Delhi District Court
Fir No. 138/2018 State vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir on 19 October, 2019
FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir
PS : NDRS
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir
FIR No. 138/2018
PS : NDRS
U/s 379/34 IPC, 103 the DP Act, & 147/179, the
Railways Act
Date of Institution : 24.01.2019
Date of reserving of order : 14.10.2019
Date of Judgment : 19.10.2019
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLCT020027552019
1. Serial No. of the case : 1085/2019
2. Name of the Complainant : Devesh Kumar Singh
3. Date of incident : 04.12.2018
4. Name of accused person :
Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir, S/o Resham Singh, R/o H. No. 203, VIII, Dhok PS Barwala District Muktshar Sahab, Punjab.
5. Offence for which chargesheet Page 1 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS was filed : S. 379/34 IPC, 147/179 IR Act & 103 DP Act
6. Offence for which charge has been framed : As above
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order : Convicted
9. Date of Judgment : 19.10.2019 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Mr. Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir, the accused herein, has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 379/34, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), Section 147/179, the Railways Act (IR Act), and Section 103, the Delhi Police Act (DP Act).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.12.2018, complainant Devesh Kumar Singh was traveling in Dadar Express Train alongwith his wife and children. His wife was having a handbag with her which contained various items including the jewelry items. The accused had stolen the said handbag and handed over to Page 2 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS his associates who ran away with the bag. However, the accused was apprehended in the train itself. On the basis of complaint, present FIR was registered. The accused was found in possession of some jewelery items. The accused could not provide any reasonable explanation for possession of those items. Efforts were made to trace the associates of the accused. However, they could not be traced. The stolen bag and items also could not be traced.
After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 379/34, Indian Penal Code, 147/179, the Railway Act, and Section 103, DP Act.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Court. The accused was produced in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable under Section 379/34, Indian Penal Code, 147/179, the Railway Act and Section 103, DP Act was framed against Page 3 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS the accused. It was read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Sh. Devesh Kumar is the complainant. He has deposed that on 03.12.2018 he was coming from Bhopal to Ambala in Dadar Express alongwith his family members. He was traveling with his family members in A1 Coach, Seat no. 8, 10 & 20. During the travel the seat no. 20 was exchanged with the passenger of seat no. 11 and thereafter all family members were in the same compartment. When the train was standing at Hazrat Nizamuddin R. Station, his son aged 9 months had vomited and his clothes became dirty. Therefore, he removed his I card and his purse and handed over them to his wife Smt. Netu Chandel as he wanted to change his clothes. His wife kept those items in her purse. She was sitting on lower berth. He stood up and reached on the upper birth to change his clothes. His wife was feeding the child and the string of the purse was lying on her shoulder.
Page 4 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS In the meantime, the accused alongwith two associates came there. The accused grabbed the purse of his wife and purse of Mrs. Chaterjee who was on the other lower berth and immediately handed over to his associates. Prior to that the train had started moving slowly. Both the associates of the accused jumped from the running train. The accused was apprehended by the passenger in the coach. They asked the accused to provide the items back and they would not hand over him to the police. He told the names of his associates as Ashish and Sonu. He had also provided a mobile number to them which was saved in his mobile phone by the name A1. A call was made on that number by using the mobile phone of the accused. The person who had picked the phone said that the bag was taken inadvertently and that he would return the same. However, the bag was not returned and after some time the said mobile phone was switched off. Thereafter, he made a call to PCR. The train was stopped later on at Platform no. 4, NDRS where the police officials had come. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the PS NDRS. He Page 5 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS alongwith Mr. Chakarborty had gone to the PS. Other family members remained in the train and they left for Ambala in the said train. The accused was carrying a brown color bag. One set of Payal of white metal and two finger rings of yellow metal were found in the said bag. The accused has disclosed that those items were also stolen property. His statement was recorded which is Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, FIR was registered. The IO had seized the above mentioned recovered items vide memo Ex. PW 1/B. The IO had taken copy of his railway ticket which is Ex. PW1/C (OSR). The accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/D. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/E. He was given the copy of FIR by the IO. He did not have any money with him. He was not permitted by the TTE to travel in the train without valid ticket. Therefore, he had borrowed a sum of ₹500/ from Subedar at MCO after giving his reference of Army Background.
