Delhi District Court
State vs Sukhmeet Singh on 14 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : SH. NITESH GOEL
STATE V SUKHMEET SINGH
FIR No. 67/11
Police Station: Vikas Puri
Under Section: 392/342 IPC
CNR no. DLSW02 027043-2019
Date of institution : 08.06.2011
Date of reserving : 06.10.2023
Date of pronouncement : 14.10.2023
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case 12130/19
b) Date of commission of offence 24.02.2011
c) Name of the complainant Sarjeet Singh s/o Narain
Singh.
d) Name, parentage and address Sukhmeet Singh s/o Sh. Jas-
of the accused pal Singh r/o House no. C-18
Bali Nagar, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of Section 392/342 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquitted
h) Date of final order 14.10.2023
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
1. The present case was registered against the accused is that on STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 1 24.02.2011 at about 01.00 AM in between Neelkamal Apartments and Dusshera Ground, Vikaspuri, within the jurisdiction of PS-Vikaspuri, accused committed robbery of one mobile phone and Rs. 140/- in cash as per seizure memo Mark-X which was in the possession of complainant Surjeet Singh which accused robbed him and thus accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. Further, on the above said date, time and place, while committing the robbery of mobile phone and cash as aforesaid, accused wrongfully confined the complainant in the Swift car bearing no. DL-9C-Y-0613 and thereby committed an offence under Section 342 IPC.
2. Accused was summoned. Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused. On the basis of prima-facie evidence on record charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 392/342 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined seven witnesses.
4. PW 1 Sh. Sarjeet Singh has deposed that he had been working as a Security Guard in the Chauhan Security Service at West Sagar Pur, Delhi. He do not remember the exact date and month of the incident. However, the incident took place in the year 2011. On that day he was on his duty at Dusehara Ground, Vikas STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 2 Puri. The incident took place in the night on the aforesaid day. On that night, he was getting the vehicles parked alone. At that time, one Sardar came on a car and asked for one address. Witness failed identify the accused as the matter pertains to one year back. He asked him as to where do you want to go. The said Sardar offered him to sit inside his car and he boarded the same. He started the car and took him towards the side of Neel Kamal Apartments. The said Sardar then asked him to what do you have in your pocket and then snatched his mobile phone and Rs. 140/-. Then the said Sardar made him de-board from his car. Thereafter, he narrated the incident to one Security Guard present at the gate of one apartment. In the meanwhile, one PCR van reached there. He narrated the incident to the police officials. After 15-20 minutes, the PCR van came back at the spot alongwith the accused and the said car. The police officials asked him to identify the accused as well as the car. During the investigation the witness identified the accused as well as the car.
5. He had proved the complaint Ex. PW 1/A , seizure memo of the mobile phone and Rs. 140 / and Car bearing no DL 9CY 0613 Ex. PW 1/B and Ex. PW 1/C, arrest memo and the personal seizure memo Ex. PW 1/D and Ex. PW 1/E. He correctly identified the photographs of mobile phone and cash Ex. P1 to Ex. P6.
6. ld. APP had sought the permission of the court as witness was not disclosing the complete facts.
STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 3 During cross examination by ld. APP . Thereafter he was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused where he had stated that he along with accused and police person went to PS after the apprehension of the accused. His statement was recorded by the police at PS. He did not put any identification mark on the currency notes. Police did not recorded the statement of the security guard as he was a old person. He admitted that he did not tell the PCR personnel about the looks and appearance of person who had robbed him when PCR reached at Neelkamal apartment before the apprehension of the accused. Then said that he informed them that accused was young sardar. He wrote the number of alleged car on his hand and told the same to the PCR and they wrote the number on paper. After apprehension, the accused was searched by him and police official.
