Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Virender @ Monu on 2 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST) : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
Session Case No. 546/06
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0090392006
State Vs. 1. Virender @ Monu
S/o Daya Chand
R/o B-24, Kewal Park,
Azadpur, Delhi
(Convicted)
2. Liyakat Hussain
S/o Maula Baksh
R/o H-4/1776, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
(Convicted)
3. Mahesh Chand Pandey
S/o Shrikant Pandey
R/o B-26A, Kewal Park,
Azadpur, Delhi.
(Convicted)
4. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Bhagwan Dass
R/o B-12, Kewal Park,
Azadpur, Delhi.
(Convicted)
5. Ajay @ Kala
S/o Bijender Singh
R/o B-34, Sarai Peepal Thala
Azadpur, Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No. 144/06
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
Under Section : 392/397/411/482/34/120B IPC
& 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 1 of 37
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 25.5.2006
Arguments heard on : 8.6.2010
Date of decision : 13.7.2010
JUDGMENT
As per the allegations, 15 days prior to the date of incident i.e. 3.3.2006 the accused Liyakat Hussain being the worker in the factory of one Gian Singh the husband of the complainant Smt. Devi Rani, entered into a conspiracy with accused Rakesh Kumar, Mahesh Chand, Ajay @ Kala and Virender @ Monu to commit robbery in the house of Gian Singh and to loot large cash amount as well as ornaments. All the accused made a plan to commit the said robbery and accused Liyakat Hussain showed to his co-accused the house of his employer Gian Singh and also gave the details of the family members of Gian Singh. Pursuant to the aforesaid, on 3.3.2006 all the accused persons entered the house of Gian Singh and committed robbery of jewellery and cash amount by putting the complainant Smt. Devi Rani and Neetu Singh under the instant fear of death on the point of knife and pistols. The accused persons also, in furtherance of their common intention used a fake number plate on car no. DL-1CH-5915 while committing robbery at the house of the complainant.
BRIEF FACTS :
Case of the prosecution :-
The investigations in the case were kicked off on 3.3.2006 on receipt of DD No.16-A received in the police station Shalimar Bagh pursuant to which SI K.P. Tomar along with Ct.
Pradeep reached at House No. 63, BC Block, West Shalimar Bagh St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 2 of 37 where they met the complainant Smt. Devi Rani who informed the police that at about 1:45 pm five persons entered in her house and robbed them of the cash amount and jewellery on the point of knife. On the basis of the statement of Smt. Devi Rani the present FIR was registered and the accused persons have been arrested. The jewellery articles and cash amount robbed from the house of the complainant were recovered from the accused persons and after completion of the investigations, the charge sheet was filed before this court.
CHARGE :
The Ld. Predecessor of this court, after hearing the arguments, settled the charges under Section 392/397/398/482/34 Indian Penal Code against the accused Virender @ Monu, Mahesh Chand Pandey, Rakesh Kumar and Ajay @ Kala. Further, charges under Section 120-B read with Section 392/397 & 398 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Liyakat Hussain. Also, charges under Section 411/395/34 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 of Arms Act have been settled against all the accused persons.
EVIDENCE :
In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined has many as 20 witnesses.
Public witnesses/Eye witnesses :
PW1 Smt. Devi Rani is the eye witness/ complainant who has deposed that on 3rd March 2006 at about 1:45 door bell of their house rang and she asked her maid servant Pooja to see as to who has come. According to her, her maid saw that one car had St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 3 of 37 stopped near the house and told her that some guests have come and she saw one person came out of the car while remaining were sitting in car. She has further deposed that finding them unknown persons, she did not open the gate but he asked her to speak on the mobile phone on the pretext that her husband had sent them. According to PW1, Smt. Devi Rani the said boy who she has identified as the accused Rakesh, also touched her feet. She has testified that thereafter she opened the gate and car entered through the main gate and three persons alighted from the car. She got little suspicious as they were unknown persons but they had told her that her husband had sent the car and they had come to hand over the keys to her but they did not hand over the keys despite her asking and started talking to her in scolding manner. She has deposed that they were five persons out of which one was a Mohamdon, who was working in her factory for last about 20 years but she is not aware their names. According to PW1, the said persons asked for the water and her maid servant Pooja brought water for them after which they entered in her kitchen and spitted in the cooked food and came out of the kitchen and sat on the sofa where she was giving food to her grandson. The witness has further deposed that all the four intruders were armed with knives and one of them placed a knife on the neck of her grandson namely Rakshak who vomited the food he was eating and one of the intruders placed a knife on her head and gagged her mouth with her chunni. She raised an alarm and her maid servant Vidya and her daughter in law Neetu came out on which one of the intruder hit Vidya and Neetu with the handle of knife on their head and demanded keys from Neetu on which she handed over the key to them. PW1 has further deposed that the Intruders took away cash and jewellery, but she St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 4 of 37 does not remember the details and quantity as the same belonged to her daughter in law. She has deposed that the intruder were addressing each by serial numbers and not using their respective names and thereafter, they forced them in one room and threatened that in case they came out they would face dire consequences. According to PW1, all of said intruders sat in the car probably make OPEL and left the spot and thereafter her daughter in law Neetu called up her son namely Manjeet and informed him of the occurrence on which her son came and called up the police official with dog squad. She has proved her statement which is Ex.PW1/A. She has only identified the accused Rakesh but she is unable to identify the other accused persons and the the car which was used by the intruders.
The witness was found resiling from her previous statement and therefore, was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP wherein she has admitted that on the ringing of the doorbell, her maid servant had opened the door and reported to her that four persons had come who wanted to see her. She has also admitted that one of the intruders told her that they had been sent by Babuji with directions to leave that vehicle and pick-up another vehicle and that he officer her to speak to her husband from their mobile phone and handed over his phone to her after dialing a number and a person who sounded like a labour spoke to her that he had been instructed by Babuji to convey to her that vehicle should be retained at the house. She has admitted that he demanded the key of the car from them and requested to sit inside the room and be provided with a glass of water and to await for Babuji. She further admits that two persons entered the house first followed by two others and that Pooja brought water and two of them consumed St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 5 of 37 water. PW1 has also admitted that one of the intruders kept standing with her and the other three went with Neetu and collected cash and jewellery from her cupboard. She has further admitted that one of the intruder was using very filthy abuses and that she told police that intruders had taken away Rs. 80-90 thousand cash and jewellery.
She has identified the jewellery articles which were recovered by the police i.e. one necklace of Gold which is Ex.P1, mangalsutra which is Ex.P2, two gold bangles which are Ex.P3 and P4; one gold chain which is Ex.P5; one single ear-ring which is Ex.P6; one diamond kangan which is Ex.P7; two gold bangles which are Ex.P8 & P9; two gold chains which are Ex.P10 and P- 11; one ring which is Ex.P12; one pair of gold ear-ring which is Ex.P13; one diamond kangan which is Ex.P14; three gold bangles which are Ex.P15, P16 & P17; two gold chains which are Ex.P-18 & P-19; one gold necklace which is Ex.P20; three ladies gold rings Ex.P21, P22 and P23; one gold necklace which is Ex.P24; two gold bangles Ex.P25 & Ex.P26; two gold chains which are Ex.P27 & P28; two gold ear-rings which are Ex.P29 & P30; one ring diamond which is Ex.P-31; three bangles which are Ex.P32, P33 & P34; one big gold necklace which is Ex.P-35, one gold ring which is Ex.P-36 and two tops which are Ex.P37 & P-38.