6. PW2 WHC Anna Gloria is the Duty Officer. She has proved the registration of FIR which is Ex. PW2/A Page 6 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS (OSR), the certificate under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW2/B, and endorsement on the rukka, which is Ex. PW2/C point X to X1. She has deposed that after registration of FIR, she had handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Hari Ram to be given to ASI Kalam Singh.
7. PW3 Sh. Manoj Choudhary is an official of Indian Railways. He has deposed that on 04.12.2018, he was posted as TTI and he was on duty on train No.11057, Dadar Express, Delhi to Amritsar. The incident had taken place at NDRS at platform No. 4. He was there with duty chart and was standing near AC second coach No. A1. One person was standing outside on the platform in front of coach A1 and he was stating that all his luggage was stolen and police had not yet come. He had called the controller and the GRP and SS office staff came there. At the time, the chain of the train was continuously being pulled and therefore train could not move at that time. Police came on the spot and took the complainant alongwith one sardar boy.
Page 7 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS
8. PW4 Ct. Hari Ram is the police official who had joined the investigation with the IO. He has deposed that on 04.12.2018, after receiving information vide DD No. 9 he alongwith ASI Kalam Singh reached at platform No. 4. Train Dadar Express was stationed there. They reached in coach No. A1. There they met with the complainants. The accused was handed over to him by ASI Kalam Singh. ASI Kalam Singh thereafter, prepared a tehrir and handed over to him for registration for FIR for the PS. He handed over the custody of the accused to ASI Kalam Singh and left for the PS for registration of FIR. He got the FIR registered and obtained the copy of FIR and original Tehrir and returned at the spot. He handed over the documents to ASI Kalam Singh. Thereafter, the IO alongwith the complainants and the accused had made efforts to trace the associates of the accused as disclosed by him. However, they could not be traced. The accused was thereafter arrested in the present case vide memo Ex.PW1/D. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/E. The accused was having a backpack bag. It Page 8 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS was opened. One pair of Pajeb and two ladies rings of yellow metal were found inside the said bag. Those items were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/B. Those items were kept in a pullanda and pullanda was sealed with the seal of KS. The seal was handed over to him after use. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Rahul had taken the accused to the hospital for his medical examination. Thereafter he was produced in the Court alongwith the IO. He was taken on PC remand by order of the Court. The accused had taken them to Connaught place, Palika Bazar stating that his associate were present there. However, his associates could not be traced. He was brought back to the PS. He was given food and he was locked up. Thereafter, he was discharged.
9. PW5 Sh. Yatin Chawla is the nodal officer Jio Reliance infocom. He has produced the attested copy of CAF of mobile number 7028914789 in the name of Biswanath Chakraborty which is Ex. PW5/A. The CDR of the said mobile phone for 24.11.2018 is Ex. PW5/B. The certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act in Page 9 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS support of the printout is Ex. PW5/C.
10. Ms. Rekha Chakraborty is one of the victim. Inadvertently, she is also examined as PW5. She has deposed that on 03.12.2018, she alongwith her husband was traveling in Dadar Amritsar Express. At about 5:00 a.m., when the train was about to reach at New Delhi Railway Station, her purse was snatched. She shouted for help. There were three boys. Two of them had jumped out of the train. The third one was caught by the passengers. One of the passenger had called the police. Police had come at New Delhi Railway Station and inquired from the accused. Police apprehended the accused. After about half an hour the train had left the station. Her husband deboarded the train at New Delhi Railway Station for giving the complaint.
