Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul & Anr. on 2 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF
MS. ANKITA LAL,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTHEAST) 08
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
J U D G M E N T
FIR No.: 309/13
PS: Pul Prahlad Pur
State Versus Rahul & Anr.
a The Sl. No. of the case : 86425/2016
b The date of commission : 25.08.2013
c The date of Institution of the case : 19.02.2014
d The name of complainant : Praveen Kumar
e The name of accused and his : 1. Rahul S/o Sh. Dharambir R/o
House no. 488, Jalim Mohalla,
parentage
Village Tughlakabad, New Delhi.
2. Deepak @ Deep S/o Lt. Sh. Pratap
@ Prety R/o 6, Jalim Mohalla,
Village Tughlakabad, New Delhi.
f The offence complained of : U/s 392/34 IPC and 411 IPC
g The plea of accused : Not guilty
h Orders reserved on : 31.01.2018
FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur
State vs. Rahul Page No. 1 of 16
i The final order : Acquitted U/s 392/34 IPC and 411
IPC
j The date of judgment : 02.04.2018
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case
1.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2013 at around 6.40am at DTC Bus stop near Tughlakabad Traffic Signal MB Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Pul Prahladpur, accused Rahul and Deepak @ Deep both in furtherance of their common intention, unlawfully restrained the complainant Praveen Kumar and his friends namely, Robin and Anil, who were carrying a bag with goods and they threatened them to hand over the said bag to them failing which both accused used criminal force to take away said bag from the possession of the complainant and fled from the spot. Matter was reported to police and and FIR was lodged u/s 356/379/34 IPC. On the same day, at house no. 488 Jalim Muhalla, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, accused Rahul was arrested and he got recovered some part of stolen property from his possession as per seizure memo mark X1. Later on, accused Deepak was also arrested. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the court.
Charge framed against the accused: FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 2 of 16
2. Prima facie offence was made out and charge was framed against both accused under section 392/34 IPC and 411 IPC against accused Rahul to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Evidence led by the Prosecution Evidence:
3. In order to substantiate and prove its case against the accused, prosecution has examined 6 witnesses.
4. PW1 Praveen deposed that an event of Athletics and Kabadi was conducted on 25.08.2013 by his Youth Club and some money was collected and also one championship trophy, three instrument boxes, six medals, 45 bandage, one ribbon roll, Cluster of pins and Rs. 5000/ were arranged. They were carried in a polyethene bag. At around 66.30a.m. on the same day, PW1 was going with his friends Robin and Anil at DDA Park and when they reached Bus Stop of Tughlakabad village, accused Rahul and Deepak stopped them while they were on their scooty and asked them to share some money for consuming beer. When PW 1 declined to the said request, accused Rahul snatched the polyethen from them and both of them fled away on their scooty. PW1 made a complaint to the police by calling at 100 number. PW1 proved his complaint Ex.PW 1/A. He also proved the seizure memo of the case property Ex.PW 1/B, but stated that recovery was not made in his presence.
FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 3 of 16 Initially, PW1 did not identify either of the accused persons, but when he was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State he identified the accused persons and explained that earlier he could not identify due to some confusion. He identified recovered case property i.e. one trophy, few bunches of pin and six medals as Ex.P1 (colly), but he could not identify the recovered mobile phone make Micro Max. He proved that accused Rahul was arrested vide memo Ex.PW 1/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW 1/C. He proved the seizure memo Ex.PW 1/D (inadvertently mentioned as Ex.PW 1/B). He was cross examined wherein he deposed that he knew both the accused persons as they lived in the same native village. He admitted that Sh. Gyan Chand, who was his neighbor, was earlier working as SI in Delhi Police. He further admitted that sum of Rs.5000/ was taken away by the accused. But he had not stated that his school documents were taken. He voluntarily stated that apart from Rs.5000/, there was also one bag containing Championship Trophy, medals, ribbons etc., which were also taken away by the accused persons. He had not purchased said trophy, medals, etc. He admitted that he had not mentioned names of accused persons when he called at 100 number, but he had only stated two boys only. Police had reached the spot within half an hour. His statement was recorded at PS by the police. Police obtained his signatures on some other documents also including arrest memo and seizure memo in PS itself. He denied that he had FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 4 of 16 falsely implicated accused persons due to personal rivalry or that Sh. Gyan Chand who is his neighbor had personal grudge against father of accused Rahul.
