Delhi District Court
"State vs . Sudhir @ Raju Etc. on 26 February, 2010
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc.
FIR No. 859/04
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - IV: ROHINI (OUTER) : DELHI
Date of Committal - 13/04/06
Date of Institution - 17/12/08
Date on which reserved
for Judgment - 22/02/10
Date of Judgment - 26/02/10
Final Order - Convicted U/s 411 IPC
Acquitted U/s 392/397 IPC
Sessions Case No. : 110/08
FIR No. : 859/04
PS : Punjabi Bagh
Under Sections : 392/397/411/34 IPC
and 25 Arms Act
State Versus 1. Sudhir @ Raju
S/o Surender Singh
: R/o C-23/24/25, JJ Colony,
Shakarpur, Delhi.
2. Sulemaan @Shalu Pahlwan
(Since Dead)
: S/o Jan Mohammad,
R/o 4-1797, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
3. George is Proclaimed
Offender
Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc.
FIR No. 859/04
2
JUDGEMENT
The charge-sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the accused Sudhir @ Raju s/o Sh. Surender Singh, Sulemaan (since deceased) and George (Proclaimed Offender) u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act.
2. Briefly stating the case of prosecution is that all the above mentioned accused persons in furtherance of their common intention alongwith certain other associates (unknown) came in a white coloured Maruti Car 800 CC bearing no. DL-2CJ-2256 and on 25.9.04 at about 6.45 pm near under bypass Punjabi Bagh Fly Over they stopped a car bearing no. DL-4CL-2016 being driven by Rameshwar Sharma wherein Sajjan Aggarwal, his brothers Naresh Aggarwal and Mahender Aggarwal were sitting.
It is further alleged that all the accused persons alighted from the car, stood near the gates of car no. DL-4CL-2016 and one of them who stood near driver's gate broke the glass of seat of its Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 3 window with the pistol and asked him to open its Dicky of the said car but when the driver did not respond, he hit the driver as a result of which the pistol which he was carrying fell inside the car and in the meantime, Naresh Aggarwal asked the driver Rameshwar Sharma to open the dicky which he did and one of the accused persons took out two bags from the dicky and all the accused persons fled in their vehicle towards Peeragarhi.
It is further the case of prosecution that Sajjan Aggarwal alongwith his brothers Naresh Aggarwal and Mahender Aggarwal reached to their house and informed the police officials where upon DD was recorded and investigation commenced during which the accused Sulemaan (since deceased) was reported to have been admitted in AIIMS Hospital who later on expired.
It is further the case of prosecution that since two persons namely Mazid and Wasim were not identified by Sajjan Aggarwal and his brother, hence they were got discharged. During course of further Investigation, the Investigation Officer on Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 4 receiving secret information arrested the accused Sudhir @ Raju in pursuance of his disclosure statement at his instance, a green colour brief-case consisting of documents belonging to Sajjan Aggarwal was recovered. As per case of prosecution one of the accused namely George could not be arrested who was declared proclaimed offender and after completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 173. Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court of Ld. Concerned MM who after compliance of necessary legal provisions u/s 207 Cr.P.C., 1973 committed the case to the court of Sessions.
3. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 25/08/07 served the charge u/s 392/397 IPC on the accused Sudhir @ Raju and a separate charge u/s 411 IPC was also served upon the accused Sudhir @ Raju to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home guilt of the accused Raju on record, Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 5 the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses in all which include ASI Jai Bhagwan as PW1, Sh. Sajjan Aggarwal (complainant) as PW2, Sh. Rameshwar Sharma as PW3, Sh. Naresh Aggarwal as PW4, Sh. Mohinder Aggarwal as PW5, Sh. K.C. Varshney (Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini Delhi) as PW6, Ct. Suraj Bhan as PW7, Inspector Jarnail Singh as PW8, WASI Adesh Kumari as PW9, SI Rajesh Kumar Mishra as PW10 and SI Ram Kishan as PW11.
