Delhi High Court
State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Pradeep @ Sonu And Ors on 29 April, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 2566
Author: Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
Bench: Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 277/2018
% Judgment reserved on: 04th April, 2019
Judgment pronounced on: _29th April, 2019
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.G.M. Farooqui, APP for State with
SI Munna Kumar, PS Delhi Cantt.
versus
PRADEEP @ SONU & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
Crl. M. A 7768/18 (Delay in Filing)
For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay 18
days in filing the present leave to appeal, the delay is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl. L. P. 277/18
1. By this petition under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as 'Cr.P.C'), the State seeks leave to
appeal against the judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-03, South West District, Dwarka Courts,
Delhi whereby the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6 were acquitted of the
charge under Sections 394/395/120B/412/34 of the Indian Penal
CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 1 of 11
Code, 1860 (hereinafter as 'IPC'), and accused No. 3 was acquitted
of the charge under Sections 397/394/395/120B/412/34 of IPC and
accused No.5 was acquitted of the charge under Sections
394/395/120B/34 of IPC in FIR No. 18/12 registered at Police
Station Delhi Cantt, Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
i. That on 17.01.2012, at about 6.30 pm, PW1 (Tejas Uday
Methani) was going in the company's car bearing registration
No. DL1N3591, which was being driven by PW5 (Nand
Kishore) to company's garage. He was sitting besides the
driver seat and a bag having Rs.9 lacs cash was kept on the
back seat of the car.
ii. Near Hanuman Temple, a motorcycle having two riders came
and they stopped their motorcycle in front of their car and
when his driver asked them as to why they were not driving
properly, then one of them showed pistol like thing to PW5 and
further they started beating him with fist and leg blows.
Further when PW1 stepped out to stop them, another
motorcycle came and its rider slapped him and further
removed the bag lying on the back seat of the car and fled
away. PW1 noted down the registration number of one of the
motorcycles as DL8C3464.
iii. An information was given to the PCR and the DD No. 33A at
PS Delhi Cantt was recorded which resulted into registration
of FIR No.18/2012 under Sections 394/395/397/120B/412/34
IPC registered at PS Delhi Cantt.
iv. All the accused persons except accused Raj Kumar were
arrested in another case bearing FIR No. 42/12 of PS Delhi
Cantt and few them also got recovered part of the robbed
money. After their arrest in this case, some more money
recovery of the robbed money, mobile phone and said bag was
done from some of the accused persons. Further accused
persons refused to participate in TIP proceedings.
CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 2 of 11
3. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and
accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6 were charged under Sections
394/395/120B/412/34 of IPC, accused No. 3 was charged under
Sections 397/394/395/120B/412/34 of IPC and accused No.5 was
charged under Sections 394/395/120B/34 of IPC. In order to bring
home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined
27 witnesses.
4. Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C wherein they stated that they had been falsely implicated in
the present case and claimed to be innocent. They chose not to lead
any evidence in their defence.
5. After appreciating and considering the rival contentions of the parties
and scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the
accused persons of the charged offences.
6. Mr. G.M. Farooqui, learned APP appearing for the State contended
that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and is based on presumption,
conjectures and surmises; that the learned Trial Court had erred in
relying upon the minor contradictions pointed out in the evidence of
the two eye witnesses, the small discrepancies do not affect the core
of the prosecution case; that PW1 and PW5 being the eyewitnesses
to the occurance duly supported the case of the prosecution; that the
recovery of the stolen items i.e. Rs. 9 lac, documents, mobile phones
etc. was also affected from the accused persons, so the recovery of
the robbed articles should be a sufficient ground for conviction; that
the complainant has no enmity with the accused persons nor any
CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 3 of 11
other reason to falsely implicate them in the present case thus the
impugned judgment of acquittal calls to be set aside and the accused
persons need to be convicted.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the
available material on record.
8. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to peruse the complaint filed by
PW-1 (complainant) on the basis of which an FIR was registered
whereby he had stated that 'he along with a driver was going to
Palam area in an Accent car. He was sitting in the passenger seat of
the said car and a black executive bag containing Rs. 9 lacs was kept
on the back seat of the car. According to the complainant when he
reached a little ahead of Hanuman Mandir one motorcycle driven by
one boy and another seated at the back, stopped in front of the car,
after which, the driver of the car stepped outside and reprimanded
the two boys riding the motorcycle to drive it properly. The two boys
got down from the motorcycle and said "tu humme gadi chalana
sikhayega" and then took out a country made pistol and started
beating the driver with blows and kicks, after which the complainant
stepped out of the car and intervened to stop the commotion, another
motorcyclist came and stopped at close proximity and slapped the
complainant. When the complainant questioned as to why the rider
was hitting him, the second motorcyclist opened the back door of the
car and when the complainant tried to stop him, he slapped the
complainant and removed the bag kept on the back seat of the car.
