Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ravi @ Khokha on 29 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 94/2013
Unique Case ID: 02404R0011232011
State Vs. 1. Ravi @ Khokha
S/o Udai Raj
R/o Village Dasaipur
PS Peepalpur, Sultanpur U.P.
(Convicted)
2. Rakesh @ Rocketva
S/o Brahm Dev
R/o Village Mahaspur, PS Sarola
Bhagapur, Bihar.
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 359/2010
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
Under Section : 392/394/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 01.02.2011
Date on which orders were reserved : 03.06.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced : 17.07.2013
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
(1) As per the allegations, on 12.10.2010 at about 12:10 AM (midnight) at near Kela Godown, Jhuggis AA Block, near Railway State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 1 of 45 Station, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, the accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva committed robbery upon the complainant Azad Singh of Rs.2,500/ and mobile phone bearing no. 9813360952 and also voluntarily caused dangerous injuries on the person of Azad Singh. It is alleged that the accused Ravi @ Khokha also used knife, a deadly weapon, during the commission of robbery as aforesaid.
Brief Case of Prosecution:
(2) The case of prosecution in brief is that on the intervening night of 11/12.10.2010 on receipt of DD No. 6A SI Rajan Pal along with Ct. Rambir reached at Fortis Hospital where they found the complainant Azad Singh admitted there in an injured condition. SI Rajan Pal recorded the statement of Azad Singh who alleged that on the intervening night of 11/12.10.10 his brother Jagdish was admitted in Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh and he was also there to look after him.
He further alleged that at about 12:00 midnight he came outside the gate of Fortis Hospital to take tea but at that time all the shops near the gate of the hospital were found closed as hence he moved ahead and went towards Kela Godown where he found a Picket where police officials were sitting. He further alleged that he asked those police officials about the tea stall and they gave indication towards Azadpur Mandi on which he moved ahead towards Railway Lines but since it was dark hence he left the idea of tea and started coming back to the State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 2 of 45 hospital and when he was at a distance of 20 feet from the gate of Fortis Hospital and started smoking beedi, at the same time two boys came from backside and one of them inserted his hand in the front pocket of his shirt on which he (complainant) caught hold of the collar of that boy but the said boy asked his associate to stab him (complainant) saying "Chaaku Maar" on which the other boy gave three or four knife blows on his stomach and thereafter they robbed of his Rs.2,500/ and mobile phone bearing No. 9813360952 and thereafter they ran away towards the railway lines. Thereafter, he put his hand on his abdomen and went inside the Fortis Hospital and he was admitted in the hospital for treatment. On the basis of the above statement of complainant Azad Singh, rukka was prepared and FIR was registered. During investigations, the accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva were arrested and after completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE (3) Charge under Section 392/394/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva. Charge under Section 397 Indian Penal Code was also settled against the accused Ravi @ Khokha. Both the accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 3 of 45 EVIDENCE (4) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses:
Public Witnesses:
(5) PW2 Azad Singh has deposed that he resides at the given address with family and is an agriculturist by profession. According to him, his brother Jagdish was admitted and was under treatment at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh and he was also there to look after him. The witness has deposed that in the intervening night of 11/12.10.10, at about 12:00 mid night, he came outside the gate of Fortis Hospital to take tea, but at that time all the shops near the gate of the Hospital were found closed and hence he moved ahead and went towards Kela Godown. The witness has deposed that there at a picket, some police officials were sitting and he asked them about the tea stall and they made indication towards Azadpur Mandi. The witness has deposed that he moved ahead behind the idea of tea and again moved towards Fortis Hospital and when he was at a distance of 20 feet from the gate of Fortis Hospital and he stopped there and started smoking Beedi but in the meanwhile both the accused came there from his back side and one out of them (i.e. accused Rakesh) inserted his hand in front pocket of his shirt but he (witness) caught hold his (Rakesh's) color on which State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 4 of 45 accused Rakesh asked his associate to stab him (Chaku Maar) and thereafter, his associate i.e. accused Ravi gave three to four knife blows to him. The witness has deposed that both the accused have robbed Rs.2,500/ in cash and one mobile phone bearing no. 9813360952 from him and ran away towards the railway lines. According to the witness he put his hand on his abdomen and went inside the Fortis Hospital and he was also admitted there and thereafter the Investigating Officer recorded his statement / complaint Ex.PW2/A. (6) The witness has identified Rs.1000/ and Mobile make NOKIA which he brought on superdari as the same which was robbed by the accused persons form his possession. Mobile is Ex.P1. In so far as the currency notes are concerned, the witness submits that as there was no specific mark of identification on his currency notes as such he is unable say with surety whether these currency notes were the same which were robbed from him or not and about the knife he submits that the knife blows were given to him all of sudden that is why he could not see the knife properly.
(7) The witness has deposed that on 20.10.2010 he was in the Hospital under treatment as indoor patient and on that day his blood sample was taken by the Doctor and was handed over to the Investigating Officer in the sealed condition which was seized by the IO. According to the witness on 03/11/2010 he identified one of the State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 5 of 45 accused in Judicial TIP conducted at Rohini Jail and on that day itself thereafter Investigating Officer prepared site plan at his instance. (8) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that once he had visited the Rohini Courts on 13.11.2010 and thereafter once when he got his phone and currency notes released on superdari. According to the witness he is having the bill of his mobile phone Ex.P1. He has deposed that the boundary wall of the hospital is adjacent to railway lines. According to him on 13/11/2010 he visited Rohini Courts on the call of the Investigating Officer for identification of the accused persons and his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer but the names of both the accused were told to him. On that day both accused persons were shown to him and he identified them. He has denied that he had identified both the accused persons at the instance of IO. According to him, he had also appeared in the Court on an earlier date and he identified both the accused present in the Court but his statement was not recorded. He admits that his statement was recorded four times.
