Delhi District Court
State vs . Narain Haldar Etc. on 24 May, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 124/08)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0095132008
State Vs. Narain Haldar etc.
FIR No. : 34/08
U/s : 392/394/397/34 IPC
& 25 Arms Act
P.S. : Kanjhawala
State Vs. Narain Haldar
S/o Shri Ram Haldar
R/o House no. A697C,
New Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
Date of institution of case 31.10.2008
Date on which, judgment has been reserved24.05.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.05.2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution as briefly stated in the charge sheet is that DD no. 2A Ex. PW8/A was received at PS Kanjhawala at 12.05 mid night that one thief had been apprehended at new colony, D1353, near Safeda trees and that said person was having a revolver in his possession. On receipt of the said DD, IO ASI Satyavir along with DHG Vijender proceeded to the informed place, where they met S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 1/ 12 2 complainant Kirani Rai, who gave his statement that on 26.02.2008, at about 10.00 pm, three boys had hired his TSR from Old Yamuna Bridge for Ghevra. When, they reached at JJ Colony Road, near MCD Office, Ghevra, the three boys asked complainant to stop his TSR and got down to ease themselves. The complainant kept sitting in his TSR waiting for the said boys to pay the fare of the TSR. When the said three boys returned, one of them was having a pistol in his hand and the other two had knives in their hands. They pointed pistol on the temple of the complainant, knives on the left and right side of his waist and told him to hand over whatever, he had to them. When complainant resisted, he was given a blow with the pistol butt. The said boys forcibly removed complainant's mobile phone no. 9911988945 make Nokia 1110 Silver coloured and Rs. 500/ from his pocket. Complainant started grappling with the said boys. In the meantime, one car was seen coming from the side of Ghevra and on seeing the same, the boys with knives ran away towards JJ Colony. Complainant overpowered the person having pistol. In the meantime, one TSR no. DL1RF639 came from the side of Ghevra and on hearing the alarm raised by complainant, TSR driver Shabbu and passenger Ram Parsad helped complainant to apprehend the person with pistol, whose name was later on revealed to be Narain Haldar. The said accused was handed over to the police along with the pistol, when the police reached the spot. Complainant alleged that his money and mobile phone was with the two boys, who had run away from the spot and prayed that action be taken against the three persons, who had robbed him.
S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 2/ 12 3 On this complaint, a case FIR Ex. PW5/A was registered against the accused and his two accomplices u/s 392/394/34 IPC at PS Kanjhawala. The pistol recovered from the accused, which was handed over to the police by the complainant was seized vide Ex. PW4/B and the mobile phone recovered from personal search of accused, was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/C. The disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded. During the course of investigations, two accomplices of the accused Narain Haldar were also arrested and some robbed amount was recovered from possession of each of them. Said accomplices namely Vinod and Surjit were found to be juvenile and were accordingly produced before JJB for their inquiry. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused Narain Haldar was prepared and filed in the court for trial.
2. Upon committal of this case to the court of Sessions, charge for the offence under Section 392/394/397/34 IPC was framed on 20.12.2008 against the accused Narain Haldar. However, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses in all, in support of its case.
PW1 Shabbu is the eye witness of the scuffle between accused Narain Haldar and the complainant. He deposed that on 26.02.2008, he and one Ram Prasad were returning home in his TSR no. DL1RF639 and when they reached S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 3/ 12 4 near MCD office, he saw that one TSR was stationed by the side of road and two persons were scuffling and that on being asked by TSR driver, the other TSR driver told that he had been robbed of Rs. 1,000/ by that person and on request to save him, he apprehended the accused. He further deposed that police was informed and he along with accused were taken to PS Kanjhawala and in the PS, all writing work was done. PW1 identified the accused in the court as the same person, who robbed the victim and also snatched the keys of TSR.
During his crossexamination, PW1 admitted that cash of Rs. 1,000/ was not recovered in his presence and that victim told him that accused after snatching his mobile had thrown the same in the bushes.
PW2 Farman Ahmad is the another public witness, who stated that on 27.02.2008, at around 12/12.30 am, in the night, on hearing the noise, he came out of his house and saw the gathering of many people and on asking, he came to know that one person, who was running after snatching the money, was lying on the ground and he rescued him and called at number 100 and that PCR van and police arrived and said person and one another person having TSR was handed over to PCR. PW2 identified the accused Narain Haldar in the court as the person, who was saved by him from the crowd.
During crossexamination, PW2 stated that one mobile phone was recovered from the accused in his presence.
