Delhi District Court
State vs Puneet Patel on 4 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSE01-009084-2017
SC 481/2017
FIR no.303 /2017
Police Station: Sarita Vihar
State
versus
1. Puneet Patel
Son of Krishan Chander
Resident of C-60, Harkesh Nagar,
Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi.
2. Rahul
Son of Mannu,
Resident of Z-58, Manav Kalyan Vihar Camp,
Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi-20. ......Accused persons
Date of Institution : 25.11.2017
Judgment reserved on : 14.05.2024
Date of Decision : 04.06.2024
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station Sarita Vihar before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offences under sections 392/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused Digitally signed DR by DR RAKESH RAKESH KUMARDate: 2024.06.04 KUMAR 16:11:30 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 1 of 26 persons, namely, Puneet Patel and Rahul for having committed the said offences and to proceed with committal of the case.
2. As per the police report on 22.11.2017, this case FIR was registered against the accused persons, namely, Puneet Patel and Rahul in Police Station Sarita Vihar for the offences punishable under sections 392/397/411/34 IPC.
3. As per the police report, on 28.09.2017, on receiving DD No.49A, Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma along with Head Constable Leeladhar went to the place of incident and reached Sarita Vihar Railway gate, where no one was found, so, they returned back to the police station, where, it was revealed that the PCR had brought the complainant and the alleged; that the complainant Ramesh explained the situation while presenting the robber Manish; that the complainant and the robber Manish were taken to the spot of the incident, where the search for other offenders was carried out; that one alleged Puneet Patel was found in the bushes who was brought to the police station by Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma.
4. It is further reported in the police report that the complainant gave his written complaint regarding snatching of mobile phone, wherein it is stated that he works as a Supervisor at C J CARCL Logistic Limited and on 28.09.2017 at around 07:00 p.m., he was going to his home after finishing his duty from Container Yard Okhla Phase I and when he crossed the railway line and reached near Sarita Vihar underpass, four boys bounced on him from the grass and one of them who was about Digitally signed by DR RAKESH DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:11:39 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 2 of 26 21-22 years old, showed him knife and said "quickly take out the stuff otherwise I will stab you"; that the other boy snatched the mobile phone make MI Silver Colour IMEI No.863583032655640 and 863583032655657 from left pocket of pant of the complainant; that the third boy snatched Rs.340/- from the pocket of shirt of the complainant; that on this, the complainant ran towards his yard and told his colleagues about the incident and with the help of his colleagues, he searched for the offenders around the railway line and but he could not find them and then he went back to the yard with his colleagues; that the complainant Ramesh stayed in the yard for about an hour; that a boy was crossing the railway line and was running from Sarita Vihar side towards Okhla, whom the complainant Ramesh recognized and told his colleagues; that with the help of his colleague Deepchand Mishra, the complainant caught the said boy who gave his name and address as Manish son of Ramu, resident of Jhuggi No. 19-Z- Block, Manav Kalyan Vihar, Okhla Phase-II, Delhi, whose age was found to be 19 years, they were interrogating the said boy, then the PCR vehicle came to them and brought complainant Ramesh and that boy to police station Sarita Vihar; that apprehended boy Manish told the names and addresses of his associates (1) Rahul, resident of Manav Kalyan Vihar Okhla Phase-II, (2) Puneet Patel, resident of Harkesh Nagar and (3) J.P., resident of Harkesh Nagar; that after the complainant Ramesh came to the police station, Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma took him and Manish along with police staff to Sarita Vihar underpass to search for Manish's associates; that during search for Manish's associates, one of his associates Puneet Patel son of Krishna Chander, resident ofC-60, Harkesh FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 3 of 26 Digitally signed by DR RAKESH DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:11:46 +0530 Nagar, Okhla, age 21 years, was found in the bushes in same place, but his two companions Rahul and JP could not be found; that accused Puneet had shown knife to him and accused Manish had taken out money from his pocket. It is further stated by the complainant that he will recognize the remaining two boys if they are brought before him. It is further stated by the complainant that all the four boys snatched his mobile phone having Reliance No.9310460169 and Jio Sim and money by showing him a knife, therefore a legal action as per law should be taken against them.