In her cross-examination the witness has deposed that she had identified the jewellery previously at the police station when the same was shown to her. She has denied that on 1.11.2007 she identified the accused Rakesh at the instance of the investigating officer.
St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 6 of 37 PW2 Manjeet is the son of the complainant who has deposed that on 03.03.06 he was at his factory, when he received a call from his wife namely Neetu at about 2.15 PM that three to four persons had intruded in the house and looted cash and jewellery at the point of knife. He reached home and saw that the household articles had been scattered. According to him, he called up PCR at 100 number and police arrived at the spot who recorded the statements of all family members. He has proved that police recovered a plastic piece which was bow shaped and which had broken off from the car which might have been used by the accused persons which plastic piece was converted into a cloth pulanda and seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW-2/A. He is, however, unable to identify the said plastic piece.
In his cross examination by Ld. APP, he has admitted that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer that his wife had seen the registration number of the vehicle by which the accused persons had escaped, and had also told a part registration number to him but he is unable to tell if the part registration number told by his wife was DL-8965. He has further admitted that the said plastic part was collected by the police in his presence and measured and was found to be 6 inch wife and 2 feet 23 cm long.
PW3 Neetu is the daughter in law of the complainant and has deposed that on 3.3.06 she was present in her bed room at her house and at about 1.30 PM, door bell rang and she was still in her room. According to her, she heard loud noises from the house and she came out of her room with her maid namely Vidhya when one person placed a knife on her neck and another person pressed the neck of her six years old son, who was having food. She has St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 7 of 37 deposed that because of his neck being pressed her son vomitted. The witness has further deposed that another maid namely Pooja also in the house at that time and another person picked up her six months old daughter and threw her on the bed, because of which she developed breathing problem and the volume of television was raised by one of the intruders. The witness has proved that one of the intruders addressed her and asked her to hand over all valuables or otherwise he would kill her children. She has deposed that there were four persons who had entered the house, they were armed with knives and one of them was carrying a firearms and on the asking of the intruders, he opened all the almirahs of the house in the ground floor. She has deposed that these intruders took out the cash and jewellery of her mother in law from the almirahs after which two of the intruders took her to the first floor, to her bedroom and again forced her to open the almirahs and took out the jewellery from the almirahs, thereafter, she was brought to the ground floor and all of them collected in one room and the room was bolted from outside. The balcony outside this room was also bolted but they left the main gate open and left the house in a car. According to her, she had seen the registration number of car in which the accused persons escaped but she is unable to tell the number. The witness has further proved that the jewellery articles which had been robbed by accused persons included her four gold sets, 12 bangles, two diamond kadas, chains, rings and other jewellery articles etc. and identified jewellery which had been recovered, during TIP proceedings before the Magistrate which proceedings are ExPW3/A. She has also identified the case property in the court which were taken by her on Superdari i.e. one necklace of Gold which is Ex.P1, mangalsutra which is Ex.P2, two St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 8 of 37 gold bangles which are Ex.P3 and P4; one gold chain which is Ex.P5; one single ear-ring which is Ex.P6; one diamond kangan which is Ex.P7; two gold bangles which are Ex.P8 & P9; two gold chains which are Ex.P10 and P-11; one ring which is Ex.P12; one pair of gold ear-ring which is Ex.P13; one diamond kangan which is Ex.P14; three gold bangles which are Ex.P15, P16 & P17; two gold chains which are Ex.P-18 & P-19; one gold necklace which is Ex.P20; three ladies gold rings Ex.P21, P22 and P23; one gold necklace which is Ex.P24; two gold bangles Ex.P25 & Ex.P26; two gold chains which are Ex.P27 & P28; two gold ear-rings which are Ex.P29 & P30; one ring diamond which is Ex.P-31; three bangles which are Ex.P32, P33 & P34; one big gold necklace which is Ex.P-35, one gold ring which is Ex.P-36 and two tops which are Ex.P37 & P-38.
The witness is, however, is unable to identify the currency notes on the basis of the photocopies placed on record and is also not able to identify the car in the court. In her cross- examination by the Ld. Addl. PP she has admitted that one dark complexion intruder had placed a knife on the neck of her mother in law and had directed them to remain silent and that three of the intruders had pointed knife at her and asked her to deliver the keys to them. She has further admitted that they had taken away Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/- cash along with the jewellery and that the jewellery articles mentioned in her statement Ex. PW3/A had been robbed by the intruders. She has also admitted that one more intruder had joined the two who had taken her to the first floor and that all other three intruders came down to the ground floor and ran away with the forth person carrying away the looted articles and St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 9 of 37 cash in a car. She has denied that when the accused persons were fleeing away, their car hit the gate of their house and a piece of plastic fell down. She has however, admitted that a plastic piece was recovered from their house by the police and the same was sealed in a cloth pulanda and seized vide memo Ex. PW2/A but she is unable to identify the said plastic piece. The witness has proved that on 17.03.2006 she had joined the TIP proceedings of the accused persons and thereafter returned to her house but has denied that on seeing the photograph accused Rakesh she had pointed out that this was the person who had placed a knife on the neck of my mother in law. She has further denied that on seeing the photograph of accused Virender she had pointed out that this was the person who was using filthy language and abusing them. The witness has also denied that on seeing the photograph of accused Ajay she had pointed out that this was the person who was carrying fire arms. She has admitted that one Liakat Hussain was an employee in the factory of her father in law, but she is unable to identify the accused Liyakat Hussain in the court.
In her cross examination, by the Ld. Defence counsel she has deposed that she did not furnish any documentary evidence to the investigating officer regarding ownership of jewellery Ex. P1 to P38 and that she does not possess any such record.
PW4 Smt. Vidya has deposed that she worked as a domestic helper at Shalimar Bagh in the house of Smt. Neetu and her parents in law. According to her, about two years earlier at about 1.45 PM she was present at their house along with Neetu in a room at the Ground Floor, when she heard some noises and she came out of the room. She has deposed that someone hit her on St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 10 of 37 her head with the handle of the knife due to which reason she lost her consciousness and fell down. According to her she does not know anything about this case.
The said witness has been cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP since she was found resiling from her previous statement made to the police. She has deposed that police did not make any inquiries from her and her statement was not recorded. She has admitted that when she came out of the room one person had kept a knife on the neck of Devi Rani and the other three were threatening her and demanding keys from her. However, she has denied that when she came out of the room two of the intruders armed with knives and the other with a revolver, came towards Neetu and at the point of those weapons took her to the first floor room or that those three persons took out cash and jewellery from the Almirahs on the ground and first floor of the house. She has also denied that those persons took away the looted cash and jewellery in the car brought by them. According to the witness, the accused persons are not among the four boys who had intruded in the house of Devi Rani.
PW5 Pooja is the maid servant of Smt. Devi Rani and has deposed that about 2-3 years earlier she worked as a maid servant in the house of one Neetu at BC-63, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. According to her, one day at about 1 PM she alongwith another maid namely Vidya, Neetu (Bhabhi), with her two children and Aunty were present in the house and having lunch. Somebody rang the door bell when she was cooking chapatis and she went to attend the same. According to her, four persons were present at the door and they said that they have come to exchange a car, they wanted to leave behind the old car and take away the new car. She has St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 11 of 37 deposed that she called aunty at the door when four persons requested aunty to let them speak to Babuji (owner) and they came inside the Verandah to make the phone call. She has further deposed that one of them dialed a number on his mobile phone and handed over the same to Aunty, who spoke to the person at the other end of call after which those persons brought the car inside the boundary wall of the house. According to PW5, the accused persons are not from among those four who had intruded into the house of her employer on the date of occurrence.
