Delhi District Court
State vs . Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors. on 29 April, 2023
FIR No. 13/18
State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri
U/s 394/397/34 IPC
IN THE COURT OF VIPLAV DABASS,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.266/2018
CNR No. DLSW-01-008798-2018
JUDGMENT
(a) FIR no. 13/18
(b) Police Station Vikaspuri
(c) Name, Parentage and 1. Armeet Singh @ Jitu
s/o Sh. Wazir Singh
addresses of the accused
r/o WZ-82, Sant Garh, Tilak
persons. Nagar, Delhi.
2.Prabjot Singh @ Prince @
Pathi s/o Sh. Baljeet Singh
r/o Sant Garh, Near Aggarwal
Chowk, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
3. Jatin Bagga @ Bagga
s/o Sh. Rajender Bagga
r/o WZ-54, Prithvi Park, Tilak
Nagar, Delhi.
4. Ashish Taneja @ Bhatija s/o
Sh. Jitender Taneja
r/o WZ-196, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
(d) Offence 394/397 IPC & 394/34 IPC
Page No.1 of45
FIR No. 13/18
State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri
U/s 394/397/34 IPC
(e) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(f) Final Order Acquitted
(g) Date of institution 06.04.2018
(h) Date of Session committal 18.04.2018
(i) Date of Transfer to this 27.08.2022
court
(j) Date of reserving 29.04.2023
judgment
(k) Date of judgment 29.04.2023
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. On 07.01.2018, at about 6.45 pm, near Himgiri Apartments, Vikas Puri, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, accused persons namely Prabhjot Singh @ Prince @ Pathi, Jatin Bagga @ Bagga, Ashish Taneja @ Bhatija and Armeet Singh in furtherance of their common intention robbed complainant Vipin Kumar Gupta of Rs.5,300/- and his wallet containing SBI ATM Card and other documents by using a deadly weapon i.e. knife and also caused hurt to complainant. On the basis of the said allegations, present FIR was registered and a charge-sheet for offences punishable u/s 394/397/411/34 IPC was filed after usual investigation.
Page No.2 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC INITIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE
2. The Court of Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and after the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C were complied, the matter was committed to the Ld. Sessions Court.
3. After hearing arguments, as a prime facie case was made out, charge for offences punishable u/s 394/397 IPC was framed against the accused Armeet Singh @ Jitu and a separate charge for offences punishable u/s 394/34 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Prabhjot Singh @ Prince @ Pathi, Jatin Bagga @ Bagga and Ashish Taneja @ Bhatija, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 394/397/34 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Sections:
a. Section 394 IPC:- If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall be liable to fine.
b. Section 397 IPC:- If at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, Page No.3 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
c. Section 34 IPC:-
i) That the criminal act or a series of acts which include omissions and need not necessary be an overt act should have been done not by one person but by more then one person.
ii) That the doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting into the commission of criminal offence should have been in furtherance/ advancement/ promotion of common intention of all such persons.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove the aforementioned ingredients for substantiating the accusations levelled against the accused persons.
6. PW-1 Sh. Vipin Kumar Gupta is the victim/ complainant. He deposed that he was working as a vegetable vendor on movable rehri, that on 07.01.2018, he was going to Keshavpur Mandi with his rehri, that at about 6:45 a.m., when he reached outer ring road, near Himgiri Apartments, Vikaspuri, one Scooty came from behind on which 4 persons were sitting, that they stopped his rehri by parking the scooty in front of my rehri, that three of them came towards him and one person remained at the scooty, that one person who was Sikh, was having one knife with him and they grabbed him, that Sikh person gave him knife blow from its handle side and told him Page No.4 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC to give everything which he was having and that thereafter, the other two persons took out Rs.5,300/- from his shirt's pocket and also took his black colour purse in which few documents and SBI bank ATM card was there. He further deposed that thereafter, accused persons ran away from the spot, that victim went to Astha hospital, Tilak Nagar and after that he went back to his house from where he made the call to the police on number 100.
He further deposed that he cannot identify the accused persons since they were in muffled face and there was fog at the time of incident and that the police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/1, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the money was in denomination of Rs.500 x7 and Rs.100 x18 and that he can identify the money if shown to him.
He correctly identified the case property i.e currency notes in denomination of Rs.500x7 and Rs.100x10 and stated that one of the note of Rs.500/-which is having numeral 28 written in pencil in circle belongs to him as somebody had given him the said note which was taken away by the accused persons. The said Rs.500/- note is now Ex.P-1 (objected to by Ld. defence counsel). The photocopy of said note is Ex.PW1/21.
Court permitted the Ld. Addl. PP for State to cross examine the witness as the witness was resiling from his version on the point of identity of accused. During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for State he denied that accused Armeet Singh who is present in the court was the person armed with knife and gave him knife blow from its handle.
Page No.5 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC Accused persons Prabjot Singh, Jatin Bagga and Ashish Taneja were shown to the witness. He denied that these accused persons were also with accused Armeet Singh at the time of incident and committed the crime against him and that on 09.01.2018, he had identified accused Jatin Bagga, Armeet Singh and Prabjot Singh in the court. Witness was confronted with his statement Ex. PW-1/PX1 under section 161 Cr.P.C. where it is so recorded.
He further denied that on 13.02.2018, he had identified accused Ashish Taneja in the court. Witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/PX2 recorded by police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. where it is so recorded.
He admitted that he had shown the site to the police on the basis of which the police prepared the site plan. He further deposed that his medical treatment document is Ex.PW1/PX3.
He denied that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons as he was under any threat, coercion, duress imparted upon him by the accused persons, that he has been won over by the accused persons and that he wants to protect the accused persons from due process of law.
During his cross examination conducted by the Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that he does not remember the name of that person who had given him Rs.500/- note having 28 written on it as above stated, that he had not stated the said fact i.e. 28 written on said note to the police & that he had mobile phone in his possession at the time of the offence. He denied that he Page No.6 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC was deposing falsely.