Thereafter, statement of accused Raju was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed himself to be innocent who submitted that he was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in the present case, the accused had preferred to examine his brother Sanjay in his defence.
5. I have heard the final arguments as advanced by Ld. APP for State, Sh. P. K. Samadhiya and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. J.S. Arya, advocate for accused Sudhir @ Raju and given my thoughtful Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 6 consideration to the rival submissions made by them and I have also gone through the material placed on record.
6. Ld. APP has vehemently argued that the complainant Sajjan Aggarwal, his brothers Naresh Aggarwal and Mohinder Aggarwal as well as their driver Rameshwar Sharma have been examined who have supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects and also that prosecution has succeeded in proving on record the recovery of a brief-case containing important documents pertaining to Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2) at the instance of accused Sudhir @ Raju in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ld. APP contended that the accused Sudhir @ Raju refused to join the TIP proceedings. Ld. APP has further submitted that apart from the public witnesses, police officials which include the Investigating Officer, Duty Officer and the police officials who had deposited the case property in the malkhana have been examined who have succeeded in bringing home the guilt of accused Sudhir on record Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 7 beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly he must be convicted u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently rebutted the same contending that Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2), his brothers Naresh Aggarwal(PW4) and Mohinder Aggarwal (PW5) as well their driver Rameshwar Sharma (PW3) who are the most material witnesses have not identified the accused Sudhir @ Raju to be the same who had committed the alleged offences. He prayed that other witnesses examined by the prosecution are more or less formal in nature, and do not connect the accused with commission of alleged offences and further submitted that simply because the accused Sudhuir @ Raju had refused to join the TIP proceedings does not imply that he had committed the alleged offences as he was already shown to the witnesses by the police officials. Ld. Defence counsel further submitted that in these circumstances the accused Sudhir @ Raju must be acquitted of the Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 8 charges levelled against him.
Ld. Defence counsel further averred that admittedly no public persons was joined either at the time of arrest of accused Sudhir though as per police officials they already had a secret information regarding him and even at the time of alleged recovery of briefcase by the police officials in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused, no public person was joined in the investigation though the said recovery was shown from his house which in a Gali where number of persons used to reside.
Ld. Defence counsel further contended that Investigating Officer has fairly conceded that no site plan regarding the place of recovery was prepared.
8. In rebuttal, Ld. APP has submitted prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of accused Sudhir @ Raju beyond reasonable doubt, hence he must be convicted.
Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 9
9. I have heard the final arguments as advanced by Sh. P. K. Samadhiya, Ld. APP for the State and Sh. J.S. Arya, Ld. Counsel for the accused Sudhir @ Raju and have given my thoughtful submissions to the rival submissions made by them. I have also scrutinized the testimonies of the various witnesses examined in this case and have also gone through the material placed on record carefully.
10. In the present case, the most material witnesses upon whose testimonies the entire case of prosecution revolves are Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2), his brothers Naresh Aggarwal (PW4), Mohinder Aggarwal (PW5) and their driver Rameshwar Sharma (PW3), hence their testimonies needs to be discussed on priority, however, apart from the said witnesses, the Investigation Officer SI Ram Kishan (PW11) is also a material witness being witness to the recovery of green coloured briefcase consisting of important documents pertaining of Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2) at the instance of Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 10 accused Sudhir in pursuance of his disclosure statement, hence his testimony would also be discussed on priority.
11. Sh. Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2) has deposed that on 25.9.04 at about 6.45 pm, he alongwith his brothers Naresh Aggarwal (PW4) and Mohinder Aggarwal (PW5) was going to house in car No. CL-4- CL-2016 which was driven by his driver Rameshwar Sharma (PW3) and when they reached near under bypass, Punjabi Bagh, a maruti car came from behind and stopped in front of their car from which four persons having guns in their hands got down who took the position near the gates of their car.
