Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu @ Kalia Etc. on 18 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR, ACMM
02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. SONU @ KALIA etc.
FIR No. 180/06
PS: GULBAI BAGH
U/S: 379/473/394/323/34 IPC AND U/S 25/27 of ARMS ACT
JUDGMENT
Case ID no. : 295674/16
Date of commission of offence : 02.10.2006
Date of institution of the case : 29.11.2006
Name of the complainant : Sh. Alok Rastogi
Name of accused and address : (1) Sonu @ Kalia
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh
R/o 10643, Gali No.7,
AndhaMughal, Pratap
Nagar, Delhi110007.
(2) Karnail Singh
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Pal,
R/o 10643, Gali No.7,
Andha Mughal, Pratap
Nagar, Delhi110007.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 379/473/394/323/34 IPC
and U/s 25/27 Arms Act
FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 1/19
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused Sonu @ Kalia
convicted for the offence
punishable U/s 382 IPC as
well as 25 Arms Act and
acquitted for the offences
punishable U/s
323/394/473 IPC and U/s
27Arms Act.
Accused Karnail Singh
was discharged in
revision from the present
case by the Ld. Sessions
Court vide order dated
25.03.2009.
Date reserved for judgment : 10.01.2020
Date of judgment : 18.01.2020
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR DECISION:
THE FACTS:
1. Succinctly put, the facts of the present case lies in a narrow compass wherein it is the case of the prosecution that in the morning of 02.10.2006 at about 56 am the complainant alongwith his wife were returning to their house on their scooter after attending Jagran Function at their relatives house in Laxmi Nagar. It is further stated that on reaching down side of the railway crossing at Azad Market Pul two persons riding on a black colour motorcycle came from behind and snatched the gold chain (40 FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 2/19 gms.) of his wife which she was wearing and ran away. After dropping his wife and children then and there the complainant chased the accused motorcyclist while raising alarm. At some distance the motorcyclist fell down, though one of them fled away from the spot, however, the other one i.e. accused Sonu @ Kalia was apprehended at spot. The accused Sonu Kalia caused simple hurt by a knife on the hand of the complainant, further the motorcycle used by the accused persons for committing the offence was having fake number plate. The coaccused who had fled away from the spot was later on apprehended, however, he could not be identified in judicial TIP by the complainant or victim. Accordingly, after the completion of the investigation police filed the present charge sheet against the accused persons.
2. On appearance of the accused persons, documents were supplied to them. Initially, charges were framed for the offence punishable U/s 379/473/493/323/34 IPC and U/s 25/27 of the Arms Act against both the accused persons namely Sonu @ Kalia and Karnail Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However the accused Karnail Singh was discharged in revision from the present case by the Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 25.03.2009.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
3. A total of 14 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused Sonu @ Kalia.
4. PW1 Ct. Rajpal deposed that on 02.10.2006, he was posted as FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 3/19 Constable at PS Gulabi Bagh and was performing patrolling duty in his beat. At about 6/6.30 AM, when he was present at the Metro Station Pratap Nagar while patrolling, he heard some noise and he reached the spot and saw a mob was gathered and accused Sonu was apprehended by public persons and one motorcycle was also lying at the spot. Accused was having knife in his hand. He informed the PS and SI Rajesh Kumar arrived at spot and he handed over accused, knife and motorcycle to SI Rajesh Kumar. IO recorded statement of Alka at the spot and prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to him. He handed over tehrir to DO who registered the FIR and handed over the copy of FIR to him. The seizure memo of motorcycle bearing No. DL1SQ3888 and knife are Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/A respectively, bearing his signatures at point A and seizure memo of fake number plate bearing No. DL8SZ9024 is Ex.PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E, both bearing his signatures at point A. IO prepared sketch of knife vide memo Ex.PW1/F, bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is Mark X and the knife is Ex.P1 and one plate bearing No. DL8SZ9024 is Ex.P2 and the five photographs of motorcycle bearing No. DL8SZ9024 Ex.PW2/D/1 to Ex.PW2/5 in the testimony of PW2. In his crossexamination, he affirmed that the IO seized the motorcycle No. DL1SQ3888 and the knife and further affirmed the preparation of seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/B. He further stated that public person told him that one accused successfully FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 4/19 escaped, whereas the accused Sonu was apprehended. He further correctly identified the knife (Ex. P1) and the plate bearing no. DL 8SZ9024 (Ex. P2).
