Delhi District Court
State vs Taranpreet Singh on 25 October, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. AISHWARYA SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
State v : Taranpreet Singh
FIR No : 36/2015
U/S : 380/457/411 IPC
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
1. Criminal Case No. : 423404/2010
2. Date of commission of offence : 15.01.2015
3. Date of institution of the case : 09.03.2015
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused & parentage : Taranpreet Singh
S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh
6. Offence complained or proved : U/S 380/457/411 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 12.09.2023
9. Final order : Convicted
10. Date of final order : 25.10.2023
Present
Sh. Sudhanshu Saini Ld. APP for state.
Sh. Prashant Tanwar Ld. Counsel for the accused.
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the story of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2015 at about 9:15 PM at ING Vysya, ATM at Main Palam Road, Raj Nagar PartI, New Delhi State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 2 within the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village, accused Taranpreet committed theft of DVR black and grey colour HIKVISION belonging to ING Vysya Bank, by breaking the cabin of ATM which place was used for custody of property after committing house trespass by entering into the ATM and also on the same date, in the night at Shere Punjab Hotel, Main Palam Road, Pillar No. 55, accused was caught and found in possession of above said DVR. Thus, the accused has been chargesheeted for commission of offences punishable U/S 380/457/411 IPC.
2. Accused was summoned by Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 09.03.2015. After compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C, charges for offences under section 380/448 and alternatively, Section 411 IPC were framed against the accused on 23.03.2015 by Ld. Predecessor of this court.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove it's case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses in total.
4. PW1 Ct. Buta Singh deposed that on 15.01.2015, he along with Ct. Udaibhan were on patrolling duty at Beat No. 1 Raj Nagar PartI and at about 9:15 PM, he received call from DO, PS Palam Village that a call has been received from Mumbai, about theft being committed in ING Vysya, Bank ATM, Raj Nagar, Part I, New Delhi and upon this, he along with Ct. Udaibhan reached at the spot i.e. the ING Vysya, Bank ATM, Raj Nagar, PartI, New Delhi and saw that the alarm was ringing there, when they entered the said ATM cabin they saw that backside door of the cabin was lying open and wires State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 3 were loosely hanging there and they heard voice from the speaker inside the ATM, whereby they were asked to tell/type their mobile number, upon which witness provided his mobile number to them and after some time, he received a call on his mobile no. 9013006095 from Mumbai and they informed him that one boy aged around 2526 years has committed theft of DVR from the said ATM and caller further provided the description of the said boy and told that he was wearing blue colour like track suit and red colour hat with one red and was having black colour bag with him, having height of around 6 ft, who had stolen DVR and kept the same in his aforesaid bag and had gone towards right side after coming out from the ATM. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Udaibhan made efforts for searching said boy and found him at Shere Punjab Hotel, Main Road below the main Palam Flyover along with the red and black colour bag with him. He deposed that they apprehended him and on checking the said red and black colour bag, they recovered the stolen DVR, one key and one plier from it and upon inquiry, the name of said person was revealed as Taranpreet Singh and they brought the said boy to the said ATM Cabin at Raj NagarI and shown him to the caller there, who identified him as the same person who had committed the theft of the DVR from there. He further deposed that thereafter, he shared the information with the DO concerned and HC Mahavir reached at the spot and they handed over the accused along with the recovered bag and stolen articles to him and HC Mahavir recorded the statement of this witness and prepared rukka and got the present case registered through him and thereafter, HC Mahavir prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B, arrest memo Ex. PW1/E, personal search memo Ex. PW1/F, seizure memo Ex. PW1/C, State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 4 disclosure statement Ex. PW1/D. He stated that he was accompanying the IO during the entire investigation and IO recorded his statement.
