Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu @ Anda on 6 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANAMIKA:
MM-06, NDD, PHC, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Sonu @ Anda
FIR No.: 264/2015
P.S.: South Campus
U/Sec.: 392/394/34 IPC
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of 53263/2016 dt. 27.01.2016 institution Date of commission of offence 11.05.2015 Name of the complainant Sh. Sandeep Sehgal Name of the accused Sonu @ Anda S/o. Sh. Mahaveer R/o. Jhuggi No.1233, Gautampuri, Phase-I, New Delhi.
Nature of offence complained of U/s. 392/394/34 IPC Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 07.10.2022 Final Order Acquitted for offences U/s. 392/394/34 IPC Convicted U/s. 323 IPC Date of order 06.11.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. In the present case, accused Sonu @ Anda is facing trial for offences punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC on the allegations that on 11.05.2015 at about 11:00 p.m., at bus stop ARSD College, Ring Road falling within the jurisdiction of PS South Campus, accused alongwith co-accused Vinod @ Tikla (since not traceable) in furtherance of their common intention FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 1 committed robbery of golden chain of the complainant Sandeep, caused hurt to the him with fists and blows by pulling hair while committing the abovesaid robbery.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 27.01.2016 and cognizance was taken on same day. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused on 04.02.2016 and charge for offences punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC was framed upon accused on 18.02.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined ten witnesses.
4. PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 & PW7 are a formal witness.
PW2 has proved the MLC bearing No. 93524 Ex. PW2/A. PW3 has deposed that he got the FIR registered. PW4 has proved copy of FIR Ex. PW4/A (OSR) and Ex. PW4/B. PW5 has proved the photocopy of disclosure statement of accused Sonu @ Anda Mark X (OSR). PW7 is also a witness to the disclosure statement of the accused. Thereafter, they were cross-examined and discharged on 05.10.2016, 20.03.2017 & 07.07.2017
5. PW1 is Sh. Sandeep Sehgal who deposed that on 11.05.2015 he was coming from a function at Uttam Nagar on his car Skoda and reached near Moti Bagh, Ringh Road and took a U-turn and reached near Moti Bagh Gurudwara, one bike on which two persons were sitting came close to his car and asked him to stop the car on the side of the road. He has further deposed that he stopped his car in front of bus stop near ARSD college. He has further deposed that both the aforesaid persons started arguments with him and suddenly, the pillion rider who FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 2 was having long hair slapped him 2-3 times and in defence, he grabbed his hair. He has further deposed that the rider of the bike also started beating him. He has further deposed that the person with long hair bite him on his right shoulder. He has further deposed that thereafter, those persons snatched his gold chain from his neck and gave him fist blows on his forehead and face and ran away from the spot on their bike. He has further deposed that he tried to chase them on his car but could not catch them. He has further deposed that he called at 100 number, police came on the spot and took him to hospital for his medical examination. He has proved his complaint Ex. PW1/A and site plan Ex. PW1/B. He has correctly identified the accused as the pillion rider on the bike at the time of the incident. Thereafter, he was cross-examined and discharged on 17.03.2016.
6. PW6 is ASI Suresh Kumar who has deposed that on 17.11.20215, he was investigating officer in case FIR No. 1262/2015 U/s. 379/356/34 IPC PS Hauz Khan. He has further deposed that during the investigation, he arrested the accused on 17.11.2015 when the general public apprehended him red handed and handed over to him. He has further deposed that the accused was produced in the court on next day and the court had granted two days PC of the accused. He has further deposed that on during the PC, on 19.11.2014 the accused had made a disclosure statement and admitted some offences related to PS South Campus. He has further deposed that thereafter, the IO of PS south Campus came and collected the photocopy of disclosure statement of accused Sonu from him. He has correctly identified FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 3 the accused before the court. Thereafter, he was cross-examined and discharged on 07.07.2017.
