Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Paramveer @ Sonu vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 29 July, 2019
Bench: Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 791/2016
Paramveer @ Sonu, S/o Shri Om Prakash, b/c Jat, aged 30
years, R/o Barahi, Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar
(Hariyana) (At present in Central Jail Nabha, Punjab)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 33/2017 Chandan @ Chandu @ Mukesh S/o Shri Mohan Lal Bhatt B/c Rajput, R/o Basti Tanka Wali, House No. 22 Thana Firozpur Distt. Firozpur Punjab At Present Confined At Central Jail Ajmer
----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, P.P. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 29/07/2019 Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of.
Appellants had faced trial in FIR No. 18 dated 25.01.2014 registered at police station Kishangarh, District Ajmer under Sections 392 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC').
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:21:42 PM)
(2 of 10) [CRLA-791/2016] Prosecution story in brief is that on 21.01.2014 complainant Gopal had left State of Gujarat on truck No. GJ-05-BT-2278 loaded with copper. The value of the copper was about Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. The destination of the Truck was Bhiwadi District Alwar. On 23.01.2014 at about 7.00 p.m., complainant took meals at Ramdev Hotel (Teekavada Phata) and slept there. After taking tea in the morning, complainant left with the Truck at 6.00 a.m. for Bhiwadi. When the Truck had crossed Kishangarh bypass (triangle) and had reached about 100-150 meters, one red colour Tavera type vehicle stopped the Truck and the person in the vehicle, inquired about way to Kishangarh. Complainant told them that they had already left Kishangarh behind. Then four persons got down of the vehicle. Two persons came inside the Truck from the driver side, whereas, two persons entered the Truck from Khalasi side after breaking the glass. The said persons kept a pistol on the neck of the complainant. One person out of them started driving the Truck. After about one kilometer, they brought him down from the Truck and made him sit in the Car. Two persons from the Truck came in the Car. They took away two mobile phones from the complainant and Rs. 4,000/- from him. They tied his hands and feet and for about 3/4 hours they kept driving the vehicle and kept threatening him and inquired from the complainant as to whether, there was any track system in the Truck. Complainant told them that he had no idea of the track system. Then after about 3/4 hours they left the complainant at some lonely place. Thereafter, complainant informed his office and then lodged the report with the police.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants. Investigation qua (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:21:42 PM) (3 of 10) [CRLA-791/2016] co-accused Jaipal, Teerth and Sandeep Balvan was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 395, 400 and 412 IPC. Appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
During trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses in support of its case. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Accused did not examine any witness in their defence.
Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 02.06.2016 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 395 and 400 IPC. Hence, the present appeals by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the complainant has categorically stated that the assailants were four in number. Hence, Section 395 was not attracted in the present case. Appellants have already undergone more than five years of actual sentence. Learned counsel have prayed that the sentence of the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Learned State counsel, has opposed the appeals and has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Appellants were arrested alongwith Truck loaded with copper on the same day at 11.00 a.m. in the area of Ratangarh, District Churu. There was a tracker in the Truck and from the same, company came to know that the Truck had diverted from its route and had informed the police in this regard.
PW-1 Hariom Sharma deposed that on 21.01.2014 he was working as a Manager with Siddhivinayak Logistic Company Roopa Devi, Gulabpura. Truck No. GJ-05-BT-2278 of their company had (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:21:42 PM) (4 of 10) [CRLA-791/2016] left Dahej District Bharuch, Gujarat, driven by Gopal Sain for Alwar. The Truck had reached village Tapukada near Kishangarh at night on 23.01.2014. The Truck then again started for Alwar on 24.01.2014 at about 5.45 a.m. The Truck was to go to Alwar via Jaipur. However, the Truck went towards Sujangarh Mega Highway route. This information was received on the G.P.R. system in the office, which was connected to the Truck. On coming to know about the said fact, he immediately called driver Gopal Sain. However, mobile phone of the driver was switched off. He gave the entire information to his senior Nemichand, who immediately got organised a check-post ahead of Sujangarh. The truck was apprehended at Ratangarh. The Truck was loaded with copper and the value of the same was about Rs. 1,25,00,000/-.
Complainant while appearing in the witnesses-box as PW-2 deposed that he had left with the Truck-in-question on 21.01.2014 and on 24.01.2014, he has started from Ramdev Hotel (Teekavada Phata) near Kishangarh. At about 6.30 a.m., when he had gone about 10/12 kilometers ahead of the hotel, a Car came from behind and stopped ahead of his Truck. He had crossed the said Car near Kishangarh (Triangle). There was lot of fog on that day and he was driving the Truck slowly. Then one of the person from the Car inquired from him about the way for Kishangarh. He told them that they had left Kishangarh behind. Then four persons got down of the Car and two persons entered the Truck from the driver side, whereas, two persons entered the Truck from Khalasi side after breaking the glass. The said persons put him under the driver seat and out of them, one person sat on driver seat and parked the truck on one side. Then, the said persons tied his hands with a rope and covered his face with a winter cap. Then (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:21:42 PM) (5 of 10) [CRLA-791/2016] they took him in their Car by putting a pistol on his head. One person bit him on his palm. The said persons then continued driving the Car for 5/6 hours and then left him on the road near the fields. Then he informed the Company and stated that he could not identify the persons, if they were brought before him.
PW-3 Nemichand Sharma deposed that he was the Manager of Siddhivinayak Logistic Company Roopa Devi, Gulabpura. On 25.01.2014, he received a phone call that Truck No. GJ-05-BT- 2278 had been apprehended.
