Delhi District Court
State vs Girish Kumar on 29 September, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI : M.M.
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
STATE V. GIRISH KUMAR
FIR NO. 238/1999
P.S. NEW ASHOK NAGAR
U/S 392/411 INDIAN PENAL CODE
JUDGMENT
a. The serial no. of the case : 387/03
b. Date of Institution of the case : 25/7/2000
c. The date of commission of the : 6/11/1999
offence
d. The name of the complainant : Sh. Ayodhya Thakur
e. The name of the accused, his : Girish Kumar s/o Fathy Singh
parentage and address r/o C-2/389, New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi.
f. The offence complained of : 392/411 Indian Penal Code
g. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h. The final orders : Convicted U/S 392 Indian Penal
Code
i. Final arguments heard : 19/9/07
j. The date of order : 29/9/07
A brief statement of the reasons for decision :
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6/11/99, at 4.30 a.m. at main road opposite house no.355/B, C block, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, the accused had committed theft of a stereo make Nicon Model no.KL-303 from Maruti car Page 1 of 7 no.DL-3CN-3583 belonging to one Jai Prakash and while the accused was running with the abovesaid stolen stereo the accused had bitten on the left shoulder of one Ayodhya Thakur who had tried to apprehend the accused and the stolen stereo as stated was recovered from the possession of accused and the accused thereby committed an offence punishable under section 392/411 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and within my cognizance. Accordingly, charge sheet against accused U/S 392/411 IPC was filed. The accused was supplied documents in terms of section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr. P.C.).
2. The charge against the accused was framed vide order dated 17/11/2000. After framing of charge, the prosecution was directed to lead its evidence. In order to prove its case prosecution examined PW1 HC Chaman Singh, PW2 Dr. A. K. Kulshreshta, PW3 HC Santra, PW4 Ayodhya Thakur, PW5 Jai Prakash , PW6 Murari Lal, PW7 Dr. Vijay Sharma, PW8 Ct. Shamsher Singh, PW9 HC Dayanand, PW10 HC Pratap Singh and PW11 Ct. Abhey Kumar.
HC Chaman Singh during his testimony proved copy of FIR bearing No.238/99 as Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B. PW4 Sh. Ayodhya Thakur proved his statement given to police as Ex.PW4/A, seizure memo of car stereo as Ex.PW4/B, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW4/C. The case property i.e car stereo is Ex.P1. PW5 Jai Prakash proved superdiginama as Ex.PW5/A. PW7 Dr. Vijay Sharma proved the MLC Page 2 of 7 No.7749/99 of injured Ayodhya Thakur as Ex.PW7/A. PW8 Shamsher during his testimony proved disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW8/A. PW9 HC Dayanand IO of the case proved site plan as Ex.PW9/A.
3. Statement of accused Girish Kumar under section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded in which all incriminating evidence was put to him. The same were controverted and denied by the accused. Accused pleaded his innocence. He stated that he was in inebriated condition and he only touched against the Maruti car and he was apprehended by the public persons and falsely implicated in the present case. Accused denied to lead defence evidence. According, defence evidence was closed.
4. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Sh. Jitendra Sharma, learned APP for State and counsel for accused and gone through the entire material available on record.
5. PW1 HC Chaman Singh, duty officer, PW2 Dr. A. K. Kulshreshta, PW3 HC Santra, PW7 Dr. Vijay Sharma, PW8 Ct. Shamsher Singh, PW9 HC Dayanand, PW10 HC Patap Singh and PW11 Ct. Abhey Kumar are formal witnesses of the prosecution. PW4 Sh. Ayodhya Thakur is an eye witness of the incident and material witness of the prosecution. PW5 Sh. Jai Prakash and PW6 Murari Lal are public witnesses in this case. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of complaint of the complainant Sh. Ayodhya Thakur. PW4 Sh. Page 3 of 7 Ayodhya Thakur deposed that on the fateful day on 6/11/99 at about 4.30 a.m. he came out of his house for bathroom and he saw that one person was coming out from the maruti car no. DL-3CN-3583 belonging to his neighbour Jai Prakiash Sharma. According to him on seeing him, he ran over and at that time, he was having a stereo in his right hand. He further deposed that he raised an alarm "Chor Chor" and chased him. He overpowered him after chasing about 20 steps. The accused bit at his right shoulder with his teeth. In the meanwhile Jai prakash, his brother and five seven neighbours also came out. He further deposed that he handed over accused alongwith car stereo to the police. He during his testimony proved his statement given to police as Ex.PW4/A. The witness further deposed that he also pointed out the place of occurrence to the police. According to the witness, the recovered car stereo was also taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B in his presence. The witness correctly identified the accused and the case property in the court.
