Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sc No. 109/14 State vs . Karan Etc. Page No. 1/22 on 5 December, 2015

               IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, 
               ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­05, WEST, TIS HAZARI 
                               COURTS, DELHI.

         IN THE MATTER OF
         SESSIONS CASE NO. 109/14
         ID No. 02401R0301192014
         FIR NO. 389/14
         P.S. Janak Puri, U/S  392/397/411/34 IPC. 

         STATE
                           VERSUS

         1. Karan, 
         S/o Sh. Bhakat Bhadur, 
         r/o RZ­B4, Sita Puri, Delhi. 

         2. Deepak, 
         S/o Sh. Prem Chand, 
         r/o RZG­54, Sita Puri, Delhi. 

         DATE OF INSTITUTION                                            :        04.08.2014
         DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER                                    :        27.11.2015
         DATE OF DECISION                                               :        01.12.2015

         JUDGEMENT

1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2014, SI along with other police officials was on patrolling duty in the area and when he reached at C4E bus stand, Janak Puri, Delhi then complainant Rakesh S/o Harbans Singh Rajput, r/o A­5B/61B, Janak Puri, Delhi met him and complainant told him about the incident. Senior police officials were informed about the incident and SI Ajit Singh along with other police officials and complainant went in search of three boys. The three boys were SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 1/22 seen at C5A Block Janakpuri, near dustbin and complainant identified the three boys who had snatched money and mobile phone. The three boys were apprehended and upon interrogation one boy disclosed his name as Karan Kumar S/o Bhakat Bhadur and on checking one mobile phone and Ustara were recovered, a sum of Rs. 500/­ was recovered from Abhishek and a sum of Rs. 400/­ was recovered from Deepak. Thereafter, statement of complainant was recorded and he stated that he is doing job in Luminos Company. On 06.04.2014, he went to Shahpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan at his ancestral village and was returning to his house. At about 12:00 mid night he after getting down from the bus at Dhaula Kuan, he hired TSR to his house and TSR left him at Dabri More, thereafter, he was walking towards his house. He reached at C4E Janakpuri bus stand at about 01:15 AM. The three boys were already seated at the bus stand. One of them asked him about the availability of the bus to which he replied that there is no schedule for the bus. The other two boys also asked whether bus will be available or not and complainant told them that during night bus will not be available and he continued for walking. After covering some distance, three boys came to him, one boy looking like Nepali put Ustara (razor) on his neck and threatened him to hand over all the belongings otherwise he will be killed. That boy had took mobile phone from the front pocket of his shirt and second boy had snatched Rs. 500/­ from pocket of his pant and the third boy snatched Rs. 400/­ from inside pocket. The three boys threatened him that if he will raise any noise then SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 2/22 they will not spare him. They ran towards C4E Market. The complainant raised noise and he saw one police vehicle coming towards him. He narrated the incident to police officials. In the meanwhile, two police officials also came on motorcycle. Search of the accused persons were made on the basis of statement of complainant. The complainant also mentioned in his statement that the boy, who had put Ustara on his neck disclosed his name as Karan and Ustara and mobile phone were recovered from him. The second boy had disclosed his name as Abhishek and a sum of Rs. 500/­ was recovered from him and the third boy disclosed his name as Deepak and Rs. 400/­ was recovered from him. From Deepak, two notes of Rs. 100 denomination, 2 notes of Rs. 50 denomination and 10 notes of Rs. 10 denomination were recovered.

2. On the basis of statement of complainant FIR was registered and thereafter, investigation was carried out by the IO. During investigation, Ustara, mobile phone and Rs. 900/­ was taken into possession by the police. Sketch of Ustara, seizure memo of Ustara, seizure memo of cash, seizure memo of mobile phone and arrest memo of accused were prepared. During investigation, Abhishek was declared juvenile and chargesheet against accused Deepak and Karan filed u/s. 392/397/411/34 IPC.

3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge for the offence punishable U/s 392/34 IPC was framed against both SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 3/22 the accused persons. Separate charge u/s. 397 IPC & u/s. 411 IPC framed against accused Karan and separate charge u/s. 411 IPC framed against accused Deepak to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charges were framed on 04.08.2014.