7. PW8 is SI Ashok Kumar who has deposed that on 06.06.2015, further investigation was marked to him and on receipt of the case file, further investigation was conducted, however, no clue of the accused was found and an untrace report was prepared by him. He has further deposed that on 19.11.2015, an information was received from ASI Suresh Kumar, PS Hauz Khas regarding arrest of accused Sonu @ Anda in FIR No. 1265/2015 PS Hauz Khas. He has further deposed that on receipt of the said information, he collected copy of relevant documents i.e. arrest memo and disclosure statement from ASI Suresh Kumar. He has further deposed that on 27.11.2015, he moved an application for issuance of production warrants against accused Sonu @ Anda before the concerned court which was allowed and the accused was directed to be produced before the concerned court on 28.11.2015. He proved his application seeking permission to interrogation and arrest of accused Ex. PW8/A. He has further deposed that during interrogation, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW8/B and formally arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/C. He also proved his application for conducting TIP proceedings of the accused Ex. PW8/D, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2015 Ex. PW8/E. He has further deposed that on 30.11.2015, he again moved an application for production of accused Ex. PW8/F. He also proved application for conducting TIP proceedings of accused Ex. PW8/G, notice issued to complainant Ex. PW8/H, application for FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 4 conducting TIP proceedings Ex. PW8/I. He has further deposed that on 18.12.2015, the case file of the present case was marked to another IO by the concerned SHO. He has further deposed that on 05.01.2016, the investigation of the present case was again marked to him by the concerned SHO. Thereafter, he prepared the draft charge-sheet which was finalized and filed in the court. Thereafter, he was cross-examined and discharged on 12.02.2020.
8. PW9 is SI Brahmo Devi who has deposed that on 22.12.2015, he went to Tihar Jail alongwith complainant Sandeep Sehgal for TIP proceedings of the accused where Sh. Sujeet singh, Ld. MM was present and after the completion of TIP proceedings, he collected the copy of the sameand submitted the same to IO/SI Ashok Kumar. Thereafter, she was cross-examined and discharged on 24.02.2023.
9. PW10 is Insp. Manjeet Singh who has deposed that on 12.05.2015, DD No.3 A was assigned to him upon which he alongwith Ct. Sovir reached at the spot i.e. ARSD college bus stop, Ring Road, New Delhi and recorded the statement of the complainant Sandeep. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW10/A, got the present FIR registered through Ct. Sovir, prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B and got conducted the medical examination of complainant. He has further deposed that thereafter he was transferred from the concerned PS and submitted the file with the concerned MHC(R). Thereafter, he was cross-examined and discharged on 23.05.2023.
10. Vide separate statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C., FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 5 accused has admitted the genuineness of TIP proceedings Ex. X1. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 19.05.2022.
11. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. on 06.07.2023 wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. Accused stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
12. Final arguments were advanced at length by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. LAC for accused.
13. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
14. This being a criminal case, the burden of proving guilt of accused lies upon the prosecution for which the standard required is beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is charged with offences punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC. The essential ingredients required for the same are as under:-
a. There is commission of robbery by the accused b. The accused caused hurt to the victim during the commission of the robbery.
c. The nature of the hurt caused should be simple.
Further, in order to constitute the offence of robbery, there has to be theft or extortion coupled with death, hurt, wrongful restrained or fear of instant death, instant hurt or of wrongful restrain to the victim.
15. Now let us examine if the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for offences punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC.
16. PW1 is the injured and the victim who is the star witness FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 6 of the prosecution. The witness correctly identified the accused Sonu in the court as one of the two persons who inflicted beatings upon him on the date of the incident and allegedly snatched his gold chain. However, neither the case property i.e. the gold chain was ever recovered nor the complainant has submitted any bill or receipt to show that the gold chain was owned by him. Further, there is absolutely no evidence on record to even corroborate the existence of the stolen case property. Robbery is also an offence pertaining to property and in the absence of any material to corroborate the existence or recovery of the case property, the offence of robbery is not made out.
17. However, as far as the allegations of beatings and simple hurt caused by the accused are concerned, they have been adequately proved by the testimony of the complainant. The testimony of the complainant/PW1 itself has crucial evidentiary value as he is also the victim of the offence committed in the present case. At this juncture, reference can be made to the discussion made by the Hon'ble Apex court on the evidentiary value of the testimony given by the injured/victim in the case titled as Mano Dutt v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 226 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observes as follows:
30.Salik Ram was examined as PW 2 and his statement is cogent, coherent, reliable and fully supports the case of the prosecution. However, the other injured witness, Nankoo, was not examined. In our view non-examination of Nankoo, to which the accused raised the objection, would not materially affect the case of the prosecution. Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 7 because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain protect the real culprit. We need not discuss more elaborately the weightage that should be attached by the Court to the testimony of an injured witness. In fact, this aspect of criminal jurisprudence is no more res integra, as has been consistently stated by this Court in uniform language.
