Delhi District Court
State vs . 1 Sunil @ Babu on 12 October, 2010
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 1052/2009
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0313162006
State Vs. 1 Sunil @ Babu
S/o Puran Chand
R/o A-5, 125, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
(Convicted)
2 Rinku
S/o Prahalad
R/o A-5/21, Sultanpuri, Delhi
(Convicted)
3 Moolchand
S/o Parbhu Dayal
R/o C-122, Bakkarwala
Colony, Delhi.
(Convicted)
4 Anil Kumar @ Passi
S/o Shri Ram
R/o C-8/148, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
(Convicted)
5 Jeetu
S/o Satish Chand
R/o B-4, Budh Vihar,
Phase I, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 534/2006
Under Section: 394/397/34 Indian Penal Code.
Police Station: Mangol Puri
State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 1 of 28
Date of committal to Sessions Court: 11.12.2006
Judgment reserved on : 17.9.2010
Judgment pronounced on : 12.10.2010
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
That on 31.7.2006 at 8.30 AM at Road, Y Block, near Khatta, Mangolpuri, the accused Sunil @ Babu, Rinku, Mool Chand, Anil Kumar @ Passi and Jeetu committed robbery of Rs.80,000/- from Janu S/o Madan Lal Gupta by using deadly weapon i.e. knife and also caused injuries on the person of Janu.
Case of Prosecution:
The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 31.7.2006 on receipt of DD No.32B, SI Shri Ram alongwith Ct. Naresh reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital and found injured Janu admitted and was being operated and was not fit for statement. He collected the MLC of injured in which the doctor has written the history of stab injury. SI Shri Ram met one Madan Gopal Gupta, the father of injured in the hospital who told him that he came to know that his son had gone to collect the payment at Budh Vihar and after collecting the payment when Janu was coming back he was stabbed and robbed of his motorcycle and cash by three boys at Y Block, Mangolpuri. Thereafter, SI Shri Ram alongwith Ct. Naresh went at the spot and found a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 4S AY 5640 make Bajaj Pulser (black) parked near Khatta. He also found a shoe lying near the motorcycle, on which 'Oscar' was written. SI Shri Ram also State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 2 of 28 came to know that after the incident while the assailants were running away they had a fall from the motorcycle after which one of them also sustained injury who ran towards Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and the other two assailants ran away towards gali of J-Block. SI Shri Ram made endorsement on the DD No. 32B and prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Naresh Kumar. On 5.8.2006 SI Mahender Singh went to the hospital and recorded the statement of injured Janu. The injured Janu told the police that he was doing business of wholesaler of cigarette and bidis alongwith his father at Sultanpuri. On 31.7.2006 he was coming from Budh Vihar to Mangolpuri via Y-Block on his motorcycle No. DL 4S AY 5640 after collecting money from different shopkeepers and at that time he was having Rs.1,30,000/- which he kept in the dickey of his motorcycle and at about 8.30 AM when he reached near Mangol Puri, Khatta, three boys stopped his motorcycle and one person was crossing the road on which he slowed down his motorcycle and two of those persons started beating him (Janu) and in the meantime the third boy also came. The complainant Janu has further stated to the police that one of those boys stabbed him on his stomach with knife on which his motorcycle fell down. He further stated that one of those boys opened the dicky of motorcycle and took away the money. According to the complainant Rs. 80,000/- were kept in bundles of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.50,000/- were kept in bundles of Rs.500/-. He tired to take back his polythine in which the bundles of Rs.50,000/- was kept and he succeeded. Thereafter, all three assailants snatched his motorcycle and ran away and while doing so a State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 3 of 28 bundle of Rs.10,000/- fell down which the complainant (Janu) had picked and thus they ran away with Rs.70,000/-. The complainant has further stated that after a distance the said boys struck with a cycle and fell down from the motorcycle and thereafter they all three ran away. He has further told to the police that two other boys were also present at the spot in their motorcycle make Yamha who also ran away after the incident.
On 10-11.8.2006, DD No. 108B was lodged and accused Sunil was arrested in case FIR No. 568/6 under Arms Act at police station Mangol Puri in which he made disclosure statement about his involvement in the present case alongwith his co-accused. Thereafter, all the accused persons were arrested and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE:
On the basis of the allegations made in the charge sheet, Ld. predecessor of this court settled charged under Section 394/397/34 Indian Penal Code against the accused Sunil @ Babu, Rinku, Mool Chand, Anil Kumar @ Passi and Jeetu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses.
