Delhi District Court
State vs . Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors on 31 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 82/2015
FIR No.: 317/2011
U/Sec. : 395/397/412 IPC &
U/Sec. 27/25/59 Arms Act.
PS : Amar Colony
Date of Institution : 14.03.2012
Date of Judgment reserved on : 13.09.2022
Date of Judgment : 31.10.2022
Brief Details Of The Case
Case Number : 82/2015
Offence complained of : U/Sec. 395/397/412 IPC &
U/Sec. 27/25/59 Arms Act
Date of Offence : 27.08.2011
Name of the complainant : Anjana Gupta
W/o Sh. Rohit Gupta
R/o C-31, 2nd Floor
East of Kailash,
New Delhi
Name of the accused persons :1) Ved Prakash @ Maichal
S/o Deep Chand
R/o B-64, Siddharth Nagar
Hari Nagar, Ashram, Delhi
2) V.K. Soman Nair
S/o M. Krishan Nair
R/o B-29, Marwah House
SC No. 82/2015 1 of 47
State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
Hari Nagar, Ashram, Delhi.
3) Ranjeet Singh @ Daddy
S/o Baldev
R/o B-29, Marwah House
Hari Nagar, Ashram, Delhi
4) Ramu Prasad Koli
S/o Nakched Koli
R/o H.No.576,Masjid Road
Jangpura, Bhogal, Delhi.
5) Kanwaljeet
S/o Har Bans Lal
R/o 6/25, Geeta Colony
Delhi.
6) Sunita Babbar @ Sundari
S/o Ravi Babbar
R/o H. No. 7/52, Park Side
Geeta Colony, Delhi.
7) Anil Singh @ Sameer @
Bakra
S/o Balwant Singh
R/o H. No. 178, Hari Nagar
Ashram, Delhi.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted.
Date of Judgment/ Order : 31.10.2022.
SC No. 82/2015 2 of 47
State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Ved Prakash @ Maichal, V K Sonam Naiyar, Ranjeet Singh, Ramu Prasad Koli, Kanwaljeet, Sunita Babbar and Anil Singh were chargesheeted by Police, for offences punishable under section 395/397/412 IPC.
2. As per chargesheet, on 27.08.2011, DD No. 24A was received at Police Station Amar Colony. Consequently, after receiving the same, Ct Kuldeep along with ASI Lalu Singh reached at the spot of incident i.e. House No. C-31, Second Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi. They found that articles were lying on the bed and there they met complainant Smt Anjana Gupta. Complainant made statement to the effect that around 12.30 pm, when she was present in her said home with her four year old son, somebody came to the door. She found that one dark colored man, aged 30-35 years was standing at the gate, having wireless set like article in his hand. When complainant asked that man about the purpose of his visit, he told her that he had come for verification of servant. Complainant responded that she had no servant and in response to the same, that man asked her to write the same on a paper and asked a paper from her. Complainant then tried to close the door but that man pushed the door and forcibly entered the house of complainant. She tried to raise alarm by shouting 'bachao bachao' but that man put his gun in the mouth of complainant. In the meanwhile, one Sardar boy, aged about 25 years, soiled colored, put his gun on the son of the complainant. Those persons took complainant and her son SC No. 82/2015 3 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors inside the room and threatened that in case, alarm is raised, then child of complainant shall be killed. At that time, third companion entered the house of complainant. Those persons asked complainant to hand over all the articles and keys of almirah. Complainant told that key of almirah was in the shop and consequently, they broke upon the almirah and robbed six diamonds sets, three pairs of gold bangles, two diamond rings, one pair of diamond tops, one golden chain, one golden chain of child, one sikanji set of Silver, five coins of silver, some silver utensils, cash of Rs.30,000/- approx, one lenovo company laptop and one olympus digital camera. They collected the said articles in red and black colored bags. Thereafter, they left the spot while threatening that in case anybody is informed, then complainant and her child would be killed. Those persons had put tape on the mouth of complainant after entering her house. She claimed that she can identify those persons if shown to her. Based on said statement, FIR under section 392/397/34 IPC was registered and investigation ensued.
3. During investigation, ASI Lalu Singh got the spot of incident inspected through Crime Team and Dog Squad. Photographs were taken and site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On 28.08.2011, complainant furnished plastic tape with which she was tied by robbers. Same was seized vide seizure memo and deposited in Malkhana. Further investigation was carried out by SI K P Sah.
SC No. 82/2015 4 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
4. As an investigator, SI K P Sah searched for the accused persons but could not locate them. On 17.10.2011, ASI Suresh Chand, through SOS Crime Branch Kotwali sent information through DD No.7A PS Amar Colony, informing that in FIR No. 273/11 u/s 411/34 IPC read with section 20/25/30 Arms Act, PS Crime Branch, five accused persons namely V K Soman Naiyar, Ranjeet Singh, Anil Singh, Ved Prakash and Kanwaljeet were arrested and they had made disclosure regarding commission of crime in present case. Consequently, on 27.10.2011, SI K P Sah formally arrested said accused persons and got their custody. On 29.10.2011, he filed an application for conducting Test Identification Parade (in short TIP) of accused V K Soman Naiyar, Anil Singh and Ved Prakash. Consequently, complainant identified said accused persons in judicial TIP. Thereafter, he obtained custody of all six accused persons, chargesheeted by him. He recorded disclosure statements of all accused persons. All the accused persons took him to the place of incident. Except accused Kanwaljeet, rest of the accused persons pointed out the place of incident and therefore, IO prepared pointing out memos. Accused Ramu Prasad Koli took him with other police officials to a place under Bhogal Fly Over and from a pillar, he produced a polythene which contained two silver glasses. Both the glasses were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of KP and seizure memo was prepared. It was deposited in the Malkhana in the police station. Thereafter, he along with HC Ramesh, lady Ct Puja and accused Ranjeet Singh reached at H. No. 7/52, Park Side, Geeta Colony, Delhi which belong to accused Sunita Babbar. Accused Ranjeet Singh told him that certain silver utensils were sold to Sunita Babbar. At SC No. 82/2015 5 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors the said house at Geeta Colony, Delhi, accused Sunita Babbar met them and she was interrogated and thereafter arrested. She made disclosure statement which was recorded. She produced from her house two silver glasses as rest of the utensils were sold by her. Those glasses were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of KP and seized through a memo. She told IO that she had sold utensils to one Chandan Bhasin, who in turn was running jewelery shop under the name and style of Bhasin Jewelers, Geeta Colony. On 06.11.2011, he along with accused Sunita Babbar other police officials reached at the said shop of Bhasin Jewelers and met Chandan Bhasin. Said Chandan Bhasin was interrogated and he told that since Sunita Babbar was his regular customer who used to sell and purchase articles from his shop, so he had purchased the said utensils in good faith. He further told that after purchasing the said utensils, he had melted the same and used it for some other purpose. He also told that accused Sunita Babbar had paid proper money in lieu of said utensils. Statement of Chandan Bhasin was recorded u/s 161 CrPC.
5. IO SI K P Sah during investigation, on 10.12.2011, got the sealed pullandas from Malkhana, PS Crime Branch through HC Hari Ram and deposited in PS Amar Colony. Those pullandas were used for conducting judicial TIP on 17.12.2011. Finally, after recording statement of witnesses and investigating the matter, he filed chargesheet against all accused persons.
SC No. 82/2015 6 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
6. After filing of chargesheet, Ld Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and completed proceedings u/s 207 CrPC. Matter was then committed to this court as per law.
