Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh @ Gora Pandit on 14 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit
FIR No. 218/11
PS: Ashok Vihar
JUDGMENT
A) Sr. No. of the Case : 308/2/11
B) The date of commission : 29/08/2011
of offence.
C) Name of the complainant : Manoj
S/o. Sh. Satya Narayan
D) Name of the accused : Rajesh @ Gora Pandit
S/o. Sh. Amarnath
E) Offence complained of : U/s. 392/394/411 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
G) Final order : Convicted U/s. 394 IPC
H) The date of such order : 14/09/2012
Date of Institution : 25/11/2011
Judgment reserved on : Not reserved
Judgment announced on : 14/09/2012
State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 1/21
THE BRIEF REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 29/08/2011 at around 05:45 pm in front of A-103/11, Factory WPIA, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Ashok Vihar, the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant Manoj with one Danda in committing or Attempting to commit robbery and committed robbery of cash of Rs.1730/- and one Mobile phone make Nokia from the pocket of complainant Manoj and the accused also found in possession of said robbed Rs.1730/- and one mobile phone make Nokia belonging to complainant and thus thereby committed offences punishable U/s. 392/394/411 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police U/s 392/394/411 IPC of which cognizance was taken by this court..
3. Compliance of Sec.207 was carried out and complete set of documents was supplied to the accused.
4. Vide order dated 26/11/2011 charge was framed against the accused for trial of offences U/s 394/411 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 2/215. In order to prove their case the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, testimonies of whom are discussed below:-
PW-1 Ct. Ravinder deposed that on 29/08/11 at about 6:00pm IO SI Parmod Kumar received DD No.20A regarding the incident of snatching/robbery at 103/11, WPIA. He deposed that he along with IO reached at the spot at infront of factory No.103/11, WPIA, Ashok Vihar from where they came to know that injured was taken to BJRM Hospital. Thereafter he along with IO reached at the BJRM Hospital from where IO obtained the MLC of injured Manoj. He deposed that IO recorded the statement of Manoj. Further he deposed that IO prepared Tehrir and sent him along with the same to PS for registration of the case. He deposed that after getting the case registered he came back to spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original Tehrir to IO where IO along with complainant Manoj was already present. He deposed that he inquired about the accused Rajesh @ Gora Pandit. He further deposed that meanwhile a secret informer met them and told to IO that accused Rajesh @ Gora Pandit would come at Liquor Shop at Shri Ram Chowk. He further deposed that IO asked 4-5 passersby to join the raiding party but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses. Thereafter he along with IO and complainant Manoj reached at the said Liquor shop. He deposed that after some time accused Rajesh @ Gora Pandit came there to whom the complainant Manoj identified and stated that he was the person who robbed his cash Rs.1730/- and mobile. He further deposed that at the identification of complainant Manoj he along with IO apprehended the accused Rajesh @ Gora Pandit (correctly identified) and on his personal search cash Rs.1730/-State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 3/21
(three currency notes of Rs.500 and two currency notes of Rs.100/-and three currency note of Rs.10/-) and one Nokia Mobile Phone black colour was recovered from the right pocket of the wearing pant of accused. He deposed that complainant identified the recovered money as well as recovered mobile. He further deposed that IO prepared Pulinda of recovered money, recovered mobile and sealed the same with the seal of PK. He deposed that seal after use was handed over to him. He deposed that IO took in possession the recovered money and recovered mobile vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A. He deposed that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B and took his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. He deposed that on interrogation accused disclosed that he could recovered the Danda by which he beaten complainant. He deposed that IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW-1/D. He deposed that accused lead them to Shrubs near railway line and got recovered a Danda which was identified by complainant. He deposed that IO prepared the pulinda of Danda and sealed the same with the seal of PK and took in possession the said Danda vide seizure memo vide memo Ex. PW-1/E. He deposed that accused lead them to the place of incident. He further deposed that IO prepared pointing out Memo Ex. PW-1/F. This witness has also correctly identified the danda recovered at the instance of accused as Ex. P-1. This witness also identified the mobile phone make Nokia as Ex. P-2 and the photographs of recovered currency notes as Mark-P1.
