Delhi District Court
State vs . Mogli on 11 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR: SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
ADDL. SESSION JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No.23/11
SESSIONS CASE No.74/11
PS MAHENDRA PARK
U/s. 392/397/34 IPC
STATE VS. MOGLI
MOGLI @ SOM LAL
S/o DAYAL
R/o FOOT PATH, IN FRONT OF
C128, NEW SUBZI MANDI, AZADPUR,
DELHI
Date of Receipt : 09.05.2011
Date of arguments : 11.04.2012
Date of Decision : 11.04.2012
JUDGMENT
The formal indictment against the accused, namely, Mogli @ Som Lal is that, on 27.01.2011, at about 4.30/4.45 PM, in front of BBlock, Main Entry Road, near Anda Chowk, New Subzi Mandi, Ajad Pur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Mahendra Park, he along with his, coaccused, namely, Chand and Amit (both juvenile) and accused, Petcheera (not arrested), robbed Sunil Kumar, of his Rs.2,000/ and while robbing, Sunil Kumar, he used a knife, a deadly weapon.
2. Accused, Mogli, was charged for the offences punishable U/s 392/397/34 IPC and he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. FIR No.23/11
Page 1 of 21
3. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses in support of its case. They are PW1, ASI Charan Singh, PW2, Sunil Kumar (complainant), PW3, ASI Raj Kumar, PW4, Dinesh, PW5, Constable Satbir Singh, PW6, Head Constable, Surender, PW7, SI Kaptan and PW8, SI Sandeep Kumar.
4. The evidence of PW1, ASI Charan Singh is to the effect that, on 27.01.2011, he was posted as ASI in PS Mahendra Park and was working as Duty Officer from 4.00 pm to 12.00, mid night. He further deposed that on that day, at about 5.03 pm, a PCR call, was received. He further deposed that, on this, he recorded D.D. no. 25A and SI Sandeep, was informed telephonically, about this DD. He further deposed that true copy of the said D.D. is Ex. PW1/A and photocopy of the same is Ext.PW1/A1. He further deposed that on the same day, at 7.00 pm, HC Surender, brought a rukka sent by SI Sandeep and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that on the basis of that rukka, he got recorded FIR No.23/11, U/s 392/411/34 IPC, on computer through Computer Operator. He further deposed that, after registration of the case, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to HC Surender for handing over the same to SI Sandeep, for further investigation. He further deposed that the computer generated copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that he recorded D.D. no. 28A, regarding registration of FIR. He further deposed that he made his endorsement, on the rukka at point A, which is Ex. PW1/C. This witness was crossexamined by ld. Counsel for the accused. In his crossexamination, this witness denied that he antetimed the FIR. This witness denied that the entries were manipulated by him, at the instance of IO and SHO. This witness denied that D.D. no. 25A, is fabricated one.
5. The evidence of PW2, Sh. Sunil Kumar, is to the effect on 27.01.2011, he was working as driver, on truck no. HP644875. He further deposed that on that day, he along with his friend, Dinesh, collected the fare from, B223, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur and when they reached on the main road and were about to reach near their vehicle, four boys came. It FIR No.23/11 Page 2 of 21 was about 4.30/4.45 pm. He further deposed that, out of those four boys, two caught hold of him, one put the knife on his neck and fourth boy removed Rs. 2,000/, from the right pocket of his wearing pants and handed over those currency notes to the boy, who had put the knife on his neck. He further deposed that he also took search of other pockets of his pants and shirt and, thereafter, all those boys started running. He further deposed that Dinesh, raised alarm. He further deposed that a PCR van was standing nearby. He further deposed that two/three police officials came there. He further deposed that with the help of those 2/3 police officials, he had apprehended that boy, who had put the knife on his neck. He further deposed that his Rs.2,000/ were recovered from him and one knife was also recovered from him. He further deposed that apprehended boy disclosed his name as, Mogli. He further deposed that later on, police from the police station also arrived. He further deposed that his statement was also recorded. The same is Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that Rs. 2000/, were in the form of four currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/ each. He further deposed that those currency notes were put in a white paper envelop and it was later on deposited in the PS. The seizure memo is Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that police prepared the sketch of the knife and same is Ex. PW2/C. He further deposed that police also put the knife, in a white envelop and put one seal on the same. The seizure memo of the knife is Ex. PW2/D. He further deposed that disclosure statement of the accused was recorded, the same is Ex. PW2/E. He further deposed that arrest memo of the accused is Ex. PW2/F and personal search memo is Ex. PW 2/G. He further deposed that, he had also shown the place of incident to the police. The site plan is Ex. PW2/H. This