7. PW2 Sh. Raghvendra Singh Chauhan has deposed that he carry on a security service in the name of Chauhan Security Services at RZ-7A, gali no. 14-A, Durga park, Nasir Pur, Delhi and also make available guards in the marriage parties etc. In the intervening night of 23/24.02.2011, he had provided his guard Pancham Singh and Sarjeet Singh at the Dussera Ground, Vikas Puri to the Kaka Tent House, Mahavir Nagar, Delhi, On the said night, the incident of beating and snatching mobile phone and rupees was taken place with the guard Sarjeet Singh there and he informed him on the said night in this regard on the telephone. As he was busy at another place, so he could not reach at the spot on that night. Thereafter, he came to the PS with his security guard Sarjeet Singh. He handed STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 4 over copy of the registration certificate of his security agency to the IO which is marked as Mark A. The original RC of his security agency and copy of the certificate Mark-A is Ex. PW-2/A (OSR).
He was cross examined by ld. Defence counsel.
8. PW-3 ASI Anil, deposed that on 23/24.02.2011 at around 1.50 A.M. he alongwith Const. Sandeep and one driver was on patrolling duty in PCR van in the Vikas Puri area. When they reached in front of Triveni Apartments, one person raised his hand towards the PCR van. They moved towards him and asked his name. His name was Sarjeet and he stated that one person snatched his mobile and Rs.140/- from his possession. The complainant stated that person asked him to sit in his car and show him the way to go outside of the area. The complainant agreed to sit in his car for his help but the accused increased the speed of the car and forcefully snatched his mobile and Rs.140/- and dropped him near Triveni Apartments after slapping him. The complainant told the number of the said car DL9CY-0613. He asked him to remain there only and he alongwith police staff went to the nearby area in search of the accused. He found the said car near Mamta Model School, Vikas Pari. He stopped the car and interrogated the driver. i.e.. accused. Const. Sandeep sat in the car of the accused and all of them came to Triveni Apartments. Complainant Sarjeet identified the said car and the driver there and then. He conducted the personal search of the accused and found one mobile phone make Karbonn and Rs. 140/- which was identified by the complainant. The STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 5 name of the accused revealed as Sukhmeet. Thereafter, he informed in the control room regarding the incident and asked the concerned person to send the local police. After sometime. ASI Dharambir alongwith one constable reached at the spot. The IO recorded the statement of the complainant and prepare the rukka. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo already Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PWI/E respectively both. Thereafter, IO seized the mobile phone and cash Rs.140/- recovered from the possession of the accused vide memo already Ex.PW1/B. IO also seized the car of the accused bearing registration No. DL9CY-0613 vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/C. The photographs of mobile phone, cash and the car was correctly identified and are already Ex.P-1 to P-6 collectively. Witness correctly identified the accused.
During cross examination he stated that they met the complainant at around 1.50 A.M. They did not inform in the control room about the incident through wireless just after meeting the complainant. He reduced in writing the incident told by the complainant in the call log maintained by the PCR van. He did not hand over the same to the IO personally nor did the IO ask for the same. He told the complete incident told by the complainant to the IO about the accused making the complainant board the car, slapping him and snatching mobile and cash. He admitted that the above-mentioned fact is not mentioned by the IO in his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC which is Ex.PW3/D1. He had informed the PCR control room after they have taken the accused to Triveni Apartments and have searched him. He admitted that the said accused alongwith car was intercepted by the they STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 6 did not inform the PCR control room immediately. The complainant has informed them that a person has snatched cash and mobile from him however, no other particulars about his facial appearance, clothes etc. were not told by the complainant. Neither did the complainant ask them to permit him to accompany them nor he asked the complainant to accompany them for searching the accused. The witness was shown PCR call log of 2.55 A.M. bearing entry No. P-4 wherein it is mentioned that while patrolling, the witness reached near N.K. Apartment where they met the SHO Vikas Puri who asked them to leave Const. Sandeep there at the picket and that the PCR was going away after leaving the said Const. The witness identifies the said entry to be in his writing. He could not recollect the PCR entry appearing at point A to A vide Ex.PW3/D2. He left the spot in the middle for dropping the Const. Sandeep at the picket and thereafter he came back at the spot. N.K. stands for Neelkamal Apartment and it is opposite the Triveni Apartments.