7. After receiving case file of present case, through committal proceedings, accused persons namely Ved Prakash @ Michael, V K Soman Naiyar, Anil Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Ramu Prasad Koli were charged with offences punishable u/s 395/397 IPC. Further, accused Kanwaljeet and Sunita Babbar were charged for offence punishable u/s 412 IPC.
8. Later on, additional charge was framed against accused V K Soman Naiyar, Anil Singh Rawat, Ved Prakash and Ramu Prasad Koli for offence punishable u/s 412 IPC.
9. Since accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial so matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
10. Prosecution examined 21 witnesses in total.
11. PW1 Ms Anjana Gupta was the complainant who deposed facts regarding the alleged incident, as mentioned in her complaint, which she identified as Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A. She identified accused V K Soman Naiyar, Anil Singh and Ved Prakash, who had entered her house and had committed the alleged offence. She identified lady wrist watch Ex.P1, four sets of Ex.P2 (colly), two sets SC No. 82/2015 7 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors without one ear ring Ex.P3 (colly), three pieces of bangles Ex.P4 (colly), one finger ring (golden) Ex.P5 and one pendate Ex.P6. She identified seizure memo of the tape she handed over to police as Ex.PW1/B bearing her signatures at point A. She identified superdarginama based on which she had taken her case property as Ex.PW1/C. She identified four silver tumblers as Ex.P7 (colly). She identified her signatures in TIP of accused V K Soman Naiyar Ex.PW1/D, at point A. She identified her signature in TIP of accused Ved Prakash Ex.PW1/E, at point A. She identified TIP of accused Anil Singh Ex.PW1/F bearing her signatures at point A. She deposed that she had seen document Ex.PW1/G, which was TIP of case property, but had not signed the same. She identified the tape which was put on her mouth by the offender as Ex.P8.
12. PW2- WHC Fukeria, deposed that she had recorded FIR in question which she identified as Ex.PW2/A on the basis of rukka given to her by Constable Kuldeep on 27.08.2011. She identified her endorsement on the rukka after registration of FIR in question as Ex.PW2/B, signed by her at point A.
13. PW3- Ct. Anand deposed that on 27.08.2011, when he was posted in Mobile Crime Team as Finger Print Proficient, he alongwith SI Naresh Kumar and Ct. Dev Raj had gone to the spot of incident and had lifted finger prints from two places i.e. jewellery box and wooden shelf. He had prepared report Ex.PW3/A which he identified in his testimony bearing his signatures at point A. SC No. 82/2015 8 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
14. PW4- Chandan Bhasin deposed that being jeweller, he had shop at 13/119, Geeta Colony. Accused Sunita Babbar alongwith police had come to his shop and accused Sunita Babbar had got her 'Pajeb' repaired/ washed from his shop, about 2-2½ years back. Besides that, he did not support prosecution story, despite being cross-examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the state.
15. PW5- Inspector Naresh Kumar deposed that on 27.08.2011, he was posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, South District, New Delhi. On that day, a call was received from Police Control Room at 3 pm. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Anand (Proficient) and Ct. Devraj (photographer) had reached at the spot, where they met IO ASI Lalu Ram with staff and public persons. He inspected the spot. Constable Devraj took photographs from different angles. Ct. Anand picked up two chance prints and prepared a report. IO had recorded statement of this witness.
16. PW6- Ct. Devraj in his testimony, deposed facts in tune with the deposition made by PW5. He identified photographs Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/3, clicked by him at the spot. He also identified negatives of said photographs as Ex.PW6/1A to Ex.PW6/3A which he handed over to HC Rajveer for giving to IO. His statement was also recorded by IO.
17. PW7- HC Kartar Singh deposed that on 16.10.2011, he was posted in SOS Crime Branch, PS Kotwali. On that day, at about 3 pm, he was asked by Inspector Arvind Kumar to join a raiding party, based on secret information. The secret informer was with IO. Raiding team SC No. 82/2015 9 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors was constituted comprising of SI Virender, ASI Kuldeep, ASI Rakesh, HC Hanuman, HC Surender, HC Virender, HC Dinesh, Ct. Ajay, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Anil, Ct. Jay Bawa, Ct. Ajeet, Ct. Ramesh and himself. Alongwith secret informer, they went to Sarai Kale Khan, Near Bus Stand in four private vehicles that is Santro Cars. HC Hanuman asked 5-6 passersby to join the said team but none agreed. They stopped near parking lot and took their positions. At 5.15 pm, six persons came there and entered inside the parking from main road. Secret informer pointed towards them. HC Hanuman alerted all members of raiding party by putting his hand over his head as he was directed to do. After about 5 minutes, another boy came there from same side and he was carrying one black colour bag. That boy went inside the parking and sat alongwith six persons. After some time, when those persons were likely to leave, the raiding party surrounded them and apprehended them. On checking, HC Hanuman found one pistol made USA from right side of pant of accused Anil, which was loaded with two live catridges. HC Hanuman prepared sketch of said pistol and catridges and took their measurement. Two golden chains, two golden bangles, three golden ear rings, one locket (Golden), on which a photo of Guru Nanak was affixed, were recovered from right side pocket of pant of accused Anil and they were kept in a plastic pouch. Seizure memo of the said articles was prepared and they were kept in a plastic jar and sealed with the seal of 'SK'. Further, cash of Rs. 22000/- was recovered from the left side pocket of pant of accused Anil and that amount had currency notes of Rs. 1000/- each. They were also seized and kept in a paper packet of khaki colour. It was given 'serial no. 3' and sealed by the seal of 'KS'.
SC No. 82/2015 10 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
18. PW7- further deposed that personal search of accused Ved Prakash was conducted and one pistol was recovered from right side dub of his pant. On checking, six live cartridges were found in the said pistol. They were seized and their sketch was prepared. It was kept in a pulanda, given 'serial no. 4' and sealed by the seal of 'KS'. One polythene pouch was also found in the right side pocket of his pant containing one golden coin (something was written on it in Punjabi and English), two golden bangles, four ear rings (golden), one locket (golden) on which photo of Guru Nanak was affixed. They were seized and kept in a pulanda and sealed with the seal of 'KS'. Cash of Rs. 40000/- (all notes of Rs. 1000/- each), was also recovered from left side pocket of his pant, which were seized and kept in paper packet of brown colour and sealed by the seal of 'KS'.
19. PW7 further deposed that from personal search of accused Soman Nayyar, one plastic pouch was found from his left side pocket, containing two golden bangles, four ear tops (golden) and one or two finger rings (golden). They were seized and kept in a plastic jar which was sealed by the seal of 'KS'. Cash of Rs. 17000/- (twenty notes of Rs. 500 each and seven notes of Rs. 1000/- each) were recovered from right side pocket of his pant. They were seized and kept in a paper packet of brown colour and sealed by the seal of 'KS'. One licence of arms was also recovered from right side pocket of his pant, which was in his name and it was also seized by IO.
SC No. 82/2015 11 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
20. PW7 further deposed that personal search of accused Ranjeet was done. From his right side pant pocket, cash of Rs. 22500/- (1 note of Rs. 500/-, 17 notes of Rs. 1000/- each and 100 notes of Rs. 50/- each) were recovered alongwith 15 notes of different countries. They were seized and kept in a paper packet of brown colour and sealed by the seal of 'KS'. One plastic pouch was also recovered from the left side pocket of his pant containing two golden bangles and two necklaces (golden). They were also seized by IO.
21. PW7 further deposed that personal search of accused Manoj was done and from his possession, two golden chains, two necklaces (golden) and some ornaments weighing about 120-125 gms, were recovered from his left side pant pocket. From left side pocket of accused Kanwaljeet also, articles were recovered. They were seized and sealed in a plastic jar with the seal of 'KS' and was given 'serial no.13'.
