Delhi District Court
State vs ) Subhash Tyagi on 27 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 103/1/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0211242003
State
Versus
1) Subhash Tyagi
S/o Gulab Tyagi
R/o Village Kaili P. Kharkhoda
Distt. Meerut (UP) and D Block
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
FIR No. 401/01
PS - S.P. Badli
U/s. 412/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 26/02/2013
Date of sentence: 27/02/2013.
Order on Sentence
27/02/2013
Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict Subhash Tyagi is present from JC with Counsel Sh. Dharamveer
Sharma.
Ld Counsel for convict Subhash Tyagi has contended that convict is
aged about 36 years and he has widow mother aged about 70 years to support. He is
doing work of agriculturalist on his own agricultural land. Ld defence counsel has
further contended that he is not a previous convict and has faced trial of this case
since the year 2001.
SC No. 103/1/10 1
On the other hand Ld APP has contended that offence u/s 412 of IPC is
proved against the convict and appropriate sentence be awarded.
Offence u/s 412 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of life , or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
I have considered the submissions regarding facts and circumstances
and antecedents of the convict. A truck loaded with 461 kattas of rice was robbed,
out of which 106 kattas plus 10 kattas were got recovered by the present convict
with other convicts, hence under such circumstances, considering the nature and
gravity of offence, sentence of five years RI is imposed with fine of Rs.50,000/, ID
2½ years SI.
Convict Subhash Tyagi has remained in custody from 20/06/01 to
19/02/2002 and from 26/02/2013 till today.
Fine not deposited.
Benefit of section 428 of Cr.PC be given to the convict.
Convict be remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court
today on 27th of February, 2013
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,
SC No. 103/1/10 2
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 103/1/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0211242003
State
Versus
1) Charan Singh
S/o Rajender Singh
R/o H. No. 36, Village Siraspur,
Delhi.
FIR No. 401/01
PS - S.P. Badli
U/s. 412/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 26/02/2013
Date of sentence: 27/02/2013.
Order on Sentence
27/02/2013
Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict Charan Singh is present from JC with Counsel Sh. Dharamveer
Sharma.
Ld Counsel for convict Charan Singh has contended that convict is
aged about 32 years and he has father aged about 68 years to support. He is doing
work of agriculturalist on his own agricultural land. Ld defence counsel has further
contended that he is not a previous convict and has faced trial of this case since the
year 2001.
SC No. 103/1/10 3
On the other hand Ld APP has contended that offence u/s 412 of IPC is
proved against the convict and appropriate sentence be awarded.
Offence u/s 412 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of life , or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
I have considered the submissions regarding facts and circumstances
and antecedents of the convict. A truck loaded with 461 kattas of rice was robbed,
out of which 106 kattas plus 10 kattas were got recovered by the present convict
with other convicts, hence under such circumstances, considering the nature and
gravity of offence, sentence of five years RI is imposed with fine of Rs.50,000/, ID
2½ years SI.
Convict Charan Singh has remained in custody from 20/06/01 to
02/11/2002 and 08/02/10 to 30/04/10 and from 26/02/2013 till today.
Fine not deposited.
Benefit of section 428 of Cr.PC be given to the convict.
Convict be remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court
today on 27th of February, 2013
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,
Delhi.
SC No. 103/1/10 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 103/1/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0211242003
State
Versus
1) Mandeep Rana @ Tiger
S/o Sri Lal Rana,
R/o H. No. 31, Village Siraspur
Delhi.
FIR No. 401/01
PS - S.P. Badli
U/s. 412/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 26/02/2013
Date of sentence: 27/02/2013.
Order on Sentence
27/02/2013
Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict Mandeep Rana is present from JC with Counsel Sh.
P.C.Sharma.
Ld Counsel for convict Mandeep Rana has contended that convict is
aged about 30 years and he has wife, who is pregnant, one son of four years, and
widow mother to support. He is having agriculture land and doing the work of
agriculturalist. Ld defence counsel has further contended that he is not a previous
convict and has faced trial of this case since the year 2001.
On the other hand Ld APP has contended that offence u/s 412 of IPC is
proved against the convict and appropriate sentence be awarded.
SC No. 103/1/10 5
Offence u/s 412 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of life , or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
I have considered the submissions regarding facts and circumstances
and antecedents of the convict. A truck loaded with 461 kattas of rice was robbed,
out of which 106 kattas plus 10 kattas were got recovered by the present convict
with other convicts, hence under such circumstances, considering the nature and
gravity of offence, sentence of five years RI is imposed with fine of Rs.50,000/, ID
2½ years SI.
Convict Mandeep Rana has remained in custody from 20/06/01 to
06/02/02 and from 26/02/2013 till today.
Fine not deposited.
Benefit of section 428 of Cr.PC be given to the convict.
Convict be remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court
today on 27th of February, 2013
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,
Delhi.
SC No. 103/1/10 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 103/1/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0211242003
State
Versus
1) Anil,
S/o Satya Narain
R/o BZ197, Sector20, Rohini,
Delhi.
FIR No. 401/01
PS - S.P. Badli
U/s. 411 of IPC
Date of Decision: 26/02/2013
Date of sentence: 27/02/2013.
Order on Sentence
27/02/2013
Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict Anil is present from JC with Counsel Sh. Salil Kr Jha.
Ld Counsel for convict Anil has contended that convict is aged about
39 years and he has to support his aged parents. His mother is completely bed ridden
and father is suffering from various aliments. He is also having two children i.e. 13
years old daughter and son is aged about 9 years He is running a kiryana shop. Ld
defence counsel has further contended that convict has faced trial of this case since
2001 and he is not a previous convict.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that convict may be released
SC No. 103/1/10 7
on probation under section 4 of Probation of Offender's Act and or u/s 360 of
Cr.PC
On the other hand, Ld APP has contended that offence u/s 411 of IPC is
proved against the convict and appropriate sentence be awarded.
Offence u/s 411 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
I have considered the submissions regarding facts and circumstances
and antecedents of the convict. A truck loaded with 461 kattas of rice was robbed,
out of which 15 kattas were recovered from present convict and he has also further
sold 45 kattas, money of this was also recovered from him, hence under such
circumstances, considering the nature and gravity of offence, the request of Ld
defence counsel to release the convict on Probation of good conduct is declined.
Sentence of three years SI is imposed with fine of Rs.25,000/, ID 9 months SI.
Convict Anil has remained in custody from 20/06/01 to 30/06/2001 and
from 26/02/13 till today.
Fine deposited.
Benefit of section 428 of Cr.PC be given to the convict.
Convict be remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court
today on 27th of February, 2013
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,
Delhi.
SC No. 103/1/10 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 103/1/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0211242003
State
Versus
1) Pawan
S/o Sri Charan
R/o Village Begum pur, Delhi
FIR No. 401/01
PS - S.P. Badli
U/s. 411 of IPC
Date of Decision: 26/02/2013
Date of sentence: 27/02/2013.
Order on Sentence
27/02/2013
Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict Pawan is present from JC with Counsel Sh. Manmohan Goel.
Ld Counsel for convict Pawan has contended that convict is aged about
32 years and he has to support his mother, wife and two children, aged about 10
years and 9 years. Ld defence counsel has further contended that he is the only sole
bread earner of the family. He is having his own shop. Ld defence counsel has
further contended that he is not a previous convict and he has faced trial of this
case since the year 2001 and during this period he has not been involved in any case.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that convict may be released
on probation under section 4 of Probation of Offender's Act and or u/s 360 of
SC No. 103/1/10 9
Cr.PC
On the other hand, Ld APP has contended that offence u/s 411 of IPC is
proved against the convict and appropriate sentence be awarded.
