Delhi District Court
State vs . Sandeep on 10 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGEIII: NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC No. 31/14
FIR No. 395/14
P.S. Shahbad Dairy
U/s 392/394/397/34 IPC
ID No. 02404R0193142014
State Vs. Sandeep
S/o Sh. Gangaram
R/o H.No.707, Holambi Khurd, Delhi.
Date of institution : 17.07.2014
Date of reserving the judgment : 10.02.2016
Date of judgment : 10.02.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing charges that on 31.03.2014 at about 10:20 P.M., in front of C54, DSIDC, Sector5, Bawana, Delhi, he alongwith co accused Sandeep @ Chamreta and Sonu(not yet arrested) in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of mobile phones number 09918894210 and 07666702281, purse containing DL, Rs.4000/, Visiting Cards in possession of complainant Rakesh Kumar Yadav, on the point of knife. Secondly, on the above said date, time and place he alongwith coaccused Sandeep @ Chamreta and Sonu (not yet arrested) in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery and in committing robbery he State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 1/13judgment voluntarily caused hurt by using knife on the person of complainant Rakesh Kumar Yadav. Thirdly, on the above said date, time and place while committing the above said robbery he used deadly weapon i.e.knife.
2. The brief facts behind framing of charges and for the decision of the present case are that on 31.03.2014 the complainant who is the driver of the truck RJ27GA3677 reached at DSIDC, Sector5, Bawana, Delhi who had come all the way from Bombay and had parked the aforesaid truck in front of C57, DSIDC, Sector5, Bawana and his helper Ramji (PW4) was also with the complainant at that time. Two other drivers of the same company namely Ram Babu and Shiv Shanker which owned the truck of the complainant had also reached at the spot with their respective trucks RJ27GA3977 and HR38Q8177 at the place of incident and they both had also parked their respective trucks at the place of incident. At about 10:20 P.M. while the complainant was returning to his truck after attending the call of nature, he saw that three boys were approaching towards him. While the complainant was attending the telephonic call of his wife, the said three boys waylaid the complainant and one strong boy caught hold of the complainant with his collar and brandished the knife on his chest. The said boy asked the complainant to handover his mobile and purse. The complainant got frightened. One of those boys took out his mobile phone Nokia and purse containing Rs. 4000/ besides the visitor State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 2/13judgment card of the company. The other two boys asked for the mobile phone which was kept in the pant of the complainant but the complainant refused to oblige, to which one of those boys attacked the complainant on his left thigh with knife. The complainant fell down. The second phone of the complainant was also drawn out from the pocket of the complainant. In the meantime, one motorcyclist was seen coming and the complainant dared to catch hold of the assailant who had attacked the complainant and raised alarm. The motorcyclist called the remaining colleagues of the complainant. The remaining two assailants managed to flee with the mobile phone and purse belonging to the complainant taking benefit of the darkness.
3. Police landed at the spot after receiving the PCR call. The accused whose name was later on revealed as Sandeep was handed over to the police by the complainant.
4. FIR was registered on the complaint of PW1 Rakesh Kumar Yadav and chargesheet was committed to this court.
5. Primafacie case U/s 392/34 IPC, 394/34 IPC and 397 IPC was made out against the accused. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution produced twelve witnesses.
7. The PW1 Rakesh Kumar Yadav was the complainant/injured.
8. The PW2 Ct. Labh Singh was the DD writer.
State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 3/13judgment
9. The PW3 Ct. Naresh accompanied IO ASI Ved Prakash during investigation.
10. The PW4 Ramjee Lal was the helper on the truck bearing registration number RZ27GA3677, driven by PW1 /Complainant Rakesh Kumar Yadav.
11. The PW5 Yusuf Khan was the driver of the truck bearing registration number RJ27GA3977.
12. The Ct. Rajeev Kumar was the Channel Operator.
13. The PW7 Anil Bhardwaj was the Principal, MCP Boys School, Khera Kalan, Delhi who had brought the summoned record pertaining to accused Sandeep S/o Sh. Ganga Ram.
14. The PW8 Ishtiaq had made a call at 100 from his mobile.
15. The PW9 Dr. Amit Shokeen was the Medical Officer at M.V. Hospital who medically examined the injured Rakesh and Sandeep.
16. The PW10 HC Rajesh Kumar was the Duty Officer.
17. The PW11 HC Sanjay Shinde was the MHC(M).
18. The PW12 SI Ved Prakash was the investigation officer of the present case.
19. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C was recorded.
20. Ld. counsel for the accused stated that the accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Ld. counsel argued that there is no witness to the recovery and no public witness has been joined in the investigation by the IO. Ld. counsel argued that the State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 4/13judgment accused was going home and on his way, he saw that certain persons were quarreling with each other. When he tried to intervene in order to rescue the persons who were attacking against each other, he also got the injuries and he has nothing to do with the robbery. Ld. counsel highlighted that the arrest memo of the accused has been signed by the IO only and not by any other public witness.
21. Per contra, Ld. APP argued that the prosecution has duly proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt as the complainant and other public witnesses have duly corroborated each on all material particulars and there is no contradiction as such interse amongst the testimonies of different witnesses. It has been highlighted that the accused himself during statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C admitted that he was present at the scene though he has given lame excuses for his non indulgence in the heist and has simplicitor tried to mould the incident to be that a different story by pretending to be saviour in quarrel between the strangers whereas it is not so. Ld. APP advocated for the conviction of the accused.
22. I have heard the arguments of Ld. defence counsel, Ld. APP for the State and have carefully gone through the entire material available on record.
23. First of all I shall discuss the evidence of PW1 Rakesh Kumar Yadav/complainant who while in witness box deposed before this court on oath that he was working in Best Roadways Ltd. Company State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 5/13judgment as a driver. On 31st March his truck was loaded with burada from Bombay which was to be unloaded at Bawana, Delhi. On that day PW Ramji Lal was helper with him in the truck bearing registration no. RJ - 27 GA - 3677. Two other trucks loaded with burada bearing registration no. HR 38 Q - 8177 and RJ 27 GA - 3977 plied from Bombay to Bawana, Delhi for unloading the burada. All the three trucks were parked in Bawana in the night hours at about 45 am. The PW1 Rakesh was feeling drowsy and he alongwith helper PW4 Ramji Lal slept in his truck. At about 10:00 pm he woke up and the burada was unloaded from other two trucks. His truck was still waiting for turn for unloading the burada. At about 10:00 pm on 31st March, he went to defecate in open and while he was approaching to his truck, in the meanwhile he received a telephone call from his wife. While he was attending to the call of his wife, three boys surrounded him. The accused Sandeep caught hold of his color and brandished a knife on him. He deposed that the accused Sandeep removed his one mobile phone Nokia 1100 having a sim no. 9918894210 and his purse containing driving license, Rs. 4,000/, visiting cards of Best Roadways Ltd. Accused Sandeep caused injury on his left back side thigh with knife in order to take his another mobile make Nokia 5233 having sim no. 7666702281.
24. The PW1 Rakesh Kumar/complainant fell down on the ground. He saw one motorcyclist coming from the other side, he raised alarm State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 6/13judgment and the motorcyclist came to his rescue. Two other accused persons ran away with his both mobile phones and purse. The PW1 Rakesh/complainant with the help of motorcyclist caught hold the accused Sandeep. Before motorcyclist come to his help, accused Sandeep caused injury with knife on his other parts of the body. Two other drivers namely PW5 Yusuf and Lambardar of his company who had parked their vehicle at Bawana also reached there alongwith my helper PW Ramji. All of them reached near their vehicle. Police was called and PW1 Rakesh was taken to hospital where he was medically examined. The PW1 Rakesh further deposed that after medical examination, he reached at the spot where his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded by the police. The PW1 Rakesh deposed that he pointed out the place where the incident took place and police prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/B. He duly identified the accused in the court.
25. The other public witness PW4 Ramjee Lal deposed that he was working in the Best Roadways Ltd as helper on the truck No. RJ GA which was being driven by PW1 complainant/Rakesh. He further deposed that on 31.03.2014 at about 34 am, he along with PW1 Rakesh reached at DSIDC Bawana, Delhi in the truck, the two other trucks of their company also reached at Bawana and drivers of the trucks parked their trucks at Bawana, Sec. 5. At about 10.0010.30 pm, PW1 Rakesh Kumar/complainant went for answering the call of nature. The PW4 Ramjee Lal along with other drivers of the truck State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 7/13judgment were preparing meals in the truck. He further deposed that after some time, one motorcyclist informed them that PW1 Rakesh/complainant was being beaten by someone and he along with PW6 Yusuf came out of the truck and caught the accused who was stabbing PW1 Rakesh Kumar Yadav/complainant. PW4 Ramjee Lal stated that the accused caused injuries to PW1 Rakesh Kumar with blade of knife and the associates of the accused had taken away two mobile phones and purse of PW1 Rakesh/complainant. The accused was duly identified by PW4 Ramjee Lal.
26. The PW5 Yusuf Khan also deposed that he used to drive truck belonging to company M/s Best Roadways. He further deposed that on 31.03.14 at about 10.30 pm, he was sitting inside his truck No. RJ 27GA3977 which was parked in Bawana Area. He along with three other trucks and its drivers had reached Delhi with loaded articles in their trucks from Bombay for unloading the same at Bawana Industrial Area. He elaborated that one motorcyclist came near to his truck and informed him that one of their drivers was being beaten by some assailants. He called other drivers and they all ran towards the pits to the new road near jhuggies. When they reached there, they saw PW1 Rakesh Kumar/complainant was in pool of blood and had caught one assailant who was armed with knife. They helped PW1 Rakesh and snatched the knife from him. He further deposed that they handed over the accused Sandeep State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 8/13judgment and knife to the police.
27. The PW 8 another public witness Istiaq deposed that on 31.03.14 at about 11/11.30 pm, he was going to Holambi Khurd via D & C Block to the new road where he found one person in injured condition. He made a call to the police at 100 number from his mobile.
