Delhi District Court
State vs Accused on 28 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL:ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02:EAST DISTRICT:KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI
SC NO. 75/10 Date of Institution :10.08.2007
FIR No. 259/07 Date of Argument :15.07.2011
PS Kalyanpuri & 25.07.2011
U/S 394/397/34 IPC Date of Order : 28.07.2011
State Versus Accused
1 Ravi
S/o Nanhe Singh
R/o Jhuggi No.29, Indra Camp,
Trilokpuri, Delhi
2 Yogesh @ Alu
S/o Jai Parkash
R/o 2/325, Trilokpuri, Delhi
3 Manoj Kumar
S/o Rameshwar
R/o 3A/81, Jhuggi Indra Camp,
Trilokpuri, Delhi
JUDGMENT
The prosecution case in brief is that on 18.04.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. complainant Sh. Ajit Shukla was going in a Santro Car from his office to his house and when he was driving his car at Ganda Nala Road, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kalyanpuri, Delhi accused Ravi, Yogesh @ Alu and Manoj in furtherance of their common intention obstructed his way and caused injuries on his hand. They also robbed him and snatched SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 1 of 28 his gold ring, a mobile phone, cherry colour No. 9873211211, and removed his purse of brown colour, from hip pocket of his pant which was containing Rs.600/-, two credit cards, one debit card and a PAN card and fled away. The first accused was about 5'9'' black colour (sawla) aged about 27 years. The second accused was about 5'6'' whitish (genhua) colour aged about 25 years. The third accused was about 5'5'' whitish (genhua) colour aged about 19 years. Complainant Sh. Ajit Shukla informed police by dialing number 100. Police recorded his statement in which he told that he could identify accused persons if shown to him and made endorsement thereon. On that basis, FIR No.259/07 at P.S. Kalyanpuri U/s 394/397/34 IPC was recorded. Victim was taken to LBS hospital where his MLC was prepared. IO also prepared site plan showing the place of occurrence. Accused Ravi was arrested on receipt of secret information and on the pointing out of complainant from 2 Block Trilok Puri on 19.4.2007. He was interrogated. He made disclosure statement disclosing that he committed alleged crime with Yogesh @ Aalu and Manoj s/o Rameshwar. He also disclosed that gold ring, purse and mobile were with accused Manoj. On 26.04.2007 accused Yogesh was arrested on the secret information at DDA Market, Trilok Puri opposite Chanda Cassette shop. On 26.04.2007 SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 2 of 28 accused Yogesh @ Aalu was arrested on secret information, at DDA Market, 40 Block, Trilok Puri, opposite Chanda Cassette Shop. On his search mobile Nokia cherry colour IME No. 110, 35455301185950 without battery and memory card was recovered. That was seized. His disclosure statement was recorded. On his pointing out, pointing out memo showing the place of occurrence was also prepared. Personal search memo and arrest memo of accused persons were prepared. He was produced before Juvenile Justice Board as he was Juvenile. As accused Manoj Kumar absconded and failed to appear, therefore, accused Manoj Kumar was declared Proclaimed Offender by Ld. M.M. vide his order dated 04.12.2007. After completion of investigation initially police filed the charge sheet only against accused Ravi before the Ld. Magistrate for his trial for the offences punishable u/s 394/397/34 IPC.
2. Ld. Magistrate after supplying of copies of charge sheet and documents committed this case to the court of sessions and the case was assigned to my Ld. Predecessor.
3. My Ld. Predecessor vide her order dated 13.09.2007 opined that there was a prima facie case against accused Ravi for the offences punishable U/s SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 3 of 28 394/397 IPC, therefore charge against accused Ravi for offence punishable U/s 394/397 IPC was framed and read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. When the complainant Sh. Ajit Shukla was under
cross examination accused Manoj was arrested and supplementary challan against accused Manoj was committed to court of Sessions which was also assigned to this court on 30.04.2008.
