Delhi District Court
Sudhanshu Shukla vs Sudhanshu Shukla on 30 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(CENTRAL): DELHI
S. C. No.32/2013
FIR No.23/13
PS Lahori Gate
In the matter of :
State
Versus
1. Sudhanshu Shukla,
S/o Sh. Laxmi Kant Shukla,
R/o Village New Colony, Baba Ganj,
Pratap Garh, UP.
Presently at
Pocket A3, H. No. 6 & 7, Sector16,
Rohini, Delhi.
2. Deshraj,
S/o Prakash Singh,
R/o Village Godhna PS Jhngirabad,
District Bulandsher, UP.
presently at
H. No. 38/6, Gali No. 3, Shiv Vihar,
Shahbad Diary, Delhi42
1
3. Charan Singh,
S/o Roshan Lal,
R/o Village Shahjapur, PS Giror,
Distt, Mainpuri, UP.
Presently at
H. No. C38/6, Gali No. 3, Shiv Vihar,
Shahbad Diary, Delhi42.
4. Saunda Ranjan,
S/o Sh. Kanda Swami,
R/o E413, Sakarpur, J. J. Colony,
New Delhi.
5. Dharmender Singh,
S/o Sombir Singh,
R/o H. No. 38/6, Gali No.3,
Shiv Vihar, Shahbad Diary, Delhi42
6. Dipesh Kumar Mishra,
S/o Jaishraj Mishra,
R/o H.No.2129/2, Prem Nagar,
West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi 110008. ....Respondents
Date of Institution: 29.04.2013
Date of Judgment: 29.09.2014
2
J U D G M E N T
On 12.02.2013, all the above named accused persons are alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit robbery at the shop o. 4482/84, situated on the first floor in Dau Bazar, Fatehpuri, Delhi and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy conjointly committed robbery at the said shop.
2. Case of the prosecution is that at the time of robbery, Sudhanshu Shukla accused impersonated himself as CBI officer to complainant Kalpesh Kumar Barot, who runs business of parcel from the said shop, and made him to part with a sum of Rs.20,000/. Charan Singh, Deshraj and Saundaranaj co accused are also said to have participated in commission of the robbery at the said shop. There two coaccused Dharmender and Dipesh Kumar Mishra are alleged to have aided commission of the robbery while being present near the place of occurrence, with two vehicles used by all of them in reaching that area.
3
Accused Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj, Charan Singh and Saundarajan are alleged to have been apprehended by the public. Someone reported the matter to police. On arrival of the police, these four accused persons were apprehended. Case was got registered by sending rukka from the spot. These four accused were found in possession of four Icards of CBI. One fake driving license was recovered from Sudhanshu Shukla accused.
On the basis of disclosure statement made by Sudhanshu Shukla accused, his coaccused Dipesh Kumar Mishra and Dharmender were apprehended from a nearby place, where they were present with two vehicles. Drivers of those two vehicles were also found present there. They were brought to Police Post, Church Mission Road, where the first mentioned four accused had been brought.
On the next day, on the basis of disclosure statement made by Sudhanshu Shukla accused one Ambassador car with a flag and beacon light and seven rubber stamps were recovered from the area of Shahabad Diary.
It is case of the complainant that prior to commission of the present 4 crime at the shop of the complainant, some of them entered the shop of PW Purshottam Jain situated in front of the sop of the complainant. It is thereafter, that they committed robbery at the shop of the complainant.
3. On completion of investigation, challan was put in Court. Copies of challan and accompanying documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused persons free of costs U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Prima facie case having been made out, against the accused persons, on 07.12.2013 charge has been framed against the accused as under: "1. For offence under Section 120B IPC read with Section 395 IPC against Sudhanshu Shukla, Desraj, Saunda Rajan, Dharmender Singh, Charan Singh and Dipesh Kumar Mishra accused.
2. For offence under Section 395 IPC against Sudhanshu Shukla, Desraj, Saunda Rajan, Dharmender Singh, Charan Singh and Dipesh Kumar Mishra.
3. For offence under Section 474 IPC against Sudhanshu Shukla, Desraj, Charan Singh and Saunda Raja accused. 5
4. For offence under Section 170, 472 & 474 IPC against Sudhanshu Shukla accused."
Since accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution had examined following 22 witnesses: PW1 Sh. Surender Kumar To prove registration of Ambassador Car in the name of Sudhanshu Shukla accused.
PW2 HC Amitabh To prove recording of FIR Ex PW2/A
PW3 Ct. Sangeeta To prove PCR form Ex PW3/A
PW4 Sh. Purshottam Jain Whose shop, some of the accused are
stated to have visited before commission
of the offence at the shop of the
complainantPW5
PW5 Sh. Kaplesh Kumar Barot Complainant
PW6 Sh. Hari Kishan Chawla To prove sale of Ambassador car to
Sudhanshu Shukla on 02.09.2012
PW7 S. Sardool Singh Driver on one of the two cars hired by the
accused on 12.02.2013 to reach Fatehpuri
Chandni Chowk.
PW8 Sh. Mahavir Prasad To prove sale of Innova car bearing
registration no. HR 38NT 0204
PW9 Sh. Shamsher Singh To prove ownership of Xylo car no. HR 37
C 8933
6
PW10 Sh. Arvind Nath Tripathi To prove that he had leased out plot bearing no. 23/24, Street No.3, Shahabad Diary to Sudhanshu Shukla accused, who started manufacturing incense sticks and used to park his Ambassador car under cover.
PW11 Sh. Gulshan Kumar To prove verification of driving license in the name of Sudhanshu Shukla accused.
PW12 Sh. Shukbir Singh Who drove Innova car No. HR 38 NT 0204 from the office in Malka Ganj to Satyam Hospital and with 56 persons from Satyam Hospital to Fatehpuri Chandni Chowk.
PW13 Sh. Suresh Singh Security guard present outside the office of the complainant on the given date and time of occurrence.
PW14 HC Chander Phool Concerned MHC(M) who dealt with the case property.
PW15 Sh. Rajiv Sharda To prove electronic record in respect of mobile phones of Deshraj and Dharmender accused.
PW16 Sh. Israr Babu To prove electronic record in respect of mobile phones of Charan Singh accused and one Ashok Kumar.
