IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI In Re: STATE VERSUS ARJUN @ RAJU F.I.R. No: 123/10 U/[SECTION] [ACT] P.S. Lodhi Colony Date of Institution of Case : 19.10.2010 Judgment Reserved for : 03.05.2011 Date of Judgment : 03.05.2011 JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 149/1/10 (b) The date of commission of offence : 26.08.2010 (c) The name of complainant : Smt. [ENTITY] w/o Sh. [ENTITY], r/o 5134/131, Harijan Camp, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. (d) The name, parentage, of accused : [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY], r/o [ENTITY] near flyover, Nizamuddin, New Delhi. Present Address : As above (e) The offence complained of : U/[SECTION] [ACT] (f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) The final order : Convicted (h) The date of such order : 03.05.2011 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 26.08.2010 between 12.30 am to 01.00 am at [ENTITY] no. 134/31, Mehar Chand Market, Lodhi Colony Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Lodhi Colony, accused [ENTITY] committed theft of Rs. 6,000/ belonging to complainant [ENTITY] and thus thereby the accused committed offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT].
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of [SECTION] [ACT] accused was supplied the documents. Thereafter vide order dated 12.11.2010, charge u/[SECTION] and in the alternative U/[SECTION] [ACT] was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined seven witnesses.
A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
4. PW1 Ct. [ENTITY] deposed that on 26.08.10 at about 01.30 am., on receipt of information he went to [ENTITY] H 134/31 Mehar Chand Colony where SI [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were already present and public was gathered and accused was already apprehended. He deposed that the accused disclosed his name as [ENTITY] and he further disclosed that he had committed theft of Rs 53000/ and mobile phone make Samsung from the jhuggi of [ENTITY]. He further deposed that he had committed a theft of Rs 6000/ from the jhuggi of Nita. He deposed that the accused persons pointed out both the place of occurrence from where he had committed the theft. He deposed that IO recorded statement of the complainants. He deposed that he took the rukka and got registered case FIR No. 122/10 and 123/10, site plan Ex PW 1/A and 1/B were prepared. He deposed that the disclosure statement i.e. Ex PW 1/C and 1/D pointing out memos i.e. PW1/E and 1/F, seizure memo of currency notes is 1/G. Seizure memo of mobile phone is Ex PW 1/H arrest memo of accused is Ex PW 1/I and personal search memo is Ex PW 1/J. This witness further identified the case property as Ex P1 collectively.
During his cross examination he stated that he immediately after receiving the information reached to the spot. He stated that he does not remember who handed over the rukka to him. He stated that he does not remember when he came back to the spot after registration of FIR and he cannot say who had taken the personal search of accused and at what time. He admitted that the recovery was not effected in his presence. He voluntarily stated that it was already effected. He stated that he remained at the spot till 03.00 am. He stated that only PSI [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were present at the spot. He stated that he cannot say the statement of any public person was recorded in front of him. He denied the suggestion that nothing had happened in the manner he stated in examination in chief. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused or that no disclosure statement was given by the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
5. PW2 [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] deposed that on the night of 26.08.2008 theft in respect of Rs. 10,000/, one golden chain and two pairs of golden tops, mangalsutra etc. was committed while he was in sleep. He deposed that when he woke up he found things were scattered in his jhuggi and he raised alarm and the neighbours suggested him to report to the matter at PS. He deposed that he reported the matter vide his complaint Ex PW 2/A. He deposed that police had seen the spot of occurrence. He deposed that he had seen the thief already apprehended by some other person who runs a chicken shop and theft was committed in a house also. He deposed that the currency notes of Rs 6,000/ was released to him on superdari vide superdginama Ex PW 2/B. He deposed that the photocopies of the currency notes released to him on superdari are Ex P2 collectively.
