Delhi District Court
State vs Narender Pal Singh @ Gagan Etc. (2) on 30 April, 2024
State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-002508-2016
Sessions Case No.57839/2016
FIR No. 322/2016
PS: Tilak Nagar
U/s: 392/397/34 IPC
State Vs. Narenderpal Singh @
Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
a) Date of commission of offence : 10/03/2016
b) Name of the complainant : Sh. Prashant Gupta
S/o Sh. Rajkumar Gupta
c) Name of accused and address :1) Narenderpal Singh @
Gagan @ Chamoli
S/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh
R/o D-102, Fateh Nagar,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
(Accused Narenderpal
Singh @ Gagan @
Chamoli was declared
as Proclaimed Offender
vide order dated
23/07/2022)
2) Prabhdeep Singh @
Chamkila
S/o Sh. Parminder Singh
R/o WZ-H-29, Sant
Nagar Extn., Tilak
Nagar, New Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30
16:39:25
+0530
FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.1 of 46
State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
d) Offence complained of : u/s. 392/397/34 IPC
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : CONVICTED
Date of institution of the case : 21/04/2016
Date of committal : 25/05/2016
Date on which judgment was : 27/03/2024
reserved
Date of judgment : 30/04/2024
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 10/03/2016, at about 10:20 PM at Red Light near Haldiram Restaurant, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tilak Nagar, both accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli and Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in furtherance of their common intention had committed the robbery of purse containing Rs.1020/- (one currency note of Rs.500/-, five currency notes of Rs.100/- each, one currency note of Rs.10/- and two coins of Rs.5/- each), Voter I-card and some visiting cards from the possession of the complainant Prashant Gupta and while committing the robbery, the accused Prabhdeep Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:39:37 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.2 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. Singh @ Chamkila had used the deadly weapon i.e. knife and weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from the possession of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila and robbed purse containing the currency notes/coins of Rs.1020/-, voter I-card and visiting cards were recovered from the possession of the accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli, which he had retained or received dishonestly knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
REGISTRATION OF FIR, INVESTIGATION AND CHARGE-SHEET
2. In the present case, on the complaint of the complainant Sh. Prashant Gupta, FIR bearing No.322/2016, Police Station Tilak Nagar, U/s. 397/411/34 IPC was got registered by the Police of Police Station Tilak Nagar. After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and on completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Ld. MM on 21/04/2016 for trial of accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli and Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:39:54 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.3 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
COGNIZANCE
3. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. MM vide order dated 21/04/2016.
SUPPLY OF COPIES AND COMMITTAL
4. Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to both accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, vide order dated 25/05/2016 passed by the Ld. MM, the present case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
5. Finding a prima-facie case against both accused, charge for the offence u/s. 392/34 IPC was framed against both accused and charge for the offence u/s 397 IPC was also framed against the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
6. Prosecution was then called upon to substantiate its case by examining its witnesses. The prosecution in support of its case had examined six witnesses. The prosecution had examined Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:40:17 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.4 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. the following witnesses:-
(1) PW-1 Sh. Prashant Gupta
(2) PW-2 Ct. Raghuveer Singh
(3) PW-3 Sh. Gaurav Sharma
(4) PW-4 HC Vedpal Dhindhwal
(5) PW-5 ASI Vedpal
(6) PW-6 Inspector Santosh Kumar Gupta
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION
7. (1) Complaint of the complainant Ex.PW-1/A (2) Sketch of the knife Ex.PW-1/B (3) Seizure memo of the knife Ex.PW-1/C (4) Seizure memo of the purse Ex.PW-1/D (5) Arrest memo of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila Ex.PW-1/E (6) Arrest memo of the accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli Ex.PW-1/F (7) Personal search memo of the accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli Ex.PW-1/G Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:40:28 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.5 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. (8) Personal search memo of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila Ex.PW-1/H (9) Seizure memo of scooty bearing registration No. DL-4SCB-3316 Ex.PW-2/A (10) Site plan Ex.PW-3/A (11) Disclosure statement of the accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli Ex.PW-4/A (12) DD No. 52A Ex.PW-5/A (13) DD No. 55A Ex.PW-5/B (14) Endorsement on the Rukka Ex.PW-5/C (15) FIR Ex.PW-5/D (16) Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-5/E (17) Rukka Ex.PW-6/A (18) Disclosure statement of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila Ex.PW-6/B Apart from aforesaid documentary evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon the other evidence (case property) i.e. purse Ex.P-1, articles/cash lying in the purse Ex.P-2 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:40:39 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.6 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
(colly.), knife Ex.P-3 and photographs of scooty bearing registration No. DL-4SCB-3316 Ex.P-4 (colly.).
8. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli was declared as proclaimed offender vide order dated 23/07/2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
9. TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
(i) PW-1 in his testimony had deposed that he has toys factory at Nasirpur Village and on 10/03/2016 at around 10:00 PM, he had left his house in I-10 car belonging to his friend and he was going to Rajouri Garden in the said car and at about 10:30 pm, he stopped at traffic light of Tilak Nagar near Haldiram being red light. In the meantime, one scooty stopped in front of his car, which was being driven by one person whereas the pillion rider was Sikh. Both the said persons alighted from their scooty and came near him and asked him to come out from the car. The person who was not Sikh took out knife on his neck, when he came out of the car, the Sikh person took out his wallet Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:40:57 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.7 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. from his right side pocket of his black colour pyjama which he was wearing at that time. The person who had kept knife on his neck had threatened him to keep quiet or they would kill him. His wallet was containing his election I-card, cash amount of Rs.1000/- and some visiting cards. The said persons also tried to snatch his mobile but in the meantime, two police officials, who were passing from there, stopped and both the accused persons were apprehended by the police officials at the spot. During inquiry, both of them disclosed their names but he does not recollect the same but he had mentioned their names in his complaint to the police. He made complaint Ex.PW-1/A to the police. On the spot itself, the knife was recovered from accused Prabhdeep and IO had prepared sketch Ex.PW-1/B of the said knife and the said knife was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. From the co-accused Gagan, his robbed purse was recovered and the said purse was also seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/D. Both the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW-1/E and Ex.PW-1/F and they were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW-1/G and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:41:09 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.8 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
Ex.PW-1/H. At the time, the police had come to the spot and apprehended the accused persons, one public person had also came at the spot and he had witnessed the further proceeding conducted by the IO.
PW-1 was cross-examined by counsel for accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila. PW-1 was not cross-examined by the accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli despite opportunity.
(ii) PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that in the intervening night of 10-11/03/2016, he was on emergency duty alongwith SI Santosh Kumar Gupta and they were present at Lamba Book Depot. IO/SI Santosh Kumar Gupta alongwith HC Ved Pal returned back to PS Tilak Nagar from Lamba Book Depot and he left from there after about 10 minutes and reached at PS Tilak Nagar where HC Ved Pal alongwith two apprehended persons and complainant were present. In his presence, SI Santosh Kumar had prepared the sketch of knife Ex.PW-1/B which was recovered from the possession of accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila and the IO had prepared the pullanda of said recovered knife and sealed with the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:41:23 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.9 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. seal of "SKG". The total length of recovered knife was 29.8 cm, width of its blade was 4 cm, length of its blade was 16.6 cm and length of its handle was 13.2 cm and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. From the possession of accused Narenderpal, Rs.1020/- (one note of denomination of Rs.500/-, 5 notes of denomination of Rs.100/- each, 1 note of denomination of Rs.10/- and two coins of Rs.5/-) as well as voter card and visiting card of complainant were recovered and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/D. On formal search of accused Prabhdeep Singh, one Samsung mobile phone and Rs.110/- were recovered and after some time, from the formal search of accused Narenderpal, one HTC mobile phone, Rs.120/-, visiting card of complainant and one Demand Draft were also recovered from his possession. He alongwith HC Ved Pal took both the accused to hospital for medical examination. IO alongwith complainant and public witnesses went to the spot for preparation of site plan. After medical examination, they returned to PS Tilak Nagar. IO had also taken into possession the scooty bearing no. DL-4SCB-3316 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A and case property was deposited in the malkhana and his statement was recorded by the IO.
PW-2 was cross-examined by counsel for the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:41:41 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.10 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila.
