Delhi District Court
State vs . Karnail Singh on 14 February, 2013
-1-
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01
PATIALA HOUSE COURT : NEW DELHI
In re:
Session Case No. 23/12
State v. Karnail Singh
Naresh @ Satya
FIR No. 35/12
u/s. 392/397/482/468/471/411/34 IPC
PS Mandir Marg
Date of Institution : 06.08.2012
Date when arguments were heard : 01.02.2013
Date of judgment : 14.02.2013
JUDGMENT
1.0 Prosecution case is that on 15.03.2012 at about 8:30 a.m when the victim Priya was at Birla Mandir bus stand for going to her office, two boys on the motorcycle came; they stopped her way and snatched her gold chain by showing her pistol and threatened that she would be killed, in case she raised alarm. After snatching the chain they fled on their silver colour bike bearing number 8351 towards Mandir Marg, P.K. Road. The victim called up her brother Shakti Singh from her mobile, who reached the spot. On coming to know about the entire incident, he called up number 100; the police officials State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 1 of 30 -2- arrived at the spot and tehrir u/Ss 392/34 IPC was sent to the Police Station.
1.1 Subsequently, on 18.03.2012, information from SI Man Singh, PS Karol Bagh was received via telephone to the effect that two accused persons namely Karnail singh @ Khanna and Naresh @ Satya arrested in case FIR no. 40/12, u/Ss 186/353/411/34 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act PS Karol Bagh have disclosed their involvement in the chain snatching incident of Mandir Marg and that they shall be produced before the Duty MM Tis Hazari Courts. DD no. 11A to this effect was recorded and the copy of the same was handed over to I.O. ASI Tulsi Ram who then contacted SI Satyender, PS Karol Bagh and collected copies of the relevant documents viz. FIR, statements, seizure memos etc. He also collected case property of the present case vide RC No. 78/21/12, PS Karol Bagh and deposited the same in Malkhana, PS Mandir Marg and then conducted further investigation. During investigation it was found that the bike used in this incident was purchased by accused Naresh with the registration number DL-10SA-8659 State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 2 of 30 -3- under fake name of Gurdayal and the voter identity card of Gurdayal furnished at the time of registration was also fake. The said number (8659) was changed to DL-10SA-8351 by putting a sticker. In view of the same, and as deadly weapon was used by accused persons, sections 482/468/471/397 IPC were added.
2.0 Charge under Section 397 IPC against accused Naresh @ Satya and under sections 392/34 and 411/34 IPC against both the accused persons, was framed by Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 15.10.2012. 3.0 The prosecution examined 17 witnesses in support of its case. PW2 is the victim / complainant and PW5 is her brother Shakti Singh. PW3 is LDC from Transport Authority, Raja Garden and PW9 Sh.B.B. Pathak, Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, Assembly Constituency No. 4, PW16 Ashok Kumar, Ahlmad in Tis Hazari Courts, produced the original record of case FIR no. 40/12 u/s 186/353/482/468 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Karol Bagh, (copies of which were already filed in this case). PW17 is the Ld. MM who conducted the TIP of the State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 3 of 30 -4- accused persons and the case property. All other witnesses are the police officials, out of which, PW12 ASI Tulsi Ram and PW14 SI Harkesh are the Investigating Officers. 4.0 The statement of the accused persons were recorded on 28.01.2013 and 30.01.2013.
