Delhi District Court
State vs . Om Prakash on 11 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR, MM-03, SOUTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROOM NO.211, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI.
FIR No. : 137/16
U/s : 392 IPC
P.S. : Bindapur
State Vs. Om Prakash
JUDGMENT:
a) Sl. No. of the Case : 2614/6
b) Name & address of the : Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Manohar Lal
complainant. R/o H. No. B-104,
Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
c) Name & address of :Om Prakash S/o Sh. Hazari Lal
accused R/o Village, Jhakra, PS Rajgarh,
Distt. Raj Garh, Alwar, Rajasthan
d) Date of Commission of : 10.02.2016
offence
e) Offence complained off : U/s 392 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Convicted
h) Date of such order : 11.09.2017
Date of Institution : 21.11.2016
Final arguments heard on : 05.09.2017
Judgment Pronounced on : 11.09.2017
FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.1/11
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: -
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 10.02.2016 at about 12:10 am, near RZ-96, T Extension, Uttam Nagar, Vishwas Park, Delhi, accused Om Prakash along with his accomplice Nand Kishore @ Vinod Kumar(since discharged) in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery of money i.e. Rs.4,500/- and one mobile phone from the possession of complainant Anil Kumar. Police recorded statement of complainant Anil Kumar on the basis of which present FIR was registered and the investigation was carried out.
2. After investigation, challan for offence U/s 392 IPC was filed. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Charge for committing the offences punishable under Section 392 IPC was framed against the accused on 26.12.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.2/11 trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.
5. PW1 Anil Kumar deposed that at the time of incident, I used to work as helper on the transport vehicle. In the month of February, 2016, the date might be 12 th, at about 11:15 pm, he was returning home on foot after attending his duty, he noticed two boys coming from behind and when he took turn near Mandir, towards his house, one of the boy chocked him and caught him from his neck and face. After the incident he became unconscious. Aforesaid two boys took away his mobile phone and some cash. PW1 regained consciousness after about 30 minutes. He identified the accused as the assailant who caught him from his face. He saw his face when he caught his face from front. PCR call was made by his son after he reached at home. He also identified the FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.3/11 accused during TIP proceedings at Rohini Jail. Certified copy of said TIP proceedings is Ex. PW1/B. His statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded by the police.
6. PW2 Ct. Satender joined investigation with IO SI Surender Singh. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW2/B and pointing out memo Ex. PW2/C.
7. PW3 Ct. Neeraj and PW5 Ct. Jaipal remained with IO PW6 ASI Mahipal Singh during investigation. On 21.09.2016, vide DD No.44-B, PW6 along with PW5 Ct. Jaipal and PW3 Ct. Neeraj went to Matiala, Nawada Road near Aggarwal Sweets for picket duty. At about 7.00 PM during picket duty, two boys came from the side of Matiala Village carrying a plastic katta. On getting suspicious, both boys were stopped and the said plastic katta was checked and it was found containing two water motors. Upon interrogation, both the boys revealed that the said FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.4/11 water motors were stolen from Sewak Park from two different places and that day they were going to Nawada for selling them. Initially both the boys revealed their name as Vinod and Vicky. Thereafter, PW6 informed the DO, PS Bindapur about the apprehension of the aforesaid two boys/both accused persons and as per the instruction of SHO concerned, both accused persons along with the recovered water motors were brought to PS Bindapur. Both the recovered water motors were the case property of FIR no. 450/16 and 470/16. Both accused persons were formally arrested in the aforesaid FIRs and the case property was taken into police possession by preparing seizure memos. Both accused persons also disclosed their involvement in two robbery cases and further disclosed that both accused persons have robbed of Rs. 3500/- from a person in gali no. 10, Jain Park about 5 days ago. Rs.700/- were recovered from accused Vicky and Rs.610 were recovered from accused Vinod out of the loot of the FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.5/11 aforesaid property. The said recovered case property was also taken into police possession and the case properties were turned into pullinda. Both accused persons also revealed about their involvement in the present FIR and disclosed that about 7-8 months ago, they had robbed a person with Rs. 4500/- and a mobile phone in Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar at about 12.00 PM (mid night). Accused persons also revealed that they had distributed the aforesaid amount equally between them and thrown away the mobile phone. On 22.09.2016, during interrogation, both the accused persons revealed their name as Om Prakash and Nand Kishor, Vinod as Nand Kishor and Vicky as Om Prakash. The disclosure statements of both accused persons Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B were recorded.
