Delhi District Court
State vs . Nathu Ram @ Ors. on 18 September, 2019
1/18
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUMARI
MM02: WEST: TIS HAZARI COURTS:NEW DELHI
FIR No.365/04
PS: Rajouri Garden
U/s. 392 r/w section 34 IPC
State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors.
Date of Institution of case :16.02.2005
Date of Judgment reserved : 18.09.2019
Date on which judgment pronounced : 18.09.2019
JUDGMENT
1) Unique ID no. of the case : 64589/16
2) Date of commission of offence : 12.05.2004
3) Name of complainant : Sh. Praveen Mehndiratta
W/o Sh. Jagdish Mehndiratta
R/o H.No. 19B, LIG Flats,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi
4) Name and address of accused : 1. Nathu Ram
S/o Rama
R/o B3/540, Raghubir
Nagar, Delhi
2. Sonu
S/o Sawiba @ Shaviya
R/o Tanki Wali Jhuggi,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi
FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors.
2/18
3. Arjun @ Ajju
S/o Sewa Ram
R/o Tanki Wali Jhuggi No. 69
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi
4. Rajender @ Bhola
Proceedings against the
accused Rajender @ Bhola
already stands abated vide
order dated 23.11.2016
5) Offence complained of : U/s 392/414/34 IPC
6) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final Order : Acquitted
8) Date of order : 18.09.2019
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
Brief facts
1. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.05.2004 at about 10.00am to 12.00 noon in blue line bus on the way from Kukreja hospital to Central Secretariat, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Rajouri Garden all the three accused persons namely Sonu, Arjun and Nathu Ram in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of four gold bangles, one gold ring, one gold chain and cash amount of Rs. 1500/ belonging to complainant Smt. Praveen Mehandiratta and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 392 IPC r/w section 34 IPC. FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 3/18 Trial
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against all the accused persons was filed in the court and after complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C., arguments on charge were heard. Vide order dated 02.03.2005, charge was framed U/s. u/s. 392 r/w section 34 IPC against all the three accused persons namely Nathu Ram, Sonu and Arjun to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of the trial, accused Rajender @ Bhola expired and as such proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 23.11.2016.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Thereafter, statement of all the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled legal propositions.
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons and also perused the record carefully. FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 4/18
5. PW1 Praveen Mehandiratta stated that in the year 2004 she was going from her home on foot to some other place and when she reached near Kukreja Hospital, the accused Nathu Ram and one more accused whose name might be Arjun (witness correctly identified the said two persons by pointing her finger on them and their names were revealed as Natthu Ram and Sonu) met her. Thereafter they both told her that they have one friend who was going to be married and in this regard, they have to deposit some amount in the Post Office Kasmiri Gate and they asked as to the way of that place. Thereafter she did not understand as to what happened to her as she was hypnotized. She was in the state of semi consciousness and did not regain her complete consciousness and in the said process she took a Bus and reached to Central Secretariat. After reaching to the terminal at Central Secretariat the conductor asked her, "Madam Aap Ko Kahan Jana Hain, Bus To Bus Terminal Pahunch Gai Hai." to which she replied that she had to go Rajouri Garden. Then the conductor helped her to take a right Bus. At that time she was not having any money. After reaching her home, she started crying and then children asked her as to what happened. They also checked her purse. On checking FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 5/18 of the same, her gold chain, gold ring, four gold bangles and cash amount of Rs. 1500/ were found stolen. Her children called her brother Sh. Raj Kumar who called police and then they went to P. S. Rajouri Garden. There her statement was recorded which bears her signature at point A. i.e. Ex. PW1/A. Witness claimed to have felt some smell while traveling in the Bus after the incident of hypnotization. In response to the query of the court qua the place of incident, witness stated that initially the two persons namely Nathu and Arjun met her on the road at the Bus Stand while she was in the process of catching a Bus and the latter part of the incident took place in the Bus. Witness further stated that when she boarded the Bus from the backside gate, two persons offered their seat and she sat on the back side seats(before 23 seats at the last row). Many other persons were also standing in the Bus. She does not know as to what happened thereafter as she lost her consciousness.
