Delhi District Court
Fir No. 98/10; State vs . Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 1 Of 41 on 25 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 22/10
FIR No. : 98/10
P.S. : Keshav Puram
U/S: : 392/394/395/397/307/
411/120B IPC &
u/s 27 Arms Act
STATE
Versus
(1) Sanjeev Patil
s/o Sh. Bharat Patil
r/o H. NO. 372, Narived,
PO Rampur, PS Singonpur,
Distt. Surat (Gujarat)
(2) Ravi Gupta
s/o Sh. Subhash
r/o WZ194, Tihu Village,
Delhi
(3) Mohd. Akram Jaidi @ Chacha Akram
s/o Hakim Asgar Jaidi
r/o Shiv Mandir Road,
behind Basant Cinema,
P.S. Khatauli, Mujaffar Nagar (UP)
FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 1 of 41
(4) Shakir Hussain
s/o Abid Hussain
r/o H. No. 232A,
Basti Khwaja Meer Dard,
Sakur Ki Dandi,
behind Dr. Zakir Hussain College,
Delhi.
Date of Institution: 09062010
Date of arguments: 22072014
Date of judgement: 25072014
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 13032010 on receipt of DD no. 25 PP Shanti Nagar, IO / SI Sanjeev Verma along with PSI Praveen Kumar and Ct. Halwant reached at the spot i.e. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 38513852, Kanhaiya Nagar, opposite Metro Pillar No. 231, Tri Nagar where many public persons had gathered on the road. IO along with accompanying staff while taking search of building reached at the second floor where suddenly two persons namely Ravi Gupta and Sanjeev came out from the bathroom and they ran towards downstairs after pushing the police but the public persons standing there were very furious and they gave beatings to them. IO with the help of his staff, rescued both the persons. It was revealed from the public that their FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 2 of 41 three associates had flee from there while firing in the street. One Rajiv Gupta came there and informed IO that three boys coming from Muthood Finance Ltd. side snatched his motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAS4001 after showing gun. In the meanwhile, one another person Pawan Kumar told the IO that he closed the door of building from outside after hearing the noise and when three boys were jumping from the window, he tried to stop them by throwing bricks on them and one of the boys fired at him and thereafter they ran in the street towards Ganesh Pura. ASI Mohd. Swaley along with Ct. Sikander also reached at the spot. Thereafter, IO along with accompanying police officials went to the office of Muthoot Finance Ltd. at First floor, 38513852. In the office, chilly powder was scattered at some places, yellow colour plastic rope and tape were lying, pieces of plastic gloves were lying, the wires of computers were disconnected and security system was broken. Crime Team was called and spot was got inspected and photographed. Thereafter IO recorded the statement of complainant Sh. Narender Kumar Chawla wherein he stated that he was working as Branch st Manager in the office of Muthoot Finance Ltd., 38513852, 1 Floor, Kanhaiya Nagar, Tri Nagar and besides him Sh. Ankit Gupta as Accountant Assistant and Sh. Ram Swaroop as Security Guard were FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 3 of 41 also working. On 11.03.2010 at about 5 pm, two boys came in their branch and one boy showed him one ring without Nag and two small gold lockets and asked as to how much loan they can get. When complainant told them the estimated exchanged amount, they took their articles and went while saying that they need more money.
2. On 13.03.2010 at about 01.30 pm, complainant Narender Kumar and Ankit were present in their office and guard Ram Swaroop was standing at the gate. Both the boys again came in the branch and the same boy showed him the same Ring and Locket and after seeing them complainant told him that earlier they had brought and shown the same to him. Both the boys asked the complainant to give whatever loan amount could be given against the articles. Complainant gave the said articles to Ankit for checking. They asked for water and he sent guard Ram Swaroop for fetching the water. When they drank the water, three more boys aged about 2530 years entered the office from the gate and they all were having pistol like weapons. Out of them, one put the pistol on guard Ram Swaroop, the second boy put pistol on his forehead and another put pistol on Ankit. One boy threw red chilly powder in the eyes of complainant and they all gave beatings to them. They locked guard Ram Swaroop in the bathroom. Thereafter, they FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 4 of 41 forcibly snatched the keys of the strong room from him and Ankit and after opening the strong room, took out approximately cash of Rs. 1.44 lakhs, gold jewellery worth Rs. 2,67,000/ which included 7 rings, five chains, three bangles, two ear rings and one necklace having total weight of about 230.5 gms. While leaving, they put tape on the mouth of Ankit and complainant and tied their hands with plastic rope. They also snatched his two gold rings, mobile phone No. 9873880209 make Samsung and gold ring of guard Ram Swaroop. They also disconnected the wires of the computer and damaged the electricity and security system of the office/branch. Because of noise of public coming from downstairs, they went towards upwards. In the meanwhile, when IO and his staff were going to overpower them, three persons ran away by jumping through the window. The remaining two boys who tried to ran away from downstairs, were apprehended by the public persons and given beatings. The names of the two persons who were overpowered by the public were revealed as Ravi Gupta and Sanjeev and they were the same who had come to take loan. Ravi Gupta showed ring and Locket to complainant for taking loan and Sanjeev threw red chilly powder in his eyes. They along with their associates also gave beatings to them and their associates ran away after snatching their FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 5 of 41 articles i.e. money and jewellery. On the basis of this statement, FIR u/s 392/394/395/397/307 IPC was got registered.