7. PW-2: HC Pawan Kumar deposed that on 07.01.2018, he was posted at PS Vikaspuri, that on that day, on receiving DD No.20A, he alongwith IO ASI Rajender Singh had reached at the house of Vipin Kumar Gupta and then alongwith Ct. Vivek they reached at the spot i.e, Outer Ring Road near Himgiri Apartments, where the he recorded the statement of complainant, that the complainant/victim told that he was robbed by four persons by showing him a knife, that victim also told that one person was being called as Bagga by the other persons and that thereafter, IO prepared the rukka, handed over to him, that then he went to PS Vikaspuri and got the FIR of the present case registered and that he returned to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO.
He further deposed that the secret informer met them and told the IO that the accused persons involved in the present case would be available at Chandra Vihar, Kikarwala chowk, near Kaka Properties, that thereafter, they alongwith secret informer reached there alongwith other staff which was called from the PS, that the secret informer signalled towards three accused persons who were standing in the gali of Kaka Properties, Kikarwala Chowk, Chandra Vihar, that the accused persons were apprehended by them, that the names of the accused persons apprehended by them were found to be Jatin Bagga, Prabhjot Singh and Armeet Singh, that from the search of Page No.7 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC accused Armeet Singh, one knife was found from trouser's pocket of accused, that the sketch of the knife was prepared by the IO and the length of knife was 24.5 cm and the top of blade was having angled pattern, that the sketch of same is Ex.PW2/1, bearing his signature at point A, that the knife was then kept in a white cloth pullanda and was sealed with the seal of 'RS' and that the knife was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW2/2, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that from the pocket of pant/trouser of accused Jatin Bagga, Rs.4,500/- in the denomination of 500x7 and 100x10 were recovered, that the same were stated to be robbed from the complainants, that the said notes were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW2/3, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that from the possession of accused Parbjot Singh, money and mobile phone was recovered which was stated to be of some other case i.e. FIR No.6/18, PS Tilak Nagar and that the same were also seized by IO vide memo Ex.PW2/4, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the accused persons were then arrested by the IO, that accused persons Armeet Singh, Prabhjot and Jatin were arrested vide memos Ex.PW2/5, Ex.PW2/6 and Ex.PW2/7 respectively, all bearing his signature at point A and that their disclosure statements were recorded by IO vide memo is Ex.PW2/8, Ex.PW2/9 and Ex.PW2/10 respectively, all bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that all the above said three Page No.8 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC accused persons are present in the court today and (correctly identified ) them. He correctly identified the knife & is now Ex.P-2.
During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he admitted that the place of arrest was a public place and public persons were present there. He voluntarily deposed that the public persons left the place when they apprehended the accused persons.
He further deposed that IO had requested few persons to join the investigation proceedings but none agreed though notice was given to them by the IO, that there were few shops near the said place, that from those shops no shopkeeper was called by the IO to join the proceedings, that site plan of place of arrest was not prepared by the IO and that no specific DD entry was lodged in respect of secret information. He voluntarily deposed that they were on the DD No.20A and in continuation of that, secret informer met them, that secret informer met them on the spot and from the spot they went to the place of arrest.
He denied that no recovery was effected from the accused persons, that no disclosure statements of accused person were recorded or that they were forced to sign on blank papers.
8. PW-3 HC Vivek was the Head Constable posted at Police Station Vikas Puri on 07.01.2018. He deposed that on that day, DO informed him to go to spot upon which he went to spot where IO ASI Rajender Singh met Page No.9 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC him alongwith secret informer and HC Pawan. He further deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW2 HC Pawan. So, the remaining part of his examination in chief is not being reproduced. He correctly identified the accused persons & case property i.e. knife as Ex.P-2.
During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that DO had called him through some one from his room in PS, that he does not remember the person who called him, that he went to spot on his personal motorcycle, that the secret informer went alongwith him on his motorcycle, that his motorcycle was ahead and IO and Ct. Pawan followed him & that the accused persons were standing in front of one house. He deposed that there were shops near the place of arrest and that neither him nor IO called anybody from that house or from the shops to join the investigation.
He further deposed that the sketch of knife and other memos were prepared while standing in the gali & that the public persons were not gathered while the proceedings were conducted. He denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons. He further deposed that in his presence, IO had not requested any person to join the proceedings & that DO had not made any DD entry regarding his departure. He denied that accused persons had not given any disclosure statement and that he was deposing falsely being a police official.
Page No.10 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC
9. PW-4 Constable Sandeep was the Constable who was posted at police station Vikas Puri. He deposed that on 13.02.2018, he was posted as Ct. at PS Vikaspuri, that on that day, he had joined the investigation alongwith IO SI Sachin, that IO had interrogated accused Ashish Taneja in PS and recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW4/1, bearing his signature at point A, that then IO formally arrested the accused in present case vide memo Ex.PW4/2, bearing his signature at point A, that IO also filed up the age memo of accused which was Ex.PW4/3 & that then accused took them to the place of occurrence where at instance of accused, IO prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW4/4, bearing his signature at point A. During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that IO interrogated accused in the reception room adjacent to DO room. He denied that accused had not given any disclosure statement or that he was forced to sign on blank papers. He further deposed that no DD entry was made for the departure of spot. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
10. PW-5 Inspector Devender Singh was posted as Sub Inspector on 11.02.2018. He deposed that on that day, he was on night patrolling duty with a home guard/driver who was driving the government Gypsy, that Duty officer informed him that Constable Kuldeep and Ct. Sunil had apprehended two persons with a stolen motorcycle and one country made pistol at Pastry Palace, Outer Ring road, Vikaspuri, that thereafter, he reached there and Ct.
Page No.11 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC Kuldeep and Ct. Sunil handed over the accused persons with case property to him, that he recorded the statement of Ct. Kuldeep as complainant and got registered the FIR bearing no. 67/18 and that he inquired accused Ashish who disclosed regarding his involvement in present case and he recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/1, bearing his signature at point A. He correctly identified the accused present in the court.
During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he does not hand over any document regarding his patrolling duty to the IO, that they went to the spot of arrest in official Gypsy and that it was not his work to maintain the log book. He voluntarily deposed that it was the work of driver.