5. PW2 Ct. Naveen Kumar deposed that 24.08.2013 he was posted as Ct. at PS Pul Prahlad Pur on emergency duty from 8pm to 8 am along with IO SI Ranveer Singh. On that day, IO received DD no. 7A Mark A at about 7a.m., regarding snatching of some goods. Thereafter, PW2 along with IO went to the spot i.e. DTC Bus stand, TKD Red light, MB Road, Pul Prahlad Pur New Delhi, where they met the complainant Praveen and his friends. Thereafter, IO recorded statement of complainant Praveen vide memo Ex.PW 1/A. IO also prepared rukka and handed over the same to PW2 and at 9.20a.m. PW2 went to the PS and got the FIR registered and came back to the spot at about 10.20a.m. PW2 handed the copy of original rukka and copy of FIR to IO. Thereafter, they searched for the accused persons but did not find them. Thereafter, they went to house of accused Deepak @ Deep at Village Tughlakabad, Delhi but did not find him. Thereafter, they went to house of accused Rahul and he was found at his residence. He was interrogated and arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW 1/B and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW 1/C. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex.PW 2/A. The complainant identified his snatched goods (i.e.trophy, medal, geometry box, etc,) at the FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 5 of 16 residence of accused Rahul at Tughlakabad Village vide memo Ex.PW 1/D. Thereafter, IO prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of accused Rahul, which is Ex.PW 2/B. IO recorded supplementary statement of complainant and also recorded statement of other witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC Thereafter, they went to the PS and case property was deposited in the Malkhana of PS. He identified the accused Rahul.
He was cross examined wherein he deposed that DD no. 7A regarding snatching of the goods did not bear any name of the accused persons. PW2 along with complainant and three police officials went to the houses of the accused persons. The snatched case property was found from beneath the bed which was inside the hall in the house of the accused Rahul. The goods recovered from the possession of the accused Rahul were six medals, bunches of safety pin, ribbon, trophy and mike. He stated that besides Rahul, his mother and father were also present there. Statement of friends of the complainant was recorded at the spot. IO asked some public persons, other than the friend of complainant, regarding the incident but they refused to join investigation. IO did not serve any notice to those public persons who refused to join investigation. IO did not ask about the invoice /bill of the snatched goods from the complainant. He denied the suggestion that mother of accused Rahul was not present at home as she had expired 8 years ago or that all proceedings were done while sitting at PS. PW2 denied FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 6 of 16 suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated or that case property has been planted upon the accused persons.
6. PW 3 Robin Singh deposed that he did not remember the exact time and date of the incident, however, the incident took place on the day of tournament of Kabaddi, which was organized by the Youth Club and his friend Praveen, who the was member of the Youth Club. Above said tournament was organized at the ground situated at Tughlakabad area. He did not remember the robbed goods which were kept by Praveen in polythene. He stated that he could not identify those offenders, who were responsible for above said incident. He was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and was cross examined wherein he admitted that on the day of incident his friend Praveen was in possession of polythene containing 3 geometry box, one mini trophy, six medals, 5 ribbon roles and some other goods along with Rs.5000/ cash and that Praveen was standing at Tughlakabad Red light, Bus Stop and PW3 was standing at a distance of 200 meters from Praveen at that time. He denied suggestion that accused Rahul and Deepak were sitting at the Bus stand on the day of incident. He was confronted with his statement given to the police Mark A from portion A1 to A2 wherein the same was recorded. PW3 also could not identify accused Rahul and Deepak even when pointed out by Ld. APP for the State and stated that none of them were present at the spot at the time of incident. He denied that he had FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 7 of 16 been won over by the accused persons as they belong to his village and deliberately deposing falsely in order to save them. He admitted that the date of incident is 25.08.2013. He denied all other suggestions and was contradicted with his statement given to police u/s 161 Cr.PC Mark A. He was not cross examined by the counsel for the accused.