3. It is further the case of prosecution that during investigation, medical examination of Ankit and guard Ram Swaroop were got conducted in BJRM Hospital. Site plan was prepared and red chilly powder, pieces of tape, pieces of plastic gloves, plastic rope were taken into police possession. Two empty shells, out of which one was exploded were recovered in the nearby galli of Muthoot Finance Ltd. were also taken into police possession. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On search of accused Ravi Gupta, one gold ring without nug and two gold lockets were recovered which were identified by the complainant to be the same which were shown by the accused to him on 11.03.2010 and on 13.03.2010 for the purpose of taking loan. The same were also taken into police possession. From the search of accused Sanjeev, one pair of cream colour plastic gloves and a small chilly powder packet were recovered which were also taken into police possession. Thereafter, both the accused Ravi Gupta and Sanjeev Patil were arrested on 13.03.2010 and their separate disclosure statements were recorded. Search was made for their associates. CDRs of mobile nos. 9999815032, 9999042611, 9548825552 of FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 6 of 41 Ravi Gupta, Shakir, and Chacha Akram were obtained and analysed. In the meanwhile, information was received from PS Lisadi Gate, Meerut, UP that wanted accused Akram Jaidi @ Chacha Akram was arrested in case FIR no. 137/10 u/s 4/25 Arms Act. He was arrested in this case. Accused Shakir who was nephew of accused Akram Jaidi was searched at his house No. 232A, Basti Khwaja Meer Dard Road, Kamla Market, Delhi and also in Chandigarh but he was not found. The motorcycle on which accused Chacha Akram and Shakir came was of the friend of Shakir. During investigation, as per the disclosure statement of accused Akram, his mobile phone chip was recovered from the house of his nephew (Bhatija) at Lakhmipur, Meerut UP and at his instance the motorcycle No. DL8SAS4001 which was robbed by culprit Chhotu, Javed and Pandit while running away from the spot, was also recovered. Accused Akram was having the mobile chip which was in the name of his nephew (Bhatija) Ali Mohd. Thereafter, IO tried to trace out other accused but in vain. At the time of incident, Chhotu, Javed and Pandit came on a motorcycle, the number of which was disclosed as DL5SAA8916 make Pulsar and after verification, it was revealed that the said number was wrong and the motorcycle of the said number was in the name of Umesh Kumar. FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 7 of 41 NBWs were got issued against the accused Shakir. Process u/s 82 CrPC against him was also got issued through Sh. Ashutosh Kumar, Ld. ACMM on 06.07.2010. Except the names of accused Chotu, Javed, and Pandit, nothing else could be found out against them. Section 411 IPC and 27 of Arms Act were also added in the chargesheet. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused persons namely Ravi Gupta, Sanjeev Patil, Mohd. Akram Jaidi @ Chacha Akram u/s 392/394/395/397/307/120B/411 IPC and 27 of Arms Act. On 27122010, PO accused Shakir Hussan was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused Shakir Hussain u/s 392/394/395/397/307/120B/411 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act.
4. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 395/394/34 IPC was framed against the accused namely Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta and charge u/s 412 IPC was framed against the Mohd. Akram separately to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, accused Shakir was arrested and supplementary chargesheet was filed against him. Vide detailed order dt. 04.01.2014, accused Shakir Hussain was discharged for the offences u/s FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 8 of 41 392/394/395/397/307/411/34 IPC and 27 of Arms Act. However charge u/s 174A IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 24 witnesses. PW1 Narender Kumar Chawla, in his testimony proved his statement as Ex. PW1/A, seizure memo of red chilly powder as Ex. PW1/B, seizure memo of pieces of plastic gloves and tape as Ex. PW1/C, seizure memo of plastic rope as Ex.PW1/D, seizure memo of ring and lockets as Ex.PW1/E. PW1 also proved the arrest memos of both the accused as Ex. PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G and their personal search memos as Ex. PW1/H and Ex. PW1/I. PW1 identified the ring as Ex.P1 and pendants as Ex.P2 and P3 which were produced by the accused for loan. PW1 also identified the two pieces of plastic rope Ex. P4 and P5, two pieces of tape as Ex.P6/1 to 2 and three pieces of plastic gloves as Ex. P7/1 to 3. PW1 further proved the seizure memo of plastic gloves and chilli powder as Ex.PW1/J. PW1 identified the red chilly powder as Ex.P8, plastic gloves as Ex.P9 and red chilly powder as Ex.P10. PW2 Ankit Gupta also proved and identified the memos and exhibits as proved by PW1. PW3 HC Ram Singh, in his testimony proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW3/A. PW6 Rajiv Gupta, brought his motorcycle FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 9 of 41 bearing No. DL8SAS4001 and identified the same as Ex. P11. PW7 ASI Mohammad Swalay, in his testimony proved the DD no. 25, PP Shanti Nagar as Ex.PW7/A, disclosure statement of accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta as Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B. PW8 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, CMO, BJRM hospital in his testimony proved the MLCs of injured N.K. Chawla, Ram Swaroop and Ankit Gupta as Ex. PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C. PW9 Ct. Meenakshi in her testimony proved DD no. 25PP as Ex. PW9/A. PW10 Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, in his testimony proved the application form of accused Shakir Hussain and Election ICard as Ex.PW10/A for mobile no. 9999042611, application form and the copy of driving license of Ravi Gupta as Ex.PW10/B for mobile no. 9999815032, computer generated call details record of mobile no. 9999042611 for the period 01.01.2010 to 31.10.2010 as Ex. PW10/C, certificate u/s 65 B (4) (c) of the Evidence Act as Ex. PW10/D, call detail record of mobile No. 9999815032 for the period 01.01.2010 to 01.11.2011 as Ex.PW10/E and the certificate u/s 65 B (4) (c) of the Evidence Act as Ex. PW10/F. PW11 SI Praveen Kumar, in his testimony proved the seizure memo of two shells as Ex. PW11/A.
