Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Masoom on 19 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No.:386/06
Unique Case ID No.: 02401R0500852005
State Vs. (1) Masoom
S/o Azeej
R/o Village Kamalgarhi,
PS Hiranpur, Distt. Saffganj,
Bangladesh
(Convicted)
(2) Furkan @ Munna
S/o Siddiqui
R/o Mohalla Kazipura,
PS & Distt. Pirozpur,
Bangladesh
(Convicted)
(3) Anwar @ Sagar
S/o Sh. Nanhe Lal
R/o Mohalla CI Para,
PO & PS Firozpur,
Bangladesh
(Convicted)
(4) Sagar @ Sagir @ Shamim
S/o Baraik
R/o VPO Mangola,
Distt. Bagarhat, Bangladesh
(Convicted)
(5) Ebrahim @ Imran
S/o Sh. Hasim Afun
R/o Mohalla village &
PO Mangola, Distt. Bagarhat
Bangladesh
(Convicted)
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 1
(6) Javed @ Afzal
S/o Musharaf Acqlac
R/o Village Uttarjaipal Bati
PO Bangla Bazar,
Distt. Bagrhat, Bangladesh
(Convicted)
(7) Noorjahan @ Reena
W/o Sagir @ Sagar @ Samim
R/o Village & PO Mangola,
Distt. Bagarhat,
Bangladesh
(Proclaimed Offender)
(8) Munna Lal
S/o Sh. Puran Lal
R/o B-42, Jagatpuri,
Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No. 155/05
Police Station: Shalimar Bagh
Under Section: 395/398/412 IPC
Date of committal to Session Court: 26.7.2005
Date on which orders were reserved: 8.4.2011
Date of Judgment: 5.5.2011
JUDGMENT:
As per allegations, on the intervening night of 28.2.2005 and 1.3.2005 at about 3:30 am the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal committed dacoity at House No. BP 1/32, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi after being armed with knives and fire arms. Further, St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 2 all the aforesaid accused including the accused Noorjahan and Munna Lal are alleged to be found in dishonest possession of stolen property and having retained the said property knowingly and having reasons to believe the same to be transferred after commission of dacoity.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION/ BRIEF FACTS:
The case of the prosecution is that on 1.3.2005 DD No. 8B was received in Police Station Shalimar Bagh pursuant to which Inspector Deen Dayal Kalsan along with Ct. Vinod reached the spot i.e. BP-32, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where they met Amitabh Dhawan, his father Deepak Dhawan, mother Smt. Kajal Dhawan and wife Smt. Priyanka Dhawan. Amitabh Dhawan informed the police that at about 3:30 am he was sleeping in his bedroom along with his wife Priyanka Dhawan when six boys barged into his bedroom with his servant whom they had tied from hands. Amitabh Dhawan further informed the police that one of the said intruders was carrying a machine-gun slinging on his shoulder and other intruders were carrying long knives in their hands. The said intruders tied his hands, feet and mouth as well as his wife and thereafter they ransacked his room but could not find anything after which they asked his wife Smt. Priyanka Dhawan to open the electronic safe and thereafter they removed about Rs.80,000/- cash and other jewellery/ valuable articles from the electronic safe. Thereafter two intruders remained in his room guarding him and his servant and the other four took his wife to the room of his parents from where they looted Rs.2.5 lacs and other jewllery/ St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 3 valuable articles. According to Amitabh Dhawan, after committing robbery the intruders filled up all the articles in the pillow covers and left their house.
On the basis of the complaint made by Amitabh Dhawan, the present FIR was got registered. On 3.3.2005 a secret information was received that the accused Saggir @ Sagar @ Shamim is likely to commit offence in the area of Shri Ram Mandir Marg Vasant Kunj along with his gang pursuant to which a nakabandi was made at the said place and the accused Saggir @ Sagar @ Shamim, Javed and Ibrahim were apprehended who made their disclosure statements regarding their involvement in the present case. Pursuant to their disclosure statements the above accused led the police party to their tenanted house from where they got recovered a huge cash amount and other valuable articles including jewellery. The accused Noor Jahan was also present at the said house who also got recovered the robbed articles. All the aforesaid accused were thereafter first arrested in FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj and an information was sent to the investigating officer of the present case pursuant to which all the aforesaid accused were arrested in this case.
On 4.3.2005 the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna and Anwar @ Sagar were intercepted on the basis of a secret information while they were trying to flee from Delhi through ISBT Sarai Kaley Khan. The accused Masoom fired at the police party through a sten-gun and in self defence the police also fired at the accused who got injured and a huge amount of cash and St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 4 jewellery was recovered from the bags which were being carried by the accused. A separate FIR bearing No.136/05, Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin was recorded and the accused made their disclosure statements wherein they disclosed their involvement in the present case on which the information was given to the investigating officer of the present case on which the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna and Anwar @ Sagar were arrested in this case.
Further, on 8.4.2005 the accused persons also made disclosure statements that they had sold some of the articles/ jewellery to Munna Lal Jeweller a resident of Nand Nagri and they can get recover the same. The accused Munna disclosed that he had melted the jewellery items which he had taken from the accused and sold to different customers. He also got recovered Rs.1,45,000/- from his house as the purchase money of the stolen jewellery and the some jewellery of other cases. The accused Munna Lal was thereafter arrested in this case.
After completion of investigations, all the accused were charge sheeted and sent up for trial.
CHARGE:
The Ld. Predecessor of this court has settled the charges under Sections 395 read with 398 and also under Section 412 Indian Penal Code against the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 5 charges under Section 412 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Noorjahan and Munna Lal to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The accused Noorjahan absconded during the trial and has been declared Proclaimed Offender.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as twenty four witnesses.
Complainant/ victim/ eye witnesses:
PW2 Amitabh Dhawan is the complainant in the present case. He has deposed that on the night intervening 28.02.2005 & 01.03.2005 at about 3.30 a.m., he alongwith his wife Priyanka Dhawan was present in his bed room on the first floor of his house and was sleeping when at about 3.30 a.m., six boys barged into his bedroom with his servant Resham whose hands were tied by them. According to him, after entering the room, they switched on the light and one of those intruders placed a firearm on his head. Therefore, they tore the bed sheet of his bed and tied him and his wife with that bed sheet. He has deposed that the accused were armed with daggers and one of them was also carrying a Machine gun, slinging on his shoulder. They tied his hands, feet and mouth and that of his wife also and one of the intruder who was having machine-gun climbed on the bed and threatened both of them to remain silent after which they ransacked his room. He has further deposed that all the cupboards were opened by the intruders St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 6 but they could not open the electronic safe which was in the cupboard and therefore, they opened the mouth of his wife and asked her to deliver the valuables. The witness has deposed that the intruders removed all the jewellery of his wife which she was wearing except her Mangalsutra. He has testified that the intruders also opened the hands and feet of her wife and his wife operated the electronic safe for them after which they removed all the contents i.e. cash and jewellery from the safe. PW2 has also deposed that they removed his rings while tying his hands and the also removed the mobile mobile phones, wrist watches and all other valuable articles. According to him, there were Rs. 80,000/- cash in his safe which the intruders removed. He has further deposed that two intruders remained in his room guarding him and his servant whereas the other four took his wife to the room of his parents and before going to the ground floor room of his parents, the intruders had asked his wife to feed the dogs with biscuits laced with some intoxicants and shut dogs in one room. The witness has testified that the intruders robbed Rs.2.5 lacs from the room of his parents and the articles looted from his room included his wife's diamond set, kundan set, diamond bangles, gold bangles, rings & anklets, gold karas, ear rings, lockets, gold chains, Nokia 7610 white colour mobile phone, Mobile phone make Semen SL45 and another mobile phone of Sony Ericsson both belonging to his mother and another phone of Nokia belonging to his father. He has also deposed that the intruders also took away the silver utensils of Mandir, digital camera make Fuji and a Sony Handycam etc and St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 7 the total number of articles were about hundred. He has deposed that the intruders filled all the articles in the pillow covers and then escaped from their house. The complainant has further stated that after the intruders left their house, he opened the hands of of his servant who in turn opened his hands after which he opened the hands of all other family members. The witness has testified that it took about half an hour in opening themselves after departure of the intruders and it was then he saw that one of the door of his adjoining room was broken open on which he called up the police.
According to PW2, the police reached and then the crime team was also called. He has proved having shown the spot of occurrence to the police party on which the site plan was prepared at his instance. The witness has also deposed that the torn pieces of bed sheets were seized by the police from his room. He has further deposed that the intruders had tied his servant with the pieces of bed sheets and the same were seized by the police from his room. According to him, all the pieces of bed sheets, torn bed sheets, torn shawl of his mother were kept in a pullanda and sealed by the investigating officer and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A. The witness has proved that on 02.03.2005 he prepared a detailed list of all missing articles and gave the same to the IO which is Ex.PW2/B and the list of articles is Ex.PW2/C. (It has been observed that there is no list of articles which is Ex.PW2/C and in fact is the same list which is Ex.PW2/B and hence may be read as such). He has correctly identified and pointed out towards all the six accused except accused Munna Lal who had entered his room with his servant.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 8He has correctly identified the accused Masoom as the boy who was armed with Machine gun and was walking with limp.
According to the witness, two-three days after the occurrence, he was called to Police Station Madangir and later to Police Station Dhaula Kuan where he had identified all the six accused who were present in different numbers at the above mentioned two police stations and on 08.04.2005 he again saw six of the accused persons except accused Noor Jahan and Munna Lal at Police Station Shalimar Bagh. He has also identified the case property including a pair of gold kara with moti and white stone which is Ex.P1; a gold and silver chain (rassa chain) which is Ex.P2; single gold kara with white metal which is Ex.P3; gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P4; one gents wrist watch make Maxima which is Ex.P5; a gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P6; gents wrist watch make Cartier which is Ex.P7; gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P8; a lady wrist watch make Fontenay which is Ex.P9; a lady wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P10; a lady wrist watch make Titus which is Ex.P11; a lady wrist watch make Seiko which is Ex.P12; a gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P13; a lady wrist watch make Jeirribcue which is Ex.P14; one gold chain with locket of queen Victoria which is Ex.P15; one pair of tops with ginny queen Victoria which is Ex.P16; one necklace of white stone with white metal which is Ex.P17; a pair of tops of white stone in white metal which is Ex.P18; an extraordinarily heavy gold chain with white metal St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 9 which is Ex.P19; a gold biscuit with purity 9999 which is Ex.P20; a gents diamond gold ring which is Ex.P21; a gold gents ring with white stone which is Ex.P22; a gents gold ring which is Ex.P23; a gold coin which is Ex.P24; a silver bracelet which is Ex.P25; two silver key rings which is Ex.P26; a small silver spoon which is Ex.P27; one gold chain having three different pendent which is Ex.P28; a gold chain with a locket of Sai Baba which is Ex.P29; a lady gold chain with small pendent which is Ex.P30; a gold chain which is Ex.P31; a gold pendent which is Ex.P32; three ladies gold diamond rings which are Ex.P33 to Ex.P35; two pair of gold button which are Ex.P36; a gold mangalsutra with black beads which is Ex.P37; a gold chain which is Ex.P38; a gold small necklace which is Ex.P39; a mobile phone make Siemens having EMI No. 350016370001242 which is Ex.P40; a digital camera make Fuji Model F-402 which is Ex.P41; a gents wrist watch make Kenneth Cole which is Ex.P42; a gents wrist watch make Guylaroche which is Ex.P43; four gents wrist watch make Titan,Fossil, Fendi and Guess which are Ex.P44 to Ex.P47; a table clock make Calvin Hall which is Ex.P48; a fancy ladies purse mirror in golden colour which is Ex.P49; a fancy clip mirror on both sides which is Ex.P50; a gold chain with white colour stones which is Ex.P51; a gold necklace with white stone which is Ex.P52; one mala of red colour with gold pendent of peacock which is Ex.P53; a silver key ring having small chain which is St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 10 Ex.P54; a ladies gold ring with white stone with letter P which is Ex.P55; a ladies gold ring with white colour stone which is Ex.P56; a ladies ring (white and red colour) which is Ex.P57; a ladies challa with white colour stone which is Ex.P58; a gold locket having picture of Lotus which is Ex.P59; a kara of green/blue colour which is Ex.P60; a biscuit of silver make Engelhard with purity 999+ which is Ex.P61; a pair of golden colour pajeb having stones of green colour which is Ex.P62; a pair gold kara which is Ex.P63; one pair of gold kara in the shape of lion which is Ex.P64; a mala blue and red colour stones which is Ex.P65; a gold chain which is Ex.P66; a ladies silver key bunch with pink and green colour stones which is Ex.P67; a gold chain with one gold pendent which is Ex.P68; two ladies wrist watches make Aldo and Balman Peris which are Ex.P69 & Ex.P70; a fancy glass purse mirror in grey colour which is Ex.P71; a pair of kara (which was in 8 broken pieces at the time of recovery and has not been prepared) which is Ex.P72; a pair of ladies gold tops which is Ex.P73; two bangles with golden and silver colour which are Ex.P74; a kara of golden with lock system which is Ex.P75; a mobile phone make Nokia having EMI No. 351474601899760 which is Ex.P76; 22 small loose stones which are Ex.P77; one pair of silver pajeb with red colour which is Ex.P78; two ladies wrist watch make Rotary and Sonata which are Ex.P79 & Ex.80; a gold pendent with white colour stone which is Ex.P81; a silver coin having the picture of Lord Ganesha and Laxmi which is Ex.P82;
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 11one silver ring with white stone which is Ex.P83; one white metal gents ring which is Ex.P84; three ladies rings with white stones and one of them with a picture of Sai Baba which are Ex.P85 to Ex.87; a pair of tops which is Ex.P88; a silver small tumbler which is Ex.P89; photograph of currency notes with a label describing to be Rs.10,000/- which is Ex.P90; photograph of currency notes with a label describing it to be Rs.41,000/- which is Ex.P91; photograph of some Indian Currency Notes and some Canadian Dollar and a mobile phone with the label of Rs.2,29,000/-, 1410 Canadian Dollars and mobile phone Nokia 7610 which are Ex.P92; mobile phone make Sony Ericsson which is Ex.P93; three silver tumblers, three silver katoris, one silver plate and five small silver utensils used for Puja which are Ex.P94. According to him, all the aforesaid 94 exhibits were released to him on superdari.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that the information about the occurrence was given to the police by his father Sh. Deepak Dhawan telephonically by calling up the PCR number which call was made at about 5:30 am. He has testified that the intruders had remained in their house for about one to one and a half hour and it took about half an hour to them in freeing themselves from the bondage. According to him, initially the PCR van arrived within half an hour and later on police from Police Station Shalimar Bagh arrived. The witness has further deposed that none of the accused persons had muffled their face or worn any mask at the time of occurrence and when his statement was recorded by the investigating officer he had given him the St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 12 description of the gun which the leader of the gang was carrying and he was told by the IO that this type of gun is called Machine- gun/ Carbine. The witness has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW2/DA where it is mentioned as 'gun type weapon'. According to PW2, his statement was scribed by SI Deen Dayal who was writing on his dictation and he thereafter signed it at point A and he did not read his statement before signing but it must have been read over to him by the investigating officer. He has denied the suggestion that Ex.PW2/DA has some additional made by the investigating officer of his own without his express authority. He is not aware if the officials of Crime Team had lifted finger prints from the Electronic Safe as he was on the ground floor when they were lifting the finger prints from all over his room. He has further testified that he had not seen the accused persons at Police Station Madangir and hence he is unable to tell if all the six of them had been apprehended by them and states that subsequently he was called to Police Station Dhaula Kuan and told by the officials that the remaining accused persons who were all Bangladeshi nationals had been apprehended. He has denied the suggestion that he was shown all the accused persons at Police Station Madangir and Dhaula Kuan by the police officials and states that he was shown the accused persons on 8.4.2005 at Police Station Shalimar Bagh. The witness is unable to expressly detail all the articles which were robbed from his room since they were in large number but states that only 40% of the articles have been recovered during investigations. According to PW2, he does not possess the cash St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 13 memos of the purchased articles of the jewellery, watches or other valuables but the cash memo of one mobile phone was available which he had given to the investigating officer. He has also deposed that some of the articles robbed from his room were gifted by his friends and relatives but he is not aware of the value of gifted articles collectively. According to the witness, the name of the accused persons were told to him by the police of Police Station Shalimar Bagh on 8.4.2005 and the names were not revealed by the officials of Police Station Madangir and Dhaula Kuan. He has stated that the currency notes robbed from his room were in the denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-. He has denied the suggestion that the case property was shown to them at Police Station Shalimar Bagh before the Test Identification Parade and states that none of his family member went to Police Station to see the case property and they were only told telephonically about some recoveries and advised that it shall be put to Test Identification Parade in the court. The witness has explained that his maternal grandparents are living in Canada and his mother keeps visiting them due to which reason some Canadian dollars were available with her which were issued on their passports. He has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly identified the jewellery and valuables to be belonging to his family or that he has identified the accused persons at the instance of police. He has denied that the accused persons were shown to him at Police Station Dhaula Kuan or that he had taken their photographs on his mobile phone which he had shows to all his family members.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 14According to the witness, the mobile phone of his wife which was one of the robbed and recovered articles, when released to her on Superdari after the Test Identification Parade of accused persons, was found to have dark videos of two/ three accused persons in candle light which mobile phone the witness has also brought to the court and the face of only two/ three persons were visible in the video and even the same were not clearly distinguishable.