4. In order to prove its case the Prosecution has examined 07 witnesses i.e. PW­1 Rakesh Singh; PW­2 HC Stabir; PW­3 ASI Ramesh Kumar; PW­4 Ct. RAjbir; PW­5 HC Mast Ram; PW­6 HC Dharam Singh and PW­7 SI Ajeet.

5. PW­1 Rakesh Singh is complainant in the present case. This witness deposed that on 06.04.2014, he was coming back from Shahpura, Rajasthan and after letting down from the bus at Dhaula Kuan, he boarded a TSR for going to his house. He left the TSR at Dabri Mode at about 01.10 AM (07.04.2014) and he started on foot towards his house. When he reached at the bus stand C­4E, Janak Puri, Delhi, he saw three boys were standing there and one of them asked him about the availability of the bus at that odd hours to which he replied that now there is no schedule for the bus and he continued walking towards his house. This witness also deposed that all of a sudden, those three boys came to him, one of them placed 'Ustara' (razor) on his neck and threatened him by saying that in case he raised alarm, he will cut his neck and threatened to kill him. The remaining two boys started snatching cash from his pockets while grappling with him.

SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 4/22

They even checked his bag, all his pockets and took away his mobile phone and cash of Rs.900/­. Lateron, the name of the boy who placed 'Ustara' on his neck revealed as Karan. The name of other two boys were revealed as Deepak and Abhishek. It is also stated that the said boys ran away towards C­4E market, by threatening him that in case he raised alarm, they will not spare him. He raised alarm and noticed one PCR Van and one police bike coming in the area. He approached them and narrated the incident and also told them about the description of the culprits. He was made sit in the PCR Gypsy and they went for the search of accused persons. This witness further deposed that when they reached near the Mandir at Vidhya Marg, he noticed the abovesaid three boys and he pointed out towards them. Those three boys were overpowered by the police. His mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Karan and one 'Ustara' (razor) was also recovered from his possession and the same were handed over to the police. Cash of Rs.400/­(two currency notes of Rs.100/­ denomination, two currency notes of Rs.50/­ denomination and 10 currency notes of Rs.10/­ denomination) was recovered from the possession of accused Deepak and further a cash of Rs.500/­ was recovered from the third boy Abhishek. This witness deposed that IO prepared sketch Ex. PW­1/A of the 'Ustara' (Razor), sealed and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW­1/B. His mobile phone make 'Nokia'­3500 was also seized vide memo Ex.PW­1/C. The cash recovered from the possession of accused Deepak was also seized SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 5/22 vide memo Ex. PW­1/D. This witness identify his signatures on documents Ex. PW­1/A to Ex. PW­1/D. This witness stated that IO recorded his statement Ex.PW­1/E. The cash recovered from the possession of accused Abhishek was also seized vide memo Ex.PW­1/F. The accused Karan and Deepak were arrested vide memo Ex.PW­1/G and Ex.PW­1/H. Their Jama Talashi was conducted vide memo Ex.PW­1/J and Ex.PW­1/K. This witness also identify his signatures on documents Ex. PW­1/E to PW­1/K.

6. PW­2 HC Satbir deposed that on 07.04.2014 on receipt of Rukka he registered FIR Ex. PW­2/A. This witness proved the endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW­2/B and certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW­2/C.