5. PW2 Sh. Shahid who is Senior Monitoring Executive at Securens Systems Pvt. Ltd. has been examined being the informant of the incident in the present case who deposed that that on 15.01.2015, he received alarm panel tampering alert, post active deterrence (video verification), he saw a person disconnecting the DVR from its connection at ING Vysya Bank ATM, Raj NagarI, Main Palam Road, New Delhi and he stated that when the said persons was doing this, he immediately blew siren at the site i.e. ATM and also he reprimanded the suspect to immediately leave the ATM and also blew the siren at the site i.e. ATM, however, suspect took the DVR and ran from ATM premises. He further stated that he immediately called up Delhi Police Control Room and asked for Palam Village Police Station's phone number and thereafter, called up at PS Palam Village and gave information about theft of DVR happed at the ATM premises and running of suspect towards the right side. He further stated that initially the site was kept on standalone for acute monitoring and after some time, police came at the ATM Premises and after that they established two way communication and gave a brief about the suspect's description i.e red and black bag with him, blue colour track suit and maroon color woolen cap worn by him and police left the ATM to find the suspect and after some time, Police brought the suspect in front of ATM lobby camera and after opening the bag and he identified the suspect and the DVR. This witness correctly identified the accused Taranpreet in the court. He stated that he had given his written State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 5 statement to police i.e. Ex. PW2/A dated 28.05.2015. Thereafter, this witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
6. PW3 Sh. Amarjeet Mali is the Territory Manager North, Securens Systems Pvt. Ltd. company, and he deposed that he deals with CCTV Cameras and E Surveillance system in ATM and bank branches in India and on 14.02.2015, he visited PS Palam Village and handed over the video footage in 2 CD's regarding the incident happened in ATM of ING Vysya Bank, Raj Nagar I, which were seized by the IO through Seizure memo Ex. PW3/A along with a certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act received from AGM, Monitoring Operations Head Office at Mumbai to the IO i.e. Mark A. He stated that video footage contained in proceedings was the same and that no tempering was done with the footage and his statement to IO is Ex. PW3/B and that CDs are collectively Ex. A3.
7. PW4 Ct. Sandeep deposed that on 15.01.2015, on the request of IO, he along with crime team officials had visited the spot i.e. ATM of ING Vysya Bank in Raj NagarI, New Delhi and they inspected the spot but no chance prints were found and he prepared his report Ex. PW4/A and handed over the same to IO and IO recorded his statement.
8. PW5 Sh. Subhash Chander deposed that he is running a Dhaba/hotel in the name of New Shere Punjab at WZ613, Main Palam Road, Pillar No. 55 and on 15.01.2015 at about 10:00 PM, Beat Constable Buta Singh along with one more police official came there and apprehended accused who was eating food there at his Dhaba and having one red and black colour bag with him and Ct. Buta State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 6 Singh took the said person from there. He further stated that thereafter, on the next day he was called and his statement was recorded by IO. This witness has correctly identified the accused Taranpreet in the court.
9. PW6 HC Mahavir who is the IO of the present case, deposed that on 15.01.2015, he was patrolling in the area of Raj NagarI, Beat No.1, when Ct. Butta Singh informed him telephonically that there was theft in a ATM and thief has been caught and on receiving the said information, he reached at the spot i.e. on main Palam Road ATM of ING Vysya Bank where HC Butta Singh and Ct. Uday Bhan met him and they produced one person along with one bag containing the stolen items and some other articles which were in the bag. He stated that he recorded statement of Ct. Butta Singh Ex. PW1/A and he made endorsement Ex. PW6/A and sent Ct. Butta Singh with Tehrir to PS and got the present case FIR registered. This witness has correctly identified the accused Taranpreet in the court. He further deposed that he interrogated the accused whose name was revealed as Taranpreet Singh and in the meantime, Ct. Butta Singh returned to the spot along with copy of FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original Tehrir to him. He stated that on checking the recovered bag which was of black and red colour, one DVR on which HIKVISION was written, one plier of PRIMA, one steel key were recovered. He deposed that the DVR which was recovered was stolen from the ATM of ING Vysya Bank and thereafter, all the recovered items were kept in the same bag which was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of "RK" and seal after use was handed over to Ct. Butta Singh and the said bag was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He stated that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/D at the instance of State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 7 Ct. Buta Singh and called the crime team at the spot. He further deposed the Crime Team officials inspected the spot i.e. ATM ING Vysya Bank and took the Photographs and he collected the report Ex. PW4/A from crime team and thereafter, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/E and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/F and his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/G was also recorded and after medical examination of the accused, he was put behind the lock up and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. This witness correctly identified the accused Taranpreet as well as the case property i.e. Plier, DVR and Steel Key i.e. Ex. P1, P2 & P3 and stated that the CDs were also recovered from PW3 Sh. Amarjeet i.e. Ex. A3.