5.0 I have heard ld. Addl. P.P. Shri Salim Khan as well as Shri Sachin Aggarwal, Ld. counsel for both the accused persons. I have also carefully perused the material placed on record. 6.0 The Victim Priya PW2 has deposed that on 15.03.2012 at about 8:30 a.m, she was sitting at Birla Mandir Bus stand. At that time, two persons on a motorcycle came from behind and she sensed that something was wrong and tried to run. But, one of those persons snatched her gold chain and thereafter, the robbers escaped on their motorcycle towards PS Mandir Marg; she could not identify those two persons, who snatched her chain. She then immediately called her brother Shakti Singh from her mobile phone number 9968256125; her brother reached the bus stand within ten State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 4 of 30 -5- minutes. Her brother made a telephone call to the police from her mobile phone. The police had arrived and she narrated the incident to them and her statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded. PW2 also deposed that although, she could not notice the motorcycle number but, the people who had gathered there gave numerical digits of the motorcycle on which the accused persons had come. Numerical number of motorcycle i.e. 8351 is mentioned in Ex.PW2/A. However, in the said statement it is mentioned that PW2 had noted the number. But, in her cross- examination by Ld. Additional PP, PW2 denied that the number was noted by her. The fact that the motorcycle number was noted by people gathered at the spot, has remained uncontested. Same is also corroborated by PW2's brother PW5, as discussed in paras infra. PW2 has further deposed that on the same day in the afternoon on receipt of a call from the police, she had visited PS Karol Bagh; she was shown 6 to 7 gold chains, from which she identified her own chain; subsequently, she had also identified her gold chain before the Magistrate and that her statement to that effect was recorded vide Ex.PW2/B. She also deposed that she had taken her gold State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 5 of 30 -6- chain on superdari vide superdaginama Ex.PW2/C. PW2 produced her gold chain in court, which is Ex.PW2/P-1. PW2 could not identify the accused persons in court and stated that she could not see them at the time of incident. 6.1 PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP with regard to identification of accused persons; that she herself had noted silver Pulsar motorcycle number 8351 and also with respect to the accused persons having shown her pistol and threatened to kill her, in case she raised alarm; PW2 was confronted with relevant portions of her statement Ex.PW2/A, where she had so stated, without much success. She categorically denied that due to fear she was not identifying the accused persons and for the same reason she did not identify them even during TIP proceedings before the Ld.MM. Rather, in her cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW2 admitted that no threat was extended to her by any of the accused persons.
6.2 It is significant to note that PW2 was not cross examined by Ld. defence counsel with respect to the details of State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 6 of 30 -7- the incident narrated by her vide her deposition except with respect to identification of the gold chain (Ex.P-1). Of course, an omnibus suggestion was put to PW2 that she has deposed falsely, but, without assigning of reason/motive of her false deposition. Thus, PW2's version about the happening of chain snatching incident on that day in the manner described by her remains unassailed. PW2's version that numerical number of the motorcycle was noted by the people gathered at the spot also remained unchallenged as no suggestion to the contrary in this regard, was put to PW2 in her cross-examination, by the Ld. defence counsel.
6.2.1 Regarding identification of her chain, it was suggested to PW2 that she has identified the same as her's, at the instance of the police. She categorically denied the same and stated that she identified her chain on her own. She admitted that there was no identity mark on her chain but explained that she could identify her chain as she had been wearing the same for last 8 to 9 years.
6.2.2 Ex.PW2/A, victim/PW2's statement, recorded soon State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 7 of 30 -8- after the incident also corroborates her version that while she was sitting at bus stand, Birla Mandir, two boys on a motorcycle came and snatched her chain and that she became very nervous.
6.3 Further, PW2's version is also substantiated by testimony of her brother Shakti Singh, PW5 and other evidence on record. PW5 has corroborated that while he was at home, he had received a phone call on 15.03.2012 at about 08.30 a.m., from his sister Priya (PW2) that someone had snatched her chain; and that he should reached immediately. When he reached the bus stand, his sister narrated that two persons on motorcycle escaped after snatching her chain and that there were two other motorcycles with two riders each. PW5 has also deposed that as her sister was very nervous, the public gathered there informed him about the colour and the number of the motorcycle; he then called on number 100. PW5 could not recollect the bike number, which was disclosed to him by the public persons. Nothing worthwhile was put to PW5 in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Thus, PW5's State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 8 of 30 -9- testimony corroborates the course of events as narrated by PW2, the victim that he was called immediately after the incident. His testimony also corroborates PW2's version that the motorcycle number was noted by people gathered at the spot. He has deposed that public persons gathered at the place of incident informed him about the number and colour of the motorcycle on which the chain snatchers had come. No suggestion to the contrary in this regard was put to PW5 in his cross-examination.