(iii) PW-3 in his testimony had deposed that he has job of marketing field and on 10/03/2016 at about 10:30 pm, he was going to his home and on the way when he reached at the red light of PS Tilak Nagar, he saw that two persons were quarreling with one person and out of those two persons, one was Mona (without beard and long hair) and other was Sardar and the names of persons with whom they were quarreling was revealed as Prashant Gupta. Sardar had already robbed the purse of Prashant Gupta and he was snatching mobile phone from him, while the other boy holding the knife in his hand. In the meantime, two police officials had reached at the spot and they apprehended those two persons and the accused persons were taken to PS and he and Prashant Gupta also went to the police station.
The name of the accused, who was Mona was revealed as Prabhdeep Singh and the name of the Sardar was revealed as Gagan. IO had recorded the statement of Prashant and recovered knife from the accused Prabhdeep Singh and IO had prepared sketch of knife Ex.PW-1/B and USA SABER was inscribed the blade of said knife. The said knife was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. Purse of Prashant was recovered from the back side pocket of pant of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:41:54 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.11 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. the accused Gagan, which was containing cash amount of Rs.1000/- approx., original ID of Prashant and some visiting cards. Colour of the purse was black and IO had seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-1/D. FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Prashant. Accused persons were arrested vide memos Ex.PW-1/F & Ex.PW-1/E and personal search of the accused persons were conducted vide memos Ex.PW-1/G and Ex.PW-1/H. White colour scooty alongwith keys of accused persons were seized by IO vide memo Ex.PW-2/A. IO had prepared the site plan Ex.PW-3/A in his presence.
PW-3 was cross-examined by counsel for both accused.
(iv) PW-4 in his testimony had deposed that on 10/03/2016 he was present on his duty in beat no.9 and SI Santosh Kumar alongwith Ct. Raghuveer met him near Lamba depot. He alongwith SI Santosh were going to police station and when they reached near the red light of Haldiram, they saw that one person was standing outside one car and two persons were apprehending him and pointed knife on the neck of that person and other was trying to snatch mobile phone from that person. The person, who was holding knife was apprehended by SI Santosh and the other person, who was trying Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:42:04 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.12 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
to snatch the mobile was apprehended by him. Name of the person, who was apprehended by SI Santosh was revealed as Prabhdeep and the name of other person, who was apprehended by him was revealed as Narenderpal Singh and name of the complainant/victim was revealed as Prashant. Complainant, one eye-witness and both the aforesaid accused persons were taken to police station and SI Santosh recorded the statement of the complainant. Complainant had reported that when he was going in his car, aforesaid accused persons stopped him by putting their scooty in front of his car and forcibly took him out of the said car and accused Prabhdeep pointed out knife at his neck and accused Narenderpal Singh had snatched his purse and tried to snatch his mobile phone. Knife was recovered from accused Prabhdeep. IO had prepared the sketch of knife Ex.PW-1/B and the said knife was converted into pullanda with the help of white cloth and was sealed with the seal of SKG and the said knife was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. Accused Narenderpal was frisked by him, as per direction of IO and one black colour purse was recovered, which was identified by the complainant and the said purse was containing Rs.1020/-, original election card of complainant, visiting cards and papers and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/D. IO had prepared rukka and handed over the same Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:42:14 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.13 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
to the Duty Officer. After registration of FIR, accused Narenderpal was arrested vide memo Ex.PW-1/F, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-1/G and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW-4/A. PW-4 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila.
(v) PW-5 in his testimony had deposed that on 10/03/2016, at about 9:37 pm, he had lodged DD No. 52A Ex.PW-5/A regarding quarrel at shop no. 1, Lamba book Depot, Old Market, Tilak Nagar and handed over the said DD to SI Santosh, who accordingly left the PS. Thereafter, at about 10:35 pm, he had lodged DD No. 55A Ex.PW-5/B regarding the knife injury caused to the caller by two persons in front of PS Tilak Nagar and he had informed the contents of said DD over phone to SI Santosh. On that day, at about 11:40 pm, SI Santosh handed over him rukka and accordingly, he took the said rukka to computer room and got FIR No. 322/16 Ex.PW-5/D registered through Computer Operator and also made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW-5/C and he had also issued certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:42:30 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.14 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. Evidence Act Ex.PW-5/E. After registration of FIR, he had handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Santosh for investigation purposes. Thereafter, he had also joined the investigation of present case and in his presence, IO SI Santosh effected the arrest of accused Narenderpal Singh (now PO) and accused Prabhdeep vide arrest memos Ex.PW-1/E and Ex.PW-1/F respectively and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW-1/G and Ex.PW-1/H and also recorded their disclosure statements.
