Delhi District Court
State vs Rajkumar @ Chuhiya on 14 July, 2009
1
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - V,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. 209/08
FIR No.152/02
PS : Shalimar Bagh
U/s 392/397/412/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Rajkumar @ Chuhiya
S/o. Sh. Sher Singh
R/o. H.No. 249,
Village Hyderpur,
Delhi.
2. Dinesh Kumar
S/o. Sh. Jagmohan
R/o. 276, Hyderpur,
Delhi.
3. Sukhdev
S/o. Sh. Shiv Charan
R/o. 272, Hyderpur,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 09.12.02
Date of receipt of case in this Court : 11.12.08
Arguments heard On : 03.07.09
Order Announced On : 11.07.09
2
JUDGMENT
1. Prosecution sent four accused persons namely Rajkumar @ Chuhiya, Dinesh Kumar, Sukhdev Singh and Rajeev Kumar for trial of offence under section 392/397/412/34 IPC. During the trial, accused Rajeev Kumar was expired and vide order dated 29.11.07 my learned predecessor abated the proceedings against him.
2. In brief facts are that PW-5 Jai Singh, complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 06.03.02 that he was working as Peon with Reserve Bank, Parliament Street. On 06.03.02, after his duty he was coming from the bank carrying two bundles of new currency notes in the denomination of Rs.5 each, containing Rs.1,000/- for his brother-in-law living at Ambedkar Colony, Hyderpur. It was around 7.45 p.m. when he had reached near Canal and attended the call of nature then three-four boys came. He had parked his bicycle make Atlas at a side while attending the call of nature. One boy was having height of 5' 8", thin body who put a knife at his 3 neck and pushed him in the bushes then one boy having small height and dark complexion removed the Titan watch and a silver chain. One boy snatched the currency notes bundles and thereafter started beating him. One person removed the bicycle and immediately they left the spot. He stated to the police that he can identify the accused persons. His complaint is Ex.PW-5/A recorded by IO PW-14 retired SI Tejpal on which rukka was prepared Ex.PW-14/A and sent for registration of FIR Ex.PW-1/A for offence under section 392/34 IPC. The complainant Jai Singh was taken to BJRM Hospital where he was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW-12/A.
3. The investigation officer prepared site plan Ex.PW-6/A at the place of occurrence. Thereafter on 14.03.02, the complainant informed the police that he had seen one of the accused who is Rajkumar near Canal, Hyderpur then constable Avadh Kishore and ASI Ram Darsh accompanied him to the spot. There accused Rajkumar was found along with bicycle and arrested vide memo Ex.PW- 5/C. The cycle was seized vide memo Ex.PW-5/F. Personal 4 search of accused Rajkumar was conducted. He was also found in possession of knife. A separate case vide FIR No.165/02 was registered against accused Rajkumar under section 25 Arms Act. The disclosure statement of accused Rajkumar was recorded in FIR No.165/02 Ex.PW-5/D. Accused Rajkumar also pointed out the place of occurrence.
4. On 15.03.02 at the instance of accused Rajkumar, co-accused Dinesh Kumar arrested vide memo Ex.PW-5/H. His disclosure statement recorded Ex.PW-5/K. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-5/J. He got recovered 36 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.5 which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-5/E. The complainant accompanied police officials at the time of arrest of accused Dinesh and recovery.
5. Accused Sukhdev had filed an application for surrender and joining TIP before the court on 09.07.02. An application for TIP was also moved on the same day by IO SI Yashveer Singh. The application for interrogating him 5 was moved by IO Ex.PW-8/A. Thereafter his TIP was conducted by PW-11 ld. M.M. Ms. Seema Maini. During the TIP complainant Jai Singh identified accused Sukhdev, one of the person who committed the incident. On 19.07.02, accused Sukhdev was sent to police custody. His disclosure statement was recorded on 09.07.02 Ex.PW-3/A. On 20.07.02, he got recovered from his house one wrist watch Titan belonging to complainant Jai Singh which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-5/G.