Public witness / injured:
PW1 Janu, is the victim / complainant and has supported State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 4 of 28 the case of the prosecution and has corroborated what he had stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC recorded by the police. The witness has deposed that on 31.7.2006 he was coming back after collecting payments from Budh Vihar on his motorcycle bearing No. DL-4S-AY-5640 of black colour make Pulsar. According to him at that time he was carrying Rs.1,30,000/- which was lying in the dicky of his motorcycle. At about 8.30 AM when he reached near Mangol Puri Khatta, one person was crossing the road and on seeing him, he slowed down his bike and in the meantime other two persons came and caught hold of him as a result of which his bike fell down and the boy who was crossing the road also came there and one of them stabbed him (PW1) on which he fell down. According to PW1, one of those boys broke the dicky and took out Rs.1,30,000/ which were kept in a polythene. According to PW1 the amount said was in a denomination of Rs.100/- (8 packet) and Rs.500/- (one packet) and were tied with rubber band. The witness has further deposed that after taking the money one of the assailants started his bike and when he resisted them, in that process one packet of Rs.500/- fell and he (PW1) picked the same. He has further deposed that while they were running away one packet of Rs.100/- also fell down and he picked the same. According to the witness while the assailants were running on his motorcycle, after a short distance they struck with a cycle and the assailant fell down from the motorcycle and thereafter they ran away towards J- block leaving the motorcycle there. According to the witness, in the meantime a rickshaw came there who took him to his house and thereafter his father took him to Jaipur Golden State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 5 of 28 Hospital. He has further deposed that since he was in serious condition as he had sustained injury on the left side of his stomach, he could not give his statement to the police on that day and his statement was recorded thereafter on 5.8.2006 in the hospital itself.
The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the court. He has deposed that accused Sunil is the person who was crossing the road; accused Mool Chand and Rinku are the other two persons who caught hold and given beatings to him (PW1) and that the accused Sunil also joined them while one of them stabbed him (PW1). According to the witness, the accused Anil and Jeetu were following him on a motorcycle and were standing on their bike make Yamaha of red colour at the spot.
In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he is 17 years of age and he left his studies in 9th class and is working with his father for almost three years. According to him the rickshaw wala who removed him to the house used to come at his shop for carrying the goods. He further deposed that his father took him to the hospital at 9/9.30 AM. He has deposed that his father made a call to the police from his house and the police came in the hospital within 15 minutes after his admission in the hospital. He has deposed that since he was in ICU Ward, therefore he cannot say whether any police personnel was allowed to visit him or not. He remained in the hospital for about 5-7 days. According to him on 5.8.2006, his statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. PW1 has also deposed that after the arrest of the accused persons, the police called him in the police station where he identified the accused State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 6 of 28 persons. According to him he visited the police station after 4-5 days of his discharge from the hospital for identification of the accused and it was 10/10.30 AM when his father was also with him and remained there for about 10 minutes. He has further deposed that on the next day of his discharge from the hospital, and he shown them the place of occurrence. According to the witness accused Jeetu was standing behind him on a motorcycle at a distance of about 15 ft. and he was accompanied by one other person.
PW4 Shri Subhash, is a shop keeper and has deposed that he had purchased articles from the shop of Janu and he used to come to his shop and collect the money, normally on Mondays. According to the witness on 31.7.2006, Janu came to his shop on his motorcycle, whose registration number he does not remember, and he (PW4) had paid Rs.50,000/- to him in the gali and thereafter he left.
In cross examination by Addl. PP the witnesses has stated that he know Jeetu as he is his neighbourer, but he denied that when he handed over Rs.50,000/- to Janu, accused Jeetu was present in the gali and saw him handing over money to Janu.
In his cross examination by the Ld. defence counsel, PW4 has deposed that neither he had put any identification marks on the currency notes, nor he noted their serial numbers nor the said currency notes were shown to him by the police at any stage.
PW11 Madan Gopal, is the father of the injured Janu. He has deposed that on 31.7.06 he was present at his shop, when at about 9. AM, one rickshaw puller who used to supply Bidi and cigarettes, came at his shop and his son Janu was sitting in the said State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 7 of 28 rickshaw in injured condition bleeding from the left side of his chest as someone had stabbed him. According to the witness, he took his son Janu to Jaipur Golden Hospital and there he was admitted in ICU. The witness has deposed that while he was on the away to Jaipur Golden Hospital, his son Janu told him that when he was coming after collecting the payment from different customers and Rs.1,30,000/- were there in the dicky of his motorcycle, when he reached at Ganda Nala Sultanpuri, there three persons stopped him and stabbed him and robbed him Rs.1,00,000/- from him. In his cross examination, the witness has admitted that Janu did not tell him the name and appearance of any of the assailants.
Medical Evidence:
PW2 Dr. Rid Shukla, has deposed that on 31.7.2006 he medically examined the patient Janu vide MLC Ex.PW2/A and found stab wound of 5x3 cm on lower chest and the patient was thereafter referred to Senior Surgery. In his cross examination the witness has stated that he had not mentioned the duration of the injury.
Official / Police Witnesses:
PW3 HC Durgesh Kumar, was posted as duty officer on 31.7.2006 and on receipt of rukka sent by SI Sri Ram through Ct.
Naresh Kumar registered the FIR No. 534/06 which is Ex. PW3/A. He has also proved having made the endorsement Ex.PW3/B upon the rukka. The witness was not cross examined by the accused.
State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 8 of 28 PW5 HC Joginder Singh, was posted as DD writer on 31.7.2006 and have proved having recorded the DD No. 32B which is Ex.PW5/A regarding one person namely Janu had received stab injuries and was removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital and was admitted in ICU. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused.
