Delhi District Court
State vs . (1). Ravi @ Sushil Shukla on 28 July, 2014
FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 184/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0110722012 State Vs. (1). Ravi @ Sushil Shukla S/o Sh. Shri Niwas R/o T429, Mangolpuri, Delhi (2). Rajesh @ Tukkan S/o Sh. Mange Ram R/o S826, Mangolpuri, Delhi (3). Vicky @ Papad S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal R/o T785, Mangolpuri, Delhi FIR No. : 14/2012 Police Station : Begum Pur Under Sections : 394/397/411/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 22.01.2013 Date on which judgment was reserved: 28.07.2014 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 28.07.2014 JUDGMENT:
The brief facts of the case as born out from the record are that on 15.01.2012 at about 10.21 p.m, intimation was received in PS Begum Pur that three boys had robbed a sum of Rs.12,000/ after stabbing someone at Rama Vihar in front of Balaji Mandir. The said information was recorded as DD no. State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 59B and copy thereof was handed over to SI Harnam Singh, who alongwith Ct. Hemant rushed to the place of information for necessary action.
When SI Harnam Singh alongwith Ct. Hemant reached the place of information, it was revealed that injured had already been removed to SGM Hospital by PCR Van on which both of them also went to the said hospital, where SI Harnam collected MCL No. 835/12 of injured Shyam Lal, who was declared fit for statement. Accordingly, SI Harnam Singh recorded statement of injured Shyam Lal, wherein injured claimed to have been robbed by three boys on that day i.e. 15.01.2012 at about 10.15 p.m, when he had gone to Balaji Temple, Rama Vihar for offering his prayers and was returning back. He told SI Harnam Singh in the said statement that the said three boys had come in one Swift Car of white colour, whose first digits were 'HR26' and one of them was having knife with which he had inflicted knife blows on thigh of his left leg as also on finger of his right hand. He claimed that the said boys had robbed him of his movable articles i.e. purse containing some documents like DL, PAN Card, ATM Card of State Bank of Patiala besides cash amount of Rs.12,000/ available in the pocket of his pant.
On the basis of the said statement, SI Harnam Singh preapred rukka and got the FIR in question u/s 394/397/34 IPC registered at PS Begum Pur through Ct. Hemant. The investigation was entrusted to SI Harnam Singh.
During the course of investigation, IO SI Harnam Singh seized blood stained pant of injured Shyam Lal and also prepared site plan of the place of occurrence.
State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 On 17.01.2012, IO SI Harnam Singh is claimed to have apprehended accused Rajesh @ Tukkan and Sushil Shukla on the basis of secret information from S Block Park, Mangolpuri. Accused Sushil Shukla is alleged to have got recovered one key and cash amount of Rs.2500/ from his house no. T429, Mangolpuri, Delhi, whereas accused Rajesh @ Tukkan is alleged to have got recovered one black colour purse, cash amount of Rs. 3000/ besides election Icard and 8 visiting cards from inside his residential house no. S826, Mangolpuri, Delhi. He is alleged to have got recovered one knife from his said house.
It is alleged in the charge sheet that both the accused i.e. Rajesh @ Tukkan & Sushil Shulka also got recovered Swift Dezire Car from Nagar Nigam Auto Mobile Workshop, J Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi allegedly used in the commission of offence. Both the said accused also refused to participate in their respective judicial TIP.
On 08.02.2012, accused Gulshan Bansal was also arrested on the basis of secret information but complainant Shyam Lal could not identify him during judicial TIP and no article could be recovered from his possession and at his instance and consequently, the said accused was got released in this case.
Another accused namely Vicky @ Papad could not be arrested despite efforts made by SI Harnam Singh due to which, the investigation qua the said accused was kept pending and charge sheet was filed against accused Ravi @ Sushil Shukla and Rajesh @ Tukkan. However, subsequently, accused Vicky @ Papad also surrendered himself before the court and he was arrested State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 by SI Chetan to whom further investigation was marked in this case. Said accused also refused to participate in the judicial TIP held on 24.07.2012. However, there is no recovery of any articles from the possession of this accused. After completion of investigation, supplementary chargesheet was also filed before the Court against accused Vicky @ Papad.
After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the charges u/s 397 IPC against accused Rajesh @ Tukkan, separate charge u/s 394/34 IPC against all the three accused persons and separate charges for offence u/s 411 IPC against accused Rajesh @ Tukkan and accused Ravi @ Sushil Shukla vide order dated 03.12.2013 to which all the three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses namely PW1 ASI Pramod Kumar, PW2 Dr. Binay Kumar, PW3 HC Ram Kumar, PW4 Shyam Lal, PW5 Ct. Anil, PW6 Ct. Rinku and PW7 Insp. Harnam Singh till 26.07.2014.