He further testified that the boy who was standing at the driver gate asked the driver Rameshwar Sharma (PW3) to open the door of the dicky but the driver did not open it and the said boy broke the glass of window of driver seat with the butt of his pistol as a result, the said pistol fell inside the car and that boy pressed the button for opening door of the dicky. He further deposed that two Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 11 other boys went near the dicky, opened it and took out two brief cases - One of which contained cash of Rs. 50,000/- and certain documents whereas the other brief case contained some important documents after which they ran away.
He further deposed that thereafter they came back to their house and informed the police on which the police officials reached to their house where his statement as Ex. PW2/A was recorded and the police officials also recovered one pistol alongwith live cartridge lying in their car and prepared its sketcj vide Ex. PW2/B after which the said pistol and live cartridge were sealed by Investigating Officer with the seal of RKS and seized vide memo Ex. PW2/C. He also deposed that his car was also seized vide memo Ex. PW2/D which was later on released to him on superdari vide superdaginama Ex. PW2/E. He also testified that he had given the list of documents lying in the stolen brief cases to the Investigating Officer. He had identified the recovered documents collectively as Ex. P-1 and expressed his inability to identify the accused Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 12 Sudhir as it was already evening and due to darkness, he could not see the accused properly. He also expressed his inability to identify the pistol and live cartridge due to lapse of time.
During leading question put by Ld. APP, he categorically stated that he cannot identify the accused as the incident occurred at about 7.00 pm and it was already dark.
During cross examination on behalf of accused, he inter- alia stated that he had not join the investigation of the case after 25.9.04 and only once went to Tihar Jail regarding the present case.
12. Sh. Naresh Aggarwal (PW4- brother of PW2) has deposed on the lines of PW2, hence his examination in chief is not repeated for the sake of brevity, however he also expressed his inability to identify the accused Sudhir as it was evening and due to darkness, he could not see the accused properly. He also Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 13 expressed his inability to identify the pistol and live cartridge due to lapse of time however he identified the documents which was stolen alongwith brief case as Ex. P-1.
During leading questions put by Ld. APP, he categorically stated that he cannot identify the accused as the incident occurred at about 7.00 pm and it got dark.
During cross examination on behalf of accused, he inter- alia stated that he had not join the investigation of the case after 25.9.04 and went to Tihar Jail once regarding the present case.
13. Sh. Mohinder Aggarwal (PW5- brother of PW2) deposed on the lines of PW2, hence his examination in chief is not repeated for the sake of brevity. He categorically stated that he cannot identify the accused Sudhir as it was evening and due to darkness, he could not see the accused. He also expressed his inability to identified the pistol and live cartridge due to lapse of time. During his examination, he identify the documents which was stolen Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 14 alongwith brief case collectively as Ex. P-1.
During leading questions put by Ld. APP, he categorically stated that he cannot identify the accused as the incident occurred at about 7.00 pm and it was already dark.
During cross examination on behalf of accused, he inter- alia stated that he had not join the investigation of the case after 25.9.04 and went to Tihar Jail once regarding the present case.
14. Sh. Rameshwar Sharma (PW3 - driver) has deposed that he was driving the car No. DL-4CL-2016 on 25.9.04 wherein Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2), Naresh Aggarwal (PW4) and Mohinder Aggarwal (PW5) were sitting and his further deposition on the lines of PWs 2, 4 and 5, hence his examination in chief is not repeated for the sake of brevity. He also expressed his inability to identify the accused Sudhir as it was evening and due to darkness, he could not see the accused properly. He also expressed his inability to identify the pistol and live cartridge.
Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 15 During leading question put by Ld. APP, he stated that he cannot identify the accused as the incident occurred at about 7.00 pm and it was dark. He also stated that he could not see those boys properly as he got nervous.
During cross examination on behalf of accused, he inter- alia stated that he had not join the investigation of the case after 25.9.04.