6. PW12 Ct. Halwant, in his testimony proved the arrest memo of accused Akram Zaidi as Ex. PW12/A and his disclosure FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 10 of 41 statement as Ex. PW12/B, seizure memo of mobile SIM card recovered by accused Akram Zaidi as Ex.PW12/C, seizure memo of motorcycle which was got recovered by accused Akram Zaidi from Gurudwara Mata Sundri at Minto Road as Ex. PW12/D. PW13 SI Matadin, in his testimony proved the crime team report as Ex. PW13/A. PW14 Ct. Parvinder, in his testimony proved 16 positive photographs as Ex.PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A16 and 18 negatives as Ex.PW14/B1 to Ex.PW14/B18. PW16 HC Vikash Baliyan, in his testimony proved his report regarding three chance prints lifted by him as Ex. PW16/A. PW17 Rajeev Sharda, Alternate Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication Ltd., in his testimony proved the copy of customer application form of Alimo for mobile no. 9548825552 as Ex.PW17/A, the copy of the ID proof attached with the customer application form as Ex.PW17/B, the call detail of above mobile phone from 01.05.10 to 13.03.10 as Ex. PW17/C and the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW17/D. PW18 ASI Naresh Kumar, in his testimony proved the arrest & personal search memos of accused Shakir Hussain as Ex.PW18A and Ex.PW18/B respectively and confessional statement of accused Shakir Hussain as Ex.PW18/C. PW22 SI Sanjeev Verma, in his testimony proved the rukka as Ex.PW22/A; site plan as Ex.PW22/B; sketch of two FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 11 of 41 empty shells as Ex.PW22/C. PW22 identified one ring, two pendants (lockets) as Ex.P2 & P3, two pieces of plastic rope as Ex.P4 and P5; pieces of plastic gloves and tapes as Ex.P6/1 & 2 and Ex. P7/1 to Ex.P7/3, empty shells as Ex. PW22/P1, small packet of chilly powder and plastic gloves as Ex. P8 and Ex. P9. PW23 Sh. Neeraj Gaur, Ld. ACMM(N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi, in his testimony proved the TIP proceeding dt. 07.01.2011 of accused Shakir Hussain as Ex.PW23/A, application of IO for conducting TIP proceedings as Ex.PW23/B and application for supply of copy of TIP proceedings as Ex.PW23/C. PW23 further proved the TIP proceedings dt. 10.01.2011 of accused Shakir Hussain as Ex.PW23/D, application of IO for conducting TIP proceedings as Ex.PW23/E and application for supply of copy of TIP proceedings as Ex.PW23/F.
7. Statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. therein they denied all the allegations made against them. All the accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence.
8. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the accused Mohd. Akram, Shakir Hussain, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Sanjeev Patil, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Ravi Gupta and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have perused the entire records.
9. The Ld. Amicus Curiae and the counsel for the accused FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 12 of 41 persons argued that dacoity was committed by some other persons. PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 turned hostile. PW7 was the first person who reached the spot. They were the genuine seller of the jewellery. PW1 identified Ravi Gupta and Akram Jaidi as genuine loan taker. PW1 to PW3 stated that Branch consisted with these persons. PW1 stated something but case of the prosecution is that Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta reached the Branch first. PW1 falsely identified Sanjeev Patil as Akram Jaidi. Accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta were not with arms. If Ravi Gupta and Akram Jaidi were apprehended at the spot then where from Sanjeev Patil came. No specific role has been attributed to each and every accused. The property of genuine loan taker was seized. It may be the case that these two accused came earlier as genuine loan taker and later on the real culprits would have come. No description of three persons given. There was a blurness in the eyes of PW1 and therefore PW1 was not in a position to see then how he can say about the other three persons. PW1 did not tell the doctor whether "red chilli" was thrown in his eyes then where from red chilli came. PW1 was nowhere beaten up or assaulted. PW1 is not the trustworthy witness.
10. It was further argued that PW2 pressed the panic button FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 13 of 41 alarm which is contradictory to the statement of PW1. PW2 was completely unconscious then how he had hidden himself in the strong room. N. K. Chawla did not state that mobile was looted but it was snatched. Where from the three accused persons fled away. If accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta were apprehended at the spot then what was the need of taking finger prints from the CPU. PW4 raised the alarm and public persons came then how three persons ran away without any injury to anyone. PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW7 have not been able to connect the two accused with the other three accused persons. Mere presence at the spot does not link the accused persons with the offence. PW7 during cross examination stated that he had not noticed chilli powder on the gloves or on the hands of accused Sanjeev Patil but from where the gloves came.
11. It was also argued that stolen vehicle which was recovered from the accused Mohd. Akram place but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove evidence in this regard. Ld. counsel also referred Section 412 IPC and stated that no witness has stated anything about any allegation against the accused Mohd. Akram. There is no link at all since the accused Mohd. Akram was discharged from the main offence. He was not present at that time FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 14 of 41 and the evidence has been planted against him. PW6 is the owner of vehicle but he did not identify the accused persons in the court meaning thereby the accused persons did not snatch the motorcycle. It was separate incident of snatching the vehicle. Statement of the accused person was recorded in the PS at 8:30 pm. There is neither any investigation nor photograph and no site plan of snatching the vehicle. It was further argued that there was no public witness that three boys were running from Muthoot Finance. No FIR was registered. The prosecution has not placed anything to substantiate that the process were served at the main/ adjoining place of the accused Shakir. Further, there is no other evidence i.e. no statement of neighbour, no entry in the local Police Station to show on record.
