Delhi District Court
St. vs Mohd. Aslam Etc. on 29 October, 2010
St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc.
FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar
U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST04), DELHI
SC No. : 275/1/10
State
Versus
1. Mohd. Aslam
S/o Mohd. Saleem
R/o A63, Bhagya Vihar
Mubarak Pur, Delhi.
2. Raj Kumar
S/o Jeevan Lal
R/o C1822, Jahangir Puri
Delhi.
3. Deepak @ Raghuvir @ Kallu
S/o Ram Chander
R/o H. No. 17, A/21, J.J. Colony
Wazir Pur, Delhi.
4. Sanjay
S/o Laxman Singh
R/o AI, Gali No.16
H.No. 39, Sant Nagar
Burari, Delhi.
5. Krishan @ Sundari
S/o Lakhiram
R/o Jhuggi No. 539, Camp No.5
Jawala Puri, Nangloi, Delhi.
S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 1 of 19
St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc.
FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar
U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
Case arising out of :
FIR No. : 366/08
U/s : 392/397/411/34 IPC
25/27/54/59 Arms Act
P.S. : Paschim Vihar
Date of FIR : 23.08.2008
Date of Institution : 20.10.2008
Date of Final Arguments : 28.10.2010
Judgment reserved on : 28.10.2010
Date of judgment : 29.10.2010
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall dispose of the case pertaining to FIR No. 366/08, police station Paschim Vihar, under section 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, titled as 'State Vs Mohd. Aslam & Ors.'.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.08.2008 at about 1010:15 AM, the complainant Wasim Khan along with his brother Naseem Khan boarded bus no. DL1PA5194 on route no. 910. He boarded the bus from rear gate and his brother Naseem Khan boarded from front gate. When Naseem Khan entered the bus, the accused persons namely Sanjay, Deepak, Raj Kumar and Mohd. Aslam surrounded him inside the bus. Deepak, Raj Kumar and Mohd. Aslam S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 2 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
were having knives in their hands and they all threatened to handover whatsoever valuables with the complainant having in his pocket. On this complainant, raised voice to his brother, in the meanwhile accused Sanjay caught hold him and accused Deepak removed a sum of Rs.800/ and a mobile phone make Nokia2100 from the pocket of the complainant. Wasim Khan with the help of his brother and public persons caught hold all the the accused persons and Naseem Khan called the police by dialing no. 100 and police reached on the spot. After the search of the accused persons, one knife each and Rs.800/ were recovered from accused Sanjay. On pointing out of accused Deepak, one mobile was recovered from accused Kirhan @ Sundri son of Lakhmi Ram from his jhuggi no. 539, Camp No.5, Jawala Puri, Delhi. The accused persons were arrested and charge sheeted.
3. After filing of charge all the accused persons, charge for the offence under section 392//395/397/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act was framed and accused Sanjay and Krishan @ Sundari were also charged for the offence under section 411 IPC. For which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in order to establish its case, in all examined seven prosecution witnesses.
PW1 W/ASI Nirmala Devi is a formal witness who recorded the FIR vide Ex.PW1/A. PW2 Wasim Khan is the complainant who stated in his examination in chief that the accused persons were seven in number.
S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 3 of 19St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
He with the help of public persons apprehended the six persons but one of them had run away from the spot. The accused persons were produced before the police and Rs.800/ were recovered from the possession of accused Sanjay. One accused had run away with the mobile phone. Two Chhuri were recovered from accused Raj Kumar and Krishan and one had thrown the Chhuri in the bus. He can identified the person who had thrown the Chhuri in the bus. One phone was also recovered from the bus which was thrown by the accused under the seat of the bus. He cannot tell the name of the person who had thrown the phone under the seat in the bus. He cannot identify which of the knife was recovered from which of the accused but he can identify the knives.
In cross examination of behalf of the accused persons, PW2 Wasim Khan stated that the five accused persons were kept locked in the bus. PCR officials had come after 510 minutes. He cannot tell who had put the knife on him as all the robbers were together when they had surrounded him. Public persons although had not actively participated in apprehending the robbers but the public persons did not let them allowed to come out of the bus after they were apprehended. There were three knives recovered from the robbers. The documents regarding recovery of knife prepared in police station.