7. PW­3 ASI Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 07.04.2014, he was posted as ASI PS Janak Puri as driver. On that day, he was on duty alongwith SI Ajit Singh on vehicle no.DL­1CM­9842 and they were on night petrolling duty. During the night of 06/07.04.2014 when they reached near C­4E, Bus Stand, Janak Puri, the complainant Rakesh Singh met them and informed to the IO that he was robbed by three persons on the point of 'Ustara'. They have taken away his mobile phone and Rs.900/­ and they all run towards C­4E market side. This witness also deposed that thereafter, HC Mast Ram and Ct. Rajbir also reached there and they alongwith the complainant went towards C­4E market, Janak Puri where at the instance and identification of the SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 6/22 complainant, all the three accused persons/robbers were apprehended near C­5E Janak Puri, whose name were revealed as Abhishek, Deepak and Karan. This witness correctly identified accused Deepak and Karan present before the Court. This witness deposed that from the possession of accused Karan, one Ustara and one mobile phone were recovered and from the possession of accused Abhishek and Deepak, Rs.500/­ and Rs.400/­ were recovered. The 'Ustara' was measured by the IO and he prepared a sketch. The sketch of Ustara is already exhibited as Ex. PW­1/A, the seizure memo of mobile phone is exhibited as Ex.PW­1/C, the seizure memo of Ustara is exhibited as Ex. PW­1/B. The currency notes recovered from the possession of accused Deepak were seized vide memo Ex. PW­1/D and that of accused Abhishek is already exhibited as ex. PW­1/F. This witness identify his signatures on all the memos. This witness deposed that, IO prepared rukka and got the case registered. Thereafter, all the accused persons were arrested vide memos exhibited as Ex. PW­1/G and Ex.PW­1/H. Their personal search memo were prepared vide memos exhibited as Ex.PW­1/J and Ex.PW­1/K. This witness deposed that IO also prepared the site plan and recorded his statement. This witness proved Ustara "Razor" as Ex. P­1, mobile phone as Ex. P­2, cash of Rs. 400/­ as Ex. P­3 and cash of Rs. 500/­ as Ex. P­4.

8. PW­4 Ct. Rajbir had deposed that on 06/07.04.2014, he was on night patrolling duty from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM on motorcycle SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 7/22 with HC Mastram. During patrolling duty when they reached at C­4E, Near Janakpuri, Bus Stand, SI Ajit Singh, ASI Ramesh and one public person namely Rakesh Kumar met them. Public person Rakesh told that three boys have robbed his mobile phone and Rs. 900/­ and they fled towards C­5, Vidya Marg, Jail Road, Janak Puri side. Thereafter, they along with the aforesaid police staffs and complainant went towards C­5, A­Block, Janak Puri side, where the complainant pointed out towards three boys, who were going in front of the garbage box on road. Those three boys revealed their names as Karan Kumar, Abhishek and Deepak. This witness correctly identified accused Karan Kumar and Deepak and stated that JCL Abhishek is not present as he is facing trial before Juvenile Court. This witness also deposed that on the search of accused Karan Kumar, one mobile phone and one ustra (barber knife) was recovered from his right side pocket of pant. From the right pocket of the pant of accused Abhishek Rs. 500/­ were recovered and from the right pocket of accused Deepak Rs. 400/­ in denomination of Rs. 100 x 2, Rs. 10x10 and Rs. 50 x 2 were recovered. This witness deposed that IO prepared sketch of the ustra, which was proved Ex. PW­1/A. The seizure memo of mobile phone was proved as Ex. PW­1/C, seizure memo of ustra was proved Ex. PW­1/B, seizure memo of Rs. 500/­ was proved Ex. PW­1/F and seizure memo of Rs. 400/­ was proved Ex. PW­1/D. This witness deposed that IO arrested the accused persons namely Karan, Abhishek and Deepak vide memos Ex. PW­1/G, Ex. PW­4/A, Ex. PW­1/H, and conducted their personal SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 8/22 search vide memos, which are Ex. PW­1/J, Ex. PW­4/B and Ex. PW­1/K. This witness identify his signatures on all the memos. This witness proved Ustara "Razor" as Ex. P­1, mobile phone as Ex. P­2, cash of Rs. 400/­ as Ex. P­3 and cash of Rs. 500/­ as Ex. P­4.

