Delhi District Court
State vs Jagbir on 18 December, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE II, OUTER DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
Sessions Case No. : 62/08
Case ID No. : 02404R0676642007
FIR No. : 472/07
P.S. : Bawana
U/s 392/411/34 IPC
Date of registration : 07-07-2008
Reserved for Judgment on : 19.11.2012
Judgment Announced on : 18-12-2012
State
Vs.
1. Jagbir
S/o. Sh. Gulab Singh
R/o. Dada Maldev Road,
Village Daryapur Kalan
Delhi.
2. Ram Lalit
S/o. Late Sh. Mange Ram
R/o. House of Satish,
Daryapur Kalan,
Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the present case was registered on the basis of statement of the complainant Vicky Mittal that on 02.09.07 he along with his wife and children went to Punjabi Bagh for attending a Satsang on his motorcycle Bajaj Boxer Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 1 of 12 2 No. DL 8S AC-0973. At about 12.30 midnight, from there when he reached on the way going from Pansali Shree Enclave to Kachha Rasta, Rajiv Nagar Extn., he found three persons standing there and they stopped his motorcycle and got it parked aside. Three persons asked him as to where from they are coming and he replied that he is coming after getting medicines for his children. Out of them, when one person told that let him go then one person demanded Rs. 100 or Rs.200 from him. One person was having knife. When complainant took out his purse then four persons took his purse containing Rs.2000/-. One person also took the chain of wife of the complainant and Tata mobile phone of the complainant. Those persons were between the age of 25 to 30 years.
2. F.I.R. bearing No. 472/07 was registered at P.S. Bawana and investigation went underway. After completion of investigation, final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.
3. On 21.08.08, a charge u/s 392/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons and charge u/s. 397 IPC was framed against accused Jagbir and a separate charge u/s. Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 2 of 12 3 411 IPC was also framed against accused Jagbir to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.
5. PW1 Sarita Mittal, wife of the complainant and PW3 complainant Vicky Mittal are the important material witnesses whose testimonies I will discuss in the later part of the judgment.
6. PW2 HC Raj Kumar is the duty officer who received rukka at about 3.00 a.m. on the intervening night of 01/02.09.07 brought by Ct. Sushil and sent by ASI Anil Tiwari. He registered the FIR of the present case Ex.PW2/A.
7. PW4 Ct. Sushil Kumar deposed that he along with IO ASI Anil Kumar reached at the place of occurrence i.e. Kacha Road goes towards Rajiv Nagar Extn. From Pansali Shree Enclave where complainant Vicky Mittal along with his wife and daughter met them and told the IO about the incident. ASI Anil Kumar recorded the statement of Vicky Mittal and prepared rukka and handed over the same to him and he after the registration of FIR handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO ASI Anil Kumar.
8. PW5 ASI Naresh Kumar was the duty officer on Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 3 of 12 4 15.10.07 at PS Bawana to whom Ct. Satish handed over the rukka sent by SI Jai Kishan Rana at 6.55 p.m. On the basis of that rukka, he got recorded the FIR No. 541/07 u/s. 399/402 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act Ex.PW5/A through computer operator.
9. PW6 is Ct. Mandeep Singh who joined the investigation with IO ASI Anil Kumar. He deposed that IO arrested both the accused in this case as they were also interrogated by SI Satya Pal in other case at PS Bawana. Both the accused were arrested vide memo Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B. He further deposed that both accused made disclosure statement vide Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D regarding their involvement in the present case.
10. PW 7 HC Rama Rao is the DD writer at PP Shahbad Dairy who received information of wireless from control room on 01/02.09.07 that three boys in the age group of 28-30 years had snatched one chain and one mobile phone and cash of Rs.2000/- near Hanuman Chowk, Naveen Vihar and recorded the same vide DD No. 6 Ex.PW7/A.
11. PW8 Sh. A.K. Chaturvedi, was the link M.M. of PS Bawana proved the TIP proceedings of both accused vide Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B wherein both the accused persons refused to join the TIP on the ground that their photographs Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 4 of 12 5 have been shown to the complainant.
12. PW9 Inspector Satya Pal Singh deposed regarding arrest of both accused persons in case FIR No. 541/07 u/s. 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act, PS Bawana. He further deposed that both the accused persons were interrogated by him and accused persons made disclosure statement about their involvement in the present case. He further deposed that accused Jagbir led us to his house and got recovered two gold chains from the Almirah of his house, out of those two chains, one belongs to present case. He gave information to ASI Anil Kumar, IO of the present case regarding arrest of accused persons and recovery of gold chain. Both the chains were sealed in pullandas with the seal of SP. He handed over a photocopy of disclosure statement of both accused Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B and photocopy of recovery memo of articles including the chain Ex.PW9/C. PW9 Inspector Satya Pal Singh identified gold chain Ex.P-1.
13. PW10 ASI Anil Kumar, IO unfolded the sequence of investigation conducted by him and proved rukka Ex.PW10/A, site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PW10/B and pointing out memo Ex.PW10/C.
14. Statement of all the accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 5 of 12 6 recorded and all the incriminating evidence was put to them. Accused persons denied the same and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. No evidence in defnece was led by the accused persons.
15. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons and have also gone through the records of the case.
16. It is submitted by the Ld. APP for the state that on the basis of the evidence recorded and the material available on record accused be convicted.
17. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons that the accused persons were apprehended on 15-10-2007, in case FIR No. 541/07, P.S. Bawana, U/s 399/402 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. It is further submitted by the Ld Amicus Curiae that on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused persons they were implicated in three more cases by the Police. It is submitted by the Ld. Amicus Curiae that both the accused persons have been acquitted in the said case U/s 399/402 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 22-09-2012. It is further urged by the Ld Amicus Curiae that accused persons were not arrested at the spot and they have been falsely Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 6 of 12 7 implicated and nothing has been recovered from the accused persons and the recoveries have been planted.
18. The relevant witnesses in the instant case are PW 1 Sarita Mittal and PW 3 Vikky Mittal who were allegedly robbed by the accused persons.
19. According to PW 1 Sarita Mittal on 2-9-2007, she was coming back to her house alongwith her husband and daughter on a motorcycle. When at about 12:30 a.m they reached t Pansali, three persons signaled her husband to stop the motorcycle. When her husband stopped the motorcycle one of the person took her husband to a side and the other two remained near the motorcycle. She further deposed that the person who had taken her husband was carrying a knife and she deposed that the said person was not present in the Court as an accused. But she identified the accused Jagbir and Ram Lalit as the person who stood near her.
20. She further deposed that the person who was carrying the knife snatched the purse of her husband and the said person approached her with the knife and snatched her gold chain. She further deposed that the mobile phone of her husband was also snatched and they reported the matter to Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 7 of 12 8 the police.
21. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP and in her cross examination she admitted to be as correct that the knife was in the hand of accused Jagbir and correctly identified him. She further deposed that the knife was used by Jagbir at the time of committing the robbery.
22. This witness was cross examined and in her cross examination by the Ld defence counsel she stated that there was no street light at the place of occurrence. She further stated in the cross examination that the knife was in the hand of some other accused who is not present in the Court. She further stated in her cross examination that at the time of incident the said person had handed over the knife to accused Jagbir which was used by him at the time of committing the robbery.
23. PW 3 Vicky Mittal is another material public witness. He deposed that on the night intervening 01 / 02-09-2007, he was coming to his house with his wife and daughter on his motorcycle. When at about 12:30 a.m they reached on a Kachha road near Pansali, three persons came in front of their motorcycle. He further deposed that one of the three boys was having a knife at that time and he took him to one Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 8 of 12 9 side. He further deposed that the person who was carrying the knife took his formal search and he also handed over his purse containing Rs. 2000/- to the said boys. He further deposed that the person who was carrying the knfie went to the place where his wife alongwith his daughter was standing and he snatched the gold chain from the neck of his wife. He further deposed that the person who was carrying the knife in his hand is not present in the Court.
24. This witness was declared hostile and cross examined by the Ld. APP and in his cross examination he stated that he was not sure if accused Jagbir was having a knife or he used the same at the time of incident alongwith other person. He stated it to be as correct that the accused persons are the persons who had robbed him on the intervening night. But he denied the suggestion given by the Ld. APP that accused Jagbir was carrying knife at the time of the incident which was shown by him at the time of committing robbery. He further admitted it to be as correct that accused Jagbir is R/o Village Dariya Pur Kalan, P.S. Bawana and his house is near to my house.
25. This witness was cross examined by the Ld defence counsel and in his cross examination he denied the Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 9 of 12 10 suggestion that accused Jagbir was not present at the spot or that accused persons were shown to him in the police station.
26. The accused persons in the present case were arrested in FIR No. 541/07 P.S. Bawana U/s 399/402 IPC & 25 Arms Act and in that case it is alleged that they had made disclosure statement regarding their involvement in the present case, so the IO arrested the accused persons in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by them in case FIR No. 541/07.
27. During the course of the arguments, Ld Amicus Curiae placed on record the judgment dated 22-09-2012, passed in said case FIR No. 541/07 wherein the accused persons have been acquitted by an A.S.J. Court.
28. Since the accused persons have been acquitted in the said case FIR No. 541/07 which was the basis of the present case, the involvement of the accused persons in the present case becomes doubtful because in the instant case they have been arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement which has not been believed in case FIR No. 541/07.
29. In the present case according to the prosecution there are two eye witnesses i.e PW 1 and PW 3. They both are giving contradictory version regarding the person having Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 10 of 12 11 knife at the time of the incident. In fact both the witnesses have turned hostile with regard to the roles of the accused persons and they had to be cross examined by the Ld. APP.
30. PW 3 when cross examined by the Ld. APP admitted that accused Jagbir's house is near to his house. So definitely accused Jagbir was known to PW 3 when Jagbir committed the crime. Now when accused Jagbir was known to him his name should definitely appear in the FIR but that is not so. There is no description of the accused persons and no name has been mentioned which should have been there in case the suggestion of the Ld. APP is to be believed. So in these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge U/s 392/34 IPC against both the accused persons and U/s 397 IPC against accused Jagbir beyond the shadow of doubt.
31. Accused Jagbir has also been charged U/s 411 IPC. But the prosecution has failed to prove this charge because no chain was shown to PW 1 or PW 3 and they were the best persons who could have identified the chain because the chain belonged to PW 1. In these facts and Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 11 of 12 12 circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge U/s 411 IPC against accused Jagbir. Both the accused are, therefore, acquitted. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court on 19-12-2012) RAJNISH BHATNAGAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : II, OUTER DISTICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Sessions Case No. : 62/08 Page 12 of 12