He further deposed that he does not remember whether driver made any entry in the log book pertaining to the visit at the spot & that he does not remember the exact location where he received information through duty officer. He voluntarily deposed that however he was in the area of police station on patrolling.
He further deposed that the distance between the place where he received information from duty officer to the spot was approximately 2 ½ km, that he shared the information with the driver of the Gypsy, that he does not remember the name of the driver, that the driver of Gypsy was having driving licence, that at the time of proceedings no public person was present there as it was very late in night, that they had tried to locate the guard but Page No.12 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC could not find him, that the place of apprehension is service road of Outer Ring Road & that he had not visited Vardhman market for the search of independent person/guard.
He denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons that he was deposing falsely or that no proceedings were carried out by him at the spot.
11. PW-6 Inspector Kuldeep was posted at Police Station Vikas Puri. He deposed that on that day he alongwith Ct. Sunil had apprehended accused Ashish Taneja on secret information during night patrolling at about 1:00 am and recovered one country made pistol from accused alongwith three live cartridges, that on the basis of same FIR No.67/18 was registered on his statement, that the IO of that case was SI Devender, who also arrested the accused Ashish Taneja, vide memo which is now exhibited as Ex.PW6/A (OSR), bearing his signature at point A, that he also recorded the disclosure statement, which is already Ex.PW5/1, bearing his signature at point X (now OSR), wherein accused disclosed about his involvement in present case and that his statement was also recorded in present case.
During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he denied that no disclosure statement of accused Ashish Taneja was recorded by IO at his instance, that signatures of accused Ashish Taneja were obtained later on disclosure statement forcibly, that FIR No.67/18 is ante-dated and Page No.13 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC ante-timed & that he is deposing falsely.
12. PW-7 Ms. Neelam Miglani was the primary teacher of SDMC School, Keshopur, New Delhi. She deposed that she has brought the summoned record pertaining to one Ashish Singh S/o Sh. Jitender Singh, that as per their record, Ashish Singh S/o Sh.Jitender Singh was admitted in the above said school on 15.04.2013, that date of birth of Ashish Singh was recorded in her record as 08.09.1999, that at the time of admission of Ashish Singh in the school, birth certificate of accused Ashish Singh was submitted alongwith the admission form, that the attested copy of relevant entry in the admission register is Ex.PW7/A. (OSR), that attested copy of admission form is Ex.PW7/B. (OSR) and that copy of birth certificate of Ashish Singh is Ex.PW7/C. The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity.
13. PW-8 SI Sachin was the 2 nd IO of the present case who was posted at police station Vikas Puri on 12.02.2018. He deposed that on that day, further investigation of this case was marked to him, that on 13.02.2018. SI Devender gave information to him that he had arrested Ashish Taneja @Bhatija, s/o Sh. Jitender Taneja in case FIR No.67/2018 under Section 411 IPC and 25 Arms Act, PS Vikas Puri and the said accused made disclosure statement regarding commission of offence in present case i.e. FIR Page No.14 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC no.13/2018 PS Vikas Puri, that he collected connected documents from SI Devender, that he interrogated the accused Ashish Taneja @Bhatija and thereafter he formally arrested said accused vide arrest memo already Ex. PW4/2 bearing his signature at point X, that he recorded disclosure statement of accused Ashish Taneja already Ex.PW4/1 which bears his signature at point X, that he along with the accused went to Keshopur Nala, Chander Vihar for recovery of vehicle used in commission of offence, that no recovery could be effected from there, that he prepared pointing out memo already Ex.PW4/4 which bears his signature at point X, that he produced the accused Ashish Taneja @Bhatija in muffled face in the court, that he moved an application for conducing TIP of accused Ashish Taneja @Bhatija, however he refused to join judicial 'TIP vide order dated 13.02.2018 already Ex. A4A, that accused was sent to JC, that investigation in this case was complete and that he prepared charge sheet against all the four accused and filed the same in the court. He correctly identified the accused Ashish Taneja @Bhatija present in the court.
During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he admitted that there were several public persons present at the PS at the time of arrest of accused Ashish @ Bhatija but he does not examine any of them as witness.
He denied that all the proceedings were conducted at the PS, that he had not conducted investigation properly or fairly and has filed the present Page No.15 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC manipulated charge sheet and that he was deposing falsely.
14. PW-9 Retd. SI Rajender Singh was the Investigation Officer of the present case.
He deposed on 07.01.2018, he was posted at PS Vikas Puri, that on that day, on receipt of DD No. 20-A, he along with HC Pawan Kumar had reached at the house of Vipin Kumar Gupta i.e. Outer Ring Road near Himgiri Apartments, Vikas Puri, where he recorded the statement of complainant, that the complainant told that victim/ complainant was robbed by four persons by showing knife, that he further told that one person was being called as Bagga by the other persons, that thereafter, he prepared the rukka, same is Ex. PW- 9/A bearing his signatures at point and handed it over to HC Pawan, that HC Pawan went to the police station Vikas Puri and got the FIR of the present case registered, that thereafter, HC Pawan returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR to him and original tehrir & that he prepared site plan Ex. PW-9/1 bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that thereafter, the secret informer met them and told that the accused persons involved in the present case would be available at Chandra Vihar, Kikar Wala Chowk, near Kaka properties, that in the meantime, HC Vivek also reached at the spot, that thereafter, they along with secret informer reached there and that the secret informer signaled towards accused persons who were standing in the gali of Kaka properties, Kikar Wala Page No.16 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC Chowk, Chander Vihar, that the accused persons were apprehended by them, that the name of accused persons revealed as Jatin Bagga, Prabhjot Singh and Armeet Singh, that thereafter, he took the cursory search of accused persons and during the search of accused Armeet Singh, one knife was found from his pocket of pant, that he prepared the sketch of the knife and that the same is already Ex. PW-2/1 bearing his signatures at point C. He further deposed that the length of the knife is 24.5 cm, length of the blade of knife is 11.5 cm, length of the handle is 13 cm and breadth of the blade of knife is 2.5 cm and the top of the blade was having angled pattern and that knife was seized in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/2 bearing his signature at point C. He further deposed that during the search of accused Jatin Bagga, Rs. 4500/- (denomination 500x7, 100x10) were recovered, that the same were stated to be robbed from the complainant and that the notes were seized in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/3 bearing my signature at point C. He further deposed that during the search of accused Prabhjot, money (Rs. 5,000/-) and mobile phone were recovered which were stated to be of some other case ie FIR No. 6/18, PS Tilak Nagar and that same were seized under section 102 Cr.P.C vide memo Ex. PW-2/4 bearing his signatures at point C, that thereafter, accused persons namely Armeet Singh, Prabhjot and Jatin were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/5 to Ex. PW-2/7 respectively Page No.17 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC all bearing his signatures at point C. He further deposed that personal search of the accused persons namely Armeet Singh, Prabhjot and Jatin was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-9/B to Ex. PW-/D all bearing his signatures at point A respectively.