PW3 Priyanka Dhawan @ Priya is the wife of PW1 Amitabh Dhawan and has supported the version of her husband. She has deposed that on 28.2.2005 after taking dinner she had slept on the first floor room of his house with her husband and at about 3:00/ 3:30 am their servant namely Resham along with six other persons intruded in their room. According to him, those persons switched on the lights and the hands of Resham had already been tied. She has deposed that the intruders were carrying big knives and one of them was carrying a gun who posed to be the leader of the gang and directed them not to raise alarm. She has further deposed that the other intruders also said that in case alarm was raised, they would be stabbed after which they tore the bed sheet and tied the hands and feet of her husband and herself. She has testified that they ransacked her cupboard and took out the electronic safe and directed him to open the same . According to the witness, they were addressing her as sister and asked her as to who all were present on the ground floor on which she told them that her parents-in-law, grand mother in law and two dogs were on the ground floor. She has further testified that the intruders opened St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 15 her hands and feet and then she had opened the electronic safe on their directions and from the safe, they took four five rings of gold and diamond, two gold sets, three diamond sets, two pairs of bangles of gold/diamond, Rs. 80,000/- in cash and other valuables. PW3 has also deposed that thereafter they asked her to go down stairs and bring the dogs on which she went and brought he smaller dog and locked him in the toilet which is outside the bedroom. The witness has testified that since the bigger dog was not coming with her, one of the intruders handed over a biscuit to her to entice the dog and accordingly she went again and brought the bigger dog upstairs with the biscuits given by them and locked him in the same bathroom with the other dog. According to her, two of the intruders remained with her husband and Resham to guard them and she was directed by the intruders to get the room of her parents-in-law opened on the pretext of claiming herself unwell. Four of the intruders followed her to the room of her parents-in-law and she got the room of her parents-in-law opened. On this, the intruders tore away the bed sheet of the room of her in-laws and tied their hands and feet with a piece of bed sheet and also with the shawl of her mother in law. She has also deposed that the intruders asked her parents-in-law to handover the valuables or they would be killed on which her mother in law pointed towards the cupboard where the valuables were lying and they ransacked the cupboard, took out the jewellery, cash, mobile phones and watches. PW3 has testified that she was thereafter taken back to her rooms and the valuables which were collected by the intruders were transferred in St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 16 a pillow cover. The witness has correctly identified the six intruders namely accused Masoom, Furkan, Anwar, Ebrahim, Sagar and Javed who had entered her room and committed the offence. PW3 has further deposed that some of the valuables robbed by the accused persons from their house have been recovered by the police which were released to her husband on Superdari. She has also identified the case property i.e. six pieces of bed sheets used by the accused to tie the hands and feet of her and her husband which are Ex.P95; shawl of her mother in law which is Ex.P96; two pieces of printed colour multi coloured bed sheet which are Ex.P97 and four other pieces of yellow and orange printed bed sheet which are Ex.P98.
In her cross-examination this witness has stated that her father in law had called up the police to inform them of the occurrence and the intruders remained in our house for about one hour and they must have left the house by about 4.00/4.30 a.m. According to the witness, her statement was recorded by the police on the same day and no other statement was recorded and no further inquiries were made from her. She has further deposed that none of the intruders was wearing a mask or had muffled the face and she had not given detailed description of the intruders to the police but she had informed them about their physique, height and the fact that they were of dark complexioned. The witness has further deposed that the team of police officials had come to her room and also to the house to lift the finger prints but she is unable to tell from where they lifted the finger prints. She has further St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 17 deposed that some of the valuable looted on the day of occurrence were purchased, some were gifted on the occasion of her recent marriage or some other occasions. She has denied the suggestion that the valuables recovered and produced as exhibits P1 to P94, do not belong to her or to her family members and states that they they had given photographs to the Investigating Officer reflecting some of these recovered valuables to be worn by various family members on various occasions which photographs are mark X collectively (18 photographs). She has also testified that she did not visit the Police Station in connection with investigation of the present case. She has further stated that she does not remember the names of the accused persons and the police officials had disclosed their names during investigation and the leader of the gang was called Masoom. She has denied that she had identified the accused persons at the instance of the police and states that the photographs of the accused persons were not shown to her by the police. According to her, she saw the accused persons for the first time in the court today after the occurrence. The witness has deposed that she was not called to the Police Station to identify the case property and that she had joined the Test Identification Proceedings of case property on several occasion to Tis Hazari Courts but she does not remember the exact dates. According to her, during the Test Identification Parade when she entered the room of Ld MM, case property of present case as well as, other articles recovered from the possession of accused persons were laid on a table and she was directed to segregate her belongings from those jewellery lying on the table.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 18She is unable to give the value or weight of the articles recovered, which were gifted to them by friends and relatives but states that the value was in any case more than Rs.1 lakh. She has denied the suggestion that the accused no. 1 to 6 did not intrude into his room on the night intervening 28.02.2005/1.03.2005 or that she has identified them in the court at the instance of police. She has also denied that the recovered articles Ex.P 1 to Ex.P 94 do not belong to her or to her family.
PW4 Deepak Dhawan is the father of PW2 Amitabh Dhawan and father-in-law of PW3 Priyanka Dhawan. He has deposed that on the intervening night of 28.2.2005/01.03.2005 at about 3.30 a.m his daughter in law namely Priya knocked at his bedroom door and said that she was feeling unwell and called himself and his wife to open the door. According to him, at this four intruders entered the room who had come with his daughter in law and three of them were carrying sword like objects and one of them was carrying a Sten-gun type firearm. The witness has deposed that the person carrying sten-gun pointed the same towards them and was the tallest amongst those four. He has testified that after entering the room they asked them not to raise alarm and asked them about the valuables in their room and then they tore the bed sheets and shawl of his wife and tied their hands and feet with the same. According to the witness, his wife pointed out the cupboard in which the valuables were lying on which they ransacked the cupboard and took out the jewellery of his wife, his wrist watches, his two rings, one mobile phone, Diamond buttons St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 19 of his kurta and Rs.2,10,000/- and some Canadian Dollars. He has deposed that when the intruders were leaving the room he told them that he needed Rs.20,000/- as he had to make the payment to some person in the morning on which the intruders threw away one wad of Rs.10,000/- towards him. The witness has further deposed that two other intruders who were in some other part of the house also joined the other four while leaving his room. He has testified that in the morning he came to know that the intruders also committed similar offence and looted valuables from the room of his son who occupied room on the first floor. He has also deposed that on 7th or 8th April 2005 he was called to Police Station Shalimar Bagh where six of the intruders were present and he identified them. According to the witness, he was told the name of those persons at that time by the police.
This witness has correctly identified accused Masoom, Furkan, Anwar, Ebrahim, Sagar and Javed to be the accused persons who had intruded in his house on the night of 28.02.2005/01.03.2005 and committed robbery/dacoity but he is unable to identify the person who was carrying the sten-gun.
According to PW4, some of the valuables including jewellery, watches, mobiles and cash were recovered by the police during investigations which were released to his son Amitabh on superdari. He has correctly identified the black shawl which is used by the accused persons to tie his wife which is Ex.P-96 and the four pieces of yellow and orange printed bed sheet which are Ex P-98 (collectively).
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 20In his cross-examination PW4 has deposed that the intruders had entered his room between 3.30 a.m to 4.00 a.m and they remained in his room for about 45 minutes. According to him, he had not made any statement or complaint to PCR and these proceedings were carried out by his son. He has testified that the officials from Police Station Shalimar Bagh arrived about half hour after the arrival of PCR and his statement was recorded by SI Deen Dayal on the same day but he does not remember exact time of recording statement. He does not remember the details of jewellery of his wife which were taken away by the accused persons but states that he had mentioned the details of jewelery of his wife in his statement to the investigating officer. He has denied the suggestion that IO himself has written statement on his behalf or that he merely signed the same. He has also denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded by the IO. He does not remember if he had stated to the IO that he told the accused persons that he had to pay Rs.20,000/- to some person in the morning. The witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW4/DA where the figure of Rs. 20,000/- was not mentioned. He further deposed that when the four intruders were leaving his room, they were joined by two more at the door of his room and the two who had joined later on had not brought his servant Resham with them. According to the witness, the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- which was present in his house was on account of receipt concerning his business but there were no documentary record of those receipts. He has denied the suggestion that amount of Rs.2,10,000/- is too large to be kept in St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 21 cash but states that he deal in fresh fruits and at times the delivery is received early in the morning and the payments are to be made for freight or to the grower and therefore money is required before the bank hours. He has denied the suggestions that amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was not available in his house on the day of occurrence, therefore, the same could not have been stolen. He does not remember the denomination of currency notes, Canadian dollars, belonged to his wife as she had recently come from Canada where her brothers and parents were resided. The witness has also deposed that the information of arrest or recovery from the accused persons was received on the Thursday falling after the occurrence and his son had joined further investigations but he did not visit the Police Station Madangir or Police Station Daula Kuan. He has denied the suggestion that three to four days after occurrence he was called at Police Station Madangir and then at Police Station Daula Kuan on the next day or that he was shown the accused persons at the above said police stations or that the allegedly recovered articles were shown to him at the above said police station. He has further deposed that his son told him that he had not been shown the accused persons or the recovered articles, but had been assured that recoveries will be effected and he was called to Police Station Shalimar Bagh on 08.04.2005 in the evening. According to him, he had not joined the Test Identification Parade of the case property but his wife had joined the proceedings at Tis Hazari Courts and he does not possess the receipts or documentary proof of ownership of the case property and states that most of St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 22 these were gifted or imported articles. He has denied the suggestion that the case property received by him did not belong to him or that accused persons did not intrude in his room on the night intervening 28.02.2005/01.03.2005 or that they did not ransacked his cupboards or that they did not robbed his jewelery or cash or other valuables. He has also denied that he had identified the articles at the instance of the IO.
PW5 Smt. Kajal Dhawan is the wife of PW4 and has deposed that on the night intervening 28.02.2005/01.03.2005 at about 3:30 AM she was sleeping in her ground floor room with her husband and at that time her daughter-in-law knocked at her bed room door and requested her to open the door saying that she was not feeling well and she got up and opened the door and found there were four intruders present with her daughter in law who entered in her room. According to the witness, three of the intruders were carrying long knives and one of them was carrying a gun which was hanging with a sling on his shoulder and the man carrying the gun was tall, thin and dark in complexion who pointed out the same towards her husband and the others tore the bed sheets and tied his hands with the pieces of bed sheets and he was then made to sit to on a sofa and so was her daughter in law Pryianka. She has further deposed that the intruders then asked her to hand over money and as to where the money was kept. According to her, there was a threat to life of her husband and her daughter in law as they had been bound and weapons had been pointed at them and they asked her to hand over the keys of the cupboards where St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 23 the valuables were kept and they ransacked all the cupboards. She has further deposed that they demanded to know where the packet of money was lying and they took out the cash which was about Rs 2,10,000/-, her jewelery, mobile phones, wrist watches, silver articles and other valuables. The witness has also deposed that when the intruders entered the room they disconnected the land line telephone cords and also picked up their mobile phones and all the valuables were transferred in a pillow cover. According to her, the accused persons then tore a black shawl which was lying on her bed and tied her hands and feet and they also tied the feet of her husband after taking away the valuables. She has further deposed that while the intruders were leaving the room her husband told them that he needed some money as he had to make some payment in the morning on which one of the intruders threw a wad of Rs 10,000/- on their side table and they threatened them not to inform the police saying that her son was in their custody. The witness has testified that thereafter these four persons left their room taking away her daughter in law with them and while the intruders were leaving the house, all six of them came to the ground floor and then left the house. She has correctly identified accused Massom, Furkan, Anwar, Ebrahim, Sagar and Javed as the boys who had intruded in her house on the day of the occurrence and looted the valuables. She has not been able to identify the person who was armed with the gun but states that he was the tallest of the entire gang and was claiming to be the leader of the gang.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 24She has further deposed that subsequently she came to know that the accused persons had also looted jewelery, mobile phones, wrist watches and other valuables including Rs 80,000/- in cash from the room of her son and daughter in law. According to her, in the last week of February there were couple of marriages in the family and therefore so much of jewelery were lying in the house and she could not find time to deposit the same in Bank Locker. She has proved that she handed over 18 photographs of various functions and occasions in the family where 35 articles of the recovered jewelery/ valuables had been worn by her or by her other family members which photographs are Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/18 which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. The witness has testified that she and her daughter in law Priyanka had joined Test Identification Parade proceedings to identify the case property which had been recovered during investigations. She has proved the test Identification Parade proceedings of case property which are Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C. Witness has also correctly identified the case property i.e. a pair of gold kara with moti and white stone which is Ex.P1; a gold and silver chain (rassa chain) which is Ex.P2; single gold kara with white metal which is Ex.P3; gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P4; one gents wrist watch make Maxima which is Ex.P5; a gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P6; gents wrist watch make Cartier which is Ex.P7; gents wrist watch make Titan St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 25 which is Ex.P8; a lady wrist watch make Fontenay which is Ex.P9; a lady wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P10; a lady wrist watch make Titus which is Ex.P11; a lady wrist watch make Seiko which is Ex.P12; a gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P13; a lady wrist watch make Jeirribcue which is Ex.P14; one gold chain with locket of queen Victoria which is Ex.P15; one pair of tops with ginny queen Victoria which is Ex.P16; one necklace of white stone with white metal which is Ex.P17; a pair of tops of white stone in white metal which is Ex.P18; an extraordinarily heavy gold chain with white metal which is Ex.P19; a gold biscuit with purity 9999 which is Ex.P20; a gents diamond gold ring which is Ex.P21; a gold gents ring with white stone which is Ex.P22; a gents gold ring which is Ex.P23; a gold coin which is Ex.P24; a silver bracelet which is Ex.P25; two silver key rings which is Ex.P26; a small silver spoon which is Ex.P27; one gold chain having three different pendent which is Ex.P28; a gold chain with a locket of Sai Baba which is Ex.P29; a lady gold chain with small pendent which is Ex.P30; a gold chain which is Ex.P31; a gold pendent which is Ex.P32; three ladies gold diamond rings which are Ex.P33 to Ex.P35; two pair of gold button which are Ex.P36; a gold mangalsutra with black beads which is Ex.P37; a gold chain which is Ex.P38; a gold small necklace which is Ex.P39; a mobile phone make Siemens having EMI No. 350016370001242 which is Ex.P40; a digital camera make Fuji Model F-402 which is Ex.P41;