9. PW-4 Ct. Sandeep deposed on the lines of PW 3.
During cross examination he deposed that he did not ask the complainant sit in the PCR to make search of the accused. The complainant only told about that the accused was Sardar and the vehicle number only and not whole description of the accused. He do not know whether incharge of PCR had written down on his note register of the vehicle number. The complainant met them near Neel Kamal Apartment however he had not observed if any guard was present on STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 7 the said apartment. The cursory search of accused was done by incharge of PCR. He do not know whether the incharge had recorded the serial number of currency notes which were allegedly recovered from the accused.
10. PW 5 SI Dhanpat has proved the FIR and endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW 5/A and Ex. PW 5/B ( OSR). Witness also proved the DD no. 6A vide Ex. PW 5/C.
11. PW 6 Retd SI Dharambir Singh has deposed that on 24.2.2011 he received the DD NO 6A and thereafter he alongwith Ct. Rajiv reached in front of Neelkamal Appartments, Service Road, Dusherra Ground, Vikas Puri where they found the complainant alongwith the PCR officials and the accused. Witness correctly identified the accused. The complainant Surjeet handed over a mobile phone and cash Rs. 140/- which was recovered from the accused. The case property were seized in a pulanda and the same was sealed with DBS vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter he recorded the statement of complainant which is already Ex. PW1/A. On the basis of said statement he prepared rukka. The rukka was handed over to Ct Rajiv for registration of the FIR.
12. In the meantime he prepared the site plans at the instance of the complainant which is already Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G. In the meantime, Ct. Rajiv came with copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 8 him. He arrested the accused after interrogation vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/D. Personal search of accused was got conducted vide memo already Ex. PW1/E. The car of the accused was also seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/C. During investigation he recorded the statement of witnesses. During investigation the vehicle and the phone were released on superdarinama vide Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was prepared and the same was filed before the concerned Court. The case property is already Ex.P1 to Ex. P6.
During cross-examination he stated that he reached at the said place within 10 minutes of the information. The guards of the appartments were at distance from the service road. He admitted that the said recovery was not done in his presence. He had not prepared the seal handing over memo. No identification mark were done on the said currency notes which he seized. He had not taken the signatures of the complainant on the site plans. He had mentioned the FIR Number and the details on the site plan and the seizure memo of the case property after the registration of the FIR when Ct Rajiv came there. He admitted he had not mentioned the same in the charge-sheet.
13. PW 7 MHCM has proved the entry no. 1516 dated 24.02.2011 in register no. 19 vide Ex. PW 7/A (OSR).
14. Thereafter PE was closed. Statement of the accused persons was STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 9 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations leveled against him. He stated that the prosecution witnesses have wrongly identified him and all the documents were prepared while sitting in the PS and he was made to sign certain blank papers and blank proforma by the IO. He further stated that he he had been falsely implicated in this matter. The reception function of his relative was going on the Dussehara Ground and complainant, who was deputed as security guard in the parking area was not present there and because of this the guest were facing inconvenience and the he had rebuked and scolded the complainant and warned him of complaining against to his employer. The complainant took grudge against him and falsely implicated him in the present matter. Neither he have committed alleged offense nor any alleged robbed articles were recovered from him. Accused opted to lead defence evidence.
15. During defence evidence accused himself examined as DW 1 and has deposed that on 23.02.2011 he was attending the reception function of his relative in Dussehara Ground Vikas Puri along with his parents. At about 12 to 12:30 in the mid night he went to the parking area to bring his car to take his parents back to home however in the parking area as the many vehicle were parked in haphazard manner and he was unable to take car out. When he was looking the valet parking / guard managing the parking area he could not find him and after some search, a security guard was found sitting on side and was smoking some type of cigarette. He asked him that he should be doing his duty as because of his absence, guest STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 10 were facing inconvenience in taking out their car however he started arguing with him. Heated arguments ensued between them and he warned him that he would report to his employer and went to look for the incharge inside the tent / Pandal. He narrated the incident to his brother in law and relatives and asked them to report the matter to employer of security guard but they asked him not to escalate the matter it being the family function and they asked him to leave after some time and not to spoil mood. After about half an hour when he again went out towards to the parking area to fetch his car. Police personnel were present there and the guard pointed towards him and the police official made his sit in the police vehicle. The police official did not let him call any one from inside the pandal and was driven to the PS. He was cross examined by ld. APP.