12. The Ld. APP for State argued that the accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta along with their associates came and produced the jewellery items at the branch of PW1 and PW2 for taking loan and instead of taking loan, the accused persons committed dacoity and robbed the jewellery and cash amount after throwing chilli powder in the eyes of PW1 by accused Sanjeev Patil and PW1 and PW2 were also given beatings by them. Both accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta were apprehended at the spot. PW1 and PW2 FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 15 of 41 identified the accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta as the same person who looted the jewellery and cash amount. The ring and lockets were recovered from the possession of accused Ravi Gupta. A small packet of chilli powder and cream colour gloves were recovered in the search of accused Sanjeev Patil. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State further argued that if there are some contradictions in the testimonies of PWs, they are the minor contradictions which do not go to the merits of the case. The accused persons cannot take benefit of minor contradictions or faulty investigation in the case, if any. The prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the State, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the judgments reported in the cases of as Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhanda, AIR 2011 SC 200; Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920 and Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari vs. State of MP, 1991 CRI.L.J. 2653(1).
13. PW1 Narender Kumar Chawla stated in his examination in chief that he joined as Branch Manager with Muthoot Finance Ltd, st 38513852, 1 Floor, Kanhaiya Nagar, opp. Metro Pillar no. 231, Tri Nagar and Sh. Ankit Gupta as Accounts Asstt. and Ram Swaroop as Security Guard were also posted in the Branch. On 11032010 at FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 16 of 41 about 55:30 pm, accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta came at their branch and produced one ring without nags and two gold lockets and asked how much loan they can get. PW1 asked Ankit Gupta to check what loan can be given against those jewellery articles. Accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta took away the jewellery articles as they wanted to take bigger loan and less loan was offered. On 13032010 at about 1:30 pm, accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta again came at their branch and produced the same ring and locket for borrowing loan and PW1 told them that they cannot offer more loan than what was offered on 11032010. Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta asked him to give the loan against ring and lockets and PW1 gave the ring and lockets to Ankit for checking. Accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta asked for water from guard Ram Swaroop who gave water. PW1 stated that three more persons armed with pistols came from the gate and one of them put the pistol on guard Ram Swaroop, the second boy put pistol on forehead of PW1 and the third boy put pistol on Ankit and they locked the guard in the bathroom. Accused Sanjeev Patil threw chilli powder in the eyes of PW1 and they were beaten by accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta and then snatched keys of strong room from PW1 and Ankit.
FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 17 of 41
14. PW1 also stated that accused Sanjeev Patil and his associates opened the strong room and took out cash of about Rs. 1,40,000/ and jewellery worth about Rs. 2.5 lacs including gold jewellery of seven rings, five chains, three bangles, two ear rings and one necklace total weighing about 230.5 gms and snatched two gold rings and mobile phone bearing no. 9873880209 make Samsung of PW1 and snatched one gold ring from guard Ram Swaroop and also took away Rs. 500/ from the pocket of Ankit. PW1 further stated that accused Sanjeev Patil and coaccused tied their hands and legs with a plastic rope and put tape on their mouth and broke electricity connection and security system of the office and also took away two computer CPUs while leaving but accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gutpa could not take CPUs and left them in the staircase. PW1 also stated that SI Sanjeev Verma and other police staff came and accused Sanjeev Patil and three coaccused went upside as public had gathered and three accused jumped from the window of the roof. Accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta were apprehended at the spot by the public and PW1 identified them as the same who had come for loan in their branch. PW1 stated that police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. Small packet of chilli powder and cream colour gloves were recovered in search of FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 18 of 41 accused Sanjeev Patil. Police seized the red chilli powder from the spot vide memo Ex. PW1/B; pieces of plastic gloves and tape lying were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C and plastic ropes used for tying PW1 and Ankit Gupta were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/D. PW1 stated that one ring without nags and two lockets, one of which was having picture of Sai Baba while the other "Hai" which were shown to them for the purpose of loan were recovered from accused Ravi Gupta and they were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/E. PW1 stated that accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta were arrested vide memos Ex. PW1/F and PW1/G and personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/H and PW1/I. PW1 identified a ring as Ex. P1 and two pendants as Ex. P2 and P3 which were produced by accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta; two pieces of plastic rope as Ex. P4 and P5; two pieces of tapes as Ex. P6/1 & 2 and three pieces of plastic gloves as Ex. P7/1 to 3. PW1 also identified small polythene containing red chilli powder as Ex. P8; a pair of plastic gloves as Ex. P9 and small polythene containing red chilli powder as Ex. P10.
15. During crossexamination, PW1 stated that incident took place at about 1:30 pm. The blurness in the eyes of PW1 remained for about 45 minutes and his eyes became alright after his medical FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 19 of 41 examination in BJRM hospital. PW1 had stated the fact of throwing of chilli powder in his eyes to the doctor. The police seized the ring and other gold ornaments after the arrest of the accused. PW1 admitted that none of them in the office could raise alarm because of putting of pistol on their heads by the accused. PW1 volunteered that guard had raised the alarm. PW1 further admitted that accused Sanjeev Patil and his other associate remained in their office at the time of occurrence. PW1 denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev Patil had approached him for selling the ring and lockets. PW1 further denied that while he was dealing with accused Sanjeev Patil, the other three associates suddenly came in the finance company and tried to rob them. PW1 denied that he falsely took the impression that accused Sanjeev Patil was one of the associates of the accused persons. PW1 further denied that accused Sanjeev Patil remained three and did not try to run away as he himself was a victim to the incident. PW1 denied that all the gloves, rope and chilli powder were planted by the police to show that accused Sanjeev Patil was one of the associates of accused persons. In cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Gupta, PW1 stated that he was sitting with Ankit in the branch. The chilli powder was sprinkled in his eyes after about 510 minutes after the two accused persons FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 20 of 41 came in the office. PW1 stated that accused Ravi Gupta and Sanjeev were arrested on the same day. PW1 further stated that accused had produced only the jewellery articles as collateral security for obtaining loan. PW1 denied the suggestion that accused Ravi Gupta had produced the copies of PAN card as proof and other documents for loan.