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 26a gents wrist watch make Kenneth Cole which is Ex.P42; a gents wrist watch make Guylaroche which is Ex.P43; four gents wrist watch make Titan,Fossil, Fendi and Guess which are Ex.P44 to Ex.P47; a table clock make Calvin Hall which is Ex.P48; a fancy ladies purse mirror in golden colour which is Ex.P49; a fancy clip mirror on both sides which is Ex.P50; a gold chain with white colour stones which is Ex.P51; a gold necklace with white stone which is Ex.P52; one mala of red colour with gold pendent of peacock which is Ex.P53; a silver key ring having small chain which is Ex.P54; a ladies gold ring with white stone with letter P which is Ex.P55; a ladies gold ring with white colour stone which is Ex.P56; a ladies ring (white and red colour) which is Ex.P57; a ladies challa with white colour stone which is Ex.P58; a gold locket having picture of Lotus which is Ex.P59; a kara of green/blue colour which is Ex.P60; a biscuit of silver make Engelhard with purity 999+ which is Ex.P61; a pair of golden colour pajeb having stones of green colour which is Ex.P62; a pair gold kara which is Ex.P63; one pair of gold kara in the shape of lion which is Ex.P64; a mala blue and red colour stones which is Ex.P65; a gold chain which is Ex.P66; a ladies silver key bunch with pink and green colour stones which is Ex.P67; a gold chain with one gold pendent which is Ex.P68; two ladies wrist watches make Aldo and Balman Peris which are Ex.P69 & Ex.P70; a fancy glass purse mirror in grey colour which is Ex.P71; a pair of kara St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 27 (which was in 8 broken pieces at the time of recovery and has not been prepared) which is Ex.P72; a pair of ladies gold tops which is Ex.P73; two bangles with golden and silver colour which are Ex.P74; a kara of golden with lock system which is Ex.P75; a mobile phone make Nokia having EMI No. 351474601899760 which is Ex.P76; 22 small loose stones which are Ex.P77; one pair of silver pajeb with red colour which is Ex.P78; two ladies wrist watch make Rotary and Sonata which are Ex.P79 & Ex.80; a gold pendent with white colour stone which is Ex.P81; a silver coin having the picture of Lord Ganesha and Laxmi which is Ex.P82; one silver ring with white stone which is Ex.P83; one white metal gents ring which is Ex.P84; three ladies rings with white stones and one of them with a picture of Sai Baba which are Ex.P85 to Ex.87; a pair of tops which is Ex.P88; a silver small tumbler which is Ex.P89; photograph of currency notes with a label describing them to be Rs.10,000/- which is Ex.P90; photograph of currency notes with a label describing them to be Rs.41,000/- which is Ex.P91; photograph of some Indian Currency Notes and some Canadian Dollar and a mobile phone with the label of Rs.2,29,000/-, 1410 Canadian Dollars and mobile phone Nokia 7610 which are Ex.P92; mobile phone make Sony Ericsson which is Ex.P93; three silver tumblers, three silver katoris, one silver plate and five small silver utensils used for Puja which are Ex.P94; piece of black shawl which is Ex.P96 and four other pieces of yellow and orange printed bed sheet which are Ex.P98 collectively.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 28In her cross examination she has deposed that the intruders left their house between 5:15 and 5:30 AM and information to the police was given by her son Amitabh by making a phone call at telephone number 100. She has further deposed that the phone call was made at about 5:45 AM and police reached within ten minutes of making the call and the PCR officials recorded the statement of her son Amitabh however her statement was not recorded by them. She has further deposed that at the first instance statement of her son was only recorded by the PCR Officials and subsequently officials from police station Shalimar Bagh arrived within about half an hour of the phone call made by Amitabh and officials of police station Shalimar Bagh recorded statements of herself, her husband, her son and daughter in law and also their servant namely Resham. The witness has testified that her statement was recorded again on the day she handed over photographs to the investigating officer and she did not hand over the negatives of photographs Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/18 to the IO since the negatives were not available and the photographs were taken out from the album. According to the witness, after three to four days of the occurrence they came to know that the accused persons were apprehended and her son and husband were called to the police station but she does not remember the name of the police station. She is not aware if they were called to police station Dhaula Kuan and if her son had taken the photographs of the accused persons at police station Dhaula Kuan on his mobile phone. She has denied the suggestion that her son had shown her St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 29 the photographs of accused persons which were stored in the memory of his mobile phone which photographs he had taken at police station Dhaula Kuan. According to PW5 officials of Crime Team had lifted finger prints from her house and sketch of the faces of intruders were not drawn by the police at her instance but her servant Resham had assisted the police in making the sketches. She has also deposed that she saw the accused persons only in the court premises during trial, after the day of occurrence and police officials had not told her the names of the accused persons. According to her, none of the intruders were wearing mask or had muffled their faces. She has admitted that two of the intruders had not entered her room and she had seen them only leaving the house and therefore their identity is not confirm. She has further deposed that some of the articles from her room included four diamond bangles,two ruby bangles, a pair of gold bangle with pearls, three bracelets and several other things but she does not possess the cash memos of the jewelery which were looted form her house. She has denied the suggestion that the recovered articles Ex.P1 to Ex.P94 do not belong to her or her family members. The witness has also deposed that for Test Identification Parade proceedings of case property she had gone to Tis Hazari courts on 04.06.2005 and 18.01.2006 and she was accompanied by her daughter in law and her son, however only her daughter in law went with her to the court room, one after the other. She has further deposed that the investigating officer was not inside the court room at the time of Test Identification Parade and she herself and her daughter in law St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 30 joined the proceedings on 04.06.2005. The witness has admitted that jewelery and valuables were lying on a table when she entered the court room but states that the Jewelery and valuables which did not belong to them were also lying on the same table, in large quantity and were all mixed up. She has testified that there were in all seven to eight bracelets from which she identified her three bracelets and the other bracelets were also of gold and there were in all about ten pairs of kadas out of which she identified two pairs belonging to her. She has further deposed that they were told by the police about the recovery a couple of days after the accused persons had been apprehended and her son and husband went to the police station after the arrest and recoveries but she is not aware if they were called to identify the case property. According to her, the case property was not shown to her at her residence or at police station before the Test Identification Parade. She has denied the suggestion that case property was shown to her by the police before Test Identification Parade. She has stated that she does not remember the denominations of currency notes which had been robbed from her room and has denied the suggestion that the currency notes do not belong to them. She has also deposed that the money had been brought by her husband from her office, the previous night as a payment had to be made on the next morning and the jewelery which was robbed from her room included some articles of her Istridhan, some gifts and some purchased articles. According to her, they were not medically examined after the occurrence to notice any ligature marks since the marks were not St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 31 prominent. She has denied the suggestion that the accused No. 1 to 6 did not intrude into her room on the night intervening 28.02.2005/01.03.2005 or that she has identified them in the court at the instance of the police or that the recovered articles EX P1 to P94 do not belong to her or to her family. She has further deposed that she has no personal knowledge if Ex.P94 was recovered from the possession of accused Munna Lal.
Police/ official witnesses:
PW1 HC Sukhvir Singh has deposed that on 01.03.2005 he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh when at about 9.05 a.m., he received a rukka brought by Ct. Vinod on the basis of which he recorded the FIR which is Ex.PW1/A. He has also proved having made his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW1/B. PW6 Insp. Mukesh Kumar has deposed that on 01.03.2005 he was posted as a Incharge Crime team North-West District and on that day he was called by SI Deen Dayal PS Shalimar Bagh at the spot i.e. BP-32, Shalimar Bagh. According to him, he reached there along with photographer Ct. Sushil Kumar and Finger Print Expert HC Dharam Pal and other members of the crime team. He has testified that HC Dharam Pal had picked up the chance print from the spot and Ct. Sushil Kumar had taken the photographs of the spot and he inspected the spot after which he prepared the crime team report and handed over the same to the investigating officer which report is Ex.PW6/A. St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 32 In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that he himself and his team did not visit the spot or that he has prepared the report on the asking of the IO. He has deposed that he had reached the spot at 8:35 AM and hand remained there till 3 PM and had received the information from SI Deen Dayal, telephonically but he had not recorded the information given by SI Deen Dayal in any DD.
PW7 HC Dharam Pal has deposed that on 01.03.2005 he was posted as Member of crime Team and on that day he along with Crime Team went at the spot i.e. BP-32, West Shalimar Bagh and there he lifted chance prints and the same were sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar for comparison. He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsels/ PW8 Shri S.K. Chadha Senior Scientific Officer, Gir- I, CFSL, CBI, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi has deposed that on 01.03.2005 he had received a requisition letter from DCP (NW) for examination of scene of crime, finger prints and the tool marks on which he along with Sh. D.K. Tanwar, SSO-II, Physics, Shri Ashok Kumar, SSA Photos, Sh. B. Mangesh K. Ratnam, Lab Assistance finger Print and others have examined the scene of crime at BP-32 Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi for detection/development of chance prints and other evidence. He has further deposed that on the basis of evidence collected he prepared CFSL report which is EX PW 8/A. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that he did not himself visit the St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 33 spot or that he prepared the report on the asking of the IO or that their team did not possess the competence to collect and develop chance print or prepare the report.
PW9 Ct. Mukesh has deposed that on 01.03.2005 he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh and on that he was handed over the copies of FIR No.155/05 PS Shalimar Bagh to be handed over to senior officers and the concerned MM and he delivered the copies of the FIR at the office of DCP-I, DCP-II and the learned MM, Tis Hazari Courts. He has further deposed that he travelled by official motor cycle bearing registration number DL-1SL-3990.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed the he was not issued any receipt by any of the officers and has denied the suggestion that the copies were not delivered on 01.03.2005.
PW10 Constable. Vinod Kumar has deposed that on 01.03.2005 he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh and joined the investigation of this case and reached at the spot along with investigating officer SI Deen Dayal at the spot i.e House no. BP
-32, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. He has further deposed that the investigating officer recorded the statement of complainant Deepak Dhawan, prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him and he proceeded from the spot at about 8:30 a.m along with the rukka. According to him, after getting the case registered, he returned at the spot at about 9:30 a.m along with original rukka and copy of FIR and same were handed over to the IO. He has further deposed that the IO had picked up one piece of black lady shawl and 12 St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 34 pieces of bed sheet of different colour which were kept in a cloth pullanda after sealing them with the seal of DDK vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He has identified case property i.e six pieces of bed sheets - two pieces and four pieces which are Ex.P-95, Ex.P- 97 & Ex. P-98 (collectively) and a piece of black lady shawl which is Ex.P-96.
In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that the total number of pieces of bed sheets seized by the investigating officer were twelve which were kept in a cloth pullanda. He has deposed that the seal after use was handed over to him and pullanda remained in joint possession of himself and the investigating officer. The witness has testified that after reaching the police station same were deposited by the investigating officer with the MHC(M).
PW11 HC Krishna has deposed that on 3.3.05 he was posted at Police Station Vasant Kunj and was working as Duty Officer from 8:00 a.m to 4:00 p.m. and on that day he received rukka through Const. Sant Raj which rukka was sent by ASI Charan Singh, Spl. Staff on the basis of which rukka, he recorded formal FIR No.150/05 PS Vasant Kunj U/s 353/186/307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act copy of which FIR No.150/05 is Ex.PW11/A. PW12 Constable. Jaffar Khan has deposed that on 3.3.05 he was posted in Special Staff, South West District and on that day, a secret information was received by ASI Charan Singh that accused Saggir @ Sagar @ Shamim is likely to commit St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 35 occurrence in the area of Shri Ram Mandir Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi with his gang on which a raiding party was constituted and a nakabandi was made near the above said spot. After some time accused Saggir, accused Javed and accused Ibrahim came on a motor cycle and they were apprehended by the first investigating officer, subsequently arrested by the Second IO Ravinder Tyagi in case FIR No.150/05, PS Vasant Kunj. According to him, the disclosure statements of Javed @ Afzal was recorded photocopy of which is Ex.PW12/A (original in FIR No. 150/05, PS Vasant Kunj) wherein the accused Javed disclosed that about two to three days earlier, he along with his associates namely Sagir @ Sagar, Ibrahim @ Imran, Masoom, Fhurkan and Anwar @ Sagar had committed the dacoity in a house near Ayurvedic Hospital by using sten gun, knife, pistols and robbed Rs.2,80,000/- in cash, diamonds, gold jewellery, video camera, mobile phones etc which all of them had distributed. The witness has further deposed that the accused Javed disclosed that his share was lying in a tenanted house at Mehrauli, New Delhi which he could get recover and also could get his co-accused persons arrested, which part of disclosure statement of accused Javed is at point B in Ex.PW12/A. PW12 has also deposed that accused Ibrahim @ Imran also got recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW12/B (original in FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj) wherein he disclosed that about two to three days earlier, he along with his associates namely Sagir @ Sagar, Javed, Masoom, Fhurkan and Anwar @ Sagar had committed the dacoity in a house near Ayurvedic Hospital by using St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 36 sten-gun, knife , pistols and robbed Rs. 2,80,000/- in cash, diamonds, gold jewellery, video camera, mobile phones etc which all of them had distributed. He has further deposed that the accused disclosed that his share was lying in a tenanted house at Mehrauli, New Delhi which he could get recover and also could get his co- accused persons arrested which part of disclosure statement of accused Ibrahim @ Imram is proved at point B in Ex.PW12/B. He has further testified that the accused Sagir @ Sagar has also gave the same version as given by accused Javed and accused Ibrahim @ Imran vide his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW12/C (original in FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj) and the relevant portion is at point B. The witness has correctly identified accused Sagir, Javed & Ibrahim in the court. According to him, on the basis of their disclosure statements, accused persons led the police party to their tenanted house at Mehrauli where the accused Sagar @ Sagir @ Shamim had opened one wooden almirah and taken out one raxin bag of black colour and `look crazy' was written on it in English. He has further deposed that he opened the bag and taken out the packet of Rs.50,000/- of Rs.500/- denomination and disclosed that the same was robbed from Gurgaon and the accused also taken out a packet of Rs.10,000/- of the denomination of Rs.100/- and the accused Sagir disclosed that the aforesaid amount was robbed from Shalimar Bagh House. The witness has further deposed that the accused also taken out one mobile phone make Sony Ericson with Camera and there was no SIM card in the mobile phone at that St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 37 time, one another mobile phone make Nokia of gray/steel colour was also produced by accused and disclosed that the mobile phone was the booty of robbery committed in Gurgaon and certain other articles. The witness has proved that the currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- amounting to Rs.50,000/- were kept in a sealed pullanda; the amount of Rs.10,000/- were kept in a different pullanda sealed with the seal of RKT and the currency notes and other above said articles were seized vide memo which is Ex.PW12/D (original in FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj). He has further deposed that the accused Javed @ Afzal had produced one bag of red and black colour and after opening the bag, he taken out a sum of Rs.51,000/- including a sum of Rs.41,000/- pertaining to this case, one digital camera make Fine Fix - F 402, one gent's wrist watch make Fendiswiss, one wrist watch make guss water, prosteel, mobile phone make Siemens 45, wrist watch gent make Fossil, gent's wrist watch make Kenneth, wrist watch with steel chain, table cloth make Calvin Hill of golden colour, one golden chain like diamond, one golden pendent with locket and with precious stone, one black colur kara, one pair paijeb, two diamond rings, one hair clip fitted with mirror, one chair type key ring, one bracelet and some other jewellery articles. The said articles were kept in a plastic transparent jars and pullandas were sealed with the seal of RKT & were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW12/E (original in FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj).
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 38The witness has further deposed that accused Ibrahim @ Imran had produced a raxin bag of black and orange colour from a Tand/ Parchatti (area inside the room near the roof, commonly used for string articles) and took out a packet of Rs.50,000/- of Rs.500/- denomination, alleged to have been robbed from DLF Gurgaon, one silver glass, one pair of ear tops, one ring with Sai Baba photograph, lady wrist watch make Sonata, one more lady watch make Rotary, one lady ring of golden colour in the shape of beetle leaf and some other articles. The witness has proved that the currency notes were separately sealed with the seal of RKT and remaining articles were kept in a transparent jar and separately sealed with the seal of RKT and all articles were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/F (original in FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj). According to the witness, accused Noor Jahan was also present in the same house at the time of recovery and also got recovered some of the robbed articles from taking out from an iron box which were seized by the investigating officer SI Ravinder Kumar in presence of W/Ct. Manju. The witness has deposed that he had not witnessed the recovery as he was standing away at that time. The said witness has not been cross-examined by the accused persons despite an opportunity in this regard and his entire testimony has gone unrebutted.