PW17 Ct. Charan Singh Who participated in the investigation. PW18 Sh. Arun Kumar Shorewala Who informed PCR which led to recording of information that there was a large gathering and some persons were being beaten by others and the crossing of cloth market near his shop.
PW19 Sh. Amarnath Singh To prove electronic record in respect of mobile phones of Sukhbir Singh S/o Mangal Singh 7 PW20 Sh. Vishal Gaurav To prove electronic record in respect of mobile phones of K. Saundarajan and Sudhanshu Shukla accused.
PW21 Inspector Sanjay Kumar Investigating officer. PW22 SI Devender Pranav Who partly investigate the case. Statement of Accused
6. When examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them regarding conspiracy, robbery and recovery of forged documents and claimed false implication.
Despite opportunity, accused persons did not lead evidence in their defence.
7. Arguments heard. File perused.
8. Learned defence counsel has submitted that present case was registered on the statement ofPW5 Sh. Kalpesh Kumar Barot, for the offences U/s 170, 171, 342, 384, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B IPC but there is nothing in the statement of PW5 regarding recovery of any incriminating material from any of the four accused and as such, it remains unexplained as 8 to how case came to be registered for the offences U/s 467, 468, 471 & 474 IPC.
Learned defence counsel has pointed out that PW5, while making statement in court, has made improvements in his previous statement on material aspects. Further, it has been pointed out that PW5 nowhere deposed as to from which of the accused sum of Rs.20,000/ was recovered.
Another contention raised by learned defence counsel is that from the statements of PW5, 17 & 21 it appears that no proceedings were actually conducted by PW21 at the spot and rather, the entire investigation was conducted while present at the police station.
It has been submitted that PW7 S. Sardool Singh has not named Saunda Rajan, accused as the person who travelled in his car on 12.02.2013 from Sector15, Rohini to Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk. The contention is that this goes to show falsehood of the prosecution version.
9. Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 12.02.2013, at about 3.00 p.m. at shop no. 4482/84, Dau Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi6 i.e. of 9 Sh. Kalpesh Kumar Barot, informant. The shop is situated on the first floor of Cloth Market, Dau Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi6. FIR came to be recorded on the basis of rukka dispatched by SI Sanjay Kumar at 4.00 p.m. SI Sanjay Kumar and Ct. Charan Singh were patrolling in the area when information was received from Duty Officer regarding quarrel. Duty Officer had received this information from PCR staff. PCR staff was informed by caller from mobile phone no.919891262465.
Prosecution has examined PW18 Arun Kumar Shorewala, who runs shop no.4508, on Church Mission Road, Lahori Gate. According to this witness, on 12/13.02.2013, at about 3.00 p.m., he was present at the shop. He found that there was large gathering and some persons were beating others. He informed PCR by dialing no.100 from mobile phone no. 919891262465. Statement of PW18 has gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination.
To prove recording of the information submitted by PW18 to PCR on 12.02.2013, prosecution has examined PW3 Ct. Sangeeta form Police Control 10 Room (PHQ). According to the witness, on that day, at about 15.05 p.m., she received information regarding quarrel at no.4500, Dau Bazar, Cloth Market, Church Mission Road, Lahori Gate, Delhi. As per her statement, she recorded the information in PCR form Ex.PW3/A and communicated the same to the ACP. Statement of this witness has gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination.
PW5 Statement Ex.PW5/A of Sh. Kalpesh Kumar Barot which led to registration of this case. It was sent to the police station by SI Sanjay Kumar vide endorsement Ex.PW21/A. While appearing in court as PW5, Sh. Kalpesh Kumar Barot has narrated the manner in which the occurrence took place. According to PW5, on 12.02.2013, at about 3.00 p.m., he was present at h is office / parcel shop on the first floor of building no.4482, Dau Bazar, Cloth Market, Church Mission Road, Lahori Gate, Delhi. At that time, one person wearing black coat, black gogals and black pant, entered his shop. He was carrying walkietalkie 11 wireless set. He represented himself to be the CBI Officer. He showed him, from a distance, a card of CBI but did not allow him to go through its contents. He told that they had come to conduct a raid at his office / shop. He asked for search warrant but they did not show any search warrants. Rather they told that they had come from office of CBI and to search there.
It is in the statement of PW5 that Sudhanshu Shukla was the said person wearing black coat, black gogals and black pant. Three persons followed him. One of them met him (PW5) to sit in a corner of the office / shop. The witness identified Saunda Rajan as the accused, who made him to sit. Further, according to PW5, third person started searching his almirah and putting his files in a bag. He identified Desraj accused as the person who started searching his filed. According to the witness, he was not allowed to speak or to get up from the place where he was made to sit. Further according to the witness, the fourth person asked him to pay Rs.2 lacs and they would stop search of his office. He was having Rs.20,000/ only in the drawer. This amount was collected from him by way of extortion. The witness pointed out 12 towards Charan Singh accused as the person who had demanded Rs.2 lacs but collected Rs.20,000/ only. As to what led the witness to raise alarm, it is in the statement of collection of Rs.20,000/ only as against the initial demand of Rs.2 lacs led to suspicion in his mind and he raised the alarm. Shop of PW4 Sh. Purshottam Jain is situated in front of shop of PW5 Kalpesh Kumar Barot. According to PW5, Sh. Purshottam Jain (PW4) also came to his shop raising alarm. As a result, many other shopkeepers and public gathered there. They inquired from the four persons about their identity cards or search warrants. 23 of them were having their identity cards. But those persons continued extending threats. It resulted in beatings by the public. Police reached there and apprehended all the persons on having been produced by the public.
PW4 Prosecution has examined Sh. Purshottam Jain (PW4), whose shop is situated near shop no.4479. According to the witness, on 12.02.2013, at about 2.30/3.00 p.m., he was present at his shop, when three persons came to his 13 office, represented themselves from CBI and they were to conduct raid. They remained at his shop for a minute or to look up some record lying in his shop but some spoke from behind that they had come to some wrong shop. According to PW2 HC Amitabh, all these persons left the shop. He saw them entering the shop situated in front of his sh op, where courier service used to render. According to PW4, there was some commotion. Many other shopkeepers reached there in front of the aforesaid shop of Shyamal Kumar and Sunil Kumar. Persons from the public apprehended those persons who had entered the aforesaid shop. As regards identity of those persons, who entered the shop of Shyamal Kumar and Sunil Kumar, PW4 stated that one of them was Shukla. While deposing in court, he identified Desraj, accused having Tilak on his forehead, as the person out of the three, who had come to his office or shop on the aforesaid day and then entered the shop of Shyamal Kumar and Sunil Kumar. As regards identity of the other, he could not say anything on the ground that they had stayed at the shop for a short time but it is in his statement that police reached the spot and took the persons who 14 apprehended there. The witness also deposed about recording of his statement by the police.