The witness has further deposed that she offered water to all those persons and one of them consumed water and they all had entered the house together. She has deposed that one of them caught hold of the child of her employer from his neck and ordered that all cash and jewellery should be handed over to them. She has deposed that he asked for the keys of house from Neetu and three intruders along with Neetu went to the rooms on the upper floor where the house was ransacked and valuables were collected by them. The witness has also deposed that she did not know the details of articles looted and the intruders were armed with knives and one person who had not gone upstairs, huddled them in one room.
PW5 Smt. Vidya was found resiling from her previous statement made to the police and therefore, she was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state during which she has deposed that her statement was not recorded and no investigation was carried out with her. She has denied that two intruders had entered the house first followed by the other two. She has admitted that one of those intruders touched the feet of auntiji but she has denied that the one wearing the blue jean and blue shirt had touched the feet of auntiji.
St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 12 of 37 The witness has also denied that the boy who touched the feet of auntiji placed a knife on her neck when she had raised alarm. She has further denied that on hearing the alarm raised by herself and Auntiji, Smt. Neetu and Vidya came down from the first floor room and states that they were in the ground floor itself. PW5 has also denied that Neetu and Vidya raised alarm or that accused persons pointed knives towards them and silenced or that the accused Mahesh Pandey, Virender and Ajay took Neetu at the first floor of the house by showing her the knives or that accused Rakesh had stayed back on the ground floor. She has admitted that the intruders ran away after looting the valuables in the same car in which they had come. According to her, she did not notice if the car had hit the main gate or if some part of the bumper had been fallen.
In her cross examination by the defence counsel, PW5 has deposed that the person who had touched the feet of Aunty Ji is not from among the accused persons.
Police witnesses/ official witnesses:
PW-6 Const. Pardeep Kumar has deposed that on 3.3.06 on receipt of DD No. 16/A, he along with Investigating Officer, SI K.P. Tomar went to BC-63, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where they found that public persons were gathered and a robbery had been committed. According to him, investigating officer recorded statement of complainant Devi Rani and prepared the rukka thereon and handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR and in the meantime Crime Team, Dog Squad and Expert had also reached the spot. The witness has proved having taking the rukka to the police station and got the FIR registered and returned to the spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka, which he St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 13 of 37 handed over to the investigating officer. He has further deposed that a gray coloured spare part of a car made of plastic was found near the gate of the house which was black from inside and some numbers were written on the inside of the spare parts which are 2 fit 23 cm. long and 6 inch wide. According to him, it was kept in a cloth pulanda, sealed with seal of KP and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A and the seal after use was handed over to him. The witness has identified the said plastic part in the court as the same was recovered in his presence from the house of the complainant, which plastic part is Ex.P-39.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he does not remember how the length of Ex.P-39 was measured. It was observed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court that the width of Ex.P-39 is varying between 3 to 4 inch. He is unable to tell if the investigating officer recorded any statement after his return with a copy of FIR.
PW7 SI Kartar Singh has deposed that on 5.3.06 he was posted at police station Shalimar Bagh as an ASI and on that day he along with HC Sheshdhar, Const. Mukesh and Const. Surinder joined the investigation with the investigating officer when a secret information was received that two or four persons who were involved in committing the robbery at BC-63, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi would be coming in the same vehicle which was used in the commission of the crime whose bumper had broken during the occurrence, as they were proceedings to get the bumper repaired in the area of Moti Nagar near Fire Station Show Room; and they could be apprehended if raided. Pursuant to the said information, a raiding party was constituted along with the aforesaid officials and St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 14 of 37 they reached the spot. At about 3.00 PM one Opal Car of Gray colour with the number plate DL-1CH-5915 came on Najafgarh Road which car was intercepted and the same was being driven by Rakesh and another person namely Mahesh Chander Pandey was sitting besides the driver seat. They were apprehended and their names were later revealed by the accused persons themselves. He has deposed that the search of accused was conducted and from the left dub of the accused one dagger was recovered and from each of accused Mahesh Chander Pandey @ Anuj Pandey, one buttondar knife was recovered from the left dub of the accused. The witness has proved that the investigating officer kept the dagger on a plain paper and the sketch Ex.PW7/A was prepared and the measurement of the dagger was taken and total length of the same was found to be 44 cm; blade was 31.2 cm. long and handle was 12.8 cm and the handle of the dagger was made of wood. He has proved that the dagger was kept in a cloth pulanda sealed with the seal of KP and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/B and the seal after use was handed over to HC Sheshdhar. The buttondar knife recovered from the possession of accused Mahesh Chander Pandey was also put on a white paper and sketch Ex.PW7/C was prepared and the measurement of the knife was also done and on measurement, total length was found to be 23.5 cm, Blade was about 10 cm and the handle was about 13 cm. long. According to the witness, there was a floral design on the handle of the knife and the button of the knife was made of brass metal and the blade was engraved with the words Raj Hans in English. He has proved that the knife was also kept in a cloth pulanda sealed with seal of KP and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/D. PW7 has also St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 15 of 37 stated that the search of the aforesaid car was conducted during which two number plates were recovered bearing different registration numbers. The witness has proved having arrested the accused Mahesh Pandey was arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/E and accused Rakesh was arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/F; personal search of both the accused persons were conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/G and Ex.PW7/H respectively. He has also deposed that accused Rakesh was interrogated and he made a disclosure statement which is Ex.PW7/1 wherein he has disclosed that he along with his associates made a plan to commit robbery at the house of the employer of accused Liaqat Hussain and in pursuance to the above committed robbery of cash and jewellery and he had kept his share at his house and can get the same recovered. Similarly, accused Mahesh Pandey also made disclosure statement Ex.PW7/J and disclosed that the money and the jewellery which was received as his share, has been kept by him at his residence and he can get the same recovered. Thereafter, both the accused persons led the police party to the nearby cremation ground at Gopal Nagar, Near Kewal Park, Adarsh Nagar where on the pointing out of accused Rakesh, the accused Virender Singh @ Monu whose name was later on revealed by accused himself, was apprehended. The search of accused Virender Singh @ Monu was conducted from which one buttondar knife was recovered which was kept on plain paper and the sketch Ex.PW7/K-1 (wrongly mentioned as PW7/K) was prepared and on measuring, total length of the knife was found to be 23 cm, the blade was 10 cm long and the handle was 13 cm long. According to the witness, on the blade of knife the words 'Raj Hans Rampur; in English were engraved St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 16 of 37 and the knife was also kept in a cloth parcel sealed with seal of KP and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/K after which the accused Bijender @ Monu was arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/L and his personal search memo Ex.PW7/L was also prepared.