PW13 Ms. Archana Sinha, MM, Mahila Courts, Tis Hazari has deposed that she was posted at Court no.2, Tihar Complex, New Delhi. She has deposed that on 24.3.2005 on the St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 39 application of the investigating officer, the Test Identification Proceedings for the accused Sagar, Manglu, Masoom, Anwar, Fhurkan & Ibrahim were marked to her which proceedings were fixed for 2.4.2005 vide her order dated 29.3.2005 on application Ex.PW13/A. She has further deposed that vide order dated 29.32005 Test Identification Parade of accused Javed was fixed on the same day i.e. 2.4.05 vide her order on application which is Ex.PW13/B. She has testified that on 2.4.2005 accused Sagar, Masoom, Fhurkan, Ibrahim, Anwar and Javed were produced from the custody of Haryana Police and were identified by ASI Bansidhar and all the above said accused persons refused to participate in TIP despite her warning that their refusal to take participation would draw adverse inference. She has proved the Test Identification Parade proceeding of accused persons which are Ex.PW13/C to Ex.PW13/G respectively.
PW14 Yogesh Ahlmad in the court of Sh. J.R. Aryan, the then Ld. ASJ has brought the summoned record i.e case file of case FIR No.136/05, PS HN Deen, U/s 186/353/307/412/34 IPC S/Furkan etc. He has proved the copies of the disclosure statements of accused Masum, Anwar and Furkan which are Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C respectively. He has also proved copies of seizure memos U/s 102 Cr. P. C dated 5.3.05 regarding accused Masum, Sagar and Furkan which are Ex.PW14/D, Ex.PW14/E and Ex.PW14/F respectively.
PW15 Const. Sushil Kumar has deposed that on 01.03.05 he was posted as Photographer in Mobile Crime Team, St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 40 NW Distt. He has deposed that on that day after receiving the information he along with mobile crime team reached House no. 25, BP Block, Shalimar Bagh and at the instance of investigating officer he took nine photographs which are Ex.PW15/B1 to B9, negatives of the same have been placed on record which are Ex.PW15/A1 to A9.
PW16 ASI Rajender has deposed that on 24.3.05 he was posted as Head Constable in Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on that day he along with investigating officer SI Din Dayal went to the court of Smt. Preeti Aggarwal, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts and after taking the permission from the Ld. MM had interrogated the accused Shagir, Masoom,Anwar @ Sagar, Furkan, Ibrahim and Noor Jahan. He has further deposed that all the accused persons namely Masoom, Anwar, Sagar, Noor Jahan, Ibrahim and Furkan were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW16/A to Ex.PW16/F respectively and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex.PW16/G to Ex.PW16/M respectively. He has testified that thereafter accused persons were sent to judicial custody and accused Javed was interrogated by investigating officer who was later on produced before Ld. Duty MM. He has proved that the accused Javed was arrested vide memo Ex.PW16/N and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/O after which accused Javed was also sent to judicial custody. The witness has further deposed that on 8.4.05 he was called by SI Din Dayal in BJRM Hospital where the accused Masoom, Sagir, Furkan, Anwar, Javed and Ibrahim were present and medically examined and St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 41 thereafter the accused persons made disclosure statements about the dacoity of the present case vide Ex.PW16/P to Ex.PW16/U respectively. According to the witness, accused Masoom, Furkan and Anwar disclosed that some articles/jewellery had sold to Munna Lal Jeweller a resident of A-4/2, Nand Nagri, Delhi and they can got recovered the same. He has deposed that the accused also disclosed that they had sold these items for Rs.1.50 Lakhs out of which Rs.5000/- had been received by them and remaining amount of Rs. 1.40 Lakhs was with Munna Lal. The witness has further testified that accused persons also disclosed about the recovery of other cases and accused led them at Nand Nagri at A- 4/2, Nand Nagri shop of Munna Lal where at the instance of accused Masoom, Anwar and Furkan they apprehended the accused Munna Lal who was interrogated, arrested vide memo Ex.PW16/V and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/W and the disclosure statement of accused Muuna Lal was recorded which is Ex.PW16/X and it was disclosed by accused Munna that he had melted the jewellery items which he had taken from the accused and sold to different customers and the amount of Rs 1.45 Lakhs were lying with him which was the purchased money of the stolen jewellery and some jewellery articles of the other cases were lying at his house and he could get recovered the same from his house. According to PW16, thereafter accused Munna led the police party at his house i.e B-42, Jagat Puri, Delhi and took out Rs.1.45 Lakhs from inside the double bed and also got recovered three silver glasses, three ladies gold ring, one golden chain with St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 42 locket, two necklace of gold and one bracelet of gold which were the case property of Gurgaon case. He has testified that the investigating officer had put up the currency notes and jewellery into different pullandas, both pullandas were sealed with the seal of DDK and seized vide memo Ex.PW16/Y. According to him, accused Masoom, Anwar and Furkan have also pointed out the shop of Munna vide pointing out memos which are Ex.PW16/Z1 to Z3 respectively and thereafter accused Javed, Masoom, Anwar, Furkan, Sagar and Ibrahim had pointed out the place of occurrence i.e BP - 32, West Shalimar Bagh vide their pointing out memos Ex.PW16/Z4 to Z9 respectively. He has further testified that after completing the investigation, accused were sent to lock up and case properties were deposited in the malkhana. According to him, the currency notes of Rs.1.45 Lakhs consists of three currency notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination, 252 notes of Rs.500 denomination and 160 notes of Rs.100 denomination. He has also identified the currency notes from the photograph Ex.P-95.
In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that the disclosure statement of accused were recorded in BJRM Hospital and he had recorded the disclosure statements of Masoom, Furkan and Anwar on the dictation of investigating officer. He is not aware about the exact time but states that it was on 8.4.05. According to him, the investigating officer first heard the entire story from the accused and thereafter the same was dictated to him. He has denied the suggestion that accused had not made any disclosure statement or St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 43 that he had recorded disclosure statements only at the instance of investigating officer. He has denied that accused had not pointed out the place of occurrence. According to him, he along with Din Dayal and six accused persons along with some police officials reached the shop of Munna Lal. He is not aware about the exact time when he reached there but according to him, it was after noon hours. The witness has deposed that the shop of accused Munna Lal is situated on a running road where investigating officer had asked four to five public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Munna Lal was not arrested on 8.4.05 rather he was in police custody for the last about ten days prior to 8.4.05. He showed his ignorance whether the sons of Munna Lal had sent a fax regarding the illegal detention of Munna Lal and has denied that when he received the information about the fax then they showed the arrest of the accused Munna Lal. He has deposed that disclosure of accused Munna was recorded at his shop which is in the handwriting of SI Din Dayal and has denied the suggestion that accused had not made any disclosure statement and had kept the accused Munna in illegal detention. He has admitted that they went at the shop of Munna Lal, on TATA 407 whose number was forgotten by him. The witness has deposed that the shop of Munna Lal was at ground floor but he was not aware about the direction of the door of shop of Munna Lal as well as size of his shop. He has also denied that he has no knowledge of all these things as he had not visited the shop. The witness has deposed that they remained at the shop of St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 44 Munna Lal for about 45 minutes to one hour and 5-10 persons had gathered at the shop. According to him, the investigating officer had asked amongst them to join the investigation but none agreed and the door of house of accused Munna Lal was closed when they reached there. He is not aware as to who had opened the door and the directions of the door of the house of Munna Lal. The witness has testified that they went on the ground floor but he was not in a position to tell whether it was a single storeyed house or multi storeyed house. He has denied the suggestion that he was not able to tell all those things as he had not visited at the house of Munna Lal and testified he had noticed only two rooms in the house but he is unable to tell how many rooms were there in the house of ground floor. He is not aware as to who other else were present at the time of recovery but has denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the house of Munna Lal. He has further denied the suggestion that accused had told the investigating officer at the time of recovery that this money which was in fact Rs.2.25 Lakhs and not Rs.1.45 Lakhs belong to her sister who had sold her house in Bareli as she wanted to purchase a house in Delhi. The witness has further denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation with the investigating officer and all the documents have been signed while sitting in the Police Station.
PW17 Inspt. Vijay Singh has deposed that on 4.3.2005 he was posted as SI in Special Staff, South Distt. and on that day he along with SI Akhilesh, ASI Paramjit, HC Shyamvir, HC Ashok, HC Ram Kishan, Ct. Ramesh and three to four other persons were St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 45 on patrolling duty. According to him, HC Shyamvir received a secret information that some criminal who are of Bangladesh region and are involved in incidents of dacoity, robbery etc. in the Delhi NCR Region were preparing to leave Delhi through ISBT, Sarai Kaley Khan in order to go to Bangladesh. He has deposed that as per information the said persons would be entering from the ingate and in case if checked they would be found in possession of weapons and of looted property. The witness has testified that on receipt of this information they took the permission from senior police officials and created a picket at the in gate and as per the information three persons came when on the pointing out of the informer they tried to stop these persons on which one person who was carrying a sten gun 9MM fired at them. According to him, in self defence after giving warning to those persons HC Shyamvir also fired in which one person who was carrying the sten-gun got injured and they rounded all the three persons and the person who was injured whose name they later came to know as Masoom who was sent to the hospital through PCR. He has deposed that the bag of the accused and sten gun which had fallen at the spot had been taken into possession by the subsequent investigating officer and the other two persons whose name later on came to know as Furkan @ Munna and Anwar @ Sagar were also apprehended. According to him, local police was informed and SI Sanjiv came from Police Station Nizamuddin and on the basis of his statement FIR No.136/05, PS Nizamuddin was registered. The witness has also deposed that the investigating officer SI Sanjiv prepared the St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 46 recovery memos which are Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW14/C, Ex.PW14/D and Ex.PW14/F and the recovery memos Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW14/E and Ex.PW14/F which was pursuant to the disclosure statements of accused Masoom, Anwar and Furkan, recorded in his presence. According to the witness the recovery memos would show that a huge recovery of cash and jewellery had been effected from the possession of the three accused persons as mentioned therein and the details of the recoveries from the possession of the accused has been mentioned in their respective seizure memos. He has testified that the articles so recovered were being carried by the accused persons in their respective bags after which the investigating officer arrested the accused persons and the investigating officer in case FIR No.136/05, Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin had also recorded his statement after recording the disclosure of the accused and after conducting further investigations. He has further deposed that in the present case his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on 7.3.2005 at Police Station Nizamuddin. The witness has correctly identified the accused Masoom, Anwar and Furkan in the court and it has been observed by the court that the case property has been released on 'superdari' on the directions of the court. The witness has identified the same from the photographs already placed on record which case property is already reflected in the statement of PW5 Smt. Kajal Dhawan. He has deposed that a total number of thirty eight items were seized from the possession of the accused apprehended by them.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 47In his cross-examination the witness has denied that the said statement on the basis of which FIR No.136/05, Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin was registered is not on the present judicial record. According to him, they were on patrolling duty on the date of incident at about 10pm on 4.3.2005 and the secret information has been received at the spot itself but they did not reduce this information into writing. The witness has deposed that he had fired two shots from his service revolver and HC Shyambir had also fired and the investigating officer had prepared the seizure memo of the fired cartridges. He does not remember the colour of the bag recovered from the possession of the accused Anwar, Furkan and Masoom. He has testified that the currency notes recovered from the aforesaid accused were of different denominations and some currency was also foreign, the details of which have been mentioned in the seizure memos. He has denied the suggestion that no recovery had been effected either from the possession of accused Anwar, Furkan and Masoom and the recovery so showed in the seizure memo was planted or that no sten gun was recovered from the possession of the accused Masoom and no knife was recovered from the possession of accused Anwar. According to the witness, the disclosure had been written by the investigating officer and he only signed the same as witness. He has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statements were written and all documentation were done while sitting in the Police Station.
PW18 Sh. P.K. Jain, Joint Registrar, Delhi High Court:
New Delhi has deposed that on 13.4.05 he was posted as MM in St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 48 Tis Hazari Courts and on that day an application for conducting the Test Identification Parade of the case property was put up before him on the request of investigating officer SI Deen Dayal in the present case which Test Identification Parade was thereafter fixed for 23.4.05 and notices were issued to MHC(M), PS Vasant Kunj and Police Station Nizamuddin with the directions to produce the case property. According to him, on 23.4.05 IO SI Deen Dayal along with MHC(M) HC Subhash of Police Station Vasant Kunj produced three pullandas duly sealed with the seal of "'RKT" and brought the artificial jewellery for the purpose of mixing with the case property but the same was not found to be sufficient and therefore, the Test Identification Parade was adjourned for 27.4.05. According to him, the case property was resealed and handed over to the investigating officer for handing over to MHC(M) HC Subhash with the directions to produce the same on 27.4.05. He has proved his proceedings dated 23.4.2005 which are Ex.PW18/A and deposed that on 11.5.05 in continuation of his proceedings conducted on 23.4.05 IO/SI Deen Dayal and HC Subhash- MHC(M), PS Vasant Kunj produced the case property sealed with the court seal and the investigating officer has also produced the case property for mixing. According to him, complainant Smt. Kajal Dhawan had correctly identified two pairs of kara, one single kara, one gold chain with pendant of Queen Victoria, one pair of tops, one gents ring, three ladies wrist watch, five gents wrist watch and one silver glass by picking up articles one by one but she failed to identify the some other articles, whose details have St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 49 been mentioned in his proceedings. He has testified that after identification from this witness another witness Ms. Priyanka Dhawan was called & she correctly identified two pairs of gold kara, one single kara, one gold chain with pendant of Queen Victoria, one plain chain by picking up one by one, one gents ring, three wrist watches (ladies) one gents wrist watch make Kennethcole, Newyork but she failed to identify gold chain with diamond, one pair of tops, one ladies wrist watch make Sanota and another gents wrist watch and the silver glass. According to the witness after conducting the Test Identification Parade the case property were resealed with the seal of PKJ and returned to the investigating officer who was directed to handover the same to HC Subhash which proceedings are Ex.PW5/B and a copy of the proceedings was supplied to investigating officer on his request. He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
PW19 Inspt. Deen Dayal Kalshan has deposed that on 1.3.2005 he was posted as a Sub Inspector at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on that day he received DD No.8B after which he along with Ct. Vinod reached at the spot i.e BP-32, Shalimar Bagh where he met the complainant Amitabh Dhawan and his father-Deepak Dhawan, mother-Kajal Dhawan and wife Smt. Priyanka Dhawan and found that the bed room was found ransacked. According to him, he recorded the statement of Amitabh Dhawan and attested his signatures at point X and prepared rukka which is Ex.PW19/A and rukka was handed over to Ct. Vinod for getting the FIR registered. He has deposed that the St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 50 Crime Team was called at the spot who inspected the spot and chance prints were lifted and photographs of the spot were taken.