6.4 Version of the above witnesses gets further substantiated by Ex.PW12/A i.e. DD No. 4A, dated 15.03.2012, PS Mandir Marg, recorded on receipt of PCR call and reads as under :
"Samay 08.49 baje din darj hai ki D-52 Wireless Operator ne DO room akar ek PCR call pesh ki jiska maznun jel hai. Birla Mandir ke paas unknown m/cycle par sone ki chain cheen liya hai. From L.Ct/Amil No. 1930/PCR Hasb amad PCR call darj roznamcha ki gayi naql rapat alag karke hawale ASI Tulsi Ram saheb may Ct. Kuldeep No. 2612/ND State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 9 of 30
- 10 -
rawana mauka ke huye naql HC/DO.
Note naql mutabik asal hai."
6.5 PW12 ASI Tulsi Ram, PS Mandir Marg, to whom DD No. 4A was assigned for action has deposed that he had reached the place of incident at about 09.10 a.m. with Ct. Kuldeep; he found victim Priya/PW2 and her brother Shakti Singh/PW5 at the spot; Priya/PW2 was perplexed and was pacified by her brother by giving her water; and thereafter, she narrated the incident and her statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded. PW7 Ct. Kuldeep, who had accompanied PW12 ASI Tulsi Ram also deposed on the same lines. In his cross- examination, PW12 categorically denied that the complainant had not disclosed about the (number of) motorcycle and the same was incorporated by him on his own. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination so as to discredit PW7 and PW12's testimony.
6.6 In view of the above, it is established that two boys came on a bike, snatched the chain of victim Priya, while she was sitting on Bus Stand near Birla Mandir and fled. People State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 10 of 30
- 11 -
gathered there had noted the motorcycle number as 8351. 7.0 The victim could not identify the accused persons either during TIP or before the Court. She has deposed that she could not see the accused persons at the time of incident. However, the identity of the accused persons is established from the following facts and circumstances & evidence which has come on record.
8.0 It has come on record (as discussed in paras infra) that within half an hour of chain snatching, the accused persons were apprehended, while fleeing on motorcycle no. 8351 and snatched chain was recovered from accused Karnail Singh. 8.1 PW10 Ct. Sandeep Kumar and PW13 Ct. Amarjeet have testified that on 15.03.2012 they were posted at PS Karol Bagh and were on duty at the Anti Snatching Picket at Z.A. Garden on that day. ASI Surender Pal and Ct. Prem Pradhan were also on patrolling duty in that area. At about 9.00 am on that day, one silver colour motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 1F 8351 was seen coming at a great speed from Ajmal Khan State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 11 of 30
- 12 -
road side. They signaled the motor cycle to stop. PW13 has stated that on seeing the police party, the motorcycle riders became perplexed and their motorcycle slipped; both the persons on the motorcycle fell down; another motorcycle which was also approaching towards them took U-turn and sped away. The riders of the bike, which had slipped were overpowered by them. Both PW10 and PW13 have deposed that accused Karnail Singh was driving the bike and accused Naresh @ Satte was the pillion rider. PW13 has also testified that accused Naresh had waived a country made pistol towards them. On cursory search of accused Karnail Singh two gold chains and two live cartridges were recovered from him/pocket of his pant; from search of accused Naresh one country made pistol, three live cartridges, one broken chain with locket were recovered from the pocket of his pant. PW10 as well as PW13 identified both the accused persons in the court.
8.1.1 It is further deposed by PW10 and PW13 that the information concerning the incident was telephonically given to the police station by ASI Surender Pal. On which, SI Satender State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 12 of 30
- 13 -
Kumar from PS Karol Bagh reached the spot alongwith PSI Daya Ram.