According to him he was also taken to the spot where the incident had taken place but he does not know whether his statement was recorded on that day. He has denied that Ravi never gave knife blow to him or that accused Rakesh never removed money from the pocket of his shirt. State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 6 of 45 Medical Evidence:
(9) PW6 Dr. Ajeet Kumar (Emergency Medical Officer, Fortis Hospital), has deposed on behalf of Dr. Malik Mujeeb and has identified his handwriting and signatures having seen him while writing and signing during official course. According to the witness, the MLC No. 06 dated 12.10.2010 of Azad Singh is in the handwriting of Dr. Malik Mujeeb who examined the above said Azad Singh at about 12.30 AM and the said MLC is Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to the MLC the patient was brought at the hospital with alleged history of multiple stab injuries over chest and abdomen while the patient was smoking outside Fortis Hospital near Kela Godown as told by patient (victim) himself and he was conscious and oriented at that time and according to the MLC on the local examination approximately 2cm stab injury left side upper chest, right side lower chest, umblical region of abdomen with part of bowel protruding outside were found. The witness has deposed that after emergency medical treatment, the patient was referred to surgery department. Photocopy of the operation notes and follow up treatment documents are collectively Ex.PW6/B. The witness has deposed that the injuries "dangerous" in nature. The witness has deposed that Dr. S. K. Abrol also opined that the nature of injuries are dangerous in nature and he gave his opinion at point C bearing his signatures at point State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 7 of 45 D which signatures the witness has identified. Having seen him while writing and signing. In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that neither the patient was examined in his presence nor the MLC was prepared in his presence and has voluntarily explained that he deposed only on the basis of record.
Police / Official Witnesses:
(10) PW1 ASI Dori Lal has deposed that on 12.10.2010 he was posted as ASI at Police Station - Shalimar Bagh and was working as Duty Officer from 12 midnight to 8 PM and at about 2:20 AM, Constable Ranbir brought a rukka sent by SI Rajan Pal and handed over the same to him on the basis of which he got recorded the FIR No. 359/10 copy of which is Ex.PW1/A and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Constable Ranbir for handing over the same to SI Anil Kumar for further investigation. He also made his endorsement on the rukka at point A which is Ex.PW1/B. (11) In his crossexamination the witness has denied that FIR was not registered on the basis of rukka or that FIR was antedated and antetimed or that the FIR was registered on the dictation of the Investigating Officer to falsely implicate the accused persons. (12) PW3 Constable Ranbir Singh has deposed that on 12.10.2010, he was posted at Police Station - Shalimar Bagh and on that State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 8 of 45 date, he along with Investigating Officer SI Rajan Pal Singh left the Police Station on receiving DD No. 6A and they went to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh and there the Investigating Officer collected the MLC of Azad Singh. According to him, the doctor handed over sealed parcel containing the clothes of injured in a yellow colour polythene which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/A. The witness has deposed that thereafter the Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. The witness has deposed that thereafter, he returned back to the Fortis Hospital and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to the Investigating Officer.
(13) The witness has deposed that on 18.10.2010 he again joined the investigation of this case and he along with Investigating Officer and JC Sheshdhar went to AA Block, Khuggi, Kela Godown, Shalimar Bagh and when they reached towards BC Block side, one secret informer met the Investigating Officer SI Anil Kumar and informed that accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Raketava, who are involved in this case, would come from the side of Adarsh Nagar Railway Station shed, towards BC Block, Shalimar Bagh, if raided, they can be apprehended. The witness has deposed that the Investigating Officer asked 56 public persons to join the investigation, but none of them joined the raiding party and thereafter without State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 9 of 45 wasting time, at about 8:20 p.m., at the instance of secret informer, both the accused Khokha and Rakesh @ Raketava were apprehended. The witness has deposed that on their formal search, one knife and Rs. 400/ were recovered from the possession of accused Ravi and Rs. 600/ were recovered from accused Rakesh. The witness has further deposed that on 03.01.2012 Investigating Officer prepared sketch of the knife recovered from accused Ravi and the same is Ex.PW3/B. He has deposed that the knife was turned into a cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of AK and was was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/C. The witness has explained that the accused Ravi had got recovered the knife near the railway line, which was lying under the rail track. The witness has deposed that Rs. 400/ taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/C and Rs.600/ which was got recovered by accused Rakesh was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/E. The witness has deposed that the accused Rakesh also got recovered one mobile phone make NOKIA having IMEI No. 353753040257870, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/F. According to the witness both the accused were arrested vide memos Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW3/J and Ex.PW3/K and they made their disclosure statements vide memos Ex.PW3/L and Ex.PW3/M. The witness has deposed that both the accused also pointed out the place of occurrence where they State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 10 of 45 committed robbery vide memos Ex.PW3/N and Ex.PW3/O. He has deposed that the faces of both the accused were muffled at the place of arrested. He has identified both the accused in the Court. The witness has also identified the knife got recovered by accused Ravi from the railway track Ex.P2. He has further identified one mobile phone make NOKIA of black and blue colour having IMEI No. 353753040257870 which was robbed from him and was recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh and is Ex.P1. He has further identified Rs.600/ as the amount which was recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh and it is a part of the robbed amount which currency notes are collectively Ex. P3. The witness has further identified Rs.400/ as the amount which was recovered from the possession of accused Ravi @ Khokha and it is a part of the robbed amount and the said currency notes are collectively Ex.P4.