PW-5 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila.
(vi) PW-6 in his testimony had deposed that on 10/03/2016, he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar as Sub-Inspector and was on night emergency duty alongwith Ct. Raghuveer Singh. During the intervening night of 10-11/03/2016, DD No. 52A was marked to him and accordingly, he alongwith Ct.
Raghuveer went to Lamba book depot for attending the said call and when they reached at Lamba Book Depot, they met HC Ved Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:42:39 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.15 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. Pal. After conducting inquiry of the said call, when he alongwith HC Ved Pal were returning back to police station on a motorcycle and reached at the red light near police station Tilak Nagar, there he saw that one boy whose name was revealed as Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila had put knife on the neck of the complainant Prashant Gupta. He also saw that accused Narender Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli (who is now PO) was snatching mobile phone from the possession of complainant Prashant Gupta. He immediately stopped the motorcycle and thereafter, he alongwith HC Ved Pal rushed to the place of occurrence and they managed to apprehend accused Prabhdeep Singh and accused Narender Singh @ Gagan. He had also managed to snatch the knife from the possession of the accused Prabhdeep Singh. In the meantime, one more eye-witness Gaurav Sharma had met him and thereafter, he took complainant Prashant Gupta, eye-witness Gaurav Sharma and both the accused persons to PS Tilak Nagar. He had also taken the scooty of accused persons to the police station and had recorded the statement of the complainant Prashant Gupta Ex.PW-1/A. Thereafter, he had measured the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:42:49 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.16 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
knife recovered from the possession of the accused Prabhdeep and prepared its sketch Ex.PW-1/B. The total length of knife came to 29.8 cm and of blade 16.6 cm. He had kept the said knife in a cloth pullanda and said pullanda was sealed with the seal of SKG and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. HC Vedpal also took the formal search of accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan at his instance and from the said search i.e. from the right side wearing pocket of his wearing jeans, one black colour purse was recovered, which was identified by the complainant to be robbed from his possession. He had checked the purse, which was found containing cash sum of Rs.1020/-, Election I-card of complainant and some visiting cards and he had kept the said articles in the said purse and the said purse was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/D. He had seized the scooty bearing registration no. DL-4SCB-3316 alongwith its key belonging to accused persons vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A. He had also received DD No. 55A Ex.PW-5/B and thereafter, rukka Ex.PW-6/A was prepared by him and he had handed over rukka to DO. Accordingly, DO registered FIR No. 322/16 and handed Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:43:00 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.17 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
over him the copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, he had accompanied complainant Prashant Gupta and eye-witness Gaurav Sharma to the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PW-3/A. During investigation, he had effected the arrest of accused Narenderpal Singh vide memo Ex.PW-1/F and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW-1/G and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/A. During investigation, he had also effected the arrest of accused Prabhdeep Singh vide memo Ex.PW-1/E and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW-1/H and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-6/B. He had also recorded statements of the witnesses i.e. supplementary statement of the complainant, statement of eye-witness Gaurav Sharma as well as statements of police officials i.e. HC Ved Pal No. 114 and another HC Ved Pal, Ct. Raghuveer as well as of other witnesses and he had also deposited the case property in malkhana. Thereafter, both the accused persons were got medically examined and were sent to JC and upon completion of investigation, he had prepared charge-sheet. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:43:11 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.18 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
PW-6 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.
10. Statement of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he had denied the allegations against him and rebutted the prosecution evidence against him and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated and he has no connection with the commission of offence of the present case. It was also stated that the complainant had caused an accident with his scooty, on which he was pillion rider and a minor altercation took place with complainant. It was also stated that with the connivance of police, the complainant had falsely implicated him. It was also stated by accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila that he does not want to lead evidence in his defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
11. In the present case, accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:43:22 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.19 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. Chamkila had not led defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. This Court heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila and carefully perused the entire record including the testimonies on record.
During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution and from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against both accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila be convicted for the offences as mentioned in the charge. On the other hand, during the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila that accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila has been falsely implicated in the present case and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:43:35 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.20 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila beyond reasonable doubt and the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila be acquitted in the present case.
In order to bring home conviction the prosecution has to show on record an unbroken chain of events leading to commission of actual offence. Further, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case in such a manner so as to bring it outside the pale of any reasonable doubt.
13. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra", {AIR 1984 SC 1622} that following conditions must be fulfilled for successful prosecution of the accused:-
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:43:44 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.21 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused".
14. Law relating to appreciation of evidence of the witnesses has been elaborated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Satish @ Bombaiya Vs. State", { 44 (1991) DLT 561} and it was held that :-
"........ While appreciating the evidence of a witness approach must be whether the evidence of the witness, read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks, and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:43:54 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.22 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
witness and whether earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defense may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
15. Law relating to appreciation of ocular evidence has been elaborated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as " Akbar & Anr. Vs. State", { 2009 Cri. L.J. 4199 } and it was Digitally held that :- signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:44:17 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.23 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
"49. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a Herculean task. There is no fixed or strait- jacket formula for appreciation of ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles regarding the appreciation of the ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:-
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:44:27 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.24 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:44:38 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.25 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:44:51 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.26 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:45:04 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.27 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness".
16. FINDINGS
(i) Testimony of complainant/victim In the present case, charge for the offence u/s. 392/34 IPC was framed against both accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli and Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila and charge for the offence u/s 397 IPC was also framed against the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila.
PW-1 is the complainant/victim in the present case. PW-1 in his testimony has categorically, elaborately and graphically described as to how the offence was committed by Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:45:14 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.28 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. both accused persons at the relevant time, date and place.
PW-1 in his testimony had deposed that on 10/03/2016 at around 10:00 PM, he had left his house in I-10 car belonging to his friend and he was going to Rajouri Garden in the said car and at about 10:30 pm, he stopped at traffic light of Tilak Nagar near Haldiram being red light and in the meantime, one scooty stopped in front of his car, which was being driven by one person whereas the pillion rider was Sikh. He had also deposed that both the said persons alighted from their scooty and came near him and asked him to come out from the car and the person who was not Sikh took out knife on his neck, when he came out of the car, the Sikh person took out his wallet from his right side pocket of his black colour pyjama which he was wearing at that time and the person who had kept knife on his neck had threatened him to keep quiet or they would kill him. He had further deposed that his wallet was containing his election I-card, cash amount of Rs.1000/- and some visiting cards and the said persons also tried to snatch his mobile but in the meantime, two police officials, who were passing from there, stopped and both Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:45:24 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.29 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
the accused persons were apprehended by the police officials at the spot. He had further deposed that he made complaint Ex.PW-1/A to the police and on the spot itself, the knife was recovered from accused Prabhdeep and from the co-accused Gagan, his robbed purse was recovered. He had further deposed that at the time, the police had come to the spot and apprehended the accused persons, one public person had also came at the spot and he had witnessed the further proceeding conducted by the IO.
Complainant/PW-1 has duly supported the case of the prosecution. Complainant/PW-1 in his testimony had duly proved on record the complaint Ex. PW-1/A, on the basis of which, the present case FIR was got registered.
Complainant/PW-1 in his complaint Ex.PW-1/A has specifically mentioned the names of both accused persons. Names of both accused persons have also been specifically mentioned in the FIR Ex.PW-5/D. The contents of complaint Ex.PW-1/A and FIR Ex.PW-5/D have been duly proved on record and corroborated by complainant/PW-1, eye-witnesses and other prosecution witnesses. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:45:43 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.30 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
Testimony of complainant/PW-1 is corroborated with the testimonies of eye-witnesses and other prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimony/version of complainant/PW-1. In the cross-
examination of PW-1, no material contradiction/ inconsistency has been surfaced or pointed out except some minor ones which are but natural.
(ii) Testimonies of public and eye-witnesses In the present case, PW-3 is the public and eye-
witness of the incident. PW-4 and PW-6, who are the police officials, are also stated to be eye-witnesses of the incident. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 in their testimonies have also categorically, elaborately and graphically described as to how the offence was committed by both accused persons at the relevant time, date and place.
PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 have also duly supported the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:46:05 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.31 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. case of the prosecution. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 in their testimonies have deposed almost same facts as deposed by complainant/PW-1 in his testimony. Testimonies of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 are corroborated with the testimony of PW-1 and other concerned prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimonies/versions of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6. In the cross- examination of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6, no material contradiction/ inconsistency has been surfaced or pointed out except some minor ones which are but natural.