The witness was put leading questions by learned Addl. P.P., after seeking permission from the Court, whereupon he stated that in all they were five persons but out of them one managed to escape or that the said person was Dharmender. He displayed ignorance who have told the police that Sudhanshu Shukla, Desraj, Saunda Rajan and Charan Singh were the persons apprehended or that these four persons had come to his shop. He denied to have stated the names of these four persons to the police while making statement. However, he admitted to have stated before the police that the persons who had come to his office / shop had also gone to the shop of Shyamal Kumar and Sunil Kumar.
From the statement of PW4 Sh. Purushottam Jain, it transpires that he appears to have not named any of the four accused while making statement before the police but the entire testimony of this witness cannot be drawn away simply because the statements of four accused persons stand recorded U/s 15 161 Cr.P.C., the reason being that statement of th is witness has not been challenged during cross examination on the following aspects That on 12.02.2013, at about 2.30 / 3.00 p.m. while he was present at the office / shop, three persons came to his shop represented themselves to be from CBI and that they were to conduct raid; that they remained there for a minute or two, looked into the records lying in the office but they left when someone from behind spoke that they had come to some wrong shop; that all those persons went to the shop of Sh. Kalpesh Kumar Barot, situated in front of his office / shop and that those persons, who had entered the shop of Kalpesh Kumar Barot, were apprehended by the public.
10. According to PW4, one of those persons was known as 'Shukla'. Out of the accused persons, present in court, he identified Deshraj as one person who had entered at his office/shop on that day. He denied that no such occurrence took place on that day. PW4 is not an eye witness as to what happened at the shop of PW5. Testimony of PW5 is to the effect that the very persons who entered his shop left after a minute or two, entered the shop of PW5 and that those persons were apprehended.
Learned Defence counsel has submitted that according to PW5 at the 16 time of occurrence perhaps 1 or 2 of his employees including one Sailesh were present at the shop, but said Sailesh was neither joined in the investigation nor his statement was recorded, which creates doubt in the version narrated by PW5 regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place.
Learned Addl. PP has submitted that no adverse inference can be drawn on account of nonjoining of Sailesh as it is the quantity of evidence and not the quantity of witnesses which matters. Further it has been submitted that four accused namely Sudhanshu Shukla, Saundarajan, Deshraj and Charan Singh were apprehended by the public soon after the occurrence and produced before the police and their names stand recorded in statement Ex PW5/A which was recorded soon after the occurrence and led to registration of the case.
As per statement Ex PW5/A Sudhanshu Shukla is the person who displayed Icard before him while representing that he was a CBI officer; that Saundarajan was the person who made him sit in a corner of the room; Deshraj is the person who picked up registers from his almirah and kept the 17 same into bag; Charan Singh is the person who demanded Rs.2 lac to finish the case, but collected only Rs.20,000/ from him.
While appearing in court PW5 fully supported his previous version by identifying accused Sudhanshu Shukla, Saundarajan, Deshraj and Charan Singh. It is in his statement made in Court that Sudhanshu Shukla had shown to him from a distance his card of CBI; Saundarajan accused made him to sit in a corner of his office; Deshraj accused searched files lying in the almirah whereas Charan Singh accused demanded Rs.2lac to stop the search, but he collected Rs.20,000/ and ready to finish the case.
As noticed above, case was registered on 12.02.2013, at 4.20 pm, on the basis of rukka Ex PW21/A sent from the spot through Ct. Charan Singh. In the endorsement Ex PW21/A, appended by SI Sanjay Kumar to the statement Ex PW5/A, it stands recorded that by then four accused persons had been produced by public and Kalpesh Barotinformant before him (SI Sanjay). Names of all the four persons, so produced before the SI, find mentioned in Ex PW5/A. The role attributed to each one of them also finds clearly mentioned in 18 it.
It is true that in his crossexamination PW5 stated that so far as he remembered, Sailesh, one of his employees was present at his shop at the time of occurrence. It is also true that name of Sailesh does not find mention in the list of prosecution. It is case of prosecution that statement of Sailesh was not recorded during investigation. This court finds that nonrecording of the statement of Sailesh does not adversely affect the case of prosecution when other cogent, convincing evidence in corroboration of statement of PW5 is available on record.
Learned defence counsel has pointed out improvements in the statement of PW5. It is in chief examination of PW5 that the offenders continued extending threats but in his cross examination he admitted that no threats were extended to him and he did not state about the same in his statement Ex.PW5/A. In Ex.PW5/A, the witness clearly stated the manner in which he was asked to sit down quiet in a corner and that he was made to part with Rs. 19 20,000/ by extending threats. It appears that when the witness stated in court that the offenders continued in extending threats he wanted to explain beatings to the offenders by persons from the public, as stated by him in the next breath. It cannot be said by stating that no threats were extended to him he was referring to the threats extended during the occurrence i.e. while robbery was being committed. Therefore, when in cross examination he denied threats by the offenders, the same does not create any doubt in the version narrated by him regarding the manner in which the robbery took place.
It is in the cross examination on PW5 that in ex.PW5/A one of the accused has shown him identity card from a short distance but words 'from a short distance" does not find mention in his statement Ex.PW5/A. As per Ex.PW5/A, a person wearing black coat represented himself by CBI Officer and was holding a wireless set, showed him identity card of the rank of Dy.S.P. but did not allow him to check the identity card. From this statement, omission of words 'identity card was shown at a short distance', does not create any doubt in the version narrated by PW5 regarding the 20 impersonation by displaying identity card of the rank of DSP.
PW5 stated in his cross examination that he had told the police in Ex.PW5/A to have asked for search warrants but those were not shown. In Ex.PW5/A what stands recorded is that the witness asked for search warrants but the offenders told that search warrants would be shown on reaching CBI office. Both the sentences have the same meaning i.e. search warrants was not shown to the complainant when asked for. It cannot be said that witness has made any contradiction.