5. As my Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 25.9.2008 was of the view that the prima facie case for offences U/s 394/397/34 IPC against accused Manoj was also made out so the charge against him for said offences was framed and read over to him in vernacular language. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted an inquiry wherein, it was revealed that accused Yogesh @ Alu was not a Juvenile. Therefore accused Yogesh @ Alu was also produced before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for his trial. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate also committed his supplementary charge sheet to the court of Sessions which was assigned to this court on 30.11.2009. Charge against accused Yogesh @ Aalu for the offence punishable U/s SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 4 of 28 394/397 IPC therefore, charge against accused Yogesh @ Aalu for the offence punishable U/s 394/397 IPC was framed and read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined complainant Sh. Ajit Shukla as PW-1; Ct. Inder Kumar as PW-2; SI Om Singh as PW-3; HC Rajbir Singh as PW-4; ASI Madan Kumar as PW-5; SI Todar Singh (retired) as PW-6; Dr. Parmesh Sharma as PW-7; Ct. Adesh Kumar as PW-8; HC Ashok Kumar as PW-9; SI Mahesh Singh as PW-10; and HC Mohd. Khalid as PW-11.
8. After closing of prosecution evidence statements of all the three accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C. All the material and incriminating evidence was put to all the three accused persons. All the accused persons denied the correctness of prosecution evidence. Accused Yogesh @ Aalu and accused Manoj Kumar pleaded that they were innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case. They opt not to lead any defence evidence.
9. Accused Ravi pleaded that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in this case by arresting him from SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 5 of 28 his house in the intervening night of 18 and 19 April 2007 at about 1.00 a.m mid-night along with his brother-in-law (Jija) Ajay Daga. The police demanded Rs.12,000/- from his mother who came to P.S. in the morning and on her failure to give the same he was falsely implicated in this case. His brother-in-law was released after receiving Rs.2,000/- from his mother.
10. In support of his defence accused Ravi examined himself as DW1 and also examined his mother Sheela as DW2.
11. I have heard arguments of Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsels for the accused and perused file including written arguments submitted by counsel for accused Ravi.
12. On perusal of charge sheet and other documents, on examination and analyzing of evidence on record and on considering the arguments I have formed my opinions and that are discussed herein below:
13. On examination of prosecution evidence, I find that PW1 deposed that in the year 2007 he was residing at house no.981 A Block, Gharoli, Dairy Colony Mayur Vihar SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 6 of 28 Phase III. On 18.4.2007 he was going to his house from Pahar Ganj in his Santro car no. DL8C-F-4123. At about 10 p.m. when he reached at Link road behind Kalyan Puri Police Station he received a call at his mobile phone so he slow down the speed of his car. In the meantime one person came towards driver side window of the car. He opened the window. The person suddenly attacked him with knife as a result of which he sustained injuries on his hand. He demanded his valuable articles. He tried to raise noise. On hearing his noise that person called his companion by saying 'bhag jaye ga'. On hearing, two another boys also came there, one boy opened the door of the car and switch on the inner light of the car who was also having knife in his hand and the first boy who inflected injuries on his hand. Other boy who entered in the car from side caught hold of him. Third boy also entered the car. He snatched gold, mobile phone make Nokia, red colour and Rs.1,000/-/Rs.1,200/-, ATM card of State Bank and two credit card of ABN Amro and ICICI and PAN card. All three boys ran away from the spot. He could identify the accused persons. Accused present in the court was amongst the three boys. Accused was having knife/khukri and he entered inside his car from the left door and overpowered him with first boy. Accused attacked on his left abdomen as a result of which his wearing shirt was SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 7 of 28 torn but he did not sustain injury on his abdomen. He informed the police on 100 number from his second mobile make Nokia Reliance. Police reached there. He informed his brother who also reached there. He parked his car (car of complainant) at PS Kalyanpuri. Police official brought him to the gate of PS Kalyan Puri and from there he was taken to LBS Hospital where he was medically examined. His statement was recorded by the police in hospital. He proved his statement Ex.PW1/A which bears his signature at point A. After the occurrence he had gone to PS Kalyan Puri on 19.4.07. Accused present in the court was arrested by police from Trilokpuri on his identification. He came to know his name as Ravi. Arrest memo of accused Ravi Ex.PW1/B was prepared which was signed by him at point A. His personal search memo Ex. PW1/C was also prepared bearing his signatures at point A. Another accused was also arrested on his identification who was facing trial in juvenile court. Accused Ravi was interrogated and he made disclosure statement Ex. PW1/D and confessed that he along with his two companion committed robbery. His mobile phone was recovered from another accused who was facing trial in juvenile court and he identified his mobile and handed over the cash memo of his mobile to police. He deposed that he could not identify the other accused Manoj due to lapse of time. He submitted that he SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 8 of 28 was not called by the IO at the time of investigation of case about arrest of accused Manoj.
