Delhi District Court
Fir No:27/02; Ps Gokul Puri; U/S 399/402 ... vs . K.Lal on 20 September, 2010
1
FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL
IN THE COURT OF SH. B.S. CHUMBAK:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
DELHI
Case ID Number 02402R0181852003
Session Case No. 105/09
Assigned to Sessions 20/02/08
Arguments heard on 20/09/10
Date of order 20/09/10
FIR NO. 27/02
Police Station GOKUL PURI
Under Section 399/402 IPC R/W SEC. 25 OF ARMS ACT
Out come of the judgment ACQUITTED
State Versus K.LAL @ HILOO
S/O ASHRAF ALI
R/O NASBANDHI COLONY,
SADULLA BAD, LONI
DISTT. GHAZIABAD
UP
Pr.:- Sh. R.K. Pandey, Ld. Addl. PP for state.
Sh. R.S. Kashyap Advocate on behalf of accused.
JUDGMENT
1. In brief the prosecution case is that on 20.1.02 SI Sanjeev Kumar alongwith Ct. Bhupender, Ct. Vinod Kumar, Ct. Hansraj, Ct. Ram Kishore and Ct. Surender were on petrolling duty in the area. When they reached near Sardar Patel School, bridge of ganda nala a secret informer met them and informed that some unknown persons gathered at Phase I, Shiv Vihar, Old Police Post Page 1/13 2 FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL Road in front of wireless tower and making plan to commit robbery on a liquor shop at Lal Bagh. On receipt of this information raiding party was organized, passers by were asked to join the raiding party but none agreed to join the investigation. At about 8 p.m they all reached at the spot. On reaching there four young boy met them in a vacant plot sitting near the wall and one person was standing across the wall. SI Sanjeev Kumar heard the conversation while hiding himself from the wall and one person among them who revealed his name as Mohd. Salim s/o Mohd. Aslam who was making plan that he alonwith two country made katta would enter into the liquor shop and would commit robbery the cash in the shop, Bilal and K.Lal alongwith Salim will remain standing on the gate with country made kattas in their hand. He also stated that if any would stop them in committing robbing, they would start fire towards him. In the meantime another boy whose name was revealed as Bilal s/o Ashraf Ali heard while saying that if any person would object him in committing robbery he would kill him by use of his knife. Third boy whose name revealed as K.Lal @ Hiloo heard while saying "AB RAAT HO CHUKI HAI AUR AB KAFI CASH EKTHA HO CHUKA HOGA AB THEKA LOOTNE CHALTE HAI". On hearing the aforesaid conversation nakabandi was done, police official gave warning to all the accused persons while saying that they all were under the control of police party and would not try to run away from Page 2/13 3 FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL the spot but on seeing the police offical they started running away from the spot. Ct. Vinod apprehended accused Salim, Ct. Bhupender apprehended the accused Bilal, ct. Hans Raj and Ct. Ram Kishore apprehended the accused K.Lal @ Hiloo and one of the accused person who was making a plan succeeded in run away while jumping the wall and person who was standing outside the plot also succeeded in run away from the spot. Personal search of the accused who were apprehended were taken. Countrymade katta alongwith live cartridges were recovered from under the belt of pant worn by accused Salim and button actuated knife was recovered from the pockets of pant worn by accused K. Lal and Bilal. In view of the aforesaid circumstances case u/s 399/402 IPC was registered. Arms recovered from the possession of accused were taken in possession. All the accused were arrested and their disclosure statement was recorded. Steps were also taken to arrest the accused Salim and Salam but thy could not be arrested and ultimately process u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C was executed against them and declared PO. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of necessary investigation challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C was presented in the court of Ld. MM against accused Mohd. Salim, Bilal and K.Lal.
2. Accused Mohd. Salim and Bilal remained absent and proceedings u/s 82/83 Page 3/13 4 FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL Cr.P.C executed against them by the then ld. MM then they both declared P.O. Vide order dated 29.1.08 of Ld. MM.
3. Ld. MM after taking cognizance for the offence u/s 399/402 IPC against the accused supplied the copies of the challan to the accused as provided u/s 207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the court of Sessions and on turn allocated to this court for trial. Thereafter case was fixed for arguments on charge.