8. PW4 Wct. Poonam recorded DD No.44B Ex. PW4/A regarding departure.
FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.6/11
9. PW7 SI Surender Singh deposed that on 10.02.2016, on receipt of DD No.9B, PW7 along with Ct. Shamsher went to the spot i.e. T Extension, Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar where he met the complainant Anil Kumar whose statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded on which PW7 prepared rukka Ex. PW7/A and got the FIR Ex. A-1 registered through Ct. Shamsher. PW7 prepared the site plan Ex. PW7/B at the instance of complainant. Thereafter, PW7 on 22.09.2016, HC Mahipal Singh informed him about the apprehension of accused Om Prakash along with associate Vinod Kumar in FIR No.470/16. Thereafter PW7 formally arrested accused Om Prakash and his accomplice Nand Kishore vide Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW7/C and recorded their disclosure Ex. PW2/B and PW7/D. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Om Prakash and his accomplice Nand Kishore the pointing out memo Ex. PW2/C was prepared. On 23.09.2016, PW7 got FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.7/11 conducted TIP proceedings of Nand Kishore and on 24.09.2016, TIP proceedings of accused Om Prakash were conducted at Rohini Jail where complainant correctly identified him. PW7 also collected the relevant documents from HC Mahipal Singh of FIR No.470/16 and placed the same on record.
10. PW8 Kuldeep Singh Tanwar, Ahlmad has proved the disclosure statements Ex. PW8/A from case file of FIR No.470/16.
11. Accused/his counsel made statement U/s 294 Cr.P.C thereby admitting TIP proceedings, DD No.9B and present FIR Ex. A-1 and Ex. A-2.
12. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C and his explanation was recorded. He denied all the FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.8/11 incriminating evidence against him.
13. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld Counsel for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record.
14. It is seen that the complainant PW1 Sh. Sunil Kumar with whom the incident had taken place at the hands of the accused, has categorically identified him in the court to be the perpetrator of the crime as also identified him in Test Identification Proceedings. Even in his cross examination, Ld. Defene counsel could not elicit anything demolishing the case of prosecution that it was not the accused who had not committed the robbery of the articles and money from the possession of the complainant on dated 10.02.2016 at about 12.10 AM near RZ 296, T Extn. Uttam Nagar, Vishwas Park, Delhi. It is also nowhere the case of the accused that the FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.9/11 complainant PW1 knew the accused prior to the incident. Hence, there is also no motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused in the present case.
15. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that despite there being the CCTV camera installed at the spot but the IO not having seized the footage, no proper investigation was done by the IO and that for this reason, the accused should be acquitted in the present case giving him benefit of doubt.
16. I have carefully considered the submission made by Ld. Defence counsel but do not agrees with the same for the reason that it was the complainant PW1, who has categorically identified the accused in TIP Proceedings as also in the Court. There was sufficient light in the street where the incident happened with the complainant/PW1. FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.10/11 There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of prosecution from any angle.
17. In view of the discussion hereinabove, It is held that prosecution has been successful to bring home the guilt of the accused that on 10.02.2016, at about 12.10 AM, near RZ 96, T Extn. Uttam Nagar, Vishwas Park, Delhi, accused committed robbery of money and one mobile phone from the possession of the complainant. Accordingly, accused is held guilty for the charged offence.
Dictated & Announced in Open Court (Kishor Kumar) th On the 11 day of September, 2017 MM-03/South-West/Delhi 11.09.2017 FIR No: 137/16 State v. Om Prakash Page No.11/11