Seeing the complainant getting beaten up the driver of the car came
to help him but the boy with the country made pistol hit the driver on
CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 4 of 11
the head so he stopped there only. Meanwhile the second
motorcyclist, who had stolen the bag containing money, escaped on
his motorcycle and the other two boys who were hitting the driver,
fled away on their motorcycle'.
9. PW-1 (complainant) during his examination in chief deposed that:
"On 17.01.2012 at about 6.30-7PM, I was going to
workshop from office by Accent Car no. DL- lN-3591
which was being driven by driver Sh. Nand Kishore. I
was sitting on the front left seat adjacent to the driver
seat. I was having a black colour bag containing Rs.
Nine Lacs and some documents and I had kept the said
bag behind my seat on the floor of the car. That amount
was meant for salary of the staff.
one motorcycle came from right side and they made us
to move towards left and ultimately the motorcycle
stopped in front of our car. Two persons were sitting on
the motorcycle. My driver got down from the car and
asked those persons as to what manner they were
driving the motorcycle. Both the persons got down
from the motorcycle and told my driver that he would
teach them how to drive and thereafter one of them
took out a gun and after loading the same, they started
beating my driver. I opened the door of the car and put
one step out from the car and requested those persons
to excuse the scolded me and asked me to sit in the car.
In the meantime, another motorcycle came and stopped.
I thought that the said motorcycle had come for my
rescue them to intervene. One person who had come on
second motorcycle came to me and hit me on my head.
In enquired as to why he was beating me. He also asked
me· to sit in the car and also pushed me inside the car
and he tried to close the door while my foot was out of
the car. My driver tried to come near me but one of
them hit the driver on his head with some object due to
which blood started coming out. One of them tried to
CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 5 of 11
open the rear door of the car behind me which I
objected on which one person again beat and pushed
me due to which I fell inside the car and he closed the
door. Thereafter, one person took out the said bag from
the car. I tried to save the bag by catching hold the
same but they again beat and pushed me and thereafter,
all those four boys alongwith two others (who had come
during the incident by some vehicle, number of which I
could not note down) ran away from there towards
Palam alongwith bag by sitting on those two
motorcycle. I had noted down the registration number
of one motorcycle which was ...... 3464. I asked the
driver to chase those persons but when my driver tried
to start the car, he found that they had taken away the
keys of the car
I made a call on 100 number. Police came and my
statement was recorded which is Ex PW1/A bears my
signatures at point A. I also informed my employer. In
the said bag, apart from currency of Rs. 9 lacs,
documents, two mobile phones, salary sheets, letter
heads and visiting cards etc were kept..."
10. From the perusal of the above statement and testimony of PW-1
(complainant), it is evident that there are various contradictions and
discrepancies;
a) the complainant had stated in the FIR, that the bag, which was
stolen, was kept on the back seat of the car to the contrary in
his examination-in-chief he improved upon his testimony and
deposed that 'I was having a black colour bag containing
Rs. Nine Lacs and some documents and I had kept the said bag
behind my seat on the floor of the car'.
CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 6 of 11
b) in the complaint he stated that there were 3 boys on two
motorcycles, who committed the alleged offence, to the
contrary in his examination-in-chief he improved upon his
earlier statement and deposed that 'all those four boys
alongwith two others (who had come during the incident by
some vehicle, number of which I could not note down) ran
away from there towards Palam'.
c) In the complaint the complainant had stated that 'his driver
was hit on the head', but there was no mention of blood
coming out from the head, to the contrary, in the examination-
in-chief he has deposed that 'one of them hit the driver on his
head with some object due to which blood started coming out'.
d) In the complaint there was no mention of the complainant
being constantly pushed into the car but, in the examination-in-
chief he improved upon his earlier statement and deposed that
'One person who had come on second motorcycle came to me
and hit me on my head' he further had deposed that 'pushed
me inside the car and he tried to close the door while my foot
was out of the car' and that 'One of them tried to open the rear
door of the car behind me which I objected on which one
person again beat and pushed me due to which I fell inside the
car and he closed the door'
e) in the complaint the complainant stated about the robbery of
money only, but in his examination-in-chief, he improved
CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 7 of 11
upon his statement and deposed that 'In the said bag, apart
from currency of Rs. 9 lacs, documents, two mobile phones,
salary sheets, letter heads and visiting cards etc. were kept'
11. Considering the numerous contradictions in the version led by PW-1
(complainant), the statement does not inspire confidence and is not
worthy of credence so the same could not be the sole basis for
conviction of the accused persons. At this stage, it is relevant to
peruse the other material witness produced by the prosecution i.e
PW-5 (Nand Kishore/eyewitness) who accompanied
PW-1 (complainant) in the car. Being the eye witness to the whole
incident, it is essential to examine his testimony. PW-5 (Nand
Kishore/eyewitness) in his examination-in-chief deposed as under:
"At about 7.15 pm, when we reached Hanuman
Mandir, Air Force Road, one motorcycle black colour
came from back side and overtook our taxi and the
rider parked his motorcycle bearing no. DL SC 3464
before our taxi. There were two persons. Both the
persons got down from the motorcycle and came to me
and started abusing. I immediately came out from my
taxi and both the accused persons started beating me.