8.1.2 PW10 identified the gold chain Ex. P1 to be the same which was recovered from accused Karnail Singh. PW13 Ct. Amarjeet also identified the gold chain, which was recovered from the accused persons. Initially he stated that the same was recovered from the possession of accused Naresh. But, immediately thereafter, he clarified that the said chain was recovered from accused Karnail Singh as the chain which was recovered from accused Naresh had a locket. Both PW10 and PW13 also identified motorcycle no. DL-10-SA-8351 (Ex.P2) to be the same on which both the accused persons had come. PW10 and PW13 have stood by their deposition, in cross examination. PW10 categorically denied that the accused Karnail Singh was known to him prior to the incident as BC of PS Gulabi Bagh and was falsely implicated in this case. PW10 also explained as to why public persons could not be joined in the search / recovery of chains / pistol from the accused persons. He stated in his cross examination that except one or two, the State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 13 of 30
- 14 -
flower shops near the picket were not open at that time; despite their request, none from the said flower shops came forward to be a witness.
8.2 PW11 SI Satender Kumar, in his deposition further corroborated the testimony of PW10 and PW13. He has deposed that on 15.03.2012 while he was posted at PS Karol Bagh DD No. 12A was assigned to him for action in the matter, at about 9.05 am; he along with PSI Daya Ram had reached Padam Singh road in front of Frontier Bazar near Z.A. Garden, Karol Bagh where he found PW10, PW13 and both the accused persons; ASI Surender Pal and Ct. Prem Pradhan were also present. PW11 identified both the accused persons in the court. 8.2.1 PW11 has further deposed that ASI Surender Pal produced before him two live cartridges and two gold chains, which were recovered from accused Karnail Singh; accused Karnail Singh on inquiry had disclosed that one gold chain was snatched from a lady near Birla Mandir in association with his co-accused Naresh and second gold chain from a lady in the area of Kashmiri Gate. He had kept the gold chain in a separate State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 14 of 30
- 15 -
plastic pouch and then converted it into a cloth parcel sealed with the seal of SK. He also deposed that he had noted the place of snatching over the respective parcels as Mandir Marg and Kashmiri Gate; the parcel containing chain allegedly snatched from the area of Mandir Marg was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/G. He also seized motorcycle DL 10 SA 8351, which was used by accused persons, vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/H. PW11 proved both the seizure memos. PW11 also deposed that the case property was deposited with Malkhana, PS Karol Bagh. PW11 identified the gold chain (Ex. P1) as well as the motorcycle in question (Ex. P2). Seizure memo of gold chain (Ex.P1) was witnessed by PW13 Ct. Amarjeet, who deposed to that effect. PW11 further testified that he had informed PS Mandir Marg about the recovery of gold chain and the said IO had contacted him; he had handed over the photocopies of the documents and statements of the witnesses recorded by him in case FIR No. 40/12 PS Karol Bagh; parcel of gold chain pertaining to PS Mandir Marg was taken by officials of PS Mandir Marg, from malkhana of PS Karol Bagh. 8.3 The fact that the accused persons were State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 15 of 30
- 16 -
apprehended in the above manner and were then arrested on 15.03.2012, in case FIR no. 40/12, u/Ss 186/353/411 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act of PS Karol Bagh is corroborated by the arrest memos Ex.PW16/C (accused Naresh) and Ex.PW16/D (accused Karnail Singh). Accused persons were subsequently arrested in the present case on 16.04.2012 vide arrest memos Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D. 8.4 Testimony of PW11 is further corroborated by PW12 ASI Tulsi Ram. PW12 ASI Tulsi Ram has deposed that on 18.03.2012, information vide DD no. 11A Ex.PW12/D was received in PS Mandir Marg regarding disclosure made by accused persons Karnail Singh and Naresh in abovesaid case FIR No. 40/12; the accused had confessed about their involvement in the chain snatching at Mandir Marg i.e. the present case. Pursuant thereto, he went to PS Karol Bagh and contacted IO of the said case, SI Satinder Kumar (PW11) and obtained copies of FIR, seizure memos and statement of witnesses recorded by him. On 29.03.2012, he again visited PS Karol Bagh and obtained one parcel duly sealed with the seal of State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 16 of 30