6. After completion of investigation, PW-14 Tejpal filed charge sheet against accused persons for trial of offence under section 392/397/412/34 IPC.
7. Ld. M.M. after compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the present case to the court of sessions along with a connected case under section 25 Arms Act registered vide FIR No. 165/02 wherein accused Rajkumar is the accused.
6
8. My learned predecessor vide order dated 10.03.03 framed the charge against all the four accused for the offence under section 392/34 IPC and for offence under section 412 IPC against accused Sukhdev, accused Dinesh and Rajkumar separately. Another charge was framed against accused Rajkumar and Sukhdev for the offence under section 397 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Prosecution in support of the present case examined PW-1 retired HC Suraj Bhan, PW-2 constable Ranbir Singh, PW-3 constable Chanderpal, PW-4 constable Manohar Lal, PW-5 Jai Singh, PW-6 HC Sajjan Singh, PW-7 constable Avadh Kishore, PW-8 SI Yashveer Singh, PW-9 constable Rajinder Singh, PW-10 ASI Ram Adarsh, PW-11 ld. M.M. Ms. Seema Maini, PW-12 Dr. S. Naga, PW-13 constable Mange Ram and PW-14 retired SI Tejpal.
10. Statement of accused persons recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. Accused persons led defence evidence and produced DW-1 7 Udai Singh, DW-2 Vasudev and DW-3 Sheela. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed by Sh. R.K. Bharti, counsel for accused persons.
11. I have heard ld. Addl. PP Sh. Vipin Sanduja and ld. counsel Sh. R.K. Bharti for accused.
12. The star witness of the prosecution is PW-5 Jai Singh. Jai Singh appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 06.03.02, he was going at his cycle at the residence of his brother-in-law at village Hyderpur, Ambedkar Colony carrying two packets of currency notes of denomination of Rs.5/- to be given to his brother-in-law. When he reached near the Canal, Hyderpur, parked his bicycle for urinating. He named accused Sukhdev and identified him in the court and said Sukhdev approached him along with accused Raj Kumar. He pointed out at Rajkumar the accused who lifted his bicycle and ran away. He further deposed that accused Sukhdev and Dinesh dragged him inside the bushes. Accused Rajkumar and Dinesh were having knife with them and both inflicted 8 injuries at his nose and right hand near thumb. Another person with these accused persons was neither identified nor assigned any role.
13. PW-5 Jai Singh further deposed that accused Rajkumar and Dinesh snatched two packets of currency notes of denomination of Rs.5/- and Rs.10/-. Both accused also removed his wrist watch make Titan. Thereafter, he came to the road and asked about police persons form a cyclist who told him about police post. He reached there but no police official was present there. Then cyclist advised him to go at police station. Thereafter, he came to the house of his brother-in-law from police post and then he along with his brother-in-law went to police station Shalimar Bagh. There his statement was recorded Ex.PW- 5/A.
14. PW-5 Jai Singh told that after 10 days, he was going to his sister's house at Ambedkar Colony, Hyderpur, when he reached near Canal, Hyderpur saw accused Rajkumar roaming. Then on identification as he is the 9 person who robbed him on 06.03.02 along with his companions, he immediately went to police station Shalimar Bagh. He came back with one police official and ASI at Canal Hyderpur village. There they apprehended accused Rajkumar. One knife was also recovered from right pocket of the pant of the accused Rajkumar on search.
15. PW-5 proved seizure and sketch of knife and sealing in the pulanda and taken into possession. He also proved arrest memo Ex.PW-5/C and personal search memo. The bicycle was also recovered from Rajkumar and seized vide memo Ex.PW-5/D. However, he has not specified any identification of name plate on the cycle. He proved disclosure statement of Rajkumar. He further deposed that after two-three days, he was called by SI Tejpal Singh and told about another person apprehended and called for identification at Shalimar Bagh police station. Accused Dinesh was present in police station and he identified accused Dinesh is the person who committed robbery. He further proved that currency notes in the 10 denomination of Rs.5/- were recovered from the pocket of accused Dinesh which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-5/E.
