Delhi District Court
State vs . : Sanjeet & Anr. on 6 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. KRATIKA CHATURVEDI:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04 (SOUTHWEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State vs. : Sanjeet & Anr.
FIR No. : 741/2015
U/sec : 394/34 IPC
P.S. : Dwarka South
Unique Case ID : DLSW020026202016
1. Date of commission of offence : 28.09.2015
2. Date of institution of the case : 04.01.2016
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ashok Kumar, s/o Sh Dinkar
Prasad Singh
4. Name of accused, parentage &
Address : (i) Rahul, S/o Hemraj, R/o H No. 35,
Sec 21, Solaria Officers Enclave,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
(ii) Sanjeet @ China, S/o Sh. Nahar
Singh, R/o H No. V184, Vishu
Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Offence complained of : 394/34 IPC
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Convicted
State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 1 of 19
8. Date of final order : 06.09.2022
Argued by: Mr. Manish Sidhawat, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Anuj Giri, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION: FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.09.2015 at about 12:30 p.m. at Ganda Naala, near Madhu Vihar, Bus stand, Sector5, Dwarka, New Delhi, the accused persons i.e., Rahul and Sanjeet alongwith one juvenile namely, Sandeep Kumar committed robbery on the complainant, i.e., Ashok Kumar by snatching his mobile phone make Sony and Rs.300/ in cash by giving a blow of steel punch on the left side of the mouth of the complainant. A 100no. call was made by public person and the complainant was taken to the DDU hospital after arrival of the PCR. As such, it is alleged that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which FIR no. 741/15 was registered at the police station Dwarka South, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARNACE OF ACCUSED State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 2 of 19
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused and summons were issued to the accused persons. On their appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under section 394/34 of IPC was framed against the accused persons on 10.05.2016. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 HC Prakash Chand PW2 Sh. Ashok (complainant) PW3 Dr. Ajay Sharma Medical Officer, DDU Hospital PW4 Sh. Ram Swaroop PW5 HC Surender PW6 HC Anil PW7 Ct. Sheeshpal Singh PW8 HC Jugal Kishore PW9 ASI Shailender Singh PW10 SI Shiv Kumar DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A Copy of the FIR Ex. PW1/B Copy of endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/A Statement of the complainant Ex. PW2/B Statement of the complainant recorded under 161 Ex. PW2/C Site plan State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 3 of 19 Ex. PW3/1 MLC of the complainant Ex. PW7/A Arrest memo of accused Sanjeet @ China Ex. PW7/B Search memo of accused Sanjeet @ China Ex. PW9/A DD No. 19 Ex. PW9/B Rukka Ex. PX 1 DD entry 42 PP Ex. PW10/A Discloser statement of accused Sanjeet @ China Ex. PW10/B Pointing out memo of accused Sanjeet @ China Ex. PW10/C Arrest memo of accused Rahul Ex. PW10/D Personal search memo of accused Rahul Ex. PW10/E Disclosure statement of accused Rahul Ex. PW 10/F Pointing out memo of accused Rahul ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex. P/A/1 DD No. 12PP, Sector1, Dwarka dated 28.09.2015 Ex. P/A/2 DD No. 10PP, Sector1, Dwarka dated 05.10.2015 Ex. P/A/3 DD No. 32PP, Sector1, Dwarka dated 05.10.2015 Ex. P/A/4 DD No. 19PP, Sector1, Dwarka dated 28.09.2015 Ex. P/A/5 DD No. 42PP, Sector1, Dwarka dated 28.09.2015 Ex. P/A/6 DD No. 26PP, Sector1, Dwarka dated 02.10.2015 Ex. P/A/7 Certificate u/sec 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. P/A/8 DD No. 16PP, Sector1, Dwarka dated 02.10.2015 Ex. X1 Copy of TIP proceedings of accused Rahul Ex. X2 Copy of TIP proceedings of accused Sanjeet Ex. A1 MLC of the complainant
4. PW1, HC Prakash Chand, is the DO who deposed that on 28.09.2015 at about 3:30 a.m., Ct. Surender brought one rukka for registration of FIR which was sent by HC Shailender, on the basis of which he registered the FIR. He deposed that he made an endorsement on the rukka and handed over the copy of FIR to Ct. Surender. In his crossexamination, he has denied the suggestion that no rukka has been received by him and that FIR was not registered at the instance of the IO.
5. PW2, Sh. Ashok, is the complainant in the instant case, who has deposed that on the date of the incident, when he stepped down at Madhu State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 4 of 19 Vihar from Gramin Sewa (mini bus), three persons came and demanded match box from him to which he replied that he does not have it. Thereafter, one of the accused caught him from collar and two other started beating him. He deposed that one accused gave him a punch blow on his ear and ran away after snatching his belongings i.e., his mobile and cash. He deposed that he tried to ran away but the accused persons tried to deviate his way towards nala. He further deposed that one public person dialled at 100 number and Ct. Anil reached there and caught one of the accused persons. Meanwhile, PCR came and took him to police post of Sector1, Dwarka and thereafter to DDU Hospital, where his medical was conducted. PW1 has correctly identified the accused persons present in court. He further deposed that one was apprehended on the spot is not present in court. In his cross examination, his statement under Section 161 was confronted wherein he has stated the site plan was prepared by the police officials at his instance. He has stated that the accused persons had taken amount of Rs. 300/ from his pocket in the denomination of Rs 100x2 and about Rs. 10x56. He further deposed that he remained at the spot for about 2025 minutes and the police reached at the spot within 1015 minutes. He stated that the accused persons were hiding behind the bushes at the distance of about 300500 meters. He further deposed that police asked about two rickshaw pullers in his presence at the spot but they did not agree.
6. PW3 Dr. Ajay Sharma, medical officer DDU Hospital, has deposed that on the date of incident patient, Ashok Kumar was examined by Dr. Priyanka under his supervision and the patient was referred to Dental Department.
State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 5 of 197. PW4, Sh. Ram Swaroop, has deposed that on the date of incident when he was coming towards Sector5 from the side of the Sector4 on his bike, on reaching near Naala, CNG pump, Sector1, he saw one boy who was injured and the blood was oozing from his face. He further deposed that after inquiry from him, he told that 23 boys had beaten him and snatched his mobile and purse containing some money. Thereafter, he called at 100 number from his mobile phone and told the same to security guard who was posted at CNG pump and who called the beat Constable by his phone. He also deposed that after sometime, one constable reached there and he along with the constable searched the accused persons who ran away towards the bushes. In his cross examination, he has stated that he does not remember the exact time when he made the 100 No. call. He has further deposed that he remained at the spot for about 1520 minutes, however, he does not remember the name of the constable who reached at the spot on that date.
8. PW5, HC Surender, has deposed that on the date of the incident he along with HC Shailender were on emergency duty. He deposed that HC Shailender received DD No. 19 PP. Thereafter, they went to the spot where they met the Ct. Anil and told that the injured was shifted to the DDU Hospital. Thereafter, they went to the Hospital where IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for the registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he returned back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to HC Shailender. In his cross examination, he stated that he reached at the PS at about 03:30 PM for registration of FIR.
State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 6 of 199. PW6, HC Anil, has deposed that on the date of incident he was on patrolling duty in the area. At about 12:30 PM he received a call through wireless regarding the quarrel at the spot. Thereafter, he immediately reached at the spot where he saw 3 boys giving beatings to one boy. He immediately reached there and apprehended one accused whose name was revealed as Sandeep and other two accused fled away from the spot. He has correctly identified the two accused persons who had fled away from the spot present in the court. He further deposed that in the meantime PCR also reached at the spot and took the injured to the DDU Hospital. He along with accused Sandeep (JCL) remained present at the spot while HC Shailender also reached at the spot. Thereafter, HC Shailender returned back at the spot and prepared Tehrir which was handed over to Ct. Surender. After registration of FIR Ct. Surender returned back at the spot and handed over original Tehrir and copy of FIR to IO. Thereafter, IO called juvenile officer from concerned PS and proceedings were carried out against JCL Sandeep. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. In his cross examination, he deposed that the public persons were passing through the spot and the IO requested few public persons to join the investigation however they refused. No notice were served upon them for nonjoining of investigation. He remained at the spot for about one and half hour along with JCL Sandeep. And he stated that the seizure memo was not prepared by IO in his presence.
10.PW7, Ct. Sheeshpal Singh, has deposed that upon the instruction of SI Shiv kumar, he went to Bindapur in search of accused Sanjeet @ China, at his home. After finding him, he called SI Shiv kumar on the spot and State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 7 of 19 inquired Sanjeet @ China. He was correctly identified by the witness. In his cross examination he has deposed that he came to know about the address of accused China by local inquiry at Vishwa Vihar colony. No public witness was present at the spot when the accused was arrested. He made the entry in roznamcha before leaving the PS. PW8, HC Jugal Kishor, has deposed that on the date of incident, while he was performing his duty on Zebra 31, he received a call at around 12:30 PM at thereafter he went to spot where he met Ct. Anil with one injured and one other person who is accused in the present case. They took the injured Ashok Kumar to DDU hospital. The witness has correctly identified the accused Sanjeet. In his cross examination, he has stated that he cannot say whether the accused Sanjeet was arrested by the IO from the spot or not.
11.PW9, ASI Shailender Singh, has deposed that on the date of the incident, he received DD No. 19 with regard to the quarrel. He along with Ct. Surender reached at the spot where they met Ct. Anil who had already apprehended one person namely, Sandeep. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Surender went to the DDU Hospital while Ct. Anil remained at the spot. There they met injured who gave his statement and accordingly he prepared a rukka. Ct. Surender was sent to PS for registration of FIR along with rukka. Thereafter, he along with the complainant reached at the spot. In his cross examination, he has deposed that he reached at the spot within 57 minutes on his private motorcycle after receiving of DD No. 19. No public persons were available at the spot, when he first reached there.
State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 8 of 1912. PW10, SI Shiv Kumar, is the IO in the present case who has deposed that on the date of the incident, the investigation of the present case was marked to him after lodging of the FIR. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Sheeshpal went to the spot and met JCL Sandeep and Ct. Anil. JCL was apprehended and handed over to JJB. On inquiry from the JCL Sandeep, he revealed the name of the other 2 persons involved in the offence namely Sanjeet and Rahul. He prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. On 02.10.2015, he along with Ct. Sheeshpal went to the house of the Sanjeet and arrested him from his home and conducted his personal search, and recorded his disclosure statement and prepared the pointing out memo. On 05.10.2015 he along with Ct. Sheeshpal went to the house of accused Rahul and formally arrested him and conducted his personal search and recorded the disclosure statement and prepared the pointing out memo. He obtained the opinion of the Doctor on the MLC of the complainant and the same was simple in nature. In his cross examination, he has deposed that he reached the spot at around 04:45 PM and no public witness was present at the spot. Complainant Ashok reached at the spot around 05:30 PM and he was not accompanied by any other person.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
13.Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused persons was recorded on 12.04.2022 without oath under section 313 CrPC, wherein they stated that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 9 of 19 present case. They further stated that they do not want to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
14.I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
15.Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE:
16.In the instant case, the accused persons have been charged for the offence under section 394 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 34, 390, 394 and 319 of IPC. These run as under:
State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 10 of 19"Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
"Section 390 Robbery. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery. Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. xxx xxx xxx"
Section 394 Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery If, any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
17. While, Hurt as defined under Section 319 IPC is laid down as: "Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
18.In order to prove the fact that accused had committed robbery in the present case, prosecution has to establish beyond doubt that while committing the theft, accused had voluntarily caused or attempted to cause the death of PW2 or hurt (bodily pain, disease or infirmity) to PW2 State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 11 of 19 or wrongful restraint to PW2 or fear of instant death or of instant hurt to PW2 (bodily pain, disease or infirmity) or fear of instant wrongful restraint to PW2.
19.Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
20.In order to prove the case of the prosecution for the offence of voluntary causing hurt while committing robbery punishable under section 394 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it has to be proved that the accused persons in connivance of each other had caused hurt to the complainant while committing theft. Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, a reference be made to the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 12 of 19 evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
21.In the present case, PW2, Sh. Ashok is the star witness of the prosecution as he being the complainant. He narrated the incident in the manner it had occurred when he entered the witness box in the year 2016. He deposed that in the year 2015, three boys had come towards the complainant and started beating him, where one of them gave a punch blow on his ear and they ran away after snatching his belongings i.e., his mobile and cash. He further deposed that he tried to run towards public persons but accused persons tried to deviate his way towards nala. He also deposed that one public person dialled at 100 number which is corroborated by the testimony of PW4 who has deposed that he saw one boy who was injured and blood was oozing from his face. PW4 has State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 13 of 19 further deposed upon inquiry from the complainant, he was told that 23 boys had beaten him and snatched his mobile phone and purse and thereafter, he called at 100 number. PW1 deposed that one of the accused was apprehended at the spot which is corroborated by the testimonies of PW 6. PW1 was taken to the DDU hospital by police persons and the MLC of the complainant is on record vide Ex. PW3/1 which is supported by the testimony of PW3. It is also to be noted that PW2 has identified the two accused, Sanjeet @China and Rahul in the court. He has also deposed that the site plan was prepared in his presence which has further been corroborated by the testimonies of PW2. Thus, PW2 has stood the test of crossexamination which makes his testimony reliable and creditworthy.
22.PW5 has deposed that he alongwith PW9 went to the spot after PW9 received the DD no. 19 and was told that the injured was shifted to DDU hospital. Thereafter, they went to the hospital where IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR which is corroborated by the testimony of PW9. PW9 has also deposed that they met HC Anil, PW6 at the spot who had apprehended one person, namely Sandeep. He further deposed that he alongwith PW5 went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant which is PW2/A. It is pertinent to note that PW6 is another star witness as he was the sole indepedent witness to the alleged incident. PW6 apprehended one of the accused whose name was revealed as Sandeep while the other two accused had fled which have been correctly identified by PW6 in the court. They refuted the suggestion that they had not joined investigation as mentioned in their testimonies. There was no improbable fact, which State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 14 of 19 accused persons could cull out from their testimonies. Therefore, the testimonies are found to be trustworthy and reliable.
23.PW5 HC Surender deposed that he had registered the FIR in question. To that extent, he stuck to his version. In his examination, he gave details of his duty hours and had also deposed that the FIR was registered on the rukka brought by Ct.Surender. So, there was nothing improbable, in his testimony and thus, the same is trustworthy and reliable.
24.The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that no independent witness has joined the investigation and thus the testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon is not acceptable as it is a well settled law which has again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2015 that nonexamination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution when other prosecution witnesses are found to be trustworthy and reliable. Further, the testimonies of the witnesses are indeed impeccable and corroborative of each other. In the instant case, the testimony of PW2 has been duly corroborated by the version of PW4, who is an independent witness. The crime of robbery with hurt has been established by the testimony of PW2 and the other evidence on record. The complainant (PW2) had no motive to falsely implicate the accused persons and/or to allow the real culprits to go scotfree. The refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings and the lack of any reasons on the spot, undoubtedly establish the accused persons guilty conscience and ought to State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 15 of 19 be given substantial weight as also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 308.
25.Therefore, in view of aforesaid appreciation of evidence and factual position of the case, PW2 had stood the acid test of cross examination, was believable just like that of a trustworthy and creditworthy witness.
26.PW10, IO concerned had collected the medical report of the complainant, which is Ex. PW3/1. As per the said report, it is proved that the complainant was brought brought to casualty after physical assault as told by him. This report is corroborated by the testimony of PW3 who has opined the nature of injury as simple and type of weapon as blunt. It is further corroborated by the testimony of PW2 that he was hit by the accused persons on his face and beaten by them on the relevant date and time in question and that his mobile phone and purse containing Rs.300/ was stolen by the accused persons by wrongfully restraining the complainant and also caused simple injuries to him.
27.The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has also contended that the investigating agencies have not recorded the statement of the security guard as he was also the star witness in the present case. However, only because his statement not been recorded cannot be a ground to give the benefit of doubt to the accused as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Muniappan and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 with regard to the defective investigation has observed as under, "Defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. Where there has been negligence on the part of State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 16 of 19 the investigating agency or omissions, etc, which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses carefully to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the objects of finding out the truth. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the Investigating Officer and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the fake and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded."
28.The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had contended that there are contradictory statements given by the prosecution witnesses, however the same is denied by the Ld. APP. In a case Ramesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (HP) 2004(4) Crimes 60, the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed:
"15. There are minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses but because of errors in individual perceptions and observations such contradictions are bound to occur. Secondly with the passage of time lapse of memory can also lead to minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. Human tendency to back up good cases by exaggerated version can be yet another reason for contradictions State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 17 of 19 and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, while appreciating the evidence the Courts are not to attach undue importance to minor contradictions and discrepancies in the version given by the witnesses and not to disbelieve such statements as a whole because of such minor discrepancies/contradictions unless they go to the root of the case. The Court may ignore exaggerated part of the testimony and may act upon the part which may be otherwise reliable and trustworthy."
29.Thus, all these evidences, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had committed robbery and while doing so they caused hurt to the complainant voluntarily. Thus, section 394 r/w 34 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. Section 392 IPC, is a general provision and section 394 IPC, is an aggravated form of section 392 IPC, as can be seen from the punishment aspect of section 394 IPC. Therefore, no need of appreciating Section 392 IPC in detail is required.
30.To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence charged against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the complainant and other witnesses is coherent and directly implicates the accused. The defence has failed to punch a hole in the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 18 of 1931.Resultantly, the accused persons Sanjeet and Rahul are hereby found guilty for offences under section 394 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and are convicted accordingly. Let the convicts be heard separately on sentencing.
Announced in the open court on 06.09.2022 in the presence of both the accused.
Digitally signed by KRATIKA KRATIKA CHATURVEDI
CHATURVEDI Date: 2022.09.06 16:10:41
+0530
(Kratika Chaturvedi)
Metropolitan Magistrate04,
Dwarka, Delhi/06.09.2022
Note: This judgment contains 19 pages and each page has been signed by me.
State vs. Sanjeet & Anr FIR No.741/2015, PS Dwarka South Page 19 of 19