Offence u/s 411 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
I have considered the submissions regarding facts and circumstances
and antecedents of the convict. A truck loaded with 461 kattas of rice was robbed,
out of which 67 kattas were recovered from present convict, hence under such
circumstances, considering the nature and gravity of offence, the request of Ld
defence counsel to release the convict on Probation of good conduct is declined.
Sentence of three years SI is imposed with fine of Rs.25,000/, ID 9 months SI.
Convict Pawan has remained in custody from 20/06/01 to 02/07/2001
and from 26/02/13 till today.
Fine deposited.
Benefit of section 428 of Cr.PC be given to the convict.
Convict be remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court
today on 27th of February, 2013
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,
Delhi.
SC No. 103/1/10 10
SC No. 103/1/10 11
SC No. 103/1/10 12
SC No. 103/1/10 13
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 103/1/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0211242003
State
Versus
1) Pawan
S/o Sri Charan
R/o Village Begum pur, Delhi
2) Anil,
S/o Satya Narain
R/o BZ197, Sector20, Rohini,
Delhi.
3) Subhash Tyagi
S/o Gulab Tyagi
R/o Village Kaili P. Kharkhoda
Distt. Meerut (UP) and D Block
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
4) Jagbir @ Raju (Since proclaimed offender)
S/o Ram Ashish
R/o Q. No.2, Khera Garhi School
Khera Garhi, Delhi
5) Mandeep Rana @ Tiger
S/o Sri Lal Rana,
R/o H. No. 31, Village Siraspur
Delhi.
6) Charan Singh
S/o Rajender Singh
R/o H. No. 36, Village Siraspur,
Delhi.
SC No. 103/1/10 14
7) Renu Khatri
S/o Jitender Kumar
R/o Village Chatiya Auliya,
PS Gohana, District, Sonepat
(Haryana)
8) Joginder @ Bachhi
S/o Dharampal
R/o Village Siraspur,
Delhi.
FIR No. 401/01
PS - S.P. Badli
U/s. 365/395/397/412 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 17/09/2001
Arguments heard on: 26/02/2013
Date of Decision: 26/02/2013
JUDGMENT
One DD no. 38A was recorded on 12/06/2001 at 5.05 am on the information received by SI Yogesh about the loaded truck No. MP07G03611 kidnapped by some persons and was looted. The truck wit driver and owner was left in the fields of Vishal Bagh, Narela, Bawana. Copy of this DD was handed over to Ct Mandeep to further hand over the same to SI Rajeev Kumar.
FIR was recorded u/s 365/395/397 of IPC, on the statement of Ram Babu, who claimed himself to be the owner of the truck.
Rough Site plan of the place where the truck was left was prepared. Rough site plan of place of recovery was also prepared. Builty of rice for Delhi M.P. Carriers was collected. Bill of the rice was also collected. Finger print expert report was obtained. From the cabin of the truck one green colour handkerchief, blue colour cap, one white nada/rassi were taken into possession. Truck No. MP07G03611 was also seized, in this case. On 18/06/2001, truck was released on superdari. SC No. 103/1/10 15
According to DD no. 36A dated 19/20.06.01, at about 12.15 am, SI R. Shriniwasan, SI Rajeev Kumar, SI Ranjeet Singh, HC Roop Kishore, Ct Jogender, Ct Anil, Ct Rajesh, Ct Baljeet along with Ram Babu Sharma left for investigation and accused Raju, Charan Singh, Mandeep Rana and Subhash were arrested and their personal search were conducted. During further investigation, accused Charan Singh, Subhash, Mandeep Rana and Raju pointed out the rented godown of Begum Pur near Kale ki Dukan, Rajeev Nagar, Begumpur, Delhi and got recovered 106 katta of Best Quality Shetra Brand Basmati Rice net weight 35 kg India written in green colour and picture of Hanuman printed in green colour and also 10 kattas of Bablu TM Basmati Rice Dubar Jagat Agro commodities P/Ltd 35 kg printed in blue colur and picture of one child in wheatish colour was found printed,. These were taken into possession. All these accused persons pointed out the place of dacoity of rice from the truck and also pointed out the place where they had left the empty truck with driver and owner. On 20/06/01, from the house no.50, Rajender Park Enclave 136 colour photographs and one air gune were also taken into possession.
All these four accused persons were arrested at about 5.00 am, on 20/06/01 and on the same day, another accused Pawan Kumar was arrested at about 11.00 am and accused Anil was arrested at about 10.10 pm. Their personal searches were also conducted. Accused Pawan Kumar got recovered from his shop type room at Barwala/Karala Road, 67 Katta of Best Quality Shetra Brand Basmati Rice net weight 35 kgs written with green colour and picture of Hanuman was also printed with green coulor. These were taken into possession.
Accused Anil had also got recovered from his shop in his house 15 katta of Best Quality Shetra Brand Basmat Rice Net wt 35 kg India written with green colour and picture of Hanuman in green colour was also printed and told that he had purchased these kattas from coaccused Pawan Kumar on 12/06/01. These were also taken into possession. 8 kattas of Kabuli chana were also seized from the possession of accused Anil Kumar.
SC No. 103/1/10 16
Accused Renu Khatri was arrested on 04/09/01. His personal search was also conducted. He pointed out the place where the truck, driver and owner were left after committing dacoity. All the accused persons made their disclosure statement, in this case and complainant Ram Babu has identified accused Charan Singh, Subhash, Mandeep and Raju as the same, who had committed dacoity of the rice from their truck, with their other associates.
During investigation, accused Renu Khatri was also put to join the TIP but he refused to join the TIP . Photographs of the empty truck were also taken. Accused Anil Kumar also got recovered Rs. 11,000/ regarding sale of 8 kattas and Rs.18,000/ regarding the sale of 45 kattas of rice, which were also seized in this case.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused persons u/s 365/395/397/412 of IPC. Accused Joginder @ Bachhi was shown as proclaimed offender. Case was committed to the court of Sessions on 16/01/01 and was received on 31/10/2002.
Charge u/s 365/34 of IPC was framed against all the accused persons on 09/09/2003, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge u/s 412 of I PC was framed against accused Pawan, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge u/s 397 of IPC framed against accused Charan Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge against accused 412/34 of IPC was framed against accused Subhash, Jagbir, Mandeep Rana and Charan Singh to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge u/s 412 of IPC was also framed against accused Anil, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case prosecution has examined PW1 to PW22 in all. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded, wherein they all have denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated, in this case.
DW1 Dr. A.K. Singh and DW2 Veerpal have also been examined in SC No. 103/1/10 17 defence evidence I have heard learned Addl. PP for State, Ld respective counsels for accused persons and have gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced.
Findings qua u/s 365/395/34 of IPC against all the accused Subhash Tyagi, Mandeep Rana, Charan Singh, Renu Khatri and Joginder & Bachi and offence u/s 397 of against accused Charan Singh.
In this respect, prosecution has examined PW1 Sandeep Arora, who has deposed that he is running a business of foodgrains at 2744 at IInd Floor Naya Bazar in the name and style of Gian Chand Sandeep Kumar. They received an order to supply 461 bags of rice Sarbati. The bill is Ex.PX1. He is also having a godown at 28/16 Libas Pur . This rice was to be sent to Akola Mahrashtra. He engaged Delhi M.P. Freight Carrier for transporting these items to Akola. The G.R. Number is Ex.PX2 and PX3. The insurance papers regarding these items is Ex.PX4. The goods were to be transported on 11.06.01. PW1 has further deposed that he took 168 bags on superdari vide order of Ld MM dated 26/06//2001. PW1 has not been cross examined, in any manner.
