Delhi District Court
Sessions Case No. 42/14 State vs Ajay Etc. Page No. 1/22 on 15 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF
SESSIONS CASE NO.42/14 & Old No. 56/11
FIR NO. 167/11
P.S. Kirti Nagar
U/S 392/397/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 A.Act
STATE
VERSUS
(1)SH.AJAY
S/O SH. KALI CHARAN
R/O H.NO. 1/72, SINGLE STOREY,
RAMESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
(2)SH.RATAN @ TANNU
S/O SH.HUKAM SINGH
R/O WZ47, JAMADAR GALI,
SHARDA PURI, RAMESH NAGAR,
NEW DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.10.2011
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 01.10.2014
DATE OF DECISION : 13.10.2014
JUDGEMENT
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that IO Surta Nand on receiving the DD no. 3A, went to the spot i.e. Jhule Wala Park, near SBI, Mansarover Garden but the complainant was not present there as he had already left the spot. SI Surta Nand made efforts to trace the complainant and he returned to the PS. After Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 1/22 sometime, complainant Harshdeep Singh came to the PS and he recorded his statement to the effect that he is working in AAA Maruti Workshop, Kirti Nagar Indl. Area. On 16.06.2011 at about 12 night, after finishing his work, he was going to his house on his motorcycle bearing no. DL3CA Q6089. After some time, he felt urinating and stopped his motorcycle in front of Jhule Wala Park, SBI, Mansarovar Garden. As there was light on the road, he went inside the park for urinating. After urinating, when he come out from the park, two persons apprehended him and one person put knife on the neck of the complainant and asked to give him whatever he had. The other boy started searching the complainant. He has further stated that on seeing the knife, he became perplexed and could not restrain them. Both the boys robbed his mobile phone and purse containing Rs.1,200/. It is also stated by the complainant that the person who had shown the knife to the complainant was having squint in his eyes and his height was 5'2" and he was wearing white and red colour T.shirt and black colour Jeans. The second boy was of dark complexion and his height was 5'5" and he was wearing Kurta of light purple colour and blue colour Jeans. The witness has further stated that he can identify both the boys. It is also stated that he had taken the mobile phone of some unknown person and informed the police by dialing no. 100.
2. Thereafter SI Surta Nand handedover rukka to HC Jagbir Singh for getting the FIR registered who got registered the FIR of the present case for the offence punishable U/s 392/397/34 IPC and Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 2/22 25/27/54/59 A.Act against both the accused persons.
3. During investigation, accused persons were apprehended and the knife and purse containing Rs.500/ was recovered from the possession of accused Ratan. Mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Ajay. During investigation, both the accused persons made disclosure statements. They were also pointed out the place of occurrence.
4. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed before the court of Ld.M.M. for the offence U/s 392/397/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 A.Act against both the accused persons.
5. On 04.04.2012, my Ld. Predecessor has framed the Charge for the offence punishable U/s 392/34 IPC against both the accused persons. A separate charge U/s 397/34 IPC and 25/27 A.Act was framed by my Ld. Predecessor against accused Ratan @ Tannu on 04.04.2012. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh; PW2 HC Jagbir Singh; PW3 Ct.Naresh Kumar; PW4 Ct.Praveen; PW5 W/Ct.Manjinder Kaur; PW6 SI Ram Phool; PW7 SI Dinesh Beniwal and PW8 SI Surta Nand.
7. Statements of both the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which all the incriminating evidence put to them. Both the accused persons have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and nothing was recovered Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 3/22 from their possession. They are innocent. However, they did not lead any defence evidence.
8. PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh, the complainant has deposed that he did not remember the date, month and year, however, it was last year and at the relevant time, he was working in Maruti Work Shop, Indl. Area, Kirti Nagar. On that day, at about 12 night, after finishing the work at his work shop, he was going to his residence on his motorcycle bearing no. DL3CAQ6089 and on the way, he felt urinating, therefore, he stopped his motorcycle near Jhule Wala Park, Mansarover Garden. He has further stated that after passing the urine, when he came out from the park, two boys surrounded him. The witness has correctly identified both the accused persons and stated that accused Ratan had put knife on his neck and asked him to handover whatever he was having with him. Thereafter other accused i.e. Ajay started taking his search and thereafter both the boys snatched his mobile phone and his purse containing Rs.500/ or Rs.700/. He has further stated that thereafter both the boys fled away from the spot and he had informed the police after taking mobile phone from one passerby. Police reached at the spot and recorded his statement which is proved as Ex.PW1/A. This witness also proved his signatures on the site plan Ex. PW1/B at point A. He has further stated that on the same day, both the accused persons were brought by the police at police station and his mobile phone and purse were recovered from one of the accused person. The said mobile phone and purse were taken Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 4/22 into possession vide seizure memo proved as Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D. This witness has also proved the Arrest Memos of both the accused persons as Ex.PW1/F (accused Ajay) and Ex. PW1/G (accused Ratan); personal search memos as Ex. PW1/F1 (accused Ajay) and Ex.PW1/G1 (accused Rattan); disclosure statements as Ex.PW1/E1 (of accused Ajay) and Ex.PW1/E (accused Ratan). He has further stated that he had handedover the original bill of mobile phone to the police and seizure memo in this regard is proved as Ex. PW1/H. The witness has also proved the receipt/bill as Ex.PX.
This witness was also crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. P.P.for the State wherein he has admitted that knife was recovered from the possession of accused Ratan and police prepared sketch of the knife in his presence which is Ex. PW1/1. The witness has also admitted that when his purse was recovered, same was containing one currency note of Rs.500/ denomination and one photocopy of his PAN Card having his photograph.
When the case property i.e.buttondar knife was shown to the witness, he has stated that he cannot say if this is the same knife but it was of silver colour. The Buttondar knife is Mark P.1. However, the witness has identified his Mobile Phone as Ex. P.1 and Purse containing currency note and photocopy of PAN Card as Ex. P.2 (colly.).
9. PW2 HC Jagbir Singh has deposed that on the intervening night of 15/16.06.2011, at 2.10 AM, SI Surta Nand handedover him rukka for registration of the FIR. He got registered the FIR Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 5/22 through computer operator and computer generated copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW2/A. This witness has also proved his endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW2/B.
10.PW3 Ct.Naresh Kumar has deposed that on 16/17.06.2011, on receiving DD no. 3A by SI Surta Nand, he accompanied SI Surta Nand and reached at Hegdewar Park, MS Garden, Kirti Nagar, Delhi but complainant was not present there, therefore they came to PS. The complainant came to PS lateron and SI Surta Nand recorded his statement and got the case registered. He has further stated that after registration of the FIR, he took copy of FIR and rukka to Hegdewar Park MS Garden, Kirti Nagar, Delhi and handedover the same to SI Surta Nand. IO recorded his statement.
11.PW4 Ct. Praveen has deposed that he did not remember the month but it was 16th day of 2011. At about 5.30 PM, he received phone call of SI Dinesh and he called him at PS Kirti Nagar. He went to PS Kirti Nagar and from there he accompanied SI Dinesh and complainant Harshdeep Singh to Hegdewar Park, MS Garden, Kirti Nagar, Delhi and there they apprehended one boy on the identification of the complainant. He has further stated that on inquiry, name of that persons came to his knowledge as Tannu @ Rattan. The witness has correctly identified the accused Ratan @ Tannu.
He has further stated that they took the accused to PS and accused was interrogated and thereafter, he, accused Rattan and SI Dinesh left the PS and sent to MS Garden, Bihari Chowk in Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 6/22 search of the companion of the accused. He has further stated that there on the pointing out of accused Ratan, one another boy whose name was revealed as Ajay was apprehended. This witness has also correctly identified accused Ajay. He has further stated that search of both the accused persons were conducted and one mobile phone and knife was recovered from them.