10. Upon completion of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused U/S 313 Cr. P.C was recorded on 04.03.2023 wherein the accused Taranpreet denied his involvement in the occurrence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated and was arrested by police without any rhyme or reason as he was coming back after meeting his friend and the policeman got angry with him as they were asking to give some answers as per their convenience which were implicatory but he could not oblige them and that is why they have implicated him in this case and that nothing has been recovered from him and stated that the recording is false and manipulated. The accused denied to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and counsel for accused and perused the records of the case.
State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 8
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved. It has interalia been argued by him that from the coherent testimonies of the eye witnesses along with the CCTV footage, the commission of the alleged offences has been established and thereby leaving no room for doubt that the accused has committed the alleged offences and hence, he deserves to be convicted for the same.
13. Per contra, it has been argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that there are several loopholes in the prosecution story that the identity of the accused has not been established by the prosecution and rather the CCTV footage so relied upon by the prosecution is a tampered record. It is further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case by planting the recovery of alleged stolen DVR, Plier and key upon him by the police and by falsely implicating the accused in the present case, the police has also slapped another case FIR No. 21/15 , P.S. palam Village upon the accused. It has also been argued that the failure of the police to associate any independent public witnesses despite their presence at the place of apprehension of the accused is selfexplanatory that the accused has been falsely implicated and hence, he deserves to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
14. Having dealt with the submissions advanced by both the sides, I proceed to adjudicate upon the most important question involved in the present case:
whether the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged or not and I hold that the accused is guilty of the offence for the following reasons discussed hereinafter.
State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 9 REASONS FOR DECISION
15. The gist of the allegations against the accused is that on 15.01.2015 at about 09:15 at ING Vysya ATM at main Palam Road, Raj Nagar, New Delhi, the accused committed theft of DVR belonging to the ING Vysya Bank by breaking the cabin of ATM which was used as a place for custody of property after committing the house trespass by entering into said ATM with intent to commit an offence of theft and hence, thereby committed an offence Under Section 380, 448 IPC. The alternative charges for offence Under Section 411 IPC have also been framed against the accused on the premise that on the same date, accused was apprehended by police from SherePunjab hotel at main Palam Road, Pillar No. 55 and the abovesaid DVR was recovered from him which he dishonestly retained knowing that the same was stolen property and hence, has committed an offence Under Section 411 IPC.
16. The facts enumerated in the chargesheet unfolds the chronological sequence of events which is mentioned hereinafter;
(a) that the accused trespassed into the ATM of ING Vasya Bank on the fateful evening of 15.01.2015 with an intent to commit the offence of theft,
(b) that the accused dishonestly removed the DVR installed in the cabin of bank ATM due to which the bank's security and surveillance system got activated and a siren was blown at the ATM Site from the centralized security unit of bank at Mumbai, State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 10
(c) that the official from the said security unit had identified the accused from the video camera and also reprimanded him to immediately leave the ATM via electronic audio video linkage,
(d) that the officials from said centralized security unit of bank also informed the police after which the police arrived at spot and by way of two way communication through the audio video linkage, the identity and description of the accused was also narrated to police by the bank officials,
(e) that on the basis of description and identity of accused as narrated by the concerned officials of the security unit, the police nabbed the accused from a nearby place i.e. SherePunjab hotel and the alleged stolen DVR along with one key and plier was recovered from him.
17. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to discuss the essential ingredients of the offences involved in the present case. As stated earlier, the accused has been charged for offences Under Section 380, 448 and 411 IPC.
18. The offence under Section 380 IPC makes punishable an act of theft in a dwelling house etc. This provision makes indictable an act of theft committed in any building, tent or vessel which is used as a place for human dwelling or for custody of any property. The offence of theft has been defined under Section 378 IPC and in order to constitute the said offence, the following essential ingredients must be satisfied a. There should be dishonest removal of a movable property belonging to another person State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 11 b. The said movable property must be taken out from the possession of another person without his consent c. The act of moving the property in order to such taking, in itself is sufficient to constitute the offence of theft.