He has proved having recorded the statement of the photographer, crime team in-charge and member of the crime team. The witness has testified that Ct. Vinod came back at the spot and handed over to him copy of FIR and original rukka after which he prepared the site plan at the instance of Amitabh which is Ex.PW19/B. According to him, he lifted 12 pieces of bed sheets and one piece of shawl from the spot with which the accused persons had tied the complainant and his family members which were put up into pullanda and sealed with the seal of "DDK" and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He has deposed that he recorded the supplementary statements of Amitabh and statement of Deepak Dhawan, Kajal Dhawan, Rasham who was the servant of the complainant and Priyanka Dhawan and made local inquiries. He has further deposed that on 2.3.05 complainant Amitabh Dhawan had handed over to him one list of stolen articles which is Ex.PW2/B and he searched for the accused but not found. According to the witness, on 7.3.05 he received information from Special Staff, Dhaula Kuan that accused Sagir, Javed, Ibrahim and Noorjahan have been arrested by them in case FIR No.150/05 of PS Vasant Kunj and they had made disclosure statement about this case and recovery has been effected from them and on that day he also received the information from Police Station Nizamuddin that accused Furkan, Masoom and Anwar have been arrested by them in case FIR No.136/05, Police Station Nizamuddin and that they had made disclosure statements St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 51 about this case and recovery had been effected from them. He has proved that thereafter he along with HC Rajender & Ct. Satish reached Special Staff, Dhaula Kuan where he met SI Ravinder who handed over to him documents of case FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj and recorded the statement of SI Ravinder and Ct. Jaffar Khan after which they reached Police Station Nizamuddin where he met SI Sanjiv, SI Vijay Singh and HC Bahiyaram and SI Sanjeev handed over to him documents of case FIR No.136/05, Police Station Nizamuddin and he recorded their statements. The witness has deposed that on 24.3.05 accused Noor Jhan, Masoom, Furkan, Anwar, Ibrahim and Sagir were produced in the court of Ms. Preeti Aggarwal on production warrant and after taking the permission accused were interrogated and were arrested vide memos Ex.PW16/A to Ex.PW16/F and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex.PW16/G, Ex.PW21/H, Ex.PW21/J, Ex.PW21/K, Ex.PW21/L and Ex.PW21/M respectively. He has also testified that accused were sent to judicial custody in muffled faces as they were to be produced for Judicial Test Identification Parade and he moved an application for the Test Identification Parade of accused which application was adjourned for 29.3.05. Thereafter, accused Javed was produced before the duty MM Sh. Vinod Kumar Yadav and after taking the permission from the Hon'ble Court the accused was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW16/H and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/O. The accused Javed was also sent to judicial custody in muffled face and he also moved an application St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 52 for Test Identification Parade and the same was also adjourned for 29.3.05. According to the witness, on 29.3.05 the Test Identification Parade of the accused were adjourned for 2.4.05 on which date all the accused had refused to participate in the Judicial Test Identification Parade. The witness has further testified that on 8.4.05 accused Furkan, Masoom, Javed, Sagir, Ibrahim and Anwar were produced from Bondsi Jail before the Ld. MM Sh. SK Aggarwal and were then remanded to police custody till 12 mid night. According to him, the accused were taken to BJRM Hospital for medical examination and HC Rajender was called there and the accused Ibrahim, Sagir, Javed, Furkan, Masoom & Anwar made disclosure statement which are Ex.PW16/P to Ex.PW16/U respectively. He has testified that the accused Masoom, Furkan and Anwar disclosed that some jewellery/ articles have been sold by them to Munna Lal, Jewellers, who is a resident of Nand Nagri A4/2 and they can got recovered the same. The witness has also deposed that the accused persons had told them that they had sold these articles for Rs.1,50,000/- out of which they had spent Rs.5,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.1,45,000 was lying with Munna Lal. According to the investigating officer, all the six accused took them at Nand Nagri at A4/2 Nand Nagri i.e Shop of Munna Lal and from where at the instance of accused Masoom, Anwar and Furkan they apprehended the accused Munna Lal who was interrogated and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW16/V and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/W. He has proved the pointing out memo of the shop which are St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 53 Ex.PW16/Z1 to Z3 and the disclosure statement of the accused Munna Lal which is Ex.PW16/X. The witness has further deposed that the accused Munna disclosed that the had melted the jewellery items which he had taken from the accused and sold to different customers and the amount of Rs.1,45,000/- were lying with him which is the purchase money of the stolen jewelery and also that some jewelery of other cases are also lying at his house and he can get recover the same from there. He has testified that thereafter accused Munna Lal took to his house at B42, Jagat Puri from where he had taken out Rs.1,45,000/- from inside the double bed and also got recovered three silver glasses, three ladies gold ring, one golden chain with locket, two necklace of gold, one bracelet of gold out of which some property is of Gurgaon case. According to the witness, he (witness) put up the currency notes in one pullanda and given serial no.1 after sealing the same with the seal of DDK; the items of serial no.2 to 6 on the seizure memo were put up into different pullanda and sealed with the seal of DDK which items were seized vide memo Ex.PW16/Y and thereafter all the six accused also pointed out the place of occurrence i.e BP-32, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi vide pointing out memos which are Ex.PW16/Z4 to Ex.PW16/Z9. The witness has also deposed that accused were produced before Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Ld. Duty MM who ordered to send the accused in Bhondsi Jail on next day in the morning and thereafter the accused were taken to police lockup Shalimar Bagh and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. He has testified that witnesses Deepak Dhawan and St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 54 Amitabh Dhawan came in the Police Station and had identified all the six accused persons. According to him, the accused Munna Lal was also sent to police lockup and next day six accused were sent to Bhondsi Jail and accused Munna Lal was sent to Judicial Custody. He has proved that on 12.4.05 he moved an application for Test Identification Parade of the case property which application is Ex.PW19/C and the Test Identification Parade proceedings of the case property was conducted on 23.4.05 and 11.5.05 by Sh. PK Jain, Ld. MM and thereafter he collected the copies of the same vide his application Ex.PW19/D. He has also testified that on 21.5.05 witness Kajal Dhawan handed over to him 18 photographs of his family members in which the family members are wearing the ornaments which were stolen and later on out of them some were recovered which photographs were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/A and the photographs are Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/18. The witness has also testified that at the time of arrest of the accused the finger prints were taken which were sent for comparison with chance print lifted from the spot and later on he collected the report of the Finger Print Bureau which is Ex.PW19/E. He has proved having prepared the challan against the accused and filed the same in the court. The witness has further testified that on 24.11.05 the case property of this case was got transferred from PS Vasant Kunj vide RC No.150/21/05 and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW19/F and on 23.12.05 the case property was got transferred from PS Nizamuddin vide RC No.186/21/05 and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW19/G. St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 55 He has proved that on 18.1.06 Test Identification Parade of the case property were also got conducted from Ms. Preeti Aggarwal, Ld. MM and on 4.6.05 he also got conducted Test Identification Parade of some property from Sh PK Jain, the then Ld. MM and he collected the copy of the same which is Ex.PW19/H. The witness has proved having filed the supplementary challan against the accused. According to him the case property was released on superdari by the court after taking the photographs which are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW19/J (excluding the photographs of the currency notes) and the photographs of the currency notes are Ex.P90 to P92. The witness has identified all the accused except the accused Noor Jahan who was not present in the court on the day of his examination and her identity was not disputed. He has also identified the case property i.e. 12 pieces of bed sheet and one piece of shawl which are Ex.P90 and Ex.P96.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he reached at the spot on 1.3.05 at about 7.15am and received the information at about 7 am. According to him, first of all he recorded statement of Amitabh and prepared the site plan at the instance of Amitabh Dhawan but he does not remember the time when he prepared the site plan and states that but it was after 10am. According to him, chance print were lifted by the expert HC Dharampal and one officer who was from Finger Print Bureau whose name he does not remember. He is unable to tell from which particular place the chance prints were lifted. He has denied the suggestion that no chance print expert came at the spot and no St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 56 chance prints were lifted. According to the witness, he cannot identify the case property since he had only seen the case property when the photographs were taken at the time of releasing the same on sapurdari. He has further deposed that on 8.4.05 they reached before 8 pm in the shop of accused Munna Lal in a Tata 407 but he is unable to tell the registration number of the vehicle. According to him some people were going and coming and he asked some persons to join the investigation but none agreed and after interrogation Munna Lal was arrested from his shop. He has deposed that there were some shops and houses around the shop of accused and he recorded the disclosure statement of Munna Lal on his shop. He has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by accused Munna Lal. He has testified that the house of accused Munna Lal is located in Jagat Puri Colony at B block and the house number is 42. According to the witness, nothing was recovered from his shop but he does not remember as to who opened the door. He has denied the suggestion that the amount of Rs.1,45,000/- belonged to the sister of accused Munna Lal who had brought this money after selling her house in her village or that the recovered articles belonged to accused Munna Lal. He has denied that he had detained accused Munna Lal in Police Station several days before he was arrested and has admitted that when the recovery was effected his family members were there in another room.
PW20 SI Sanjeev Sharma has deposed that on 4.3.05 he was posted as SI at Police Post Sarai Kale Khan, PS Hazrat St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 57 Nizamuddin and on that day, after receiving DD No. 29 he along with HC Bhaiya Ram and Ct. Mukesh reached at the spot i.e. in gate ISBT Sarai Kale Khan where he met SI Vijay Singh of Spl. Staff South Distt. along with other staff and they had produced accused Anwar and Furkan alongwith respective bags and one accused Masoom who was injured was already sent to AIIMS hospital through PCR van. The witness has testified that the bag of accused Masoom and one sten gun were also lying at the spot and he recorded the statement of SI Vijay Singh and on the basis of which a case FIR No.136/05 PS Nizamuddin was registered. According to the witness, accused Masoom came back at the spot after the medical examination and arrested the accused persons. He has deposed that accused Masoom, Anwar and Furkan made disclosure statements Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/C respectively and he seized the bags of the accused persons containing jewellery, cash and other articles and the seizure memo of the bag alongwith articles/ cash, jewellery etc. of accused Masoom which is Ex.PW14/D. He has proved the seizure memo of the bag along with articles/cash, jewellery etc. of accused Anwar @ Sagar which is Ex.PW14/E and the seizure memo of the bag along with articles/ cash, jewellery etc of accused Furkan which is Ex.PW14/F. According to the witness, a huge recovery was effected from the possession of accused persons and he had mentioned the details of the same in their respective seizure memos and the articles were in the respective bags of the accused which they were carrying. He has testified that the accused also made disclosure statements about St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 58 the other cases and he informed to the concerned investigating officer and handed over the copies of the documents prepared by him to them. He has proved having deposited the case property in the malkhana and has correctly identified the accused Masoom, Furkan and Anwar @ Sagar. It has been observed by the court that the case property has been released on 'Superdari' on the directions of the court and the witness has identified the same from the photographs already placed on record. The said case property had already been exhibited in the statement of PW5 Smt. Kajal Dhawan and a total 38 items were seized from the possession of the accused apprehended by the witness.
In his cross-examination the witness has denied the suggestion that no recovery had been effected either from the possession of accused Anwar, Furkan and Masoom and the recovery so showed in the seizure memo was planted or that no sten gun was recovered from the possession of the accused Masoom and no knife was recovered from the possession of accused Anwar.
PW21 SI Avdesh Kumar, Finger Print Expert, Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar, Delhi has deposed that on 12.09.05 he was working as SI finger print expert, FPB Malviya Nagar. According to him, his office received a copy of scene of crime examination report bearing S No.142/05 dated 01.03.05 along with lift of chance prints marked Q1 to Q9 from NW district crime investigation team. He has deposed that the photograph of chance print marked Q1 to Q9 along with negative from police St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 59 photographer for examination were also received along with a letter vide FPB No. 169/CW/FPB dated 27.04.05 regarding specimen finger/palm print slips of the accused persons namely Masoom @ Didar, Ibrahim, Javed, Furkan, Saghir and Anwar. He has also testified that his office also received the photograph of chance print marked Q1 to Q10(b) developed by CFSL team from SHO Police Station Shalimar Bagh. According to the witness, he did the comparison of the aforesaid questioned finger prints/ chance prints with the admitted specimen finger print slips and had submitted his detailed report which is Ex.PW19/E and the enlarged photograph showing eight identical points present in the chance print and specimen print which is Ex.PW21/A. I have gone through the report Ex.PW19/E according to which chance prints Q8 to Q9 were identical with the left middle and left ring fingers marked S-1 and S-2 respectively on the specimen finger impression slip of accused Furkan @ Munna.
PW22 HC Ashok Kumar is a formal witness being the MHC(M) who has deposed that on 23.12.2005 he was working as MHC(M) at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and the case property i.e. seven plastic jar duly sealed with the seal of Sh. P.K. Jain, MM was already deposited by SI Sanjeev Kumar in case FIR No.136/05 vide serial No. C-1 to C7 U/S 302 Cr.P .C. According to him, he handed over the same to SI Deen Dayal who took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B. He has proved that no tampering was done with the case property till same remained in his possession.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 60PW23 HC Subhash Chander has deposed that on 24.11.2005 he was posted at Police Station Vasant Kunj as MHC(M) and on that day SI Deen Dayal of Police Station Shalimar Bagh came in the police station. According to him, the case property i.e. five plastic jar and one Sony Ericsson Mobile phone were already with them in case FIR No.150/05 of PS Vasant Kunj, U/S 302 IPC (wrongly written as 302 IPC whereas it should be read as 302 Cr.P.C.) two of them were already sealed with the seal of RKT and remaining three were duly sealed with the seal of PKJ Ld. MM. He has testified that the said case property was handed over to SI Deen Dayal, investigating officer of case FIR No.155/05 of Police Station Shalimar Bagh who seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW19/F. He has proved that no tampering was done while the case property remained with him.
PW24 HC Meghpal Bhardwaj has deposed that on 24.11.2005 he was posted at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on that day he along with SI Deen Dayal reached Police Station Vasant Kunj where investigating officer SI Deen Dayal met the MHC(M) and took five plastic jars with the seal of Ld. MM PKJ and with the seal of RKT into possession vide memo Ex.PW19/F. It is evident from the record that the accused Noor Jahan had stopped appearing before the court and hence vide order dated 18.1.2011 she has been declared Proclaimed Offender. Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:
After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 61 Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused which they have denied. The accused Munna Lal has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated only to work out the present case and nothing was recovered from him or at his instance.
The accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Ebrahim @ Imran, Sagar @ Sagir and Javed have similarly stated that they were identified at the instance of police and their photograph were also taken by the police and were also shown to the complainant in the Police Station due to which reason they refused to participate in the judicial Test Identification Parade. According to them, they have been falsely implicated only to work out the present case and were picked up from their residence in another case. They have denied having made any disclosure statements. They have preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence. However, the accused Munna Lal has examined two witnesses in his defence. He has examined his sister Ms. Lalita Verma as DW1 who has deposed that she is the real sister of the accused Munna. According to her, she had sold her house bearing no.555, Rolitola, Purana Sheher, Bareli, Uttar Pradesh on 6.8.2004 for a consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- and out of the said amount of Rs.3,25,000/- she spent Rs.1,25,000/- and kept Rs.Two lacs with his brother Munna Lal at his residence at Jagatpuri since she could not purchase a new residence for herself. She has testified that on 4.3.2005 she received a telephone call from her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) namely Rama Shashi who informed her that her brother St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 62 i.e. the accused Munna has been taken into custody by the police along with Rs.2 lacs which she had kept with her brother.
In her cross-examination the witness has placed on record the photocopies of the documents i.e. the sale deed which is Mark DA and has deposed that the original is with the purchaser. She has admitted that the land did not belong to her and in fact belong to her mother in law which she sold after which she gave her the money in cash. She has testified that there was no documentation in respect of the above cash which was her share which she gave to her. The witness has also testified that she has no bank account and her mother in law has two sons including her husband and the money given to her was in lieu of the share of her husband. She has further deposed that her husband has also no back account and there was no documentation between her husband and brother with regarding to handing over of cash amount to him. The witness has also deposed that her husband has not filed any income tax return to show that he had received inheritance and her husband is running a shop and is not an income tax assessee. She has denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely only to save her brother from legal consequences and no money was given by her to her brother and it was for this reason that there is no written record of the same.
DW2 Ram Kishore is the elder brother of accused Munna Lal who has deposed that he had gone to meet his brother on 6.3.2003 since he was told by his nephew that his brother had been lifted by police. According to him, he went to Police Station St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 63 Shalimar Bagh but they told him that they had not lifted his brother and he came back to his house. He has deposed that on 7.4.2003 when he again went to Police Station but he was asked to go back and not to inform any authority after which he went back home to his native village at Farukabad but after one month he came to know that his brother had been lifted by the police and implicated.
In his cross-examination, on a specific court question the witness has deposed that the alleged incident was of the year 2005. He has admitted that he had not given any money to his brother at any point of time and he had gone to the house of his brother on the asking of his nephew. The witness has also admitted he did not make any PCR call nor he informed any senior police officer nor he made any application in the court. He is unable to tell the name of any police officer with whom he had spoken at the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely being the real brother of the accused Munna Lal.
FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. counsels appearing on behalf of the accused persons. I have also gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments placed on record. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused:
In so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, all the witnesses have identified the accused in the court. The case of St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 64 the prosecution is that the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Ebrahim @ Imran, Sagar @ Sagir and Javed @ Afjal had committed armed dacoity in house bearing no. BP-32, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi belonging to Amitabh Dhawan and Deepak Dhawan on the intervening night of 28.2.2005 and 1.3.2005 at about 3:50 am. The accused first entered into the bedroom of Amitabh Dhawan and Priyanka @ Priya Dhawan and then went to the first floor in the room of Deepak Dhawan and Kajal Dhawan. PW2 Amitabh Dhawan S/o Deepak Dhawan, PW3 Priyanka @ Priya Dhawan w/o Amitabh Dhawan, PW4 Deepak Dhawan S/o Late Sh. J.L. Dhawan and PW5 Kajal Dhawan w/o Deepak Dhawan have identified all the accused before the court. They all have specifically identified the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Ebrahim @ Imran, Sagar @ Sagir and Javed @ Afjal as the persons who had committed armed dacoity in their house. They have stated that the intruders were carrying big knives/ daggers and one of them was carrying a machine-gun. All the witnesses have unanimously stated that the intruders were not muffled and had their face opened and had tied their hands and feet with the bed sheet available in their room. It is evident from the testimonies of all the eye witnesses/ victims that there was sufficient time for the victims to have personally seen the accused persons and there is no reason to doubt their testimony in this regard. In fact the witness Amitabh Dhawan (PW2) has specifically identified the accused Masoom as the boy who was carrying the machine-gun/ Carbine slinging on his shoulder.St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 65
It is evident that all the accused have refused to participate in the judicial Test Identification Parade on the pretext that they had already been shown to the witnesses but in this regard they have not been able to substantiate and justify their refusal for which an adverse inference is liable to be taken. Even otherwise all above accused have been duly identified by all the four victims namely Deepak Dhawan, Kajal Dhawan Amitabh Dhawan and Priyanka Dhawan in the court, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Ebrahim @ Imran, Sagar @ Sagir and Javed @ Afjal as intruders stands established.
Armed Dacoity:
It has been proved by all the four eye witnesses i.e. PW2 Amitabh Dhawan S/o Deepak Dhawan, PW3 Priyanka @ Priya Dhawan w/o Amitabh Dhawan, PW4 Deepak Dhawan S/o Late Sh. J.L. Dhawan and PW5 Kajal Dhawan w/o Deepak Dhawan that five out of six intruders were armed with dagger/ big knives whereas one accused who was the tallest amongst all of them, was carrying a machine-gun slinging on his shoulder with which he had threatened them. In fact Amitabh Dhawan (PW2) has identified the accused Masoom as the boy who was carrying the machine-gun which he pointed out towards him while committing dacoity and threatened him to remain silent and started ransacked the room. The testimony of Amitabh Dhawan (PW2) finds a due corroboration from the testimony of his wife Priyanka Dhawan @ Priya (PW3) who was in the same room when the dacoity had taken St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 66 place. She has deposed that the intruders had entered their room and had tied the hands of their servant Resham and one of the intruder appeared to be the leader who directed them not to raise an alarm and in case if they raised an alarm they would be stabbed. Witness Deepak Dhawan (PW4) and Kajal Dhawan (PW5) the parents of Amitabh Dhawan (PW2) and parents in law of Priyanka Dhawan @ Priya (PW3) have similarly testified that four persons had come to their room along with Priyanka out of whom three were carrying sword like objects and one of them was carrying a stengun type firearm who was the tallest among those four boys and pointed the said weapon towards them and asked them to handover the valuables. Deepak Dhawan (PW4) has specifically deposed that the other two intruders who were in some other part of the house also joined the other four and then he came to know that they had committed the same offence from the first floor of the house. This statement of Deepak Dhawan also finds due corroboration from the testimony of his wife Smt. Kajal Dhawan (PW5) who has deposed that out of the four intruders, three of them were carrying long knives and one was carrying a gun who was tall, thin and dark in complexion and while the four intruders were leaving, other intruders also joined them and thereafter all the intruders left.
Hence, in view of the above I hereby hold that the aspects of the accused Masoom carrying a machine-gun and other accused namely Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Ebrahim @ Imran, Sagar @ Sagir and Javed @ Afjal carrying swords/ dagger St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 67 or knives like object (deadly weapons) with which they had threatened the victims while committing dacoity stands proved and established.
Motive:
Motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evident should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 68
In the present case, the testimonies of all the four eye witnesses i.e. PW2 Amitabh Dhawan S/o Deepak Dhawan, PW3 Priyanka @ Priya Dhawan w/o Amitabh Dhawan, PW4 Deepak Dhawan S/o Late Sh. J.L. Dhawan and PW5 Kajal Dhawan w/o Deepak Dhawan suggest that the accused were not previously known to any of the victims and had entered the house of the victims with the sole intention to commit Robbery/ Dacoity in which they succeed. The FIR had been registered on the complaint of Amitabh Dhawan (PW2) which statement is Ex.PW2/DA and it is evident that in his statement Amitabh Dhawan which was recorded immediately after the incident had provided the details of stolen articles and there is no reason to doubt the same. Hence, I hereby hold that the motive of the accused stands established which was to commit Robbery/ Dacoity.
Arrest of the accused:
The case of the prosecution is that the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Ebrahim @ Imran, Sagar @ Sagir and Javed @ Afjal have been arrested by the Special Staff, South District on 4.3.2005 on the basis of a secret information that some criminals who are of Bangladesh region and were involved in incidents of dacoity, robbery etc. in Delhi NCR Region were preparing to leave Delhi through ISBT, Sarai Kaley Khan. Pursuant to this information immediately a police party was constituted and a picket was created at the In Gate of ISBT Sarai Kaley Khan and on the pointing out of the secret information they stopped three persons who were coming towards the gate on which St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 69 one of them who was carrying a sten-gun 9 MM fired at the police party and therefore, after giving a warning HC Shyamvir also fired in which one person who was carrying the sten-gun got injured and the names of three persons disclosed their names as Masoom, Furkan @ Munna and Anwar @ Sagar. The accused Masoom thereafter was sent to the hospital through the PCR for treatment and the search of their bags which they were carrying revealed a huge amount of cash and jewellery on which the seizure memos Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW14/E and Ex.PW14/F were prepared which have been proved in accordance with law. Inspector Vijay Singh (PW17) has proved that thirty eight items pertaining to this particular incident were recovered from the possession of the accused Masoom, Anwar @ Sagar and Furkan @ Munna. Later, on 7.3.2005 an information was received that the accused Sagir, Javed, Ibrahim and Noorjahan had been arrested by Special Staff in FIR No.150/05 Police Station Vasant Kunj wherein they had made disclosure statements regarding the present case and huge recovery was effected from them. It stands proved that the accused were formally arrested in the present FIR. The accused Munna Lal was subsequently arrested on the disclosure statement of the accused Ibrahim, Sagir, Javed, Furkan, Masoom and Anwar which disclosures are Ex.PW16/P to Ex.PW16/U showing that some of the jewellery/ articles stolen by them from the house of the complainant in the present case, had been sold by them to Munna Lal jewellers who is a resident of Nand Nagri A4/2 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which articles they can get recovered. The accused St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 70 have also disclosed that out of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- they had spent Rs.5,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,45,000/-
was lying with Munna Lal. Thereafter on their pointing out the accused Munna Lal was arrested in the present case and during interrogation he disclosed that he had melted the jewellery articles which he had taken from the accused persons and sold to different customers and the sum of Rs.1,45,000/- was lying with him which was the purchase money of the stolen jewellery and some of the jewellery articles were lying in his house which he got recovered from the double bed lying in his house. It has been proved that the accused Munna Lal got recovered three silver glasses, three ladies gold ring, one golden chain with locket, two necklace of gold and one bracelet of gold. It has also been proved that thereafter the accused identified and pointed out the place of incident in respect of which the memos had been prepared. Hence, I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully established the arrest of the accused persons and their disclosure statements pursuant to which some of the jewellery articles were recovered.
Details of stolen articles:
All the eye witnesses i.e. Amitabh Dhawan (PW2), Priyanka @ Priya Dhawan (PW3), Deepak Dhawan (PW4) and Kajal Dhawan (PW5) in their testimonies have duly proved the articles stolen from their house. In fact Amitabh Dhawan (PW2) has specifically deposed that the accused removed all the jewellery which his wife Priyanka Dhawan @ Priya (PW3) was wearing except her Mangalsutra and further removed the rings from his St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 71 hands and also compelled Priyanka Dhawan @ Priya to open the electronic safe and removed Rs.80,000/- from the same along with other jewellery articles i.e. diamond set, Kundan set, diamond bangles, gold bangles & Anklets, gold karas, earrings, lockets, gold chains, NOKIA 7610 while colour mobile phone, mobile phone make Semen SL45 and another mobile phone of Sony Ericson both belonging to his mother and another phone of NOKIA belonging to his father, silver utensils of Mandir, digital camera of make Fuji and a Sony Handycam etc. It is also evident from the testimonies of victims/ eye witnesses that the intruders had filled all the articles in the pillow covers and then escaped from their house and it was only after they left that Amitabh Dhawan opened the hands of his servant who in turn opened his (Amitabh Dhawan's) hands and they then opened the hands of all other family members after which he called the police. The witness Amitabh Dhawan (PW2) has proved that on 2.3.2005 he prepared a detailed list of all missing articles and handed over the same to the investigating officer which is Ex.PW2/B. It stand duly proved from the aforesaid that apart from the details as provided herein above, the following articles (as mentioned in the above list) had been stolen by the accused at the time of the accused:
1. One set gold with diamond - heart shape
2. One pair of diamond bangles in gold
3. One pair of diamond bangles in silver and gold
4. One pair gold kara with pearl
5. One pair gold kara with pink stone St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 72
6. Two pair of gold kara
7. Six bracelets
8. One small copper coloured chain and tops with diamond
9. One chain, bracelet, baliyan in golden stones
10. One pendent in red, green pearl and
11. One chain gold and diamond
12. One chain and tops of ginni and diamond
13. One thin chain and tops in green coloured stones
14. Three thick gold chains
15. Gents kurta botton in gold and pearl
16. One platinum gents ring
17. One blue stone and diamond pendent set with tops
18. One gold and silver biscuit
19. One blue, pink in gold pendent set with tops
20. One purple stone pendent with tops
21. One diamond and gold pendent with tops and ring
22. Five diamond rings
23. One gold pukhraj ring
24. One gold and pearl ring
25. Eight ladies wrist watches
26. Six gents wrist watches
27. 1,400 Canadian Dollars
28. One pair of ruby and diamond bangles
29. Seven ladies gold and diamond rings (Ruby, Sai Baba, nine diamonds, P shape, Oval shape, brackets, Solitaire)
30. One gents engagement ring in Solitaire.St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 73
31. Three pairs of Gold kara
32. One paid of ruby bangles
33. Eight gold bangles
34. Three bracelets thin (silver and black stone, gold and silver stone, gold and orange stone)
35. One bracelet with abroad band in gold and diamond parceled only in center
36. One pair of diamond bangles in gold
37. Two pairs of tops (one small gold diamond, one pair in solitaire and diamond)
38. One small pendent of gold and small and big diamond with a thin gold
39. One pair of silver and diamond baaliyan
40. Three gold diamond pendants (one in silver diamond colour) with chain
41. Two gold chains thick (one rope style and one cartier style)
42. One gold and diamond pendant with attached gold chain
43. Small gold parts with holes in centre and being put in a gold chain (Antique finish).
44. One heart shaped pendant and tops in silver and pink stones
45. One flower shaped pendant and tops in gold and diamond
46. One ginni gold set with tops
47. One brown stone and diamond set with tops
48. One gold and silver rope chain
49. One pearl set with silver and diamond pendant and its tops St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 74
50. One gold pendent with yellow stone and yellow chain and tops
51. One thin silver diamond bracelet
52. One thin silver diamond pendent set with tops and green, yellow and pink stones (chains)
53. One gold diamond pendant set with top and green and yellow stone (chain)
54. Two big sets (one only gold, one with red and green motis)
55. One diamond set in silver finish
56. One ruby and gold set with maang tikka
57. One gold Sai Baba and Om pendant with chain
58. Three ladies watch (Espirit in silver, thin golden and silver, Aldo with white straps)
59. One mobile phones (Sony Ericcson, Nokia 7610 in white, Nokia 6108, SL45)
60. Chandi (Pooka) Thali with attached Katori and ghunghroos, two glasses, one Jyot, two lotas, payals)
61. One Fuji Film digital camera
62. One diamond Mangalsutra
63. One Sony Handicam
64. One Minolta Still camera
65. One small gold pendent with two pairs of tops
66. Rs.2,80,000/- cash
67. One care shaped table clock.
It has also been proved by the victims that they had handed over the various photographs and other documents showing St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 75 the description of the stolen articles which photographs are present on the judicial record which aspect has not been controverted at all.
Recovery of stolen articles:
Inspector Vijay Singh (PW17) has proved the recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna and Anwar @ Sagar when they were intercepted by the police party which trying to flee from Delhi through ISBT Sarai Kaley Khan on 4.3.2005, which recovery memos are Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/F. Further, Ct. Jaffar Khan (PW12) has also proved that on 3.3.2005 pursuant to a secret information received by ASI Charan Singh that accused Sagir @ Sagar @ Shamim is likely was commit offence in the area of Shri Ram Mandir Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi with his gang; a raiding party was constituted and a nakabandi was made near the spot. After some time accused Sagir, Javed and Ibrahim came on a motorcycle and were apprehended. He has proved that the said accused were arrested first in FIR No. 150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj wherein they made disclosure statements regarding their involvement in the present case pursuant to which they got recovered the stolen articles which information as thereafter communicated to the investigating officer of the present cases and formal arrest of the accused was made. It has been further proved that during sustained interrogation the accused disclosed that they had sold some of the stolen articles to accused Munna Lal of Munna Lal Jewellers who was a resident of Nand Nagri on which St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 76 the shop of accused Munna Lal was raided and some of the stolen articles were got recovered. The details of the recoveries made from the various accused persons, are as under:
Articles recovered from the possession of accused Masoom:
1. Rs.2,50,000/- cash.
2. 840 American Dollar
3. 950 Ringit (Malaysia)
4. 10 Pounds (one note)
5. 30 Dirhams
6. One pair of karas with white stone and moti.
7. One heavy gold colour chain (rassi type) with white colour rope.
8. One golden colour kara.
9. One Titan wrist watch
10. One mobile phone make NOKIA 6610 IMEI No. 351350400475947.
11. One gold colour chain
12. One Mangalsutra
13. One necklace
14. One video camera Cannon
15. One battery charger
16. One battery Cannon
17. One connecting lead and one cannon RF unit
18. One remote camera Cannon.St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 77
Articles recovered from the possession of accused Furkan @ Munna:
1. Rs.1,50,000/- cash
2. One golden colour wrist watch
3. One Titan wrist watch (white colour)
4. One golden colour chain with one D Locket and an oval shaped locket.
5. Two rings with white stones.
6. One golden colour chain with for golden buttons.
7. One golden chain with white colour locket.
8. One Seiko Quartz golden colour
9. One golden ring with white stone.
10. One golden ring.
11. One lady's wrist watch make Fontenay
12. One lady's Titus wrist watch.
13. One golden chain.
14. 1410 Canadian currency and three Oman currency.