PW3 Naseem Khan stated in his examination in chief that on 23.08.2008 he had gone to School at B3 Block along with his younger brother Wasim Khan for his admission. He along with his S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 4 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
brother was coming back to their house and entered in the bus at bus stand Jawala Heri in bus route no. 910. He boarded in the bus from the front gate and his brother boarded in the bus from rear gate. It was around 10 or 10:15 AM, his brother Wasim Khan was surrounded by some person in the bus. He asked the driver of the bus to stop the bus and park in the side of the road. There were 45 persons surrounded his brother and some public persons uttered that 'Jeb Katre Jeb Katre'. Four accused persons were apprehended in the bus. Police had reached as police was informed by dialing 100 number. About 3 4 knives were recovered from the accused persons. The accused persons robbed Rs.800/ and mobile phone of his brother. Four accused persons were apprehended at the spot. He can identify the mobile phone and knives which were recovered from the accused persons. The seizure memo Rs.800/ is Ex.PW2/B and seizure memos of knives are Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E. Arrest memo of accused Mohd. Aslam is Ex.PW2/Q, arrest memo of accused Raj Kumar is Ex.PW2/G, arrest memo of accused Sanjay is Ex.PW2/H, arrest memo of accused Deepak is Ex.PW2/J. Personal search memo of accused persons are Ex.PW2/M, Ex.PW2/N, Ex.PW2/P. In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW3 Naseem Khan stated that the incident had occurred immediately after bus had covered a little distance. Four persons were apprehended at the spot and one was brought by the police. The conductor was at the rear gate and one of them had purchased the tickets. He cannot tell S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 5 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
the exact number of public persons who had help them. The accused persons were produced by them before the police so there was no need of identification. The incident had taken place at about 10:15 AM. They went to the police booth along with the accused persons. Police officials did some writing work thereafter they were taken to police station Paschim Vihar. It is admitted that the mobile phone and the money were recovered from under the seat of the bus. He cannot tell whether any person have visited his house for compromise.
PW4 Surender Kumar Sachdeva conductor of the bus registration no. DL1PA5194 route no. 910, he failed to identify the accused persons. From the accused persons, one mobile phone, a sum of Rs.800/ and three knives were recovered. The case property was identified by him. He is also a witness of the arrest of the accused persons and their personal search. In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons he stated that he did not read the documents which were signed by him nor he knew the contents of the same. He cannot say whether there were 45 persons who were arrested at the spot.
PW5 Ct. Ashok Kumar and PW6 ASI Raj Singh deposed regarding the investigation as carried out by them and prepared the documents during the course of investigation.
PW7 HC Vijender Singh is the MHC(M) who proved the entries Ex.PW7/A in the register no. 19 for depositing of the case property.
S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 6 of 19St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution put to the accused persons one after the other to which they denied as false and incorrect with the submission that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
The accused persons examined in their defence DW1 Mrs. Kailash who stated in her deposition that her husband Krishan was taken from his house and falsely implicated in the present case. No other witness was examined. However, there are other witnesses were to be examined as mentioned in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Rampal, Mamaji, Rama, Mami and owner of Chhabra Sweets.
6. I have heard the submissions of Ld. APP for state and counsel for the accused and carefully gone through the material on record.
Ld. APP for state submitted that the prosecution examined all the material witnesses to prove the allegations against the accused persons. The recovery of the looted amount also proved from the possession of the accused persons by PW2 & PW5 and other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy, believable and cogent. Under these circumstances, the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the charges as levelled against them.
7. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused persons argued that S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 7 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
the statement of complainant is totally contradictory and unbelievable as in the FIR, the complainant clearly stated that there were four persons boarded at Jawala Heri Red light and they all four surrounded the complainant and all four were apprehended with the help of his brother and public persons. It is further contended that as per FIR there was no person by name of Krishan at the alleged incident and he was arrested at the instance of Deepak from his jhuggi at Jawala Puri, complainant stated in the FIR that knife was recovered from the possession of accused Raj Kumar. The statement of PW2 is also contradictory, the prosecution shown the recovery of the phone from jhuggi at Jawala Puri from accused Krishan. The complainant even refused to identify the knives which were recovered from which accused. The knives were planted by the police in the police station and shown to the complainant in the police station. The complainant stated in his examination that there were two police men who came on his request in the bus but this fact has not been stated in the FIR. In his examination, stated that there were six persons kept in the bus rather in the FIR he stated only four persons. The complainant further refused to identify that who had put the knife on him or who had taken out his mobile. It is further contended that the documents regarding recovery of knife were prepared in the police station. It is further contended that PW3 Naseem Khan brother of the complainant also not supported the case of the prosecution as he failed to tell the correct number of knives recovered from the accused persons. In his S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 8 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
examination he stated that Gararidar knife was recovered from accused Raj Kumar rather as per seizure memo of knife of accused Raj Kumar Buttondar knife was seized from Raj Kumar. He stated in his cross examination on behalf of accused persons that he exactly cannot identify those two persons who were apprehended by him with the help of public persons. Therefore, the statement of PW3 Naseem Khan is contradictory and does not inspire confidence.
It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that PW4 Surender conductor of the bus also not supported the case of the prosecution since he failed to identify the accused persons who robbed the mobile phone as well as money from the complainant PW2 Wasim Khan and PW3 Naseem Khan. PW5 Ct. Ashok also made contradictory statement by stating that he had seen three knives, mobile phone and Rs.800/ on the table of the police post. He cannot say whether he can identify the knife or not. PW6 ASI Raj Singh is the investigating officer his testimony cannot be relied upon. He stated in his deposition that he recorded the statement of the witnesses in the bus rather other prosecution witnesses stated that all the proceedings were conducted in the police station Paschim Vihar. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the statements of the prosecution witnesses clearly created doubt on the prosecution story as their statements are contradictory with the statement under section161 Cr.P.C. The prosecution failed to take on record the tickets from the complainant and his brother to prove their S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 9 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
present at the spot. Under these circumstances, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
8. Having heard the submission of Ld. APP for state and counsels for the accused persons and carefully gone through the material on record. The charge under section 411 IPC and 27 Arms Act with respect to the recovery of the knife, Rs.800/ and mobile phone, the PW2 Wasim Khan stated that one of them removed his mobile phone and Rs.800/ from his pocket and with respect to the recovery of Chhuri, pointed out towards the accused Sanjay who removed Rs.800/ from the pocket of PW2 Wasim Khan. The robbed amount of Rs.800/ was recovered from the possession of accused Sanjay. He further stated in his examination that two Churri were recovered from accused Raj Kumar and Krishan. The mobile phone was also recovered from the bus under the seat which was thrown by the accused under the seat of the bus. He cannot tell the name of the person who threw the Chhuri in the bus. He identify which knife was recovered from which accused. In the cross examination by defence counsel, he stated that his brother has called the police by dealing 100 number. There were three knives recovered from the robbers. No one was hurt with the knives as the robbers had thrown the knives under the seat.
Similarly PW3 Naseem Khan gave contradictory statement with respect to the recovery of knives, mobile phone and cash amount of Rs.800/ but the facts remained corroborated and inspire confidence S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 10 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
to prove that the incident took place and all the accused persons were present at the spot in the bus and committed robbery.
9. The offence of robbery is punishable U/s 392 IPC. When fear is used to enable any person to carry away booty, it amounts to robbery, theft is robbery when in committing theft or in order that theft by committing or in carrying away the booty force is used. Similarly robbery involve extortion hence person cannot be convicted both for the extortion and for robbery which is a special aggrievated from the extortion. The dacoity consisting of five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery and person present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "da coity" .
10. The provisions of section 397 do not create any new substantive offence as such but merely serve as complementary of sections 392 and 395 by regulating the punishment already provided for dacoity by fixing a minimum term of imprisonment when the dacoity committed was found attendant upon certain aggravating circumstances viz. use of deadly weapon, or causing of grievous hurt or attempting to cause death or grievous hurt. For that reason, no doubt the provision postulates only the individual act of the accused to be relevant to attract section 397 and thereby inevitably negates the use of the principle of constructive or vicarious liability engrafted in S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 11 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
A very wide interpretation was put upon the expression ' uses a deadly weapon' . It was held that this expression must include the carrying of a weapon fr the purpose of overawing the person robbed. In Phool Kumar Vs Delhi Administration AIR 1925 SC 905, adopted the wider interpretation of " uses" . The accused armed with a knife and one of his associates armed with a small gun terrorized the employees of a service station to hand over the keys and after opening the office decamped with the cash. It was held that to bring the case within the purview of section 397 brandishing of the knife or causing of grievous hurt was not necessary. The anomaly created by the word " uses" in section397 and " is armed" in section 398 is resolved if the two terms are given an identical meaning. A reasonable explanation existed for the use of the different expression according to the court.