It is relevant to note that prosecution had cited only one public witness namely Sh. Shyam Lal as its star witness in order to prove its case in respect of offences u/s 394/34 IPC against all the accused persons and for proving offence u/s 397 IPC against accused Rajesh @ Tukkan. The said public witness was examined as PW4 during trial but he did not support the case of prosecution on any material point. The relevant prosecution witnesses State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 cited by prosecution as alleged recovery witnesses qua case property, were examined as PW5 to PW7 in this case. Rest of the prosecution witnesses were either formal witnesses or police witnesses, who were undisputedly not present at the scene of crime. They were not even claimed to have seen the incident in question. That being so, no useful purpose would have been served by examining remaining prosecution witnesses during trial as it would have been a futile exercise besides wastage of precious time of the Court. Hence, PE was closed.
Thereafter, statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused persons were recorded during which whatever the incriminating evidence was available on record, same was put to them. However, they denied the same and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case and nothing was recovered from their possession and no such incident had taken place. However, accused persons did not opt to lead any evidence towards their defence.
Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES PW4 namely Sh. Shyam Lal is the complainant in this case on whose statement Ex.PW4/A, the FIR in question had been registered. He is the only star witness relied by the prosecution with regard to incident of robbery in question.
State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 However, PW4 did not support the prosecution story on material aspects including on the point of identity of accused herein to be the assailants involved in the commission of robbery committed against him. He supported the case of prosecution only to the extent that on 15.01.2012 when he had gone to Balaji Temple, Rama Vihar for offering his prayers and had been returning back to his house at about 10.15 pm, three assailants came in Swift Car of white colour, out of whom one was armed with iron pipe which he struck on the back of his head. He also deposed that all the said three assailants had robbed him of his purse containing his PAN Card, D/L, Voter I Card, ATM Card of State Bank of Patiala and cash amount of Rs. 5000/ besides robbing another cash amount of Rs. 7000/ from the pocket of his pant at the point of knife. Thereafter, he went to the Pujari of said Balaji Temple where he was provided first aid by the concerned Pujari who also made PCR call at 100 number on which PCR officials removed him to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where IO recorded his statement Ex.PW4/A. He also deposed that his blood stained pant was sealed with the seal of HSD and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B and site plan Ex.PW4/C was also prepared.
However, PW4 could not identify Swift Desire Car No. HR268739 being the car used in the commission of offence. He categorically deposed that accused persons present in the Court, were not amongst the offenders / culprits.
Although, PW4 identified pant Ex.P1, black purse Ex.P2, Voter Icard Ex.P3, two bank receipts dated 15.09.2011 and 13.06.2011 of State State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 Bank of Patiala Ex.P4 (colly.) and four visiting cards out of eight visiting cards Ex.P5 (colly.) as belonging to him but he could not identify cash amount of Rs. 3000/ on the ground that there was no identification mark on said currency notes. It may be noted that PW4 categorically deposed that knife produced during trial and shown to him, was not the same knife which was used in the commission of offence.
He was also cross examined by Ld. Additional PP as he was not supporting the case of prosecution on material points. He denied to have made statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 09.02.2012 Mark PW4/A as also another statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mark PW4/B to the police.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he admitted that he did not disclose the colour of robbed purse in his statement Ex.PW4/A. He also admitted that he did not disclose that his Voter ICard, two bank slips and visiting cards were also robbed at that time, in his statement Ex.PW4/A made before the police. He stated that he was never called by IO for participating in judicial TIP of the case property. POLICE WITNESSES PW1 ASI Pramod Kumar was the Duty Officer who has proved factum regarding registration of FIR in question on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Hemant. He proved computerized copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement Ex.PW1/B made on the rukka. He has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ravi @ Sushil Shukla and Rajesh @ Tukkan but not cross State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 examined by accused Vicky @ Papad.
PW3 HC Ram Kumar is a formal witness who had recorded intimation received at 10.21 pm on 15.01.2012 in PS Begumpur regarding robbery in front of Balaji Mandir, Rama Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that said information was recorded by him vide DD No. 59B dated 15.01.2012. He proved copy of said DD entry as Ex.PW3/A. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
PW5 namely Ct. Anil, PW6 Ct. Rinku Rathi and PW7 Inspector Harnam Singh (the then SI) deposed about the investigation carried out in this case. PW7 also deposed about the initial enquiry conducted by him alongwith Ct. Hemant on receipt of DD No. 59B on 15.01.2012. He proved rukka Ex.PW7/A prepared by him on the basis of statement Ex.PW4/A made by complainant Shyam Lal.