15. One rassi type golden chain.
16. One pendent with white stone.
17. One golden chain.
18. One Maxima wrist watch.
19. One golden colour Titan wrist watch.
20. One golden colour Titan wrist watch with white chain.
21. One mobile phone make Nokia 6600 bearing IMEI No. 353766004049291.St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 78
Articles recovered from the possession of accused Anwar @ Sagar:
1. Rs. two lacs cash.
2. One Titan wrist watch of golden colour.
3. One golden chain with heart shaped locket.
4. One golden wrist watch Swiss make
5. One diamond like white metal in the necklace with one pair ear tops.
6. One golden chain with Victoria locket and white stone.
7. One golden colour chain.
8. One pair of tops with Queen Victoria photo.
9. One mobile phone make NOIKA bearing IMEI No. 353388008206221.
10. One golden biscuit
11. One golden ginni 1903.
12. Two golden rings.
13. One ring with white stone.
14. Two silver challas
15. One white spoon
16. One white colour bracelet.
17. Two silver glass.
18. Three silver bowls.
19. One silver plate.
20. Two small silver glasses and two small bowls.
21. Two small utensils (Lutiya) and one silver utensil.
22. One smart auto reverse Cassette Recorder.
23. One Camera make Cosina St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 79
24. One camera AF RIVA
25. One Taj Mahal Showpiece.
26. One small red coloured torch.
Articles recovered from the possession of accused Ibrahim @ Imran:
1. Rs.50,000/- cash.
2. One small silver glass.
3. One pair of ear tops with diamond like stone.
4. One golden colour ring with photo of Sai Baba.
5. One Lady's wrist watch make Sonata.
6. One Lady's wrist watch make Rotary
7. One golden colour lady's ring with diamond like stone.
8. One golden ring with diamond like stone.
9. Another golden ring with diamond like stone
10. One golden pendent with diamond like stone
11. One steel like ring with a diamond like stone
12. Two silver pajeb
13. One silver coin
14. Nine pant/ shirts etc. Articles recovered from the possession of accused Sagar @ Sagir:
1. Rs.50,000/- cash
2. Rs.10,000/- cash
3. One mobile phone make Sony Ericson with IMEI No. 351263003009643.St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 80
4. One mobile phone make Nokia with IMEI No. 351542001984232.
5. The audio cassettes.
6. 15 clothes (pant/ shirts etc.) Articles recovered from the possession of accused Javed @ Afzal:
1. Rs.10,000/- cash
2. Rs.41,000/- cash
3. One Digital camera make FINE FIX - F402.
4. One wrist watch make Titan
5. One gents wrist watch of Fendiswiss model
6. One wrist watch with blue colour dial.
7. One mobile phone make Siemens-45 with IMEI No.350016370001242.
8. One gents wrist watch make Fossil.
9. One gents wrist watch make Keneeth
10. One silver colour wrist watch
11. One table clock make Calvin Hill.
12. One golden chain with diamond stone.
13. One golden pendent with diamond like locket.
14. One black colour artificial kara
15. Two golden colour pajeb
16. One mala of red colour moti.
17. One ring with P shape diamond like stone
18. One ring with diamond like stone
19. One hair clip.St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 81
20. One golden ring with diamond like stone.
21. One golden lady's ring with diamond like stone.
22. One silver colour key bunch
23. One silver colour glass with diamond like stones.
24. One golden colour bracelet.
25. One silver colour coin.
26. 12 pant/ shirts etc. Articles recovered from the possession of accused Munna Lal:
1. Rs.1,45,000/- cash
2. Three silver glasses
3. Two golden necklaces.
4. One golden chain with locket
5. Three lady's ring.
6. One golden bracelet.
I may observe that the preparation of seizure memos have been duly proved in accordance with law and I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran, Javed @ Afjal and Munna Lal.
Test Identification Parade/ identification of the case property:
Sh. P.K. Jain, the then MM (PW18) has duly proved the Test Identification Parade of the case property being conducted by him which are Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW5/B. It has been proved St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 82 that Smt. Kajal Dhawan (PW5) has correctly identified two pairs of kara, one single kara, one gold chain with pendant of Queen Victoria, one pair of tops, one gents ring, three ladies wrist watch, five gents wrist watch and one silver glass by picking up the articles one by one. Further, it has been proved that Ms. Priyanka Dhawan (PW3) identified two pairs of gold kara, one single kara, one gold chain with pendant of Queen Victoria, one plain chain, one gents ring, three ladies wrist watches, one gents wrist watch male Kennethcole (Newyork) but she failed to identify gold chain with diamond, one pair of tops and the silver glass. The stolen articles have also been produced in the court which have been duly identified by the victims/ eye witnesses/ public witnesses are as under:
1. Pair of gold kara with moti and white stone which is Ex.P1.
2. A gold and silver chain (rassa chain) which is Ex.P2
3. Single gold kara with white metal which is Ex.P3
4. Gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P4
5. One gents wrist watch make Maxima which is Ex.P5.
6. A gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P6
7. Gents wrist watch make Cartier which is Ex.P7
8. Gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P8
9. A lady wrist watch make Fontenay which is Ex.P9
10. A lady wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P10
11. A lady wrist watch make Titus which is Ex.P11
12. A lady wrist watch make Seiko which is Ex.P12
13. A gents wrist watch make Titan which is Ex.P13 St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 83
14. A lady wrist watch make Jeirribcue which is Ex.P14
15. One gold chain with locket of queen Victoria which is Ex.P15
16. One pair of tops with ginny queen Victoria which is Ex.P16
17. One necklace of white stone with white metal which is Ex.P17
18. A pair of tops of white stone in white metal which is Ex.P18
19. An extraordinarily heavy gold chain with white metal which is Ex.P19
20. A gold biscuit with purity 9999 which is Ex.P20
21. A gents diamond gold ring which is Ex.P21
22. A gold gents ring with white stone which is Ex.P22
23. A gents gold ring which is Ex.P23
24. A gold coin which is Ex.P24
25. A silver bracelet which is Ex.P25
26. Two silver key rings which is Ex.P26
27. A small silver spoon which is Ex.P27
28. One gold chain having three different pendent which is Ex.P28
29. A gold chain with a locket of Sai Baba which is Ex.P29
30. A lady gold chain with small pendent which is Ex.P30
31. A gold chain which is Ex.P31
32. A gold pendent which is Ex.P32
33. Three ladies gold diamond rings which are Ex.P33 to Ex.P35
34. Two pair of gold button which are Ex.P36
35. A gold mangalsutra with black beads which is Ex.P37 St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 84
36. A gold chain which is Ex.P38
37. A gold small necklace which is Ex.P39
38. A mobile phone make Siemens having EMI No. 350016370001242 which is Ex.P40
39. A digital camera make Fuji Model F-402 which is Ex.P41
40. A gents wrist watch make Kenneth Cole which is Ex.P42
41. A gents wrist watch make Guylaroche which is Ex.P43
42. Four gents wrist watch make Titan,Fossil, Fendi and Guess which are Ex.P44 to Ex.P47
43. A table clock make Calvin Hall which is Ex.P48
44. A fancy ladies purse mirror in golden colour which is Ex.P49
45. A fancy clip mirror on both sides which is Ex.P50
46. A gold chain with white colour stones which is Ex.P51
47. A gold necklace with white stone which is Ex.P52
48. One mala of red colour with gold pendent of peacock which is Ex.P53
49. A silver key ring having small chain which is Ex.P54
50. A ladies gold ring with white stone with letter P which is Ex.P55
51. A lady's gold ring with white colour stone which is Ex.P56
52. A lady's ring (white and red colour) which is Ex.P57
53. A lady's challa with white colour stone which is Ex.P58
54. A gold locket having picture of Lotus which is Ex.P59
55. A kara of green/blue colour which is Ex.P60 St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 85
56. A biscuit of silver make Engelhard with purity 999+ which is Ex.P61
57. A pair of golden colour pajeb having stones of green colour which is Ex.P62
58. A pair of gold kara which is Ex.P63
59. One pair of gold kara in the shape of lion which is Ex.P64
60. A mala blue and red colour stones which is Ex.P65
61. A gold chain which is Ex.P66
62. A ladies silver key bunch with pink and green colour stones which is Ex.P67
63. A gold chain with one gold pendent which is Ex.P68
64. Two ladies wrist watches make Aldo and Balman Peris which are Ex.P69 & Ex.P70
65. A fancy glass purse mirror in grey colour which is Ex.P71
66. A pair of kara (which was in 8 broken pieces at the time of recovery and has not been prepared) which is Ex.P72
67. A pair of lady's gold tops which is Ex.P73
68. Two bangles with golden and silver colour which are Ex.P74
69. A kara of golden with lock system which is Ex.P75
70. A mobile phone make Nokia having EMI No. 351474601899760 which is Ex.P76
71. 22 small loose stones which are Ex.P77
72. One pair of silver pajeb with red colour which is Ex.P78
73. Two ladies wrist watch make Rotary and Sonata which are Ex.P79 & Ex.80 St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 86
74. A gold pendent with white colour stone which is Ex.P81
75. A silver coin having the picture of Lord Ganesha and Laxmi which is Ex.P82
76. One silver ring with white stone which is Ex.P83
77. One white metal gents ring which is Ex.P84
78. Three ladies rings with white stones and one of them with a picture of Sai Baba which are Ex.P85 to Ex.87
79. A pair of tops which is Ex.P88
80. A silver small tumbler which is Ex.P89
81. Photograph of currency notes with a label describing to be Rs.10,000/- which is Ex.P90
82. Photograph of currency notes with a label describing to be Rs.41,000/- which is Ex.P91
83. Photograph of some Indian Currency Notes and some Canadian Dollar and a mobile phone with the label of Rs.2,29,000/-, 1410 Canadian Dollars and mobile phone Nokia 7610 which are Ex.P92
84. Mobile phone make Sony Ericsson which is Ex.P93
85. Three silver tumblers, three silver katoris, one silver plate and five small silver utensils used for Puja which are Ex.P94.
PW5 Smt. Kajal Dhawan has also identified 35 jewellery/ valuable articles recovered from the possession of the accused as shown in the 18 photographs handed over by her to the investigating officer which are Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/18 showing jewellery were being worn by her and her family members. She St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 87 has proved the Test Identification Parade of the case property conducted by Ms. Preeti Aggarwal the then MM which proceedings are Ex.PW5/C. Ld. Counsel for the accused has tried to demolish the credibility of this witness on the ground that the negatives of the photographs were not produced in the court raising a doubt on the same. I have considered the submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsel. It is evident from the testimony of Kajal Dhawan (PW5) that she has duly explained that the said photographs had been removed by her from her family album and thereafter handed over to the investigating officer. Therefore, I find no reason to doubt the testimony of Kajal Dhawan (PW5). Even otherwise the witness herself is the best person who could have identified her own photograph and the jewellery articles. In fact it is evident from the record that a large number of jewllery articles had been recovered from the accused and which the witnesses in the present case have not identified as the said jewellery did not belong to them and had apparently been stolen by the accused from some other places.
In fact in her cross-examination Priyanka Dhawan @ Priya (PW3) has clarified on account of her recent marriage most of the articles were lying in the house which had been purchased or had been gifted by her family. She has denied the suggestion that the valuables identified by her in the court which are Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-94 do not belong to her or her family and has stated that 18 photographs placed on record which are Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/18 reflecting some of the valuables/ jewellery items which had been St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 88 stolen by the accused persons. I have gone through the said photographs and it is evident that many of the jewellery articles shown in the photographs have been identified by the witness. It is also established from the testimony of Priyanka Dhawan (PW3) that she and Amitabh Dhawan (PW2) were newly married at the time of the incident and naturally most of the jewellery articles being her Istridhan given by the relatives could not have been accounted for. Even Kajal Dhawan (PW5) in her statement proved that on account of three to four weddings in the family she had kept the jewellery at home which were to be kept in the Bank Locker and most of the jewellery articles were her Istridhan. It is a matter of common knowledge that Istridhan articles which are normally given as gifts to daughters in the wedding are a part of the inheritance being ancestral for which there is no record of purchase. For this reason the accused cannot be granted benefit of this fact and I find no reason to discard the evidence regarding the theft and subsequent recovery thereof.
Forensic Evidence/ Crime Team & Chance Print Report:
Sh. S.K. Chadha, Senior Scientific Officer (PW8) as proved the CFSL report which is Ex.PW8/A bearing his signatures. According to him, on 1.3.2005 he had received a requisition letter from DCP North-West for examination of the scene of crime, finger prints and the tool marks when he along with other officials from CFSL examined the scene of crime at BP-32, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi for detection/ development of chance prints and other evidence. He has proved having prepared the report on the basis of St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 89 the evidence collected at the spot which is Ex.PW8/A. Further, SI Avdesh Kumar (PW21) has proved having compared the finger prints/ chance prints and having given his report which is Ex.PW19/E. I have gone through the said report according to which the chance prints Q8 to Q9 were identical with the left middle and left ring fingers marked S-1 and S-2 respectively o the specimen finger impression slip of accused Furkan @ Munna. In so far as the other chance prints are concerned, on account of some of the prints were either partial or smudged and do not disclose sufficient number of ridge details in their relative position for comparison and were opined to be insufficient for opinion. Therefore, the presence of the accused Furkan @ Munna at the spot of incident i.e. BP-32, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi on the date of incident i.e. the intervening night of 28.2.2005 and 1.3.2005 stands established.
Defence of the accused Munna Lal:
In support of his case the accused Munna Lal has examined his sister Smt. Lalita Verma as DW1 and his elder brother Ram Kishore as DW2 to explain the dacoity of the cash amount from his possession. It is evident that both the sister and brother of the accused Munna Lal have miserably failed to explain the possession of the stolen property from his possession which have been duly identified by the victims in the present case. As per the disclosure statement of the accused Munna Lal made to the police the amount recovered from him was the purchase amount of St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 90 the stolen jewellery which the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal had kept with him at his premises. DW1 Smt. Lalita Verma has desperately tried to explain the possession of the said amount by placing before this court the copy of the registered sale deed dated 6.8.2004 which is in the name of her mother-in-law but has failed to examine her mother in law or the proposed buyer of the property who had purchased the alleged property which money according to her she had kept with Munna Lal. Similarly the brother of accused Munna Lal has also not been able to satisfactorily offer any valid explanation for this amount so recovered from the possession of accused Munna Lal. DW1 Lalita Verma in her cross-examination has admitted that the said land did not belong to her and in fact belonged to her mother-in-law who had given the cash amount to her in lieu of the share of her husband. She has admitted that there was no document executed between her husband and brother regarding the handing over of the amount. She has also admitted that her husband has not filed any income tax return to show that he had received any inheritance. This being so, in the absence of any corroborative material, the testimony of Smt. Lalita Verma (DW1) does not inspire confidence of this court.
Further, DW2 Ram Kishore the brother of the accused Munna Lal has only deposed regarding lifting of his brother and false implication but has not given any explanation with regard to the cash amount recovered from the possession of the accused St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 91 Munna Lal. This being the background and also because since the recovery of silver glasses from the possession of the accused Munna Lal stands established which glasses have been duly identified by the witnesses Priyanka Dhawan (PW3) and Smt. Kajal Dhawan (PW5) in the judicial Test Identification Parade which aspect has gone uncontroverted and unrebutted; I hereby hold that there is no merit in the defence raised by the accused Munna Lal.