In his cross examination, PW5 told to have stated in Ex.PW5/A that fourth person told him that in case he paid Rs.2 lacs, the case would be closed then and there. He admitted to have not stated therein that on payment of rS.2 lacs, they would stop search of the shop.
In Ex.PW5/A, the witness stated that he got suspicious when the offenders agreed to close the case on receipt of Rs.20,000/ only as against the initial demand of Rs.2 lacs. Here again, it cannot be said to be a case of material contradiction in the statement of PW5.
21
In Ex.PW5/A, the witness stated that by threatening him a sum of Rs. 20,000/ was collected from him. In his cross examination he admitted to have not stated in Ex.Pw5/A that he was having Rs.20,000/ in the drawer and that he had taken out Rs.20,000/ from the drawer. He volunteered that actually this amount of Rs.20,000/ was removed by the person who was checking the almirah.
It may be mentioned here that while identifying the accused persons by their roles, PW5 stated in his chief examination that it is Desraj accused, who searched his files lying in almirah and it is Charan Singh, who initially demanded Rs.2 lacs but ultimately collected Rs.20,000/ from him. While identifying the currency notes taken out of the sealed parcel, the witness again stated that these currency notes worth Rs.20,000/ were the very currency notes which Charan Singh had collected from him and which were recovered from him by the police. Therefore, it is true that the witness stated in his chief examination, regarding recovery of Rs.20,000/ from accused, but without naming him, but seizure memo Ex.PW5/B is in proof of seizure of Rs.20,000/ 22 from Charan Singh. It bears attestation of PW5 as well. Ct. Charan Singh is the other attesting witness to the seizure memo prepared by SI Sanjay Kumar. Both the police officials h ave also deposed about recovery of Rs.20,000/ from Charan Singh. In view of all this, it cannot be said that statement of PW5 is in contradiction with the version initially given by him regarding the role attributed to Charan Singh or about recovery of Rs.20,000/ from him.
Nonexamination of employee of PW5
11. Learned Defence counsel has submitted that according to PW5 at the time of occurrence perhaps 1 or 2 of his employees including one Sailesh were present at the shop. Said Sailesh was neither joined in investigation nor his statement was recorded which creates doubt in the version narrated by PW5 regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place.
Learned Addl. PP has submitted that no adverse inference can be drawn on account of nonjoining of Sailesh as it is the quantity of evidence and not the quantity of witnesses which matters. Further, it has been submitted that four accused namely Sudhanshu Shukla, Saundarajan, Deshraj and Charan 23 Singh were apprehended by the public soon after the occurrence and produced before the police and their names stand recorded in statement Ex PW5/A which was recorded soon after the occurrence and led to registration of the case.
As per this statement Ex PW5/A Sudhanshu Shukla is the person who displayed Icard before him while representing that he was a CBI officer; that Saundarajan was the person who made him sit in a corner of the room; Deshraj is the person who picked up registers from his almirah and kept the same into bag; Charan Singh is the person who demanded Rs.2 lac to finish the case, but collected only Rs.20,000/ from him.
While appearing in court PW5 fully supported his previous version by identifying accused Sudhanshu Shukla, Saundarajan, Deshraj and Charan Singh. It is also in his statement (made in Court) that Sudhanshu Shukla had shown to him from a distance his card of CBI; Saundarajan accused made him to sit in a corner of his office; Deshraj accused searched files lying in the almirah whereas Charan Singh accused demanded Rs.2lac to stop the search, 24 but he collected Rs.20,000/ and was ready to finish the case.
As noticed above, case was registered on 12.02.2013, at 4.20 pm, on the basis of rukka Ex PW21/A sent from the spot through Ct. Charan Singh. In the endorsement Ex PW21/A, appended by SI Sanjay Kumar to the statement Ex PW5/A, it stands recorded that by then four accused persons had been produced by public and Kalpesh Barotinformant before him (SI Sanjay). Names of all the four persons, so produced before the SI, find mentioned in Ex PW5/A. The role attributed to each one of them also finds clearly mentioned in it.
It is true that in his crossexamination PW5 stated that so far as he remembered, Sailesh, one of his employees was present at his shop at the time of occurrence. It is also true that name of Sailesh does not find mention in the list of prosecution. Statement of Sailesh was not recorded during investigation.
PW21 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, the then SI and PW17 Ct. Charan Singh have deposed regarding receipt of call about a quarrel and their having 25 reached the disclosed place. According to them, on reaching shop no.4482, situated on the first floor, Dau Bazar, Cloth Market, Church Mission Road, Lahori Gate, Delhi, they found complainant Sh. Kalpesh Kumar Barot, present there. Four persons had been apprehended by the public.
Both these witnesses identified in court these four persons namely, Sudhanshu Shukla, Desraj, Saunda Rajan and Charan Singh, accused as the persons, who were found present at the spot. It is in the statements of both these witnesses that Sh. Kalpesh Kumar Barot made statement Ex.PW5/A which led to registration of this case, on the basis of rukka sent from the spot through PW17 Ct. Charan Singh. Ex.PW5/A depicts the manner in which these four accused committed robbery.
Electronic Evidence
12. On the point of identity of the accused persons, prosecution has relied on CD which purports to contain CCTV footage on 12.02.2013. According to PW5, on 16.02.13, he produced before the police CCTV footage in the form of CD containing video recording and photographs of the day of occurrence. CD 26 is Ex.P1 whereas photographs are Ex.P2 to Ex.P10. These are stated to have been seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/S. Learned defence counsel has rightly pointed out that this CD was not sealed into any parcel so as to rule out possibility of tampering with the material contained in it. As regards photographs, there is no cogent and convincing evidence where the same were developed and by whom.