(14) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he received information by way of DD No. 6A which was received from PCR. He has deposed that they reached the spot first and then went to the Hospital and the injured was fit for statement. According to him he reached the hospital at about 2 am in the night and at the spot at about 1:30 AM and has voluntarily explained that the hospital and the spot are nearby. He has deposed that he went to the Police Station for registration of FIR at about 2:00 AM State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 11 of 45 on his own motorcycle and returned to the spot after registration of FIR at about 2:20 AM.
(15) PW4 Sh. Neeraj Gaur, (Ld.MM) has deposed that on 29.10.2010 he was posted as MM Rohini Courts and on that day request for fixing the date of TIP of both the accused was marked to him by Ld. MM Sh. Dheeraj Mor. The application is Ex.PW4/A. According to him he fixed the date of TIP on 03.11.2010 at Rohini Jail and thereafter on 03.11.2010 he went to Rohini Jail for conducting TIP of accused Rakesh who was produced by the Asstt. Superintendent, Jail who identified the accused at point X on Ex.PW4/B. According to the witness, he asked the accused whether he wants to join the TIP proceedings and he replied in affirmative after which TIP proceedings were conducted and but the witness Azad Singh could not identify the accused Rakesh and his statement was recorded at point 'Y' on Ex.PW4/B bearing his signatures at point A. The witness has proved his certificate regarding the correctness of TIP proceedings at point Z bearing his signature at point A on Ex.PW4/B. (16) The witness has further deposed that after conducting the TIP proceedings of accused Rakesh, the TIP of accused Ravi was conducted but he refused to participate in the TIP proceedings vide his statement at point Y on Ex.PW4/C bearing his signatures at point A accused also signed at point B and the certificate regarding the State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 12 of 45 correctness of TIP proceedings at point Z. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of he accused despite opportunity. (17) PW5 HC Mukesh Chand has tendered his examinationin chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B wherein he has relied upon entry in Register No. 3688/10 copy of which is Ex.PW5/A, No. 3689/10 copy of which is Ex.PW5/B, S.No. 3691/10 copy of which is Ex.PW5/C entry in Register No. 21 vide RC 64/21/10 copy of which is Ex.PW5/D and receipt issued by the FSL is Ex.PW5/E. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of he accused despite opportunity.
(18) PW7 ASI Shesh Dhar has deposed that on 18.10.2010 he along with SI Anil and Ct. Ranbir reached at BC Block, Shalimar Bagh at about 7.00 PM and one secret informer met them there who informed that Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva who committed robbery after giving knife blows to the victim were coming towards Kela Godown shed near railway station Azadpur, Delhi. According to the witness they immediately reached there and made Nakabandi near public toilets near railway line and at about 7.20 PM two persons came there who were identified by the secret informer as the Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva and thereafter we apprehended both persons and they were interrogated by the Investigating Officer and they confessed about their involvement in this case. The witness has deposed State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 13 of 45 that one mobile model 2690 NOKIA of blue and black colour was recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh @ Rocketva and the same was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/F and Rs.600/ were also recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh @ Rocketva and same were seized by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW3/E bearing his signatures at point B. The witness has deposed that accused Rakesh @ Rocketva was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/G, his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW7/A and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW3/M. According to the witness Rs. 400/ were recovered from the possession of accused Ravi @ Khokha and the same was seized by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW3/D and he was also arrested vide Ex.PW3/H and his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW7/B after which his disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW3/L. The witness has deposed that at the instance of the accused Ravi @ Khokha one knife was recovered from under the waste material of railway tracks and the sketch of the same was prepared vide Ex.PW3/B and its measurement was taken and same was mentioned in the sketch and the knife was sealed in a cloth pullanda with the seal of AK and was seized vide Ex.PW3/C and accused Rakesh pointed out the place of incident vide Ex.PW3/N and accused Ravi pointed out the place of incident vide State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 14 of 45 Ex.PW3/O. The witness has deposed thereafter both the accused persons kept in muffled faces after which both the accused were kept in the lock up after their medical examination and Investigating Officer recorded his statement. The witness has identified both accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva in the court. The witness has also identified knife as the same which was recovered at the instance of accused Ravi which knife is Ex. P2. He has also identified the mobile phone, Rs. 600/ and Rs.400/ which ware Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively.
(19) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed the departed from the Police Station at about 3.003.30 PM for the investigation of this case on 18.10.2010 and remained at the spot upto 10.0010.30PM. He has denied that both accused were lifted from their houses or that they have been falsely implicated in this case or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused.
(20) PW8 SI Rajan Pal has deposed that on 11.10.2010 he was on emergency duty from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM and on the intervening night of 11/12.10.2010 at about 12.50 AM (Midnight) he received DD No. 6A copy of which is Ex.PW8/A, that Azad Singh was admitted in Fortis Hospital on which he along with Ct. Ranbir reached at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, and collected the MLC No. 6/10 of Azad State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 15 of 45 Singh. According to the witness he made inquiries from Azad Singh who alleged that he had been robbed by two assailants and caused injuries to him. He recorded his statement in detail vide Ex.PW2/A and prepared the rukka Ex.PW8/B and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ranbir. He has deposed that the doctor handed over one pullanda to him in sealed condition containing the clothes of the injured along with sample seal which he seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A. The witness has deposed that meanwhile SI Anil also reached there who conducted further investigations.