PW6 Ret. SI Shri Ram, has deposed that on 31.7.2006 on receipt of DD NO. 32B, he along with Ct. Naresh Kumar reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital and collected the MLC of the injured Janu whose operation was going on. PW6 met Madan Gopal Gupta father of the injured Janu, who informed him that his son Janu had gone to collect the payment at Budh Vihar and when he was coming back he was stabbed and robbed of his motorcycle and cash. PW6 along with Ct. Naresh Kumar reached at the spot and noticed that a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 4 S AY 5640 make Pulsar Bajaj was parked near the garbage (Khatta) and a shoe lying near the motorcycle. According to him, the boys who were playing in the park told him that three persons were running on the motorcycle and they met with an accident with a bicycle J Block near Khatta and two boys who were on the motorcycle ran away towards J Block Gali and one boy who was also on the motorcycle ran towards Jaipur Goldan Hospital. He also made endorsement on the DD No. 32B which is Ex.PW6/A and sent Ct. Naresh Kumar to the police station for registration of FIR and further investigation was handed over to SI Mahender. According to the witness crime team was also called at the spot.
State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 9 of 28 In his cross examination the witness has stated that he reached Jaipur Golden Hospital at about 9.45am and collected the MLC of the injured Janu who was undergoing an operation. He has further stated that he met the father of the injured in the hospital and made inquiries from him but did not record his statement as he was not the eye witness to the incident, and he left for the spot where he did not find any public witness. According to the witness he did not call anybody from the neighouring house, which were situated at about 200 yards distance, to join the proceedings at the spot, as there were some boys playing in the park who told him about the incident.
PW7 Ct. Surender Pal, has deposed that on 10.8.2006 he was posted at police station Mangolpuri and was working as DD writer from 5pm till 1am in the night. According to the witness, at about 11.50pm SI Gurvinder Sigh gave information through telephone that one person by the name of Sunil who was arrested in case FIR No. 568/06 under Section 25 Arms Act, police station Mangolpuri has disclosed his involvement in the present case. The witness has further deposed that SI Gurvinder Singh asked SI Mahender Singh, who was the investigating officer of the present case, at the spot i..e Road No. 316, Indl. Area, Phase I, Mangolpuri. He thereafter recorded the said information in the Roznamcha vide DD entry Ex.PW7/A and handed over to the IO SI Mahender Singh. The witness has not been cross examined by the accused.
PW8 HC Jogender Singh, has deposed that on 31.7.2006 he was posted at police station Mangolpuri and was posted as DD writer from 8 am to 4pm and on that day at about 9.38 AM, the State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 10 of 28 wireless operator of the police station informed him of receiving information from Ct. Danvir of PCR that Dr. Shukla from Jaipur Golden Hospital had informed regarding admission of Janu in ICU. PW8 had recorded the said information vide DD No. 32B, which is Ex.PW8/A, and handed over the copy of the same to Ct. Naresh Kumar for further handing over the same to SI Sriram for further necessary action. The witness has not been cross examined by the accused.
PW9 Inspector Jogender Singh, has deposed that on 10.8.2006 he was posted at police station Mangolpuri as Sub Inspector and on that he had arrested accused Sunil @ Babu in case FIR No. 568/06 under Section 25 Arms Act, while Ct. Dharamvir and Ct. Baljit were also with him. According to the witness, the accused Sunil had made disclosure statement about his involvement in the present case vide Ex.PW9/A. Thereafter, he informed the concerned investigating officer after lodging the DD No. 108B, and handed over to the IO SI Mahender. This witness was not cross examined by the accused.
PW10 SI Madan Lal, has deposed that on 10.8.2006 was posted as duty officer in police station Mangolpuri from 5PM to 1AM and on receiving the rukka brought by Ct. Baljit Singh and sent by HC Sushil Kumar, he registered the FIR copy of which is Ex.PW10/A and handed over the same to the Ct. Baljit for furthr handing over the same to SI Jogender for further investigation. This witness was not cross examined by the accused.
State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 11 of 28 PW12 HC Baljeet Singh, has deposed that on 11.8.2006, he was posted at PS Mangol Puri as constable and on that day he joined the investigation in the present case alongwith ASI Mahender Singh. He has deposed that the investigating officer had interrogated the accused Sunil, Rinku and Moolchand and were arrested and their personal search was conducted in his presence vide memos Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/E, and Ex.PW12/F. According to the witness, personal search of accused Sunil was already conducted by SI Jogender Singh in an Arms Act, and his disclosure statement Ex.PW9/A was also recorded. The witness has further deposed that Rs.300/- were recovered in the personal search of accused Rinku and Rs.250/- and one wrist watch was recovered in the personal search of accused Moolchand. He has further deposed that the investigating officer recorded the disclosure statement of accused Rinku and Moolchand vide Ex.PW12/G and Ex.PW12/H and also that theaccused had pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memos Ex.PW12/J (Sunil), Ex.PW12/K (Rinku) and Ex.PW12/L (Moolchand). According to the witness, the accused persons were kept in muffled face and pursuant to their disclosure statements they led the police party to their respective residences.
