Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak Kumar on 27 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: NORTH EAST04: KARKARDOOMA COURTS,DELHI FIR No. 144/2001 PS: Gokal Puri U/s. 411 IPC Dated: 27.02.2013 Case ID: 02402R0022762002 STATE VS. DEEPAK KUMAR Date of Institution : 03.01.2002 Date of Commission of offence : 19.04.2001 Name of the Complainant : Shri Pal S/o Sh. Pran Singh Name parentage and address : Deepak Kumar S/o Sh. Mahender Singh, R/o; C9/353, Sultanpuri, Delhi. Offence Complaint of : U/s. 411 IPC Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. Final Order : Convicted. Judgment reserved on : 27.02.2013 Date of judgment : 27.02.2013 JUDGEMENT
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri, State Vs. Deepak Kr. 1/10
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off, the above captioned case FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint of the Complainant that on 19.04.2001 at H.No. C9/353, Sultanpuri got recovered a TSR bearing no. DL1RF2507, CNG of yellow and Green colour bearing chasis no. 11772 and engine no. 24001 belonging to the complainant Shri Pal Singh which was stolen from outside of his house on 16.04.2001 and accused had kept the said TSR in his possession having reason to believe that the same to be the stolen property and thereby accused committed an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against accused U/s. 411 IPC. Thereafter, a charge Under Section 411 of IPC was framed against accused on 04.08.2004, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined five witnesses in all in the present case.
The deposition of witnesses is touched upon in brief as under to have a better appreciation of the case.
PW1 is ASI Sohan Vir Singh, who had registered the FIR, bearing no. 144/2001 which is Ex. PW1/A, regarding the said incident. PW2 is Sh. Shripal Singh, (Complainant) who stated on oath that in the year 2001, he has purchased a TSR bearing no. DL1RF2507 and he has employed Ranvir as driver to run the said TSR. He deposed that on FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri, State Vs. Deepak Kr. 2/10 16.04.2001, Ranvir parked his TSR at about 3.00 PM in the gali no. 3 in front of his house and he handed over the keys of the TSR to him. He further deposed that at about 3.30 PM, when he came outside his house, he saw that his TSR was not there. He further deposed that he looked out his TSR, but it was not traceable and DL of the driver and the relevant documents pertaining to TSR were in the dickey of the TSR. He further deposed that he went to PS Gokalpuri and reported the matter and there his statement was recorded. He further deposed that his statement is Ex. PW2/A and he also showed the place to the police officials, where he had parked his TSR. He further deposed that on 19.04.2001, he went to the PS and there he alongwith the police officials went in search for his TSR and while searching they reached at Bhajanpura Petrol Pump and there he saw one TSR bearing no. DL1RF2207 was going towards the petrol pump and the accused was driving it and on the back side of TSR he saw written Neha. He further deposed that he immediately identified his TSR as he has printed Neha on the back side of his TSR and Neha is the name of his daughter. He further deposed that he alongwith the police officials stopped the TSR and apprehended the driver and he checked the number plate, engine number and chasis number. He further deposed that digit of original number 2507 of his TSR was changed as 2207. He further deposed that accused was interrogated and he told his name as Deepak. He further deposed that TSR was seized by the police officials vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that accused was arrested and his personal search was also conducted vide memos Ex. FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri, State Vs. Deepak Kr. 3/10 PW2/B and PW2/C. He further deposed that accused plead his guilt and disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide Ex. PW2/D. He further deposed that thereafter, they all came back to PS and later on Suraj Parkah, who was the permit holder of his vehicle, took his TSR on superdari, Ex. PW2/E. The said witness was examined by the Ld. defence counsel for the accused.
PW3 is Surya Parkash, who stated on oath that he is the registered owner of TSR bearing No. DL1RF2507 and he took the vehicle on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW2/E. The said witness was not cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the defence.
PW4 is HC Vikram Singh, who stated on oath that on 16.04.2001, he was posted at PS Gokalpuri as Ct. and he was on duty between 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM. He deposed that on receiving DD No. 59B, he alongwith IO/HC Harpal Singh went to the spot i.e. gali no. 3, Khazani nagar, Johripur, H.No. 88 at about 9.00 PM. He further deposed that there they met with the complainant Shripal and his statement was recorded regarding the theft of his TSR. He further deposed that IO prepared rukka of the statement of Shripal and sent him alongwith the rukka for the registration of the case at about 10.30 PM. He further deposed that he went to the PS and got registered the case and came back at the spot and handed over the carbon copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. He further deposed that after that they went for the search of stolen TSR but FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri, State Vs. Deepak Kr. 4/10 was not traceable. He further deposed that on 19.04.2001, he again joined the investigation of this case alongwith HC Nand Kishore, who was marked the investigation of the present case. He further deposed that they went for the search of stolen TSR and they got secret information that the stolen TSR is being run with a forged number i.e. 2207 instead of original number 2507 and the vehicle would come at Bhajanpura. He further deposed that on the said information, they started looking for the TSR bearing no. 2207 and they reached at Bhajanpura Petrol Pump, where complainant also met them. He further deposed that after some time, they saw that one TSR bearing no. DL1RF2207 going towards Petrol Pump and was being driven by the accused. He further deposed that on the back side of the TSR, word Neha was written. He further deposed that complainant immediately identified his TSR and stated that Neha is the name of his daughter. He further deposed that they all stopped the TSR and apprehended the driver and checked the number plate, engine number and chassis. He further deposed that complainant identified his vehicle and stated that the original number of the TSR has been changed as 2207. He further deposed that accused was interrogated and he told his name as Deepak. He further deposed that TSR was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C. He further deposed that accused made his disclosure of his guilt and disclosure statement Ex. PW2/D was recorded. He further deposed that they all came back at the place and case property was deposited in the FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri, State Vs. Deepak Kr. 5/10 malkhana and accused was sent to the lockup. He further deposed that his statement was recorded.