(21) According to the witness, 25.11.2010 the investigation of this case was again marked to him as SI Anil was transferred to the police station. He has deposed that on 30.11.2010 exhibits of this case were deposited in the FSL Rohini from the malkhana of police station Shalimar Bagh by him. He also obtained the opinion of the doctor about the injuries on the MLC which was opined as dangerous and thereafter on completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused Ravi and Rakesh. On 28.09.2011 he collected the FSL results which are Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D and submitted the same before the court. He has identified the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva and Ravi @ Khokha.
(22) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he did not make any separate departure DD. State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 16 of 45 He has deposed that the victim was conscious and oriented and was fit for statement and he recorded his statement between 1.00 to 2.00 AM. He has denied that he had recorded a false statement of victim or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case or that he is deposing falsely.
(23) PW9 SI Anil Kumar has deposed that on the intervening night of 11/12.10.2010 investigation of this case was marked to him and he reached at the Fortis Hospital where SI Rajan Pal Singh met him who handed over the pullanda and documents including copy of FIR, original rukka to him and thereafter he came to the police station and deposited the pullanda in the Malkhna and recorded statement of witnesses. He has deposed that on 18.10.2010 he along with HC (now ASI) Sheshdhar and Ct. Ranbir reached at BC Block, Shalimar Bagh at about 7.00 PM where he received a secret information that Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva who committed robbery after giving knife blows to the victim are coming towards Kela Godown shed near railway station Azadpur Mandi. According to the witness, they immediately reached there and made Nakabandi near public toilets near railway line and at about 7.20 PM two persons came there who were identified by the secret informer as the Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva and thereafter he apprehended both persons with the help of HC Shesh Dhar and Ct. Ranbir and they were interrogated by the him State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 17 of 45 and they confessed about their involvement in this case. The witness has deposed that one mobile model 2690 NOKIA of blue and black colour was recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh @ Rocketva and the same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/F and Rs.600/ were also recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh @ Rocketva and same were seized by him vide Ex.PW3/E. The witness has deposed that accused Rakesh @ Rocketva was arrested vide memo EX.PW3/G, his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW7/A and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW3/M. The witness has deposed that Rs. 400/ were recovered from the possession of accused Ravi @ Khokha and the same was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW3/D after which Ravi was arrested vide Ex.PW3/H, his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW7/B and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW3/L. The witness has deposed that at the instance of the accused Ravi @ Khokha, one knife was recovered from under the waste material of the railway tracks and the sketch of the same was prepared vide Ex.PW3/B and its measurement was taken and same was mentioned in the sketch after which it was seized vide Ex.PW3/C. Witness has deposed that the accused Rakesh pointed out the place of incident vide Ex.PW3/N and accused Ravi pointed out the place of incident vide Ex.PW3/O. State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 18 of 45 According to the witness thereafter both the accused persons kept in muffled faces after which both the accused were kept in the lock up after their medical examination. The witness has deposed that during the course of investigation, he moved an application for TIP before the court of Sh. Dheeraj Mor Ld. MM Rohini Courts vide his application Ex.PW4/A and the TIP was fixed for 03.11.2010. He also collected the TIP proceedings on his application which is Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E. The witness has deposed that on 20.10.2010, he collected the blood sample of the victim which was in sealed condition and he received the same with sample seal and seized the same vide Ex.PW9/A. According to the witness during the investigation he prepared the site plan on 03.11.2010 at the instance of injured vide Ex.PW9/B . The witness has correctly identified both accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva in the court. He has also identified the case property in the court i.e. knife recovered at the instance of accused Ravi which is Ex.P2, mobile phone, Rs. 600/ and Rs.400/ which are Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively. (24) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he did not make any separate departure entry as and when he went in search of accused persons. He has deposed that on that day He left the police station at about 3.30 PM and the accused persons were arrested at about 8.20 PM and 8.3 0PM respectively. State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 19 of 45 According to him he requested some public persons to join the investigation but none was agreed for the same and left without telling their names and address. He has denied that the accused persons were not arrested in the manner as stated by him or that the nickname of accused persons as Khokha and Rocketva respectively are not the name of accused persons or that he have kept the same of his own. He has denied that he has prepared the site plan of his own while sitting in the police station or that the accused persons were shown to the victim prior to the TIP proceedings or that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(25) After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. (26) According to accused Ravi on account of previous dispute with HC Seshdhar he in connivance with the complainant has falsely implicated him in this case. He has deposed that nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance and the aforesaid recovery has been planted upon him to falsely implicate him. He has stated that he was not arrested in the manner as stated above and further states that he was called to the police station and formally arrested in this case. State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 20 of 45 (27) According to accused Rakesh he was lifted from the Azadpur Mandi by the police and falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance and the aforesaid recovery has been planted upon him. He has stated that he was not arrested in the manner as stated above nor he made any disclosure statement.
FINDINGS:
(28) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused. My findings are as under:
Ocular Evidence:
(29) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the version of the eye witnesses finds corroboration from the other on material aspects and appears to be probable and truthful connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject his testimonies. State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 21 of 45 (30) The present case rests on the sole testimony of complainant / victim Azad Singh (PW2). The incident took place at about 12 midnight in the intervening night of 11/12.10.2010 when victim Azad Singh had gone to Fortis Hospital to attend to his ailing brother Jagdish who was admitted there. At the relevant time Azad Singh came outside the hospital to take tea but finding that all the shops were closed he went ahead towards Kela Godown to find some tea stall but he did not find one and when Azad Singh was returning back from railway lines towards Fortis Hospital and when he reached near the gate of the hospital and was smoking beedi, he was attacked by the accused persons who tried to snatch his money from him and on stiff resistance offered by Azad Singh, the accused persons gave repeated knife blows on which he received dangerous injuries on his stomach.