witness correctly identified the accused, Mogli as well as the currency notes, which were taken out by one of the accused from his pocket and were recovered from the possession of accused, Mogli. The currency notes are, collectively, exhibited as P1. The witness correctly identified the knife, which was put on his neck, by the accused and later on recovered from the accused, present in the court. The Knife is Ex. P2. This witness was crossexamined by ld. Counsel for the accused. In his crossexamination, this FIR No.23/11 Page 3 of 21 witness denied that he has identified the currency notes at the instance of Investigating Officer. This witness denied that he signed all the documents, at the instance of Investigating Officer to falsely implicate the accused, in this case. This witness denied that accused never placed knife, on his neck. This witness denied that no knife was recovered from the possession of the accused or that same was planted by the Investigating Officer, to falsely implicate the accused. This witness denied that the accused was never apprehended in the manner as deposed by him in his examinationinchief. This witness denied that accused, Mogli, never met him, on 27.01.2011, along with other accused persons. This witness denied that he identified the accused, at the instance of Investigating Officer.
6. The evidence of PW3, ASI Raj Kumar, is to the effect that on, 27.01.2011, he was posted as Incharge, North West Zone, on PCR Vehicle Commander36. He further deposed that, on that day, his duty hours were from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. He further deposed that at about 4.30 PM/4.55 PM, he alongwith, staff of PCR Commander36, were present at Azad Pur Mandi, BBlock. He heard the noise of a boy, "Pakdo Pakdo Humein Loot Liya". He further deposed that, he saw towards the side of voice and noticed that four boys were apprehending one boy; one of those four boys, had put a knife on the neck of said boy and two boys out of those four boys were catching hold the arms of that boy and the fourth boy was searching the pockets of the said boy. He further deposed that he alongwith his staff ran towards them. He further deposed that on seeing them, three, out of those four boys, ran away from the spot and one was apprehended, who put the knife on the neck of said boy, by them with the help of one public person, namely, Dinesh. He further deposed that the knife and looted amount of Rs.2000/, were recovered from the possession of that boy. He further deposed that he disclosed, his name as, Mogli, present in the Court. He further deposed that the victim disclosed his name as, Sunil S/o. Rati Ram R/o. Sultan Pur, Himachal Pradesh. He further deposed that he told that he was coming with his friend, Dinesh, and, in the meantime, FIR No.23/11 Page 4 of 21 four boys came there and looted Rs.2,000/. He further deposed that he informed to the local police on wireless. He further deposed that SI Sandeep reached at the spot. He handed over the custody of accused and the recovered articles and knife to him. He further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared the parcel of the knife and looted amount and sealed the same with the seal of SK and prior to seizure of the knife, prepared its sketch. The sketch of the knife is Ex. PW2/C. Seizure memo of the knife is Ex. PW2/D. The seizure memo of Rs.2,000/ is Ex. PW2/B. The Investigating Officer, recorded the statement of Sunil Kumar and got the case registered. He further deposed that the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/F. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/. He further deposed that Investigating Officer, recorded his statement. This witness correctly identified the case property i.e. four currency notes of Rs.500/, in denomination, which were recovered from the possession of the accused and the same was looted from the complainant/victim. The currency notes are collectively Ex. P1. The witness has correctly identified the knife which was recovered from the possession of accused. The knife is Ext.P2. This witness was cross examined by ld. Counsel for the accused. In his crossexamination this witness deposed that, his PCR van was about 50 steps away, from the place of incident. At that time, his PCR van was in slow motion due to heavy traffic and they were returning after attending another call. He further deposed that he inquired from the accused, his name, parentage and address, which he disclosed. He further deposed that he flashed the message, on the wireless, after coming to know about the name and address of accused. He further deposed that he remained on the spot upto 8.00 PM and joined entire investigation. He further deposed that, Dinesh, was also standing near the victim, when he noticed the commission of crime. This witness denied that the accused was not apprehended from the spot in the manner, as deposed by him. This witness denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of Investigating Officer to falsely implicate the accused in this case. This witness denied that he signed all the memos at the PS at the FIR No.23/11 Page 5 of 21 instance of Investigating Officer to falsely implicate the accused in this case.