PW-2 Manoj deposed that he is a Rikshaw puller in the factory No.A-1, WPIA, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that on 29/08/11 after completing his duty he was going to attend the call of nature near Nehar in front of WPIA at about 5:45pm. Meanwhile accused Rajesh @ Gora Pandit State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 4/21 came to him having a Danda in his hand and demanded money for purchasing liquor. He deposed that when he refused to fulfill his demand he gave beatings with the Danda on his head due to which blood was oozing out from his head and he fell down. He deposed that meanwhile accused Rajesh @ Gora Pandit forcibly took out Rs.1730/- (three currency notes of Rs.500/- and two currency notes of Rs.100/- and three currency notes of Rs. 10/-) and he also forcibly took out his mobile Nokia sim NO.9958670552 red and black colour from left pocket of his pant. He further deposed that after taking his money and mobile phone accused Rajesh ran away from the spot. He deposed that someone dialed at 100 number. He deposed that police reached at the spot and took him to BJRM Hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW-2/A. He deposed that after getting treatment from complainant he along with police officials came back to spot. He deposed that IO prepared site plan Ex. PW-2/B at his instance. He along with IO and one constable tried to search the accused in the area and when they reached to Shri Ram Chowk in front of wine shop accused Rajesh was found standing at wine shop. He deposed that IO arrested the accused Rajesh at his identification vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B and took his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. He deposed that on search of the accused Rajesh his money i.e. Rs.1730/- (three currency notes of Rs.500/- and two currency notes of Rs.100/- and three currency notes of Rs.10/-) and his mobile was recovered from his possession. He deposed that IO prepared pulinda of mobile and recovered rupees and sealed the same and took in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A. Accused Rajesh confessed that he had robbed Rs.1730/- and mobile from him and he also confessed that he can recovered the Danda by which he gave beatings to him. He deposed that IO recorded his statement Ex. PW-2/A. He further deposed that accused State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 5/21 Rajesh led them (he, IO and one constable) to the shrubs behind railway line and got recovered the danda by which he gave beatings. He identified the danda. He deposed that IO prepared the pulinda of the recovered danda and took in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. IO recorded his statement. He deposed that later on he took his money and mobile on superdari. He proved robbed mobile make Nokia bearing IMEI No. 351527040636620 which was robbed by the accused Rajesh and recovered from his possession as Ex. P-2 and Photographs of the mobile shown to the witness who correctly identified the same as Ex.P-3 collectively. He also correctly identified the Photographs of recovered currency notes of Rs.1730/- 1730/- (three currency notes of Rs.500/- and two currency notes of Rs.100/- and three currency notes of Rs.10/-) as Mark-P1. This witness also correctly identified the Danda as Ex. P-1.
PW-3 HC Dinesh Chand has proved the DD No.20A as Ex. PW-3/A, he also proved the copy of FIR No.218/11 as Ex. PW-3/B and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW-3/C. PW-4 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has proved the MLC No.30681/11 of patient Manoj prepared by Dr. Parveen as Ex. PW-4/A. PW-5 is SI Parmod Kumar who deposed that on 29/08/11 on receipt of DD No.20A regarding snatching of money he along with Ct. Ravinder reached at the spot at in front of factory A-103/11, WPIA, from where they came to know that injured was taken to the BJRM Hospital by PCR van. He deposed that no eye witness met on the spot. He further deposed that he State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 6/21 along with Ct. Ravinder reached at the BJRM Hospital and found that the complainant Manoj S/o Sat Narayan was getting the treatment in the hospital. He obtained his MLC NO.30681 dtd.29/08/11 upon which Doctor opined that the injured was fit for statement. He deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant Manoj Ex.PW-2/A wherein complainant Manoj stated that when he was coming back after completing his duty at factory A-1 Group, WPIA and reached beside the Nehar accused Rajesh Pandit who was also known to him demanded money for purchasing liquor and for that purpose he gave beating on the head of complainant with a Danda and robbed Rs.1730/- (three currency notes of Rs.500/-, two currency notes of Rs.100/- and three currency notes of Rs.10/-) and one Nokia Mobile red and black colour. He deposed that he made endorsement on the complaint Ex.PW-5/A and sent the same through Ct. Ravinder to PS for registration of the case. He deposed that he along with complainant reached at the spot and he prepared site plan Ex.PW-2/B at the instance of complainant. He further deposed that after getting the case registered Ct. Ravinder came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to him. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Ravinder and along with complainant Manoj reached at Shri Ram Chowk where a secret informer met him and told that accused Rajesh @ Gora Pandit would come to shop of liquor for purchasing liquor. He deposed that he requested 4-5 passersby to join the raiding party but none agreed and left the spot while saying that accused Rajesh @ Gora Pandit is involved in criminal activity hence they would not join the raiding party. He further deposed that he along with complt and Ct. Ravinder and secret informer took the position behind Sauchalaya Sri Ram Chowk and waited for the accused. He deposed that after some time accused Gora Pandit was coming to whom they over State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 7/21 powered at the instance of secret informer as well as at the identification of complainant Manoj who stated that this was the accused who robbed his money Rs.1730/- and mobile phone. He deposed that he took the personal search of the accused and Rs.1730/- (three currency notes of Rs.500/-, two currency notes of Rs.100/- and three currency notes of Rs.10/-) and a Nokia Mobile Phone whose IMEI No. he has mentioned in seizure memo, was recovered from right pocket of the pant of the accused. He further deposed that the complainant identify the recovered articles from the accused as belonging to him. He prepared pulinda of the recovered articles and sealed with the seal of PK. He deposed that he took in possession recovered cash amount of Rs.1730/- and mobile make Nokia vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/A. He deposed that after use the seal was handed over to Ct. Ravinder. He further deposed that he arrested the accused Rajesh @ Gora Pandit (correctly identified) vide arrest memo Ex.PW-1/B and conducted the personal search of the accused vide memo Ex.PW-1/C. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW-1/D wherein accused stated that he can get recovered the Danda from the shrubs near railway line. In pursuance of his disclosure statement accused lead them near railway line and got recovered the Danda, pulinda of which was prepared by him and sealed with the seal of PK and the same was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/E. He further deposed that accused also lead them to the place of incident. He deposed that he prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW-1/F. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses. He also correctly identified the danda as Ex.P-1, Mobile Phone as Ex.P-2 and the photographs of the mobile and currency notes Mark-P1 and P-3.
This witness was cross examined by Sh. B.P. Singh Ld. LAC for State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 8/21 accused wherein he deposed that he received the information through DO at about 6:00pm on 29/08/11. He deposed that at about 6:20pm he reached at the spot. He further deposed that when he reached at the spot he found there some public person who told him that injured was taken to hospital by PCR but no eye witness of the incident was found. He deposed that accused was also not found at the spot. He admit the suggestion that the case property which was seized by him is a part of cot (pati) not a danda. He Vol. deposed that the case property i.e. Danda was recovered at the instance of accused and he has also mentioned the description and size of the danda/pati in the seizure memo. He deposed that the pati (part of cot) is also usually called as danda. He further deposed that the approx size of the case property i.e. danda/pati is 3 fit long. Further he deposed that he cannot say about thickness of the danda. He denied the suggestion that he do not remember the exact thickness of the danda as it was planted later. He further deposed that money was recovered from the accused on the same day at about 10/10:15pm from his right side pocket of wearing pant. He further deposed that he requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but they refused by saying that the accused Rajesh @ Gora Pandit was known criminal of the area. He denied the suggestion that accused was not arrested at Shri Ram Chowk that is why no public person were made witness of arrest of the accused. He further deposed that he cannot say how the complainant identified the recovered cash of Rs.1730/-. He voluntarily deposed that complainant had told the denominations of the currency notes. He further denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in this case or no recovery was made from the accused.State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 9/21
6. P.E. was closed vide order dated 16.08.2012 and statement of the accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 04.09.2012 to which the accused denied all the allegation against him but preferred not to lead DE. Thereafter the matter was fixed for arguments.
7. It is argued by Ld. LAC for the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by lifting him from his house and that the accused was not arrested from the spot. He has further argued that no recovery has been effected from him and same has been planted upon him. He has also argued that the danda with which the accused alleged to have caused hurt to the complainant is not danda in the actual sense but it is a patti i.e. part of a cot and it just 2/3 feet long and cannot be used to cause hurt to anyone. Lastly he has argued that no public person was made witness to the incident.
8. Per contra Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he should be convicted.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the evidence and the material available on record.