This witness was crossexamined by the ld.Addl. P.P.for the State as he has not deposed the complete facts. In the cross examination done by Ld. Addl.P.P.for the State, the witness has admitted that when he, PSI Dinesh and complainant Harshdeep reached at near Tanki Wala Park, MS Garden, Delhi, there on the pointing out of complainant, accused Ratan @ Tannu was apprehended. He has also admitted in the crossexamination done by Ld. Addl. P.P.for the State that there IO conducted the search of accused Ratan and from his front right pocket of pant, one buttondar knife was recovered and from back side pocket of pant, one purse containing one currency note of Rs.500/ and copy of PAN Card of Harshdeep were recovered and the purse was identified by Harshdeep as belonging to him. This witness has identified his signatures on Arrest Memo Ex.PW1/G and personal search memo as Ex. PW1/G1 at point A. This witness has also proved the sketch of knife as Ex. PW1/1; seizure memo of knife earlier marked as Mark A and then exhibited as Ex. PW4/A and seizure memo of purse as Ex. PW1/D. During cross examination done by Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State, this witness has admitted that disclosure statement of accused Ratan @ Tannu Ex.
Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 7/22PW1/E bears his signatures at point B. He has also proved his signatures on the seizure memo of Mobile phone Ex. PW1/C at point B. This witness has also proved his signatures on Arrest memo Ex. PW1/F and personal search memo Ex. PW1/F1 at point B.
12.PW5 W/Ct.Manjinder Kaur has deposed that on 16.06.2012 at 00.19.50 hours, one information was received from the caller of Mobile No. 9911433497, whereby the informer had informed that "दो लडके जो पैदल थे मोबाईल और पसस छीन कर भाग गए है" and the place of incident was told as "Mansarover Garden, State Bank of India Ke Samne Tanki Wale Park Mein". This witness has further stated that she has recorded this information and filled up the PCR form and computer generated copy of the PCR form is proved as Ex. PW5/A and she sent the above mentioned information to net through Channel no. 106.
13.PW6 SI Ram Phool has deposed that on 11.07.2011, the case file of the present case FIR was received by him for further information. Both the accused persons were running in J.C at that time and during investigation, he collected the PCR form. He has further stated that after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was prepared and filed before the court.
14.PW7 SI Dinesh Beniwal has deposed that on 16.6.2011, he and Ct. Parveen participated in the investigation of the present case with SI Surtanand, as the complainant of case namely Harshdeep had informed him that in the incident of robbery with him on 16.06.2011, where in his money, mobile and purse were robbed Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 8/22 at point of knife and he saw one of the robber near Tankiwala Park near Jhule Wala Park, near MS Garden and can be apprehended on raid. Thereafter, he, Ct. Parveen, SI Surtanand and complainant left the PS and reached near Tanki Wala Park. There complainant pointed out towards one person, who was apprehended by them from inside the Tanki Wala Park and his name was revealed as Rattan @ Tannu on inquiry. He has further stated that on the search of accused Rattan @ Tannu, one button actuated knife was recovered from right pocket of his pant. One black & brown colour purse was also recovered from his rear pocket of pant which was found containing currency note of Rs. 500/ and photocopy of pan card of complainant. The complainant identified the purse and its contents as belongs to him. This witness has proved the sketch of knife as Ex. PW1/I, seizure memo as Ex. PW4/A. He has further stated that the pullanda was sealed with the seal of SN. IO prepared pullanda of purse containing currency note of Rs. 500/ and photocopy of pan card and sealed the same with the seal of SN and seized through seizure memo, which is proved as Ex. PW1/D. Seal was given to him after use.
He has further stated that the IO arrested the accused Rattan @ Tannu and conducted his personal search vide memos which are proved as Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/G1. This witness has also proved the disclosure statement of accused Rattan @ Tannu as Ex.PW1/E. The accused disclosed the name of his companion as Ajay to whom he gave the robbed mobile and he Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 9/22 can get him arrested and recover the mobile.