5. PW2 Sh. Alok Rastogi deposed that on 02.10.2006, at round 5 to 6 AM, he alongwith his wife on scooter make ML Vespa returning to his house after attending Jagaran function at his relative house in Laxmi Nagar and when he reached down side of railway crossing Azad Market Pul, two persons on motorcycle in black colour came behind his scooter and one of the person riding on the motorcycle snatched the gold chain (40 grms) of his wife which she was wearing and they ran away. He dropped his wife and children on the road and he tried to chase the motorcyclist and after going some distance the motorcyclist fell down. He raised alarm and with the help of public person, apprehended the accused (correctly identified by the witness in the court). The chain could not be recovered from accused. Police recorded his statement which is Ex.PW2/1, bearing his signatures at point A. The police prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW2/2 and prepared sketch of the knife recovered which is Ex.PW2/3, bearing his signatures at point A. Ld. APP sought permission to crossexamine this witness. In his crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, he disputed the fact that when he tried to apprehend the accused, the accused inflicted knife blow on him, accordingly he received the injuries on his hand. He also affirmed that the photographs of the motorcycle which were shown to him might be the same motorcycle used by the accused on the date of the FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 5/19 incident. In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he admitted that he had no receipt/ ownership proof of the chain being the subject matter of the offence.
6. PW3 Smt. Alka Rastogi deposed that on 02.10.2006, at round 5 to 6 AM she alongwith her husband on a scooter make LML Vespa returning to their house abovementioned address after attending Jagaran function at her relatives' house in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Her husband was driving the scooter and she was the pillion rider. When they reached down side of the railway crossing Azad Market Pul, at that time two persons on motorcycle in black colour came behind their scooter and one of the persons riding on the motorcycle behind their scooter snatched her gold chain (40 gms) which she was wearing and they ran away and her husband dropped her and children on the road and he tried to chase the motorcyclist, after going some distance the motorcyclist fell down. They raised the alarm and with the help of the public persons her husband apprehended the accused. Ld. APP sought permission to crossexamine this witness. In her cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, she disputed the suggestion that when her husband tried to apprehend the accused, the accused inflicted knife blow on her husband as a result of which her husband received injuries on his hand. In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she affirmed nongiving of any receipt/ ownership proof of the chain to the police officials. She also stated that she did not know whether police officials had asked public persons to join the investigation.FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 6/19
7. PW4 Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta deposed that he was practicing lawyer having office at Tis Hazari courts and his clerk Deepak Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Naresh who is brother of accused used his motorcycle bearing no. DL1SQ3888 make Hero Honda splander black colour as he used the same for his personal work and Deepak used to take his motorcycle daily to his home. On 02.10.2006 he had come to know that the motorcycle was seized by the police of PS Gulabi Bagh in some criminal case. He was called by police for inquiry. In his cross examination, it is stated by him that he was not aware whether any offence was committed by user of said motorcycle, or not. He further affirmed that no offence or identification of motorcycle were conducted in his presence. He further affirmed that the motorcycle was only used by Sh. Deepak i.e. PW6 (Clerk of PW4).
8. PW5 ASI Dharam Veer Singh deposed that on 03.10.2006, he was posted as a Head Constable at PS Gulabi Bagh. It is stated that accused was taken into police custody by SI Rajesh Kumar. Accused made the disclosure statement which is PW5/A, pointing out memo Ex PW5/B was prepared on his disclosure. In his crossexamination, it is stated by him that there was no other witness at the time of recording of the disclosure statement of accused and further affirmed that IO has not stated to anybody either of public persons, or shopkeepers to witness the disclosure of the accused.
9. PW6 Sh. Deepak deposed that he was doing work with advocate Sh. G.D. Gupta at Tis Hazari Court. Sh. G.D. Gupta had given him a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL1SQ3888 make FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 7/19 Hero Honda Splendor for officials use. He used said motorcycle to go to his home. On 02.10.2006, he took the said motorcycle with him at his home and in the morning at about 8.00 AM, two police officers came to his house and took the said motorcycle to PS. They directed mother of this witness to reach police station. At police station this witness apprise to police officials that this motorcycle belongs to Advocate Sh. G. D. Gupta. He called Sh. G.D. Gupta, who had shown the documents of the motorcycle to the police. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he disputed the suggestion that the accused Sonu took motorcycle bearing no. DL1SQ3888 from his mother. He further stated that he did not receive any information from the police officials regarding snatching of chain from PW3. He denied his statement made U/s 161 Cr.P.C. exhibited as Ex. PW6/XA. He further refuted the suggestion of his not stating the correct facts and being won over by the accused because of the accused being related to him.