PW-5 Pawan Kumar deposed that he was working as toll incharge at Kishangarh Hanumangarh Mega Highway. On 24.01.2014 at about 10/11.00 a.m., he was present at the toll. Three persons came there and met them and said that vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-05-BT-2278 was coming from Kishangarh side and the said vehicle had to be stopped. He told them that his duty was only to collect toll. In the meantime, the Truck-in-question came from Kishangarh side. The said Truck driver tried to cross the barrier. When the guard declined to allow him to cross the toll, one person showed a pistol to the guard. Witness identified appellant Chandan @ Chandu @ Mukesh as the said person. When the guard raised alarm then the Truck driver sped away after breaking the barrier. He immediately informed the police check-post. He also followed the Truck in his vehicle. At distance about one and a half kilometer, Truck was stopped by the police personnel. Two persons got down from the Truck and tried to flee from the spot in a Swift Car. However, they were stopped from doing so by police officials Rajendra and Prahlad and were apprehended.
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:21:42 PM)
(6 of 10) [CRLA-791/2016] PW-8 Dr. Rajkumar Jain proved the medico legal examination report of complainant as Exhibit-P-7. As per the said report, there was simple injury on the thumb of the complainant and the said injury was a result of blunt weapon.
PW-10 Meera Beniwal deposed that on 25.01.2014, she had recorded the statement of Gopal Sain and on the basis of the same, formal FIR was registered. She further deposed that on 11.02.2014, the Truck-in-question was taken in possession (vide Exhibit P-6) on the basis of the Court order. Appellants were arrested in the present case and on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by appellant Paramveer @ Sonu on 14.02.2014, site plan of the place of incident was prepared.
PW-14 Prahlad Ram and PW-16 Rajendra Kumar have corroborated the statement of PW-5.
PW-13 Kuldeep Valiya has deposed that on 24.01.2014, he had reached the spot on receipt of information from constable Rajendra. Two persons had been apprehended at the spot. One person disclosed his name as Paramveer @ Sonu, whereas, the other person disclosed his name as Chandan @ Chandu @ Mukesh. Accused were arrested. Truck-in-question was taken in possession.
Thus, in the present case, the Truck-in-question loaded with copper was taken away by four persons as alleged by the complainant. Appellants were apprehended with the loaded Truck- in-question within few hours of the occurrence. Hence, the involvement of the appellants in the crime stands duly established by the prosecution.
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:21:42 PM)
(7 of 10) [CRLA-791/2016] Now, the question that requires consideration is as to whether, the present case would fall within the ambit of Section 392 IPC or Section 395 IPC.
Section 390 IPC reads as under:-
"Robbery.--In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.--Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery.--Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted."
Section 391 IPC reads as under:-
"Dacoity.--When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity"."
Thus, whenever, five or more persons commit or attempt to commit robbery then the offence becomes dacoity. (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:21:42 PM)
(8 of 10) [CRLA-791/2016] In the present case, although, from the complaint filed by the complainant, it can be inferred that there were five persons, who had come in the Car. However, when the statement of the complainant during trial is examined carefully, it appears that four persons had got down from the Car and had entered the Truck. Thereafter, Truck was parked on one side and the complainant was then taken by the said four persons to the Car. Then, the complainant was driven around in the Car for few hours and was then, left at a lonely place. Complainant has nowhere where stated that the person, who was driving the Car had stayed back in the Car or to the effect that in all the persons, who had committed the offence were five in number.
Hence, in the present case, the offence would not fall within the ambit of offence of dacoity but can be described as robbery. Accused with a view to commit theft of the Truck driven by the complainant had also restrained the complainant and had taken him in the Car and had threatened him. Thereafter, complainant was left at a lonely place by the accused and they took away the Truck, which was loaded with copper.
Although, in the present case, complainant has failed to identify the accused, during trial but appellants were apprehended with the loaded Truck on the same day, within few hours, at a toll barrier.
Hence, so far as the appellants are concerned, the prosecution has been successful in establishing that they had committed the offence of robbery. The manager of the company, who had sent the Truck from the State of Gujarat to the State of Rajasthan had been tracking the Truck with the help of G.P.R. system. The moment, the Truck diverted from its route, the (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:21:42 PM) (9 of 10) [CRLA-791/2016] company informed the toll barrier and a Nakabandi was put up ahead of Sujangarh and the loaded Truck was apprehended within the area of Ratangarh while crossing the toll barrier forcibly.
Since, in the present case, appellants were apprehended with the Truck-in-question within few hours of the robbery, the fact that the complainant had failed to identify them during trial or that PW-5 had failed to identify appellant Paramveer @ Sonu loses its significance. Police officials, who were on duty, had apprehended the appellants with the loaded Truck. The said police officials had no reason to falsely involve the appellants in this case. PW-5 has also corroborated the prosecution case to the effect that two persons who had forcibly crossed the toll barrier were apprehended by the police alongwith the Truck-in-question.
So far as the factum of receipt of injury by the complainant is concerned, the same is not established on record. As per the medical examination report, complainant had suffered one simple injury with a blunt weapon, whereas, he has deposed in his examination-in-chief that one of the person who had attacked him had bit on his palm. This fact is not corroborated by medical evidence as injury on the hand of the complainant was not a result of a teeth bite.
Hence, in the present case, prosecution can be said to have been successful in proving its case with regard to commission of offence under Section 392 IPC against the appellants and appellants are held guilty of commission of offence under Section 392 IPC and are convicted thereunder.
Thus, appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 395 and 400 IPC. Appellants are convicted qua offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and are sentenced (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:21:42 PM) (10 of 10) [CRLA-791/2016] to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, appellants shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (SABINA)J.
Sudha/29-30
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:21:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)