Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Rajesh @ Sonu on 24 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST):ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 1115/2009
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0508322002
State Vs. (1) Rajesh @ Sonu
S/o Sant Ram
R/o G-519, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
(Convicted)
(2) Uttam
S/o Sivender
R/o F-375, Onkar Nagar,
Rampura, Delhi
(Proclaimed Offender)
(3) Sonu
S/o Ram Kumar
R/o F-317, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi
(Convicted)
(4) Anand @ Rikku
S/o Pyare Singh
R/o D-511, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi
(Convicted)
(5) Sonu @ Manoranjan
S/o Parmanand
R/o M-676, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi
(Convicted)
St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 1
FIR No.: 177/02
Police Station: Jahangir Puri
Under Section: 395/397/412/34/120-B IPC
And 25/54/59 of Arms Act
Date of committal to sessions court: 17.10.2002
Date on which orders were reserved: 17.1.2011
Date of decision: 14.2.2011
JUDGMENT:
1. As per the allegations on 7.5.2002 at about 9:30 am at office no. A-5-A/40, Janta Quarters, Janak Puri, Delhi all the accused persons namely Rajesh @ Sonu, Sonu S/o Raj Kumar, Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand, Anand and Uttam (Proclaimed Offender), in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery/ dacoity by removing a bag containing amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, one mobile phone, one gold ring and keys of the car. It is also alleged and all the accused persons were armed with knives and pistol and caused injuries to Subhash Chand Bora and attempted to cause injuries to Laxmi Narayan.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION/ BRIEF FACTS:
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 7.5.2002 at about 9:30 am Subhash Chand Bora opened his office at A5A/40, Janta Quarter while his driver Laxmi Narayan started cleaning the office. In the meanwhile, one person who was in the age group of 20/21 years of whitish complexion wearing pant and shirt, came St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 2 and asked him for the job on which he refused. Immediately thereafter three persons, who were also in the age group of 20/25 years, came inside the office who were having long knives and out of three, one was having the pistol. The person who was having the pistol stood in front of the table and put the pistol on his forehead and other two persons who were having the knives gave knife blows on the right side of his stomach and left side of his neck and the third person put the knife on the neck of his driver Laxmi Narayan and started asking for money. Subhash Chand Bora immediately handed over the leather bag containing Rs.1,20,000/-, cheque book, credit card, diary organizers and other valuable documents, to the person who was having the pistol. Thereafter the said boy demanded the keys of the car and gave a pistol butt on the head of Subhash Chand Bora and thereafter they disconnected the wire with which they tied the hands of Laxmi Narayan and Subhash Chand Bora. The accused persons also took out the golden ring from the left hand and took away the mobile phone of Subhash Chand Bora. Thereafter the said boys ran away.
3. On the basis of the statement of Laxmi Narayan, the present FIR was got registered. On 13.6.2002 all the accused persons namely Rajesh @ Sonu, Sonu S/o Raj Kumar, Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand, Anand and Uttam (Proclaimed Offender) were arrested while they assembled for making the preparation of dacoity and another FIR No. 499/02, Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Under Section 399/402 IPC was recorded. During investigations of that case, all the accused persons made St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 3 disclosure statements thereby disclosing their involvement in the present case and were arrested thereafter. After completion of investigations the charge sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE:
4. The Ld. Predecessor of this court settled charges under Section 392/395 read with Section 397/34 Indian Penal Code against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. No charge under the provisions of Arms Act was framed against the accused persons since the arrest and apprehension of the accused persons and recovery of the arms was effected in case FIR No. 499/02, under Section 399/402 IPC, Police Station Saraswati Vihar.
5. During the course of trial, the accused Uttam stopped appearing and therefore, vide order dated 14.7.2009 he was declared Proclaimed Offender.
EVIDENCE:
6. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as twenty four witnesses.
Public witnesses/ eye witnesses/ injured:
7. PW1 Laxmi Narayan Saini is the complainant in the present case who was working as Driver with the injured Subhash Chand Bora. He has deposed that he had been employed with Subhash Chand Bora as a Driver for about five years prior to 7.5.2002. According to him, on 7.5.2002 he along with his St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 4 employer Subhash Chand Bora left the house at about 9:30 am in car o. DL-4CM-5243 and reached the office i.e. A5A, 40 Janta Quarter, Janak Puri, Delhi after parking the car. He has deposed that he opened the shutter of the office and went inside whereas his employer opened his cabin after which he started cleaning the same. The witness has further deposed that Subhash Chand Bora wtiched on the Camera and in the meanwhile one person, who was in the age group of twenty years and was wearing pant shirt, followed Subhash Chand Bora and asked Subhash Chand Bora for a job. The witness has testified that meanwhile two-three more persons immediately came inside who were also in the age group of 20/25 years, out of whom two were having knives and and one was having a pistol. According to him, one person put the knife on his neck after which he folded his hands and stood there and the person who was having pistol was standing at the door of the office while another person who was having knife went towards Subhash Chand Bora and asked for the keys of the car which were contained in a leather bag. The witness has further deposed that the said person snatched the bag and opened the same which was found to contain Rs.1,20,000/- and thereafter the said boy demanded the mobile phone and also asked for the keys of the car. PW1 has also testified that the said persons disconnected the telephones wires and when Subhash Chand Bora resisted the boy who was having a knife in his hand hit Subhash Chand Bora with the knife. According to the witness, on the instructions of the accused he tied Subhash Chand Bora with telephone wires and the St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 5 accused Anand tied him (witness) with the telephone wires after which the accused persons left the spot. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the court. He has identified the accused Sonu as the boy who was having a katta/ pistol; accused Rajesh as the boy who was having knife; the accused Anand who was also having a knife and the accused Sonu S/o Parmanand who was having a pistol/ katta. He has proved having lodged his report to the police which is Ex.PW1/A.
8. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that on 14.6.2002 he was called at the police station and shown five accused persons whom he did not know earlier to the date of incident. According to him, he identified the accused persons who came to their office on the request of the investigating officer. He has deposed that he was called at the police station at about 12:00 noon and he remained there for about half an hour thereafter. The witness has also testified that he kept on visiting the police station for seven days continuously. He has also deposed that he tied Subhash Chand, his employer, in such a manner that he could escape. He has further testified that on 7.5.2002 they reached their office at about 9:40 am and he was with his employer at the parking site. According to him, he used to open the shutter of his office and thereafter he cleaned his office and he had just started brooming the room when the accused persons came there. PW1 has further deposed that his employer after switching on the switch of the camera which was fixed in the office, came inside the cabin. According to him, there is a residential colony of Janta Flats and St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 6 has admitted that the person who was having the pistol was a tall and fair complexion who did not do anything wrong with him as he did not resist, rather he said Namaskar with the folded hands to the said person. The witness has also deposed that he was not having any knowledge as to how much of money the bag contained but he was aware that the bag was containing some money. PW1 has been confronted with his statement given to the police which is Ex.PW1/A wherein the fact of the witness having tied the hands of his employer and thereafter his hands were tied by the accused persons, has not been recorded. He has denied the suggestion that no incident had taken place as reported by him or that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by him.