9. PW­5 HC Mast Ram has deposed on the lines of PW­3, PW­4 and deposed that on 07.04.2014, he was posted at PS Janak Puri. On that day, he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Rajbir on govt. motorcycle. When they reached near C­4 Bus Stand, Janak Puri, there SI Ajit Singh, ASI Ramesh and complainant Rakesh Singh met them. As per the information received from the complainant, they proceeded alongwith IO and ASI Ramesh for the search of the accused persons towards C­4E Janak Puri Market. When they reached near कूडेदान (Garbage box), C­5A Block, there three boys were going and the complainant identified all three of them as the accused persons. The accused persons were overpowered and on enquiry, their names were revealed as Karan Kumar, Abhishek and Deepak. This witness identify accused Deepak & Karan and submitted that JCL Abhishek is not present. This witness further deposed that search of the accused persons were made and from the search of accused Karan, one mobile and Ustara were recovered from his right side pocket of pant. IO prepared the sketch of Ustara and measured the same. The sketch was proved as Ex.PW­1/A and seizure memo was proved as Ex.PW­1/B. This witness deposed that IO also prepared the seizure memo of the SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 9/22 mobile phone which was proved as Ex.PW­1/C. This witness also stated that the seizure memo of currency notes of Rs. 500/­ recovered from accused Abhishek was proved as Ex. PW­1/F and seizure memo of Rs. 400/­ recovered from accused Deepak in denomination of Rs.100/­ x 2, Rs.50/­ x 2 and Rs.10/­ x 10/­ was proved as Ex. PW­1/D. This witness proved Ustara "Razor" as Ex. P­1, mobile phone as Ex. P­2, cash of Rs. 400/­ as Ex. P­3 and cash of Rs. 500/­ as Ex. P­4. This witness stated that IO recorded his statement.

10. PW­6 HC Dharam Singh has deposed that on 07.04.2014, he was posted at PS Janak Puri as MHC(M). On that day, IO deposited one pullanda of 'Ustara', duly sealed with the seal of AS and one pullanda of Mobile Phone, make Nokia blue & black colour, Rs. 400/­(in denomination of Rs.100/­ x 2, Rs. 50/­ x 2 and Rs.10/­ x

10), recovered from accused Deepak Kumar, one Currency note of Rs.500/­ recovered from accused Abhishek and personal search of accused Karan Kumar i.e.one Mobile phone Nokia and black purse and personal search of accused Abhishek i.e.one purse black colour and one small diary. This witness stated that IO also submitted the photocopies of the seizure memo to him. Regarding deposit of the case property, he made entry in register no. 19 at srl.no. 3255. The photocopy of the entry is Ex. PW­6/A.

