Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Shyam Mehto S/O Leelo Mehto on 30 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01
(EAST) :KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 6/13
FIR No. 64/11
PS Geeta Colony
Under Section : 392/394/397/34 IPC
State Versus 1. Shyam Mehto S/o Leelo Mehto
R/o Vill. Bishan Pur puri chowk,
Distt Begu Sarai (Bihar).
2. Ashish Kumar S/o. Radhy Shyam,
R/o. Pushta Shamshan Ghat,
Geeta Colony.
3. Pramod @ Ganja S/o. Hans Raj,
R/o. Vill. Garhi Ibrahimpur,
Distt. Lakhim Pur, UP.
4. Pramod @ Shanker @ Kalu
S/o Ghanshyam
R/o Vill Barda Killa, PS Mursan,
Distt. Mathura, U.P.
Date of Institution of Case : 04.07.2011
Date on which Judgment Reserved : 30.10.2013
Date on which Judgment Delivered : 30.10.2013
J U D G M E N T :
1. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was made by Mahboob Alam on 13.3.11 mentioning that at about 10.15 p.m he was going in his TSR No. DL1RG3180. At Pushta Road near Pracheen Shiv Mandir four persons stopped his TSR and asked him to take them to Shastri Park. They all sat inside his TSR. One boy sat on the front seat with him and other three sat on the rear seat. He was pushed on the back seat and one boy started driving the TSR. He was beaten up by those boys, his mobile phone make Nokia having SIM No. 97186667423, Rs.1200/, his driving license, badge and some documents lying in his pocket were taken away. He raised alarm, three assailants managed to run away and accused Ashish Kumar was apprehended. A pistol which he was holding was recovered and he was beaten by the public persons. They also left a chhuri in the TSR. Accused FIR No. 64/11 page 1 of page 6 Ashish Kumar, countrymade pistol and chhuri were handed over to the police. PW9 ASI Satvinder Singh reached at the spot and arrested accused Ashish Kumar. At the instance of accused Ashish Kumar accused Pramod @ Ganja, Shyam Mehto and Pramod @ Shankar were arrested. After investigation police filed chargesheet against the accused persons u/s. 392/394/397/411/34 IPC.
2. Charge u/s. 392/394/397/411/34 IPC were given to all the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Complainant Mehboob Alam is the most important prosecution witness but he was reported to have died in a road accident on 11.11.11 and an FIR in this regard was lodged at PS Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad, copy of which is filed on record.
4. To prove its case prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. PW1 HC Pramod Kumar is the duty officer, he proved DD No. 36A as Ex.PW1/A. PW2 Vijay Kumar is the owner of TSR No. DL1RG3180 being driven by complainant. He deposed that on 14.3.11 the said TSR was being driven by Mehboob Alam. He proved superdaginama Ex.PW2/A executed by him and copy of form30 to prove his ownership as mark PW2/B. PW3 Dr. Mohit Chhangani proved MLC of complainant Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Ct. Mohd. Hanif had reached at the spot with PW9 ASI Satvinder Singh. As per him complainant Mehboob Alam met them there and handed over accused Ashish Kumar alongwith the toy pistol and knife and same were seized by IO. PW5 ASI Champa Toppo was duty officer, she proved endorsement on rukka Ex.PW5/A and FIR Ex.PW5/B. PW6 Sh. J.P. Nahar, Ld. M.M. proved application of TIP Ex.PW6/A, the TIP proceedings of accused Pramod @ Ganja Ex.PW6/B, the TIP proceedings of accused Pramod @ Shankar Ex.PW6/B1 and TIP proceedings of accused Shyam Sunder as Ex.PW6/B2. PW7 Ct. Rishikesh had also reached at the spot on being called by IO PW9. He proved sketch of the toy pistol prepared by IO Ex.PW7/A, seizure memo of the pulanda Ex.PW7/B, sketch of knife Ex.PW7/C and seizure memo FIR No. 64/11 page 2 of page 6 Ex.PW7/D. He also proved seizure memo Ex.PW7/E vide which one D/L, badge of complainant alongwith few visiting cards recovered from accused Ashish Kumar were seized, seizure memo of TSR Ex.PW7/F, personal search memo of accused Ashish Kumar Ex.PW7/G. PW8 HC Krishan Kumar had joined investigation with IO PW9, he proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Pramod @ Ganja as Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C, seizure memo Ex.PW8/D and Ex.PW8/E vide which mobile phone recovered at the instance of accused Pramod @ Ganja and Rs.150/ part of the looted money were seized. He proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Shyam Mehto Ex.PW8/F to Ex.PW8/H. He also proved seizure memo Ex.PW8/I vide which Rs.175/ as part of the looted money recovered from accused Shyam Mehto was seized. He also proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Pramod @ Shankar as Ex.PW8/J to Ex.PW8/L. He also proved seizure memo Ex.PW8/M vide which Rs.125/ part of the looted money recovered from accused Pramod @ Shankar was recovered. He proved the pointing out memo Ex.PW8/N of the place of occurrence prepared at the instance of the accused persons. PW9 ASI Satvinder Singh is the IO, he proved statement of complainant attested by him as Ex.PW9/A, rukka Ex.PW9/B, arrest memo of accused Ashish Kumar Ex.PW9/C and his disclosure statement Ex.PW9/D.