22. PW7 further deposed that all the accused persons were handed over to SI Suresh HC Hanuman prepared rukka and gave it to constable Ajay for registration of FIR. Constable Ajay left the spot at about 7.30 pm for police station for registration of case. Further investigation was taken over by SI Suresh Kumar. HC Hanuman handed over seizure memos, articles mentioned above to SI Suresh Kumar. Accused persons were arrested and their arrest memos Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/E were prepared bearing signatures of this witness at 'point A'. Personal search memos of accused persons Ex.PW7/F to Ex.PW7/J were prepared. All the accused persons made disclosure statements which were recorded SC No. 82/2015 12 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors vide Ex.PW7/K to Ex.PW7/O. Constable Ajay returned back to the spot around 10.20 pm and handed over copy of FIR with Asal Tehrir to IO. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana of Crime Branch Office and accused persons were brought in custody. He identified accused persons in the court. He identified case properties as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11.
23. PW8- Constable Ajay Kumar deposed on the same lines as was deposed by PW7 as he was posted in SOS Crime Branch, Kotwali on 16.10.2011 when raiding team was prepared and accused persons were apprehended. He identified sketch of pistol and cartridges as Ex.PW8/A, bearing his signatures at point A, recovered from accused Anil. He identified seizure memo of the said pistol and cartridges as Ex.PW8/B. He identified seizure memo of case property recovered from accused Anil as Ex.PW8/C bearing his signatures at point A. Said pistol and cartridges were kept in cloth pulada and sealed with the seal of 'KS' and was given 'serial no. 1'. The box in which jewellery was kept, was given 'serial no. 2'. Cash of Rs. 35000/- recovered from accused Anil, which was seized by seziure memo Ex.PW8/D bearing his signature at point A. IO prepared FSL form.
24. PW8 further deposed that from accused Ved Prakash, one country-made pistol of .32 bore was recovered from right side pant pocket having six live cartridges. It was unloaded. IO prepared sketch of said pistol and cartridges as Ex.PW8/E bearing his signature at point A. IO filled FSL form. Said arm and ammunition were kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with seal of 'KS' and it was given serial no. 4. Cash seized from possession of accused Anil Rawat was given serial no. 3.
SC No. 82/2015 13 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
25. PW8 identified seizure memos of pistol and cartridges recovered from accused Ved Prakash as Ex.PW8/F and seizure memo with regard to articles recovered from accused Ved Prakash as Ex.PW8/G. Those articles were kept in plastic box and given serial no.
5. As per him, cash of Rs. 40000/- was recovered from the possession of accused Ved Prakash which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/H and kept in brown envelope and sealed with the seal of 'KS'. That packet was given serial no. 6. He identified seizure memo regarding articles recovered from accused Soman Nair as Ex.PW8/I. Those articles were kept in a box and was given serial no. 7. He identified seizure memo with regard to cash of Rs. 17000/- recovered from said accused as Ex.PW8/K, both bearing his signature at point A. That cash was put in an envelope and it was given serial no. 8.
26. PW8 further identified seizure memo of articles recovered from accused Ranjeet as Ex.PW8/L. Those articles were kept in a plastic box and it was given serial no. 9. He identified seizure memo of recovery of cash of Rs. 22500/- from said accused as Ex.PW8/M bearing his signatures at point A and said cash was kept in an envelope and it was given serial no. 10.
27. PW8 further identified seizure memo of articles recovered from accused Manoj as Ex.PW8/N. Those articles were kept in plastic box and was given serial no. 11. Further, he identified seizure memo of recovery of cash of Rs. 60000/- from said accused as Ex.PW8/O bearing his signatures at point A. Envelope in which said cash was put, was given serial no.12.
SC No. 82/2015 14 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
28. PW8 further identified seizure memo of articles recovered from accused Kanwaljeet as Ex.PW8/P. That plastic jar in which said articles were put was given serial no. 13.
29. PW8 further deposed that accused Sandeep was having one black colour bag on which 'RBK' sign was written and it contained cash of Rs. 75000/-. That cash was put in a brown colour envelope and sealed with the seal of 'KS'. That envelope was given serial no. 14 and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/Q.
30. PW8 further deposed that facts regarding registration of FIR as deposed by PW7. Same are not repeated for the sake of brevity. He identified accused persons in the court. He identified case properties as Ex.P-1 Ex.P-11.
31. PW9- Constable Devender deposed that on 27.10.2011, he along with SI K.P. Sah had come to Saket Courts where accused persons namely Nair, Anil, Ved Prakash, Kamaljeet, Ramu Prasad and another were produced from JC. Those accused persons were interrogated by SI K.P. Sah and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/F. All the accused persons were produced in muffled face.
32. PW10 Lady Ct. Pooja Sharma deposed that on 04.11.2011 she had gone to house no.7/52, Geeta Colony Delhi with SI K.P. Sah, HC Ramesh and accused Ranjeet Singh where they met one lady Sunita Babbar. Accused Ranjeet had told that he had sold the robbed articles to Sunita Babbar. Consequently, IO interrogated Sunita Babbar and she SC No. 82/2015 15 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors produced two silver tumblers from kitchen, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A and sealed with the seal of 'KP'. Accused Sunita Babbar was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/B and she was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW10/C. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Sunita Babbar vide memo Ex.PW10/D. All the said memos noted signatures of this witness at point A. This witness identified two silver tumblers in the court as Ex.P-7 (colly). All the seized articles were deposited in malkhana, as per her testimony. She identified accused Ranjeet in the court.
33. PW11 HC Hanuman deposed that on 16.10.2011 he was posted as SOS Crime Branch, Kotwali. On that day, one secret informer came to his office and gave secret information to Ct. Ajay Kumar, who in turn produced him before Inspector Arvind Yadav. After finding his information satisfactory, it was given to ACP and consequently, on the directions of ACP one raiding team was constituted, comprising of him, SI Virender Singh, ASI Kuldeep Jain etc., Raid was conducted at Millenium Park, Sarai Kale Khan at the instance of secret informer. Fire arms and jewellary items were recovered from accused persons vide memo Ex.PW8/N, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/F, Ex.PW8/I, Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/G, Ex.PW8/L, Ex.PW8/P, Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/H, Ex.PW8/J and Ex.PW8/K. All those documents noted his signatures at point B. He identified sketch memos of the weapons as Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW8/A personal search facts regarding raiding, as mentioned by PW7 and PW8. Same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. Besides that he deposed that he had prepared rukka Ex.PW11/A bearing his signatures SC No. 82/2015 16 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors at point A which he sent through Ct. Ajay for registration of FIR and thereafter FIR no.273/11, u/s 411/34 IPC and 20/25/30 Arms Act was registered at P.S. Crime Branch. Investigation was then marked to ASI Suresh Chand. Thereafter, acused persons except Sunita Babbar made disclosure statements regarding offences involved in present case and case properties were recovered from them. This witness identified the said case properties as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11.
34. PW12 HC Ramesh deposed that on 04.11.2011 he had joined investigation with SI K.P. Sah. IO had interrogated accused persons namely V.K. Nair, Ved Prakash, Anil Ranjeet, R.P. Kohli and Kanwaljeet after taking them out from lock up and had recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/F, bearing his signatures at point A. All accused persons except accused Kanwaljeet were taken to East of Kailash and TATA 407 by IO and other staff and that vehicle was parked in the market. From the market each accused was taken one by one at their instance to place of incident i.e. C-31, 2nd floor, East of Kailash New Delhi on the basis of their pointing out. IO prepared pointing out memo of each accused persons which he identified as Ex.PW12/G to Ex.PW12/K bearing his signatures at point A. From East of Kailash Market they went to under Flyover onteh road towards Ashram. Accused R.P. Kohli got recovered two flower pots looking utensils of silver with golden design on it from a polythene bag, kept in the gap between flyover and pillar. It was sealed with the seal of KP, vide memo Ex.PW12/L bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, they reached back to police station and deposited case property in the SC No. 82/2015 17 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors malkhana. Subsequently, they took accused Ranjeet Singh to the resident of accused Sunita Babbar where accused Sunita Babbar met them. She was interrogated by IO and she produced two silver glass type utensils from her possession which were seized vide memo Ex.PW10/A bearing his signature at point B. Arrest memo Ex.PW10/B and personal search memo Ex.PW10/C were prepared. He identified the case property as Ex.P-7 (colly).