The witness has further deposed that the accused Sunil got recovered Rs.9,500/- out of the robbed amount from his house i.e. 19 currency notes of 500 denomination; accused Rinku got recovered Rs.2,500/- i.e. 5 currency notes of 500 denomination from a room situated at first floor of his house; accused Moolchand got State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 12 of 28 recovered Rs.5,000/- i.e. 10 currency notes of Rs.500 denomination from a room situated in his house. According to the witness, the aforesaid amount recovered from the accused persons was taken into possession by the investigating officer after sealing the same in separate pullandas with the seal of MS, vide memo Ex.PW12/M, Ex.PW12/N and Ex.PW12/O. In his cross examination the witness has stated that he left the police station on that day at about 7 PM but the DD entry in this regard was not made in his presence. He has further stated that all the three accused were arrested at road no. 316, Industrial Area, Mangolpuri. According to the witness there was a park near the spot. The witness has further deposed that SI Jogender Singh requested four to five persons to join the investigation bu they did not agree. He has denied that suggestion that nothing was recovered in his presence or that the accused persons were implicated falsely.
PW13 Satender Kumar Gautam, is the Metropolitan Magistrate who had conducted the test identification parade proceedings of the accused persons. He has deposed that on 23.8.2006 he was posted as MM, Tihar Jail Court. An application Ex.PW13/A was marked to him on 11.6.2006 for conducting the TIP proceedings of accused which was fixed for TIP on 23.8.2006. According to the witness, on 23.8.2006 the accused Mool Chand, Rinku and Sunil refused to join the TIP proceedings which proceedings are Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D. According to the witness, all three accused were duly identified by the IO SI Mohinder Singh. IO also obtained the copy of the State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 13 of 28 proceedings vide application Ex.PW13/E. This witness was not cross examined by the accused.
PW14 Ct. Virender, has deposed that on 12.8.06 he was posted at PS Mongolpuri. On that day he alongwith SI Mahender Singh were present in the investigations of this case and left for the search of accused Anil Kumar @ Passi and reached at his house as the secret informer had already informed the IO that he is available in his house. According to the witness, accused Anil Kumar met them and he was interrogated and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW14/A, personally searched vide memo Ex.PW14/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW14/C. According to the witness, the accused Anil Kumar took them back side room of his house and got recovered Rs.3,000/-. (three notes were of denomination of Rs.500/- and fifteen notes of denomination of Rs.100/-) which the IO sealed with the seal of MS and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/D. The accused Anil Kumar also took them to the spot and memo of pointing out was prepared vide Ex.PW14/E. According to the witness, the accused Anil thereafter took them to the house of Jeetu i.e. B-4, Budh Vihar, Phase-I, where Jeetu was present who was interrogated and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW14/F, personally searched vide memo Ex.PW14/G and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW14/H. Accused Jeetu also got recovered Rs.1000/- from backside room of his house, which amount was also sealed with the seal of MS and was taken into possession vide seizure State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 14 of 28 memo Ex.PW14/I. The accused Jeetu thereafter led the police party at the spot and memo to this effect was prepared vide Ex.PW14/J. According to the witness, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana and both the accused persons were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for their medical examination and were thereafter brought to the police station. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons and the case property including the currency notes got recovered by the accused persons.
In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that the house of Anil was a single storey consisting of three four rooms surrounded by other houses. He has further deposed that they reached at the house of Anil at about 5:15/5:30 PM and before entering the house, IO did not ask any person to be a witness in this case from the nearby houses and the said house was found opened and occupied by one or two ladies and one or two children. They left the house of Anil at about 5:45pm. According to the witness the accused Anil brought the said Rs.3,000/- from a room. He has stated that he cannot tell whether the accused took out the said amount from a box, almirah or some matka. According to the witness the IO prepared the seizure memo while sitting on the cot at the house of Anil pertaining to him but the number of currency notes were not noted down in the seizure memo. The witness has further stated that his signatures and signature of accused persons were not taken on the currency notes and that he cannot give any specific mark on the currency notes however every currency notes has different number. The witness has further stated in his cross examination that, they reached at the house State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 15 of 28 of Jeetu at about 6:30 pm, which is a double storey house and the accused Jeetu took out Rs.1000/- from a room. The witness has admitted that his signatures or the signatures of the accused were not taken on the aforesaid currency notes.
PW15 Ct. Dharambir, has deposed that on 11.8.06 he was posted at police station Mongolpuri. On that day he alongwith SI Mahender Singh were present at Road No. 316. According to the witness, the accused Rinku, Sunil @ Babu and accused Moolchand were being interrogated by the IO. He has further stated that the accused Sunil was arrested in case FIR No. 568/06 of PS Mongolpuri in which he made his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW9/A and SI Joginder IO of case FIR No. 568/06 had informed the PS Mongolpuri regarding the involvement of accused Sunil in case FIR No.534/06, after which SI Mahender Singh came there who collected the copy of disclosure statement from SI Joginder Singh. According to the witness, he alongwith SI Mahender Singh and accused namely Rinku, Sunil and Moolchand and reached at near Nala at Y Block, Mongolpuri and pointed out the spot and memos to this effect were prepared vide Ex.PW12/J, Ex.PW12/K and Ex.PW12/L. The witness has further deposed that thereafter they alongwith the said three accused reached at the house of Sunil who got recovered Rs.9,500/- from last room of his house. (there were nineteen notes of denomination of Rs.500/-) and the same were sealed with the seal of MS and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW12/M. The witness has further deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Rinku and Moolchand were recorded vide Ex.PW12/G and Ex.PW12/H in State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 16 of 28 his presence. Thereafter, they went to the house of Rinku at A-5/21, Sultanpuri, where the accused Rinku got recovered Rs.2,500/- from the room on the first floor. (they were five notes of the denomination of Rs.500/-) and the same were also sealed with the same seal and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW12/N. According to the witness thereafter they went to the house of Moolchand at C-122, Bakkarwala Colony, where the accused Moolchand got recovered Rs.5000/- from the room on the ground floor. (they were ten notes of the denomination of Rs.500/-) and the same were also sealed with the same seal and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW12/O. According to the witness the accused persons were arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/C; personally searched vide memos Ex.PW12/D to Ex.PW12/F in his presence. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons and the case property including the currency notes got recovered by the accused persons.
