Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunny Sachdeva & Ors on 17 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01), SOUTH-
EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
STATE VS. SUNNY SACHDEVA & ORS
SC No.1534/2016
FIR No. 113/2012
P.S.: AMAR COLONY
U/S 395/397/412/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms
Act
Particulars of the case:
a) Date of offence : 13.04.2012
b) Offence complained of : U/s 395/397 IPC r/w section
120B IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
c) Name of complainant : Keshav Dutt Sharma
d) Name of accused no.1 : Sunny Sachdeva @ Kanchi @
Nonu
his parentage : s/o late Sh. Dharam Chand
local & permanent address R/o: H.No.62, Block-D,
4/4, Rama Vihar, Hasan
Mohamad Pur,
Village Majri, Delhi.
Name of accused no.2 : Rajiv
his parentage s/o Mahavir,
local & permanent address R/o: 10627,
Andha Mugal Partap Nagar,
PS Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
Name of accused no.3 : Sajid
his parentage s/o Sh. Nizamuddin
local & permanent address J-11/31, C-446,
J J Colony, Wazirpur,
Delhi.
Name of accused no.4 : Sanjay Kumar @ Malhotra
his parentage s/o Sh. Suresh Chand
local & permanent address R/o: H. No. 10645, Gali No.6,
Andha Mugal Partap Nagar,
SC 1534/2016
FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 1/30
PS Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
Name of accused no.5 : Rahul @ Chetan
his parentage s/o Sh. Suresh Chand
local & permanent address R/o: H. No. C-8/149,
2nd Floor, Sector 5,
Rohini,
New Delhi.
(Proceedings against him
already abated vide order dated
29.03.2017)
Name of accused no.6 : Ram Lakhan
his parentage s/o Sh. Puran Chand
local & permanent address R/o: H. No. 4019, Gali No.34,
Raigar Pura, Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
Name of accused no.7 : Sunil @ Kabir @ Fundi
his parentage s/o Sh. Dal Chand Nayak,
local & permanent address R/o: N-18, A/222, J. J. Colony,
Wazirpur, Delhi.
(discharged vide order
dt.13.12.2013)
Name of accused no.8 : Sahil @ Babloo @ Azad
his parentage Babu Khan
local & permanent address H. No.5/63, Sultan Puri,
Delhi
(declared PO vide order
dt.06.02.2023)
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : Accused no.1 to 4 & accused
no.6 are acquitted.
Date of institution of case : 17.08.2012
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 24.04.2023
Date of judgment : 17.05.2023
JUDGMENT
SC 1534/2016
FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 2/30
1. CHARGESHEET 1.1 Three chargesheets have been filed in the present case. As per first chargesheet, on 13.04.2012 SI Prakash was on emergency duty and on receipt of DD No. 20A regarding snatching of bag, he along with Ct Kuldeep reached at the spot wherein they met the complainant Keshav Dutt Sharma along with his colleague Brij Bihari Rana in Wagon R car bearing no.DL8CE 0371. Thereafter, SI Prakash recorded Keshav Dutt Sharma's statement.
1.2 He stated that he was working as a Field boy in S. C. Tech, Mohan Cooperative Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, for the last 5-6 years. On 13.04.2012 at about 4.15 pm he along with his colleague Brij Bihari Rana, on the instruction of accountant of their office namely Jai Prakash reached at 109-MCD Market, Karol Bagh in their Wagon R Car no. DL8CU 0371 for taking a payment. Therein they met one sardar namely Guddu, who on their asking handed over amount of Rs.25 lakh to them and the notes were in the bundles of Rs. 500/--1000/-, which they put in their two black bags, one bag of Diamond Company and the other one was a Laptop bag. After putting the above mentioned amount in said two bags, they left for their office. However, since the bank had been closed, their accountant Jai Prakash instructed them to hand over the said amount to their owner namely Vishal Goel at his house at B-8, Chirag Enclave, Delhi. They both put the above said two bags containing Rs. 25 lakh inside their car in the space between front and back seats. At around 5.25 pm they drove down the bridge near Central School Andrews Ganj and SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 3/30 reached at the turn near the speed breaker. Keshav Dutt Sharma was driving the car and his colleague was sitting beside his seat. At that point of time suddenly two young boys on a black colour motorcycle overtook them and stopped their motorcycle in front of their car. After the car got stopped, one boy came to the window of car, put a pistol on his temple and asked him to open the car. Meanwhile, two more young boys came on another black colour motorcycle and they took away the bag containing the cash from the car. Thereafter, all four young boys fled away from the spot along with the bag containing cash. In the said bag, his office documents, his ATM card of PNB and Credit card of Citi Bank were also kept. He first informed his owner regarding the above mentioned incident and on his asking, he made a phone call at 100 number. He stated that he can identify all the four robbers who had robbed Rs.25 lakhs from them at gun point. 1.3 On the basis of said complaint, present case FIR was registered and investigation was marked to Inspector Anil Kumar who conducted the investigation of the present case from 13.04.2012 till 25.04.2012. During investigation, he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and recorded statements of public eye witnesses namely Ashok, Ranjeet and other witnesses. He further found in investigation that three pulsar motorcycles were used during the above mentioned incident, out of which the number of one of the motorcycle was DL6SAF- 5064 and its owner's name was Rajiv Kumar s/o Sh. Mahavir Singh, resident of Gulabi Bagh, Delhi and on gathering information about him, Inspector Anil Kumar came to know that SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 4/30 he was listed criminal of said area having many cases of snatching lodged against him. The dossier of Rajiv was shown to the witnesses and they stated that said boy was involved in the above mentioned incident and he had come on black colour pulsar motorcycle bearing no. DL6SAF 5064 and he had stopped their Wagon R car by overtaking.