It would be pertinent to mention here even at the cost of repetition that PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the most material witnesses as none of them has neither identified the accused Sudhir to be one of the culprits nor any of them has identified the pistol or the cartridge and PWs 2, 4 and 5 have simply identified their stolen documents as Ex. P-1.
In the present case except the witness as discussed above, there is no other person who can identify the accused Sudhir @ Raju with commission of robbery/dacoity armed with deadly weapon and none of these witnesses have supported the case of Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 16 prosecution on material aspects against him.
15. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to discuss the testimony of SI Ram Kishan (PW11 - the Investigating Officer) who has testified that on 25.9.04, he was on emergency duty and on receiving the DD No. 27A, he alongwith Ct. Umesh reached at the Underpass, Punjabi Bagh Fly Over but none met them and thereafter he received a message that the complainant Sajjan Aggarwal had reached to his house No. 12/75, West Punjabi Bagh in pursuance of which he alongwith Ct. Umesh had reached there where he found that one Baleno car no. DL-4-CL-2016 was parked outside and glass of the driver side window was broken and on inspecting the car, one country made pistol was found lying inside it.
He further deposed that he met with the complainant Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2) and recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A on which he prepared a rukka Ex. PW11/A and sent Ct. Umesh for Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 17 registration of FIR.
He further testified that thereafter he also called the crime team at the spot which took photographs of the car and also lifted chance prints from the car and in the meantime, Ct. Umesh came back and handed over him the original rukka and copy of FIR.
He further testified that the said country made pistol was unloaded and a live cartridge was taken out from its barrel and he also prepared its sketch Ex. PW2/B and thereafter he kept the country made pistol and live cartridge in a separate pullanda and sealed with the seal of RKS and seized it vide memo Ex. PW2/C and also seized Baleno car as Ex. PW2/C and seal was handed over to Ct. Umesh.
He also deposed that thereafter he alongwith Ct. Umesh and complainant Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2) reached at the spot where at the pointing out of complainant he prepared site plan as Ex. PW11/B and search for accused but in vain after which he came back to the police station and deposited the case property with Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 18 MHC(M) and informed the SHO as well.
He also testified that thereafter they reached to the house of complainant where he also recorded the statements of Rameshwar Sharma (PW3), Naresh Aggarwal (PW4) and Mohinder Aggarwal (PW5) and also recorded the supplementary statement of Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2) after which they came back to the police station where he recorded the statement of Ct. Umesh.
He also deposed that on 27.9.10, he submitted the chance prints and specimens at Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar. He further deposed that on 15.10.04 he received an information that accused Sulemman was admitted in AIIMS Hospital where Rameshwar Sharma (PW3) had identified the dead body of Sulemann as one of the culprits vide statement Ex. PW11/C. He further deposed that on 23.10.04 on receiving information that accused Majid was in custody in case FIR 1239/04, PS Sultan Puri he arrested him in the present case vide arrest memo Ex. PW11/D but Rameshwar Sharma (PW3) did not identify Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 19 the accused Majid during judicial TIP proceedings on 3.11.04 and accordingly he got him discharged from the court on 25.11.04.
He further deposed that on 17.12.04 on receiving information from police station Welcome, he arrested the accused Wasim Raja in the present case but since Rameshwar Sharma (PW3) could not identify the said accused during Judicial TIP Proceedings, he got him discharged from the court.
He also testified that on the basis of secret information, the accused Sudhir @ Raju was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/E whose personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW11/F and disclosure statement was also recorded which is Ex.PW11/G in pursuance of which the accused Sudhir led them to his house at C- 25, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur Delhi and got recovered certain documents which was seized vide memo Ex. PW11/H after preparing its pullanda which was duly sealed with the seal of RKS which pullanda was deposited in malakhana. He also deposed that during Judicial TIP, the accused Sudhir refused to participate in the Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 20 TIP proceedings. He also testified that on 23.12.04 he got the exhibits deposited at FSL Rohini through Ct. Suraj Bhan and also recorded his statement of as well as that of MHC(M).