14. PW2 Ct. Inder Kumar deposed that on 19.04.07 he was present in PS. On that day complainant Ajit Shukla came to PS and he joined the investigation with ASI Mahesh Yadav. They went near Chand Cinema Trilok Puri where a secret information was received that one accused who was involved in this case was sitting in the park. Thereafter they along with secret informer reached at Trilok Puri Block No.2. Secret informer pointed out towards the boy and Ajit Shukla identified him saying that the boy had attacked on his abdomen and snatched his mobile. The boy was apprehended. On enquiry he came to know his name as Ravi son of Nanhey. He was arrested vide his arrest memo Ex.PW1/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/C which bear his signatures at point B. He was interrogated. Accused Ravi took them to the place of occurrence and pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. Accused present in the court was correctly identified by him. On 26.04.2007 another accused Yogesh @ Aalu facing trial in juvenile court was also arrested and a mobile phone of complainant was recovered. He identified mobile as Ex.P1.
SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 9 of 2815. PW3 SI Om Singh deposed that on 26.04.2007 he was posted at PS Kalyanpuri and he was assigned investigation of this case. He alongwith Ct. Adesh and Ct. Inder proceeded from PS in search of accused persons. Ajeet Shukla met them at some distance ahead of PS Kalyan Puri. They reached Chand Cinema. He received an information through an informer that accused Yogesh @ Aalu was present near Chanda Cassette Shop block no.4, Trilok Puri. They reached there. At the instance of complainant Ajit Shukla, he apprehended accused Yogesh @ Aalu. From appearance, accused Yogesh @ Aalu was looking minor. He called Juvenile Welfare Officer SI Todar Singh from PS who reached the spot in civil dress. He formally interrogated the accused in presence of SI Todar Singh. One mobile phone make Nokia was recovered from the possession of accused Yogesh @ Aalu. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo photocopy of which was proved as Ex.PW3/A and conducted his personal search vide memo photocopy of which was proved as Ex.PW3/B. He seized the mobile phone vide seizure memo photocopy of which was proved as Ex.PW3/C. The mobile phone was immediately identified by complainant. The battery and sim card were not inside the mobile phone. He recorded disclosure statement of accused Yogesh @ Aalu photocopy SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 10 of 28 of which was proved as Ex.PW3/D. Accused pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW3/E. Accused confessed his guilt before him. The accused during custody pointed out the place of incident where he alongwith his associates robbed the complainant and the pointing out memo Ex.PW3A/A was prepared which was signed by him at point A. Thereafter accused was taken to PS and was locked in the lock up and he deposited the case property in Malkhana. The true copy of DD No.68B dated 26.04.07 was made by him regarding departure for patrolling which was proved as Ex.PW3A/B which was signed by him at point A. He identified accused Yogesh @ Aalu who was present in the court. He identified the mobile phone as Ex.P1 which was recovered from the accused Yogesh @ Aalu. They returned at PS and he recorded statement of complainant, Ct. Inder, Ct. Adesh and SI Todar Singh. Juvenile Yogesh @ Aalu was kept under the supervision of SI Todar Singh. On the following day, accused was produced before Juvenile Justice Board and was remanded to remand home. Accused Yogesh @ Aalu was facing trial before Juvenile Justice Board. He handed over the file of this case to ASI Mahesh Yadav.
16. PW4 HC Rajbir Singh deposed that on 18.04.2007 he was posted at PS Kalyan Puri. On that day SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 11 of 28 around 11:15 pm copy of DD No.91 B was assigned to him. He reached at informed place i.e. ganda nala road, Trilok Puri near gas agency. Injured Ajit Shukla met him there with santro car bearing No.DL8C-4123. Ct. Ashok also reached there. They removed Ajit Shukla in LBS Hospital by his car. He was admitted in the hospital and was treated. He recorded statement of injured Ex.PW1/A which was signed by him at point A. He recorded rukka Ex.PW3/A and gave that to Ct. Ashok for registration of the case. Ct. Ashok proceeded with rukka from hospital around 12:10 am. Thereafter, he and Ajit Shukla reached at the spot where ASI Mahesh Yadav and Ct. Ashok reached after their arrival there. Further investigation was conducted by ASI Mahesh Yadav. ASI Mahesh Yadav prepared site plan of the spot at the instance of Ajit Shukla. He returned to PS. Copy of DD assigned to him was proved as Ex.PW3/B.
