Delhi District Court
State vs . Radhey Shyam on 17 September, 2012
FIR no. 62/98
PS Narela
U/s. 379/411/34 IPC
State Vs. Radhey Shyam
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GUPTA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURT: DELHI.
FIR No. 62/98
PS Narela
U/s. 379/411/34 IPC
Sate Vs. Radhey Shyam & ors
Date of Institution of case:- 13.01.99
Date on which Judgment reserved:- 01.09.12
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 17.09.12
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of the case :02401R0020151999 Date of commission of offence :13.01.99 Name of complainant :Sh. Ravi Shankar, S/o. Sh. Shiv Shankar, R/o. House no. 179/A, Gali no. 4, Rameshwar Nagar, Azadpur, Delhi.
Name and address of accused :1.Radhey Shyam, S/o Sh. Dalip Singh R/o Village Singhu.
2.Rajesh@Kala, S/o Sh. Dharam Pal, R/o Village Singhu
3.Vijay, S/o Sh. Nathu Ram, R/o Village Singhu.
4.Kalu Ram, S/o Sh. Ramphool,
R/o Village Singhu
Offence complained of :379/411/34 IPC
Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
Final order :Acquitted
Date of order :17.09.12
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
The present case was registered on the basis of complaint dated 17.02.98 of one Sh. Ravi Shankar S/o Sh. Shiv Page 1 of 8 Contd/..... FIR no. 62/98 PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Radhey Shyam Shankar R/o H.no. 179/A, Gali no. 4, Rameshwar Nagar, Azadpur, Delhi. It is alleged in the said complaint that complainant alongwith his driver Pramod Kumar and helpers namely Indresh and Mukesh were going in a truck bearing registration no. DBL-6352 at Narela for supply of goods and after supplying the same at about 7:30 p.m, they proceed from Narela to Singhu Border and when they reached near Neel Farm House, Chaudhary Ramdev Marg, the said truck broke down and they get down from the said truck for repairing the same. In the meantime, three boys came there and they committed theft of one bag containing Rs. 35,000/- and some documents from the said truck. On 22.02.98, accused Rajesh, Vijay and Radhey Shyam were arrested in case FIR no. 62/98 U/s. 379/411/34 IPC of PS Narela and on their disclosure statement regarding theft of present case, the said accused persons were arrested in the present case and accused Kalu Ram was also arrested on the same day on the disclosure statement made by the other accused persons accordingly, accused Rajesh got recovered Rs. 20,391/- from the tubewell of the fields and charge sheet was filed before the court and on the basis of the alleged allegations, charge U/s. 379/411/34 IPC was framed against all accused persons on 15.04.99.
2. In support of its version, the prosecution has examined four witnesses. However, the prosecution has referred as many as ten witnesses.
Page 2 of 8 Contd/..... FIR no. 62/98PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Radhey Shyam
3. PW 1 is Constable Vinod Kumar, no. 4614, DAP, 6th Battallion. He has deposed that on 22.02.98, he alongwith SI Har Phool, HC Jagat complainant Shiv Shankar went to Singhu Border and complainant pointed out towards four persons sitting at the Hotel of Singhu Border, who have stolen his articles upon which they apprehended the samd persons, recorded their disclosure statements, arrested them and conducted their personal search, prepared pointing out memo.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and in his cross-examination, he has deposed that Rs. 20,391/- was recovered but he could not tell the amount in denomination. He has further deposed that complainant identified the accused persons by their faces. He has further deposed that said amount was recovered in a plastic polythene and it was also containing documents of the vehicle. He has further deposed that accused Rajesh pointed out at the place, where they have hid the amount. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were arrested from their residences or their disclosure statements were recorded at PS.
4. PW 2 is Constable Jitender, no. 2385 PCR. He has deposed that on 17.02.98, SI Harphool received a call and he alongwith him went to Ram Dev Marg, near Neela Tara Farm House, where they me one Ravi Shankar. He has further deposed that IO recorded his statement and gave rukka sent him to PS for getting the case registered and after getting the case registered, Page 3 of 8 Contd/..... FIR no. 62/98 PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Radhey Shyam he came back at the spot and gave copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO.
He was also cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
5. PW 3 is Head Constable Ram Bhaj, no. 155, West, PS Janak Puri. He has proved the copy of FIR no. 62/98, U/s. 379 IPC as Ex. PW3/A.
6. PW 4 is Head constable Jagat Singh, no. 4016, DAP, 5th Battallion, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. He has deposed that on 22.02.98, he joined the investigation with SI Harphool Singh and one Constable and complainant and went to Singhu Border, near Dhaba, where four boys were sitting at Dhaba were identified by the complainant as the same person, who had stolen cash amount from his car DCM, Toyota and they apprehended the said persons, recorded their disclosure statement, arrested the accused persons and conducted their personal search and accused Rajesh disclosed that he has kept the stolen property was kept at his tubewell, from where they recovered cash of Rs. 20,391/- and documents of the vehicle bearing no. DBL-6351. He has further deposed that accused persons were brought to PS alongwith case property and accused persons were sent to lock-up and case property was deposited in malkhana.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and in his cross-examination, he has deposed that they reached at the sport at about 11:00 a.m and SI Harphool Singh, complainant Ravi Page 4 of 8 Contd/..... FIR no. 62/98 PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Radhey Shyam Shankar and Ct. Vinod Kumar were with him. He has further deposed that he had signed several papers but he could not tell the exact number. He has further deposed that his statement as well as the disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded at the spot. He has further deposed that he could not tell the details of the car papers. He has further deposed that they returned to the PS after about 2½ hours. He denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. He also denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation or accused persons were picked up from their houses.
