Delhi District Court
State vs Pankaj Chadha on 22 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH GUPTA: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE: 04, WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLWT010076182019
SC No. 543/2019
FIR No. 346/2019
PS Punjabi Bagh
u/s 392/394/397/411 IPC
& 25 Arms Act.
State
Vs.
Pankaj Chadha
S/o Shri Brij Mohan Chadha @ Vishnu Chadha
R/o H.No. D2/48, Hari Enclave,
Aman Vihar, Delhi.................................................................Accused
Date of committal to Court of Sessions : 19.09.2019
Date of Judgment : 22.03.2021
Final order : Convicted
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 1 of 57 (1). The present case was received by assignment after
committal to the Sessions Court on 19.09.2019. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for arguments on the point of charge. It is relevant to note here that initially the matter was assigned to the court of Shri Gorakh Nath Pandey, Ld. ASJ, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and ordersheet dated 09.10.2019 reflects that the present case was received by way of transfer in the court of the then Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Order dated 09.12.2019 reflects that the then Ld. Predecessor of this court was transferred. Order dated 10.01.2020 reflects that the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge as last opportunity for 22.01.2020. Ordersheet dated 22.01.2020 reflects that the then Ld. Presiding Officer of the court was also transferred. Reader of the court has informed that for quite some time this court was vacant. Ordersheet dated 22.01.2020, 13.02.2020 and 02.03.2020 have been written by the Reader of the court. It is also relevant to note that due to COVID 19 Pandemic there was lockdown in the country and the functioning of FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 2 of 57 the courts was also restricted and the matters were being adjourned enblock for quite some time and subsequently virtual hearing through video conferencing through CISCO Webex App. started. It is relevant to note that due to ongoing COVID19 Pandemic, accused persons were earlier not being produced before the court physically from judicial custody. On 02.09.2020 only for the first time the Ld. Counsel for the accused appeared through video conferencing through CISCO Webex App. and prayed for short adjournment and submitted that while dismissing the S.L.P., the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the directions to expedite the trial of the present case. Order dated 22.07.2020 passed in the said S.L.P. reflects that the said S.L.P. filed against the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dismissing the bail application filed by the petitioner Shri Pankaj Chadha was dismissed and the Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial. On 02.09.2020, matter was adjourned for 04.09.2020 for consideration of charge.
FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 3 of 57 (2). It is relevant to note that the undersigned has joined his
duties in this court, after transfer, only on 16.03.2020 and in March, 2020 itself lockdown in the Nation started due to COVID19 Pandemic. On 04.09.2020 report of SI Deepak Sharma was received according to which the exhibits of this case were deposited in FSL, Rohini by the IO but the result was not ready. Directions were given to expedite the FSL result and also sanction u/s 39 Arms Act. Directiions were given to SHO, Police Station Punjabi bagh as well as to the Director of FSL, Rohini, Delhi for doing the needful without any delay. The FSL result and sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was filed in the form of supplementary chargesheet which was assigned to this court by Ld. Officiating District & Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi only on 07.11.2020.
(3). On 10.11.2020, charge was framed against the accused FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 4 of 57 after hearing both the sides. On 10.11.2020 Ld. Counsels for the
accused were present in the court and accused Pankaj Chadha was present in J.C. who was connected through video conferencing through CISCO Webex App. from Rohini Jail, Delhi. Charge framed against the accused Pankaj Chadha in this case is u/s 392/394/397 IPC and alternatively u/s 411 IPC. Separate charge u/s 25 of the Arms Act was also framed against the accused, Pankaj Chadha.
(4). The present FIR has been registered on the basis of statement of Shri Ram Lal Bansal which is Ex. PW1/A. As per the said statement it is alleged that on 27.06.2019 the complainant was going to Karol Bagh at about 6:40 AM from the house of his son and when he reached near Peeragarhi Bus Stand then one ECO van stopped near him and driver of the said van asked him that he was going towards Karol Bagh and if he wanted to go there then he i.e. complainant may sit in the ECO van. The complainant has stated that he is residing with FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 5 of 57 his family at the address as mentioned in the said statement i.e. at 10753, Jhandewalan Road, Nabi Karim, New Delhi. The complainant has stated his age to be 70 years. Complainant has further alleged therein that at that time the said ECO van was not occupied by anyone and, therefore, he sat inside the said van on the front seat and driver of the ECO van started the same in high speed. It is further alleged that at about 7:00 AM as soon as the said ECO van reached near Punjabi Bagh Underpass then the driver of the said van stopped the same and had shown pistol to him i.e. to complainant and demanded all the articles possessed by the complainant or else he i.e. driver would shoot him. It is further alleged that initially the complainant denied but then the driver of the van slapped him and forcibly snatched Rs. 12,000/ as well as golden diamond ring from the complainant. It is alleged that the said money was lying in the pocket of the complainant and the complainant was wearing the said ring. Complainant has further alleged that thereafter the driver of the van deboarded him FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 6 of 57 there only and the complainant had noted down the registration number of the said van which was DL9CAK6496. Complainant has further stated therein that he can identify the young driver of the said van if shown to him. It is alleged therein that the driver of the said vehicle has slapped him and robbed him of the articles by showing pistol to him and, therefore, legal action may be taken against him. The complainant has also mentioned in the said statement that he do not want his medical examination to be conducted. Lastly, it is mentioned in the said statement by the complainant that he could not give his statement at that time as he was under fear. (5). In the chargesheet it is mentioned that at the spot of incident the complainant did not make any statement as he stated that he was under fear and shall make statement subsequently and thereafter the complainant visited the police station on the same day i.e. on 27.06.2019 and gave statement Ex. PW1/A as mentioned FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 7 of 57 above in detail.