It may be mentioned that in his cross examination PW5 stated to have told the police regarding installation of CCTV cameras in his shop but when his attention was drawn to his statement Ex.PW5/A this fact does not stand recorded there. Learned defence counsel has rightly pointed out that initially in his cross examination recorded on 31.05.2014, the witness stated that police did not record his statement on 16.02.2013 i.e. when CCTV footage and photographs were produced by him before the police and explained that his statement was recorded only once but in his further cross examination recorded on next date i.e. 05.06.2014 he came up with the version that his first statement, which led to recording of FIR, second statement pertains to 27 recoveries and preparation of wrong site plan and the third statement pertaining to CCTV footage was recorded on 16.02.2013. It is true that PW5 has not been consistent on the point that as to how many times his statement was recorded during investigation but no reliance can be placed on this electronic evidence contained in the form of CD and photographs for reasons that the same are not admissible in evidence for want of proper proof and certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. It was for the prosecution to prove all the essential ingredients available in Sec.65 B of Indian Evidence Act before this electronic evidence could be read into evidence. Admittedly, no such certificate was collected during investigation nor PW5 has produced the same in court during trial.
In Anvar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2012 decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 18.09.2014, it has been observed as under: "15. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Vide Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in 28 evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken on ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
16. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A - opinion of examiner of electronic evidence.
17. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law not stands in India.
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
19. Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65A of the Evidence Act, read with Section 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Section 63 and 65 has to yield.
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noticed herein before, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Section 59 and 65A dealing with the 29 admissibility of electronic record. Section 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SC 600, does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible." In Anvar P. V.'s case (supra), the appellant did not produce any certificate in terms of Section 65B in respect of the CDs. Therefore, same were not admitted in evidence.
In view of this discussion, no reliance can be placed on CCTV footage for noncompliance of provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Recoveries from accused persons at the time of their arrest
13. It is case of prosecution that Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj and Saunda Rajan, accused were found in possession of fake identity cards and that two dummy wireless sets were also recovered from Sudhanshu Shukla and Desraj. 30
According to PW21 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, he recovered from Sudhanshu Shukla, accused one fake identity card of CBI, one driving license, two visiting cards of CBI and one dummy wireless set.
From Desraj, accused, he recovered one fake identity card of CBI and one dummy wireless sets.
From Saunda Rajan, accused, he recovered one fake identity card of CBI.
He found accused Charan Singh in possession of currency worth Rs. 20,000/.
From Dharmender, accused, one fake identity card of CBI was recovered.
Further accoding to the witness, fake CBI cards were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/C, two dummy wireless sets were seized vide Ex.PW5/B and currency notes worth Rs.20,000/ were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/D. PW17 Ct. Charan Singh has also deposed about recoveries. According to him, Sudhanshu Shukla, Charan Singh, Deshraj and Saunda Rajan were 31 found in possession of one identity card from each. He explained that Sudhanshu Shukla, accused was found carrying identity card of the rank of Dy.S.P. of CBI, one driving license and that two dummy wireless sets; Accused Desraj was found in possession of one identity card of CBI and one dummy wireless set and accused Saunda Rajan & Charan Singh were found carrying identity cards of CBI and currency notes worth Rs.20,000/.
Although initially PW stated that the aforesaid items were turned into parcels and sealed by SI Sanjay Kumar with his seal bearing impression SK, but subsequently, as regards identity cards, he explained that these were not turned into parcel and rather made part of the record vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. He has proved his attestation on seizure memo Ex.PW5/D. Identity cards are Ex.P11 to Ex.P14.
PW5 Sh. Kalpesh Kumar Barot identified the cards as the cards seized from the accused persons vide memo Ex.PW5/C. It is true that while identifying the cards this witness did not specify as to from which accused which identity card was seized, but same does not adversely affect case of 32 prosecution, the reason being that these identity cards are in the name of Sudhanshu Shukla, Charan Singh, Deshraj and Saunda Rajan.
As per seizure memo Ex.PW5/C, Sudhanshu Shukla was found in possession of identity card of the rank of Dy.S.P., Desraj was found in possession of identity card of the rank of Inspector, Saunda Rajan was found in possession of CBI card of the rank of Inspector and Dharmender was found in possession of CBI card of the rank of Assistant. It is not believable that PW5 or police court fabricated Icards so as to falsely implicate the accused and their recovery could be shown on 12.02.2013 itself.
It is significant to note that while making statement in court neither PW21 SI Sanjay nor PW17, Ct. Charan Singh deposed about recovery of any identity card from Dharmender accused. Even PW5 Sh. Kalpesh Kumar Barot nowhere stated about recovery of identity card from Dharmender accused. Non deposition in this regards creates doubt if Icard of Dharmender was recovered at the time other four accused Sudhanshu Shukla, Saunda Rajan, Charan Singh and Dharmender were arrested. But it does not create doubt in 33 prosecution version abut recoveries from accused Sudhanshu Shukla, Saunda Rajan, Charan Singh and Dharmender.
As regards recovery of wireless set, recovery memo Ex.PW5/B lends corroboration to the statements of PW5, PW17 & PW21 that one wireless set was recovered from Sudhanshu Shukla and other from Desraj.
According to PW21 SI Sanjay Kumar, one driving license was recovered from Sudhanshu Shukla. Ex.PW5/C is the seizure memo which pertains to recovery of driving license and two visiting cards from Sudhanshu Shukla. The driving license is Ex.PW11/B. Its genuineness was got verified from concerned authority. As per report it is fake document. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW11 Sh. Gulshan Kumr, Sr. Clerk, of the office of RTO, Agra. This witness has proved report Ex.PW11/A, issued by Sh. Hemant Singh, Jr. Clerk of their office. According to the witness, report bears signatures of Sh. Rajiv Bansal, Regional Director (Technical). The witness has been seeing Sh. Hemant Singh and Sh. Rajiv Bansal signing & writing in the official course of business. Statement of PW11 has gone unchallenged for 34 want of cross examination. From the statement of PW11 and report Ex.PW11/A, it stands established that the driving license Ex.PW11/B is a forged document and that Sudhanshu Shukla was carrying the same with him at the time he was arrested. He has not led any defence evidence to prove defence plea that he had got it issued through someone.
PW13 PW13 Sh. Suresh Kumar was employed as security guard with National Security Service, Karol Bagh, Delhi. He was on duty at the main gate of the office of Somil Kumar and Arvind Kumar & Co.
Further according to the witness, on that date, at about 3 pm, 23 persons came to the main gate of the aforesaid company where he was on duty. They inquired from him if parcels work used to be done there. He replied in affirmative. Thereupon, those persons entered the office. About 12 minutes thereafter, those 23 persons came out of the office and went down stairs. The witness could not recollect identity of the 23 persons, who had come and inquired from him about the office.