(iii) Identity of the accused PW-1 and PW-2 during the course of their testimonies had duly identified both accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli and Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila. PW-5 and PW-6 during the course of their testimonies had duly identified the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila. PW-3 who is stated to be eye-witness of the incident, in his testimony has Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:46:16 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.32 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
specifically mentioned the names of both accused persons. PW-3 in his cross-examination by counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila had deposed that "it is incorrect to suggest that the accused persons, who are present in the Court today, were not involved in the present case". Arrest memo Ex.PW-1/E and personal search memo Ex.PW-1/H of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila are bearing the signatures of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6. Arrest memo Ex.PW-1/F and personal search memo Ex.PW-1/G of the accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli are also bearing the signatures of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6. Counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila had not put any question in the cross-examination of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 to dispute the identity of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila.
Hence, identity of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila is duly established by the prosecution.
(iv) Presence of the accused PW-1 to PW-6 in their testimonies have specifically Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:46:24 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.33 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
deposed that both accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli and Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila were present at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. Counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila had not put any question in the cross-examination of the PW-1 to PW-6 to dispute the presence of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. Hence, presence of both accused at the place of the incident at the relevant time and date is duly established by the prosecution.
(v) Identity of the case property/ weapon of offence It is the case of the prosecution that on 10/03/2016, at about 10:20 PM at Red Light near Haldiram Restaurant, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tilak Nagar, both accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli and Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in furtherance of their common intention had committed the robbery of purse containing Rs.1020/- (one currency note of Rs.500/-, five currency notes of Rs.100/- each, one currency note of Rs.10/- and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:46:32 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.34 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. two coins of Rs.5/- each), Voter I-card and some visiting cards from the possession of the complainant Prashant Gupta and while committing the robbery, the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila had used the deadly weapon i.e. knife and weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from the possession of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila and robbed purse containing the currency notes/coins of Rs.1020/-, voter I-card and visiting cards were recovered from the possession of the accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli, which he had retained or received dishonestly knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
During the course of examination of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6, robbed articles i.e. purse Ex.P-1 and articles/cash lying in the purse Ex.P-2 (colly.) and weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P-3 were produced and same were duly identified by the aforesaid witnesses. During the course of examination of PW-4, identity of robbed articles i.e. purse Ex.P-1 and articles/cash lying in the purse Ex.P-2 (colly.) and weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P-3 was not disputed. Counsel for the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:46:48 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.35 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila had not put any question in the cross-examination of the PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 to dispute the identity of the aforesaid case property. Seizure memo of robbed purse and articles Ex.PW-1/D and seizure memo of weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.PW-1/C and sketch of knife Ex.PW-1/B were duly proved on record by the prosecution.
Hence, identity of robbed purse and articles and weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 has been duly established/proved by the prosecution.
(vi) Testimonies of police witnesses In the present case, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 are the police officials. From the testimonies of the aforesaid police witnesses, it is evident that investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case during the course of investigation have been substantially proved by the aforesaid police witnesses.
PW-6 is the IO in the present case, who deposed regarding investigation conducted by him and he duly proved on record the documents relating to the investigation conducted by Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:47:03 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.36 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. him.
17. CONTENTIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
(a) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila that in the present case, as per testimonies of prosecution witnesses, number of public persons were also gathered at the spot but they had not been joined in the investigation of the present case by the IO nor cited/examined in the present case.
It is well settled law that non-examination of any witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution and it depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Rajesh Yadav & Anr Vs. State of UP", {Criminal Appeal No.339-340/2014 decided on 04/02/2022} that:-
"A mere non-examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30
16:47:16
+0530
FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.37 of 46
State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove it...."
It is well settled law that non-joining of public witness in the investigation is not fatal in every case. In the present case, complainant/PW-1 and eye-witness/PW-3 were joined in the investigation of the present case. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in this regard is not tenable.
(b) It is the contention of counsel for the accused
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30
16:47:27
+0530
FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.38 of 46
State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila that in the present case, the IO has not made any effort to collect the CCTV footage from the place of incident. There is nothing in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses to show that the CCTV cameras were installed at the place of incident. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in this regard is not tenable.