(31) In the court the victim Azad Singh has identified both the accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva though during the judicial TIP he was unable to identify the accused Rakesh whereas the accused Ravi refused to participate in the TIP. The relevant portion of his testimony if reproduced as under:
"I reside at the above mentioned address with family. I am an agriculturist. My brother namely Jagdish was admitted and was under treatment at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh and I was also there to look after him. In the intervening night State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 22 of 45 of 11/12.10.10 at about 12:00 midnight I came outside the gate of Fortis Hospital to take tea, but at that time all the shops near the gate of the hospital were found closed as such I moved ahead and went towards Kela Godown. There at a pocket some police officials were sitting, I asked them about the tea stall and they made indication towards Azadpur Mandi. I moved ahead towards railway lines but it was dark there as such I took a turn leaving behind the idea of tea. I again moved towards Fortis Hospital and when I was at a distance of 20 feet from the gate of Fortis Hospital and I stopped there and started smoking a beedi. Meanwhile both the accused present in the court today came there from my back side and one out of them (at this stage, witness points out towards accused Rakesh) inserted his hand in front pocket of my shirt. I caught hold of his color and at that time, accused (Rakesh) asked his associate, "Chaku Maar" and thereafter, accused Ravi whose name I came to know later on present in the court today (correctly identified) gave three or four knife blows to me and they both robbed Rs.2500/ in cash and one mobile phone bearing no.
9813360952 from me and they both ran away towards the railway lines. I put my hand on my abdomen and went inside the Fortis Hospital and I was also admitted there. IO recorded my statement / complaint Ex.PW2/A signed by me at point A. I can identify the case property if shown to me. At this stage, witness who had obtained Rs.1000/ in cash and mobile phone make Nokia State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 23 of 45 on superdari, has produced the same and he identifies the mobile phone being the same which was robbed by both accused persons from his possession. Mobile phone is Ex.P1. About the currency notes witness submits that as there was no specific mark of identification on his currency notes as such he cannot say with surety whether these currency notes were the same which were robbed from him or not and about the knife he submits that the knife blows were given to me all of sudden that is why I could not see the knife properly...."
(32) In his cross examination the victim Azad Singh informed that he is having bill of the mobile phone Ex.P1 which was robbed by the accused persons and can produce the same (some has not been demanded by the accused and hence not produced). He has also clarified that the boundary wall of the hospital is adjacent to the railway line and has further clarified that he has visited Rohini Court on 13.11.2010 for identification of the accused and it was on that day that names of both the accused were told to him after which he identified the said persons as the assailants. He had denied the suggestion that both the accused are not the assailants who had removed money from his pocket or given knife blows to him. (33) It is settled law that where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 24 of 45 testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court (Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.:
Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978). State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 25 of 45 (34) In the present case the fact that the brother of the complainant Azad Singh was admitted in the Fortis Hospital and he had gone to attend to him. This fact finds due confirmation from the MLC of Azad Singh wherein he had given the said history to the doctor of having attacked outside the gate of the Fortis Hospital. The medical record confirms that he had received repeated injuries which were "Dangerous" in nature and he was surgically treated for the same.
Further, it is writ large from the testimony of Azad Singh that he had sufficient opportunity to see and notice the accused persons at the time of incident. Azad Singh has explained that both the accused had come from backside out of whom one i.e. Rakesh inserted his hand in his front side pocket on which he (victim) caught hold of his (Rakesh's) the collar. It is obvious that when complainant caught hold of the collar of Rakesh, he had sufficient opportunity of seeking the face of Rakesh. He has further explained that after he caught hold of collar of Rakesh, he asked his associate i.e. coaccused Ravi to stab him saying "Chaaku Maar" on which the accused Ravi gave 34 knife blows to him. The medical record shows that the knife blows were given to the victim from front side showing that the accused Ravi had come from front side of the victim while giving him stab wounds and hence there was again sufficient opportunity for Azad Singh to have identified him. Azad Singh has further explained that he was conscious at that time and on State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 26 of 45 receipt of his injuries, he put his hand on his abdomen and went inside the hospital and this fact stand confirm from the MLC of victim that he was conscious and had himself given the history to the doctor. His wounds were so extremely dangerous that part of his intestine had protruded out from his lower abdomen. Hence, under the given circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the identification of both the accused by the victim Azad Singh.
(35) The victim Azad Singh also in his testimony before the court has stated that when he went to Rohini Jail on 3.11.2010 he was able to identify one of the accused whereas Sh. Neeraj Gaur, Ld. MM (PW4) has stated that in the Judicial TIP conducted by him, the witness Azad Singh was not able to correctly identity the accused Rakesh whereas Ravi had refused to participate in the TIP. The possibility of the witness having got confused at the relevant time cannot be ruled out or else there was no reason why he could not have correctly identify him in the court. Further, there is no history of any kind of animosity between the victim and the accused persons.
(36) Further, the details of the mobile phone of the victim which had been robbed from him have been mentioned in his first statement given to the police vide Ex.PW2/A at the first instance. Further, in the cross examination of Azad Singh, it is also evident that no suggestion has been given to the victim that he has not been able to identify the State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 27 of 45 accused Rakesh correctly in the Judicial TIP (in the examinationin chief the victim has asserted that he correctly identify the accused). (37) In this background, I hold that there being sufficient corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of stolen articles from the possession of accused persons in addition of the identification of the accused persons by the victim in the court and there being no history of any kind of animosity between the accused and the complainant, the testimony of victim his credible, trustworthy and hence I hold that prosecution has been able to established and prove the identity of the accused as the assailants who had committed robbery upon the victim Azada Singh.