1.4 On receipt of secret information on 20.04.2012 said Inspector along with Special Staff South East District conducted a joint raid at Majnu ka Tila near Gurudwara, Delhi. Accused Rajeev was arrested and he confessed his involvement in the incident. He also disclosed the names of his accomplices as Sunny Sachdeva, Ram Lakhan, Rahul, Sahil @ Bablu @ Azad, Sajid and Sunil @ Kabir @ Fundi and got recovered an amount of Rs.80,000/-.
1.5 On 21.04.2012 on pointing out of accused Rajeev, accused Ram Lakhan was got arrested and he confessed his role in the incident. On 21.04.2012 accused Ram Lakhan was produced in the Court for conducting his TIP but he refused to participate in the same and his PC remand was obtained. Thereafter, on 26.04.2012 further investigation of the present case was conducted by SI Mahender Singh Dahiya. During their PC remand, accused Rajeev got recovered Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 10,000/ from his house whereas accused Ram Lakhan got recovered Rs.45,000/-.
1.6 On 26.04.2012 during their police custody, they got arrested accused Sunny Sachdeva @ Kanchi @ Nonu. He also confessed his involvement in the present case and a country SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 5/30 made pistol .32 loaded with 5 live cartridge used in above mentioned incident was also recovered from his house along with looted amount of Rs. 70,000/-. On the basis of disclosure statement of accused Sunny Sachdeva, the accused Rahul @ Chetan was got arrested from his house who also confessed his involvement in the present case and 70,000/- was got recovered from his house on the same day. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Sunny Sachdeva and Ram Lakhan, red pulsar with fake plate no. DL 8SAM 3462 (original number DL8SAM 7566) was recovered from Shastri Nagar Metro Station parking stated to be looted around 17-18 days from Rana Pratap Bagh, Shakti Nagar for the commission of the present incident and fake number plate DL8SAM 3462 was put on the said motorcycle and the same was also used in the present offence. Thereafter, said accused were produced in the Court for conducting their TIP but both of them refused to participate in the same. Police custody of both accused was obtained for arresting other co-accused persons and recovery of case properties. During their police custody on 29.04.2012 an amount of Rs. 58,000/- was recovered from accused Rahul and Rs.2,50,000/- and some documents belonging to the complainant and Shilpi Cable Tele. Com in a black bag were recovered from the house of accused Sunny. 1.7 On 01.05.2012 accused Sunny got recovered an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- from his cousin Nitin's house from Vaishali, Ghaziabad. Further, another amount of Rs. 5 lakh was recovered at the instance of accused Sunny Sachdeva. On 29.04.2012 accused Sahil @ Babloo @ Azad was arrested and an amount of SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 6/30 Rs.1,72,000/- was got recovered from his possession. Thereafter, on 30.04.2012 said accused was produced in Court for conducting his T.I.P. which was fixed for 03.05.2012 and complainant correctly identified the said accused in T.I.P. Thereafter, said accused was taken in police custody and recovery of looted amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a bag was effected from said accused.
1.8 On 30.04.2012 at the instance of accused Sahil, accused Sajid was arrested from his house and he got recovered his share of looted amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Co accused Sanjay Kumar @ Malhotra and main accused Sunil @ Kabir @ Fandi were tried to be traced. On 10.05.2012 NBWs of above mentioned both accused were obtained but on 14.05.2012 accused Sanjay Kumar @ Malhotra was arrested in case FIR No.44/2012, u/s 25/24/29 Arms Act, PS Gulabi Bagh and on 17.05.2012 SI Mahender Singh obtained production warrant of said accused for 21.05.2012. On said date, accused Sanjay was arrested and his police custody remand was obtained from the Court. On said day i.e. on 21.05.2012 looted cash amount of Rs.3.5 lakh, some documents and one black bag was recovered from the possession of said accused.