However, Ld defence counsel has contended that neither the case property has been produced before the Court not the truck in question has been produced on any time, which was taken to transport the goods.
These contentions are not forceful, in any manner. The rice was released on superdari vide order of Ld MM after taking photographs of rice bags and Superdari Bond of truck for non production of truck by superdar, was forfeited and proceedings are pending against the owner of the truck. Photographs of truck have been placed on record, which have been identified by the witnesses. Hence there is no such dispute of identity of rice bag and truck as such.
PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has stated that he alongwith one Kendre Singh were the partner of truck no. MP07G3611. On 10/06/2001, he proceeded on this truck from Gwalior. Mahender Singh and Shivbeer Singh were the driver of SC No. 103/1/10 18 said truck. The scrap of plastic was loaded on the truck, which was to be unloaded at Mundaka, Delhi. They reached Mundaka village and unloaded the truck at one godown. He collected Rs. 15,000/ as charges. Thereafter, he approached MP Transport at Sanjay Gandhi transport Nagar and they instructed to load the rice from Siraspur to Bombay. He loaded the rice from different godown the total weight was 14.5 tons. This rice was in bags of different weight of range from 20 to 30 kg. These rice bags were of different brands. Basmati rice was also amongst these brands. The brands were of lion and elephants . The truck was weighed nearby Dharamkata at Siraspur, Delhi.
PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has further deposed that after loading the material, when they had begin from Siraspur Village, they were stopped by 56 persons, it was total dark at that time. Those boys asked them to show the papers of the material telling that they were taking the illegal material. Within a fraction of second, all those boys entered in the cabin of the truck. These boys were carrying with them small pieces of rope with which they tied their hands. They were also made blindfold, by covering with a patti. They were also armed. They put driver of the truck to the back seat, one of them took control of the steering wheel and drove the truck for about one to 1½ hour continuously. PW6 has further deposed that at an isolated place, truck was stopped by them and there they unloaded the truck. 23 boys were present to keep a guard upon them and they continuously threatened them not to make noise. At the place where the material was unloaded by them, they heard the noise of downing of shutter and also of some children. After unloading the total material, they again drove the truck for about half hours to 45 minutes and left the truck to unknown place. They threatened them not to make noise, unless they shoot them.
PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has further deposed that he was also carrying a cash of Rs. 17,000/, which were of the denomination of Rs. 50 of one bundle and 100 of one bundle and 500 two notes. They also removed wrist watch SC No. 103/1/10 19 of the drivers. Those boys left the truck and for about 40/45 minutes they did not raise any alarm out of fear. Thereafter, they kept on talking amongst themselves and untied themselves with the help of each other. They got down from the truck and took a round of the truck, it was totally empty. The they came to the main road and after taking a lift from a road ways bus, they came to police chowki. From the police chowki, one police came with them, thereafter about 10/12 police persons came with them.
PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has further deposed that his statement was recorded by SI Rajeev at the spot, Ex.PW6/A. He had given description of those boys to the police and identified them before the court. PW6 has further stated that accused Subhash Tyagi, Joginder, Renu Khatri, Mandeep, Charan Singh were amongst the person who had boarded the truck and removed the material. Almost everyone was carrying some weapon with them. Accused Renu Khati drove the truck. Accused Charan Singh was the person carrying firearms with him and others were also armed.
PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has further deposed that the police had come to the spot and site plan was prepared at their instance. He had also shown to the police, place from where the truck was loaded from Siraspur. The pieces of rope and clothes with which their eyes were covered by the accused were seized vide memo Ex. PW3/B. One cap of the accused was also left behind and was seized vide memo Ex. PW3/D. The handkerchief with which their eyes were covered was seized vide memo Ex. PW3/C. The bills and builty of material were collected from them by IO and same are Ex.PX1 and PX4 and were seized. The truck was also seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A, which was later on released on superdari. The dog squad and finger print expersts were also called at the spot.
PW6 Ram Babu has further deposed that brand of the material was Babloo, in which a photo of child was given, Mahabharat and one Kurkshetra brand having a photo of Haunman were loaded. PW6 has also identified cap as Ex.P1, SC No. 103/1/10 20 Handkerchief as Ex.P2, pieces of rope as Ex.P3.
Ld defence counsel has contended that PW6 Ram Babu himself admitted that it was total dark, at that time, hence he was not having any opportunity to see the accused persons then how he has identified the accused Subhash Tyagi, Joginder, Renu Khatri, Mandeep, Charan Singh before the Court as the same, who had kidnapped them with the truck and robbed rice bags.
Ld defenc counsel has further contended that there were three persons in the truck i.e. PW6 Ram Babu, PW20 driver Mahender and Shivbeer Singh, whereas Shivbeer has not been examined, in any manner. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW20 Mahender Singh has not corroborated with the deposition of PW6 Ram Babu regarding the identity of the accused persons.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW6 has been confronted with the statement, wherein he has stated that he collected Rs. 15,000/ as charges for unloading the plastic scrap at Mundaka village, whereas in his statement Ex.PW6/A, it is mentioned as Rs.11000/. Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to PW6 Ram Babu, material was loaded in truck at 9.00/9.30 on 11/06/01 and the place where the truck was stopped by accused persons was dark place, so there was no possibility for these witnesses to identify the accused persons as the same, who had kidnapped the truck with them and also robbed the rice bags.
On the other hand, Ld APP has contended that in the cross examination PW6 Ram Babu has stated that faces of these 56 persons were not covered , so PW6 Ram Babu has been able to identify the accused persons before the Court and he also accompanied the police party at the time of arrest of the accused persons, so identity of the accused persons is not doubtful, in any manner.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that the testimony of PW6 Ram Babu cannot be relied upon to the extent as to whether he was having any wrist watch, which was robbed because at the same place, he has stated that he was not having any wrist watch, whereas in the cross examination, he has stated that he SC No. 103/1/10 21 was also having one wrist watch, which was removed. Total two wrist watches, one of his and other of driver was taken .
Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to the cross examination of PW6 Ram Babu, at the first instance he was able to see 56 boys, two of them were carrying firearm and others were having dandas in their hands . He has further deposed that after taking the papers, three of them entered the truck. One of them put the fire arm on his temple, he cannot say who that one was. In the mean time two other persons entered from the side of the driver. Renu Khatri was the accused, who took the driver seat after moving the driver on the back seat. Two other persons remained outside the truck. So, in absence of deposition of PW6 as to, who had put fire arm, prosecution has not been able to prove charge u/s 397 against accused Charan Singh beyond reasonable doubts.
Ld defence counsel has further contended according to the cross of PW6 Ram Babu, they were also beaten on the back and chest with danda by the accused persons but there is no medical examination of PW6 Ram babu or PW20 Mahender Singh on record, hence this fact is also not proved, in any manner.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to the further cross examination of PW6, those boys had not come from the main side but from the side street and PW6 has told in the cross examination that he could see the accused persons as there was bit of light which itself is contrary to the examination of chief, wherein he has deposed that it was total dark when their truck was stopped by the accused persons.
PW20 Mahender Singh has stated that on 10/06/2001, he was working as driver on truck No. MP07G3611, with Ram Babu Sharma and Sukhbir was working as codriver with him. On that day, he alongwith Sukhbir and truck owner Sh. Ram Babu Sharma brought plastic ka burada to Delhi from Andhra Side. The said plastic burada was unloaded in the area of Nangloi and they had received Rs. 1112,000/ as charges. They were sent by the transport company to load the goods SC No. 103/1/10 22 from Delhi MP Freight career, Siraspur, which was to be sent at Akola, Maharashtra.
