Delhi District Court
State vs : Ravi Kumar @ Chinku on 27 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK : ACMM-01 : CENTRAL
DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
State Vs : Ravi Kumar @ Chinku
FIR No : 568/2014
U/s : 392/411 IPC
PS : Paharganj
Date of Institution: 08.12.2014
Date of Judgment reserved for: 27.06.2015
Date of Judgment: 27.06.2015
Unique ID No. 02401R0629942014
Brief details of the case
A. Sl.No. of the case 316/P
B. Offence complained of
or proved Under Section 392 IPC
C. Date of Offence 06.11.2014
D. Name of the complainant Suraj Kumar Pathak
S/o Inder Bahadur Pathak
R/o Village Nandlal Pathak Pura,
Post-Shahganj, PS Inayat Nagar,
Distt. Faizabad (UP)
E. Name of the accused Ravi Kumar @ Chinku
S/o Barsati Lal
R/o H.No.9727, Gali No.8,
Multani Dhanda, Paharganj,
New Delhi
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
G. Final order Convicted
H. Date of Order 27.06.2015
Judgment
On the accusation of committing robbery by wrongfully restraining Suraj
Kumar Pathak (hereinafter referred to as ' complainant' ) and putting him under the
fear of causing injury with a blade for dishonestly taking out of his possession his
FIR No.568/2014 State Vs Ravi Kumar @ Chiku Page 1 of 9
mobile phone and wallet containing cash amount of Rs.650/- (Rupees Six Hundred
and Fifty only), accused Ravi Kumar @ Chiku was sent up to face trial for
committing offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.
Brief facts as unfolded during trial
2. The case of prosecution is that complainant (PW-3) used to work at a
restaurant located on Rajguru Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi. On
06.11.2014, at around 08.00 PM, near Gurudwara of Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, accused stopped the complainant while he was going to deliver the ordered food at the residence of a customer and robbed him by putting him under fear of inflicting injury with a blade. Accused forcibly took away the mobile phone and wallet of the complainant and started running away from the spot. Complainant raised alarm and started chasing the accused. On hearing the alarm, Ct. Shyam Sunder (PW-5), who was passing from the spot during the course of his patrolling duty, ran after the accused and apprehended him. The stolen mobile phone as well as the wallet containing cash amount of Rs.650/- was recovered from the accused and information was forwarded to the local police station. On receiving the information which was recorded as DD No.52B, SI O.P.Mandal (PW-7) and Ct. Praveen Kumar (PW-6) reached the spot and arrested the accused. In the said background, present case bearing FIR No.662/1995 under Section 392 IPC was registered at Police Station Paharganj.
3. Necessary investigation was carried out and requisite documentation was done. The robbed mobile phone and the recovered currency notes were seized and deposited at the Malkhana. Statement of witnesses were recorded and on conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was put to the court. Copies of the charge-sheet were FIR No.568/2014 State Vs Ravi Kumar @ Chiku Page 2 of 9 supplied to the accused and charge under section 392 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded ' not guilty' and claimed trial.
Witnesses examined
4. Seven prosecution witnesses were examined.
PW-1 Manmohan Dhingra (Owner of the shop from where complainant purchased the mobile phone) stated that he sold the mobile phone to the complainant vide bill Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 HC Deepak (Duty Officer) mentioned about the registration of FIR. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW-2/A. PW-3 Suraj Kumar Pathak (Complainant) narrated the entire episode. He mentioned that accused robbed him by putting him under the fear of inflicting injury with a blade. He identified the accused in the court and also produced the recovered mobile phone which was released to him on superdari.
PW-4 Ct. Rakesh Kumar (DD Writer) mentioned that Ct. Shyam Sunder left for patrolling duty vide DD Entry No.43-B which is Ex.PW-4/A. He stated that information about the incident was received and recorded vide DD No.52-B which is Ex.PW-4/B. PW-5 Ct. Shyam Sunder (Police official who apprehended the accused) stated that while passing from the spot during the course of his patrolling duty, he heard the alarm raised by the complainant and started chasing the accused. He mentioned that he apprehended the accused and the stolen mobile phone and cash amount of Rs.650/- was recovered from his possession.