16. PW-5 Jai Singh further deposed that on 17.07.02, he went to Tihar Jail and participated in TIP and identified the accused Sukhdev in the jail. PW-5 also identified currency notes Ex.P-1/1 to P-36. He further deposed that these currency notes recovered from accused Dinesh. The wrist watch was recovered from the house of accused Sukhdev which he identified Ex.P-2. He also identified bicycle Ex.P-3. He also proved memo Ex.PW-5/F and Ex.PW-5/G whose original are in the FIR case no.165/02. He proved arrest memo of Dinesh Kumar Ex.PW-5/H, personal search memo Ex.PW-5/J and disclosure statement of accused Dinesh Ex.PW-5/K.
17. PW-5 Jai Singh in the later part of testimony declared hostile. He denied the suggestion put by ld. Addl. PP during cross-examination that accused Rajkumar was standing near Canal with his cycle. He denied the suggestion that along with accused Rajkumar he went 11 along with police officials to the house of accused Dinesh. He denied that accused Dinesh was arrested on his pointing out and currency notes were recovered from the possession of accused Dinesh. However, he admitted that his wrist watch was recovered on the pointing out of accused Sukhdev from his house.
18. In the cross-examination, he deposed that on 06.03.02, the incident took place at 7.45 p.m. There was some darkness. The shops were at the distance of 100 yds. and there is no electricity light at the place of incident. He deposed that accused Sukhdev took him by holding from neck and gave knife blow on his right wrist. Accused Dinesh also gave knife blow at his nose. The witness confronted with statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. He deposed that money was taken out from his pocket by accused Sukhdev and accused Dinesh and they also removed his wrist watch. The blood was oozing out from the injury which fell upon the clothes but not on the ground.
12
19. PW-5 further deposed that he told that he can identify the persons who robbed him. His statement recorded in police station. He was discharged from hospital within one or two hours. SI Tejpal did not accompany him to the hospital but some police officials accompany him. In cross-examination, he deposed that on the next day, he joined the duty. In the span of two months, he was called at police station four-five times. He had gone to the house of accused Sukhdev with police after recording his statement. He had visited the house of accused Sukhdev after TIP proceedings.
20. The police finally called him at the police station to identify accused Sukhdev after his arrest. His brother-in- law informed him about the arrest of one of the accused persons by the police. He denied the suggestion that Sukhdev is the neighbourer of his brother-in-law. Many persons of the locality collected when his wrist watch was recovered. He was standing in the gali. He denied that he did not accompany the police at the time of recovery of 13 watch from accused Sukhdev. His brother-in-law was not with them at the time of recovery of watch. He further deposed that he cannot tell whether the signatures of the neighbourers were obtained or not.
21. Further in cross-examination he deposed that he had accompanied SI Tejpal for TIP to Tihar Jail and received summons for joining the TIP. He denied the suggestion that he had identified accused Sukhdev in the court itself before TIP.
22. Ld. counsels for accused Rajkumar and Dinesh also cross-examined witness PW-5 Jai Singh at length. PW-5 deposed that he does not remember in which hand accused Dinesh was holding knife. Accused Sukhdev and Dinesh were started beating him mercilessly. He admitted that he did not lock the cycle and parked it on the road. He had stated to the police in his statement that he was beaten by accused Sukhdev and Dinesh but he did not state that fist blows and kicks were given by accused persons. He also explained that he did not raise alarm as 14 he was threatened by showing knife by the accused persons. He denied the knowledge about a fighting took place between his brother-in-law and father of accused Rajkumar.
23. PW-5 Jai Singh further deposed that SHO Maan directed the police persons to bring all the boys of area involved in such kind of activities and some boys were produced before him and they were not the same persons who committed robbery. Accused Raj Kumar was arrested after about 15 days of incident in the evening. At the time of recovery of bicycle, it was not locked. He further deposed that there was no special mark of identification on bicycle but he can identify.