1.9 As per first chargesheet, accused Sanjay @ Malhotra and Sajid were the informers and on their information, accused Sunny Sachdeva, Rahul, Rajeev, Ram Lakhan, Sahil @ Bablu @ Azad and main accused Sunil @ Kabir @ Fandi jointly committed the offence dated 13.04.2012 and three pulsar motorcycles bearing no. DL6SAF 9731 silver colour and DL 6S SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 7/30 AF 5064 black colour, DL8S AM 3462 fake number plate (original number DL 8SAM 7566 red pulsar) were used to commit such dacoity. Accused Sanjay @ Malhotra, Sajid and Sunny Sachdeva and Sunil @ Kabir @ Fandi knew very well that in above mentioned shop no.109, Karol Bagh of RC Consultant the money exchange work was being done on a large scale. Sunny Sachdeva, Sajid, Sunil @ Kabir @ Fandi were already involved in such incidents in Karol Bagh and Kamla Market but they were never caught. It is further mentioned that plan of committing dacoity on 13.04.2012 at above mentioned shop was made after recce by accused Sajid and Sanjay @ Malhotra. On said date when complainant Keshav Dutt Sharma alongwith Brij Bihari Rana moved out of the above mentioned shop having two bags containing Rs.25 lakhs, the accused Sunny Sachdeva, Sunil @ Kabir @ Fandi, Ram Lakhan, Rajiv, Rahul, and Sahil @ Bablu @ Azad started chasing the Wagon R Car on their three pulsar motorcycles and turned to left side of Andrews Gang Flyover towards Amar Colony. They way laid the said car by blocking it off with their motorcycles and they committed the above mentioned incident at gun point. Accused Sunny Sachdeva and Sunil @ Kabir @ Fandi put pistol on both the persons sitting in Wagon R car and Rahul and Sahil @ Bablu @ Azad, took away two black bags containing Rs. 25 lakh from Wagon R Car and fled away with above mentioned bag in their motorcycles. One santro car bearing no. DL 8CJ 8582 was also used by the accused persons (for disbursal of looted money), most of the times by the accused Sunny Sachdeva and same was recovered SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 8/30 on 01.05.2012 at the instance of said accused. Owner of above mentioned car namely Deepa was also interrogated. As per chargesheet, the motorcycle bearing no. DL6S AF 9731 Pulsar used by the accused Ram Lakhan belongs to accused Rajiv's wife namely Laxmi which was recovered from the back gali of Jeevan Mala Hospital, Karol Bagh, Delhi at the instance of above mentioned accused and said motorcycle was given to accused Ram Lakhan by accused Rajiv for driving purpose. 1.10 Main accused Sunil @ Kabir @ Fandi was not arrested in the present case till the filing of first chargesheet. Total amount of Rs.14.75 lakh was recovered from the accused mentioned in column no.11 and remaining huge amount of Rs. 12 lakh was still with the above mentioned accused and same was to be recovered on his arrest. As per respective disclosure statements of the accused persons, out of the total looted amount, Rs. 6 lakh came in the share of accused Sunny Sachdeva, Rs.4,35,000/- came in the share of accused Sahil @ Bablu @ Azad, Rs. 2 lakh came in the share of accused Ram Lakhan, Rs. 1.5 lakh came in the share of accused Rahul, Rs. 80,000/- came in the share of accused Rajeev, Rs.1 lakh came in the share of accused Sajid, Rs.3.5 lakh came in the share of accused Sanjay @ Malhotra and Rs. 6 lakh came in the share of accused Sunil @ Kabir @ Fandi. Red pulsar motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAM 7566 used in commission of offence was released to its real owner on superdari. The above said motorcycle was stolen by accused Sunny Sachdeva @ Kanchi @ Nonu and Ram Lakhan in case SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 9/30 FIR No.89/2012, PS Bharat Nagar before the committing the offence in the present case.
1.11 On 11.06.2012 the recovered firearm i.e. country made pistol along with live cartridge was deposited in FSL, Rohini for its Ballistic opinion vide RC No. 75/21/12. Accused persons were kept in column no.11 in the present case and co accused Sunil @ Kabir @ Fandi was declared PO by the court on 07.07.2012 and was kept in column no.12. Case property i.e. Rs. 14,75,000/- recovered in the present case was released on superdari and photocopies of all recovered notes were deposited in the malkhana vide court orders. All arrested accused in the present case were listed criminals and all of them were having very serious cases registered against them in different police stations in Delhi and because of their terror, no PW had joined recovery proceedings. Recovered motorcycles bearing no. DL6SAF 5064 and DL 6SAF 9731 were got verified through Transport Authority in the present case by way of challan. From the investigation conducted, recovered case property, TIP proceedings of accused persons and statement of witnesses, first chargesheet u/s 395/397/412/120-B/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act was prepared and was filed in the court.
1.12 Subsequently, on 25.06.2013 accused Sunil @ Fundi @ Kabir @ Bunty was arrested in case FIR No.106/2013, U/s 186/353/307 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, PS Crime Branch, Delhi and his arrest was informed to SI M. S. Dahiya vide DD No.83B dated 27.06.2013 on which said SI got issued the production warrant against the above mentioned accused in the present case.
SC 1534/2016FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 10/30 He arrested the accused in the present case, prepared his arrest papers, recorded his disclosure statement and obtained his two days police custody but nothing was recovered during his said PC Remand. Accused was a dreaded criminal and on strict interrogation, he stated that he spent the amount of Rs.8-9 lakhs which came into his share on his fun and frolic during his release because he knew that one day he will be arrested and shall not be able to come out of the jail thereafter. He was sent to judicial custody after obtaining his judicial custody remand. TIP application of the accused was moved but he refused to participate in TIP. After completion of investigation, supplementary chargesheet was prepared and filed against the above mentioned accused u/s 395/397/120B IPC. 1.13 On 13.07.2012 FSL result of the illegal pistol and cartridges recovered from accused Sunny Sachdeva @ Kainchi were obtained and on 01.08.2018 even sanction u/s 39 Arms Act were obtained from DCP/SED for prosecuting said accused u/s 25 Arms Act in the present case. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheet was filed u/s 395/397/412/120-B/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms act against the said accused.
2. CHARGE 2.1 On the basis of chargesheet, charges u/s 395/397 IPC r/w section 120B IPC was framed against the accused persons Sunny Sachdeva @ Kanchi @ Nonu, Rajeev, Sajid, Sanjay Kumar, Rahul, Sahil @ Bablu @ Azad and Ram Lakhan to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge was also framed against the accused Sunny Sachdeva @ Kanchi @ Nonu u/s SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 11/30 25/27 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the chargesheet.