State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 10/2110. After going through the material on record and having heard the arguments advanced, I am of the I am of the opinion that prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused.
11. 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 prerequisites 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;
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.State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 11/21
Section 390 IPC provides as In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery. - Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery. - Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation. - The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Section 394 provides "If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 12/2112. In order to prove the culpability of the accused u/s 394 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(i) That the accused was one amongst others in committing or attempting to commit robbery;
(ii) That the accused caused hurt to any other person while doing so;
(iii) That the accused caused hurt voluntarily.
13. The identity of the accused has been proved beyond any doubt by the complainant Manoj. The complainant is rickshaw puller by profession and has not been previously known to the accused and accordingly the possibility of him being falsely implicating the accused is without any justifications, ruled out. The accused had given beatings to the complainant with the help of danda by which blood oozed out from his head. As far as the contentions of Ld. LAC that the "danda" which is alleged to have been used for causing hurt to the complainant is not a danda in a real sense goes, the defence should have cross examined the concerned doctor who prepared the M.L.C of the complainant as to whether the injuries received by the complainant could have been inflicted by that danda. Further when the danda which is Ex. P - 1 was produced before the court on 18.02.2012, during the testimony of PW-2/complainant Manoj no such objection was made as the testimony of the complainant went unrebutted. As per seizure memo Ex. PW-1/E the danda is made of old wood and in the opinion of the court injuries can be caused using that.
State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 13/2114. Ld. LAC has only supported the case of the prosecution regarding the non arrest of the accused from the spot. The prosecution story also speaks that the accused was arrested from Shri Ram Chowk near wine shop just after a few hours of the incident. The motive attributed by the prosecution for the robbery of the articles and money from the complainant is that the accused demanded money from the complainant for purchasing liquor. This also gets corroborated from the fact that the accused was arrested just few hours later from wine shop and the recovery of exact money i.e. Rs. 1,730/- which was robbed off from the complainant ,in absence of any liquor being purchased (since no liquor was recovered from his possession) was effected from him. The personal search memo Ex. PW-1/C mentions that nothing was recovered from personal search of the accused. Therefore, the recovery of exact money from the person of the accused shows that the same was one which was robbed off from the complainant. PW-5 SI Pramod Kumar in his cross examination has deposed that the complainant had told denomination of currency notes and the same is reflected in the statement of the complainant which is Ex. PW-2/A on the basis of which the FIR was registered. The complainant in his testimony also has deposed about the denominations of the currency notes.
15. It has been argued by Ld. LAC that the TIP of the accused should have been conducted since he had fled away from the spot after incident and was not previously known to the complainant. Per contra Ld. APP for the State has submitted that since the complainant was part of the search party State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 14/21 and was arrested soon after the commission of the offence in the presence/instance of the complainant, conducting of TIP would have served no purpose. Though I am in consonance with the contentions of Ld. LAC on this aspect but the benefit of faulty investigation on the part of investigating agency should not be given to the accused and mere not conducting of the TIP cannot falsify the claim the the complainant. He has not only identified the accused in the court but has also supported the case of the prosecution on all material particulars.
I may observe that considering the aspect of faulty investigations the Hon'ble Apex Court has in the case of State of U. P. vs Jagdeo & Others., reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 456, observed that:
"...... Mere faulty investigations cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. For the fault of the prosecution the perpetrators of a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scot free........."
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Ram Bihari Yadav v.State of Bihar 1998 AIR (SC) 1850 in para 13 has held "........... the interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the appellant. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 15/21 complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
Also our own Hon'ble High Court in 2000, I AD (Delhi) 67 Manoj @ Manu Vs. State of Delhi has also categorically ruled that:
"Criminal justice should not be made casualty of wrong committed by the Investigation Officer."