7. PW4 Ct. Suresh deposed that on 28.08.2013 he was posted as Ct. at PS Pul Prahlad Pur. On that day, he joined the investigation with the IO and went to Village Tughlakabad, Delhi in the house of accused Deepak but accused could not be traced out there. Thereafter, they went to house of accused Rahul. However, accused Rahul was not found there and his father was found there and a scooty make Honda Activa of white colour registration no. DL3SCF6003 was found there and taken into police possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW 4/A. IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. The scooty is Ex.P4, and its identity was not disputed by the accused persons. He was cross examined Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he deposed that he had only seized the said scooty and besides the said fact, he was not aware about the present case. He denied suggest that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW 5 Sh.Anil Baby deposed that he did not know anything about the present case. He was declared hostile and cross FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 8 of 16 examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he admitted that Praveen is his friend. He denied suggestion that on 25.08.2013, he along with Praveen and Robin Singh were going to see Kabaddi competition which was organized by Youth Club. He was confronted with his earlier statement given to police which is Mark A from point A to A1 where said fact was recorded. PW5 was also read over his statement dated 25.08.2013 given to police. He denied all the allegations mentioned in said statement and was contradicted in that respect. After pointing out towards accused persons he was specifically asked whether those are the persons who were responsible for the above stated incident to which he replied that he does not know, as he was not present there. He denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons and therefore, he is deliberately deposing falsely. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. PW 6 SI Ranveer Singh deposed that on 25.08.2013, he was posted at PS Pul Prahlad Pur as SI and on that day he received DD No. 7 A Ex A3, regarding snatching. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Naveen went to the spot i.e. bus stop near Tughlakabad Red Light, M.B. Road, where they met complainant Praveen Kumar and recorded his statement, which is Ex PW1/A and he endorsed the same and prepared the rukka, which is Ex PW5/A and handed over the rukka to Ct. Naveen for registration of the FIR. PW 6 prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant, which is Ex FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 9 of 16 PW5/A and also recorded the statement of witnesses namely Robin Singh and Anil Babu u/s 161 CrPC. PW6 searched the accused persons alongwith the complainant and apprehended accused Rahul from his house and after interrogation of the accused, arrested him vide memo Ex PW1/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex PW1/C. He seized the case property i.e. trophy, geometry box, medal and other goods, which were recovered from the house of the accused Rahul and same were seized vide memo Ex PW1/D. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, which is Ex PW2/A. He also prepared the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence at the instance of accused Rahul, which is Ex PW2/B. On 28.08.2013, he seized the scooty bearing no. DL3SCF6003, from the house of the accused Rahul, which was used in the commission of the crime and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW4/A. PW6 searched for the coaccused Deepak but could not find him. Thereafter, on 30.09.2013, PW6 sought NBWs against the accused Deepak and on 01.11.2013, process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against accused Deepak. On 05.11.2013, PW6 alongwith HC Mainuddin went to the house of the accused Deepak and arrested him vide arrest memo which is Ex PW5/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex PW5/D. PW6 recorded the disclosure statement of accused Deepak vide memo Ex PW5/E and recovered the case property i.e. two geometry box, one grey and black colour wireless mike at the instance of the accused from FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 10 of 16 his house and prepared pullanda and sealed with the seal of 'RS' and after use of the seal, seal was handed over to HC Mainuddin and the case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW5/F. PW6 also prepared the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence at the instance of the accused Deepak vide memo Ex PW5/G. On 29.11.2013, PW6 moved an application for judicial TIP of the recovered geometry box and mike, recovered from the possession of the accused Deepak, before the court of Ld. MM, which is Ex A7 and A8. PW6 recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court. He correctly identified the accused persons.
He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that he received a telephonic call regarding snatching of Rs. 5000/ and some documents vide DD No. 7A. PW 6 had inquired about the school documents which the complainant had informed that they were also available in the bag which was snatched, however, the complainant did not give any details of the said documents. He denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of uncle /chacha of the complainant, who is working in Delhi Police and holds a grudge against the father of the accused. PW6 reached the spot within 10 mins. The case property was recovered from the house of the accused Rahul. The father of the accused Rahul was present at that time and his sister also reached there after sometime. He did FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 11 of 16 not know the mother of the accused Rahul. He did not remember whether he had asked about the invoice/bill of the recovered case property from the complainant. PW 6 was also shown the judicial file and asked to search about the invoice/ bill, but he could not find the same on the record file. He denied all other suggestions.
10. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of both accused u/s 294 Cr.PC was recorded wherein accused persons admitted the Copy of FIR as Ex. A1, DD no. 14 A dated 25.08.2013 as Ex.A2, DD no. 7 A dated 25.08.2013 as Ex.A 3, DD no. 8 B dated 28.08.2013 as Ex. A4, DD no. 25 B dated 5.11.2013 as Ex. A5, photocopies of relevant entries in register no. 19 as Ex.A6, TIP proceedings dated 29.11.2013 of case property Ex. PW A7, TIP proceedings dated 29.11.2013 of case property Ex. PW A8 and annexure of details of case property dated 25.08.2013 as Ex.A9.
11. Statement of both accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein accused persons denied the incriminating evidence including the exhibited documents which were put to them and stated that they have been falsely implicated as their father / grand father had dispute with uncle/ chacha of complainant.
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the judicial record.
FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 12 of 16
13. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that all the witnesses have corroborated themselves in all material particulars and accused persons should be convicted for the charges framed against them.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has rebutted the allegations against the accused persons by stating that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is contented by the Ld. Defence Counsel that there are several contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that on the first day of examination of PW1, he failed to identify both the accused persons and there is no question put by the prosecution for identifying the accused persons by PW1. It is also argued that PW1 had mentioned names of two other friends who had accompanied him on the day of incident and both the said friends namely Robin and Anil, who have been examined as PW 3 and PW 5, had turned hostile and they could not incriminate the accused even upon being cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. It is argued that prosecution case is fraught with several loop holes and therefore, accused persons should be acquitted of the charges framed against them.
15. Accused persons have been indicted for the offence u/s 392 /34 IPC and accused Rahul has also been charged for u/s 411 FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 13 of 16 IPC. The main allegations are that accused persons had robbed the complainant of some money, a championship trophy, six medals, three instruments boxes, 45 bandaid, one ribbon roll and cluster of pins, on 25.08.2013, at around 66.30a.m. The incident took place at DDA park near Bus stop of Tughlakabad Village. From the testimony of PW 1, it is clear that he failed to identify accused persons when he was first examined on 18.11.2014. He also could not explain how his signatures were found on arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Rahul, which are Ex.PW 1/B and Ex.PW 1/C. PW1, upon being cross examined by Ld. APP for the State tried to change his previous statement by saying that accused persons committed the offence and he had some confusion regarding their identity when he was examined on previous date. It is also clear from the testimony of PW1 that the case property produced in this case was produced in an unsealed condition in a white polythene. Thus, a doubt arises regarding planting of the case property, especially when the defence raised an arguments that a relative of complainant is working in Delhi Police. It is also clear from the testimony of PW1 that he admitted that he did not mention the names of the accused persons when he called at 100 number, even though he knew the accused persons as they lived in the same native village. All these contradictions impeach the testimony of PW 1 and does not make him a credible witness. Also, the other two eyewitnesses namely, Robin Singh and Anil, who have been examined as PW 3 and PW 5 are completely FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 14 of 16 hostile witnesses and they had not deposed anything in support of the allegations, even when cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
16. Further, as per testimony of PW 1, accused Rahul was arrested on the same date. However, PW 4 had stated that accused Rahul was not found at home when they went there in search of him on the day of incident. The said statement given by PW4 is also contrary to statement of PW 2, who had also stated that accused Rahul was arrested from his house on the same day itself. It is also pertinent to note that PW 4 mentioned that he joined the investigation on 28.08.2013, while the arrest of accused Rahul is shown to be of 25.08.2013 as per the arrest memo Ex.PW 1/B.
17. Further, the seizure memo of certain articles allegedly recovered from possession of accused Rahul was prepared on 25.08.2013 itself, but it is not clear why the scooty, on which the accused persons were riding at the time of commission of offence, was not recovered on the same date itself and the same has been seized on 28.08.2013 from the house of the accused Rahul. PW6 IO has also failed to explain said fact regarding delay in recovery of scooty in his testimony. It is also peculiar that accused Deepak was arrested four days after process u/s 82 Cr.PC was issued against him and that too from his own house itself. It is further clear from the testimony of PW6 IO that no ownership documents FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 15 of 16 of the robbed property was also produced by the complainant.
18. In view of above said observations, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, both accused persons namely Rahul and Deepak are acquitted for offence under section 392/34 IPC and u/s 411 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court on 02.04.2018 (ANKITA LAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SE)08 SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 309/2013, PS: Pul Prahlad Pur State vs. Rahul Page No. 16 of 16