In his cross examination, the witness has testified that he does not know if test identification parade of any accused was got conducted by the investigating officer as the same was not got conducted in his presence. He is also not aware if the investigating officer took the police remand of any of accused persons. According to the witness the house of accused Rinku is a double storey comprising ground floor and first floor and one or two ladies and children were present there and the house of accused Rinku is situated in a thickly populated area about 20-40 persons were found standing on both the sides. He has further deposed that the investigating officer made a request to the occupants of other houses State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 17 of 28 to be a witness in this case but none agreed and also the ladies available in the house of Rinku were also not ready to be witness in this case. According to the witness, the number of currency notes were not noted down upon the seizure memo and that his signatures were not taken on the currency notes recovered at the instance of either accused person. He has stated that the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Baljeet. The investigating officer did not take the proof of ownership of the aforesaid houses nor he recorded the statement of any public person.
PW16 HC Naresh Kumar, has deposed that on 31.7.06 he was posted as Constable at police station Mongolpuri. On that day he was on emergency duty from 8am to 8pm with SI Sri Ram and a DD No.32B was received in the police station at about 9:38 AM regarding incident of giving knife blow. He alongwith SI Sri Ram reached at Jaipur Golden hospital where they come to know that one Janu received knife injuries and he was being operated in the OT at that time. Father of injured Janu, namely Madan Gupal met them in the hospital and gave his statement. According to the witness, he alongwith SI Sri Ram reached at the spot at J Block near Khatta where one motorcycle No. DL 4S AY 5640 Pulsar and single shoe having the level of Oscar met them. He has further stated that no eye witness met them there at that time. Thereafter, SI Sri Ram prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him (PW16) at about 11am and he took the same to the PS and got the case registered at about 11:15 AM and with SI Mahender Singh came at the spot. According to the witness, SI Mahender received the documents from SI Sri Ram. The State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 18 of 28 said motorcycle was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A and the shoe was also sealed with the seal of MS and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW16/B. The witness has correctly identified the shoe make of Oscar which is Ex.P1.
In his cross examination, the witness has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the spot or that did not join the investigation or that the aforesaid motorcycle and the shoe Ex.P1 were not taken into possession by the investigating officer in his presence or that he is deposing falsely.
PW17 ASI Mahender Singh, is the investigating officer in the present case who has proved the investigation. He has deposed that on 31.7.06 he was posted at police station Mongol Puri. On that day further investigation of this case was handed over to him after registration of the case. He alognwith Ct. Naresh reached at the spot i.e. Y Block, Near Khatta, Ganda Nala, Mongolpuri and inspected the spot. He met SI Sri Ram at the spot who handed over one MLC of Janu and inspection report prepared by crime team. He relieved SI Sri Ram. According to him one motorcycle and single shoe made of Oscar was found lying near the spot and he took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A and PW16/B. He left Ct. Naresh Kumar at the spot and himself went to Jaipur Golden Hospital where the injured was already taken and found that the injured at that time was unfit for statement. He met his father namely Madan Gopal and who gave his statement. He came back at the spot and thereafter brought the case property at the police station and the same was deposited at the Malkhana. According to the witness he received State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 19 of 28 copy of first information report (FIR) and original rukka from Ct.Naresh Kumar.
According to the witness, on 5.8.06 he again went to Jaipur Golden hospital and recorded the statement of injured Janu. The witness has further stated that on the intervening night of 10-11.8.2006, SI Joginder Singh had lodged DD No. 108B in the PS vide Ex.PW7/A to the effect that SI Jogender had arrested one Sunil @ Babu in case FIR No. 568/06 under Arms Act PS Mongolpuri who has disclosed about his involvement in the present case. He reached at Road No. 316, Indl. Area Phase-I, Mongolpuri and met SI Joginder Singh, Ct. Dharambir and Ct. Baljeet who had also produced three accused persons namely Sunil, Rinku and Moolchand, whereas accused Sunil was already under arrest. He received copy of disclosure statement of accused Sunil in which he had disclosed that apart from him four other persons namely Rinku, Moolchand, Jeetu and Anil had committed robbery of Rs.70,000/- from one Janu on 31.5.06. He interrogated all the three accused persons and after being satisfied, the aforesaid persons were arrested in the present case vide Ex.PW12/A to PW12/C and personally searched them vide memo Ex.PW12/D to PW12/F. He also recorded the disclosure statements of accused Rinku and Moolchand vide memos Ex.PW12/G and PW12/H respectively. He also prepared the pointing out memos of place of occurrence at the instance of accused persons vide memos Ex.PW12/J to PW12/L. According to the investigating officer, the accused Sunil took them to his house No. A-5/125, Sultanpuri and got recovered State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 20 of 28 Rs.9,500/- from the room of back side. Her sealed the same with the seal of MS and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW12/M. According to the witness, thereafter the accused Rinku took us to his house No. A-5/21, Sultanpuri and got recovered Rs.2,500/- from the room of back side. He sealed the same with the seal of MS and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW12/N. Thereafter, the accused Moolchand took the police party to his house No. C-122, Bakkarwala Colony and got recovered Rs.5000/- from the room. He sealed the same with the seal of MS and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW12/O. Thereafter they came to the police station and the case property was deposited in Malkhana.
