Delhi District Court
State vs Monu Etc. (2) on 30 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
PRESIDED OVER BY : SH. VISHAL PAHUJA
CNR No. DLST01-002398-2015
SC NO. 7591/16
STATE VS. MONU AND OTHER
FIR NO. 1189/15
PS: NEB SARAI
U/S: 394/397/411/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Monu,
s/o Sh. Prem Chand,
r/o C-II/190 Maidan Garhi,
New Delhi.
2. Sanjay,
s/o Sh.Chander Bhan,
r/o L-II/204 Maidan Garhi,
New Delhi ... Accused Persons
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 14.11.2015
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 29.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ ORDER : 30.01.2025
FINAL ORDER : Convicted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused persons namely Monu and Sanjay pursuant to charge sheet filed by Police Station Neb Sarai u/s 394/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 1189/15.FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 1/16
2. Brief facts of the case are that a call was received vide DD no.
8A dated 18.08.2015. On receipt of said call, ASI Kuldeep Singh and Ct. Sunil Dutt reached at the spot i.e. Flat no. 181, DDA Flats Tigri. On reaching at the spot, they met Sh. Govind and his son Dilbar having caught hold of two boys who inflicted injuries upon Surender and have robbed him. It also got transpired that the injured/victim Surender have been shifted to hospital by the PCR van. ASI Kuldeep Singh visited the AIIMS Trauma Centre and found injured Surender admitted there and his MLC no. 509662/15 was handed over to him with the alleged history of assault. Statement of injured Surender was recorded by the police as Ex. PW3/A.
3. As per the complainant/injured Surender, on 18.08.2015 while he was returning back to his house after his work at about 12.30 PM at night, and reached near DDA flats, Tigri, two boys came from behind and one of the boy caught hold of him from his neck and the other inflicted injuries on the leg of the complainant by knife and robbed his mobile phone and purse and thereafter tried to stab the knife in his stomach, however, injured Surender held the knife from its blade due to which his fingers got injured. Thereafter, those two boys started running from the spot and injured ran behind them and shouted for help. In the meantime, brother-in-law of Surender namely Dilbar and father-in-law namely Govind reached at the spot and caught hold both the accused persons and they were produced before the police. On the basis of the complaint, the present FIR no. 1189/15 was registered.
4. During the investigation, accused persons namely Monu and Sanjay were arrested and the weapon of offence "knife" was recovered from the accused Monu and a mobile phone make Nokia FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 2/16 along with purse containing Rs. 250/- and voter ID card of complainant/injured was recovered from accused Sanjay. After the conclusion of the investigation, police filed the charge sheet against both the accused persons u/s 394/397/411/34 IPC. Thereafter, the present matter was received by way of committal to the Court of Sessions on 05.12.2015.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 05.12.2015, charge for the offence punishable u/s 394/34 IPC was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court against both the accused persons, namely, Monu and Sanjay and and accused Sanjay was also separately charged for the offence u/s 397 IPC. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and chose to face the trial.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
6. The prosecution in support of present case has examined 11 (eleven) prosecution witnesses (in short PW) in total and same are discussed in brief as follows:-
7. PW1 W/HC Shyam Kaur was working as Duty Officer, who exhibited on record endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/A, computerized copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/B, certificate in support of FIR as Ex.PW1/C, copy of DD No.5B and 8A as Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. PW1 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 3/16
8. PW2 Dr. Akansha Gautam was working as Sr. Resident at AIIMS hospital, who exhibited on record attested copy of MLC and medical treatment papers pertaining to injured/patient Surender as Ex.PW2/A (colly), attested copy of Dr. Abhay Shankar as Ex.PW2/B and original MLC as Ex.PW2/C. PW2 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
9. PW3 Sh. Surender Singh was the injured and star witness of the prosecution who deposed in view of his complaint Ex. PW3/A and reiterated the same facts in his examination in chief recorded before the court. This witness identified accused Monu as the person who gave knife blows to him and looted his belongings and also identified accused Sanjay as the person who caught hold of him from the neck, before the court during trial. PW3 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
10. PW4 Sh. Govind deposed that on 18.08.2015, at about 12.30 night, he heard noise from the gali which was of his son-in-law namely Surender and therefore, he along-with his son Dilbar immediately came out in the gali and saw that two boys out of which one was having knife in his hand was running away. PW4 further deposed that he along with his son Dilbar chased both the accused persons and he apprehended accused Monu while Sanjay was apprehended by Dilbar. PW4 further deposed that accused Monu was having knife in his hand. PW4 deposed that he made call to the police at 100 number and PCR van reached at the spot. Both of accused persons along with the knife were produced before the police and some of the police officials took his son-in-law Surender to hospital.FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 4/16