(6). After hearing both the sides and on the basis of the material on record, charge under the relevant provisions of law was framed on 10.11.2020 as mentioned above in para 3. The charge was readover and explained to the accused and after understanding the same the accused was asked as to whether he wants to plead guilty or claim trial. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (7). Subsequently, prosecution witnesses were examined. Prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW1 Shri Ram Lal Bansal S/o late Shri Narain Dass, PW2 HC Satbir, PW3 Shri Tara Chand, PW4 HC Satish Kumar, PW5 HC Rajbir, PW 6 Shri V.R. Anand, PW7 HC Sunil, PW8 SI Sandeep Singh and PW9 Shri Sameer Sharma, Additional DCP, West District, New Delhi.
FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 8 of 57 (8). Thereafter PE was closed and the statement of accused
was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused opted to lead defence evidence and has examined DW1 Mohd. Rafik, DW2 Shri Salesh and DW3 Smt. Madhu Chadha and thereafter DE was closed. (9). I have already heard final arguments and perused the material on record.
(10). Bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C. has already been furnished on behalf of accused and accepted which was accepted for a period of six months which shall be effective from the date of judgment in this case. (11). Now I shall discuss the testimonies of the witnesses examined in this case.
(12). PW1 Shri Ram Lal Bansal is the complainant who deposed FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 9 of 57 before the court that he is residing at address i.e. H.No. 10753,
Jhandewalan Road, Nabi Karim, Delhi and having business of paper board supply and is running the said business from premises no. 10655, Jhandewalan Road, Delhi. He further deposed that on 27.06.2019 on or about 6:48 AM he had left the house of his son residing at Paschim Enclave, Peeragarhi, Delhi for going to their Ashram at Karol Bagh and while he was present at Peeragarhi Bus Stand, suddenly one ECO Van came there and driver of the said ECO Van i.e. accused Pankaj Chadha made enquiries from him as to where he had to go and the complainant told accused that he had to go to Karol Bagh. PW1 i.e. complainant has correctly identified the accused Pankaj Chadha who was present and connected through video conferencing mode through CISCO Webex App. from concerned jail. PW1 further deposed that the accused also stated that he was also going towards Karol Bagh and offered him to travel upto Karol Bagh in his ECO Van and there was no other passenger in the said van and FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 10 of 57 the complainant agreed to go there and sat beside the driver seat and thereafter accused started driving the said van and when the van reached near Punjabi Bagh Underpass then accused stopped the van at the side of the Underpass and accused Pankaj Chadha suddenly took out one pistol and pointed out the same towards him and threatened him to handover whatever articles he was carrying and the complainant got afraid and tried to open the door of the said van and upon this accused threatened him that in case complainant would not handover the articles carried by him then he would shoot him and thereafter accused has also slapped him and robbed a cash sum of Rs. 12,000/ from his possession and also robbed the complainant of his diamond studded gold ring. Complainant further deposed that he requested accused for returning the said articles to him but the accused did not do so and thereafter accused opened the door of his van and asked him to deboard the van and due to fear he deboarded the van and thereafter accused drove away the said ECO Van and at FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 11 of 57 that time he i.e. complainant noted down the registration number of the said ECO Van as DL9CAK6496. Complainant further deposed that due to fear he sat there for some time and thereafter he made a call at number 100 from his mobile phone and initially PCR officials reached there and after some time the local police officials also visited the spot and the local police official recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A. Complainant further deposed that IO also prepared a rough site plan at his instance and further deposed that during investigation he had accompanied the IO and other police officials to Sultan Puri, Delhi and he do not remember the exact address, however at the said address they had met Smt. Bimla and IO had made enquiries from Bimla and she told that she had given the aforesaid ECO Van to her soninlaw i.e. accused Pankaj Chadha. Complainant further deposed that thereafter, they went to the house of accused Pankaj Chadha at Aman Vihar, Delhi and upon his identification, IO had apprehended accused Pankaj Chadha and upon FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 12 of 57 the search of accused Pankaj Chadha, his robbed diamond studded gold ring was recovered and he had identified the same to have been robbed from his possession. He further deposed that thereafter accused Pankaj Chadha got recovered a cash sum of Rs. 9,940/ from the drawer of the almirah kept in his house and thereafter, accused Pankaj Chadha also got recovered one pistol from his possession and IO had prepared the sketch of the said pistol/katta. He further deposed that IO had effected the arrest of accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 1/B bearing his signatures at Point A. He further deposed that IO had also conducted the personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW 1/C bearing his signatures at Point A. PW1 further deposed that IO had also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/D which also bears his signatures at Point A. He further deposed that IO had seized the ring recovered from the accused after keeping the same in a transparent polythene vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/E bearing his signatures at Point A and IO had also seized the currency FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 13 of 57 amount of Rs. 9,940/ after keeping the same in the transparent polythene vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F bearing his signatures at Point A. He further deposed that IO had also prepared the sketch of recovered katta vide memo Ex., PW1/G bearing his signatures at Point A and further deposed that the recovered Katta was kept in a cloth pullanda and after sealing the said pullanda with the seal, IO had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/H bearing his signature at Point A. Complainant further deposed that he do not remember the impression of the said seal. He further deposed that said ECO van was also found parked near the house of accused which IO had seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/I bearing his signatures at Point A. Complainant further deposed that during the course of investigation he had moved an application and took the recovered cash amount of Rs. 9,940/ and his robbed ring on superdari and stated that he has brought the diamond studded gold ring which is on superdari with him. Said ring is Ex. P1. During the testimony of PW1, MHC(M) also FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 14 of 57 produced the photocopies of the currency notes which were shown to witness and the witness had identified the photocopies of the said currency notes to be the same which he took on superdari. Photocopies of the said notes on four sheets are collectively Ex. P2. MHC(M) has also produced the photographs of the ECO Van which was stated to be on superdari with the registered owner Smt. Bimla and the photographs of the said van on two sheets are collectively Ex. P3. Said photographs alongwith the accompanying documents were allowed to be kept on judicial file at the request of Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State. Witness deposed that he can also identify the said katta if shown to him. MHC(M) also produced one pullanda sealed with the seal of FSL. Said pullanda was opened and one country made katta was taken out and shown to the witness who identified the same and stated that it was shown to him by accused at the time of commission of offence and recovered from the accused. Said country made katta is Ex. P4.
FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 15 of 57 Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State also sought permission of the court to put one leading question to the witness which was allowed. Following leading question was put to PW1 which was answered. Said question and answer are as follows: Question: Is it correct that the katta Ex. P4 was got recovered by accused from under the bed inside the house of accused?
Answer: Today I do not remember this fact exactly, however, so far as I remember today, Katta Ex. P4 was recovered from the possession of accused i.e. from inside the wearing pant of accused.
PW1 was also crossexamined by Ld. Counsels for the accused. In the said crossexamination PW1 deposed that his son Nitin Bansal is residing at H. No. 22, Paschim Enclave, Second Floor, Delhi and when accused stopped van near him, it was around 7:00 AM and few other persons were also standing at the said Bus Stop at that time. He further deposed that accused had not offered any other person standing there for traveling in his van. PW1 volunteered that he only gave the said offer to him. He further deposed that no fare was FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 16 of 57 decided. He volunteered that generally he used to pay a sum of Rs. 20/ from Peeragarhi to Karol Bagh as fare. He further deposed that he had not objected as to why accused had opened the front side conductor's door before he sat in the said van. He further deposed that accused started the said van on or about 7:00 AM and they reached the Punjabi Bagh Underpass on or about 7:05 AM. He deposed that the accused did not drive the van under the underpass but took the left turn just before reaching at Punjabi Bagh Underpass. He further deposed that he had stated to IO that the robbed currency notes were in the denomination of Rs. 500/ and Rs. 100/, on the day of registration of FIR itself. PW1 admitted in crossexamination that there is no identification mark on the said currency notes and stated that PCR Van reached at the spot within 5 to 7 minutes from the time of making the call at 100 number. He further deposed that local police officials reached after about 1520 minutes of reaching the PCR van at the spot. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by IO at FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 17 of 57 the police station. He volunteered that oral enquiries were made from him by the police officials at the spot. He also deposed that rough site plan was prepared by IO in between 12:00 Noon to 1:00 Noon. He also deposed that IO had also obtained his signatures on the said rough site plan. Said rough site plan was shown to the witness and after going through the same the witness admitted that the same no where bears his signatures. PW1 denied the suggestion that no such site plan was prepared at his instance and that is why the rough site plan is not bearing his signatures. He also denied the suggestion that accused had not committed any such robbery upon him or that it was only a quarrel between him and accused on the pretext of fare. He also denied the suggestion that when they reached near the underpass, accused started demanding the fare at a higher rate to which he objected and then he i.e. complainant started quarreling with the accused and he i.e. complainant made a false call to the police. He also denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 18 of 57 implicated or that neither the accused had pointed out any such katta towards him nor robbed cash or ring from his possession. Complainant also denied the suggestion that he had signed all the memos while sitting at police station at the instance of IO. Lastly, complainant denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or that accused has been falsely implicated by him.
(13). PW2 HC Satbir deposed that on 27.06.2019 he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as duty officer having duty hours from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM and on that day at about 8:31 AM he had received an information/ GD on his computer regarding the incident of the present case and, accordingly, he had fed the said information vide GD No. 24A. He further deposed that he handed over the copy of GD no. 24A to SI Sandeep who alongwith Ct. Rajbir had left for the place of occurrence. The true copy of the GD No. 24A is Ex. PW2/A. Cross examination of this witness is nil despite opportunity given.
FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 19 of 57 (14). PW3 Shri Tara Chand, Record Keeper from Transport
Authority, Zonal Office, South West Delhi, Dwarka, deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. original file in respect of vehicle no. DL9CAK6496 maintained by the authority and as per the original file the vehicle no. DL9CAK6496 is registered in the name of Smt. Bimla, R/o E2/85, J.J. Colony, Sultan Puri, Delhi. Original file was seen and returned. The attested computerized copy of the said vehicle particulars are Ex. PW3/A. Crossexamination of this witness is also nil despite opportunity given.
(15). PW4 HC Satish Kumar deposed that o n 27.06.2019 he was on duty as MHC(M) at PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi and on that day SI Sandeep Singh had deposited in malkhana one polythene containing a sum of Rs. 9,940/, one polythene containing one golden colour ring, ECO van bearing no. DL9CAK6496 and one sealed pullanda sealed FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 20 of 57 with the seal of SS stated to be containing one country made katta as well as personal search articles. PW4 deposed that he had recorded entry no. 3357 in register no. 19 (OSR). The copy of the relevant entry in register no. 19 is Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that thereafter on 03.09.2020 he handed over the pullanda sealed with the seal of SS to Ct. Puran for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide RC no. 190/21/20 and after deposit, Ct. Puran had handed over him the acknowledgement. He further deposed that he has brought original register no. 21 (OSR). Copy of the relevant RC no. 190/21/20 is Ex. PW4/B and the acknowledgment is Ex. PW4/C. He further deposed that he had also made relevant entries in register no. 19 in this respect. He also deposed that so far as the case property remained with him, the same was not tampered in any manner. He was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he denied the suggestion that the case property was tampered. He admitted in cross examination that cash and ring were not in sealed condition when FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 21 of 57 deposited in malkhana.