7. The evidence of PW4, Dinesh, is to the effect that he is a truck driver by profession. He further deposed that on, 27.01.2011, at about 4.30 PM/4.45 PM, he alongwith his friend, Sunil Kumar, was coming back from New Subzi Mandi Azad Pur, after collecting the fare. He further deposed that when they reached at the gate of Subzi Mandi, in the meantime, four boys came in front of them. He further deposed that one of them took out a knife and pointed out it, on the neck of his friend, Sunil. The two other boys caught hold of the hands of his friend, Sunil. The fourth boy removed the money i.e. Rs.2000/, from the pocket of his friend and handed over the same to the boy, who pointed the knife, on the neck of his friend. He further deposed that he raised alarm. The PCR van was stationed nearby. On hearing his alarm, police officials form the PCR van came there. He further deposed that with the help of police, he and his friend apprehended the boy, who pointed the knife. The other three boys fled away from the spot. He further deposed that the police recovered the knife and Rs.2000/, from the possession of the boy, who was apprehended. The witness correctly identified the accused by pointing out towards him and stated that the accused, disclosed his name as Mogli. He further deposed that PCR officials informed the PS, on telephone. Two police officials reached the spot from the PS. The PCR officials handed over the knife and Rs.2000/, recovered from the accused to those police officials. He further deposed that sketch of the knife was prepared by the police, the same is Ex. PW2/C. He further deposed that the knife was wrapped in a white cloth and seized vide memo, Ext PW2/D. He further deposed that the currency notes were also put in a white envelope and seized vide memo, Ext.PW2/B. He further deposed that the place of incident was also shown to the police. The site plan is Ext. PW2/H. He further deposed that accused was taken to PS. He further deposed that the arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused are Ext. PW2/F and Ext. PW2/G, respectively. The witness correctly identified the case property i.e. four currency notes of FIR No.23/11 Page 6 of 21 Rs.500/, to be the same, which were recovered from the possession of accused and the same was looted from his friend, Sunil. The currency notes are collectively exhibited as P1. This witness had correctly identified the knife, as the same which was recovered from the possession of accused, who pointed out the same on the neck of his friend, Sunil. The knife is Ext. P2. This witness was crossexamined by ld. Counsel for the accused. In his cross examination this witness deposed that the incident was over within five minutes. He further deposed that there was crowd, at the place of incident, as it was the out gate of the Subzi Mandi. He further deposed that they had just come out of the out gate when the incident had taken place. This witness denied that he had identified the currency notes, at the instance of IO to falsely implicate the accused, in this case. He further deposed that the PCR van was, at a distance of about 2030 steps from the place of incident and PCR van was visible from the place of incident. He further deposed that he remained at the spot for 34 hours. He further deposed that he was knowing, Sunil, for about 56 months, prior to the incident. This witness denied that the accused never put the knife on the neck of Sunil. This witness denied that no knife was recovered from the possession of accused, Mogli and that the same was planted by the Investigating Officer. This witness denied that nothing happened in the manner, as deposed by him in his examination. He further deposed that PCR officials inquired about the names, parentage and address of accused, in his presence.
8. The evidence of PW5, Constable Satbir Singh, is to the effect that on, 29.01.2011, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park. He further deposed that on that date, he joined the investigation of the present case along with SI Saneep Kumar. He further deposed that the accused Mogli @ Sohan Lal, present in the Court was taken out from the lock up and he was taken to Azad Pur Subzi Mandi, D Block, Near Anda Chowk, in search of other accused persons. He further deposed that the accused pointed out towards two boys, namely, Chand and Amit and he also disclosed that they also accompanied him FIR No.23/11 Page 7 of 21 while looting Rs.2,000/. He further deposed that both the boys were apprehended by himself and SI Sandeep Kumar. He further deposed that on inquiry, Amit disclosed his age as 13 years and Chand disclosed his age as 16 years. He further deposed that parents of both the boys were called telephonically and SI Kaptan Singh, who was juvenile officer at the PS, was also called at the spot. He further deposed that the proceedings were conducted, in his presence. He further deposed that apprehension memos, personal search memos of both the accused bear his signatures at point A, on marks PW5/1, PW5/2, PW5/3 and PW5/4.