The witness has further proved that the accused Bijender @ Monu was interrogated who made disclosure statement which is Ex.PW7/M wherein he had disclosed that he committed the offence along with his associates and the jewellery and money has been kept by him at his residence at Kewal Park, Azadpur and he can get the same recovered. Thereafter, the police party along with all the aforesaid three accused persons went to Himachal Kishan Bhawan, Adarsh Nagar and on the pointing out of accused Rakesh, the accused Ajay @ Kala was apprehended and arrested vide memo which is Ex.PW7/T and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/U. The witness has further proved that from the personal search of the accused Ajay @ Kala one desi katta was recovered along with two live cartridges which were recovered from the right pocket pant of the accused and the sketch of recovered katta and cartridges was prepared which is Ex.PW7/A, According to the witness, the katta was .32 bore and the barrel of katta was made of iron and both sides of the katta wooden patti was affixed. PW7 has further deposed that the katta and cartridges were kept in a cloth parcel and same were sealed with seal of KP and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/O. He has also deposed that in the mean time, Ct. Surinder had already arrived and he joined the proceedings and thereafter accused Rakesh led them to Phatak No. 7 where on the pointing out of the accused Rakesh, the accused Liaqat was apprehended and from the personal search of St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 17 of 37 accused Liyakat one desi katta and two live cartridges were recovered from his possession. According to PW7, the katta and cartridges were kept on a plain paper and rough sketch of the same Ex. PW7/P was prepared and the katta was found of .12 bore and the barrel was made of iron, the total length of katta was found to be 29.5 cm, butt was of 10.5 cm. length and the body of the katta was 10 cm. long and the barrel was 15 cm. long. The witness has proved that Katta and cartridges were kept in a cloth parcels and same were sealed with seal of KP and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/Q. Thereafter the accused Liaqat Hussain was arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/R and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/S. PW7 has further deposed that at the time of apprehending of the accused persons namely Rakesh and Mahesh Pandey, the car bearing registration No. DL 1CH- 5915, was also seized vide memo Ex.PW7/V and at the time of apprehending of accused Rakesh and accused Virender @ Monu one mobile phone each were recovered from the accused persons and same were seized vide memos Ex.PW7/W and 7/X respectively. The witness has further proved that at the time of arrest of accused Ajay @ Kala, one car registration no. of which he does not remember was also recovered and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/Y. The witness has further proved that at the time of arrest of accused Rakesh Kumar and accused Virender, the car bearing registration No. DL 1CH-5915, make Opel was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/Z and the above stated two number plates bearing registration no. DL-1CH-5965 were also seized vide same memo Ex.PW7/Z. According to PW7, thereafter, all the accused persons led the police party to the house of accused Rakesh at St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 18 of 37 Kewal Park, Azadpur, Delhi from where the accused Rakesh got recovered a sum of Rs.12,000/- and some jewellery from his house, which was disclosed to be looted property but he does not remember the details of the jewellery which jewellery was kept in a plastic box and converted in a pullanda and sealed with seal of KP and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A1 and the currency notes along with its polythene bag were kept in a cloth pulanda, sealed with seal of KP and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A1. According to PW7, accused Mahesh Chander Pandey also led them to his house situated at Kewal Park, Subzi Mandi from where accused Mahesh Chand took out a sum of Rs.17,000/- cash and some jewellery which jewellery articles and cash was sealed with seal of KP and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/A2. He has further proved that the accused Virender @ Monu also led them at Kewal Park, Azad Pur at his house from where he got recovered a sum of Rs.11,000/- cash and some jewellery which were sealed with seal of KP and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/A3. The witness has further deposed that the accused Ajay @ Kala also led them to his residence Sarai Peepal Thala, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and got recovered from the forth floor Rs.10,000/-and some jewellery which were also sealed with seal of KP and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/A3. Thereafter, accused Liaquat Hussain led them at his residence Jahangir Puri, Delhi from where he got recovered Rs.10,000/- and some jewellery which were sealed with seal of KP and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/A4.
According to PW7, on 5.3.06 itself the accused persons Rakesh Kumar, Mahesh Chander Pandey, Virender Singh @ Monu and Ajay @ Kala had pointed out the spot vide pointing out memos St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 19 of 37 Ex.PW7/A5, A6, A7 and A8 respectively and at the time of arrest of accused Ajay @ Kala and Liaqat Hussain, they were interrogated and they made disclosure statement Ex.PW7/A9 and A10 respectively. The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons and also the case property. The OPEL Car bearing registration no. DL-1CH-5915 in which accused Mahesh Pandey and Rakesh Pandey were apprehended which is Ex.P-39; two number plates bearing number DL1CH-8965 found in the car which are Ex.P 40 (collectively); a dagger recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh at the time of his apprehension which is Ex.P 41; country made pistol of .32 bore recovered from the possession of accused Ajay Kala, which Katta is Ex.P 42 and the cartridges which are Ex.P-42A; country made pistol of .12 mm bore recovered from the possession of accused Liyakat Hussain which katta is Ex.P-43 and the cartridges which are Ex.P-44 (collectively); a button actuated knife recovered from the accused Virender @ Monu which is Ex.P-45; button actuated knife recovered from the accused Mahesh which knife is Ex.P-46; a mobile phone of make TATA Indicom recovered from the possession of accused Virender @ Monu which is Ex.P-47 and a mobile phone of make NOKIA 6600 recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh which is Ex.P-48.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he did not make any entry in DD register regarding departure for investigations in the present case. He has further deposed that HC Shesh Dhar, Ct. Mukesh, Ct. Surender and Ct. Hemant were also informed of the information and they travelled to Moti Nagar in a private car. According to him, they all were in civil dress and St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 20 of 37 accused Rakesh was apprehended first of all by SI K.P. Tomar and no information was given to the police station Moti Nagar or the officials of fire station to join the proceedings. He has admitted that the place where accused Mahesh and Rakesh was apprehended, is a very busy road and accused persons were apprehended immediately on arrival of their car. The witness has further deposed that from Punjabi Bagh they had followed the route via Moti Nagar and has admitted that this route is also heavily congested. He has further deposed that they reached the house of the accused Rakesh at about 10:00 pm but they did not associate any public persons from the same locality for the search of his house. He has also admitted that Kewal Park is a congested locality and there are shops but none of those shopkeepers were associated in the search. The witness has further admitted that accused persons did not point out the room they had committed the robbery and that they had taken the opel car also to the house of the complainant at the time of pointing out by the accused persons.
PW-17 Inspector K.P. Tomar is the investigating officer of the present case. He has deposed that on 3.3.2006 he received DD No. 16-A copy of which is Ex.PW9/A pursuant to which he alongwith Ct. Pradeep reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 63, BC Block, Shalimar Bagh where they met the complainant Smt. Devi Rani and he recorded her statement which is Ex.PW1/A. According to him, Crime Team and Dog Squad was also called who inspected the spot. He has proved having prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW17/A which he handed over to Ct. Pradeep for getting the FIR registered. In the meantime he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW17/B and after some time Ct. Pradeep came St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 21 of 37 back at the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to him. He has proved that on the main gate of the house one fender arch of grey colour of a car was found which was measured and its length was found about 23 cm which fender arch was put in to a pullanda and sealed with the seal of KP and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A which seal was thereafter handed over to Ct. Pradeep. He has also deposed that Smt. Neetu also handed over to him one list of the stolen articles which list is Ex.PW17/C. According to the witness, since one fender arch was found from the spot, it was presumed that the same had fallen down from the car as the car touched the main gate when it was leaving the house.