(16). PW5 HC Rajbir deposed that on 27.06.2019 he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh and was on day emergency duty from 8:00AM to 8:00 PM with SI Sandeep and on that day DD No. 24A was marked to SI Sandeep and accordingly he accompanied him to the place of occurrence where they met complainant Shri Ram Lal Bansal and IO had made enquiries from complainant but at that time complainant was not able to make statement as he was under fear. He further deposed that IO had made oral inquiries from complainant and complainant had disclosed the registration number of the vehicle in which the offence was committed upon him and IO had obtained the ownership details of vehicle no. DL9CAK6496. He further deposed that thereafter they took complainant to police station and in the police station complainant had made a statement to IO and IO had made endorsement beneath the said statement and got the FIR registered FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 22 of 57 through duty officer. He further deposed that thereafter they again returned back to the spot and IO had prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant and thereafter he alongwith complainant and IO SI Sandeep Singh went to E2/85, J.J. Colony, Sultan Puri, Delhi where they met Smt. Bimla i.e. the registered owner of the said ECO van who disclosed that she had given the said vehicle to her son inlaw i.e. to accused Pankaj Chadha. He further deposed that thereafter they went to house of accused Pankaj Chadha, i.e. D2/48, Hari Nagar, Aman Vihar, Delhi where accused was found present at the aforesaid house and complainant had identified accused Pankaj Chadha being the culprit. This witness has correctly identified accused Pankaj Chadha who was present through video conferencing mode through CISCO Webex App. from concerned jail. Witness further deposed that IO had effected the arrest of accused vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/B bearing his signatures at Point B and IO also conducted the personal search of accused vide memo already Ex. PW FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 23 of 57 1/C which also bears his signatures at Point B. He further deposed that IO had also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/D which also bears his signatures at Point B. He further deposed that upon the search of accused Pankaj Chadha, one robbed diamond studded gold ring was recovered and complainant Shri Ram Lal Bansal identified the same to have been robbed from his possession. He further deposed that accused Pankaj Chadha got recovered a cash sum of Rs. 9,940/ from the drawer of the almirah kept in his house and thereafter accused Pankaj Chadha also got recovered one pistol from under the bed kept in the room of his house. He further deposed that IO had prepared the sketch of the said pistol/katta and IO had seized the ring recovered from the accused after keeping the same in a transparent polythene vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/E which bears his signature at Point B. He further deposed that IO had also seized the currency amount of Rs. 9,940/ after keeping the same in the transparent polythene vide seizure memo FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 24 of 57 already Ex. PW1/F which also bears his signature at Point B. He also deposed that IO had also prepared the sketch of recovered katta vide memo already Ex. PW1/G which also bears his signature at Point B. He further deposed that the recovered Katta was kept in a cloth pullanda and after sealing the said pullanda with the seal of SS, IO had seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/H, which bears his signature at Point B. This witness also deposed that the ECO van bearing no. DL9CAK6496 was also found parked near the house of accused which IO had seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/I which bears his signatures at Point B. He deposed that he can identify the case property i.e. the country made katta, recovered cash and ring as well as aforesaid ECO van, if shown to him. There is also court observation in the testimony of this witness wherein it is observed that the diamond studded gold ring is already on superdari with complainant and the said ring has already been exhibited as Ex. P1 and thus its identity is not disputed. Photograph of the ring available FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 25 of 57 on judicial file was shown to the witness and witness identified the said ring from the photograph. Photocopies of the currency notes available on judicial record were shown to the witness who identified the photocopies of the said currency notes to be the same which were recovered from accused. The photocopies of said notes on four sheets are already collectively Ex. P2. The photographs of the ECO Van which was stated to be on superdari with the registered owner Smt. Bimla, which were on judicial file were also shown to the witness who identified the photographs of the said van on two sheets which are already collectively Ex. P3. There is also another court observation wherein it is observed that the country made katta has already been exhibited during the testimony of PW1 and is already exhibited as Ex. P4. In chief examination of this witness it is also mentioned that Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that he is not disputing the identity of the Katta Ex. P4, however, he is only disputing the recovery of Katta from the possession of the accused. PW5 was also cross FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 26 of 57 examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein witness admitted that the complainant has not made statement at the spot. He also deposed in crossexamination that he do not remember the exact time when the statement of complainant was recorded at PS. He denied the suggestion that the statement of complainant was intentionally recorded at a belated stage in order to falsely implicate the accused. He deposed that in his presence IO had not made inquiries from the complainant as to how much fare was decided between complainant and accused. He also deposed that rough site plan was prepared by IO at the spot, however, he do not remember the exact time. He denied the suggestion that accused had not committed any such robbery upon the complainant or that it was only a quarrel between complainant and accused on the pretext of fare. He also denied the suggestion that during course of investigation it was revealed to them that when the complainant and accused reached near the underpass, accused started demanding the fare at a higher rate to FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 27 of 57 which complainant objected and then complainant started quarreling with the accused and complainant made a false call to the police. He also denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated. He also denied the suggestion that he had signed all the memos while sitting at police station at the instance of IO. He admitted that recovery proceedings were neither video graphed nor photographed. He also deposed that wife of accused Pankaj Chadha was present at the said house, however, IO had not made any inquiries from her. He also deposed that in his presence IO had not requested any nearby neighbours for joining the investigation or recovery proceedings at the house of accused Pankaj Chadha. Lastly, he denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or that accused has been falsely implicated by them.