16. PW2 Ankit Gupta stated that on 11032010, accused Sanjeev Patil along with Ravi Gupta came at their Muthoot Finance Ltd., Kanhaiya Nagar Branch, Tri Nagar and produced one gold ring having nags and two pendants for loan against them. Branch Manager N. K. Chawla asked PW2 to check the articles and tell accused Sanjeev Patil as to how much loan could be given against the said jewellery articles. PW2 told accused Sanjeev Gupta and Ravi Gupta about the amount of loan that could be given but accused Sanjeev Gupta and Ravi stated that both were in need of more money and went away with jewellery articles. On 13032010, accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta again came at their branch and requested N. K. Chawla to give loan against the same jewellery articles and N. K. Chawla handed over the gold ring and pendants to him for checking and PW2 valued the jewellery articles and told the amount to Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta and one accused asked for FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 21 of 41 water and guard went to bring water. PW2 stated that three more boys came with revolvers and threatened them to remain quiet otherwise they would be killed and one of them put the pistol on the guard, the second boy put the pistol on PW2 and third boy put the pistol on the forehead of Manager N. K. Chawla. PW2 immediately pressed the panic button/ alarm. The guard was locked in the toilet and they were told that accused Sanjeev Patil and coaccused had killed the guard and they would also be killed. Accused Sanjeev Patil threw red chilli powder in the eyes of N. K. Chawla and in the eyes of PW2 also and they were given beatings. PW2 stated that accused Sanjeev Patil and coaccused snatched the keys of the strong room from him and due to the beatings, PW2 became unconscious and fell down. PW2 was forcibly lifted by accused Sanjeev Patil and coaccused and given more beatings and thereafter accused Sanjeev Patil and coaccused tied hands of PW2 and PW1 with rope and tape was put on their mouth. PW2 stated that two rings and mobile phone bearing no. 9873880209 make Samsung were snatched from N. K. Chawla and Rs. 500/ were snatched from PW2 and also snatched one gold ring of the guard. PW2 stated that before leaving, accused Sanjeev Patil and co accused had taken out cash of Rs. 1,40,000/ from the safe and FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 22 of 41 cash counter and gold jewellery weighing about 230 gms from the strong room and took with them CPUs of the computers and broke the electric connection and security system of the branch. PW2 stated that public gathered on the ground floor closed the door and therefore accused Sanjeev Patil and coaccused ran towards roof through the staircase and they left the CPUs in the staircase and three accused ran away by jumping from the window of the roof while accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta were apprehended by the public and given beatings by the public. PW2 stated that police came at the spot and seized the red chilli powder, pieces of tape, gloves etc. from the spot after keeping them in separate packets and ring and pendants were recovered by the police.
17. During crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae on behalf of accused Sanjeev Patil and Akram Zaidi, PW2 stated that incident lasted for about 2030 minutes. PW2 admitted that because of sprinkling of chilli powder, he felt irritation in his eyes but he denied the suggestion that he could not see anything. PW2 stated that they had hidden themselves in the strong room after the accused had committed the robbery and were in the process of making escape. PW2 stated that all the five persons including accused Ravi Gupta and Sanjeev ran towards the roof. PW2 stated FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 23 of 41 that doctor had questioned him as to what had happened and then he told the doctor about the incident in short. PW2 informed the doctor that red chilli powder was sprinkled in his eyes. PW2 admitted that accused Ravi Gupta and Sanjeev Patil were present at the spot at the time of arrival of police. PW2 denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev Patil had approached to him for selling the ring and lockets. He also denied that while he was dealing with accused Sanjeev Patil, the other three associates suddenly came in the finance company and tried to rob them. PW2 denied that accused Sanjeev Patil remained there and did not try to run away as he himself was a victim to the incident. PW2 further denied that all the gloves, rope and chilli powder were planted by the police to show that accused Sanjeev Patil was one of the associates of the accused persons. In crossexamination on behalf of accused Ravi Gupta, PW2 denied that he was not competent to assess the value of the jewellery articles as his job was only to work as an Account Assistant. PW2 stated that other boys came in the branch after 34 minutes. No customer visited the bank during that period. PW2 stated that police reached within about 15 minutes while the accused were trying to flee away. PW2 remained present at the spot during investigation conducted by the police. One ring and two pendants FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 24 of 41 were recovered from accused Ravi Gupta. PW2 stated that one key of the strong room was in his custody while the other key was with the Manager. PW2 did not receive any external injury and he became semiconscious at that time. PW2 stated that details of the articles lying in the strong room were mentioned in the pledge documents lying with the bank/ company. PW2 denied the suggestion that bank staff was involved in the robbery or that bank staff cooked up the story to eat away the jewellery articles of the customers.