9. The evidence of PW6, HC Surender, is to the effect that on 27.01.2011, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 AM till 8.00 PM. He further deposed that at about 5.00 PM, he alongwith SI Sandeep, on receiving PCR call, reached at Azad Pur Mandi, Delhi. He further deposed that PCR Commander36 was there and Incharge ASI Rajkumar met them, who was having the custody of accused Mogli, present in the Court. He further deposed that complainant, Sunil was also present there. He further deposed that PCR officials had already recovered Rs.2000/ and one knife from accused, Mogli and it was handed over to the Investigating Officer. He further deposed that Investigating Officer recorded statement of complainant, Sunil. He further deposed that the complainant identified the currency notes, belonging to him, which were robbed by the accused alongwith his other associate. He further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared sketch of the knife, vide memo Ext.PW2/C, which bears his signature at point D. He further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared cloth parcel of the knife and sealed it with the seal of SK. He further deposed that knife was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW2/D, bearing his signature at point D. He further deposed that the currency notes in the denomination of FIR No.23/11 Page 8 of 21 four notes of Rs.500/ each, were also turned into cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of SK and same was taken into possession, vide memo Ext.PW2/B, bearing his signature at point D. He further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to PS and after getting the case registered, returned to the spot. He further deposed that accused Mogli was arrested, vide memo Ext.PW2/F, bearing his signature at point D and his personal search was conducted, vide memo Ex. PW2/G, bearing his signature at point D. He further deposed that accused made his disclosure statement, which is Ex. PW2/E. He further deposed that Investigating Officer recorded his statement. This witness identified, correctly, the currency notes to be the same, which were recovered from the possession of accused by ASI Raj Kumar and were handed over to the Investigating Officer. The currency notes are collectively Ext.P1. This witness correctly identified the knife as the same which was recovered from the possession of accused by ASI Raj Kumar and it was handed over to the IO. The knife is Ext.P2. This witness was crossexamined by ld. Counsel for the accused. In his crossexamination this witness deposed that first of all, statement of complainant was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, seizure memos were prepared. This witness further denied that nothing was recovered in his presence and no case property was seized by the Investigating Officer, in his presence. This witness denied that ASI Rajkumar did not hand over Rs.2000/ and knife to the IO, SI Sandeep Kumar, in his presence. This witness denied that no statement of Sunil was recorded in his presence. This witness denied that he is deposing falsely, at the instance of Investigating Officer.
10. The evidence of PW7, SI Kaptan, is to the effect that, on 29.01.2010, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park. He further deposed that on that day, Duty Officer FIR No.23/11 Page 9 of 21 informed him that two boys have been apprehended at Anda Chowk, DBlock, Azad Pur Mandi, Delhi. He reached there. He further deposed that SI Sandeep, was present there alongwith two boys, namely Chand @ Chandu and Amit @ Chidhi, who were appearing to be juvenile and involved in this case. He further deposed that both the accused persons were produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kingsway Camp, alongwith their parents and both the accused were sent to observation home. He further deposed that Investigating Officer recorded his statement.