17. PW5 ASI Madan Kumar deposed that on 19.04.07 he was working as Duty Officer at PS Kalyan Puri from 12 night to 8 am. At about 12:25 am Ct. Ashok Kumar presented a rukka sent by HC Rajbir Singh. On the basis of the same he recorded the FIR no.259/07 of the present case. The carbon copy of the same was proved as Ex.PW5/A which was signed by him. He had recorded Kayami bearing no.3. Investigation was assigned to ASI SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 12 of 28 Mahesh Yadav who accompanied the spot alongwith Ct. Ashok Kumar.
18. PW6 deposed that on 26.04.07 he was working as SI at PS Kalyan Puri and was also looking after the work of Juvenile Welfare Officer. On receipt of information he went to Block - 4, DDA Market, Trilokpuri and had found Ct. Inder, Ct. Rajesh Kumar, Accused Yogesh @ Aalu and SI Om Singh present there. Juvenile was interrogated in his presence and was arrested. One mobile phone was recovered from the personal search of accused Yogesh. Arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B, respectively, were signed by him at point A.
19. PW7 Dr. Parmesh Sharma deposed that on 18.04.2007 one Ajit Shukla came to the hospital himself with alleged history of assault. On examination, he found that patient was oriented and conscious. His heart rate was 84 per minute and BP was 120/80. On local examination, he found that there was one incised wound over right elbow 4 x 0.2 cm in size and red in colour and an abrasion over right forearm 4 x 0.5 cm in size and red in colour. Patient was referred to SR surgery for detailed examination, treatment and opinion. As per the opinion SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 13 of 28 given by SR surgery, injury was simple. The patient was examined vide MLC No.3018, C.R.No.31584 dated 18.04.2007, Ex. PW7/A which was signed by him at point A.
20. PW8 deposed that on 26.04.2007, he was posted at PS Kalyan Puri. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Inder, ASI Mahesh Yadav and complainant Ajit reached at near Chand Cinema at Trilokpuri. ASI Mahesh Yadav received a secret information that one person involved in the incident was standing at a shop M/s Chanda Cassette, DDA Market, Trilokpuri and was trying to sell a mobile phone. They reached at Chanda Cassettes and the complainant Ajit Shukla identified that person. He was apprehended. One mobile phone was recovered from his pant. His name was revealed as Yogesh @ Aalu. The mobile phone was sealed and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A by SI Todar Singh, which was signed by him point A. SI Todar Singh was called at the spot by ASI Mahesh Yadav telephonically. Accused was identified by him. Accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/B was recorded which was signed by him at point A. Accused was arrested in this case vide memo already Ex.PW6/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/B. Accused Yogesh took them to the spot and memo to that effect was SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 14 of 28 prepared. His statement was recorded by IO. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. He correctly identified the Nokia mobile phone as Ex.P1.
21. PW9 deposed that on 19.04.2007 he was posted at PS Kalyanpuri as Constable. On that day, he accompanied HC Rajbir to Ganda Nala Road near Gas Agency, Trilok Puri as DD No.91B was received. At spot one injured person namely Ajit Shukla and his santro car bearing no.DL8CF 4130 was found. Injured was taken to LBS Hospital by them. MLC of the injured was got prepared. HC Rajbir recorded statement of Ajit Shukla and prepared rukka. IO gave him rukka for getting the FIR registered at PS Kalyanpuri. After getting the FIR registered, he reached near Kalyan Puri bus stand where he handed over copy of FIR and rukka to HC Rajbir. From there, they reached at spot. At the spot, IO prepared site plan at the pointing of the complainant. Search for accused was made but in vain. The complainant was relieved by the IO and they arrived at PS. IO recorded his statement.