Medical Evidence:
(38) Dr. Ajeet Kumar (PW6) has duly proved the MLC of the victim Azad Singh which is Ex.PW6/A prepared by Dr. Malik Mujeeb showing that the injured had himself rushed inside the hospital and got himself admitted. Dr. Ajeet has proved that on local examination approximately 2cm stab injury left side upper chest, right side lower chest, umblical region of abdomen with part of bowel protruding outside were found. According to Dr. Ajeet, the history given by the victim was of multiple stab injuries on chest and abdomen while he was present outside the gate of Fortis Hospital near Kela State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 28 of 45 Godown as told by the victim himself, after which he was provided immediate treatment and surgical treatment was also required. The opinion of doctor regarding the dangerous and multiple stab injuries also stand established and hence I hold that the medical evidence is compatible to the version given by the eye witness.
Forensic Evidence:
(39) The FSL Report is admissible in evidence under Section 293 Cr.PC and has been proved by Investigating Officer Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D which does not assist the prosecution in any manner.
Blood was detected on the clothes of the injured but in so far as the weapon of offence i.e. knife which was allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Ravi is concerned, does not show any reaction or presence of blood.
Arrest of the Accused and Recovery of the Stolen Articles & Weapon of Offence:
(40) The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of the secret information on 18.10.2010 both the accused Ravi and Rakesh had been apprehended by the police party comprising of Ct. Ranbir Singh (PW3), ASI Seshdhar (PW7) and SI Anil Kumar (PW9). All these witnesses have corroborated each other on material particulars i.e. aspect of apprehension of both the accused from near the railway lines State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 29 of 45 Kela Godown on 18.10.2010 pursuant to which on their interrogation they admitted their involvement in the present case. They have also proved the recovery of the mobile phone make Nokia Ex.P1 from the possession of accused Rakesh along with Rs.600/ and recovery of one knife Ex.P3 which the accused Ravi has got recovered from under the railway track along with Rs.400/ Ex.P4.
(41) Before analyzing the evidence on merits, it is necessary to observe that as per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer. (42) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
1. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,
2. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 30 of 45
(43) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain
intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. (44) A cojoint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I will show you the place where I have kept the articles".
State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 31 of 45 (45) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)" and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. KingEmperor reported in 74 Ind App 65:
AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under: "Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved......"
State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 32 of 45 ".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S. 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information. ...... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."
"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 33 of 45 house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant......"
(46) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 34 of 45 Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 35 of 45 be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence.
(47) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evident Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:
"....in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.
The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence.
State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 36 of 45 (48) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that :
"..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for "the place" where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"
(49) In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that "discovery of State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 37 of 45 fact" should be read with the definition of "fact" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the "fact" as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes recovery of material object. The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. (50) Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the identity of the assailants was not known to the police nor it was confirmed that it was the accused Ravi and Rakesh who had committed the incident upon Azad Singh motive of which was only robbery. It was on secret information that both the accused were apprehended and from the search of accused Rakesh the stolen Mobile Phone make NOKIA bearing IMEI No. 353753040257870 (Ex.P1) was recovered which has been correctly identified by the victim as his mobile. Further, it was not within the knowledge of the police that the said mobile so recovered at the instance of accused belonged to the victim Azad Singh and it was only State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 38 of 45 pursuant to the said recovery from the possession of Rakesh, that after its identification by the victim, this fact was established. (51) Further, though the knife got recovered by the accused Ravi from near the railway track does not show presence of any blood stains nor the victim Azad Singh has been able to conclusively identify the same which was used upon him, yet in view of the fact that the some knife had been used in the incident by the accused Ravi who repeatedly stabbed him and caused dangerous injuries upon him, I hold that the recovery of the stolen mobile from the possession of the accused Rakesh and currency notes along with knife recovered from the possession of accused Ravi are strong pointer towards the guilt of both the accused.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
(52) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, 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;
State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 39 of 45
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.
(53) Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the identity of both the accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva has been established and proved. On the basis of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the other material on record, the following facts stand established:
➢ That on the intervening night of 1112.10.2010 the victim Azad Singh had gone to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh to look after his brother Jagdish who was admitted there. State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 40 of 45 ➢ That at about 12:00 midnight Azad Singh came outside the gate of Fortis Hospital to take tea but he did not find any shop open and hence he went towards Kela Godown where he met some police officials sitting at the Picket and asked them about the tea stall; that these police officials made an indication towards Azadpur Mandi on which Azad Singh moved ahead towards Railway Lines.
➢ That finding no tea stall, Azad Singh turned back and when he was at a distance of about 20 feet from the gate of Fortis Hospital and was smoking beedi, the accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva came from his backside.
➢ That the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva inserted his hand inside the front pocket of Azad Singh but he (Azad Singh) caught hold of the collar of Rakesh @ Rocketva on which Rakesh @ Rocketva asked his associate i.e. accused Ravi @ Khokha to stab Azad Singh saying "Chaaku Maar" on which the accused Ravi @ Khokha gave three to four knife blows on the stomach of Azad Singh and robbed him of his Rs.2500/ and mobile phone make Nokia bearing No. 9813360952 from the possession of Azad Singh and ran away towards the railway lines. ➢ That in order to save himself Azad Singh put his hand on his abdomen and went inside the Fortis Hospital where he was given State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 41 of 45 treatment and remained admitted there.