11. The evidence of PW8, SI Sandeep Kumar, is to the effect that on 27.01.2011, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 AM till 8.00 PM. He further deposed that, at about 5.03 PM, he received DD no.25A, Ex. PW1/A, in respect of apprehension of one accused, while he was committing robbery with Sunil at A Block, Subzi Mandi and one knife has been recovered and three others ran away. He further deposed that he alongwith HC, Surender, reached in front of BBlock, Azad Pur Mandi, Delhi. PCR Commander36 was there and Incharge, ASI, Rajkumar met them, who was having the custody of one person, whose name he came to know from inquiry, as accused, Mogli, present in the court. He further deposed that complainant, Sunil was also present there. He further deposed that PCR officials had already recovered Rs.2000/ and one knife from accused Mogli and it was handed over to him. He further deposed that he recorded statement of complainant, Sunil, Ext.PW2/A. He further deposed that complainant identified the currency notes, belonging to him, which were robbed by the accused alongwith his other associates. He further deposed that he prepared sketch of the knife vide memo Ext.PW2/C. He further deposed that he prepared cloth parcel of the knife and sealed it with the seal of SK. He further deposed that knife was taken into possession vide memo FIR No.23/11 Page 10 of 21 Ex. PW2/D. He further deposed that the currency notes, in the denomination of four notes of Rs.500/ each, were also turned into cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of SK and same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW8/A and handed over the same to HC Surender for registration of FIR, who went to PS and after getting the case registered, returned to the spot and handed over to him the copy of FIR and rukka. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan, at the instance of Sunil and Dinesh, which is Ex. PW2/H. He further deposed that he made inquiries from ASI Rajkumar, and he told that, initially, accused, Mogli, disclosed his name as Raju. He further deposed that accused, Mogli, was arrested vide memo Ext.PW2/F and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ext. PW2/G. He further deposed that accused made his disclosure, which is Ext.PW2/E. He further deposed that accused also put his thumb impression at point F on the memos. He further deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses at the spot. The witness correctly identified the four currency notes of Rs.500/, to be the same, which were recovered from the possession of accused by ASI Rajkumar and were handed over to him. The currency notes are, collectively, exhibited as P1. This witness also correctly identified the knife as the same which was recovered from the possession of accused by ASI Raj Kumar and it was handed over to him. The knife is Ex. P2. This witness was crossexamined by the ld. Counsel for the accused. In his crossexamination this witness denied that he has falsely implicated the accused, Mogli. This witness denied that all the writing work was done by him while sitting in the PS. This witness denied that Rs.2000/ and knife were planted on the accused to prepare a false case. This witness denied that, at his instance, both the public witnesses, namely, Dinesh and Sunil, intentionally identified the accused and that they have falsely identified Rs.2000/ and FIR No.23/11 Page 11 of 21 the knife. This witness denied that PCR officials had never witnessed any incident and that they were not present, at any point of time and that is why he did not collect the log book and DD number regarding their departure and duty.
12. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In his statement he deposed that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
13. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the record file carefully.
14. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has contended that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences, alleged against him. It has further been contended that all the witnesses have supported to each other, on all material facts. It has further been contended that the complainant, Sunil Kumar (PW2) and the material witness, namely, Dinesh, (PW4) have correctly identified the accused, as the person who robbed the complainant, Sunil Kumar along with his two coaccused, namely, Chand and Amit (both juvenile). It has further been contended that minor discrepancies in the evidence of PW2 and PW4 are not material and does not go to the root of the case. It has been prayed that the accused, Mogli, be convicted for the offences alleged against him.
15. On the other hand, it has been contended by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that no independent witness was joined by the IO, during the investigation, in the present case. It has further been contended that recovery was not affected in the presence of any independent witness. It has been contended by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that recovery from the possession of the accused is doubtful, in the absence of any independent witness. It has further been contended that there is no FIR No.23/11 Page 12 of 21 material on the record file against the accused. It has further been contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been contended that thee are material contradictions in the evidence of the material witnesses and the accused deserves benefit of the same. It is prayed that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case, beyond doubt, against the accused, the benefit of the same be given to the accused and he be acquitted for the offences, alleged against him.
16. Section 392 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
17. Section 397 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
18. It is well settled preposition of criminal law that prosecution has to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Balraj Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, 1976 Cr.L.J. 1471 (DB) (Punjab) in which FIR No.23/11 Page 13 of 21 it was observed as follows: The guilt of accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record. Even if, there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole, the prosecution may be true, but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.
19. It is well settled preposition of criminal law that prosecution has to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in, Tika Vs. State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 155, wherein it has been held that One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view, in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases, is that an accused is presumed to be innocent, unless, that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence which may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged.
20. In Bhikari Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1, the Supreme Court has held FIR No.23/11 Page 14 of 21 that Undoubtedly, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence with the requisite mens rea. Once it is done, the accused can rebut this presumption either by leading evidence or by relying on the prosecution evidence itself. If upon evidence adduced in the case, either by prosecution or by defence, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court, regarding one or more ingredients of the offence including mens rea, then he would be entitled to be acquitted.
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case entitled as Ashfaq Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2004 SC 1253 has held that What is essential to satisfy the word "uses" for the purposes of section 397, IPC is the robbery being committed by an offender who was armed with a deadly weapon which was within the vision of the victim so as to be capable of creating a terror in the mind of victim and not that it should be further shown to have been actually used for cutting, stabbing, shooting, as the case may be.