He had identified the case property i.e. documents recovered from the possession of accused Sudhir collectively Ex. P-1, cartridge as Ex. P-2 and country made pistol as Ex. P-3.
During cross examination on behalf of accused, he admitted that he had not taken the complainant Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2) at the place of occurrence on the same day and had not obtained his signature on the site plan. He also admitted that crime team visit the spot i.e. Underpass Punjabi Bagh Fly Over and stated that statement of public persons were recorded outside the house of complainant Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2) in street light and fairly conceded that in the site plan he has not shown any street light pole.
During further cross examination, he also admitted that the car bearing registration no. DL-2CJ-2258 which was used by the Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 21 accused persons was fake in which regard he had interrogated the owner of the said car and fairly submitted that he had not mentioned regarding it in his examination in chief nor anywhere stated that the accused persons has used the forged number plate.
During further cross examination, he stated that after arresting the accused Sudhir @ Raju at about 7.30 pm, they reached to his house at about 8.30 pm from where at the instance of accused Sudhir the documents were recovered from the slab of his home. He also fairly admitted that he did not prepare at site plan regarding the place of recovery.
16. The other witnesses examined in the present case are ASI Jai Bhagwan (PW1) who had testified that on 25.9.04 on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Umesh which was sent by SI Ram Kishan (PW11) he registered the FIR of the present case and proved its carbon copy as Ex. PW1/A and thereafter he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Umesh.
Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 22 Sh. K.C. Varshney, (PW6) Assistant Director FSL, Rohini had deposed that on 23.12.04, two sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of RKS were deposited in their office which he examined and proved his detailed report as Ex. PW6/A. He also testified that the country made pistol mark F-1 was in working order and test fire was conducted successfully.
He further deposed that cartridge mark A-1 was live and test fired through country made pistol mark F-1 as also that pistol mark F-1 and fire arm and cartridge mark A-1 are ammunition as defined in the Arms Act. He has identified the case property i.e. Empty cartridge as Ex. P-2 and country made pistol as Ex. P-3.
17. Ct. Suraj Bhan (PW7) had testified that on 23.12.04 he had deposited the sealed case property duly sealed with the seal of RKS alongwith FSL Form at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 338/21/04 and after returning back to police station, he handed the copy of RC to Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 23 MHC(M). He also deposed that nobody tempered with the case property so long as it remained in his custody.
18. Inspector Jarnail Singh (PW8 - partly investigated the case) has deposed that on 10.1.05, further investigation was handed over to him at which point of time, the accused persons namely Sudhir @ Raju and Rameez Raza were in judicial custody.
He also deposed that during Judicial TIP, the complainant Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2) could not identify accused Rameez Raza and so he got him discharged from the court of Ld. MM on 15.1.05.
He further deposed that the accused George could not be arrested and after following due procedure he was declared proclaimed offender.
He further deposed that he had also collected the FSL result and obtained sanction U/s 39 Arms Act from the concerned Additional DCP and after completion of investigation, he submitted the case file to the SHO for preparation of charge sheet.
Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 24
19. WASI Adesh Kumari (PW9) had deposed that on 15.10.04, she was posted as duty officer at PS Mehrauli and at about 1.45 pm, she had received a rukka as sent by SI Rajesh Mishra through Ct. Rajender on the basis of which she recorded the FIR No. 620/04, copy of which is Ex. PW9/A.
20. SI Rajesh Kumar Mishra (PW10) had testified that on 15.10.04 at about 10.50 am he was posted at PS Mehrauli and on receiving DD No. 8A, he alongwith the staff reached at spot i.e. Jaunapur Bandh Road, Aya Nagar where SI Rajender Singh of special staff met him and apprised that the accused Sulemaan was already shifted to AIIMS hospital whereupon he recorded his statement, prepared rukka and sent it for registration of FIR.
He further deposed that the accused Sulemaan was declared brought dead by the hospital.
In the present case admittedly none of these witnesses as Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 25 discussed can connect the accused Sudhir @ Raju with commission of alleged offences.