35. PW13 Ct. Balbir deposed that on 17.12.2011, on the directions of IO, SI K.P. Sah, he had taken eight sealed pullandas from malkhana vide RC No.157/21 to the court of Sh. Anuj Aggarwal, the then Ld. MM Saket Courts for judicial TIP. After said proceedings, he obtained four sealed pullandas with the seal of 'AA' and deposited in malkhana, police station Amar Colony. During the time, sealed pullandas were with him, they were not tampered with. IO had recorded his statement.
36. PW14 Sh. Anuj Aggarwal, Secretary DLSA, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in his testimony deposed that he had conducted TIP proceedings in his chamber in this case on the application filed by SI K.P. Sah, P.S. Amar Colony on 16.12.2012. The proceedings were recorded vide Ex.PW14/A bearing his signatures at point A. he identified certificate regarding correctness of said proceeding as Ex.PW14/B. Copy of said proceedings were given to IO by him.
SC No. 82/2015 18 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
37. PW15 SI Suresh Chander deposed that on 16.10.2011 he was posted as ASI at SOS Crime Branch Office Kotwali Dariya Ganj. DD no.8 was received in his office and on the instructions of Inspector Incharge, he reached at Indrapratha Parking Ring Road, where he met other police officials including HC Hanuman, who told him about the fact that accused persons namely Anil Singh @ Samir, Ved Prakash @ Michael, V.K. Soman Nair, Ranjeet Singh @ Daddy, Manoj @ Jagga, Sandeep @ Mota and Kanwaljeet Singh were apprehended at the spot. He was also informed that two live cartridges were recovered from accused Anil Singh along with one pistol. Further, one pistol and six live cartridges were recovered from Ved Prakash @ Michael. HC Hanuman produced sealed pullanda of recovered pistol of cartridges from accused Anil Singh Rawat along with seizure memo, sketch etc. cash of Rs.35000/- recovered from accused Anil Singh Rawat was also handed over to him. All the said items were sealed with the seal of KS. HC Hanuman further handed over one pullanda of pistol, six live cartridges, currency notes of 40,000/- recovered from Ved Prakash.
38. PW15 further deposed that he received pullanda of jewellary items and currency notes, recovered from accused V.K. Sonam Nair, Ranjeet Singh and Manoj.he received pullanda of jewellary items recovered from accused Kanwajeet Singh and currency notes of Rs.75,000/- recovered at the instance of acucsed Sandeep. All the said articles were received through HC Hanuman. He prepared site plan Ex.PW7/DC and inquired from police station crime branch regarding the number of FIR and he was informed about FIR no.273/12. He recorded statement of HC Hanuman and arrested accused persons in SC No. 82/2015 19 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors FIR no.273/12. He identified documents Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/M, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/N, Ex.PW8/L, Ex.PW8/P, Ex.PW8/Q, Ex.PW8/H, Ex.PW8/J, Ex.PW8/K & Ex.PW8/E, which he received from HC Hanuman. He prepared arrest papers and recorded disclosure statements of accused persons. He received copy of personal search memo of accused persons viz. Ex.PW7/F, PW7/G, PW7/H, Ex.PW7/I & Ex.PW7/J. He received copies of disclosure statements of accused persons viz Ex.PW7/K, Ex.PW7/L, Ex.PW7/M, Ex.PW7/N & Ex.PW7/O. Since, accused persons had disclosed their involvement in present FIR. So, he lodged DD no.7 in P.S. Amar Colony and produced accused in the court, where IO/SI K.P. Sah inquired from him and collected copies of documents pertaining to FIR no.273/12, P.S. Crime Branch. His statement was recorded by the IO SI K.P. Sah. He identified accused persons in the court.
39. PW16 Sanjeev Kumar, Competent Authority (DUSIB) Tis Hazari Courts deposed that on 29.10.2011 he was working as MM in Saket Courts New Delhi. An application for conducting of TIP of accused persons namely V.K. Sonam Nair, Ved Prakash and Anil Singh was marked to him by ACMM concerned. He conducted TIP proceedings which he identified as Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E & Ex.PW1/F. He identified certificate he had issued regarding correctness of the said proceedings as Ex.PW16/A Ex.PW16/B & Ex.PW16/C. He handed over copies of said TIP proceedings to IO on the application of IO which he identified as Ex.PW16/D & Ex.PW16/E. He identified order of Ld. ACMM concerned as Ex.PW16/F. SC No. 82/2015 20 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
40. PW17- SI Lalu Singh deposed that on 27.08.2011, after receiving DD No. 24A, regarding robbery, he alongwith Ct. Kuldeep reached at the spot i.e. C-31, East of Kailash, where he met Anjna Gupta. She told that a boy was standing outside her house with a wireless and wanted to verify the servants particular. When she told that boy that she had no servant, that boy asked her to write the same on a piece of paper. On suspicion, she tried to close the door but that boy forced himself into her house and had put a gun on her face. Two more persons, one being a sick also entered her house and demanded keys of the almirha. Her son was also caught and threatened to be killed. The almira was opened with force and various articles were taken away viz., six diamonds sets, three diamond kadas, diamond tops, two gold chains, Rs. 30000/- cash, one laptop of Lenovo and one digital camera.
41. PW17 further deposed that he had recorded statement of Anjna Gupta vide Ex.PW1/A bearing his attestion bearing his attestion at point X. He prepared rukka Ex.PW17/A bearing his signatures at point X, which he gave to constable Kuldeep who went to police station for registration of FIR. Crime Team and Dog Squad was called at the spot and crime scene was inspected. He prepared site plan Ex.PW17/B at the instance of Anjna Gupta bearing her signatures at point A. He made enquiry from four year old son of Anjna. Consequently, constable Kuldeep returned back to the spot with copy of FIR in question and rukka. He recorded statement of witnesses. On 28.08.2011, he alongwith beat constable reached at the house of complainant where she handed over tape vide which her mouth was covered by assailants.
SC No. 82/2015 21 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors Same was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He identified the said tape as Ex.P-8.
42. PW18- HC Sunda Ram deposed that on 28.08.2011, he was working as MHC(M) at PS Amar Colony. On that day, ASI Lalu Singh deposited one sealed pullanda with seal of 'LS' in Malkhana which was deposited vide entry no. 1044. He identified the said DD entry as Ex.PW18/A. Similarly, on 04.11.2011, two sealed pullandas were deposited by SI K.P. Singh, having seal of 'KP', which were so deposited in malkhana vide entry number 1154 in register no.19. He identified the copy of said entry as Ex.PW18/B. On 10.12.2011, SI K.P. Singh deposited six pullandas, having seal of 'VV' (on four pullandas) and 'KS' (on two pullandas) which were deposited in malkhana vide entry no.1195. He identified copy of said entry as Ex.PW18/C. Further, he deposed that on 17.12.2011, 8 sealed pullandas were handed over to Ct. Balbir for the purpose of conducting TIP, vide road certificate number 157/21/11. He identified copy of the said road certificate as Ex.PW18/E having his signatures at point A.