PW4 further deposed that police conducted the search and mobile phone and purse containing Rs. 250/- and voter ID card robbed from PW3 was recovered from the accused Sanjay. PW4 further deposed that police prepared sketch of the knife exhibited as Ex.PW4/A and seized the same vide seizure memo as Ex. PW4/B. The other articles i.e. mobile phone make Nokia, purse containing Rs. 250/- and ID card of Surender were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/C. PW4 exhibited on record the arrest memos and personal search memos of accused persons as Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW4/G respectively. PW4 identified mobile phone as Ex.P1, purse as Ex.P2 and knife as Ex.P3. PW4 identified both the accused persons before the court during trial. PW4 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
11. PW5 Dr. Suraj Ohal working as Sr. Resident at AIIMS, gave his opinion after examining the medical documents and the weapon of offence that the injury no. 1 and 2 as per MLC could be possible by the weapon seized in this case. The opinion / report to this effect is Ex. PW5/B and the sketch of the knife as Ex.PW5/A. PW5 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
12. PW7 Sh. Dilbar deposed more or less on the same lines of that PW3 Sh. Surender and PW4 Sh. Govind. PW7 identified both the accused persons before the court during the trial. PW7 also identified the case property. PW7 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
13. PW8 HC Harish was the formal police witness who deposed qua the medical examination of the accused persons conducted at trauma centre. This witness also identified the accused persons being FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 5/16 the assailants who were produced by the IO at the spot from where they were taken for medical examination. PW8 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
14. PW9 SI Kuldeep Singh was the Investigating Officer who deposed that on 18.08.2015, on receipt of DD no. 8A, he along-with Ct. Sunil Dutt went to spot i.e. Flat no. 181, DDA Flats, Tigri, New Delhi where Govind and Dilbar met them and they produced both the accused persons. PW9 further deposed that accused Monu was carrying one steel knife in his right hand which was blood stained and from the possession of accused Sanjay one mobile phone make Nokia of black colour was recovered from his right side pocket of pant and one black colour purse from the left side pocket of his pant was recovered. PW9 further deposed that he received DD no. 5B and he went to AIIMS Trauma centre where MLC of injured Surender was collected and his statement was recorded as Ex. PW3/A. PW9 further deposed that Ct. Sunil handed him pullanda along with sample seal that was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. PW9 further deposed that the weapon of offence and other articles were seized by him and he relied upon the documents already exhibited on record in the testimony of PW4 pertaining to the seizure of the articles.
15. PW9 further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW9/A and got the FIR registered. PW9 also seized the blood stained pant of accused Sanjay vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/B. PW9 exhibited on record the site plan as Ex. PW9/B, seizure memo of blood sample as PW9/C. PW9 has identified one khaki colour pant as Ex.P4. This witness identified both the accused persons in the court during the trial and the FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 6/16 case property exhibited as Ex. P1 to Ex. P3. PW9 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
16. PW10 ASI Jaivir Singh was working as photographer, who took the photographs of the spot from different angle and exhibited on record the said photographs along-with negative as Ex.PW10/1 (Colly). PW10 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
17. PW11 Inspector Manish Yadav was working as Incharge, crime team, who exhibited on record his detailed report as Ex.PW11/1. PW11 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
18. During trial, accused persons admitted the genuiness of preparation of MLC no. 12838/15 dated 2109.2015 as Ex.PA1 by recording their joint statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C..
19. Prosecution did not chose to examine any other witness in this case, accordingly, PE was closed vide order dated 16.01.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
20. Statement of accused persons recorded separately U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to them. The accused persons controverted and denied the allegations levelled against them. It is stated by both the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 7/16ARGUMENTS:
21. Ld. Additional PP for State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and their testimony has remained unrebutted. That on a combined reading of testimony of prosecution witnesses, offence U/s 394/34 IPC and u/s 397 IPC are proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
22. On the other hand, Ld. LAC for accused persons have stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons. It is further argued that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of star witnesses and no independent public witness have been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the story of prosecution. It is further argued that the recovery shown to have been effected from the accused persons is planted. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the accused persons deserves to be acquitted.
FINDINGS:
23. Arguments adduced by Ld. Additional PP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.
24. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused persons are indicted for the offences u/s 394/34 IPC and u/s 397 IPC. Section 394 IPC provides punishment for voluntary causing hut while committing or in attempt to commit robbery. Section 397 IPC provides punishment for FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 8/16 committing robbery or dacoity, where the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.
25. Prosecution has examined three material witnesses i.e. PW3 Surender, victim in this case, PW4 and PW7 Sh. Govind and Sh. Dilbar being the persons present on the spot who apprehended the accused persons on whose testimony the case of prosecution rested.