11. it was held that "us e of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery does not attract section397 for imposition of any minimum punishment for another offender who did not use such weapon and when the accused is charged under section 395 read with 397 IPC for committing dacoity with attempt to cause grievous hurt, he cannot be convicted under section 397 IPC only because one revolver had been recovered from the accused. This is no proof that he used the revolver while committing dacoity was charge under section 397 will not attract.
Under section 397 where the offence of robbery was S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 12 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
committed by an offender armed with a deadly weapon which was within vision of of the victim and capable of creating terror in his mind the offender must be deemed to have used the deadly weapon. On the other hand if an armed offender only attempted robbery then the weapon was not put to any fruitful use because the weapon would be only when the offender succeeded in committing the robbery and hence the expression 'arme d with deadly weapon'.
The prosecution must prove :
(i) The commission of robbery or dacoity.
In the case of robbery a conviction under this section is equally good, whether the number of the accused be five or under.
(ii) That the accused used a deadly weapon; or caused grievous hurt; or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt.
(iii) That the above acts were done during the commission of robbery or dacoity.
The section contemplates that the accused should have, from the very start, the intention to deprive the complainant of the property and should for that purpose either hurt him or place him under wrongful restraint. The definition of ' robbery' requires that either death or hurt or wrongful confinement is caused or it must be actually found that the victims were put in fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful confinement. In the absence of these findings and merely because the articles were removed from the persons of the victims when the accused were armed with lathis, does not by itself S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 13 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
make out a case of robbery.
Where no force or show of force is found to have been used in the committing of theft, etc. the offence of robbery cannot be said to have been committed. If theft is already committed and violence is used to help an offender to escape, theft is not robbery. When two views are possible that violence was used either to help in removal of stolen article or to enable an offender to escape after commission of theft, the view favourable to the accused should be accepted.
12. In the instant case, from the evidence on record both the witnesses consistently repeated that the incident took place in a spur of moment since the assailants surrounded the complainant and removed his mobile phone and Rs.800/ but he has not seen which of the accused was having knife and who has removed his mobile phone and cash. However, the cash amount was recovered from the possession of the accused Sanjay. Cash amount was thrown under the seat of the bus and mobile phone and knives were also thrown. Therefore, the deposition of PW2 Wasim Khan and PW3 Naseem Khan inspire confidence to the extent of incident as took place with them and their valuables have been removed from their persons.
As per section 34, for applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overact on the part of the accused. The existence of common intention amongst the participants in a crime is essential element for application of Section 34 IPC.
In a case titled as Gupteshwar Nath Vs. State of Bihar S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 14 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
AIR 1986 SC 1649: 1986 Cr.LJ 1242 it was observed that " when several persons surrounded the deceased and beat him to death, common intention of all of them for murder can be inferred.". In another case titled Bhola Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1995 CrLJ 1830 (P&H) (DB) it has been observed that " The fact that both the accused came to the spot together and after committing the murder left the place together would be sufficient to hold that both of them shared the common intention to commit the murder.
Common intention under section 34 of IPC stated that 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.
The principal feature of this section is the element of active participation in the commission of the criminal act. In Devi Lal & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1971, Supreme Court, 144, the Supreme Court observed : Under section 34 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. The words "in furtherance of the common of all" are a most essential part of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is common intention to commit the crime actually committed. This S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 15 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
common intention is anterior in time to the commission of the crime. Common intention means a prearranged plan. On the other hand, section 149 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of an offence being committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly. The distinction between " common intention" under section 34 and "c ommon object" under section149 is of vital importance.