9. PW7 Subhash Chander Bora is the injured in the present case who has deposed that he has been running the export office at House No. A5A/40, Janta Quarter, Janak Puri since the year 1985. According to him, on 7.5.2002 it was Tuesday when at about 9:30 he along with his Driver Laxmi Narayan (PW1) was coming to the office as usual in his Ascent car bearing no. DL- 4CM-5243. He has deposed that they came to the office and opened the office and his driver started cleaning the office when at the reception which is outside the office, one person who was in the age group of 20 years with whitish complexion came from outside and asked for the job but he refused. According to PW7 immediately thereafter three persons who were also in the age group of 20-25 years came inside the office who were having a long knife. He has testified that out of the said three persons, one St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 7 was having the pistol who was of fair complexion and was little taller. The witness has further deposed that the person who was having the pistol stood in front of the table and put the pistol on his forehead and other two persons who were having the knives gave knife blows on the right side of his stomach and left side of the neck while the third person put the knife on the neck of his driver Laxmi Narayan. He has further testified that the said persons started asking for money and within this period of ten to fifteen seconds one person gave a knife blow to the right side of his stomach on which he immediately handed over the leather bag to the person who was having pistol which bag was containing Rs.1,20,000/- which amount he had withdrawn from the bank a day earlier. The witness Subhash Chand Bora has also deposed that the bag was also containing cheque book, credit card, diary organizers and other valuable documents. According to him, thereafter the said person asked for the key of the car and did not even wait him to hand over the keys and gave pistol butt blow on his head on which blood started coming out. PW7 has testified that the accused persons disconnected the wire and with that wire they tied his hands and the Driver and also took out his golden ring and also took his mobile phone after which they took the key of the room and locked the room from outside. He has deposed that thereafter they (witness and his driver) broke open the door and his Driver made the phone call on 100 number and he was rushed to hospital by his neighbours. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the court. He has identified the accused St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 8 Rajesh, Uttam and Anand (since PO) who were having knives; accused Sonu was having a katta and the accused Sonu S/o Ram Kumar as the boy who was having a knife. The witness has also proved the Test Identification Parade proceedings of the accused persons and Test Identification Parade proceedings of the case property. He has identified the case property in the court i.e. gold ring which is Ex.P-1, mobile phone which is Ex.P-2 and the car which is Ex.P-3.
10. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that a date prior to the date when his testimony was recorded he had attended the court on receiving the summons and he came inside the court and thereafter was asked to go out being a witness. According to him, on 13.6.2002 he did not go to Police Station Janak Puri nor he had gone through the judicial file before making the statement. He has deposed that the size of his office is around 100 yards and there is a separate room of 10 X 11 for him and outside the room the reception is location which is also 10 X 11 in size. The witness has deposed that he had seen the accused in the court on the previous date of hearing but has denied the suggestion that his statement has been made on the asking of investigating officer. The witness has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW7/DA wherein the fact of the witness having stated to the police that three persons came inside the office were having long knives and that the person who was having the pistol stood in front of the table and put the pistol on his forehead, has not been recorded. According to him, the incident occurred within fifteen St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 9 minutes. He has admitted that his office is situated in thickly populated area but states that in the front portion there is a reception and his office is situated backside of the reception and therefore, if anything happened in the office it will not be visible from the outside. He has further deposed that the police officials did not inquired about his bank account number and receipts by which he had withdrawn the amount from the bank. PW7 has also been confronted with his earlier statement made to the police Ex.PW7/DA wherein the fact of witness having stated that the accused person who asked for the key did not even wait for handing over the key and gave pistol butt on his head and blood started coming out, has not been recorded. According to the witness, police did not record the statement of the neighbours who took him to the hospital. He has testified that he withdrew the amount from the bank three days prior to the incident and the amount which was forcible taken from him was Rs.1,20,000/- and there were two bundles of Rs.500/-, one bundle of Rs.100/- and two bundles of Rs.50/-. He has further deposed that his Driver Laxmi Narayan called the police in his absence and nobody from the accused side was muffled at the time of the incident. He has denied the suggestion that the investigating officer had asked him to identify the accused persons at police station Saraswati Vihar along with his Driver.
Medical witnesses:
11. PW10 Dr. Arshad Jamal has proved the MLC of injured Subhash Chand who was examined by Dr. Sanjay which St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 10 MCL is Ex.PW20/A. According to the witness, Dr. Sanjay gave the nature of injuries as Simple Sharp at point A on the MLC.
12. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that Dr. Sanjay never worked with him and that he has not seen Dr. Sanjay writing and signing but states that Dr. Sanjay had worked with Dr. Mongia who after seeing the record told him about the signatures and opinion given by Dr. Sanjay. He has also admitted that he has no personal knowledge of MLC nor any opinion was given by Dr. Sanjay in his presence.
Police/ official witnesses:
13. PW2 SI Devender Singh is the subsequent investigating officer who has proved that on 14.6.2002 the investigation of this case was assigned to him during which he had formerly arrested the accused persons namely Sonu @ Manoranjan, Anand @ Rinku (since PO), Rajesh @ Sonu, Uttam and Sonu S/o Ram Kumar vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/E. According to him, thereafter the accused persons were set to judicial custody and the investigation was marked to another official. The said witness has not been cross-examined by the accused persons.
14. PW3 Constable Rajender Singh is a formal witness who has deposed that on 7.5.2002 he remained with the investigating officer in the investigation of this case. According to him, on that day he accompanied by Sniffer dog named Don reached the place of occurrence i.e. A5A/40, Janto Quarters, Janak Puri but the Sniffer dog did not give any clue.St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 11
15. In his cross-examination the witness has denied the suggestion that he did not go at the place of occurrence on 7.5.2002. He is unable to tell the exact time but according to him, he reached there at about 11:45 am. He has deposed that they remained at the spot for about one and a half hour.
16. PW4 Constable Raj Pal has deposed that on 7.5.2002 he along with SI Girish Chand had gone to attend a call of accident in the area of Janak Puri. According to him, on the way Constable Desh Raj met him near the office of DESU and handed over copy of the DD No. 5A to SI Girish Chand regarding an incident of stabbing at A5A/40, Janta Quarter, Janak Puri after which they rushed there. He has deposed that Laxmi Narain met them and told them that injured Subhash Chand Bora had been removed to DDU Hospital by a neighbour. According to the witness, a vehicle bearing registration No. DL-4CM-5243 was also found parked near the place of occurrence and he was left at the spot by the investigating officer and SI Girish Chand left for DDU Hospital who after sometime returned. He has proved that the statement of the Laxmi Narayan was recorded by the investigating officer and he (the witness) took the rukka mark A and delivered before the Duty Officer who recorded formal FIR of this case. According to the witness, he collected the copy of FIR and rukka from the Duty Officer and requested him to inform the Crime Team and Dog Squad about the incident and thereafter he came back to the spot and handed over the documents to the investigating officer. The witness has proved that the vehicle bearing no. DL-4CM-5243 was St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 12 seized vide memo which is Ex.PW4/A. According to him, the investigating officer had collected one sealed parcel and one sample seal which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/B.
17. In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that he had no knowledge about making of any departure entry by the investigating officer and states that Constable Desh Raj met them just in front of the main gate of the DESU office. According to him, many public persons were coming and going on the road and there were about 250 or 300 quarter in the Janta Colony. He has testified that the place of occurrence is an office on the ground floor which is located at one side of the quarter. The witness has further deposed that when they reached the spot, Laxmi Narayan was standing in the office in the middle of his office and told them that three assailants had come there of which two were having knife and one was having a revolver. PW4 has also deposed that Laxmi Narayan further told them that a neighbour took the injured to the hospital, but he did not disclose the name of that neighbour.
The witness has testified that investigating officer had interrogated some public persons but he has no knowledge whether those persons are cited as witnesses in this case or not. He does not recollect the make of the Car recovered in this case and has deposed that the investigating officer returned within half an hour from the hospital and Laxmi Narayan also remained at the spot till they remained there. The witness has testified that he has no knowledge whether the investigating officer called any public St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 13 person to witness the recovery of the car. According to him, he took the rukka from the spot at about 10:00 pm and reached the Police Station within fifteen minutes and it took about half an hour in recording the FIR by the Duty Officer. He has denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered in his presence by the investigating officer or that he did not take any rukka to the police station.
