Delhi District Court
State vs Ankit Singh on 9 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS):
NORTH DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 636/2023)
CNR No. DLNT01-011091-2023
FIR No. 516/2023
Police Station Adarsh Nagar
Charge sheet filed 392/394/397/411/34 IPC and
Under Section 25 Arms Act
Charge framed Under 394/397/411 IPC and 25/27
Section Arms Act against accused
Ankit Singh
394/411 IPC against accused
Sanjeet Singh.
Ankit Singh s/o Sh.
Hardwari Lal r/o Jhuggi No.
22C/133, Kaushal Puri, Lal
State Vs. Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi.
Sanjeet Singh s/o Dalip
Singh r/o Jhuggi No.
9B/338, Lal Bagh, Azadpur,
Delhi
Date of institution 05.10.2023
Arguments concluded on 09.08.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 09.08.2024
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 1 of 13
PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr. BRIEF FACTS 1.1 Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on
02.07.2023 on receipt of DD No. 16A IO ASI Rajesh Kumar alongwith Ct. Ajay Kumar reached at the spot i.e., near M2K Park, Railway Road, Shadi Nagar, Azadpur, Delhi where on enquiry they came to know that injured had been shifted to BJRM Hospital by PCR van. Thereafter, IO alongwith Ct. Ajay Kumar reached at BJRM Hospital where injured Kailash was found admitted vide MLC No. 230480. IO recorded statement of injured as he was declared fit for statement by the doctor wherein he stated that on 02.07.2023 at about 05:00 AM he went for morning walk at M2K and when he reached near the gate of the park, one boy aged about 19-20 years and two boys aged about 15-18 were present there. The elder boy took out his mobile phone make Samsung A-25 and Rs. 2,000/- after giving him injury on his right hand with a sharp object and fled away from there.
1.2 On the statement of complainant, present FIR was got registered. During investigation, CCTV cameras were checked at the spot, however, no camera was found installed. At the instance of complainant, site plan was prepared.
1.3 During investigation, a raiding team consisting of IO ASI Rajesh Kumar, HC Rahul Hooda, HC Mukesh, HC Hari Krishan, Ct. Gaurav and Ct. Ravinder was constituted and vide DD no.75A dated 02.07.2023 left in search of accused persons. At about 09:50 PM raiding team reached at M2K, Azadpur GTK Road where secret informer informed that accused persons were present near Lal Bag Petrol Pump, GTK road. IO conveyed the information to SHO through telephone, who directed to take immediate action. At about 10:00 PM, SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 2 of 13 PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.
raiding team alongwith secret informer reached near Lal Bagh Petrol Pump, GTK Road where on the pointing out of secret informer, accused Ankit Singh, Sanjeet and CCL 'N' were apprehended. During search of accused Sanjeet, mobile phone make Samsung A-25 without SIM card belonging to complainant was recovered. During search of CCL 'N', Rs. 1000/- was recovered whereas during search of accused Ankit Singh, one button actuated knife and Rs. 500/- were recovered. On inquiry, accused Sanjeet, Ankit Singh and CCL 'N' confessed their involvement in the present case and disclosed that the recovered money was part of the money which was robbed from the complainant. Disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded. Mobile phone, button actuated knife and amount of Rs. 1500/- were seized. Accused Ankit and Sanjeet were arrested. JWO PSI Rahul Kumar was called and CCL 'N' produced before him.
1.4 During investigation, IO moved an application for TIP proceedings of accused Ankit and Sanjeet, however, they refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. TIP proceedings of CCL 'N' was also conducted, however, complainant failed to identify him and accordingly, CCL 'N' was got discharged. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences u/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act was filed in the court against accused Ankit Singh and Sanjeet Singh.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 05.10.2023 charge u/s 397/411/394 IPC read with section 25/27 Arms Act was framed against accused Ankit Singh and charge under section 394/34 read with section 411 IPC was framed against accused Sanjeet Singh. Both SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 3 of 13 PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 3 witnesses in all.
FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW2 HC Anuradha, being duty officer, exhibited FIR as Ex. PW2/A, endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW2/B and certificate under section65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW2/C. MATERIAL WITNESSES 5.1 PW1 Kailash, who happens to be victim in this case, deposed that on 02.07.2023 at about 05:00 AM when he was having a walk behind M2K, 2- 3 boys came and snatched his mobile phone and cash of Rs. 2,000/- kept in mobile phone cover and out of three boys, two were minor and all of them were wearing monkey caps. He further deposed that one of the boy had pointed a knife towards his stomach. As he caught hold of the knife, he received injury on his hand. He further deposed that after snatching his mobile phone, all the boys ran away from there and he could not see their faces as they were wearing monkey caps and it was dark. He further deposed that he came back to his house and narrated the incident to his brother Yogesh. Thereafter, he alongwith his brother came back at the spot where his brother Yogesh called at number
100. He further deposed that police came there and his statement was recorded which is Ex. PW1/A. In the evening he was informed by the police that his mobile and cash were recovered. He further deposed that he moved an application before the court for release of his mobile phone on superdari and SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 4 of 13 PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.
took his mobile phone vide superdarinama which is Ex. PW1/B. He also proved on record photographs of currency notes which were in denomination of Rs. 500/- which is Ex.PW1/C and photographs of mobile which is Ex. PW1/D (colly).
5.2 He further deposed that he joined the judicial TIP proceedings of CCL 'M' before Principal Magistrate, JJB-1, Camp but he could not identify the CCL and exhibited TIP proceedings as Ex. PW1/E. 5.3 He stated that accused Ankit and Sanjeet are not the same person, who were involved in the incident of snatching with him.
5.4 He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he denied that he stated to the police that one boy aged about 18-19 years old was standing in the park near the gate and two minor boys aged about 15-18 years were also standing there and boy aged 18-19 years snatched his mobile phone and cash by giving injury to him with a sharp edged weapon on his hand. He denied that he stated to the police that he could identify the accused persons. He denied that it was dark at the time of incident as in the month of July sun rises at 05:00 AM and there was enough light.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION 6.1 PW3 ASI Rajesh Kumar, deposed that on 02.07.2023, he received an information through PCR call which was registered vide DD No.16A which is Ex. PW3/A regarding caller had been stabbed by the three persons and they had also robbed his phone and fled away towards Lal Bagh. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Ajay Kumar reached at the spot i.e., M2K Park, SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 5 of 13 PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.
Railway Road, Shaadi Nagar, Azadpur, Delhi and met injured Kailash. He further deposed that injured was shifted to BJRM Hospital through a QRT Van and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Ajay went to BJRM Hospital and obtained MLC No. 230480 of injured Kailash on which injuries were opined as simple. He further deposed that he recorded statement of injured Kailash, prepared rukka which is Ex. PW3/B and handed over the same to Ct. Ajay for registration of FIR.
6.2 He further deposed that he took the complainant to the spot and prepared site plan which is Ex. PW3/C. He further deposed that Ct. Ajay came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further deposed that he checked the CCTV cameras installed near the spot, however, incident was not captured in any of the CCTV Camera.
6.3 He further deposed that in the evening he again left the police station for the purpose of investigation vide GD No. 75A alongwith HC Mukesh, HC Rahul Hooda, HC Hari Kishan, Ct. Gaurav and Ct. Ravinder. He further deposed that around 09:50 PM, they reached near M2K Victoria House, where they received secret information that three boys, who were involved in the incident of robbery occurred earlier in the day, were standing at Petrol Pump, Lal Bagh. He shared the information with the police party present with him and also conveyed this information with SHO telephonically, who directed him to take immediate action. He further deposed that he requested 4-5 passersby to join the investigation but they refused to do so. Thereafter, they proceeded towards Petrol Pump, Lal Bagh alongwith secret informer and reached there around 10:00 PM where on the pointing out of secret informer, three boys were apprehended.
SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 6 of 13PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr. 6.4 He further deposed that on his instructions, Ct. Ravinder
conducted search of accused Ankit and one buttondar knife was recovered from right side pocket of his worn pants and Rs. 500/- were recovered from his left pocket. He further deposed that he prepared the sketch of knife which is Ex. PW3/D and seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW3/E and currency notes vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW3/F. 6.5 He further deposed that Ct. Ravinder conducted personal search of accused Sanjeet and one mobile phone of complainant make Samsung was recovered from the right hand side pocket of his half pants and Rs. 500/- were recovered from his left pocket which were robbed by him from the complainant. He further deposed that he seized the mobile phone vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW3/G and currency notes vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW3/H. 6.6 He further deposed that third boy was CCL and during his personal search two currency notes of Rs. 500/- were recovered which were seized vide seizure memo which is Mark X. He further deposed that he informed JWO concerned and informed about the apprehension of CCL 'N'. PSI Rahul, JWO reached at the spot and CCL 'N' was produced before JWO and CCL was apprehended by PSI Rahul. He further deposed that he handed over the case property pertaining to CCL 'N' to PSI Rahul.
6.7 He further deposed that he arrested accused Ankit vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW3/I, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW3/J and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW3/M. He also arrested accused Sanjeet vide arrest memo which is Ex.
SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 7 of 13PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.
PW3/K, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW3/L and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW3/N. He further deposed that PSI Rahul recorded version of CCL which is Mark B. 6.8 He further deposed that thereafter, they took both accused persons and CCL 'N' to the place of occurrence where they identified the same vide pointing out memo which is Ex. PW3/O. 6.9 He further deposed that he moved an application for TIP proceedings of accused Sanjeet and Ankit but both of them refused to participate in the same vide TIP Proceedings which is Ex. PW3/P. He further deposed that he also moved an application for TIP proceedings of CCL 'N' but complainant failed to identify him and he was discharged by the concerned JJB on his request.
6.10 He correctly identified the knife recovered from the possession of accused Ankit and exhibited the same as Ex. P1.
6.11 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons he denied that he did not join any public person at the time of arrest of accused persons despite their availability as nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons and they were not arrested in the manner as stated by him. He stated that knife identified by him was easily available in the market and there was no distinct identity on the same. He stated that he did not show the knife to the complainant for the purpose of identification to verify whether the same knife was used by the accused persons during the incident. He denied all the suggestions put forth by ld. Defence counsel.
SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 8 of 13PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
7. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.07.2024, wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
Accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
8. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
9. I have heard Ms. Promila Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Harish, Ld. Counsel for accused.
10. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable lacks of credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
11. In the instant case, as per the complaint, on 02.07.2023 at about 05:00 am when PW1 Kailash was having a morning walk behind M2K, accused persons came and snatched his mobile phone and cash of Rs. 2,000/- after pointing out a knife upon his stomach. As PW1 caught hold of the knife, he also received an injury on his hand. After snatching mobile phone of complainant, accused persons fled away from there.
SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 9 of 13PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.
12. When the eye witness/PW1 Kailash was summoned to depose in the court, he has not supported the prosecution during his deposition. He has been thoroughly cross examined at length but Ld. Addl. PP has failed to illicit anything material against accused Ankit Singh and Sanjeet Singh from this witness. PW1 Kailash denied that accused Ankit Singh and Sanjeet Singh were involved in the incident of robbery with him as he could not see the faces of assailants as they were wearing monkey caps and it was dark. Therefore, PW1 Kailash has turned hostile and his deposition against the accused is of no avail.
13. It is admitted case of the prosecution that mobile phone of complainant was recovered from the possession of accused Sanjeet as well as Rs. 500/- each were recovered from the possession of both accused persons when they were apprehended near Petrol Pump, Lal Bagh, however, no public person from where the recovery was affected, has been cited as the witness to the recovery. IO could have easily joined the public persons available over there or some passerby during the recovery proceedings. Non examination of any public witness despite their availability casts a doubt on the recovery proceedings done by the IO. Law is settled that non joining of public witnesses despite their availability, an adverse inference would be drawn against the prosecution.
