01-04 May 2021 : Judgment Writing (Practice)

Frame the charge and write a judgment on the basis of the allegations and evidence given hereunder by analyzing the evidence, keeping in mind the relevant provisions on the concerning law.

Prosecution Case The Prosecution case is that complainant Kuldeepak on 29-08-2007 submitted a written application at city Kotwali in which it is mentioned that he has got a shop of motor parts in the name of Ganga Automobiles situated at Jagatdev Talab. On 24-08-2007 at about 9:00 p.m. he went to his house after closing the shop. On 25-08-2007 at 9:00 a.m. when he opened the shop, he found that the motor parts were scattered. Two crown of GNA Company used in TATA vehicles costing Rs. 7,000 were not found. On the basis of the report the crime No. 587/2007 under sections 457, 380 of IPC was registered. Site map was prepared. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded on 08.09.2007 and pursuant to it two crowns were seized from the house of the accused. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Defence Plea The accused denied the charges and his defence is that he has been falsely implicated.

Evidence for Prosecution The Prosecution examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. Complainant Kuldeepak (PW1) proved the FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged by him. He deposed the fact of breaking the lock of his shop and theft of aforesaid articles therefrom and deposed the fact of identification of articles. Investigating officer (PW2) deposed the fact regarding the memo and seizure of stolen property. Rajaram (PW3) and Gopal (PW4) were examined to prove memo and seizure but they have not supported the prosecution case. They are declared hostile. Nayab Tahsildar (PW5) deposed the fact of identification of articles.

Evidence for Defence Accused examined himself in defence and denied the allegations against him and took a defence of false implication due to enmity.

Arguments of Prosecutor The Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Hence, the accused be convicted and sentenced suitably.

Arguments of Defence Counsel Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the complainant lodged FIR with inordinate delay of 04 days and no reason for delay has been given. The recording of disclosure statement on 08-09-2007 of the accused at Ganga Auto Mobile, is also not true and the police has not seized the stolen articles from his possession. The police has made the concocted story in this regard. The identification of the stolen articles has not been done properly, therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Therefore, accused be acquitted of the charges.