18. PW5 Ravinder Kumar, Finger Print Expert has deposed that on 7.5.2002 on the call of investigating officer, he along with one photographer reached A5A/40, Janak Puri where he inspected the spot and lifted three chance prints Q1, Q2 and Q3 from table top glass of office table, one telephone and one table drawer respectively but no chance print could be lifted from steel gray colour car no. DL-4CM-5243. He has proved having prepared his report which is Ex.PW5/A which he handed over to the investigating officer.
19. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that the investigating officer called me around 12:00 noon and he had gone there with police photographer. He has denied the suggestion that he had not seen the car and other items mentioned in his report.
20. PW6 Constable Desh Raj has deposed that on 7.5.2002 at about 10:00 am Duty officer handed over him DD No. 5A for giving the same to SI Girish who met him in front of DESU office and he handed over the same to him.
St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 1421. In his cross-examination the witness is unable to tell the name of the Duty Officer on 7.5.2002 in Police Station Janak Puri. He has denied the suggestion that he had not given the DD No. 5A to SI Girish.
22. PW8 Ms. Santosh Snehi Maan the then Ld. MM has proved that on 20.6.2002 an application for conducting Test Identification Parade of four accused in case FIR No. 177/02, u/s. 395/397/34 IPC of PS Janakpuri was assigned to her by the Ld. Link MM. According to her, all the accused were produced in muffled face by the investigating officer SI Manoj Kumar and they all desired to join the Test Identification Parade after which the Test Identification Parade of accused Sonu was fixed for 22.6.2002, Test Identification Parade of accused Anand was fixed for 24.6.2002 and Test Identification Parade of accused Sonu s/o Parmanand was fixed for 25.6.2002. She has further proved the Test Identification Parade proceedings of the accused Rajesh @ Sonu S/o Sant Ram which are Ex.PW8/A; Test Identification Parade proceedings of accused Sonu S/o Ram Kumar which are Ex.PW8/B; Test Identification Parade proceedings of accused Anand S/o Pyare Singh which are Ex.PW8/C and the Test Identification Parade proceedings which are Ex.PW8/D. The witness has also proved that all the accused persons refused to join the Test Identification Parade proceedings. According to her, the copy of the proceedings was given to the investigating officer on application Ex.PW8/E. She has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 1523. PW9 HC Jagpal Singh is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has deposed that on 13.6.2002 he recorded FIR No. 499/02, Under section 399/402 IPC and Arms Act on receipt of the rukka which was sent by SI Arjun Singh and brought by Ct. Jitender. He has proved the copy of the said FIR which is Ex.PW9/A. According to him, he also recorded FIR No. 450/02, 451/02 and 452/02 upon sending of the rukkas by HC Joginder Singh, ASI Sushil Kumar and HC Brij Pal respectively, copies of which FIRs are Ex.PW9/B to Ex.PW9/D respectively. The said witness has not been cross-examined by the counsels for the accused persons.
24. PW10 HC Joginder Singh has deposed that on 13.6.2002 he was posted as Head Constable in the Police Station Saraswati Vihar and when he along with Ct. Surender Singh were present in the area during patrolling, a secret information was received that four/ five persons would be assembling in the four walls behind the Shakurpur, near Beri Wala Garden at about 9:15 pm after which he informed the SHO about the same on telephone. According to the witness, SHO, SI Arjun Singh and other staff came there and he along with the secret informer briefed them the facts thereafter investigating officer formed a raiding party and asked them to take the different positions. The witness has further deposed that thereafter five persons came there and Ct. Ashok who was in the civil dress gave the signal and the raid was conducted. He has deposed that SI Arjun Singh, Ct. Ashok and Ct. Jitender apprehended the accused Sonu @ Manoranjan from whose St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 16 possession one country made pistol was recovered; HC Brij Pal and Ct. Satbir overpowered accused Uttam (since PO) from whose possession one buttondar knife was recovered; he himself (HC Joginder Singh) and Ct. Surender overpowered accused Sonu @ Chamar and one buttondar knife was recovered from his possession; ASI Sushil Kumar and Ct. Raj Pal overpowered accused Rajesh from whose possession one buttondar knife was recovered and similarly other accused namely Anand was also arrested. PW10 HC Joginder Singh has further deposed that he initiated proceedings against accused Sonu @ Chamar under Arms Act and prepared the rukka and got the case registered and thereafter different proceedings were initiated by the other police officials in respect of the recovery made under the Arms Act. The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the court.
25. In his cross-examination, the witness is unable to tell the DD No. of the departure entry for patrolling and has deposed that the secret information was not reduced into writing vide DD nor he had given any intimation to the senior officials regarding secret information. According to the witness, the height of the boundary wall of Beri Wala Bagh is about six/ seven feet and no ordinary person can scale that wall. He has testified that there was no gate installed in Beri Wala Bagh which is an open place. He has admitted that he cannot tell which of the police official was having which vehicle and deposed that except Ct. Ashok all police officials were in uniform. The witness has further testified that Ct.
St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 17Ashok Kumar gave signal after five minutes of reaching at the spot and the other police officials had taken their position at the distance of about twenty/ thirty yards. He has admitted that no writing work was done inside the Beri Wala Bagh and that the seal after use were not handed over to any independent person and the same was remained with the police. He has denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused persons or that they were falsely arrested.
26. PW11 Ct. Sandeep is a formal witness who has deposed that on 7.5.2002 he took the special report of this case and delivered the same in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and in the office of the DIG.
27. In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that the copy of the special report was given to him at about 1:00 pm by the Duty Officer but he does not remember at what time he left the police station for the same.
28. PW12 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has proved the Test Identification Parade proceedings of the case property. According to him, on 30.7.2002 he was posted as Link MM to Ms. Sarita Birbal, the then MM, Delhi and on that day an application for conducting the Test Identification Parade of case property was marked to him which he fixed for 1.8.2002. He has deposed that on 1.8.2002 the Test Identification Parade was adjourned to 17.8.2002 on the application of the investigating officer. Further, on 17.8.2002 the St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 18 investigating officer SI Manoj Kumar produced the case property i.e. one yellow/ golden colour ring with alphabet 'S' inscribed on it, in a pullanda sealed with the seal of AS. The witness has further deposed that the investigating officer also produced four similar rings for mixing up with the case property and one of the rings had inscription 'S' on it. Thereafter the investigating officer produced the witness Subhash Chand who identified the case property. He has proved the proceedings which are Ex.PW12/A; certificate in respect of the Test Identification Parade which is Ex.PW12/B; the application filed by the investigating officer before Ms. Sarita Birbal which is Ex.PW12/C; application for change of date moved by the investigating officer which is Ex.PW12/D and the application of the investigating officer for obtaining the copies of the Test Identification Parade proceedings which application is Ex.PW12/E. He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused.
29. PW13 Ct. Jaiveer Singh is a formal witness who has deposed that on 19.7.2002 on the direction of SI Manoj he went to the Police Station Saraswati Vihar and obtained eight pullandas from the MHCM Saraswati Vihar duly sealed with the seal of AS and brought the same to Police Station Janakpuri vide RC No.213/02 and handed over the same to MHCM Janakpuri. He has proved that so long as the parcels remained with him the same remained intact.
