Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSE010012312017
Session Case No.83/2017
FIR No.404/2016
Police Station: Sunlight Colony.
State
Versus
1. Pawan
Son of Banwari Lal
Resident of House Number 469, Jhuggi E-57B,
Sunder Nagar, East Delhi-110093.
2. Manish Kumar
Son of Rajender,
Resident of House Number C-548,
New Seemapuri,
New Delhi-110095.
3. Zahid
Son of Anish,
Resident of House Number A-275,
Radha Vihar, Gali No.1,
Mandoli, North East,
Delhi-110093.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 1 of 50
4. Dilip Kumar
Son of Raj Kumar,
Resident of House No.28,
Khasra No.1285, Gali No.2,
Anand Vihar Colony, Baihra Gajipur Loni,
Gaziabad, U.P. (Proceedings against him abated on 22.11.2024)
Date of Institution : 05.11.2016
Judgment reserved on : 24.03.2025
Date of Decision : 28.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer- in-charge of the police station Sunlight Colony before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offences under sections 397/365/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused persons, namely, Pawan, Manish Kumar, Zahid and Dilip Kumar for having committed the said offences and to proceed with committal of the case.
2. As per the police report on 04.09.2016, this case FIR was registered against the accused persons, namely, Manish, Pawan, Jahid and Dilip in police station Sunlight Colony for the offences punishable under sections 394/411/34 IPC.
3. As per the police report, on 03.09.2016 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore received DD no.2 police post Sarai Kale Khan regarding apprehending of the Eco-Van number DL1YE0431 and he FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 2 of 50 along with Constable Subhash had reached at the spot i.e. IP Park Gate No.2 near red-light where the complainant Balwant Singh along with Haryana police staff Constable Chander Shekhar and Constable Kalu Ram and one QRT Gypsy number DL 2CAL 8517 found stationed at the spot; that the complainant Balwant Singh handed over the mobile phone and Rs.800/- robbed from him by the accused persons, namely, Manish and Pawan, to Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore and got his statement recorded.
4. It is, inter-alia, stated by the complainant that he lived in village Daulatabad District Gurgaon and worked as a labour in a medicine factory at Ladlu Punjab and on 03.09.2016, he had returned from Punjab by bus at Kashmiri Gate Bus Stand and from there, he had come to Sarai Kale Khan by bus and there, he was waiting for the bus and at that time, one Eco Van of white colour in which one driver and three persons were sitting, stopped there and the person sitting by the side of the driver was calling for the passengers for Gurgaon and when the complainant asked them to go to R.K. Puram, they made the complainant to sit on the seat behind the driver and two persons were already seated on that seat and those boys had made the complainant to sit between them and the Van started.
5. It is further stated by the complainant that after short distance, the boy sitting by the side of the complainant put out a knife and put the same on the left side of the complainant and said, "tere pass jo kuch hai wah nikal de", to which the complainant FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 3 of 50 replied that he does not have anything except the clothes in the bag, and on that, the driver of the car said, "Dilip maar ise" and the boy sitting by the side of driver said, "Zahid isko chaku maar"; in the meanwhile, the boy sitting on his right side started slapping and giving fist blows to the complainant and they raised the sound of the vehicle and the boy, namely, Zahid who had put the knife on the complainant, snatched the mobile phone of the complainant and after removing its SIM card, gave the mobile phone to the driver and put the SIM in the pocket of the complainant and the boy, namely, Dilip who slapped the complainant had taken out the purse of the complainant from the pocket of his pant and the purse was carrying photocopy of his ID, two passport size photo and Rs.2000/- and the boy sitting on the front seat, snatched the bag of the complainant, searched inside the bag and taken out Rs.1000/- from the bag and kept the bag with him and they drove the car towards ITO and kept on beating the complainant in the running van.
6. It is stated stated by the complainant that the van stopped in front of the red-light at IP Park Gate No.2 and in the meanwhile, one police van also stopped near the Eco Van and upon seeing the police vehicle, the complainant raised an alarm and hit the window and on hearing the sound of the window, the police officials stopped their car in front of Eco Van and 2/3 police officials quickly came near the Eco van and in the meanwhile, the boy who was giving beatings to the complainant and who had put the knife on the complainant after opening the door of the car, started running towards the park with the robbed purse and the knife; that the boy FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 4 of 50 who was driving the Eco-Van and the boy sitting by his side were apprehended at the spot with the help of police officials and on inquiry, the name of the driver of the Eco-Van was revealed as Manish and the name of other boy sitting by his side was revealed as Pawan and both of the accused persons along with the robbed Intex mobile phone of white colour and Rs.800/- taken out from the bag of the complainant as well as Eco van used in the commission of offence were produced before Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore. It is further stated by the complainant that the two boys had run away with the robbed purse of the complainant and the knife and due to the beatings given by the accused persons, the complainant has sustained several injuries on his face, therefore, appropriate action as per law, should be taken against the offenders.
7. It is further reported in the police report that from the statement of the complainant and the circumstances, the offences under sections 394/411/34 IPC have been made out and therefore, a case under those sections was got registered and further investigation was taken up by Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore himself.
8. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer got the complainant medically examined at AIIMS Trauma Center and the doctor had kept the opinion about the injury to be pending investigation.
9. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, at the instance of the complainant, the FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 5 of 50 investigating officer prepared the site-plan (Nazri) of the place of incident.
10. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the complainant Balwant Singh produced his robbed mobile phone and Rs.800/- before the investigating officer and informed that the said mobile phone was snatched by Zahid and he gave it to the driver Manish which was got recovered from the pocket of driver Manish when the complainant was rescued by the police team; that Pawan, who was sitting by the side of driver had taken out Rs.800/- from the purse of the complainant; the investigating officer seized the robbed mobile phone and the cash amount vide separate seizure memo and during the course of investigation, he had also seized the Eco-car number DL 1YE 0431 vide road certificate.
11. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the accused persons Manish and Pawan were informed about the circumstances of the present case and they were interrogated and during their interrogation, both the accused persons confessed about their involvement and also disclosed the names of their associates as Zahid and Dilip Kumar who were also involved in the commission of present offence; that on collection of sufficient evidence against the accused persons, namely, Pawan and Manish, they were arrested in the present case and the documents relating to their arrest were prepared and both the accused persons have got FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 6 of 50 their disclosure statements recorded and the case properties were deposited in the malkhana.
12. It is further reported in the police report that on 04.09.2016 both the accused persons were produced in the Court and two days PC remand was obtained and during the PC remand, the co-accused Dilip Kumar and Zahid were searched for at the instance of the accused persons Pawan and Manish but no clue was found and the accused persons were sent to the judicial custody.
13. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, on 07.09.2016 the accused persons Zahid and Dilip Kumar came to the police station and met the investigating officer and the investigating officer after informing the circumstances, interrogated them and during interrogation, they confessed about their involvement in the present case and the accused Zahid had disclosed that he had used the knife in the commission of incident and while on the run, he had thrown the knife near gate no.1 of IP Park and the accused Dilip Kumar had confessed that while he was fleeing from the spot, he had taken out Rs.2000/- from purse of the complainant and had thrown the purse near Gate No.1 of IP Park and they had equally distributed the robbed money and spent.
14. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, in the meantime, the complainant had come to the police post to know about the progress of his case and for FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 7 of 50 taking copy of FIR, who on seeing the accused persons, identified them and on pointing out towards the accused Zahid, he informed that he is the same person, who had put the knife on the person of the complainant in the Eco van and had asked the complainant to give all his articles and after pointing out towards the accused Dilip Kumar, the complainant informed that the accused Dilip Kumar had on the asking of the driver slapped and gave fists blows on the face of the complainant and later snatched his purse and both those persons had fled away from the Eco van when the Eco van was stopped by the police vehicle and at the instance of the complainant, the accused persons were arrested in the present case and the documents relating to their arrest were prepared and both the accused persons disclosed about their involvement in the present of incident and also disclosed that they could get the knife used in the incident and the robbed purse recovered.
15. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the accused Zahid led the police party to the gate no.1 IP Park and got a knife recovered in the bushes and disclosed that it was the same knife which was used in the incident and was thrown by him while fleeing from the spot; the recovered knife was kept on white paper and its sketch was prepared and it was measured and the total measurement of the knife was 11inch (6 inch blade, 5 inch handle and width 1.5 inch) and it was made of steel metal and the handle was of black colour made of plastic; the recovered knife was kept in a cloth pullanda and it was sealed with the seal of 'RK' and seized and taken into police possession.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 8 of 5016. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the accused Dilip Kumar led the police party towards Gate No.1, IP Park and got the robbed purse recovered from the bushes and the complainant identified to be belonging to him which was robbed by the accused Dilip along with his associates and on checking the purse, some visiting cards, photocopy of the PAN card of the complainant and photocopy of identity card and two passport size photograph of the complainant were found; the investigating officer kept all the recovered articles in the purse and the purse was kept in a white cloth and a pullanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of 'RK' and seized and taken into police possession and the investigating officer prepared separate pointing out memos with respect to the recovered knife and purse and signatures of the witnesses were obtained on all the memos and the case-properties were deposited in the malkhana.
17. It is further reported in the police report that on 08.09.2016, the accused persons Zahid and Dilip Kumar were produced in the Court and were sent to JC.
18. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, Dashrath Prasad, the registered owner of the Eco van was joined in the investigation by giving notice under section 161 Cr.P.C. and on inquiry he informed that he had given the above-said Eco van on monthly hire basis to the accused Manish for Rs.13000/- per month and on the date of incident also, the said Van FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 9 of 50 was with the accused Manish only and the owner of the Eco van had also produced one affidavit to that effect to the investigating officer.
19. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, on 23.09.2016 the Eco van was released on superdari as per the order of Court.
20. It is further reported in the police report that statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were recorded and after discussion, section 397 IPC instead of section 394 IPC was invoked and section 365 IPC was added.
21. It is further reported in the police report that the aforesaid acts on the part of the accused persons, namely, persons, namely, Manish Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Dilip Kumar and Zahid revealed commission of offences punishable under sections 397/365/411/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offences committed by the accused persons, namely, Manish Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Dilip Kumar and Zahid may be taken and they should be tried as per the provisions of law.
22. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had filed the police report before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 10 of 5023. On the police report, on 05.11.2016, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offences.
24. On the date of taking cognizance, the accused persons, namely, Zahid, Pawan, Manish Kumar and Dilip Kumar were produced from judicial custody and copies of police report and other documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to them.
25. On 17.11.2016, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence under section 397 IPC to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session.
26. On 05.04.2017, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused persons, namely, Pawan, Manish Kumar and Dilip Kumar for their having committed offences punishable under sections 365/394/411/34 of Indian Penal Code and against the accused Zahid for his having committed offences punishable under section 365/394/397/34 of Indian Penal Code.
27. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offences FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 11 of 50 charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
28. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Balwant Singh, PW2 Assistant Sub-Inspector Subhash Chand, PW3 Dashrath Prasad, PW4 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, MRT, Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, PW5 Dr. Vaibhav Jaiswal, PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Murari Lal, PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar, PW8 Constable Kallu Ram, PW9 Head Constable Rajesh, PW10 Retired Assistant Sub-Inspector Rishi Pal and PW11 Sub- Inspector Ram Kishore. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/I, Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/L, Mark A-1, Mark A-2, Mark A-3, Mark A-4, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/E, Ex.PW9/F, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/D and pullandas Ex.P-1, Ex.PW8/1(colly.), Ex.PW8/2(colly.) and Ex.PW8/3(colly.) were also tendered in evidence.
29. On 09.10.2023, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and for their statements.
30. The accused Dilip Kumar has died on 01.07.2024, therefore, proceedings against him were abated on 22.11.2024.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 12 of 5031. On 27.01.2025, this Court examined the accused persons Pawan, Manish Kumar and Dilip Kumar under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements were recorded. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons took the defence that this is a false case and they have nothing to do with the present case. It is further stated by the accused persons that they were falsely implicated in the present case.
32. The accused persons did not express their desire to lead evidence in their defence.
33. I have heard Mr. Jagdamba Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S.B. Prabhakar, Advocate for the accused persons and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
34. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh, PW2 Assistant Sub-Inspector Subhash Chand, PW3 Dashrath Prasad, PW4 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, MRT, Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, PW5 Dr. Vaibhav Jaiswal, PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Murari Lal, PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar, PW8 Constable Kallu Ram, PW9 Head Constable Rajesh, PW10 Retired Assistant Sub-Inspector Rishi Pal and PW11 Sub- Inspector Ram Kishore and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 13 of 50 Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/I, Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/L, Mark A-1, Mark A-2, Mark A-3, Mark A-4, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/E, Ex.PW9/F, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/D and pullandas Ex.P-1, Ex.PW8/1(colly.), Ex.PW8/2 (colly.) and Ex.PW8/3(colly.), learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that from the evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution has been successful in proving this case against the accused to convict for the offences charged with. It is further submitted that as per the complainant evidence, the accused Ismile is Zahid. It is further submitted that the two accused persons were apprehended from the spot so there was no need for conducting TIP of those accused persons. It is further submitted that it was the accused Ismile who had put the knife on the person of the complainant at the time of committing robbery.
35. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused persons has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh, PW2 Assistant Sub-Inspector Subhash Chand, PW3 Dashrath Prasad, PW4 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, MRT, Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, PW5 Dr. Vaibhav Jaiswal, PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Murari Lal, PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar, PW8 Constable Kallu Ram, PW9 Head Constable Rajesh, PW10 Retired Assistant Sub- Inspector Rishi Pal and PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 14 of 50 Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/I, Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/L, Mark A-1, Mark A-2, Mark A-3, Mark A-4, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/E, Ex.PW9/F, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/D and pullandas Ex.P-1, Ex.PW8/1 (colly.), Ex.PW8/2 (colly.) and Ex.PW8/3 (colly.) and submitted that there are number of contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record that Ismile is Zahid. It is further submitted that no public person was joined in the investigation. It is further submitted that there is no criminal antecedent of the accused persons. It is further submitted that no TIP was got conducted by the investigating officer.
36. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
37. The charge was framed against the accused persons, namely, Pawan, Manish Kumar and Dilip Kumar for their having committed offences punishable under sections 365/394/411/34 of Indian Penal Code and against the accused Zahid for his having committed offences punishable under section 365/394/397/34 of Indian Penal Code. Sections 365/394/397/411/34 read as follows:
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 15 of 50365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery-If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. - If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.-- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
38. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 16 of 5039. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined eleven (11) witnesses.
40. PW1 Balwant Singh has deposed that he was working as labourer in a pharmacy company and on 03.09.2016, he had come to Delhi from Punjab and was waiting at Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand to go to R.K. Puram. It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that at mid-night, one Ecco cab bearing No.DL 1YE 0431 stopped there and one person from the cab asked the waiting passengers, if someone wants to go to Dhaula Kuan/Gurgaon, on listening that, he (PW1) got seated in the said cab and six persons were sitting in the cab including Pawan, Manish Kumar, Zahid and Dilip Kumar and the accused Manish Kumar was driving the cab and when the cab reached near India Gate, said persons started giving him beatings and threatened him to give the said persons whatever he had. It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that there were six persons including driver in the cab and five persons gave him beatings in the cab. It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that he knew only the name of said four persons Manish, Pawan, Dilip and Ismile. It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that Pawan was sitting in front of him, snatched his bag, Dilip and Ismile snatched his purse and Pawan snatched his mobile phone from pocket and gave to driver during the beatings. It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that during said incident, Ismile put knife on his stomach and threatened him that if he will not give money, he would be stabbed. It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that when the cab reached near red-light of India Gate, suddenly one PCR came there.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 17 of 50It was again deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that near the ITO, red- light, when he saw PCR van there, he started knocking wind screen of the cab and on seeing him, police official parked there vehicle in front of their cab and got down from cab and they rescued him from the accused persons, meanwhile, two-three persons fled from the spot and police official was able to apprehend three persons at the spot including driver. It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that police official recovered his bag from the possession of driver and his purse, money and mobile were taken away by the persons who had fled away from the spot. It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that thereafter, police official had taken them in police station and he came to know the name of apprehended persons at the spot as Manish, Pawan and Dilip. It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that his statement (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded in the police station and police official seized the vehicle vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B). It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that police officials recovered his bag from the accused persons and arrested accused Pawan and Manish Kumar vide arrest memos (Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW1/D) and conducted personal search of accused Manish Kumar vide (Ex.PW1/E) and of accused Pawan vide (Ex.PW1/F). It is further deposed by PW1 Balwant Singh that he was got medically examined by the police and was released by the police officials and after one month of incident, he received information from the police station that his mobile and purse were recovered and seizure memos were prepared, thereafter, he obtained his mobile phone, money from the police station on superdari.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 18 of 5041. During the cross-examination conducted by Addl. P.P. for the State, PW1 Balwant Singh has admitted that during the incident, the driver of the cab/accused Manish Kumar told one of his companion/co-accused by saying "Dilip Maar Isko"; and one of co- accused said "Zahid isko Chako Maar". It is further admitted by PW1 Balwant Singh that during the beatings, those persons raised the voice of stereo of the cab and accused Zahid pointed knife to him. It is further admitted by PW1 Balwant Singh that police officials recovered his robbed mobile phone from the pant of accused Manish Kumar and had taken the same in possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/G). It is further admitted by PW1 Balwant Singh that police officials also recovered Rs.800/- from the accused Pawan, Dilip and Zahid which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/H). It is further admitted by PW1 Balwant Singh that the police officials arrested accused persons namely Zahid and Dilip in his presence vide arrest memo (Ex.PW1/I and Ex.PW1/J) and conducted their personal search vide memos (Ex.PW1/K and Ex.PW1/L). It is further admitted by PW1 Balwant Singh that witness has correctly identified accused persons, namely, Manish, Dilip and Zahid during testimony as being involved in the present case. PW1 Balwant Singh has further identified 4 photographs of the vehicle/cab (Mark A-1 to A-4) and has also correctly identified the knife used by accused Zahid in the present case while committing robbery by putting on his stomach at the time of the incident as Ex.P-1. PW1 Balwant Singh has correctly identified the robbed mobile phone and robbed purse as (Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3) and got FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 19 of 50 released robbed Rs.800/- from the Court on superdari but spent the same.
42. PW2 Assistant Sub-Inspector Subhash Chand has deposed that in the intervening night of 03/04.09.2016, he was working on emergency duty, during which at about 12:00 midnight, IO received an information regarding apprehending a vehicle bearing no.DL1YE0431 and then he along with the investigating officer had reached at IT Park Gate No.2, Noida More, where Constable Chandrashekhar, Constable Kallu Ram and complainant Balwant Singh met them, where IO had recorded the statement of complainant and prepared rukka and sent to police station along with rukka for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he had gone to police station, got FIR registered and returned at the spot along with computerized copy of FIR and original rukka, thereafter, IO arrested the accused persons.
43. PW3 Dashrath Prasad has deposed that he was owner of vehicle bearing No.DL 1 YE 0431 make Ecco and in the year 2016, he had let out his above said vehicle to accused Manish on rent of Rs.13,000/- per month. It is further depoed by PW3 Dashrath Prasad that on the day of incident i.e.03.09.2016, his vehicle was in the possession of accused Manish and on 10.09.2016 he came to know that his vehicle was used for committing crime and accused Manish along with associates were apprehended by the police. It is further deposed by PW3 Dashrath Prasad that on 23.09.2016, he got released his seized vehicle on superdari vide superdarinama FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 20 of 50 Ex.PW3/A, photographs of which were (Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4). PW3 Dashrath Prasad has correctly identified the accused Manish.
44. PW4 Bhunuesh Kumar Sharma, MRT, Trauma Centre, Aiims, New Delhi has deposed that he was working in AIIMS as Medical Technician since 2014 and has brought record of MLC bearing No.581812 dated 04.09.2016 of Patient Balwant Singh (Ex.PW4/A) which was prepared by Dr. Niladri Shekhar Roy and Dr. Niladri Shekhar Roy has left the services of AIIMS and he identified the signature of Dr. Niladri Shekhar Roy on the said MLC at point A as he had worked with her and seen her signing and writing during course of his duty.