7. It is a matter of record that vide order dated 11.02.10, last and final opportunity was granted to the prosecution to lead entire evidence and thereafter matter was adjourned various times to lead entire evidence but despite that, no other witness was examined by the prosecution and accordingly, vide order dated 13.07.11, prosecution evidence was closed. It is a matter of record that vide order date 23.09.11, Ld. APP has moved an application U/s. 311 Cr.P.C for calling witnesses Ravi Shanker, Pramod Kumar, Mukesh Kumar, Indresh Mishra and IO / SI Harphool Singh, which application was dismissed vide detailed order.
8. Subsequent to the recording of statement of witnesses, statement of all accused persons were recorded and all the Page 5 of 8 Contd/..... FIR no. 62/98 PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Radhey Shyam incriminating evidence coming on record were put to the accused persons in which they have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have further submitted that they do not wish to lead any evidence. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state, Ld. Defence counsel and perused the record.
10. In the present case, the accused persons have been charged with for the offences under Section 379/411/34 IPC and to connect the accused persons with the offences, all the ingredients of the abovesaid offences have to be proved.
11. It is matter of record that in the present case witnesses Ravi Shanker, Pramod Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Indresh were the public witnesses but they could not be examined being unserved. It is also matter of record that various times summons were issued against them, but they did not turn up. It is also matter of record that IO / SI Harphool Singh also could not be examined in this case since he has expired.
12. Hence, there is no public witness before the court who could have deposed that case property as recovered from the possession of the accused persons. Other witnesses are formal in nature and admittedly, they have not witnessed the incident and Page 6 of 8 Contd/..... FIR no. 62/98 PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Radhey Shyam no amount of evidence can lead to the conviction of the accused persons. Moreover, PW1 Ct. Vinod Kumar and PW4 HC Jagat Singh were shown the case property, which involved only the photocopies of currency notes and it did not contain the documents of the car bearing no. DBL-6352 and the cash book, which according to the complainant Ravi Shankar were also stolen on the date of alleged incident of theft. The currency notes cannot be identified as such in the absence of mention of any specific numbers of the currency notes by the complainant. Here, I would also like to refer Narayan Dass Vs. State of Rajasthan 1998 CRLJ 29 (Rajasthan), where it was held that if there was no proof that the articles recovered from the accused was same as alleged to have been stolen and the articles are of common use, then the charge U/s. 411 IPC cannot be established. It is further noteworthy that complainant in his complaint stated that three persons came to him on the date of alleged incident of theft and asked him as to why he was standing on road whereas, according to the police record, complainant identified all the four accused persons on 22.02.98. Non-examination of the complainant has also proved fatal to the case of prosecution in the present matter.
13. Hence, after scanning the entire record and keeping in view the abovesaid discussions, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons for which they have been charged with, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Radhey Shyam, Rajesh, Page 7 of 8 Contd/..... FIR no. 62/98 PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Radhey Shyam Vijay and Kalu Ram are acquitted of the offences under Section 379/411/34 IPC.
(Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Court, Delhi Announced in open court today dated 17th September, 2012.
Page 8 of 8 Contd/..... FIR no. 62/98PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Radhey Shyam FIR No. 62/98 PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC Sate Vs. Radhey Shyam & ors 17.09.12 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
All accused namely Radhey Shyam, Rajesh@Kala, Vijay and Kalu Ram on bail.
Vide separate judgment dictated to the steno in the open court, accused persons namely Radhey Shyam, Rajesh@Kala, Vijay and Kalu Ram are acquitted of the said offence U/s. 379/411/34 IPC.
At this stage, Radhey Shyam, Rajesh@Kala, Vijay and Kalu Ram are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in terms of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety in the like amount.
Radhey Shyam, Rajesh@Kala, Vijay and Kalu Ram seek time to furnish fresh bail bonds.
Heard. Allowed.
At request, put up on 18.09.12 for furnishing bail bonds.
(Sandeep Gupta) MM (Outer)-01/Rohini 17.09.12 Page 9 of 8 Contd/..... FIR no. 62/98 PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC State Vs. Radhey Shyam FIR No. 62/98 PS Narela U/s. 379/411/34 IPC Sate Vs. Radhey Shyam & ors 18.09.12 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Radhey Shyam, Rajesh@Kala, Vijay and Kalu Ram in person.
Radhey Shyam, Rajesh@Kala, Vijay and Kalu Ram have furnished fresh bail bonds in terms of order dated 17.09.12.
Bail bonds furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) MM (Outer)-01/Rohini 18.09.12 Page 10 of 8 Contd/.....