43. PW19 HC Jag Narayan deposed that on 16.10.2011, when he was working as MHC(M), at P.S. Crime Branch, Nehru Place, ASI Suresh had deposited two sealed pullandas containing firearms and six pullandas of jewellary articles along with six pullandas of currency notes and one arm licence in the name of Sonam Nair. They were deposited by him in malkhana vide entry no.1366 in regsiter no.19. He identified copy of said entry as Ex.PW19/A. On 20.10.2011, two sealed SC No. 82/2015 22 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors pullandas with the seal of 'KS' were sent to FSL Rohini vide road certificate no.492/21 through Ct. Ajeet. He identified copy of said road certificate as Ex.PW19/B having his signature at point A. Ct. Ajeet brought back acknolwedge from FSL, Rohini, which he identified as Ex.PW19/C. On 10.12.2011, six sealed pullandas were sent to P.S. Amar Colony vide road certificate no.578/21 through HC Hari Ram. He identified copy of said road certificate as Ex.pW19/E, having his signature at point A. As per him, case property was not tampered with, during the tenure, it remained with him.
44. PW20 Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, the then Ld. CMM, South-East District, Saket Courts New Delhi brought summoned record with respect to case file of FIR no.273/11 P.S. Crime Branch. He identified copies of documents by comparing them with originals. Those documents were already exhibited as Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/M and Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/I.
45. PW21 Inspector K.P. Shah was the investigating officer of this case. He deposed that on 01.09.2011, he was posted as SI at P.s. Amar Colony and was given investigation of this case. On 17.10.2011 he received information from crime branch regarding apprehension of accused persons and recovery of case property. Consequently, he reached at SOS crime branch, P.S. Kotwali, Delhi where he met ASI Suresh Chand and from him obtained relevant photocopies of documents regarding recovery in this case. On 27.10.2011, he alon gwith Ct. Devender came to Saket Court complex, where with the SC No. 82/2015 23 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors permission of Ld. Magistrate, accused persons namely Ved Prakash, Ranjeet Singh, V.K. Soman Nair, Anil Singh and Ramu Prasad Kohli were interrogated with the permission of the court, after they were produced from custody. Consequently, he arrested accused persons and prepared arrest memos already exhibited in the testimony of PW9. He conducted proceedings regarding TIP of three accused persons and obtained police custody of all accused persons. He recorded disclosure statement of accused persons, pointing out memos at the instance of accused persons and seizure memos, already exhibited in the testimony of PW12. He went to house no.7/52, Park Side, Geeta Colony Delhi where accused Sunita Babbar was residing. She was arrested and various memos were prepared as exhibited in the testimony of PW10. Consequently, ,on 06.11.2011, he along with accused Sunita Babbar and other police officials reached at the shop of Bhasim jewellars, Geeta Colony where they met Chandan Bhasin, who was interrogated by him. Statement of Chandan Bhasin was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 10.12.2011 all sealed pullandas were obtained from malkhana of P.S. Crime Branch through Ct. Hari Ram and were deposited in malkhana of P.S. Amar Colony. On 17.12.2011, TIP proceedings of case property was conducted by Ld. Magistrate and copy of the same were obtained by him. Finally, after recording statement of witnesses, chargesheet was prepared and was filed in the court, against all accused persons.
46. After examining said witnesses, prosecution closed its evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
SC No. 82/2015 24 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
47. All the incriminating evidence was put to accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C, which accused persons denied. They claimed they were falsely implicated by police. Only accused Anil Singh preferred to lead defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for defence evidence to be led by accused Anil Singh.
48. Accused Anil Singh, examined one witness i.e. Kapil as DW1. Said witness deposed that he knew accused Anil Singh for last 7-8 years. In the month of October, 2012 or 2013 he received a call from Anil Singh in the evening. He was asked by Anil Singh, to accompany Anil Singh to police station Kalkaji. Thereafter, he went with Anil Singh to P.S. Kalkaji in a TSR. Around 07.00-07.30pm, both fo them reached at P.S. Kalkaji and Anil Singh after getting down started walking towards police station. This witness was in the process of paying fare to TSR driver and noticed that four-five persons had grabbed Anil Singh and took him in an Alto car. He shouted but of no avail. Thereafter, he was perturbed and went to his home.
49. After examining aforesaid witness, accused Anil closed his evidence. Since, rest of the witnesses did not opt to lead defence evidence, so matter was fixed for final arguments.
50. After hearing final arguments, matter was fixed for judgment.
51. Ld. counsels for accused persons argued that present case was planted on accused persons by IO, in collusion with complainant and other police witnesses.
SC No. 82/2015 25 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
52. Per contra, Ld. Addl. .P.P. for the State argued that present case is genuine and prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
53. In order to decide rival contentions, I have to appreciate the evidence, brought on record by the parties. Now, how appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses, is to be done, was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed :
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be SC No. 82/2015 26 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
54. Keeping in mind aforesaid tenet, I am proceeding further and appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution.
55. So, evidence has to be considered as a whole, before believing or disbelieving it. Evidence should not be appreciated in a piecemeal manner. It is the overall impression of the evidence which must weigh in the mind of the court, for the purpose of believing or disbelieving it. That is the broad legal outline based on which I am appreciating the evidence of this case.
56. In brief, prosecution case was that accused persons namely Anil, Ved Prakash, Sonam Nair, Ranjeet, Manoj and Kanwaljeet were apprehended by raiding party in FIR No.273/11, P.S. Crime Branch. During their interrogation, they made disclosure about commission of crime as mentioned by complainant, in her complaint Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, they were arrested by IO in this case, interrogated and after completing investigation, chargesheet was filed against them.
57. Per contra, accused persons raised the defence of them being falsely implicated by police in this case.
58. It is the abovementioned diametrically opposite stands of the prosecution and accused persons which have to be appreciated by me, on the touchstone of evidence.
SC No. 82/2015 27 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
59. PW1 Anjana Gupta was the complainant and victim, who had made complaint to the police regarding three persons looting her movable properties, by keeping her and her son under fear of being killed. She was the eye witness to the alleged incident.She was the sole eye witness to the alleged incident. Besides her, prosecution did not examine any other public witness regarding the alleged incident. How her testimony has to be appreciated, is a relevant aspect. In this regard, I must mention here law relating to the appreciation of eye witness.
60. In Joseph Versus State of Kerala (2003) 1SCC 465, it was held that where there is a sole witness to the incident, his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of evidence tendered by other witnesses or material witnesses, placed on record. Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, does not provide any particular number of witnesses and it would be permissible for the court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye witness. At the same time, such a course can be adopted only if evidence tendered by such witness is credible, reliable, intune with the case of prosecution and inspires implicit confidence.
61. In State of Haryana Versus Inder Singh & Ors (2002) 9SCC 537 Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is not the quantity but the quality of the witness which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The testimony of sole witness must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the court.
SC No. 82/2015 28 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
62. In judgement titled as Jeeva @ Hema Versus State of Rajasthan, RLW 2005 (1) Rajasthan 137, it was observed :-
"29. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eye witnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence of in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbablise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence.
30. The necessity of corroboration of the evidence of the eye witnesses depends upon the facts of each case. It is a rule of caution devised to seek assurance and dispel any lingering doubt, but it is not every case which attracts this rule. Broadly speaking, the necessity of such corroboration arises where the evidence of the eye witnesses, though ex facie acceptable, is not of such a character upon which implicit reliance can be placed. In such an event prudence dictates that the court should insist upon some kind of corroborative evidence to lend assurance to the ocular testimony. Where, however, the evidence of the eye witnesses is convincing and the story narrated by them natural, and there is nothing to show that an attempt has been made to rope any innocent person alongwith the guilty, the Court would not be justified in insisting upon corroboration qua an accused and in acquitting him in the absence of such corroborative evidence.