18. PW4 Ram Swaroop working as security guard stated that on 13032010, at about 1:30 pm Manager N. K. Chawla and cashier Ankit Gupta were present in the office and PW4 was standing on the gate. Two boys came in the office and showed some jewellery articles and inquired for loan against them and Mr. Chawla asked Ankit Gupta to check the jewellery articles and one of the boys asked for water. PW4 was asked by Manager to bring water for those boys and when he brought water and gave it to them, three more boys armed with pistol type weapons came and one of them put a revolver on the forehead of PW4 and Manager Mr. Chawla and Mr. Ankit Gupta were also overpowered by them. They gave beatings to Mr. Chawla and Mr. Ankit Gupta and locked PW4 in FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 25 of 41 the bathroom and snatched his ring and gun and threatened to kill him. PW4 raised alarm from the window of bathroom and people gathered in the gali and after the arrival of police, Manager opened the door of the bathroom and police arrested both the boys who had come in the office for loan and their three associates fled away. During crossexamination by Ld. APP for State, PW4 stated that police interrogated him and recorded his statement. PW4 stated that all the three boys who came later, were armed with pistol type weapons. PW4 further stated that Manager and Ankit were also overpowered by them. PW4 also stated that door of the bathroom was later on opened by the Manager. PW4 further stated that he along with Manager and Ankit Gupta were rushed to BJRM hospital for medical examination.
19. PW5 Pawan Kumar in his examination in chief stated that criminals who made fire upon him were covering their faces and therefore, he cannot identify them. During crossexamination by the Ld. APP for State, PW5 also did not identify the accused Mohd. Akram whether he was one of the criminals who made fire upon him. PW5 admitted that he had not made call on 100 no. to the police. PW5 further stated in his crossexamination by the Ld. APP that police did not record statement of any public person in his presence FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 26 of 41 and even, the police had not taken any signatures on any paper.
20. PW6 Rajiv Gupta stated that on 13032010 at around 1:50 pm, he was going to market from his house on his motorcycle no. DL8SAS4001 make Hero Honda of black colour Ex. P11 and three boys came from behind and put weapon on his ear and snatched his bike and fled away. PW6 could not see their faces and PW6 also stated that accused persons present in the court were not the same boys who had snatched his motorcycle. During cross examination, PW6 stated that no public person was passing from the gali when his motorcycle was snatched.
21. PW7 ASI Mohd. Swalay stated in his examination in chief that on 13032010, on receipt of DD no. 25 Ex. PW9/A, he along with SI Sanjeev Verma, PSI Parveen, Ct. Halwant reached at H. No. 385152, Gali no. 9, Opp. Pillar No. 231 where large crowd nd had gathered. They reached on the 2 floor where accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta came outside the bathroom and pushed them and ran downwards and were caught by the public persons and given beatings and then police party nabbed accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta with the help of public. PW7 along with SI Sanjeev Verma went to first floor and saw chilli powder, plastic tape, some pieces of gloves, one yellow colour nylon rope in FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 27 of 41 two pieces lying on the floor and wires of computer, security system were also found damaged. PW7 further stated in his examination in chief that on search of accused Sanjeev Patil, one packet of red chilli powder having cut mark and two pieces of gloves from the right side pocket of his pants were recovered which were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/J. On search of accused Ravi Gupta, one gold ring without nug, two lockets one having picture of Sai Baba and another having word "Hai" in Hindi were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/E. Accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta gave disclosure statements vide Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B.
22. In crossexamination, PW7 stated that in the FIR of the present case, there is no mention of robbery of motorcycle of Ravi Gupta. PW7 also stated that IO had not made any inquiry or investigation with him or in his presence for the robbery of motorcycle of Rajiv Gutpa. The recovery of empty cartridge was not made or seized in the presence of PW7. PW7 volunteered that there was one armed guard on the first floor of Muthoot Finance office and security man was having his gun. PW7 stated that one security guard, one accountant and one Manager met them. SI Sanjeev Verma inquired regarding the incident from Manager of Muthoot Finance office. PW7 further stated that injured persons FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 28 of 41 remained in the finance office till they were taken for medical examination. PW7 denied the suggestion that no such incident took place or that accused Ravi Gupta was a customer. PW7 further denied that real culprits escaped from the spot or that accused Ravi Gupta was falsely implicated in the present case. PW7 also stated in his crossexamination that statement of complainant/ Manager was recorded at the spot but he could not tell the time. PW7 stated that exhibits were lifted from the spot during their stay at the spot, personal search memos, arrest memos, disclosure of accused persons were recorded. PW7 denied that accused Sanjeev Patil came as a genuine customer for dealing with the Bank. PW7 further denied that they along with other witnesses falsely took them as the associates of the other three accused.
23. PW8 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, CMO, BJRM hospital identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Abhishek (JR) on the MLCs Ex. PW8/A to PW8/C of injured N. K. Chawla, Ram Swaroop and Ankit Gupta. PW8 stated that there was no fresh injury on the person of N. K. Chawla, however, there was tenderness, bilateral coastal margin. There was swelling in left inguinal region, reduceable cough impulse present and there was no other fresh injuries on the MLC of Ram Swaroop. Injured Ankit Gupta was FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 29 of 41 having tenderness over lateral side of left knee. Two abrasions 1 cm x 0.5 cm over medial end of right clavicle. PW10 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer stated in his crossexamination that he does not know as to who used to purchase recharge voucher for the mobile no. 9999042611. PW10 further stated that he does not know who was the actual user of the said mobile number.
24. PW11 SI Praveen Kumar stated in his examination in chief that on 13032010, on receipt of DD no. 25, he along with SI Sanjeev Verma and Ct. Halwant reached the office of Muthoot Finance, Tri Nagar where they took search of bathroom on second floor and accused Sanjeev Patil along with Ravi Gupta pushed them and ran downwards. Accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta were nabbed by public and given beatings and then police apprehended both of them. PW11 further stated that two empty shells were lifted from gali no. 9, which were kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of SV and then seized vide memo Ex. PW11/A. During cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused Ravi Gupta, PW11 stated that DD entry was recorded on the basis of PCR call. PW11 denied the suggestion that accused Ravi Gupta was bank customer but falsely implicated in the present case. PW11 further denied that accused Sanjeev Patil went as a customer to sell or mortgage the FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 30 of 41 jewellery articles. PW11 also denied that they took wrongly him as a associate or robbers. PW11 further denied that gloves, rope and chilli powder were planted later on in the PS upon accused Sanjeev Patil.