He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused persons namely Armeet Singh, Prabhjot and Jatin vide memos already Ex. PW-2/8 to Ex. PW-2/10 respectively bearing his signatures at point B respectively.
He further deposed that accused Armeet Singh, Prabhjot and Jatin are present in the court and correctly identified by the witness.
He further deposed that thereafter, he got conducted the medical examination of the accused persons and thereafter accused persons were sent to JC, that case property was deposited in the malkhana of Police Station Vikas Puri, that he also moved an application for conducting TIP proceedings of accused persons, that the accused persons refused to join the TIP proceedings and that he was transferred from the police station and he handed over the case to MHCR.
The identity of the case property ie knife and Rs. 4500/- is not disputed as the same has already been exhibited in the testimony of PW-2/HC Pawan as Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-1 He correctly identified the case property ie Rs. 5000/-. Identity of mobile phone was not disputed by the Ld. counsel for Page No.18 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC accused as the same belongs to case FIR No. 6/18 PS Tilak Nagar.
During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that rukka was prepared at the spot, that he reached at the spot at about 3.00 pm, that no one was present at the spot when he reached at the spot, that he does not remember how Ct. Pawan went to police station for registration of FIR, that only three of them ie he along with complainant and HC Pawan went to the spot, that they met the secret informer at opposite Himgiri Apartments, Outer Ring Road, that when they met the secret informer, HC Pawan and HC Vivek were also present with him, that he does not remember whether he had informed his senior officers about the secret information, that he does not even remember whether he had informed about the secret information to the Duty Officer of Police Station Vikas Puri and that he does not remember whether any DD entry regarding secret information was reduced into writing or not. He denied that he does not remember the above mentioned facts as he had not received any secret information.
He further deposed that they were having two motorcycles but he does not remember who was having second motorcycle and that he was not sure who was the owner of the second motorcycle and that it might belong to HC Vivek or HC Pawan. He further deposed that the secret informer might be on motorcycle of HC Vivek, that he does not remember whether the site plan of Chander Vihar was prepared or not, that motorcycle was parked near the gali of Kaka Properties, Kikar wala Chowk, Chander Vihar, that nobody was Page No.19 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC present at Kaka Properties, that he again said, they had not visited Kaka Properties & that he does not remember where the secret informer met them at Chander Vihar or Vikas Puri.
He further deposed that he does not remember the signal of secret informer given at the time of apprehension of accused, that public persons were present at the spot, that the area was residential area and shops were also located near the spot from where the accused persons were apprehended, that they had not asked the public persons to join the proceedings and that no body was called from nearby shops to join the proceedings. He denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons. He further deposed that disclosure statement was given by accused persons at the spot from where they were arrested. He denied that accused persons had not given any disclosure statement to him.
He deposed that he does not remember how he had done the writing work, that he does not remember, whether he was sitting on some chair or motorcycle or on footpath, that he does not remember by which mode accused persons were brought to hospital for medial examination, however, it may be ERV or QRT & that he does not remember whether any DD entry was made regarding departure of ERV or QRT. It is wrong to suggest that no DD entry was made because no QRT or ERV came at the spot. He deposed that he does not remember the name of driver of QRT or ERV and that even he does not remember whether driver of QRT or ERV came alone or he was Page No.20 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC accompanied by someone.
He denied that the proceedings as stated by him above were not conducted in the proper manner that is why despite the availability of public persons, they were not joined in the proceedings, that all the writing work was done at the police station and that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.
During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Prabhjot, he deposed that his secret informer conveyed him information as stated by him on the very day of incident ie on 07.01.2018, that his informer approached him at around 4.00 pm to provide him information about accused persons but he does not remember by what mode the said information was conveyed to him by secret informer and that he does not remember whether secret informer informed him personally or by telephone. He denied that his secret informer had not even met him on the day of incident.
He further deposed that at the time of arrest, the amount recovered from accused Prabhjot Singh had been seized by him by way of seizure memo Ex. PW-2/4, that in said seizure memo, he had described the denomination of notes recovered from accused Prabhjot Singh as eight notes of Rs. 500/- and ten notes of Rs. 100/-, that he had conducted search of accused Prabjnot Singh and prepared seizure memo Ex. PW-2/4 at the place of his arrest only ie Kikarwala Chowk, Chander Vihar, that at the time of preparing seizure memo, Page No.21 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC he tried involving public witnesses to witness the seizure memo but they refused & that he had not noted the names of public persons whom he tried to make witness of seizure. He voluntarily deposed that they did not even disclose their names.
He further deposed that he had not issued any notice in writing to anybody to become a witness to, the seizure from accused Prabhjot Singh or his arrest that he does not remember whether he had informed the above mentioned public persons that despite request by police officials, refusal to be a witness to police proceedings is an offence but he does not issue any such notice to the public persons whom he requested to be a witness. He voluntarily deposed that at the time of arrest, there were lot of formalities due to which he could not request anybody to be a witness to the arrest of accused persons.