One of them was having pistol. In the mean time,
Mr.Tejas also came out from the taxi and he tried to
intervene in the matter. At the same time, one another
motorcycle also came from back side and there were
two persons on the said motorcycle and the said
motorcycle was also stopped near the taxi. When Tejas
asked them to intervene in the matter but they also
started beating Tejas. When I tried to rescue Mr.Tejas
one of the accused hit my head with heavy iron object.
At the same time, one ikon car also came from the back
side and the driver stopped his car at the spot. Two
persons came out from said car and they started the
CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 8 of 11
motorcycle which were standing on spot. One accused
took out the bag belongs to Mr.Tejas from the rear seat
of the taxi. Thereafter all the accused persons fled away
from the spot. Mr.Tejas asked me to chase accused
persons but the key of my taxi was not found there.
Perhaps the accused persons had taken away the key of
my taxi..."
12. From the perusal of the statement of PW-5 (Nand
Kishore/eyewitness), there are some glaring contradictions, which go
to the root of the matter. PW-1 (Complainant) had deposed that 'My
driver got down from the car and asked those persons as to what
manner they were driving the motorcycle. Both the persons got down
from the motorcycle and told my driver that he would teach them
how to drive and thereafter one of them took out a gun and after
loading the same, they started beating my driver' but PW-5 in his
examination-in-chief deposed that 'Both the persons got down from
the motorcycle and came to me and started abusing. I immediately
came out from my taxi and both the accused persons started beating
me. One of them was having pistol'.
The chain of events does not seem to formalise the incident as
it remains unclear as to who started the altercation. Moreover, PW-5
(Nand Kishore/eyewitness) in his examination-in-chief nowhere
deposed that PW-1 (complainant) was being constantly pushed back
into the car by the accused persons, or was hit on the head.
Moreover, he failed to mention about his head injury from which
blood was oozing.
13. From the above it is clear that not only the testimony of PW-1
(complainant) is contradictory to his own complaint, the versions of
CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 9 of 11
the two eyewitnesses in so far as the involvement of the accused
persons is concerned are also at variance.
14. Having examined the testimony of the material witnesses produced
by the prosecution, the other evidence brought on record is the
recovery of Rs. 50,000/- each, from the accused persons namely,
Pradeep @ Sonu and Raj Kumar, recovery of amount of Rs. 1.60 lacs
from accused Vicky, recovery of a black bag along with some
documents from accused Vivek Verma @ Sonu, recovery of
Rs. 74,000/- from accused Pradeep @ Sonu and recovery of a mobile
phone along with Rs. 25,000/- from the accused Raju Thapa @
Rohit.
15. It is pertinent to note that no independent witnesses were joined at
the time when the currency notes, documents and mobile phone was
recovered. Be that as it may, even if the recovery of the currency
notes, documents and mobile phone are taken into account, the same
cannot form the basis of conviction of the accused persons as the
material witnesses examined by the prosecution have failed to stand
the test of cross-examination and various discrepancies have
occurred in their testimonies.
16. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution failed to give a
uniform story with regard to the chain of events as both the witnesses
failed to disclose the number of persons who allegedly committed the
offence and the exact role played by each of the accused persons in
commission of the crime. In my view the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Moreso, in case of in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dal
CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 10 of 11
Singh &Ors., reported at JT 2013 (8) SC 625, the Supreme Court
has held that the appellate court while considering the appeal
against the judgment of acquittal shall interfere only when there
are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so and if the
judgment is unreasonable and relevant material have been
unjustifiably ignored, it would be a compelling reason for
interference. In the case of Rukia Begum Vs. State of Karnataka
AIR 2011 SC 1585 the Apex Court has held that in case two views
are possible and the trial court has taken the view favouring
acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the finding.
17. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Ghurey Lal vs. State of U.P., reported at 2008 (10) SCC
450, I do not find that there is any illegality or perversity in the
reasoning given in the impugned judgment. The learned trial court
has taken a holistic view in the matter and carefully analyzed the
evidence of all the witnesses.
18. Accordingly, no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment is
made out and the leave petition is dismissed.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
APRIL 29, 2019 / SU CRL.L.P. 277/2018 Page 11 of 11