35
According to the witness, he could not recollect their identity because of lapse of period of 1 ½ years. The witness was put leading questions by Learned Addl. PP after seeking permission from the Court, but nothing useful to the prosecution could be elicited from him on the point of identity of accused persons who so enquired him before they entered the office.
From the statement of PW13 although prosecution has not been able to establish identity of the 23 persons who had entered the office of Somil Kumar and Arvind Kumar & Co i.e. of PW5 Kalpesh, it stands established that those 23 persons entered the office of company at about 3 pm on 12.02.2013, after having inquired from him if parcel work used to be done there and 12 minutes after being entered the office came out and went down stairs.
PW12 As regards involvement and identity of the accused persons, prosecution has also examined PW12 Sh. Sukhbir Singh.
According to this witness, on 12.02.2013, he drove taxi no. HR38NT0204 from the office of Anand Bus Tourist Service, Malka Ganj, Delhi 36 to Satyam Hospital, Rohini. From in front of Satyam Hospital, 56 persons occupied seats in his car. Those persons asked him to drive the vehicle, without telling him destination. So, he started the vehicle and took them to Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk, particularly in front of Novelty Cinema. On reaching there, those 56 persons alighted, outside the parking in front of the cinema and he took the vehicle to the parking and parked it there.
However, as rightly submitted by learned Defence counsel, PW12 has not supported the case of the prosecution on the point of identity of the occupants or the 56 persons who travelled in it from in front of Satyam Hospital to Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk. The witness was put leading questions by learned Addl. PP but nothing useful to the prosecution could not elicited from him as regards identity of the persons who so travelled in his vehicle. Rather the witness, on having been seen the accused persons, stated that none of them travelled in vehicle on 12.02.2013 so as to reach in parking in front of Novelty Cinema.
The fact remains that PW12 has not supported the case of prosecution 37 on the point of identity of the accused persons who travelled by his taxi on 12.02.2013.
Arrest of Dipesh Kumar Mishra and Dharmender accused
14. Case of prosecution is that after production of Sudhanshu Shukla, Saundarajan, Deshraj and Charan Singh before the police by PW5 and public, police went to a nearby place on SPM Road near National Club, on the basis of what was disclosed by Sudhanshu Shukla accused, and from there apprehended Dipesh Mishra and Dharmender.
PW21 According to PW21 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, during interrogation Sudhanshu Shukla accused disclosed that two vehicles make Xylo and Innova were lying parked on SPM Road near National Club in the same area and they had travelled by those vehicles in reaching there and that his two associates Dipesh and Dharmender were present there with the two vehicles. Further according to PW21, he sent ASI Ranbir Singh for recovery of two vehicles. But the witness was put leading questions on this point, after seeking 38 permission from the Court. When so examined, witness stated that he might have accompanied ASI Ranbir to the place where two cards make Xylo and Innova were lying parked and were recovered, and from where Dipesh Kumar and Dharmender accused were apprehended. Learned Addl. PP suggested to the witness that only he and Ct. Charan Singh reached that place and recovered two cars and arrested Dipesh and Dharmender. Surprisingly, witness denied this suggestion. So PW21 has not supported the case of prosecution that the two cars make Xylo and Innova were recovered when only he and Ct. Charan Singh reached the place. Had the SI gone to any such place, he would not have stated "he might have accompanied ASI Ranbir". Rather, he whould have categorically stated to have accompanied Ct. Charan Singh and apprehended two accused and recovered two cars.
ASI Ranbir Singh has not been examined. He was not even cited as prosecution witness.
PW17 Ct. Charan Singh has deposed about his visit to Church Mission Road in the company of SI Sanjay and recovered two cars and arrest of 39 Dipesh Kumar Mishra and Dharmender with the two vehicles seized vide memo Ex PW17/B and C. According to PW17, drivers of those two vehicles were also found present with these vehicles. But the two drivers have not supported the case of prosecution.
PW12 Sukhbir Singh driver of one vehicle did not state about arrival of police or presence of Dipesh Kumar Mishra or Dharmender or about their arrest from his vehicle, near that place.
PW7 S. Sardool Singh is other taxi driver. He nowhere stated that Dipesh Kumar Mishra and Dharmender accused were left behind with the other vehicle in the parking. Rather, according to PW7 all the persons who had alighted from his vehicle had gone to cloth market. Those persons did not return for quite some time, but ultimately, police came and as directed by the police, he took the vehicle to police station.
It is true that in his chiefexamination, witness identified Sudhanshu Shukla, Charan Singh, Dipesh Kumar and Dharmender as the persons, out of 40 the 45 persons, who had travelled in his vehicle bearing no. HR 37 C 8933 on 12.02.2013 but he having not supported the prosecution version that Dipesh Kumar and Dharmender remained behind with the vehicle and they were apprehended from the parking, it is difficult to believe the version narrated by the police officials that Dipesh Kumar and Dharmender accused were apprehended from any such place near the parking. But it does not mean that his entire statement is to be thrown away.
Recovery of Ambassador car and fake rubber stamps from Sudhanshu Shukla Accused.
15. Case of the prosecution is that on 13.02.2013, Sudhanshu Shukla accused made disclosure and in pursuance thereof got recovered an Ambassador car bearing no. DL 3C AY 2941 from his office situated at Narela Outer Delhi District.
According to PW21 Inspector Sanjay Kumar on disclosure statement made by Sudhanshu Shukla. He accompanied by Ct. Charan Singh, ASI Ranbir and Sudhanshu Shukla reached the disclosed place where an 41 Ambassador car were found lying in the compound of the office of Sudhanshu Shukla. The Ambassador car had a beacon light of red colour. Words "Bharat Sarkar" were there on the car. The witness has deposed about seizure of the beacon light. Further, according to witness rubber stamps Ex P20 (collectively) were recovered from Ambassador car lying parked. Witness has proved seizure memo Ex PW7/E. PW17 Ct. Charan Singh has deposed about making of disclosure statement Ex PW17/D by Sudhanshu Shukla to the effect that he could get recovered from his office an Ambassador car. Further according to PW17 he accompanied by SI Sanjay and Sudhanshu Shukla accused reached the office in the area of Shahabad Diary and from there recovered Ambassador car of white colour with flag of CBI hoisting on it and a beacon light of red colour in it. He has also deposed about recovery of seven rubber stamps of CBI from the said Ambassador car.