2.2 After the accused Sunil @ Fundi was chargesheeted, the arguments on charge were heard and vide order dt. 13.12.2013 he was discharged from the present case. During trial, accused Rahul @ Chetan expired and accordingly, proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 29.03.2017. Further, at the fag end of the trial, the accused Sahil @ Bablu absconded and was declared PO on 06.02.2023. So the present judgment is only against the remaining five accused persons i.e. Sunny Sachdeva @ Kanchi @ Nonu, Rajiv, Sajid, Sanjay Kumar @ Malhotra and Ram Lakhan.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.1 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 30 witnesses.
S. No. Name of witness Nature of evidence
PW-1 HC Manbir Singh Duty Officer who recorded FIR
PW-2 Ct. Umesh Kumar Witness to disclosure statement of
accused Rajiv
PW-3 HC Kailash Witness to seizing of santro car,
arrest of accused Ram Lakhan,
seizing of Rs.5,000/- and one silver
colour (pulsar) motorcycle
PW-4 Keshav Dutt Sharma Complainant of the case
PW-5 Brij Bihari Rana Colleague of the complainant
PW-6 HC Anil Kaushik Witness to arrest of accused Rajiv,
recovery of Rs. 70,000/-, motorcycle
bearing no.DL6S...5064
PW-7 Ashok Public witness regarding incident
PW-8 Ranjeet Public witness regarding incident
PW-9 HC Joginder Witness to arrest and recoveries
SC 1534/2016
FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 12/30
effected from accused Sunny
Sachdeva, Rahul and Sajid
PW-10 Rahul Jain Owner/superdar of pulsar
motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAM-
7566
PW-11 Gopal Nair Owner of R. G. Consultant who
deals in exchange of money
PW-12 Guru Prakash Cashier/Manager/employee with R.
G. Consultant Pvt. Ltd. who handed
over Rs. 25 lakh to complainant and
his colleague
PW-13 Ct. Deep Chand Witness to arrest of accused Rajiv,
recovery of cash amount of Rs.
70,000/- and motorcycle bearing no.
DL6SAF-5064
PW-14 Sh. Manmohan Parking Attendant at Metro Station
Parking, Pratap Nagar, Delhi
PW-15 Ct. Kamal Witness regarding recovery of
Rs.10,000/- from the accused Rajiv
PW-16 Lalan Parking attendant at metro station
parking, Pratap Nagar, Delhi.
PW-17 Ct. Anil Witness regarding recovery of cash
amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the
accused Ram Lakhan and deposit of
two pullandas in sealed condition in
FSL, Rohini
PW-18 Ct. Kuldeep Singh Witness to registration of FIR
PW-19 Ct. Devender Singh Witness to arrest of accused Sahil
and recovery of Rs.1,72,000/- from
said accused, recovery of
Rs.58,000/- from accused Rahul,
recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- from
accused Sunny Sachdeva and
recovery of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1
lakh from accused Ram Lakhan
PW-20 HC Vinod Kumar Witness to arrest of accused Sunny
Sachdeva and Sahil @ Babloo and
recovery of Rs.1.72 lakh from
accused Sahil @ Babloo, recovery
of amount of Rs. 2.5 lakh from
SC 1534/2016
FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 13/30
accused Sunny Sachdeva, recovery
of amount of Rs.58,000/- from
accused Rahul, recovery of
Rs.25,000/- from accused Ram
Lakhan and further witness to arrest
of accused Sunil @ Fandi and Sajid
and recovery of amount of Rs. 1
lakh from accused Sajid.
PW-21 Ms. Mona Tardi Judicial Officer who conducted TIP
proceedings of accused Sunny
Karketa
Sachdeva @ Kanchi @ Nonu and
accused Rahul @ Chetan
PW-22 Anil Parking Attendant at Metro Station
Shastri Nagar, Delhi
PW-23 Anu Aggarwal Judicial Officer who conducted TIP
proceedings of accused Ram Lakhan
and accused Sahil @ Bablu @ Azad
PW-24 Inspector Anil Kumar Ist IO of the case
PW-25 HC Pradeep Kumar Witness regarding recovery of
Rs.3,50,000/- from accused Sanjay
PW-26 Inspector Mahender 2nd IO of the case
Singh
PW-27 Vishal Goel Owner of Shilpi Cable technology
Pvt. Ltd.
