Delhi District Court
State vs . Raju Singh @ Meena on 21 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR, MM-03, SOUTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROOM NO.211, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI.
FIR No. : 71/14
U/s : 392/394/34 IPC
P.S. : Bindapur
State Vs. Raju Singh @ Meena
JUDGMENT:
a) Sl. No. of the Case : 374/6 & 424888/16
b) Name & address of the : SI Ramdhan, No.4005/D
complainant. PS Bindapur, Delhi
c) Name & address of : Raju Singh @ Meena
accused S/o Sh. Roshan Singh
R/o C-22D, Tilak Nagar, New
Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of : 06/07.02.2014
offence
e) Offence complained off : U/s 392/394/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 21.04.2017
Date of Institution : 30.04.2014
Final Arguments heard on : 19.04.2017
Judgment Pronounced on : 21.04.2017
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: - FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.1/14
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 06/07.02.2014 at about 11:30 pm at Dwarka Mor Bus Stand, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, accused Raju Singh along with two more accomplices(since not arrested), committed robbery with Vivek and Narender and in that process all the accused persons voluntarily caused simple hurt on the person of Vivek. Police received the information vide DD No.5B on the basis of which present FIR was registered and the investigation was carried out.
2. After investigation, challan for offence U/s 394/392/34 IPC was filed. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Charge for committing the offences punishable under Section 394/392/34 IPC was framed against the accused on 09.05.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses.
FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.2/14
5. PW1 Narender Kumar deposed that the date of incident was of the night of 6/7.02 2014. On that night he along with his friend Vivek Dogra came from Nehru Place and then were going from Sewak Park Dwarka house to leave his friend Vivek Dogra for arranging a cab for Gurgaon. For that purpose they reached at Dwarka Mor bus stand. His friend was not well on that day. While they were waiting for cab, three persons came and amongst them there was one Sikh, the other man was wearing hood like jacket. One of them put a gun on his head and took him away in the back side gali. His friend was in a sleepy condition at that time. Thereafter, they told PW1 to stay over there otherwise they would kill his friend. Thereafter they brought his friend also there and had hit his friend on his head. They brought him there where he was standing while dragging him. Thereafter they robbed them. They took his purse in which there were Rs. 30-35,000/-, one RC of his bike, DL, Axis Bank card and his mobile. They also robbed his friend by taking his bag. Thereafter they ran away from the spot on one scooty. PW1 FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.3/14 further deposed that none of the persons who had committed the offence with him was present in the court. PW1 also proved the TIP proceedings of the accused Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, PW1 was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State. He denied the suggestion that the accused Raju who was present in the court was the same person who had robbed him and along with his friends.
6. PW2 Sh. Vivek Dogra is the complainant. He deposed that the date of incident was of the night of 6/7.02.2014. On that night he along with his friend Narender came from Nehru Place and then were going from Sewak Park Dwarka house to leave for Gurgaon. He was to go to Gurgaon as he was not well and his friend Narender accompanied him for arranging a cab for Gurgaon. For that purpose they reached at Dwarka Mor bus stand. PW2 had already taken the medicine, that is why he was sleepy. When he got up he found that his friend was not there. In the meantime, two persons, one of them was Sikh and other was wearing a FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.4/14 hood like jacket came there and grabbed him. There was a scuffle between them as PW2 could not be controlled by them, one more person came there and hit him with something which was heavy on his head. PW2 became unconscious then. Thereafter when PW2 regained his consciousness, he found his friend over there. His bag in which he had all his documents and cheques were missing, he had 5,000/- in his bag, his phone and Rs. 3,000/- in his purse that was also taken by the accused. None of the assailant was there. Thereafter PCR van came and took them to hospital. The police came to his house on 07.02.2014, but he did not give his statement as he was not well and he had stitches on his head. Thereafter he gave his statement to the police on next day. PW2 Vivek correctly identified the Sikh person who was amongst the three person who had robbed them.
7. PW3 Krishan Kumar prepared the CD Ex.P-1 from CCTV footage on the instructions of the IO. He proved FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.5/14 certificate Ex.PW3/A and seizure memo Ex. PW3/B of the CD.
8. PW4 ASI Roop Singh is the Duty Officer who recorded the present FIR Ex. PW4/A and made endorsement Ex. PW4/B.
9. PW5 Ct. Chaman took the rukka to the PS and got the present FIR registered.
10. PW6 Ct. Anil Kumar joined investigation with the IO. IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused, arrested him and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW6/A, PW6/B and PW6/C. IO also prepared site identification memo Ex. PW6/D.
11. PW7 Ct. Ravinder also joined the investigation with the IO SI Mukesh Kumar. He along with IO had gone to A- 110, Street No.1, Sewak Park at Professional Academy where the IO seized CCTV footage in CD vide memo Ex. PW7/A. FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.6/14
12. PW8 SI Mukesh Kumar is the second IO of this case. He recorded disclosure statement Ex. PW6/A of the accused, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW6/B, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW6/C and prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW6/D. He got the TIP of accused conducted vide his application Ex. PW8/A and the TIP proceedings Ex. PW8/B. The application for taking copy of TIP proceedings is Ex. PW8/C. On 12.03.2014, PW8 seized the CD Ex. P-1 of CCTV footage vide memo Ex. PW7/A. joined investigation with the IO.