6. The prosecution witnesses Sh. Jai Prakash and Sh. Murari Lal have corroborated the testimony of complainant Ayodhya Thakur. They deposed that on 6/11/99 at about 4.30 a.m. they heard some noise and thereafter they came out from their house on the road. They saw that the accused was apprehended by his neighbour Ayodhya Thakur alongwith the car stereo. PW5 Sh. Jai Prakash deposed that the car stereo which was recovered from the possession of accused was installed in his Maruti car bearing no. DL-3CN-3583 and the said car was parked in front of his house. According to both the witnesses, accused had bitten Page 4 of 7 the right shoulder of Ayodhya Thakur to flee from the spot. Both the witnesses further deposed that on reaching the police, they handed over accused alongwith the car stereo to them.
7. Thus it is clear from the testimony of complainant Ayodhya Thakur that accused was apprehended immediately after stealing the car stereo. He himself saw the accused coming out of Maruti car alongwith car stereo. He himself has overpowered the accused after chasing him. He is a natural witness of the incident. The said fact has been corroborated by other public witnesses namely Jai Prakash and Murari Lal. According to section 114 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 "the court may presume 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".
8. In the instant case the car setero of PW5 Sh. Jai Prakash was stolen from his Maruti car. The accused was immediately apprehended by complainant Ayodhya Thakur alongwith the car stereo. In these circumstances this court presumes that the accused committed theft of the car stereo from the Maruti car of Jai Prakash.
9. In order to carry away the stolen car stereo, the accused voluntarily bit on the shoulder of complainant Ayodhya Thakur. The complainant was Page 5 of 7 medically examined by PW7 Dr. Vijay Sharma. Dr. Vijay Sharma proved the MLC no.7749/99 of injured Ayodhya Thakur. The same is Ex.PW7/A. The doctor has opined the injury as 'simple'.
10. Thus is it has been proved on record that accused in order to carry away the stolen car stereo caused hurt to complainant Ayodhya Thakur and thereby he committed an offence of robbery and the same is punishable under section 392 IPC.
11. The complainant Ayodhya Thakur is an independent witness of the prosecution. Other witness namely Jai Prakash and Murari Lal are public witnesses who came to the spot on hearing the noise of the complainant. They are trustworthy and reliable witnesses. They have no grudge or any sort of enmity or ill will against the accused. There is no reason to descard their testimony. All the three public witnesses have corroborated each other on all material particulars. In these circumstances, there is no reason to doubt about their testimony. They are truthful and credible witnesses.
12. In his defence accused stated that he was in inebriated condition and he only touched against one Maruti car and was apprehended by the public persons and falsely implicated in the present case. Perusal of record shows that the accused was taken to SDN hospital, Shahdara on the date of incident i.e. on 6/11/99 itself and medically examined by Dr. Vijay Sharma. In his MLC Page 6 of 7 No.7748/99 doctor nowhere has opined that the accused was in a drunken condition rather the doctor has opined that he was conscious , oriented and he was fit for statement. Thus the plea of accused has been falsified by his medical examination report. Accused has failed to bring anything on record to show as to why he was standing near the Maruti car and touched it. He has further failed to show as to what grudge or enmity public persons had with him for his false implication. Thus there is no merit in the defence taken by the accused.
13. For the foregoing reasons , I am of the considered view that prosecution has proved that accused Girish Kumar committed theft of car stereo from the Maruti car bearing DL-3CN-3583 belonging to Sh. Jai Prakash and in order to run away with the stolen stereo he had bitten on the shoulder of complainant Ayodhya Thakur. The prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is convicted for committing the offence punishable under section 392 IPC. Announced in the open Court on 29th day of September, 2007 (Raj Kumar Tripathi) Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts: Delhi Page 7 of 7