During her cross examination by Ld. APP, witness stated that she did not remember the date of incident whether it was 12.05.04 or not. It is correct that time of incident was 10.00 AM.
FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 6/18
She was informed subsequently by the IO that her stolen articles were found recovered from some jeweller in different melted form and as such she failed to identify the said articles in the judicial TIP of case property.
6. PW2 SI Zora Singh stated that on 12.05.2004, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as duty officer. His duty was from 5 pm to 1 am in the night. On that day, at about 6 pm, one lady Parveen Mehandiratta came at PS and gave her statement regarding an offence. Her statement was reduced into FIR no.365/04 under Section 379 IPC. He handed over copy of FIR to the complainant and SI Pawan Kumar to whom investigation was marked. The copy of the FIR was already Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signature at point B (OSR).
7. PW3 Retired SI Jai Prakash stated that on 08.12.2004, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as ASI. On that day, Ct.Laxman of PS Moti Nagar had apprehended the accused Nathu and informed PS Moti Nagar and he went to the spot i.e. near Karampura Bus Stand where Ct. Laxman FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 7/18 along with accused was present. Complainant Shanti was present there. Two gold karas and one bundle of papers in which there was a currency note of Rs.100 in the bundle were also produced before him and it was informed that same were recovered from possession of Nathu Singh. He recorded statement of Shanti Devi and got FIR no.703/04 registered at PS Moti Nagar. Accused Nathu was arrested and aforementioned case property was seized. During interrogation, accused Nathu disclosed that he along with his associates Dhania, Arjun, Ramesh and Sonu had committed many offences of the same nature and the disclosure consisted of the offence of the present case to the effect that they had robbed one lady of her four gold bangles, one gold ring, one gold chain and cash of Rs.1500/ in the area of PS Rajouri Garden in front of Kukreja Hospital and robbed articles were given to accused Rajender and Girdhari. Disclosure statement of accused Nathu was marked PW3/X1 bearing his signature at point A. The other accused person Arjun, Sonu, Rajender and their accomplice Girdhari were arrested at instance of accused Nathu. The accused Rajender and Girdhari had received the stolen property. The accused persons namely Sonu, Arjun and Rajender were interrogated and FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 8/18 their disclosure statements were recorded which were marked PW3/X2, PW3/X3 and PW3/X4 bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter he alongwith Ct. Laksman and other police staff took the accused persons to Raghubir Nagar near Pani ki Tanki wali Jhuggie where at the instance of accused Arjun, one gold chain, bangles, rings, tops were recovered from the Jhuggie of accused Arjun. The accused Arjun disclosed that the said chain was stolen from one lady who was sitting in the bus route no.810 near bus stand. He seized the chain and other recovered gold articles vide memo Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, at the instance of the accused Sonu, they went to his Jhuggie near pani ki tanki where one gold ring was recovered from his Jhuggie wrapped in a paper and plastic polythene and the accused Sonu told him that the same was stolen from a lady in a bus. He seized the ring vide memo Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point A. All the accused persons were correctly identified by the witness in the court.
At that stage, MHC (M) produced three sealed Pullanda, with the permission of the court. One sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 9/18
"VP" was opened with the permission of the court. Two golden chain and two ring were taken out and same were shown to the witness. One molded golden material was also shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same and stated that the same was recovered from the possession of accused Rajender Singh since expired. Case property is Ex. P1.
Second Pullanda was taken out with the seal of "MKN" and opened with the permission of the court. One golden chain, two golden ear rings and one ring were taken out from the same and shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same and stated that the same was recovered from the possession of accused Sonu. Case property is Ex.P2.
Third Pullanda was taken out with the seal of "MK" and opened with the permission of the court. One golden chain, one golden ring and one golden bangle were taken out from the same and shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same and stated that the same was recovered from the possession of accused Arjun. Case property is Ex.P3.
FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 10/18
8. PW4 ASI Lakshman stated that on 08.12.2004 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as Constable. At around 02:30 PM he was on patrolling at Moti Nagar Chowk. He heard a noise "Chor, Chor" and saw two boys running from Karampura Bus Stand towards Moti Nagar. He started chasing them and apprehended one of the boys. The second boy managed to run away from the spot. The name of the accused was revealed as Nathu. Accused Nathu was correctly identified by the witness in the court. He took casual search of the accused. Two gold bangles, one bundle of paper containing one currency note above the bundle of Rs. 100/ in a postal envelope wrapped in a black colored cloth were recovered from the possession of the accused. In the meantime, one lady/complainant Shanti Devi also came at the spot and she told him that the recovered gold bangles belonged to her and accused after deceiving her took away the above said gold bangles.
He called at the PS and informed regarding the incident. After some time, ASI Jai Prakash came at the spot and he handed over the above said recovered gold bangles and bundle of paper along with currency note to ASI Jai Prakash, who took the same into possession. ASI FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 11/18 Jai Prakash recorded the statement of complainant Shanti Devi and seized the case property and the FIR No. 703/04 PS Moti Nagar was lodged on 08.12.2004.
IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Nathu Singh and he disclosed that in the commission of offence, his four associates namely Arjun, Sonu, Dhaniya and Ramesh were also involved. Thereafter, they arrested all the above named accused persons. The judicial file of case FIR No.703/04 PS Moti Nagar was produced by PW5 Mr. Pradeep Kumar. The disclosure statement is Ex.PW4/A (OSR). The copy of FIR No.703/04 PS Moti Nagar is Ex.PW4/B (OSR). All the accused persons namely Nathu Singh, Arjun, Sonu were correctly identified by the witness in the court. On next day i.e. 09.12.2004, accused Arjun and Sonu were arrested and during the investigation, one chain, one golden kada and one ring was recovered from accused Arjun. One chain, one golden kada and one ring was recovered from accused Sonu. IO recorded his statement.
9. PW5 Mr Pradeep Kumar stated that he was working as Mauza Clerk in Record Room (Crl) THC. Witness produced the case file FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 12/18 of FIR No. 703/04 PS Moti Nagar as summoned.
10. PW6 Inspector Balbir Singh stated that on 10.01.2011, he was posted at Rajouri Garden as SI. On that day, investigation of the present case was marked to him as it was directed by the Ld. MM Court to reinvestigate the matter qua the accused Rajender (since expired). Accordingly, he collected all the relevant documents and placed the same on case file. He made the request from the concerned court for conducting TIP of the case property which was recovered from the accused Rajender. During the TIP, complainant Parveen Mehndiratta failed to identify the case property. On the disclosure of accused Rajender, he added section 414/201 IPC in the supplementary chargesheet. He completed the charge sheet and same was filed before the court.
11. PW7 Inspector Pawan Kumar stated that on 12.05.2004, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as SI. After registration of the FIR, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. The complainant Smt. Parveen Mahendiratta was present in PS. He interrogated her and FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 13/18 recorded her statement. He alongwith complainant went to spot and inspected the site. Efforts were made to trace the accused persons and looted articles, but the same could not be traced. Thereafter, he filed untrace in present case.
