Delhi District Court
State vs . Prince & Ors. on 24 March, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI
State Vs. Prince & Ors.
CC No. 24/07
PS : RPF/SSB
U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
JUDGMENT
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 278/07
b) Date of Institution : 08.12.2007
c) Name of the complainant : ASI/RPF Ram Niwas
d) The name & add. of accused : 1) Prince, S/o. Ram Asre,
R/o. Katchi Jhuggi, Near Factory
No. 53, Wazir Pur Industrial
Area, Delhi
2) Kailash Sahni,
S/o. Ram Naresh Sahni,
R/o. House No. 158, Railway
Road, Shadi Nagar, Azad Pur,
Delhi.
3) Bambam Kumar Singh,
S/o. Upender Singh,
R/o. House No. W49 F Block,
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
(Case is pending against him)
4) Rajdev, S/o. Shri Chandrabali
R/o. House No. K457,
J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi.
(Case is pending against him)
e) Date of commission of
offence : 1112/11/2007
f) Offence complained of : U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
g) Plea of accused : Accused Nos. 1 & 2 Pleaded
guilty
h) Date on which judgment
reserved : 24.03.2008
i) Final Order : Convicted Accused Nos. 1 & 2.
j) Date of Judgment : 24.03.2008
Page No. 1
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISIONS :
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 11.11.2007 RPF officials IPF/SSB D.K. Chauhan, IPF/CIB Rajesh Kumar, ASI Ram Niwas & Ct. Rajiv Kumar had made trap between S28 and KM No. 7/27 to catch culprits in respect of theft of signal relays by hiding themselves in bushes. At about 3.50 IPF/SSB received a message that regarding three persons who were carrying some articles and going from Dabasti side to Sakurbasti Side. Accordingly all officials kept watch on those three persons. One person out of them opened the Location Box No. L31 at M.G. Line and other started taking goods from inside the box. At that time all RPF officials ran to apprehend those persons, who on seeing the RPF officials left the bags at the spot itself and tried to ran away but they were apprehended near Location Box, MG Line. Those persons disclosed their names as Prince, Kailash Sahni and Babam Kumar and when they were asked about three bags left by them at the spot, accused Prince produced one key of location box and a plair and stated that with the help of those instruments he opened the box. Bags were checked and one relay and a chowk was found in one bag whereas other two bags were found containing one relay and two relays respectively. Accused persons could not account for their possession over the recovered case property. Therefore, case property Page No. 2 was taken to RPF possession and accused persons were arrested. During enquiry Ct. Kishan Singh and Ct. Suresh Singh also reached there and they were also joined in the enquiry.
On 12.11.2007 at the instance of accused Kailash search of shop of accused Rajdev situated at Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi was conducted. Accused Rajdev was found at the spot and he disclosed that accused persons got the key prepared from him. On search of shop, one lock of location box was recovered and accused Rajdev could not account for his possession over the said case property, therefore, he was also arrested in this case. After completion of necessary enquiry, complaint was prepared and filed in the court for trial.
2. Accused person nos. 1 to 3 were produced from judicial custody whereas accused no. 4 was summoned. Copy of complaint and other documents were supplied to accused persons to their satisfaction.
3. In precharge evidence prosecution examined PW1 Shri Rajender Kumar Tyagi, JE/Signal, PW2 IPF/CIB Rajesh Kumar and IPF/SSB D.K. Chauhan and precharge PE was closed. Thereafter a prima facie case was made out to frame charge against all accused persons. Accordingly vide order dated 07.02.2008 all accused persons were charged for offence punishable U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act and when contents of same were read over to them, they pleaded not Page No. 3 guilty and claimed trial.
4. In aftercharge PE prosecution examined PW1 to PW3, PW4 ASI Ram Niwas Tehlan, PW5 Ct. Rajeev Kumar and Ct. Ram Phal Singh.
5. During course of trial accused nos. 1 & 2 pleaded guilty for the crime in question and moved applications to this effect. Accusation was duly explained to accused nos. 1 & 2 despite that they repeatedly pleaded guilty. Accordingly PE was closed in respect of accused nos. 1 & 2 and their statement U/s. 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded in which they admitted all incriminating evidence led by the prosecution and prayed for lenient view.
6. I have heard learned APP for the RPF and accused nos. 1 & 2 in person and have gone through the material on record. In this case U/s. 3 RP (UP) the following ingredients of offence has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt :
(i) The property in question should be railway property;
(ii) It should be reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained; and
(iii) It should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property.
7. To prove the case property as railway property prosecution examined PW1 Shri Rajender Kumar Tyagi, JE/Signal who testified theft memo Ex. PW1/A in respect of Etype lock Page No. 4 location box no. 31 from KM No. 7/30 Daya Basti Yard. He further testified joint report conducted on 11.11.2007 Ex. PW1/B. He further testified examination conducted by him on 24.11.2007 at RPF Post SSB of case property i.e. 4 relays, 1 chowk and one lock of location box and after examination he issued his report Ex. PW1/C in which he opined that the case property is belonging to railway. Accused no. 1 & 2 did not put any question during cross examination of PW1.