He further deposed that he tried searching for the CCTV footages of the incident but the incident had taken place behind a tree due to which it could not be recorded. He again said that he thinks at that time there was no CCTV cameras installed on Outer Ring Road. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
15. Accused persons admitted the factum of preparation and genuineness of FIR Ex. A1, DD No. 20 A dated 07.01.2018, PS Vikas Puri Ex. A2, TIP proceedings of accused Prabjot Singh Ex. A3, TIP Page No.22 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC proceedings of accused Jatin Bagga Ex. A4, TIP proceedings of accused Ashish Ex. A4A, TIP proceedings of accused Armeet Singh Ex. A5 and MLC dated 07.01.2018 of Astha Hospital of Vipin Kumar already Ex. PW-1/PX3. Accordingly, respective witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses. In view of the admissions made U/s 294 Cr.P.C, the contents of the said documents are deemed to be proved by the prosecution. Perusal of the afore discussed testimonies reveals that prosecution has proved the various steps taken by the investigating agency during investigation alongwith various documents, seizure memos and other memos prepared by the investigating agency.
16. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 18.03.2023 on the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for State that all material witness have been examined. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/s 313 Cr.PC
17. On 24.03.2023, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to the accused persons who replied that that they are innocent,that they refused to join the TIP as they were shown to the witness at police Page No.23 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC station, that they have not made any disclosure statements and were forced to sign blank papers in police custody , that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the witnesses have deposed falsely as they are interested witnesses. They did not opt to lead defence evidence and therefore, defence evidence was closed. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
18. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution witnesses have clearly established the prosecution version of commission of robbery by the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts in the alleged manner. Ld. Additional PP for the State submitted that the duly admitted TIP proceedings wherein the witness have correctly identified the accused persons are sufficient to connect the accused persons with the alleged offences. He further submitted that factum of recovery of knife used at time of robbery and currrency notes belonging to victim as well as apprehension of the accused persons by the Police officials has been duly established and the said facts prove the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offences.
He further argued that the fact that the complainant/only eye witness has turned hostile qua the identity of the accused persons as offenders who committed the alleged incident, does not in any manner affect the veracity Page No.24 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC of the consistent testimony of the police witnesses as they did not have any previous enmity with the accused persons. He further stated that moreover the complainant/eye witnesses in such cases retract due to fear of future enmity with the offenders, so the firm testimony of the police cannot be discarded in such circumstances and in these facts, all accused persons be convicted for the offences charged as all the ingredients necessary for completion of alleged offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
19. Ld. counsels for the accused persons argued that the complainant/PW- 1 who is the Star witness of the prosecution has not supported its version qua presence of accused persons on the spot at the time of commission of offence, identity of the accused persons as assailants and the identity of knife used in alleged robbery by accused persons at time of committing robbery. Ld. Defence counsels further argued that failure to identify the accused persons during trial before the court nullifies the adverse inference arising from the refusal of accused persons to join the TIP proceedings. He submitted that the non joinder of public persons as well as not issuing of notice to Public persons for refusal to join investigastion PW-9/IO at the time of apprehension of accused persons and recovery of case properties, establishes the defence version of false implication of accused persons. He argued that the testimony of the police witnesses is of no consequence in view of hostility of the main witness/ victim. He further stated that identity of currecy notes allegedly Page No.25 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC recovered was recovered during the entire investigation has not been established. He argued that these facts alongwith the hostility of the complainant substantiates the defence version of false implication of the accused persons by manipulating the documents for working out the case. He further submitted that the accused persons, in these circumstances, should be acquitted.
20. This court heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons and has perused the record.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/EVIDENCE AND REASONING/ FINDINGS:
21. In order to prove the offences punishable U/s 394/397 IPC against accused Armeet Singh and offence punishable u/s 394/34 IPC against accused Prabhjot Singh @ Prince @ Pathi, Jatin Bagga @ Bagga and Ashish Taneja @ Bhatija, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubts the factum of sharing of common intention by all the accused persons for commission of robbery by putting the complainant in fear of death by hitting him with handle of the knife, the factum of happening of alleged robbery in alleged manner wherein the accused Armeet Singh was carrying the knife with handle of which he gave a blow to the victim and other accused persons Page No.26 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC took away his cash and purse with documents, the identity of all the accused persons as assailants/robbers and the identity of the knife and currency notes recovered from the possession of accused persons at the time of their apprehension. For proving the aforesaid ingredients, the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of which PW-1/victim Vipin Kumar Gupta is the most important witness being the victim/sole eye witness of the incident and the remaining witnesses are the police officials who carried out the investigation based on the version of the complainant/victim.
Henceforth, this court shall now proceed further to evaluate the evidence available on record to find out if the prosecution has succeeded in its task or not.
22. Complainant being the eye-witness/victim of the alleged incident was examined as PW-1. The complainant/victim was the star witness on which prosecution was relying but he did not support the case of prosecution and resiled qua the allegations made by him in his statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C on the aspect of identity of the accused persons who had robbed him and caused hurt to him by using handle side of knife. He deposed in his examination in chief that he was unable to recognise the faces of the accused persons as they were in muffled face and there was fog at the time of incident. This testimony completely rules out the chances of his seeing the accused persons/offenders at the time of incident. He was cross-examined by Page No.27 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC the Ld. Addl. P.P for the State but he firmly denied all the leading questions put by the prosecution qua identity of the accused persons. Complainant/victim even failed to identify the accused persons despite being specifically pointed out by the Ld. Addl. PP for State during cross examination. He denied that accused Armeet Singh was the person armed with knife who gave him knife blow from its handle and that the other accused persons namely Prabhjot Singh, Jatin Bagga and Ashish Taneja were also with accused Armeet Singh at the time of incident who committed the crime against him. He further firmly denied the factum of identification of accused Jatin Bagga, Armeet and Prabhjot on 19.01.2018 and accused Ashish Taneja on 13.02.2018 in the court respectively. He further disowned his statement Ex. PW1/PX, Ex. PW1/PX2 and Ex. PW1/PX3 recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.PC regarding the said identification despite confrontation. These testimonies show that prosecution could not extract any material from this witness regarding identification of the accused persons and that the said statements recorded by the police are manipulated and manufactured for supporting the prosecution version.