5. It is further reported in the police report that from the contents of statement of the complainant, the offences under sections 392/397/34 IPC have been made out and therefore, a case under those sections was got registered.
6. It is further reported in the police report that Sub- Inspector Shailendra Sharma interrogated the accused Manish son of Ramu, age-19 years, resident of Jhuggi no-19, Z-Block, Manav Kalyan Vihar Camp, Okhla Phase II, New Delhi, who disclosed that he along with his associates Puneet, Rahul and JP had committed the incident; that after admission of offence by accused Manish, he was arrested, the arrest papers were prepared and the guidelines of the Supreme Court were followed during the arrest, and his disclosure statement was recorded; that during investigation, accused Puneet Patel son of Krishan Chand resident of H.No-C-60, Harkesh Nagar had admitted to have committing the incident along with his associates and admitted his mistake which led to his arrest; that the arrest documents Digitally signed by DR DR RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:11:54 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 4 of 26 were filed and the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court were followed during the arrest; that a purse containing Rs.150 was recovered from the accused Puneet and office ID cards were related to the stabbing incident near Sarita Vihar underpass by the accused, in respect of which FIR no.304/17, under section 394/397/34 IPC is registered in police station Sarita Vihar; that the purse was made into a bundle and taken into police custody; that accused Manish had stated in his disclosure statement that he can get his associates Rahul and JP arrested.
7. It is further reported in the police report that during the investigation on 29.09.2017, the main accused Rahul son of Manu, resident of Jhuggi No.57, Z- block, Manav Kalyan Vihar, Okhla Phase II, New Delhi was arrested from Modi Mill flyover at the instance of accused Puneel, from whom the mobile phone Redmi stolen in the present case was recovered and on being checked its IMEI number was found to be correct and a pullanda of the said mobile phone was prepared and it was seized by the police and accused was kept in muffled face; that Hon'ble Supreme Court's guidelines were followed during the arrest. It is further reported in the police report that information about his arrest was given to the brother of the accused and whatever the accused told, a separate disclosure was recorded; that during investigation in the present matter, pointing out memo of the place of incident was prepared at the instance of the accused persons. It is further reported in the police report that the complainant presented the mobile bill which was seized by the police and site place of the place of incident was prepared as per the instructions of the complainant; that statements of the DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:12:02 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 5 of 26 concerned parties were recorded and age memo of all three accused was prepared; that all the three accused persons were produced in the Court and the accused Rahul stated that he would prefer to participate in TIP before the Court; that all three accused persons were sent to judicial custody; that age documents of accused Manish were obtained from his school.
8. It is further reported in the police report that during investigation, on 07.10.2017, accused Rahul, whose TIP application was fixed before Sh. Harun Pratap, Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, refused to join the TIP proceedings after consultation with his Legal Aid Counsel and the IO obtained the copy of said TIP refusal which is attached with the file; that accused Manish who during his arrest revealed his father's name as Ramu and age 19 years, was sent to judicial custody after being produced before the Court; that on 06.10.2017 during the investigation, from the SDMC Prathibha School, Harkesh Nagar, date of birth record of accused Manish was obtained and his date of birth was found to be 17.07.2000; that an application was made in the Court after explaining the circumstances and CCL 'M', after receiving the order to produce him before Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), was produced before the JJB and then he was sent to Observation Home and separate PIR will be filed against him; that accused Rahul was produced before the Court and the Court sent him on one day police custody remand on filing of police custody application by the IO seeking arrest of co-accused JP and to recover weapon of offence and that during investigation, at the instance of accused Rahul, Sub-Inspector Digitally signed by DR DR RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:12:08 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 6 of 26 Benkatesh found a knife made of steel-like material from the bushes near the railway track behind Apollo Jasola Metro Station and that the relevant documents, which is attached with file, were obtained from SI Benkatesh and on interrogation, accused Rahul disclosed that the recovered knife was used in both the incidents; that after a lot of search, no clue could be found about the co- accused JP and the search is still going on; that upon inquiry from caller Jahid Hussain and Sub-Inspector Banke Lal, in- charge of PCR van Kite 46, it was disclosed that there was a phone call to arrest two thieves but only one thief Manish was present on the spot and separate statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of caller Jahid Hussain and Sub-Inspector Banke Lal, in- charge of PCR van Kite 46 were also recorded.