(c) It is the contention of counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila that on the date of incident, the complainant had caused an accident with the scooty, on which the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila was pillion rider and a minor altercation took place between the accused persons and complainant and the complainant in connivance with the police falsely implicated the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in the present case. There is nothing in the testimonies of complainant, eye-witnesses and police officials to show that at the relevant time, date and place, only the incident of minor alteration took place between the accused persons and the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:47:36 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.39 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. complainant. In the present case, the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila neither lead any defence evidence nor examined any defence witness in support of his aforesaid contentions. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in this regard is not tenable.
(d) It is the contention of counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila that IO had not investigated the present matter properly. On the other hand, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that IO had properly investigated the present matter. There is nothing on the record to show that IO had not investigated the present matter properly and investigation was defective.
Even otherwise, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)" (AIR 2000 SC 718) that :-
.....Dealing with a case of negligence on the part of the investigating officer, this Court in Karnel Singh v. State of MP {(1995) 5 SCC 518} observed that in a case of defective investigation it would not be proper to acquit the accused if the case is otherwise established Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:47:45 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.40 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
conclusively because in that event it would tantamount to be falling in the hands of erring investigating officer..."
Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in this regard is not tenable.
(e) It is also the contention of counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra", { (2010) 13 SCC 657} that:-
"While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:47:57 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.41 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons."
In the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, no material contradiction and inconsistency has been surfaced except some minor ones which are but natural. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in this regard is not tenable.
18. In the present case, mode & manner of offence, weapon of offence, motive, intention and knowledge are relevant factors. The aforesaid factors have been duly proved on record by the prosecution.
In the present case, PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 in their testimonies have specifically deposed regarding the mode and manner in which both accused had committed the offence. Factum regarding recovery of robbed articles i.e. Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 (colly.) from the possession of accused Narenderpal Singh Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:48:10 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.42 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. @ Gagan @ Chamoli and factum regarding recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P-3 from the possession of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila has also been duly proved on record by the PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6.
The testimony of complainant/PW-1 is corroborated with the testimonies of other eye-witnesses/ prosecution witnesses as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
In the present case, no defence evidence had been led by the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in support of his defence and to rebut and contradict the case of the prosecution.
19. All the essential ingredients of the offence u/s. 392/397/34 IPC have been duly proved on record from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
All the ingredients of the offence u/s. 392/397/34 IPC have been duly proved on record by the prosecution. The Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:48:21 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.43 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. prosecution has also been able to prove the fact that on 10/03/2016, at about 10:20 PM at Red Light near Haldiram Restaurant, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tilak Nagar, both accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli and Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in furtherance of their common intention had committed the robbery of purse containing Rs.1020/- (one currency note of Rs.500/-, five currency notes of Rs.100/- each, one currency note of Rs.10/- and two coins of Rs.5/- each), Voter I-card and some visiting cards from the possession of the complainant Prashant Gupta and while committing the robbery, the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila had used the deadly weapon i.e. knife and weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from the possession of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila and robbed purse containing the currency notes/coins of Rs.1020/-, voter I-card and visiting cards were recovered from the possession of the accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli, which he had retained or received dishonestly knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30
16:48:30
+0530
FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.44 of 46
State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr.
20. CONCLUSION Applying priori and posteriori reasonings, this Court is held that on 10/03/2016, at about 10:20 PM at Red Light near Haldiram Restaurant, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tilak Nagar, both accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli and Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila in furtherance of their common intention had committed the robbery of purse containing Rs.1020/- (one currency note of Rs.500/-, five currency notes of Rs.100/- each, one currency note of Rs.10/- and two coins of Rs.5/- each), Voter I-card and some visiting cards from the possession of the complainant Prashant Gupta and while committing the robbery, the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila had used the deadly weapon i.e. knife and weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from the possession of the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila and robbed purse containing the currency notes/coins of Rs.1020/-, voter I-card and visiting cards were recovered from the possession of the accused Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli, which he had retained or received dishonestly knowing Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.04.30 16:48:38 +0530 FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.45 of 46 State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful to prove its case against the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 392/34/397 IPC. This Court is held that the accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila has committed the offence punishable under section 392/34/397 IPC. Accordingly, accused Prabhdeep Singh @ Chamkila is convicted for the offence under section 392/34/397 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
Announced in the open Court 2024.04.30 16:48:46 +0530 on 30/04/2024 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No.322/2016 PS Tilak Nagar Page No.46 of 46