Delhi District Court
State vs . Pradeep & Anr. on 16 February, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02 (SOUTHWEST)
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
FIR No. 641/03
P. S.: Najafgarh
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case : 02405R6306042004
2. Date of institution : 13.01.2004
3. Name of the complainant : Awadesh Kumar
4. Date of commission of offence : 12.11.2003
5. Name of accused : (1) Pradeep
S/o Sh. Madan Lal, R/o C257,
Gali No. 13, Prem Nagar,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
(2) Umesh
S/o Sh. Umed Singh
R/o Vill.Paprawat, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : Section 394/34 IPC
7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the judgment : 01.02.2012
9. Final order : Convicted
10. Date of such judgment : 16.02.2012
Page 1 of 8 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.; FIR No.641/03
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
1. The FIR No. 641/03 under Section 394/34 IPC was registered at PS Najafgarh on the statement of Awadesh Kumar who mentioned that on 12.11.2003 at about 9:30 P.M. when he was returning to his home at Najafgarh from his working place at Rohini and reached near Naval Petrol Pump and service road adjoining Jain Public School, both the accused persons inquired about the way and suddenly one of them threw soil in his eyes and then both of them started beating him. After that second accused removed pen from his pocket and gave injuries on his mouth, neck and other parts of the body. After that he fell down and both the accused persons took out Rs.8,000/ from his pant's pocket and snatched his mobile phone make 'Siemens'. Moreover they removed a cheque of Rs.2,500/ from his shirt's pocket and snatched computer repairing tool kit containing DTC pass and duplicate copy of his driving licence. On the basis of secret information, both the accused persons were arrested and they got recovered certain documents. After culmination of investigation, both the accused persons were chargesheeted and produced to face trial.
Page 2 of 8 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.; FIR No.641/03 3 TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
2. In light of the above stated facts and proceedings and after making compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 17.04.2004, Sh. Sudesh Kumar, the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, framed charge under Section 394/34 IPC against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. For proving its case, prosecution has produced ten witnesses.
3A. PW1 Ct. M.Nagraja deposed that on 15.11.2003, he along with SI V.K. Kocher, Ct. Santpal and Ct. Meghraj went to Paprawat road Shamshan Bhoomi on the basis of secret information and both the accused persons were arrested vide memos Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. Further they were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. After that both the accused persons got recovered some of documents stolen from the complainant and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. Further their disclosure statement Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G were recorded and on their instance, pointing out memos Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/I were prepared. Further he correctly identified the documents Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/K recovered at the instance of accused persons in the court. 3B. PW2 Awadesh Kumar deposed on the lines of statement Page 3 of 8 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.; FIR No.641/03 4 Ex.PW2/A, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. Further he correctly identified the accused persons and documents Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/K recovered from the possession of accused in the court.
3C. PW3 Ct. Meghraj deposed the lines of PW1. 3D. PW4 HC Santosh proved the FIR Ex.PW4/A. 3E. PW5 ASI Chinta Ram mentioned that on 12.11.2003 at about
10:30 P.M, he received a PCR call regarding snatching of money and he reduced the said information in writing vide D.D. No.37A Ex.PW5/A. 3F. PW6 Ct. Santpal deposed the lines of PW1.
3G. PW7 HC Dharamvir deposed that on 12.11.2003 PCR van brought one Awadesh Kumar in injured condition in casualty department of RTR Hospital where he was posted as duty Head constable and doctor took the blood stained clothes of the injured and sealed the same and gave it to him. Thereafter he handed over the said pullanda in the sealed condition to IO and the same was sized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. 3H. PW8 Dr. R. Shanker Narainan proved the MLC Ex.PW8/A of Awadesh Kumar.
3I. PW9 SI V.P. Kocher deposed that on 13.11.2003, after receiving D.D. No. 37A, he went to the spot along with ct. Sunil Dutt and after making inquiry, they went to victim's house where he was informed that injured is Page 4 of 8 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.; FIR No.641/03 5 admitted in RTR hospital and there he was informed that injured was referred to DDU hospital. Since doctor declared the injured unfit for statement, he returned back to the spot but no eyewitness could be found. Thereafter he took the statement of injured PW2/A and on that basis, the FIR was registered. Thereafter he prepared site plan Ex.PW9/B at the instance of complainant and on the same day, he seized the pullanda of blood stained clothes of injured. Further he mentioned that on 15.11.2003, he arrested the accused persons on the basis of secret information. Further he mentioned that accused Umesh was correctly identified by the complainant in TIP proceedings whereas accused Pradeep refused to participate in TIP proceedings. Thereafter MLC of the injured was collected and photographs of the spot Ex.PW1/L to Ex.PW1/N were taken. Further he correctly identified the case property and the accused persons in the court 3J. PW10 Mrs. Barkha Gupta, Ld. M.M. Central Jail, Tihar, proved the TIP proceedings of accused Pradeep and Umesh Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/C respectively.
4. Statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. When accused persons were briefed on all the incriminating evidence and documents, both the accused persons Page 5 of 8 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.; FIR No.641/03 6 denied the allegations and mentioned that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
5. I have heard the State through Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor, accused Pradeep and Sh. Sunil Prashar, Ld. Counsel for accused Umesh from Legal Aid Cell. Record is also gone through.
6. Ld. APP summed up that complainant (PW2) has completely supported the case of the prosecution and moreover, PW1, PW3, PW6 and PW9 proved the recovery of robbed documents Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/K at the instance of accused persons and therefore the charge stands proved against the accused persons. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
7. It is observed that complainant has categorically mentioned that both the accused persons robbed his money, computer tool kit, mobile phone and other documents while he was returning back to his home in the night. He also disclosed that accused Umesh threw mirch (chilly) and soil mixture in his eyes and accused Pradeep caused injury on his neck and mouth by his pen. He has also explained that he was able to see the faces of Page 6 of 8 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.; FIR No.641/03 7 accused persons in the dim light of temple situated nearby. Further he correctly identified the documents Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/K recovered at the instance of accused persons in the court. He had also mentioned that he saw the accused after occurrence in TIP proceedings only. He has been cross examined by defence side in detail and it is found that he had been able to give reply to all the questions put to him. It is observed that he has given minute details of incident and specifically disclosed the role of each accused. Thus, I am of the view that testimony of complainant is trustworthy and inspires confidence.
8. Recovery witnesses PW1, PW3, PW6 and PW9 have proved the recovery of stolen documents at the instance of accused persons from an open plot situated alongwith way leading to Khera village.
9. Other witnesses have corroborated the version of complainant. PW5 has proved the DD No. 37A Ex.PW5/A recorded in regard to the incident. PW8 has proved the injuries sustained by the complainant in the said incident of robbery. PW10 has proved that accused Umesh @ Michel was correctly identified by the complaint in TIP whereas second accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings.
Page 7 of 8 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.; FIR No.641/03 8
10. In view of the discussion made above, it emerges that prosecution has been able to prove the facts that both the accused persons robbed the complainant and for that purpose they caused injury with the help of sharp object in furtherance of common intention of each other. At the same time, there is no defence to raise doubts on prosecution story. It is also pertinent to mention here that neither it is defence case nor there is any material on record to show that complainant had any enmity with the accused persons or that there can be any ground before the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case. CONCLUSION:
11. For aforesaid reasons, it is concluded that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused persons are ordered to be convicted u/s 394/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court (Vivek Kumar Gulia)
on the 16th day of February 2012 Metropolitan Magistrate02(SW)
(total eight pages) Dwarka Courts/New Delhi
Page 8 of 8 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.; FIR No.641/03