Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 379/411 IPC in State vs . Ravinder & Anr. on 20 October, 2009Matching Fragments
2. After the filing of the challan, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Court whereby provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C. were accordingly complied on 13.08.2001. After the compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C., the accused persons were given a hearing whereupon the following charges were framed against the accused persons respectively: A) Accused Ravinder was charged under Section 356 IPC for using criminal force against the complainant on 10.05.2001 while snatching the golden chain being worn by her and also under Section 379 IPC for committing theft of the said golden chain being worn by the complainant on 10.05.2001; and 20.10.2009 Page 3 of 26 of Pages P.S.: Jama Masjid U/s.: 356/379/411 IPC B) Accused Tek Chand was charged under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly retaining the said golden chain belonging to the complainant, despite having reason to believe that the said golden chain was a stolen property.
a) That accused Ravinder had used criminal force against the complainant at 8.45 a.m. on 10.05.2001; and
b) That the accused Ravinder had used the aforesaid criminal force against the complainant in order to commit theft of the golden chain being worn by the complainant on the said date & time.
Next in order to prove the offence under Section 379 IPC 20.10.2009 Page 7 of 26 of Pages P.S.: Jama Masjid U/s.: 356/379/411 IPC against accused Ravinder, the prosecution was required to prove the following beyond reasonable doubt:
Accordingly I hold accused Ravinder guilty for committing the offences U/s 356 IPC and 379 IPC.
20.10.2009 Page 13 of 26 of Pages P.S.: Jama Masjid U/s.: 356/379/411 IPC CHARGES AGAINST ACCUSED TEK CHAND
13. The case set up by the prosecution against accused Tek Chand is that he had received & retained the gold chain Ex. P1 with the knowledge of the same being stolen by accused Ravinder.
Further it is equally pertinent to note that the testimonies of all the prosecution's witnesses including that of PW2, PW5 & PW6 are silent as to when & to whom the said seal was given back by the PW2 or as to what happened to it after the FIR was lodged & the requirement of the said seal was over as far as the instant case is concerned.
20. The aforesaid circumstances clearly shows the loopholes which have brought the prosecution's case alleged against accused Tek Chand for committing the offence Under Section 411 IPC under serious doubt 20.10.2009 Page 23 of 26 of Pages P.S.: Jama Masjid U/s.: 356/379/411 IPC whereby the entire recovery exercise of the police relating to the recovery of the gold chain Ex. P1 from the residence of accused Tek Chand at his own instance seems to be motivated, falsely planted and fabricated.