PW-6 Ct. Praveen Kumar (Police official who accompanied the Investigating Officer to the spot) mentioned that Ct. Shyam Sunder was found present FIR No.568/2014 State Vs Ravi Kumar @ Chiku Page 3 of 9 at the spot. He stated that he took rukka from the spot and got the FIR registered.
PW-7 SI O.P.Mandal (Investigating Officer) justified the investigation carried out by him.
5. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence and took the defence of false implication. He stated that recovery was planted upon him by the local police. No defence witness was examined.
Arguments
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel and have perused the record.
7. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. Counsel has contended that there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant and the same should be discarded. He argued that recovery is doubtful as efforts were not made to join independent witnesses. He stated that although, the incident took place at around 08.00 PM in the crowded area of Paharganj but no efforts were made by the police to join public witnesses. He mentioned that accused can not be convicted merely on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of complainant. On the force of these arguments, Counsel has prayed that accused should be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued that charge of robbery stands proved against accused. He contended that although, there are minor contradictions in the testimony of complainant, but the same are inconsequential. He submitted that the testimony of complainant should not be discarded merely because public witnesses were not joined by the Investigating Officer. He argued that FIR No.568/2014 State Vs Ravi Kumar @ Chiku Page 4 of 9 reluctance of general public to join investigation can not be ignored while appreciating the arguments of defence about the absence of public witnesses. He contended that accused was apprehended from the spot itself and the recovery stands proved. He contended that prosecution' s case stands established beyond reasonable doubt.
Brief Reasons for Decision
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
10. The main evidence on record is perhaps the testimony of complainant. Let us peruse his testimony. Complainant (PW-3) narrated the entire incident. He narrated the manner in which accused stopped him while he was going to deliver an order of food at the residence of a customer of his restaurant. He mentioned the date and time of incident. He stated that on 06.11.2014, at around 08.00 PM, while he was crossing the Gurudwara of Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, accused suddenly appeared at the spot and wrongfully restrained him. He mentioned the manner in which accused robbed him. He stated that accused robbed him by putting him under the fear of inflicting injury with a blade. He mentioned that accused forcibly took away his mobile phone and wallet containing cash amount of Rs.650/- (Rupees Six Hundred and Fifty only). He narrated the manner in which accused was apprehended and deposed about the role of Ct. Shyam Sunder. He stated that after robbing him, accused started running away from the spot but he chased and apprehended him with the help of a police officer. He mentioned that while chasing the accused, he raised alarm and on hearing his alarm, Ct. Shyam Sunder joined him in chasing the accused. He deposed about the recovery of mobile phone and cash amount of Rs.650/- (Rupees Six FIR No.568/2014 State Vs Ravi Kumar @ Chiku Page 5 of 9 Hundred and Fifty only) from the possession of accused. He deposed about the arrival of local police officials mentioning that they arrested the accused and seized the recovered mobile phone as well as cash. He produced the recovered mobile phone and identified it as Ex.P1. He identified the accused in the court mentioning that he was apprehended from the spot itself. Record shows that although, complainant has been cross-examined at length but his testimony about the theft of mobile phone and its recovery from the possession of accused has remained unblemished. His deposition that he apprehended the accused red-handed from the spot itself has remained un- controverted.
11. Testimony of complainant finds support from the deposition of Ct. Shyam Sunder (PW-5). He stated that while passing from the spot during the course of his patrolling duty, he heard the alarm raised by the complainant. He mentioned that he saw the accused fleeing away from the spot. He stated that on hearing the alarm, he started chasing the accused and apprehended him near Neelkamal Restaurant located at Chuna Mandi, Paharganj. He deposed that the stolen mobile phone as well as cash amount of Rs.650/- was recovered from the possession of accused. He stated that he forwarded the information about the incident to the local police station and thereafter, SI O.P.Mandal and Ct. Praveen Kumar arrived at the spot. He also identified the accused in the court as the same person who was apprehended by him. The testimony of this witness provides support to the version of complainant that accused was caught red-handed from the spot.
12. Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that testimony of complainant should be discarded because he has made improvements over his previous statement. On the force of these contentions, counsel has argued that FIR No.568/2014 State Vs Ravi Kumar @ Chiku Page 6 of 9 testimony of complainant should be discarded. I do not find force in the said line of arguments. Record shows that although, there are some minor variations in the statement of complainant when it is compared with his earlier statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C but these variations are inconsequential. The testimony of complainant about the theft committed by the accused has remained unshaken. He has stated that accused was caught red handed from the spot itself. Although, Ct. Shyam Sunder (PW-5) has not deposed about the theft of mobile phone but his testimony does provide support to the statement of complainant that accused was apprehended from the spot. It is not the case of defence that accused was either known to the complainant or he was on inimical terms with him. There is no visible reason on record to suggest that complainant would have falsely deposed against the accused. I find no reason to discard the testimony of complainant. He is a victim of the alleged offence and due sanctity should be awarded to his testimony.
13. It has been argued by the defence that there are infirmities in the investigation. Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that evidence on record suggests that all the proceedings were carried out at the police station and this fact raises doubt over the prosecution' s story. I am not impressed with this argument. Even if, there are infirmities in investigation, still, accused does not stand to gain any advantage. I am of the considered opinion that police officials have duly proved the investigation part. SI O.P.Mandal (PW-7) stated that after receiving information about theft, he immediately reached the spot alongwith Ct. Praveen Kumar (PW-6) where the complainant as well as Ct. Shyam Sunder (PW-5) met him and handed over the custody of accused. He mentioned that he recorded the statement of complainant and seized the mobile phone as well as cash amount of Rs.650/-. He stated that after FIR No.568/2014 State Vs Ravi Kumar @ Chiku Page 7 of 9 recording the statement of complainant, he prepared rukka and handed it over to Ct. Praveen Kumar, who took it to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. Ct. Praveen Kumar (PW-6) has supported and corroborated the statement of this witness. Testimony of these witnesses establishes the entire chain of investigation.
14. Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that the sole testimony of complainant can not form the basis of conviction. He has argued that in the absence of any corroboration, the testimony of complainant can not be relied on. I fail to agree with the said line of argument. There is no rule of evidence that any particular number of witnesses must be examined to prove a fact. It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which is relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgement titled as " Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar Vs State of Maharashtra" reported in 2008 Crl. LJ 1023 upheld a conviction under Section 302 IPC based on the sole testimony of a witness. The Court held that " on the basis of a solitary evidence conviction can be maintained. It made a reference to Section 134 and held that no particular number of witnesses are required to establish the case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained." There is no reason to doubt the testimony of complainant. No previous enmity between the complainant and accused has been alleged or proved. The un-controverted testimony of complainant is sufficient to establish charges against accused. Moreover, his testimony finds corroboration from the statement of Ct. Shyam Sunder (PW-5). Police officials have acted promptly. The recovered mobile phone as well as cash amount of FIR No.568/2014 State Vs Ravi Kumar @ Chiku Page 8 of 9 Rs.650/- was sealed in a pullanda and it was deposited at Malkhana of Police Station Paharganj. The relevant entries in Register No.19 have been proved as Ex.PW-7/B. The said entry demonstrate that the recovered mobile phone and cash was immediately deposited at the Malkhana. There is no delay which may raise any doubt.
15. There is overwhelming evidence to prove that accused robbed the complainant by putting him under the fear of inflicting injury with a blade. The unblemished testimony of complainant establishes this fact. The testimony of complainant does find corroboration from the statement of Ct. Shyam Sunder (PW-5). In these facts, it would be grossly unfair to discard the evidence merely because public witnesses were not joined during investigation. Police officials have stated that they made efforts to join public witness but no one agreed. Record does demonstrate that efforts were made by the police to join independent witnesses. The evidence leaves no scope for doubt that accused committed an offence under Section 392 IPC. Accordingly, accused Ravi Kumar @ Chiku stands convicted under Section 392 IPC.
Be heard separately on point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK) on 27.06.2015 ACMM-01/(CENTRAL)/DELHI
It is certified that this judgment contains 09 (Nine) pages and each page bears my signature.
(SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK) ACMM-01/(CENTRAL)/DELHI FIR No.568/2014 State Vs Ravi Kumar @ Chiku Page 9 of 9