During his cross examination he stated that he cannot tell the exact time when he visited the PS however, it was morning hours. He stated that he cannot tell the exact time when the police was reached and the number of the papers whereupon the thumb impression was taken by him. He denied the suggestion that nothing had happened in the manner as he stated in his examination in chief. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW 3 [ENTITY] deposed that on 26.8.2010 at about 1.30/2 pm he was present at his jhuggi and had came out for vaju. He deposed that he saw the accused who was coming out from his jhuggi and he caught him red handed and Rs.59,000/ and a mobile phone was recovered. He deposed that Rs. 53,000/ and mobile phone belonged to him whereas Rs. 6000/ belong to one lady [ENTITY], who used to reside in the near vicinity. He deposed that he raised alarm and persons gathered there. He deposed that his younger brother [ENTITY] also came and police was called. He deposed that police recorded his statement vide Ex.PW3/A and prepared the documents, which he signed. He deposed that Rs. 53000 and his mobile phone were released to him on superdarinama vide Ex. PW3/B. He deposed that he had brought the mobile phone i.e. Ex. P3. He deposed that the copies of currency note is Ex. P1 collectively. He deposed that the photocopy of currency notes belonged to him. He deposed that the name of accused was revealed as [ENTITY].
During his cross examination he stated that his brother made the complaint before the police by going to PS and police came at the spot at 2.30 am. He stated that one [ENTITY] along with some other police official came at the spot and remained there for about15 minutes, arrested the accused and gone back to PS. He stated that he had signed the complaint at PS and there were 23 papers and he had signed as per instructions of police and all documents were prepared at PS. He stated that he remained at PS for about 1 & hrs. He stated that police recorded his statement and his brother's at PS. He stated that at first instance they all apprehended the accused. He stated that he cannot tell the name of the persons who gathered at the spot except his brother. He stated that his brother had taken the search of the accused but he cannot tell from which pocket the currency notes were recovered but the same were recovered from the pocket of trousers. He stated that at the time of recovery of the currency notes from the accused, same were wrapped in a polythene. He stated that he had stated to the police that currency notes were recovered by his brother. He admitted that the police had not recorded this fact that the recovery was made by his brother. He stated that the currency notes were in denomination of Rs.1000/, 500 and 100. He stated that there were 7 notes of 1000 denomination and he cannot tell the number of other currency notes. He stated that he had brought the mobile phone and the same was shown to Ld. LAC. He stated that he had submitted the bill to the police during the course of investigation and same were mark DA. He stated that he does not remember the date of handing over the bill of mobile phone to the police. He stated that he never joined the investigation of this case after 26.8.10. He denied the suggestion that nothing had happened in the manner he stated. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or nothing was recovered from the accused.
7. PW 4 ASI [ENTITY] deposed that on 26.08.2010 he was posted at PS Lodhi Colony as DO and he recorded the case [CASE NUMBER]. He deposed that he had brought the original [CASE NUMBER] as Ex.PW4/A and he endorsed the rukka vide EX.PW4/B.
8. PW 5 [ENTITY] deposed that on 26.08.2010 he was posted at PS Lodhi Colony and on that day he joined the investigation of the present case along with IO SI [ENTITY] at [ENTITY] Mehar Chand Market S 134/105 and public persons were gathered and accused (correctly identified) was apprehended. He deposed that accused was interrogated by the IO. He deposed that on search Rs. 59, 000/ and one mobile make Samsung were recovered from the possession of the accused. He deposed that the said stolen properties were seized by the IO. He deposed that the statement of Pws and the complainant was recorded. He deposed that he took the rukka and got registered the case FIR No. 122/10 and second IO [ENTITY] along with [ENTITY] joined the case FIR No.123/10. He deposed that there were nine currency notes of 1000 denomination 98 currency notes of Rs. 500 denomination and 10 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination.