The witness PW17 has further stated that on 12.8.06 he alongwith Ct. Virender left for search of remaining two accused persons namely Anil Kumar and Jeetu and reached the house of Anil Kumar @ Passi at C-8/148, Sultanpuri and met the accused Anil Kumar in the house. He interrogated the accused Anil and after being satisfied about his identity, arrested him vide memo Ex.PW14/A and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW14/B. He recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW14/C. According to the witness the accused Anil got recovered Rs.3,000/- from his house. He sealed the same with the seal of MS and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/D. He also prepared the pointing out memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Anil vide Ex.PW14/E. State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 21 of 28 The witness has further deposed that the accused Anil took them to the house of Jeetu at B-4, Budh Vihar, Phase-I and Jeetu met them who was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/F, personally searched vide memo Ex.PW14/G and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW14/H. According to the witness, thereafter the accused Jeetu got recovered Rs.1000/- from his room. He sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/I. The accused Jeetu also pointed out the spot and he prepared the memo of pointing out vide Ex.PW14/J. According to the investigating officer (PW17), on 11.8.06 he moved an application Ex.PW17/A before Ld. MM Sh. Deepak Garg for conducting Test Identification Parade (TIP) of accused Sunil, Rinku and Moolchand which was fixed for 23.8.06. Accused Sunil had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade on 11.8.06 itself before Ld. concerned MM. On 23.8.06 accused persons namely Sunil, Moolchand and Rinku were put for Test Identification Parade in which all the accused persons had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade. The Test Identification Parade of refusal was got conducted by the Ld. MM and he (Investigating Officer) moved an application Ex.PW13/E and obtained the TIP proceedings which is Ex.PW13/B. He also collected the result on the MLC of injured Janu.
According to the witness, later on the accused persons had come to the court for their appearance and at that time he had brought the injured Janu to the court who had identified all the accused State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 22 of 28 persons after which he recorded the supplementary statement of injured Janu regarding identification of accused. On 9.9.06 he prepared the site plan at the instance of injured Janu after his discharge from the hospital vide memo Ex.PW17/B and collected the MLC of the injured which is Ex.PW17/C. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons and the case property in the court.
The witness PW17 was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons. He has denied to have shown the accused persons to the injured Janu before their TIP or that he had taken the photographs of the accused. According to the witness, the place where accused Sunil was arrested, is at a distance of two kilometers from his house and his house is situated at thickly populated area. The witness has testified to the effect that he had asked the public persons to join the proceedings, but none agreed. He had not prepare the site plan of the place of recovery from any of the accused. According to him he did not mention the number of currency notes on any seizure memo nor he signed the currency notes himself nor obtained the signature of anybody else. The witness has further deposed that the house of Rinku is single storey and when he reached, the mother and Bhabhi of Rinku met them at the house. According to the witness the house of accused Moolchand is single storey and his wife was available in the house but he did not make her a witness in this case. He has stated that the accused Moolchand took out the currency notes from a cloth bag hanging on the peg but he did not seize the said bag. The witness has further stated that the house of accused Jeetu is also a single story house made n the area of about 22-22 sq.yds. and is State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 23 of 28 situated in thickly populated area. The witness has further stated that he had asked the public persons to join the various proceedings but none agreed. The witness has denied that suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused persons or that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
After completing the evidence of prosecution, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded and all the incriminating material was put to them which they have denied. The accused have stated that they have been falsely implicated and they are innocent but did not examine any witness in defence.
FINDINGS:
I have gone through the evidence on record, the written synopsis of arguments filed on behalf of the accused persons and the other material on record.
Firstly, in so far as the identity of the accused persons are concerned, it is evident from the record that none of the accused were known to the complainant / injured prior to the incident and have not been named in the FIR. The injured has been examined as PW1 who in his examination-in-chief has identified the accused Sunil as the boy who was crossing the road and on seeing him he slowed down the motorcycle; accused Moolchand as the person who had caught hold of him and started beating him while accused Sunil also joined him and in the meantime one of them stabbed him (Janu). According State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 24 of 28 to PW1 accused Anil and Jeetu were following him on their red colour motorcycle. The PW1 Janu has deposed that he had seen all the accused persons at the spot and identified them correctly. On the date of incident the injured Janu was 17 years of age and after the incident the victim was taken to his house by a rickshaw puller and thereafter his father rushed him to the Jaipur Golden Hospital, as evident from the statement of his father who has been examined PW11, a fact which stands corroborated from the MLC of the injured.