PW3 Vijender is a DHG Constable and he joined the investigation of the present case with PW8 IO ASI Satyavir Singh and deposed that on receipt of S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 4/ 12 5 DD no. 2A, he along with PW8 reached at Dblock, Sabha JJ Colony, where complainant Kirani Rai, Ram Parsad and Shambhu met them and they produced accused Narain Haldar in injured condition and that in his presence, rukka was sent to PS through Ct. Balwan Singh and that he took the accused to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial for medical examination.
PW4 Ct. Balwan Singh deposed that he had joined the investigation of the present case with PW8 IO ASI Satyavir Singh and that he took the rukka to the PS and got the FIR registered. He further deposed about the investigations conducted by PW8 on the spot and regarding arrest of accused Narain Haldar and his two juvenile accomplices Vinod and Surjit and about the recovery of knives and part of looted amount at the instance of juveniles Vinod and Surjit.
PW5 ASI Kanwal Singh is the duty officer of PS Kanjhawala. He deposed that on 27.02.2008, on receipt of rukka through Ct. Balwan Singh, he recorded the FIR Ex. PW5/A of the present case and made endorsement Ex. PW5/B on the rukka.
PW6 Dr. Manoj Dhingra proved the MLC of injured Kirani Rai as Ex. PW6/A, prepared by Dr. Dabas, who gave the nature of injury as 'simple'.
PW7 HC Naresh was working as MHCM at PS Kanjhawala and he deposed that on 27.02.2008, ASI Satyavir deposited two pullandas sealed with the seal of SS and he made entry in register no. 19, copy of which was proved as Ex. PW7/A and that on 28.02.2008, ASI Satyavir deposited four pullandas sealed with the seal of SS and he made entry in register no. 19, copy of which was proved as S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 5/ 12 6 Ex. PW7/B. PW8 ASI Satyavir is the IO of the case and he deposed about the investigations carried out by him. He proved the copy of DD no. 2A as Ex. PW8/A, statement of complainant as Ex. PW8/B, rukka as Ex. PW8/C and site plan prepared at the instance of complainant, as Ex. PW8/D. He also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Narain Haldar as Ex. PW8/E and Ex. PW8/F, respectively. The disclosure statement of accused Narain Haldar Ramu is proved as Ex. PW8/G. He also proved the arrest memos, personal search memos and disclosure statements made by juveniles Vinod and Surjit and the recoveries which were affected from their possession and at their instance.
The complainant Kirani Rai and public witness Ram Parsad were not produced for examination before the court as they were reported to be untraceable by the IO ASI Satyavir. Thereafter, the evidence was closed and the matter was listed for recording statement of accused persons.
4. Statement of the accused Narain Haldar was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the entire prosecution case and stated that he is innocent and that there was a dispute between him and the complainantTSR driver over the fare and it was the complainant, who gave him beatings and injured him and that he has not done anything and has been falsely implicated in this case.
6. Final arguments have been addressed by ld. Addl. PP for the State as S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 6/ 12 7 well learned defence counsel Sh. Rishi Pal Singh for the accused.
7. It has been submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that in view of the evidence specifically testimonies of PW1 Sh. Shabbu, PW2 Farman Ahmad and PW8 ASI Satyavir Singh and material brought on record by the prosecution, the guilt of the accused Narain Haldar has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he prayed that accused be held guilty of the charged offences.
8. Learned counsel for accused has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused, since the complainant has not been examined to prove the complaint. It is further submitted that material public witness Ram Parsad has also not been examined by the prosecution and that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. In the first instance, it is stated that even though, complainant reported that he had been robbed of Rs. 500/, the public witness Shabbu stated that complainant had been robbed of Rs. 1,000/. It is also submitted that a minor altercation had taken place between the complainant and the accused over TSR fare and it was the accused, who was given beatings by the complainant and thereafter, falsely implicated in the present case. It is accordingly, prayed that accused Narain Haldar be acquitted.
9. In the present case, the accused along with his two jeveniles accomplices namely Vinod and Surjit are alleged to have robbed complainant Kirani Rai of his S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 7/ 12 8 mobile phone and currency in sum of Rs. 500/ at the point of dangerous weapons namely pistol and two knives. One mobile phone and a pistol is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused, while one knife and Rs. 200/ is stated to have been recovered from juvenile accused Vinod and one chura and Rs. 250/ is stated to have been recovered from juvenile accused Surjit. The complainant Kirani Rai has not been produced for examination before the court and in his statement recorded on 10.03.2011, PW8 ASI Satyavir Singh stated that complainant Kirani Rai as well as public witness Ram Parsad were untraceable. He proved the report on processes as well as statement of witnesses recorded in this regard as Ex. PW8/H to Ex. PW8/H3 and Ex. PW8/J and Ex. PW8/J1. In these circumstances the complaint Ex. PW8/B does not stand proved in accordance with law.
