Delhi District Court
State vs Gulab Singh Etc. on 15 December, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI (SWD)
DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
Unique Case ID No. : _______
STATE VS GULAB SINGH ETC.
FIR NO. 184/2006
P.S. : DWARKA
U/S : 392/34 IPC
J U D G M E N T
a)Serial No. of the case : 158/2/09
b)Date of commission of offence : 02.03.06
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Irfan S/o Sh. Habib
d)Name, parentage and address of : (1) Gulab Singh @ Totla
accused S/o Sh. Hari Ram
R/o d455, Indrapark,
Nangli Sakarawati,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
(2) Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Deen Dayal,
R/o : RZC17, Shrichand
Park, Matiala, N. Delhi.
e)Offences complained of : U/s 392/34 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Final Order : Convicted
h)Date of order : 15.12.2010
i)Date of conclusion of : 15.12.2010
Case No. 158/2/09 1/9
final arguments
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 Brief facts of the case as per case of the prosecution are that on
2.3.06 at 9.00 pm at Service Road, near Chhota Gate, Netaji Subhash Institute, Sector3, Dwarka, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Dwarka, both the accused persons in furtherance of thier common intention committed robbery of the articles i.e., Rs.400/ and key of the shop out of the possession of complainant Sh. Irfan. Accused persons were arrested and after investigation, they were duly charge sheeted to the Court.
2 Copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the accused persons and charge for the offence U/s 392 r/w Section 34 IPC was was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 At the time of trial, prosecution examined following PW's:
PW1 ASI Chinta Ram,
PW2 Ct. Jaswant Singh,
Case No. 158/2/09 2/9
PW3 Sh. Irfan,
PW4 Ct. Rakesh Kumar,
PW5 Ct. Chaman Singh,
PW6 Ct. Arvind,
PW7 HC Rohtash,
PW8 ASI Bir Singh, and
PW9 Sh. Ajay Pandey.
4 After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the
incriminating evidence was put to accused persons and their statements under Section 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. They denied the allegations and claimed false implication. Both the accused persons opted not to lead any evidence in their defence. 5 I have heard Ld. APP for the State and counsel for the accused and carefully perused the record.
6 As far as evidence led by the prosecution is concerned, PW1 ASI Chinta Ram, Duty Officer, recorded FIR Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the ruqqa. PW2 HC Narender Kumar is Case No. 158/2/09 3/9 the witness who participated in the investigation with the IO vide Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B i.e., arrest and personal search of accused Gulab Singh. PW3 Sh. Irfan is the complainant in this case. He has deposed that on 2.3.06 he was going to purchase articles from NSIT at about 9.00 pm when he reached a little before the small gate of NSIT, two boys came and pressed his throat and started beating him and snatched the key of the shop and his purse with Rs.400/. He has further deposed that out of the two boys olne boy fled away with key and money and the other boy, on his raising alarm, was apprehended by the people whose name was disclosed as Anil Kumar. He has further testified that on information police came at the spot and the accused was handed over to the police and the statement of PW3 was recorded vide Ex.PW3/A. PW3 has identified both the accused in Court. PW4 Ct. Rakesh Kumar is the witness who accompanied the IO at the spot. He has testified that at the spot people handed over the accused Anil Kumar and the IO recorded statement of Irfan and he got the case registered through PW4. He has further deposed that accused Anil Kumar was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/B and the IO prepared site plan Ex.PW4/C in his presence. PW5 Ct. Chaman Case No. 158/2/09 4/9 Singh, DD writer, recorded DD No.32 Ex.PW5/A. PW6 Ct. Arvind is the witness to arrest of accused Gulab Singh vide Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. PW7 HC Rohtash is the IO of case FIR No. 265/06 U/s 25 Arms Act. He has deposed that accused Gulab Singh was arrested by him and he made his disclosure about the case in hand. He has further deposed that he gave information to the IO of this case and also handed over copy of disclosure statement Ex.PW7/A to the IO and his statement was recorded by the IO of this case.
PW8 ASI Bir Singh is the IO of this case. He has deposed that on 2.3.2006 on receipt of DD No.32, he along with Ct. Rakesh reached the spot where complainant Irfan met them and handed over accused Anil. He has further testified that he made endorsement Ex.PW8/A on the statement of the complainant and got the case registered through Constable Rakesh and he prepared site plan Ex.PW4/C at the instance of the complainant. He has further testified that he interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C and further arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively. He has further deposed that in pursuance to the disclosure statement in case FIR No. 265/06 P.S. Dwarka, accused Case No. 158/2/09 5/9 Gulab Singh was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B and the PW8 recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/D and he moved application for judicial TIP of accused Gulab Singh. PW8 has further deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses during investigation and prepared the chargesheet after completion of the investigation. PW9 Sh. Ajay Pandey conducted TIP qua accused Gulab Singh vide Ex.P1 collectively.
7 In the light of the submissions advanced before me, I have carefully perused the record.
8 In this case, Sh. Irfan, examined as PW3, is the complainant. The testimony of this witness clearly elaborates the incident in question in which he is the prey of the assailants. He has crystal clearly testified that the on 2.3.06 at 9.00 pm when he reached a little before the small gate of NSIT, two boys came and pressed his throat and started beating him and snatched the key of the shop and purse with Rs.400/. He further adds that one of the two boys fled away with key and money whereas the second one was apprehended by the Case No. 158/2/09 6/9 people whose name was disclosed as Anil Kumar. This witness has identified both the accused persons without any doubt or suspicion while appearing in witnessbox as PW3. The complainant/victim has been put in cross examination on behalf of the accused persons in detail but he successfully crossed the test of cross examination. If the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused persons is perused carefully, it can be stated that no reliable defence has been taken by the accused persons. The denial of the witness to the suggestion that he had made a false complaint to grab Rs.400/ which was belonging to his employer can easily be termed as 'lame excuse'. He has time and again reiterated the factum of robbery and assault even during cross examination. There is no deviation by the PW3 at any point of time on any of the vital aspects of the case of the prosecution which attracts the confidence of the Court. PW3 has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
9 It is further to be noted that PW9 Sh. Ajay Pandey has conducted the Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings qua accused Gulab Singh vide detailed proceedings collectively exhibited as Ex.P1. Accused Gulab Singh has refused to participate in the TIP Case No. 158/2/09 7/9 proceedings despite warning and cautioning made by PW9 in this regard. PW3 has identified accused Gulab Singh in Court at the time of his examination and an adverse inference can easily be drawn on refusal of accused Gulab Singh for his non participation in TIP proceedings. Thus the identity of both the accused persons as the persons who committed robbery of the articles i.e., Rs.400/ and key of the shop out of the possession of the complainant stands duly established.
10 So far as the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW4 to PW8 are concerned, they have corroborated the version of PW3 Sh. Irfan and have performed their respective duties as per the procedures laid down under law.
11 It is further to be noted that the accused have been accorded opportunity to lead defence evidence to show their innocence while examining them under Section 313 Cr.P.C but they failed to avail that opportunity. Even during their entire statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they had not brought on record any solid and plausible story which can be taken into consideration.
Case No. 158/2/09 8/9 12 On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and documents placed on record, I have come to conclusion that all necessary steps taken by the IO during investigation stand duly proved on record. So, it is quite clear on record that on 2.3.06 at 9.00 pm at Service Road, near Chhota Gate, Netaji Subhash Institute, Sector3, Dwarka, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Dwarka, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of the articles i.e., Rs.400/ and key of the shop out of the possession of complainant Sh. Irfan. Hence, both the accused persons namely Anil Kumar and Gulab Singh are convicted for the offences U/s 392/34 IPC. Let them be heard on the quantum of sentence. Announced in open Court on 15.12.2010.
(SANJAY JINDAL) ACMMI : Dwarka: New Delhi.
Case No. 158/2/09 9/9 IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI(SWD) DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : DWARKA : NEW DELHI State Vs Gulab Singh Etc. FIR NO: 184/06 P.S: Dwarka 06.01.2011 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Both the convicts with counsel.
Vide separate judgment dated 15.12.2010, both the accused persons namely Gulab Singh and Anil Kumar have been convicted for the offence U/s 392/34 IPC.
I have heard Ld. Substitute APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the convicts on the point of sentence.
It is submitted on behalf of convict Gulab Singh that he is aged 25 years, unmarried and has family consisting of his old parents and that there is no previous involvement in any case of any kind and that he has remained in custody with effect from 24.03.2006 to 03.11.2006. A lenient view is prayed in his favour.
It is submitted on behalf of convict Anil Kumar that he is aged 25 years, married and has family consisting of his old parents and wife and that there is no previous involvement in any case of any kind and that he has remained in custody with effect from 2.03.2006 to Case No. 158/2/09 10/9 14.03.2006. A lenient view is prayed in his favour. Both the convicts have undertaken not to repeat such act in future. It is prayed that benefit of Probation of Offenders Act may kindly be awarded to the convicts.
On the other hand, Ld. substitute APP for the State has submitted that severe punishment may be awarded to the convicts as incident of snatching etc. are increasing day by day.
In view of the rival submissions advanced before me, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that in view of the nature of acts of the convicts and the fact that the robbery had been committed after sunset and before sunrise which is punishable up to 14 years imprisonment, the request for giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is not justifiable, hence the same is declined. In my considered view it would be in the interest of justice if the convicts are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ each for the offence u/s 392 r/w section 34 IPC, in default, SI for three months. Ordered accordingly. Benefit of U/s. 428 Cr.P.C be Case No. 158/2/09 11/9 given to the convicts. Fine of Rs.1000/ is deposed by convict Anil Kumar.
Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
At this stage, an application u/s 389 Cr.P.C has been moved on behalf of both the convicts seeking suspension of the sentence to enable them to file an appeal against the judgment and order pronounced by this Court.
Heard.
In the given facts and circumstances, the application is allowed and the convicts are admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ each. Bail bonds furnished on behalf of convict Anil Kumar and the same are accepted. Convict Gulab is released on personal bond till 10.01.2011 and directed to produce surety on the said date. The operation of sentence is suspended till 05.02.2011.
Announced in the Open Court Today on 06.01.2011 (SANJAY JINDAL) ACMMI, Dwarka: New Delhi.
Case No. 158/2/09 12/9 Case No. 158/2/09 13/9 Case No. 158/2/09 14/9