24. PW-5 further deposed that accused after arrest was brought to police station. His disclosure statement was recorded by the police in his presence. The currency notes of Rs.5/- were recovered from accused Dinesh in his presence. Some documents were got signed by accused Dinesh in his presence in police station. He denied the 15 suggestion that accused Rajkumar was falsely implicated due to enmity between his brother-in-law and father of accused. He denied the suggestion that no public person was asked to join the investigation at the time of arrest of accused Rajkumar. He denied the suggestion that on the day of incident he was heavily drunken and fell down and as a result received injuries at the right hand and nose. He denied the suggestion that some public persons removed him to the house of his brother-in-law. He denied the suggestion that there was no person at the time of recovery of bicycle from Rajkumar. He also denied the suggestion that he demanded Rs.20,000/- from accused persons and on refusal he falsely implicated accused in this case.
25. Prosecution examined PW-12 Dr. S. Nagan who was deputed by M.S., BJRM Hospital to prove MLC on behalf of Dr. Ravi Kant Bhushan who had left the services and his whereabouts were not known. He identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Ravi Kant Bhushan. He proved the injuries received by complainant Jai Singh. The 16 injuries are lacerated root of nose 1 X 2 c.m. On the head painful bone contusion found and proved MLC Ex.PW-12/A. The prosecution on the basis of MLC Ex.PW-12/A proved that on the same day after the incident accused was medically examined and received the injuries. This further corroborates the incident of robbery with the complainant.
26. The prosecution apart from testimony of eye- witness PW-5 Jai Singh examined PW-6 HC Sajjan Singh who was one of the witness came along with PW-5 Jai Singh on the spot on 14.03.02. In his examination in chief he deposed that investigation of FIR No.165/02 handed over to him on 14.03.02. He along with constable Avadh Kishore and Jai Singh reached at Canal, Hyderpur Village and on the spot arrested accused Rajkumar. He proved disclosure statement of accused Rajkumar Ex.PW-5/B and thereafter he was taken to police station. He identified the bicycle recovered from possession of Rajkumar Ex.P-3.
27. In the cross-examination, he denied all the suggestions put to him. He stated that FIR number was 17 mentioned on the cycle. PW-7 Avadh Kishore also appeared in witness box. He deposed that on 14.03.02 DD No. 33-A was lodged by Jai Singh. He along with ASI Ram Darsh and Jai Singh reached at Canal Hyderpur. One person was standing on the cycle and Jai Singh told them that he is the same person and bicycle belonged to him. That person was apprehended and his name was Rajkumar. He proved seizure of cycle Ex.PW-5/F. The other facts stated in case 25 Arms Act. He also proved arrest of the accused Rajkumar.
28. PW-7 constable Avadh Kishore further deposed that the arrest of accused Rajeev Kumar was made on 12.05.02 while vehicle checking at red light Hyderpur. Further proceedings were abated against him. In the cross- examination he stated that he does not remember the colour of the pant of accused Rajkumar at the time of arrest. He stated the make of cycle is Atlas. He denied the suggestion that no cycle Ex.P-3 was recovered from the possession of accused Rajkumar.
18
29. The testimony of PW-5 Jai singh, PW-6 HC Sajjan Singh and PW-7 Avadh Kishore is further corroborated by PW-14 retired SI Tejpal. He deposed that accused Rajkumar was arrested by him on the basis of disclosure statement recorded in FIR No.165/02. He proved the arrest in the present case vide memo Ex.PW-5/C and seizure memo of cycle Ex.PW-5/F. PW-14. Accused Rajkumar was also taken to the house of accused Dinesh.
30. On the basis of testimonies discussed hereinabove, it is established that accused Rajkumar is the person who committed robbery on 06.03.02. He was arrested on the pointing out of PW-5 complainant Jai Singh on 14.03.02. At the time of arrest, the bicycle Atlas belonging to Jai Singh was recovered from his possession. The ld. defence counsel pointed out the contradictions in the statement of PW-5 Jai Singh and other police witnesses in respect of identification of cycle. The cycle was old. The complainant who is peon and uses the bicycle for many years and identified the same in the possession of Rajkumar on 14.03.02. PW-6 HC Sajjan Singh and PW-7 19 Avadh Kishore specifically stated the make of the cycle Atlas and it tallied with seizure. The minor contradictions stated by PW-14 and other police witnesses regarding sticking a slip of FIR on the cycle is immaterial. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rajkumar is the person who committed robbery and robbed bicycle Ex.P-3 belonging to Jai Singh recovered from his possession. It is further established on record that during the incident of robbery accused Rajkumar used knife and also inflicted injuries which are proved as per MLC Ex.PW-12/A.
31. Accused Sukhdev surrendered before the court of ld. M.M. of Shalimar Bagh on 09.07.02 by filing the application for surrender and joining TIP. PW-8 SI Yashveer Singh deposed that on 09.07.02 the investigation was handed over to him as he came to know that accused Sukhdev wanted in the present case is going to surrender. He along with the constable Chanderpal reached at concerned M.M. court where accused Sukhdev surrendered. He proved the application moved before ld. 20 M.M. for interrogation Ex.PW-8/A. Thereafter accused Sukhdev was arrested and disclosure statement Ex.PW-3/A was recorded and sent to judicial custody. He further deposed that the face of accused Sukhdev was covered and an application for TIP Ex.PW-8/E which was marked to link M.M. to fix the TIP at Tihar Jail on 17.07.02. His testimony remained unrebutted despite opportunity given for cross-examination.
32. PW-3 constable Chanderpal deposed that he along with SI Tejpal came to the court of Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Tis Hazari where accused Sukhdev surrendered and he was arrested and taken to Hindu Rao Hospital for medical examination. He suppressed the truth, therefore, ld. Addl. PP cross-examined him. In cross-examination he deposed that accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW- 3/A. He further deposed that accused was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital but this fact is not mentioned in his statement. Accused was interrogated at police station. The complainant Jai Singh was not seen by him. TIP was 21 conducted. He denied the suggestion that accused signatures were taken forcibly and he is deposing falsely.
33. PW-11 Ms. Seema Maini, Administrative Civil Judge who conducted TIP deposed that on 09.07.02 an application for TIP was marked to her Ex.PW-11/A. Accused Sukhdev was produced by SI Yashveer Singh in muffled face. TIP was fixed for 17.07.02. She further deposed that on 17.07.02, she reached at Tihar Jail where Jail Superintendent also produced ten under trials on same height and built as of accused. The accused was directed to take position. The accused had taken position between seven and eight number inmates in the line. She further deposed that witness Jai Singh was called inside to identify the accused and he correctly identified the accused. When the TIP was going on, the IO was outside the jail and accused persons were not visible to him. She proved TIP proceedings Ex. PW-11/D. Endorsement of Jail Superintendent is Ex.PW-11/E. Signature regarding identification of the witness is Ex.PW-11/F. 22
34. In the cross-examination she deposed that on 09.07.02 accused Sukhdev was produced in muffled face. On 17.07.02 at Tihar Jail and no formal question was asked from accused Sukhdev regarding willingness to participate in the TIP as it was not required. She further deposed that in order to eliminate possibility of disclosing the colour of shirt of accused by Jail Superintendent, accused was given opportunity to change his shirt when the Jail Superintendent left the room. She denied the suggestion that witness has already seen the accused while standing at the gate.
35. PW-14 retired SI Tejpal deposed that after TIP of accused Sukhdev, he obtained carbon copy of TIP Ex.14/E of the proceedings. On 20.07.02, accused Sukhdev led the police party at his residential house at village Hyderpur. He along with the complainant went there. Accused Sukhdev handed over one Titan wrist watch from a box inside his one room which was seized and sealed with the seal of TS 23 vide memo Ex.PW-5/G. He further deposed that accused Sukhdev also pointed out the place of occurrence. He identified the wrist watch Ex.P-2.
36. The ld. counsel for accused raised the defence that accused Sukhdev was also seen by the witness and TIP proceedings were not conducted in proper manner and procedure. Vital witness is PW-11 Ms. Seema Maini who proved her proceedings Ex.PW-11/A. As per judicial record it is the admitted case of accused Sukhdev that he had surrendered before ld. M.M. on 09.07.02. On the same day in the court, he was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded and sent to judicial custody. PW-8 Yashveer Singh and PW-11 ld. M.M. testimonies established that immediately his face was covered and he was produced in muffled face along with an application for TIP on 09.07.02. The application is Ex.PW-11/C mentioned the order for fixing the TIP for 17.07.02. The TIP proceedings Ex.PW-11/A to PW-11/F states that at Jail PW-11 ld. M.M. Ms. Seema Maini called accused Sukhdev and identified by Jail Superintendent. The under trials were taken out and TIP 24 proceedings conducted. These proceedings clearly established that accused Sukhdev was willing to participate in TIP and that is why all the under trials were called.
37. The proceedings further established that there was no chance to Jail Superintendent and witness Jai Singh to interact or Jai Singh had any chance to know the position of accused and other features of accused. The complainant Jai Singh has correctly identified accused Sukhdev as per TIP proceedings. The ld. M.M. also issued a certificate that there was no ground to disbelieve the TIP of accused.
38. Apart from PW-5 Jai Singh, in his examination in chief he categorically identified accused Sukhdev and Rajkumar. He also assigned the role to accused Sukhdev that he dragged him inside the bushes. The plea taken by ld. counsel for accused Sukhdev regarding irregularity committed by ld. M.M. Ms. Seema Maini while conducting TIP is contrary as per judicial record. Accused Sukhdev on 08.07.02 filed an application before M.M. Ms. Renu Bhatnagar wherein he has stated that he has not named in 25 the FIR. He wants to surrender before the court and also wants to participate in the TIP. Now question does not arise for asking by ld. M.M. whether he wants to participate or not because he himself as per application dated 08.07.02 surrendered and wanted to participate in TIP. The judicial remand papers established that immediately he was sent to judicial custody till the date of TIP proceedings conducted at Tihar Jail.
39. After completion of TIP proceedings on 19.07.07, investigation officer PW-8 SI Yashveer Singh filed an application for two days police custody. However, one day custody was granted by ld. M.M. The accused Sukhdev got recovered wrist watch which was identified by complainant PW-5 Jai Singh during the recovery proceedings at the instance of accused himself. Hence, recovery of wrist watch belonging to Jai Singh also established beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PW-5 Jai Singh and PW-8 SI Yashveer Singh and PW-11 Ms. Seema Maini established that accused Sukhdev is the person who committed robbery on 06.03.02. 26
40. Now, coming to the role of accused Dinesh PW-5 Jai Singh, complainant, in chief examination discussed hereinabove stated that accused Dinesh is one of the person who dragged him inside the bushes along with accused Rajkumar. Two packets of currency notes also recovered from his possession.
41. PW-5 further deposed that accused Rajkumar discloses the name of his companion when he was arrested on 14.03.02. After two three days he was called by SI Tejpal and told one another person apprehended and called for identification of bicycle at police station Shalimar Bagh. Accused Dinesh was present in the police station and he identified him one of the person who committed robbery. He also deposed that currency notes in the denomination of Rs.5/- recovered from the possession of accused vide memo Ex.PW-5/E.
42. In the later part of examination in chief PW-5 resiled from earlier statement and suppressed the truth 27 and cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP. In the cross- examination by ld. Addl. PP he denied the suggestion that he along with accused Rajkumar reached at the house of accused Dinesh. He denied the suggestion that accused Dinesh was arrested at his pointing out from his house and currency notes of denomination of Rs.5/- recovered from his possession. In the cross-examination, he deposed that Dinesh had pointed out the knife towards him and thereafter started beating him mercilessly. He denied all the suggestions put to him. The testimony of PW-5 Jai Singh is not coherent, cogent and is shaking in respect of role and identification of accused Dinesh.
