Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajender Kumar @ Babban Singh on 4 June, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-05 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No.12/2014
FIR No. 129/2010
PS: Patel Nagar
U/s 307/398/506/174/34 and U/s 25 of Arms Act
State Vs. Rajender Kumar @ Babban Singh
State
Versus
Rajender Kumar @ Babban Singh @ Patla
S/o Sh. Desh Raj R/o B-7, Gali No.1, Prem Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, New Delhi.
Date of institution : 22.12.2012
Date of receiving by this Court : 30.01.2014
Date for reservation of judgment/conclusion
of Final Arguments : 27.05.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.05.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Rajender Kumar @ Babban Singh S/o Sh. Desh Raj was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial under Sections 307/398/506/174/34 IPC for attempting to commit robbery by snatching bag of complainant Vikas Anand and for firing upon him alongwith his three unknown associates (not arrested) at about 10.00 pm on 4.6.2010 near the Gurudwara, Block No.29, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The facts of prosecution case elaborately stated as gathered from the charge sheet are that on receipt of DD no.32A recorded at PS Patel Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 1/19 2 Nagar at about 10.07 PM on 4.6.2010, SI Sanatan Lakra alongwith Constable Balwant reached the spot i.e. 29 Block, West Patel Near near the Gurudwara where complainant Vikas Anand met them and got his first information statement recorded. In his first information statement (Ex.PW1/A), complainant Vikas Anand stated that he is a resident of 29/125, West Patel Nagar, Delhi and that he is a distributor of Tata Tele Services Ltd having his office in the area of Shastri Nagar. At about 9.35 pm, he had closed his show room and had left for his home in his Innova car. At about 10.00 pm he parked his vehicle in front of the Gurudwara located in Block 29, West Patel Nagar and after locking his car, he proceeded for his home. At that time, he was carrying his laptop bag. When he reached near the front gate, four boys wearing helmets came there on two motorcycles. One of the riders commanded him to hand over his bag and also threatened to shoot him. He fled from there alongwith his bag. Meanwhile one of the pillion riders pointed a Katta (countrymade pistol) towards him and fired two gun shots aiming at him but the shots missed him. He fled from the spot while raising an alarm and threw his bag in the house of his neighbour. Thereafter, all the four boys who were riding two motorcycles escaped from there whom he would identify on the basis of their height and physique.
3. The then SHO of PS Patel Nagar also came to the spot and on his instructions, FIR U/s 506/34 IPC and U/s 27/54/59 Arms Act was registered. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant and thereafter on 10.6.2010, Sections 398/307 IPC were also added.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that in case FIR No.107/10 registered at PS Ranjeet Nagar U/ss 393/394/34 IPC r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act, accused Sahil @ Babloo @ Azad made a disclosure statement Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 2/19 3 admitting his involvement in the incident of the present case. He was formally arrested in the present case but during his test identification parade, complainant failed to identify him and accordingly accused Sahil was released.
5. Further investigation was entrusted to SI Ramesh Chand who during investigation arrested accused Aman Kumar in this case on the basis of his disclosure statement. However, he too could not be identified during his Test Identification Parade and so was released in the present case.
6. On 17.09.2010, the special staff , North West District intimated that the present accused Rajender @ Palta S/o Desh Raj has admitted his involvement in the incident of the present case and accordingly accused was interrogated by SI Ramesh Chand with the permission of the Court but during interrogation, accused denied his involvement in the present and hence he was not arrested.
7. Accordingly, case was closed as untraced on 7.10.2010. However, case was reopened on 30.5.2011 under the orders DCP and investigation was handed over to Inspector Sunil Kumar. During investigation, IO Inspector Sunil Kumar collected one CD from the complainant which was stated to contain CCTV footage of the incident in question. Since the print was not clear and the assailants were found wearing helmets they could not be identified. It was revealed by the complainant that similar incident had also taken place with his employee Rahul and FIR No.306/10 U/ss 392/397/411/34/120-B IPC had been registered at PS Keshav Puram in that regard. Complainant also informed that one Ajay @ Tarsen and Surender Pal @ Surender had been arrested in the said case FIR No. 306/10, so IO collected documents of case FIR No.306/10 PS Keshav Puram.
Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 3/19 4
8. On 15.7.2011 further investigation was marked to SI Ramesh Kumar Singh and during investigation, he recorded supplementary statement of complainant vide which complainant stated that he had overheard his employee Rahul's conversation on phone that the incident which took place with him (complainant herein) was the result of the information given by Rahul to Surender Pal, Ajay @ Tarsen, Rajender @ Babloo@ Palta (accused of this case), Anees Khan and his accomplices namely Raju and Harish. On the basis of the suspicion expressed by the complainant regarding the aforesaid persons having been involved in the incident, IO visited the address of Rajender @ Babloo @ Palta and enquired about him but he was not found present there. He was then contacted at his mobile no.9990500654 and was asked to join the investigation but he kept making excuses and despite issuance of notice U/s 41.1 Cr.P.C. to join investigation, he did not join investigation. Resultantly NBWs were got issued against him.
9. Thereafter, SI Narender Dagar was entrusted with further investigation of the case on 29.11.2011 and during investigation, SI Narender Dagar intiated proceedings U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. against Rajender and he was got declared proclaimed offender on 12.3.2012. Thereafter IO interrogated suspects Surender Pal @Surender, Aneesh Khan, Ajay @ Tarsen but for want of any incriminating material against them, they could not be arrested in this case.
10. On 11.9.2012 accused Rajender @ Babban Singh @ Palta was arrested U/s 41.1 (c) Cr.P.C by HC Ajay Yadav of PS Keshav Puram and he was produced before the concerned Court in Tis Hazari on 12.9.2012 and with permission of the Court , SI Narender Dagar arrested him in the present case.
Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 4/19 5
11. On 14.9.2012, after expiry of police custody remand, accused Rajender @ Babban Singh was produced before the concerned MM for judicial custody and fixing date for holding Test Identification Parade. The accused however, refused to join Test Identification Parade. Later on complainant Vikas Anand identified the accused at a Tis Hazari Court and disclosed that the accused Rajender was involved in this incident dated 4.6.10. Supplementary statement of complainant was recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, chargesheet U/ss 307/398/506/174A/34 IPC and U/s 25 of Arms Act was filed against the accused.
CHARGE
12. Charges U/ss 307/393/506/34 and U/s 174 A IPC were framed against the accused by the Learned Predecessor of this Court on 19.01.2013. However, accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
13. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses, who can be segregated and discussed under following heads.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
14. PW 1 Vikas Anand is the complainant/victim in the present case. He deposed that he is a distributor of Tata Tele Service Ltd. for North Delhi having his office at Shastri Nagar. On 4/6/2010, he was coming in his Innova car bearing registration No. DL-3C-BR-9900 from his office to his house. At about 10.00pm, when he reached outside his house, he came Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 5/19 6 out of his car and locked his car. In the meantime, two motorcycles with one pillion rider each accosted him. They were wearing helmets without glass. They stopped their motorcycles and commanded him to handover his bag which contained cash and also threatened to shoot him. When he refused to do so, one of them had fired at him but the shot missed him. Three of the riders got down from their motorcycles and tried to snatch his bag from him. He started running being chased by them. He was again fired at. Since he was running in a zig-zag manner, the shots missed him. One of the robbers then caught hold of his collar from behind but he threw his bag in the house of his neighbour and raised an alarm. He also pressed the door bell of his neighbours to seek help. In the meantime, all the robbers fled away on their motorcycles. One of his neighbours called at number 100 where upon police reached at the spot and recorded his first information statement (Ex.PW1/A).
15. PW1/Vikas Anand further deposed that efforts were made to search the shells of the fired cartridges but same could not be found. On his pointing out, site plan was prepared. He handed over the CD containing the entire footage of the incident recorded by the CCTV camera installed outside his house which was seized by the police vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B). He also identified the accused as one of the robbers and the person who had fired at him.
16. He further testified that the police had shown him two persons who had been arrested by them but they were not his assailants/robbers. On 10.09.2011, a similar incident had taken place with his colleague Rahul Chaurasia. The said case was transferred to Special Cell, North West District. The robbers in that case were apprehended on 11.09.2011. The police had called him at the office of Special Cell, Shalimar Bagh where he had identified the accused at the office of Special Cell. He had also Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 6/19 7 identified the bike of the accused which was black and white in colour. Though the accused was wearing a helmet on the date of the incident it was without glass. He had also identified the accused in Tis Hazari Courts Complex on 16.11.2012 as the robber who had taken out katta from inside his shirt and had fired at him. He also proved the photographs obtained from the CCTV footage as Ex.P1 to Ex. P7.