On 10.12.2004, an information was received vide DD no. 2A that the accused persons were arrested by ASI Jai Prakash in a case FIR no. 703/04, PS Moti Nagar and the accused persons have disclosed about the commission of the robbery of the present case. The accused persons were remanded in JC in the case of PS Moti Nagar. He approached to the concerned court and got issued the production warrants of three accused persons. On 18.12.2004, two accused persons namely Nathu Ram and Sonu (correctly identified by the witness in the court) were produced before concerned court in muffled face. He interrogated both the accused persons with the permission of the court and he arrested them vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B bearing his signature at point A respectively. Both the accused persons were remanded to JC in muffled face. He moved an application before concerned court for issuing of production warrants of accused Arjun. On 24.12.2004, the accused Arjun FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 14/18 (correctly identified by the witness in the court) was produced before concerned court in muffled face. He interrogated the accused with the permission of the court and he arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/C bearing his signature at point A. He moved an application for TIP of above three accused persons. The all three accused persons namely Nath Ram, Sonu and Arjun refused to participate in their TIPs. He collected the copy of TIP proceedings. During investigation, he collected the relevant documents i.e. photocopy of disclosure statement of accused persons namely Nathu Ram, Sonu and Arjun recorded in case FIR no. 703/04, PS Moti Nagar. He collected the photocopy of the seizure memo of robbed articles from the IO of case FIR no. 703/04, PS Moti Nagar. The said seizure memo was already Ex. PW3/A. The copy of disclosure statements of accused persons already placed on record and the same were already marked as mark PW2/X1, PW3/X3 and PW3/X4. He recorded the statement of IO of case FIR no. 703/04, PS Moti Nagar. He moved an application before concerned court for TIP of case property. During TIP proceedings, the complainant failed to identify her robbed articles. He collected the copy of TIP proceedings. During interrogation, the accused FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 15/18 persons had disclosed that they sold the robbed articles to goldsmith Rajender @Bhola. He made efforts to apprehend the goldsmith Rajender @ Bhola, however he could not be traced out. Thereafter, he obtained the NBWs of Rajender @ Bhola. Thereafter, he filed the chargesheet with request to file the supplementary chargesheet against the accused Rajender @ Bhola on his arrest.
12. PW1/ Complainant Praveen Mehndiratta was the most material/ eye witness of the present case. She was the only witness who could have thrown some light on the incident in question. However, the deposition of the said witness appears to be imaginary, illusive and preposterous. The said witness appeared to have no definite answer or clue as to the role of the accused persons in the alleged incident. The deposition of PW1/ Complainant is suffering from various infirmities and material contradictions which goes to the root of the case and shakes the very foundation on which the case of the prosecution rests. FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 16/18
13. In her examination in chief, PW1 has deposed that on the date of incident, she met the accused Nathu Ram and Sonu who asked her the way to visit Post Office, Kashmiri Gate on the pretext that they have to deposit some amount as one of their friends is getting married. She further claimed to have been got hypnotized and as such could not apprehend as to what happened with her. The deposition of PW1 leads to no where. There is even no categorical assertions that it was the accused persons who robbed her. Though, PW1/ Complainant has been projected as an eye witness of the present case, however her depositions lead to the irresistible inference that she is not the eye witness of the case as she categorically deposed that she did not know as to what happened with her as she lost her consciousness.
14. The deposition of PW1/ Complainant also suffers material contradictions qua the place of incident. In the FIR, the place of incident has been shown in the Bus but during her examination in chief, initially the alleged incident has been claimed to have taken place on the road. FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 17/18 Later on, in the response to the query of the court, PW1/ Complainant qualified her assertions by stating that initially two accused persons namely Nathu Ram and Arjun met her on the road at the Bus Stand when she was in the process of catching the Bus and the later part of the incident took place in the Bus. She further claimed to have been offered the seat by two persons and also claimed the presence of many other persons inside the Bus. Even for the sake of arguments, if the claim of the complainant is believed, it appears highly improbable and implausible that a person will be hypnotized and robbed under the gaze of several other persons including conductor and driver admittedly present inside the bus and no one will be alarmed. There is no independent witness to corroborate the version of the complainant. In such circumstances, adverse inference becomes necessary to be drawn against the case of the complainant.
15. It appears also relevant to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that criminal conviction entails enigmatic and stigmatic experiences and exposures for the accused persons and thus it becomes of paramount importance to demand evidence of unimpeachable character and of FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors. 18/18 unambiguous nature. From the above discussion and findings, in my considered view accused persons deserve to be given benefit of doubt.
16. In view of the forgoing discussions, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons namely Nathu Ram, Arjun and Sonu beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the all the offences charged against them.
17. Bail bond in terms of Section 437 A Cr.P.C has already been obtained from the accused persons (since acquitted) in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs. Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I.A.D (Del.) 389.
Digitally signedby DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2019.09.18
15:18:35
+0530
Announced in open Court on (DEEPAK KUMARI)
18.09.2019 (18 pages) M.M.02(West)/THC,
Delhi/18.09.2019
FIR No. 365/04 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Nathu Ram @ Ors.