The witness has corroborated the testimony of PW7 SI Kartar Singh in respect of the proceedings conducted on 5.3.2006. He has proved that on 6.3.2006 the disclosure statements of accused Virender, Ajay, Mahesh and Rakesh which are Ex.PW17/C to Ex.PW17/F respectively. According to him, he collected the call details of the mobile phone bearing no. 9810570592 recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh Kumar and mobile bearing no. 9213783282 recovered from the accused Virender @ Monu and from the analysis of the call details he found that the accused Rakesh had talked to accused Virender @ Monu at 13:47:28 and both the phones showed their location of Shalimar Bagh. The witness has proved the call details which are PW17/X1 & PW17/X2. The witness has also deposed that on 17.3.2006 the Test Identification Parade of accused Ajay, Virender, Rakesh and Mahesh Chand Pandey were got conducted wherein they refused to participate in their judicial Test Identification Parade. He has proved the Test Identification Parade of the St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 22 of 37 accused persons which are Ex.PW17/G to PW17/K respectively. PW17 has identified all the accused persons in the court as well as the case property.
The said witness has been cross-examined by the Ld. counsels for the accuses persons but nothing much has come out from his cross-examination.
PW8 HC Raj Kumar is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has proved having received a rukka on 3.3.2006 from Ct. Pradeep which was sent by SI K.P. Tomar, on the basis of which he recorded the formal FIR bearing No. 144/06, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW8/A. He has proved that after recording the FIR he had also made an endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW8/B and the DD No.18A, dated 3.03.06 at 5.50 pm regarding registration of above said FIR, which DD is Ex.PW8/C. PW9 HC Satyabir Singh is also the Duty Officer who has proved that on 3.3.2006 at around 2:30 PM he recorded DD No.16A and thereafter copy of the same was handed sent to SI K.P. Tomar for necessary action, copy of which DD is Ex.PW9/A. PW10 Ct. Dalbir Singh has proved that on 3.3.2006 he was posted as photographer in mobile crime team, North West Distt. and on the same day after receiving the information he alongwith crime team Incharge and other staff reached at the spot i.e. BC 63, West Shalimar Bagh and there at the instance of investigating officer SI K.P. Tomar, he took 8 photographs of the spot. He has proved the negatives which are Ex.PW10/A1 to A8 and the positives which are Ex.PW10 /B1 to B8.
St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 23 of 37 PW-11 ASI Madan Gautam has proved that on 3.3.2006 he was posted as finger print expert in mobile crime team North West Distt. and on that day after receiving the information he alongwith mobile crime team Incharge and other staff reached at the spot i.e. BC 63, West Shalimar Bagh and from there he lifted six chance prints with the help of black powder and he prepared his report which is Ex.PW11/A. According to him, on the next day i.e. on 4.3.2006 he sent the chance prints to Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar for comparison.
PW-12 SI Suraj Bhan has deposed that on 3.3.2006 he was posted as Incharge Crime Team North West Distt. and on that day after receiving the information he alongwith his staff reached the spot i.e. BC 63, West Shalimar Bagh where they met SI K.P. Tomar alongwith other staff. He has proved having inspected the spot and that the photographer Ct. Dalbir took the photographs and ASI Madan lifted the six chance print from the spot, after which he prepared his report which is Ex.PW12/A. PW13 Ct. Ram Kishan has deposed that on 24.4.2006 on the instructions of SI Ravinder Singh he took three sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of KP alongwith FSL form and one car no. DL-1CH-5915 from the MHC(M) for depositing the same in FSL Rohini vide Rc No. 41/21/06 and 42/21/06. He has proved having deposited the same in FSL Rohini and thereafter deposited the receipt with the MHC(M). According to the witness, the sealed pullandas remained intact in his possession.
PW14 HC Lala Ram is a formal witness being the MHC(M) and has proved that on 3.3.2006 SI K.P. Tomar deposited one pullanda sealed with the seal of KP allegedly containing plastic St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 24 of 37 spare parts of car pursuant to which he made entry at serial no. 2898, copy of which is Ex.PW14/A. He has further deposed that on 5.3.2006 SI K.P. Tomar had deposited 5 pullandas sealed with the seal of KP alleged to be containing cash and jewellery, one car no. DL-1CH-5915; one number plate bearing no. DL-1CH-8965; two sealed pullandas containing the desi katta, one more car bearing no. DL-4CS-3183, one sealed pullanda containing a dagger and one mobile phone NOKIA-6600 bearing no. 9810570592. He has proved having made an entry at serial no. 2901 in Register no. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW14/B. According to the witness, on 24.4.2006 on the instructions of SI Ravinder Singh he handed over three sealed pullandas containing desi katta and parts of the car and car no. DL-1CH-5915 to FSL Rohini vide RC No.41/21/06 and 42/21/06 along with the FSL form, copies of the RC are Ex.PW14/C & PW14/D and the entry in register no. 19 is Ex.PW14/E. PW14 has further proved that on 13.7.2006 Ct. Nanheyram deposited the car and pullandas containing spare parts in the malkhana with the FSL result and on 14.11.2007 the remaining pullandas along with result were deposited. The entry in this regard is Ex.PW14/F. PW15 Parshuram Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer (Physics) has proved that on 24.4.2006 one parcel sealed with the seal of KP and one car (Opel Corsa) bearing no. DL-1CH-5915 was brought to their office through Ct. Ram Kishan. On opening the parcel, it was found to contain one plastic part described as fender arch. The witness has proved that on physical examination and under magnification it was found that:
St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 25 of 37
1. Plastic part (fender arch) are at the border of both the back side mudguard were found missing.
2. Plastic part (fender arch) Ex.1 was found to be similar to the portion of the rear bumper to which the missing part were connected in respect of colour, texture and thickness.
3. Plastic part (fender arch) Ex.1 was found physically fitted to the boarded of right back mudguard. The position of scratch marks on the car near the right back mudguard and on the plastic part (fender arch) Ex.1 were matching.
The witness has proved his report in this regard which is Ex.PW15/A according to which the plastic part (fender arch) Ex.1 was part of car Ex.2. He has duly identified the car and the fender arch in the court.
PW16 V.R. Anand, Sr. Scientific Officer (Ballistic) has proved having examined two country made pistols. According to him, the country made pistol Ex.1 was in working order and test fire was conducted successfully; the country made pistol Ex.2 was in working order and test fire conducted successfully and the two .32 inches cartridges and two .12 bore cartridges were live one. He has proved that both the country made pistols are firearms/ ammunition as defined in the Arms Act and his report in this regard is Ex.PW16/A. The witness has duly identified the .32 bore country made pistol and cartridges in the court which are Ex.P-42 & Ex.P-42-A and the .12 bore country made pistol and live cartridge which are Ex.P-43 & Ex.P-44.
PW18 M.N. Vijayan Nodal officer from Tata Tele-
Services Ltd. has placed on record the call detail record of mobile St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 26 of 37 no. 9213783282 for the period 1.3.2006 to 14.3.2006 which are Ex.PW17/X-2; cell ID chart which is Ex.PW18/B and the certificate issued under Section 65 (B) of the evidence Act is Ex.PW18/C. PW19 Ajay Kumar Assistant Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved the called details of mobile no. 9810570592 from 1.3.2006 to 13.3.2006 which are Ex.PW17/X-1.
PW20 SI Ravinder Singh is the last investigating officer in the present case who has proved that on 3.4.2006 the investigations of this case was handed over to him. According to him, on 20.4.2006 on his instructions Ct. Ram Karam took two sealed pullandas containing desi kattas and cartridges , one parcel containing fender arch and one Opel Corsa Car bearing no. DL- 1CH-5915 from the MHC(M) for depositing the same to FSL and after depositing the same Ct. Ram Karan deposited the receipt of same wit the MHC(M). The witness has further deposed that on 2.5.2006 the judicial Test Identification Parade of the case property was conducted which proceedings are Ex.PW3/A. According to him, after completing the investigations the challan was prepared and the same was filed in the court.
Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:
After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence has been put to them which they have denied. The accused Virender @ Monu, Ajay @ Kala, Rakesh Kumar and Mahesh Chand have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 27 of 37 implicated in the present case and they have no previous involvements. The accused Liyakat Hussain has stated that He has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was a worker in the factory of Gian Singh where he was employed for the last 10-15 years. According to him, he is not known to any of the accused persons and one day police came to the factory and arrested him on false grounds. However, none of the accused has examined any witness in his defence.
FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the counsels for the accused and have gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses.
Evidence against the accused Liyakat Hussian:
In so far as the accused Liyakat Hussian is concerned, he was an employee who had been working in the factory of the husband of the complainant for the last 20years prior to the date of incident. He has been specifically named by PW1 Devi Rani and PW3 Neetu the daughter-in-law of PW1 who has corroborated her testimony to this extent. The record further reveals that the identity of the accused Liyakat Hussain has not been disputed being previously known to the complainant and her family. PW1 has very specifically in her testimony deposed that at the time of the incident all the intruders were armed with knives which include the present accused Liyakat Hussain. It is evident from the record that the accused Liyakat Hussain had been apprehended at the instance of accused Rakesh from Phatak no. 7 and it has been proved by the prosecution, as evident from the testimony of SI Kartar Singh St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 28 of 37 (PW7) duly corroborated by the testimony of Inspector K.P. Tomar (PW17). Further, he got recovered the jewellery which jewellery has been duly identified by PW1 Smt. Devi Rani in the court and Smt. Neetu in the Test Identification Parade Proceedings as the same which were stolen from their house which Test Identification Parade Proceedings are Ex.PW3/A conducted by Sh. Vijay Shanker, Ld. MM duly proved by PW3-Smt. Neetu and also the investigating officer Inspector K.P. Tomar. Further, the recovery of desti katta and its seizure has also been proved by the official witnesses who had participated in the investigations including SI Kartar Singh (PW7) and Inspector K.P. Tomar (PW17). PW1 Smt. Devi Rani has duly identified the jewellery articles recovered from the possession of the accused Liyakat Hussain i.e. three bangles which are Ex.P-32, P-33 & P-34; one big gold necklace which is Ex.P-35; one gold ring which is Ex.P-36 and two tops which are Ex.P-37 & P-38 and find a specific mention in the list of stolen articles as provided by Smt. Neetu to the investigating officer which list is Ex.PW17/C. Further, the recovery of cash of Rs.10,000/- from the possession of accused Liyakat Hussain has also been proved by prosecution. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code. It has been further proved by the prosecution that the Desi Katta Ex.P-42 was recovered from the possession of the accused Liyakat Hussain and the sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act duly accorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police duly admitted by the counsel for the accused and the witness PW16 Sh. V.R. Anand has proved the ballistic report which is Ex.PW16/A according to which the St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 29 of 37 aforesaid weapon is a fire arm as defined under the Arms Act. This being so, I hereby hold the accused Liyakat Hussian guilty of the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Evidence against the accused Rakesh Kumar:
In so far as accused Rakesh Kumar is concerned, the complainant Smt. Devi Rani (PW1) has identified the said accused in the court as the boy who had touched her feet and later on tied her with the Chunni and demanded the keys. She has specifically deposed that all the intruders which include the present accused Rakesh Kumar were armed with knives with which they had threatened her and her family. The case of the prosecution is that while the accused persons were leaving the premises of the complainant after committing robbery the fender arch of the Opel Astra car which they were driving got damaged and a piece fell out of the same which piece was found by the investigating officer and the crime team and was sent to FSL for examination. Accused Rakesh was apprehended when he alongwith the co-accused Mahesh Chand Pandey were going to the workshop of Opel Corsa Car for getting the plastic part i.e. fender arch of the car repaired. This was the same car which had been used at the time of the offence. It was later on at the instance of Rakesh Kumar and Mahesh Chand that the accused Virender, Liyakat Hussian and Ajay were apprehended. The said car had been used in the commission of the offence as evident from the fact that the FSL report Ex.PW15/A which has been duly proved by PW15 Parshuram Singh, Senior Scientific Officer (Physics) who has proved that the broken fender arch found at the spot of the incident was similar to the rear bumper of the car driven by Rakesh Kumar St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 30 of 37 and Mahesh Chand Pandey recovered from their possession which car was allegedly used at the time of incident. It is further proved that the said car was bearing a number plate DL-1CH-5915 and two number plates of DL-1CH-5965 were found in the dikki of the car which were found to be fake.
Further, the presence of accused Rakesh at the time of incident stands corroborated and established from the call details of the mobile phone recovered from his possession bearing no. 9810570592 which are marked PW17/PX1 showing the presence of accused Rakesh in Shalimar Bagh area at 13:47:28 hours on the date of incident. It has also been proved that cash amount for a sum of Rs.12,000/- and jewellery articles i.e. big necklace which is Ex.P-1; Mangal Sutra which is Ex.P-2; two gold bangles which are Ex.P3 & P-4; one gold chain which is Ex.P-5 and one single earring which is Ex.P-6 have been recovered from the accused Rakesh Kumar and find a specific mention in the list of stolen articles as provided by Smt. Neetu to the investigating officer which list is Ex.PW17/C which jewellery articles have been duly identified by PW1 Smt. Devi Rani in the court and PW3 Smt. Neetu in the court as well as in the Test Identification Parade Ex.PW3/A. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold the accused Rakesh Kumar guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with 397 and 482 Indian Penal Code.
It has also been proved by the various official witnesses that a dagger (Ex.P-41) was recovered from the accused Rakesh Kumar at the time of his apprehension which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. The khaka of the dagger was prepared which is Ex.PW7/A and its measurements were taken; the blade of which St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 31 of 37 was found 31.2 cm and the handle was 12.8 cm long. A judicial notice is taken of the Gazette Notification dated 17.2.1979 bearing No.F.13/203/78-Home (C) providing that any any person found in possession of a knife open or close with any of the mechanical device with a blade of 7.62 or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth, in public places should be regulated. The dagger so recovered from the accused Rakesh is clearly beyond the prescribed notified limits. I, therefore, hold the accused Rakesh Kumar guilty of the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
Evidence against the accused Mahesh Chand:
In so far the accused Mahesh Chand is concerned, he has not been identified by any of the eye witnesses present at the spot either by the complainant PW1-Smt. Devi Rani; PW2- Manjeet; PW3-Smt. Neetu; PW4-Smt. Vidya and PW5-Pooja. The case of the prosecution is that while the accused persons were leaving the premises of the complainant after committing robbery the fender arch of the Opel Corsa car which they were driving had been damaged which piece was found by the investigating officer and the crime team and was sent to FSL for examination. The accused Mahesh Chand was apprehended when he alongwith the co-accused Rakesh Kumar were going to the workshop of Opel Corsa Car for getting the plastic part i.e. fender arch of the car repaired. It was later on at the instance of Rakesh Kumar and Mahesh Chand that the accused Virender, Liyakat Hussian and Ajay were apprehended. The said car had been used in the commission of the offence as evident from the fact that the FSL report Ex.PW15/A which has been duly proved by PW15 Parshuram Singh, Senior Scientific Officer (Physics) who has St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 32 of 37 proved that the broken fender arch found at the spot of the incident was similar to the rear bumper of the car driven by his co-accused Rakesh Kumar and Mahesh Chand Pandey recovered from their possession which is allegedly used at the time of incident. It is further proved that the said car was bearing a number plate DL- 1CH-5915 and two number plates of DL-1CH-5965 were found in the dikki of the car which were found to be fake.