PW-28 Inspector Prakash Witness regarding arrest of accused
Ram Lakhan, Rajeev, Rahul @
Chand Mandiwal
Chetan, Sajid and the recoveries
effected from accused Sunny
Sachdeva, Ram Lakhan, Sajid and
Sahil @ Bablu
PW-29 ASI Vishnu Kumar IO who filed the supplementary
chargesheet regarding FSL result
and sanction u/s 39 Arms Act
PW-30 Ghanshyam Bansal Additional DCP who accorded
sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for
prosecuting accused Sunny
Sachdeva u/s 25 Arms Act
SC 1534/2016
FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 14/30
3.2. The prosecution has exhibited following
documents/objects in support of its case: -
No.of exhibit Nature of exhibit
Ex.PW1/A FIR
Ex.PW2/A Disclosure statement of accused Rajeev
Ex.PW3/A Seizure memo of one santro car
Ex.PW3/B Arrest memo of accused Ram Lakhan
Ex.PW3/C Personal search memo of accused Ram Lakhan
Ex.PW3/D Disclosure statement of accused Ram Lakhan
Ex.PW3/E Seizure memo of Rs.5,000/- recovered from accused
Ram Lakhan
Ex.PW3/F Seizure memo of one silver colour motorcycle
(pulsar)
Ex.P-3 Grey colour Santro Car bearing no. DL8CJ8582
Ex.P-4 Silver colour pulsar motorcycle bearing no. DL
6SAF 9731
Ex.PW4/A Complaint
Ex.PW4/B 161 CrPC statement of complainant
Ex.PW4/C 161 CrPC statement of complainant
Ex.PW4/D TIP proceedings of accused Shahil wherein
complainant identified him
Ex.PW4/E 161 CrPC statement of complainant
Ex.P-1 & P-2 Bags
Ex.PW5/A 161 CrPC statement of colleague of complainant
Ex.PW6/A Pointing out memo of the spot prepared at the
instance of accused Rajiv
Ex.PW6/B Seizure memo of Rs. 70,000/- recovered from
accused Rajiv
Ex.PW6/C Arrest memo of accused Rajiv
Ex.PW6/D Personal search memo of accused Rajiv
Ex.PW6/E Disclosure statement of accused Rajiv
Ex.PW7/A 161 CrPC statement of public witness Ashok
Ex.PW8/A 161 CrPC statement of public witness Ranjeet
Ex.PW8/B Supplementary 161 CrPC statement of public
witness Ranjeet
Ex.PW9/A Arrest memo of accused Sunny Sachdeva
Ex.PW9/B Personal search memo of accused Sunny Sachdeva
SC 1534/2016
FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 15/30
Ex.PW9/C Disclosure statement of accused Sunny Sachdeva
Ex.PW9/D Sketch of pistol and cartridges recovered from
accused Sunny Sachdeva
Ex.PW9/E Seizure memo of pistol as well as cartridges
Ex.PW9/F Arrest memo of accused Rahul
Ex.PW9/G Personal search memo of accused Rahul
Ex.PW9/H Seizure memo of cash recovered at the instance of
accused Sunny Sachdeva
Ex.PW9/I Disclosure statement of accused Rahul
Ex.PW9/J Seizure memo of Rs. 70,000/- recovered from the
house of accused Rahul
Ex.PW9/K Seizure memo of red colour pulsar motorcycle
recovered from accused Sunny Sachdeva and Ram Lakhan Ex.PW9/L Arrest memo of accused Sajid Ex.PW9/M Personal search memo of accused Sajid Ex.PW9/N Disclosure statement of accused Sajid Ex.PW9/O Seizure memo of seizing of cash of Rs.1 lakh recovered from accused Sajid Ex.P-5 Red colour pulsar motorcycle bearing fake number plate DL8S AM 3462 (original number DL 8SAM 7566 red pulsar) Ex.PW19/L Seizure memo of Rs.1,70,000/- recovered from Nitin Ex.PW9/P & Pointing out of place of incident prepared at the Ex.PW9/Q instance of accused Sunny Sachdeva @ Kanchi and Rahul Ex.PW10/A Superdaginama of motorcycle Bajaj Pulsar bearing no. DL 8SAM-7566 Ex.PW10/B Registration card of above mentioned motorcycle Ex.PW10/A1 to Photographs of above mentioned motorcycle. A5 Ex.PW10/A3 to Photos of the fake number plate except Ex.PW10/A3 Ex.PW10/A4 and Ex.PW10/A4.
Ex.PW13/A Seizure memo of motorcycle bearing no.DL6SAF5064 at the instance of accused Rajiv Ex.PW15/A Seizure memo of Rs.10,000/- recovered from the possession of accused Rajiv Ex.PW17/A Seizure memo of Rs.15,000/- from accused Ram Lakhan SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 16/30 Ex.PW17/B Road Certificate regarding taking of two pullanda duly sealed with the seal of MSD from malhana Ex.PW17/C Receipt regarding deposition of above mentioned pullanda in FSL, Rohini Ex.PW18/A Arrest memo of accused Sanjay Kumar Ex.PW18/B Seizure memo regarding seizing of the currency notes and the bag Ex.PW18/C Pointing out memo of place of incident Ex.P11 Black colour bag with red leather stripes Ex.P12 Ration Card of Brij Bihari Rana Ex.P13 PAN Card of Brij Bihari Rana Ex.P14 Letter heads of Shilpi Cable Technologies Ex.PW19/A Disclosure statement of accused Sahil Ex.PW19/B Arrest memo of accused Sahil Ex.PW19/C Personal search memo of accused Sahil Ex.PW19/D Seizure memo of Rs.1,72,000/- from accused Sahil Ex.PW19/E Seizure memo of Rs.58,000/- from accused Rahul Ex.PW19/F Seizure memo of Rs.25,000/- from accused Sunny Sachdeva Ex.PW19/G Seizure memo of Rs.25,000/- from accused Ram Lakhan Ex.P-6 Bag with "diamond" written on it Ex.P-7 DL of Keshav Dutt Sharma Ex.P-8 I-card of Keshav Dutt Sharma Ex.P-9 (colly) Letterheads (11) in the name of Shilpi Cable Technology Ex.P-10 Booklet in the name of Shilpi Cable Technology Ex.PW19/I Disclosure statement of accused Rahul Ex.PW19/J Pointing out memo of the spot by accused Sahil Ex.PW19/K Disclosure statement of accused Ram Lakhan Ex.PW19/L Recovery of Rs. 1,70,000/- from accused Sunny Sachdeva Ex.PW21/A Statement of accused Sunny Sachdeva @ Kanchi @ Nonu regarding his non participation in TIP Proceedings Ex.PW21/B TIP proceedings of above mentioned accused Ex.PW21/C Certificate given by the Judicial Officer regarding SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 