Delhi District Court
State vs . Devender Solanki on 4 January, 2012
1 FIR No:229/1999
State Vs. Devender Solanki
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 229/1999
PS: Dabri
U/s 392 IPC
State V. Devender Solanki
Date of institution of the case : 07/05/1999
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 04.01.2012
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 469/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 05/04/1999
c) Name of the Complainant : Shiv Kumar
S/o Sh. Daya Ram
R/o WZ-514, Palam
Village, New Delhi.
Also at: Village & Post:
Goyla, PS: Shahpur
(Block), Distt. Mujaffar
Nagar, U.P.
2 FIR No:229/1999
State Vs. Devender Solanki
d) Name of accused and address :Devender Solanki @Devi
S/o Late Sh. Parsa Ram
R/o WZ-2, Palam Village,
New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : U/s 392/411 IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 04.01.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Sh. Shiv Kumar in which he alleged that on 05.04.1999 at about 8 pm he was returning to his home after his duty. When he reached at main bus stand, route No.727 Palam he met a boy whose name was lateron revealed as Devender @ Devi who abused him by calling Bihari and asked him to give push to bus for getting started. In the meanwhile bus started and 3 FIR No:229/1999 State Vs. Devender Solanki accused Devender @ Devi got annoyed and gave him beatings and taken out Rs.300/- from his pocket without his consent. At his complaint present case was registered. After completion of investigation challan was filed against the accused Devender Solanki @ Devi for the offence u/s 392/411 IPC.
2. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned and charge u/s 392 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and trial started.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Eight witnesses and has examined Six witnesses.
4. PW-1 Ct. Devender stated that on 05.04.1999 in pursuance of DD No.29A, he along with HC Mam Chand visited the spot whereon, complainant Shiv Kumar met them and HC recorded his statement and made endorsement thereon and sent 4 FIR No:229/1999 State Vs. Devender Solanki him to the PS for FIR. In the meantime SI Virender Kalia incharge also came on the spot. After registration of the FIR he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka to him.
5. Ct. Kirodi Mal stated that on 08.04.1999 he joined the investigation with Ct. Bikamber and SI Virender Kadyan. They had gone to the house of accused Devender at WZ-2, Palam village, New Delhi where he was not found. Thereafter they went to the house of the complainant. The complainant joined them and they made search for the accused. The accused was apprehended at the bus stand at the instance of Shiv Kumar and arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/A, the personal search memo is Ex.PW2/B. Accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C the he can got recovered the robbed money from the loft/ parchati of his house at WZ-2, Palam Village. Accordingly, the robbed money was got recovered from the accused from the loft (parchatti) vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. The robbed money was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of VK.
5 FIR No:229/1999
6. PW-3 Inspector Virender Kadyan stated that on 05.04.1999 the investigation of this case was entrusted to him. During the course of investigation he reached at the spot on 05.04.1999 wherein complainant and HC Mam Chand were found present. HC Mam Chand sent the rukka through Ct. Devender for the registration of FIR as he had already recorded the statement of the complainant. After registration of the FIR the case was assigned to him for investigation. He prepared site plan Ex.PW3/A at the instance of complainant. On 08.04.1999 he along with Ct. Karodi Mal visited the house of accused. Thereafter, they went to the house of the complainant and took him along with them and started trying to find out the whereabout of the accused. During this course complainant spotted the accused at Main Road Palam and after his identification he arrested him vide memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/A. During interrogation accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C which was reduced in writing by him. Pursuant to disclosure statement accused led them to his house 6 FIR No:229/1999 State Vs. Devender Solanki bearing No. WZ-2, Palam Village and got recovered a sum of Rs.300/- comprising two notes of 100/- denomination and one note of Rs.50/- denomination and five notes of Rs.10/- denomination, photograph of complainant and some miscellaneous slips from the loft (Parchatti) built in his room. Same were kept in an envelope and sealed with his seal of VK and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/D. Seal after use was handed over to complainant. He prepared the challan and submitted the same in the court.
7. PW-4 ASI Chand Ram stated that on 05.04.1999 he received rukka through Ct. Devender which was sent by HC Mam Chand on the basis of which he recorded FIR No.229/99 carbon copy of FIR is Ex.P4/A . He also made his endorsement on the original rukka Ex.PW4/B.
8. PW-5 HC Inder Singh stated that he had brought the copy of order according to which the daily diary register pertaining 7 FIR No:229/1999 State Vs. Devender Solanki to year 1998 to 2000 have been destroyed, copy of the same is mark-X.
