Delhi District Court
State vs . Lalit @ Lucky & Anr. on 3 July, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH ACMM1/NW/RC/DELHI
State Vs. Lalit @ Lucky & Anr.
FIR No. 225/08
PS: Keshav Puram
U/s 380/411/34 IPC
Case ID No. 02404Ro242882009
JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : 123/2
B) The date of commission : 09.09.2008
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : Sh. Devender Sharma
S/o Sh. Kishan Chand Sharma,
r/o WZ224, Village Shakur Pur,
Delhi
D) The name & address of accused :1. Lalit @ Lucky s/o Sh. Anil Kumar r/o 1488/ D Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi
2. Nawal Kishore @ Sonu s/o Sh. Heera Lal r/o H.No. 101/55, CD Park, Jahangir Puri Delhi E) Offences complained of : U/s 380/411/34 IPC F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty G) Final order : Acquitted H) The date of such order : 03.07.2012 FIR No. 225/08 Page No. 1/6 2 Date of Institution: 03.09.2009 Judgment reserved on: 03.07.2012 Judgment announced on: 03.07.2012 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGEMENT:
1. The accused persons namely Lalit @ Lucky, Nawal Kishore @ Sonu and Raj Kumar had been sent to face trial in respect of offences u/s 380/411/34 IPC by the prosecution on the allegations that on 09.09.08 at 8.10 pm at Punjab Keshari, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Wazirpur, Delhi, all of them in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of 8 iron bush, 65 aluminum sheets and 4 bundles of waste papers from the above mentioned address without the consent of complainant namely Sh. Devender Sharma who was the Press Incharge with Punjab Keshri Printing Press out of whom accused namely Lalit @ Lucky and Nawal Kishore @ Sonu were apprehended with the above mentioned stolen articles which were retained by both of them knowing or having reason to believe the same to be the stolen property.
2. In brief, the prosecution story as per charge sheet is that on receipt of intimation vide DD No. 31A dt. 09.09.08, HC Sajjan Singh alongwith Ct. Ajeet Pal went to the spot where complainant namely Davender Singh met and made statement to the effect that he was working as press incharge in Punjab Keshari Printing Press. At about 8.10 pm when he was on round, he saw accused Nawal FIR No. 225/08 Page No. 2/6 3 Kishore @ Sonu and Lalit @ Lucky who were working in the said Press, standing near the place of parking. On suspicion, he inquired from them about the reason for their presence at the said spot on which both of them got perturbed and confessed that they were throwing waste material consisting of aluminum plates, bush etc. outside the boundary wall of the premises and their third associate namely Raj Kumar used to take the said articles from there. On the basis of said statement HC Sajjan Singh got registered FIR in respect of offences u/s 381/511/34 IPC and investigation was entrusted to him. He arrested both the said persons namely Lalit @ Lucky and Nawal Kishore @ Sonu in this case and prepared the site plan. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the Court. Accordingly, cognizance was taken by my Ld. Predecessor.
4. The accused was supplied with the copies of the challan in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C and charge in respect of offences u/s 380/411/34 IPC was framed against accused no. 1 & 2 on 26.06.10 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, accused no. 3 namely Raj Kumar was discharged vide order dt. 26.06.10 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. FIR No. 225/08 Page No. 3/6 4
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined its star witness i.e the complainant namely Sh. Devender Sharma as PW1 today i.e 03.07.12.
However, the said witness did not support the case of prosecution on the aspect of identity of accused persons to be the offenders. He was the only star witness relied by prosecution. So far as the other public witness namely Sh. Matafer was concerned, there was nothing on record to show as to in which manner, said witness was associated during investigation. Neither there was any statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of said witness filed with the charge sheet nor said witness was shown to be present at the time of alleged recovery or even at the time of arrest of any accused. Rather, perusal of case diary showed that said witness was never joined during entire investigation of present case. Thus, even if the statements of other prosecution witnesses would have been taken to be true on their face value, there was no possibility of conviction of accused. Hence, no useful purpose would have been served in continuing further with the trial of the present case as it would have been an exercise in futility besides wastage of precious time of the Court. Consequently, PE was closed.
6. Since there was no incriminating evidence available on record against the accused, their statements u/s 281/313 Cr.P.C had been dispensed with.
7. I have heard Ld. APP on behalf of State, Ld. Counsel Sh. Sehdev Singh FIR No. 225/08 Page No. 4/6 5 adv on behalf of accused namely Naval Kishore and Ld. Counsel Sh. Vijay Kumar and Ms. Nidhi Kalia adv for accused Lalit. I have also carefully perused the material available on record.
PW1 Sh. Devender Sharma/complainant entered into witness box and deposed on the lines of prosecution story to the extent that on 09.09.08 at about 8.00 am, when he was present in the printing press, the gardener namely Sh. Matafer informed him that some boys could throw the goods i.e scrap which was lying in the compound on the back side of the building of printing press. He went there and saw that goods were lying in the compound and nothing was stolen. He made statement Ex.PW1/A before the police. However, he did not support the prosecution story on the aspect of identity of accused herein to be the persons who had committed theft of said articles despite the fact that he was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. During such cross examination, he denied to have made the statement appearing at portion A1 to A2 in Ex.PW1/A, to the police. He also denied the suggestions given to him on the lines of prosecution story. He categorically denied that accused were arrested in his presence or that scrap was seized by the police in his presence. Although, he admitted that seizure memo mark A and arrest memos mark B and C bear his signatures but claimed that he did not know about the contents of said documents.
FIR No. 225/08 Page No. 5/6 6
8. As already discussed above, Sh. Davender Sharma (PW1) was the only the star witness relied by the prosecution in this case. As per the case of prosecution, he was the only person who had allegedly apprehended the accused at the spot and no other person allegedly witnessed the incident in question. The other prosecution witnesses cited in this case are either formal witnesses or the police officials who were admittedly not present at the spot. In other words, PW1 namely Sh. Davender Sharma alone could have proved the case of prosecution by deposing on the lines of prosecution story and by identifying the accused to be the offenders involved in the commission of offences. However, the said witness has not been able to identify the present accused to be the persons involved in the commission of offences.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, both the accused persons namely Lalit @ Lucky and Nawal Kishore are acquitted. Their personal bonds are cancelled. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement and after proper verification and identification. Superdar if any also stands discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (VIDYA PRAKASHD)
today on 03.07.2012 (ACMM1/NW/RC/DELHI)
FIR No. 225/08 Page No. 6/6