Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Kumar & Nitin @ Jugni on 31 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR MALIK: MM
(WEST) -02 TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
State Vs. Raj Kumar & Nitin @ Jugni
FIR No.: 695/14
PS: Rajouri Garden
U/S: 392/411 IPC
Unique Case ID No. :02401R0494892014
Date of institution of case :01.10.2014.
Date on which case reserved for :31.08.2016.
judgment
Date of judgment :31.08.2016 .
JUDGMENT U/S 392/411 IPC
a)Date of offence :25.06.2014.
b)Offence complained of :U/s 392/411 IPC
c)Name of accused, his parentage :1. Raj Kumar
& address S/o Sh. Ghasi Ram
R/o K-240, Mangolpuri,
Delhi.
2. Nitin @ Jugni
S/o Sh. Ramesh
R/o 28/55, Kasturba
Nagar, Delhi
d)Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
e)Final Order :Accused - Raj Kumar
already declared P.O.
vide order dated
30.06.2016
FIR No.695/14 State Vs. Raj Kumar and Nitin @ Jugni Page No. 1 of 8
Accused - Nitin @
Jugni is convicted for
the offence U/s 392/411
IPC.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. On 25.06.2014, on receiving the DD No. 18A, SI Suresh Chand along with Ct. Madan Singh reached at the spot i.e in front of electricity Office, Tagore Garden and met complainant Rakhi who got her statement recorded thereby stating that on 25.06.2014 she came to Kendriya Vidhyala, Tagore Garden due to some personal work. At about 01:45 PM she reached at Tagore Garden Metro Station. While she was in front of Electricity Office, Tagore Garden, two bike riders on one motorcycle came from her backside and snatched her gold chain by pushing her. The gold chain contain one locket of Om and weight of both the things in total is 15 gms.
Both the accused were wearing helmet and complainant could not note down the registration number of the motorcycle. On the complaint FIR got registered U/s 394/34 IPC and investigation was carried by SI Suresh Chand. During investigation site plan was FIR No.695/14 State Vs. Raj Kumar and Nitin @ Jugni Page No. 2 of 8 prepared at the instance of the complainant. On 20.07.2014, after receiving DD No. 9, the IO received the copy of kalandra U/s 41.1
(d) Cr. P.C. from ASC, Crime Branch, Rohini, Delhi. On 22.07.2014, the accused was formally arrested after taking permission from the court. During the disclosure statement, accused - Nitin @ Jugni stated that he has been arrested along with one chain snatched from a lady at Electricity Office, Tagore Garden and same was recovered from his right pant. Accused - Raj Kumar refused for TIP. Accused - Nitin @ Jugni was identified by complainant Rakhi at TIP proceedings. The case property was got deposited in malkhana. Statement of witnesses was recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared against accused persons and filed in the court.
2. The cognizance of offence was taken and copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons. After compliance of provisions U/s 207 Cr.P.C. the charges were framed against both the accused - Raj Kumar and Nitin @ Jugni on 03.03.2015 to which the accused persons not pleaded guilty and claimed trial.
3. Matter was then listed for PE. During the course of evidence, accused - Raj Kumar evaded the proceedings of the court and he was declared Proclaimed Officer vide order dated 30.06.2016 and trial continued against accused Nitin @ Jugni. FIR No.695/14 State Vs. Raj Kumar and Nitin @ Jugni Page No. 3 of 8 Prosecution has produced as many as two witness to prove its version. As accused - Nitin @ Jugni admitted certain documents vide his statement dated 24.08.2016 so at request of Ld. APP for the State, P.E. was closed.
4. The prosecution got examined Ms. Rakhi PW1 who deposed that on 25.06.2014 she has gone to Kendriya Vidhyala for her interview. After her interview, PW1 was returning back and at about 01:30 PM she was going by foot towards Tagore Garden Metro Station. PW1 further deposed that she was at slight distance from Tagore Garden Metro Station, two persons wearing the helmets came on the motorcycle. The helmet glasses were opened so the PW1 was able to see their faces. PW1 further deposed that both the accused saw PW1 and went from there. When PW1 went in a gali/street, the said persons again came from back and pillion rider snatched the gold chain of PW1 from her neck. PW1 pointed at accused - Raj Kumar as the person who was sitting as the pillion and snatched her gold chain. PW1 further deposed that the accused persons pushed her while snatching the chain and accused - Nitin was driving the motorcycle. PW1 proved her statement to the police as Ex.PW1/A.PW1 further deposed that she identified the accused in TIP proceedings at Tihar Jail and also got released the said chain on superdari. PW1 proved the broken piece FIR No.695/14 State Vs. Raj Kumar and Nitin @ Jugni Page No. 4 of 8 of gold chain Ex.P1.
5. Prosecution got examined ASI Pradeep as PW2 who deposed that on 25.06.2014 at about 02:03 pm on receiving the information regarding snatching a chain by motorcyclist he reduced the information in writing vide DD no. 18A and handed over the DD entry to ASI Suresh Chand. PW2 proved the DD No. 18A as Ex.PW2/X. PW2 further deposed that on same day at about 03:30 PM he received the rukka from Ct. Madan singh sent by SI Suresh Chand at which he registered the present FIR. PW2 proved the FIR as Ex.PW2/A, endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW2/B and certificate U/s 65 B Evidence Act as Ex.PW2/C.
6. During the P.E., the accused made his separate statement on 24.08.2016 and admitted rukka as Ex.P2, DD No. 73- B dated 20.07.2014 as Ex.P3, Site Plan dated 25.06.2014 as Ex.P4, Documents relating to DD No. 9, DD No. 7 of Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar which runs into 05 pages as Ex.P5 Colly, seizure memo of motorcycle as Ex.P6, seizure memos of gold chain as Ex.P7, arrest memo and personal search memos as Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, disclosure statements as Ex.P10 and Ex.P11, disclosure statement of accused by IO of this case and formal arrest memo of the accused as Ex.P12 and Ex.P13, TIP proceedings as Ex.P14 and TIP proceedings of gold chain as Ex.P15 and at request of Ld. FIR No.695/14 State Vs. Raj Kumar and Nitin @ Jugni Page No. 5 of 8 APP, P.E. was closed thereafter.
7. Statement of accused - Nitin @ Jugni U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 24.08.2016 wherein all the incriminating evidence/material was put to accused which he denied and stated the present case to be false and he wished not to lead defence evidence.
8. Final arguments advanced. I have perused the case record.
9. It is observed by this court that both the prosecution witnesses has deposed in very firm manner and has very powerfully supported the story of prosecution. PW1 has correctly identified the case property belonging to her whereas, during cross examination the accused has failed to give any single dent to the story of prosecution. There is nothing on record to show that the prosecution witnesses has given any contradictory depositions or the testimony is doubtful in any manner. It is also observed that the PW1 has correctly identified the accused in the court and proved her statement to IO as Ex.PW1/A whereas, the accused failed to give even iota of dent or doubt to the deposition of PW1. It is further observed that the PW2 has proved the DD No. 18A and the FIR No. 695/14 but Ld. Defence Counsel not asked any single question to PW2 so the procedure adopted by investigating agency FIR No.695/14 State Vs. Raj Kumar and Nitin @ Jugni Page No. 6 of 8 till registration of FIR remain untainted. It is also observed that the accused has admitted his TIP proceedings as Ex.P14 and the TIP proceedings of gold chain as Ex.P15. The TIP proceedings of accused remained unchallenged so the factum of presence of accused Nitin at the spot of offence and the driving of motorcycle by him is proved by the prosecution as PW1 has identified the accused during TIP proceedings in the jail and has specifically deposed in the court that accused - Nitin was driving the motorcycle at the time of commission of offence. It is also observed that the accused has admitted the seizure memo of gold chain as Ex.P7 and after admission thereof the prosecution is no more under liability to prove the recovery of gold chain from the possession of the accused and seizure thereof.
10. It is observed by this court that PW1 has successfully deposed the factum of theft of gold chain by the accused from the possession of PW1 and also proved the fact that the accused also used the criminal force by pushing the complainant in order to commit the offence of theft so as to bring the same within the ambit of robbery. PW1 has also correctly identified the accused in the court as the person who was driving the motorcycle at the time of offence at the place as per site plan, whereas, the accused has failed to give any dent to the testimony of complainant/PW1 FIR No.695/14 State Vs. Raj Kumar and Nitin @ Jugni Page No. 7 of 8 regarding factum of theft committed by the accused, hence, the prosecution has remained successful to prove the allegations U/s 392 IPC against the accused. Hence, the accused - Nitin @ Jugni is convicted for the offence u/s 392 IPC.
11. It is also observed that the PW1 has correctly identified the case property and proved the same as Ex.P1 but accused not asked even single question regarding the same so the prosecution has also proved the possession of stolen property with accused - Nitin @ Jugni and hence, proved the charges u/s 411 IPC against accused - Nitin @ Jugni. In view of above observations, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case regarding robbery of gold chain from PW1 and recovery thereof from the possession of the accused and hence, the accused - Nitin @ Jugni is convicted for the offence U/s 411 IPC.
Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the convict free of cost.
Announced in the open Court on this 31st Day of August, 2016 (AJAY KUMAR MALIK) MM(West)-02/THC 31.08.2016.
FIR No.695/14 State Vs. Raj Kumar and Nitin @ Jugni Page No. 8 of 8