25. During crossexamination by Ld. counsel for accused Akram Zaidi, PW12 Ct. Halwant stated that he did not remember whether Rajiv Gupta had given a written complaint to the IO and even PW12 did not remember Rajiv Gutpa had ever given a written complaint with regard to snatching of his motorcycle even after 13032010 to the IO of PS. PW12 further stated in his cross examination that he does not remember whether IO had asked any public person or recorded their statement with regard to the alleged incident of snatching of motorcycle. PW12 also stated in his cross examination that he does not know whether he had signed the site plan of the spot of the snatching of motorcycle. PW12 further stated in his crossexamination that he does not remember whether Rajiv Gupta had handed over any document of his alleged snatched bike to the IO. PW12 in his crossexamination admitted that no separate FIR was lodged regarding snatching of motorcycle of Rajiv Gupta. The spot was surrounded by residential premises. PW12 also admitted in his crossexamination that family members of Rajiv FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 31 of 41 Gupta or other residents of the locality had not been interrogated regarding incident of snatching of motorcycle. PW12 stated in his crossexamination that place of recovery is a market of denting of vehicles but they had not made any efforts to know with regard to the possession of place of ownership from where the recovery was effected. PW12 also did not recollect in his crossexamination whether IO clicked any photograph of the said motorcycle. PW12 has not seen the RC of the vehicle and even he did not recall that the said vehicle was registered in the name of Rajiv Kumar and not in the name of Rajiv Gupta in the Department and the said vehicle was registered as missing vehicle in the PS. PW12 admitted in his crossexamination that IO had not taken signature of any person as witness on the recovery memo of SIM chip. During cross examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Sanjeev Patil, PW12 denied the suggestion that Ex. PW7/1 to 3 did not contain any traces of chilli powder. PW12 further denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev Patil went there as a genuine customer and was mistaken as one of the accused persons. PW12 further denied the suggestion that neither the gloves nor chilli powder was recovered from the accused Sanjeev Patil. PW12 also denied the suggestion in the crossexamination by the Ld. counsel for accused Ravi Gupta that FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 32 of 41 accused persons had not committed robbery or that they have been falsely implicated in this case or that accused Ravi Gupta had come to the bank to mortgage his own gold ornaments.
26. PW13 SI Matadin stated that on 13032010, on receipt of call from PCR, he along with his team reached at 3851/52, Muthoot Finance Company, Kanhaiya Nagar and inspected the spot and he found chilli powder on the floor, one plastic rope and some pieces of plastic gloves at the spot. PW14 Ct. Parvinder from crime team reached at the office of Muthoot Finance, Kanhaiya Nagar, Tri Nagar where he took 18 photographs of the spot. PW15 HC Subhash stated in his crossexamination by the Ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Akram Zaidi that IO did not record statement of any neighbour of Shakaut Ali nor made any witness at the time of recovery of SIM card. IO Sanjeev Verma had not prepared the memo of seizure of mobile SIM card. Even, IO had not taken the signatures of Shaukat Ali as a witness on the seizure memo of SIM card. PW15 admitted in his crossexamination that IO had not verified the said SIM card. PW15 further admitted in his cross examination that no document pertaining to identity of Shaukat was taken by the IO nor he got him identified from neighbours. No public witness was made as a witness at the time of recovery of FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 33 of 41 motorcycle. No photograph of the place of recovery of vehicle was taken. PW15 did not tell in his crossexamination the time when they returned to the PS. They did not inform the local police. PW16 HC Vikash Baliyan lifted three chance prints at the spot from different places and prepared his report. PW17 Sh. Rajeev Sharda, alternate nodal officer, in his crossexamination admitted that no police official had inquired from him personally regarding the mobile phone no. 9548825552. PW17 stated in his crossexamination that he has no knowledge whether they had supplied any call details of the said mobile phone to any police official.
27. PW19 Mohd. Ateeque stated in his examination in chief that on 04022011, accused Mohd. Shakir was brought to his denting shop by one police official and asked him whether he knew him or not. Thereafter, he obtained his signature on a blank paper and left his denting shop. PW19 in his crossexamination by the Ld. APP stated that police had not recorded his statement. PW19 further stated that in his statement Mark A to the police that when accused Shakir was working as dentor in his shop, one person namely Akram who was called as Chacha by accused Shakir brought one motorcycle Hero Honda in his workshop on 13/14032010 and left the motorcycle in his workshop after the talks FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 34 of 41 with the accused Shakir. PW19 had also not stated in his statement Mark A to the police that after some time Shakir left the job and later on he came to know that said motorcycle was seized by the police and they took the motorcycle with them.
28. PW20 SI Rajeev Ranjan also stated in his cross examination that he did not join the parking attendant as a witness in the arrest of Shakir. PW21 SI Krishan Kumar stated in his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Shakir Hussain that he did not record statement of any witness. In crossexamination by the counsel for the accused Akram Jaidi, PW22 SI Sanjeev Verma stated that he had not prepared the site plan of the occurrence and even he had not taken the photographs of the place of occurrence as well. PW22 further stated that Rajeev Gupta had not lodged any complaint with regard to the snatching of the vehicle in question against any of the accused in the present case including accused Akram Jaidi. PW22 further stated in his crossexamination that he had not prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the said motorcycle. PW22 also stated in his crossexamination that he had neither recorded statement of any public person nor obtained signature of any public person on the seizure memo of the said vehicle because they were so late. PW22 further stated that in the FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 35 of 41 personal search of accused Akram Jaidi nothing was recovered from him. PW22 did not get checked the recovered mobile SIM from any mobile equipment. PW22 denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta were the genuine loan taker who went to Muthoot Finance Corporation for taking loan and they were mistaken as an member of the accused group who ran from the spot after firing.
