Delhi High Court
State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Vijay Singh & Anr on 29 January, 2018
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : JANUARY 29, 2018
+ CRL.L.P. 24/2015
STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP.
versus
VIJAY SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition seeking leave to file appeal has been preferred by
the State.
2. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and have examined the Trial Court record.
3. The respondents were charge-sheeted in case FIR No.43/2012
under Sections 379/328/34 IPC registered at Police Station Alipur. The
FIR was lodged on the complaint of the complainant Krishan @
Mukesh for the theft of Truck No.HR-37A-1899. He and his brother
Kaptan Singh were the driver and conductor respectively on the truck. It
was informed that on 03.02.2012 the truck was loaded from Zirakhpur
with 753 boxes of company goods including toothpaste, Dabur honey
and odonil etc. and it was to be unloaded at the godown of Dabur
company situated in village Hamidpur. When the truck reached there at
6.00 p.m., the bills and bilties were handed over to the godown officials
but it could not be unloaded that day. The truck was parked in the
parking area near the godown. When the complainant and his brother
were sleeping in the cabin of the truck, three boys came around 10/11
p.m.; they all consumed liquor. Thereafter, the complainant and his
brother started feeling intoxicated and the three assailants took the truck
loaded with the goods and they were thrown near a tubewell in
unconscious state. In the morning, tubewell owner informed the PCR
and they were taken to hospital.
4. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against both the respondents in the court. The prosecution in order to
prove its case examined 17 witnesses. The respondents denied their
involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial court
by the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2014 acquitted both the
respondents as the evidence led by the prosecution was insufficient.
Aggrieved by the said orders, the present leave petition has been
preferred by the State.
5. On perusal of the impugned judgment it reveals that the trial
court has discussed all the relevant aspects. The trial court noted that
there were major discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of
both PW-5 (Krishan @ Mukesh) and PW-10 (Kaptan Singh). It was
also noted that the material prosecution witnesses PW-5 and PW-10
have made vital improvements in their deposition before the court.
Their statements were entirely inconsistent and conflicting to the facts
disclosed to the police at first instance. No injuries were found on the
body of the victims though allegedly the assailants had given beatings
to them. There were serious discrepancies regarding the identification
of the accused persons. It was observed that the accused persons were
apprehended in some other case vide FIR No.96/2012 registered at
Police Station Shahbad Dairy. They were arrested in this case after a
considerable delay. Statements of the witnesses were recorded after
inordinate delay without any plausible reason. The prosecution was
unable to recover any stolen article from the possession of the accused
persons or at their instance. The story presented by the complainant
does not appeal to mind. They had no occasion to have consumed liquor
with the strangers in the truck cabin. In the MLC nothing was found if
the victims had consumed liquor, as urged.
6. Since there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the
prosecution witnesses, the trial court did not commit any error to give
benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The judgment based upon fair
appreciation of evidences does not deserve any intervention to grant
leave to the State to file appeal.
7. The leave petition is dismissed.
8. Trial court record along with the copy of the order shall be sent
back forthwith.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 29, 2018/sa