The prosecution has also proved the recovery of the cash amount for a sum of Rs.17,000/- and jewellery articles i.e. one diamond kangan which is Ex.P-7; two gold bangles which are Ex.P-8 & 9; two gold chains which are Ex.P-10 & P-11; one ring which is Ex.P-12 and one pair of gold ear-ring which is Ex.P-13 from the accused Mahesh Chand, which find a specific mention in the list of stolen articles as provided by Smt. Neetu to the investigating officer which list is Ex.PW17/C and have been duly identified by PW1 Smt. Devi Rani in the court and PW3 Smt. Neetu in the court as as well during the Test Identification Parade Ex.PW3/A. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold the accused Rakesh Kumar guilty of the offence under Section 411 and also under Section 482 Indian Penal Code.
Further, it has also been proved by the various official witnesses that a knife (Ex.P-46) was recovered from the accused Rakesh Kumar which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/D and its khaka was prepared which is Ex.PW7/C. The measurement of this knife was taken and its blade was found to be 10 cm and the handle was 13 cm long. A judicial notice is taken of the Gazette Notification dated 17.2.1979 bearing No. F.13/ 203/ 78-Home (C) providing that any any person found in possession of a knife St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 33 of 37 open or close with any of the mechanical device with a blade of 7.62 or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth, in public places should be regulated. The knife so recovered from the accused Mahesh Chand is clearly beyond the prescribed notified limits. I, therefore, hold the accused Mahesh Chand guilty of the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
Evidence against accused Virender @ Monu and Ajay @ Kala:
The accused Virender @ Monu and Ajay @ Kala have not been identified by any of the eye witnesses present at the spot either by the complainant PW1-Smt. Devi Rani; PW2-Manjeet; PW3-Smt. Neetu; PW4-Smt. Vidya and PW5-Pooja but investigations revealed that at the time of incident the accused Virender from whose possession mobile phone No. 9213783282 was recovered, was present in the same area of Shalimar Bagh and as per the call details Ex.PW17/PX2 had spoken to the accused Rakesh at 13:47:28 hours on the said day.
Further, the prosecution has also proved that a cash amount of Rs.11,000/- and jewellery articles i.e. one diamond kangan which is Ex.P-14; three gold bangles which are Ex.P-15 to P-17; two gold chains which are Ex.P-18 & P-19 and three ladies gold rings which are Ex.P-21 to P-23 were recovered from the from the accused Virender @ Monu which have been duly identified by the complainant Smt. Devi Rani (PW1) in the court and PW3-Smt. Neetu in the court and also during the Judicial Test Identification Parade Ex.PW3/A. The said jewellery articles find a specific mention in the list of stolen articles as provided by Smt. Neetu to the investigating officer which list is Ex.PW17/C. St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 34 of 37 The various witnesses of the prosecution including PW7- SI Kartar Singh and PW11- Inspector K.P. Tomar have proved that a button actuated knife was recovered from the possession of accused Virender @ Monu which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/K and its khaka was prepared which is Ex.PW7/K1. The measurement of this knife was taken and its blade was found to be 10 cm and the handle was 13 cm long. A judicial notice is taken of the Gazette Notification dated 17.2.1979 bearing No. F.13/ 203/ 78-Home (C) providing that any any person found in possession of a knife open or close with any of the mechanical device with a blade of 7.62 or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth, in public places should be regulated.
The knife so recovered from the accused Virender @ Monu is clearly beyond the prescribed notified limits.
The accused Virender was arrested at the instance of accused Rakesh Kumar and accused Ajay was arrested at the instance of accused Mahesh Chand and Virender.
At the time of his arrest accused Ajay was found in possession of a desi katta and one live cartridge which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/O and a car. Further, the prosecution has duly proved that a cash amount of Rs.10,000/- and jewellery articles i.e. one gold necklace which is Ex.P-24; two gold bangles which are Ex.P-25 & 26; two gold chains which are Ex.P-27 & 28; two gold ear rings which are Ex.P-29 & 30 and one diamond ring which is Ex.P-31 have been recovered from the accused Ajay @ Kala which jewellery articles have been duly identified by PW1 Smt. Devi Rani in the court and PW3 Smt. Neetu in the court as well as in the Test Identification Parade Ex.PW3/A. The said jewellery articles find a St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 35 of 37 specific mention in the list of stolen articles as provided by Smt. Neetu to the investigating officer which list is Ex.PW17/C. The sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act duly accorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police duly admitted by the counsel for the accused and the witness PW16 Sh. V.R. Anand has proved the ballistic report which is Ex.PW16/A according to which the aforesaid weapon is a fire arm as defined under the Arms Act.
Therefore, I hereby hold the accused Viredner @ Monu and Ajay @ Kala guilty of the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
CONCLUSION:
In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold the accused Liyakat Hussain guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act and convict him accordingly.
The accused Rakesh Kumar is held guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with 397 and 482 Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act and convicted accordingly.
Accused Mahesh Chand Pandey is held guilty of the offence under Section 411 read 482 Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act and convicted accordingly.
Further, I hold the accused Virender @ Monu guilty of the offence under Section 411 and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act and accordingly convicted him.
St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 36 of 37 I also hold the accused Ajay @ Kala guilty of the offence under Section 411 and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act and convict him accordingly.
Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 20.7.2010.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 13.7.2010 ASJ-II(NW): ROHINI
St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 37 of 37 St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 38 of 37 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST) : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Session Case No. 546/06 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0090392006 State Vs. 1. Virender @ Monu S/o Daya Chand R/o B-24, Kewal Park, Azadpur, Delhi