In Bengali Mandal @ Bengal Mandal Vs State of Bihar, JT 2010 (1) SC 49, the court observed : "The position with regard to section 34 IPC is crystal clear. The existence of common intention is a question of fact. Since intention is a state of mind, it is therefore, very difficult, if not impossible, to get or procure direct proof of common intention. Therefore courts, in most cases, have to infer the intention from the act
(s) or conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances of the case.
In Vajayanti Vs State of Maharashtra (2005) 13 SCC 134, the court observed that section 34 of the Indian Penal Code envisages that "whe n a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of, each of such persons is liable for the act, in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The underlying principle behind the said provision is joint liability of persons in doing of a criminal act which must have found in the existence of common intention of enmity in the acts in committing the S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 16 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
criminal act in furtherance thereof. The law in this behalf is no longer res integra. There need not be a positive overt act on the part of the persons concerned. Even an omission on his part to do something may attract the said provision. But it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the question must be answered having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the facts and circumstances and the contentions raised by the counsel for the accused, so far as Rs.800/ was recovered from the possession of accused Sanjay S/o Laxman Singh and the mobile phone from the accused Krishan @ Sundari and the deposition to this effect has also been made by both the witnesses namely PW2 Wasim Khan who stated that the accused Sanjay removed Rs.800/ and the amount of Rs.800/ was recovered from his possession. There is no cross examination of this witness on this aspect by the counsel for the accused, rather it is corroborated his examination in chief by stating that his mobile phone and cash amount was removed from his pocket and the suggestions to this effect were denied that Rs.800/ were not stolen and on the same time, it is also appeared from the deposition that the cash was recovered under the bus seat and mobile from the jhuggi on the instance of accused Krishan @ Sundari on 23.08.2008. The PW2 Wasim Khan side by side also stated that phone was recovered from the bus which was thrown by the accused under the seat in the bus and there is no suggestion given by defence counsel to S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 17 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
this effect. The PW2 Wasim Khan also noticed the recovery of cash and mobile from the pocket of complainant. Both the star witnesses denied to falsely implication of the accused person and proved the recovery from accused Sanjay and Krishan @ Sundari.
PW4 Surender Kumar Sachdeva is an independent witness who admitted about the incident took place in his bus on 23.08.2008 at about 10:15 AM. The police also apprehended five boys from the spot and taken to the police station and from the possession of the accused persons mobile phone and Rs.800/ were recovered.
PW5 Ct. Ashok Kumar and PW6 ASI Raj Singh stated regarding the manner in which the investigation conducted. There is no material defects found in the investigation. The documents prepared are duly attested and corroborated their contents in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
So far as with respect to DW1 Kailash stated that her husband was removed from his house and falsely implicated in the present case. However, in the cross examination of Ld. APP for state it is admitted that as and when he remained in the house, she did not accompany with him. She did not complaint to any authorities about the illegal arrest of her husband and there is no complaint whatsoever about the illegal arrest of the accused Krishan nor any other corroborated facts to this effect that Krishan her husband was remained at the house at the time of incident.
14. With these observations, I found that the deposition made by S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 18 of 19 St. Vs Mohd. Aslam etc. FIR No.366/08, PS: Paschim Vihar U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and believable. Their deposition inspire confidence to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 392/34 IPC.
15. So far as the recovery of Rs.800/ and mobile phone from the possession and at the instance of the accused Sanjay and Krishan @ Sundari is concerned, the same is also proved by the deposition of prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the prosecution succeeded to prove the offence of the accused Sanjay and Krishan @ Sundari for the offence under section 411 IPC.
16. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case and the deposition of the witnesses who have been corroborated by the other supporting evidence. The accused persons namely Mohd. Aslam S/o Mohd. Saleem, Raj Kumar S/o Jeevan Lal, Deepak @ Raghuvir @ Kallu S/o Ram Chander, Sanjay S/o Laxman Singh and Krishan @ Sundari S/o Lakhiram are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 392/34 IPC. In addition to this, the accused Sanjay and Krishan @ Sundari are also convicted for the offence punishable under section 411 IPC separately.
Dictated & Announced (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM)
in the open court today ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
i.e. on 29.10.2010 (WEST04):DELHI
S.C. No.107/1/08 Page 19 of 19