- 17 -
SK from Malkhana of PS Karol Bagh, vide RC No. 78/21 and deposited the same in Malkhana of PS Mandir Marg. Said fact is corroborated by PW4 HC Rajan, who has deposed that ASI Tulsi Ram had deposited with him one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of SK on 29.03.2012, stated to be containing gold chain bearing FIR No. 40/12, dated 15.03.2012 of PS Karol Bagh; he had made an entry in Register No. 19 at Sr. No. 1500 with respect to case FIR No. 35/12, which is Ex.PW4/A. He also deposed that vide order of Ld. MM Ms. Vijeta Singh, the case property gold chain was released on superdari to Priya/PW2 on 12.04.2012 and that he had made an entry to that effect in the relevant column in Register No. 19. Ex.PW4/A, bears the entry of deposit and release of gold chain to the victim Priya; receipt of her gold chain is also corroborated by PW2 and Ex.PW2/C - superdarinama dated 12.04.2012 executed by PW2. 8.5 In view of the above, it is established that soon after snatching of chain of the complainant / victim Priya at about 08.30 a.m., at Mandir Marg, the accused persons were nabbed at Z. A. Garden, Karol Bagh, at about 09.00 a.m.; and State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 17 of 30
- 18 -
the snatched chain was recovered from the person of accused Karnail Singh. Illustration (a) of section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) lays down that the Court may presume that a person who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. 8.5.1 The accused Karnail Singh in his statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC simply denied the recovery of gold chain from his possession. The onus was upon the accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the chain snatched from the person of victim Priya, which he has failed to discharge. Further, as per Section 8 IEA, the conduct of accused, having been found in possession of the robbed chain is a relevant fact; the said fact connects him as well as his co-accused Naresh to the snatching of chain, as both were acting as a team, which is borne out from the evidence on record. PW2 also deposed that there were two persons on the motorcycle, and one of them snatched her gold chain and thereafter, both the robbers escaped on motorcycle. It has also come in the testimony of State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 18 of 30
- 19 -
PW10 as well as PW13 that both the accused persons were on the motorcycle, which was signalled to stop; the accused persons became perplexed and their motorcycle slipped and they were apprehended. Both the witnesses have also deposed that when they proceeded towards the accused persons, accused Naresh pointed pistol towards the police party. 8.6 From these facts and circumstances, it is established that the accused were the persons who snatched the chain of PW2/victim, Ms. Priya.
9.0 Ld. defence counsel's argument that discrepancies in PW10 and PW13's version as to the specific spot where each police official was present at ZA Garden, expose falsehood of their deposition, is stated only to be rejected. Minor discrepancies in their version, as to which police official was standing where, is hardly of any significance, particularly in view of the evidence, which has come on record. 9.1 Ld. defence counsel also argued that despite Z.A. Garden, Karol Bagh, being a busy place, no public person was State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 19 of 30
- 20 -
joined in recovery, arrest/interrogation of the accused persons. He further argued that from the same, it is evident that the gold chain/motorcycle etc. were planted on the accused persons in order to falsely implicate them in this case. It may be mentioned that non-joining of public witnesses does not ipso- facto make the evidence of police witnesses suspect and untrustworthy. Both the police witnesses PW10 as well as PW13 have given consistent account of how the accused persons were apprehended and the snatched gold chain was recovered from the person of accused Karnail Singh. The same has further been corroborated by PW11. Nothing could be brought out in their cross-examination, to discredit their testimony. In these facts and circumstances, the recovery cannot be over-looked merely because the public witnesses were not joined. Moreover, PW10 has stated in her cross-examination that effort made by him to join public witness, proved futile. In view of the same, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Virender Yadav @ Vicky @ Chhotu Vs. State of Delhi [Delhi], 2011[4] JCC 2635, as relied upon by the accused persons, is not of much assistance to them.