22. PW10 deposed that on 18.04.2007 he was posted as ASI and was on emergency duty. On that day at about midnight dated 19.04.07 he received copy of FIR and SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 15 of 28 rukka through Ct. Ashok. He alongwith Ct. Ashok went to spot where they met with first IO and complainant and prepared site plan Ex.PW10/A on the pointing out of the complainant bearing his signatures at point A. They searched for the accused. In the evening Ct. Inder, complainant Ajit Shukla reached at near Chand Cinema where he received one secret information that the boy who was involved in the above incident was present at Block No.2, Trilok Puri Park. Thereafter, they went inside the park and complainant pointed out towards a boy whose name was revealed as Ravi, correctly identified by him. He interrogated the accused, arrested him vide memo Ex.PW1/B, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/C and also recorded his disclosure statement vide memos Ex.PW1/D bearing his signatures at point X on these documents. Accused pointed out ganda nala where he committed robbery alongwith his associates and pointing out memo Ex.PW2/A was prepared that was signed by him at point B. Thereafter accused led them to the house of Manoj and Yogesh @ Aalu but they could not found them as they were not present at their houses. After medical examination of accused, he was put in lock up at PS Kalyanpuri. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by SI Om Singh who arrested accused Yogesh and recovered the looted mobile. On 04.05.07 he received SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 16 of 28 investigation of the present case and he made search for co accused Manoj but in vain. He took NBW and arrest warrants aginst him but in vain. Thereafter, process U/s 82 83 Cr. P.C. was initiated and accused Manoj was declared PO. He collected documents regarding date of birth of accused Yogesh wherein age of accused was found more than the age he claimed. Accused Ravi disclosed that the robbed articles were taken by Manoj and Yogesh. He prepared challan after completion of investigation.
23. PW11 deposed that on 02.08.2008 he was posted at PS Kalyan Puri as Constable. On that day, he alongwith HC Raj Kumar came in court no.16, Karkardooma Court where accused Manoj was produced by HC Dinesh and HC Yogender. HC Raj Kumar arrested Manoj who was PO in this case. The arrest memo of accused Manoj Ex. PW11/A and personal search memo Ex.PW11/B were prepared that were signed by him at points A. HC Raj Kumar interrogated accused Manoj and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/C which was signed by him at point A. Thereafter, accused was sent to J.C. IO recorded his statement.
24. Counsel for accused Ravi argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 17 of 28 accused beyond any reasonable doubt because the police has failed to conduct the TIP proceedings of accused Ravi. There was no recovery of alleged knife or any other article from the possession of accused Ravi. There are many contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The police has failed to seize the blood stained clothes/torn shirt of complainant.
25. In support of her arguments Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon a case of Adesh Kumar and etc. Vs. The State, 1986 Cri.L.J. 233. It was held by Delhi High Court that:
"The Supreme Court in the case Budhsen v. State of U.P., 1970 CriLJ 1149 :(AIR 1970 SC 1321) held that the evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character and it is considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the accused who was a stranger to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings.
*** I accordingly hold that the learned trial Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the identity of Adesh Kumar as one of the two robbers stood proved beyond a reasonable doubt from the prosecution evidence as adduced on the record. That being so, Adesh Kumar was entitled to acquittal."
26. On careful examination and analyzing the evidence on record, I find contradictions in the testimonies SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 18 of 28 on various points. Regarding arrest of accused Ravi, IO PW10 deposed that complainant again came to police station in the evening at about 5 pm of his own. Since the complainant informed that he could identify the accused persons so they left for Chand Cinema along Ct. Inder. They received a secret information about the presence of accused Ravi in the park at Trilok Puri and apprehended accused Ravi at the identification of complainant. The case of the prosecution is that accused Ravi was arrested on 19.4.2007 in the evening. PW10 in this regard stated that both of them arrested accused Ravi at about 6 or 6:30 pm. Complainant in this regard deposed that on 19.4.07 he must have gone to PS in between 9 to 10 pm as he left the office by 8 pm. Thus, there is contradiction about the time of arrest of accused Ravi as IO stated that he was arrested at about 6 or 6:30 pm and the complainant stated that he arrived at the police station between 9 to 10 pm. PW2 ct. Inder in this regard deposed that on 19.4.07 at about 5:45 pm the secret informer gave the information to IO about the presence of accused Ravi and thereafter he was arrested. Father of accused was informed about his arrest at about 7pm.
