Delhi District Court
Only. In This Regard He Has Further ... vs . on 6 March, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE : SE01
DESIGNATED JUDGE: TADA/POTA/MCOCA: SAKET COURTS: NEW
DELHI
PRESIDED BY : SMT. MADHU JAIN.
IN THE MATTER OF
SESSIONS CASE NO. 80/09
FIR NO. 731/07
PS LAJPAT NAGAR.
UNDER SECTION : 489B/489C/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1) JAGRAM
S/O SH. RAM LOT.
R/O GRAM SABHA KHALE GAON,
POSTMASKANWA, DISTRICTGONDA,
UTTARPRADESH.
2) SHISHRAM
S/O RAM DULARE,
R/O PHOOLPUR, DISTRICTGONDA,
UTTARPRADESH.
3) SUNDER DEV KUSHWAHA
S/O SH. AMBIKA MEHTO,
R/O VILLAGEVIKAS SAMITI,
MUDLII, ANCHAL NARAYANI,
DISTRICTPARSA, NEPAL.
S.C.No.80/09
2
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 20.09.2007.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 22.02.2012.
DATE OF DECISION: 06.03.2012.
J U D G E M E N T
Case of Prosecution:
1 On 20.07.2007 SubInspector Pramod Gupta alongwith Head Constable Ved Prakash, Head Constable Satyabir Singh and Constable Satyender Kumar while patrolling reached at Amar Colony Market where Vikrant, a Juice Vendor called police officials. On seeing police officials, two persons standing there starting slipping who were apprehended by police officials. Juice vendor Vikrant gave his statement to the police officials that on 20.07.2007 two persons came to his juice shop at C13, Amar Colony Market, Delhi and they asked for two glasses of juice. He handed over to them two glasses of juice.
They handed over him a currency note of Rs.500/. He told that he has no change. They asked him to give them Rs. 200/300 and to keep the currency note of Rs.500/ stating that they will further adjust the amount. On suspicion, he called the police when both the accused persons were apprehended by police. Both the accused persons were interrogated by the Investigating Officer. Statement of the complainant Vikrant was recorded and on the search of the accused Sheesh Ram fake currency notes of Rs.60,000/ was recovered and fake currency notes of Rs.64500/ was recovered from accused Sunder Dev. Both the accused persons were arrested. They also made their disclosure statements and case under Section 489B/489C/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons. During further investigation, site plan was prepared and S.C.No.80/09 3 on the pointing out of the accused persons, one more accused Jagram was arrested and from his house 40 fake currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/ were recovered. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, chargesheet under Section 489B/489C/34 IPC was filed against all the accused persons in the court.
2 Since the offence under Section 489B/489C IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, after supply of documents, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions.
Charge Against The Accused:
3 Prima facie case under section 489C/34 IPC was made out against accused Jagram. Charges under section 489C/34 IPC was framed against accused Jagram by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 27.10.2007 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prima facie case under section 489B/489C/34 IPC was made out against accused Sheesh Ram and Sunder Dev. Charges under section 489B/489C/34 IPC was framed against accused Sheesh Ram and Sunder Dev by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 27.10.2007 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses Examined:
4 In support of its case, prosecution has examined seven (7) witnesses in all.
5 The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under:
S.C.No.80/09 4
Formal Witnesses:
6 PW1 is Head Constable Om Prakash who registered the FIR Ex.PW1/A. 7 PW5 is Constable Ved Prakash who deposited four sealed parcels i.e, case property with FSL Rohini.
8 PW6 is HC Virender, MHC(M) i.e, Malkhana Incharge who deposed that on 20.07.2007 Investigating Officer deposited four sealed pullandas in the Malkhana. He further proved the entries to this effect vide Ex.PW6/A. Material Witnesses:
9 PW2 is HC Ved Prakash who was on patrolling duty alognwith Investigating Officer SI Pramod Gupta. He alongwith police party apprehended accused Sheesh Ram and Sunder Dev Khushwaha and duly proved all the memos etc. 10 PW3 is Vikrant Kumar Singh, the juice vendor. He has also supported the case of the prosecution and stated that both the accused persons came to the juice shop and gave him fake currency note of Rs. 500/. 11 PW4 is Constable Satender who has deposed on lines of PW 2. 12 PW7 is Inspector Pramod Gupta who is the Investigating Officer of this case and has also duly proved all the memos etc. 13 Statements of all the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein all the accused denied the case of prosecution and stated that they are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. S.C.No.80/09 5 Initially accused Sheesh Ram stated that he wants to lead defence evidence but subsequently, stated that he does not want to lead evidence in his defence. Accused Jagram and Sunder Dev further chose to lead evidence in their defence.