10. PW7 Smt. Beena Devi mother of PW6 Deepak deposed on the same line as PW6 Deepak.
11. PW8 ASI Deep Chand deposed that on 02.10.2006, he was posted as head constable at PS Gulabi Bagh from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM. He had received a rukka from Ct. Raj Pal at about 8.30 AM and on the basis of rukka, he registered the FIR and handed over Tehrir and copy of FIR Ex.PW8/A, bearing his signatures at point A to Ct.
Raj Pal for further course of action. He had also made endorsement on rukka from point A1 to A2 which is Ex.PW8/B, bearing his signatures FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 8/19 at point A.
12. PW9 ASI Sant Raj deposed that on 02.10.2006, he was posted as constable at PS Gulabi Bagh from 12.00 midnight to 8.00 AM. HC Shiv Lal made DD entry No. 9A regarding theft. Attested copy of same is Ex.PW9/A.
13. PW10 Sh. K.V. Singh deposed that he had brought the summoned record of patient Alok Rastogi S/o late Sh. Mange Lal aged about 31 years vide MLC No. 9859/2006. The MLC has been prepared by Dr. Abhay Krishna which is Ex.PW10/A. The result has been given by Dr. Pradeep Saini wherein he has opined the injury as simple in nature and the same bears his signatures at point A. Witness identified the signatures of Dr. Pradeep Saini.
14. PW11 Inspector Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 02.10.2006, he was posted as SI with PS Gulabi Bagh. On that day, he received DD No. 9A regarding snatching near pillar no. 97, near Pratap Nagar metro station. He went to spot and met with Ct. Rajpal on the spot. Ct.Rajpal handed over him accused Sonu @ Kalia (correctly identified by the witness), complainant and the motorcycle bearing no. DL8S Z9024. Ct. Rajpal also handed over one knife recovered from the possession of accused. He recorded statement of complainant. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW11/A and handed over the same to Ct. Rajpal for registration of FIR.
15. PW12 ASI Dinesh deposed that on 16.10.2006, he was posted as Ct. with PP Andha Mugal, PS Gulabi Bagh. On that day, he alongwith IO came to Tis Hazari Court to take the PC remand of FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 9/19 accused Karnail Singh (since discharged). IO obtained one day PC remand of accused Karnail Singh and they took him to Hindu Rao Hospital for medical examination. Accused Karnail Singh took them to the spot. IO prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW12/A bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, accused was again sent to lockup of PS Sarai Rohilla. IO recorded his statement.
16. PW13 ASI Naresh deposed that on 04.10.2006, he was posted as Ct. with PS Gulabi Bagh. On that day, he alongwith IO went to PS Sarai Rohilla lockup and IO took out accused Sonu @ Kalia (identified by the witness). IO recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW13/A, bearing his signature at point A.
17. PW14 HC Surender deposed that on 16.10.2006, he was posted as constable at Chowki Andha Mugal, PS Gulabi Bagh. On that day, he came with IO/SI Rajesh Kumar to Tis Hazari Court to seek police custody remand of accused Karnail Singh. With the permission of the court, accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/A, personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/B, both bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter accused was taken to hospital for medical examination. Accused was also interrogated. Accused was also taken for pointing out the spot at Azad Market, railway crossing under the railway bridge. IO recorded his statement and relieved him.
18. During trial, accused Sonu @ Kalia has admitted DAD Notification No. F/13/451/79Home(G) dated 29.10.1980 which is Ex. A1.
19. No other witness was left to be examined hence, PE was closed.
FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 10/19THE DEFENCE :
20. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C recorded, wherein he pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that with respect to the evidence against him of PW13 the police obtained his signatures forcibly on various papers without right to read over the same and falsely implicated him in various false cases including the present one. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
THE ARGUMENTS:
21. Ld. APP for state has argued that witnesses have supported the prosecution and their testimony have remained unrebutted. That on a combined reading of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, offences under section U/s 379/473/394/323/34 IPC and U/s 25/27 of Arms Act are proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
22. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused. It is argued that case of prosecution is false and that is why no independent public person has been joined in investigation. It is argued that PW3 Smt. Alka Rastogi did not sign any document despite being the main victim. It is argued that there was no recovery of the gold chain from the accused. It was argued that no receipt/ bill or picture of the gold chain which is the subject matter of the present case has been brought on record and therefore, the presence of the gold chain at the scene of the incident is doubtful. It was averred that in the DD Entry pillar no.97 near Metro Station was mentioned whereas no such pillar was demarcated in the site plan. It was argued that the MLC report of FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 11/19 PW2 clearly states that there was only an abrasion and no incised wound. It is also contended that material contradiction in the testimony of Ct. Rajpal and PW2 Alok Rastogi.