27. As regards giving of information of arrest of accused Ravi, testimonies of prosecution witnesses are not SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 19 of 28 consistent. PW2 deposed that information of his arrest was given to his father at 7pm but he did not know by which mode the information was given, whether it was given telephonically or otherwise? PW10/IO stated that they intimated the family members of accused Ravi on the phone but did not remember the phone number.
28. As regards visit of family members of accused Ravi at police station, PW2 deposed that he did not remember if anybody from the family of Ravi came to police station. PW10 deposed that mother of accused Ravi came to police station.
29. On the point of snatching of robbed articles, complainant in his statement on the basis of which FIR was recorded stated that the first robber had attacked him with knife and caused injury at his hand and also snatched his gold ring. Second robber also attacked him with knife which was missed. He also snatched his mobile Nokia cheery colour 9873211214. The third robber removed his purse containing Rs.600/- including credit card , one debit card and one PAN card. When his statement was recorded in court as PW1 he deposed differently by stating that the first robber attacked him with knife as a result he sustained injury at his hand. The other two boys came. The first boy SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 20 of 28 who inflicted injury on his hand and the other boy who entered the side car caught hold of him. The third boy entered inside the car and snatched gold ring and mobile phone make Nokia and his purse containing Rs.1000/- 1200/-, ATM card SBI, two cards of ICICI. Thus, this statement of complainant on the date of occurrence before the police and made in the court are not consistent, as regards the role of robbers and also regarding the amount of money robbed because in the earlier statement he deposed that Rs. 600/- were robbed but in the court he deposed that Rs.1,000/- /Rs.1,200/- were robbed.
30. As regards the vehicle in which accused was taken to hospital the witness also deposed differently. Complainant PW1 deposed that soon after the incident took place, he informed with his second mobile to the police by dialing number 100 and also to his brother. Police and his brother arrived at the spot simultaneously. He was taken to LBS hospital. During his cross examination he stated that from the place of occurrence they straightway went to hospital but as the police station was in between the hospital, he stayed there for one minute outside the police station as his brother went to park his vehicle(car of complainant) at the police station. This leads to the presumption that car of the complainant was parked SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 21 of 28 at police station and thereafter, he went to hospital by another vehicle or in the vehicle of the police. PW4 on this aspect deposed that injured Sh. Ajit Shukla was removed to LBS Hospital by his car. PW4 deposed in cross examination that Sh. Ajit Shukla had driven his vehicle in hospital. They sat in his vehicle. Brother of Ajit Shukla did not meet him during this period.
31. PW4 regarding admission of injured in hospital deposed that they removed Sh. Ajit Shukla in LBS hospital and he was admitted in the hospital. Other witnesses are silent about admission of injured.
32. Regarding visit of place of occurrence after the incident, PW1 complainant deposed that after the incident, he was taken by the police to hospital where he was medically examined. His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. After the occurrence he had gone to PS Kalyanpuri on 19.04.2007. PW10 deposed that complainant met him in the hospital and they came back from the hospital to the spot. He prepared site plan and recorded the statement of Rajbir and supplementary statement of complainant. Thus there is contradiction between the statement of complainant and IO regarding visit of place of occurrence after return from hospital.
SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 22 of 2833. As regards, arrest of accused Yogesh @ Aalu on 26.04.2007 is concerned, complainant PW1 stated that on earlier occasion he had deposed about this case and identified the accused Ravi. There is no other statement of complainant regarding investigation of accused Yogesh @ Alu. PW2 identified the accused Yogesh @ Aalu. As regards arrival and presence of SI Todar Singh PW6 is concerned, I find that PW2 deposed that on 26.04.2007 at about 6 p.m. in the evening he and SI Omveer Singh, Ct. Adesh proceeded for search of accused Yogesh & Manoj. Complainant Ajit Shukla met them on the way. Secret informer met them and informed that accused involved in the robbery was selling the mobile phone near Chanda Cassette Shop, Chand Cinema, Trilok Puri. They arrived there and on the identification of Ajit Shukla they apprehended the accused. SI Todar Singh, Juvenile Officer was called who arrived within 10-15 minutes. SI Todar Singh as PW6 deposed that on 26.04.2007 he was working as Juvenile Welfare Officer at PS Kalyanpuri. He reached at the spot at about 7:40 p.m. where SI Om Singh, Ct. Inder and Ct. Adesh Kumar and accused Yogesh @ Aalu met him. In cross examination he stated that he reached within 3-4 minutes. The recovery of mobile phone was effected from right pocket of accused Yogesh. Accused led them to ganda nala and thereafter they proceeded for the search of SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 23 of 28 co-accused Ravi & Manoj at their residential address on foot but in vain. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Ravi had already been arrested on 19.04.2007 and he was in jail on 26.04.2007 and therefore, there was no necessity for his search at his house.