30. In his cross-examination the witness is unable to tell as to how many seal impression were there on the parcels and at what St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 19 time the pullandas were handed over to him. He is also unable to tell when he deposited the said pullandas or how much time it took in depositing the same.
31. PW14 HC Brij Pal has deposed that on 12.6.2002 he was posted as Head Constable in Police Station Saraswati Vihar. According to him, on that day on secret information five accused persons were apprehended who were preparing for committing dacoity and he with the help of Ct. Satbir Singh overpowered accused Uttam from whose possession one buttondar knife was recovered from his possession. The witness has correctly identified the accused Uttam (since PO) in the court.
32. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that the above said case no. 499/02, under section 399/402 IPC and another case under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act have been decided and accused Uttam (since PO) has been acquitted in the said cases.
33. PW15 Lady HC Laxmi is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has deposed that on 7.5.2002 she was working as Duty Officer in Police Station Janak Puri and at about 12:30 pm she received a rukka from SI Girish Chand through Ct. Raj Pal on the basis of which she recorded the present FIR copy of which is Ex.PW15/A. According to her, the investigation of the case was handed over to SI Girish Chand.
34. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that it took about half an hour in recording the FIR. She has denied that the FIR was manipulated later on as per the convenience of the St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 20 investigating officer.
35. PW16 HC Babu Lal is a formal witness being the MHC(M) who has deposed that on 7.5.2002 SI Girish Chand deposited the case property of this case in the Malkhana in intact condition pursuant to which he made an entry at serial no.2852. According to him, on 19.7.2002 Ct. Jai Veer Singh further deposited the case property in this case in intact condition which was entered in the Malkhana register at Serial No. 2971. The witness has further deposed that on 14.5.2002 car bearing no. DL- 4CM-5243 was released on Superdari of Rs.30,000/- by the order of the court and the entry in this regard was made in Malkhana register. According to PW16, the case property were sent to FSL Malviya Nagar through Ct. Dina Nath vide Road Certificate No.66/21 in intact condition. He has also deposed that on 30.12.2002 the exhibits were received back from FSL Malviya Nagar and the same was deposited in the Malkhana. The witness has proved that so long as the case property and exhibits remained in his custody he same were not tampered with in any manner. He has placed on record the photocopy of the Malkhana register containing the above mentioned entries, which is collectively Ex.PW16/A.
36. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that the entry no. 2852 is not in his handwriting and he is unable to tell how many seal impressions were there on the parcels which was deposited on 7.5.2002, 19.7.2002, 23.10.2002 and 30.12.2002. He has admitted that the time of depositing the said parcels were not St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 21 shown in the entries but has denied the suggestion that the entries were manipulated.
37. PW17 HC Kamlesh has deposed that on 14.6.2002 he along with SI Devender Singh and Ct. Ravinder came to Tis Hazari Courts where in their presence SI Arjun Singh of Police Station Saraswati Vihar produced five accused persons in muffled face. According to him, SI Devender Singh sought permission from the Ld. MM and arrested all the said five accused persons in the present case and also obtained the copies of the relevant documents from SI Arjun Singh.
38. In his cross-examination the witness is unable to tell which of the accused was arrested first and which of the accused person was arrested last.
39. PW18 ASI Sushil Kumar has deposed that on 13.6.2002 on the basis of secret information five accused persons were arrested who were making preparation for commission of dacoity. He has proved that he had apprehended the accused Rajesh @ Sonu from whose possession a buttondar knife was recovered for which a separate FIR bearing No.451/02 under Section 25 of Arms Act was got registered. The witness has correctly identified the accused Rajesh @ Sonu in the court.
40. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that the secret information was not reduced into writing by the investigating officer and no public witness was asked to join at the time of arrest of the accused person. He has admitted that accused Rajesh @ Sonu has been acquitted in case FIR No. 451/02 by the St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 22 court but has denied that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
41. PW19 Ct. Ravinder Kumar has deposed that in the year 2002 exact date and month he does not remember, he had produced the accused persons in Tis Hazari Courts and then he had sent the accused persons in the lock-up. The said witness was permitted to be cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State since he was found resiling from his earlier statement. In his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP the witness has admitted that the investigating officer recorded his statement and that on 14.6.2002 he along with HC Kamlesh and investigating officer reached Tis Hazari Courts where in his presence SI Arjun Singh of Police Station Saraswati Vihar produced five accused in muffled face. He has also admitted that investigating officer of this case obtained the copies of document from SI Arjun Singh.
42. In his cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels the witness has denied that the accused persons were not in muffled face while they were produced n the court.
43. PW21 SI Girish Chand is the initial investigating officer who has deposed that on 7.5.2002 (wrongly mentioned as 5.7.2002) on receipt of DD No. 5A he along with Ct. Rajpal reached at house no. A5A/40, Janakpuri Quarters, Posangipur Delhi where one Laxmi Narayan Saini met them who told him that in the morning he brought his employer to the office at about 9:30 am and when they reached in the office three boys entered in the office. The witness has further deposed that Laxmi Naryan also St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 23 told him that the boy who entered first asked to give him job and in the meantime two more boys entered in the office and the first boy stabbed his employer Subhash Chand Vohra and they asked to handover the key of the car as well as cash available in the office on which his employer handed over the red colour leather bag containing Rs.1,20,000/- and the key of the car and one mobile phone of black colour. PW21 has further testified that Laxmi Narayan also informed him that when the accused persons left the office they again stabbed Subhash Chand Bohra with knife and during that period one tall whitish colour slim body boy had been pointing a revolver on Subhash Chand Vohra and thereafter they ran away leaving the car at some distance after damaging the same since due to lock of gear they could not take the car with them. The witness has deposed that one Mushtaq took his employer to DDU Hospital on his two wheeler scooter. He has proved that after leaving Ct. Rajpal at the spot, he went to DDU Hospital and at that time he was under treatment and hence, he came back at the spot and recorded the statement of Laxmi Narayan which is Ex.PW1/A on which he made his endorsement which is Ex.PW21/B which he handed over to Ct. Rajpal for registration of the case. According to PW21, Ct. Rajpal went to police station and got the case registered and thereafter came to the spot and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to him. He has proved having called the dog squad at the spot who took the photographs of the place of incident and thereafter he again went to DDU Hospital and collected the MLC of Subhash Chand Vohra and St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 24 recorded his statement. The witness has further deposed that in his statement Subhash Chand told him that those boys had also taken away his gold ring on which the alphabet 'S' was inscribed. He has proved having taken into possession the blood stained clothes which was handed over by Dr. Naveen Chandra SR which was sealed with the seal of hospital vide memo Ex.PW5/B. PW21 has deposed that thereafter he came back to the spot where he took into possession the Maruti car bearing no. DL-4CM-5243 vide memo Ex.PW4/A and prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW21/C. According to him, he went to R.K. Puram for preparing the portrait of the accused persons along with the complainant and tried to search the accused who could not be traced. He has testified that he flashed the wireless message and informed the senior police officials regarding the same. The witness has also deposed that in his presence the Crime Team lifted the chance prints from the spot and during the course of investigations he recorded the statement of the witnesses. According to PW21, further investigation was entrusted to SI Manoj Kumar.
44. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that the office in which the incident took place is surrounded by residential houses and deposed that he sent the rukka at about 12:05 pm. He has denied the suggestion that all the writing work was done after sitting in the police station or that he did not send the rukka from the spot through Ct. Rajpal.