PW20 has further stated that they had collected the goods from 23 places i.e. rice bags, while they were coming towards Gurudwara road to get the weight of the goods from R.S. Dharamkanta, at about 1010.30 p.m. of 11/06/2001 and 78 boys were standing by the side of R.S. Dharamkanta. He was driving the truck at that time. Those boys got stopped the truck. 23 boys took search of the truck and told him that the truck was being used for carrying liquor and he was doing illegal trade. He told them that rice was loaded on the truck. One of the boy made a call on telephone and insisted to remove the truck to PS. Thereafter, he was removed from the driver's seat. There were three persons in the truck. Those boys started beating them and their eyes were tied with the black colour patti. Their hands and legs were also tied and they were also covered with the blankets. Thereafter, truck was taken by those boys, which was drove for about 1½ hour. Under the blankets, they slept and on the next day morning, when they woke up and untied themselves with the help of each other, they found themselves in the truck in an agricultural field in Vishal Bagh, Delhi. PW20 has further deposed that they found the truck empty. Owner Ram Babu Sharma, who was having cash of Rs. 30,000/, was also robbed by those boys. They all three left the truck there and boarded a bus and reached at a police booth and the matter was reported to the police.
Ld defence counsel has contended that both PW6 Ram Babu and PW20 Mahender Singh have contradicted with each other regarding the fact as to whether PW6 was having Rs. 30,000/ or Rs. 11,000/ or Rs. 17,000/ or something else. Ld defence counsel has further contended that black colour patti with which these persons were blind folded has not been recovered nor the blanket have been recovered, so they cannot be believed about the manner as deposed by them. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Ram Babu has deposed that there was some technical fault in the truck, hence the truck was pushed by them and some other persons to support the same but this fact has not been deposed by PW20, in SC No. 103/1/10 23 any manner.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW20 after seeing the persons present in the court, has not been able to identify any of the accused as the same boy, who had kidnapped them and committed dacoity. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW20 has further stated that those boys were quite young between age group of 25 to 28 years, so the identity of the accused persons as the same has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. The rice bags have been identified by PW20 from the photographs Ex.PW10/X1 collectively and in the cross examination conducted by Ld APP, PW20 has admitted that they had received Rs. 11,000/ as charges and then they went to Alipur from where 127 bags of Sharabati Rice Babloo Bran, on which the figures of child were printed, each containing 35 kgs rice, were loaded. Thereafter they reached at Libaspur in gali no. 17, from where 334 rice bags, out of which, 95 bags were of Sharbati Rice of Mahabharata brand, on which Mahabharata was printed, each weighing 20 kg and 239 bags of Sharbati Rice of Kurkshetra brand, on which the figures of Hanuman were printed, each containing 35 kgs rice were loaded.
PW20 Mahender Singh has further admitted that when he stopped the truck, all the six persons after opening the window of the truck, entered the truck and one of the boys showed katta to them and the other boy started beating and pulled him from the driver seat and himself captured the driver seat and rest of the persons tied their hands in the backside with the string and put cloth patti on their eyes and made them lied on the back seat and wrapped blankets on them and thereafter they continued driving and roaming the truck for about 45 minutes.
PW20 Mahender Singh has further admitted that thereafter, those persons unloaded the truck at some place, where the noise of ladies and children was being heard and they also heard the noise of shutting down of the shutter and thereafter, the truck was again started and after driving the truck for 15 to 20 minutes, they stopped the truck at some place. Those boys robbed Rs. 17,000/ from the truck owner Ram SC No. 103/1/10 24 Babu alongwith one wrist watch. Out of Rs. 17,000/, there were three currency notes of Rs. 500/ denomination and one bundle of 100 rupee notes and one bundle of 50 rupees notes and some loose notes. PW20 has further admitted that after stopping the truck, those boys had threatened them that if they came out of the truck, they will be shot dead and they remained in the truck for about 30 minutes and they heard no voice of those boys. They opened their hands with the help of their mouths by helping each other and after boarding a bus, they reached at police booth Narela and told about the occurrence to the police.
PW20 has further stated that he cannot identify those boys, if shown to him as it was night time and 10 years have passed and that assailants were quite young at that time. He has further stated that he does not remember whether accused Renu Khatri had taken over the driver seat of the truck. He has further stated that he does not remember if accused persons namely Subhash Tyagi, Manjeet @ Tiger, Charan Singh and Joginder @ Bachhi as pointed to him were the same boys who had entered in the truck and had committed robbery.
Ld defence counsel has contended that from the deposition of PW6 Ram Babu and PW20 Mahender Singh, prosecution has not been able to prove the identity of the accused persons as the same persons, who had kidnapped these persons with the truck and robbed the rice bags, beyond reasonable doubts. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW20 has admitted in the cross examination that due to darkness he could not identify those boys, who had committed offence.
According to PW7 SI Ranjeet Singh, on 24/09/01, he again joined the investigation of this case and on that day, he received information about one of the accused namely Joginder @ Bachhi , who was wanted in this case, would come from the Siraspur side and would go towards G.T. Road and that he was having illegal arms with him and if raided he could be apprehended. PW7 has further deposed that he was present near Gurdwara at Lower G.T.K, Road, Siraspur More At that time. On receipt of this information, he asked 34 passersby to join them in SC No. 103/1/10 25 the raiding but none agreed and left expressing their difficulty to join the proceedings, so he formed the raiding party consisting of himself, HC Harpal, Ct Dilbagh and Ct Baljeet and they took position in the area and started waiting for accused.
PW7 SI Ranjeet Singh has further deposed that at about 6.40 pm, accused Joginder @ Bachhi was seen coming from Siraspur side and on the pointing out of secret informer, he was apprehended and from his possession one country made katta, which was found loaded was recovered and from the left side dub of the wearing pant, a live cartridge was recovered. He unloaded the recovered katta and removed the cartridge from it. He prepared sketch of the recovered katta and two live cartridges and got registered the FIR no. 653/01 against accused Joginder @ Bachhi and further investigation was handed over to SI Kaushal Ganguly.
PW21 SI Kaushal Ganguly has deposed about the facts of the further investigation and has stated that accused Joginder @ Bachhi made disclosure statement about his involvement in the present case, so he informed the IO of this case and handed over the copy of disclosure statement to the IO of this case, photocopy of which is PW17/I. PW7 SI Ranjeet Singh and PW21 SI Kaushal Ganguly have not been cross examined, in any manner on behalf of accused Joginder @ Bachhi.
PW18 HC Harpal has also deposed the same facts as of PW7 regarding the arrest of accused Joginder @ Bachhi and that further investigation conducted by SI Kaushal Ganguly. In the cross examination, PW18 HC Harpal Singh has again deposed that accused Joginder @ Bacchi has made disclosure statement, in his presence. So nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony. PW22 Ct Dilbagh has also deposed the same facts regarding the arrest of accused Joginder @ Bachhi and that he had made disclosure statement. PW22 has been cross examined at length but as witnesses i.e. PW7 SI Ranjeet Singh, PW18 HC Harpal Singh and PW21 SI Kaushal Ganguly have not been cross examined, in SC No. 103/1/10 26 any manner, hence in absence of any contradictions, PW22 Ct Dilbagh cannot be disbelieved, so from the depositions of these witnesses, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused Joginder @ Bachhi was arrested on 20/01/01 in case FIR no. 653/01 and he had made disclosure statement about this case, at that time.