31. The testimony of the eye witnesses, who are the natural witnesses of the occurrence and whom one would expect to have seen the occurrence, cannot be doubted only because they happen to be the relatives to the deceased. Simply because an eye witness happens to be the son of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded if his testimony is otherwise acceptable."
SC No. 82/2015 29 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
63. The principles laid down by higher echelon of judiciary in above mentioned case laws, therefore, mandate that all that is needed is that the statement of the sole eyewitness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvment of acucsed in committing such a crime.
64. In the light of above principle, I am examining the facts of present case.
65. Complainant, PW1 had made complaint Ex.PW1/A to the police. Based on the same FIR in question was registered. Her testimony recorded during course of trial in comparison to her complaint Ex.PW1/A, as such indicated material improvements and contradictions. A comparative study in this regard will be useful. Same is done below :-
66. Above comparative table, as such indicated that complianant did not uniformly depose about the alleged incident, before police and before the court. It created doubt regarding veracity of her testimony.
SC No. 82/2015 30 of 47
State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
Serial Contents in her complaint, Deposition made by her during
No. Ex.PW1/A trial
1 Incident occurred on 27.08.2011 She did not remember the date
2 Incident occurred around 12.30pm Incident occurred around 12.00noon
3 A dark coloured man, aged about Physical description of said man was
30-35 years had come to her house not deposed
and asked about verification of
servant
4 She shouted "bachao bachao" She tried to raise an alarm
when the dark coloured man
forcibly tried to intrude in her
house
5 The dark colored man put his gun The dark colored man had put his
in her mouth when she tried to pistol in her mouth
raise alarm
6 The second man who entered her No such description was deposed by
house was 25 years of age and a her
sardar
7 The third man who entered her No such description was deposed by
house had handkerchief on his her
mouth
8 All three assailants fled away from Two assailants fled away from the
the spot, after committing robbery. spot after committing robbery and
No other details were mentioned. third assailant tied mouth of
complainant with a dupatta. The said
third assailant tried to close the door
but son of complainant prevented
him doing so.
9 Two black and red colour bags of No such fact was deposed
complainant were used by
assailants for taking away looted
articles
10 No reference to washerman (dhobi) After the incident, washerman
was made (dhobi) came to the house of
complainant and took complainant
with her son to in laws of
complainant.
SC No. 82/2015 31 of 47
State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
11 Cash of Rs.30,000/-, five silver The said details of looted articles
coins, one golden chain of child, were not mentioned.
Shikanji set of silver, one laptop of
Lenovo company and one
Olympus Digital Camera was
looted.
67. Moving further, complainant deposed that her mother in law had removed tape from her mouth and her mother in law had informed husband of complainant. Those facts against did not find mention in her complaint Ex.PW1/A.
68. As per complainant, one of the offenders i.e. Ved Prakash had covered his mouth upto below nose by a handkerchief. That fact created doubt regarding the basis of identification of accused Ved Prakash in TIP proceedings, as complainant did not specify in TIP proceedings Ex.PW1/E, as to how she had identified said accused. In her testimony, she deposed that she had identified accused Ved Prakash after seeing his remaining face. Now, the factum regarding accused Ved Prakash having handkerchief on his face, to the extent, below his nose, was not mentioned in complaint Ex.PW1/A. In the said complaint, Ex.PW1/A complainant was very categorical as she had stated that she can identify all the assailants, if shown to her. As such, she did not refer to one of the said assailants wearing handkerchief, at the time of incident. She did not give details of colour and size of said handkerchief in his testimony.
Further, she deposed that she had given description of identities of assailants to police based on which sketches of assailants were prepared but those sketches were never placed on record by prosecution. In fact, SC No. 82/2015 32 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors as per complainant, one of the assailants was a sardar, but in her testimony before the court, she did not specify, as to which of the accused, was sardar, who was seen by her at the time of incident. It all created doubt in the truthfulness of her testimony.
69. Complainant deposed that police had come to her house around 01/01.30 pm and subsequently she was taken to office of police, where she remained for about 3 hours. After returning, her statement was recorded by police. I failed to understand, as to why she was taken to police station by police and what did she do in police station. I failed to understand as to why she did not make her complaint in police station and thought it justified to lodge complaint, from her house only. Coupled with the same, said chain of events, were not mentioned in the rukka Ex.PW17/A by ASI Lalu Singh, who had prepared the said rukka and had sent Ct. Kuldeep for registration of FIR. The said deposition of complainant as such did not match with the manner in which FIR in question was registered. So, prosecution story was not uniform, regarding the same. It created doubt regarding veracity in her testimony.
70. Complainant did not place on record any documentary proof regarding her being owner of case properties viz jewellary items and utensils, recovered by police during investigation. She explained that those articles were gifted articles. If that is so, then she should have explained, as to on what basis she had identified those articles during judicial TIP. She failed to give said explanation in her testimony. Absence of said explanation coupled with her admission that such like SC No. 82/2015 33 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors articles are easily available in market, probablized the defence of accused persons that those articles were planted on accused persons by police, in order to solve this case.
71. Testimony of complainant was not probable as she failed to answer the following questions:
➢ How come no family member of complainant heard her voice when she raised the alarm by shouting "bachao....bachao", though her in laws were present in the same building ? ➢ How could four year old son of complainant have prevented one of the accused viz. Anil Singh, from shutting the door of the bathroom?
➢ Why she did not identify any of the accused persons in the court, being a sardar as one of the assailant, though she had claimed so in her complaint Ex.PW1/A?
➢ Why she did not give ownership proof of any of the robbed articles ?
72. Moving further complainant in her testimony did not specify the name of police officers who had examined her. She did not give details of time when police had visited her house during investigation. She did not answer about the details of neighbours who had gathered at her house after the incident. She did not remember as to when police had recovered jewellary items. She did not know as to in what manner SC No. 82/2015 34 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors she was informed by police about recovery of jewellary items. She did not specify as to which accused persons had broken almirah of her house on the day of incident. She did not know when police had taken chance-prints from her house. She admitted that police had shown photographs of some persons after the incident. She did not give details of washerman who had come to her home, after the incident. She had not stated before police that her mouth was gagged by offenders, with her dupatta. She was not sure as to whether she had given details of stolen utensils to police. She claimed that her son had objected and that is why offender could not close the bathroom door. She did not know as to when she had participated in TIP proceedings. She deposed that her husband had told her about arrest of accused persons and recovery of jewellary but she did not specify the time and manner in which she got that knowledge from her husband.
73. All the above mentioned facts deposed by complainant as such were evasive in nature. Those facts were relevant facts, regarding which complainant should have given categorical answers. She did not do so. As such, her testimony was far away from being treated as a believable testimony. I conclude that she had deposed falsely in the court, at the instance of police. She had falsely identified accused V.K. Sonam Nair, Ved Prakash and Anil Singh in the court and during judicial TIP. I also conclude that case properties were falsely identified by her during TIP proceedings and in the court. Her testimony appear to be motivated. As such, I discarded her testimony being untrustworthy and unreliable.
SC No. 82/2015 35 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
74. PW4 Chandan Bhasin was the owner of shop no.13/119, Geeta Colony. As per prosecution story accused Sunita Babbar had sold robbed articles in question to him. This witness denied the said claim of prosecution. He only deposed that accused Sunita Babbar had got her pajeb repaired/washed from him, 2-2 ½ years back. As such, he did not support prosecution story, despite being cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State. Therefore, I discarded his testimony being inconsequential in nature.