11. PW­7 SI Ajit Singh, is the investigating officer of the present case. This witness deposed that on 07.04.2014, he was posted at SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 10/22 PS Janak Puri and was on night emergency duty. On that day, in the midnight at about 12:30 AM, he alongwith ASI Ramesh (Driver) of govt. Gypsy left the PS after lodging their departure entry for night patrolling. When they reached A­1 Block at about 12:45 AM, they checked the staff who were already on patrolling duty. At about 01:00 AM, they reached C­1 Block police picket and thereafter reached Dabri mode at about 01:15 AM. When they were going towards the District Park and reached C­4E Block bus stand, there on seeing the police vehicle one person signaled us to stop by raising his both hands. He instructed the driver to stop the vehicle and alighted from vehicle. The said person disclosed his name as Rakesh. He disclosed that his house is situated at A­5B Block while he was going towards his house on foot and when he reached near C­4E bus stand, three persons met him and they robbed his mobile phone, cash of Rs.900/­ on the point of 'Ustara' which was used by the person who was looking like Nepal national. He further disclosed that the robbers went towards C­4E market side. This witness deposed that in the meanwhile, HC Mast Ram and Ct.Rajbir also reached at that spot and he disclosed about the present incident to them. Thereafter, complainant Rakesh also sat in Gypsy and they went towards the market of C­4E market. When they reached in front of C­5A Block in search of the robbers, they saw three persons who were going towards Sagarpur and on seeing those three persons, complainant disclosed that those three persons are the same persons who have robbed his mobile phone and cash of Rs.900/­ SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 11/22 on the point of Ustara. This witness further deposed that all the three persons were apprehended by him with the help of HC Mast Ram and Ct. Rajbir who were also following them on a motorcycle. On interrogation, the person who looked like a Nepal national disclosed his name Karan another person disclosed his name as Deepak, both the accused were identified by the witness. The third persons also disclosed his name as Abhishek and witness stated that JCL Abhishek is facing trial in Juvenile Court. This witness further deposed that the complainant was asked to conduct the formal search of accused persons and on a formal search of accused Karan, one Ustara which was used by him at the time of incident and one mobile phone Make Nokia of Blue and Black colour was recovered and the said mobile phone was identified by complainant Rakesh to be the same which was robbed by them. On the formal search of JCL Abhishek, one currency note of Rs. 500 denomination was recovered and on the formal search of accused Deepak a sum of Rs. 400/­ consisting of 2 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination and 2 currency notes of Rs. 50 denomination and 10 currency notes of Rs. 10 denomination were recovered. This witness deposed that he prepared the sketch of recovered Ustara and measured, which was proved as Ex. PW­1/A and seizure memo of "Ustara" was proved as Ex. PW­1/B and seizure memo of mobile phone was proved as Ex. PW­1/C. This witness identify his signatures on seizure memos. This witness deposed that the currency note of Rs. 500 denomination recovered from JCL Abhishek and seizure SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 12/22 memo was proved as Ex. PW­1/F. The currency notes of Rs. 400/­, which were recovered from the possession of accused Deepak and seizure memo was proved as Ex. PW­1/D. This witness deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant and same was proved as Ex. PW­1/E. This witness deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW­7/A and handed over the same to Ct. Rajbir for the registration of the FIR. Ct. Rajbir went to PS and got registered the FIR and came back at the spot with the copy of FIR No. 389/14 and original rukka and same were handed over to him. Thereafter, he put the FIR number on the sketch of Ustara and all the seizure memos as well as case property. Accused persons were interrogated and accused Karan Kumar and Deepak were arrested vide arrest Ex. PW­1/G and Ex. PW­1/H and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex. PW­1/J and Ex. PW­1/K. This witness identify his signatures on the memos. This witness further deposed that JCL Abhishek was also arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW­4/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW­4/B. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan of place of recovery Ex. PW­7/B. This witness stated that he also prepared the site plan of place of occurrence on the pointing out of complainant, which is Ex. PW7/C. The disclosure statements of both the accused were recorded, which is Ex. PW­7/D and Ex. PW­7/E. This witness proved Ustara "Razor" as Ex. P­1, mobile phone as Ex. P­2, cash of Rs. 400/­ as Ex. P­3 and cash of Rs. 500/­ as Ex. P­4.

SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 13/22

12. Statement of both the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which all the incriminating evidence put to them. Accused Deepak has stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Similar statement was given by accused Karan. After closer of statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused Deepak examined Smt. Kalawati Devi his mother as DW­1, who has deposed that on 07.04.2014, at about 5:00 AM, her son Deepak had gone for morning walk from the house but her son did not return home upto 8:00 AM and at about 01:00 PM, she received a phone call from the lawyer from Tis Hazari Court and he informed her that her son Deepak was in police custody at Tis Hazari Court and he called her at Tis Hazari Court. Thereafter, he ranged her elder son Rakesh and informed the facts to him.

13. I have heard ld. Chief PP for the State and Sh. Ashok Gahlout, ld.

Counsel for accused Deepak and ld. Amicus curiae for accused Karan and perused the record carefully.

14. It is contended by Sh. Ashok Gahlout, ld. Counsel for accused Deepak and ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Karan that all the proceedings were carried out in the Police Station. PW­1 stated that all the recovery were effected in the PS and he signed all the documents in PS. PW­1 has given date of incident as 07.04.2014. The complainant has not given any reason that why after hiring TSR he was going on foot to his house. PW­1 is not sure whether PCR met him or whether Gypsy met him during night hours. It is SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 14/22 stated by PW­1 that he remained at the spot for about 15­20 minutes and during this time of 15­20 minutes entire proceedings cannot be carried out. Prosecution has not placed on record any documents to show that complainant was owner of the mobile phone. The public persons were not joined in the investigation. The accused persons were arrested at 6:00 AM but PW­1 had deposed that he left the PS at 3:30 AM. FIR bears the signatures of the complainant, which shows that entire proceedings were carried out in the PS. In the rukka belt number of Ct. Mast Ram is not mentioned. FIR is not same as per rukka. The prosecution is not able to prove the case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is prayed that both the accused be acquitted.

On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State contends that prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused. PW­1 stands firm during his cross examination and ld. Counsel for the accused is not able to dent the testimony in any manner. Witnesses PW­4, PW­5 & PW­7 also supported the case of the prosecution and ld. Counsel for the accused is not able to shatter their testimonies in any manner. It is prayed that accused persons be held guilty.

15. Now, I am dealing the contentions of Sh. Ashok Gahlout, ld.

Counsel for accused Deepak and ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Karan and ld. Addl. PP for the State one by one.

SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 15/22

16. It is contended by ld. Counsel for both the accused that it is not probable that complainant after letting down from the bus at Dhaula Kuan, boarded a TSR for going to his house. It is contended that it is not believable that complainant left the TSR at Dabri More and he was going to his house on foot.

The complainant has given minute details of the incident. He stated that after letting down from the bus at Dhaula Kuan, he boarded a TSR for going to his house. PW­1 categorically stated that he proceeded to his house on foot. This witness stated that he reached at Dhaula Kuan at about 12 mid night. He waited for sometime to hire Auto rickshaw for his residence but no auto was available. This witness stated that he took auto from Dhaula Kuan to Dabri and from Dabri Mode, he was coming on foot to his residence. I am of the view that if the complainant had took Auto from Dhaula Kuan to Dabri Mode and from Dabri Mode he was going on foot to his house, it might be possible that complainant only took TSR till Dabri Mode. The complainant has given explanation that no auto was available for his residence and he took TSR till Dabri Mode. I am of the view that complainant clearly explained the position that he took TSR from Dhaula Kuan to Dabri Mode. Thus, this contention of ld. counsel for accused Deepak and ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Karan carries no force.

17. It is also contended that complainant has stated in his examination in chief that on 06.04.2014, he was coming back SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 16/22 from Shahpura, Rajasthan where in cross examination he has stated that on 07.04.2014 he left for Rajasthan at about 6:00 AM by bus. Thus, there is contradictions in the statement of complainant PW­1, therefore, both the accused persons be acquitted.

I have perused the statement of PW­1. PW­1 on 20.09.2014 deposed that on 06.04.2014, he was coming from Shahpura, Rajasthan and after letting down from the bus at Dhaula Kuan, he boarded a TSR for going to his house. This witness deposed that he left the TSR at Dabri Mode at about 01:10 AM (07.04.2014) and thereafter, incident has taken place with him. This witness in cross examination stated that on 07.04.2014, he left for Rajasthan at about 6:00 AM by bus. During cross examination ld. Addl. PP for the State had put a question to PW­1 that during your examination in chief dated 20.09.2014, you have deposed that you were returning from Shah Pura, Rajasthan to Delhi on 06.04.2014 and during that you reached at the place of incident at 1:10 AM i.e. 07.04.2014 but today during cross examination you have stated that on 07.04.2014, you left for Rajasthan at 6:00 AM and reached at Delhi at about 6:30 PM. Which of your statement is correct with regard to leaving from Shah Pura, Rajasthan to Delhi and reaching at Delhi. The witness answered that his statement dated 20.09.2014 deposed by him in the Court that he was returning from Shah Pura, Rajasthan to Delhi on 06.04.2014 is correct and this witness stated that he reached at the place of incident at 1:10 SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 17/22 AM i.e. 07.04.2014 is correct. Further question put by ld. Addl. PP for the State that then why you have deposed during your cross examination that you left for Rajasthan on 07.04.2014 at 6 AM by bus instead of 06.04.2014. The witness replied that he stated so because the incident was dated 07.04.2014. Thus, witness clarified that he left for Rajasthan from Delhi and reached Delhi on the same day and incident happened at 01:10 AM and he had given the date as 07.04.2014. Thus, this contention of ld. Counsel carries no force.

18. It is vehemently contended by ld. Counsel for accused that in the endorsement on rukka the name of ASI Ramesh Kumar and belt No. of HC Mast Ram is not mentioned.