16. PW-2/complainant Manoj has fully supported the prosecution version. There is no discrepancy between his complaint Ex. PW-2/A and the testimony given before the court. Further, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-5, who had apprehended the accused have also corroborated the testimony of PW-2 Manoj. Besides that, the accused has failed to cross-examine PW-2/complainant Manoj. No application u/s 311 Cr.P.C was moved by the defence. Therefore, the testimony of PW-2 Manoj has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The statement of all the PWs are consistent and corroborative in the material particulars. The accused was identified in the court by the PWs. PW-2 Manoj has categorically deposed in his testimony that accused Rajesh @ Gora came to him and demanded money for purchasing liquor and when he refused to fulfill his demands he gave beatings with the Danda on his head due to which blood oozed from his head. The oral testimony of the complainant/injured is further corroborated by the medical evidence i.e the MLC of complainant/injured Ex. PW-4/A. From State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 16/21 the MLC it stands unambiguously established that PW-2 received injuries. The MLC shows the history of physical assault. No doubt Dr. Parveen who prepared the MLC was not examined by the prosecution. However, his absence was due to the reason that he was no longer working at BJRM Hospital. Nonetheless, PW-4 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary who was the CMO, BJRM Hospital duly identified the signature as well as handwriting of Dr. Parveen on the said MLC. In my opinion the testimony of PW-4 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary is self sufficient for proving the MLC and the prosecution case did not suffer at all on account of non examination of Dr. Parveen. There is no reason to disbelieve testimony of PW-4 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary being an independent, a professional doctor who has deposed in his professional capacity as an expert. Further PW-4 was not cross examined by the accused. The time of incident being approx. 05:45 p.m and injured/complainant being taken immediately to hospital clearly shows the injuries being causa causans of the incident. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of statement given by the prosecution witnesses and ingredients as mentioned in section 394 IPC has been duly satisfied.
17. Further, during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused gave evasive answers and did not clarify as to how the said money and mobile phone was recovered from his possession. Whether the same was planted or otherwise or any enimosity with the complaint or the police officials so that they have any reason to falsely implicate him. No explanation was given regarding recovery of the money and mobile phone from the possession of the accused. Nothing on the point as to why the accused has been involved State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 17/21 in the instant case has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel.
18. The accused led no defense evidence to prove that the money and mobile phone was not recovered from his possession. Further neither could he discredit the testimonies of PWs nor accounted for the possession of the money and mobile phone. The court has no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who have corroborated each other in all material aspects about recovery of the money and mobile phone from the person of the accused.
19. The contentions of the the Ld. Defence counsel that no public person as stated by the complainant who were on the spot at the time of alleged incident were made witnesses by the IO at the spot which casts serious doubts upon the prosecution story does not hold water in my opinion. There was no requirement of the same and absence of any public person(apart from 'interested' witnesses examined) has not affected the prosecution story in any manner. The Indian Evidence Act does not specify any particular number of witnesses required to prove a fact and a fact can be proved even by one witness whether he is official or independent public witness depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Law requires that evidence has to be weighed and not counted (Ambika Prasad and Ano. Vs State 2002 (2) FIR No. 130/99 16/22 CRIMES 63 (SC). The Evidence Act does not lay down about any number of witnesses needed for proving a particular fact.
State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 18/2120. It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988 SC Cr R 559 9 : AIR 1988 SC 696) that:
"It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensible when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate but it is there, everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigation agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witnesses must consider the broad spectrum or the prosecution version and search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused."
21. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 2003 SC 1311.
......... The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 19/21 there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down.......
In the present matter, the police personnel (PW-1 Ct. Ravinder and PW-5 SI Pramod Kumar have corroborated the version of complainant Manoj (PW-2). Their testimony cannot be discarded.
22. 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 each other and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. There being no history of any previous animosity between the accused persons and the victim, there is no reason for the victim to have falsely implicated the accused.
23. In view of the above discussion, observations and evidence on record, in my opinion the prosecution has successfully proved its case that accused State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 20/21 robbed the complainant and committed an offence punishable U/s. 394 IPC. As far as offence U/s. 411 IPC alleged against accused is concerned, since substantive offence of section 394 IPC has been proved against him, he cannot be held guilty of offence U/s. 411 IPC since it is obvious that if he had robbed a person of his mobile phone and money, the same would be recovered from his possession only.
24. Therefore I hold accused persons guilty of offence u/s 394 IPC.
25. Now let the matter be listed for arguments on sentence.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Announced in the open court on September 14th, 2012.
It is certified that this judgment contains 21 pages and each page is signed by me.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Date: 14/09/2012 State V/s Rajesh @ Gora Pandit FIR No. 218/11 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 21/21