Secondly, there has been a refusal by all the accused for the Test Identification Parade on the ground that they have been already shown to the witness. This fact was specifically put to the victim PW1 in his cross examination who has stated that after the arrest of the accused, the police called him in the police station where he identified the accused persons and at that time his father was also with him. According to PW1, he cannot tell the date when he had identified the accused in the police station but it was after 4-5 days of his discharge from the hospital.
Thirdly, it is evident from the record that the date of arrest of the accused persons is 10/11.8.2006, whereas the date of incident is 31.7.2006. Though, the date of his discharge from the hospital is not given, but according to the PW1 it is after four to five days of his discharge when he visited the police station for identification of the accused. It was necessary under these circumstances for the investigating officer to have made a specific mention to this effect which he had not done and therefore under State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 25 of 28 these circumstances the accused persons had rightly refused to participate in the TIP proceedings for which no adverse inference ca be drawn against them.
Fourthly, there is no recovery of weapon of offence from any of the accused persons.
Fifthly, the victim at no point of time gave any description of the accused to the investigating officer nor any sketch was prepared at his instance and it is for the first time he had identified the accused in the court. It is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of the victim in so far as the identification of the accused persons is concerned in view of the fact that he had admittedly seen the accused persons in the police station after their arrest and therefore there is no independent corroborative evidence to connect the accused persons with the offence.
Sixthly, it is evident from the record that the Crime Team had visited the spot, but there is no forensic evidence connecting the accused persons with the offence. This coupled with the fact that no public persons had been joined during the arrest and disclosure, makes the case of the prosecution all the more doubtful.
Seventhly, the victim was taken to his house by a rickshaw puller who is operating in the area and was known to him. Despite the same, the investigating officer has not bothered to examine this rickshaw puller or even site him as a witness.
Eighthly, it is the case of the prosecution that after conducting snatching the accused tried to escape on their motorcycle but in that process had struck a cyclist, an incident which was State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 26 of 28 witnessed by some boys playing in the park. Neither this cyclist nor the said boys who could have identified the accused, have been made a witness for which an adverse inference is liable to be taken.
Lastly, in so far as the recovery aspect is concerned, it is evident that only Rs.9,500/- was recovered from accused Sunil; Rs.2,500/- was recovered from accused Rinku; Rs.5,000/- was recovered from accused Moolchand; Rs.3,000/- was recovered from accused Anil; and Rs.1000/- was recovered from accused Jeetu. The various witnesses of the police have proved the recovery of aforesaid cash amounts from the various accused persons which the accused have not been successfully rebutt. No explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the accused persons with regard to the possession of these amounts. Further, it is also evident that the accused persons also do not claim that this amount belongs to them being available in their house in normal course.
This being so, I hereby hold that the prosecution has failed to prove and substantiate the allegations under Section 394/397/34 IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Benefit of doubt is given to the accused Sunil, Rinku, Moolchand, Anil and Jeetu, who are hereby acquitted from the charges under Section 394/397/34 IPC.
However, in view of the fact that the recovery of cash amount of Rs.9,500/- from accused Sunil; Rs.2,500/- from accused Rinku; Rs.5,000/- from accused Moolchand; Rs.3,000/- from accused Anil; and Rs.1000/- from accused Jeetu, from the stolen amount from the complainant Janu, which aspect has been duly State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 27 of 28 proved by the police witnesses and therefore, I, hereby hold the accused Sunil, Rinku, Moolchand, Anil and Jeetu guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and hereby convicted.
Be listed for arguments on the point of sentence at 4 PM.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 12.10.2010 ASJ (NW)-II: ROHINI
State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 28 of 28
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 1052/2009
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0313162006
State Vs. 1 Sunil @ Babu
S/o Puran Chand
R/o A-5, 125,
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
2 Rinku
S/o Prahalad
R/o A-5/21,
Sultanpuri, Delhi
3 Moolchand
S/o Parbhu Dayal
R/o C-122, Bakkarwala
Colony, Delhi.
4 Anil Kumar @ Passi
S/o Shri Ram
R/o C-8/148,
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
5 Jeetu
S/o Satish Chand
R/o B-4, Budh Vihar,
Phase I, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
FIR No.: 534/2006
Under Section: 394/397/34 Indian Penal Code.
Police Station: Mangol Puri
Date of conviction: 12.10.2010
Arguments heard on: 12.10.2010
Date of Sentence: 12.10.2010
State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 29 of 28
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide my separate judgment dated 12.10.2010 the accused before this court namely Sunil @ Babu, Rinku, Moolchand, Anil Kumar @ Passi and Jeetu have been acquitted from the charges under Section 394/397 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
However, all the accused namely Sunil @ Babu, Rinku, Mool Chand, Anil Kumar @ Passi and Jeetu have been held guilty of the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code.
On 31.7.2006, the complainant / victim Janu was coming from Budh Vihar to Mangolpuri via Y- Block on his motorcycle No. DL 4S AY 5640 after collecting money from different shopkeepers to whom he used to supply goods and at that time he was having Rs.1,30,000/- which he kept in the dickey of his motorcycle. At about 8.30 AM when he reached near Mangol Puri, Khatta, three boys stopped his motorcycle and one person was crossing the road on which he slowed down his motorcycle and two of those persons started beating him and one of those boys stabbed him on his stomach with knife. The said persons after opening the dicky of the motorcycle took out the money and ran away on the motorcycle of the complainant. Later on the accused persons were arrested in the present case. Out of the robbed amount belonging to the complainant Janu, the accused Sunil got recovered Rs.9,500/- from his house; the accused Rinku got recovered Rs.2,500/- from his house, the accused Moolchand got recovered Rs.5,000/- from his house, the accused Anil got recovered Rs.3,000/- from back side of his room and the State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 30 of 28 accused Jeetu got recovered Rs.1000/- from his house.