Appreciation Of Testimonies Of Police Witnesses Involved In Raiding Team In FIR No.273/11, P.S. Crime Branch.
75. PW7 HC Kartar, PW8 Ct. Ajay and PW11 HC Hanuman were the three police officials who were part of raiding team, which comprised of said police officials and Inspector Arvind, SI Virender, ASI Kuldeep, ASI Rakesh, HC Surender, HC Virender, HC Dinesh, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Anil, Ct. Jaibawa, Ct. Ajeet and Ct. Ramesh. Those three witnesses were examined by prosecution in this case.
76. Since, above three police officials were part of same raiding team, their testimonies should have been uniform regarding material particulars. A comparative study of their testimonies would reveal the contrary. Same is mentioned below : -
SC No. 82/2015 36 of 47
State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
S.No. PW-7 HC Kartar PW8 Ct. Ajay Kumar PW11 HC
Singh Hanuman
Purpose of Not deposed For arresting persons Not deposed.
constituting involved in
raiding dacoity/robbery
team
Role of Not deposed He was the boy who had Not deposed
accused brought a black colour
Kanwaljeet bag and had joined other
six boys on the date, time
and place of alleged raid
Place Sarai Kale Khan near At Bus stop, Sarai Kale Not deposed
where bus stand Khan
raiding
team
stopped
before raid
Recovery Two golden chains, Two golden chains (one No such details
made from two golden bangles, attached with pendent) deposed
accused three golden earring, two golden bangles
Anil Rawat one locket (golden) having some stones
and cash of engraved on them, three
Rs.22000/- pieces of golden rings on
which some stones were
affixed and one golden
locket along with cash of
Rs.35000/-
One pistol having six One country-made pistol No such details
Recovery live cartridges along of .32 bore having six live deposed
made from with one golden coin, cartridges loaded in it
accused two golden bangles, along with jewelery
Ved four earrings (golden), consisting of one golden
Prakash one locket (golden) coin, one golden colour
alongwith cash of locket, one other locket of
Rs.40,000/- golden colour in the shape
of heart, three golden
bangles and four pieces of
earrings of golden colour
along with cash of
SC No. 82/2015 37 of 47
State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
Rs.40,000/-
Recovery One plastic pouch One polythene bag No such details
made from containing two golden containing jewellary deposed
accused bangles, four ear tops consisting of three golden V.K. (golden), one or two bangles having stones, Soman finger rings (golden) five pieces of ear tops Nair along with cash of (golden colour) along Rs.17,000/- and one with cash of RS.17,000/-
license of arms and one license of arms
Recovery One plastic pouch Cash of Rs.22500/- along No such details
made from containing two golden with some jewelery. deposed
accused bangles and two neck-
Ranjeet lesses alongwith cash
of Rs.22500/- were
recovered.
Recovery No details deposed One polythene bag No such details
made from containing jewelery, one deposed
accused lady wrist watch of golden
Manoj colour make Romanson,
one golden necklace, one
other necklaces with
white gold studied stones
and one chain made of
pearl along with cash of
Rs.60,000/-
Recovery Two golden chains, One polythene bag No such details
made from two necklaces containing jewelery deposed
accused (golden) and some consisting of three
Kanwaljeet ornaments weighings necklaces (golden), three
120/125 grams golden bangles and two
finger rings, studded with
stones
Recovery No details deposed One black colour bag on No details deposed
from which RBK sign was
accused written containing
Sandeep Rs.75000/- cash
Asking HC Hanuman asked HC Hanuman asked He denied, asking
Public public persons to join public persons to join public persons to
Persons To investigation but they Investigation but they join the
Join refuted. refuted. investigation
Investigatio
n
SC No. 82/2015 38 of 47
State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
77. A bare perusal of above mentioned depositions indicated that above witnesses did not uniformly depose about the articles recovered from accused persons at the time of raiding them. It made their testimonies doubtful.
78. Besides that I find that above police officials did not give details of the Santro cars in which they had gone to the place concerned for raiding. They did not give details regarding police officials sitting in different Santro cars and the persons who were driving those cars. Further, their testimonies were not uniformed with regard to the facts they had deposed to the IO, in this case. For example, the fact regarding Inspector Arvind Kumar asking these witnesses to join raiding team was not mentioned in their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. they failed to specify as to whether some documents were prepared by the IO before raiding the accused persons on 16.10.2011. They did not specify the exact place where raid was conducted. They did not give details of public persons, who were asked to join the investigation. They did not explain as to whether IO had asked the accused persons about the source from where they had procured weapons or the purpose of retaining those weapons. They did not specify the specific cars in which accused persons were taken to police station after raid. They did not give details of place where documents were prepared by IO before and after raiding. As such, all the documents prepared by the IO, in such circumstances, became doubtful. The time of raiding, the time spent at SC No. 82/2015 39 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors the spot while raiding and the time when said police officials returned back to the police station after reading, were not answered by the said witnesses properly. There were discrepancies, with regard to the said aspect. That raid was conducted in FIR No.273/11, P.S. Crime Branch. As such, the whole chain of events leading to said raid and that raid itself, became doubtful, in the light of above mentioned appreciation. Testimonies of PW7, PW8 & PW11 as such, were neither trustworthy nor reliable. Therefore, I discarded their testimonies being false in nature.
79. The net result is that, raiding in FIR No. 273/11, PS- Crime Branch was not free from doubts. So, the prosecution story that accused persons after being apprehended in said FIR, had made disclosure of committing crime, in present case, itself became doubtful.
Appreciation Of Police Witnesses In Present FIR
80. PW2- W/HC Fukeria, had recorded FIR in question. That fact stood the acid test of cross-examination. As such, her testimony was trustworthy to said extent.
81. PW3- Ct. Anand had lifted finger prints from jewelery box and wooden self after visiting the place of incident. He had prepared report Ex.PW3/A. In his testimony, he failed to give details of the building where floor of complainant was situated. He did not give details of rooms in the house of complainant. He had no knowledge about the persons present at the spot, when he had visited there. As SC No. 82/2015 40 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors such, his visit to the place of incident, in the light of lack of above knowledge, became doubtful.
82. Further, document Ex.PW3/A as such talked about chance prints being taken from jewelery box and wooden deraj. Now, IO Inspector K.P. Shah in his testimony deposed that he had sent the said chance finger prints to FSL but report of Finger Print Expert report did not match with any of the offenders registered in the record of Finger Print Bureau. He also deposed that said chance finger prints taken from the house of complainant did not match with finger prints of accused persons. Therefore, above report of PW3 became inconsequential.
83. Testimony of PW3 therefore was of no consequence. It was unbelievable also. I discarded it accordingly.
84. PW5- Inspector Naresh Kumar had reached at the house of complainant on 27.08.2011 alongwith Ct. Anand (Proficient) and Ct. Dev Raj (Photographer). As such, he himself had not done any paper work. He did not give details of public persons present at the spot. He had no knowledge about the construction of building where floor of complainant was situated. He failed to depose about the details of articles he had seen at the spot and the places from where Ct. Anand had taken chance finger prints. He had no knowledge about the place where Ct. Anand had prepared his report and the place where IO Inspector K.P. Shah had examined him. Therefore, his testimony lacked details of relevant facts. I discarded his testimony being unreliable in nature.
SC No. 82/2015 41 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
85. PW6- Ct. Devraj had accompanied Ct. Anand and SI Naresh to the place of incident, being photographer. He had taken photographs Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/3, which he identified in his testimony. Beyond that, he did not give details of persons he had met at the spot and the details of articles he had seen. His testimony was limited to the extent of above mentioned photographs being clicked by him. Those photographs by itself did not prove that accused persons had committed crime in question. Therefore, I discarded his testimony being inconsequential in nature.