11. PW6 Sh. Bishwanath Chakraborty is the husband of witness Ms. Rekha Chaktraborty. He has deposed similar to PW5 Ms. Rekha Chakraborty in relation to theft of bag of his wife and apprehension of the accused. He has also deposed that the accused was handed Page 10 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS over to the police. He had got down from the train at New Delhi Railway Station alongwith Sh. Chandel. He got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he left for Amritsar in the evening. At the police station one small bag was recovered from the possession of the accused in which there were one ring and some jewelery items made of silver. He had not signed any documents in the police station on that day. He had signed only for FIR on that day. He had given his railway ticket to the police station at New Delhi Railway Station.
12. PW6 has also proved the seizure memo of his ticket by the IO which is Ex.PW6/A. The eticket is Ex. P
1.
13. PW7 Ct. Rahul is the police official who had joined the investigation with the IO. He has deposed that he alongwith Ct. Hari Ram had taken the accused to Lady Harding Hospital where he was medically examined. Thje accused was taken on PC remand from Court. He was taken to Nizamuddin Railway Station, Palika Bazar and Rajeev Chowk Metro, Gate no. 7 in search of his Page 11 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS associates. However they could ot be traced.
14. PW8 HC Jaibir is the police official who had joined the investigation with the IO. He has deposed similar to PW7.
15. PW9 SI Kalam Singh is the IO. He has deposed that on 04.12.2018, he received information from the duty officer that one thief was apprehended at platform no. 4 coach number A1 Dadar Express. He alongwith Ct. Hari Ram reached at the spot. They entered in the coach. Public persons were found gathered there. They had apprehended accused Harwant Singh. Complainant Devash Kunmar and another victim B.N Chakravorthy had told him that the accused had committed theft of the purses belonging to their wives. They told that he had handed over those purses to his associates who had fled away by jumping from the train. During his search, their bags were not found in his possession. However, one bag of the accused was recovered from his possession. He had recorded the statement of the complainant which is Ex. PW 1/A. He prepared a rukka on the said statement which Page 12 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS is Ex. PW9/A. The rukka was handed over to Ct Hari Ram for registration of FIR at the PS. He left the spot with the rukka and returned at the spot after sometime with the rukka and copy of FIR and handed over to him for investigation. He obtained the custody of the accused. He made inquiry from the accused. He had recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW9/B. After satisfaction, he had arrested him vide memo Ex. PW1/D. He also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 1/E. During the search of the bag of the accused, one pair of pajeb and two ladies rings of yellow metal were found. They were seized under Section 102 CrPC vide memo Ex. PW1/B. The accused had disclosed that he had stolen those items from the purse of some lady inside the train near Ballavgharh. However, on inquiry no complaint was found to be recorded in relation to such items. The recovered property was deposited in malkhana. After medical examination, the accused was produced in the Court. One day PC remand was obtained. The accused had led them to various place to trace his associates.
Page 13 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS However the coassociates of the accused were not apprehended and case property was also not recovered. On next day he again searched coassociates of the accused and the case property with the help of the accused. Thereafter he produced the accused before the court where he was sent to JC. Thereafter he prepared challan.
16. The witness were cross examined. The PE was closed.
17. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. Substance of incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied all the incriminating evidence. He would state that he was falsely implicated. Nothing was recovered from his possession. He was having a valid ticket.
18. The accused moved an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C and entered into witness box. He was examined as DW1. He would deposed that on 4.12.2018, he was traveling in Dadar Express from Palwal to New Delhi. The train had stopped at Hazarat Nizamuddin Railway Station. He got down to take water bottle. He was Page 14 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS having a jacket on his shoulder. Suddenly two boys had come and snatched his jacket. They boarded in an AC coach of the train. He had also boarded the said coach while chasing those boys. In the mean time, the train started. Those boys had deboarded the train. He had heard the noise of Chor Chor. He had found his jacket on one of the seats in the coach. When he lifted his jacket, the passengers had caught him. In the mean time, the TTE came and asked for the ticket. He had shown the ticket of general coach. He was having ₹5100/ and a mobile phone in his jacket. His cash was taken by two passengers. He was brought to the PS and he was falsely implicated. He could produce his friend Raju. He had purchased the general ticket from Palwal Railway Station in presence of said Raju.
19. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP. The accused did not examine any other witness in defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
20. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.
Page 15 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS The identity of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC, 103 DP Act, and Section 147 the Railways Act. The guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
21. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. No recovery was effected from the possession of the accused. There was no associate of the accused. No disclosure statement was made by the accused. Witness PW1 has stated various facts in his statement in Court which were not mentioned in his statement made to the IO. The accused himself has stated on oath that he had not committed any offence. Hence, it is prayed that benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
Page 16 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS
22. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
23. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
24. In the present case, the accused has been charged for committing offences punishable under Section 379/34 IPC, Section 103 DP Act, and Section 147 IR Act. Section 379 IPC provides punishment for committing theft as defined under Section 378 IPC. Section 378 IPC defines theft as moving any movable property with an intention to Page 17 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS take it dishonestly out of the possession of a person without consent of such person.
25. Section 34, IPC provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
26. Section 103 the Delhi Police Act provides that whoever has in his possession or conveys in any manner, or offers for sale or pawn, anything which there is reason to believe is stolen property or property obtained fraudulently, has to account for such possession or act to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Magistrate. If he fails to account for such possession or act, he is liable for punishment as provided under Section 103, the Delhi Police Act.
27. Section 147 IR Act provides punishment for trespass on any part of a Railways without lawful authority.
Page 18 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS
28. In the present case, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused alongwith his associate had stolen the handbag of the wife of complainant Devesh Kumar and Ms. Rekha Chaktraborty. It is alleged that the associates of the accused had run away with those bags while the accused was apprehended in the coach of the train itself.
29. The accused has not denied his presence in the coach A1 of Dadar Express Train on 04.12.2018. he has also admitted that he was apprehended by the public persons under the suspicion. He has examined himself as DW1 in which he has admitted abovementioned facts. In these circumstances, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was present in coach A1 of Dadar Express Train on 04.12.2018. It also stands proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused did not have any ticket to travel in the said coach of the train. It also stands proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had been apprehended inside the coach where a theft had been committed and that he was apprehended immediately Page 19 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS after the said theft. The issue to be decided by the Court is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that it was the accused who had stolen the bags alongwith his associates. It is also for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubts that certain items were recovered from the bag of the accused and that he could not sufficiently explained the possession of those items. It is also required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts that the accused was traveling without any ticket in the said train.
30. PW1 Devesh Kumar is the complainant and an eye witness. The witness has specifically stated in his examination in chief that the accused alongwith his two associates had come there in the train and that the accused had grabbed the bag of his wife and purse of Ms. Chaterjee. The witness has also stated that the accused had handed over the bags to his associates and that those associates had jumped from the running train. However the accused was apprehended on the spot.
Page 20 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS
31. The witness was cross examined. However, nothing contradictory has come in his cross examination.
32. Ld. counsel for the accused would argue that the witness has stated various facts which were not recorded in the statement of the witness which was made to the IO at the time of complaint. Ld counsel would argue that the fact that son of the complainant had vomited on his clothes is not mentioned in his statement Ex. PW1/A. Similarly the fact that the accused had provided a mobile number of his associate is also not mentioned in his abovementioned statement. Further the witness does not know the name of the person with whom he had exchanged his seat. All these circumstances create doubts on the testimony of PW1.
33. I have considered the submissions. However, I do not find any merits in the same. The facts which the witness PW1 has stated in his examination in chief, as mentioned above by the Ld. Defence counsel, are not contradiction or improvement. They are explanations for the facts already stated by the witness in his statement to Page 21 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS the IO. In any case they do not create any reasonable doubts on the testimony of PW1. The presence of the witness in the train has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. The witness has specifically stated that he had seen the accused taking the bags of his wife and Ms. Chaktraborty and handing over them to his associates. Nothing contradictory has come in the crossexamination of PW1 to disbelieve his testimony. Thus, the testimony of PW1 has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had stolen the bag of the wife of the complainant and the bag of Ms Chaktraborty.