17. In his cross examination by learned counsel for the accused, he testified that he had reached near his residence at about 9.55 PM on the date of the incident. There is a street between the Gurudwara and his house. The accused had fired gun shots diagonally opposite his house. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the faces of his assailants/robbers. However, he clarified that they were wearing helmets without any glasses and the helmets covered only their heads and their chins. He had not noted down the registration numbers of the motorcycles of the robbers but he could tell their colours. PW 1 Vikas Anand admitted that the accused had neither asked him to hand over his bag nor had threatened him to shoot him. He was at a distance of about 5-6 feet when the gun shot was fired at him. It was his neighbour who had dialled 100 number as he was passing from the said gali at the time when the gun shot was fired. His bag contained a cash amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and he had told the police regarding the same. The police did not find any fired bullets of the cartridges at the spot. He had supplied recording of the incident contained in the CD, one or one and half months after the incident. He admitted that the faces of the accused persons were not visible in the CCTV footage. He clarified that the same were not visible as they were wearing helmets. He denied the suggestion that the CCTV footage was manipulated or that the accused Rajender had not fired any gun shot at him.
18. During his further cross examination, he admitted that he had been cited Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 7/19 8 as a witness in a case registered at PS Keshav Puram by one of his employees working at his office . He further admitted that it was he who had called up the IO of the present case and informed him that the accused Rajender who was wanted in the present case was present at Rohini Courts in the case of PS Keshav Puram. He had seen the accused at Rohini Courts Complex during the hearing of the case registered at PS Keshav Puram. He however denied having overheard Rahul Chaurasia talking about the present case. He denied the suggestion that the gun shot was not fired by the accused.
19. PW4 Ashish Arora neighbour of the complainant /PW1 testified that on 04.06.2010, he had seen two persons on a motorcycle coming in the street. They had tried to snatch the bag from the complainant Vikas Anand but in vain. They had fired two rounds of gunshot at the complainant and had fled away from the spot. Both the accused persons were wearing black helmets with black glasses and there was no number plate on the said motorcycle. He made a call at 100 number from his mobile number 9810484948.
20. In his cross examination, he testified that it was at about 7-7.30 PM that he had heard the sound of gun shot. He had dialled 100 number at about 8.00 PM. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot.
FORMAL WITNESSES
21. Const. Balwant who was examined as PW3, testified that on 04.06.2010 on receipt of DD No.32A, he along with SI Sanatan Lakra/PW5 reached Block No.29, West Patel Nagar, near the Gurudwara where they found many persons gathered along with complainant Vikas Anand/PW1. Statement of complainant was recorded by SI Sanatan Lakra/PW5 on Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 8/19 9 which PW5 made endorsement and handed over the same to him for getting the case FIR registered. He returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Sanatan Lakra/PW 5.
22. PW 2 ASI Muneem Dutt (Duty Officer) testified that he recorded case FIR No.120/10 u/s 506/34 IPC read with Section 27 of Arms Act (Ex. PW 2/A) on the basis of the rukka brought by Const. Balwant/PW3 and sent by SI Sanatan Lakra/PW5. He also proved endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW 2/B.
23. Ms. Kiran Gupta, Senior Civil Judge, New Delhi District was examined as PW 11 who proved the TIP proceedings of the accused as Ex.PW11/A and certificate in this regard as Ex. PW 11/B. She testified that the accused was produced before her in muffled face and the accused refused to join the Test Identification Parade despite having been warned that his refusal could be read against him.
24. Insp. Sunil Kumar was examined as PW 14 who testified that on 04.06.2011, the case file of this case FIR was handed over to him for further investigation. After going through the entire file, he played CD of the incident recorded by the CCTV camera on his official computer but the contents of the same were not visible. Thereafter, the present case file was handed over to SI Ramesh Kumar Singh.
INVESTIGATION WITNESSES
25. SI Sanatan Lakra was examined as PW5 who testified that on 04.06.2010, on receipt of DD No.32A, he along with Const. Balwant Singh/PW 3 reached at 29/124, West Patel Nagar, near the Gurudwara where Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 9/19 10 complainant Vikas/PW1 met them. SHO, PS Patel Nagar along with Senior Officers also reached the spot. He recorded the first information statement (Ex.PW1/A) of the complainant. Crime team was called at the spot who inspected the spot. He prepared rukka (Ex. PW 5/A) and handed over the same to Const. Balwant Singh/PW3 for registration of the case FIR. He made efforts to search the accused persons but in vain. On 10.06.2010, Section 307 IPC was added and further investigation of this case was handed over to Inspector Bachhu Singh.