According to PW17 Inspector Sanjeev Chahar, on 06/08/2001, further investigation of this case was handed over to him. Accused Renu @ Khatri had surrendered in the Court and after seeking permission , he was interrogated and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW11/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW17/A, he also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Renu @ Khatri and moved application for his TIP vide Ex.PW15/A, but he refused to join the TIP proceedings. He also obtained the copy of the TIP proceedings vide Ex.PW15/C. PW17 Inspector Sanjeev Chahar has further deposed that accused Renu Khatri led the police party at Siraspur Gurudwara, opposite Satyam Property and pointed out the place, where he alongwith his other associates committed robbery of a truck containing rice. He prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW12/A. Thereafter, accused Renu Khatri led the police party in the field of one Het Ram in village Bankner, near Vishal Bagh, Narela Bawana Road, and pointed out the place, where his associates had left the robbed truck alongwith his driver and conductor. PW17 prepared the pointing out memo, in this regard Ex. PW12/B. Thereafter, accused Renu Khatri was remanded to JC.
PW17 has further deposed that on 25/09/2001, he formally arrested accused Joginder @ Bachhi vide memo Ex.PW17/C and conducted the personal search vide memo Ex.PW17/D. Thereafter, accused Joginder @ Bachhi also pointed out the place of occurrence vide Ex.pW17/E and thereafter he also pointed out the place, where the truck alongwith its driver and conductor was left vide memo Ex.PW17/F. PW17 has further deposed that he moved the application SC No. 103/1/10 27 Ex.PW17/G for TIP of accused Joginder @ Bachhi but he refused to join the TIP proceedings and he also obtained the copy of the TIP Proceedings vide Ex.PW17/H. PW17 has further stated that he also obtained the copy of the disclosure statement of accused Joginder @ Bachhi Ex.PW17/I and copy of FIR no. 653/01 Ex.PW17/J. Accused Joginder @ Bachhi was arrested in some other case, so he was formally arrested, in this case. Similarly accused Renu Khatri surrendered before the court. Both the accused refused to join the TIP.
Ld defence counsel has contended that identity of both the accused has not been been proved beyond reasonable doubts as according to PW17, accused Renu Khatri was formally arrested on 04/09/01 and he refused to join the TIP proceeding on 07/09/01 but according to PW12 HC Ram Niwas , after arrest of accused Renu Khatri they have come back to PS and they reached at PS. Complainant Ram Babu Sharma had also reached at the PS and he identified accused Renu Khatri as one of the accused, who drove the truck at the time of the incident. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW12 have not been able to depose as to whether accused Renu Khatri was identified by PW6 Ram Babu Sharma in the PS before refusal to join the TIP or after that. So identity of accused Renu Khatri is doubtful before the Court as the same, who had robbed the truck at the time of the dacoity and left the same with driver and conductor, in the field. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has stated before the Court in examination of Chief that Renu Khatri drove the truck but his identification is based on the fact that accused Renu Khatri was shown to him in the PS on 07/09/01, so PW6 Ram Babu Sharma cannot be relied upon, in this respect.
Ld defence counsel have contended that according to the case of prosecution, 136 photographs were also recovered showing the accused persons, at the time of arrest of accused persons from house no.50, Rajender Park Enclave and these photographs were not sealed, after their recovery, in any manner and if at all, PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has identified the accused persons before the Court then the SC No. 103/1/10 28 same could be based on these photographs because at the time of incident, it was complete dark, hence the assailants could not have been seen by PW6 and because of this reason, PW20 Mahender have not been identified the accused persons before the Court.
In view of the above, contentions of Ld defence counsel for accused persons are forceful. Testimony of PW6 Ram Babu Sharma is not inspiring any confidence regarding the identity of the accused persons as the same, who had committed dacoity and left the empty truck at an isolated place. PW20 Mahender Singh has not been able to identify the accused persons as the same, who had committed dacoity. It also seems to be doubtful that at the time of dacoity, both the witnesses PW6 Ram Babu Sharma and PW20 Mahender Singh were able to identify the accused persons because according to their deposition, there was total dark. Accordingly, prosecution has not been able to prove offence u/s 365/34 and 395/35 of IPC against accused Subhash Tyagi, Mandeep Rana, Charan Singh, Renu Khatri and Joginder @ Bachhi and they are acquitted for offence u/s 365/34 and 395/34 of IPC and accused Charan Singh is also acquitted for offence u/s 397 of IPC.
Findings qua offence 412/34 of IPC against accused Subhash, Mandeep Rana and Charan Singh According to PW6 Ram Babu Sharma, on 20/06/2001, four accused persons were arrested. He kept joining the investigation with police. He was called at PS Narela. The accused persons were arrested from a two storey house, which was situated near some cinema hall. Accused Raju, Charan Singh, Mandeep and Subash were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/E to ExPW5/H. Their personal searches were conducted vide memos are Ex.PW5/I to PW5/L. Recovery was effected from many places and was seized in his presence. The recovery was effected from one godown from Begumpur, Narela side. Out of 14.5 tons, recovery of 5/10 were effected.
SC No. 103/1/10 29
According to PW5 HC Roop Kishore on 20/06/2001, he was posted at PS Samaypur Badli and on that day, he alongwith SI R. Shriniwasan , SI Rajeev Kumar, SI Ranjeet Singh, CT Joginder, Ct Anil, Ct Baljit and Ct Rajesh alongwith complainant Ram Babu have joined the investigation and they reached near PS Narela, where SI Sanjay Dahiya alongwith staff met them, who also joined the investigation. PW5 has further deposed that secret information was received by IO that the accused persons who had committed robbery of rice and grams are present near Lokesh Cinema in a house at second floor. Thereafter they all alongwith the secret informer reached at House No. 50, Rajinder Park, Nangloi belonging to one Ramphal. House was pointed out by secret informer, thereafter they went to second floor of the house, where in the last room, four boys were found sitting , who after seeing the police party became disturbed and one of them jumped in the gali from backside. One accused i.e. accused Subhash was apprehended by PW5 HC Roop Kishore with the help of other staff and other accused persons namely Mandeep, Jagbeer @ Raju and Charan Singh were apprehended by other police officials. They all were interrogated. PW5 has further deposed th at accused all four made disclosure statement Ex.PW5/A of accused Subhash, Ex.PW5/B of accused Mandeep, Ex.PW5/C of accused Jagdeep, Ex PW5/D of accused Charan Singh. They all were arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/E, F, G and H. These accused persons were also identified by complainant Ram Babu Sharma. Their personal searches were also conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/I, J, K and L. PW5 has further deposed that the room of accused was searched by SI Ranjit and from the room 136 colour photographs, airgun and one camera were recovered, which were sealed with the seal of RSS and were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/M. PW5 has identified the camera as Ex.P4, air gun as Ex.P5 and 136 photographs collectively as Ex.P6. Thereafter accused Charan Singh, Subash, Mandeep Rana and Raju led the police party to near godown at Begumpur and pointed the same, where they had kept the rice after committing the dacoity. From SC No. 103/1/10 30 the godown, 106 bags of Best Quality rice of 35 kg, weight each and 10 bags of Bablu Basmati rice of 35 kg, each were recovered and at the time of this recovery, complainant Ram Babu was also present with police party. These were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/N. PW5 has further deposed that thereafter accused persons led the police party from where they have robbed truck no. MP07G3611 and the place where they left the truck vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/O to V. Complainant Ram Babu has also identified all these accused persons vide memo Ex.PW5/Z. PW7 SI Ranjeet Singh has also deposed the same facts regarding arrest of accused persons from House no. 50, Rajendera Park Enclave and has further identified 136 photographs, one camera, air gun as Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6.
PW10 HC Joginder Singh has also deposed the same facts as of other witnesses regarding the arrest of all these accused persons and has further deposed that accused persons took the police party to Rajeev Nagar, Begum Pur Road at godown. The shutter of the godown was got opened and from there, 106 kattas of basmati rice were recovered on which picture of Lord Hanuman was printed with green colour and 10 kattas of Babloo TMT Basmati Rice on which picture of a child was printed with wheatish colour. The kattas were of 35 kgs and these were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/N. PW14 SI R. Shri Niwasan has also deposed the same facts as of other witnesses regarding the arrest of all these four accused persons and recovery effected at their instances i.e. 106 kattas of basmati rice, on which picture of Lord Hanuman was printed with green colour and 10 kattas of Babloo TMT Basmati Rice on which picture of a child was printed with wheatish colour. The kattas were of 35 kgs and these were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/N. PW16 HC Rajesh has also deposed the same facts as of other witnesses regarding the arrest of accused persons and regarding recovery of 106 bags of basmati rice weighing 35 kg each and 10 kattas of basmati rice Babloo TMT SC No. 103/1/10 31 brand weighing 35 kg, on the pointing out of accused persons from godown of Begumpur near Kale ki dukan, which were seized in this case.
Ld defence counsel has contended that PW5, PW6, PW7, PW10, PW14 SI R. Sriniwasan and PW16 HC Rajesh have not corroborated as to at what time, have they reached PS Samaypur Badli and further when they reached in area of Narela. Ld defence counsel has further contended that sudden meeting of secret informer and SI Sanjay Dahiya of PS Narela was not probable, in any manner. Ld defence counsel has further contended that witnesses have also contradicted as to whether all the four accused persons were present in the room or were present outside the room. Witnesses have also contradicted about the presence of house owner Ramphal. They have also contradicted about the description of the rice bags recovered on the pointing out of accused persons.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that it is also not investigated as to whom the godown was belonging. It is further contended that no entry at PS Narela was made regarding the visit of the police party with the complainant. Ld defence counsel has further contended that none of the witness has stated before the Court that the said godown from where the recovery was effected was not found locked, which seems to be highly improbable that godown having so much quantity of rice was lying unlocked. So the manner, in which accused persons have been arrested as deposed by the witnesses is not reliable and more so, recovery of rice sacks at the instance of accused persons is doubtful.
According to the cross examination of PW5 HC Roop Kishore, they left in TSR, Maruti car, two motorcycles and reached PS Narela in between 1.30 am to 2.00 am. SI Sanjay Dhaiya was standing there alongwith police staff . They remained their with SI Sanjay Dahiya for about 10/12 minutes and then went to house no. 50 Rajendera Park, Nangloi from PS Narela at about 2.30/3.00 am, with complainant Ram Babu and secret informer. SI Sanjay Dahiya also reached their in his own car.
SC No. 103/1/10 32
Ld defence counsel has further contended that it seems to be impossible that in the night, SI Sanjay Dahiya was standing there alongwith other police staff, which shows that if at all he was present there , then he must have been informed by PW14 SI R. Shriniwasan about the arrival of the police party and certainly the secret information was with them before in hand. So, the deposition of witnesses in this respect that the secret informer met them there by chance seems to be doubtful.
PW5 HC Roop Kishore has further stated in the cross examination that the stair case which leads to second floor of the house was open and the same was built in the gali. There was street lights and the other lights at the spot and the writing work was done by the IO while sitting on the pavements of the houses in the gali.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that witnesses have also contradicted with each other as to where the writing work was done and also whether the stairs were opening in the gali or were going to the second floor from inside the house or whether the ground floor of the house was found open.
According to the cross examination of PW6, on 20/06/2003, they had reached the PS at about 10/11.00 am. They went in police vehicle. One Maruti was also with them. He was sitting in the police vehicle, which was of staff . They reached at house from where the accused persons were arrested at about 11/11.15 pm, in the night. The gate of the house was closed but open by the police officers from the back side of the house. Accused Charan Sigh made a jump from the house to escape and sustained injuries on his foot and after arresting the accused persons, they came to PS directly.
In further cross examination, PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has stated that he does not know about the secret information of the presence of the accused. The entry to the house, where the accused persons were present was made by the police party from the adjoining house and other members of the police party entered into the house after it was open from inside by the police. Again he has stated that after SC No. 103/1/10 33 arresting the accused persons, they were brought to PS and it was night time when they returned to the PS. PW6 has further stated in the cross examination that in his presence, accused persons had not told anything to the police.
Ld defence counsel has contended that this part of the cross examination of PW6 Ram Babu Sharma is also contrary to the deposition of other witnesses and this itself shows that after the arrest, accused were brought to PS and no recovery was effected and further accused persons had not disclosed anything in the presence of PW6, hence neither it can be believed that accused persons were arrested in the manner as deposed by witnesses nor that they have made any disclosure statement.
To my mind, these contentions of Ld defence counsels are not forceful, in any manner because PW6 has further stated in the cross examination that wherever police went with the accused persons, recovery was got effected in parts by the accused persons. They had gone to 78 places for recovery, most of the rice were recovered from two places. PW6 Ram Babu Sharma had denied that he had sold the rice somewhere else and falsely implicating the accused persons and has further stated that after recovery from accused Pawan and Anitl, police party with recovered rice and accused persons came back to PS. Except the irregularity as pointed out about the writing work as deposed by the police witnesses and by PW6 Ram Babu Sharma, there is nothing to disbelieve his testimony about the recovery of rice on the pointing out of accused persons. According to further cross of PW6 Ram Babu Sharma, all those persons, who were owner of the material, which was loaded in the truck had also been called at the time of recovery and they had identified their material. Accused persons had not claimed the ownership of material, in any manner, so non explanation of the persons, who had identified the material at the time of recovery, is not material at all, Irregularities regarding the proceedings conducted and manner are minor in nature. Such a huge quantity of rice bags recovered from the possession of accused persons SC No. 103/1/10 34 could not have been planted upon them by the police party or by the complainant to falsely implicate them, more so nothing has been suggested that complaint or police was having any motive to falsely implicate them, so the witnesses cannot be disbelieved, in any manner.
According to the cross examination of PW7 SI Ranjeet Singh, Ramphal, owner of the house and his family members were present at the ground floor is itself contradictory to the deposition of other witnesses. PW7 SI Ranjeet Singh has further stated that door at the start of the stairs of the ground floor was already found open, which is again contrary to the deposition of other witnesses . PW7 has further stated in the cross examination that they remained over there for about 45 hours, while carrying out the proceedings in the gali outside while sitting on their motorcycles, which is again contrary to the deposition of other witnesses. PW7 has also stated in the cross examination that they had gone in the private maruti car and private motorcycles and had also hired TSR for going at PS, whereas PW6 has stated that they had gone in police vehicle, so this is also contrary fact regarding the manner in which, police party have reached at the place of arrest of accused persons, but again these contradictions cannot negates the recovery of rice from the possession of accused persons, hence these have no bearing on the testimony of the witnesses.
According to PW10 HC Joginder singh, they were in one maruti car, one TSR and two motorcycles and has further that main gate of the house was found open and the rooms were locked. On the pointing out of the secret informer, they went inside the house on the second floor. The stairs were inside the main gate. No family members or owner of the house was present at that time.
Ld defence counsel has contended that all these facts are contrary to the deposition of other witnesses, which raises doubts as to whether the accused persons were apprehended in the manner as deposed by the witnesses. PW10 has also stated in the cross examination that all the writing work was done while sitting in the gali, which is contrary to the cross examination of PW7 SI Ranjeet Singh that writing SC No. 103/1/10 35 work was done on the motorcycles.
PW10 has further deposed that after the arrest of accused persons they reached at godown at Rajeev Nagar after 6.00 am. The shutter was down. Neither any chowkidar nor the owner of godown was present there.
Ld defence counsel has contended that it seems highly improbable that so much huge quantity of rice was lying unattended and unlocked in the godown, so the witnesses cannot be relied upon regarding the recovery of rice from the godown at Rajeev Nagar.
According to the cross examination PW14 SI R. Shriniwasan, complainant Ram Babu Sharma met them in PS on the intervening night of 19/20.06.2001 at about 11.30/12 am night. The complainant came alone to the PS of his own. The complainant was discharged on 20/06/2001 at about 2.30 am from Siraspur.
Ld defence counsel has contended that this part of the cross examination, PW14 SI R. Shriniwasan is contrary to the deposition of PW6 Ram Babu Sharma, and firstly it seems to be highly improbable as to how Ram Babu Sharma came at PS in the midnight on 19/01/01 without any intimation, secondly according to the cross of PW6 Ram Babu Sharma, he came back to PS after recovery of rice and arrest of accused persons with the police, which is contrary to the fact that he got discharged on 20/06/01 at about 2.30 am from Siraspur.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that coming of secret informer at his own in the area of PS Narela in front of PW14 also seems to be improbable and according to his further cross examination House No.50, Nangloi was found open and the owner of the house Ramphal did not meet them and later on also, he never met him. Nobody from the family of said Ram Phal was present at that time as the ground floor and first floor was found locked. PW14 has further stated that disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded at the place of arrest at about 6/7 am and from there they had reached at Rajiv Nagar, Begumpur and writing SC No. 103/1/10 36 work was don while sitting outside the house, in the gali by sitting on the earth in the streetlight.
Ld defence counsel has contended that all these facts as deposed by PW14 SI R. Shriniwasan are contary to the deposition of other witnesses, so they cannot be relied upon, in any manner regarding the manner in which the accused persons have been arrested and also regarding the recovery of rice bags from the godown at Rajeev Nagar on the pointing out of these accused persons.
PW16 HC Rajesh has stated that some police persons were in uniform and some were in civil dress, whereas other witnesses have stated that they were in plain clothes. PW16 has also stated that one Ramphal, owner of the house had also reached there in the gali. The stairs were approachable from the gali itself. The stairs were also connected with first floor.
Ld defence counsel has contended that all these facts as deposed by PW16 in his cross examination are contrary with the deposition of other witnesses and raises doubts about their testimonies.
I am not agree with the contention of Ld defence counsels. PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has stated that both the drivers were sent back, when the truck was released on superdari and he remained in the PS till all the recovery was effected and he was staying in the PS itself, so under such circumstances, contradictions have appeared because PW6 Ram Babu Sharma was not knowing the geography of Delhi and such contradictions, in view of the recovery of rice bags from the possession of accused persons, are immaterial.
After the arrest of accused persons from House no. 50 Rajender park Enclave, 136 photographs, one Camera and one airgun were recovered and same have been identified before the Court by the witnesses as Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. In this 136 photographs, accused persons can be seen together at some hill stations and at some other place. These photographs could not have been fabricated and planted upon the accused persons, in any manner. So recovery of 136 photographs from SC No. 103/1/10 37 House no.50, Rajender Enclave itself proves that accused persons were arrested from there and further they got recovered 106 and 10 kattas of different brand of accused on 20/06/01 from godown at Begumpur. So the contentions of Ld defence counsel regarding the contradictions as appearing in the depositions and irregularities in conducting the proceedings are not forceful in any manner and are not material to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses.
One Dr. A.K. Singh, has also been examined as DW1 from Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Delhi, who is Senior Scientist and he has deposed that the basic difference between Sharbati rice and basmati rice is of aroma. So in view of the deposition of DW1, the contentions of Ld defence counsel that in the documents of M/s Gian Chand Sandeep Kumar and builty of Delhi, M.P Freight , rice sharbati has been mentioned and the rice Basmati has been recovered in this case, is of no consequence because it cannot be expected from a lay man to understand such a minute difference as deposed by DW1 Dr. A.K. Singh, Senior Scientist from Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Delhi.
In such circumstances, the contentions of Ld counsels regarding identity of the rice katta, which were recovered from the accused persons, is also not forceful, in any manner. The photographs of rice sacks were taken on record as per order dated 07/02/08. According to PW8 HC Amar Pal on 20/06/01 and 22/06/01, rice sacks were deposited with him by SI R. Shriniwasan and he has made entry vide Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C. He has also produced the original register no.19, in which the entries have been made, in this respect. PW8 has not been cross examined, in any manner. So this also negates the possibility of planting of the case property against the accused persons.
In view of the above, the contentions of Ld defence counsel are not forceful, in any manner. Prosecution has been able to prove from the testimonies of the witnesses, who are inspiring confidence that 106 rice sacks of 35 kg each and 10 bags of Bablu Brand, were recovered from godown at Begumpur at the instance SC No. 103/1/10 38 of accused Subhash Tyagi, Mandeep Rana and Charan Singh, after their arrest, which were identified by PW6 Ram Babu Sharma and also by the owners of the rice, from where these rice bags were loaded in truck No. MP07G3611 and robbed on 11/06/01. None of the accused has claimed ownership of the rice bags, in any manner. It is also not told by the accused persons that they have purchased the rice from someone or were dealing in rice, in any manner. Recovery has been effected on 20/06/01. In absence of any explanation, it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused persons were retaining the said stolen property knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be robbed one. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove offence u/s 412/34 of IPC against accused Subhash Tyagi, Mandeep Rana and Charan Singh, beyond reasonable doubts, for which they are held guilty and convicted for the same.
Findings qua offence u/s 412 of IPC against accused Pawan and Anil.
According to PW5 HC Roop Kishore, after arrest of accused Subhash, Mandeep Rana, Charan Singh and Raju and recovery of rice on their pointing out, accused persons led the party to Pawan Store Begampur from where accused Pawan was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/W. At that time complainant Ram Babu was also accompanying them. Personal search of accused Pawan was conducted. Accused Pawan also made his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW5/X and at his instance on 22/06/01 from a shop at Barwala Karala Road, accused Pawan got recovered 67 bags of rice of best quality of 35 kg each and these bags were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/Y. PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has stated that the recovery was effected by the police party from so many places and material was seized in his presence. It was effected from one godown from Begumpur, Narela and out of 14.5 tons recovery of 5/10 tones was effected. Some recovery was effected from his godown. PW6 Ram Babu Sharma has further stated that from the shop of accused Anil, certain recovery was effected and also on the pointing out of Anil, who was having kirana SC No. 103/1/10 39 shop and having godown at the back of the shop. Rice bags, were got recovered by Anil, from the godown.
According to PW10 HC Joginder Singh, all the accused persons namely Subash, Charan Singh, Mandeep Rana and Raju had led the police party to Barwala Road, Pawan Store near Shiv mandir and there at the instance of accused persons, accused Pawan was apprehended and interrogated and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/W and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/A. PW10 HC Joginder Singh has further deposed that he alongwith SI R.Shriniwasan, accused Pawan and Charan Singh, who were on police remand reached at H. No. B2/179, Sector20, Rohini and there at the instance of accused Pawan, accused Anil was apprehended and accused Pawan told that about one month ago, he had sold Anil about 60 kattas of Kshetra Brand Basmati Rice and 20 kattas of chana of Mangal kalash brand. On the kattas of chana, Bajrang Dal Mill was written. Accused Anil was interrogated and he got recovered 15 kattas of rice of Kshetra Brand Basmati Rice of 35 kgs each and 12 kattas of chana of Mangal Kalash brand, which were seized vie memo Ex.PW10/B. The kattas of channa were separately sealed. PW10 has further deposed that accused Anil was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW10/D. He also made disclosure statement vide Ex.PW10/E and accused Anil had also told that he had sold the remaining kattas and he handed over to IO Rs. 18,000/ and Rs. 11,000/, the amount, which he received after selling the remaining rice and chana, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW10/F. PW10 has further deposed that on 22/06/01, he again joined the investigation of this case and accused Pawan and Charan Singh, who were in police custody led the police party firstly to Nangloi and on detailed interrogation, accused took them on Barwala to Karala Road, to a shop in the fields and told that the remaining items were lying inside the shop. The shop was got opened and 67 kattas of Kshetra Basmati Rice were lying and the same were seized vide memo SC No. 103/1/10 40 Ex.pW5/Y. Thereafter, accused persons were brought to PS and the case property was deposited in the malkhana.