9. It is further reported in the police report that accused persons Puneet Patel and Rahul along with their two associates Manish and JP have committed robbery; that from the circumstances and investigation undertaken so far, statement of the witnesses and from the recovery of the mobile phone and knife from the accused, sufficient evidence has been collected against the accused persons, namely, Puneet Patel son of Krishan Chander and Rahul son of Manu (mentioned in Coloum No.11) for have committed the offences under sections 392/397/411/34 IPC; that a separate PIR will be filed against JCL 'M';
10. It is further reported in the charge-sheet that the afore-said acts on the part of accused persons, Puneet Patel and Rahul revealed commission of offences punishable under sections 392/397/411/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is, DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:12:15 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 7 of 26 therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offences committed by accused persons, namely, Rahul and Puneet Patel may be taken and they should be tried as per the provisions of law.
11. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
12. On the police report, on 25.11.2017, the Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offences.
13. On the date of taking cognizance, the accused persons were also produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Copies of police report and other documents were supplied to the accused persons.
14. On 30.11.2017, Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence/s to be exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and therefore, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
15. On 10.05.2019, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused persons for their having committed offences punishable under section 397/392/411/34 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code.
16. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the Digitally signed by DR DR RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:12:22 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 8 of 26 offences charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
17. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Ramesh (complainant), PW2 Deepchand and PW3 Sub- Inspector Shailendra Sharma. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/I, Ex.PW3/J, Ex.PW3/K (OSR), Ex.PW3/L (OSR), Ex.P1, Ex.A1(colly), Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 were also tendered in evidence.
18. On 23.05.2023, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. and for his statement.
19. On 13.09.2023, this Court examined the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements were recorded. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons, namely, Rahul and Puneet Patel denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. It is further stated by the accused persons that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused persons preferred not to lead evidence in their defence.
20. I have heard Mr. A.T. Ansari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate for DR Digitally signed by DR RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 KUMAR 16:12:28 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 9 of 26 the accused persons and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
21. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Ramesh, PW2 Deepchand and PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma; and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/I, Ex.PW3/J, Ex.PW3/K (OSR), Ex.PW3/L (OSR), Ex. P1, Ex.A1 (colly), Ex.A2 and Ex.A3; the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that in the present case phone was recovered from the accused Rahul, however, the identity of the accused persons could not be proved, so, it would not be safe to convict the accused persons for the offences under sections 392 & 397 IPC. It is further submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the case of the prosecution stands proved for recovery from the statement of PW2 Sub-Inspector Shailender Sharma, so the accused persons can be convicted for the offence under section 411 IPC and statement of PW2 Sub-Inspector Shailender Sharma during his cross-examination remained intact. It is further submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the TIP of the case property was conducted whereby the complainant had identified the stolen property i.e. mobile phone which was recovered from the possession of accused Rahul.
22. Per contra, counsel for the accused has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Ramesh, PW2 Deepchand and PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma; and the documents Digitally signed by DR DR RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:12:40 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 10 of 26 Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/I, Ex.PW3/J, Ex.PW3/K (OSR), Ex.PW3/L (OSR), Ex. P1, Ex.A1 (colly), Ex.A2 and Ex.A3; the learned counsel for accused persons has submitted that on the date of the incident there was marriage of the accused Puneet Patel and he was busy in his marriage. It is further submitted by counsel for accused persons that the accused Rahul was studying in 11th standard.
23. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
24. The accused has been charged for the offences punishable under sections 397/392/34 read with section 34 IPC reads as follows:-
"397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."
"392. Punishment for robbery.-Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years."
25. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
Digitally signed DR by DR RAKESH
KUMAR
RAKESH Date:
KUMAR 2024.06.04
16:12:46 +0530
FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 11 of 26
26. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined three witnesses.