FINAL FINDINGS:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;4. St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 92
5. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
6. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the identity of all the accused persons namely Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal has been conclusively stands established as they have all been correctly identified by the eye witnesses/ victims in the court. The role attributed to the accused has also been established. It stands established that on the intervening night of 28.2.2005 and 1.3.2005 all the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal committed armed dacoity in the house of the complainant Amitabh Dhawan. It also stands established that the accused Masoom was carrying a machine-gun slinging on his shoulder and the other accused were having long knives in their hands and that Masoom was their leader. It further stands established that after tying the hands of their servant Resham first of all they entered the bedroom of the complainant and tied the St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 93 hands of Amitabh Dhawan and his wife Priyanka Dhawan and removed all the valuables from their room. It stands established that thereafter all the six accused persons took Priyanka Dhawan to the room of Deepak Dhawan (father of Amitabh Dhawan) and entered their room when Priyanka got opened the door on their asking. It has been established that the intruders also tied the hands of Deepak Dhawan and Kajal Dhawan and removed the valuables from their room also and run away from the spot. All the said accused have been duly identified in the court by all the eye witnesses. It further stands established that on 3.3.2005 a secret information was received that the accused Saggir @ Sagar @ Shamim is likely to commit offence in the area of Shri Ram Mandir Marg Vasant Kunj along with his gang pursuant to which a nakabandi was made at the said place and the accused Saggir @ Sagar @ Shamim, Javed and Ibrahim were apprehended who made their disclosure statements regarding their involvement in the present case. It has been proved that pursuant to their disclosure statements the above accused led the police party to their tenanted house from where they got recovered a huge cash amount and other valuable articles including jewellery. The accused Noor Jahan (PO) was also present at the said house who also got recovered the robbed articles. All the aforesaid accused were thereafter first arrested in FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj and an information was sent to the investigating officer of the present case pursuant to which all the aforesaid accused were arrested in this case. It further stands established that on 4.3.2005 the accused St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 94 Masoom, Furkan @ Munna and Anwar @ Sagar were intercepted on the basis of a secret information while they were trying to flee from Delhi through ISBT Sarai Kaley Khan. The accused Masoom fired at the police party through a sten-gun and in self defence the police also fired at the accused who got injured and a huge amount of cash and jewellery was recovered from the bags which were being carried by the accused. A separate FIR bearing No.136/06 Police Station Hazrat Nizamuudin was recorded and the accused made their disclosure statements wherein they disclosed their involvement in the present case and therefore, the information was given to the investigating officer of the present case on which the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna and Anwar @ Sagar were arrested in this case. The prosecution has successfully proved that on 8.4.2005 the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal also made disclosure statements that they had sold some of the articles/ jewellery to Munna Lal Jewller a resident of Nand Nagri and they can got recovered the same. It stands established that the accused Munna Lal was apprehended got recovered Rs.1,45,000/- from his house as the purchased money of the stolen jewellery and the some jewellery of other cases.
There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 95 the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, seizure memos, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove that on the intervening night of 28.2.2005 and 1.3.2005 the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal committed armed dacoity and on apprehension they were found in dishonest possession of stolen property and retained the said property knowingly and having reasons to believe the same to be transferred by commission of dacoity. I hold the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal guilty of the offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code and convicted accordingly.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 96For conviction of an accused under Section 412 Indian Penal Code the prosecution must prove that accused dishonestly received the stolen property knowing or having reasons to believe that its possession has been transferred by the commission of the dacoity. When the property looted by dacoity has been recovered from the accused very soon after the dacoity as has happened in the present case, the accused can be guilty under Section 412 Indian Penal Code (Ref.: Amar Singh Vs. State of MP reported in AIR 1982 SC 129).
Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal have been held guilty of the offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code. They have been duly identified by the victims as the persons who had committed dacoity in their house while armed with deadly weapons and therefore, under these circumstances technically they cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 412 Indian Penal Code since the ingredients of the same are covered within the offence of Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code. The accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal are hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code as they have already been held guilty of the offence under Section 395 and Section 398 Indian Penal Code. However, in so far as the accused Munna Lal is concerned, he has St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 97 been found in dishonest possession of stolen property and having retained the said property knowingly and having reasons to believe the same to be transferred by commission of dacoity for which reason, I hereby hold the accused Munna Lal guilty of the offence under Section 412 Indian Penal Code and convict him accordingly.
Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 12.5.2011.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 5.5.2011 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 98 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No.:386/06 Unique Case ID No.: 02401R0500852005 State Vs. (1) Masoom S/o Azeej R/o Village Kamalgarhi, PS Hiranpur, Distt. Saffganj, Bangladesh (Convicted) (2) Furkan @ Munna S/o Siddiqui R/o Mohalla Kazipura, PS & Distt. Pirozpur, Bangladesh (Convicted) (3) Anwar @ Sagar S/o Sh. Nanhe Lal R/o Mohalla CI Para, PO & PS Firozpur, Bangladesh (Convicted) (4) Sagar @ Sagir @ Shamim S/o Baraik R/o VPO Mangola, Distt. Bagarhat, Bangladesh (Convicted) (5) Ebrahim @ Imran S/o Sh. Hasim Afun R/o Mohalla village & PO Mangola, Distt. Bagarhat Bangladesh (Convicted) St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 99 (6) Javed @ Afzal S/o Musharaf Acqlac R/o Village Uttarjaipal Bati PO Bangla Bazar, Distt. Bagrhat, Bangladesh (Convicted) (7) Noorjahan @ Reena W/o Sagir @ Sagar @ Samim R/o Village & PO Mangola, Distt. Bagarhat, Bangladesh (Proclaimed Offender) (8) Munna Lal S/o Sh. Puran Lal R/o B-42, Jagatpuri, Delhi (Convicted) FIR No. 155/05 Police Station: Shalimar Bagh Under Section: 395/398/412 IPC Date of Conviction: 5.5.2011 Arguments heard on: 12.5.2011 Date of Sentence: 19.5.2011 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Taufiq Ahmed, Addl. PP for the State.
All the convicts are in judicial custody with Sh. Islam Khan Advocate.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 100ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my detailed judgment dated 5.5.2011, the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal have been held guilty of the offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. However, they have been acquitted of the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Munna Lal has been held guilty of the offence under Section 412 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
The convicts Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal are all Bangladeshi Nationals and are involved in number of cases of armed dacoity. As per allegations on the intervening night of 28.2.2005 and 1.3.2005 the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal committed armed dacoity in the house of the complainant Amitabh Dhawan. The accused Masoom was carrying a machine-
gun slinging on his shoulder and the other accused were having long knives in their hands. They tied the hands of Resham the servant of the complainant and first of all they entered the bedroom of the complainant Amitabh Dhawan and tied the hands of Amitabh Dhawan and his wife Priyanka Dhawan and removed all the valuables from their room. Further, all the six accused persons took Priyanka Dhawan to the room of Deepak Dhawan (father of Amitabh Dhawan) and entered their room when Priyanka got St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 101 opened the door on their asking. The intruders also tied the hands of Deepak Dhawan and Kajal Dhawan and removed the valuables from their room also and run away from the spot. Further, as per the allegations the accused Muna Lal was a jeweller to whom the aforesaid accused have sold the various jewellery articles which the accused Munna Lal retained with him knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be transferred by commission of dacoity.
Pursuant to their arrest a huge amount of jewlery, cash, foreign currency and valuables were got recovered including the jewellery and valuables belonging to the victims/ complainant in the present case. The accused namely Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal have been duly identified in the court by all the eye witnesses i.e. complainant Amitabh Dhawan (PW2), his wife Smt. Priyanka Dhawan (PW3), his father Deepak Dhawan (PW4) and his mother Smt. Kajal Dhawan (PW5). They all have identified the accused Masoom as the boy who was having a machine-gun slinging on his shoulder and appear to be the leader of the gang and the other accused were having long knives in their hands. The victims have also identified the case property i.e. their valuables got recovered from the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran, Javed @ Afjal and Munna Lal. On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution, this court has held the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal have been held guilty of the offence St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 102 under Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. However, the accused Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal have been acquitted of the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Munna Lal has been held guilty of the offence under Section 412 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
I have heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Masoom is a young boy of 28 years having a family comprising of aged widow mother, five sisters, two brothers, wife who is a housemaid and one daughter. He is totally illiterate and is a Kabari by profession. The convict is in judicial custody in the present case since 24.3.2005 and is also involved in another case bearing FIR No.136/05, Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, under Sections 186/353/307/412/34 IPC. This court has been informed that the convict Masoom has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years by the competent court of law in case bearing FIR No. 141/05, under Section 395 IPC and 3/14 Foreigners Act registered at Police Station DLF Gurgaon.
The convict Furkan @ Munna is also a young boy of 24 years having a family comprising of father (retired police Head Constable in MP Police), mother and four younger sisters. He is 10th class pass and was studying at the time of his arrest. The convict is in judicial custody in the present case since 24.3.2005 and is also involved in in another case bearing FIR No.136/05, St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 103 Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, under Sections 186/353/307/412/34 IPC. This court has been informed that the convict Furkan @ Munna has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years by the competent court of law in case bearing FIR No. 141/05, under Section 395 IPC and 3/14 Foreigners Act registered at Police Station DLF Gurgaon.
The convict Anwar @ Sagar is a young boy of 26 years having a family comprising of aged father (watch mechanic), mother, two brothers and two sisters. He is totally illiterate and is a Hocker by profession. The convict is in judicial custody in the present case since 24.3.2005 and is also involved in in another case bearing FIR No.136/05, Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, under Sections 186/353/307/412/34 IPC. This court has been informed that the convict Anwar @ Sagar has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years by the competent court of law in case bearing FIR No. 141/05, under Section 395 IPC and 3/14 Foreigners Act registered at Police Station DLF Gurgaon.
The convict Ibrahim @ Imran is aged about 32 years and has a family comprising of aged widow mother and one son. His wife is already expired. He is fifth class pass and a tailor by profession. The convict is in judicial custody in the present case since 24.3.2005 and is also involved in FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj under Sections 307/353/186/120-B/34 IPC. This court has been informed that the convict Ibrahim @ Imran has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 104 Years by the competent court of law in case bearing FIR No. 141/05, under Section 395 IPC and 3/14 Foreigners Act registered at Police Station DLF Gurgaon.
The convict Sagar @ Sagir is aged about 30 years having a family comprising of aged parents, wife and one daughter. He is fifth class pass and is a wall painter by profession. The convict is in judicial custody in the present case since 24.3.2005 and is also involved in another case bearing FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj under Sections 307/353/186/120-B IPC which is still pending. This court has been informed that the convict Sagar @ Sagir has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years by the competent court of law in case bearing FIR No. 141/05, under Section 395 IPC and 3/14 Foreigners Act registered at Police Station DLF Gurgaon.
The convict Javed @ Afzal is a young boy of 28 years having a family comprising of aged parents, wife and two sons. He is fifth class pass and is a farmer by profession. The convict is in judicial custody in the present case since 24.3.2005 and is also involved in another case bearing FIR No.150/05, Police Station Vasant Kunj under Sections 307/353/186/120-B IPC which is still pending. This court has been informed that the convict Javed @ Afzal has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years by the competent court of law in case bearing FIR No. 141/05, under Section 395 IPC and 3/14 Foreigners Act registered at Police Station DLF Gurgaon.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 105The convict Munna Lal is aged about 49 years and has a family comprising of aged widow mother, wife, three sons and one daughter. The convict has already remained in judicial custody for about three months in the present case. He is also facing trial in three other cases which are pending in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and three cases in Delhi i.e. FIR No. 12/10, Police Station Shahdara under Secion 379/356/411/34 IPC; FIR No.357/07, Police Station Khajuri Khas, under Sections 356/379/411/34 IPC and FIR No. 488/09, Police Station M.S. Park, under Sections 356/379/411/412/34 IPC. It is evident that the allegations against him are similar in all cases (which are of different period) i.e. of retaining and possession of stolen property showing that he is a habitual offender who indulges into purchase and disposal of stolen property particularly jewellery.
Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has prayed for a lenient view against all the convicts keeping in view their age and also in view of the fact that the convict Munna Lal has not been convicted in other case so far. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has prayed for a strict punishment for the convicts keeping in view the allegations involved, the nature of crime and the fact that a huge amount of jewellery, cash and other valuables were recovered from their possession.
I have considered the rival contentions. In the year 2010 as many as 13,794 cases of vehicular theft; 1,596 cases were of chain snatching, 318 cases were of dacoity were registered in Delhi alone. Dacoity should be treated as one of the most serious St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 106 offences as noticed by the Penal Code as it is invariably the work of a well-knit organization. It involves deliberation and pre-planning. The victims of dacoity are law abiding citizens who have given no provocation to the miscreants. This offence is accompanied by physical assault on people who had no adequate means of defending themselves and who cannot be fore-armed because they have not been fore-warned. Frequently they are tortured and and their womenfolk dishonoured and even the children are not spared. Recent years have seen a marked increase in the use of firearms by dacoits, every now and then with carbines and sten-guns. Gunshot wounds are inflicted without mercy and valuable lives of innocent persons are lost. Dacoits create panic and interfere with the even tenor of life, frequently completely upsetting economy of the country. A dacoit is actuated by the contemptible motive of appropriate properly lawfully belonging to another. The crime itself is difficult to trace and only a small proportion of the criminals taking part are arrested and it is more difficult to secure the conviction of more than a fraction of them. For these reasons it is a grievous mistake to treat dacoits lightly in the matter of punishment. [Ref.: Om Prakash and Ors. Vs. The State (Allahabad) decided on 19.8.1955 by hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukerji James].
A criminal trial is held in the public interest with the twin objects of punishing the wrong doer and deterring others from following in his footsteps. Unless there is satisfactory proof of the existence of mitigating circumstances the sentence of dacoits St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 107 should invariably be heavy and deterrent and more so in case when the dacoits come from the neighbouring countries to destroy the social and economic order of our nation. The convicts before this court are desperate and harden criminals who unhesitatingly and indiscriminately use dangerous weapons on helpless victims who may or not offer any resistance thereby spreading terror in the society and adversely affecting social order and the faith of people in the system. The only mitigating factor in the present case being that the convicts did not cause any injury to any of the inmates despite the use of dangerous weapons while committing dacoity. I, therefore, award the following sentences to the convicts:
The convict Masoom is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) years and fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.
The convict Furkan @ Munna is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.
In so far as the convict Anwar @ Sagar is concerned, he is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 108 (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.
Further, the convict Sagar @ Sagir is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.
In so far as the convict Ibrahim @ Imran is concerned, he is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.
Further, the Javed @ Afzal is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.
It is clarified that the sentence imposed upon the above convicts in the present case shall run consecutively to the St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 109 sentences imposed upon them earlier in FIR No. 141/05, under Sections 395 IPC and 3/14 Foreigners Act, Police Station DLF Gurgaon.
At this stage, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has pointed out that the convicts Masoom, Furkan @ Munna, Anwar @ Sagar, Sagar @ Sagir, Ebrahim @ Imran and Javed @ Afjal are not Indian nationals and are Bangladeshi nationals. Therefore, under these circumstances, after the convicts undergo the period of sentence in the present case, steps may be taken for deportation of the aforesaid convicts to Bangladesh.
In so far as the convict Munna Lal is concerned, I may observe that technically dishonestly receiving and retaining the stolen property and having reasons to believe that the same has been transferred by commission of dacoity, is as serious as commission of dacoity itself and no lenient can be shown to such a person. Munna Lal is a habitual offender and is involved in six similar cases, three from Delhi and three from Ghaziabad spreading over the different period of time. Though he has not been convicted in any other case yet no leniency should be shown to such persons. Therefore, the convict Munna Lal is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 412 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 110Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial, as per rules.
The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
In the end, I shall be failing my duty if I do not add a word of appreciation for all the victims Amitabh Dhawan, Priyanka Dhawan, Deepak Dhawan and Kajal Dhawan who as responsible citizens of the country have stood up against the crime. They have diligently and courageously performed their statutory duty of identifying the accused in the court and assisted the Justice Delivery System. In the existing scenario, where witnesses are often under fear and do not depose against hardened criminals, all the four victims in the present case have boldly stood up to perform their statutory duty for which act of courage they are required to be complimented. For the society to survive it is the duty of very citizen of this country to assist Law Enforcing Agencies and the Justice Dispensation System. Unfortunately we have a general tendency to blame the Institutions for the deteriorating law and order situation little realizing that we are equally to be blamed for the same to a large extent. Having ourselves failed to perform our duty in assisting the Justice Delivery System, how then we then St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 111 blame the System for failure to bring the criminals to book. World over increase in crime has become a major concern and it is for this reason that groups of dedicated citizens have come out to assist the agencies involved in Law Enforcement and Dispensation of Justice. It goes without saying that if every citizen of this country stands-up against such criminals in the court, the day would not be far when order would prevail in the society.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to all the convicts free of costs and another be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up on arrest of the accused Noor Jahan who is Proclaimed Offender.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 19.5.2011 ASJ (NW)-II: ROHINI
St. Vs. Masoom Etc., FIR No. 155/05, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 112