45. PW5 Dr. Vaibhav Jaiswal, Senior Resident, Trauma Centre, Alims, New Delhi has deposed that he has seen MLC bearing No.581812 dated 04.09.2016 (Ex.PW4/A) of Patient Balwant Singh and as per the MLC, the nature of injury was simple caused by blunt force.
46. PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Murari Lal has deposed that on 04.09.2016 he was working as Head Constable in police station Sunlight Colony and his duty hours were from 12.00 a.m. to 08.00 a.m. as duty officer and on that day, at about 02:25 a.m., Constable Subhash had brought rukka which was sent by Sub- Inspector Ram Kishore on which he put his endorsement (Ex.PW6/A) and got the FIR registered (Ex.PW6/B). It is further deposed by PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Murari Lal that he had also FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 21 of 50 issued certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW6/C). PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Murari Lal has also brought the original FIR register containing the above said FIR.
47. PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar has deposed that on 03.09.2016, he was posted at PP Sarai Kale Khan police station Sunlight Colony as a constable and on the intervening night of 03/04.09.2016, he was posted on QRT Vehicle DL-2CAL-8517 and his duty hours were from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. It is further deposed by PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar that constable Kallu Ram had also performed his duty with him on the abovesaid QRT vehicle and at about 01.00 a.m. during patrolling, they had reached at Ring Road IP Park, Gate no.2 where they saw that one Eco car white colour No. DL-1YE-0431 was stationed and one person was shouting from inside the car "bachao bachao" and after hearing the voice, he stopped the QRT vehicle in front of the abovesaid Eco Car, thereafter, he along with Kallu Ram had reached to Eco Car, in the meantime, two boys got down from the rear seat and fled away from the spot. It is further deposed by PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar that constable Kallu had taken the keys of the Eco car and he apprehended the boy who was sitting on the driver seat. It is further deposed by PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar that constable Kallu had apprehended the boy who was sitting on the front left side seat. It is further deposed by PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar that the name of both the accused persons revealed as Manish and Pawan. PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar has correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court. It is further deposed by PW7 FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 22 of 50 Constable Chander Shekhar that the name of victim was revealed as Balwant who stated that the four persons including accused Manish and Pawan robbed him with the help of knife, thereafter, he informed the duty officer of PP Sarai Kale Khan and the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore along with constable Subhash had reached at the spot and PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar had handed over both the accused persons to the Investigating officer and also produced the Eco car, the case property and victim to the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore, thereafter, the investigating officer had recorded the statement of victim Balwant and prepared rukka which was handed over to constable Subhash for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, constable Subhash returned at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore. It is further deposed by PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar that the investigating officer had seized the ECO Car No. DL-1YE-0431 with the RC of that car vide memo (Ex.PW1/B) and one mobile phone make Intex white colour (the same was recovered from the possession of accused Manish during cursory search) seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/G). It is further deposed by PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar that Rs.800/- (in the denomination 3x100 and 1x500) seized vide memo Ex.PW1/H. It is further deposed by PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar that the accused Pawan was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW1/C), his personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW1/F) and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW7/A) was recorded by the IO. It is further deposed by PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar that the accused Manish was FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 23 of 50 arrested vide memo (Ex.PW1/D), conducted his personal search (Ex.PW1/E) and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW7/B) was recorded by the IO and the IO had recorded his statement. It is further deposed by PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar that case property has already been exhibited in the testimony of PW8 Head Constable Kalu Ram as panchnama has been filed on record by the MHC(M).
48. PW8 Constable Kallu Ram has deposed that in the intervening night of 03/04.09.2016, he was posted at PP Sarai Kale Khan police station Sunlight Colony as a constable and on that day, he along with Constable Chander Shekhar (driver) were posted on QRT Vehicle DL-2CAL-8517 and their duty hours were from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that at about 01.00 a.m. during patrolling, they had reached at Ring Road IP Park, Gate No.2 near Noida Mode where they saw that one Eco car white colour No.DL-1YE-0431 was stationed and one person was shouting from inside the car "bachao bachao" and after hearing the voice, they stopped the QRT vehicle in front of the abovesaid Eco Car, thereafter, he along with Chander Shekhar had reached to Eco Car, in the meantime, two boys got down from the rear seat and fled away from the spot. It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that he had taken the keys of the Eco car and he had apprehended the boy who was sitting on the driver seat. It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that constable Chander Shekhar had apprehended the boy who was sitting on the front left side seat and the name of both accused persons revealed as Manish and Pawan. PW8 Constable Kallu Ram has correctly FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 24 of 50 identified both the accused persons in the Court. It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that the name of the victim was revealed as Balwant who stated that the four persons including the accused Manish and Pawan had robbed him on the point of the knife, thereafter, Constable Chander Shekhar informed the duty officer of PP Sarai Kale Khan. It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that the investigating officer SI Ram Kishore along with Constable Subhash had reached at the spot and they had handed over both the accused persons to the investigating officer. It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that they had also produced the Eco car, the case property and victim to the investigating officer SI Ram Kishore, thereafter, the investigating officer had recorded the statement of victim Balwant and had prepared rukka which was handed over to the Constable Subhash for the registration of the FIR and after the registration of FIR, Constable Subhash had returned at the spot and had handed over the copy of FIR and the original rukka to SI Ram Kishore. It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that the investigating officer had seized the ECO Car No.DL-1YE-0431 with the RC of that car vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that one mobile phone Make Intex white colour (the same was recovered from the possession of the accused Manish during cursory search) seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/G). It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that Rs.800/- (in the denomination 3x100 and 1x500) recovered from accused Pawan seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/H). It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that the accused Pawan was arrested vide FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 25 of 50 arrest memo (Ex.PW1/C), personal search memo (Ex.PW1/F) of accused Pawan was prepared and the investigating officer had recorded the disclosure statement (Ex.PW7/A). It is further deposed by PW8 Constable Kallu Ram that the accused Manish was arrested vide memo (Ex.PW1/D), personal search (Ex.PW1/E) of accused Manish was prepared and the investigating officer had recorded the disclosure statement (Ex.PW7/B) and the investigating officer had recorded his statement. PW8 Constable Kallu Ram has correctly identified the mobile phone Make Intex, Rs.800/-, black colour purse and two photocopy of ID alongwith photograph of the above- mentioned case properties (Ex.PW8/1 colly) running into 4 pages which were signed by Balwant Singh and Amit. PW8 Constable Kallu Ram has also correctly identified another panchnama of the case property i.e., one car i.e., ECCO bearing registration No.DL-1YE-0431 along with photographs (Ex.PW8/2 colly) running into 3 pages which were signed by Dashrath and has also correctly identified the panchnama of RC of above-mentioned vehicle along with photocopy of RC (Ex.PW8/3 colly) running into 3 pages which was signed by Dashrath.