It may be mentioned herein that PW21 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has demolished the prosecution case by stating that on interrogation of Sudhanshu 42 Shukla accused, he did not record any statement of the accused. By stating so he has also contradicted the statement of PW17 Ct. Charan Singh who clearly stated about recording of disclosure statement of the accused. Statements of these two witnesses are also in contradiction with each other on other aspects.
According to PW17 seven rubber stamps were recovered from the car but PW21 initially stated that seven rubber stamps were recorded from Xylo car, said to have been seized from near the parking, though ultimately he stated that seven fake rubber stamps were recovered from the Ambassador car. According to PW17, beacon light was found inside the car, but according to PW21 Ambassador car had a beacon light. PW17 has deposed about recovery of flag of CBI hoisting on the car but PW21 has not deposed about recovery of any flag hoisting on the car.
It is also pertinent to mention that SI Sanjay did not join any witness from public before visiting the office of Sudhanshu Shukla accused situated in the area of Shahabad Diary. He has not furnished satisfactory explanation for 43 nonjoining of witness from the public.
In view of the above discussion, this Court finds it difficult to believe the statements of PW17 and PW21 on the point of recovery of Ambassador car, seven rubber stamps and flag from the office of Sudhanshu Shukla accused in pursuance of any disclosure statement made by him.
Defence plea
16. As noticed above, Sudhanshu Shukla accused has admitted to have visited the office of the complainant on the given date and time. Saundarajan accused, employee of Sudhanshu Shukla accused has also admitted his presence on the given date, time and place in the presence of his coaccused Sudhanshu Shukla on the given date, time in the same area.
Charan Singh and Deshraj have also admitted their presence on the given date, time and area.
Plea of accused Sudhanshu Shukla reads as under : "On 12.02.2013 at 12 - 1 pm, I visited the parcel shop of the complainant for booking of a parcel of Agarbatties (Incense sticks). My driver Saunda, my coaccused was also with us on that day. Saunda 44 used to drive my car bearing registration no. UP 42 U0003. At that time, while I was still on the ground floor portion, Deshraj and Charan Singh met me while they were present at a cloth shop, on the ground floor. They inquired from me as to where I was going. I apprised them that I was to get the parcel booked both of the accompanied me to the first floor portion i.e. Shop no. 4482/84. When we entered the said shop, we found complainant having verbal wrangle with someone else. I then asked the complainant to book my parcel and not indulge in verbal wrangle. It led to exchange of hot words with me and complainant. I, Deshraj and Charan Singh came down stairs. On the ground floor we found that shopkeepers of the market had detained some persons. We stopped by their side. Since someone informed PCR, ASI Ranbir, Charan Singh Tomar and another police officer came there and started making inquiries from us regarding our presence there. Ultimately they took us along to police post Church Mission. Demands of money were raised by the police officers but we could not meet their demands. Ultimately, we were falsely implicated in this case.
Firstly, on 12.02.2013, I, my driver Saunda, Deshraj and Charan Singh inadvertently entered the shop of Purshottam PW but when we came to know him that parcel shop was in front of his shop, we entered the shop of the complainant."
Deshraj accused pleaded as under : "It is correct that on 12.02.2013 at about 22.30 pm, I, Charan Singh, Sudhanshu shukla and his driver, whose name I do not know came to the shop of PW5 Kalpesh Barot. Sudhanshu Shukla and his driver entered the shop of the complainant in connection with booking of a parcel by the former whereas I and Charan Singh remained outside the shop. Some arguments took place between Sudhanshu Shukla and the complainant. Thereupon, we, the four came downstairs. The parcel which was to be got booked was not taken along while going to the shop of complainant.
45
When we came down stairs we found some people arguing with each other. One of those persons slapped me. I objected to it. Many people gathered there. Some of them brought dandas. My right leg got fractured as a result of blow of danda by someone from the public. Someone informed the police and police reached there and took us four to police post. Police snatched our mobile phones, my diary. Ultimately, we were falsely implicated in this case.
On that date, at about 1 - 1.30 pm, I and Charan Singh reached cloth market in the aforesaid area as Charan Singh was to purchase cloth on the occasion of marriage of his niece. When we were buying cloth at a shop, Sudhanshu Shukla accused, who run incense sticks factory in Shahabad Diary, came there accompanied by his driver, whose name I do not remember. The driver was carrying a big size carton. We were told that Sudhahshu Shukla was to booked the parcel. So we accompanied both of them."
Accused Charan Singh has come with following plea: After Sudhanshu Shukla came to know of the parcel shop from a tea seller, we four reached the shop of the complainant, who has come and deposed in court. Sudhanshu Shukla enquired from the security guard present outside the shop. Sudhanshu Shukla then entered the shop while other three remained outside the shop. After five minutes, all of us came downstairs as the booking of the parcel was refused.
On reaching the road, we found that a quarrel was going on between many persons present there. 23 persons from the public had caught hold of an other. Deshraj my companion asked those 23 persons not to give beatings to the other. Thereupon, those persons from the public were after us. Persons from the public then gave us beatings. Deshraj suffered a fracture on his leg. We lost our belongings including mobile phones there in the crowd. Police came there. Police caught hold of us, took us to the police post and that is how, we were falsely implicated. "
46
Plea put forth by accused Saunda Rajan is as under: "On 12.02.2013 at about 1.30pm - 2 pm, I accompanied by Sudhanshu Shukla coaccused reached the office of PW5 Kalpesh Barot. Both of us reached that area by Safari car registered with an authority of U.P. Transport, driven by me. Last digits of its registration is 00038. I was employed with Sudhanshu Shukla during those days. The vehicle was parked in the parking of Chandni Chowk. While Shudhanshu Shukla entered the shop of PW5, I remained outside. Some arguments took place between PW5 and Sudhanshu Shukla. Thereupon, I Shudhanshu Shukla and the complainant came down stairs. At that time, on the ground floor a quarrel took place. Public also gathered there. Police reached there. Police took me, Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj and Charan Singh, friends of Sudhanshu Shukla. Deshraj and Charan Singh had met us in the market, before we went to the shop of the complainant.
Public did not make any such inquiry from us. Public thrashed me, Sudhanshu Shukla, Charan Singh and Deshraj. I cannot say as to why they gave us beating in presence of PW5 Kalpesh who had also come downstairs."