45. PW22 HC Satpal has deposed that on 19.7.2002 the case property was sent to Police Station Janakpuri through Ct. Jaiveer St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 25 vide RC No. 213/21/02 copy of which is Ex.PW22/A. According to him, on 13.6.2002 SI Arjun Singh deposited seven pullandas in the Malkhana containing one iron rod, one country made pistol, one plastic rope, one gold ring, 10 notes of Rs.100/- each, 18 notes of Rs.50/- which were deposited in the malkhana vide entries at serial no. 2262, 2419 and 2266 copy of which is Ex.PW22/B.
46. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he is not aware of the time when the case property was deposited in the malkahana and when the senior officers have checked this register.
47. PW23 SI Manoj Kumar is the second investigating officer who has deposed that on 8.5.2002 he had taken the specimen finger prints of complainant and his employer and sent to FSL along with the chance prints available at the spot. According to him, later on he searched the accused and he came to know that accused Rajesh @ Sonu S/o Sant Ram, Sonu @ Chamar S/o Ram Kumar, Uttam (since PO) S/o Shivender, Anand @ Rinku and Sonu @ Manoranjan were formally arrested by SI Devender when he (SI Manoj Kumar) was on leave. According to him, he moved an application for Test Identification Parade on 20.6.2002 in respect of four accused which were fixed for 21.6.2002, 22.6.2002, 4.6.2002 and 25.6.2002 except accused Uttam since he has refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceedings. The witness has testified that all the four accused also refused to participate in Test Identification Parade proceedings before the Ld. MM and he collected the copy of the said proceedings. According to him, all the accused were arrested St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 26 in case FIR No.499/02, Police Station Saraswati Vihar and the copy of FIR No.499/02 is Ex.PW23/A and the other FIRs in respect of the possession of Arms by the accused persons are Ex.PW23/B to Ex.PW23/D respectively. The witness has proved the various documents of case FIR No.499/02 i.e. disclosure statements of the accused persons which are Ex.PW23/E-1 to Ex.PW23/E-5; recovery memo of the katta recovered from the accused Sonu @ Manoranjan which is Ex.PW23/F-1; recovery memo of ten currency notes of Rs.100/- recovered from the accused Uttam (since PO) which is Ex.PW23/F-2; recovery memo of Rs.900/- of denomination of Rs.50/- each (18 in numbers) recovered from the accused Anand @ Rinku which is Ex.PW23/F- 3; recovery memo of golden ring recovered from the accused Sonu @ Chamar which is Ex.PW23/F-4; recovery memo of mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 520019-51-80249-3-06 recovered from the accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW23/F-5. He has further proved the recovery memo of the knife in case FIR No. 450/02 from the accused Sonu @ Chamar which is Ex.PW23/F-6; recovery memo of the knife in case FIR No.451/02 from accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW23/F-7; another knife recovered in case FIR No.452/02 from accused Uttam (since PO) which is Ex.PW23/F-8. According to the witness, he recorded the disclosure statements of the accused persons in the present case on 27.6.2002 when he had taken the accused persons on Police Custody remand which disclosures are Ex.PW23/G-1 to Ex.PW23/G-5. He has testified St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 27 that during police custody remand no recovery has been affected from any of the accused and he moved an application for Test Identification Parade proceedings of Ring recovered from accused Sonu in case FIR No. 499/06 and Subhash Chand identified the Ring in the Test Identification Parade proceedings on 17.8.2006. The witness has further deposed that the case property was sent to FSL and he recorded the supplementary statement of Subhash Chand and Laxmi Narayan regarding the identification of accused persons. He has proved having recorded the statement of witnesses, having prepared the challan and sent it to the court. The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the court as well as the case property i.e. the Ring which is Ex.P-1.
48. In his cross-examination the witness is unable to tell if the accused have been acquitted in case FIR No.499/02, 450/02, 451/02 and 452/02, Police Station Saraswati Vihar by the court of Sh. I.S. Mehta, the then Ld. ASJ. He has admitted that he had not arrested any of the accused in any of the above said cases. The witness has denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that the accused were shown to the witnesses prior to conduct of judicial Test Identification Parade due to which reason they refused to join the Test Identification Parade. PW23 has admitted that the chance prints were not lifted in his presence but has denied the suggestion that all the writing work was fabricated while sitting in the Police Station. He has also denied that the accused were lifted from their respective houses two to three days prior to the incident and have been falsely St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 28 implicated.
49. PW24 SI Arjun Singh has deposed that on 13.6.2002 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar. According to him, the accused Rajesh, Uttam (since PO), Sonu, Anand and Sonu @ Manoranjan were arrested by him case FIR No.499/02 under Section 399/402 Indian Penal Code and he recorded their disclosure statements which are Ex.PW23/E-3, Ex.PW23/E-1, PW23/E-2, PW23/E-5 and Ex.PW23/E-4. He has testified that the accused persons took him to the place of occurrence where they had committed the robbery i.e. Janta Quarter, Janak Puri, Delhi pursuant to which he prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW24/A, PW24/B, PW24/C, PW24/D and Ex.PW24/E. The witness has also deposed that on formal search of the accused Sonu one country made pistol was recovered from left dub of his pant; on formal search of other accused knives were recovered from their possession and a rod was recovered from accused Anand. He has proved having prepared the rukka which was handed over to one Constable whose name he does not remember for registration of the case. According to him, the accused Sonu made a disclosure statement which is Ex.PW23/E-29 after which the accused took them to A-5A/40, Janta Quarters, Janak Puri. The witness has also deposed that accused Sonu @ Chamar took them to his house i.e. F-317, Shakurpur from where he got recovered one gold Ring regarding this case which was kept in a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of AS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/F-4. He has testified that thereafter the St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 29 accused Rajesh @ Sonu took them to his home and got recovered a mobile phone regarding this case which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/F-5 and thereafter accused Anand took them to his house in D Block and got recovered Rs.900/- from his house which according to the accused had been robbed from Janak Puri which currency notes were kept in a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of AS and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/F-3. The witness has further deposed that thereafter the accused Uttam (since PO) took them to his house i.e. T-375, Onkar Nagar and got recovered Rs.1,000/- which the accused Uttam disclosed that it was the robbed amount which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/F-
2. According to him, he informed the investigating officer of police station Janak Prui after which SI Devender Kumar met him in Tis Hazari Courts where he handed over the copy of disclosure statement and seizure memo to him. He has correctly identified the accused persons in the court as well as the case property i.e. gold ring which is Ex.P-1; mobile phone which is Ex.P-2; ten currency notes of Rs.100/- each got recovered by the accused Uttam Singh which are Ex.PX/C1 to C-10 and 18 currency notes of Rs.50/- each for recovered by the accused Anand which are Ex.PX/C11 to C-28.
50. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that secret information was not reduced into writing and that HC Joginder had informed the senior officers but he is unable to tell St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 30 how he had informed. According to him, petrol pump is across the road but there was no police picket at that time and nobody was called from the petrol pump to join the investigation. He has admitted that the accused persons have been acquitted in case FIR No.499/02 under Section 399/402 IPC of Police Station Saraswati Vihar. He is, however, unable to tell if the accused persons have been acquitted in Arms Act cases in FIR No.450/02, 451/02 and 452/02. He has denied the suggestion that the accused were not arrested in the manner stated by him or that the accused did not make any disclosure statement or any pointing out memo.
Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:
51. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Anand @ Rinku has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was beaten very bitterly in the police station where his signatures were forcible taken on blank papers by the police. According to him, police picked him from the gali near his house and falsely implicated in the above case. He has admitted having refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceedings and states that they were shown to the witnesses in the police station by the police officials.