49. PW9 Head Constable Rajesh has deposed that on 07.09.2016 he along with Constable Arun and the investigating officer SI Ram Kishore were present in the PP Sarai Kale Khan and on that day, the accused Dilip Kumar and Jahid had come in the PP Sarai Kale Khan and their names were revealed in the disclosure statements of other accused persons, thereafter, he along with Constable Arun had apprehended the accused persons and the FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 26 of 50 investigating officer had interrogated them. It is further deposed by PW9 Head Constable Rajesh that they had disclosed their involvement in the present case and modus operandi of their work. It is further deposed by PW9 Head Constable Rajesh that the accused Dilip had disclosed that he along with Pawan, Manish and Jahid had prepared plan to rob the passengers and that they hired Eco Van bearing no. DL 1VE 0431 and they used to make to sit the passengers in the van from Gurgaon bus-stand and had started robbery from the passengers and the looted amount used to be shared by them, thereafter, the investigating officer had recorded the disclosure statements of accused Dilip Kumar and Jahid (Ex.PW9/A and PW9/B), thereafter, the investigating officer had arrested them vide arrest memos (Ex.PW1/I and Ex.PW1/J) and the investigating officer had conducted their personal search vide memos (Ex.PW1/K and Ex.PW1/L) and at the instance of the accused Dilip, they had gone to the IP park Gate No.1 and had recovered wallet of complainant containing ID card of the complainant and two passport size photographs at the instance of accused Dilip, thereafter, the investigating officer had prepared the pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of 'RK' and same was taken into police possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/C) and at the instance of the accused Jahid, they had recovered a knife measuring about 11 inch, length of blade is 6 inch and handle is 5 inch. Handle was made of plastic. It is further deposed by PW9 Head Constable Rajesh that the investigating officer had prepared the sketch memo of the recovered knife (Ex.PW9/D) and the investigating officer had prepared the pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of 'RK' and same was FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 27 of 50 taken into police possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/E), thereafter, they had come back at PP Sarai Kale Khan and case property was deposited in the malkhana of police station Sun Light Colony. It is further deposed by PW9 Head Constable Rajesh that the investigating officer had recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. PW9 Head Constable Rajesh has correctly identified both the accused Dilip and Jahid in the Court. He has correctly identified case property i.e. Knife (Ex.Al) and Wallet (Ex.A2).
50. On being asked leading question, PW9 Head Constable Rajesh has admitted that the investigating officer had prepared pointing out memo of the place of recovery of knife and purse (Ex.PW9/F).
51. PW10 Retired Assistant Sub-Inspector Rishi Pal has deposed that on the intervening night of 03/04.09.2016, he was posted at PS Sun Light Colony as Duty Officer from 08.00 p.m. to 08.00 a.m. and on that day, at about 01.05 a.m., he had received information through Constable Chander Shekhar from AIIMS Trauma Center regarding apprehension of Eco Car which he reduced into writing vide DD No.2 (Ex.PW10/A) and informed to Sub- Inspector Ram Kishore regarding the same. PW10 Retired Assistant Sub-Inspector Rishi Pal has brought the roznamcha register.
52. PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore has deposed that on 04.09.2016, he was posted on emergency duty from 08.00 p.m. to 08.00 a.m. at PS Sun Light Colony and on that day, he had received FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 28 of 50 the DD No.2 regarding apprehension of one Eco Van bearing no. DL 1YE 0431, thereafter, he along with Constable Subhash had gone to the spot i.e. Sarai Kale Khan Ring Road, Red Light in front of gate No.1, I.P Park, where they had found ERV van, QRT vehicle of the PS and had met Constable Chander Shekhar and Constable Kalu Ram along with complainant Balwant Singh. It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that they had apprehended two persons namely Manish and Pawan, with Eco van and enquired about the incident from the complainant and recorded his statement (Ex.PW1/A) and prepared the rukka (Ex.PW11/A) and handed over the same to Constable Subhash for registration of FIR, who had gone to the police station and got the present case registered. It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that after registration of the FIR, he had come back to the spot and had handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him and he prepared the site-plan (Ex.PW11/B). It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that upon cursory search of the accused Manish, he had found one white colour mobile phone Make "Intex" which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/G) and he had also seized the Eco car vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B) and upon the cursory search of accused Pawan, he had also recovered robbed amount of Rs.800/- from his bag in the denomination of 500x1 and 100x3. It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that he had seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/H) and had arrested the accused Pawan and Manish vide arrest memos (Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D) and had also conducted their personal searches vide memos (Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PWI/F). It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 29 of 50Inspector Ram Kishore that he had also recorded their disclosure statements (Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B) wherein they disclosed the name of other two accused persons namely Zahid and Dilip, who had run away when the police had stopped their vehicle. It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that he had produced the accused persons before the concerned court and got 2 days PC vide application (Ex.PW11/C), thereafter, he along with Constable Arun, Constable Chander Shekhar and two other officials along with accused persons had gone to the house of the accused Dilip, where they had met his father, who told that accused Dilip was not present in the house at that time and he would produce him later, thereafter, they had gone to the house of the accused Zahid where the accused Zahid was not found present and his parents assured them that parents would produce the accused Zahid, thereafter, they had returned to the police station and accused persons were sent to judicial custody.
53. It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that on 07.09.2016, the accused Zahid and Dilip had come to the PP Sarai Kale Khan and were interrogated and arrested vide arrest memos (Ex.PW1/I and Ex.PW1/J) and their personal searches were conducted vide memos (Ex.PWI/K and PW1/L). It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that he had also recorded their disclosure statements (Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B), thereafter, they had gone to the place of occurrence and recovered weapon of offence i.e. knife at the instance of accused Zahid near gate no.1, I.P Park, handle of knife was of black colour and total FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 30 of 50 length of the knife was 11cm and had prepared the sketch memo of the knife (Ex.PW9/D). It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that he had prepared the pullanda of the knife and sealed with the seal of R.K. and after the use of the seal, it was handed over to Constable Rajesh. It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that the knife was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/E) and he had also recovered robbed black colour purse at the instance of accused Dilip from the bushes near gate no. 1, I.P Park and upon search of purse, they found two passport size photographs of the complainant, copy of Aadhar Card and his ID. It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that he had prepared the pullanda of same and sealed with the seal of R.K. and after the use of the seal, it was handed over to Constable Rajesh. PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore has seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/C) and he had also prepared the site-plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of accused persons (Ex.PW11/D). It is further deposed by PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that the complainant had come at the spot and had identified the accused persons, thereafter, they had returned to the police station and case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused persons were sent to judicial custody and he had recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of the investigation, he had prepared the charge-sheet. PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 31 of 5054. In the light of the charge framed against the accused persons and the arguments advanced before the Court, following are the points for determination:
1. Whether the accused persons, namely, Pawan, Manish Kumar, Zahid and Dilip Kumar had abducted the complainant Balwant Singh with the intention to wrongfully confine him.
2. Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons, namely, Pawan, Manish Kumar, Zahid and Dilip Kumar committed robbery of mobile phone Make Intex, one purse containing Rs.2000/-, ID cards and two passport size photographs and one bag containing of Rs.1000/- from the complainant and while committing robbery, they also gave beatings to complainant Balwant Singh.
3. Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused Zahid had used a deadly weapon i.e., a knife while committing robbery.
4. Whether the accused Pawan was found in possession of the robbed money i.e. Rs.800/- belonging to the complainant Balwant Singh.
5. Whether the accused Manish Kumar was found in possession of the robbed one mobile phone Make Intex belonging to the complainant Balwant Singh.
6. Whether the accused Dilip Kumar was found in possession of the robbed purse containing some visiting FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 32 of 50 cards, ID card and two passport size photographs belonging to the complainant Balwant Singh.
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
55. On these points, to prove the commission of offence, testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh, PW2 ASI Subhash Chand, PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar, PW8 Constable Kalu Ram and PW11 SI Ram Kishore are relevant.
56. PW1 Balwant Singh is the complainant on whose complaint the present case FIR was registered. As per the testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh, on 03.09.2016, he was waiting for the bus at Sarai Kale Khan Bus stand and in the meantime, one Eco cab bearing registration no. DL1YE 0431 stopped there and one of the accused persons was calling the passengers for going to Dhaula Kuan/Gurgaon; the complainant boarded the cab being driven by the accused Manish and the accused Pawan was on the front seat besides the driver's seat and the complainant was made to sit on the back middle seat between the accused persons Dilip and Ismile; when the cab reached near India Gate, the said persons started giving beatings to the complainant and threatened him to give whatever he had.
57. It is also in the evidence of PW1 Balwant Singh that the accused Pawan, who was sitting on the front seat, snatched his bag and the accused persons Dilip and Ismile snatched his purse; the FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 33 of 50 accused Pawan snatched mobile phone of the complainant from his pocket and gave it to the driver during the beatings.
58. It is also in the evidence of PW1 Balwant Singh that during the incident, the accused Ismile had put knife on his stomach and he threatened the complainant by saying if the complainant would not give money, he would be stabbed.
59. It is also in the evidence of PW1 Balwant Singh that when the cab had reached near ITO red-light, one PCR came there and on seeing the PCR, the complainant started knocking the window of the cab which alerted the police officials of PCR Van and they stopped their PCR Van in front of the offending cab; the police officials rescued the complainant from the accused persons and in the meanwhile, two-three persons fled from the spot and three persons were apprehended by the police on the spot and his bag was recovered; and purse, money and mobile phone of the complainant were taken away by the person who had fled away from the spot.
60. It is important to note here that PW1 Balwant Singh was cross-examined on behalf of the State and his testimonies made during the cross-examination on behalf of the State, at the cost of repetition, are reproduced as under:
61. "It is correct that during the incident, the driver asked to one his accompanied that "Dilip Maar Isko". It is correct that the FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 34 of 50 person who sitting beside with the driver said "Zahid isko Chako Maar". It is correct that during the beatings, those persons raised the the loud of stereo of the cab. It is correct that Zahid pointed to me a knife. It is correct that police officials recovered my mobile phone from the pant of Manish and same was taken on possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/G) is bearing my signature at point A. It is correct that police officials also recovered Rs.800/- from the accused persons, namely, Pawan, Dilip and Zahid and the same was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/H) is bearing my signature at point A. It is wrong to suggest that on 07.09.2016, I had gone to the police chowki where I identified accused Zahid and Dilip being involved in the said incident and police officials recovered Rs.2,000/-, my passport, visiting card and I card from them. It is correct that the police officials arrested both Zahid and Dilip in my presence vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/I and Ex.PW1/J) both memos are bearing my signature at point A. Their personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW1/K and Ex.PW1/L). It is wrong to suggest that there were six persons in the incident instead of 4 persons. It is correct that said 4 persons Manish, Pawan, Dilip and Zahid were involved in the incident. It is correct that all such 4 persons are appear in court. It is correct that four photographs of vehicle which were shown to me are the same photographs of the vehicle and the same was marked as A-1 to A-4. It is correct that I can identify the knife is shown to me."
62. The above testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh have been corroborated by PW2 ASI Subhash Chand, PW7 Constable FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 35 of 50 Chander Shekhar, PW8 Constable Kalu Ram and PW11 Sub- Inspector Ram Kishore.
63. As per the testimonies of PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar and PW8 Constable Kalu Ram, on 03/04.09.2016, they were posted on QRT vehicle number bearing registration number DL2CAL 8517 and at about 01.00 a.m. during patrolling, when they reached Ring Road, IP Park Gate No.2, they saw one Eco car white colour bearing registration number DL1YE0431 was stationed and one person from inside the car was shouting 'bachao-bachao'; on hearing the voice, they stopped the QRT vehicle in front of the above-said Eco car and they went near the Eco car and in the meantime, two boys got down from the car and fled away from the spot; Constable Kalu Ram captured the keys of Eco-car and he (Constable Chander Shekar) apprehended the boy who was sitting on the driver seat and Constable Kalu Ram apprehended the boy who was sitting on the front left side seat and names of both the accused persons were revealed as Manish and Pawan.
64. It is also in the evidence of PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar and PW8 Constable Kalu Ram that name of the complainant was revealed as Balwant who informed that four persons including the accused persons Manish and Pawan had robbed him on the point of knife. PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar and PW8 Constable Kalu Ram have duly corroborated and supplemented each other's testimonies and their testimonies are almost on similar lines.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 36 of 5065. Regarding registration of FIR, testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh, PW2 ASI Subhash Chand, PW6 ASI Murari Lal, PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar, PW8 Constable Kalu Ram, PW10 ASI Rishi Raj and PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore are relevant.
66. As per the testimonies of PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar and PW8 Constable Kalu Ram, Constable Chander Shekhar had informed the duty officer of police post Sarai Kale Khan. It is in the evidence of PW10 ASI Rishi Pal that in the intervening night of 03/04.09.2016, he was working as duty officer at the police station Sunlight Colony and at about 01.05 a.m., he had received information through Constable Chander Shekhar regarding apprehension of Eco-car and he had reduced the said information in writing vide DD no.2 and gave this information to SI Ram Kishore for necessary action. PW10 ASI Rishi Pal has proved the DD no.2 (Ex.PW10/A) by producing the original Roznamcha register in the Court.
67. On receiving the above information from PW10 ASI Rishi Pal, as per the testimonies of PW11 SI Ram Kishore who was in an emergency duty on that day in the police station Sunlight Colony, he along with Constable Subhash had gone to the spot i.e. Sarai Kale Khan Ring Road, Red-light in front of Gate no.1, IP Park and found ERV Van, QRT vehicle of police station and met Constable Chander Shekhar and Constable Kalu Ram along with the complainant Balwant Singh who had apprehended two persons namely, Manish and Pawan with Eco Van.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 37 of 5068. It is also in the evidence of PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore that he inquired about the incident from the complainant and recorded his statement (Ex.PW1/A), prepared the rukka (Ex.PW11/A) and handed over it to Constable Subhash for registration of FIR, who went to the police station and got the present case registered.