28. The PW9 Dr. Amit Shokeen had examined the complainant PW1 Rakesh Kumar Yadav at Maharishi Valmiki Hospital. He proved the MLC Ex. PW9/A and detailed down the injuries on the body of PW1 Rakesh Kumar Yadav as incised wound 3 cm X 1 cm X 1 cm over the left thigh lateral aspect, lacerated wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm over the left parito occipital region, abrasions over base of right thumb and multiple abrasions over both foot, both hands and elbow. The accused was also examined by him who had received wound 8 cm X 2cm X 1 cm over the left forearm lower 1/3, lacerated wound 5 cm X 1 cm X 1 cm over web space between left thumb and index finger, lacerated wound 2 cm X 1 cm X 1 cm over left forearm, lacerated wound 10 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm over right side of abdomen just above the right ilioac crest and multiple small abrasions and lacerations on both hands.
29. PW12 SI Ved Prakash was the IO who deposed before this court that on receipt of DD No. 64A, Ex. PW2/A regarding stabbing at Sector5, Bawana Industrial Area, T54, he along with PW3 Ct. Naresh went at the spot where police party met the complainant who produced the accused with blade of knife. The accused State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 9/13judgment Sandeep had also sustained injuries. The other drivers of the trucks were present at the spot. The PW12 SI Ved Prakash sent the complainant/PW1 Rakesh Kumar and accused Sandeep with PW3 Ct. Naresh in the CAT ambulance to the hospital for their medical examination. MLC of the accused as well as complainant/PW1 Rakesh Kumar were collected. The knife was recovered vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D, sketch of the knife was proved as Ex. PW1/C. The PW12 IO/SI Ved Prakash handed over the rukka to PW3 Ct. Naresh for registration of the FIR and accordingly the FIR was registered. The accused Sandeep was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/E in the presence of PW3 Ct. Naresh. The PW12 SI Ved Prakash recorded the statement of PW5 Yusuf and PW4 Ramjee Lal. IO proved the site plan Ex. PW1/B. The PW12 IO/SI Ved Prakash duly identified the accused as well as the knife recovered from the accused.
30. The PW3 Ct. Naresh who was with IO PW12 SI Ved Prakash during the investigation also deposed on the lines of PW12 IO/SI Ved Prakash. He was also the witness to the recovery of knife which was 9 inches and width was 1.5 inches.
31. After going through the testimony of aforesaid witnesses, it appears to me that that witnesses more particularly the public witnesses have corroborated each other on all material aspects and there is no contradiction interse amongst them. The formal witness like PW12 IO/SI Ved Prakash and PW3 Ct. Naresh who landed at the State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 10/13judgment spot immediately after receipt of DD No. 64A Ex.PW2/A also proved all the memos including the arrest memo.It appears that the Ld. counsel for the accused has not gone through the record properly as she claimed that the arrest memo bears the signatures of IO only and no other person. The bare perusal of the Ex.PW1/E goes to suggest that it was not only signed by PW3 Ct.Naresh but also bears signatures of PW1complainant/Rakesh at point A besides signatures of the PW12/IO SIVed Prakash at point X. Both the witnesses categorically deposed regarding the arrest of the accused in their presence in their respective statements. Regarding non joining of public witnesses by the IO,no such questionnaire has been put to the witness by the Ld. counsel for the accused during the cross examination. Moreover, the IO has included all the other drivers present at the spot through belonging to the same company. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the incident occurred in the wee hours of night and that too at a secluded place which is an industrial area, there may be least chances that the IO could have found the public witnesses at the spot in order to join them in the investigation.
32. Recovery of the knife has also been effected from the accused which was used in the heist by the accused. The PCR was immediately informed and accused was nabbed then and there by the PW1 complainant/Rakesh Kumar along with his associates who reached at the spot immediately after getting the information. The State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 11/13judgment accused had also used the knife and the injuries sustained by the accused categorically goes to suggest that the complainant had resisted the attack during the heist. The accused in statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C has not denied his presence at the spot. I find force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP that the accused has tried to mould the story by twisting the facts to his defence. No reason has come out as to why the complainant was going to implicate the accused falsely. Accordingly, all the formal as well as informal witnesses have deposed against the accused. The accused has been duly identified by all the witnesses. The case property has also been recovered and duly proved to have been used in the heist. All the witnesses have deposed in a cogent, consistent and convincing manner and there are no material contradictions. The complainant has duly proved his complaint which was corroborated by other public witnesses.
33. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt. The accused is accordingly convicted for the charges U/s 392 R/w 397 IPC & 394/34 IPC.
34. Acting u/s 437A Cr.PC as well as judgment titled DRI Vs. Mike Chimezie, CRL. L.P. 3/2015, the accused is directed to furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount in compliance of section 437A Cr. P.C. As per which, before conclusion of trial and before disposal of the appeal, the accused is required to execute bail bond with surety to appear before the State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 12/13judgment higher court as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective court and such bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months.
35. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the Open Court (Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal)
On 10.02.2016 ASJ03 (North) Rohini Court
State Vs. Sandeep. FIR No. 395/14 Page No. 13/13judgment