I have perused the rukka. In the endorsement on rukka by SI Ajit Singh the number of ASI Ramesh Kumar is not mentioned and belt number of HC Mast Ram is also not mentioned. Merely, on the basis that number of ASI Ramesh Kumar and belt number of HC Mast Ram are not mentioned, both the accused cannot be acquitted when in the FIR belt number of Ramesh is mentioned as 5663/W and belt number of HC Mast Ram is mentioned as 1627/W. Thus, this contention carries no force.

19. It is contended by ld. Counsel for accused Deepak and ld.

Amicus Curiae for accused Karan that PW­1 has admitted that all the proceedings were done in the PS and all the recovery were SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 18/22 effected in the PS. Thus, it belies the case of the prosecution. It is prayed that both the accused be acquitted.

Complainant PW­1 has given minute details of the incident and he stood firm during his cross examination. If during examination the witness has submitted that all the items were recovered from the possession of accused persons at the PS then it is not helpful to the accused persons when PW­1 categorically stated that on search mobile phone and Ustara were recovered from the possession of accused Karan, cash of Rs. 400/­ (two currency notes of Rs. 100/­ denomination, two currency notes of Rs. 50/­ denomination and 10 currency notes of Rs. 10/­ denomination) was recovered from possession of accused Deepak and cash of Rs. 500/­ recovered from the third boy Abhishek. Thus, this contention carries no force.

20. It is also contended that prosecution is not able to prove that mobile phone belongs to the complainant and no bill is placed on the record.

Complainant PW­1 deposed that he had purchased the second hand mobile phone Nokia 3500 about two years before of the incident from his friend namely Mukesh for a sum of Rs. 1500/­ and he had not taken any receipt from his friend Mukesh. As PW­1 has deposed that he had taken mobile phone from his friend and if any bill is not on record then it is not helpful to both the accused when the testimony of PW­1 is not shattered in any manner. Thus, this contention carries no force.

SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 19/22

21. All the witnesses stood firm during cross examination. PW­3 deposed that he was on patrolling duty along with SI Ajit Singh on Gypsy and HC Mast Ram and Ct. Rajbir were on motorcycle. PW­1 has categorically stated that Gypsy and patroling motorcycle came at the place of incident. PW­3 has even given the registration number of Gypsy as DL­1CM­9842 and PW­4 during cross examination has also given the number of motorcycle as DL­1­SN­5548. PW­3 in the cross examination has stated that he had maintained the log book and he can produce the log book in the court, if directed but ld. Counsel for the accused at no point of time has stated that direction be given to PW­3 to bring the log book of the Gypsy. Moreover, PW­4 during cross examination categorically stated that he was driving the motorcycle, the log book of motorcycle is maintained by him and he made entry in the log book regarding patrolling. Even, this witness stated that SI Ajit Singh was in his Gypsy and complainant was also present there, who met them when they reached there. This witness also stated that the writing work was done by the IO while sitting in the Gypsy and there was light inside the Gypsy. PW­5 has categorically stated that firstly, IO had prepared sketch of "Ustara" at the spot where the accused persons were apprehended. PW­3 who is driver of the Gypsy stated that he made entry in the PS and IO PW­7 has categorically stated that before reaching the spot they remained in Block C­1 Picket, picket of Dabri Mode. This witness stated that he was on patrolling duty on Gypsy. Nothing fruitful was extracted during SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 20/22 the cross examination of PW­3 and IO PW­7, who were with the complainant in the Gypsy. Nothing fruitful was extracted during the cross examination of PW­4 & PW­5, who were on motorcycle.

Thus, it is proved that both the accused along with JCL Abhishek committed robbery on the point of "Ustara" and snatched mobile phone and Rs. 900/­ from the complainant and fled from the spot. Complainant raised noise and Gypsy being driven by PW­3 came there. Complainant met Ajit Singh. In the meantime, HC Mast Ram and Ct. Rajbir came there, who were on patrolling duty on motorcycle. All of them went towards the market of C­4E market and on the identification of the complainant both the accused along with JCL were arrested and recoveries were effected. Ld. Counsel for accused Deepak and ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Karan is not able to shatter the testimonies of PWs in any manner. All the witnesses are truthful and all the officials in one voice stated that "Ustara" and mobile phone were recovered from accused Karan and Rs. 400/­ was recovered from accused Deepak. The complainant has categorically stated that accused Karan put "Ustara" on his neck and threatened him if he would raise noise, he will be killed and accused Deepak has also taken Rs. 400/­ from packet and JCL Abhishek has taken Rs. 500/­ from the pocket of pant.

