Delhi District Court
Metropolitan Magisterate vs State Of on 20 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTERATE, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURT
State v. Charan Singh @ Lilu
FIR No.179/01
PS GK-I
U/s 379/411 IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution : 19.08.2002
Date of commission of offence : 20.07.2001
Name of the complainant : Mohit Soni S/o Sh.Sanjay Soni
Name & address of the accused : Charan Singh @ Lilu S/o Sh.Satpal Singh
R/o H. No.F-127/B, Lado Sarai
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
Offence complained of : 379/411 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquittal
Date of reserve for judgment : 05.10.2011
Date of announcing of judgment : 20.10.2011
Briefly stated the facts of the case are :-
i) The story of prosecution is that on 20.07.20011 accused had got recovered one Maruti Esteem Car bearing chases number 306847 and engine number 509037 belonging to the complainant from the area of village Tejgarhi within the jurisdiction of PS Agota, Bulandshehar UP which he dishonestly retained, knowingly or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC. Investigation was done and challan was filed before the Court.
State v. Charan Singh @ Lilu Page 1 FIR No.179/01 PS GK-I
ii) Arguments were heard on charge. Prima facie charge u/s 411 IPC was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
iii) To prove its case the prosecution has examined six witnesses namely as under :-
(1) Mohit Soni, (2) HC Kamal Singh, (3) Ct. Praveen Kumar, (4) SI Deepak Kumar, (5) SI Mehar Singh and (6) SI Sanjay Sharma.
(1) PW1 Mohit Soni deposed before the court that in the month of June 2001 he had parked the Esteem Car bearing No. DL-4CD-6360 provided to him by his employer i.e. M/s Co. International Industries. On the next morning the same was found missing from there. A complaint was lodged by him before the police. Approximately after three months same was recovered by police and he got released the same on superdari.
In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel it is stated by witness that there was no chowkidar of parking where he had parked his vehicle.
(2) PW2 HC Kamal Singh was duty office who proved the FIR.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
(3) PW3 was Ct. Praveen Kumar who deposed that on 30.10.2001 he along with SI Sankauy Sharma after taking the court order took esteem car into possession. The car was in a damaged condition. Same was State v. Charan Singh @ Lilu Page 2 FIR No.179/01 PS GK-I brought to PS GK and deposited in malkhana.
In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel it is stated by witness that the intimation was with SI Sanjay Sharma. The car was deposited in malkhana on 30.10.2000.
(4) PW4 was SI Deepak Kumar who deposed before the court that on 22.06.2001 complainant Mohit Soni came to PS made a complainant regarding theft of his car. Endorsement was made and the FIR was got registered. He along with complainant went to spot and prepared site plan. Despite best efforts the accused or stolen car could not be traced out and untrace report was filed on 15.07.2001.
In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel it is stated by witness that car had been stolen from outside of H. No.62B as per site plan.
(5) PW5 SI Mehar Singh deposed before the court that on 20.07.2001 accused Charan Singh was arrested in case crime No.73 u/s Arms Act and no.74 U/s 411 IPC. The accused disclosed the theft of Esteem Car done by him one month back from the area of PS GK. Accused stated that he can got recovered the stolen car. He along with accused, HC Shiv Kumar, Ct. Harinder, Ct. Ashok Kumar, Ct. Govind Singh in Govt jeep went to the village Teigharhi and asked some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. Accused pointed the the Gher of Mahender Fauji where one Esteem without number plate was present. The said recovery was effected at the instance of accused. Car was seized. Site plan of recovery was also prepared. Crime case 75/01 U/s State v. Charan Singh @ Lilu Page 3 FIR No.179/01 PS GK-I 414 IPC was registered.
In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel it is stated by witness that he never met the owner of the vehicle. No public witness had signed to seizure memo Ex.PW1/A as no public person was there. No person was present in the house at the time of recovery of vehicle. No one had lodged the complaint regarding the alleged abandoned vehicle parked at the Gher. The accused made disclosure regarding the theft of vehicle from the area of PS GK.