69. PW2 ASI Subhash (Constable as he was then) has duly corroborated the above testimonies of PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore and as per his testimonies, he had gone to police station for registration of FIR and after getting the FIR registered, he had returned to the spot along with computerized copy of FIR and original rukka.
70. The testimonies of PW11 SI Ram Kishore and PW2 Constable Subhash regarding registration of FIR have been duly corroborated by PW6 ASI Murari Lal, who was working as duty officer on the date of incident and as per his testimonies, at about 02.25 a.m., Constable Subhash had brought a rukka sent by Sub- Inspector Ram Kishore and he had put his endorsement on the said rukka and got the FIR registered. PW6 ASI Murari Lal has also proved his endorsement and the FIR (Ex.PW6/A & Ex.PW6/B) and his certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW6/C). PW6 ASI Murari Lal was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 38 of 5071. From the testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh, PW2 ASI Subhash Chand, PW6 ASI Murari Lal, PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar, PW8 Constable Kalu Ram, PW10 ASI Rishi Raj and PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore, the prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR against the accused persons. During the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and in the course of arguments, the registration of FIR against the accused persons has not been disputed by the defence counsel. No delay in the registration of FIR has been pointed out by the defence.
72. Regarding arrest and identification of the accused persons, the testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh, PW2 ASI Subhash Chand, PW6 ASI Murari Lal, PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar, PW8 Constable Kalu Ram, PW10 ASI Rishi Raj and PW11 Sub- Inspector Ram Kishore are relevant.
73. As noted above, as per the testimonies of PW11 Sub- Inspector Ram Kishore, he had arrested the accused persons Pawan and Manish which were made over to him by Constable Chander Shekhar, Constable Kalu Ram and the complainant Balwant Singh. PW11 Sub-Inspector Ram Kishore has also proved the arrest memos (Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW1/D) of the accused persons Pawan and Manish, their personal search memos (Ex.PW1/E & Ex.PW1/F) and their disclosure statements (Ex.PW7/A & Ex.PW7/B).
74. It is also in the evidence of PW11 SI Ram Kishore that the accused persons had disclosed the names of other accused FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 39 of 50 persons, namely, Zahid and Dilip, who had run away when the police had stopped their vehicle.
75. Regarding arrest of the accused persons Zahid and Dilip, as per the testimonies of PW11 SI Ram Kishore, the accused persons were not available at their home and on 07.09.2016, both the accused persons, namely, Zahid and Dilip had come to the police post Sarai Kale Khan and the investigating officer had interrogated and arrested them vide memos (Ex.PW1/I & Ex.PW1/J), conducted their personal search vide memos (Ex.PW1/K & Ex.PW1/L) and recorded their disclosure statement vide memos (Ex.PW9/A & Ex.PW9/B).
76. The above testimonies of PW11 SI Ram Kishore, the investigating officer have been duly corroborated by PW1 Balwant Singh, PW2 ASI Subhash Chand, PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar and PW8 Constable Kalu Ram.
77. In order to prove the MLC of the complainant, the prosecution has examined PW1 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, MRT from AIIMS Trauma Center, who had brought the record of MLC No.581812 (Ex.PW4/A) dated 04.09.2016 of the Patient Balwant Singh.
78. As per the testimonies of PW1 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, the MLC No.581812 (Ex.PW4/A) was prepared by Dr. Neeladhari FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 40 of 50 Shekhar who had left the hospital. PW1 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma has identified the signature of Dr. Neeladhari Shekhar on the MLC No.581812 (Ex.PW4/A) as he had worked with her and seen her signing and writing during the course of his duty.
79. For proving the nature of injuries caused to the complainant, the prosecution has examined PW5 Vaibhav Jaiswal, Senior Resident, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. Having seen the MLC No.581812 (Ex.PW4/A) of the complainant Balwant Singh, PW5 Dr. Vaibhav Jaiswal has deposed that the nature of injury was simple caused by the blunt force.
80. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kamlesh v. State, CRL.A.481/2019 and CRL.MA.1845/2022 as follows:
"13. The contention of the Ld. counsel for the appellant that in the absence of examination of Dr. Rajender, who has examined the victim and prepared the MLC, the MLC cannot be admitted in evidence is fallacious and has no force in it. Although Dr. Rajender was not examined but PW 7 Dr Monika Chopra was examined who stated that she has seen the MLC Ex. PW 7/A which was prepared by Dr. Rajender. She has also identified the signatures on the MLC Ex. PW 7/A to be that of Dr. Rajender. PW 7 has stated that Dr. Rajender has left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.
14. The MLC is an authenticated record of injuries which is prepared in regular course of business by the doctor and can be relied upon by the Courts, even when the doctor who prepared the MLC is not examined in the Court and record is proved by any of the other doctor. It cannot be expected from the hospital to keep track of the doctor after he leaves the hospital. Neither the doctor is expected to keep the hospital informed about his /her whereabouts. Merely because the doctor who prepared the MLC is not FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 41 of 50 personally examined, the MLC cannot be disbelieved. Proving of MLC by a colleague doctor who identifies the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who examined the patient or by an administrative staff of the hospital who identifies the signatures of the doctor is sufficient and good proof and MLC cannot be doubted."
81. In the light of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kamlesh's case (supra), for non-examination of the doctor who prepared the MLC, the MLC cannot be disbelieved. The complainant/injured, in the instant case, was examined by and his MLC was prepared by Dr. Neeladhari Shekhar, who has left the services of the AIIMS Trauma Centre. PW4 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, MRT from AIIMS Trauma Center, who had worked with Dr. Neeladhari Shekhar and had also seen her writing and signing, has identified and proved the handwriting and signature of Dr. Neeladhari Shekhar and the nature of the injuries on the MLC have been well explained by a colleague doctor (PW5 Dr. Vaibhav Jaiswal). It is not the case of the accused persons that there is any tampering with MLC. During the course of arguments also, the contents of MLC have not been challenged on behalf of the accused persons.
82. As per the MLC (Ex.PW4/A) of the injured/ complainant Balwant Singh, the nature of injury on his person was opined as simple and the kind of weapon used to cause the injury was opined as blunt force.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 42 of 5083. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies have remained consistent to prove the fact of causing simple injury on the person of the complainant Balwant Singh by a blunt force.
84. Regarding trustworthiness of the injured eye witness, it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Yogender Singh v. State, Criminal Appeal number 265/2001 as follows "28. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind.