86. PW9- Ct. Devender was the witness before whom, IO Inspector K.P. Shah had interrogated accused persons and had arrested them in Saket Courts. He did not remember the place where his statement was recorded by IO. He did not remember the time when accused persons were arrested. As such, it appeared that he was planted by IO, to be a witness to arrest memos Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/F for showing that he had conducted independent and transparent investigation. That effort of IO, as such was reflected by the lack of knowledge of relevant fact with this witness. Therefore, I discarded his testimony being unreliable in nature.
87. PW10- Lady Constable Pooja Sharma had accompanied IO Inspector K.P. Shah to the residence of accused Sunita Babbar from where two silver tumblers were recovered during investigation, as per SC No. 82/2015 42 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors her testimony. That visit was made consequent to disclosure statement of accused persons in FIR No. 273/11, PS- Crime Branch. Since, the circumstances in which said disclosure statements of accused persons are found by me to be unbelievable, therefore, significance of testimony of this witness, lost its ground. Even otherwise, she did not give details of public persons who were present at the house or nearby to the house of accused Sunita Babbar. She did not give details of vehicle in which she had gone to the house of accused Sunita Babbar. Though, she had signed seizure memo Ex.PW10/A and arrest memo Ex.PW10/B but in her testimony, she failed to give details of the person who had prepared those memos. She had no knowledge about the articles lying in the house of accused Sunita Babbar and the details of house of said accused. She had no knowledge as to whether she had left police station after making necessary entry in the register. Therefore, her visit to the house of accused Sunita Babbar became doubtful. I discarded her testimony, being unreliable in nature.
88. PW12- HC Ramesh in his testimony deposed that in his presence, IO Inspector K.P. Shah had interrogated accused persons V.K. Nayyar, Ved Prakash, Anil, Ranjeet, R.P. Kohli and Kanwaljeet. In his presence, all accused persons except accused Kanwaljeet had pointed out the place where they had committed robbery i.e. the house of complainant. Those accused persons had pointed out the place under flyover of the road towards Ashram where two flower pots looking utensils of silver with golden design were kept clandestinely. This witness identified the memos with regard to the said facts prepared by SC No. 82/2015 43 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors IO. During cross-examination, he was not sure as to whether IO had asked public persons to join investigation. He was not sure as to whether statement of complainant was recorded on that day when those utensils were recovered. He had no knowledge about the accused who was firstly interrogated by IO. He did not disclose about the time for which accused persons were interrogated. Therefore, his knowledge with regard to interrogation and recovery of case property was not convincing. I discarded his testimony being untrustworthy in nature.
89. PW15- SI Suresh Chander as such did not disclose the date when he had reached at the spot. Infact, he did not give details of the spot where he had visited. In his testimony, he deposed about receiving of certain pulandas recovered from accused persons. He also deposed about inquires being made from accused persons and that fact that he had prepared site plan Ex.PW7/DC. He had arrested accused persons in FIR No. 273/12. I failed to understand as to which FIR he was referring as accused persons were arrested in FIR No. 273/11, PS- Crime Branch. Even if it is believed that it was a typographical mistake, regarding him referring to FIR No. 273/11, PS- Crime Branch, then also as, his testimony lost its credence as raiding done in FIR No. 273/11, PS- Crime Branch, is found by me to be doubtful. This witness did not join public persons while arresting accused persons and while preparing site plan. As per him, he had informed sister-in-law of accused Ranjeet Singh namely Kuljeet Kaur on mobile phone but he did not give details of said mobile number of Kuljeet Kaur. As such, all the proceedings done by him, appeared to have been done in a hush-hush manner.
SC No. 82/2015 44 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors Therefore, his testimony was doubtful and I discarded it accordingly.
90. PW17- SI Lalu Singh had met complainant on 27.08.2011 and he was informed by complainant about the alleged incident. In his testimony, he deposed that complainant had told him that her house was looted by three persons on 27.08.2011. The looted articles included Rs. 30000/- cash, six diamond sets, three diamond kadas, diamond tops, two gold chains, one laptop Lenovo and one digital camera. Those details as such did not match the details mentioned in the complaint of complainant Ex.PW1/A which made his testimony doubtful. It was this witness who had recorded statement of complainant and had prepared rukka, based on which FIR in question was registered.
91. PW17 being initial IO had significant role to play in investigation. As per him, tape Ex.P-8 with which mouth of complainant was tied, was recovered on the next day of incident. It is strange, as complainant herself had deposed that her said tape was removed by her mother-in-law on the day of incident only. PW17 had met complainant on the day of incident. If that is so, why complainant did not handover the said tape on the day of incident ? That question was never answered by this witness. Coupled with the same, he did not collect any ownership proofs of jewelery articles robbed from the house of complainant. He did not record statement of husband of complainant, for reasons best known to him despite the fact that complainant had told said incident to her husband before informing police. Infact, mother-in- law of complainant was also not examined by him. During his tenure as an IO, he had no knowledge about accused persons. Therefore, extent of SC No. 82/2015 45 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors investigation he had done, was not proper and reasonable. I discarded his testimony accordingly.
92. PW21- Inspector K.P. Shah was the Investigating Officer in this case, who had arrested accused persons and had got case properties recovered. His investigation as such, was shoddy in nature. He did not join public persons during investigation. He did not investigate the matter, from the point of view of presence of accused persons at the spot when chance finger prints taken from the spot did not match the finger prints of said accused persons. He did not examine the person who had gifted case properties to complainant as deposed by complainant. He did not investigate the matter with regard to how complainant had identified accused persons and case properties in TIP proceedings. As such, the manner in which, weapons were procured by accused persons and the purpose of said procurement was never investigated by him. The family members of complainant present in the same building where complainant's residence was located, were never examined. Status of laptop and bags of complainant used in the alleged crime remained a mystery. He never investigated those articles. Thus, his investigation was far away from being said to be transparent and reasonable. I discarded his testimony based on said investigation being false and motivated in nature.
93. Rest of the prosecution witnesses viz., PW-13, PW-14, PW- 18, PW-19 and PW-20 were formal in nature. Their testimonies did not prove the ingredients of offences with which accused persons were charged. Therefore, I discarded their testimonies.
SC No. 82/2015 46 of 47 State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors
94. Accused Anil, on his part examined only one witness i.e. DW1- Kapil. This witness deposed that accused Anil was taken away by 4-5 persons in October 2012/13, when he was called by police at PS- Kalkaji. In the wake of conclusion drawn above, I find that possibility of accused Anil being falsely implicated in this case, in the wake of testimony of DW1 cannot be ruled out. Therefore, testimony of DW1 probablized the defence of accused Anil.
95. Hence, I conclude that prosecution failed to prove that accused persons were involved in committing robbery in the house of complainant on 27.08.2011. The recovery of case properties from accused persons, was false. This case was planted on accused persons, for solving it by investigating officers, illegally. Investigation was not done as per law. All the documents/ memos prepared by the police were self serving documents lacking the aspect of transparency. Prosecution witnesses failed to prove prosecution case, beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons are thus acquitted of offences punishable u/sec. 395/397 IPC. Further, accused Kanwaljeet, Sunita Babbar, V.K. Soman Nair, Anil Singh Rawat, Ved Prakash and Ramu Prasad Koli are acquitted from offence punishable u/sec. 412 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court Today
[PRASHANT SHARMA]
ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
31.10.2022
SC No. 82/2015 47 of 47
State Vs. Ved Prakash @ Maichal @ Ors