26. In his cross examination, he testified that he had received DD entry No. 32A at about 10.07 PM from the PCR. When he had reached the spot, he had met the complainant who told him that all the robbers were wearing helmets and were driving two motorcycles. Despite search, neither the bullets nor the bullet marks could be found.
27. SI Narender Singh Dagar (since retired) was examined as PW 7 who testified that on 17.11.2011, investigation of the present case was assigned to him. During the course of investigation, he initiated proceedings u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C against the accused. On 11.09.2012, he received DD from PS Keshav Puram regarding the arrest of the accused who had disclosed about his involvement in the present case. On 12.09.2012, he reached Tis Hazari Courts and interrogated the accused after obtaining permission from the Court. The accused was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/B. During the course of investigation, accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW7/C which he refused to sign. On 13.09.2012, accused refused to participate int he TIP proceedings.
28. PW8 SI Ramesh Kumar Singh testified that on 05.07.2011, investigation of the present case was entrusted to him. During the course of investigation, Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 10/19 11 he recorded supplementary statement of the complainant on 15.07.2011. Thereafter, notices were issued to the accused to join investigation but he did not join the investigation. He then obtained NBW from the court on 08.11.2011 but the accused could not be arrested. Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C was got issued from the court on 16.11.2011 and same was marked to Const. Hari Om on 22.11.2011 and he was thereafter transferred.
29. In his cross examination, PW 8 testified that he did not record the statement of Rahul Chaurasia to verify the supplementary statement of the complainant.
30. PW 9 Const. Prabhu Shah and PW-10 HC Ajay Yadav , both testified that a raiding party was constituted to apprehend accused Rajender @Babban who had been declared proclaimed offender, on the basis of the information received by HC Ajay. Accordingly, he was apprehended and was arrested u/s 41.1 ( c) Cr.P.C vide arrest memo (Ex.PW9/A). His personal search was conducted vide personal search memo (Ex PW9/B).
31. SI Ajay was examined as PW 15 who testified that on 13.09.2010 while he was on patrolling duty with other staff members, they had stopped a motorcycle make Pulsar of Black colour having registration no. DL-4S- BC-7604 and had asked for its documents. As the riders of the motorcycle failed to produce the same, they were interrogated. On interrogation, it was revealed that the aforesaid motorcycle had been stolen from Pitam Pura for which case FIR No.31/10 PS Maurya Enclave was registered. On interrogation, accused Rajender Kumar disclosed about his involvement in the robbery of the present case. He proved the disclosure statement of accused Rajender in this regard as Ex.PW15/B. VERSION OF ACCUSED Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 11/19 12
32. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein the accused denied the prosecution case in toto.
33. I have heard learned Addl PP for the State and learned counsel for the accused. I have also gone through the entire record with utmost care.
APPREICATION OF EVIDENCE
34. It was argued by the learned counsel for the accused that no such incident as alleged by the complainant took place. When the police officials had visited the alleged place of the incident on 04.06. 2010, neither any bullets nor any marks of bullets were found. In addition to the said fact, there are variations in the testimonies of PW-1 Vikas Anand and PW 4 Ashish Arora regarding the time of the incident which only reflect the falsehood of the prosecution case. There is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused as so far as the incident of attempt of robbery and firing of gun shots at the complainant/Vikas Anand/PW1 on 04.06.2010 is concerned, same is substantiated by the CCTV footage which captured the entire incident on camera and the photographs (Ex.P1 to Ex.P7) developed from the said footage.
35. It was further argued by learned counsel for the accused that there are material discrepancies in the testimony of PW1 complainant. In his first information statement Ex.PW 1/ A, he had not stated that he was carrying cash in his bag and was wearing helmet without glass whereas in his testimony, he had deposed otherwise. There is no teeth in this argument as the contents of the bag which the complainant was carrying at the time of incident is of no consequence. The fact is that the accused along Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 12/19 13 with his accomplices had tried to snatch the bag of the complainant Vikas Anand/PW1. So far as the testimony of PW1 / complainant / Vikas Anand regarding the accused wearing helmet without glass is concerned, same was stated in his supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Moreover, complainant had nowhere stated that he can not identify the accused. Even otherwise , in a case titled as Ranadhir Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 908 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"Some inconsistencies of minor nature in her evidence can be regarded as natural - Giving more details while deposing before Sessions Court are not improvements of such a nature as would create any doubt regarding her trustworthiness."