PW14 SI R. Shriniwasan has stated that all the four accused persons i.e. Subhash Tyagi, Mandeep Rana @ Tiger, Jagbir @ Raju and Charan Singh led the police party to the shop of accused Pawan situated at Begumpur Barwala Road near Shiv Mandir on 20/06/01, to whom they had sold rice and gram, which was robbed by them and on the pointing of accused persons, accused Pawan was apprehended and arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/W. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/A, his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW5/X. According to PW14 SI R. Shriniwasan, in further investigation, accused Pawan led him, Ct Joginder and CT Anil to sector 20 Rohini and there on his pointing out, accused Anil was apprehended from his shop cum residence. Accused Anil was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW10/D. He also made disclosure statement Ex.PW10/E and in furtherance of his disclosure statement, accused Anil got recovered 15 sacks of Kdhetra Brand Basmati Rice and Sharbati Rice, which he had purchased from accused Pawan. Same were seized vide memo Ex.PW10/B. Accused Anil had also got recovered 12 sacks of kabulil chana, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW14/D. Accused Anil has also got recovered Rs. 29,000/ being the sale price of 8 sacks of gram and 45 sacks of rice, which he had already sold out of the stock purchased by him from accused Pawan, these were seized vide memo Ex.PW10/F. Thereafter they came back to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana.
According to PW14 SI R. Shriniwasan, on 22/06/01, accused Pawan led the police party to a room constructed in an agricultural field situated at Barwala karala Road and got recovered 67 sacks of Shetra Brand Basmati Rice on which picture of god Hanuman in green colour was printed, which he had purchased from other accused, who had robbed the said truck, same were seized vide memo Ex.pW5/Y. Thereafter they came back to PS and case property was deposited in the SC No. 103/1/10 41 malkhana.
PW5 HC Roop Kishore has identified the bag, which were recovered. Photo of Hanuman was also printed on the rice bag. Seizure memo was prepared at the spot. 67 recovered rice bags were taken to PS in the tanker from the spot.
PW6 Ram Babu has stated that accused Pawan and Anil were arrested on 21/06/01 and he remained with police for about 12 days for concluding the investigation and left on 24/06/01. He has further stated that after recovery, Pawan and Anil were arrested and brought to PS and separate vehicle was hired by IO for bringing the material to the PS. According to the cross examination of PW10 HC Joginder Singh, after the arrest of all the four accused persons and recovery, they went to Barwala road to the shop of accused Pawan and remained there for about 3035 minutes. Disclosure statement of accused Pawan was recorded and from there, there went to Narela and came back to PS S.P. Badli at around 1.00 pm. According to further cross examination of PW10 HC Joginder Singh, they reached at the shop of accused Anil in the afternoon, which was a general store and some recovery was effected, which was taken to the PS in the delivery van.
PW14 SI R. Shriniwasan has stated in the cross examination that accused Pawan was arrested on 20/06/01 from his shop of godown at Begumpur Barwala road. The recovery was effected at the instance of accused Pawan on 22/06/01 from the shop going from Barwala to Karala. 67 bags of Kshetra Brand of Basmati Road, at the instance of accused Pawan. Brand of bags were printed on the bags itself.
Ld defence counsels for accused Pawan and Anil have contended that again in cross examination, PW5, PW6, PW10 and PW14 have contradicted each other about the recovery from there and on pointing out of accused Anil and Pawan. Hence, they cannot be relied upon, in any manner.
Ld defence counsel for accused Pawan has contended that in defence SC No. 103/1/10 42 DW2 Veerpal has been examined, who has stated that on 20/06/01, at about 9 pm, when he reached at the shop at village Begumpur, Barwala Road, it was closed . He made inquiry from Panditji, who was present near the temple and he came to know that accused Pawan was taken by the police in the previous night. In the meantime, father of accused Pawan came there and handed over keys of shop to him and he told him that he was going to PS. He looked after the said shop for 45 days and during that period no police officials came there, in his presence. Accused Pawan is only having the said shop and no godown is owned by accused Pawan.
Ld defence counse has contended that from the deposition of DW2 Veerpal, it is clear that recovery as alleged by the witnesses has been planted upon the accused Pawan, hence cannot be relied upon, in any manner.
In my view, the contention of Ld defence counsel is not forceful, in any manner. There are irregularities in the proceedings conducted by the police officials but they are not going to the extent that no such recovery has been effected from or at the pointing of accused persons. Such a huge quantity of recovery is not possible for police to plant against the accused persons and no motive has been brought on record to show and suggest that accused persons have been falsely implicated, in this case, due to some probable reason. From the deposition of DW2, even it is not proved that accused Pawan was having a shop at Barwala Karala road, so the identity of shop is not in dispute.
In the cross examination, DW2 Veerpal has not been able to prove that he was working at the shop of accused Pawan. It also seems to be strange that one independent witness i.e. DW2 Veerpal has been examined without any record, whereas father or any other family members of accused Pawan could have been better witness to the fact that accused Pawan was lifted illegally. DW2 has also denied about the case, which was alleged against accused Pawan by the police. It also seems to be improbable that he did not come to know about the case, if he was working at the shop of accused Pawan, so he is not inspiring any confidence and is SC No. 103/1/10 43 not reliable.
In view of the above, the contentions of Ld defence counsels are not forceful, in any manner, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts from the testimony of the witnesses, who are inspiring confidence that kattas recovered from accused Anil and Pawan were stolen property. However, from the depositions of PW10 HC Joginder Singh, accused persons told that they had sold the remaining items to accused Pawan and it has also come in the evidence that accused Pawan, further sold certain items to accused Anil, although both the accused Pawan and Anil have not claimed that they are bonafide purchaser of these rice kattas but if these were sold by the accused persons to accused Pawan and Anil, then certainly, they were not having any reason to believe or were knowing that it was robbed property, so offence u/s 412 of IPC is not proved against both the accused and nothing has been brought on record that rice was purchased by both accused Pawan and Anil on the market rate, hence in such circumstances, atleast they were having knowledge that rice were stolen property, which they must have purchased at the lower rate than market rate, so prosecution has been able to prove offence u/s 411 of IPC against each of the accused Pawan and Anil, for which they both are held guilty and convicted for the same.
Announced in the open court today on 26th of February, 2013 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
SC No. 103/1/10 44 SC No. 103/1/10 45 SC No. 103/1/10 46 SC No. 103/1/10 47 SC No. 103/1/10 48 SC No. 103/1/10 49 SC No. 103/1/10 50 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,27,29,31,33,35,37,39,41,43,45,47,49,51,53,55,57, 59,61,63,65,67,69,71 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40,42,44,46,48,50,52,54,56,58, 60,62,64,66,68,70 SC No. 103/1/10 51