10. The prosecution has however, examined two public witnesses in support of its case. These are PW1 Shabbu and PW2 Farman Ahmad. According to PW1 Shabbu, on the day of incident, he was going in his TSR. At about 11.00 pm, when he reached near Ghevra chowk, one person residing in his colony, whose name he could not remember, asked him for a lift. As PW1 and said person reached near MCD office, PW1 saw one TSR stationed by the side of Road and two persons were also seen scuffling. According to PW1, he was told by TSR driver that he had been robbed of Rs. 1,000/. PW1 apprehended the accused and took him to nearby colony, where some public person made call to PCR. When S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 8/ 12 9 PCR and local police came, PW1, accused and victim were taken to PS and all the writing work was done at the PS. PW1 identified accused Narain Haldar and claimed that he was the same person, who had robbed the victim and had also snatched keys of TSR of the victim. PW1 however, could not tell the name of the victim and could tell the name of passenger sitting in his TSR only on being put a leading question by learned Addl. PP in this regard.
11. During his crossexamination, PW1 was put a specific question regarding the injuries sustained by the accused, to which he replied that he might have sustained injuries during the scuffle with the victim. It is brought out from crossexamination of PW1, that nothing was recovered from the TSR in his presence and the cash of Rs. 1,000/ was also not recovered in his presence. He however, stated that mobile phone of victim was recovered from accused. He then improved upon his statement to state that the mobile phone of the victim was found lying in bushes, where accused has snatched the keys of TSR of the victim and the victim had stated that accused after snatching his mobile phone, had thrown the same in bushes. This is a major discrepancy in the prosecution case, since nothing is mentioned by the complainant in complaint Ex. PW8/B about keys of his TSR being snatched or accused having thrown his mobile phone in the same bushes, in which keys of his TSR were thrown. Rather, complainant has stated in Ex. PW8/B that the two accomplices of the accused, who S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 9/ 12 10 had run away from the spot, had taken away his mobile phone and cash money. It is noteworthy that as per the prosecution case and testimony of PW8 IO ASI Satyavir, the mobile phone was recovered during the search of the accused Narain Haldar. This discrepancy has not been explained by the prosecution. Further, PW1 states that the victim had told him that he had been robbed of Rs. 1,000/, whereas the complainant/victim himself has mentioned in complaint Ex. PW8/P that he had been robbed of Rs. 500/.
12. Coming to the testimony of PW2 Farman Ahmad, this witness has reached the place of incident after the occurrence and had seen the accused lying on the ground and on query from the crowd, he was told that the said person (accused) was running away after snatching the money. The person, whose money was snatched, was apparently not seen by PW2, whose role is confined to that of saviour of the accused, having rescued him from the crowd.
13. During his crossexamination, PW2 claimed that one mobile phone was recovered from the accused in his presence. He does not clarify as to whom the said mobile phone belonged to. Further, there is a contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 since, PW1 claimed that mobile phone had been recovered from the bushes, where accused had thrown the keys of the TSR of the complainant. Since, accused had been taken to a nearby colony, away from the place of occurrence, by PW1 and the complainant, as per testimony of PW1, there S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 10/ 12 11 is a doubt created as to when and from where, the alleged mobile phone was actually recovered from and if, it has been snatched from the complainant by the accused or fell on the ground, when complainant was scuffling with the accused. Even otherwise, the complainant has not stepped into witness box to support the case of the prosecution that the alleged mobile phone actually belonged to him or not. As far as the currency notes are concerned, the same were recovered from the possession of the juvenile accomplices of the accused as per the case of the prosecution. The injuries on the person of the accused have also not been explained by the prosecution. The perusal of the MLC of the accused, now marked as 'Mark X' for the purpose of identification, reveals that accused was having several injuries on his person, when examined vide MLC markX and one of his wounds required stitches also. From the failure to explain injuries on the person of the accused, the following inferences may be drawn : (a) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented the true version ; (b) that the witness who has denied the presence of injuries is lying on a material point and his version is not reliable ; and (c) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused, it is rendered probable so as to cast a cloud on the prosecution case. In the present case also, accused has raised a defence that he was injured consequent to beatings given by complainant when there was a trivial quarrel between them on account of TSR fare.
14. As far as the recovery of air pistol is concerned, there is again doubt S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 11/ 12 12 regarding the same, since as per the complaint, the said pistol and the accused were produced before the IO by the complainant, who has not been examined before the court. The IO has corroborated this version in his testimony as PW8. However, the seizure memo Ex. PW4/B, the pistol Ex. P1 was recovered from the search of the accused from the dub of his wearing jacket.
16. Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s 392/394/397/34 IPC against the accused on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I acquit the accused Narain Haldar of the charged offences.
17. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 24.05.2012) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 12/ 12
13
S.C No. 124/08 State vs. Narain Haldar Page Nos. 13/ 12