21. The accused Sudhir @ Raju has examined his brother Sajay Kumar (DW1) who had testified that on 6.12.04, three police officials came at this residence and asked for Sudhir and he told that Sudhir had gone for check up as he had sustained bullet injury some days before and in the meantime, Sudhir also arrived.
He also testified that the police officials had taken Sudhir with them and asked him to come to the police station with an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
He further deposed that thereafter he alongwith his mother had gone to police station Punjabi Bagh and enquired about Sudhir but police officials told him that no one in the name of Sudhir was brought there on which he came back to his house and made a telegrame to the Commissioner of Police Delhi vide receipt Ex. DW1/A and the contents of the telegram are marked DW1/B. He Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 26 further deposed that on the next day, he made a complaint in writing to DCP North West, Joint CP Northern Range and CP Delhi and proved their copies as Ex. DW1/B to DW1/D.
22. At this stage before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to discuss relevant provisions of Section 390 IPC, 392 IPC, 397 IPC and 411 IPC.
As per provisions of Section 390: -
Robbery- In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery - Theft is "robbery", if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear or instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery- Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 27 wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the things extorted.
As per provisions of Section 392 IPC : -
Punishment for robbery - Whoever commits robbery shall be punished ...............
As per provisions of section 397 IPC : -
Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished .........
24. In the present case as already discussed at length, PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the most material witnesses with whom the alleged offences have been committed, yet none of them has supported the case of prosecution on any material aspect and they have not identified the accused Sudhir to be amongst the culprits or the person who also committed the said offences upon their persons or Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 28 committed the said robbery by using a pistol.
None of the witnesses have either identified the accused Sudhir @ Raju nor the pistol nor the cartridge, however SI Ram Kishan (PW11) had categorically testified that the accused Sudhir was arrested in this case who also made a disclosure statement as Ex. PW11/g and led the police party to his house and got recovered the stolen documents which have been exhibited and proved on record collectively as Ex. P-1.
It would be pertinent to mention here that the said documents have been duly identified by the complainant Sajjan Aggarwal (PW2) and his brothers namely Naresh Aggarwal (PW4) and Mohinder Aggarwal (PW5).
Though PW11 was cross examined at length on behalf of accused, yet the testimony of PW11 has not bee rebutted so far as regarding recovery of Ex. P-1 at the instance of accused Sudhir in pursuance of his disclosure statement is concerned. Even at the cost of repetition, it is mentioned that the case property has been Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 29 duly identified by PWs, 2, 4 and 5 to be the same belonging to them.
As per provisions of Section 411 IPC :-
Dishonestly receiving stolen property
- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished ..........''
25. In the present case, the documents Ex. P-1 have been recovered admittedly at the instance of accused Sudhir in pursuance of his disclosure statement from his house are proved on record to be stolen property regarding which the accused Sudhir could not show any justified ground or reason for their possession nor has anything been shown if the same were not recovered at his instance from his house.
26. Considering the totality of facts and circumstance of the case and on the basis of material placed on record and in view of Contd.....
"State Vs. Sudhir @ Raju Etc. FIR No. 859/04 30 above said discussions, court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused Sudhir @ Raju U/s 392/34 IPC r/w Section 397 IPC, however as already discussed above, it has been placed on record that on 7.12.04 Ex. P-1 which are the documents belonging to PWs 2, 4 and 5 were recovered from the house of accused Sudhir bearing No. C-23/24/25, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur, Delhi in pursuance of his disclosure statement at his instance for which he had no plausable explanation for their possession. Accordingly accused Sudhir @ Raju is convicted u/s 411 IPC. File be consigned to record room U/s 299 Cr. PC after compliance of all legal necessary formalities.
Announced in the open Court (BARKHA GUPTA) on this 26th February, 2010 Additional Sessions Judge - IV Outer District - IV Rohini District Courts, Delhi Contd.....