29. Let us examine whether the above testimony of PW1 and PW2 who are the complainant/ eyewitnesses can be considered as trustworthy. PW1 categorically stated that the accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta came at their branch and produced ring and lockets for borrowing loan on 11032010. However, they took away the jewellery articles since they wanted to take bigger loan as the less loan was offered. The accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta again came at their branch on 13032010 at about 1:30 pm and produced the same ring and locket for borrowing loan. However, PW1 stated to the aforesaid accused persons that they cannot offer more loan than what was offered on 11032010. The said accused persons asked for water from the guard Ram Swaroop who gave the water. The accused Sanjeev Patil threw chilli powder in the eyes of PW1 and also was beaten up by accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 36 of 41 and they snatched keys of strongroom from PW1 and PW2. Thereafter, the accused Sanjeev Patil along with his associates opened the strongroom and took out cash amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ and jewellery of about Rs. 2.5 lacs including gold jewellery of 7 rings, 5 chains, 3 bangles, 2 ear rings and 1 necklace total weighing about 230.5 gms. and snatched two gold rings and mobile phone bearing no. 9873880209 make Samsung of PW1. The accused Sanjeev Patil with coaccused tied their hands and legs with a plastic rope and put tape on their mouth and broke electricity connection and security system of the office. The statement of PW1 is also corroborated with the statement of PW2. PW8/ Doctor also proved on record that PW1 was having tenderness, bilateral coastal margin. Injured Ankit Gupta/ PW2 was also having tenderness over lateral side of left knee and two abrasions 1 cm x 0.5 cm over medial end of right clavicle. Crime Team also reached at the spot and took 18 photographs of the spot. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgements reported in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal, 2008 (8) JT 650: 2008 (11) SCALE 233, it was held that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement. In Raja Vs. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 37 of 41 (Del.), it was held that it is wellknown principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to a conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the Prosecution. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him a truthful witness. It has been further held that Section 134 categorically lays down that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In the present case, PW1 & PW2 identified accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta as the same who had come for loan in their branch. PW1 also stated that accused Ravi Gupta showed the ring and lockets for loan and accused Sanjeev threw chilli in his eyes. In Gulshan Vs. State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (1) JCC 562, it was held that identification in a court is a substantive piece of evidence. The testimonies of PW1 and PW2 have not only inspired the confidence but creates no doubt and they are also trustworthy qua the accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta.
30. Let us further examine whether there are contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. I have found that there are some FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 38 of 41 contradictions in the testimonies of the aforesaid PWs yet these contradictions are minor contradictions and do not go to the root or core of this case. In this regard, a reliance can be placed upon the judgement reported in the case of State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors. 2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety.
31. The Ld. defence counsel and Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons argued that the IO did not conduct the investigation fairly and the investigation is defective. Whereas, Ld. APP for State argued that if there is a defective investigation, the accused cannot get the benefit of it. It is pertinent to mention here that even if the investigation is defective or faulty, the accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective or faulty investigation. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported as Karnel Singh Vs. State of MP, AIR 1995 SC 2472=AIR 2004 SC 1920 it was held that in the case of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused solely on account of the defect and to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 39 of 41
32. In the present case, PW5 did not identify accused Mohd. Akram as to whether he was the accused who fired upon him. PW6 also stated that three boys came from behind, put weapons on his ear and snatched his motorcycle and fled away. He could not see their faces. Meaning thereby, PW6 also could not see who were the three boys. PW6 also did not identify the accused as the same boys who had snatched his motorcycle. PW10 was not in a position to tell who was the actual user of the mobile no. 9999042611. PW12 also could not tell if the written complaint with regard to snatching of motorcycle of PW6 was made before the PS. No separate FIR was registered regarding snatching of the motorcycle as per aforesaid statement of PWs. The place of recovery was a market of denting of vehicles but there is no evidence how the said recovery of motorcycle was effected. PW15 admitted that no public witness was made as a witness at the time of recovery of motorcycle. PW19 also stated that one police official obtained his signatures on a blank paper when he came to his denting shop. PW19 denied having made any statement. PW22 also stated that Rajiv Gupta/ PW6 did not lodge any complaint with regard to the snatching of the vehicle against any of the accused including accused Akram Jaidi. PW22 neither recorded statement of any public person nor obtained FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 40 of 41 signature of any public person on the seizure memo of the said motorcycle. As per PW22, he did not get checked the recovered mobile SIM from any mobile equipment. In the testimony of PW23 Sh. Neeraj Gaur, Ld. ACMM (N/W) Rohini, Delhi, it is also revealed that the prosecution witnesses did not identify the accused Shakir Hussain in the TIP.
33. Hence, in view of my aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered opinion that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Shakir Hussain and Mohd. Akram Jaidi @ Chacha Akram but the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta u/s 394/34 IPC. I, therefore, acquit accused Shakir Hussain and Mohd. Akram Jaidi @ Chacha Akram and their bail bonds stand cancelled; sureties are discharged. Documents of sureties, if any, be released against proper acknowledgment. I hold accused Sanjeev Patil and Ravi Gupta guilty and convict them u/s 394/34 IPC. Copy of the judgement be given to the convicts free of cost.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 25072014 FIR No. 98/10; State Vs. Sanjeev Patil & Ors. Page 41 of 41