34. PW5 Ms. Chaktraborty and PW6 Sh.
Vishwanath Chaktraborty have also corroborated the testimony of PW1. In her cross examination, PW5 Ms. Chaktraborty has stated that she had seen the accused alongwith his two associates immediately after her bag was lifted by one of them and they were running with her bag.
35. The law is settled that testimony of an eyewitness and an injured should be believed unless there Page 22 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS is specific reason on record to disbelieve him. In Abdul Sayeed vs State of M.P, (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the reliability of testimony of injured witness, has held as under:
"The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
36. In the present case also, PW1 Sh. Devesh Kumar, PW5 Ms.Rekha Chakraborty and PW6 Sh. Bishwanath Chakraborty are the victims. There is no reason found on record to disbelieve their testimonies. No doubt the accused has entered into witness box and he has deposed on oath that he had not committed any such crime. However, it is to be kept in mind that the accused is Page 23 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS an interested witness and his testimony is to be read with caution. The story narrated by the accused does not appear to be plausible and reasonable. There is no reason explained by the accused as to why the complainant and other two public witnesses would falsely implicate him if he had not committed any crime. PW1 is an army personnel. PW5 & PW6 had also come from Nasik Maharashtra to depose in the present case. There can be no reason for them to depose falsely against the accused. PW1 has also stated in his examination in chief that after his apprehension, the accused had provided a mobile phone number of his associate who had run away with the bag. The said person had talked with the complainant and informed that he would return the bags. However, the phone was switched of and he never turned up. No doubt this fact is not mentioned in the statement of the complainant recorded by the IO, however, the statement can not be ignored because of that fact. This fact reasonably explains that the accused had stolen the bags as abovesaid alongwith his associates.
Page 24 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS
37. In the light of the discussion herein above, I hold that it is proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubts, that the accused alongwith his associates (since not arrested), in furtherance of their common intention, had stolen the bag of the wife of complainant Devesh Kumar, and bag of Ms. Chaktraborty. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC are proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
38. The accused has also been charged for committing offence punishable under Section 147 of IR Act. The accused in his evidence has stated that he had purchased a ticket of general coach. However, no such ticket is available on record. No ticket is shown to be find during his personal search as conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/E. The burden was on the accused to produce his ticket of journey. However, he has failed to produce the same. Hence, it also stands proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused was traveling in a train without having a valid ticket. Hence, it is proved beyond Page 25 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS reasonable doubts that the accused had committed offence punishable under Section 147 the Railways Act, 1989.
39. It has also been alleged the accused was found in possession of certain jewelry items and he could not reasonably explained the possession of those items. It has been proved by the testimonies of PW1 Sh. Devesh Kumar and PW6 Sh. Bishwanath Chakraborty that certain items were found inside the bag of the accused which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/B. However, there is nothing on record as to what was the approximate value of those items. There is also nothing on record to show that those items were made of precious metals and that they were having any substantial monetary value. There is also nothing on records to prove that those items were stolen property or that they had been obtained by fraud. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the accused cannot be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 103, the DP Act.
40. In the light of the discussions hereinabove, I hold that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of Page 26 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019 FIR No. 138/2018 State Vs Harwant Singh @ Raju @ Rajbir PS : NDRS offence punishable under Section 379/34, IPC and Section 147, the Railways Act, 1989 against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution, however, has failed to prove the ingriedients of offence punishable under Section 103, the DP Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The accused is therefore acquitted qua offence punishable under Section 103, the DP Act. However, the accused is found guilty and he is accordingly convicted for the offences punishable under Section 379/34, IPC, and Section 147, the Railways Act, 1989.
41. Let the parties be heard on quantum of sentence.
42. Copy of judgment be given to the convict free Digitally of cost. signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2019.10.19 16:37:34 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar) this 19th Day of October 2019 MM08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.Page 27 of 27 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/19.10.2019