He has further stated that in pursuance to the disclosure statement of accused Rattan @ Tannu, they reached at Bihari Chowk, where one person was standing near road side and he was identified by the complainant as the companion of accused. The accused Rattan @ Tannu also identified him as Ajay. Thereafter, they apprehended accused Ajay, whose name was confirmed on inquiry. On the search of accused Ajay, one mobile was recovered from right pocket of his pent and that mobile phone was identified by the complainant. The said mobile phone was of black colour and was of make Huawai. This witness has also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Ajay as Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/F1. He has also proved the disclosure statement of accused Ajay as Ex. PW1/E and seizure memo of mobile phone as Ex. PW1/C. He has further stated that during investigation, the accused persons pointed out place of incident and in this regard pointing out memo was prepared, which was proved as Ex.PW4/B. He has further stated that after completing the proceedings, they came back to PS. This witness has correctly identified both the accused persons present in the court.
This witness has also proved the knife as Ex.P.3, which was recovered from accused Rattan @ Tannu; mobile phone as Ex. P1 which was recovered from accused Ajay and one black colour purse containing currency note of Rs. 500/ and photocopy of PAN card of Harshdeep Singh as Ex. P2 (colly.).
Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 10/2215.PW8 SI Surta Nand has deposed that on 16.06.2011, DD entry no. 3A, Ex.PW8/A was marked to him and he alongwith Ct. Naresh reached at Jhule Wala Park but on search, complainant was not present there. They returned to PS. After sometime, one complainant Harshdeep came to PS and got recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A and he prepared rukka proved as Ex. PW8/B and got lodged the FIR proved as Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, on the pointing out of the complainant, he prepared site plan proved as Ex.PW1/B. The complainant also produced the receipt Ex. PX of purchase of his mobile phone and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW1/H. He had also recorded supplementary statement of the complainant.
He has further stated that on the same day, the complainant of case namely Harshdeep had informed him that in the incident of robbery, wherein his money, mobile and purse were robbed at point of knife, he saw one of the robber near Tankiwala Park near Jhule Wala Park, near MS Garden and can be apprehended on raid. Thereafter, he alongwith PSI Dinesh, Ct. Parveen and complainant left the PS and reached near Tanki Wala Park where the complainant pointed out towards one person, who was apprehended by them from inside the Tanki Wala Park and his name was revealed as Rattan @ Tannu on inquiry. He has further stated that he conducted the search of accused Rattan @ Tannu and one button actuated knife was recovered from right pocket of his pant and one black & brown colour purse was recovered from his rear pocket of pant which was found Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 11/22 containing currency note of Rs. 500/ and photocopy of pan card of the complainant. The complainant identified the purse and its contents as belongs to him.
This witness has also proved the sketch of knife as Ex. PW1/I; seizure memo of the knife as Ex.PW4/A. He has further stated that he also prepared pullanda of purse containing currency note of Rs. 500/ and photocopy of pan card and sealed the same with the seal of SN and seized through seizure memo, which is proved as Ex. PW1/D. The Seal after use was given to PSI Dinesh.
He then arrested the accused Rattan @ Tannu and conducted his personal search vide memos which are proved as Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/G1 and recorded his disclosure statement, which is proved as Ex.PW1/E. He has further stated that in pursuance to the disclosure statement of accused Rattan @ Tannu, they reached at Bihari Chowk, where one person was standing near road side and he was identified by the complainant as the companion of accused. The accused Rattan @ Tannu also identified him as Ajay. Thereafter, they apprehended accused Ajay, whose name was confirmed on inquiry. On the search of accused Ajay, one mobile was recovered from right pocket of his pant and that mobile phone was identified by the complainant. The said mobile phone was of black colour and was of make Huawai. He converted the recovered mobile phone into a pullanda, sealed with the seal of SN and seized vide seizure memo as Ex. PW1/C. He interrogated Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 12/22 accused Ajay; arrested him and conducted his personal search vide memos which are proved as Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/F1. This witness has also proved the disclosure statement of accused Ajay as Ex.PW1/E1. He has further stated that during investigation, the accused persons pointed out the place of incident and in this regard pointing out memo was prepared, which is proved as Ex. PW4/B. He had also recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant Harshdeep. He has further stated that he deposited the case property in the malkhana. Both the accused persons present in the court today were lodged up in the lock up after their medical examination. He recorded statements of the witnesses.