52. The accused Sonu @ Manoranjan has stated that he has been falsely implicated and he was beaten in the police station St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 31 where his signatures were forcible obtained by the police on blank papers. According to him, police picked him from the park near his house and falsely implicated in the above case. He has admitted having refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceedings and states that they were shown to the witnesses in the police station by the police officials. According to him, the katta has been falsely implicated upon him.
53. The accused Sonu S/o Ram Kumar has stated that he has been falsely implicated and he was beaten in the police station where his signatures were forcible obtained by the police on blank papers. According to him, police picked him from the gali near his house and falsely implicated in the above case. He has admitted having refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceedings and states that they were shown to the witnesses in the police station by the police officials.
54. The accused Rajesh @ Sonu has similarly stated that he has been falsely implicated and he was beaten in the police station where his signatures were forcible obtained by the police on blank papers. According to him, police picked him from his house and falsely implicated in the above case. He has admitted having refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceedings and states that they were shown to the witnesses in the police station by the police officials. According to him, the katta has been falsely implicated upon him.
55. The accused Rajesh @ Sonu and Sonu @ Manoranjan have preferred not to lead any defence evidence. However. the St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 32 accused Anand and Sonu S/o Ram Kumar have preferred to lead defence evidence but despite an opportunity in this regard, they have failed to examine any witness in their defence.
FINDINGS:
56. I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the counsels/ Amicus Curiae for the accused persons. I have also gone through the evidence and the material on record.
Identity of the accused:
57. In so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, it is evident that PW1 Laxmi Narayan, the first informant on whose statement the FIR has been registered was the Driver of the injured. He has in his testimony before the court very specifically deposed that on 7.5.2002 when he along with his employer/ injured Subhash Chand Bora came to their office at about 9:30 am, he started cleaning the office and in the meantime one boy who was in the age group of 20 years followed Subhash Chand Bora and asked him for a job and meanwhile two-three more persons immediately came inside who were also in the age group of 20/25 years. According to him, two persons were having knives and one was having pistol. He has duly identified three accused persons in the court. According to him, the accused Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand was having a katta/ pistol in his hand whereas the accused Rajesh was having a knife and accused Anand was also having a knife. The said witness Laxmi Narayan has been duly St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 33 cross-examined at length by the counsel for the accused wherein he has clarified that there were five accused persons whom he did not know prior to the date of incident but on 14.6.2002 he was called at the police station where he identified them all. He has denied the suggestion that it was the investigating officer who had told him to identify the accused persons and has stated that he himself had identified the accused as the persons who had committed the incident.
58. The testimony of PW1 Laxmi Narayan finds a due corroboration from the testimony of the victim/ injured Subhash Chand Bora who had received injuries in the hands of accused persons. He has been examined as PW7. In his testimony Subhash Chand Bora has deposed that one person who was in the age group of twenty/ twenty one years wearing pant shirt and of fair complexion came and asked for a job. Immediately thereafter three other persons came inside the office who were having long knives and were also in the age group of 20/25 years and out of the three, one was having the pistol who was fair and tall and put the pistol on his forehead. According to him, when he tried to resist, two persons who were having knives in their hands gave knife blows on the right side of the stomach and left side of his neck. He has further specifically deposed that there was another person who put the knife on the neck of his Driver. In his cross-examination the Ld. Counsels for the accused have tried to confuse both the public witness and the victim with regard to the identity of the accused but both the witnesses have stood their ground. They St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 34 have identified the accused Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand as the boy who was having a katta/ pistol in his hand; accused Rajesh, Uttam (since PO), Anand and Sonu S/o Ram Kumar as the boys who were having knives in their hands amongst whom one of them had put the knife on the neck of Laxmi Narayan. In fact Laxmi Narayan (PW1) has identified the accused Anand as the boy who had put the knife on his neck and accused Rajesh as the person who had come inside and asked Subash Chand Bora for the keys of the car and had also snatched the bag containing Rs.1,20,000/- which he had withdrawn from the bank a day earlier and also took his mobile phone and gold ring.
59. It is evident from the statement of Laxmi Narayan first made to the investigating officer which is Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which the FIR was registered that the three boys had entered in the office of which one was a fair and tall person and was armed with a katta whereas two other persons were carrying knives and when he was threatened with the knife feeling scared he sat down while the other boy had inflicted the knife injuries upon his employer. The case of Subhash Chand Bora on the other hand is that first three boys had entered of which the first boy who was of fair colour was the one who came to him and asked for employment but later on wiped out a pistol/ katta and the other two persons were carrying knives and later on two more boys came with knives in their hands out of which one had shown the knife to his driver Laxmi Narayan. In this regard, I may mention that in his earlier statement made to the police which is Ex.PW7/DA St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 35 Subhash Chand Bora had told the investigating officer that initially one boy had entered and thereafter three more boys entered one of whom was armed with a pistol and others were carrying knives. However, while he was describing the boys, he has identified and described as many as five persons and not four. I may mention that at the end of the statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the investigating officer, Subhash Chand Bora has stated that he can identify the four boys but in the court he has identified all the five accused persons. In so far as the accused Sonu @ Manoranjan is concerned, both Laxmi Narayan (PW1) and Subhash Chand Bora (PW1) have identified him as the boy who was carrying a pistol/ katta. According to the testimony of Laxmi Naryan (PW1) it was the accused Rajesh @ Sonu, Anand and Uttam (Proclaimed Offender) who had inflicted knife blows upon the victim. The accused Sonu S/o Ram Kumar and Uttam (PO) have been identified by the witness Subhash Chand Bora as the boys who had inflicted knife injures to him. It is evident from the record that the public witness and the injured were not known to the accused previously and it was for the first time he had seen the accused persons at the time of incident. Therefore, the possibility of both the witnesses getting confused on account of the same cannot be ruled out. Ld. counsel for the accused has also placed his reliance on the testimony of Subhash Chand Bora (PW7) recorded on 16.7.2004 wherein he had stated that he is not sure whether these were the persons who snatched his bag. I have considered the objection raised and in this regard I St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 36 may observe that the said witness has been very categorical with regard to the identity of the accused and his statement to the effect that he is not sure if these are the boys who had snatched his bag was in the context of whether he had previously seen the accused prior to the incident or not. The same is liable to be ignored.
60. This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the identity of all the accused persons in the court as the persons who had committed the incident. The accused Sonu @ Manoranjan is the boy who stood at the door and put the pistol on the forehead of the victim Subhash Chand Bora whereas the accused Rajesh was the person who snatched the bag and other accused persons as the persons who were having knives and inflicted injuries upon Subhash Chand Bora and had also threatened Laxmi Narayan with the knife. I may clarify that the possession and use of knives by the accused Rajesh @ Sonu, Sonu S/o Ram Kumar, Anand and Uttam (PO) has also been established.
Medical Evidence:
61. It is evident from the record that the injured Subhash Chand Bora had been taken to hospital by some neighbour, a fact which he has mentioned in his testimony which finds due corroboration from the testimony of his Driver Laxmi Narayan (PW1). Further, the MLC of Subhash Chand Bora which is Ex.PW20/A duly proved by Dr. Arshad Jamal (PW20) shows that the injured Subhash Chand was brought to the hospital by one Ashwini Khanna S/o Late Sh. Mahendra Nath, R/o B-1/239, Janak St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 37 Puri i.e. of the same area with the alleged history of assault. The testimony of Subhah Chand (PW7) with regard to the injuries received by him in the hands of accused persons which finds due corroboration from the oral testimony of Laxmi Narayan (PW1) and the nature of injuries i.e. cut lacerate wound measuring about 2.5 x .5 cm over mid parietal region; cut lacerated wound measuring about 2 x .5 cm over the medial aspect of left arms and cut lacerated wound measuring about 2 x .5 cm over the lateral aspect of right lumber region. The said injuries have been opined to be simple and sharp and there is no rebuttal to the aforesaid. Circumstantial evidence/ Crime Team report:
62. After the incident the local police had been informed and the Crime Team had also visited the spot. Photographs of the spot had been taken (though not exhibited) as deposed by the Finger Print Expert, Ravinder Kumar (PW5) who had reached the spot along with the mobile Crime team. According to him, no chance prints could be lifted from the grey colour car bearing No. DL-
4CM-5243. The photographs placed on record which have been duly proved and not rebutted shows the presence of blood spots all over the place where the incident took place, thereby establishing the fact that the incident had taken place.