(17). PW6 Shri V.R. Anand, Assistant Director Ballistic, FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 03.09.2020, one sealed parcel sealed FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 28 of 57 with the seal of SS was received in the office of FSL and the same was marked to him for examination and the seal on the parcel was intact and as per the specimen seal. He further deposed that on opening the parcel, one country made pistol .315 inch bore was taken out and marked as F1. He further deposed that he examined the said exhibits and found that the country made pistol marked Ex. F1 was in working order and the test fire was conducted successfully by using two 8 mm/.315 inch cartridges received for test firing. He further deposed that the said Ex. F1 was a fire arm as defined under Arms Act, 1959 . He stated that all the exhibits were sealed with the seal of VRA, FSL, Delhi after examination. This witness has stated that his detailed report dated 26.10.2020 is PW6/A which bears his signatures at Point A. In crossexamination this witness denied the suggestion that he had prepared a false report at the instance of IO or that exhibits were not received by him in the sealed condition as claimed by him. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 29 of 57
(18). PW7 HC Sunil deposed that on
o 27.06.2019 he was posted
at PS Punjabi Bagh as Duty Officer from 4:00 PM to 12:00 night and on that day at about 11:05 PM SI Sandeep Singh produced a rukka and on the basis of rukka he recorded FIR No. 346/2019 on computer with the help of computer operator. He further deposed that he had made endorsement Ex. PW7/A at portion X to X1 on rukka which bears his signatures at Point Y. He deposed that computerized copy of FIR is Ex. PW7/B which bears his signature at Point Y. He also deposed that after registration of FIR he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Rajbir Singh for handing over the same to IO SI Sandeep Singh and stated that he had also issued certificate Ex. PW7/C, u/s 65B of Indian Evidence act which also bears his signature at Point Y. Original FIR was seen and returned. In crossexamination only one suggestion was given to this witness that he had recorded a false FIR at the instance of IO. This suggestion was denied by the FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 30 of 57 witness.
(19). PW8 SI Sandeep Singh is the IO of the case who deposed that on 27.06.2019 he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh and was on day emergency duty from 8:00AM to 8:00 PM and on that day DD No. 24A, already Ex. PW2/A was marked to him and, accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Rajbir went to the place of occurrence i.e. Punjabi Bagh, Underpass where they met complainant Shri Ram Lal Bansal and he made enquiries from complainant but at that time complainant was not able to make statement as he was perturbed. IO stated that thereafter on the same day on or about 10:00 PM complainant came to police station and met him and made statement already Ex. PW1/A and on the basis of said statement he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at Point X. He deposed that he handed over rukka to duty officer who registered the FIR and thereafter he alongwith complainant went to the place of occurrence i.e. Underpass, Punjabi FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 31 of 57 Bagh, the road going towards Zakhira, where he had prepared the rough site plan which is Ex. PW8/B bearing his signature at Point X and deposed that it was prepared at the instance of the complainant. He further deposed that in the meantime Ct. Rajbir visited the spot and handed over computerized copy of FIR No. 346/2019 and original rukka to him. He further stated that during investigation he had obtained the ownership details of vehicle no. DL9CAK6496 as mentioned in FIR and thereafter, he alongwith complainant and Ct. Rajbir went to E2/85, J.J. Colony, Sultan Puri, Delhi where they met Smt. Bimla who was the registered owner of the said vehicle i.e. ECO van who disclosed that she had given the aforesaid vehicle to her son inlaw i.e. to accused Pankaj Chadha and thereafter, they went to house of accused at D2/48, Hari Nagar, Aman Vihar, Delhi where accused Pankaj Chadha was found present and complainant had identified accused Pankaj Chadha being the offender. PW8 has correctly identified accused Pankaj Chadha who was present through FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 32 of 57 video conferencing mode through CISCO Webex App. from concerned jail. He further deposed that during investigation he had effected the arrest of accused vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/B bearing his signatures at Point X and he also conducted the personal search of accused vide memo already Ex. PW1/C bearing his signatures at Point X and also recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is already Ex. PW1/D bearing his signatures at Point X. He further deposed that upon the search of accused Pankaj Chadha one robbed diamond studded gold ring was recovered and complainant Shri Ram Lal Bansal identified the same to be robbed from his possession and thereafter accused Pankaj chadha got recovered a cash sum of Rs. 9,940/ from the drawer of the almirah kept in his house and subsequently accused Pankaj Chadha also got recovered one pistol from under the bed kept in the room of his house. IO further deposed that he had prepared the sketch of the said pistol/katta which is already Ex. PW1/G bearing his signatures at Point X and deposed that he had FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 33 of 57 seized the ring recovered from the accused after keeping the same in a transparent polythene vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/E bearing his signatures at Point X. He also deposed that he had also seized the currency amount of Rs. 9,940/ after keeping the same in the transparent polythene vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/F bearing his signature at Point X. He further stated that the recovered Katta was kept in a cloth pullanda and after sealing the said pullanda with the seal of SS and the seal was handed over to Ct. Rajbir. He further deposed that he had seized the said pullanda containing country made katta vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/H bearing his signature at Point X. He further deposed that ECO van bearing no. DL9CAK 6496 was also found parked near the house of accused which he had seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/I which bears his signatures at Point X. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses and deposited the case property in malkhana and during the course of investigation on 19.12.2019 the pullanda FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 34 of 57 containing country made katta was sent to FSL but the same could not be deposited with the objection that two live cartridges are also to be deposited alongwith the said pullanda. He deposed that during investigation he wrote a requisition letter to the concerned DCP for providing two live cartridges so that the same can be deposited at FSL alongwith pullanda containing country made katta and thereafter on 15.01.2020 as he was transferred, therefore, the file was handed over to MHCR. He deposed that he can identify the case property i.e. the country made katta, recovered cash and ring as well as Eco van, if shown to him. During testimony of IO MHC(M) produced the case property. IO identified the said katta which is already Ex. P4 and deposed that it was recovered at the instance of accused Pankaj Chadha. There is also court observation wherein it is observed that the diamond studded gold ring is already on superdari with complainant and the said ring has already been exhibited as Ex. P1 and thus its