9. PW 6 SI [ENTITY] deposed that on 26.08.2010 he was posted at PS Lodhi Colony and on that day on receipt of DD No. 24 A he along with [ENTITY] went to [ENTITY] no. S 134/105 Harijan Camp Mehar Chand Market where public persons were gathered and accused (correctly identified) was already apprehended by the public persons. He deposed that the accused was interrogated by him. He deposed that on search Rs. 59, 000/ and one mobile make Samsung were recovered from the possession of the accused. He deposed that the said stolen properties were seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/G & Ex.PW4/H. He deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant [ENTITY] and made endorsement i.e Ex.PW6/A thereupon, accused made disclosure statement i.e. Ex.PW1/C wherein he disclosed that he had also committed theft of Rs. 6,000/ from house of one [ENTITY] and Rs. 53,000/ from the jhuggi of [ENTITY]. He deposed that he got registered the case FIR No. 122/10 through [ENTITY]. He deposed that he prepared the site plan i.e. Ex.PW1/A, copy of the DD No. 24 A is Ex.PW6/B, arrest memo i.e. Ex.PW1/I and personal search memo of accused i.e. Ex.PW1/J. He deposed that second IO [ENTITY] along with [ENTITY] joined the case FIR No.123/10. He deposed that there were nine currency notes of 1000 denomination 98 currency notes of Rs. 500 denomination and 10 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination.
10. PW 7 [ENTITY] deposed that in the intervening night of 25/26.08.2010, an information was received from PS Lodhi Colony that some public persons had gathered in jhuggi and accused was apprehended. He deposed that he along with [ENTITY] reached at the spot i.e. [ENTITY] and many persons were gathered in front of [ENTITY] no. 105. He deposed that SI [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were also present there. He deposed that one accused was apprehended and public persons informed them that the accused had stolen Rs. 53,000/ and one mobile phone make Samsung and he was apprehended while trying to flee away from the spot and during interrogation, accused [ENTITY] (correctly identified) disclosed that he had also stolen some money from another jhuggi. He deposed that accused led them to jhuggi no. 131 owned by Smt. [ENTITY] and disclosed that stolen money which was kept under the mattress. He deposed that on checking, Rs. 6,000/ were not found there. He deposed that the statement of complaint of Smt. [ENTITY] was recorded i.e. Ex.PW2/A. He deposed that during formal search of the accused, total Rs. 59,000/ were recovered. He deposed that the rukka was prepared vide Ex.PW7/A and present case FIR was registered. He deposed that during investigation, site plan was prepared vide Ex.PW1/A, pointing out memo was prepared vide Ex.PW1/E and disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.PW1/D. He deposed that Rs. 6,000/ which were recovered in the present case FIR were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G and accused [ENTITY] was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/B. He deposed that the statement of the witnesses were recorded.
He further deposed that on 27.08.2010 complainant Smt. [ENTITY] came to PS and revealed that some jewellery items were also stolen from her jhuggi and her statement u/[SECTION] [ACT] was recorded. He deposed that no other articles except Rs. 6,000/ were recovered in the present case FIR. He deposed that on 04.09.2010, case property i.e Rs. 6,000/ were released on superdari to the complainant by the order of the Hon'ble Court. He deposed that the photocopies of the currency notes was placed on the record and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed before the Hon'ble Court.
During his cross examination he stated that he received the information at about 1.30 am and he reached the spot within 12 minutes of receipt of information. He stated that around 1516 persons were present at the spot and accused was apprehended by them. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from the possession of the accused. He voluntarily stated that SI [ENTITY] was already present at the spot and he conducted the formal search of accused and formal search was conducted in his presence. He stated that at the time when the money was seized Rs. 6,000/ were lying in a separate pullanda in a polythene bag and the accused disclosed that he had committed theft at one another place and the amount of Rs. 6,000/ was the booty of that theft. He stated that the denomination of the money was as 9 currency notes of thousand, 98 currency notes of five hundred and 10 currency notes of hundred rupees. He stated that the separate pullanda (Rs. 6,000/) was having the denomination of 12 currency notes of five hundred. He state that they remained at the spot till about 7.30 am. He admitted that the site plan does not bears signatures of any public witness and the rukka is not in his hand writing. He stated that it was wrote by Ct. [ENTITY] on his instruction. He stated that the recovery was effected from the pant of the accused. He stated that he recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused. He admitted that the place of occurrence was a crowded place. He admitted that apart from the complainant, he had not cited any public person as a witness. He denied the suggestion that theft was done by someone else who was being released by the police. He denied the suggestion that he was depositing falsely or that the recovery was planted upon the accused as the accused is a smack addict. He denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by the accused or that all the proceedings were done at the PS.
