Delhi District Court
State vs . Yash Pal Singh Etc. on 2 August, 2010
1
State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc.
FIR No. 190/05
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - IV:
ROHINI (OUTER) : DELHI
Sessions Case No. : 95/08
FIR No. : 190/05
PS : Rohini
Under Sections : U/Ss 399/402/34 IPC
R/w Section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
State Vs. 1. Munni W/o Munna Lal
R/o Gali No. 3, 40 Futta Road,
Krishna Vihar, P.S. Shahibabad,
District Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Pankaj Sharma
S/o Rambir Sharma
R/o 29/36, Gali No.1, Bhola Nath
Nagar, Shahadra, Delhi.
3. Gautam Diwakar,
S/o Sh. Bhudharam,
R/o Gali No. 6, Jwala Nagar
Near Ramleela Ground,
Shahdra, Delhi.
4. Avresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar,
R/o Gali No. 3, 40 Futta Road,
Krishna Vihar, P.S. Shahibabad,
District Ghaziabad, U.P.
1/16
2
State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc.
FIR No. 190/05
5. Yash Pal Singh
(Proclaim Offender)
S/o Sh. Rattan Singh,
R/o WZ 887, Naraina, Delhi.
Date of Committal : 24.02.2005
Date of Institution
before this Court : 16.12.2008
Date on which reserved
for Judgment : 02.08.2010
Date of Judgment : 02.08.2010
Final Order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The charge-sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the accused Yash Pal Singh, Pankaj Sharma, Gautam Diwakar, Avresh Kumar and Munni for committing offences punishable U/Ss 399/402/34 IPC read with Section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Briefly stating the case of prosecution is that on 24.02.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. at service road near wall of DDA Park, Rithala Railway Station, Rohini, Delhi, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity in a house in Sector No. 24, Rohini at which point of time all the accused persons were armed with buttondar knife and ustra and were also planning to use Maruti van No. DL4C 2/16 3 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 F 5077 for the purpose of committing said dacoity.
It is further the case of prosecution that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the police officials got the secret information and conducted raid and apprehended all the accused persons and one buttondar knife was recovered from possession of accused Pankaj Sharma which he kept in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration. It is further the case of prosecution that all the accused persons were arrested and after completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet U/S 173Cr.P.C. was filed in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and after compliance of necessary provisions U/S 207 Cr. P.C., the case was committed to the court of Session and vide order dated 13.02.2009, charge U/Ss 399/402/34 IPC was served upon all the accused persons and a separate charge U/S 25 Arms Act was also served on the accused Pankaj Sharma to which all the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It would be pertinent to mention here that during course of trial the accused Yash Pal was declared proclaimed offender.
2. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, has examined 5 witnesses in all namely H.C. Rajiv Mohan as PW1, H.C. Ranbir Singh as PW2, ASI Hashim Ali as PW3, Sh. Sanjay as PW4 and Inspector Ramesh Chand Meena as PW5 and thereafter statements of all the accused persons were 3/16 4 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. to which they have submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
3. I have heard the final arguments as advanced by Ld. APP for State, Sh. P. K. Samadhiya and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Inderjeet Singh Barnala and V.K. Jha for all the accused and have also carefully gone through the material placed on record.
Ld. APP has argued that prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of all the accused persons on record and sufficient corroboration is available to the ocular testimonies of witnesses by the documents placed and proved on record, hence, all accused persons must be convicted for offences alleged against them.