The firm denial of PW1 that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons as he was under any threat, coercion, duress imparted upon him by the accused persons and that he wants to protect the accused persons from due process of law, substantiates that his testimony is voluntary in nature and that his non identification of accused persons is not a result of any Page No.28 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC tutoring/under influence. It further shows that testimony of PW1 that he had not seen the offenders at the time of incident is reliable. So, in view of the contradictions made by victim/PW-1 qua identity/involvement of accused persons as offenders, the mere deposition of PW-1 that the offender who used knife was a sikh guy or that PW-2 deposed that victim told them that one of the offenders was being called as Bagga by others alongwith the fact that one of accused herein is sikh guy or is having surname Bagga, is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon them.
23. The testimony of PW-1 shows that he not only failed to identify the accused persons as offenders who had robbed him and also caused hurt by hitting him with the handle of knife but also shattered the prosecution version with respect to the conducting of fair investigation by disowning the identification statements Ex. PW1/PX1, Ex. PW1/PX2 and Ex. PW1/PX3 recorded by the police thereby indicating that chances of manipulation of documents by the investigating agency cannot be ruled out benefit of which should accrue in favour of accused persons.
24. Perusal of the record further shows that PW1/Victim identified the case property i.e. currency notes as belonging to him in his examination in chief which were allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Jatin Bagga . He further specifically identified one currency note of Rs. 500/- on which Page No.29 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC numeral 28 was written by pencil in a circle and stated that the same belongs to him which was taken by the accused persons. In the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel PW1 testified that he does not remember the name of the person who had given him Rs. 500/- note having numeral 28 written on it and that he had not stated the said fact, i.e. numeral 28 written by pencil on the currency note in a circle, to the police. This testimony shows that the victim is making a material improvement qua the identity of the currency notes allegedly recovered from the possession of said accused and no justification has come on record for this improvement. Thus, his version in this regard can not be relied.
25. It is pertinent to mention that PW-1/ the victim did not depose that he had put any distinct identification marks on the currency notes or that some mark was already present on all those notes.Similarly, the police witnesses PW-2 ,PW-3 and PW-9 did not state in their examination that complainant had told them regarding any specific mark put by him or otherwise present on the currency notes allegedly robbed by the accused persons.They even did not say about the recovery of the currency note having the numeral 28 written by pencil in a circle.
26. These testimonies show that neither the complainant nor the police witnesses and IO deposed about existence of any distinctive identification Page No.30 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC mark on the currency notes which otherwise are very difficult to identify. Record shows that there is no other specific sign / symbol available on record for establishing that the case property i.e. currency notes is the same property as was allegedly robbed from the complainant by the accused persons.Moreover , the PW-1 and other police witnesses did not even tell the serial numbers of the said notes to establish their identity which is done in ususal circumstances in such cases. So, it follows that there is no material suggesting that currency notes produced in the Court are the same as were allegedly robbed from the complainant by the accused persons. This fact along with the contadictory testimony of PW-1 qua identity as discussed above, further creates doubt upon the prosecution version and probablizes the defence version that the alleged currency notes have been planted upon the accused at the police station which thus shatters the prosecution version of alleged recovery and factum of robbing the said currency notes by the accused persons from the complainant.
27. Record shows that PW-1 deposed that one of the assailants was a sikh boy who was carrying knife and had given him a knife blow from its handle side and told him to give everything he was carrying upon which other two accused persons took out his money and purse carrying documents. However, the knife was never put to him for identification and he did not even depose that he can identify the knife. This is a material omission which gives rise to Page No.31 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC serious doubt upon the identity of the allegedly recovered knife by the police witnesses as planting of the same cannot be ruled out. So, it can not said beyond reasonable doubt that it is the same knife which was shown to complainant by the accused persons at the time of incident.
28. Perusal of the record shows that the prosecution version is that PW-2 HC Pawan Kumar accompanied PW 9/ IO ASI Rajender Singh on receipt of duly admitted DD no. 20 A to the house of the victim and from there they along with the victim went to the spot where the secret informer met them and at the instance of the secret informer PW 2 and PW8 went to Chandra Vihar kikarwala Chowk near Kaka properties where accused persons were apprehended , recovery of knife and currency notes was made and their disclosure statements were also recorded. It is further seen from the testimony of PW -3 that he also reached the spot upon being informed by the duty officer where PW 2, PW9 and the secret informer met him and at the instance of secret informer they all went Chandra Vihar kikarwala Chowk near Kaka properties where apprehension of accused persons, their search , seizure of knife and currency notes and recording of the disclosure statements of the said accused persons was done by PW-9/IO. Perusal of the seizure memo of the knife and currency notes, the arrest memos and the disclosure statements of accused persons shows that victim /PW-1was not made a witness to the said proceedings despite being available. This unexplained omission makes the Page No.32 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC authenticity of the aforesaid proceedings highly suspicious and shows that false implication of accused persons who are having criminal antecedents to work out the case by planting case property can not be ruled out.
29. Perusal of the record shows that the apprehension of accused persons namely Prabhjot Singh @ Prince @ Pathi, Jatin Bagga @ Bagga and Ashish Taneja @ Bhatija and their search , the seizure of knife and currency notes and the recording of the disclosure statements of the said accused persons was done in the presence of PW-2,PW-3 and PW-9. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-2 admitted that the place of arrest was a public place and public persons were present there. He further deposed that IO had requested few persons to join the investigation proceedings but none agreed though notice was given to them by the IO, that there were few shops near the said place and that from those shops no shopkeeper was called by the IO to join the proceedings.
30. PW-3 deposed that there were shops near the place of arrest and that neither he nor IO called anybody from that house or from the shops to join the investigation. He further deposed that in his presence, IO had not requested any person to join the proceedings. PW-9/IO deposed that public persons were present at the spot, that the area was residential area and shops were also located near the spot from where the accused persons were Page No.33 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC apprehended, that they had not asked the public persons to join the proceedings, that no body was called from nearby shops to join the proceedings, that in the seizure memo, he had described that at the time of preparing seizure memo, he tried involving public persons to witness the seizure memo but they refused and that he had not noted the names of public persons whom he tried to make witness of seizure. He voluntarily deposed that they did not even disclose their names.