11. This so far as the prosecution witnesses in the matter is concerned.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the learned Defence counsel as also learned APP, carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and perused the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
13. After hearing the rival contentions raised at bar as well as on careful scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt against the accused.
14. Before proceeding further it would be worth while to highlight at this stage that accused [ENTITY] was arrested in case FIR no.122/10 PS Defence Colony and he has been convicted U/[SECTION] [ACT] in the said matter. The prosecution witnesses and the evidence as lead by the prosecution is same as in that matter. It was complainant [ENTITY] (of FIR No.122/10) who along with his brother [ENTITY] had apprehended the accused. At the time when the accused was apprehended, Rs.59,000 and one mobile phone was recovered from him and then the matter was reported to the police and during the course of investigation and disclosure statement by the accused it was revealed that the sum of Rs.6,000/ belonged to Smt. [ENTITY] i.e. the complainant in the present FIR.
15. It stands proved from the deposition of PW3 [ENTITY] that on 26.08.2010 at about 1.30/2.00 am the accused was caught red handed by him while he was trying to flee away after committing theft of Rs.53,000/ and a mobile phone belonging to him.
This witness proved that on the above said time date and place he came out of his jhuggi to ease himself when he saw that the accused was trying to flee away. He raised an alarm, apprehended the accused and Rs. 59,000/ along with a mobile phone were recovered from him. Rs. 53,000/ belonged to him and Rs.6,000/ were of another lady [ENTITY]. He proved that police came at the spot and recorded his statement and arrested the accused. This witness proved his statement Ex. PW3/A which formed the basis of the present FIR/prosecution. He also identified the case property during the trial as Ex. P1 to Ex. P3.
16. The deposition of this witness was duly corroborated by complainant [ENTITY] (PW2). She proved that on the day of incident as discussed above when she woke up she found things in her jhuggi were in scattered condition and she raised alarm and on suggestion of the neighbors she reported the matter to the police vide her complaint Ex.PW2/A. She proved that at the same time she saw the accused was already apprehended by public persons and an amount of Rs. 6,000/ which belonged to her was recovered from the possession of the accused. She correctly identified the accused as the same person as was apprehended by the public that day.
17. PW6 SI [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] (PW1) lend further corroboration to the prosecution story. Both of them proved that on receipt of information vide DD no.24 A they reached at the spot i.e. [ENTITY] no.S134/105, Harijan Camp, Meher Chand Market. At that place, accused was apprehended by the public persons and amount of Rs.59,000/ along with a mobile phone were recovered from him. They proved that the stolen money and the mobile phone were seized vide Ex. PW1/G & PW4/H and on the basis of statement of complainant [ENTITY] which was endorsed as Ex. PW6/A the present FIR was got registered at PS Lodhi Colony.
18. The site plan of the spot, arrest of the accused, his disclosure statement and his personal search were proved vide documents Ex. PW1/A, PW1/C, PW1/I and PW1/J respectively.
19. PW7 [ENTITY] and PW 5 [ENTITY] duly corroborated the testmony of the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses.
20. FIR was proved by ASI [ENTITY] as PW4/A.
21. The prosecution story is absolutely consistent as to the apprehension of the accused, receipt of the information at PS, statement of the complainant, arrest of the accused and deposit of the case property at Malkhana. It is an absolutely flawless story which inspires confidence.
22. During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence counsel vehemently argued that the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant and the IO and in fact the accused never committed the alleged theft and that recovery if any has been planted upon the accused. It was also submitted that the prosecution story suffers from various loopholes viz. that the police officials failed to join any independent witness apart from the complainant during the entire investigation/seizure proceeding. It was argued that as per the claims of complainant PW3 the stolen money was recovered by his young brother [ENTITY] however the other prosecution witnesses i.e. the police officials claimed that the amount was recovered by them during the personal search of the accused. None the less the said brother of the complainant namely [ENTITY] was never cited as a witness by the prosecution. Furthermore, PW3 claimed that at the time of recovery the currency notes were wrapped in a polythene. On the other hand PW5 & PW6 claimed that the currency notes (stolen property) at the time of recovery were wrapped in a handkerchief. It was also argued that the complainant failed to prove the ownership of the mobile phone in question hence, it was not proved that the mobile phone belonged to him. It was also argued that if PW2 is to be believed then on 26.08.2010 theft in respect of Rs.10,000/ one golden chain and two pairs of golden tops, mangalsutra etc. belonging to her took place but as per admitted case of prosecution only Rs.6,000/ were recovered. The accused was as per prosecution story caught red handed at the spot. In that case, there was no reason why all the above mentioned articles would not have been recovered from the accused. The fact that they were not recovered shows that the prosecution story is absolutely false one and devoid of merits.