This witness has also proved the knife as Ex. P3, which was recovered from accused Rattan @ Tannu; mobile Phone as Ex. P1 which was recovered from accused Ajay and one black colour purse containing currency note of Rs. 500/ and photocopy of PAN card of Harshdeep Singh as Ex.P2 (colly.), which were recovered from accused Rattan.
16.The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. Submissions of Ld. Addl. P.P. for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused have been heard. The respective submissions of either side have been considered.
17.It is contended by the counsel for the accused persons that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case and the recovery was planted upon them. There are contradictions in the statement of the complainant. Complainant has stated that the Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 13/22 knife was not recovered in his presence, thus it doubts the prosecution version. It is prayed that the accused persons may be acquitted.
18.I have perused the statement of PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh. PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh has not given the specific date and stated that on the relevant date, he was working in Maruti Work Shop, Indl. Area, Kirti Nagar. On that day, at about 12 night, after finishing the work at his work shop, he was going to his residence on his motorcycle bearing no. DL3CAQ6089 and on the way, he felt urinating, therefore, he stopped his motorcycle near Jhule Wala Park, Mansarover Garden. The witness has categorically stated and pointed out towards the accused Rattan @ Tannu and stated that accused Rattan @ Tannu put knife upon him and asked him to handover whatever he had. It is also stated that thereafter other accused (the witness has pointed out towards accused Ajay) started taking his search and thereafter, both the accused persons snatched his mobile phone and purse containing Rs.1,200/ and fled away from the spot. His statement was recorded by the police and he has also stated that his mobile phone and purse were recovered from one of the accused and he also admitted that his mobile phone and purse were taking into possession vide seizure memo as Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D. He has also identified his signatures on the said memos at point A.
19.This witness has also proved the Arrest memos of both the accused persons as Ex.PW1/F (of accused Ajay) and Ex.PW1/G (of accused Rattan @ Tannu); their personal search memos as Ex.
Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 14/22PW1/F1 (of accused Ajay) and Ex.PW1/G1 (of accused Rattan); their disclosure statements as Ex.PW1/E (of accused Rattan) and Ex. PW1/E1 (of accused Ajay).
20.Both the accused persons are not able to shatter the testimony of PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh. In the complaint, PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh has specifically mentioned that one of the accused was having squint in his eyes and he has also identified both the accused persons and has also categorically stated in the court that accused Rattan put knife on his neck and other accused had taken his search. Both the boys robbed his mobile phone and purse.
21.It is contended by the counsel for the accused persons that PW1 has not stated that the knife was recovered in his presence, thus, it doubts the case of the prosecution.
I fail to appreciate this contention of the ld.counsel for the accused persons as PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh has categorically stated and described the role of both the accused persons and correctly identified both the accused persons. Thus, if the witness has not stated that knife was recovered in his presence but he has admitted that the knife was shown to him in the PS. Thus, this contention carries no force.
22.PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh in the crossexamination has admitted that knife was shown in the PS and also told that this knife was recovered from the possession of accused Rattan. This witness also admitted that the sketch of the knife was prepared in his presence. The witness in the crossexamination has categorically stated that he had identified the boy having squint in his eyes Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 15/22 standing near Tanki Wala Park and had identified him as one of the assailant who had snatched his mobile phone and purse alongwith his associate. The witness during examination in chief has correctly identified his Mobile phone and purse containing photocopy of his PAN Card as Ex. P.2.