State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 20 of 30
- 21 -
9.2 Ld. defence counsel also argued that delay in registration of FIR by PS Mandir Marg clearly indicates that the record was being manipulated to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case. The police officials had reached the spot at 09.00 - 09.05 a.m. but, the FIR was registered at 12.55 p.m.; the delay has not been explained. Actually it was registered only after receiving an information from PS Karol Bagh, to implicate the accused persons, who were already in police custody. Ld. defence counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 733, in this regard.
9.2.1 It is noteworthy that there is no challenge from the accused persons to the prosecution version about snatching of chain of the victim. Their only defence is that they were not the persons, who snatched the chain. It has already been established that the snatched chain was recovered from accused Karnail Singh, which was identified by its owner PW2 i.e. victim. PW2's testimony in this regard is unassailable as nothing has been placed on record by the accused persons to State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 21 of 30
- 22 -
suggest as to why PW2 accepted as her's, a chain, which did not belong to her. Although, a suggestion was put to PW2 in her cross-examination that she has identified the chain at the instance of police officials, but, no motive for doing so has been imputed to her. Be that as it may. Delay in registration of FIR, may be a procedural lapse on the part of police officials. But, the same cannot be said to be fatal, in view of the evidence on record.
9.3 Ld. defence counsel also argued that identification of chain by the victim before Ld. MM had no meaning as, the case property / chain had already been shown to her on the same day. Same also reflects on the prosecution version that they had come to know about the recovery of chain on 18.03.2012 9.3.1 On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP submitted that even if the said argument is accepted, the same does not in any manner impact the credibility of the complainant / PW2 and referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Akil @ Javed Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 XII AD (SC) 513. State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 22 of 30
- 23 -
9.3.2 It may be mentioned that in Akil @ Javed's case (supra), the eye witnesses had turned hostile with respect to the identification of the accused. The Ld. defence counsel had also argued that recovered articles / jewellery etc. were already shown to the witness, therefore, the reliance could not be placed upon such recoveries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard had observed as under :
"14. ......... another important factor which weighed with the Courts below to find them guilty was the identity of the materials which were recovered from the appellant and the co-
accused. ....... Search was conducted by
S.I. A. S. Rawat who was examined as
PW.14. He testified such fact that the said recovery was made by him from the person of the appellant. PW.17 clearly identified both the articles as belonging to her which were stealthily removed from her possession. In so far as the said part of evidence is concerned (viz), as regards the recovery, it was contended that no public witness was joined at the time of arrest of the accused in spite of prior information which was available with the State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 23 of 30
- 24 -
police. The said contention was rightly rejected by both the Courts below as unsustainable.
15. As far as the identity of the recovery of articles was concerned, the version of PW.14 was unassailable. ........... The other contention that the material objects were shown to PW.17 is also trivial and that does not cause any serious dent in the case of the prosecution. In the said circumstance it was for the appellant to explain as to how he came into possession of the articles whether it was owned by him or in what other manner those articles came into his possession. In this respect it was noted by the Courts below that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC he did not even attempt to explain it away or claim ownership. He stated to have simply denied of the recovery made from him. In such circumstances, recoveries from the appellant along with the co-accused having been proved in the manner known to law, those were well established incriminating circumstances demonstrated before the Courts below and there was no contra evidence for the appellant and the co-
State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 24 of 30
- 25 -
accused to get rid of the offences alleged. Having regard to the said piece of evidence relating to the recoveries prevailing on record the presence of the appellant along with the co-accused at the place of occurrence in the manner described by the witnesses, namely, PWs. 17, 19, 20, 23 and 25 was clinching enough to rope in the appellant along with the co-accused in the commission of the crime as alleged in the complaint and found proved against both of them."
9.3.3 In the instant case also both PW10 and PW13 have testified about recovery of snatched chain from the possession of accused Karnail Singh. PW11, who was called after apprehension of accused persons, has also deposed that he had seized the said chain vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/G. The victim/Priya PW2 has identified the said chain to be belonging to her. Thus, even if the argument of the Ld. defence counsel is accepted, the same does not in any manner impact the evidence on record.