36. The only dispute which needs to be resolved is the identity of the accused Rajender Kumar as one of the robbers who was pillion riding and had fired gun shots at the complainant /PW 1 Vikas Anand. It was very vehemently argued by learned counsel for accused that it was almost impossible for the complainant to identify any robber /assailant who had attempted to snatch his bag and had fired gun shots at him, as the alleged robbers were wearing helmets which had covered their heads and chin in the front and their faces could not be captured by the CCTV camera. Otherwise also, the incident took place at the dead of the night i.e at about 10.00 PM when it is completely dark and no passersby were present. Thus, the claim of the complainant regarding identity of the accused as one of the robbers and that too, after a span of almost two and a half years was virtually false. It was further argued that there are glaring contradictions in the testimony of the complainant/PW1/Vikas Anand. In his examination in chief, he had claimed that he had identified the accused at the office of the Special Cell after the robbers in another case of robbery qua his colleague Rahul Chaurasiya had been apprehended, whereas in his cross examination, he had testified that he Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 13/19 14 had identified the accused Rajender at Rohini Courts. It was also argued that actually the accused Rajender @ Babban had been shown to the complainant by the police officials several times and that was the reason that he had refused to participate in the proposed TIP on 14.09.2012 when he was produced in the Court of Ms.Kiran Gupta, MM, Delhi.
37. I completely disagree with the arguments of the learned counsel for accused as it was very categorically testified by PW 1/Vikas Anand that the accused was wearing a helmet without glass and he had distinctly seen the face of the accused as the person who had taken out the katta from inside his shirt and had fired at him. He had also identified the accused on 11.09.2011 in the Rohini Court where the accused had appeared in a hearing in the case of FIR filed by Rahul Chaurasiya regarding a similar incident. He had again identified the accused in Tis Hazari Court Complex on 16.11.2012. In his testimony, he had categorically stated that he was only 5-6 feet away when the gun shot was fired at him. He had also admitted in his cross examination that he had seen the accused in the Court Complex in a case of PS Keshav Puram (FIR No.306/10 registered by Rahul Chaurasiya). Even if the complainant deviated in naming the place where he had seen the accused for the first time after the incident of attempt to robbery on him, there is no reason to disbelieve him. The complainant is a lay man and can not be expected to remember the exact names of the Court Complexes and the Offices of the Investigating Agency.
38. The proposed Test Identification Proceedings of accused reveals that he had specifically stated that he had been arrested in Rohini Court on 11.09.2012 which on the face of it, itself is false. The adage that "Humans can lie but the documents can not" is aptly applicable in the present case. The documents on the record and the testimonies of PW 10/HC Ajay Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 14/19 15 Yadav and PW9 Const.Prabhu Shah falsifies the claim of the accused that he was arrested from Rohini Court Complex. He was arrested on 11.09.2012 by the team of HC Ajay/PW10 and PW9/Const Prabhu Shah, who were patrolling near the Wine Shop, Rampura. Testimony of PW10/ HC Ajay Yadav reflects that after the apprehension of the accused, they came to know that the accused was a declared Proclaimed Offender in case FIR No.129/10 of PS Patel Nagar. He was thereafter arrested u/s 41.1 (c) Cr.P.C vide arrest memo (Ex. PW9/A) and taken to PS Keshav Puram where DD No.62 (Ex.PW10/A) was lodged. PW10 had prepared kalandra under Section 41.1 (c )Cr.P.C (Ex.PW10/B) and had produced the accused before the court of Sh. Pushpender Pathak, MM after getting the accused medically examined. In his cross examination, he had denied that the accused had been arrested while the accused had come to attend a court hearing at Rohini Court Complex or that he was arrested at the instance of the complainant. PW 1 had testified that he had identified the accused on 11.09.2011 and again on 16.11.2012 in the Tis Hazari Courts Complex. It was never claimed by the complainant that he had seen the accused on 11.09.2012 in the Rohini Courts Complex. On thorough analysis of evidence of PW1/ Vikas Anand, I find him a wholly reliable and trustworthy witness. He had no enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused in a serious incident which happened with him in the night of 4.06.2010. In my considered opinion, he has stood the test of cross examination and his evidence in the facts and circumstances particularly the refusal of the accused to participate in the TIP proceedings on 14.09.2012 is sufficient to convict him. In a case titled as Brahm Swaroop Vs State of UP reported as 2010 (4) RCR Crl.898, while appreciating evidence of the injured witness, it was observed :
"Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 15/19 16 built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else".