23.Nothing fruitful came during the crossexamination of PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh. PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh remained firm during his deposition and his testimony was not shattered in any way. No reason has been given by both the accused persons as to why the complainant had falsely implicated them in the present case and both the accused persons have not given any reason for their false implication in this case and there is no reason given by them as to why the complainant will exonerate the real culprits and falsely implicate them in the present case.
24.PW4 Ct. Praveen, PW7 SI Dinesh Beniwal and IO PW8 SI Surta Nand have categorically stated that accused Rattan @ Tannu was apprehended on the pointing out of the complainant and his name was revealed as Rattan @ Tannu. Thereafter, he was interrogated and on the pointing out of accused Rattan @ Tannu and complainant, other boy i.e.accused Ajay was apprehended. The testimonies of PW4 Ct.Praveen, PW7 SI Dinesh Beniwal and PW8 SI Surta Nand are not shattered in any manner regarding arrest of main accused and regarding arrest of accused Ajay on the pointing out of accused Rattan and regarding their disclosure statements and recoveries of mobile phone and purse containing Rs.500/ or Rs.700/ from them. Thus, the disclosure statements Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 16/22 of both the accused persons have been proved by PW4 Ct.Praveen, PW7 SI Dinesh Beniwal and PW8 SI Surta Nand and both the accused persons were also identified the place of occurrence. Mobile phone of the complainant was recovered from the possession of accused Ajay and purse containing note of Rs. 500/ alongwith photocopy of PAN Card of the complainant was recovered from the possession of accused Rattan.
25.The accused persons are not able to give any dent to the testimony of PW4 Ct.Praveen, PW7 SI Dinesh Beniwal and PW8 SI Surta Nand.
26.Further, all these witnesses i.e. PW4 Ct.Praveen, PW7 SI Dinesh Beniwal and PW8 SI Surta Nand have stated that Mobile phone and purse were recovered from the possession of accused persons and same were taken into possession vide seizure memos Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D and all the witnesses have identified their signatures on the disclosure statements of the accused persons.
27.Further more, the fact of dialing 100 number by the complainant from the phone of unknown person is also proved as PW5 W/Ct.Manjinder Kaur has stated that she has received an information from the caller of Mobile No. 9911433497, whereby the informer had informed that "दो लडके जो पैदल थे मोबाईल और पसस छीन कर भाग गए है" and the place of incident was told as "Mansarover Garden, State Bank of India Ke Samne Tanki Wale Park Mein". This witness has further stated that she has recorded this information and filled up the PCR form and computer Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 17/22 generated copy of the PCR form is proved as Ex. PW5/A.
28.The fact that one of the accused was having squint eyes is also mentioned in the complaint and accused Rattan is also having squint in his eyes and the complainant has duly identified both the accused persons.
29.Further it is contended by the counsel for the accused persons that PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh has not correctly identified the accused persons and in his crossexamination, he has raised a doubt regarding identity of both the accused persons.
I have perused the statement of PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh, wherein he has identified both the accused persons. He has identified accused Rattan and stated that this is the person who had put knife on his neck and asked him to handover whatever he had. He has also correctly identified accused Ajay who started taking his search. The witness further stated that both the boys snatched his mobile phone and purse containing Rs.1,200/. Thus, I am of the view that when the PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh in his examination in chief has correctly identified both the accused persons and when during the crossexamination, if the witness has stated that he has some doubt about the identity of accused, this has no help to the accused persons as in the examination in chief, he has correctly identified both the accused persons.
30.The next contention of the ld. Counsel for the accused that the complainant has not able to tell as to how much amount he was having in his purse at that time. This contention of the ld.
Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 18/22Counsel for the accused persons also carries no force as PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh in his statement has categorically stated that both the boys have snatched his mobile phone and purse containing Rs.500/ or Rs.700/ and the witness again stated that he did not remember the exact amount of money kept in his purse.
The incident was of 16.06.2011 and the statement of the witness was recorded before the court on 01.05.2012 that is after about one year. I am of the view that minor contradictions are bound to occur. I am also of the view that the witness during his examination correctly identified note and purse and the same were recovered from the possession of accused Rattan @ Tannu, thus, this contention carries no force.