14 DW1 is Ram Kishan. He stated that accused Jagram had never access to his house and never visted his house 25/2, Samman Bazar, Bhogal Delhi. Police never visited his house and he never rented the room to the accused Jagram.
15 DW2 is Ram Sobhawan Morya @ Ramu who stated that accused Jagram has clear antecedents and never involved in any cases. He was called in the police station Lajpat Nagar and his signatures were obtained. 16 DW3 is Saroj Prasad who stated that he alongwith accused Sunder Dev started journey on 17.07.2007 from Sugauli Jn. Bihar and reached Old Delhi Railway Station. Thereafter, they took a room in Gupta Guest House, Fatehpur, Delhi and stayed there. On that day, some persons alongwith one Ramadhar Singh entered into their room and apprehended Sunder Dev. They also took the receipt of rent and register of the said guest house. Those persons did not disclose the reasons to apprehend Sunder Dev. 17 I have heard Counsel for accused and Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have carefully perused the record. S.C.No.80/09 6 18 Counsel for all the accused persons argued in unison that there are so many material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses that it is not possible to believe the case of the prosecution. Counsel for the accused Jagram argued that no public witness have been joined by the police officials during arrest of accused Jagram. No documentary record has been collected to show that accused Jagram was really a tenant in the room from where recovery of the said fake currency notes is said to have been effected. He further argued that there are discrepancies in the statement of witnesses which shake the case of the prosecution. Similarly, counsels for the accused Sunder Dev and Sheesh Ram also pointed out various discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses and submitted that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case and submitted that the fake currency notes have been planted upon the accused persons.
On the other hand, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State argued that slight discrepancies here and there in the case of the prosecution does not shake the case of the prosecution and the public person also has supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has been fully able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION:
19 PW3 in the present case is public witness Vikrant Kumar Singh. He is juice vendor from whose shop accused Sunder Dev and Sheesh Ram purchased the glass of juice and handed over to him fake currency note of Rs. 500/. He has duly identified both the accused persons in the court and further S.C.No.80/09 7 deposed that both accused purchased juice from his shop and he told them that he has no change and they asked him to give Rs.200/300/ whatever he has and told him to keep the currency note of Rs.500/. On this, he became suspicious and called the police persons who were standing near his shop. Both these accused persons were apprehended by the police and fake currency notes of Rs. 60,000/ and Rs.64500/ were recovered from the accused persons. He further deposed that the fake currency notes were duly sealed by the Investigating Officer. Initially though, this witness was not able to tell exactly from which accused persons, how many fake currencies were recovered but subsequently, he stated that accused persons were also arrested in his presence and their personal search was also conducted. Counsel for the accused persons argued that witness is not able to produce his identity card to show that he is the Vikrant and also he has not produced any document to show that he is the vendor of the juice shop. Merely because, the witness is not able to produce any identity card does not mean that the witness whatever stated in the court on Oath is false. Rather cross examination of this witness shows that he is truthful witness. He has stated that in his village people call him Vishal but in Delhi he is also known as Vikrant. He has very truthfully admitted that he signed the papers but he does not know what was written on that and he does not know English and Hindi. He has also stated that police officials had also motorcycle with them. He has further stated that police officials also signed in his presence and he has never seen both the accused persons prior to the incident. Merely because the witness has stated that IO kept the seal with him and police officials have stated that seal after use was handed over to public witness by the police officials, is no ground to throw away the case of the prosecution. S.C.No.80/09 8
The witness has further stated that he neither remember the total numbers of fake currency notes nor he counted the fake currency notes recovered from the accused persons and also he cannot take out the currency note which he handed over to police on that day from the bunch of the currency noted produced by MHC(M) before the court. He has further stated that even the pullanda of the currency notes were prepared in his presence. Thus, so far as the testimony of this witness is concerned, the testimony of this witness inspires confidence and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
PW2 is HC Ved Prakash who was with the IO during investigation of the whole case. No doubt there are certain discrepancies in the statement of the police officials who were in the raiding party regarding time and manner of the apprehension of the accused but slight discrepancies here and there which does not go to the root of the case, does not shatter the case of the prosecution. So far as the non joining of public witness during the arrest of accused Jagram is concerned, it is a common knowledge that in a city like Delhi whenever any incident took place generally, the crowd collects at the spot but hardly anyone is willing to join the police officials for the fear of the police station or court rounds. Present case is no exception of this rule. Juice vendor Vikrant became the witness not due to fact that he was willing to become the witness but out of compulsion. It was he to whom the accused gave fake currency notes and therefore, he has reported this matter to the police but during arrest of the accused Jagram who was arrested on disclosure of the other coaccused persons, no other public witnesses joined the Investigating Officer for reasons stated above.