16. Thereafter defence evidence was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
17. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused and perused the record carefully. Ld. APP for State argued that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused is liable to be convicted and for maximum punishment. It is further submitted that accused has been falsely implicated, therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted.
18. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 11 to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Since, there is a strong presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, rebuttal of the same always lies upon the prosecution. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
19. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 wherein it was held that accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
20. In another case titled as Mousam Singh Roy & ors. vs. State of West Benga (2003) 12 SCC 377, it was held that burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. It was further observed that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused persons.
STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 12 OBSERVATION
21. In the present matter PW 1, who is the complainant in the present matter had not identified the accused in the court. No court TIP of the accused had been conducted by the IO from the complainant in the present matter at the time just after when offence had happened.
22. PW 6, who is the IO in the present matter has stated that before the registration of FIR he had seized the mobile phone and cash of Rs. 140/- from the accused however there is find the mention of FIR number on the seizure memo of the mobile phone and cash vide Ex. PW 1/B.
23. No seal handing over memo had been prepared by the IO. Further, the seal after use had not been handed over to any independent witness. The possibility that the case property had been planted upon the accused cannot be ruled out.
24. In the wireless log and diary of PCR which is Ex PW 3/D2, there is entry made by the PCR in charge at about 2:55 am that SHO had asked PCR incharge to drop the Ct Sandeep at picket. However, Ct. Sandeep in his testimony had nowhere deposed this fact before the court. Further, there is find a mention of the signature of the Ct. Sandeep as the witness to the arrest memo Ex. PW 1/D of STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 13 the accused Sukhmeet. And the time of arrest is 4:20 am on 24.02.2011. The court is of the view that if Ct. Sandeep had been already dropped at the picket on the direction of SHO PS Vikas Puri by the PCR in charge then how his signature had come on the arrest memo prepared at 4:20 am. The clarification as to how he had reached at the spot where the accused was arrested has not come on record.
25. As per PW 1 all the formalities and the paper work had been done in the PS. He had admitted in his cross examination that after apprehending accused the police official had taken accused along with him to the PS. Whereas PW 6 had deposed that he had prepared all the documents i.e. site plan, arrest memo, personal search memo and seizure memo at the spot only. Further, PW 3 and PW 4 are also deposing on the lines of PW 6 i.e. IO that all the documents had been prepared at the spot only.
26. The IO had stated that site plan had been prepared by him at the site only in the presence of complainant. It bring suspicion to the court that if the site plan Ex PW1/F had been prepared in the presence of complainant then why the signature of the complainant had not been taken on the site plan as witness.
27. PW 1 had deposed that one Sardar had come in the car and asked for address, however in Ex. PW 1/A i.e. complaint he had stated that one Sardar Boy had asked him the way to get out from the Vikas Puri.
STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 14
28. There are so many contradiction and discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses and it becomes very difficult to the court to believe in the testimonies of witnesses.
29. Even if the court believes that the testimony of witnesses are true then it is in-digestible to the court that a person whose father is owning a swift car and had given the car to his son for driving, would steal Rs. 140/- and Karbonn mobile phone worth of Rs. 1000/- from the complainant who works as a security guard.
30. In view of above discussion, this court do not believe in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. In view of the same accused stands acquitted for the offence u/s 392/342 IPC.
31. Documents, if any be returned to the rightful person. Endorsement, if any be cancelled. Bail bonds stand canceled. Superdignama if any, be cancelled.
Nitesh Digitally signed by
Nitesh Goel
Announced in open court on 14.10.2023.
Goel Date: 2023.10.14
16:25:31 +0530
(Nitesh Goel)
Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (South-West)
14.10.2023
STATE V SUKHMEET FIR No. 67/11 PS: Vikas Puri U/S : 392/342 IPC 15