached at the spot as he was called by Ramesh and Brijesh. PW1 found that new shutter has been installed by accused in front of his shop. Accused Anil was also present who was locking the shutter at that time. He deposed that they apprehended Anil and handed over him to police. He went to PS Civil Lines and lodged FIR vide his statement Ex.PW1/A. He deposed that police took into possession installed/fitted shutter vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Accused Anil was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C. The lock being used by Anil was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D. PW1 gave details of missing articles which is Ex.PW1/E. He deposed that on 17.1.2001 police seized some articles from the possession of accused S.S. Behl which were seized FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 4 of 12 vide memo Ex.PW1/F. Ex.PW1/G is another list. He identified the case property. Crossexamination will be discussed later.
8. PW2 was duty officer. He had recorded FIR. Copy of which is Ex.PW2/A.
9. PW3 deposed that he was working in Ashoka Market at public toilets. He was called by the police. One maker of locks and keys was also called in the Ashoka Market. He does not know who had called him. He deposed that the key maker made key of the shop and it was opened. Inside the shop there was one suit case and some utensils and mattresses. He could not say whether any document was prepared regarding this. He could not say to whom these articles belonged. He deposed that one accused was present but he could not tell his name. He pointed out towards one accused who was Sikh. He identified his signature on Ex.PW1/F.
10. This witness was declared hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. APP. In crossexamination by Ld. APP, he admitted the some documents were prepared regarding recovery of the articles but he stated that documents were prepared in the PS. He admitted that various articles were found inside the shop. In crossexamination he stated that there is police presence 24 hours in the market. He stated that he was involved in the case by the police.
FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 5 of 12
11. PW4 is an Advocate. He deposed that on 18.1.2000 he had gone to PS Civil Lines with Mr. Behl and he met the IO. He deposed that there the IO got his signatures on some papers which were already filled. He did not read the details due to minor sickness in his eyes. He stated that nothing was sealed in his presence. He identified his signature on Ex.PW1/A. However, this witness was declared hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. APP. He denied making any statement to the police. He again reiterated that he had not read the papers before signing.
12. PW5 is the photographer who had taken photographs. Photographs are Ex.PW5/A and B. Negatives are Ex.P3.
13. PW6 is also Duty Officer. He had recorded DD entry no. 23A. Copy of the same is mark A.
14. PW7 was on emergency duty on 31.12.2000. He alongwith IO reached at Shop No. 62, Ashoka Market at about 12.05 am in the night. One broken shutter was lying there. Two persons alongwith Ramesh Chand were also standing there. He deposed that IO recorded statement of Ramesh Chand and he went to PS for registration of FIR. He returned back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and handed over the same to the IO. IO arrested the accused Anil Kumar vide memo Ex.PW7/A. He deposed that IO prepared seizure memo and he had FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 6 of 12 signed on it. Seizure memos are Ex.PW1/B and D. This witness was also declared hostile. In crossexamination by Ld. APP, he admitted that Ramesh Chand, Rakesh Madhok and Brijesh met them. Statement of Rakesh Madhok was recorded and thereafter he had taken rukka to the PS. In crossexamination by Ld. APP he stated that he had signed on the documents at the instance of the IO. There was some controversy regarding his name. He explained that Narender Kumar and Narender Singh are his names.
15. PW8 had gone to the spot after receiving DD no. 32 A. Ct. Brijsu Kumar was with him. Nobody was present there. Everyone was sleeping. He got the number from where the call was received. It was of PCO. PW8 contacted PCO owner who told that one Sikh had come to make a call.
16. PW9 deposed that on 30.12.2000, he was present on the ground floor of shop no. 62, Ashoka Market. At about 4.00/5.00 pm accused S.S. Behl took him to the second floor and confined him. At about 7.00 pm he was released. He came down and noticed one shutter had been fitted and was locked. One Anil Kumar was locking the door. He caught him. PW9 identified the accused S.S. Behl and Anil. PW9 made telephone call to his owner who came at the spot. He deposed that his articles were kept on the second floor. In crossexamination he FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 7 of 12 stated that he had not given any statement to the police. He stated that there is a permanent Police Post near shop no. 62. He could not tell his date of birth. He admitted that his age may be 11 years on the date of incident. It has come that there is movement of public persons on the spot. He disclosed the name of his owner as Rakesh Malhotra. He admitted that his father was in partnership with Mr. Rakesh Malhotra. He denied the suggestion that he was not in Delhi on 30.12.2000.
