Lekh Ram Vs. State

Lekh Ram vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 19, 2000

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/701402

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/701402
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jan 19, 2000
Case Number: Crl. R. 22/83
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 411--Receiving of stolen property dishonestly--Disclosure statement by second accused--Admissibility of--No evidence to link with offence--No offence made out--Conviction and sentence set aside. -

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 411

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lekh Ram

Advocate Mr. Anil Soni, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate Mr. Naveen Thakur, amices Curiae

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 411
Reported In: 2000IIAD(Delhi)774; 83(2000)DLT684; 2000(56)DRJ80

Excerpt

penal code, 1860 - section 411--receiving of stolen property dishonestly--disclosure statement by second accused--admissibility of--no evidence to link with offence--no offence made out--conviction and sentence set aside. - orderc.r. no. 22/19831. this revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the additional sessions judge, delhi, dated 13.1.1983 in criminal appeal no. 9 of 1982 whereby the learned additional sessions judge upheld the order of the metropolitan magistrate, dated 17.7.1982 convicting the petitioner under section 411 ipc to undergo r.i. for 9 months. 2. the brief facts of the case are, that the police of police station tilak marg submitted a challan against the petitioner for an offence punishable under sections 414/380 ipc with the allegations that one accused johnson had disposed of a gas cylinder between 11.10.1980 and 14.10.1980 to dinesh kumar which originally belonged to ms. vina pasricha. after trial it was held that the petitioner was to be convicted under section 411 of ipc and this charge was amended later on. 3. after going through the record, and considering the submission of the learned amices curiae, mr. thakur, i am of the opinion that the offence committed, as charged against the petitioner, cannot be made out. it is settled law that a disclosure statement made by the second accused is not admissible if the recovery has already been effected on an earlier statement of a co-accused or its disclosure made. the entire basis of conviction of the petitioner is the second disclosure statement. ex. pw-3/b which also led to recovery. this cannot be allowed in evidence, the recovery had earlier been effected on the statement made by the co-accused. in this view of the matter, i am of the opinion that no offence has been made out against the petitioner and that there is no evidence to link him with the offence. in these circumstances i see no reason to uphold the judgment of the additional sessions judge, delhi, and, thereforee, allow this petition. the conviction and sentence is set aside. the petitioner is acquitted of all charges. 4. the revision petition is disposed of. the bail bond shall stand discharged.

Full Judgment

ORDER

C.R. No. 22/1983

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 13.1.1983 in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1982 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 17.7.1982 convicting the petitioner under Section 411 IPC to undergo R.I. for 9 months.

2. The brief facts of the case are, that the police of Police Station Tilak Marg submitted a challan against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Sections 414/380 IPC with the allegations that one accused Johnson had disposed of a gas cylinder between 11.10.1980 and 14.10.1980 to Dinesh Kumar which originally belonged to Ms. Vina Pasricha. After trial it was held that the petitioner was to be convicted under Section 411 of IPC and this charge was amended later on.

3. After going through the record, and considering the submission of the learned amices Curiae, Mr. Thakur, I am of the opinion that the offence committed, as charged against the petitioner, cannot be made out. It is settled law that a disclosure statement made by the second accused is not admissible if the recovery has already been effected on an earlier statement of a co-accused or its disclosure made. the entire basis of conviction of the petitioner is the second disclosure statement. Ex. PW-3/B which also led to recovery. This cannot be allowed in evidence, The recovery had earlier been effected on the statement made by the co-accused. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no offence has been made out against the petitioner and that there is no evidence to link him with the offence. In these circumstances I see no reason to uphold the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, and, thereforee, allow this petition. The conviction and sentence is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges.

4. The revision petition is disposed of. The bail bond shall stand discharged.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2000 Same Parties Lekh Ram vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 411

Criminal