31. He further deposed that he had not issued any notice in writing to anybody to become a witness to the seizure from the accused Prabhjot Singh or his arrest and that he does not remember whether he had informed the above mentioned public persons that despite request by police officials, refusal to be a witness to police proceedings is an offence but he does not issue any such notice to the public persons whom he requested to be a witness. He voluntarily deposed that at the time of arrest, there were lot of formalities due to which he could not request anybody to be a witness to the arrest of accused persons.
32. These testimonies of PW-2, 3 and 9 establish that the spot of apprehension of accused persons except accused Ashish Taneja and alleged recovery of knife and currency notes was a public place, that public persons were present at that time, that either they were not asked to join those Page No.34 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC proceedings or they were asked to join the apprehension and recovery proceedings but none had agreed and left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses and that PW-9/IO Rajender Singh had not given any notice to public persons in writing to join the proceedings as well as to initiate legal proceedings for such refusal to join the investigation . The very justification given by PW-9 for non joinder of public persons and non issuing of written notice for refusal to join the said proceedings is that he was busy in completing the lot of formalities required at time of arrest and that the public persons did not even disclose their names. This justification itself shows that no genuine efforts were made by the police officials to join the public witnesses in the investigation as this is highly unbelievable that common man would disobey the directions of the police officials who were performing their duties and would leave the place even without telling their names and addresses. It implies that no plausible explanation has been given for non- joinder of public witnesses as well as for non issuing of notice to the public persons for refusal to join the recovery, seizure or arrest proceedings. It shows that the police officials did not make bonafide efforts to persuade the public persons to join the investigation. These unexplained omissions make it highly probable that the entire proceedings i.e. arrest, search , seizure and recovery were conducted at the police station itself without actually going to the spot and that the alleged recovery was planted upon the accused persons at police station.
Page No.35 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC
33. Record shows that PW-2 deposed that IO had requested few persons to join the investigation proceedings but none agreed though notice was given to them by the IO. PW-9 /IO deposed that he tried involving public persons to be witness to the seizure memo but they refused and that he had not noted the names of public persons whom he tried to make witness of seizure. PW-3 who was admittedly present with PW-2 and PW-9 contradicted PW-2 and PW-9 by deposing that in his presence, IO had not requested any person to join the proceedings. This contradiction creates grave doubt upon the very presence of the said three witnesses together at the spot and the place of apprehension , recovery and seizure which shows that the there is very high probability of performing the said important parts of the investigation at Police station it self without going to the spot. It further substantiates the defence version of false implication of accused persons.Furthermore, in view of aforediscussed facts, it is pertinent to refer to the deposition of PW-3 wherefrom it is duly established that Duty Officer had not made any DD entry regarding his departure. This omission is again a material one as DD entry is the proof of departure of PW-3 from the police station to the spot and joining the arrest, search, seizure and recovery proceedings. So, for want of said DD entry , the very presence of PW-3 at the spot is highly doubtful which further renders the entire investigation qua arrest , search, seizure and recovery allegedly witnessed by him nugatory.
Page No.36 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC
34. Record shows that the testimony of PW-9/IO Rajinder Singh is full of several omissions and discrepencies which, in view of retraction of the victim qua identity of accused persons as assailants, have the impact of creating grave suspicion on the factum of arrest, search, seizure and recovery allegedly made at the spot as the very presence of IO at the spot and place of arrest, search, seizure and recovery, is doubtful. PW-9/IO stated in his cross examination conducted by Ld. defence counsel that he does not remember how Ct. Pawan went to police station for registration of FIR, that he does not remember whether he had informed his senior officers about the secret information, that he does not remember whether he had informed about the secret information to the Duty Officer of Police Station Vikas Puri , that he does not remember whether any DD entry regarding secret information was reduced into writing or not, that he does not remember whether the secret informer met them at Chander Vihar or Vikas Puri, that he does not remember the signal of secret informer given at the time of apprehension of accused and that he does not remember whether the site plan of Chander Vihar was prepared or not. During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Prabhjot, he deposed that his secret informer conveyed him information as stated by him on the very day of incident i.e. on 07.01.2018, that his informer approached him at around 4.00pm to provide him information about accused persons but he does not remember by what Page No.37 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC mode the said information was conveyed to him by secret informer and that he does not remember whether secret informer informed him personally or by telephone.
35. He deposed that he does not remember how he had done the writing work, that even he does not remember, whether he was sitting on some chair or motorcycle or on footpath, that he does not remember by which mode accused persons were brought to hospital for medial examination, however, it may be ERV or QRT, that he does not remember whether any DD entry was made regarding departure of ERV or QRT, that he does not remember the name of driver of QRT or ERV and that even he does not remember whether driver of QRT or ERV came alone or he was accompanied by someone. These testimonies imply that the IO/PW-9 failed to give specific replies to the basic questions which no IO can forget if he had actually gone to the spot and conducted the proceedings in the alleged manner. So, the failure of the IO/PW-9 to remember the aforementioned aspects of investigation conducted at the spot subtantiates the defence version that the entire proceedings i.e. arrest, search, seizure and recovery were conducted at the police station itself, that the alleged recovery was planted upon the accused persons at police station to solve the case, that they were forced to sign blank papers which have been converted into false disclosure statements and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated as the accused persons were previously Page No.38 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC involved in several criminal cases.
36. With respect to the accused Armeet Singh, record shows that he was arrested by PW6 Inspector Kuldeep Singh who recovered one country made pistol with three live cartridges from his possession qua which another FIR was registered. PW5 Inspector Devender Singh who was on patrolling duty also reached at the spot in gypsy as he was given the information by the duty officer regarding the apprehension of said accused by PW6 and constable Sunil on 11 February 2018. Perusal of the testimonies of PW5 and PW6 reveals that nothing pertaining to the present case was recovered from the possession of the said accused or discovered at his instance pursuant to his disclosure statement. Furthermore, the deposition made by PW-8/ SI Sachin, 2nd IO of this case, that he along with the accused Ashish went to Keshopur Nala, Chander Vihar for recovery of vehicle used in commission of offence but no recovery could be effected from there, proves that the vehicle used in present offences or any other relevant incriminating material was not recovered at the instance of said accused. It is already evident from the testimony of PW-1 /victim that he has not identified accused Ashish as one of the offenders. These observations establish that there is no material/ other circumstance to connect the accused Ashish with the alleged offences.