➢ That thereafter information was given to the Police Station Shalimar Bagh by the Security Incharge of Fortis Hospital pursuant to which police reached Fortis Hospital. ➢ That police recorded the statement of Azad Singh and the present FIR was registered.
➢ That on 18.10.2010 at about during investigations SI Anil Kumar received a secret information that the assailants involved in the present case were coming towards Kela Godown Shed near Railway Station Azadpur Mandi.
➢ That immediately Nakabandi was made near public toilets, railway line.
➢ That at about 7:20 PM two persons found coming who were identified by the secret informer as the accused Ravi @ Khoka and Rakesh @ Rocketva.
➢ That on the pointing out of the secret informer the accused were apprehended and interrogated during which they confessed their involvement in the present case.
➢ That from the possession of the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva one mobile phone model 2690 NOKIA of blue and black cover having IMEI No. 353753040257870.
➢ That the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva disclosed that the said State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 42 of 45 mobile phone belonged to the victim Azad Singh after which the said mobile phone was taken into possession. ➢ That apart from the mobile phone Rs.600/ was also recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh @ Rocketva which the accused Rakesh disclosed to be the part of the looted money of Azad Singh.
➢ That Rs.400/ were recovered from the possession of accused Ravi @ Khoka which were also seized.
➢ That pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Ravi @ Khoka got recovered one knife from under the waste material of the railway tracks which he disclosed as the same which was used by him in committing the incident.
(54) The victim Azad Singh has duly identified both the accused Ravi @ Khoka and Rakesh @ Rocketva as the assailants. He has identified the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva as the boy who had inserted his hand in front pocket of his shirt and also identified the accused Ravi @ Khoka as the boy who gave knife blows to him. The victim has also identified his mobile phone which was recovered from the possession of the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva. Further, the medical evidence on record establishes that the injuries received by the victim Azad Singh were dangerous in nature and compatible to the oral State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 43 of 45 testimony of the victim.
(55) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. 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, 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, trustworthy and finds due corroboration and confirmation from medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. (56) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to establish and prove the allegations against both the accused and hence the accused Ravi @ Khoka is hereby held guilty for the State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 44 of 45 offence under Section 392 read with 394 and Section 397 Indian Penal Code and the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva is held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 394 Indian Penal Code. (57) Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 24.7.2013.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 17.07.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 45 of 45
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 94/2013 Unique Case ID: 02404R0011232011 State Vs. 1. Ravi @ Khokha S/o Udai Raj R/o Village Dasaipur PS Peepalpur, Sultanpur U.P. (Convicted)
2. Rakesh @ Rocketva S/o Brahm Dev R/o Village Mahaspur, PS Sarola Bhagapur, Bihar.
(Convicted) FIR No. : 359/2010 Police Station : Shalimar Bagh Under Section : 392/394/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code Date of conviction: 17.07.2013 Arguments concluded on: 29.7.2013 Date of Sentence: 29.7.2013 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Both the convicts Ravi @ Khoka and Rakesh @ Rocketva State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 46 of 45 are in judicial custody with Sh. S.K. Tyagi Advocate. ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per allegations on 12.10.2010 at about 12:10 AM (midnight) near Kela Godown, Jhuggis AA Block, near Railway Station, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi the accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva committed robbery upon the complainant Azad Singh of Rs.2,500/ and mobile phone make Nokia of black colour bearing no. 9813360952 and also voluntarily caused dangerous injuries on the person of Azad Singh by using a deadly weapon i.e. knife.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly the victim Azad Singh and also on the basis of the medical and other evidence on record this Court, vide a detail judgment dated 17.7.2013 observed that it stands established that on the intervening night of 1112.10.2010 the victim Azad Singh had gone to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh to look after his brother Jagdish who was admitted there; that at about 12:00 midnight Azad Singh came outside the gate of Fortis Hospital to take tea but he did not find any shop open and hence he went towards Kela Godown where he met some police officials sitting at the Picket and asked them about the tea stall; that these police officials made an indication towards Azadpur Mandi on which Azad Singh moved ahead towards Railway Lines; that finding no tea stall, Azad Singh turned back and when he was at a State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 47 of 45 distance of about 20 feet from the gate of Fortis Hospital and was smoking beedi, the accused Ravi @ Khokha and Rakesh @ Rocketva came from his backside; that the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva inserted his hand inside the front pocket of Azad Singh but he (Azad Singh) caught hold of the collar of Rakesh @ Rocketva on which Rakesh @ Rocketva asked his associate i.e. accused Ravi @ Khokha to stab Azad Singh saying "Chaaku Maar" on which the accused Ravi @ Khokha gave three to four knife blows on the stomach of Azad Singh and robbed him of his Rs.2500/ and mobile phone make Nokia bearing No. 9813360952 from the possession of Azad Singh and ran away towards the railway lines; that in order to save himself Azad Singh put his hand on his abdomen and went inside the Fortis Hospital where he was given treatment and remained admitted there; that thereafter information was given to the Police Station Shalimar Bagh by the Security Incharge of Fortis Hospital pursuant to which police reached Fortis Hospital; that police recorded the statement of Azad Singh and the present FIR was registered.