22. In view of above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has fully proved its case and established that accused Karan and Deepak are involved in SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 21/22 committing robbery. Thus, both the accused are held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s. 392/34 IPC. As accused Karan has used "Ustara" while committing robbery of mobile phone, he is also held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s. 397 IPC. As mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Karan, he is held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s. 411 IPC and as a sum of Rs. 400/­ was recovered from the possession of accused Deepak, he is also held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s. 411 IPC.

Both convicts be heard on the Quantum of Sentence.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (NARESH KR. MALHOTRA) COURT ON:01.12.2015. ASJ­05 (West), THC, Delhi.

SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan 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.109/14 FIR No. 389/14 P.S. Janak Puri U/S 392/397/411/34 IPC STATE VERSUS (1) Karan, S/o Sh. Bhakat Bhadur, r/o RZ­B4, Sita Puri, Delhi.

(2) Deepak, S/o Sh. Prem Chand, r/o RZG­54, Sita Puri, Delhi.

ORDER ON SENTENCE 05.12.2015 :

Present : Sh.R.K.Pandey, Ld. Chief P.P.for the State.

Both the Convicts are in J/C with Sh. Ashok Gahaloth, ld. Counsel for accused Deepak and ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Karan.

Ld. Counsel for convict Deepak has filed an application u/s. 360 Cr.P.C r/w Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offender Act for release SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 23/22 of convict Deepak on probation. It has contended that both the convicts are of young age and they have to support their families. If both the convicts were sent to JC their lives will spoil. It is also contended that both the convicts are in judicial custody for the last 20 months. It is prayed that lenient view be taken against both the convicts.

On the other hand, ld. Chief PP for the State contends that as offence was committed between sun set and sun rise and punishment can be extended upto 14 years u/s. 392 IPC. It is also contended by the ld. Chief PP for the State that the prosecution has fully established its case and no lenient view be taken against both the convicts.

I have perused the file.

In the present case, both the convicts in the night hours had committed robbery on the point of Ustara with the complainant and thereafter, they were apprehended and recoveries were effected.

Ld. Counsel for the convict Deepak has also placed reliance on judgments JT 1999 (10) SC 221 titled as State of "Karnataka Vs. Muddappa", (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 559 titled as "Yogendra Murari Vs. State of U.P & Ors., (1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 103 titled as "Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab", (1988) 4 S upreme Court Cases 551 titled as "Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors.".

I have perused the judgments with utmost regard but in the present case both the convicts alongwith JCL had committed robbery on the point of Ustara on the night of the incident. When the complainant raised noise, police reached at the spot and the SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 24/22 complainant along with police party searched for the accused persons and they were apprehended and recoveries were effected from them. I do not inclined to grant probation to convict Deepak.

AS both the convicts have committed robbery of mobile phone and cash of Rs. 900/­ of the complainant on the point of "Ustara". Thus, both the convicts namely Karan and Deepak are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each and fine of Rs.3,000/­ each for the offence U/s. 392/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo SI for one month each. Further, it is ordered that out of fine of Rs. 6,000/­, Rs. 3,000/­ will go to the complainant.

Both the convicts namely Karan and Deepak are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and fine of Rs. 1,000/­ each for the offence U/s. 411 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo SI for one month each.

Convict Karan is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/­ for the offence punishable U/s 397 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for one month. Further, it is ordered that out of fine of Rs.3,000/­, Rs. 1,500/­ will go to the complainant.

All the sentences of both the convicts 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 SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 25/22 both the convicts free of cost.

Case property, if any, be disposed of/destroyed, after the expiry period of Appeal.

File be consigned to record room, after necessary compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (NARESH KR. MALHOTRA) COURT ON: 05.12.2015. ASJ­05 (West), THC, Delhi.

SC No. 109/14 State Vs. Karan etc. Page No. 26/22