14. In case titled as "Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana" reported as CC Cases 3 (HC), it was held as that where the police has failed to join independent witnesses in the investigation despite their availability and further failed to take action against those who refused to take part in investigation nor their names were noted down by the police, the explanation of the police for not joining independent witnesses is an afterthought and liable to be rejected.
SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 10 of 13 PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.
15. In the case of "Hem Raj Vs. State of Haryana" AIR 2005 SC 2110, it has been observed that:-
"The fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. Amongst the independent witnesses one who was very much in the know of things from the beginning was not examined by the prosecution. Non- examination of independent witness by itself may not given rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. However, when the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses raise serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witness would assume significance".
16. In the case of "Pawan Kumar Vs. the Delhi Administration", 1989 Cr.LJ 127, in which it was observed as follows:-
"Kalam Singh has to admit that at the time of the arrest and recovery of the knife, there was a lot of rush of public at the bus stop near Subhash Bazar. According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while accordingly to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhash Bazar, there would be no person present at the crucial time like 07:30 PM when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the Independent witnesses in case of a serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least that IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
17. Public witnesses were admittedly not joined in investigation though available. The testimony of official witnesses does not find any SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 11 of 13 PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.
corroboration from any independent source. In view of the opinion of this court, the non-joining of public witness is fatal to the prosecution case against Ankit and Sanjeet, particularly when no reasonable explanation has been given by prosecution for not joining public witnesses. IO has not seized the bill of the mobile phone from the complainant to verify the fact that mobile phone recovered from the possession of accused Sanjeet belonged to complainant. Complainant also failed to produce mobile phone during his examination as he got released the same on superdari. At the time of releasing the same on superdari, photographs were clicked but in none of the photographs, IMEI number of the phone is visible. As stated above, IO did not seize the bill of the mobile phone which could have been helpful to verify the IMEI number of the recovered mobile with the bill. Meaning thereby, there is nothing on record to suggest that alleged recovered mobile phone was owned by the complainant or same was robbed by unknown persons on the date of incident. The inability of the prosecution to prove the identity of the mobile phone is fatal for allegations under section 411 IPC against accused Sanjeet.
18. As far as recovery of robbed currency notes is concerned, same is also under serious scanner as complainant has failed to identify the accused persons as robbers. Therefore, recovered currency notes cannot be treated as stolen property as the amount recovered could have been easily available with any person in Delhi and no improbable amount of currency notes was recovered. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the allegation under section 411 IPC against accused Sanjeet and Ankit Singh.
19. As far as allegations under section 25/27 Arms Act are concerned, the knife was not shown to the complainant during prosecution evidence to SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 12 of 13 PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.
corroborate the fact that it was the same knife which was used by accused Ankit during the commission of robbery. Hence, in view of non identification of weapon of offence, allegation under section 27 Arms Act stands unproved against accused Ankit Singh. Allegations under section 25 Arms Act also unproved beyond reasonable doubt in absence of independent witness at the time of recovery proceedings of the weapon.
20. Other witnesses were officials witnesses, who participated in the investigation, and therefore, their depositions are incapable of proving the allegations against the accused.
CONCLUSION
21. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the present case and evidence brought on record, I am of the firm view that deposition of PW1 Kailash, who is material witness, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed in proving the allegation for committing offences under sections 397/411/394/34 IPC read with section 25/27 Arms Act against accused Ankit Singh and allegations under section 394/34 IPC read with section 411 IPC against accused Sanjeet Singh beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused Ankit Singh and Sanjeet Singh are accordingly acquitted from the allegations levelled against them.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2024.08.09
13:51:28 +0530
Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana)
Court on 09.08.2024 ASJ:Special Judge(NDPS)
(running in 13 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi
SC No. 636/2023 FIR No. 516/2023 Page No. 13 of 13
PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Ankit Singh & Anr.