31.It is further contended by the counsel for the accused persons that prosecution has not examined the person from whom the complainant has purchased the phone.
I fail to appreciate this contention of the ld. Counsel for the accused persons as on the receipt, there are signatures of PW1 Sh. Harshdeep Singh and he has duly identified his signatures on receipt Ex.PX and during examination in chief, the witness also correctly identified his Mobile Phone. Thus, this contention carries no force.
32.Ld. counsel for the accused persons has vehemently contended that PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh has not stated anywhere that accused persons were arrested in his presence. Thus, accused persons cannot be convicted for the same.
Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 19/22Regarding arrest of both the accused persons, PW4 Ct.Praveen, PW7 SI Dinesh Beniwal and PW8 SI Surta Nand have stated that in the night of 16.06.2011, accused Rattan @ Tannu was apprehended and thereafter accused Rattan was taken to PS and he was interrogated there and during his interrogation, accused Rattan made disclosure statement and his coaccused Ajay was arrested on his pointing out from Bihari Chowk.
PW4 Ct.Praveen, PW7 SI Dinesh Beniwal and PW8 SI Surta Nand have duly proved the fact of arrest of accused Rattan @ Tannu and also recovery of knife from the accused Rattan. All the PWs have also proved that the accused Rattan made disclosure statement. It is also proved that from the possession of accused Rattan, a knife and one purse containing Rs.500/ was recovered. Coaccused Ajay was arrested on the pointing out of accused Rattan and a Mobile phone was recovered from his possession. The complainant has identified his mobile phone and purse containing Rs.500/ in the court and admitted that Mobile phone and purse was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D. This witness has also identified his signatures on the abovesaid memos at point A. This witness has also proved the disclosure statement of accused Rattan Ex.PW1/E and that of accused Ajay as Ex. PW1/E1.
Thus, I am of the view that from the evidence of PW4 Ct.Praveen, PW7 SI Dinesh Beniwal and PW8 SI Surta Nand, it is proved that accused Rattan was arrested on the day of incident and his disclosure statement was recorded and knife and purse Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 20/22 containing Rs.500/ & PAN Card of the complainant on which the photo of the complainant was affixed, was recovered from his possession.
33.Moreover, PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh has specifically stated in his examination in chief that when his purse was robbed, it was containing Rs.500/, No suggestion was put to PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh regarding no such incident has been happened and no recovery was effected in his presence.
34.Bill of the Mobile phone was duly proved by PW1 Sh.Harshdeep Singh. Admittedly Purse containing Rs.500/ and mobile phone not belong to the accused persons and the accused persons also failed to explain how they came in possession of mobile phone and purse containing Rs.500/. The accused persons have not given any explanation as why the complainant will implicate them falsely. It is not the case of the accused persons that they were known to the complainant and nor any motive has been given why they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
35.In view of above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has fully proved its case and established that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, robbed mobile phone and purse containing Rs.500/ from the complainant. It is also proved that while committing robbery from the complainant, accused Rattan @ Tannu also used a deadly weapon i.e. knife in the commission of offence. Thus, both the accused persons namely Ajay and Rattan @ Tannu are held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 21/22 U/s 392/34 IPC. Accused Rattan @ Tannu is also held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 397 IPC.
As the knife was also recovered from the possession of accused Rattan @ Tannu in Contravention of Notification of Delhi Administration, accused Rattan @ Tannu is also held guilty for the offence punishable U/s 25/27 A.Act.
Both the accused persons be heard on the Quantum of Sentence.
Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 13th OCTOBER, 2014. (NARESH KR. MALHOTRA) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05 (WEST) DELHI / TIS HAZARI COURTS Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 22/22 IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF SESSIONS CASE NO.42/14 & Old No. 56/11 FIR NO. 167/11 P.S. Kirti Nagar U/S 392/397/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 A.Act STATE VERSUS (1) SH.AJAY S/O SH. KALI CHARAN R/O H.NO. 1/72, SINGLE STOREY, RAMESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
(2) SH.RATAN @ TANNU S/O SH.HUKAM SINGH R/O WZ47, JAMADAR GALI, SHARDA PURI, RAMESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
ORDER ON SENTENCE :
15.10.2014 :
Present : Sh.Japan Babu, Ld. Substitute Addl. P.P.for the State.
Both the Convicts are in J.C. Smt.Chitra Mal, Amicuscuriae for both the Convicts.
Arguments on the point of Sentence have been advanced. Record perused.
Contd....2.Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 23/22
: 2 :
Ld. Counsel for the convicts submit that they are of young age of 21 years and if they will sent to jail, they will come in contact of hardened criminals. It is further contended that accused Rattan has remained in J.C. for about 5 months. They are not previous convicts. It is further contended that both the convicts are unmarried and they are having parents, brothers and sisters. It is further prayed that lenient view be taken.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. P.P.for the State submits that offence U/s 392/34 IPC has been proved against both the accused persons and offence U/s 397 and 25/27 A.Act has also been proved against accused Rattan @ Tannu. It is also contended that both the accused persons had robbed the complainant when he was coming from his office during night hours. Accused Rattan @ Tannu had put knife on the complainant and both the accused persons robbed purse and mobile phone from the complainant. Further it is contended by the Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State that after the present incident, both the accused persons are also arrested in other cases and they are facing trial. Hence, it is prayed that both the accused persons/convicts be awarded severe punishment as per law.
Keeping in view the submissions and the fact that both the convicts robbed the purse and mobile phone of the Contd.....3.Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 24/22
: 3 :
complainant during night hours, I, sentence both the convicts namely Ajay and Rattan @ Tannu to undergo R.I. for 5 (five) years each with fine of Rs.1,000/each for the offence punishable U/s 392/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for two months each. Convict Rattan @ Tannu is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 (seven) years with fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offence punishable U/s 397 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for two months. Convict Rattan @ Tannu is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable U/s 25/27 A.Act.
All the Sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to both the convicts.
Fine not paid.
Copy of the Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to both the convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON:15th OCTOBER,2014.
(NARESH KR. MALHOTRA) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05 (WEST) DELHI / TIS HAZARI COURTS Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 25/22 FOR TRIAL WARRANT OF COMMITMENT ON A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT BY A SESSIONS JUDGE (SECTION 383 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ05 :
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI SESSIONS CASE NO.42/14 & Old No. 56/11 FIR NO. 167/11 P.S. Kirti Nagar U/S 392/397/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 A.Act To The Jail Superintendent Tihar, Delhi.
In the abovesaid case, both the accused persons namely (1) Sh.Ajay S/o Sh. Kali Charan R/o H.No. 1/72, Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi and (2) Sh.Rattan @ Tannu S/o Sh.Hukam Singh R/o WZ47, Jamadar Gali, Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi are held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 392/34 IPC. Accused Rattan @ Tannu is also held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 397 IPC and 25/27 A.Act. Convict Ajay and Rattan @ Tannu are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 (five) years each with fine of Rs.1,000/each for the offence punishable U/s 392/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further Contd....2.Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 26/22
: 2 :
undergo R.I. for two months each. Convict Rattan @ Tannu is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 (seven) years with fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offence punishable U/s 397 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for two months. Convict Rattan @ Tannu is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable U/s 25/27 A.Act.
All the Sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to both the convicts.
Fine not paid.
This is to authorize and require you, the said Superintendent, to receive both the said convicts into your custody in the said jail together with this warrant to undergo the sentences as awarded by this Court.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this 15th day of October, 2014.
Note : Fine not paid.
(Naresh Kumar Malhotra) ASJ05/West/THC/Delhi 15.10.2014 Sessions Case No. 42/14 State Vs.Ajay etc. Page No. 27/22