27. PW1 Ramesh is the complainant who deposed that on 28.09.2017 at around 07:00 p.m, after his office hours, he left his office situated at Container Depot, Okhla for Sarita Vihar. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that when he crossed the railway line, four persons suddenly appeared from the grass/bushes and one of them took out his mobile phone from his pocket and another one took out Rs.340/- from his pocket. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that they were also having knife-like weapon which was shown to him during the incident and he was frightened to see the same. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that after robbing the phone and Rs.340/- from him, all of them fled away from the spot. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that he came back to his office at Container Depot and with the help of his office colleague, he tried to search for the offenders in the vicinity of that grass/bushes area but they could not find them. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that thereafter, they came back at Yard area. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that out of four persons, one was running towards the yard area after crossing the railway line and as he was gasping for breath due to running, he was apprehended by him and his colleagues. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that they inquired about name of that person but he did not remember today about his name. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that thereafter, PCR reached at the spot and he along with that apprehended person was taken to police station Sarita Vihar. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that accused was interrogated DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:12:54 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 12 of 26 and he disclosed the names of his associates. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that associates of that accused were also apprehended, brought to the police station and were interrogated by the police officials, however, he did not remember their names today. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that his phone was recovered from one of those apprehended persons, however, he did not remember from whose possession it was recovered. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that police had recorded his statement (Ex.PW1/A) bearing his signature at point A and the Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan at his instance. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that he could not identify the accused persons who were involved in the commission of robbery with him, due to lapse of time and also the offence was committed at a dark place and he could not see their faces properly. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that he also handed over his mobile bill to the Investigating Officer. It is further deposed by PW1 Ramesh that he got released his mobile phone from the Court after furnishing a 'superdarinama' (Ex.PW1/B) bearing his signature at point A and he had brought the said phone with him i.e. MI Redmi 3S dark gray 16 GB (Ex.Pl).
28. During his examination, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State was permitted to cross-examine this witness. PW1 Ramesh deposed that he had stated in his statement that his phone was of silver colour having IMEI No.863583032655640 and 863583032655657. PW1 Ramesh further deposed that he had stated to the police that the boy who was tallest amongst them showed him the knife and one of them DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:13:03 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 13 of 26 had taken out Rs.340/- from his pocket. PW1 Ramesh was confronted with the portion A to Al in statement (Ex.PW1/A) where it is so recorded. PW1 Ramesh further deposed that police got recovered one purse from accused Puneet Patel but same was not owned by him. PW1 Ramesh further deposed that the seizure memo of the purse is Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. PW1 Ramesh further deposed that he had signed the arrest memo (Ex.PW1/D) of the accused Puneet Patel at point A and personal search of the accused Puneet Patel was also conducted vide memo (Ex.PW1/E) bearing his signature at point A and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW1/F) was also recorded bearing his signature at point A. This witness was not cross-examined by the defence counsel.
29. PW2 Deepchand deposed that in the year 2017, he was working as maintenance supervisor and on 28.09.2017, at about 07:00-07:15 p.m., when he was present at his workplace i.e. Sri Varsana Logistics, Godown no.3, Domestic container depot, Okhla Phase-II, victim Ramesh came and told him that four persons robbed his mobile phone and money after showing knife near Sarita Vihar underpass. It is further deposed by PW2 Deepchand that he along with Ramesh and two other labours went to Railway Line Sarita Vihar in search of the offenders but could not found them and they returned back to the yard (above mentioned office). It is further deposed by PW2 Deepchand that while he was talking to Ramesh near the gate of the yard, one boy was coming from the side of the Sarita Vihar and going towards Okhla and after seeing him, Ramesh identified him and told that he was one of the offenders who had robbed him. It is DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:13:11 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 14 of 26 further deposed by PW2 Deepchand that they apprehended him and the name of that boy was revealed as JCL 'M'. It is further deposed by PW2 Deepchand that he also told the name of other accused persons as Rahul, Puneet and J.P. and PCR van also came there and took the accused JCL 'M' and Ramesh to the police station. It is further deposed by PW2 Deepchand that on 03.10.2017, police/Investigating Officer had came at his office and recorded his statement. It is further deposed by PW2 Deepchand that he could identify the accused JCL 'M' if shown to him. This witness was not cross-examined by defence counsel.
30. PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma deposed that on 28.09.2017, on receiving a DD No.49A (Ex.A2), regarding apprehension of two thieves near railway crossing near Sarita Vihar underpass, he along with Head Constable Leela Dhar reached at the spot i.e., Railway Crossing near Sarita Vihar under pass, where nobody was present so they came back to police station. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he met the PCR officials along with the complainant Ramesh and the informed that the PCR officials have apprehended one JCL 'M' who allegedly robbed the complainant along with his three associates. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he along with JCL 'M', Constable Rajkumar and complainant went to the spot, inspected the spot and during inspection, accused Puneet Patel was found hiding himself behind bushes and he was apprehended and they all came back to the police station. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he recorded the statement of the complainant and the complainant had handed him over one DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:13:19 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 15 of 26 handwritten complaint (Ex.PW1/A) bearing his signature at Point 'B'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he prepared the 'rukka' (Ex.PW3/A) bearing his signature at Point 'A' and the case was got registered through the duty officer and the FIR along with certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act (Ex. Al)(colly). It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he had conducted personal search of accused Puneet Patel and recovered one purse from his possession which purse was found to be case property of FIR No.304/17 police ptation Sarita Vihar and he seized the purse vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/C) bearing his signature at Point 'B' and he interrogated JCL 'M' and Puneet. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he arrested the accused Puneet vide arrest memo (Ex.PW1/D) bearing his signature at Point 'B' and conducted his personal search (Ex.PW1/E) bearing his signature at Point 'B'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that his disclosure statement (Ex.PW1/F) of accused Puneet was recorded by him bearing his signature at Point 'B'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that as JCL 'M' had disclosed the names of his three associates in presence of complainant Ramesh which were duly mentioned by him in his tehrir, he tried to search co-accused Rahul with the help of accused Puneet Patel. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that accused Rahul could not be located at his home and accused Puneet Patel revealed that accused Rahul could be apprehended from his another location at Modi Mill flyover. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that accused Rahul was arrested near Modi Mill flyover DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:13:26 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 16 of 26 at the instance of accused Puneet. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he arrested accused Puneet vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/B) bearing his signature at Point 'A', after conducting his personal search (Ex.PW3/C) bearing his signature at Point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that one mobile phone of complainant make Realme, silver colour was recovered from the possession of accused Rahul and that he seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/D), bearing his signature at Point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that disclosure statement (Ex.PW3/E) of accused Rahul was recorded by him bearing his signature at Point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that thereafter, they came back to police station and the case property was deposited in the 'malkhana'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that on 29.09.2017, complainant came to the police station at about 10:30 AM and handed over bill of his mobile which was recovered from accused Rahul. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he seized the bill vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/F) bearing his signature at Point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that thereafter, he along with complainant reached at the above-mentioned spot and he inspected the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW3/G) at the instance of complainant bearing his signature at Point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he recorded the statement of the complainant at police station under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that thereafter, all accused persons were taken out from the lock-up DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:13:35 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 17 of 26 and were taken to the place of occurrence, where he prepared pointing out memo (Ex.PW3/H) at their instance bearing his signature at point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that all accused persons were brought back to the police station and he prepared age memo of accused Puneet Patel (Ex.PW3/I), Rahul (Ex.PW3/J) and JCL 'M' bearing his signature at Point 'A', respectively. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that all accused persons were produced before the concerned Court and accused Rahul was in muffled face and all accused persons were sent to judicial custody and he recorded the statement of Constable Raj Kumar under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub- Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he moved an application for judicial Test Identification Parade proceedings of accused Rahul and same was fixed for 03.10.2017, which was subsequently adjourned for 07.10.2017 and in between he recorded statement of PW Deepchand qua age verification of JCL 'M'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that on 07.10.2017, JCL 'M' was declared as 'Minor' by the Court and he was sent to the concerned JJB. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub- Inspector Shailendra Sharma that accused Rahul refused to participate in TIP proceedings (Ex.A3). It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he obtained police remand of accused Rahul for the purpose of recovery of knife which was used in the commission of offence. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that investigating officer of case FIR 304/2017, Inspector Venketesh took accused Rahul to the police station, whereas, he took the JCL to the concerned JJB. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-
DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:13:42 +0530
FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 18 of 26
Inspector Shailendra Sharma that the knife was recovered at the instance of accused Rahul by investigating officer of FIR No.304/17 and photocopy of the same (Ex.PW3/K) (OSR) (original seizure memo of the knife and khaka chaku is in judicial file in FIR No. 304/17) and photocopy of sketch of knife (Ex.PW3/L) (OSR) bearing his signature at Point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he recorded the statement of in-charge of PCR and informant who clarified that only one thief was apprehended and by mistake it was reported to the police that two thieves were apprehended. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he recorded the statement of witnesses and after preparation of the charge-sheet, he filed the same in the Court. PW3 Sub- Inspector Shailendra Sharma correctly identified the accused Puneet in the Court and identity of accused Rahul was not disputed by defence counsel as accused Rahul was absent on that day. It is further deposed by PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma that he can also identify the case property, if shown to him. Case property i.e. mobile phone has already been exhibited as (Ex. P1) by PW1.