(6) PW6 was SI Sanjay Sharma who deposed that on 22-10-2001 he received the investigation of the present case which was already sent untrace on 15-07-2001 by the previous IO, SI Deepak Kumar. He received information from duty officer regarding stolen car Maruti Esteem bearing No.DL-4CD-6360 being recovered at PS Agotha, District Buland Shahar, UP and arrest of accused Charan Singh. He along with Ct. Praveen reached above said PS and verified about the recovered car and the arrested accused who was already in custody in case bearing FIR No. 75/01 U/s 414 IPC, PS Agotha. On 29-10-2001 the said car was released from the concerned court and was taken in possession. Relevant documents were collected from SO/SI Mehar Singh of PS Agotha. His statement was recorded u/s 161 CrPC and also of Ct. Praveen, PS GK-I. On 26-06-2002 accused was formally arrested.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
iv) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 of State v. Charan Singh @ Lilu Page 4 FIR No.179/01 PS GK-I CrPC. In his statement, accused denied the version of prosecution and did not lead DE. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final argument.
v) Arguments address by ld. APP for the state and counsel for accused. I have heard the arguments and gone through the documents on record.
vi) The section 411 IPC reads as follows :-
"whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property".
"Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated on in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as stolen property".
Therefore, the main ingredients for commission of the offence u/s 411 IPC are as follows :- "The property should be a stolen property.
The person receiving it should have the knowledge or reason to believe that that the same is a stolen property.
vii) There are many discrepancies between the statement of witnesses. The story of the prosecution is not collaborated with the statement of witnesses.
viii)No public person was cited or examined as witness. It is highlighted by the accused that IO has not joined any public witness despite availability. Admittedly, several public witnesses were present at the time of State v. Charan Singh @ Lilu Page 5 FIR No.179/01 PS GK-I apprehension of the accused and while completing the formalities but none of them was even requested to become a witness. This casts doubt about the sincere efforts made by the IO to join independent witnesses. In Roop Chand v. State of Haryana reported in 1990(1) CLR 69, it was observed that such explanations that the public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable. In case of Pradeep Narayana V. State of Maharashtra reported AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930, it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused. Similarly held in the case Kuldeep Singh V. State of Haryana 2004(4) RCR 103 and Passi @ Prakash V. State of Haryana 2001(1) RCR 435, it is settled law that whenever any recovery in connection with the place of the commission of offence is made, public person must be made witness. The section 100(4) CrPC provided that "before making a search of the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon the two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness of the search, to attend the witness the search and may issued an order in writing to them or any of them so to do". The IO have failed to note down the particulars of the person who refused to join the investigation and this creates doubt regarding the fairness of the investigation.
ix) In the present case the factum of knowledge that the vehicle was stolen property has not been proved by the prosecution and no chain has been State v. Charan Singh @ Lilu Page 6 FIR No.179/01 PS GK-I established to prove the theft. Moreover, neither the forged number place has been produced in the court nor any recovery witness has been examined.
x) All these infirmities in the prosecution case make the same doubtful and the benefit of which must be given to the accused.
xi) In the result, I find that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is given the benefit of doubt and therefore accused Ahmad Hasan is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 411 IPC.
xii) BB/SB stands cancelled. Endorsement, if any, also stands cancelled.
xiii)File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (PURVA SAREEN)
on 20th October 2011 METROPOLITAN MAGISTERATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
State v. Charan Singh @ Lilu Page 7
FIR No.179/01 PS GK-I
State v. Charan Singh @ Lilu
FIR No.179/01
PS GK-I
U/s 379/411 IPC
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Vide my separate judgment the accused stands acquitted for the alleged offence.
BB/SB stands cancelled. Endorsement, if any, also stands cancelled.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(PURVA SAREEN)
MM/SOUTH EAST
Dt.20.10.2011
State v. Charan Singh @ Lilu Page 8
FIR No.179/01 PS GK-I