10.0 Accused Naresh has been charged with an offence State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 25 of 30
- 26 -
punishable u/Sec. 397 IPC. The victim Priya/PW2 has not uttered a word in her deposition that she was threatened in any manner much less by pistol, to be killed/harmed/restrained or that she was caused any harm/hurt or was restrained or any attempt in that regard was made by the accused persons, at the time of snatching of her chain. Rather, in her cross- examination by Ld. Additional PP, victim/PW2 categorically denied that she was threatened with a pistol. Even in her cross- examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW2 admitted that no threat was extended to her by any of the accused persons. Thus, offence u/Sec. 397 IPC against accused Naresh is not made out. In view of the fact that no hurt or wrongful restraint was caused or attempted while snatching the chain or while carrying it away, and that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the victim was put under the fear of instant death/instant hurt/instant wrongful restraint, even the offence under Sec. 392/34 IPC against both the accused persons is not made out.
10.1 In view of the evidence on record, it is established that both the accused persons came on a motorcycle in State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 26 of 30
- 27 -
furtherance of their common intention to snatch the chain; and that the chain of the victim/PW2 Priya was snatched. Both the accused persons are, therefore, guilty of offence punishable u/Sec. 379 read with Sec. 34 IPC.
11.0 Both the accused are accordingly convicted of offence punishable u/Sec. 379 IPC in case FIR No. 35/12, PS Mandir Marg.
Announced in open Court (Poonam A. Bamba) Date : 14th February, 2013 ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 27 of 30
- 28 -
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 PATIALA HOUSE COURT : NEW DELHI In re:
Session Case No. 23/12
State v. (1) Karnail Singh @ Kanna
Son of Suraj Pal
R/o. H. No. 10613, Gali No. 5,
Andha Mugal, Partap Nagar,
North Delhi.
(2) Naresh @ Satya
Son of Ram Singh
R/o. G-70/2, Laxmi Park,
Nangloi, Delhi(unverified)
Village Bagai, PS Kheri
FIR No. 35/12
u/S. 379/34 IPC
PS Mandir Marg
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1.0 I have already heard Shri Sachin Aggarwal, Ld
Counsel for both the convicts and Shri Salim Khan, Ld. Addl P.P. for State.
2.0 It was submitted on behalf of the convicts that both of them are married and have wives and small children to look-after; they are the only male members State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 28 of 30
- 29 -
and sole bread earners of the family; there is no one else in the family to look-after their wives and children. They have already been in judicial custody for about 10 months and be, therefore, be sentenced for period of imprisonment already undergone.
3.0 On the other hand, Ld. Addl. P.P prayed for maximum punishment. It was submitted that the convicts are habitual offenders and deserve no leniency. Convict Karnail Singh is a bad character of Police Station Gulabi Bagh. He is also involved in 64 cases. So, far as convict Naresh is concerned, he is also involved in 16 cases and was convicted in case FIR No. 441/2006,under Sec. 20/61/85 NDPS Act, Police Station Kashmere Gate. 4.0 I have duly considered the submissions made both the sides and have perused the record carefully. 5.0 Both the convicts have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC. 6.0 There is an alarming rise in incidents of chain snatching, which has instilled a sense of insecurity in the minds of law abiding and peace loving citizens. In view of the same and taking into account, the gravity of the State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 29 of 30
- 30 -
offence and previous involvement/ antecedents of both the convicts, I am of the considered opinion that they deserve maximum punishment prescribed under Section 379 IPC.
7.0 In view of the above, both the convicts are sentenced with imprisonment for a period of three years each and fine of Rs. 3000/- each. In default of payment of fine, both the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each.
8.0 Benefit of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C be given to both the convicts.
9.0 Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Poonam A. Bamba) Date : 15th Febuary, 2013 ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi State Vs. Karnail Singh FIR No. 35/12 : PS Mandir Marg Page No. 30 of 30