During the trial of the case the prosecution failed to prove and substantiate the allegations under Section 394/397 Indian Penal Code against the accused. However, on the basis of the testimonies of the victims Janu and the other witnesses examined by the prosecution, the recovery of the amount belonging to the complainant Janu, as aforesaid, stands duly proved and this court has therefore held the accused Sunil @ Babu, Rinku, Moolchand, Anil Kumar @ Passi and Jeetu guilty of the offence i.e. under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and convicted them accordingly.
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Sunil @ Babu is a married man aged about 28 years having a family comprising of mother, father, wife, one brothers and two sisters. He is 7th pass and a driver by profession. He is having one other case against him under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS Mangolpuri. He has already remained in judicial custody for about two years three months and fourteen days.
The convict Rinku is a married man aged about 25 years having a family comprising of widow mother, wife, one six years old son, four brothers and six sisters. He is 5th pass and by profession he is a painter. He is a first time offender and is not involved in any other case. He has already remained in judicial custody for about six months and thirteen days.
The convict Moolchand is an unmarried man aged about 35 years having a family comprising of widow mother and two brothers. He is totally illiterate and rickshaw puller by profession. He State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 31 of 28 is a first time offender and is not involved in any other case. He has already remained in judicial custody for about two years and two months.
The convict Anil is a married man aged about 25 years having a family comprising of mother, father, wife, one brother and four sisters. He is 9th class pass and doing a private job. He is a first time offender and is not involved in any other case. He has already remained in judicial custody for about two months and 26 days.
The convict Jeetu is an unmarried man aged about 23 years having a family comprising of widow mother, one brother and one sister. He is 10th class pass and is a driver by profession. He is a first time offender and is not involved in any other case. He has already remained in judicial custody for about two months and 26 days.
Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons has pleaded for a lenient view in view of the fact that the accused are young boys and have no previous record of conviction and have also remained in judicial custody for a substantial period. The Addl. PP on the other hand has pleaded for strict view against the accused persons keeping in view the allegations involved. I have duly considered the rival contentions and also the fact that the convicts are young boys coming from very poor families having no previous record of conviction and have remained in the judicial custody for a substantial period. Further, the recovery of the amount from the convicts is meager, (i.e. Rs.9,500/- from the accused Sunil; Rs.2,500/- from the accused Rinku; Rs.5,000/- from the accused State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 32 of 28 Moolchand; Rs.3,000/- from the accused Anil and Rs.1000/- from the accused Jeetu), and therefore a lenient view is taken against the convicts. The convicts are sentenced as follows:
The convict Sunil @ Babu is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone (i.e. two years and three months), for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and fine to the tune of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one day.
The convict Rinku is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone (i.e. six months and thirteen days), for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and fine to the tune of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one day.
The convict Moolchand is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone (i.e. two years and two months), for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and fine to the tune of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one day.
The convict Anil is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone (i.e. two months and twenty six days), for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 33 of 28 fine to the tune of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one day.
The convict Jeetu is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone (i.e. two months and twenty six days) for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and fine to the tune of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one day.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial.
The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and another be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 12.10.2010 ASJ (NW)-II: ROHINI State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 34 of 28 State Vs. Sunil @ Babu etc. FIR: 534/2006 PS : Mangol Puri 12.10.2010 Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All five accused are present on bail with Sh. Suresh Jha advocate.
Vide my separate detailed judgment dictated and announced in the open court, all the five accused namely Sunil @ Babu, Rinku, Moolchand, Anil Kumar @ Passi and Jeetu have been acquitted from the charges under Section 394/397 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
However, all the accused namely Sunil @ Babu, Rinku, Mool Chand, Anil Kumar @ Passi and Jeetu have been held guilty of the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. Be listed for order son sentence at 4 PM.
(Dr. Kamini Lau)
ASJ/NW-II, Rohini/12.10.2010
At 4 PM
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All five convicts are present alongwith Sh. Suresh Jha advocate.
Vide separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, the convicts are sentenced as follows:
State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 35 of 28 The convict Sunil @ Babu is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone (i.e. two years and three months), for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and fine to the tune of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one day.
The convict Rinku is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone (i.e. six months and thirteen days), for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and fine to the tune of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one day.
The convict Moolchand is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone (i.e. two years and two months), for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and fine to the tune of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one day.
The convict Anil is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone (i.e. two months and twenty six days), for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and fine to the tune of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one day.
The convict Jeetu is sentenced to Rigorous State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 36 of 28
Imprisonment for the period already undergone (i.e. two months and twenty six days) for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and fine to the tune of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one day.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and another be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ/NW-II, Rohini/12.10.2010 State Vs. Sunil @ Babu Etc, FIR No. 534/06, PS Mangolpuri Page No. 37 of 28