Counsel for the accused further argued that it is impossible that S.C.No.80/09 9 accused Jagram keep such huge amount of fake currency notes in his room only. In this regard he has further placed reliance upon State of M.P Vs. Ghudan, 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 801. It may be mentioned that in that case, the accused had kept weapon of offence in his room after committing the offence whereas in the present case it was the fake currency notes which the accused persons were circulating in the market therefore, they could not keep them anywhere and therefore, have to keep them in his room only. So far as the nonjoining of landlord of accused Jagram is concerned that merely because the landlord who rented the room to accused Jagram is not made witnessis no ground to disbelieve the testimony of all the police officials. There is no rule of law that all police officials are liars.
Accused Jagram has also examined DW1 Sh. Ram Kishan who stated he is residing at 25/2 Samman Bazar, Bhogal New Delhi since birth and he has been brought up at the same address. He stated that accused never had any access to in house i.e, 25/2 Samman Bazar, Bhogal New Delhi. It may be mentioned that this witness has stated that he is residing at the above said address but has not filed any documentary evidence to this effect. His voter I Card and his electricity bill shows that he is the resident of 25/2, Samman Bazar, Bhogal New Delhi but this does not mean that he is the owner of the same. He can also be one of the tenant in the house and can be residing in the house for the last so many years. In his cross, this witness has stated that he has stayed on the ground floor and the address on the electricity bill was mentioned as ground floor only. This witness has further admitted that from the date of arrest of accused Jagram he has not made any complaint to the senior official S.C.No.80/09 10 regarding false implication of accused Jagram. Similarly, DW2 is one Sh. Ram Sobhawan on whose shop the accused Jagram used to work. He stated that on 20.07.2007 he had gone to have lunch from his shop and accused Jagram was present at that time and at about 3.30 PM he returned to his shop. When he returned he came to know that accused Jagarm was taken by somebody. He stated that accused never took the room on rent at 25/2, Samman Bazar, Bhogal, New Delhi and has never had any access to that house. This witness has also in his cross admitted that in the arrest memo the address was 25/2 Samman Bazar, Bhogal New Delhi. He has further admitted that he never made any complaint to any authority regarding false implication of accused Jagram.
DW3 is Saroj Prasad, who has been examined by accused Sunder Dev. He deposed that some persons in a civil dress accompanied with one person namely Ramadhar Singh entered into his room and apprehended Sunder Dev in his presence and took him to police post Amar Colony. They also took the receipt of rent and register of the said guest house in his presence. He requested them to disclose the reason of apprehending of Sunder Dev but they did not disclose the same. In his cross he has admitted that he cannot produce any ticket regarding their journey. He further stated that he also did not make any complaint regarding false implication of the accused Sunder Dev. Thus, from the testimony of the defence witnesses, it is clear that they also did not make any complaint to any authority which falsifies the case of the prosecution or prove their contention that accused was falsely implicated in the present case.
In view of abovesaid discussion, prosecution has been fully able to prove its case against the accused person beyond shadow of doubt. As such, S.C.No.80/09 11 accused Jagram is held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 489C IPC. Accused Sunder Dev and Sheesh Ram are held guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 489B/489C/34 IPC.
(MADHU JAIN) DESIGNATED JUDGE TADA/POTA/MCOCA ASJ SE01/NEW DELHI ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 06.03.2012.
S.C.No.80/09