31.We may merely refer to Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] where this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 271-72, paras 28-30) "28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. 'Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.' [Vide Ramlagan Singh v.
State of Bihar [(1973) 3 SCC 881 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 563], Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919], Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681], Appabhai v. State of Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241:
1988 SCC (Cri) 559], Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra [(1995) 6 SCC 447 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1113], Bhag Singh [Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 712: 1997 SCC (Cri) 1163], Mohar v. State of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 606 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 121] (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v.State of Rajasthan [(2008) 8 SCC 270 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 472], Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302], Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630] and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673:
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211].]
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719:
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] where this Court reiterated FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 8 the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) '28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness.
He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [(2004) 7 SCC 629 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2013] a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214]). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below.'
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Balraje [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 9 211] .
Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Mukesh Singh v. State 2014 SCC OnLine Del 912, observed as follows:
17. The testimony of an injured eye witness must be placed at a higher pedestal, as such witness is not only an eye witness of the crime but he himself is a victim of crime and therefore, he is expected to give a truthful version of the entire scene of crime and also with regard to the description of the persons who are the perpetrators of the crime. The witness who himself receives injuries of serious nature during assault would not normally let go the real culprits until and unless the defence succeeds to establish that there was a strong motive on the part of such a witness to save the real culprits and falsely implicate the innocent persons.
It is also a settled legal position that minor omissions, discrepancies or improvements in the testimony of an eye witness cannot discredit his testimony unless the same militates against the core or heart of the prosecution case.
18. MLC of the victim Ex. PW2/A has also been proved in the present case. Date and time mentioned on the MLC shows that it was prepared within a short duration after the incident. The injuries recorded in the MLC are "human bite on the right shoulder" and "pain and swelling on forehead". This corroborates the testimony of PW1 regarding the beatings being meted out by the accused at the time of the incident.
19. Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out to certain discrepancies in the investigation. He has submitted that there was a delay in recording the DD entry pertaining to the present case. Further, it has been argued that PW3 who reached the spot FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 10 after the incident has deposed in his cross-examination that he stayed at the spot till about 1:45 a.m. while the MLC records that it was prepared at 1:25 a.m. Such argument does not hold ground in the present case as minor discrepancy in the evidence given in court as well as certain minor lacunas in investigation cannot become a ground to absolve the accused in the present case. In case titled as Appabhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 694, the Hon'ble Apex court has observed that "The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancy which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded".
20. The testimony of the star witness i.e. PW1 has not been shaken by the cross-examination of the accused. The accused has been duly identified by the complainant in court. Further, the argument of Ld. LAC for accused that the victim was himself under the influence of alcohol (as per MLC) does not hold ground as the accused has never taken the defence that he caused the injuries to the victim in self-defence or there was any attack by the victim himself. Even in his statement recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has not taken the plea of self-defence or any aggression by the victim on account of the latter's intoxication.
21. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there has been no evidence on record regarding the case property and therefore, the accused is not liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC and is accordingly, acquitted for the said offences in the present case.
FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 1122. However, as the factum of beatings being inflicted upon the victim has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it stands established that the accused caused simple hurt to the victim on the date of the incident. Hurt has been defined under Section 319 IPC and is said to be caused when there is bodily pain, disease or infirmity inflicted by the accused to the victim. The same should be coupled with intent in order to bring home the guilt under Section 323 IPC. In the present case, the bodily pain is evident from the MLC present on record and the testimony given by the victim. Further, the intention is also clear from the testimony of the victim himself.
23. Thus, as a cumulative effect of all the points discussed above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused namely Sonu @ Anda. Accordingly, accused Sonu @ Anda S/o. Sh. Mahavir is convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to accused.
(Typed upon dictation directly on court computer and announced in the open Court today dt. 06.11.2023) (ANAMIKA) Metropolitan Magistrate-06 (NDD) Patiala House Courts, New Delhi FIR No.264/2015 PS South Campus State vs. Sonu @ Anda Page No. 12