The said witness was not cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel. PW5 is HC Pushpender Kumar, who stated on oath that on 16.04.2001, he was posted at PS Gokalpuri as Ct. and on that day, he was on duty w.e.f. 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM. He deposed that on that day, he received an information through wireless operator at about 8.42 PM. He further deposed that he recorded the DD entry vide DD No. 59B, dated 16.04.2001.
The said witness was not cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
4. Thereafter, PE was closed. Statement U/s. 313 Cr.PC of the accused was recorded on 08.02.2013, wherein he stated that he does not want to lead his defence evidence. Accordingly, DE stands closed. Final arguments have been heard from both the sides and record has been meticulously perused.
5. Now I shall refer to the rival submissions made by the parties. During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that there are material contradictions in the deposition of Prosecution witnesses.
6. Per contra, it is stated by Ld. APP for the State that all the witnesses had duly identified the accused. They had deposed the entire sequence of events and their testimonies duly corroborate each other. There is no contradiction in the same. It is further stated that despite lengthy cross examination of complainant, Ld. Defence counsel has failed to shake their varsity. Nothing material has come in the cross examination of FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri, State Vs. Deepak Kr. 6/10 complainant which can offer any support to the accused. Thus, it is stated that offences charged against the accused stand duly proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
7. Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused. To prove the offences U/s. 411 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following:
(i) that the property in question is stolen property.
(ii) that the accused received or retained such property.
(iii) that he did so honestly.
(iv) that he knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen property.
8. I have heard the contention of Ld. APP for State as well as Ld. Defence counsel and given my thoughtful consideration. To prove the present offence, the Prosecution has examined five witnesses in all. The case of the prosecution hangs upon the testimony of the Complainant Sh. Shripal Singh, who has been examined as PW2. The PW2 has deposed in his examination in chief that in the year 2001, he had purchased a TSR bearing no. DL1RF2507 and has employed Ranvir as driver to run the said TSR. PW2 further deposed that on 16.04.2001, Ranvir parked his TSR at about 3.00 PM in the gali no. 3 in front of his house and handed over the keys of the TSR to him. PW2 further deposed that at about 3.30 PM, when he came outside his house, he saw that his TSR was not there. He further deposed that he looked out for his TSR, but it was not traceable. He further deposed that he went to PS Gokalpuri and FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri, State Vs. Deepak Kr. 7/10 reported the matter, his statement was recorded, which is Ex. PW2/A. He also showed the place to the police officials, where he had parked his TSR. On 19.04.2001, he went to the PS and there he alongwith the police officials went in search for his TSR and while searching they reached at Bhajanpura Petrol Pump where he saw one TSR bearing no. DL1RF2207 was going towards the petrol pump and the accused was driving it and on the back side of TSR he saw "Neha" written. He further deposed that he immediately identified his TSR as he had printed Neha on the back side of his TSR and that Neha is the name of his daughter. He further deposed that he alongwith the police officials stopped the TSR and apprehended the driver and he checked the number plate, engine number and chasis number. He further deposed that digit of original number 2507 of his TSR was changed as 2207. He further deposed that accused was interrogated and he told his name as Deepak. He further deposed that TSR was seized by the police officials vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that accused was arrested and his personal search was also conducted vide memos Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C. He further deposed that accused plead his guilt and disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide Ex. PW2/D. He further deposed that thereafter, they all came back to PS and later on Suraj Parkah, who was the permit holder of his vehicle, took his TSR on superdari, Ex. PW2/E. The PW2 has also identified the accused before the court during her examination in chief.
10. The aforesaid deposition of PW2 Shripal Singh has sufficient FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri, State Vs. Deepak Kr. 8/10 corroboration of other witness namely HC Vikram Singh , who has been examined as PW4, who also accompanied the complainant, when the accused was apprehended. The PW4 has also identified the accused before the court during her examination in chief.
11. The testimonies of the other witnesses so read in the light of the eye witnesses account given by the complainant PW2 & PW4 , shows that all these witnesses have sufficiently corroborated each other.
12. The Ld. defence counsel submits that no witness from the public was called by the police during the course of investigation, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, this submission is itself insufficient to discard the submission of the Ld. defence counsel. It is not the requirement of law that in every investigation, the IO should join the public witnesses, rather IO complied his duty as a police officials, by joining reliable eye witnesses. Thus, the omission of the IO to join the public witnesses has been compensated by his action of joining the complainant i.e. PW2 in the investigation.
Henceforth, the testimonies of PW2 is believable, reliable and sufficiently corroborate each other.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved the offence U/s. 411 of IPC against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is accordingly convicted for the offence.
14. The arguments on the point of sentence shall be heard separately at 4.00 PM today itself.
FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri, State Vs. Deepak Kr. 9/10
15. A copy of this judgment be given to the accused free of cost. Announced in the open court today itself.
(JITENDRA SINGH) MM/NE/KKD/27.02.2013 FIR No. 144/01, PS Gokal Puri, State Vs. Deepak Kr. 10/10