37. It follows from aforediscussed testimonies and observations that the Page No.39 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC factum of commission of robbery by the accused persons by hurting the complainant with the handle of knife, is not established at all.
38. Perusal of the record shows that PW-1 is the only eye witness of the incident being the victim. Mere reading of testimony of police witnesses PW- 2/HC Pawan Kumar, PW-3/HC Vivek, PW-4/ Constable Sandeep, PW-5/ Inspector Devendra Singh, PW-6/ Constable Kuldeep, PW-8 /SI Sachin and PW-9/ Retd. SI Rajender Singh who either went to the spot for investigation after receiving information of the alleged incident or joined the investigation later, shows that they are not the eye witnesses of the incident and have merely conducted the investigation based on the version stated by the complainant/victim. Similarly PW-7 Ms. Neelam Miglani proved the date of birth of accused Ashish Singh i.e. accused Ashish Taneja and is not an eyewitness. Furthermore, it is already established that PW-1 has not identified the accused persons as assailants who robbed him. He further firmly denied the factum of identification of accused Jatin Bagga, Armeet and Prabhjot on 19.01.2018 and accused Ashish Taneja on 13.02.2018 in the court respectively and also disowned his statement Ex. PW1/PX1, Ex. PW1/PX2 and Ex. PW1/PX3 recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.PC regarding the said identification despite confrontation. These testimonies indicate that chances of manipulation of the documents by the police are not ruled out. It further creates grave doubt upon the fairness and impartiality of the investigation Page No.40 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC which renders the same nugatory. So, testimonies of the aforesaid police witnesses, in view of the retraction of the complainant, are of no consequence to incriminate the accused persons for the alleged offences.
39. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that complainant/victim failed to identify the accused persons as offenders/assailants despite being cross- examined at length by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor. It is also evident that the accused persons were neither arrested from the spot nor at the instance of the complainant/victim and they were arrested on 07.01.2018 through secret informer. These observations show that there is not even an iota of incriminating material available against the accused persons to connect them with the commission of the alleged offences.
40. With respect to the arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State that the refusal of the accused persons to join the TIP is sufficient incriminating circumstance against them, it is pertinent to mention that the TIP is not substantive piece of evidence. The same can merely be used to corroborate the version stated during the trial before the court.
In this case accused persons refused to join the TIP which has the effect of giving rise to an adverse inference against the accused persons qua their culpability. However, the eye witnesses, PW-1 has not identified the accused persons as the offenders during trial.
Page No.41 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC
41. In view of the retraction of the eye witnesses qua the identity of the accused persons as offenders during trial, adverse inference of culpability of the accused arising on the basis of refusal to join TIP, stands washed off and their defence that they refused to join the TIP as they were shown to the witness at police station stands justified . So, this argument of Ld. Addl. PP for State does not hold any water. These facts and observations further show that there is no material/circumstance available on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of alleged offences.
42. It is already evident from the aforementioned discussion that identity of the accused persons as offenders and factum of committing robbery by using the deadly weapon ie knife and hitting the complainant by the handle of the knife by the accused persons in the alleged manner has not been established. So, question of sharing of common intention by the accused persons to commit robbery by using deadly weapon does not arise and the same needs no discussion. Moreover, the prosecution did not bring any material suggesting the sharing of common intention by the accused persons for commission of the alleged offences. Record shows PW9/IO admitted in his crossexamination that he tried searching for the CCTV footages of the incident but the incident had taken place behind a tree due to which it could not be recorded. He again said that he thinks at that time there was no CCTV cameras installed on Outer Ring Road. This testimony shows that there is Page No.42 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC neither any CCTV footage of the incident nor any serious efforts were made by the investigating agency to collect the same from nearby houses or apartments for reasons best known to them . Neither any telephonic record or nor any other electronic evidence or other direct evidence has been brought on record suggesting even their presence at the spot so as to assume that there was ever an occasion for the accused persons to share common intention for committing the alleged offences at the spot.
43. Regarding the burden of proving the prosecution version it is pertinent to mention the case law reported as " Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab :
1997 (3) Crime 55, wherein the Punjab & Haryana High Court had observed that-
"In a criminal trial it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
44. Following the aforesaid observations and considering the inconsistent, incoherent and contradictory testimonies, this Court is of the view that prosecution has not been able to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have' and thus it can not be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
Page No.43 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC
45. It thus emerges from the aforesaid discussion and perusal of testimonies of PWs as well as record that there is neither any reliable eyewitness of the incident nor any other circumstance to prove the factum of sharing of common intention by all the accused persons for commission of robbery by putting the complainant in fear of death by hitting him with handle of the knife, the factum of happening of alleged robbery in alleged manner wherein the accused Armeet Singh was carrying the knife with handle of which he gave a blow to the victim and other accused persons took away his cash and purse with documents , the identity of all the accused persons as assailants/robbers and the identity of the knife and currency notes recovered from the possession of accused persons at the time of their apprehension, which are essential elements for completion of offence punishable u/s 394/397 and 394/34 IPC.
46. Considering the afore-discussed testimonies, this Court is of the view that arguments advanced by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients necessary for completion of the alleged offences do not have any force whereas the arguments made on behalf of defence that the accused persons have been falsely implicated are found to be justified.
47. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the Page No.44 of45 FIR No. 13/18 State Vs. Armeet Singh @ Jitu & Ors.
PS Vikas Puri U/s 394/397/34 IPC prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused persons namely Prabhjot Singh @ Prince @ Pathi, Jatin Bagga @ Bagga and Ashish Taneja @ Bhatija are hereby acquitted of the charge punishable u/s 394/34 IPC levelled against them and accused Armeet Singh is hereby acquitted of the charge punishable u/s 394/397 IPC levelled against him. Bail bonds stands cancelled and Sureties be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
48. Fresh bail bonds and surety bonds furnished in compliance of Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C are considered and accepted.
49. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABASS)
on 29.04.2023 Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi/29.04.2023
Page No.45 of45