17/30 truthfulness of above mentioned proceedings Ex.PW21/D Statement of accused Rahul @ Chetan regarding his non participation in TIP proceedings Ex.PW21/E TIP proceedings of above mentioned accused Ex.PW21/F Certificate given by the Judicial Officer regarding truthfulness of above mentioned proceedings Ex.PW23/A Statement of accused Ram Lakhan regarding his non participation in TIP proceedings Ex.PW23/B TIP proceedings of above mentioned accused conducted by the Judicial Officer Ex.PW23/C Certificate given by the Judicial Officer regarding truthfulness of above mentioned proceedings Ex.PW23/D Certificate given by the Judicial Officer regarding truthfulness of TIP proceedings in respect of accused Sahil Ex.PW23/E Supplying of TIP proceedings in respect of accused Sahil to the IO vide his application Ex.PW24/A Site Plan Ex.PW24/B Place of Incident i.e. road near speed breaker of the central school, Regharpur, Karol Bagh Ex.PW24/C-1 Photographs of motorcycle no. DL6SAF 5064 to Ex.PW24/C-
4Ex.PW25/A Disclosure statement of accused Sanjay Ex.PW26/A-1 Photographs of pistol and cartridges recovered from & Ex.PW26/A- accused Sunny Sachdeva 2 Ex.P15 Country made pistol recovered from the possession of accused Sunny Sachdeva Ex.P16 (colly) Cartridges recovered from the possession of accused Sunny Sachdeva Ex.PW28/A DD No.20A regarding snatching of bag Ex.PW28/B Supplementary disclosure statement of accused Ram Lakhan Ex.PW28/C Supplementary disclosure statement of accused Sahil @ Babloo @ Azad Ex.PW29/A FSL report regarding the firearm Ex.PW30/A Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for prosecuting accused Sunny Sachdeva u/s 25 Arms Act SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 18/30
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC 4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence the accused were questioned u/s 313 CrPC regarding incriminating circumstances appearing against them. All of them stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. 4.2 Accused Rajeev stated that all the allegations against him were false and his signatures were taken on blank documents. He had not given any disclosure statement to the police disclosing the name of the other accused persons. He knew only one accused Malhotra being from same Biradari and he came to know his name only after the present case.
4.3 Accused Sanjay Kumar stated that he was lodged in custody in an Arms Act case. One boy named Rajeev was arrested and he named him falsely in the present case. His bua was married in their house and a property dispute was going on. They had threatened that they will implicate him in some case. Due to said enmity, he named him as his accomplice. He was never taken to his home. Nothing was recovered from him in regard to the present case and police obtained his signatures on blank documents.
4.4 Accused Sajid stated that two policemen came at his house and they asked whether he knows Sahil and showed his photo to him and he told them that he knew him. They told him that he had to say said facts to SHO or whether he can assist in tracing said Sahil. He told the SHO that Sahil is living in Sultanpuri and then he led the police at this house where his elder brother was SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 19/30 found. Then he was left at his house. Later on he was called from his house and he was called for 3-4 days in PS. One day when Sahil was available at his house, he informed the police. He was apprehended but Sahil's brother told him that he had led the police to him, therefore, Sahil named him as an accomplice due to said fact. Then he was beaten and tortured by the police. Police told him that they will leave if he gave money but he had no money. Then police brought many blank papers and took his signatures on the same. He was not taken to his house by the police and nothing was recovered at his instance. He further stated that alleged Rs.1 lakh had been planted by the police. Police had not seen his house even once and no motorcycle or other case property had been recovered at his instance and the present case is a false and motivated one.
4.5 Accused Ram Lakhan stated that he was the BC of Karol Bagh's area. He stated that he was going every month for attendance in PS Karol Bagh wherein police officials from Amar Colony came there and he was beaten and they obtained his signatures on plain papers. He was beaten and thereafter sent to the jail. Nothing was recovered from him. He does not even know how to drive motorcycle or car. He does not even know the other co-accused.
4.6 Accused Sunny Sachdeva stated that he had refused the TIP as he had been shown to public persons in the police station. He stated that all the allegations against him were false. He was playing cricket in the park and one person from the nearby RWA asked about him. The police officials were sitting in the office of SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 20/30 RWA. When he told that he was Sunny Sachdeva, the police officials apprehended him and he was taken to his house. Then he was taken to PS Amar Colony. He was tortured by the police and his signatures were taken on blank documents. He further stated that nothing was recovered from him.
5. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.1 None of the accused chose to lead any defence evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.
