Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Mohd. Musa - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 271 of 2017
Decided On : 08-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Roshan Lal Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ravi Nayak, APP.

The court upheld the conviction under Section 413 of the IPC based on the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and recovery memos, and established the appellant's habitual offender status.

Headnote:
THEFT - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 413 - Summary: The appellant was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC. The case involved the theft of a motorcycle and the recovery of stolen vehicles and parts from the appellant's premises. The court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and recovery memos.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC. The case involved the theft of a motorcycle and the recovery of stolen vehicles and parts from the appellant's premises.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and recovery memos.
Issues: Delay in FIR registration, false implication, recovery from appellant's residence, ownership of stolen vehicle, habitual offender status
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in FIR registration was adequately explained by the complainant. The lack of keys for recovered vehicles did not raise doubts. The absence of independent witnesses in recovery proceedings did not invalidate the evidence. The appellant's claim of false implication lacked substance. The prosecution established the ownership of the stolen vehicle and the appellant's residence. The appellant's habitual offender status was supported by evidence from the SCRB Report and previous case orders.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction under Section 413 of the IPC was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 21.01.2017, whereby the Ld. ASJ, Karkardooma Courts has convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’). By an order dated 28.01.2017, which is also impugned in this appeal, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of seven years along with a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 05.04.2006, one Riyaz Mohammed (the complainant) lodged an E-FIR no. 10208/16, under Section 379 of the IPC regarding theft of his motorcycle (bearing no. DL-8SA-Z-7225). On 14.04.2016, Special Staff, North East apprehended the appellant with stolen vehicles and lodged DD no. 70B regarding the recovery of chassis bearing no. 18145 (which pertained to the aforesaid motorcycle) from the premises of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and sent to judicial custody. He was arrested in the present case from the concerned court, where he was produced on a production warrant, on the allegation that he had been habitually dealing in stolen property and there were a number of cases lodged against him. Further, at his instance, a number of parts of stolen vehicles were also recovered from his premises including the chassis and number plate of the aforesaid motorcycle.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the accused was charged with commission of the offences punishable under Sections 379/411/413 of the IPC. He pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses.

4. It is the prosecution’s case that the appellant was apprehended on 12.04.2016 at about 5:00 pm, by police officials, who were deployed at 66 Foota Road, new MCD Court, C Block, Yamuna Vihar, as he was found riding a stolen motorcycle (Bajaj Avenger). He did not have the Registration Certificate for the said vehicle and on verification from the control room, it was confirmed that the said motorcycle was stolen. According to the prosecution, the appellant made a disclosure and at his instance, chassis and parts of several two-wheelers were recovered from his premises. This included the chassis of the stolen vehicle as reported in E-FIR no. 10208/16.

5. SI Shahid Ali was examined as PW-4. He correctly identified the appellant in open court. He stated that on 12.04.2016, at about 5:00 pm, he along with ASI Rakesh, HC Sunil, HC Vinay, HC Pramod, Ct. Bhullan Tyagi, Ct. Braham Pal, were checking vehicles at 66, Foota Road, near MCD Court, C Block, Yamuna Vihar. At about 5:30 pm, the appellant, driving an Avenger Bajaj bearing registration No. DL 6S AR 2221, was stopped and checked at the vehicle checking spot by them. He stated that he could not produce any document pertaining to his motorcycle or his Driving License. Thereafter, he checked the chassis number and engine number and the same were not found to be correct. He stated that the appellant had disclosed that about a week prior to that date, he had stolen the aforesaid motorcycle from the area of Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara. He stated that he verified the same from the control room by using Zipnet and found that the same was reported stolen and an E-FIR in that regard was lodged. Thereafter, the aforesaid motorcycle was seized under Section 102 of the Cr.PC. On being interrogated, the appellant disclosed his involvement in several cases along with his associate Sabir @ Kabootar. The appellant disclosed that Sabir used to sell stolen motorcycles to him. Further, he disclosed that some stolen two-wheelers and parts of two wheelers could be recovered from his house, that is, H. No. 1009, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded (Ex-PW4/A). Thereafter, at about 7 pm, he along with other police