31. During his cross-examination, PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma deposed that he had received the information at about 09:07 p.m. and he reached to Sarita Vihar underpass near by railway track and nobody was found present there and he came back to police station. PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma further deposed that somebody made a call to PCR that two accused persons were caught by public persons. PW3 Sub- Inspector Shailendra Sharma further deposed that he again DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:13:49 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 19 of 26 reached the spot at about 09:30 p.m. and caught the accused Puneet from the bushes nearby Sarita Vihar under pass. PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma further deposed that when they reached Rahul's home, his family members were present but he did not record their statements. PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma further deposed that when they reached Modi Mill flyover with accused Puneet Patel, accused Rahul was sleeping there on footpath and nobody was present there except accused Rahul around 02:00 a.m. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
32. On 12.07.2022, the accused persons, namely, Puneet Patel and Rahul have made their separate statement under section 294 Cr.P.C. read with section 313 Cr.P.C. The said statement of accused Puneet Patel is reproduced as under: -
"I am accused in the present case. I admit registration of FIR along with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.A1(colly) and DD no.49A dated 28.09.2017 as Ex.A2."
33. The above-said statement of accused Rahul is reproduced as under: -
"I am accused in the present case. I admit registration of FIR along with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.A1(colly) and DD no.49A dated 28.09.2017 as Ex.A2 and my TIP proceedings dated 07.10.2017 as Ex.A3."
34. In the light of the charge framed against accused and the arguments advanced before the Court, following are the points for determination: Digitally signed by DR RAKESH DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:13:57 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 20 of 26
1. Whether the accused persons Puneet Patel and Rahul, in furtherance of their common intention, robbed one mobile phone make Redmi and Rs.340/- from the complainant, on the point of knife.
2. Whether the accused Puneet Patel had used a deadly weapon i.e. knife, while committing robbery on the complainant Ramesh.
3. Whether the accused Puneet Patel was found to be in possession of a stolen property, which he had dishonestly received or retained knowing or having reason to believe that the same was a stolen property.
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
35. This case FIR was registered on the complaint of one Ramesh who has been examined by the prosecution as PW1.
36. As per the testimonies of PW1 Ramesh, on 28.09.2017 at about 07:00 p.m., when he crossed the railway- line, four persons had suddenly appeared from the grass/bushes and one of them had taken out his mobile phone from his pocket and another one had taken out Rs.340/- from his pocket; that they were also having knife-like weapon which was shown to him during the incident and he was frightened to see the same; after robbing the phone and Rs.340/- from him, all of them had fled away from the spot; that he tried to search for the offender, but could not do so; thereafter, he came back at yard area, where, one of four offenders was seen and apprehended by him and his DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:14:04 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 21 of 26 colleague; PCR reached at the spot, apprehend the offender who was taken to police station Sarita Vihar and interrogated, who disclosed the names of other offenders, who were also brought to the police station, interrogated by the police officials and the complainant's phone was recovered from one of four apprehended persons and later, got released on furnishing superdarinama.
37. It is important to note here that during examination- in-chief of the complainant, PW1 Ramesh, he had deposed that he could not identify the accused persons who were involved in commission of robbery with him, due to lapse of time and also the offence was committed at a dark place and he could not see their faces.
38. The complainant PW1 Ramesh was cross-examined by Additional P.P. for the State, however, nothing has come out which could prove the identity of the accused persons to be the offenders.