It also stands established that on 18.10.2010 at about during investigations SI Anil Kumar received a secret information that the assailants involved in the present case were coming towards Kela Godown Shed near Railway Station Azadpur Mandi; that immediately Nakabandi was made near public toilets, railway line; that at about 7:20 State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 48 of 45 PM two persons found coming who were identified by the secret informer as the accused Ravi @ Khoka and Rakesh @ Rocketva; that on the pointing out of the secret informer the accused were apprehended and interrogated during which they confessed their involvement in the present case; that from the possession of the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva one mobile phone model 2690 NOKIA of blue and black cover having IMEI No. 353753040257870; that the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva disclosed that the said mobile phone belonged to the victim Azad Singh after which the said mobile phone was taken into possession; that apart from the mobile phone Rs.600/ was also recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh @ Rocketva which the accused Rakesh disclosed to be the part of the looted money of Azad Singh; that Rs.400/ were recovered from the possession of accused Ravi @ Khoka which were also seized; that pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Ravi @ Khoka got recovered one knife from under the waste material of the railway tracks which he disclosed as the same which was used by him in committing the incident.
It has been observed by this Court that the victim Azad Singh has duly identified both the accused Ravi @ Khoka and Rakesh @ Rocketva as the assailants. He has identified the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva as the boy who had inserted his hand in front pocket of his State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 49 of 45 shirt and also identified the accused Ravi @ Khoka as the boy who gave knife blows to him. The victim has also identified his mobile phone which was recovered from the possession of the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva. Further, the medical evidence on record established that the injuries received by the victim Azad Singh were dangerous in nature and compatible to the oral testimony of the victim.
This being the background, the accused Ravi @ Khoka has been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 394 and Section 397 Indian Penal Code and the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva has been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 394 Indian Penal Code for which they have been accordingly convicted.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Ravi @ Khoka is stated to be a young boy of 25 years having a family comprising of parents, two younger brothers, one elder sister, wife and one daughter. He is 5th class pass and was working on the vegetable shop of this father. The convict Rakesh @ Rocketva is also stated to be a young boy of 25 years having a family comprising of parents, one elder & two younger brothers, two elder and one younger sisters. He is totally illiterate and was doing on the vegetable shop of his father. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convicts submits that both the convicts are young boys and are helping hands of their respective State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 50 of 45 families. He requests that a lenient view be taken against them.
On the other hand, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has prayed for a stern view against the convicts keeping in view the allegations involved. He has pointed out that the convict Ravi @ Khoka is involved in another case bearing FIR No. 16/2009, under Section 399/402 IPC, Police Station Mahendra Park whereas the convict Rakesh @ Rocketva is involved in two other cases i.e. FIR No. 426/2007, under Section 307/34 IPC, Police Station Adarsh Nagar and FIR No. 274/2008, under Section 379/411 IPC, Police Station Shalimar Bagh. He has argued that keeping in view their previous criminal background the convicts do not deserve any leniency.
I have considered the vial contentions and I may observe that in the recent past Delhi has experienced a spurt and rise in the incidents of snatching, robbery, dacoity, murder and other kinds of crime. In the year 2012 alone, a total number of 54,287 cases were registered out of which 608 cases were of robbery; 28 cases were of Dacoity, 14,391 cases were of vehicular theft; 1,440 cases were of snatching and 521 cases were of murder.
The deteriorating law and order problem of the City is a matter of serious concern and immediate steps are required to be taken at all levels for ensuring security and safety of the citizens. Instances of young persons getting involved in criminal activities of robbing State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 51 of 45 innocent persons by putting them under threat of death, are also on rise. They 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. Under these circumstances the courts are required to find answers to the new challenges facing the society and to mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should be conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of the rime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175). Punishment ought to fit the crime and sometime it is desirability to keep the offender out of circulation.
In the present case, though the convicts are involved in other cases yet they have not been convicted so far in any other case. Therefore, I hereby award the following sentences to the convict Ravi @ Khoka:
1. For the offence under Section 392 read with 394 Indian Penal Code the convict Ravi @ Khoka is sentenced to State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 52 of 45 Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five (5) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. For the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code the convict Ravi @ Khoka is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
Further, the convict Rakesh @ Rocketva is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five (5) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/ for the offence under Section 392 read with 394 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to both the convicts for the period already undergone by them, as per rules.
The convicts have been informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 53 of 45 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, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 29.7.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 54 of 45 State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha FIR No. 359/2010 PS Shalimar Bagh 17.7.2013 Present: Addl. PP for the State. Both accused in JC.
Vide separate detailed judgment dictated and announced in the open court but not yet typed, the accused Ravi @ Khokha has been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 394 read with 397 Indian Penal Code and the accused Rakesh @ Rocketva has been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 394 Indian Penal Code.
Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 24.7.2013.
(Dr. Kamini Lau)
ASJ/NWII, Rohini/17.7.2013
24.7.2013
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Both accused in JC.
Ld. Presiding Officer is on leave today.
As per directions of Ld. Presiding Officer, case is listed for the purpose already fixed for 29.7.2012.
(Reader) /24.7.2013 State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 55 of 45 State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha FIR No. 359/2010 PS Shalimar Bagh 29.7.2013 Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Both the convicts Ravi @ Khoka and Rakesh @ Rocketva are in judicial custody with Sh. S.K. Tyagi Advocate. Vide separate detailed order the convicts are awarded the following sentences :
1. For the offence under Section 392 read with 394 Indian Penal Code the convict Ravi @ Khoka is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five (5) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. For the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code the convict Ravi @ Khoka is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 56 of 45 Further, the convict Rakesh @ Rocketva is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five (5) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/ for the offence under Section 392 read with 394 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to both the convicts for the period already undergone by them, as per rules.
The convicts have been 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, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ/NWII, Rohini/29.7.2013 State Vs. Ravi @ Khokha, FIR 359/10, PS Shalimar Bagh, Page 57 of 45