19. Whereas, the offence of house trespass is indictable under Section 448 IPC. The offence of criminal trespass has been defined under Section 441 IPC as an act of entering into or upon the property which is in possession of another person so as to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in whose possession said property is coming.
20. When the act of criminal trespass is committed by a person in a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, place for worship or as a place for custody of property, it constitutes the offence of house trespass defined under section 442 IPC which is punishable Under Section 448 IPC.
21. Section 411 IPC deals with an offence of dishonestly receiving or retaining the stolen property with a knowledge or reason to believe that it was a stolen property. In order to constitute an offence U/S 411 IPC, it is imperative to establish that the property so received or retained by the accused must be bounty of theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust.
22. Having discussed the evidences led by the prosecution and also having summarized the important legal provisions of law involved in the present case, now I will proceed to appreciate the evidence so as to ascertain the commission of alleged offence by the accused. In the present case, the star witnesses State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 12 examined by the prosecution are PW1 Constable Buta Singh and PW2 Shahid. Upon careful analysis of the testimonies of the abovenamed PWs which finds due corroboration with the testimonies of PW3 Amarjeet Mali, PW5 Subhash Chand and PW6 HC Mahavir, I find the prosecution case proved. The identity of the accused along with the factum of theft by him in the ATM of the ING Vasya Bank is proved from the testimony of PW2 Shahid, who was monitoring the security surveillance system of the bank during the relevant time. He coherently deposed that after receiving the tampering alert on the alarm panel, he activated the video camera system and witnessed that the accused was disconnecting the DVR from its connection after which he had immediately blew the siren at the site of ATM and had reprimanded the accused to immediately leave the premises. He has also coherently established the chronological chain of events leading to the arrival of police team comprising PW1 ct. Buta Singh and Ct. Uday Bhan at the ATM premise, after which he narrated about the description of the accused. The careful perusal of the record would also reflect that it has surfaced through the testimony of PW1 Ct. Buta Singh that upon his arrival at the ATM premises, he had entered into a conversation with the PW2 Shahid by way of two way audio video communication system installed at the ATM premises and then, shared his mobile phone number with PW2 who narrated him about the characteristics of the accused. Pertinently, the testimony of PW1 further goes on to reflect that after apprehension of accused by him from SherePunjab Restaurant, he along with the bag containing stolen property was apprehended and that he was again taken to the ATM premises from where he was identified by PW2 Shahid by State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 13 way of the audio video linkage unit installed at the ATM. The chronology of events from the time of arrival of PW 1 Ct. Buta Singh at the ATM premises until the apprehension of the accused from SherePunjab Restaurant also stands duly corroborated through the testimony of PW5 Subhash Chander who was the owner of SherePunjab restaurant who deposed about apprehension of accused Taranpreet Singh from his restaurant along with the bag containing the stolen property. It is pertinent to mention that in the testimony of PW 1 Ct. Buta Singh, it has also surfaced that there were two cameras installed in the ATM premises and the accused was identified by PW2 Shahid from one such video camera. It is imperative to point out that during the course of investigation, two CDs containing the CCTV footage were seized by police on 14.02.2015. The perusal of testimony of PW3 Amarjeet Mali who is the territory manager in the Securens Systems Pvt. Ltd. Company which deals with the Esurveillance system in ATM and banks, it reflects that he had handed over the abovementioned 2 CDs to the IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A qua which a certificate U/S 65B Indian Evidence Act was also issued. The CDs have been placed on record as Ex.A3 (Colly). Even the court has seen the CCTV footage and the man appearing in the same in the ATM premises resembles the accused in the present case. Even though, it has been argued by defence that the CDs Ex. A3 colly cannot be relied upon by the prosecution as the DVR from which the video footage was taken was tampered. This argument raised by the defence deserves to be rejected at the very threshold as same is not substantiated with any evidence whatsoever. Even during his statement U/S 313 CrPC, the accused has given an evasive answer when encountered with the State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 14 question with respect to his complicity being established by way of video footage of the incident contained in the CDs, by simply stating that it is wrong and the CDs are manipulated. Except a suggestion with respect to the alleged tampering of the DVR containing the video footage, no other suggestion was offered by the defence explaining the mode and manner of said tampering or the surrounding circumstances qua the same and hence, the contentions raised by the defence to such extent are rejected. It is also argued by the defence that the CDs containing the CCTV footage cannot be relied upon as the certificate U/S 65 B Indian Evidence Act which is MarkA on record was not issued by PW3 Amarjeet Mali who has prepared the said CDs from the DVR. Herein, it is pertinent to mention that during his testimony as PW3 Amarjeet Mali has narrated that he had prepared the CDs containing the CCTV Footage capturing the incident and he has specifically denied the suggestion that at the time when such CDs were prepared, the AGM of company i.e. Securens Systems Pvt. Ltd. was not present. Herein, it is pertinent to point out that as per Section 65 B (4) IEA, the certificate in testification of evidence with respect to an electronic record generated from a computer source operated during the ordinary course of the activities can be signed by any person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operating of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, which shall be the evidence of the matter stated in the certificate.