All the aforesaid three police witnesses deposed that they had apprehended accused Rajesh @ Tukkan and Ravi @ Sushil Shukla from park of SBlock, Mangolpuri, on the basis of secret information. They proved arrest memos, personal search memos and disclosure statements of said two accused persons as Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/F respectively. They deposed that accused Rajesh @ Tukka led the police officials to his house No. S826, Mangolpuri, Delhi wherefrom he got recovered one black colour purse containing Voter Icard, 8 visiting cards, cash amount of Rs. 3000/0 and two receipts regarding deposit of money in State Bank of Patiala (Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 respectively). They further deposed that accused Rajesh @ Tukkan also got recovered knife as Ex.P6 from his house. They also deposed about State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 the factum regarding seizure of aforesaid case property vide seizure memos Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/J respectively.
The aforesaid police witnesses also deposed that accused Ravi @ Sushil Shukla led the police officials to his H. No. T429, Mangolpuri, Delhi wherefrom he got recovered cash amount of Rs. 2500/ and one key of Swift Car. They also deposed about the factum regarding seizure of those currency notes and key vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/K. They further deposed that said accused also got recovered Swift Car bearing No. HR268739 and one iron pipe and three number plates from inside the said car.
The aforesaid witnesses also deposed that accused Rajesh @ Tukkan and Ravi @ Sushil Shukla had refused to participate in judicial TIP conducted vide proceedings Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C respectively.
All the said three police witnesses has been cross examined in length on behalf of accused persons.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE PW2 Dr. Binay Kumar of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital had examined complainant Shyam Lal vide MLC No. 0835/12. He deposed that Shyam Lal had received injured i.e. fresh incised wound of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over postero lateral aspect of left thigh, fresh incised wound of 1 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm over right index finger, fresh abrasion over left hand and left flank of abdomen and linear bruise over upper part of right side of back injured on his person at the time of his medical examination by him. He State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 proved the said MLC as Ex.PW2/A and clarified that injury no. 1 & 2 could have been caused by sharp edged weapon.
During his cross examination, PW2 deposed that he did not seize clothes of Shyam Lal. Injury no. 1 & 2 could have been caused due to falling down on broken piece of glass having sharp edges and such type of injuries could have been caused by single sharp edged weapon and also by double edged sharp weapon.
I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Ld. Counsel Sh. Kashmir Singh Advocate on behalf of all the accused persons. I have also perused the material available on record.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED CASE LAW CITED While opening the arguments, Ld. Additional PP argued that prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused persons in respect of offence u/s 411/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. In support of said submission, he relied upon the testimonies of police witnesses namely PW5 Ct. Anil, PW6 Ct. Rinku Rathi and PW7 Inspector Harnam Singh. He further argued that there is recovery of purse containing several documents and cash amount of Rs. 3000/ at the instance of accused Rajesh @ Tukkan and there is recovery of cash amount of Rs. 2500/ besides key of Swift Car, Swift Car no. HR268739 and iron pipe at the instance of accused Ravi @ Sushil Shukla. He further submitted that all the three accused persons had refused to participate in judicial TIP due to which an adverse inference should also be State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 drawn against them.
On the other hand, ld. defence counsel argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In order to buttress the said submission, ld. defence counsel relied upon the testimony of PW4 Sh. Shyam Lal by submitting that said witness did not support on various material points including on the aspect of identity of accused herein to be the assailants involved in the commission of robbery. He also argued that there are various contradictions appearing in the testimonies of PW5 to PW7 due to which reasonable doubt is created in the case of prosecution and accused is entitled to benefit thereof. He also contended that no independent public witness was joined by investigating agency at the time of alleged recovery of aforesaid articles at the instance of accused Rajesh @ Tukkan and Ravi @ Sushil Shukla.
As already discussed above, PW4 namely Sh. Shyam Lal was the only star witness relied by prosecution in order to prove the offences U/s 394/34 IPC against all the accused persons as also for proving the offence U/s 397 IPC qua accused Rajesh @ Tukkan. Unfortunately, the said key witness of prosecution did not support its case on some of the material points including on the aspect of identity of accused persons to be the robbers who had committed the crime against him. He had been categorical in his testimony that none of the accused herein was involved in the commission of offence of robbery committed against him. Not only this, he also failed to identify not only knife Ex.P6 but also the currency notes Ex.P7 and P8 during trial.
State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 During his cross examination by ld. Addl. PP, all suggestions on the lines of prosecution story had been put to him which he denied. In view of the aforesaid deposition made by the only public witness examined by prosecution, the entire case of prosecution has fallen down like a pack of cards. According to the case of prosecution, the aforesaid public witness i.e. PW4 Shyam Lal had witnessed the incident in question. Thus, he alone could have proved the case of prosecution by deposing on the lines of prosecution story during trial.