13. PW9 Retd. SI Ramdhan deposed that on 07.02.2014, on receipt of DD No.5B Ex. PW9/X at about 12:50 am, he along with Ct. Chaman went to the spot i.e. Dwarka Mor where he found neither the accused nor the injured and came to know that the injured had already been shifted to DDU Hospital. PW9 left Ct. Chaman at the spot and went to DDU Hospital where he collected the MLC of injured Vivek, however, he had already left the hospital. Thereafter, PW9 FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.7/14 again reached at the spot where the injured Vivek and Narender met him at the spot. However, they refused to give any statement after citing their health problem. Thereafter, PW9 prepared the rukka Ex. PW9/A, on the basis of DD No.5B and got the FIR registered through Ct. Chaman. PW9 also prepared the site plan at the instance of Vivek Ex. PW9/B. On 08.02.2014, PW9 visited the residence of Narender at Sewak Park and recorded the statements of Vivek and inquired from them about the incident. He also visited the spot where he found the CCTV cameras installed, however, he could not found their supervisor.
14. PW10 Sh. Arun Goyal conducted the TIP of accused vide application Ex. PW10/A and TIP proceedings Ex. PW1/A. The application for providing copy of TIP proceedings is Ex. PW10/B.
15. PW11 Sh. Joginder Kumar proved the MLC of injured Vivek Ex. PW11/A and that of injured Narender Kumar Ex. FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.8/14 PW11/B.
16. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C and his explanation was recorded. He denied all the incriminating evidence against him.
17. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld Counsel for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record.
18. It is seen that Test Identification Parade of accused Raju Singh @ Meenu was got conducted through Ld. M.M on 07.03.2014. The TIP proceedings are Ex. PW1/A to the effect that the witness complainant identified the accused correctly. However, when the same complainant PW1 Narender Kumar was examined in the Court on dated 14.08.2017, he failed to identify the accused present in the Court as the person who committed the alleged offence with FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.9/14 him along with his friends on the fateful night. He has categorically deposed in his examination in chief that none of the persons who committed the offence with him, is present in the court. He further deposed that one day police took him to Tihar Jail where he identified the accused persons who had committed the offence against them. The person whom he identified is/was not present in the Court.
19. Ld. APP for the State, after seeking permission from the Court, cross examined PW1/complainant with regard to identity of the accused. In cross examination also, he denied the suggestion that the accused Raju, present in the Court was the same person who had robbed him along with his friends. He further deposed that he is not sure whether he identified the same accused before the Judge in Tihar Jail.
20. Ld. APP for the State has argued with force that the identification of accused in TIP before a judicial authority is FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.10/14 admissible in law and that on the basis of TIP, the identity of the accused stands established/proved.
21. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Ld. APP for the State and come to the conclusion that submission of Ld. APP for the State is not correct. In Ayyub v. State of U.P. AIR 2002 SC 1192, it has been held that "the Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is done only for satisfaction of prosecution that investigation was moving in right direction. The purpose of prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sole testimony of witness in Court as to identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such corroboration.(Malkhan Singh v. State of M.P., AIR, 2003 SC 2669)."
22. Coming to the case in hand, it is arrived that PW1 complainant has not deposed in corroboration to the Test Identification Proceedings Ex. PW8/B. FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.11/14
23. So far as identification of accused by PW2 Vivek Dogra is concerned, no TIP has been got conducted from him by the IO during relevant time i.e. investigation stage. According to PW2 the incident is of the night of 06/07.02.2014, in the night. In his examination in chief, he has deposed that he had already taken the medicines that is why he was sleepy. PW1 Narender Kumar has also deposed that his friend Vivek Dogra was in a sleepy condition at that time. PW2 was got medically examined at DDU Hospital on 07.02.2014 at 12:50 am. There is noting/observation by the doctor concerned that in the blood of Vivek/PW2 the alcohol content per 100 ml was found to the extent of 163 mlg. He was in drowsy condition. The permissible limit of alcohol to be found in the blood of one is 30 mg per 100 ml blood, whereas the alcohol level in the blood of Vivek/PW2 is at a very higher side. It is doubtful whether with such high degree of alcohol level in the blood, PW2 was in a condition to identify the assailant as deposed by him in his examination in chief. Since PW1 has failed to identify the FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.12/14 accused, a doubt has arisen to his identity if the accused really was the assailant as deposed by PW1 and PW2.
24. Apart from the above, Ld. APP for the State has argued that even if we keep aside the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the presence of the accused and his identity can be ascertained from the CD available on record, footage of which was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A. I have seen the CD on device. There are persons visible in the CD as assailants, but the quality of picture is very poor that the faces are not clear and images are to some extent blurred.
25. It cannot be ascertained from the CD that a Sikh person visible in the CD is the accused. To prove the CD, prosecution has examined PW3 Krishan Kumar who had deposed that he had installed CCTV Camera at his premises A-110, Gali No.1, Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar. Police during the month of February, 2014 came to him and saw the CCTV footage from the said camera. Thereafter, they told him to FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.13/14 give the CCTV footage. PW3 gave the footage in pen drive from which the CD Ex. P-1 was prepared by the police.
26. PW3 has been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he has deposed that the data of CCTV equipment was given in pen drive. He has not given the CD Ex. P-1 to the police. As a matter of fact, the police has not filed the pen drive on record, given by PW3 to the police. The person who developed the CD from the pen drive has not been examined. Hence, the tampering with the CD cannot be ruled out.
27. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is accordingly acquitted of the charged offences.
Dictated & Announced in Open Court (Kishor Kumar) st On the 21 day of April, 2017 MM-03/South-West/Delhi 21.04.2017 FIR No: 71/14 State v. Raju Singh Page No.14/14