2. Liyakat Hussain S/o Maula Baksh R/o H-4/1776, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
3. Mahesh Chand Pandey S/o Shrikant Pandey R/o B-26A, Kewal Park, Azadpur, Delhi.
4. Rakesh Kumar S/o Bhagwan Dass R/o B-12, Kewal Park, Azadpur, Delhi.
5. Ajay @ Kala S/o Bijender Singh R/o B-34, Sarai Peepal Thala Azadpur, Delhi.FIR No. 144/06
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh Under Section : 392/397/411/482/34/120B IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act Date of Conviction : 13.7.2010 Arguments heard on: 21.7.2010 Date of Sentence: 2.8.2010
St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 39 of 37 ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my detailed judgment dated 13.7.2010, the accused Liyakat Hussain has been held guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act; accused Rakesh Kumar has been held guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with 397 and 482 Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act; accused Mahesh Chand Pandey has been held guilty of the offence under Section 411 read 482 Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act; and accused Virender @ Monu and Ajay @ Kala have been held guilty of the offence under Section 411 and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
Here is a case where the convict before this court Liyakat Hussain was an employee working with the family of the complainant Devi Rani in the factory of her husband for the last 20 years. This Liyakat Hussain after associating the other four accused before the court Virender @ Monu, Mahesh Chand Pandey, Rakesh Kumar and Ajay @ Kala committed robbery in the house of his employer Gian Singh on 3.3.2006 when the complainant Devi Rani the wife of Gian Singh an aged women was alone in the house along with her daughter in law Smt. Neetu, a grandson aged 6 years, a grand-daughter aged 6 months and two servants namely Vidya and Pooja. The convicts before this court forcibly entered their house on the pretext that they had been sent by the employer Gian Singh to pick up another car parked in the house and to leave the vehicle in which they had come. Initially the complainant Devi Rani was hesitant in permitting these persons from entering inside the house but the convicts induced her into St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 40 of 37 doing so and after forcibly entering the house, they put the complainant Smt. Devi Rani, her daughter in law Smt. Neetu and maid servants Smt. Vidya and Ms. Pooja, in the instant fear of death at the point of knife and pistols and by holding these weapons on them and also on the small grandson of Smt. Devi Rani, and committed robbery of a cash of Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/- and a large amount of gold which they thereafter stacked in their Opel Corsa car in which they had come and left the spot. However, while so leaving a piece of the fender arch of the car in which the accused before this court had come, broke and fell at the spot while the car was being reversed. It was this plastic piece of the fender arch belonging to the Opel Corsa car in which the convicts had come to the spot which helped finally in nailing the convicts. The FSL report has been able to conclusively establish that this piece of fender arch which had falled at the spot was a part of the same offending vehicle which was recovered from the possession of convict Mahesh Chand Pandey and Rakesh. Not only the car which was used by the convicts in committing the offence but the jewellery articles stolen by them and a part of the cash amount was also recovered from the convicts, which recovered articles have been duly identified by the complainant Smt. Devi Rani and her daughter in law in the Judicial Test Identification Parade and also in the court.
I have heard arguments on the point of sentence. It is submitted that the convict Virender @ Monu is a young boy of 25 years and is a driver by profession. He is 10th class pass having a family comprising of retired father, mother, four mother and two unmarried sisters. He is a first time offender and has remained in judicial custody w.e.f. 5.3.2006 to 22.1.2009 and from 15.7.2010 St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 41 of 37 till date. It is also submitted that the convict Liyakat Hussain is an old man of 60 years and is doing private job in a workshop. He has a family comprising of aged widow mother, wife, two sons and three married daughter. He is 10th class pass and has no previous involvements. He has has remained in judicial custody w.e.f. 5.3.2006 to 7.3.2007 and from 23.3.2007 to 21.1.2009 and from 15.7.2010 till date. Ld. counsel for the convicts further argued that the convict Mahesh Chand Pandey is a young boy of 28 years having a family comprising of aged father and mother, two brothers and one sister. He is 12th class pass and is doing some private job. He is a first time offender and has remained in judicial custody w.e.f. 5.3.2006 to 20.1.2009 and from 15.7.2010 till date. It is also argued that the convict Rakesh is aged about 35 years having a family comprising of aged widow mother, wife and three sons. He is 10th class pass and is doing some private job. The convict Rakesh was involved in a case under Section 304-A IPC in FIR No. 291/04 of Police Station Adarsh Nagar, wherein he has been acquitted on 29.6.2010. He has remained in judicial custody w.e.f. 5.3.2006 to till date. It is further submitted that the convict Ajay @ Kala is a young boy of 23 years having a family comprising of father, mother, three brothers, wife and one daughter aged about 3 years. He is 11th class pass and is doing a private job of clerk. He has no previous involvements and is a first time offender and has remained in judicial custody w.e.f. 5.3.2006 to 10.1.2007, from 26.1.2007 to 3.2.2007, from 9.2.2007 to 13.1.2009 and from 15.10.2010 till date.
Ld. counsels appearing on behalf of the convicts have vehemently argued that all the convicts are young boys except the convict Liyakat Hussain who is an aged man. It is argued that all St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 42 of 37 the convicts are not involved in any other case and have clean antecedents. They request that a lenient view be taken against them. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that keeping in view the acts of the convicts which adversely affects social order, strict punishment be awarded to the convicts since any leniency to the convicts would be detrimental to the society.
The object of sentence is not only required to be reformative but it should also be punitive, preventive and deterrent. The hon'ble Supreme Court has while considering the sentencing policy in the case of Siddarama and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2006 IV AD (Crl.) SC 78 has observed that:
"........law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Friedman in his "Law in Changing Society" stated that, "State of criminal law continues to be as it should be a decisive reflection of social unconsciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 43 of 37 it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the move for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration......"
The Hon'ble Court has further observed that:
"...........The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion the the judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation and sometimes even the tragic results of his St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 44 of 37 crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread......"
"......Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crime with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is through then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment had some very undesirable practice consequences.."
Further in the case of Sevaka Perumal Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1991 SC 1463 it has been held by St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 45 of 37 the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"......Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc...."
No leniency can be shown to persons who have no respect for life. Persons who do not hesitate to take the law into their hands for pure monetary considerations, as has happened in the present case, does not deserve any leniency. However, keeping in view the young age of the convicts Virender @ Monu, Mahesh Chand Pandey, Rakesh Kumar and Ajay @ Kala and the age of convict Liyakat Hussain who is presently 60 years old and the fact that they are no involved in any other case, a lenient view be taken against them. I, therefore, award the following sentence to the convicts:
The convict Virender @ Monu is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences shall St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 46 of 37 run concurrently.
The convict Liyakat Hussain is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
The convict Mahesh Chand Pandey is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 482 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The convict Rakesh Kumar is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 482 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 47 of 37 convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The convict Ajay @ Kala is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them.
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.
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.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 2.8.2010 ASJ (NW)-II: ROHINI
St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 48 of 37
State Vs. Virender @ Monu
FIR No. 144/06
PS Shalimar Bagh
2.8.2010
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All convicts are in judicial custody with Sh. S.K. Jha and Sh. Kundan Kumar, advocates.
Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, the convict Virender @ Monu is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
The convict Liyakat Hussain is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
The convict Mahesh Chand Pandey is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 482 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 49 of 37 Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The convict Rakesh Kumar is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 482 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The convict Ajay @ Kala is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them.
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 St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 50 of 37 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.
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.
At this stage, fine has been deposited by all the convicts. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II (NW): 2.8.2010 File is taken up again on the applications under Section 389 (3) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the convicts Virender @ Monu, Mahesh Chand Pandey and Ajay @ Kala seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal and release of convicts on bail Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Kundan Kumar, advocate for the applicants/ convicts.
I have considered the grounds raised in the applications and heard the arguments advanced before me. In so far as the applicants Virender @ Monu and Ajay @ Kala are concerned, they have been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. Further, the convict Mahesh Chand Pandey is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 51 of 37 offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code; Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 482 Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
At the very outset, I may observe that the total period of the sentence in respect of all the three applicants is more than 3 years. The co-accused/ convicts Liyakat Hussain and Rakesh Kumar have been held guilty of the aggravated offence under Section 397 IPC of which the present three applicants have been acquitted only by giving them benefit of doubt. In view of the above, there are chances of the present convicts Virender @ Monu, Ajay @ Kala and Mahesh Chand Pandey absconding and not undergoing the remaining period of sentence. Therefore, under these special circumstances, the request for grant of bail under Section 389 (3) Cr.PC is hereby declined. The applications are hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II (NW): 2.8.2010 St. Vs. Virender @ Monu Etc, FIR No. 144/06, PS shalimar Bagh Page No. 52 of 37