17. PW10 had gone to the spot after receiving DD no. 23A alongwith Ct. Narender. He deposed that Rakesh Madhok produced Anil Kumar and he recorded his statement. He prepared rukka Ex.PW10/A and got registered the case. He prepared site plan Ex.PW10/B. He seized the shutter and lock. He arrested accused Anil. He got the site photographed. He deposed that articles of complainant were recovered from possession of accused on 17.1.2001. About 1718 articles recovered which were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/F. He deposed about arresting the other accused also. In crossexamination he stated that shop no. 62, Ashoka market is a single storey building. The number of stories is not shown in the site plan. He did not remember whether name of the Constable who had taken rukka is mentioned as Narender Singh or Narender Kumar. He deposed that articles Ex.P5 to 19 were recovered from the accused. There is a pakka FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 8 of 12 stairecase which was leading to first floor but it has not been shown in the site plan. He stated that he had removed the shutter believing the version of the complainant. He stated that complainant had shown slip regarding tenancy of shop but that slip was not seized.
18. Statements of both the accused were recorded. They denied the incriminating circumstances. They stated that they have been falsely implicated.
19. PW3 is produced as witness of recovery of the articles from the possession of the accused. However, PW3 has not identified any accused by name. He only pointed out towards one accused who was a Sikh. He had not told the date of recovery. Rather he says that it was 17th date of a month in the year 2000. Alleged recovery was made on 17.1.2001. Therefore, this witness goes against prosecution.
20. PW4 has also not supported the prosecution regarding recovery of the articles. He has told the date as 18.1.2000 which is contrary to the record. Further as per his testimony IO got his signatures in the PS which also goes against the case of prosecution.
21. PW9 is the person who was allegedly confined. However, testimony of this witness does not inspire any confidence. This witness is not aware about his date of birth. He does not know his exact age. He has himself admitted that he may be of 11 years of age at the time of FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 9 of 12 incident. Therefore, claims of this witness that he apprehended Anil and informed his owner cannot be believed. An eleven year boy cannot over power a mature person. PW9 has told the name of his employer as Rakesh Malhotra which is incorrect name. Correct name is Rakesh Madhok. When PW9 is not aware of the name of his employer his testimony cannot be believed. To further weaken his testimony it has come that his father was partner of complainant. Thus, PW9 is an interested witness. It is also unbelievable that accused person would confine him at 4 or 5 p.m. and would release him at 7.00 p.m. Accused persons would not have given any opportunity to PW9 to make any complaint. Story of PW9 does not sound logical.
22. Prosecution has not examined Ramesh Chand who was also allegedly confined. This makes the case of prosecution very weak.
23. As far as testimony of PW1 is concerned, it has come in his crossexamination that he does not remember whether he had signed the seizure memo of shutter or not. He stated that though some documents were prepared regarding seizure and those were prepared either on 31.12.2000 or on the next date. He does not remember whether any other public person also signed on the seizure memo. He stated that he told to the police whatever facts were told by Ramesh Chand and Brijesh. He also admitted that there is one Police Post in the market FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 10 of 12 and a wine shop. It can be seen that testimony of PW1 for the most part is against accused S.S. Behl who has already expired. As per PW1 it was accused S.S. Behl who had got the shutter installed. No role of accused Ramandeep has been explained by PW1 or any other witness. No allegation has been proved against accused Ramandeep. As far as Anil is concerned, his only role was that he was putting locks on the shutter. This is not sufficient to show that Anil was also involved in the incident. Merely putting up locks makes out no case against Anil. None of the witness have been described status of Anil. Thus, against Anil also there is no evidence. As far as accused S.S. Behl is concerned, though he has already expired but a brief discussion is required regarding his role also. As admitted by all the witnesses, Police Post is there in the market. How it can be possible that some one can dispossess any other person and put his shutter right in front of eyes of the police. The story sounds unbelievable. The IO has not investigated as to who had installed the shutter. IO has not investigated whether it was installed recently or it was installed prior to complaint. Story of PW9 does not sound logical and it cannot be believed. PW1 says whatever he has stated in his statement, it is based on facts told by PW9 and one Ramesh Chand to him. Testimony of PW9 is not inspiring confidence. Ramesh Chand has not been examined. Thus, prosecution FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 11 of 12 has utterly failed to prove the charge.
24. Therefore, in view of the above discussion it is held that charge is not proved against both the accused. Therefore, accused Anil and Ramandeep Singh are hereby acquitted. The bail bonds already furnished by the accused persons are accepted further for the purpose of S. 437A Cr.PC. These bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months.
25. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court (SANJAY BANSAL)
today on 17.11.2011 Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate02/North/Delhi
FIR No. 385/00 PS: Civil Lines Page 12 of 12