34. As mentioned above, PW6 stated that they proceeded for search of co-accused on foot. PW2 also deposed that after completion of proceedings he alongwith SI Om Singh, Ct. Adesh and SI Todar Singh and accused Yogesh come back to PS Kalyan Puri on foot. In contradiction of their statements PW3 deposed that he and SI Todar Singh were having their own scooter while both the Constables were having one motor cycle. That motor cycle was a private one. Accused Yogesh was taken to the spot of incident for the purpose of pointing out in the custody of both the Constable on the motorcycle.
35. Besides the above contradictions, I also find that complainant PW1 deposed that when the first robber assaulted him with knife in his abdomen, his shirt was torn. That shirt was not taken into possession. This creates some doubt about the sustaining of injuries by complainant in the way deposed by him.
SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 24 of 2836. It is a case of complainant that soon after the incident he informed the police by dialing 100 and also informed his brother. His brother also arrived. None of the police witnesses deposed about the presence of brother of injured. Although he was available as per the statement of PW1, complainant but he was not joined investigation of present case. This also creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
37. As per the story of prosecution, accused Ravi was arrested on 19.04.2007. His disclosure statement was recorded which was proved as Ex.PW1/D. As per his disclosure statement, the accused Ravi had already disclosed the names and addresses of co-accused Manoj & Yogesh @ Alu. In these circumstances, the police could have arrested them from their house but the police waited up to 26.04.2007 when secret informer gave secret information to the police about the presence of accused Yogesh @ Aalu.
38. As nothing has been recovered consequent upon the disclosure made by accused Ravi and accused Yogesh @ Aalu, therefore, their disclosure statements are not admissible in evidence.
SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 25 of 2839. The accused Ravi was identified in the court by the complainant. His Test Identification Parade was not got conducted. The rulings cited by counsel for accused Ravi, Adesh Kumar and etc. Vs. The State, (supra), supports his arguments to the effect that independent corroboration is required when the accused is identified in the court first time. On analyzing the evidence and particularly discussed here in above, I am not convinced that the testimonies of injured has been corroborated by other witnesses on material points. Rather the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions.
40. PW1 complainant has failed to identify accused Manoj in the court. There is no evidence on record to connect him with the alleged crime instead the disclosure statements made by accused persons which are not admissible in evidence.
41. Although pointing out memo of accused persons were proved but these memo will not lead to any consequence as the place of occurrence was already in the knowledge of police officials. The statement was made in the presence of police so in the absence of any recovery, it is not admissible in evidence and cannot be used against accused persons.
SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 26 of 2842. As mentioned above, neither knife, nor purse nor ATM cards nor any other documents could be recovered from any of the accused persons. Recovery of mobile phone from accused Yogesh @ Aalu has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
43. Accused Ravi has examined himself as DW1 and he also examined his mother as DW2. Both of them deposed that accused Ravi had been falsely implicated by arresting himself from his residence. In cross examination nothing could come out which could demolish their testimonies.
44. It is one of the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence that let the hundred accused may go scot- free without punishment but one innocent person should not be punished. This principle is fully applicable in the present case as the prosecution has failed to prove their case against any of the accused persons beyond any reasonable suspicion or doubt. It would not be just and fair to convict any of the accused persons on the basis of inconsistent, contradictory and unreliable prosecution evidence.
45. In view of the above reasons and discussion, it SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 27 of 28 is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against any of the accused and therefore, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons, they are acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 394/397 IPC. Accused Manoj is in J.C. He be released forthwith.
However, accused persons are directed to furnish their personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount as per provisions of Section 437 A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.
46. After furnishing of personal bond/surety bond, file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 28.07.2011 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Addl. Sessions Judge-02 East District:KKD Courts:Delhi SC No. 75/10 State Vs. Ravi etc. Page No. 28 of 28