23. The testimony of PW3 Amarjeet Mali is coherent and convincing enough so as to establish the fact that the CDs containing the video footage of the incident was prepared by him from the DVR in the presence of the AGM of the State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 15 company who has issued the certificate U/S 65 B in support of accuracy of the said record, therefore, contention of the defence impeaching the credibility of the CDs deserved to be rejected. Even otherwise also, from careful perusal of testimony of PW 2 Shahid, it reflects that he was not offered even a single question or a suggestion by the defence with respect to the identity of the accused or that the person so appearing in the CCTV footage was some other person and not the accused. These crucial omissions on the part of defence clearly gives rise to an inference that the accused has conceded to the fact that he was the same person who can be seen in CCTV footage of the incident and hence, considering the above discussed evidences in whole, the identity of the accused as the person committing the theft of DVR in the ATM premises stands duly proved. Furthermore, it can also be seen that on the same day, the accused was apprehended from a nearby place i.e. SherePunjab Restaurant. More specifically, the careful perusal of the arrest memo Ex. PW 1/E would reflect that the accused was arrested by the police on same night on 16.01.2015 at 12:10 AM i.e. almost within three hours of the occurrence and the DVR along with one key and one plier was recovered from his bag which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. There is inherent consistency in the testimony of PW1 Ct. Buta Singh and IO PW6 HC Mahaveer Singh regarding the manner in which the accused was apprehended and the consequent recovery from his possession. The factum of apprehension of accused and recovery of bag containing stolen property also finds due corroboration with the testimony of PW5 Subhash Chander. These evidences collectively make the arrest of accused and recovery of case property from him untainted and well credible. State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 16 Herein, illustration (a) of Section 114 IEA becomes relevant. For the sake of brevity section 114 IEA is reproduced hereinafter "114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. --The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations The Court may presume--
(a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession..." Hence, as per the above illustration if a person is found to be in possession of stolen goods soon after its theft, the court may presume that the said person was one who had also committed theft, however, it is also open for the accused to rebut this presumption and to prove how the stolen goods came in his possession and account for the same. But in the present case, the accused has not led any defence evidence to prove as to how he came in possession of the stolen DVR belonging to the complainant which inevitably gives rise to an inference that the accused was the one who had committed the theft in the ATM premises after unlawfully entering into the same.
24. For the forgoing observations, findings and reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts on 15.01.2015, at about 9:15 PM at ING Vysya ATM at Main Palam road, Raj Nagar, New Delhi, the accused Taranpreet Singh committed a house trespass by entering into the above said ATM premise in order to commit the offence of theft and committed the theft of DVR belonging to the ING Vysaya bank by State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015 17 breaking the ATM cabin and hence, the accused is convicted for offences U/SS 380, 448 IPC. The accused is not separately convicted for charge U/S 411 IPC since the thief cannot at the same time be also convicted for the offence of being receiver or retainer of the stolen property.
25. Let convict be heard on the point of sentencing separately.
Announced in the open court on (Aishwarya Sharma)
this day i.e. 25th October, 2023 MM01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Aishwarya Sharma) MM01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi .
State V Taranpreet Singh FIR No. 36/2015