8. In order to prove other ingredients, prosecution examined PW1 IPF/CIB Rajesh Kumar, PW3 IPF/SSB D.K. Chauhan, PW4 ASI Ram Niwas Tehlan, PW5 Ct. Rajeev Kumar who all are the witnesses of the spot and they testified apprehension of accused persons alongwith case property and further enquiry conducted in this case. They also proved the documents prepared during enquiry in accordance with law i.e. recovery and arrest memo Ex. PW2/A in respect of accused no. 1 to 3, disclosure statement of accused Prince, Kialash and Bambam Ex. PW2/B, C and D respectively, pointing out memo Ex. PW2/E, site plan Ex. PW2/F, recovery and arrest memo Ex. PW2/G in respect of accused no. 4, site plan Ex. PW2/H, confessional statements of accused no. 1 to 3 Ex. PW2/J to L respectively and confessional statement of accused no. 4 Ex. PW2/M. All witnesses identified accused as well as case property in the court. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 did not any question during the cross examination Page No. 5 of all these witnesses as such their testimony is found unrebutted.
9. On the other hand accused nos. 1 & 2 while recording of their statement U/s. 313 Cr. P.C. admitted each and every incriminating evidence led by the prosecution and prayed for lenient view.
10. Further disclosure statement and confessional statement I also rely upon the observations held in case titled as "Salim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 CRL. L. J. 58, (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) DR. (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J. Cr. Revn. Appl. NO. 243 of 1994 wherein it was held that : "Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (29 of 1966), Ss. 3(a), 8(1) - Unlawful possession of railway property - Accused voluntarily confessed that he had purchased stolen property of railway - Confessional statement recorded by RPF officer making enquiry under S. 8(1) - Is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer under S. 162 CR. P.C. Conviction based on said confessional statement - Not illegal."
11. I also rely upon the observation taken in case titled as "Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" and "State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hari & Ors." 1980 CRL. L. J. 1424 (SUPREME COURT) wherein it was observed that : "U/s. 25 - Police Officer - Officer of R.P.F. making inquiry in respect of offence under S. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), is not Police Officer .
The primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is : Whether the Page No. 6 officer concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officerincharge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of offences under that Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (chargesheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the ' police officer' for the purpose of Section 25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that the exercises some or even many of the powers of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Constitution of India, Art. 20 (3) "Person accused of an offence" Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 - Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S. 8 -
Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available".
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances accused Prince, S/o. Ram Asre and Kailash Sahni, S/o. Ram Naresh Sahni are hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN S.K.GAUTAM COURT ON 24.03.2008. MM:DELHI.
Page No. 7
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI State Vs. Prince & Ors.
CC No. 24/07
PS : RPF/SSB
U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: APP for RPF.
Convict Prince & Kailash Sahni produced from J/C. Heard on the point of sentence. APP for the RPF submitted that the prosecution has examined material witnesses and proved its case hence convict persons are liable to be sentenced in accordance with law. On the other Convict persons submitted that they belong to poor families. They further submitted that they have already undergone imprisonment of about 4 months and 12 days in judicial custody during the course of enquiry and trial hence they may be released on undergone imprisonment.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the convict, convict Prince, S/o. Ram Asre and Kailash Sahni, S/o. Ram Naresh Sahni are sentenced to Four Months R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/ I.D. 30 days S.I. each in this case U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966. Benefit U/s. 428 Cr. P.C. is also awarded to the convict persons.
Copy of order be given to the convict persons, free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN S.K.GAUTAM COURT ON 24.03.2008. MM:DELHI. Page No. 8 State Vs. Prince & Ors. CC No. 24/07 PS : RPF/SSB U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 24.03.2008 Present: APP for RPF. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 produced from J/C. Accused Nos. 3 & 4. Counsel for accused no. 4.
PWs ASI Ram Niwas Tehlan, Ct. Rajeev Kumar and Ct. Ram Phal Singh in person.
PW4 ASI Ram Niwas Tehlan, PW5 Ct. Rajeev Kumar and PW6 Ct. Ram Phal Singh are examined and discharged accordingly.
At this stage accused nos. 1 & 2 are pleading guilty for the charge leveled against them and have also moved applications to this effect. Accused no. 1 & 2 have been duly explained about the accusation despite that they are repeatedly pleading guilty, therefore, I am of the opinion that accused nos. 1 & 2 are pleading guilty voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. Let statement of accused no. 1 & 2 be recorded.
Statement of accused no. 1 & 2 U/s. 313 Cr. P.C. is recorded today separately in which they admitted all incriminating evidence led by the prosecution and prayed for lenient view.
Vide separate Judgment and order of today accused no. 1 Prince, S/o. Ram Asre and accused no. 2 Kailash Sahni, S/o. Ram Naresh Sahni are convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable U/s 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
Now put up for RPE in respect of accused nos. 3 & 4 on 16.01.2009.
(S.K. Gautam) MM/Delhi 24.03.2008 Page No. 9