23. However, I do not agree with either contentions of the Ld. Defence counsel.
24. Firstly, I find no reasons as to why the complainant or the police officials would falsely implicate the accused there being no previous rivalry/enmity against them. In fact, there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused was known to the complainant or the police officials prior to incident/recovery dated 26.08.2010. The defence has failed to prove on record any motive which could be assigned to the complainant for falsely implicating the accused.
25. Just because no independent witness from the locality was joined by the police it cannot be held that the prosecution story is unreliable or false. The law is now fairly well settled that there is no requirement to associate independent witnesses and merely because independent public witness have not been joined, the police official are not to be believed. It is the quality of the evidence that matters and not the quantity.
26. Under the [ACT] no specific number of witnesses are required to prove a fact and a fact can be proved even by one witness whether he is official or independent public witness depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Law requires that evidence has to be weighed and not counted (Ambika Prasad and Ano. Vs [ENTITY] 2002 (2) CRIMES 63 (SC) and (Krishna Mochi and others Vs. [ENTITY] of Bihar, (2002) 6SCC 81). Reliance can also be placed upon Bachan Singh v. [ENTITY] of Punjab, (P&H) 1995(2) wherein it was [CASE NUMBER] observed that there is no rule of law making it obligatory for the prosecution to examine witnesses of public as independent witnesses to corroborate the statements of the police witnesses. The statements of the police witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are the police officials. There is no blanket bar upon the reliance and credibility of the witnesses belonging to the police department. The [ACT] does not lay down about any number of witnesses needed for proving a particular fact.The view has been echoed in Vadivelu Thevar v. The [ENTITY] of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , Guli Chand and others v. [ENTITY] of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 276, Vahula Bhushan @ Vehuna Krishnan v. [ENTITY] of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1989 SC 236, Jagdish Prasad and others v. [ENTITY] of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1251, and Kartik Malhar v. [ENTITY] of Bihar, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 308 (SC) : 1996(1) SCC 614, Namdeo v. [ENTITY] of Maharashtra, (SC) 2007(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 893 and Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. [ENTITY] of Maharashtra, (1973)2 SCC 793.
27. Further it was observed in Jawahar v. [ENTITY], (Delhi) 2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 336 that Nonassociation of public witness at the time of recovery is Not an infirmity sufficient to throw out the case of prosecution. It was held : (1) It is very hard these days to get association of public witnesses in crimi nal investigation.
(2) Normally, nobody from public is prepared to suffer any inconvenience for the sake of society.
(3) Police cannot be blamed for not associating public witness. (4) There is no presumption that the police witnesses are not credible wit nesses.
(5) Police witnesses are equally good witnesses and equally bad witnesses as any other witness and the testimony of police witnesses cannot be re jected on the ground that they are official witnesses. ([ENTITY] of UP vs. Anil Singh AIR 1998, Appa Bhai vs. [ENTITY] of Gujrat AIR 1988 SC 696 and Sukhdev Yadav vs. [ENTITY] of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 86).
28. No doubt, [ENTITY] i.e. brother of complainant [ENTITY] (PW3) was a material witness and his exclusion is unjustified. However, as dis cussed above the deposition of complainant [ENTITY] (PW3) is itself suf ficient to nail the accused. His deposition inspires confidence and it with stood the grilling crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel. None the less his deposition was duly corroborated by Smt. [ENTITY] (PW2) and other prosecution witnesses. I have no reason to disbelieve him. Mere omission to include/join [ENTITY] in the investigation cannot form of ground of ac quittal. Why should an accused go scott free or the complainant be disbe lieved for defective/faulty/negligent investigation (Balwant Singh v. [ENTITY] of Haryana, (SC) 1995 A.I.R. (SC) 84 and [PRECEDENT].