26. Now, firstly coming to the deposition of PW3 Surender who is the most crucial witness of the prosecution. During his examination in chief this witness has categorically deposed qua the role played by both the accused persons at the time of commission of the robbery on 18.08.2015. He narrated the entire incident happened with him giving every minute detail of it sequence wise. PW3 specifically stated that accused Sanjay caught hold of him from the neck and accused Monu gave knife blows on his leg and removed his purse and mobile from his pocket. He further stated that how upon raising alarm, his brother- in-law and father-in-law came there and apprehended the accused persons after brief chase. During his cross examination not even a single material contradiction or discrepancy has appeared qua the allegations of robbery and the manner in which it has been committed by the accused persons.
27. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons raised a contention that material contradictions and discrepancies have appeared in the testimony of PW3. This argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is without merits as not even a single discrepancy has been pointed out by the FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 9/16 Ld. Counsel in the testimony of PW3 which goes to the root of the case of prosecution. In fact, PW3 reiterated the role of the accused persons and the manner of commission of offence by them during the cross examination. Thus, the testimony of PW3 stood firm, consistent and remained unblemished throughout all the stages and there is nothing on record to disbelieve his version. Hence, the contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel stands rejected.
28. Now coming to the deposition of PW4 Sh. Govind. Ld. Defence counsel has raised the argument that there are material discrepancies in the version of PW4 as during the cross examination PW4 stated that the police reached at the spot and apprehended the accused persons which is contrary to the case of prosecution and also that PW4 has stated that he has signed the documents in police station on next day whereas the articles recovered from the accused persons allegedly seized at the spot itself. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel that during the cross examination of PW4 he has narrated different story so his testimony should not be relied upon.
29. This court find some substance in the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel as far as the deposition of PW4 is concerned but the discrepancies pointed are not material enough to discard his testimony in toto nor it appears to be untruthful. In the examination in chief PW4 has categorically narrated the incident that how he and his son Dilbar apprehended the accused persons while they were running away from the spot and PW4 called the police who arrived at the spot and conducted the search of the accused persons and recovered the knife and the robbed articles from their possession. However, during cross FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 10/16 examination, PW4 somewhat deviated from his examination in chief qua the apprehension of the accused persons. He stated that accused persons were hiding under the staircase and he made police call whereby the police arrived and apprehended both the accused persons. PW4 has exhibited on record the arrest memo and the personal search memo of the accused persons as Ex. PW4/D to Ex. PW4/G respectively but no specific suggestion denying the signatures of PW4 on the aforesaid documents have been put by the defence during his cross examination. Though, the manner of apprehension of the accused persons as stated by PW4 is at variance but the presence of the accused persons and their apprehension at the spot is not disputed by the accused persons during the cross examination of PW4, thus, the presence of the accused persons and their apprehension from the spot stands duly established by the testimony of PW4 which is also corroborated by the version of PW3 Surender.
30. PW4 in his examination in chief exhibited on record the seizure memos of the knife, mobile and the purse recovered from the accused persons that is Ex. PW4/A and Ex.PW4/C. PW4 during his cross examination reiterated the same stance by stating that the search of the accused persons was conducted and knife/purse/mobile were recovered from the accused persons when they were apprehended. Thus, the recovery immediate after the incident connects the role of the accused persons in the commission of offence charged against them. Merely, that PW4 in his cross examination stated that he had signed the document in the police station in the next day will not negate or create any doubt in his version when his testimony on all material aspects corroborates the testimony of PW3 and other prosecution witnesses. Thus, in totality the testimony of PW4 FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 11/16 supported the case of the prosecution.
31. The discrepancies pointed out by the Ld. Defence counsel in the deposition of PW4 are not material enough to shake the veracity of his testimony. Minor variations in the deposition of the witness are bound to occur due to lapse of time and one cannot expect from a person to state exact words or statements on each and every stage unless the variation is such that it shakes the foundation of the prosecution case. It is pertinent to note that the accused persons has not confronted PW4 with his previous statements which could have enabled him to explain the discrepancy or contradiction, if any, but it is not the case so. It is a settled proposition of law that minor contradiction, inconsistencies, embellishment or improvement on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case could not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. Reliance is placed on the judgment State of UP v. Naresh, 2011 (4SCC 324) & similar observations were made in judgment Ganga Bhawani Vs Venket Reddy & Ors. 2013 IX AD (SC 493) . Hence, the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that the testimony of PW4 is unreliable also stands rejected.
32. Now coming to the another star witness of the prosecution i.e. PW7 Dilbar Singh Rawat. The testimony of PW7 supported the case of prosecution and corroborated the testimony of PW3 and PW4 on all material aspects. This witness along with PW4 apprehended the accused persons on the spot and identified them in the court during the trial. Though, the seizure memos of the recovered articles does not bear the signatures of PW7 as witness but he has categorically stated FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 12/16 that on the search of the accused Sanjay, one Nokia Black colour mobile phone and one black colour wallet belonging to his jija Surender was recovered from him and the accused Monu was having knife in his hand. As compared to the testimony of PW4, the deposition of PW7 is not deviated in any manner rather his testimony remained unrebutted and uncontroverted as no material contradiction or inconsistency has appeared in his testimony during cross examination. Thus, the testimony of PW7 is found to be reliable and also inspires the confidence of the court to act upon on it.
33. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the incident happened in the residential area and only the relatives of victim came out of their house on the alarm raised by him and no other public witness came on the spot to corroborate his version. So, in absence of independent witness the testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution should not be given due weightage as there are major variations in their testimony. This court is of the view that the aforesaid contention raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel do not hold much merits in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence lead on record.
34. It is relevant to note that the evidence of eye witness has a greater evidentiary value unless compelling reasons exists and its statement cannot be discarded merely on the ground that some variations in the statement come on record. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, it is to be seen that whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. No doubt that no independent public witness has come forward to support the case FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 13/16 of the prosecution but that does not cast doubt upon the testimony of the victim Surender and the other two star witnesses Govind and Dilbar examined in this case. The testimony of the star witnesses examined in this case are trustworthy, categorical, free of bias and there is nothing on record to suggest that these witnesses have any motive to falsely implicate the accused persons and allow the real culprits to go scot-free, hence, the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel does not have any force, thus, stands rejected. Reliance is placed upon the judgment Sadaab @ Shamshad v. State (209 (2014) DLT.
35. The testimony of PW3, PW4 and PW7 stood firm and consistent during their cross examination before the court leaving no room to doubt the veracity of their testimony. Their testimony appears to be convincing and weighty enough to sustain the conviction of accused persons. Hence, the contention of the accused persons qua the non examination of independent public witness does not hold much water and is liable to be rejected.
36. PW9 SI Kuldeep, investigating officer in this case deposed qua his role in the investigation and he also corroborated the version of other prosecution witnesses qua the recovery effected from the accused persons. There is nothing contradictory appeared in his testimony as well during his cross examination. Nothing on record suggest otherwise and there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW9.
FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 14/1637. Prosecution examined two witnesses i.e. PW2 Dr. Akansha Gautam and PW5 Dr. Suraj Ohal as medical experts. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that complainant Surender has deposed in his testimony that while saving himself from knife blow in his stomach he used his hand whereby he sustained injury on his fingers, however, MLC Ex. PW2/C does not reflect of injury on his fingers so either PW3 is lying or MLC is manipulated. At the outset it is to be noted that PW2 has proved and exhibited on record the MLC pertaining to the victim as PW2/C which reflects the injury sustained by the victim Surender. PW2 has not been cross examined by the accused persons, thus, the injuries mentioned therein stands duly proved. If any specific injury has not been mentioned in MLC and the injury mentioned there in are not disputed by the accused by way of cross examination then it will not have much adverse bearing on the case of prosecution rather existence of other injuries on the body of complainant are not disputed nor it is the plea of accused persons that the injuries are self inflicted. Further, PW5 has categorically given his opinion to the effect that the injuries no. 1 and 2 could be possible by the weapon seized in this case and his opinion is exhibited as Ex. PW5/B. This witness was also not cross examined by the accused persons. Thus, the medical evidence lead on record also corroborates the story of the prosecution and the version of the victim PW3.
38. Both the accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention which can be inferred from their actions and the circumstances of the case that attracts the provision of Section 34 IPC. The ingredients of section 394 IPC r/w section 34 IPC have been duly complied with beyond any reasonable doubt and are sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty for the same. As far as offence u/s 397 IPC FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 15/16 is concerned, the same is also proved against the accused Monu who has used knife as weapon of offence being a deadly weapon and caused injuries to the victim while committing the offence of robbery.
CONCLUSION :
39. In view of the observations given above and the cogent evidence led on record in the form of uncontroverted testimony of complainant Surender and other star witnesses, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case and established the necessary ingredients of the offence u/s 394/34 IPC charged against both the accused persons and the offence u/s 397 IPC against the accused Monu. Accordingly, accused persons namely Monu and Sanjay stands convicted for the offence u/s 394 IPC read with section 34 IPC and accused Monu also stands convicted for the offence u/s 397 IPC.
40. Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the accused persons.
Digitally signed by VISHALVISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date:
2025.01.30 15:55:44 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA) COURT ON 30.01.2025 ASJ (FTC) -02 SOUTH DISTRICT SAKET COURTS Containing 16 pages all signed by the presiding officer.Digitally signed
VISHAL by VISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date: 2025.01.30 15:55:50 +0530 (VISHAL PAHUJA) ASJ (FTC) -02 SOUTH DISTRICT SAKET COURTS FIR No. 1189/15 State v. Monu and others Page 16/16