4. After hearing arguments and on the basis of material placed on record charge for the offence u/s 399/402 IPC r/w section 25 of Arms Act was framed against accused K. Lal to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, therefore, case is fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. SI Sanjeev Kumar, Crime Branch, Rohini appeared as (PW1), HC Vinod as (PW2) and SI Chetan Swaroop as (PW3). PW Ct. Ram Kishore and ASI Parkash Chand have already been examined by Ld. MM during trial of the case u/s 25 of Arms Act. After their examination Ld. Addl. PP for state requested for closing prosecution evidence on the ground that other PW's are not require to be examined as they deposed only against the accused who have already declared P.O., therefore, prosecution evidence was closed. Page 4/13 5
FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL
6. Brief testimony of all the PW's are as follows:
(i) PW1 deposed that on 20.1.02 he alongwith ct. Bhupender, ct.
Vinod, ct. Ram Kishore and Ct. Hans Raj and ct. Surender were on patrolling duty in the area and on that day at about 7:50 p.m they reached near ganda nala bridge Sardar Patel School a secret informer met them and informed that some unknown persons were making plan to commit robbery at Lal Bagh Liquor shop and were present in a vacant plot at Shiv Vihar Phase I opposite Wireless Tower. He conveyed a message to other members of raiding party and also requested the passers by to join the raiding party but none agreed. Thereafter they reached near the suspected spot and found one person was standing near the wall and four persons were talking to each other across the wall while sitting in a plot. He deployed the members of raiding party near the place and proceeded to over hear the conversation of those persons. He heard one person among them saying that he and Salam would enter in the liquor shop as they were having country made pistol and would rob the cash and remaining persons would also use their respective weapons in case anybody would object to commit robbery and they also would remain present Page 5/13 6 FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL outside the gate of liquor shop. He further deposed that accused K.Lal insisted all of them to proceed towards their object as it was odd hours of the night. He alerted the members of raiding party and also challenged the accused person by saying that they have been surrounded by the police and should surrender but on seeing the police official accused persons tried to run away from the spot. He further deposed that three persons were apprehended by the members of raiding party and accused K. Lal present in the court was over powered by ct. Hans Raj and Ram Kishore. Accused Saleem and Bilal who have already been declared P.O were over powered by other members of raiding party. Accused K. Lal was found in possession of button actuated knife and accused Saleem was found in possession of a loaded country made pistol. Other accused persons whose names were revealed as Salam and Saleem who managed to escape. He prepared rukka Ex. PW1/A and got the case registered. Thereafter further investigation was conducted by ASI Chetan Swaroop.
ASI Chetan Swaroop prepared the site plan at his instance. All the accused were arrested . Arrest memo of accused K. Lal is Ex. PW1/B and his personal Page 6/13 7 FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL search memo is Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. Disclosure statement of accused K. Lal were recorded which is Ex. PW1/D. Case was registered under sec. 25 of Arms Act on the basis of statement of Ram Kishore against accused K. Lal vide FIR no. 29/02 and case property was taken in possession by HC Tara Chand. He also failed to identify the knife recovered from the possession of accused K.Lal as proceedings were conducted only by ct. Ram Kishore and HC Tara Chand.
During his cross examination he reiterated his testimony as submitted by him during examination in chief.
(ii) PW2 deposed that on 20.1.02 he alongwith Ct. Bhupender, Surender, Ram Kishore and Hans Raj alongwith SI Sanjeev were on patrolling duty. On that day at about 7:50 p.m when they were present near the bridge of ganda nala Sardar Patel School an information was received by SI Sanjeev Kumar that some unknown persons were making plan to commit robbery at Liquor shop Lal Bagh. Thereby PW2 corroborated the testimony of PW1 and he also failed to identify the knife recovered from the possession of K.Lal as the same was recovered by Ct. Ram Kishore.
Page 7/13 8
FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL During his cross examination he reiterated his testimony as submitted by him during examination in chief.