29. Every faulty investigation or padding in evidence cannot by itself lead to total demolition of prosecution case if it can otherwise stand ignoring these fallacies. Reliance may be placed upon law laid down in Lakshmi v. [ENTITY] of UP (SC) 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 82,. Ram Parshad v. [ENTITY] of Haryana, (P & H) (DB) 1992(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 231, Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. [ENTITY] of Gujrat (SC), 2004 (4) S.C.C 158 and [ENTITY] of UP v. Jagdeo (SC) 2003 A.I.R. (SC) 660. To do so would tantamount to playing into hands of investigating officer if investigation is designedly defective.
30. Regarding the failure on the part of the complainant to prove the original documents of ownership in respect of the mobile phone, in my opinion the absence of the same is not in any way fatal/harmful to the prosecution story. Firstly, documents/bill in respect of the same was proved as Mark DA which is sufficient to connect the complainant with the case property. Secondly, it is not the case of the accused that the property (mobile phone) belonged to him. Thirdly, to bring a case U/[SECTION] [ACT] which is in aggravated form of theft as defined in [SECTION] [ACT], ownership is not a criteria and sole ingredient required to bring a case within the purview of [SECTION] [ACT] is that any movable property must have been removed or taken dishonestly from the possession of any person without that persons consent. Hence, removal from possession is required which has been duly proved in this case.
31. Regarding the contentions that PW3 on one hand and PW4, PW5 & PW6 had contradicted each other vizaviz the recovery of the currency notes/stolen property is concerned that PW3 claimed that the amount was recovered by his brother [ENTITY] from the accused and at the time of recovery it was wrapped in handkerchief but on the other hand PW5 & PW6 claimed that the money was recovered by them on his search and at the time of recovery it was wrapped in a polythene bag suffice would be to say that these contradictions are too trivial and do not casts any shadow of doubt upon the prosecution story. Human memories apt to blur with passage of time. The incident occurred on 26.08.2010 and the deposition of witnesses was recorded in the month of November/January 2011 i.e. after a gap of three months. After such a long time period a person cannot expected to give a parrot like version or depose with mathematical precision. Only a tutored witness can depose so. Error due to lapse of time/lapse of memory have to be given due weightage/ due allowance.
32. None the less In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. [ENTITY] of Gu has observed that a witness though wholly jarat, [PRECEDENT] , it truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing crossexamination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagina tion on the spur of the moment, but that would be no ground for discarding the evidence of the witness. The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepan cies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy.
33. In Sohrab v. [ENTITY] of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2020 at p. 2024 it was also observed :
"This Court has held that falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered.The Court held that if there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. "
34. Similar observations have been made in case titled as [ENTITY] of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998 , wherein it has been observed that with regard of falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witness es in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version.
35. Hence, the contentions that the jewellery articles as mentioned by complainant were not recovered, therefore, the prosecution story is false and devoid of merits thus find no substance. There can be numerous rea sons for the claims made by PW2 in her deposition. It is to be seen that in her statement Ex. PW2/A which formed the basis of FIR/prosecution she had nowhere mentioned about the theft of jewellery articles. Only Rs. 6,000/ as recovered from the accused finds mentioned in the complaint. This shows that her deposition was merely in exaggeration which is not too material so as to disbelieve her completely. There can be numerous rea sons for her exaggerations, which need not be discussed here. Just for an example, may be in deed theft of the articles mentioned by her took place some time before the incident and she found/discovered it only once this incident dated 26.08.2010 happened and she took this opportunity with a glimmer of hope that may be the police investigate the matter throughly and some how her articles are recovered.
36. Accordingly, in view of my above discussion, incident of theft as well as recovery of the stolen articles from the accused stands proved and accused [ENTITY] is held guilty under [SECTION] [ACT].
I order accordingly.
37. Copy of the judgment be given to the accused free of cost.
38. Let he be now heard on the point of sentence separately.
Announced in the open ([ENTITY]) Court on 03.05.2011 MM (South)/Delhi.