Delhi District Court
State vs Sarvesh Etc. on 16 May, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA,
M.M., KKD COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 65/2000
U/S. 380/411 IPC
P.S. Gokul Puri
State Vs Sarvesh Etc.
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case : 46/2000
b. Date of commission of offence : 12.02.2000
c. Name of the complainant : Rakesh Sirohi
d. Name of the accused, his 1.Sarvesh
parentage and address. S/o Sh. Ram Gopal
R/o Village-Pipri Pura, PS-
Ikdil, Distt.-Itava, U.P.
Present Add.:- Gali no. 9,
Gali No. 9, Govind Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
2. Kanhaiya Lal
S/o Sh. Mangal Sen
R/o Gali No.1, Prem Nagar
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
e. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
f. Offence complained of or proved : 380/411/34 IPC. g. Final order : Convicted h. Date of such order : 16.05.07
I. Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
The above named accused persons were charge sheeted by SHO P.S. Gokul Puri, Delhi with the allegations that a complaint was made on 12.02.2000 by one Sh. Rakesh Sirohi that he runs a factory in the name of Sirohi 1 Engineering Works at Mukhia Market, Karawal Nagar and at about 6 pm he heard some noise, on which he came outside and saw two persons were going out from his factory with two gani bags, on which he started shouting chor-chor and the neighbours caught hold them. On interrogation their names disclosed as Kanhaiya Lal and Sarvesh, in between he made a call on 100 number and he handed over the accused along with two gani bags to police, on checking 84 pieces degchoon bhatti were recovered from the gani bag which was in the hand of Sarvesh, 341 pieces of keys bhatti (stove) were recovered from the possession of accused Kanhaiya. On the basis of this complaint, present case FIR was registered.
The investigation of the case was conducted and during the investigation, site plan was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, both accused were arrested and after completing the other formal investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial.
On appearance of accused copies were supplied as per section 207 CrPC, since prima facie a case U/s. 380/411 IPC was made out against both accused. Accordingly, separate charges were framed, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Statement of accused persons were recorded U/s. 313 CrPC, wherein they claimed themselves innocent, but did not lead any evidence in their defence.
2To substantiate the charge prosecution examined six witnesses in all. PW-1 is HC Satpal, DO, who proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/A, PW2 is Sh. Sardar Singh, the eye witness of the incident, PW3 is Ct. Brij Mohan, who pursuant to DD no. 18 A reached at the spot and got the case FIR registered, PW4 is ASI Suman Lata, who received the call, PW5 is Sh. Rakesh Sirohi i.e. complainant, who proved his complaint as Ex. PW5/A and PW6 is HC Tenjeb Singh, IO, who narrated the steps taken during the investigation and proved various memos prepared by him during the investigation.
I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Defence counsel and perused the record. Ld. defence counsel argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant, in fact that they were employees of complainant.
PW2 and PW5 Rakesh Sirohi i.e. complainant, both are material witnesses. PW2 Sh. Sardar Singh deposed that on 12.2.2000, he was present at his house and at a sudden he heard noise of chor-chor and when he came outside, he saw that two persons were taking some articles, he caught hold them with the help of complainant. PW1 further identified the accused and case property. PW5 Rakesh Sirohi has also deposed that on 12.02.2000, the weather was not good and it was a rainy day and he heard some some noise of movement, on which he came outside and 3 apprehended the accused persons, who were taking away his articles i.e. burners and keys of stove. PW5 further proved his complaint as Ex. PW5/A and identified the accused and case property. In his cross examination he confirmed that he did not know the accused persons prior to the incident and denied the suggestions that accused Sarvesh had worked in his factory and when he stopped coming to his work, he falsely implicated him.
PW3 Ct. Brij Mohan has also corroborated the testimony of public witnesses that on 12.2.2000, pursuant to DD no. 18 A, he along with IO reached at the spot, complainant produced the accused with stolen articles. PW5 also identified the accused and case property. His testimony remained unrebutted despite opportunities given. PW6 HC Tanjeb Singh also deposed in line of PW3 and identified the accused persons and case property. His testimony also remained unrebutted. Ld. Counsel for accused cross examined the complainant and other public witnesses at a length, but nothing came on record, which may diminish evidentry value of their testimony. Their testimony appears to be reliable and trustworthy. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. Both accused persons and case property have been identified by the complainant and other public witnesses.
After going through the testimony of prosecution witnesses and material placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that on 12.02.2000, both accused persons 4 committed theft of burners and keys of Bhatti (Stove) belonging to complainant, as such I held them guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 380 IPC and convict them therein under.
Announced in the open court.
Dated:-16.05.07 (SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA) Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ORDER ON SENTENCE Pr: Ld. APP for state.
Convict Kanhaiya from J/C with LAC.
Convict Sarvesh is present on bail with Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the convicts in respect of question regarding quantum of sentence to be awarded to the convicts.
It is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that as the case of prosecution has been proved against the convicts U/s. 380 IPC, hence, the convicts are not entitled for any leniency rather they deserve for maximum punishment.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for convicts submitted that convicts are first offenders and, if harsh punishment is awarded to the convicts, their entire life shall be ruined. Ld. Counsel for Kanhaiya further submits that he is in J/C 5 for more than 6 months and aged about 30 years and no other case is pending against him. Ld. Counsel for Sarvesh also further submits that convict Sarvesh also remained in J/C for about 20 days and no other case is pending against him and he is aged about 25 years.
Sentencing is a difficult process.
While awarding sentence, a balance is to be maintained between larger interest of society as well as the interest of the individual. In this case, although, the offence committed by the convicts, is not minor one but keeping in view of the entire facts and circumstances and antecedents of the convicts as well as the submissions of the counsels for the convicts, convict Kanhaiya is sentenced RI for the period of 6 months i.e. already undergone, for the offence punishable U/s. 380 IPC. Convict Sarvesh is sentenced RI for the period, to which he had already undergone and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of fine 30 days SI for the offence punishable U/s. 380 IPC. Fine paid. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court.
Dated 16.05. 2007 (SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA) Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
6