Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that the complainant Sh. Naresh Gola had lodged a complaint with the concerned police station stating therein that on the intervening night of 07­08/11/2000, 05.05.2009 Page 2 of 31 Pages P.S.: Chandni Mahal U/S: 379/411/34 IPC after returning from Hanuman Mandir, Jamuna Bazar on his motor cycle No. DL­2S A 2929 (Model Yamaha, Colour Red), he parked his above stated motorbike outside his house No. 2573, Chowk Prajapati, Shankar Gali, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 06 but when he woke up in the morning of 08.11.2000, he did not find his motor cycle as detailed above at the place where it was parked by him. Further was stated by the complainant in his complaint that when despite rigorous search conducted by him of his motorcycle, he could not trace his motor cycle, he lodged the complaint in question with the concerned P.S. whereupon the present FIR was lodged. It is the case of the prosecution that when the above stated stolen motor cycle could not traced despite diligent efforts of the police, the instant case was closed as "Untraced" on 05.02.2001 and it was only after the recovery of the said stolen motor cycle under Section 102 Cr. P.C. by the officials of the P.S. Hauz Qazi, the instant case was revived on 25.04.2001 wherein H.C. Harbir Singh took the possession of the motor cycle in question from P.S. Hauz Qazi & deposited the same with MHC(M), P.S. 05.05.2009 Page 3 of 31 Pages P.S.: Chandni Mahal U/S: 379/411/34 IPC Chandni Mahal. Thereafter the accused persons, who have been sent for trial herein, were produced before the concerned M.M., P.S. Chandni Mahal on 05.05.2001 in pursuance of the Production Warrants issued by the said concerned M.M., who thereafter on the permission of the court were formally arrested & were interrogated in the court itself.

14. Prosecution had also examined H.C. Yashpal Singh as PW­4 who was posted as a Duty Officer on 08.11.2000 at P.S. Chandni Mahal and who formally proved the FIR in question as PW­4/A.

15. Prosecution also examined H.C. Ram Kumar as PW­5, who deposed that during the investigation of FIR No. 219/01 of P.S. Hauz 05.05.2009 Page 11 of 31 Pages P.S.: Chandni Mahal U/S: 379/411/34 IPC Qazi, accused Naved & Imran had disclosed that accused Kasim would be coming at Kotha No. 50, G.B. Road, Delhi, whereafter the raiding party reached a place near Kotha No. 50, G.B. Road, Delhi. PW­5 further deposed that on 22.04.2001 between 9.00 to 9.30 p.m., accused Kasim was apprehended from G.B. Road at the identification & pointing of accused Naved & Imran, who at that time was riding a motor cycle No. UP­13 E 3767. Accused Kasim when could not gave any satisfactory reply regarding his possession of the said motor cycle, the said motor cycle was seized under Section 102 Cr. P.C. via seizure memo Ex. PW­3/A. PW­5 further deposed that during the investigation, it came to light that real registration number of the said motor cycle was DL­2S A 2929 whereafter Accused Kasim was accordingly arrested. The respective disclosures of all the three accused recorded by the police in FIR No. 219/2000, P.S. Hauz Qazi were proved as PW­5/A, PW­5/B & PW­5/C respectively. The place of theft of the said motorcycle was deposed by PW­5 to had been identified by the accused via memos proved as Ex. PW­5/D­1 to Ex. 05.05.2009 Page 12 of 31 Pages P.S.: Chandni Mahal U/S: 379/411/34 IPC PW­5/D­3. The present witness also identified the motor cycle in question i.e. Ex. P­1 in the court as the case property.

16. PW­6 H.C. Daya Nand had deposed that he is the one who had recorded D.D. No. 23­A, which was proved as Ex. PW­6/A in which document the information regarding recovery of stolen motorcycle in question by the officials of P.S. Hauz Qazi was recorded by him.

17. Prosecution's further witness A.S.I. Ranbir Singh who appeared as PW­7 had deposed that he was posted as MHC (M) at P.S. Hauz Qazi on 22.04.2001 when the entry of deposit of the stolen motor cycle in question seized under Section 102 Cr. P.C. was made by him in register No. 19 at point A, which entry was proved as Ex. PW­7/A. PW­7 further deposed that the motor cycle mentioned at Point A on Ex. PW­ 7/A was recovered under Section 102 Cr. P.C. in FIR No. 219/2000 under Section 379/411/34 IPC by S.I. Manmohan Kumar,which recovery was 05.05.2009 Page 13 of 31 Pages P.S.: Chandni Mahal U/S: 379/411/34 IPC mentioned at entry No. A on Ex. PW­7/C. PW­7 further proved that the stolen motor cycle in question was received by MHC(M) of P.S. Chandni Mahal vide relevant extract mentioned in Ex. PW­7/D.

Moreover the story of recovery of the stolen motorcycle 05.05.2009 Page 21 of 31 Pages P.S.: Chandni Mahal U/S: 379/411/34 IPC alleged to had been effected from Accused Kasim on the basis of the disclosure statement's of accused Naved & Imran in FIR No. 219/2000 of P.S. Hauz Qazi also suffers from various taints & dents. It had been the consistent stand of PW's 3, 5 & 11, who were also the members of the raiding party constituted to nab accused Kasim & the stolen motorcycle after the disclosures of the accused Naved & Imran given in FIR No. 219/2000 of P.S. Hauz Qazi, that accused Naved & Imran had disclosed in their respective disclosure statements that accused Kasim would come on a stolen motor cycle at a place near Kotha No. 50, G.B. Road. Delhi on 22.04.2001. Now in the light of above testimonies, if the disclosure statement's of accused Imran & Naved proved as Ex. PW­5/B & Ex. PW­ 5/C so recorded in FIR No. 219/2000 of P.S. Hauz Qazi are perused, there is not even a word recorded therein being purportedly disclosing therein that accused Imran or Naved had said that accused Kasim would come to G.B. Road on 22.04.2001 with a stolen motor cycle or something like that. Thus it is clear that there is nothing in the said disclosures to 05.05.2009 Page 22 of 31 Pages P.S.: Chandni Mahal U/S: 379/411/34 IPC show that the accused persons Imran or Naved had disclosed before or informed the concerned I.O. of FIR No. 219/2000 of P.S. Hauz Qazi that accused Kasim would arrive along with any stolen motorcycle at G.B. Road on 22.04.2001. The accused Imran & Naved in their disclosure statement's Ex. PW­5/B & Ex. PW­5/C had rather stated that they along with accused Kasim had stolen the motor cycle in question 4­5 months back and nothing else. The said disclosure statement's are totally silent on the aspect that accused Kasim would arrive along with any stolen motorcycle at G.B. Road on 22.04.2001. No amount of evidence has come on record so as to suggest the any other source of information for the members of the raiding party so as to know the stipulated date & place of the arrival of accused Kasim with a stolen motor cycle on 22.04.2001, apart from the said disclosures Ex. PW­5/B & Ex. PW­5/C which disclosures are since redundant. PW­5 went a extend further to exaggerate that the accused Kasim who was involved in the theft of the motor cycle was disclosed to be a regular visitor of Kotha No. 50, G. B. 05.05.2009 Page 23 of 31 Pages P.S.: Chandni Mahal U/S: 379/411/34 IPC Road,Delhi by the remaining accused in their disclosure's but there is no factual information of that sort being visibly recorded in the disclosure statement's Ex. PW­5/B & Ex. PW­5/C respectively of accused Naved & Imran. It would not be incorrect to observe that the contents & information conveyed by the said disclosures of accused Naved & Imran Ex. PW­5/B & Ex. PW­5/C recorded in FIR No. 219/2000, which are so heavily relied by PW­3, PW­5 & PW­11 for substantiating the receipt of information qua the theft of the motorcycle in question by the accused persons & its subsequent dishonest possession by accused Kasim runs contrary to their own testimonies recorded in the court.