22. The Supreme Court of India in a case entitled as Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. AIR 2012, Supreme Court 37 has held that It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the FIR No.23/11 Page 15 of 21 evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions/ improvements/embelishments etc. had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The court after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case entitled as Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta ( Dr.) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657.
23. The Supreme Court of India in a case entitled as State of H.P. Vs. Lekh Raj & Ors. reported at JT 1999 (9) SC 43 has held that In the deposition of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation and normal errors of memory due to lapse of time and due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time occurrence and the like. It was further observed that traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial.
24. In the present case, the complainant, Sunil Kumar has correctly identified FIR No.23/11 Page 16 of 21 the accused, as the culprit who robbed an amount of Rs.2000/ from his possession, after showing him a knife. This witness is also corroborated by the evidence of PW4 Dinesh. There are no material contradictions in the evidence of PW2, Sunil Kumar and PW4, Dinesh. Further, both these witnesses have identified the accused, as the culprit who committed the alleged offences. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the accused has not been able to point out even an iota of material on the basis of which it can be held that the accused did not commit the alleged offences. Thus, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence of this court and is sufficient enough to form an opinion to the effect that the accused, Mogli can be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 392/397 IPC. In view of the evidence given by PW2, Sunil Kumar and PW4, Dinesh, there is no doubt that the accused, Mogli along with his co accused committed the alleged offence by robbing the complainant on the point of knife. There is clear, clinching and trustworthy evidence of PW2 and PW4, on the record file to bring home the guilt of the accused.
25. The cases, like the present one, in which the accused is properly identified by the complainant as the culprit and the case property is recovered from the possession of the accused, on the spot should be dealt with severely. The offences of robbery and dacoity with deadly weapon are on the increase in the society, particularly, in the metropolitan cities. Normally, the complainant and the other witnesses are reluctant to identify the real culprit, due to their fear. If there is identification of the real culprits and the case property proved on the record the accused should be dealt severely.
26. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the evidence on the record file is sufficient enough to convict the accused for the offences punishable 392/397 IPC. Accordingly, accused, namely, Mogli is convicted for the FIR No.23/11 Page 17 of 21 offences punishable under sections 392/397 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAMESH KUMAR)
COURT TODAY i.e. 11.04.2012. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.23/11
Page
18
of
21
IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR: SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
ADDL. SESSION JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No.23/11
SESSIONS CASE No.74/11
PS MAHENDRA PARK
U/s. 392/397/34 IPC
STATE VS. MOGLI
MOGLI @ SOM LAL
S/o DAYAL
R/o FOOT PATH, IN FRONT OF
C128, NEW SUBZI MANDI, AZADPUR,
DELHI
ORDER ON SENTENCE.
Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict is present on bail with counsel.
1. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Defence Counsel for the convict, on the point of sentence.
2. Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused has contended that convict is only 21 years of age. It has further been contended that he is the only bread earner in his family. It has been contended that he is not a previous convict. It has further been contended that benefit of Probation of Offenders Act be given to the convict. It has been prayed that a lenient view be taken against the accused, while awarding sentence to him.
FIR No.23/11
Page 19 of 21
3. On the other Ld. Addl. PP for the State has contended that the convict committed the offence of robbery in a broad day light. It has further been contended that substantive punishment be given to the convict and the convict be not given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. He prayed that no leniency be taken against the convict.
4. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahesh Vs. State of M.P. Reported as (1987) 2 SCR 710 has held that It will be mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lessor punishment for the accused would be to render the justice system of the country suspect. The common man will loose faith in Courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciate the language of deterrence more then the reformative jargon.
5. In another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dhanajai Chatterji Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1994 (2) SCC 220 has held that The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that Court should impose punishment befitting the crime so that Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.
FIR No.23/11
Page 20 of 21
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and, in particular, the fact that accused, Mogli, committed the offence, in a broad day light, after pointing out a knife towards the victim, accused, Mogli is sentenced to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/, for the offences punishable U/s.392/397 of IPC. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be given to the accused.
Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict, free of costs.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAMESH KUMAR) COURT TODAY i.e. 11.04.2012. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 1. ROHINI COURTS, DELHI FIR No.23/11 Page 21 of 21