On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that a number of grave and material contradictions have crept on record to the ocular testimonies of witnesses which shake their basic versions and the Maruti van No. DL-4C-F-5077 was not produced before the court and he has also submitted that prosecution has examined Sanjay who was the owner of Maruti van No. DL4C F 5077 but he has also not supported the case of prosecution on any material aspects. He has prayed that since prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused persons on record, hence all the accused persons must be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
4/16 5State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05
4. In the present case, the most material witnesses as examined by the prosecution are H.C. Rajeev Mohan (PW1), ASI Hashim Ali (PW3), Sanjay (PW4) and Inspector Ramesh Chand Meena (PW5), H.C. Ranbir (PW2) is the duty officer who had registered the present FIR on 24.02.2005 at about 11.50 p.m. on the basis of rukka as sent by SI Mahipal through Ct. N.K. Pavitran and proved its copy as Ex-PW2/A and also made endorsement on rukka which is Ex-PW2/B. Inspector Ramesh Chand Meena (PW5) is the Investigating Officer who has testified that on 24.02.2005 on the instructions of senior officers, he reached at the spot i.e. at the DDA Park, near Rithala Metro Station where SI Mahipal, ASI Satyawati, H.C. Rajiv Mohan, H.C. Hashim Ali and Ct. N.K. Pavitran also met him and SI Mahipal handed him over the case property in sealed condition which was duly sealed with the seal of KP and thereafter he prepared site plan Ex-PW5/A. He further deposed that in the mean time, Ct. N.K. Pavitran also reached at the spot and handed him over the copy of FIR and original rukka. He further deposed that he recorded statement of SI Mahipal and arrested all the accused persons vide arrest memos Exhibits PW1/G1 to PW1/G5 respectively and conducted their personal search vide memos Exhibits PW5/B1 to PW1/B5 respectively and also recorded their disclosure statements which are Exhibits PWC1 to PW1/C5 and also seized the Maruti van 5/16 6 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 No. DL4C F 5077 vide seizure memo Ex-PW1/J. He further deposed that at the instance of accused Munni, one suit case, one traveling bag and one hand bag were recovered from the said Maruti van and the said hand bag consisted of 129 white blank papers which were cut in the size and shape of currency notes alongwith 12 khaki coloured envelopes. He has further testified that the suitcase and traveling bag were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex- PW1/H and 129 blank white papers and 12 envelopes were converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of RCM and seized vide seizure memo Ex-PW1/J and he has further deposed that the case property was deposited in the malkhana and he also recorded the statements of witnesses. He has identified the 129 blank white papers and 12 brown envelopes collectively as Ex.P-6, one traveling bag and one suit case recovered at the instance of accused Munni as Ex-P4 & P5 and the hand bag as Ex-P7.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that he received the directions from his senior officers at about 11.00 p.m. and left his office in civil dress on the motorcycle and he reached at the spot at about 11.30 p.m. and stated that the distance between the spot and his office was about 3-4 km. He also stated that there was no residential colony near the spot. He also stated that when he reached, Ct. N.K. Pavitran was leaving the spot at about 12.30 a.m and SI Mahipal handed him over the case property, the 6/16 7 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 documents and custody of all the accused persons and he prepared site plan at about 11.40 p.m. He also stated that writing work was done at the spot near DDA park under the light of electric poles and he reached back at his office at about 3.00 a.m. He stated that Inspector K.P. Singh was the first investigating officer whose seal was used but he was not cited as one of the witnesses as he had already left the spot by the time he reached.
H.C. Rajeev Mohan (PW1) has testified that on 24.02.2005 at about 8.00 p.m., he received a secret information that Pankaj who was a bad element and was involved in number of robberies would arrive at the DDA Park, near Rithala Metro Station at about 9.30 p.m alongwith co-accused Munni in a Maruti van No. DL4C F 5077 to commit dacoity whereupon he informed SI Mahipal who forwarded the intimation to Inspector K.P. Singh and the ACP whereupon DD No. 15 was recorded and as per instructions of ACP, a raiding party was constituted by SI Mahipal Singh consisting of himself, H.C. Hashim Ali, ASI Satyawati, constable N.K. Pavitran, Ct. Suresh, Ct. Surinder and Ct. Devender under the supervision of Inspector K.P. Singh and they left the office at about 8.30 pm in which regard DD No. 16 which was recorded in a government vehicle driven by Ct. Dharam Pal. He further deposed that on the way, SI Mahipal got down and asked 4-5 passersby to join the raiding party but they refused and they reached at the spot and parked the vehicle 7/16 8 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 by the side of the road. He further deposed that the secret informer pointed out towards the Maruti van which was parked by the side of the wall of DDA Park on the service road and SI Mahipal Silngh directed H.C. Hashim Ali (PW3) to go near the said Maruti van and to overhear the conversation going on amongst the accused persons sitting in the said Maruti van and also asked him to make an indication by moving his hand over his head if the accused were planning to commit dacoity, however other members of the raiding party were directed to be alert and the informer was asked to leave the spot. He further testified that at about 9.30 p.m., HC Hashim Ali made the said signal and they moved towards the Maruti van and apprehended all the five accused persons sitting in it. He testified that SI Mahipal Singh had arrested accused Pankaj Sharma, he apprehended accused Yashpal Singh (proclaim offender), Ct. N.K. Pavitran apprehended the accused Gautam and SI Satyawati apprehended accused Munni and HC Hashim Ali apprehended the driver of the said Maruti van namely Avresh Kumar. He further deposed that SI Mahipal conducted general search of accused Yash Pal Singh (proclaimed offender) from whose possession one buttondar knife was recovered and the Investigating Officer prepared its sketch which is Ex-PW1/A after which it was converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of KP and seized vide seizure memo Ex-PW1/B. 8/16 9 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 He further testified that from the search of accused Pankaj Sharma which was conducted by SI Mahipal Singh, one buttondaar knife was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant regarding which the Investigating Officer prepared a sketch Ex-PW1/C and also converted it into a pullanda and sealed it with the seal of KP and seized vide memo Ex-PW1/D. He also deposed that from the possession of accused Gautam, one Ustra was recovered and IO prepared its sketch, which is Ex-PW1/E, converted it into pullanda and sealed it with the seal of KP and seized it vide seizure memo Ex- PW1/F. He further deposed that the seal after use was handed over to him and SI Mahipal Singh prepared rukka and handed it over to Ct. N.K. Pavitran and got the case registered. He has further testified that SI Ramesh Chand Meena (PW5) also reached at the spot who prepared site plan at the instance of SI Mahipal who also handed him over the custody of all the accused persons, case property and all other documents prepared by him and in the meantime, Ct. N.K. Pavitran also reached at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the Investigating Officer and thereafter all the accused persons were arrested whose personal searches were conducted and disclosure statements were also recorded. He further testified that one suitcase and one traveling bag which were recovered from the Maruti van of accused were also taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex-PW1/H and the envelopes and some 9/16 10 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 plane papers which were in the shape of currency notes were also seized vide memo Ex-PW1/J. He has identified the case property i.e. knife recovered from accused Pankaj as Ex-P1, the buttondar knife recovered from the accused Yash Pal Singh and razer/ustra recovered from the accused Gautam Ex-P2 and P3 respectively and has also identified the suit case and the traveling bag as Ex-P4 and P5 and the blank white papers and brown coloured envelopes collectively as Ex-P6.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that when the secret information was given, he was alone. He also stated that no efforts were made by the investigating officer to join the public witnesses in the raiding party from the office till they reached at Metro Station Rithala and also that all of them were in civil dresses and none of them had collected any weapon from the malkhana as they were already having weapons with them. He stated that he remained at the spot for about 4-5 hours and Ct. Hashim Ali remained near the van of the accused for about 10 minutes and they parked their vehicle by the side of park at the distance of about 25 steps from the van of the accused and also that the accused could not see their vehicle. He also stated that the Investigating Officer did not make any effort to call any public person at the time of raiding or at the time of preparing documents and they finally left the spot at about 2/2.30 a.m. He also stated that the writing work was done by 10/16 11 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 sitting inside their official vehicle. He also stated that he returned the seal to the investigating officer after about 3-4 days. He further stated that in their office, they had also been using white papers for work and denied if the accused were arrested from their house.
5. ASI Hashim Ali (PW3) has testified that on 24.02.2005 at about 8.00p.m., HC Rajiv Mohan (PW1) received a secret information which he communicated to SI Mahipal Singh who further informed senior officials and a raiding party was constituted consisting of ASI Satyawati, HC Rajiv Mohan, Ct. N.K. Pavitran, Ct. Suresh, Ct. Devender, Ct. Surinder and himself and SI Mahipal Singh told them about the secret information and they left their office at about 8.30p.m. in a government vehicle which was driven by Ct. Dharampal. He further deposed that the Investigating Officer had asked 4-5 passersby to join the raiding party after apprising about the secret information but all of them refused and left the place without telling their names and addresses. He has further deposed that they parked their government vehicle near DDA Park and from there, the secret informer had pointed out towards the Maruti van also stating that the said Maruti van belonged to the accused persons namely Yashpal and Pankaj etc. whereupon the Investigating Officer instructed him to go near the said van and to overhear the conversation going on amongst the accused persons and also directed 11/16 12 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 him to make the indication if accused planned to commit dacoity. He also deposed that he went near the van of the accused, overheard the conversation of the accused who were planning to commit dacoity whereupon he made the signal and all the members of the raiding party apprehended the accused persons. He also testified that from the search of Pankaj and Yashpal, one buttondar knife each was recovered from their possession and from the possession of the accused Gautam, one razor/ustra was recovered regarding which Investigating Officer had prepared sketches, took their measurements and converted them into pullandas and seized them after sealing with the seal of KP. He further deposed that the Investigating Officer also prepared a teharir, handed it over to Ct. N.K. Pavitran and got the case registered and in the mean time SI Ramesh Chand Meena also arrived to whom further investigation was handed over who prepared site plan and in the mean time Ct. N.K. Pavitran also reached and gave him rukka and copy of FIR. He further deposed that all the accused persons were arrested and case property was recovered at their instance which he identified as Ex-P1 to P6 respectively.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that he did not hear the conversation of secret informer and did not collect any weapon from malkhana. He also stated that the investigating officer did not ask any public person to join the raiding party from the Crime Office to the spot and admitted that there were 12/16 13 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 residences nearby the spot and people were coming and going there. He also stated that the van was parked at the right side of the Park and on the left side of the road and cannot tell the exact distance between their vehicle and vehicle of the accused. He also stated that the Investigating Officer had asked public persons to join the raiding party at the place where they had parked their vehicle and also that he had overheard the conversation of accused while sitting by the side of the van of the accused for about 5 to 7 minutes. He also stated that he remained at the spot for about 4 to 5 hours and writing work was done while sitting in their government vehicle.