(iii) PW3 deposed that on 20.1.02 investigation of this case was assigned to him. He collected original rukka Ex. PW1/A and copy of FIR Ex. PW3/A from duty officer and reached at the spot i.e near vacant plot phase I Shiv Vihar. On reaching there SI Sanjeev Kumar alongwith accused K.Lal and all other accused namely Bilal and Saleem (both declared PO) alongwith some other police officials met him. He prepared site plan of the spot alongwith SI Sanjeev Kumar which is Ex. PW3/B . He interrogated all the three accused persons. He arrested accused K. Lal vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He also arrested remaining accused persons Bilal and Saleem in this case and separate proceedings with regard to recovery of knife ad country made pistol recovered from them were conducted by ASI Harish Chand and other police officials. He also initiated P.O proceedings in respect of accused Salim and Salam and after completion of all the investigation challan was presented to the court of Ld. MM.
Page 8/13 9
FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL During his cross examination he reiterated his testimony as submitted by him during examination in chief.
7. During the course of examination of accused K.Lal u/s 313 Cr.P.C he controverted all the allegations as alleged against him and submitted that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he was lifted from his house at the instance of informer Kabir with whom a quarrel had taken place prior to registration of the case. He did not desire to lead defence evidence, therefore, defence evidence was closed and case was fixed for final arguments.
8. I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for state as well as on behalf of counsel for accused.
9. Ld. counsel for accused submitted that before convicting the accused under any penal of law it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but in the present case no incriminating corroborative evidence either with regard to recovery of weapon as well as for committing Page 9/13 10 FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL robbery in the liquor shop of Lal Bagh is brought on record.
10.In support of his contention he submitted that PW1 SI Sanjeev Kumar formed a raiding party on 20.1.02 alongwith other police officials but he specifically deposed that he cannot identify the knife which was allegedly recovered from the possession of accused K.Lal on the ground that separate proceedings were conducted by other police officials and his testimony is further corroborated by PW2 HC Vinod who also failed to identify the alleged knife recovered from the possession of accused K.Lal. PW3 SI Chetan Swaroop also not supported the fact that knife was recovered from the possession of K.Lal in his presence. No other material witness deposing therein that they had seen the accused person while committing the robbery on the date, time and place is brought on record. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid evidence it has become crystal clear that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and requested for acquittal of the accused.
11.On the contrary Ld. Addl. PP for state submitted that the factum of recovery of knife from the possession of accused is brought on record by the Page 10/13 11 FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL prosecution evidence and all the PW's has specifically stated that accused was found in possession of button actuated knife but other police officials has conducted the investigation for that purpose, therefore, they could not identify the alleged knife recovered from the possession of accused K.Lal and in such circumstances it cannot be said that he was not the member of gang of robbers and his act cannot be separated from the act of other co-accused who have either not arrested or have been declared P.O and submitted that it cannot be said that prosecution totally failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
12.After hearing arguments and on careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution which has been discussed above I am of the considered view that no incriminating evidence is brought on record against the accused person either for recovery of arms as well as for committing robbery on the date, time and place of incident. In such circumstances I am of the considered view that prosecution could not succeed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Accordingly, accused K.Lal is acquitted for the offence as alleged against him u/sec. 399/402 IPC r/w section 25 of Arms Act registered vide FIR no. 29/02, clubbed with this case. Page 11/13 12
FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL
13.The bail bond/ surety bond furnished by accused person shall remain in force till the expiry of six months and accused is further directed to appear before the appellant court, if he is required to appear before the appellant court in view of the provision of Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room.
(B.S. CHUMBAK) ASJ-3/North East District KKD/Delhi Announced in the open court on 20.09.2010 Page 12/13 13 FIR NO:27/02; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 399/402 IPC r/w sec. 25 of Arms Act; STATE VS. K.LAL FIR NO.: 27/02 PS GOKUL PURI 20.09.10 Present: Sh. R.K. Pandey Ld. Addl. PP for state.
Accused on bail.
Arguments heard.
After hearing arguments and on perusal of the evidence recorded in this court for the offence u/s 399/402 IPC and the evidence recorded by Ld. MM for the offence u/s 25 of Arms Act I am of the considered view that prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused K.Lal for the offence u/s 399/402 IPC r/w section 25 of Arms Act, therefore, vide separate order accused K. Lal is acquitted for the offence u/sec. 399/402 IPC r/w section 25 of Arms Act. The bail bond/ surety bond furnished by accused person shall remain in force till the expiry of six months and accused is further directed to appear before the appellant court, if he is required to appear before the appellant court in view of the provision of Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room.
(B.S. CHUMBAK) ASJ-3/North East District KKD/Delhi/20.09.2010 Page 13/13