Details of the articles stolen and recovered:
63. As per the allegations involved, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-
which the victim Subhash Chand Bora had withdrawn a day earlier and kept in the bag, had been taken away by the accused which bag was also containing cheque book, credit card, diary organizers St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 38 and other valuable documents. The accused are also alleged to have taken away the mobile phone, gold ring and keys of the car of Subhash Chand Vohra. In so far as the vehicle is concerned, the same was duly abandoned by the accused persons near the spot of the incident itself and was immediately recovered but the gold ring and the mobile phone were recovered later. The case of the prosecution is that pursuant to his disclosure, it was the accused Sonu S/o Ram Kumar who had got recovered the gold ring in respect of which test Identification Parade proceedings were conducted vide Ex.PW12/A wherein the complainant Subhash Chand duly identified as the gold ring with S mark on the same. Further, pursuant to the disclosure of the accused Rajesh the mobile phone of the victim bearing IMEI No. 520019-51- 780249-3-06 robbed by the accused on 7.5.2002 was recovered which recovery also stands proved. In so far as the accused Anand and Uttam (since PO) are concerned, currency notes to the tune of Rs.900/- were recovered from the accused Anand and Rs.1,000/- were recovered from the accused Uttam (the accused Uttam is proclaimed offender and therefore no observation is made thereof) which according to them were the currency notes out of the stolen amount. It is evident from the record the details of the currency notes have not been provided by the complainant or the victim and the currency notes. The amount so recovered from the accused Anand is too small that it is normal for any person to be carrying this amount. In the absence of any material on record to show that they were the same currency notes which were robbed from the St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 39 injured Subhash Chand Vohra and to connect these recovered currency notes with the incident of robbery, I hereby hold that the said recovery of currency notes does not stand established and the prosecution has failed to connect the accused Anand with the recovery of the amount.
Arrest and apprehension of the accused:
64. The case of the prosecution is that all the five accused persons namely Rajesh @ Sonu, Anand, Sonu S/o Ram Kumar, Uttam (since PO) and Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand were arrested on the basis of the secret information that they would be assembling near four walls behind Shakurpur, near Beri Wala Garden at about 9:15 pm. The record reveals that the accused have been acquitted in the said case under Section 399/402 and it was pursuant to the disclosure statement made by them, that they were arrested in the present case. The apprehension and arrest in that case is not disputed.
Non participation in Test Identification Parade proceedings:
65. It is evident from the record that the accused namely Rajesh @ Sonu, Anand, Sonu S/o Ram Kumar and Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand have refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceedings on the ground that they had earlier been shown to the witnesses. It is further evident from the record that it is only Laxmi Narayan (PW1) who had identified the accused persons in the police station as evident from his testimony when he was called to identify them in the police station but not the victim Subhash Chand Vohra. Therefore, the accused having St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 40 refused to participate in Test Identification Parade proceedings, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. Use of dangerous arms by the accused persons:
66. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Sonu @ Manoranjan was the boy who had used the pistol/ desi katta by pointing out towards the forehead of victim Subhash Chand while the other accused Sonu S/o Ram Kumar, Anand and Rajesh @ Sonu and Uttam were having knives in their hands and one of them had put the knife on the neck of Laxmi Narayan and other two of them inflicted injuries on the person of victim Subhash Chand. This fact has been proved from the testimony of PW7 Subhash Chand Bora who has specifically stated that the accused Sonu @ Manoranjan is the boy who had first come to him and asked for a job and on his refusal the accused took out a pistol/ desi katta and pointed the same on his forehead and the accused Rajesh @ Sonu, Uttam (PO) Anand and Sonu S/o Ram Kumar were having knives in their hands. The MLC and the photographs placed on record establish the factum of the incident. Further, the fact of the use of dangerous weapon also stands established from the MLC of the injured Subhash Chand Bora who, it has been proved, had received three simple and sharp injures in the form of cut lacerated wounds.
Contradiction & Discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses:
67. Ld. counsels/ amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the accused persons have pointed out the various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. It is argued that in St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 41 the complaint made by PW1 which is Ex.PW1/A, he has stated that three persons were present at the time of incident and one came to ask for job and thereafter two persons entered of which one was having pistol and one was having knife whereas in his deposition before the court, he has deposed that first one person cane for job and thereafter three persons entered while. It is also argued that Subhah Chand Vohra (PW7) has in his examination in chief deposed that he withdrew the amount a day prior to the incident whereas in his cross-examination he has stated that he withdrew the amount three days earlier.
68. I have considered the rival contentions. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC, the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses.
(a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 42 details.
(c) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation.
It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated lateron.
(g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 43 liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.
69. As far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the statement of the witnesses it is held in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 767 that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In the case of Jagdish vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1167, the Supreme Court has held that When the discrepancies are comparatively of minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. Also in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, reported in (1981)2 SCC 752 it has been held that in the depositions of witnesses there St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 44 are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.
70. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, MLC, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
71. Further, as regards the minor contradictions, I am of the considered that the same are too immaterial and irrelevant as it is the evidence of the complainant/ victim regarding the commission of the offence by the accused which is more important than the investigation conducted in the present case. Even otherwise, the alleged contradictions are not fatal to the prosecution case. Further, St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 45 the Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that all the accused persons have been acquitted in case FIR No.499/02, Police Station Saraswati Vihar, under Section 399/402 IPC and also in FIRs 450/02, 451/02 & 452/02 under Arms Act. I have considered the submissions. The acquittal of the accused in the said cases shall not prejudice the merits of the case in any manner since the acquittal are only on technical grounds as the prosecution was unable to prove and substantiate the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and not otherwise.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
72. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 46
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
73. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the identity of the accused persons. It has been proved that it was the accused Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand who had first entered the office of the complainant and asked him for a job which he refused. It is further proved that the accused Sonu @ Manoranjan who was having a katta/ pistol in his hand, pointed out the same towards the forehead of victim while the other accused namely Sonu S/o Ram Kumar, Anand, Rajesh @ Sonu and Uttam (since PO) entered the office of the victim having knives in their hands. It is also proved that the accused Rajesh @ Sonu snatched the bag from the victim Subhash Chand which bag was containing Rs.1,20,000/-, cheque book, credit card, diary organizers and other valuable documents and also the keys of the car. It is further proved that the accused St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 47 Uttam (since PO) and Anand had inflicted injuries upon the victim Subhash Chand which injuries were opined as simple and sharp. The recovery of the case property i.e. the gold ring from the accused Sonu S/o Ram Kumar and mobile phone from the accused Rajesh @ Sonu belonging to the victim Subhash Chand has been duly proved by the prosecution. However, the prosecution has not been able to connect the recovered amount of Rs.900/- with the accused Anand.
This being so, I hereby hold the accused Rajesh @ Sonu, Sonu S/o Ram Kumar, Anand and Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand guilty of the offence under Section 395 read with 397/34 Indian Penal Code and convict them accordingly.
Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 21.2.2011.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 14.2.2011 ASJ-II (NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 48
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST):ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 1115/2009 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0508322002 State Vs. (1) Rajesh @ Sonu S/o Sant Ram R/o G-519, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi.
(2) Sonu S/o Ram Kumar R/o F-317, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi (3) Anand @ Rikku S/o Pyare Singh R/o D-511, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi (4) Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand R/o M-676, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi (5) Uttam S/o Sivender R/o F-375, Onkar Nagar, Rampura, Delhi (Proclaimed Offender) FIR No.: 177/02 Police Station: Jahangir Puri Under Section: 395/397/412/34/120-B IPC And 25/54/59 of Arms Act St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 49 Date of Conviction: 14.2.2011 Arguments heard on: 21.2.2011 Date of Sentence: 24.2.2011 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Taufiq Ahmed, Addl. PP for the State.
The convicts Rajesh @ Sonu, Sonu, Anand and Sonu @ Manoranjan are in judicial custody with Amicus Curiae Sh. B.S. Solanki Advocate.
Sh. U.M. Tripathi, advocate for the convict Rajesh @ Sonu.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Vide my separate judgment dated 14.2.2011, all the accused namely Rajesh @ Sonu, Sonu S/o Ram Kumar, Anand and Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand have been held guilty of the offence under Section 395 read with 397/34 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 7.5.2002 at about 9:30 am Subhash Chand Bora opened his office situated at A5A/40, Janta Quarter while his driver Laxmi Narayan started cleaning the office. In the meanwhile, one person came and asked him for the job on which he refused. Immediately thereafter three persons came inside the office who were having long knives and out of three, one was having a pistol. The person who was having the pistol stood in front of the table and put the pistol on his forehead and other two persons who were having the knives gave, knife St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 50 blows on the right side of his stomach and left side of his neck and the third person put the knife on the neck of his driver Laxmi Narayan and started asking for money. Subhash Chand Bora immediately handed over the leather bag containing Rs.1,20,000/-, cheque book, credit card, diary organizers and other valuable documents, to the person who was having the pistol. Thereafter, the said boy demanded the keys of the car and gave a pistol butt on the head of Subhash Chand Bora and also disconnected the wire with which they tied the hands of Laxmi Narayan and Subhash Chand Bora. The accused persons also took out the golden ring from the left hand and took away the mobile phone of Subhash Chand Bora. On 13.6.2002 all the accused persons namely Rajesh @ Sonu, Sonu S/o Raj Kumar, Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand, Anand and Uttam (Proclaimed Offender) were arrested while they assembled for making the preparation of dacoity and another FIR No. 499/02, Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Under Section 399/402 IPC was recorded. During investigations of that case, all the accused persons made disclosure statements thereby disclosing their involvement in the present case and were arrested thereafter. During the course of trial, both the complainant Laxmi Narayan and the injured Subhash Chand Bora have appeared in the court and correctly identified all the accused persons. On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly the complainant Laxmi Narayan and the injured Subhash Chand Bora, all the accused namely Rajesh @ Sonu, Sonu S/o Ram Kumar, Anand and Sonu @ Manoranjan St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 51 S/o Parmanand have been held guilty of the offence under Section 395 read with 397/34 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
3. I have heard arguments on the point of sentence. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the convicts has vehemently argued that all the convicts are young boys and at the time of committing the offence they were in their earlier twenties. According to him, all the convicts have already remained in judicial custody for a considerable period of time. He has further argued that though the convicts Rajesh @ Sonu and Sonu S/o Ram Kumar were involved in two others cases but they have been acquitted in the said cases. He requests that a lenient view be taken against all the convicts.
4. On the other hand, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has prayed that a strict punishment be awarded to the convicts keeping in view the fact that the offence has been committed in broad day light and the convicts did not hesitate in using deadly weapons for committing dacoity.
5. The convict Rajesh @ Sonu S/o Sant Ram is aged about 27 years having a family comprising of aged parents, two brothers and two married sisters. He is 8th class pass and was doing some private work. He has already remained in judicial custody for about one year two months and four days. The convict Rajesh @ Sonu is also involved in two other cases i.e. FIR No.499/02, under Section 399/402 IPC and FIR No.451/02, under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act of Police Station Saraswati Vihar wherein he has been acquitted.St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 52
6. The convict Sonu S/o Ram Kumar is also aged about 27 years having a family comprising of aged father, two brothers, one married sister, wife and one year old son. He is 9th class pass and was working as a Salesman. He has already remained in judicial custody for about two years. The convict Sonu is involved in two other cases i.e. FIR No.499/02, under Section 399/402 IPC and FIR No.451/02, under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act of , Police Station Saraswati Vihar wherein he has been acquitted.
7. The convict Anand S/o Pyare Singh is aged about 29 years having a family comprising of aged father and three sisters two of whom are married. He is 7th class pass and was working as a Sweeper. The convict Anand is also involved in two other cases i.e. FIR No.499/02, under Section 399/402 IPC and FIR No.451/02, under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act of Police Station Saraswati Vihar wherein he has been acquitted. He is also involved in another case bearing FIR No.75/09, Police Station Vijay Vihar, under Section 392 Indian Penal Code which is pending trial. He has already remained in judicial custody for about two years.
8. The convict Sonu @ Manoranjan S/o Parmanand is a young boy of 24 years having a family comprising of aged father, one brother and two younger sisters. He is 10th class pass and is a Driver by profession. He is also involved in five other cases i.e. FIR No.166/10, under Section 24/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station Saraswati Vihar; FIR No. 07/10, under Section St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 53 397/427/411 IPC, Police Station Saraswati Vihar; FIR No.759/07, under Section 394/397 IPC, Police Station Punjabi Bagh; FIR No.945/07, under Section 353/186/307 IPC, Police Station Mangol Puri and FIR No.700/07, under Section 356/379/411, Police Station Punjabi Bagh. He has already remained in judicial custody in this case for about four years, three months and fifteen days.
9. I have considered the rival contentions. Law and order situation has been deteriorating in the country and has worsen in the recent past. Instances of young persons getting involved in criminal activities of robbing innocent persons by putting them under threat of death, are also on rise. Trigger friendly criminals unhesitatingly and indiscriminately use dangerous arms on helpless victims who may or not offer any resistance thereby spreading terror in the society and adversely affecting social order and the faith of people in the system. There was no previous animosity between the convicts and the victim and the intent was solely monetary gain. Undue sympathy, under these circumstances, to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of this court to award a sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. (Ref: Sevaka Perumal Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1991 SC 1463).St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 54
10. No leniency can be shown to persons who have no respect for life. Anyone who does not hesitate to take the law into his hands for pure monetary reasons does not deserve any leniency and any indulgence by the court, under these circumstances, can be misplaced. The maximum punishment provided under Section 395 Indian Penal Code is imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a terms which may extent to ten years and fine. Further, the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code is imprisonment for a term not less than seven years. I, therefore, award the following sentence to the convicts:
11. The convict Rajesh @ Sonu S/o Sant Ram is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years with fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 395 read with 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
12. The convict Sonu S/o Ram Kumar is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years with fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 395 read with 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
13. The convict Anand S/o Pyare Singh is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years with fine St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 55 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 395 read with 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
14. The convict Sonu @ Manoranajan S/o Parmanand is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years with fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 395 read with 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
15. Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial, as per rules.
16. All the convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the legal Aid cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
17. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs.
18. File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up on the arrest of accused Uttam who is Proclaimed Offender.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 24.2.2011 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Rajesh @ Sonu Etc., FIR No.177/02, PS Janak Puri Page No. 56