43. In the initial part of examination in chief he named accused Dinesh is one of the person who committed robbery along with co-accused persons. However, later on he deposed that accused Dinesh was arrested by police and he was called for identification at police station where he identified the accused Dinesh. These facts are contrary to the prosecution story. According to the prosecution, accused Dinesh was arrested when accused Rajkumar 28 disclosed his name and PW-5 Jai Singh also joined the investigation and went to the house of accused Dinesh where he was arrested.
44. In the later part, PW-5 turned out to be hostile in respect of recovery of currency notes of denomination of Rs.5/- from the possession of accused Dinesh. Despite cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP, his stand remained affirmed that he did not go to the house of accused Rajkumar and police officials and accused Dinesh was not arrested at his pointing out. He has not supported the prosecution regarding the recovery of notes from the possession of accused Dinesh. Hence, on the basis of testimony of PW-5, the involvement of accused Dinesh is surrounded by clouds of doubt in respect of identification as well as recovery.
45. On the basis of hereinabove detailed observations and discussion, prosecution established the guilt of accused Rajkumar for commission of offence under section 392 read with section 397 IPC. Accused Sukhdev 29 also convicted of offence under section 392 IPC and accused Dinesh is the beneficiary of benefit of doubt. Hence, he is acquitted. Bail bond and surety discharged.
(SANJAY KUMAR) Announced in the open court Additional Sessions Judge-05, today 11.07.09. North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi 30 THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - V, DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI SC No. 209/08 : FIR no. 152/02 PS : Shalimar Bagh / U/s 392/397/412/34 IPC STATE VERSUS
1. RAJKUMAR @ CHUHIYA S/o Shri Sher Singh, R/o House no. 249, Village Hyder Pur, Delhi
2. SUKHDEV S/o Shri Shiv Charan, R/o 272, Village Hyder Pur, Delhi Date of Institution : 09-12-2002 Date of receipt of case in this Court : 11-12-2008 Arguments heard On : 03-07-2009 Judgment announced on : 11-07-2009 Order on Sentence Announced On : 14-07-2009 31 Present : Shri Vipin Sanduja, Ld. APP for State.
Both Convicts in JC with counsel, Sh. R.K. Bharti.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Counsel for convicts submits that convict Raj Kumar is not a previous convict. He is aged about 24 years. He is unmarried. Counsel further submits that after this convict Raj Kumar never involved in any police case. Counsel further submits that convict Sukhdev is aged around 25 years. He is married and having two children. He is the only bread winner of his family. Therefore, a lenient view may be taken on order of sentence for both convicts.
2. On the other hand, Shri Vipin Sanduja, learned APP for State submits that maximum punishment may be awarded to both convicts.
3. I have heard submissions of both the parties and the gone through the judicial record. 32
4. The convict Raj Kumar is convicted of offence under Sections 397/392 IPC and convict Sukhdev is convicted of offence under Section 392 IPC.
5. I award sentence for the offence under Section 397 IPC to convict Rajkumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default in payment of fine, one year simple imprisonment. I further award sentence for the offence under Section 392 IPC to convict Rajkumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default in payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment. The fine realized from the convict Rajkumar shall be paid to complainant Jai Singh as compensation. Both sentences shall run concurrently. The benefit of Section 428 CrPC shall be granted to convict.
6. I further award sentence for the offence under Section 392 IPC to convict Sukhdev to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default in payment of fine, six months simple 33 imprisonment. The fine realized from the convict Rajkumar shall be paid to complainant Jai Singh as compensation. The benefit of Section 428 CrPC shall be granted to convict.
7. Copy of judgment and order of sentence be supplied free of cost to both the convict. File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJAY KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge-V, Room no. 308, Rohini Courts, Delhi Dated : 14-07-2009 Announced in the Open Court