THE FINDINGS:
Offence U/s 379/473/394/323/34 IPC and U/s 25/27 of Arms Act
23. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused has been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.
24. The premise of the prosecution case rests on the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 as they are the eye witnesses/ star witnesses of the present case. It is on the touch stone of their testimonies that the guilt of the accused is to be determined. To bring home the charge U/s 379 IPC for the offence of snatching, first and foremost fact which is required to be established is the presence of the accused at the spot. Let us first examine the testimony of PW2 for the same. PW2 has described the manner of offence and act of the accused. His testimony has remained unrebutted even during crossexamination. PW2 expressly stated in his examination that on being apprised of the fact that someone has snatched the gold chain of PW3 he immediately chased the motorcyclist of the snatchers and with the help of public persons he apprehended the accused. He further correctly identified the accused. This statement stood the test of crossexamination. The statement of PW2 is further stood corroborated with the testimony of PW3 who affirmed that PW2 her husband apprehended the accused. PW2's statement with respect to the apprehension of the accused FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 12/19 stands further cemented by the testimony of PW1 who stated that he saw that a mob was gathered and accused Sonu was apprehended by public persons. It is not disputed from the statements that it was a hot pursuit during which the accused was apprehended. PW1 and PW3 in their testimonies also affirmed the presence of the accused at the spot. Therefore, the presence of the accused at the spot of the incident stands duly proved on a cojoint reading of the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3. No dent with respect to the presence of the accused stood establish through the crossexamination of PW1, PW2 and PW3.
25. The next point which mandates judicial scrutiny is whether the accused was perpetrator of the crime of snatching. To establish the same testimonies of PW2 and PW3 bears relevance. It was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there was no recovery of the gold chain from the accused and further that PW2 and PW3 failed to bring on record any proof/ receipt/ bill as to the gold chain. Therefore, it was submitted that he was not the perpetrator of the crime. This argument does not hold much water as PW2 and PW3 have been consistent in their examination and crossexamination as to the factum of snatching of the gold chain. The mere fact that they were not able to produce any bill/ receipt of the gold chain does not go to the root of the case of the prosecution and does not merit conclusion that no such gold chain was worn by PW3 and no such snatching occurred. Furthermore, PW2 in his testimony stated that there was another accused who was successful in fleeing away. No such fact disputing the abovestated fact has seen the light of the day in the crossexamination of PW2.
FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 13/19PW3 has also affirmed that there were two persons on the motorcycle who came from behind. An insightful perusal of the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 indubitably establishes the presence of another person who had fled away from the spot of the incident. Therefore, the factum of presence of a coaccused who fled away from the spot has also been established, in such circumstances it is highly probable that the other accused might have taken away the stolen gold chain.
26. It is further worth noting that PW2 and PW3 do not know the accused previously. Nothing on record has come forth which would suggest any previous affiliation of PW2 and PW3 with the accused. No other rhyme and reason has been revealed either through the documents, statements or crossexamination which would merit the view that PW2 and PW3 have falsely implicated the accused in the present case. There are categorical statement made by PW2 implicating the accused in present case. The testimony of PW2 remain unrebutted on all the material aspects. His testimony is natural and consistent and to the point. Further, nothing material could be extracted by the defence counsel even in his crossexamination to deny snatching of gold chain of the victim.
27. The argument that no public person who were present at the spot of incident were joined in the investigation at the time of apprehension of the accused is not material. As it is settled law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness or even of police witnesses and it is not necessary that in each and every case, public witnesses must be joined. It is a known fact that in a city like FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 14/19 Delhi generally the public persons do not come forward to be a part of any criminal investigation. In the case of Appabhai Vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1988 SC 696, it has been held as under: "It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused."
28. Hence, adverse inference cannot be drawn on account of failure of the police officials to join independent public persons apart from complainant PW2 at the time of apprehension of the accused. The failure on the part of the IO to join the public persons in the investigation is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as PW2 has fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is established principle of law that the complainant/victim shall not suffer due to the conduct of the IO and the accused shall not be allowed to take benefit of the FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 15/19 faulty investigation of the IO. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ganga Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 7 SCC 278 that:
"The settle position of law is that the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing evidence.
Hence, if the prosecution in a given case adduces evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court cannot acquit the accused on the ground that there are some defects in the investigation, but if the defects in the investigation are such as to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, then of course the accused is entitled to acquittal because of such doubt."
29. This Court found the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 absolutely credit worthy and truthful. Hence, on the basis of above stated evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court the prosecution has been able to prove on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed snatching of gold chain of PW3 who is wife of the complainant PW2. Hence, accused Sonu @ Kalia is liable to be convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 379 IPC.
30. Now, coming to the charge for the offence punishable U/s 25/27 of the Arms Act on the ground of a knife found in possession of the accused in contravention of notification of the State, it is quintessential to establish whether the accused was found in possession of the knife. PW1 in his examination has stated that the accused was having one knife in his hand and that the IO prepared the FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 16/19 seizure memo for the knife which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. This fact stood the test of crossexamination and was further corroborated by the testimony of PW2 who also expressly affirmed that the knife was recovered from the persons of the accused. No such reasonable doubt arise from the cross examination of PW2 wherein he only disputed the factum of infliction of injury by the knife on his hand. Nowhere from the reading of his cross examination a conclusion could be arrived that no knife was recovered from the person of the accused. Thus, from the discussion above it stands duly proved that the accused was apprehended from the spot of the accident alongwith a knife and is henceforth convicted for the offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act.
31. Now coming to the charges for the offence punishable U/s 323/394 IPC as to voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing hurt while committing robbery to complainant i.e. PW2. It is apposite to state that PW2 and PW3 in their crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP for the State have expressly denied that the accused had inflicted any knife blow on PW2/ complainant or that PW2 received injuries on his hand due to any such knife blow. No injury caused by knife to the person of PW2 has been made out from the records/ evidences of the case. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the essentials that are necessary to prove an offences punishable U/s 323/394 IPC against accused Sonu @ Kalia, thus the same is not being made out against accused Sonu @ Kalia. Nonetheless it has been established that while committing theft the accused was armed with a knife thus, it can be said that he had committed theft after preparation made for causing hurt or death in FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 17/19 order to committing of such theft or in order to the effecting of his escape after committing such theft. Thus, accused is liable to be convicted for commission of offence u/s 382 IPC as per the Section 222(2) Cr. P. C which provides that a person who is charged of an offence and the facts are proved which reduces it to a minor offence may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
32. Now, coming to the charge for the offence punishable U/s 473 IPC wherein the prosecution has put forth the case that a fake number plate bearing no. DL8SZ9024 was seized which is Ex. PW1/C from the accused. It has been alleged that this number plate i.e. DL8SZ9024 was used on the motorcycle, whose original number was DL1SQ 3888, by the accused while committing the offence of snatching. From the perusal of the evidences on record, no such evidence has come to fore that fake number plate was used by the accused during the course of the commission of offence. The star witnesses of the present case i.e. PW2 & PW3 have not deposed anything pertaining to fake number plates on the motorcycle anywhere in their statements. The public witnesses i.e PW2 & PW3 could not tell about the number of the motorcycle being used by the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainity and reasonable doubt does arises whether accused was using fake number plates on the motorcycle being used for snatching. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the offence punishable U/s 473 IPC beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the same is thus being not made out against accused Sonu @ Kalia.
FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 18/1933. In view of the above stated discussion the undersigned is of the considered opinion that all the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act are satisfied in the present matter. Further ingredients of offence punishable under Section 382 IPC are also satisfied in the present matter. Since, offence punishable under Section 379 IPC is included in the offence punishable offence under Section 382 IPC. Thus, it is held that accused Sonu @ Kalia is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 382 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act. However, the accused is acquitted for commission of offence punishable under Section 323/394/473 IPC and under Section 27 Arms Act.
34. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost.
Digitally signed GAJENDER by GAJENDER
SINGH SINGH NAGAR
Date: 2020.01.22
NAGAR 13:45:50 +0000
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
COURT ON 18.01.2020 ACMM02 (CENTRAL)/DELHI
Containing 19 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) ACMM02 (CENTRAL)/DELHI FIR No. 180/06, PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Sonu @ Kalia & Anr. Page 19/19