6. ARGUMENTS 6.1 Thereafter, arguments of the prosecution and Ld. Counsel for the accused were heard. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that during his testimony complainant has not supported the case of prosecution and has not identified any of the accused in the court. Neither his colleague travelling in the car nor the public witnesses had identified any of the accused. None of vehicles allegedly recovered from accused persons have been linked to the incident. As far as the recovered case property is concerned, the denomination of the currency notes allegedly recovered from accused are different from the denomination of the currency notes stated by the complainant. Accordingly, even the alleged recovery is not linked to looted property. As far as the recovery of alleged pistol from accused Sunny is concerned, there is no public witness in support of said recovery and even the circumstances of his arrest and the recovery are doubtful. Moreover, neither complainant nor his colleague have deposed about use of any fire arm in the incident.
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 21/30 7.1 The relevant provisions applicable in present case are reproduced herewith:-
Section 120-B Punishment of criminal conspiracy - "(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both."
Section 120-A IPC defines criminal conspiracy - "When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, -
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof."
395 IPC provides punishment for dacoity as follows:-
"Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with 1imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
Section 397 IPC provides for enhanced punishment in certain cases of dacoity viz "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."\ Section 391 IPC defines dacoity as follows:-
"When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 22/30 conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".
Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act provides "Whoever acquires has in his possession or carries any fire arm or ammunition ammunition in contravention of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three yearss and shall also be liable to fine".
Section 27 Arms Act provides "Punishment for using arms, etc.--"1. Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
7.2 From the relevant provisions of law, facts of the case and the arguments led by parties, following points for determination arise:-
1. Whether alleged dacoity took place at the given time and place?;
2. Whether the accused persons committed the alleged dacoity and if so, whether any of them used any deadly weapon in such dacoity?;
3. Whether the dacoity was committed in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy?
4. Whether the accused persons were found in possession of the robbed money? and
5. Whether the accused Sunny was found in the possession of alleged pistol?SC 1534/2016
FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 23/30
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 8.1 Prosecution has relied upon four witnesses regarding the incident in question i.e. the complainant Keshav Dutt Sharma, his colleague Brij Mohan Rana and two public persons who were present near the spot at the time of incident. The said two public persons i.e. Ranjeet and Ashok have not deposed even regarding the incident and have deposed that they reached at the spot on their scooter and saw a crowd of people gathered there. They stopped there and police checked their documents. As per them, police took signatures on some documents but they had not seen any offence being committed at the spot. They have denied even in their cross examination by prosecution that they were eye witness to the incident or that they can identify the robbers. The complainant and his colleague have deposed regarding the incident but with major variations from the police case. 8.2 PW4- Keshav Dutt Sharma deposed that he was employed with Shilpi Cable Technologies Pvt. Ltd. situated at Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate and on 13.04.2012 he along with Brij Bihari Rana went to Karol Bagh in a Wagon-R car from their office for taking cash from MCD market. Brij Bihari Rana was his co-worker, who deals with cash in said company and when they reached Karol Bagh at the shop, the owner/proprietor handed over cash to them in a polythene bag and after collecting that cash, they started for the house of Vishal Goel, owner/proprietor of their company at Nehru Place, New Delhi. Their vehicle stopped for a while at Traffic Signal, Andrews Ganj SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 24/30 near Central School where one white colour car overtook their car and stopped ahead of it. Two persons came out of that car, one of them put knife on him and the other put knife on Brij Bihari Rana. Both of them snatched polythene bag containing cash from their car and fled away.
8.3 Even the colleague of the complainant i.e. PW5 Brij Bihari Rana deposed that on 13.04.2012 he along with his colleague Keshav had gone to Karol Bagh where Keshav had to receive money from some customer. They were in Wagon R Car bearing number .......0371 and they went to an office No. 109, MCD market, Karol Bagh. Complainant Keshav was given cash in two black colour polythene bags and after taking the same, they went for their office. When their car became slow due to a slope on road and a traffic signal near Central School, Andrews Ganj, one white colour car stopped in front of their car obstructing its way. Two persons covering their mouths below nose with cloth came down from that car. Both of them put knives on his neck as well as Keshav and they took away the polythene bags containing cash. He could not see what happened thereafter. 8.4 Therefore, it can be seen that both the eye witnesses have narrated regarding the incident in altogether a different manner. Instead of robbers coming on the motorcycle/motorcycles, they have deposed that they were way-laid by a white colour car. Instead of four persons, they have mentioned role of only two persons in the incident. Instead of use of pistol, they have stated that the robbers put knives on their necks. Instead of cash being in the bags, they had stated that it was in polythene bags. Further, SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 25/30 complainant identified his signatures on the complaint but has stated that police took his signatures on blank papers. Accordingly, the whole prosecution story has been changed in the testimony of the complainant and his colleague and altogether different manner of robbery has been described. Even in their cross examination, they have denied the manner of robbery as stated in the FIR and the chargesheet. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the dacoity in the alleged manner. 8.5 As far as the involvement of the accused persons in the dacoity is concerned, during their testimony PW4 and PW5 have not identified any of the accused as the robbers. PW5 has also denied that he had identified five accused in the police station during investigation. Thus, PW4 and PW5 have not only given a clean chit to the accused person during their testimony but have also discredited the identification of accused during investigation. PW4 has even denied that any of the motorcycles recovered in the present case were involved in the incident. As far as the refusal of accused to participate in TIP is concerned, same gives rise to an adverse inference that accused had refused to join the same with the guilty mind that he will be identified in such TIP. Moreover, said inference is of corroborative nature only and is not a substantial piece of evidence. However, in the absence of identification in the court, the same cannot be relied upon to prove the culpability of such accused also. Though the contents of their 161 CrPC statements were put to PW4 and PW5 by the prosecution during their cross examination but they denied the same. As per section 162 CrPC, the Court cannot look into SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 26/30 161 CrPC statements except for the purpose of contradiction. Another caveat is attached in the said provision i.e. the statement u/s 161 CrPC has to be duly proved before it can be used for such contradiction. However, the prosecution has failed to prove such statement through the IO who recorded such statement. Thus, identification of the accused persons by PW4/PW5 during the investigation cannot be looked into. Accordingly, no evidence has come through any of the eye witness to pin down any of the accused to the alleged offence.
