Delhi District Court
Surendra Kumar Chaurasya vs The State on 27 September, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV JAIN: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE /SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI03
(PC ACT) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal no.20/2014
FIR No. 46/2011
PS Qutab Minar Metro Station
U/ S 379/411 IPC
Surendra Kumar Chaurasya
S/o Sh. Ram Baran Chaurasya
R/o Veoni, Post Kansapatti, Patti,
Partapgarh (UP). .........Appellant
Vs.
The State ......... Respondent
Date of filing of appeal : 02.09.2014
Arguments heard on : 27.09.2014
Date of order : 27.09.2014
27.09.2014
Present: Sh. Ahmed Khan, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Prakash Chandra, advocate for
appellant/convict.
Appellant/convict Sh. Surendra Kumar
Chaurasya present on bail.
2
Appeal under section 374 Cr. P.C against the judgment
dated 09.04.2014 and order on sentence dated 09.07.2014
passed by the court of Sh. Ankit Singla, Ld. MM, South,
District, Saket Courts in case FIR no.46/2011 of PS Qutab
Minar Metro Station u/s 379/411 IPC
JUDGMENT
1 In brief, this appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant Surendra Kumar Chaurasya (hereinafter referred as "accused/convict") against judgment dated 09.04.2014 and order on sentence dated 09.07.2014 passed by the court of Ld. MM South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Vide impugned judgment dt. 09.04.2014 accused was convicted for the offence under section 379 IPC and by impugned order on sentence dated 09.07.2014 accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/. In default of payment of fine, convict was further directed to undergo the imprisonment for 30 days. 2 The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.10.2011 at about 7:20 am at INA Metro Station, New Delhi, accused committed theft of copper strip (8 ft 6 inches about 4.6 kg in weight) belonging to DMRC. 3 After completion of investigation, the charge 3 sheet was filed. Charge was framed under section 379/411 Cr. P.C. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4 In prosecution evidence, PW1 HC Girdhari (Duty Officer) to prove FIR Ex. PW1/A and rukka Ex. PW1/B; PW2 ASI Surender Kumar posted at PS QMMS; PW3 Ct. Rahul; PW4 Shri Vikas Kumar, Station Controller, INA Metro Station; PW5 Shri Baij Singh, (JE), INA Metro Station and PW6 SI Narender Singh of CISF were examined. Thereafter, statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded. Accused has denied the incriminating evidence and claimed his innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 5 PW6 is the material witness of the case who caught the accused red handed with the stolen copper strip. He supported the prosecution case on all material facts and his credibility could not be impeached in any way during crossexamination. Testimony of PW5 finds support from PW4 and other witnesses. During crossexamination of witnesses, the defence was that accused was never arrested with the stolen property at Metro Station. In his statement, under section 313 Cr. P.C. in response to question no.2 accused admitted that he was assisting the 4 Engineer but, took the plea that he was instructed to take the copper wire to the store. This defence plea of the accused does not find any support from the evidence on record. It appears that defence taken by the accused is after thought and false. From the testimony of the witnesses and even from his own statement, his presence is with the case property is established beyond any doubt. Admittedly, the stolen copper stripe was the property of UPS Room of DMRC.
6 In the given facts and circumstances, the dishonest intention is established. In my opinion, beyond any reasonable doubt prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of offence under section 379 IPC. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no error in conviction of accused vide impugned order dt. 09.04.2014.
7 On the question of sentence, ld. counsel for appellant submitted that convict is aged about 25 years. Presently, he is working as an agriculturist in a village. He has studied upto 10th standard. It is submitted that:
(i)Accused belongs to poor section of society and is the only bread earner;
(ii)Accused has wife, two minor children and parents to 5 support and being the only son he is the sole earning member;
(iii)There is no previous conviction against the appellant;
(iv)and he has never been involved in any criminal activity. 7.1 Ld. counsel for appellant contended that the stolen property was the copper stripe weighed about 4.6 kg which cannot cost more than Rs. 2,000/ and therefore, accused could be tried as per the procedure for summary trials and was not liable to be sentenced for more than three months. Ld. counsel for appellant submitted that he does not contest the conviction of the accused but requested for grant of probation on the ground of reformation.
8 Ld. Addl. PP submitted that appellant was found while committing theft of Govt. property in a very calculated manner and he does not deserve any leniency. However, the weight of stolen copper stripe is not disputed. 9 The complex question of determination of nature and quantum of sentence comes before the Court after the conviction of an accused. The decision of punishment depends on various relevant factors relating to the nature of offence, the manner of its 6 commission and the gravity of the same. The horizontal and vertical competing interest between society and individual, the victim and accused and the aspiration of "object to be sought" and the limitations of law require accurate analysis and harmonization of remedial, reformative and preventive steps.
10 In Giassudin Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1932, it was held that...
"a proper sentences is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of offence, the circumstances extenuating or aggravating of the offence, the prior criminal record (if any) of offender, the age of offender, the record of offender as to employment, the background of offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental condition of offender, the prospects for rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of 7 the treatment or training of offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need, if any, for such a deterrent in respect to particular type of offence. These factors have to be taken into account by the court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence"
11 There should be a clear object behind the sentencing policy. Under the scheme of the law, court should first consider whether the case is covered under the provisions of Probation of Offender Act or Section 360 Cr. P.C. If the case is squarely covered for probation, court should mention special reason for declining the probation. 11.1 It is said "every saint has a past and every criminal has a future". It is not in dispute that convict is a young boy of about 25 years having responsibility of the family and there had been no previous involvement in any such crime.
11.2 Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to agree with the 8 sentence awarded by the ld. Trial Court. In my view, it is a fit case for grant of probation to the convict and there is no special reason to decline the probation. 12 In view of the above discussion, conviction of accused for the offence under section 379 IPC recorded by ld. Trial Court vide judgment dt. 09.04.2014 is upheld and order on sentence dt. 09.07.2014 is set aside. Convict Surendra Kumar Chaurasya be released on probation under section 360 Cr. P.C. for a period of one year on furnishing his personal bond of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of the like amount with an undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of the probation. Appellant/convict is directed to furnish the personal bond and surety bond of probation before the ld. Trial Court to the satisfaction of Ld. MM on or before 30.09.2014.
13 Copy of the judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith Trial Court Record. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
14 Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court on 27.09.2014 (Sanjeev Jain) ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI3), South, Saket Courts, New Delhi 9 Criminal appeal no. 20/2014 Surender Kumar Chaurasya Vs. State.
27.09.2014 Present: Sh. Ahmed Khan, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Prakash Chandra, advocate for appellant/convict.
Appellant/convict Sh. Surendra Kumar Chaurasya present on bail.
Arguments heard. Vide separate judgment of even date, dictated and announced in the open court, the conviction of accused for the offence under section 379 IPC recorded by ld. Trial Court vide judgment dt. 09.04.2014 is upheld and order on sentence dt. 09.07.2014 is set aside.
Convict Surendra Kumar Chaurasya be released on probation under section 360 Cr. P.C. for a period of one year on furnishing his personal bond of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of the like amount with an undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of the probation. Appellant/convict is directed to furnish the personal bond and surety bond of probation before the ld. Trial Court to the satisfaction of Ld. MM on or before 30.09.2014.
Copy of the judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith Trial Court Record. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Sanjeev Jain) ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI3), South, Saket Courts, New Delhi/27.09.2014