17. In view of the defence plea, it was for the accused to substantiate the same that Sudhanshu Shukla accompanied by Deshraj and Charan Singh entered the office of PW5 for the purpose of booking of a parcel but then PW5 had verbal wrangle with someone else, he (Sudhanshu Shukla accused) asked PW5 to book his parcel, and not to indulge in any verbal wrangle, but it led to exchange of hot words between them and that thereafter all the three 47 came down stairs. However, accused persons have not led any evidence to substantiate this defence plea.
PW5 Sh. Kalpesh Barot was suggested in the crossexamination that only a quarrel had taken place, but he denied this suggestion.
On behalf of the Sudhanshu Shukla accused it was suggested to PW5 that a quarrel had taken place between the two, over charges which he demanded for booking of a parcel. This suggestion is not in consonance with the defence plea put forth by the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
No suggestion was put to PW5 on behalf of Deshraj and Charan Singh regarding their false implication.
In view of the above discussion, I find that accused Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj, Charan Singh and Saundarajan have not been able to establish their defence plea either from the prosecution evidence or by leading any defence evidence.
48
Conclusion
18. As a result of the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to substantiate accusation levelled against Dipesh Kumar Mishra and Dharmender accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt for any of the offences. They are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, extending benefit of doubt both of them are acquitted in this case.
As regards remaining four accused Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj, Charan Singh and Saundarajan, this Court finds that prosecution has established that all of them entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit robbery at the shop of PW5 Sh. Kalpesh Barot and in prosecution thereof, they committed robbery at the said shop/office and made PW5 to deliver them a sum of Rs.20,000/ while Sudhanshu Shukla accused impersonated himself as CBI officer, and as such they made themselves liable for offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 392 IPC and Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC.
Prosecution has also established that Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj and Saundarajan kept in their possession forged Icards of different ranks i.e. of 49 CBI officers, Dy.S.P.; Inspector; Assistant knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall be fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine and thereby made themselves liable for offences under Section 474 IPC.
Prosecution has also established that Sudhanshu Shukla accused made himself liable for an offence under Section 170 IPC pretended to hold the office of CBI officer, as public officer and falsely personated as such and in such assumed character did commit robbery.
So far as offence under Section 474 IPC is concerned, Sudhanshu Shukla accused was no doubt found in possession of fake driving license but there is no evidence that he intended that same shall be fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine. Therefore, prosecution has failed to bring home charge for this offence i.e. under Section 474 IPC.
As discussed above, prosecution has failed to establish beyond doubt recovery of seven counterfeit rubber stamps/seals from Sudhanshu Shukla accused so as to hold him liable for offence under Section 472 IPC. 50
As a result, accused Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj, Charan Singh and Saundarajan are convicted as under :
1. Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj, Charan Singh and Saundarajan are held guilty for the offence under Section 120 B read with Section 392 IPC;
2. Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj, Charan Singh and Saundarajan are held guilty for offence under Section 392 read with section 34 IPC;
3. Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj and Saundarajan are held guilty of the offence under Section 474 IPC; and
4. Sudhanshu Shukla accused is also held guilty for offence under Section 170 IPC.
These four accused are convicted accordingly. Be put up tomorrow to hear these four convicts on the point of sentence.
Announced in Open Court
on 29.09.2014 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
51
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(CENTRAL): DELHI
S. C. No.32/2013
FIR No.23/13
PS Lahori Gate
In the matter of :
State
Versus
1. Sudhanshu Shukla,
2. Deshraj,
3. Charan Singh,
4. Saunda Ranjan. ......Convicts
ORDER ON SENTENCE
30.09.2014
Present: Convicts Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj, Charan Singh and Saundarajan in
person.
Sh. Manoj Lohia and Sh. Deepak Mahajan, counsel for accusedconvict Sudhanshu Shukla.
Sh. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, counsel for accused Saundarajan. I have heard the for convicts and the counsel on the point of sentence. Convicts and the counsel have prayed for leniency submitting that they are not previous convicts. Sudhanshu Shukla convict submits that he has old parents, wife and two children to support and that he be given a chance to reform himself. On behalf of Saundarajan convict, it has been submitted that he having no previous involvement in any 52 criminal activity, be also given an opportunity for reformation.
At noticed above, convicts Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj, Charan Singh and Saundarajan have been convicted for the offence under Section 120 B read with Section 392 IPC and offence under Section 392 read with section 34 IPC as all of them robbed Sh. Kalpesh Barot (PW5) who runs a parcel shop, after having entered into criminal conspiracy Sudhanshu Shukla, Deshraj and Saundarajan were also carrying fake Icards. Sudhanshu Shukla impersonated as an officer of CBI.
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, serious nature of offences convicts are sentenced as under: Name of convict Offence Rigorous Fine Simple Imprisonment Imprisonment in (Rs.) default of payment of fine.
1. Sudhanshu Shukla 1. under Section 120 B read with Section 2 years 5,000 1 month 392 IPC
2. Section 392 read with section 34 IPC. 4 years 10,000 2 months
3. under Section 474 IPC 1 year 1000 10 days
4. under Section 170 IPC 6 months 500 5 days
2. Deshraj 1. under Section 120 B read with Section 2 years 5,000 1 month 392 IPC
2. Section 392 read with section 34 IPC. 4 years 10,000 2 months
3. under Section 474 IPC 1 year 1000 10 days
3. Charan Singh 1. under Section 120 B read with Section 2 years 5,000 1 month 392 IPC
2. Section 392 read with section 34 IPC. 4 years 10,000 2 month
4. K. Saundarajan 1. under Section 120 B read with Section 2 years 5,000 1 month 392 IPC
2. Section 392 read with section 34 IPC. 4 years 10,000 2 months
3. under Section 474 IPC 1 year 1000 10 days All the substantive sentences of imprisonment are ordered to be run concurrently. 53
The period of imprisonment already undergone during investigation, inquiry and trial to be set off against the period of sentence awarded vide this judgment.
The currency notes worth Rs. 20,000/ i.e. the case property be released to PW5 Sh. Kalpesh Barot, complainant.
From the amount of fine, if realized, a sum of Rs.20,000/ be paid to him by way of compensation under Section 357 CrPC.
Case property be disposed of in accordance with law on expiry of period for Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court
on 30.09.2014 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
54