identity is not disputed. The photograph of the ring FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 35 of 57 available on judicial file was shown to the witness and he identified the said ring from the photograph. Photocopies of the currency notes available on judicial record were also shown to the witness who identified the same and stated that it is the same which was recovered from accused. Photocopies of the said currency notes on four sheets are already collectively Ex. P2. The witness also correctly identified the photographs of the ECO Van which was stated to be on superdari with the registered owner Smt. Bimla. Photographs of the said van on two sheets are already collectively Ex. P3. IO was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused wherein he admitted that complainant has not made statement at the spot. He further deposed that after handing over rukka to DO he alongwith complainant reached at the spot at about 11:15 PM and then he prepared rough site plan. He denied the suggestion that the statement of complainant was intentionally recorded at a belated stage in order to falsely implicate the accused. He further deposed that he had not made inquiries from the FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 36 of 57 complainant as to how much fare was decided between complainant and accused. He denied the suggestion that accused had not committed any such robbery upon the complainant or that it was only a quarrel between complainant and accused on the pretext of fare. He denied the suggestion that during the course of investigation it was revealed to them that when the complainant and accused reached near the underpass, accused started demanding the fare at a higher rate to which complainant objected and then complainant started quarreling with the accused and complainant made a false call to the police. He further denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated or that he had prepared all the memos while sitting at police station. IO admitted that the recovery proceedings were neither video graphed nor photographed. He stated that wife of accused Pankaj Chadha was present at the said house, however, he had not made any inquiries from her. IO further deposed that he had requested few neighbours for joining the investigation and recovery proceedings at the house of FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 37 of 57 accused Pankaj Chadha, but they refused. He stated that he had not served any written notice to them nor recorded their names and addresses nor took any legal action against them. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or that accused has been falsely implicated by him with the connivance of complainant. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted fair investigation or that he intentionally did not join any public witness in order to falsely implicate the accused in the present case.
(20). PW9 Shri Sameer Sharma, Additional DCP, West District, New Delhi deposed that on 28.10.2020 he was posted as Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi and on that day he had perused the police papers of case FIR No. 346/2019 i.e. statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, seizure memo, and ballistic report etc. and after perusing the said documents he was satisfied that on 27.06.2019 accused Pankaj Chadha had in his FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 38 of 57 exclusive and conscious possession one country made pistol without any valid license in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 and, therefore, in pursuance of section 39 of the Arms Act he accorded sanction for prosecution of accused Pankaj Chadha for offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act. He deposed that sanction accorded by him is Ex. PW9/A bearing his signatures at Point A. This witness was also crossexamined on behalf of accused wherein he denied the suggestion that he had accorded the sanction in a mechanical manner without going through the relevant documents, at the instance of IO. (21). Subsequently, statement of accused Pankaj Chadha was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in question answer form wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing in this case against the accused was put to him and his explanation was sought. Accused stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he has no information about the business of PW1 Shri Ram Lal Bansal. He also stated that he has FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 39 of 57 been carrying passengers to Mayapuri for last five years. The accused has stated that he stopped the van opposite the police station Punjabi Bagh near Agrasen Hospital as asked by PW1 Shri Ram Lal Bansal. He further stated that PWs have falsely deposed and he has been falsely implicated. He has denied the allegations appearing in incriminating evidence against him. His general stand is that PWs have deposed falsely and he has been falsely implicated. He stated that the witnesses have deposed against him as they are interested witnesses. He stated that it is a false case and he is innocent and police has falsely implicated him in this case. He also stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that in fact, on the day of alleged occurrence he was present at Peeragarhi Chowk with ECO van and was calling for the passengers for Mayapuri and at that point of time on or about 6:40 AM two passengers were talking with him and in the meantime Shri Ram Lal Bansal also reached and stated to him that he had to go to Karol Bagh. Accused further stated that he demanded a sum of Rs.
FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 40 of 57 500/ as fare up to Karol Bagh from Shri Ram Lal Bansal and Shri Ram Lal Bansal stated to him that no other passenger shall travel in the said ECO van except him. Accused stated that he accepted the said fare and Shri Ram Lal Bansal sat in his ECO van and he i.e. accused started driving the said van and when the van reached near Agrasen Hospital, Shri Ram lal Bansal asked him to drop him near the said hospital upon which he i.e. accused demanded the complete fare of Rs. 500/ and upon his said demand, Shri Ram Lal Bansal started quarreling with him and threatened me that he would implicate him in false case and accordingly Shri Ram Lal Bansal got registered this false FIR. He further stated that after threatening him, Shri Ram Lal Bansal left the said place after noting down his ECO van number and thereafter, later on, he got registered this false FIR against him. Accused also stated that no recoveries were effected from his possession or at his instance and the said recoveries were planted by the IO with the connivance of Shri Ram Lal Bansal. The accused was FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 41 of 57 asked as to whether he wants to lead defence evidence. The accused opted to examine three witnesses in his defence. Accused examined DW1 Mohd. Rafik, DW2 Shri Salesh and DW3 Smt. Madhu Chadha. (22). DW1 Mohd. Rafik deposed that he has come to depose regarding case of Pankaj Chadha. The address of DW1 is of Kirari Suleman Nagar, Hari Enclave, Sultan Puri, Delhi. He deposed that he know accused Pankaj Chadha for the last three years and stated that accused Pankaj Chadha is driver by profession. He further deposed that on 27.06.2019 between 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM few persons visited home of accused Pankaj Chadha and on hearing noises from the house of Pankaj Chadha, after few minutes, he reached at the house of the accused and saw that those persons were beating the accsued Pankaj Chadha and were searching and they found some rupees. In crossexamination this defence witness denied the suggestion that no beatings were given to accused Pankaj Chadha by any police official.
FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 42 of 57 Witness also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to save accused Pankaj Chadha being his neighbour for last many years. (23). DW2 Shri Salesh deposed that he knows accused Pankaj Chadha for the last four years and he is his close friend. The address of DW2 is of Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that on 22.06.2019 accused Pankaj Chadha came to his house and stated that he required sum of Rs. 10,000/ as he had to go outstation. He further deposed that on the request of accused Pankaj Chadha he handed over a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to accused Pankaj Chadha on 26.06.2019 at his residence. In crossexamination this defence witness denied the suggestion that he had not given any such amount to accused Pankaj Chadha and also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to save accused Pankaj Chadha being his friend for the last many years.
(24). DW3 Smt. Madhu Chadha, W/o Pankaj Chadha deposed FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 43 of 57 that accused Pankaj Chadha is driver by profession and on
27.06.2019 between 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM few persons visited her home and at that time she alongwith her husband was also present there with her sister Sushila. She further deposed that those persons were not wearing any uniform. She further deposed that she asked them why they have come but instead of revealing their identity they started giving beatings to her husband namely accused Pankaj Chadha and they also opened the almirah and took out identity documents i.e. Aadhar Card, PAN card and Election ID card of accused Pankaj Chadha and also took out Rs. 10,000/ and they also snatched the phone of her husband Pankaj Chadha. She further deposed that her husband Pankaj Chadha borrowed the said sum of Rs. 10,000/ from his friend Sailesh. She further deposed that those persons also misbehaved with her and her sister and they took her husband with them and told them that they have come from police station Punjabi Bagh and they also asked them to come to police station Punjabi FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 44 of 57 Bagh. She further deposed that except the Aadhar Card, PAN card, Election ID and Rs. 10,000/, nothing else was taken by those persons. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State also crossexamined this witness wherein the defence witness admitted that till date they have not filed any complaint regarding her claim that the said persons misbehaved with her and her sister. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely to save accused Pankaj Chadha being her husband. She also denied the suggestion that in fact police officials alongwith the complainant of the present case had visited their house and effected the recovery of ring and cash belonging to the complainant or that the vehicle used by her husband in the commission of the offence was also recovered from outside their house. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely to save her husband from conviction. (25). No other defence witness has been examined in this case. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed on the basis of the statement FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 45 of 57 of Ld. Counsel for accused.
(26). Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State submitted that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are in corroboration with each other and the prosecution witnesses have proved the case of the prosecution. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State also submitted that the witnesses have correctly identified the accused and case property. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State submitted that DW1 Mohd. Rafik has in fact supported the case of the prosecution. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State further argued that DW2 Shri Salesh is not helpful to the accused and further submitted that DW3 is wife of the accused. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for accused argued that the complainant has not shown any mark on the currency notes. Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that in fact the fare decided between the complainant and the accused Pankaj Chadha was Rs. 500/ (Rupees Five Hundred only). Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that there is no independent witness and the money FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 46 of 57 which was allegedly recovered, belongs to accused. Ld. Counsel for accused also submitted that the recovery is doubtful and the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Ld. Counsel for accused also submitted that no live cartridge have been recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused in this case. Ld. Counsel for accused has prayed for acquittal of the accused Pankaj Chadha in the present case.
(27). I have already discussed the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses in detail as mentioned above. Their respective crossexaminations have also been reflected above. The age of the complainant Shri Ram Lal Bansal was about 70 years at the time of commission of alleged offence. Submission was made on behalf of accused that the statement of complainant was not recorded at the spot of incident. It is relevant to note that the complainant has deposed that he was under
FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 47 of 57 fear after the commission of offence. The complainant visited the police station on the same day of the incident in question and got recorded his statement. It is natural conduct/reflex/response of a person of the age of about 70 years to behave in such a manner/fashion. A person shall obviously be disturbed/ perturbed if such incident happens with him or her. In this case the complainant gathered courage to visit the police station on the same day to lodge FIR. Moreover, the complainant made call at 100 number from the spot itself. The stand of the accused that fare of Rs. 500/ only was decided between the complainant and accused to travel from Peeragarhi to Karol Bagh in ECO van does not inspire the confidence of the court. Admittedly, the accused was taking passengers in his ECO van to other places after charging fare. It is also relevant to note that people now a days use Ola/Uber cabs for traveling from one place to another. The distance between Peeragarhi and Karol Bagh, New Delhi is about 11 to 12 kilometers only and even if it is assumed that FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 48 of 57 cab driver charges Rs. 20 per kilometer from a passenger then at the most, the fare for such a distance comes out to be Rs. 240/ only. Moreover, the time of alleged incident is about 7:00 AM. It is admitted case of the accused that the complainant travelled in his ECO van on the fateful day. The pickup point is also not disputed. Destination where the complainant was to go in ECO van of the accused is also not disputed. The contention made on behalf of accused that the fare for such distance was fixed as Rs. 500/ only, does not inspire the confidence of the court. It was not peak hour or office hours when the complainant traveled in the ECO van of the accused on the date and time of alleged incident. Moreover, the complainant has supported the statement made to the police. The Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that the complainant, in his testimony made before the court as PW1 has deposed on 19.11.2020 that he do not remember the fact exactly as to whether the katta Ex. P4 was got recovered from the accused from under the bed inside the house of the accused. He deposed FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 49 of 57 that so far as he remembers, katta Ex. P4 was recovered from the possession of the accused i.e. from inside the wearing pant of the accused. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State submitted that a person who is senior citizen and aged about 70 years is not expected to remember each and every minute details. In my considered opinion it is only a minor discrepancy which does not go to the root of the case. As per the deposition of the complainant, the said Katta was recovered from the possession of the accused. It is further relevant to note that the robbery has been defined in Section 390 IPC. The theft is defined in Section 378 IPC. Extortion is defined in Section 383 IPC. As per Section 390 IPC theft as well as extortion may be robbery. In the present case the complainant has deposed that the accused Pankaj Chadha also slapped him and also pointed out one pistol towards him and robbed him of his diamond studded gold ring as well as cash sum of Rs. 12,000/. When the accused has slapped the complainant then hurt is caused to the complainant. The ingredients of Section 390 IPC FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 50 of 57 are complete as per the facts and evidence of this case. Section 392 provides for punishment for robbery. Section 394 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. In the case in hand the accused caused hurt to the complainant voluntarily in order to commit robbery. Section 394 IPC is an aggravated form of Section 392 IPC. In the present case the accused Pankaj Chadha used deadly weapon i.e. pistol/katta at the time of committing robbery, therefore, the ingredients of Section 397 IPC are complete. The robbed articles belonging to complainant i.e. cash sum of Rs. 9,940/, & diamond studded gold ring were recovered from the possession of the accused. There is alternative charge u/s 411 IPC framed against the accused in this case. It is not the case under consideration that the accused Pankaj Chadha is receiver of stolen/robbed property who dishonestly received the same knowingly or having the reasons to believe the same to be the stolen/robbed property. The accused himself robbed the said articles from the complainant after slapping the FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 51 of 57 complainant and pointing out pistol/katta towards the complainant and thereby putting the complainant under fear. The Ld. Counsel for accused also submitted that independent witness have not been joined by the IO at the time of alleged recovery of pistol/katta, cash amount and the ring from the accused. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State submitted that it is not the defence of the accused that he was having any previous enmity with the complainant. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State submitted that the complainant had no illwill or any evil motive or design to falsely implicate the accused in this case. Moreover, in my opinion the testimony of DW1 Mohd. Rafik also to some extent supports the case of the prosecution since the said defence witness in his chief examination has deposed that on 27.06.2019 between 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM few persons visited the home of the accused Pankaj Chadha and on hearing the noises from the house of accused, after few minutes, he reached at the house of the accused Pankaj Chadha and saw that those persons were beating the accused and were FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 52 of 57 searching and they found some rupees. From this testimony it is also clear that the recovery of the articles from the possession of the accused Pankaj Chadha was not planted. DW1 can also be considered as public/ independent witness. DW2 Shri Salesh stated that he is close friend of accused Pankaj Chadha and he handed over a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the accused on 26.06.2019 at his residence. The incident in question is dated 27.06.2019. DW2 deposed that the accused required sum of Rs. 10,000/ as he had to go out station. Said witness has not specified as to which station the accused had to go and when. Moreover, in the statement of accused Pankaj Chadha recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. it is no where stated by the accused that he borrowed Rs. 10,000/ from his friend Salesh which were allegedly given on 26.06.2019. In the answer given to question no. 33 in the said statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has given the detailed answer. Said question no. 33 was "Do you want to say anything else?"
In the answer to the said question the main thrust of the accused is FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 53 of 57 regarding the fare in the sum of Rs. 500/ for travelling up to Karol Bagh. Testimony of DW2 does not inspire the confidence of the court. Moreover, DW3 is wife of the accused. Even DW3 in her chief examination stated that the persons who visited their house on 27.06.2019 between 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM opened the almirah and took out the identify documents i.e. Aadhar Card, PAN card and Election ID card of the accused Pankaj Chadha and also took out Rs. 10,000/. This also reflects that said money was not planted upon the accused. In crossexamination DW3 admitted that they have not filed any complaint regarding her claim that said persons misbehaved with her and her sister. Driving of ECO van bearing registration no. DL9CAK 6496 by accused on the date, place and time of the alleged incident is not disputed. The crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses does not reflect any contradiction so as to weaken the case of the prosecution. The accused cannot derive any benefit from the cross examination of prosecution witnesses as there is nothing material in FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 54 of 57 the crossexamination of prosecution witnesses which may go in favour of accused Pankaj Chadha. Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that accused used i.e. fired any bullet from the said katta/pistol at the time of alleged incident i.e. at the time of commission of offence in question, therefore, the question of recovery of any live/ empty cartridge from the possession of accused or at the instance of the accused does not arise. Ld. Counsel for accused also relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in case titled as Chander & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana which is dated 04.03.2015 and also other judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in case titled as Sunil Vs. The State of Maharashtra which is dated 19.12.2017. The facts of the present case in hand are different from the facts of the said judgments.
(28). The accused was having conscious possession of one FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 55 of 57
country made pistol/katta without any valid licence in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the competent authority has accorded sanction u/s 39 of the Arms Act for prosecution of accused Pankaj Chadha for offence punishable u/s 25 of the Arms Act and the said possession of the pistol/katta has been proved on record by the prosecution witnesses.
(29). In view of overall detailed facts and circumstances and the evidence on record as well as reasons given and observations made, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Pankaj Chadha, beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Pankaj Chadha is hereby held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s 394 IPC and also u/s 397 IPC read with Section 392 IPC. Moreover, the accused Pankaj Chadha is also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 25 (1B) of the Arms Act, 1959.
(30). The requisite bail bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C. has already been FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 56 of 57
furnished on behalf of accused Pankaj Chadha and stands accepted for a period of six months which shall be effective from the date of judgment in this case.
(31). Copy of this judgment be provided to both the sides i.e. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as well as to Ld. Counsel for accused. (32). Since the convict Pankaj Chadha has been produced from J.C. through video conferencing through CISCO Webex App. from concerned jail, therefore, one copy of the judgment be immediately sent/ transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent with directions to provide the same to convict Pankaj Chadha.
(33). Now the matter is to be fixed for arguments on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by MANISH GUPTA
MANISH Date:
GUPTA 2021.03.22
16:59:27
+0530
Passed and announced in open (MANISH GUPTA)
court today i.e. on 22.03.2021 Addl. Sessions Judge04
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 346/2019 PS Punjabi Bagh Page no. 57 of 57