39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Rajender Kumar @ Babban Singh @ Palta was one of the four robbers riding on two motorcycles on 04.06.2010 who in furtherance of common intention had attempted to commit robbery by firing upon the complainant Vikas Anand/PW1 thereby committing offences u/ss 307/393/34 IPC. Accused Rajender Kumar @ Babban accordingly stands convicted for commission of offence punishable U/ss 307/393/34 IPC. Further since, he had absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender, he is also held guilty u/s 174 A of the IPC.
40. Before parting with the judgment, I may add that I am completely baffled and intrigued by the type and quality of investigation conducted in the present case. The record reveals that firstly, despite the unequivocal first information statement (Ex.PW1/A) of the complainant Vikas Anand regarding the attempt of robbery after firing of shots at him, FIR only u/ss 506/34 IPC and Section 27/54/59 Arms Act was registered by the IO/SI Sanatan Lakra. It was only subsequently that on the instruction of senior officers on 10.06.2010, Sections 398/307 IPC were added. The act of the IO/SI Sanatan Lakra reveals that he tried his best to water down the gravity of the offence and the incident of 04.06.2010.
41. Secondly, it is apparent from the record that the accused Rajender Kumar @ Babban Singh@ Palta was arrested in FIR No.107/10 u/ss 393/394/34 IPC read with Section 25 Arms Act on 17.09.2010 wherein he made his disclosure statement and admitted his involvement in the present case FIR. He was however, released in the present case FIR by the then IO SI Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 16/19 17 Ramesh Chand of PS Patel Nagar as the accused during his interrogation denied his involvement in the present case. It was the bounden duty of IO/SI Ramesh Chand to have moved an application before the Court of MM for conducting Test Identification Parade proceedings of accused so as to ensure that the accused was not involved in the present case FIR. Considering the casual approach of Investigating Officer, let the copy of this judgment be sent to DCP (Central) with direction to take appropriate action against the erring official.
Dictated and Announced in open (Hemani Malhotra)
Court on 29.05.2015 Addl. Sessions Judge-05
(Central) Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 17/19
18
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Sessions Case No.12/2014 FIR No. 129/2010 PS: Patel Nagar U/s U/ss 307/393/34 IPC & u/s 174 A of the IPC.
State Vs. Rajender Kumar @ Babban Singh ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Accused Rajender Kumar @ Babban Singh S/o Sh. Desh Raj was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial under Sections 307/398/506/174/34 IPC for attempt to commit robbery by snatching bag of complainant Vikas Anand and for firing upon him alongwith his three unknown associates (not arrested) at about 10.00 pm on 4.6.2010 near the Gurudwara, Block No.29, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
2. I have heard learned Addl. PP for the State and learned counsel for convict and have carefully perused the record.
3. It is submitted on behalf of convict Rajender Kumar @ Babban that lenient view be taken as he is young and he may be given opportunity to reform himself. Request for granting benefit under Probation Offenders Act is also made by learned counsel for convict. It is further submitted that convict be released after giving admonition as he is the sole bread earner of his family comprising of his mother, wife and a small child.
4. Per contra it is argued by learned Addl. PP for the State that convict does not deserve any leniency as he alongwith his associates had fired upon the complainant in order to commit robbery.
Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 18/19 19
5. Convict alongwith his accomplices came at the spot on two motorcycles and one of the riders commanded complainant to hand over his bag and also threatened to shoot him. Complainant fled from there alongwith his bag. Meanwhile one of the pillion riders had pointed a Katta (countrymade pistol) towards him and had fired two gun shots aiming at him but the shots missed him. Complainant fled from the spot while raising an alarm and threw his bag in the house of his neighbour. The entire incident was covered by the CCTV Camera placed near the spot.
6. Considering the nature of offence, age of the convict as well as his social background , convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years for commission of offence punishable U/s 307 IPC with direction to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- , in default of payment of fine, convict to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. Convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years for commission of offence punishable U/s 393 IPC with direction to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- , in default of payment of fine, convict to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. Convict is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence punishable U/s 174 A IPC.
7. All these sentences shall run concurrently. Convict is also given benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. as he remained in J/c w.e.f. 12.9.2012 to 30.1.2013. Warrants be prepared accordingly.
Dictated and Announced in open (Hemani Malhotra)
Court on: 4.06.2015 Addl. Sessions Judge-05
(Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
Judgment in case FIR No.129/10 titled State Versus Rajender @ Babban dt.4.06.15 19/19