During further cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded by SI Ramesh Chand Meena, however confessions regarding the present incident was not mentioned. He also stated that he was standing adjacent to the van of the accused and no finger prints were lifted from the knives or razor/ ustra.
6. Sanjay (PW4) has testified that he is the registered owner of Maruti van No. DL4C F 5077 and about five years ago, the police officials had picked up his van from his residence. He also deposed that thereafter his said Maruti van was stolen on 23.07.2010.
During cross examination by Ld. APP, he denied that on 24.02.2005, he gave the said Maruti van to the accused persons on a 13/16 14 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 daily rent of Rs. 400/-. He also denied if the accused Avresh Kumar was employed by him as a driver.
7. In the present case, admittedly Inspector Ramesh Chand Meena (PW5), ASI Hashim Ali (PW3), HC Rajiv Mohan and Sanjay (PW4) are the most material witnesses whose testimonies though have already been discussed at length but in order to appreciate the evidence, the relevant portions of their version would be discussed even at the cost of repetition.
It needs to be mentioned that Inspector Ramesh Chand Meena (PW5) has categorically deposed that when we reached at the spot, SI Mahipal Singh handed him over the case property in sealed condition which was duly sealed with the seal of KP, however it is an admitted fact that Inspector K.P. Singh never ever visited the spot at any point of time nor any of the prosecution witnesses ever whispered if Inspector K.P. Singh had accompanied them or if he ever conducted any investigation in this case and it is quite surprising that in these circumstances, how, when and why the seal of 'KP' was handed over to any of the police officials more particularly when the Investigating Officer himself was of the rank of Inspector. In the present case, the Investigating Officer Inspector R.C. Meena (PW5) has categorically stated that there was no residential colony near the spot, however ASI Hashim Ali (PW3) has deposed that there were 14/16 15 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 number of residences nearby. Further, the Investigating Officer Inspector R.C. Meena (PW5) has also stated that he had done the writing work at the spot itself near DDA park under the light of electric pole whereupon ASI Hashim Ali (PW3) has stated that the writing work was done while sitting inside their government vehicle. Not only there but several other material contradictions have also crept on record regarding the place where ASI Hashim Ali (PW3) had overheard the conversation of the accused persons regarding making of planning by the accused persons to commit dacoity as ASI Hashim Ali (PW3) has stated that he overheard the conversation while sitting by the side of maruti van for about 5 to 7 minutes whereupon HC Rajiv (PW1) has stated that ASI Hashim Ali (PW3) has overheard the conversation for about 10 minutes and they remained at the spot for about 4-5 hours. ASI Hashim Ali (PW3) has stated that Investigating Officer did not ask any public person to join the raiding party from the Crime office of the spot whereas other witnesses have stated that Investigating Officer had asked the public persons to join the raiding party. ASI Hashim Ali (PW3) has also stated that public persons were coming and going near the spot whereas other witnesses have categorically stated that no public persons were passing from there. Sanjay (PW4) who is also one of the material witnesses has nowhere stated if at all his Maruti Van No. DL-4C-F-5077 was ever stolen.
The contradictions as discussed above are quite grave and 15/16 16 State Vs. Yash Pal Singh etc. FIR No. 190/05 material which go to the root of the matter and shake the basic versions of the prosecution witnesses and raise doubt regarding the genuineness of the case of prosecution. The ocular testimonies of witnesses are not only self-contradictory but contradictory on other material aspects by the witnesses as examined by the prosecution and do not seem to be cogent and convincing and in these circumstances, court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has not succeeded in bringing home guilt of accused persons namely Yash Pal Singh, Pankaj Sharma, Gautam Diwakar, Avresh Kumar and Munni beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them U/Ss 399/402/34 IPC read with Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. Their sureties are discharged. Original documents of sureties be returned as per rules. Endorsement, if any on the documents of sureties be cancelled. File be adjourned sine die, and accordingly be cosigned to record room as the accused Yashpal is proclaimed offender and file be revived as and when need arises.
Announced in the open Court (BARKHA GUPTA)
on this 2nd day of August 2010 Additional Sessions Judge - IV
Outer District
Rohini District Courts
Delhi
16/16