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of an injured witness is always of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(d) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(e) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
85. There are three eye witnesses of the incident, namely, Balwant Singh (the complainant), PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar and PW8 Constable Kalu Ram (the police officials on the QRT FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 43 of 50 vehicle duty who rescued the victim and apprehended the accused persons), who have given their ocular account of this case. All the three witnesses did not have animus or grudge against the accused persons. The manner of the incident as described by them is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows the presence of injury on the person the complainant Balwant Singh, attributable to blunt force. Further, the accused has not been able to spell out any plausible reason for his false implications. As direct testimonies of the injured witness is available to prove the guilt of the accused persons and his testimonies are the biggest guarantee of the truthfulness of the prosecution case as he has suffered injuries.
86. Regarding identification of the accused persons, PW1 Balwant Singh has correctly identified all the four accused persons in the Court involved in the commission of offence. PW1 Balwant Singh has correctly identified the accused Zahid as the person who had pointed a knife on him. PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar who was in the QRT vehicle on the date of incident and had intercepted the offending vehicle has also identified both the accused persons, namely, Manish and Pawan to be the persons apprehended by him along with PW8 Constable Kalu Ram. PW8 Constable Kalu Ram had also correctly identified the accused persons Manish and Pawan to be apprehended by them. PW11 SI Ram Kishore, the investigating officer of the present case has identified the accused persons, namely, Manish and Pawan to be apprehended by the police officials of QRT vehicle and made over to him (the investigating officer) who later interrogated and apprehended the accused persons Manish and FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 44 of 50 Pawan. PW11 SI Ram Kishore, the investigating officer has also identified the other co-accused persons, namely, Zahid and Dilip, to be the persons arrested by him on 07.09.2016 when those two accused persons had come to the police post Sarai Kale Khan and made disclosure statements about their involvement in the incident of the present case.
87. From the testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh, PW7 Constable Chander Shekhar, PW8 Constable Kalu Ram and PW11 SI Ram Kishore, the identification of the accused persons to be the offenders, who were involved in the commission of act/incident in the present case and identification of the accused Zahid to be the person, who had put the knife on the stomach of the complainant and all of them robbed him on the point of knife, is duly proved and established.
88. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies has remained consistent to prove the fact of committing robbery on the point of knife by the accused persons. Certain contradictions have been pointed out by learned counsel for the accused persons, however, such contradictions are minor contradictions and are likely to happen due to lapse of time not such as could dent the prosecution's case.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 45 of 5089. As per the testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh, his bag, mobile phone and Rs.800/- were recovered from the possession of the accused persons by the police which were seized by the investigating officer.
90. Regarding recovery of weapon of offence, as per the testimonies of PW11 SI Ram Kishore, they had gone to the place of occurrence and recovered weapon of offence i.e. knife at the instance of the accused Zahid near Gate No.1 IP Park and he had prepared sketch (Ex.PW9/D) of the knife. A perusal of sketch (Ex.PW9/D) of the knife/weapon of offence reveals that the total length of knife is 11 inch with 6 inch blade, 1.5inch width of blade and 5 inch handle. PW11 SI Ram Kishore has also proved the seizure memo of the weapon of offence. The weapon of offence (Ex.P1) i.e. knife has been duly identified by the complainant/ injured PW1 Balwant Singh during his testimonies.
91. From the testimonies of PW11 SI Ram Kishore, the fact of recovery of knife at the instance of the accused Zahid and its sketch (Ex.PW9/D) and seizure memo (Ex.PW9/E) have been duly proved.
92. As per the testimonies of PW1 Balwant Singh, the accused Zahid had put the knife on the person of the complainant at the time of commission of robbery.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 46 of 5093. Regarding recovery of robbed purse, as per the testimonies of PW11 SI Ram Kishore, he had recovered robbed black colour purse at the instance of the accused Dilip from the bushes near Gate No.1 IP Park and inside that purse, he had found two passport size photographs of the complainant, copy of Adhar Card and copy of his ID.
94. PW11 SI Ram Kishore has also proved the seizure memo (Ex.PW9/C) of the robbed purse.
95. PW1 Balwant Singh, the complainant/injured has also identified the robbed black colour purse (Ex.P2), mobile phone Make Intex (Ex.P3) and also stated that Rs.800/- recovered from the accused persons have been spent by him.
96. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in State of Maharastra v. Vinayak Tukaram Utekar and Another, 1997 Cri.LJ 3988 that knife is a deadly weapon within the ambit of an expression "deadly weapon" as used in section 397 IPC and from the perusal of sketch of knife (Ex.PW9/D) which shows the total length of the knife as 11 inches, I am of the considered opinion that the knife recovered at the instance of the accused Zahid and used by him in the commission of offence is a deadly weapon.
97. In the light of the judgment in Vinayak Tukaram Utekar's case (supra) and in the light of uncontroverted testimonies FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 47 of 50 of the complainant Balwant Singh duly corroborated by the testimonies of other witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving that the accused persons, in furtherance of his common intention with other offenders, abducted the complainant Balwant Singh in the Eco Van bearing registration number DL 1YE 0431 and committed robbery and while committing robbery upon the complainant Balwant Singh, the accused Zahid used a deadly weapon that is a knife.
98. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 905 as follows:
".....When the offence of robbery is committed by an offender was armed with a weapon and it was within the vision of the victim so as to be capable of creating terror in the mind of the victim, the offender must be deemed to have used that deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery....."
99. In the instant case, the accused Zahid had not only shown but put the knife on the stomach of the complainant to create a terror in the mind of the victim.
100. The vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1 YE 0431 make Eco was owned by PW3 Dashrath Prasad. As per his testimonies, in the year 2016, he had let out the said vehicle to the accused Manish on rent of Rs.13,000/- per month. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Dashrath Prasad that on the day of incident i.e. 03.09.2016, his vehicle was in the possession of the accused Manish and on 10.09.2016 he came to know that his vehicle was used for FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 48 of 50 committing crime and the accused Manish along with associates were apprehended by the police. PW3 Dashrath Prasad had got his seized vehicle released on superdari vide superdarinama (Ex.PW3/A) and he has identified the photographs (Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4) of vehicle involved in commission of the offence and the accused Manish.
101. The accused persons have not tendered any reasonable explanation of their conduct.
102. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge under sections 365/394 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons, namely, Pawan, Manish and Zahid, so all the accused persons, namely, Pawan, Manish and Zahid are found guilty of having committed the said offences and hence, they are convicted of offences punishable under sections 365/394 IPC read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
103. Further, the prosecution has also proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Zahid so, he is found guilty of having committed the said offence and hence, he is convicted of offence punishable under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 49 of 50104. Further, the prosecution has also proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, namely, Pawan and Manish, so the accused persons, namely, Pawan and Manish are found guilty of having committed the said offence and hence, they are convicted of offence punishable under section 411 IPC.
105. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by RAKESHRAKESH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2025.03.28 17:20:32 +0530 Pronounced in the Open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR) on 28.03.2025 Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South-East, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi FIR No.404/2016 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Pawan & Ors. Page 50 of 50