5. On the basis of the incriminating evidence against the accused persons, their statements were recorded u/s. 313 CrPC wherein they denied the entire prosecution evidence against them and took the defence of false implication.
6. As already discussed complainant Mahboob Alam is reported to have died in a road accident on the jurisdiction of PS Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad on 11.11.11. In the absence of statement of complainant the other evidence led by prosecution which needs consideration is the apprehension of accused Ashish Kumar at the spot and his handing over to FIR No. 64/11 page 3 of page 6 the police by complainant. The other evidence is the TIP of the accused persons conducted by PW6 Ld.M.M.
7. As per the IO PW9 on 13.3.11 on receiving DD NO. 36A he reached at the spot with PW4. Accused Ashish Kumar was handed over by complainant Mehbood Alam. Complainant produced a toy pistol and a chhuri. Both these articles were seized by him after putting it in separate parcels. After arrest of accused Ashish Kumar, in his search D/L and badge of complainant were recovered and same were taken into possession. Same is the statement made by PW4 Ct. Mohd. Hanif regarding apprehension of the accused Ashish Kumar, being produced by complainant alongwith a toy pistol and knife. As per him on search of accused Ashish Kumar, D/L of complainant was recovered which was seized by IO PW9.
8. Though complainant could not be examined by prosecution but for appreciating this recovery, contents of the complaint needs to be gone through. As per the FIR assailants had taken away Rs.1200/ , D/L and badge lying in the pocket of the complainant. He raised alarm and with the help of public persons accused Ashish Kumar was arrested. Out of these articles a D/L and badge of complainant is shown to have been recovered from the right side pocket of the jeans worn by accused Ashish Kumar. As per the prosecution case looted money is shown to have been recovered from the possession of other accused persons. It is unlikely and unbelievable that immediately after alleged looting of money, D/L and badge from the pocket of complainant, accused persons distributed these articles among themselves. No money is shown to have been recovered from possession of accused Ashish Kumar. It cannot be believed that accused Ashish Kumar took D/L and badge of the complainant, which is of no value to him, as his share of loot. Moreover, the way in which this incident happened, the assailants have no time to share the booty among themselves. Moreover, as per PW4 and PW9 public persons were present at the spot but no public witness has been produced as a witness before this Court.
FIR No. 64/11 page 4 of page 6
9. Genesis of this case is the statement of the complainant but he being dead, the handing over of accused Ashish Kumar by him to the police on 13.3.11 at the spot is of no consequence. What happened with complainant and how the incident took place only he was in position to explain.
10. As per the IO PW9 there is recovery of Rs.150/ which is part of the looted money from possession of accused Pramod @ Ganja, Rs.175/ which is stated to be part of the looted money from the possession of accused Shyam Mehto and Rs.125/ from possession of accused Pramod @ Shankar. The recovered amount in itself is not such a big amount which a normal person cannot possess. Moreover, it is not the prosecution case if any identification mark was put by the complainant on these recovered currency Notes and same matches with the description given in the complaint.
11. Ex.PW6/B1 is the TIP of accused Pramod @ Shankar wherein complainant has correctly identified the accused. Ex.PW6/B2 is the TIP of accused Shyam Mehto, he has declined to participate in the TIP. Ex.PW6/B is the TIP of accused Pramod @ Ganja, he was correctly identified by complainant.
12. The identification of accused Pramod @ Ganja and accused Pramod @ Shankar by complainant in judicial TIP is again of no consequence because what wrong has been done by these accused persons with him only he could have elaborated. Moreover, TIP in itself cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence to held the accused guilty for the commission of an offence. It is a supplementary evidence, which can be used to supplement statement of the victim of the crime.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons are thereby acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 392/394/397/411/34 IPC.
FIR No. 64/11 page 5 of page 6
File be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
ON 30.10.2013
(SANJAY GARG)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(EAST) 01
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 64/11 page 6 of page 6