BHAGIRATH Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 11.4.2005, an information was received by the Police Control Room (PCR) with respect to some thieves having entered the house number A -14/110, Choti Masjid, Inderlok. The information was conveyed by PCR to Police Post Inderlok where it was recorded vide DD No.27 and the copy of the said DD was given to SI Sanjay Bhardwaj for investigation. The aforesaid police officer reached the house number A -14/106 -B, Inderlok. The complainant Mrs. Rubina met him there and her statement was recorded by him. Ms. Rubina told him that on that day, she was present in her house with her family member, when three boys entered their house at about 8.45 pm. On entering the house, they took out knives, asked her for the keys of the alimirah and after taking the keys from her. The intruders made them enter the kitchen which they bolted from outside. The lights of the house were switched off by them. After some time, her nephew Wasim came out through a small window opening in the kitchen and called up her nephew Naved who thereupon came to their house and de -bolted the kitchen. One blue colour bag containing Rs.8500/ - in cash, voter I -card, electricity receipts etc were stolen from the house besides articles of gold jewellary weighing about 8 -10 tolas.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is htat on 14.4.2005, the appellant ­ Bhagirath was arrested and during the course of investigation, he made a disclosure statement stating therein that the knife and stolen bag had been kept at Tulsi Nagar behind a garbage dump (Khatta) which he could get recovered. This is also the case of the prosecution that thereafter the appellant ­ Bhagirath took the investigating officer to Tulsi Nagar, Nala Road and took out a knife and a blue colour bag which had been kept under a brick adjoining the wall of the said dumping ground (khatta). The blue bag which the appellant produced contained the voter I -card of the complainant, besides three electricity bills in the name of Mohd. Kasim, which were duly seized, after duly sealing them. During the course of investigation, the appellant refused to join Test Identification Parade (TIP) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 3.5.2005 on the ground that he had been shown to the witnesses in the police station and the police officials had also taken his photograph.

(3.) PW 2 ­ Ms. Rabia is the daughter of PW1. In her deposition, she stated that on the fateful day, one or two persons entered the backside of their room. One of them was having a big knife with him and they were taken to kitchen which was bolted from outside. She further stated that those persons first demanded the keys of almirah from her mother and thereafter they were locked in the kitchen. She also stated that after some time they sent Wasim outside though the window and he brought a mobile phone to the kitchen from where he telephoned the in -laws of her sister and Naved reached their house and opened the door. This witness was also unable to identify any of the intruders, but was able to identify the bag Ex.P1, election I -card Ex.P2 as well as the electricity bills Ex.P3 (colly) though she could not say whether the aforesaid articles were stolen from their house by the accused persons.