The other prosecution witnesses and the documents relied by prosecution, could have been of corroborative value if something could have come on the surface in the deposition of the said eye witness, but he went hostile to the case of prosecution and nothing could be elicited in his cross examination on behalf of the State connecting the accused persons with the offences U/s 394/34 IPC and U/s 397 IPC charged against them. Hence, Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case qua offences U/s 394/34 IPC as also in respect of offence U/s 397 IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
This brings me down to offence U/s 411 IPC charged against accused Rajesh @ Tukkan and Ravi @ Sushil Shukla as they are alleged to have got recovered purse Ex.P2 containing Voter ICards, two bank receipts of State Bank of Patiala and 8 visiting cards as also cash amount of Rs. 3000/ and Rs. 2500/ from their respective houses.
In this regard, it may be noted that PW4 namely Shyam Lal failed to identify the currency notes amounting to Rs. 3000/ Ex.P7 as also the State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 currency notes amounting to Rs. 2500/ Ex.P8 during the trial. Court finds considerable force in the submission of ld. defence counsel that there is no iota of evidence placed on record which may prove that the aforesaid currency notes are the same notes which complainant namely Shyam Lal (PW4) was carrying with him at the time of incident in question. It is also pertinent to note that PW4 did not disclose the denomination of currency notes which he was carrying with him at the time of incident in question, in his initial police statement Ex.PW4/A recorded by IO Inspector Harnam Singh (the then SI). It is also quite shocking that IO failed to mention the serial numbers of the currency notes allegedly recovered at the instance of said two accused.
As regards the recovery of Voter Icard Ex.P3 and two bank receipts of State Bank of Patiala Ex.P4 (colly.), it is interesting to note that PW4 namely Shyam Lal did not disclose in police statement Ex.PW4/A that his Voter ICard and/or said two bank receipts were also available in his purse. PW4 Shyam Lal also admitted this fact in his cross examination on behalf of accused persons.
Although, Ld. Additional PP argued that complainant had disclosed that his purse was containing certain documents and Voter Icard as well as aforesaid two bank receipts are some of those documents but I fail to persuade myself to agree with the said submission for the simple reason that when PW4 gave descriptions of other relevant documents i.e. Driving Licence, PAN Card, ATM Card in his statement Ex.PW4/A then Court fails to understand as to what prevented him from disclosing about his Voter Icard and two bank receipts.
State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 So far as purse Ex.P2 is concerned, it is relevant to note that PW4 Shyam Lal did not disclose the colour of his purse in initial statement Ex.PW4/A made before the police. PW4 also admitted this fact during his cross examination on behalf of accused persons.
Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that PW4 Shyam Lal was not present at the time of alleged recovery of aforesaid articles from the respective houses of said two accused. That being the background, it was incumbent upon the investigating officer to get judicial TIP of case property conducted through complainant Shyam Lal during the course of investigation. Same has also not been done for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer (PW7) who has admitted this fact in his cross examination on behalf of accused persons.
PW7 also admitted that there was no identification mark on currency notes but still he did not mention their serial numbers in the seizure memos. PW7 also admitted that factum of robbery of Election Icard was not disclosed by complainant Shyam Lal (PW4) in his statement given to him.
There is another reason which weighs in favour of the accused persons and persuades this Court to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons. It has come on record during the cross examination of all the three alleged recovery witnesses i.e. PW5 to PW7 that houses of accused Rajesh @ Tukkan and Ravi @ Sushil Shukla were situated in residential locality and also that public persons were available at the time of alleged recovery of aforesaid articles. However, no sincere effort is shown to have been made by police officials for joining an independent public witness during alleged State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 14 of 15 FIR No. 14/12; U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC; P.S. Begum Pur 28.07.2014 recovery proceedings. Although, it has been claimed by all the three alleged recovery witnesses that they had requested public persons to join the proceedings but none agreed. However, the said explanation furnished by them for not joining independent public witness, is nothing but a mechanical excuse given before the Court in order to cover up the lacunae in the case of prosecution. Moreover, the testimony of PW5 Ct. Hemant gets demolished in view of his admission that he did not go inside the houses of accused persons and he also did not sign any of the seizure memos. Said witness also could not tell the description of houses of both the aforesaid accused persons. Furthermore, there has to be conscious possession of accused in order to held him guilty for an offence U/s 411 IPC which is also missing in this case as the aforesaid articles are alleged to have been found recovered from the houses of said accused in a situation where their other family members were also present inside the houses at the time of alleged recovery.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, Hence, Court is of the view that prosecution has also failed to establish the charges U/s 411 IPC levelled against accused persons namely Rajesh @ Tukkan and Ravi @ Sushil Shukla beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, all three accused persons namely Rajesh @ Tukkan, Ravi @ Sushil Shukla and Vicky @ Papad are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Announced in open Court today (Vidya Prakash)
dt. 28.07.2014 Additional Sessions Judge04
North District, Rohini Courts
Delhi
State V/s Ravi @ Sushil Shukla & Ors. ("Acquitted") Page 15 of 15