8.6 As far as charge of criminal conspiracy is concerned, there is no material except the disclosure of accused persons showing the existence of criminal conspiracy. There is no evidence to show that accused persons did any recce of the alleged shop prior to incident or they had any clandestine meetings or were in constant touch with each other through mobile calls at / around the time of incident. Moreover, none of accused or the vehicles used in offence or weapon used in offence have been identified by any eye witness. Hence, there is neither any circumstantial nor any direct or physical evidence of conspiracy. Now we shall further proceed to discuss the issue of recovery of looted property and whether same provide a link to the conspiracy. As far as the recovery of currency is concerned, all the recoveries from accused are in the denomination of Rs.500/- of Rs.1,000/- currency notes. Though in the FIR said currency notes were referred but PW4 has deposed in his cross examination by defence Counsel that currency notes were apparently of Rs.100/- denominations and PW5 has deposed that he cannot say that in SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 27/30 the cash, all currency notes were approximately of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- each. In regard to the other recovered articles, PW4 in his cross examination by defence Counsel has deposed that police had seized title documents of their vehicle including letter heads of their company, visiting cards and one bag of laptop. He has deposed that there was no black bag in their bag having logo of Diamond.
The currency which was allegedly robbed from the complainant/his colleague was not having any specific marks and the serial numbers of the same were not known to the complainant/his colleague. As per chargesheet, the link between the robbed money and the recovered money was that same were of same denomination i.e. Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- currency notes and were recovered in pursuance to the disclosure statement of the accused persons. The disclosure statement of the accused is inadmissible in view of scheme of provisions from section 24 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Only the fact of recovery can be proved through such disclosure statement. Thus, the only thing that remains is that denomination of the currency recovered was the same as mentioned in the complaint. However, complainant has deposed that packets appeared containing currency of Rs.100/- denomination and thereby even said link is broken. As mentioned above, the recovery of other articles is also discredited by complainant himself by deposing that same were seized from them by the police, thereby removing the possibility of such recovery from such accused persons. He and PW5 have also denied the presence of any diamond company bag during the SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 28/30 incident. Therefore, neither the recovery of the currency notes nor the articles could be proved to be the looted property by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. Consequently, the recovery does not prove the offence of criminal conspiracy also. 8.7 As far as the recovery of illegal weapon is concerned, PW9 HC Jogender has deposed that when accused Sunny Sachdeva was apprehended, his mother was inside the house. However, the arrest memo of Sunny Sachdeva Ex.PW9/A mentions that mother of accused was informed about the arrest by phone 9717035804. It is surprising that the accused was arrested while sleeping outside his house but his mother who was present inside the house had to be informed by way of a phone call regarding his arrest. More so, there is apparent signature of the mother Krishna on the arrest memo and the phone number mentioned along with her signature is 9210858540. During his cross examination, PW9 has failed to tell as to who the number 9717035804 belonged. More so, it is not the case that accused was taken away from outside his house to the police station. Rather, the recovery of the alleged pistol was recovered from inside his house where his mother was admittedly present. However, it is not deposed by PW9 that they asked the mother to be witness to the recovery of alleged pistol or whether they asked but she refused. Further, PW9 has deposed that police party neither knocked the door nor pressed the door bell as Sunny Sachdeva was sleeping outside and was apprehended from there. He has deposed that there were only two rooms in the house, one at the ground floor and another at the first floor. Since the police SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 29/30 party were not required to enter inside the house, thus, it appears that accused was sleeping on the ground floor outside the room. However, PW26 Inspector Mahender Singh Dahiya who was the part of said raiding party has deposed during his cross examination that said accused was found sleeping on the first floor of his house. Further, he has deposed that mother of accused Sunny refused to sign on his arrest memo. However, as mentioned above, the arrest memo of accused Sunny Ex.PW9/A bears the apparent signatures of Smt. Krishna Sachdeva i.e mother of accused. Thus, the circumstances of arrest of accused and consequently the recovery of alleged pistol are shrouded with doubts.
9. CONCLUSION 9.1 Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, prosecution has failed to prove any of the alleged offences against the accused Sunny Sachdeva @ Kanchi @ Nonu, Rajiv, Sajid, Sanjay Kumar @ Malhotra and Ram Lakhan. Hence, they are acquitted of the offences charged against them u/s 395/397 IPC r/w section 120B IPC and accused Sunny Sachdeva @ Kanchi @ Nonu is also acquitted u/s 25/27 Arms Act charged against him.
Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN SANGWAN SANGWAN Date: 2023.05.17 16:18:23 +0530 (Announced in the Open (Sachin Sangwan) Court on 17 th May, 2023) Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-01): SE: Saket District Court: New Delhi. SC 1534/2016 FIR No. 113/12 State v. Sunny Sachdeva & Ors. Pages 30/30