39. The prosecution has also examined PW2 Deepchand, who is friend of the complainant, Ramesh and had also with the complainant, apprehended one of the offenders. As per his testimonies, the complainant, Ramesh identified the person apprehended by them and the name of that person was revealed as JCL 'M'. PW2 Deepchand is not an eyewitness to the incident and he had only apprehend the JCL 'M'.
40. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, mainly, the complainant, PW1 Ramesh Kumar and PW2 DR RAKESH Digitally signed by DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:14:25 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 22 of 26 Deepchand and other police witnesses, the incident of robbery by four persons on the complainant, Ramesh has been proved.
41. However, there is no other evidence produced by the prosecution, from which identity of the accused persons, Rahul and Puneet Patel could be established as the offenders who had used the knife, while committing the robbery on the complainant, Ramesh. Therefore, I am of the clear view that it would not be safe to convict Puneet Patel for having committed the offence under section 397 & section 392 read with section 34 IPC and also to convict the accused Rahul for having committed the offence under section 392 read with section 34 IPC.
42. So far as the charge under section 411 IPC against the accused Puneet Patel is concerned, it appears that due to inadvertence, the charge under section 411 IPC against the accused Puneet Patel framed in another case FIR No.304/2017 police station Sarita Vihar has been placed in this file also. Therefore, the accused Puneet Patel is acquitted of the said charge.
43. But for the afore-stated discussion, it is in the evidence of the complainant, PW1 Ramesh Kumar that his phone was recovered from one of the four apprehended persons, although, he could not tell from whose possession it was recovered. Here, the testimonies of PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma, the investigating officer of this case, are of much importance. As per the testimonies of PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma, one mobile phone of the complainant was Digitally signed by DR RAKESH DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:14:34 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 23 of 26 recovered from the possession of accused Rahul. PW3 Sub- Inspector Shailendra Sharma has deposed in his examination-in- chief that he can identify the accused Rahul, however, on that day, the accused Rahul was not present and his identity was not disputed, therefore, the identity of the accused Rahul as the person from whose possession, the stolen mobile phone was recovered, has been duly established.
44. The testimonies of PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma regarding recovery of mobile phone of the complainant from the accused Rahul, remain intact and were not shaken during his cross-examination, therefore, it is proved that the mobile phone robbed from the complainant was recovered from the accused Rahul, which was a stolen property. The testimonies of PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma are also corroborated by the evidence of PW1 Ramesh Kumar. It is in the evidence of PW1 Ramesh, the complainant that his mobile phone was recovered from one of those four apprehended persons and he had got his mobile phone released from the Court. The complainant, Ramesh (PW1) had also brought and correctly identified the stolen mobile phone in the Court.
45. From the conjoint reading of evidence of PW1 Ramesh (the complainant) and PW3 Sub-Inspector Shailendra Sharma (the investigating officer), I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been successful in proving the fact that from the possession of the accused Rahul, the stolen property i.e. mobile phone make MI Redmi 3S dark gray 16 GB was Digitally signed by recovered. DR DR RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 KUMAR 16:14:41 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 24 of 26
46. Though there was no such charge for the offence under section 411 IPC framed against the accused Rahul yet he can be convicted for the said offence, being a minor offence than the offence he has been charged with.
47. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies has remained consistent to prove the fact of recovery of stolen mobile phone of the complainant from the possession of the accused Rahul.
48. In the light of facts of this case, evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons, beyond any reasonable doubt for the offence under section 397 IPC against the accused Puneet Patel and Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused persons, namely, Rahul and Puneet Patel, therefore, giving benefit of doubt, the accused persons Rahul and Puneet Patel are, hereby, acquitted of the charges framed against them.
49. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Rahul, therefore, the accused Rahul is found guilty of having committed the said offence and hence, he is convicted of offence punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Digitally signed by DR RAKESH DR RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04 16:14:46 +0530 FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 25 of 26
50. Let the convict be heard on the question of sentence.
Digitally signed by
DR RAKESH DR RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04
16:14:58 +0530
Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR)
th
on 04 of June, 2024. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi(VR) FIR no. 303 /2017 Police Station Sarita Vihar State Vs. Puneet Patel & Anr. Page 26 of 26