9. PW-6 Shiv Kumar stated that on 05.04.1999 he was working as supervisor in Maruti Builders, Pappan Kalan. At about 8 pm he was going to his house from the aforesaid office and when he reached at main bus stand, Palam where he met one person, who abused him and said Bihari to him and asked for help in pushing his bus. He replied to him that he would help him in pushing the bus but why he was abusing him. In the meantime, his bus started. Due to this he got annoyed and beat him and removed Rs.300/- from his pocket without his consent, along with Rs.300/- he also removed his photograph and two hand written slips. Thereafter he called the police on 100 number. IO came at the spot and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW6/A. IO prepared site plan at his instance. He further stated that on 08.04.1999 at about 8 pm two-three police officials came at his house i.e. WZ-514 Palam Village, New Delhi where he signed 3-4 8 FIR No:229/1999 State Vs. Devender Solanki blank papers, he do not know anything else about this case and cannot identify accused person due to lapse of time.
10. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE closed. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations against him and further stated that he had not committed any robbery on the complainant and PW's deposed falsely against him. He had not opted to lead any evidence in his defence. Therefore, DE closed and final arguments heard.
11. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the case is totally proved against the accused and he may be given maximum punishment. On the other hand accused stated that he is implicated in this false case. He is innocent. The police officials planted the false case on him. Nothing is recovered from him and story of prosecution is concocted and he is liable to be acquitted. 9 FIR No:229/1999
12. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and analyzed the statement of witnesses.
13. As per the principles of Criminal Law, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubts. The statements of witnesses must be un- contradictory, reliable and corroborative.
14. In the present case, charge is framed against the accused for the offence U/s 392 IPC which punishes for the offence of robbery. Therefore, it must be proved to establish this offence that the accused had committed the robbery on the complainant and robbed the alleged amount from him forcefully.
15. In this case there is only one eye witness who is complainant himself. No other independent eye witness is cited by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant is 10 FIR No:229/1999 State Vs. Devender Solanki very important to establish the fact of commission of robbery. However, when the complainant i.e. PW-6 examined before the court, he stated nothing against the accused and not supported the prosecution case. He also not identified the accused. Thereafter, when he was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State, then also he deposed nothing against the accused and specifically denied all the suggestions put to him by the Ld. APP for the State. He also denied the fact that accused was apprehended by the police at his instance. He also specifically denied that accused Devender Solanki snatched money from him. All the other witnesses are formal procedural witnesses and their testimony cannot establish the fact of commission of robbery. Therefore, in view of unsupported version of PW-6, prosecution failed to establish the commission of robbery by the accused on the complainant.
16. As far as the recovery from the accused is concerned, the recovery witnesses also given contradictory statements. PW-2 11 FIR No:229/1999 State Vs. Devender Solanki stated that only robbed money was recovered from the accused vide memo Ex.PW2/D whereas PW-3 stated that robbed money, photographs of the complainant and some miscellaneous slips were recovered from the accused. PW-3 stated that after sealing the case property, seal was handed over to complainant. But neither PW-2 nor the complainant i.e. PW-6 stated anything about this fact. No handing over memo of the seal by the IO to the complainant is prepared. The MHC(M) concerned to whom the case property was deposited at the malkhana also not examined. Therefore, proper sealing and custody of case property becomes doubtful.
17. As per the version of I.O., site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant whereas perusal of site plan Ex.PW3/A reveals that there is no name and signature of the complainant as a witness. PW-2 stated that accused was apprehended at the bus stand whereas PW-3 stated that accused was arrested at main road Palam.
12 FIR No:229/1999
18. Therefore after going through the statement of witnesses and documents placed on record, court comes at the conclusion that alleged offence is not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Chain of evidence is not completed against accused. The case of prosecution becomes doubtful, the benefit of which goes to accused as per principles of criminal justice. Hence, accused Devender Solanki S/o Late Sh. Parsa Ram stands acquitted for the offence u/s 392 IPC in the present case FIR No. 229/1999. Bail bonds stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Documents, if any be released to its rightful claimant as per law after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on this 04th day of January' 2012 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 12 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
13 FIR No:229/1999
State Vs. Devender Solanki FIR NO: 229/1999 PS: Dabri U/s 392 IPC State V. Devender Solanki 04.01.2012 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Devender Solanki on bail.
Statement of accused u/s 281 Cr.P.C. is recorded. It is stated by the accused that he does not wish to led defence evidence.
Final arguments heard today.
Vide separate judgment pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused Devender Solanki is acquitted for the offence u/s 392 IPC. Bail bonds stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Documents, if any be released to its rightful claimant as per law after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI