Delhi District Court
Volume Iii (2009) Ccr 713(Sc) Titled As ... vs . State Of Karnataka And on 31 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 27/1
Unique case ID No.: 02404R0122272002
Date of Decision: 25/05/10
Date of Sentence: 31/05/10
State
Versus
Sanjay @ Pardeep @ Silencer
S/o Bhagwan Dass
R/o B-480, Mangol Puri
Delhi.
FIR No. 15/02
PS - Saraswati Vihar
U/s. 392/34 of IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE
! #"$ ! % '&)(# *+ -, )
. ( 0/!1324 * ,# 65 ,87:9;*<1=" 820 # >&? (#@BA> .
*DCE GFH,# ?I> KJHI>@L,# ?MD N(PO07Q20( I!
#"SR!( T*DCE <UV XWY DZ CP, "["G, M\20(#I>
" & ( 20( /!1324
* ,# 5?,87:9;*<1="3 # 820
]HCP, /8 ^C8 E, ^ _ ! #"$ < % K& ( `*+ ),8 ,# 8 ^ K (8O07a20(#I>
"b( c C ^d8( 1e 0 (P&
0 820
>,# ? 8 ! f (8O07g20( I>
"h I>i>@j1 k l ?CP,8 Q20( /!1324 m* ,# 5?,87n9 *<1=" 820 # o1[ g 8(P
d> P/!1 ( I p" 7q20( /!1324 > r1e K,# 07K2p,E
X s \20( I!
#"H& I! X C L I>i!@j1 - Q C8,8 t20(# 0/!1324 u* ,# 5?,87l9
p1="3 # 820 H1G v,>w > :,#i ( I0 >x 78 E,# - t,# 8 '1G yI> >@L,# k k13 > {zD 'C8,E u )(c I>d!d8( X C!1G t,!w! > |dP,# - 8
zD ~},E }( ? 1= Pw',> Wv >2PCP, !132j,# 8 {1G ,h
(#" ai> >,! : >,# ? 8 # b(8&DC!1[ T&-, @j1=" 7:, 8 ~ (: I>d!d8( X C!1[
,>w! > hd8,# k 8
K (8O07Q20( I!
#"CP,> h&?I> X ?C8 `20( 0 > > a C8,8
20( P p13 > -1e Pw ?C8 o,#i (P/8 &-, 24 k
SC No. 27/1 1
#8h8e P!- 80 8!0#0!34H8{!#j X >~ a>N P8k3#h vcP_?8 N P8k3#8bsX 8! G
4H H8{L8¡{8h ¢ >> :
0 80: £= E!8¡h!8>#)¤! 8 ¡j?8{0#0!34+ >k=P¤j?kG £!=
[pE
¥ ¦D#80 £3 3 0!!3 ¢B8L)#§¨ >¥
t?8m8 8#8K© %rPE0 )#8>>ª?P8
0#0!34¬« # ?8¡¯® «<=£3#80
£3#P¤L¢u t0E°k0 0! 4 «D> =£ ®n±E¤E0 >8!'h8>¤? ²hPE0
#P¤! _eYh>PLP !eP¤~p>
Ps³´8¥Ht8o£3!#8?8o8 k >m £= E!8¡ª>8>#)¤! µ0¡|?8¶0 !34`« 8¡K® «<=£3#80 `[
#8 ·t¡8>#-8 ¸t#0? #8¹
ºjE8¡ !£ ¡E¥
©p ^?>X?8 % >!j -Y 88 0 !34 [h £[
{- 8eP¤{?kG £Eea 8P?8# pE
ª»_¼½³
8 ¥)¹ ¾+¹6 º>¿ !H«À« #)E ¢8kÁ`eP ! ÂvÃ8º>·jP ¼½HĬ¥
¬X)#80\Å_ 8¥XÃ ¿E·
ÆÃ0Ç8t¼½HÄÈ[o!>!G P#!£ µ¢É ?¯kG¤!# ª=Y>k[
#>t ¬ u
)#?Ç¢u!3PjL8¡tPÊ0 8L L É¡8E -É 8 PE£=£
£G
h8c£=3#!£ L L?=8 ¥
Ä´ p3! ke8¤h a#888{)!4-c#88= P>)#80E' >¤># eP¤>¤! + 0 >0>! 0-
#8: [u)8? 8Y £[
j¤#)8! Ë¡Ì# :P ! jP> PX 80 ¼0 lPE?8j e! É?P 0 !34
p#>88´ ª¤E 8 |8 88? DP´> #P8k3#Q8#`8|p#À8À £3E>
>o0¡eY8EpeP¤:?8ª
0 0
)#>?8c8 k3!~ £e >!P¡Y> > )¤ 8h0¡Y!=Í >k=P¤t?kG £
00# #e8¤ £ ¡Ej
0 0:P#?> !¡8E -j³V¼ [teY8E
>{> YÄ` !34« # ?8¡®
«<=£3#80
¢É ?ª?=8^PL³´8¥DÎEÏ>eº>º>º
°Y¥`¼½^>P)#!£ ¬PuP ¡>t 0¬PVke8 %0 0! 4v PE£=£b?>X?8
>8>#)¤!L½¢~ 8hP £ >¡8>#-É«´¼X¥
Ð #8Pk %P%«S>4k3#: ·>¾QĬ HÄÑ ª¤E 8 ~){ ¶0 !34 a!0PP
>m« # ?8¡o®
«<=£3#80 µEc8ªP>j £= E!8¡!8>#)¤! 8{P >8¡Ò ·h¡8E#-8EQt 0? #8^¹4ºE ¡ c$¥e ¥
#Ó¹8Ï º ¹6 · º>ºE·')o¹8ÏÔ
º Ψ
·!º>ºE·#<¹ Ã º Ã º Ãj a·!Õ
º Ã º Ã: 8nºE·4 º Ã
·!º>º Îh {·#Ã º ¹6
º!¿ 8
£[
L? ²· ÏÔ
º Ï
·!º ¹4ºL?[£=£ >>8¡>Ö
¼G#k=8'Gt> 8Ep > ?8#~ 8#?=8 #³´8¥XÏ º eº>º!º
° {¤ 8#v ~?8h0 j!£G =P#
Ev0#Y8 P 8k3 v +![t Y!£ P¡8 b>¬ | >8!#t > ¢Et8 £3 8¤ e8¤Y '!GL Y £3P¡8#
8X)##8Ê>!eX¡tP_8#k3>Y8_£==j )8k3#tP>k[£=e8¤jP >8> £
# c b ~#> E £0Gt! P ? > ¥
» e h8P > p > ¥
Ä´ 0!34_8h #L#8!>L ×>¥ØĬ¥
X8L?8~
0 80 ¥
» =£ h8Y0 PpG¤# >L h >0 h ! ~¥
Announced in the open court
on dated 31/05/10.
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 27/1 2
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 27/1
Unique case ID No.: 02404R0122272002
Date of Decision: 25/05/10
Date of Sentence: 31/05/10
State
Versus
Sunil @ Gogi
S/o Hukum Chand
R/o S-198, Kirari, Prem Nagar
Delhi.
FIR No. 15/02
PS - Saraswati Vihar
U/s. 392/34 of IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Û
Þ Ü Ú
Ü
ß à á â
á ã ä å æ ç è é ç!ç#ê$è!ß%ß'ë)ì#à í+ä-î ä)á è
ï ì ã0ð!ñ3ò4ä íDó>ã ñ=ê>ôÓõìEö ñVë?à ì ÷rø>è ï è
íDùEè ï ùPî ã8ç>á#à+úvì#ùPî#ãí î ãPî#ã>ûYæ çLéV÷jñ òPó â ï ó>à)îEñ3áLë ì à ò0ì ã0ð!ñ ò4ä'íDó>ã ñ=ê>ôÓõìEö ñ
ü+ù8î8ð8áªù8áEî#à çqæpç è#é ç!ç#ê$è ß%ß^ë)ì#à í+ä)î8ä á î#ã8çmæ çaéV÷jñ3òPóPâ ï ó>à)î ñ áoì ãhä?ù8áªý8ì ñeã0ä ìPë
â
á ã0ä á ã8ò0á è
æ á>î#à?ã8á!ç:éV÷jñ3òPóPâ ï ó>àkñ3î!áâ ó>þ>÷jñ äkâLä ù8î8ä<ò0ì ã0ð!ñ ò4ä%íDó>ã!ñ[êHô õìEö ñEñ[â{ã8ìPäDý>à á8ð!ñ3ì óPâpê ÿ
ò0ì ã0ð!ñ ò4ä)á!çÒñeãÌî#ã0ÿyòpîEâ
á è ï îEâ
á ì8ë{ò0ì ã ð!ñ3ò4äíDó>ã ñ=ê'ô õìEö ñLñ[â²ç ñ[âäkñeãPö ó!ñ[â ù á>çyë à ì#÷ ìPä?ù á à
î!ò0òPó â
á>ç èbæ çò0ì ó!ã â
á#ê8ë?ó>àXä?ù8á#à<â ó!þ>÷jñ ä-âvä?ùPî8ä ò0ì#ã0ð!ñ3ò4äDíDó>ã!ñ[êbô õìEöEñ ñ[âî>ö á>ç|î#þ ì ó0ä Þ ÿ8á>î#à-â
î#ã8ç{ñ[âÌ÷Lî#à?àkñ3á!ç î#ã ç'ñ[âù8î8ð!ñeã8öä sìhòPù ñ=ê3ç#à á ãYî!ö!á>çcî#þ ì ó0ä Þ+Ú ÿ8áEî à-âvî#ã ç Ú ÿ8áEî#à-â8ègæ áEî#à?ã á>ç
ç>áPë á ã8ò0ájò0ì ó>ã â
á ê ë?ó>àXä?ù8á à â ó>þ!÷jñ ä-â¬ä?ùPî ä î ò0òPó â
á>çcñGâÉî~â
ì ê3áhþ>à á>î!çYáEî#àkã8á à ìPë_ù!ñ[âTë)î#÷jñ[ê ÿLî#ã8ç
ì à
â uñ ä?ùLîcý>à ì ý8á#àXäXÿLç!áEî ê á à#î#ã8çhù8ácùPîEâTä ìâ ó>ý>ý8ì#àXäbù ñ[âTë-î ÷jñ=ê ÿEè
SC No. 27/1 3
! " $# % !& ' ( *)'+*%, '+& - .% ! %/ *)'+ 0 1 2+ 34%5! 6 87&) 9& #: - ;%<
1+& = & 2 , - > ?%< 8+& * 8 &@- *)1+*9- ;%A7& B - 1 % %, $%,) C D)'7 &% )1+= ?EF HGI) #J% !& KL D)'7 &% )1+M)&#ONP# #, '+& - ' ,Q
R ;%A)' A!& B S &TB7& = UV 8 , M%5! 4 '+*%, '+& * 4 8WX , " - &T= -+& 1 :3-)'+& 7YT % !& B *)1+*9- ;%Z ' X+ 3 % 8W- X+
%5! [ \ 0 " ^] _` 1+& * ^@ MW '+ '+*%-9- Ua7& S%: 1bc '+ ]
Nd+=% !& .) % !& 1 e! 1+ f
K(Kg! " = *)'+*%, '+& - h% ! &%i *)'+Y9- ;%kj` + XWLl mV)"3" ^ "W )'+&3
Un % !$ *)"o *)'+*9- ;%AjL 8+qp5 &T.l ji [W '+ * ' ( ,)17 7& - r 7& 3s# ,)' t hC " * 1+ 3- ' u X+r 47 $! &9- X+ 3I 0 " !
) #wv/ &] Nd+& BW - S 1+ $%5! 4C& 1 ) 4 8WX , " - &T= -+& 1 :3-)'+& 7YTS% !& $ *)'+*9- ;%uj` -+- XW8l mV)"38 0 [ S 17 )' *%Jx
d)'+*% ! V 1+ y0zS " &T \)1+-W T"@;UH!- !VUn XW[W07& S%,) )= d 31 , S%,)$ U\ 1 , S#,)' -% !& s) # #, '+& * s)&#O ,)17 7& ' T"]
N{# #: 1+& * }|JEF &] ~ "x E~*G)&#dKA [ fC- +- ! 17-W U
% !g 3-)1 ,)' X sC [ )1+ d '+Y%{#,)' n
%: 1 Un!- ! S &Td *%, '+& S%,)S%, '+
T& " 8 <
8+& M ! "WXW 8W )=7& IWX 17-W S%,)S# X+& ^]
/)'+ 0 - ' 2+&3=%5! 17&)&9& B#: - ;%< I 1+& & X , > ?%: 1+& * " r , 3 1 , 8 2+ 3 3- '@Z 8+*%, * - '+*%<
1+& 4! [ n ?%: &% V 8+& s 8W[ ) 31 : &9- %T 1+ 4+ %5 - , ) # %5! M) # #, '+& * '@8* 8 ) #"% !& )'C 2+- )'+
% ! %^ *)'+Y9- ;%
0 1+ +&)&%/7 3" 9& '+h7& '+& &# %`) #/C ,)17 &% )1++&)1 k!& h 0 1+67& 6 , 8W " f7*T 2 sC&)" 0 2+ 34% !& '+*%, '+ *
#:)1 % !& IC& ' )- $ 8W2 , - Ts + ' :3 )'+& =7*Ts!- X ' X+ 3d% 8W
R * *)1 , 1 2+&38W T"@ '+Y%: 1+& * ) #A%5!- , BT& " 1 < rv J [ 4 2 sC&)" C&)1+ k)'+Y9- ;%j` + XWLl
m
) 38 Un % !n# X+& M)&#uv/ &] z" @2 EFoL]-+ #: 1 -W %1) #OC &T d '+Y%') # # 2+& ^@* *)'+*9- ;%J ! 8W[W?# % !& ' Z + ' :3 )
% UP)$ 1+& =!& 8W #-T& " 1 <
j/]
Z 1+& # %R) # jw - ;% )'+hG'x f { 5KA t7& 3" 9& '+4%,)6% !& *)'+Y9- ;%%:) - * j` + XWl
m
) 38 " }!& !& " g 8W2 , - T +& - ' :3-)1+& ?%:)- T #,)' Ix d)'+*% ! 1+& y0z " T 2]2 ^]{# ,)'
y&E5uyqEx "xd%,)$x-YE51~?Ex- '~S 8+& S# ,)' x'E5'Ex-uy S% [WXW%,) " T
#1# X+& r d 'C&)" 0 %, ^@ % !& 1+$)' Y%^)# X+& ^@1v/ &] ^@2 -YEoL7 B38 9& 1+H%,)$% !& = *)' C-W 8 X+ 1+Y%
" H *)1 sC& '+ Y &% )'+H#,)' Z!- [ d ' sC-W ) T& ' O {%5! h ,)'7 7& - M 1 d)' +Y%^U\ " d7& 8W )'+&38 2+&3s%,)r!- S ' sC W ) T& 1 5@
&# %: 1 1 & C- 2 Td) #JC& 1 ) s)&#JWX X %: &% )1+d) # # [WX 2+&3 ) #' 8C C& 8W 1+ I #O+ )$ 1C C " 8W* dC- , #, ' , ']
8 2+ =+&) %8 'C )8 0 %, ']
/)'+*9- ;%J7& = , 1 S 1+& - S%,)>¡ ] {]Y%,)M ' 9& S% !& $ '+*%, '+& * ']
8 XW =7& s *)'+ 0 31+ S%,)= , *)' , = ,)-)' $]
Announced in the open court
on dated 31/05/10.
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 27/1 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 27/1
Unique case ID No.: 02404R0122272002
Date of Decision: 25/05/10
Date of Sentence: 31/05/10
State
Versus
Sanjay @ Pardeep @ Silencer
S/o Bhagwan Dass
R/o B-480, Mangol Puri
Delhi.
FIR No. 15/02
PS - Saraswati Vihar
U/s. 392/34 of IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE
¢^£q¤5¥^¦¤§ ¥u£ ¥
¨L©,ª8« ª'¬YF® ¯ °'±Y²R°-°1³´±-¨(¨rµ:¶1©'·Z<¸ :ª'±
¹ ¶'¬*º-» ¼;'·L¸1¬¾½5¸&¿4ÀÁ·i»X³ ª'¬&¼*ª1© µ ©,¶1Âaà ± ¹ ±
·`Ä"± ÅA¸1© Æ ¬ÇAÆ ÂS¸1© È`¨L©D¶ É*¿¼*¶'Æ-¬ « ª1³wÊ-¶'© ·`Ä"±iË ± Ìs±`ÍLÄ ¸8³[³ ¸'È}¼*¶1Æ ¬ « ª8³'µ,¶'©R¼*¶'¬Yº-» ¼;
·L¸1¬q½ ¸&¿4ÀÁ·i»X³ ª1¬&¼*ª'©5±
ÎAÄ ¸ º&ªÏÄ&ª"¸8©,°Ï¯ °'±J²R°-°1³´±i¨(¨µ,¶'©k·Z:¸&,ª ¸1¬&°Ï¯ °¨L©,¶&É*¿ ¼*¶1Æ ¬ « ª8³O¶'¬I5Ä ªÏÐ&¶8»2¬*R¶ µ
« ª'¬*,ª'¬&¼*ª'±
¯ ª ¸1© ¬&ª-°Ñ¨L©,¶&É*¿Ò¼*¶'Æ ¬ « ª8³=« Æ Ó Â » « Ä ¸&¼*¶'¬Yº-» ¼;·L¸1¬q½ ¸&¿ÔÀ ·i»X³ ª'¬&¼*ª1©f»[«Ò¬&¶
Ð ©,ª º-» ¶'Æ «0³ ¿Õ¼*¶'¬Yº-» ¼;,ª °»2¬¸1¬*¿¼0¸"« ª^± ±P¯ °}¼*¶'Æ-¬ « ª1³Aµ5Æ-© 5Ä ª'©S« Æ Ó- » <«5Ä&¸&d¼*¶1¬*º-» ¼;n·L¸1¬q½ ¸&¿À
«0»X³ ª1¬&¼*ª'©A» «H¸ Ö ª °4¸1Ó ¶'Æ* § × ¿&ª"¸1©<«d¸1¬&°r» «tÆ ¬ ÂS¸1© © » ª °^±BØ`ªrÄ&¸"«n:¶I« Æ Ð-Ð&¶'© LÄ-» «d¸-Ö-ª °hÐ ¸1©,ª'¬Y<«&±
Ø`ª$ÙV¸"«VÙ\¶'© ÚY»X¬ Ör¸ «MÌHª ¼ Ä ¸8¬-» ¼ ¸1¬&°B» «>¸=« ¶1³ ª Ó ©,ª ¸-°4ª ¸1© ¬&ª1©O¶&µ`Ä-»[« µ<¸8Â »X³ ¿4¸8¬&°$,¶4« Æ Ð-Ð&¶'© LÄ-»[«
¸ Ö-ª °=Ð&¸1©,ª'¬Y «&±
¯ °¨L©,¶&É*¿¼*¶'Æ-¬ « ª1³Ä ¸ «=µ Æ © Ä&ª'©k¼*¶'¬*,ª'¬ ° ª ° 5Ä&¸&e¼*¶'¬ «0» ° ª'©<»2¬ Ö Ä&ªf¸1Ó ¶ º&ª.µ<¸ ¼; «
SC No. 27/1 5
Û1Ü&Ý=Þ&ß2à,Þ á-â>ã?ä<Û8Ü&Þ*å8ã&æ-Þ*ç1Ü*è-ß Þ;äAé&åBÛ-Ý1â ß ä ä,å Ý$ä,ç ê àDç'é Û&ä ß ç1Ü=á?ëFãHìIç íJä î&å ïLàDç'é Û&ä ß ç1ÜMç&íOðPí í,å'Ü&Ý-å'à,ñ ã
ò Þ;äAç'àAî&åBâSÛ&óBé&å=Û ôVÛ8à,Ý å ÝMä5î å4ã å'Ü*ä,å'Ü&Þ*å4Û8õXà,å"Û-Ý&ó=á-Ü&Ý å1à:ö-ç'Ü&å éYó ä î&åBÞ*ç1Ü*è-ß Þ;äZÝ'á à ßXÜ ö ä à ß Û8õ-ßXÜ
ä5î ß[ã\Þ0Û"ã å^÷ ø`å1Ü&Þ*å^æ ÛMõ å'Ü ß å'Ü*ä-è-ß å ôaé&åSä:Û1ùcå'Ü ÷
ðdÜ ä î&åç&ä5î å'à\î&Û1Ü&Ýú Ý ò ï(ïî Û"ã Þ*ç'ÜYä:å1Ü&Ý å Ýä î Û&äeÞ*ç1Ü*è-ß Þ;ä{ûLÛ1Üqü Û&ógý ûißXõ å1Ü&Þ*å'à
Û8õ ç1Ü öSônß ä5îdÞ*ç"þ Þ*ç'Ü*è-ß Þ;ä^û`á Ü ßXõ8ýÔÿVç"ö"ß*à,ç'é é&å-ÝrÛ=é&Û ö>í à,ç'âÛ=ê Û"ã*ã å1Ü ö-å'àJß2ÜsÛ=é á ãSî Û è-ß2Ü ö$Þ0Û ã î
ç í /ã&÷AðdÜ&åfõ Û-Þ Û1Ü&Ý.ä î&åfê&å'à ß ç ÝÛ8õXà,å"Û-Ý&óá Ü&Ý å1à:ö-ç'Ü å é*óhä î&åÞ*ç'ÜYè-ß Þ;äkûLÛ8Üqü5Û&óý ûißXõ å1Ü&Þ*å'àkß[ã
Û1é&ç'áY ä dó&å Û1à<ã&æYì âdç1Ü*ä î ãVÛ1Ü& Ý Ý"Û&ó ã\ç'Ü-õ ó"÷
ú0Ý ò ïLïÏí á à ä î&å'à(ã á é-â ß ä<ãsä5î&Û&äLÞ*ç'ÜYè-ß Þ;äRß[ã=Û8õ[ã çBí<Û Þ&ß2Ü öBä à ß Û8õ"ß2Ü Û8Ü&ç ä î&å1àRÞ0Û"ã å
Ü&ç^
÷ ¾ ë ^æ-ïAû6ûLÛ1à:Û"ãô\Û&ä ß kß2î Û8à5æ-áë ã ç í
ï {÷
ð{í í:å1Ü&Þ*å OëFã& ÷ ; ë Yì ç í
ï ß[ãÔê á Ü ß[ã î Û8é-õ å ônß ä î ßXâsê à ß[ã ç1Ü âdå'Ü*ä}ç&í å1ß ä î&å'à
Ý å8ã Þ à ßXê*ä ß ç'Ühí,ç'à Û.ä,å'à â ôHî-ß Þ îâSÛ ófé å!å *ä,å'Ü Ý å Ýä,ç6ä,å'Ü4ó&å"Û1à<ãhÛ1Ü&ÝÏã î Û"õXõJÛ8õ[ã çé&åõXß Û8é-õ åä,ç
í ßXÜ&å^÷
/ç'Ü ã0ß Ý-å'à ß2Ü&ö=ä5î å Û1é&ç&è&åBí:Û-Þ;ä<ãIÛ1Ü&Ý Þ&ßXà,Þ á â>ã?ä:Û1Ü&Þ*å"ãrà,å ö Û1à,Ý8ß2Ü ö Û ö-å'æZÛ8Ü*ä,å Þ*å Ý-å'Ü*ä<ã
Û1Ü&Ý4î ß[ãnã?ä:Û&ä á ãVÛ8Ü&ÝsÛ8õ[ã ç ö1à:Û&è-ß äóÛ1Ü Ý4Ü Û ä5á-à,å ç í ä5î åMç í í,å'Ü&Þ*å'"æ
*Û8âç í"ä î&å ç'ê ß2Ü-ß ç'Ü
ä î Û ä^Þ*ç'ÜYè-ß Þ;ä
Þ0Û1Ü Ü&ç&ä/é åö"ß è&å'Ühé&å'Ü&å&í ß ä`ç í/ê à,ç1é Û&ä ß ç1ÜÜ&ç1àkî&åhÞ0Û1Ü6é&å6à,å8õ å"Û ã å Ýfé*ó ß2âsê&ç"ã0ß2Ü ö4ä î&åã å'Ü*ä,å'Ü Þ*å
í:ç1à ä î&åIê&å'à ß ç-Ý$Û8õ2à,å Û-Ý ósá Ü Ý å'à:ö ç'Ü&å=é*ósî-ßXâÝ'á à ßXÜ ödä à ß Û8õ
ò Þ*Þ*ç1à,Ý1ß2Ü&ö8õ ó"æ ã å'Ü*ä,å'Ü Þ*å4ç í1ä î à,å-å>ó&å"Û8à<#ã $
8ß[ãdß2âsê&ç"ã å ÝBá ê ç'%Ü kç'ÜYè-ß Þ;ä.ûLÛ1Üqü Û&ó ý
ûißXõ å1Ü&Þ*å'àeô
ß ä îí ßXÜ&åÏç &í /ã&(÷ ' ) *æ ëFþs+÷
ÜÏÝ å í:Û1á-õ ä{ç ínê Û ó âdå'Ü*ä{ç í í ß2Ü&å'æ(Þ*ç'Ü*è-ß Þ;äHã î Û"õXõOí á à ä î&å'à
á Ü&Ý å1à:ö-çSäô\ç$Û8Ü&Ý=î Û8õ í ó&å Û1à<ã
,û
÷
- å1Ü&å í ß ä(ç í(ûwå Þ;ä ß ç1Ü4 ì . {à5 ï é åö"ß è&å'Ü$ä:çBä5î åÞ*ç'ÜYè-ß Þ;ää,ç Û-Þ*Þ á ã å ÝûLÛ1Üqü Û&ófý
ûißXõ å1Ü&Þ*å'à Û"ãIî&åî Û ã Û8õXà,å"Û-Ý&ó.á-Ü&Ý å1à:ö-ç'Ü&åBÞ á ã?ä,ç Ý&ó í,ç'/à =ó&å"Û1à<ã&æ"ìâdç'Ü*ä î ãMÛ1Ü&0Ý 1 Ý"Û ó ãIß´÷2å^÷
í5à,ç12 â ) ë ¾3ë 4 rä:5ç ) 6ë "'c6ë 7 18æ 9 ë ? ë ä,:ç 7; ë ? ë 4Û8Ü&< Ý ; ë ?6ë 7 "'=ä,=ç > ? ë ¾6ë 7 Û8Ü&Ý
Û8õ[ã çSí à,ç'? â ) 6ë )6ë 7 1 Sä ß[õXõä,ç Ý Û& ó @
í^í ßXÜ&åBß ã Ý å1ê&ç8ã0ß ä,å-ÝIä î&å'ÜIç'áYäOç íOí ßXÜ&å^>æ /ã&A÷ )9 ^*æ 7 YëþRé&åBö8ß è&å1Üsä,çIä î&å4Þ*ç'âsê-õ Û8ß2Ü&Û1Ü*ä
Û"ãHÞ*ç1âsê&å'Ü ãYÛ&ä ß ç'ÜHí,ç'àZî-ß[ãdå'âsê-õ ç ó&å'àOÛ ã{ä5î åhà,ç'é é&å-ÝMÛ1âdç'á ÜYä^ô\Û"ãdé&å8õ ç'Ü&ö8ß2Ü&ösä,çrî-ß ãSå'âsê õ ç ó&å1à5æ
Û&í ä:å1à1 å ê-ß2à ódç íJê&å1à ß ç Ýsç&íJõXßXâ ß ä:Û&ä ß ç1Üdç í í ß[õXß2Ü&ö ç í'Û8ê ê&å Û8õ Û1Ü ÝIß íOÜ ç$Û1ê ê å"Û8õ*ß ãdê-à,å í,å'à à,å Ý'÷
8ß2Ü å=Ü&ç ä8Ý å'ê ç8ã0ß ä,å Ý'÷
/ç'Ü*è-ß Þ;äJé&å=à,å1âSÛ1Ü&Ý-å ÝSä,C ç B D÷ {÷Yä,çMã å'à è&åSä î&å$ã å'Ü*ä,å'Ü&Þ*å'÷
8ßXõ å=é&åsÞ*ç'Ü ã0ß ö1Ü å ÝSä,ç=à,å Þ*ç'à,Ý=à,ç-ç'â$÷
Announced in the open court
on dated 31/05/10.
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 27/1 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 27/1
Unique case ID No.: 02404R0122272002
Date of Decision: 25/05/10
Date of Sentence: 31/05/10
State
Versus
Sunil @ Gogi
S/o Hukum Chand
R/o S-198, Kirari, Prem Nagar
Delhi.
FIR No. 15/02
PS - Saraswati Vihar
U/s. 392/34 of IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE
EGFIH JGKLH6M4J F J
N/OQP"R P S T3U V9W X YZW7W>[\X7N]N_^
`>O a Tcb9T
P X
d ` Sfe7gih1T a(j S4gk[ l2mn` o"g$^pOQ` qsr X d X
a(t X d t!b"S W P>O u `>t!b>SCa/b"S!b>S v%V9W&Y$q#g h!j4R d j O
b giP&^Q` O"hf` Sfe7g h1T_a(j S4gk[ l2mn` o"g
w t b e P t P b>OQWxVyWGX>YZW7W>[\X/N]N0^
`>OZa T
b TQP b>S WzV9W:Y$q#gih!j!R d j O
b"g P5` S{Tpt P | `"g*SfTZ`!^
R P SfTQP S hfP X
9V P b>OpS P7W}Y$q#gih!j!R d j O~gib7PR9j q#g T~R&T t b T8hf` Sfe7g h1T]a(j S7g[ l mn` o"g gR=S `!T(| OQP e7gi` j!Ry[
hf` Sfe7g h1T
P7Wg*Sb>Sf
hyb R P X d b R P` ^=hf` S e7gih1T a(j S4gk[_l mn` o"g&gR?W"gR T~g*S!o"j7gR9t9P W
^ OQ`>q `!Tpt9P O
b7hfh!j4R P W XV9Whf` j7S4R P>[ ^pj OATpt P>O8R9j7 q#g TcR Tpt!b T/hf`>Sfe7gih1T(a(j S7g[l mn` o g gRb o4P Wb>9` jfT M P b>OcR
b>S W=gRq&b>OpO~giP7Wb>S9W_gRCt b e7g*S oCTA `{h!t4gk[iW>OQP S%b7o7P Wb>9` jfT M F P b"OcR b>S9W F P b>OcR XV9P b>OpS9P W
W P!^QP S hfP#hf` j S4R P"[L^pj OATpt P O R9j 7q#g TcRTpt!b9T b4hfh!j4R P WgRbR `"[iP{ OQP b7W%P b>O~S P O"`!^ t7gR^
b>q#g[ &b>S W
` Op R$g Tpt&b| OQ` | P>OATA&W7P b"[ P O>b>S W{t Pt!b RTQ`R9j | | `>OATt4gR^cb"q#gk[ X
SC No. 27/1 7
9 :$#i!! ¡ ¢~£4¤ ¥!£ ¦p ¢A§p¥ ¤ ¢]f¨ ©f§Q¤ © 7¤ §p¥!£9§,f¨ ©! yi ¤>¢~*©!ª}§ ¥9¤«£"¬ ¨! ¤ ¦
£71§c
£>© { *¢Q!7C §c£"© f¤" ®7f¨>©f7i1§ ¬ ¤=£7># §A§Q¤ §Q¨:¯ ¢°¨ ¬!£ §~i¨>©{ ±3 ²¨!¦ §p¥ ¤ ³/¢°¨ ¬!£ §~i¨>©¨ ¦´ ¦A¦Q¤ © 7¤ ¢Qµ
Z1§ ¨ ¢ ¥ ¤=&£ ¶=¬ ¤{£9·n£"¢Q ¤ § ¥9¤} ¤ ©f§Q¤ © f¤}£"¸k¢Q¤ £7 ¶{7© ¤>¢
ª7¨ © ¤ ¬ ¶#§p¥ ¤=f¨>©f7i1§ ¢~k©!ª#§p¢~£"¸7k©
§ ¥4 y£ ¤G¹ º(¤>© f¤G®9£¸i¤ ©4i¤ ©f§77i¤9·»¬ ¤&§
£>¼½¤ © ¹
´¾©{§p¥ ¤¨!§p¥ ¤>¢¿¥!£>©959:³]³À¥!£ {f¨ ©f§Q¤ © 7¤ §p¥!£ §8f¨ © 7i1§+Á( ©4k¸/ Ãn¨ ª G£ ¸i¨ © ª
· §p¥f¨ Ä~f¨ ©f7 1§ Á/£"©IÅ £ ¶Â Á8¸i¤ ©9f¤ ¢]¢Q¨>¬ ¬ ¤7_£ ¬ £ ª%¦p¢Q¨
£¯!£ f ¤>©!ª7¤ ¢ k©_£}¬ 4 ¥!£ 7k©!ªy£ 9¥
¨!¦ÇÆ, ¹4´¾© ¤=¸£7&£>©9§ ¥9¤}¯ ¤>¢~i¨ }£"¸k¢Q¤ £7 ¶{7© ¤>¢
ª7¨ © ¤ ¬ ¶&§p¥ ¤f¨ ©f7 1§ Á(7©7k¸"Â Ãn¨ ª"y &£>¬9¨ f§ È
¾¨ ©f§p¥4 n£>©9 ÉyÊ& £ ¶4 ¨>©7¸ ¶ ®1· ¥7 !¥n·k¸¸y¬ ¤&§Q¨ ¨{¾¤ £ ª>¢Q¤&§Q¨£9·£>¢Q&¦Q¨ ¢7§p¥ ¤%¨!¦A¦Q¤ © f¤%¨ ¦¢Q¨>¬ ¬ ¤ ¢A¶ ¹
´¦A¦
¤>© f¤ÌË ±3 ¹AÍ9Î È ±ÏÍf²Ð¨ ¦¾Ñ ³ ¡Ò 5¯7 ©7 9¥!£>¬7¸ ¤· §p¥À¢~ª7¨>¢Q¨ 4 k%¯ ¢~ ¨>© ¾¤ © §¦Q¨ ¢£
§
¤>¢pз¥7i!¥#&£ ¶¾¤!Óf§Q¤ © &§Q¨&§Q¤ ©¶ ¤ £"¢c £"© 9¥!£ ¸k¸ £"¸ ¨{¬ ¤¸ki£>¬7¸ ¤&§Q¨&¦pk© ¤G¹
¡,¨ ©4 yi7¤ ¢~*© ª{§ ¥9¤:£>¬ ¨ ¤=¦
£71§c £>© k¢Q! C §
£>© f¤ _¢Q¤ ª £>¢Q"*©!ª £ ª7¤ ® £"©f§Q¤ f¤ 7¤ ©f§c
£>© }¥4 §
£ §p4 n£"© %£"¸ ¨#ª>¢
£ 7 §Ô¶£>©9}©!£9§ 7¢Q¤#¨!¦ § ¥9¤¨!¦A¦Q¤ © f¤ ®"Ñf£"Õ¨!¦ §p¥ ¤#¨ ¯4*©7 ¨ ©§p¥!£9§Gf¨ © 7i1§
y£>© © ¨ §,¬9¤ ª ¤ ©¬ ¤ © ¤ ¦p §(¨!¦,¯ ¢Q¨>¬!£ §~i¨>©.© ¨>¢+¥ ¤y£>©«¬ ¤«¢Q¤"¸i¤ £ ¤ 5¬f¶ *%¯ ¨ y*©!ª}§p¥ ¤ ¤ ©f§Q¤ ©9f¤
¦
¨>¢ §p¥ ¤¯ ¤ ¢~i¨7£"¸*¢Q¤ £7!¶% ©9 ¤ ¢
ª4¨ © ¤{¬f¶%¥7k ¢~k©!ª¾§p¢~£"¸
Zff¨>¢Q>*© ª"¸ ¶ ®z ¤ © §
¤>© f¤:¨!¦ § ¥7¢Q¤ ¤=¶ ¤ £>¢c _ÆÑ }*%¯ ¨ ¤ Ö ¯ ¨>©:¡+¨ © 7i1§×Á( ©4k¸/Â
è ª"L· §p¥¦~k© ¤¨ ¦ Æ, ¹4Ê Ø ®*Ù Ù Ù ±3Ä/¹7ÑD©# ¤!¦
£>7¸ §>¨!¦¯!£ ¶ ¾¤ © § ¨!¦ ¦~*© ¤G®ff¨ ©f7 1§ 9¥!£"¸¸ ¦p ¢A§p¥ ¤ ¢ ©9 ¤ ¢
ª4¨
§A· ¨£>© {¥ £"¸ ¦7¶ ¤ £>¢c Á,Ñ ¹
Ú ¤>© ¤!¦~ §Z¨!¦$ÁǤ71§~i¨ ©² È Û5¡¢ ³ ¡
¬ ¤ª ¤ ©}§Q¨«§p¥ ¤zf¨ © 7i1§?§
¨Ö£7f!! ¤ ÜÁ( ©4k¸ Â
è ª" £ Ì¥ ¤¥ £ À£"¸*¢Q¤ £7!¶Ý © 7¤ ¢
ª7¨>© ¤Þ!! §
¨7!¶ ¦Q¨ ¢Èß¾¨ ©f§p¥4 У>© ÉyÊs £9¶4 ?*¹*¤G¹¦p¢Q¨
É ØL± Ù ÉI±6È4٠٠Ⱦ§Q¨È7à ± Ù>Í ±6È7Ù Ù Í&£"© &¦p¢Q¨ ?È ØL± Ù ØL±6È7Ù É Ù&§~¸k¸L§Q¨ £9¶ á
Ѧ>¦~k© ¤_ ¾ ¤ ¯ ¨ y §Q¤ G®9§p¥ ¤>©¨ §G¨ ¦>¦pk© ¤G®>Æ, ¹AØ9ÙG®*Ù Ù7Ù ±6Ä/¬9¤=ª" ¤>© §Q¨§p¥ ¤{f¨ #¯7¸£"k©!£>© §
£ f¨>%¯ ¤ ©! £ §~i¨ © ¦Q¨ ¢ ¥7 ¾¤ %¯7¸ ¨!¶ ¤ ¢£ § ¥9¤¢Q¨ ¬ ¬ ¤7£>¾¨ © §G·£ ¾¬ ¤"¸i¨ © ª"*© ª%§Q¨_¥7 &¤ %¯4¸i¨!¶ ¤>¢ ®
£ ¦A§
¤>¢>¤ Ó ¯7*¢A¶¾¨!¦ ¯ ¤>¢~i¨ %¨ ¦ ¸kk# §
£ §~i¨>©¾¨!¦ ¦~¸k*© ª#¨!¦ £"¯ ¯ ¤ £"¸ £>©9 ¦©9¨£>¯ ¯9¤ £"¸f ¾¯7¢Q¤!¦Q¤ ¢p¢Q¤ ¹
â"*©9¤{© ¨!§" ¤ ¯9¨" y §Q¤ ¹
¡,¨ ©f7i1§ ¬ ¤{¢Q¤>&£>© 7¤ &§Q¨Cã ¹D¡¹ §Q¨ ¤ ¢A ¤&§p¥ ¤ ¤ ©f§Q¤ © f¤ ¹
â"k¸ ¤{¬ ¤%f¨ ©! yª>©9¤ &§Q¨{¢Q¤ f¨ ¢Q{¢Q¨7¨ ¹
Announced in the open court
on dated 31/05/10.
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 27/1 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 27/1
Unique case ID No.
State
Versus
1. Mukesh
S/o Nek Ram
R/o R-122, Part VI
Karan Vihar, Sultan Puri
Delhi.
2. Sanjay @ Rockey @ Billu (expired)
S/o Deep Chand
R/o R-145, Karan Vihar, Part VI
Sultanpuri
3. Sanjay @ Pardeep @ Silencer
S/o Bhagwan Dass
R/o B-480, Mangol Puri
Delhi.
4. Daljit S/o Tarsem Singh
R/o B-2/476, Sultan Puri
Delhi
5. Sunil @ Gogi
S/o Hukum Chand
R/o S-198, Kirari, Prem Nagar
Delhi.
FIR No. 15/02
PS - Saraswati Vihar
U/s. 395/397/411/412 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 06/04/02
Arguments heard on: 19/05/02
Date of reservation of order: 19/05/02
Date of Decision: 25/05/10
SC No. 27/1 9
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the statement of one Ram Pal Sharma dated 8/01/02 u/s 392/34 of IPC at PS Saraswati Vihar. Complainant Ram Pal Sharma told to the police in his statement that he reside at A-42, Suraj Park, Samaypur Badli, Delhi and works as cashier in Greatway Carrying Corporation. On that day i.e. 8/01/02 he withdrew cash of Rs. One lac from UTI bank, Pitam Pura, Delhi at about 12.30 pm, and boarded a bus route no.789 No. DL-IP-7626 for going to Azadpur. He has further stated that Rs. One lac was in a brown colour bag. After boarding the bus, while he was about to purchase ticket and he had kept the bag in his armpit, two boys, who were already present in the bus, snatched the bag and abused him. In the mean time, next bus stand came and they both tried to fled away with two other boys, who were also in bus. When he tried to get back his bag from those boys, then while getting down from the bus, one of the boy from those persons waived knife and threatened him not to chase them and within seconds, they all sat in a three wheeler, which was coming from behind of bus and fled away towards T.V. Tower. He has further stated that he can identify those persons, if shown to him. They were in between 22 to 28 years of age group having height of 5.8' and they all were of wheatish colour. He has requested for legal action against them. He has further told to the police that currency notes were in 8 bundles of Rs.100 denomination and four bundles of Rs.50 denomination having slip of UTI bank on them.
During investigation site plan was prepared by the IO. Accused persons were apprehended on 15/01/02 and accused Daljeet, Mukesh, Sanjay @ Silencer, Sunil and 'Sanjay @ Billu made disclosure statement and they also got recovered a TSR No. DL-IRF-9196, one canvas bag alongwith currency notes of Rs.15,000/-, One motorcycle, which is stated to be purchased from the looted money, one mobile phone and ½ blade pieces from each accused.
SC No. 27/1 10All the accused persons pointed the place of recovery also after their arrest.
On 18/01/02, supplementary disclosure statements of Sanjay @ Silencer and Sanjay@ Billu were recorded.
Notice to owner of TSR was issued and he gave reply that it was given to Mukesh son of Nek Ram on rent of Rs.150/- per day. TIP application of case property was moved by the IO, but later on IO got cancelled the same.
On 16/01/10, IO moved an application for TIP of all the accused persons before the concerned Magistrate, but all the accused persons refused to join in the TIP on the ground that they all were shown to the witnesses in the PS. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the all the accused persons u/s 395/397/412/34 of IPC.
Case was committed to the court of Sessions by Ld MM on 18/05/02. It was received on 23/05/02, charge was framed against the all the accused persons on 07/06/02 u/s 395/397/34 and u/s 412 of IPC, but later on it was amended n 18/02/03 and amended charge was framed against all the accused persons u/s 395/397/34 of IPC and u/s 412 of IPC because the alleged amount of Rs,.15,000/- was shown as Rs.50,000/- in the previous charge. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW12 in all. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded. All the accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution. Accused Sunil @ Gogi has stated that he had been picked from his house by the police officials of Saraswati Vihar and taken to PS. Complainant was present there in the PS. Police official showed him in unmuffled to the complainant in the PS and falsely implicated him in this case and police officials produced him before the Court in unmuffled face and he is innocent.
Accused Daljeet Singh has stated that he had been picked from his house by the police officials of Saraswati Vihar and was taken to PS. He was in SC No. 27/1 11 unmuffled face at that time and they falsely implicated him in this case. Police officials produced him before the Court in unmuffled face and he is innocent.
Accused Mukesh Kumar has stated that he had been picked from his house by the police officials of Saraswati Vihar and taken to PS. He was in unmuffled face at that time and they falsely implicated him in this case. Police officials produced him before the Court in unmuffled face and he is innocent.
Accused Sanjay @ Silencer has stated that he had been picked from his house by the police officials of Saraswati Vihar and taken to PS. Complainant was present there in the PS. Police official had showed him in unmuffled to the complainant in the PS and has falsely implicated him in this case by planting his money upon him as case property. He had not made any disclosure statement or got any recovery effected and he is innocent.
I have heard Ld APP for State and Ld Counsels for accused persons and carefully gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced.
Findings qua identity of accused persons SC No. 27/1 12 PW2 is complainant Ram Pal Sharma. He has stated that he was serving as cashier with M/s Greatway Carrying Cooperation. On 08/01/02 at about 12.30 pm, he had gone to UTI bank and had withdrawn a sum of Rs. One lakh. He was coming to Ajad pur and had boarded a bus from DP block, Pitampura. The bus was plying on route no.789. As he was about to purchase a ticket from the conductor, two-three boys encircled him from all sided. He was carrying a sum of Rs. One lakh in a brown coloured bag. He was keeping the bag in his armpit. One of the boys, who had encircled him, created commotion and stated that a knife should be taken out. One of the boys placed a knife on him stomach. One boy snatched away his bag containing a sum of Rs. One lakh. As the bus stopped on the next bus stop, four boys got down. These included the one boy, who had placed the knife on his stomach and the other who snatched away the bag from him. They boarded a TSR. He went to PS Pitampura and lodged a complaint which is Ex.PW2/A. He has further identified accused Sanjay @ Billu, Sunil and Sanjay @ Silencer and has further stated that accused Sanjay @ Silencer had snatched away the bag from him, accused Sanjay @ Billu had placed a knife at his stomach and the third accused i.e. Sunil was standing along with them and had stated that a knife should be taken out. He cannot say about the fourth, who was accompanying these accused.
Another witness is PW5 Mr. Atin Gupta, Executive, UTI Bank, Pitam Pura branch. He has corroborated PW2 and has stated that on 08/091/02, he was working as a cashier in Pitam Pura branch of UTI bani. One Mr. Ram Pal of Greatway Carrying Cooperation came at his counter with a bearer cheque of Rs. One lac and he encashed the same and gave Rs. One lac in cash to Rampal. He has also produced the duly attested copy of statement of account of M/s Greatway Carrying Company for period from 1.1.02 to 15.01.02. He has identified the signature of Mr. Ashish Banerjee, Manager on the statement of account Ex.PW5/A. Relevant entries are shown at point D. PW5 has not been cross examined much on behalf of accused persons. In SC No. 27/1 13 cross examination, he has stated that he knew Rampal as he used to come on behalf of M/s Greatway Carrying Cooperation to collect cash from bank on various occasions.
So PW5 was not stranger to PW2 Ram Pal Sharma and similarly PW2 was also not stranger to the bank and being cashier he used to so transaction on behalf of M/s Greatway Carrying Cooperation. From the deposition of PW2 and PW5, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that on 08/01/02, at about 12.30, PW2 had withdrawn Rs. One lac from UTI bank on behalf of his company i.e. M/s Greatway Carrying Cooperation.
PW4 is Gulab Singh. He was working as bus conductor on bus bearing no. DL-1PA-7626 on route no.789 from sector-6 Rohini to Shahdara. On 08/01/02, they were taking the second trip starting from 12.15 pm from sector-6 Rohini. At about 12.45 pm, bus reached at a place in ND block Pitampura and from the rear gate, 6-7 commuters boarded the bus. At that time, he was distributing the tickets in the middle. As bus reached a place near TV Tower, Pitampura, the bus slow down to negotiate a speed breaker, 6-7 persons got down from the moving bus. A commuter raised a noise as his money had been stolen away. The bus however stopped at the bus stop. The said commuter got down from the bus. Other commuters had also raised noise. There was one TSR following the bus. The victim was pointing out towards some persons, who had boarded the TSR in order to effect an escape. In the meanwhile, a motorcyclist came there. The victim boarded the said motorcyclist and chased the TSR. However, the motorcyclist came back stating that the TSR could not be located. Thereafter he had gone on trip. On their return, their bus was stopped by the police and they were taken to the police station.
PW4 has not identified the accused persons, so he was cross examined by Ld APP for state. In the cross examination, he had denied making his statement Ex. PW4/A to the police, but he has admitted that miscreants had got down near the bus stop TV Tower, Tikona Park. In the cross examination conducted by defence counsel on behalf of accused Daljeet and Sunil, he has been confronted with the fact SC No. 27/1 14 that Ram Pal had raised the noise that his money had been stolen away, which was not so recorded in Ex.PW4/A. So PW4 has not identified the accused persons and secondly he has made improvements regarding the fact that complainant Rampal had raised noise when his money had been stolen, to which he was confronted with his statement Ex.PW4/A, where it was not so recorded.
PW2 Rampal Sharma has nowhere stated that he had raised the noise, when his money had been snatched. In the cross examination, PW2 has stated that no passenger had raised the noise. In the cross examination, PW2 has explained that he could not raise the noise, when he was being robbed. He did not tell the conductor or the driver as he became perplexed.
Ld defence counsel has contended that witness cannot be believed because he has made improvements before the court regarding the fact that one of the accused had placed a knife in his stomach, whereas this fact is not mentioned in his statement Ex.PW2/A and it was recorded that one of the accused had waived the knife, while they were fleeing away. So PW2, cannot be believed in any manner.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that identification of the accused persons before the court for the first time is a very weak type of evidence. PW2 has admitted that he had not seen the accused persons after the day of incident and had seen them in the court only during his examination. PW2 has further stated that he had not gone to jail for identification of the accused persons.
So it is clear that accused persons were seen by PW2 Ram Pal Sharma on the day of incident and thereafter in the Court only at the time of his examination. The fact that knife was put on his stomach or was waived by one of the accused for threatening the complainant, when the accused persons were fleeing away from the spot is to be considered, as to what offence the prosecution has been able to prove against the accused persons.
After their arrest, accused persons were put to join the TIP and PW8 Sh. Rakesh Sayal, the then MM has stated that on 16/01/02, SI Surjeet Singh IO SC No. 27/1 15 has moved an application for TIP of accused Mukesh, Sanjay @ Rockey, Sanjay @ Pradeep, Daljeet and Sunil before the then MM Sh. A.K. Kuhar, to whom he was working as link MM, and accused persons were produced before him in unmuffled face and identified them separately. Separate proceedings in respect of all the five accused were conducted. All the accused persons refused to participate in TIP on the ground that they have already been shown to the witness in the PS. PW8 recorded the TIP proceedings after giving warning to the accused persons that if they will refuse to participate in TIP, it may go against them during trial and an adverse inference may be drawn against them. Application moved by IO for TIP of accused is Ex.PW8/A. TIP proceeding in respect of accused Daljeet are Ex.PW8/B, accused Mukesh are Ex.PW8/C, accused Sunil are Ex.PW8/D, accused Sanjay @ Rockey are Ex.PW8/E and for accused Sanjay @ Pardeep are Ex.PW8/F. Application moved by IO for supply of TIP proceedings are Ex. PW8/G. PW8 has not been cross examined by Ld defence counsel of accused persons as to whether PW2 complainant or any other witness was called in Court on the day when the accused persons was produced before the court to join the TIP proceedings. It is also not put to PW2 that accused persons were shown to him in the PS by the IO. So the plea of accused persons that they were shown to complainant in PS is of no consequence.
PW12 SI Surjit Singh has stated that on 15/01/02, they apprehended the accused persons from Tikona park. They were arrested in this case and their personal searches were conducted. Some recoveries were effected on the pointing of the accused persons. Accused persons led the police party to spot and pointed out the place, where they had committed robbery. He prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW7/S to PW7/W. Thereafter all the accused persons led the police party to Guru Gobind Singh College, Pitam Pura and pointed out one TSR no. DL-1RF- 9196, which was found parked in front of the gate on road. The same was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. PW12 has further stated that thereafter all the accused led the police SC No. 27/1 16 party to Tri Nagar in the house of Avtar Singh and pointed out a room at second floor, which was taken on rent by accused Sanjay @ Silencer. Accused Sanjay @ Silencer alongwith other accused persons got recovered one bag of brown colour in which there were two bundles of currency notes of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- in denomination having slips of UTI bank. The bag was sealed with the seal of SS and was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. PW12 has further stated that thereafter, accused persons led the police party to Karan Vihar and got recovered one motorcycle no.1655, found parked in the side wall of house no.105, Karan Vihar. Accused Sanjay @ Silencer has disclosed that he purchased the said motorcycle from the robbed amount. It was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/C. Thereafter they came back to PS. Accused were kept in muffled face and were locked up. Next day, he produced all the accused persons before the concerned court in muffled face and also moved TIP application of accused persons. All the accused persons refused to join the TIP proceedings. Application for obtaining copies of TIP proceedings is Ex.PW8/G. Ld defence counsel has contended that according to the arrest memo of accused persons they were arrested by the police on 15/01/02 at about 1.00 pm and they pointed out the place of robbery. Further they got recovered TSR in front of Guru Gobind Singh college . Thereafter they led the police party to Karan Vihar and got recovered one motorcycle and prior to that they also led the police party to Tri Nagar in the house of Avtar Singh and got recovered one brown colour bag containing Rs.15000/- from the room of second floor.
Ld defence counsel further contended that all the accused were kept unmuffled face, so their identity is not proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution and due to this reason, accused persons refused to join the TIP on 16/01/02, when they were produced before the Court to join the TIP proceedings.
On the other hand Ld APP has contended that PW12 SI Surjit Singh has stated in the cross examination he did not produce the accused persons on 15/01/02 as it was already late in the evening. He has also denied that accused persons were SC No. 27/1 17 not instructed to cover their faces. He also denied that without giving instructions in this respect, they roamed the accused persons in the area.
Ld APP has further contended that after the arrest of accused persons, complainant was not called to join the investigation and nothing was recovered in his presence from accused persons so complainant was not having any opportunity to see the accused persons, who were arrested in this case as the same persons who had committed robbery. So PW2 Complainant cannot be disbelieved regarding the identity of accused persons, who have committed robbery.
PW7 Ct Bal Kishan has told in his cross examination that complainant was not with them, when accused Sanjay @ Silencer was arrested and in his presence IO did not get accused Sanjay @Pardeep identified from the complainant.
PW9 Ct Dharmender has stated in h is cross examination that he does not remember whether accused persons were directed to muffle their faced after they were apprehended. He does not remember whether faces of the accused persons were muffled or unmuffled, when they led the police party. He has further stated that he does not remember whether the complainant was asked to join the raiding party before effecting the recovery of currency notes. He has further stated that he does not know whether complainant had identified the currency notes before the sealing of the same.
PW12 SI Surjit Singh has denied the suggestion that complainant Ramphal had identified the accused persons near the PS, when they were being taken to PS after obtaining their PC.
PW2 Complainant Sh. Ramphal Sharma, has stated in the cross examination that he was not called at the police station or jail to identify the accused persons.
From the above, it is clear, that the complainant was not called to PS nor in the Court to identify the accused persons at any time. None of the accused was shown to him either in the court or in the PS. It has been corroborated so by the other witnesses that during the recovery as effected by the police officials, SC No. 27/1 18 complainant was not witness to the documents of recovery.
Accused have refused to join the TIP on the ground that they were shown to the witnesses in the PS. Only PW2 complainant has identified the accused persons. PW4 has not identified the accused persons and PW2 has nowhere stated that he was called in the PS and accused were shown to him. So PW2 has not been cross examined on this aspect nor any suggestion has been given that accused were shown to him in the PS after their arrest. So the refusal to join the TIP by the accused persons on the ground that they were shown to the witnesses in PS is of no consequence. Merely if the witnesses have contradicted each other as to whether they were directed to muffle their faces by the IO after their arrest or whether they led the police party in unmuffled face or whether they produced before Ld MM in muffled face or unmuffled face is of no consequence because neither the complainant nor any other person was called by the police to join the proceedings nor in any other manner complainant or any other witness was available or had any opportunity to identify the accused persons, who had committed offence.
In view of the above discussion prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts the fact that PW2 Ramphal Sharma on 08/01/02 at about 12.30 had withdrawn Rs one lac in cash from UTI bank, Pitam pura branch. This fact has been corroborated by PW5 Mr. Atin Gupta who was working in UTI bank at that time as cashier. He has also proved the statement of M/s Greatway Carrying Corporation and PW5 Atin Gupta was working as cashier in bank at that time. PW5 Atin Gupta has not been cross examined by Ld defence counsels for accused persons, so his testimony cannot be disbelieved.
Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that after withdrawing the cash, PW2 Ramphal Sharma boarded a bus from Pitampura to go to Azad pur and when he was about to purchase the ticket, 2-3 boys encircled him from all sides. PW2 was keeping the bag of currency notes in his armpit. From those boys, one of the boy stated that a knife should be taken out. Other boy placed a knife on his stomach and one another boy snatched away his SC No. 27/1 19 bag containing sum of Rs. One lac and in the meanwhile next bus stop came and four boys got down and they boarded the TSR which was following the bus.
Although PW4 Gulab Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution, but he has corroborated PW2 Ramphal Sharma to this fact and has stated that on that day, from the rear gate, 6-7 commuters have boarded the bus and when bus reached near T.V. Tower, Pitampura, bus slow down to negotiate a place near speed breaker, 6-7 commuters got down from the moving bus. A passenger raised a noise that his money has been stolen away. The said passenger got down from the bus. Other commuters had also raised a noise. There was a TSR following the bus. The victim pointed out towards some persons, who had boarded the TSR in order to effect an escape. He did not note down the number of the TSR. In the mean time a motorcyclist came there, the victim boarded the said motorcyclist and chased the TSR. However, the motorcyclist came back stating that TSR could not be located.
PW4 Gulab Singh has also not been cross examined on any relevant point by Ld defence counsels for accused persons, hence he is also trustworthy and inspire confidence to the extent of all these facts.
Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused Sanjay @ Silencer snatched the bag containing Rs. One lac from PW2 and accused Sunil was standing with the accused persons and had stated that knife should be taken out. Accused Sanjay @ Billu, who had put a knife on the stomach of the complainant has already died.
Contradictions as pointed by ld defence counsels in the deposition of PW2 Ramphal Sharma, who has also been confronted with the statement Ex.PW2/A regarding the fact as to whether the knife was put to his stomach or was waived when the accused persons got down from the bus are minor. Moreover the fact that knife was put in the stomach of complainant, PW2 by accused Sanjay @ Billu is of no consequence as accused Sanjay @ Billu has already expired.
From the deposition of PW2, prosecution has also been able to prove SC No. 27/1 20 that there were 8 bundles of Rs.100 denomination notes and 4 bundles of Rs.50 denomination currency notes each bearing the slip of UTI bank in the bag.
Learned defence counsel has contended that offence U/s. 397 of IPC is not proved against the accused persons and in support of the same, has relied upon AIR 2007 Supreme Court 3234 titled as Dilawar Singh V. State of Delhi and Volume III (2009) CCR 713(SC) titled as Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka and has further contended that the identity of the accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubts and the identity of the accused persons for the first time before the court is a very week type of evidence, so, complainant should not be believed.
I have gone through the judgments relied upon by learned defence counsel. The judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. TIP was conducted in this case, but accused persons refused to join the TIP More so, accused persons were not shown to the complainant by the police at any time and it has been specifically stated so by complainant-PW2 Ramphal Sharma and his testimony is reliable and inspire confidence. No motive has been alleged against PW2 Ramphal Sharma for false implication of the accused persons.
PW2 Ramphal Sharma has stated before the court that one of the accused i.e. Sanjay @ Billu (expired) had put a knife on his stomach, but the said accused has already died. PW2 Ramphal Sharma has also been confronted with his statement Ex. PW2/A that the knife was waved by one of the accused when they got down from the bus after committing robbery. So, it is doubtful whether knife was used, while committing the robbery.
It is proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused Sunil alongwith accused Sanjay @ Silencer and the third accused, who had already expired, encircled PW2 Ramphal Sharma from all the sides and accused Sunil created a commotion that the knife should be taken out. Accordingly, accused Sunil and Sanjay @ Silencer in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused wrongful restrainment of PW2 Ramphal Sharma in the bus,while committing the SC No. 27/1 21 robbery and accused Sanjay @ Silencer snatched away the bag containing Rs. One lac from PW2 Ramphal Sharma and both accused Sanjay @ Silencer and Sunil got down from the bus and fled away with other boys.
Hence, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 392/34 of IPC against accused Sunil and Sanjay @ Silencer beyond reasonable doubts for which they are held guilty and convicted.
Findings qua arrest of the accused person and recovery of cash and other articles on their pointing out PW2 Ramphal Sharma has stated that after the incident he went to PS Pitampura and lodged a complaint Ex.PW2/A, which is signed by him at point A. PW12 SI Surjit Singh has stated that on 08/01/02, he was posted at PS Saraswati Vihar. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. He was coming back after attending DD no.11A alongwith PW6 Ct Bijender, when he was present in the area of Pitampura, he received a call on wireless set regarding robbery at ND block bus stop, Pitampura. He alongwith PW6 Ct Bijender reached at the spot, where he came to know that complainant had already gone to Pitampura chowki. He alongwith PW6 Ct Bijender reached at PP Pitampura. There complainant Ramphal met him. He recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. PW12 SI Surjit Singh has further stated that he alongwith PW6 Ct Bijender and Complainant came back at spot and he made endorsement Ex.pW12/A and handed over the same to PW5 Ct Bijender for registration of the case. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW12/B. Meanwhile PW6 Ct Vijender came back to the spot alongwith original ruqqa and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. He tried to trace out the accused persons but they could not be traced.
Thereafter, he alongwith complainant and Ct Bijender reached at UTI Bank, Pitampura, where he made inquiries from cashier Atin Gupta regarding SC No. 27/1 22 withdrawal of cash by complainant. He recorded the statement of cashier. He also verified the account no.2844 of Greatway Carrying Corporation and came to know that transaction was done at about 12.00 pm by complainant Ramphal, who had withdrawn Rs. One lac from the above account of the company being employee of the same through cheque.
PW5 Sh. Atin Gupta has also corroborated these facts by deposing that PW2 Ramphal Sharma had withdrawn Rs. One lac on that day, having cashier of M/s Greatway Carrying Corporation and he also produced the statement of account of M/s Greatway Carrying Corporation Ex.PW5/A. PW6 Ct Bijender has deposed the same facts as of PW12 SI Surjit Singh and has stated that statement of complainant was recorded on the spot and PW12 made endorsement and handed over the same to him. Thereafter he went to PS for registration of FIR and after getting the case registered, he came back to spot and handed over the original rukka and FIR to PW12. They tried to search the accused persons with the complainant, but accused were not traceable.
So, PW6 Ct Bijender has also corroborated these facts as of PW12 SI Surjit Singh and also PW2 Ct Ramphal sharma and nothing came out from the cross examination of PW6 Ct Bijender. He has stated in his cross examination that complainant was brought at the spot about 2.00 pm and case was registered on his complaint.
PW12 SI Surjit Singh has been cross examined to the fact that copy of DD 11A has not been placed on chargesheet. In my opinion, the same was not relevant at that time in any manner. PW6 Ct Bijender and PW12 SI Surjit Singh, both also have corroborated each other regarding the fact that complainant was brought at the spot. PW6 Ct Bijender has stated that complainant was brought at the spot at about 2.00 pm whereas PW12 SI Surjit Singh has stated in his cross examination that complainant was brought at spot at about 1.45 pm. In my opinion difference of 15 minutes is not relevant in any manner.
PW6 has stated that statement of complainant was recorded at the spot SC No. 27/1 23 whereas PW12 SI Surjit Singh has stated in the cross examination that it was recorded in the PP. PW2 Ramphal Sharma has stated in his cross examination that his statement was not recorded in the PP, but was recorded in the PS Saraswati Vihar. So the contradiction, whatever it may be, but it is proved that PW2 Ramphal Sharma lodged a complaint about the robbery and on his statement, a case was registered. Thereafter, he was brought back at the spot and at his instance, site plan was prepared by PW12 SI Surjit Singh.
PW12 SI Surjit Singh has further stated that on 15/01/02, he was present in PS. Secret informer came and told him that in Tikona Park, the same persons, who had committed this robbery, were present. He disclosed this information to senior police officials and formed a raiding party including P W10 Ct Harjeet, PW7 Ct Bal Kishan, Ct Bani Singh and PW9 Ct Dharmender. He made departure entry and reached at Tikona park in a private vehicle with the police party and secret informer. There he made nakabandi. Secret informer pointed out those persons and left the spot. On seeing the police party, those five persons, who were present in Tikona park, tried to escape from there. All the five persons were apprehended by the police party. PW10 Ct Harjeet apprehended accused Daljeet. PW12 himself apprehended accused Sanjay @ Silencer, Ct Bani Singh apprehended accused Gogi, PW7 CT Bal Kishan apprehended accused Mukesh. PW12 has further stated that personal search of all the accused persons were conducted. One silver colour mobile phone make Panasonic and one half piece of blade make Topaz were recovered. Except Mukesh, one half piece of blade make Topaz were recovered from remaining accused persons. Prior to that, all the accused were arrested vide memos Ex.PW7/H, Ex.PW7/J, Ex.PW7/K, Ex.PW7/L and Ex.PW7/N. Personal search memo of accused was also prepared vide Ex.PW7/I. The half pieces of blade of Topaz recovered from the accused persons except accused Mukesh and one silver colour mobile phone were sealed with the seal of SS and were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/D to Ex.PW7/G. Disclosure statement of all the accused were recorded vide memo Ex.PW7/N to Ex.PW7/R. SC No. 27/1 24 PW12 SI Surjit Singh has further stated that all the accused persons pointed out the spot, where they had committed robbery. Pointing out memos were prepared vide Ex.PW7/S to Ex.PW7/W. PW7 Ct Bal Kishan, PW9 Ct Dharmender, PW10 HC Harjeet Singh have deposed the same facts as of PW12 SI Surjit Singh in this respect.
PW10 HC Harjeet has also stated that accused Sanjay @ Silencer and accused Sanjay @ Billu also made further disclosure statement, which were recorded vide Ex.PW10/A and Ex. PW10/B. PW12 SI Surjit Singh has further stated that all the accused persons led the police party to Tri Nagar in the house of one Avtar Singh and pointed out the room at second floor, which was taken on rent by accused Sanjay@ Silencer. Accused Sanjay @ Silencer along with other accused got recovered a bag of brown colour in which there were two bundles of currency notes of Rs. 100/- and Rs.50/- in denomination having slips of UTI bank. After putting those two bundles of currency notes in the bag, he sealed the bag with the seal of SS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW7/B. Public persons had also gathered there and Avtar Singh also came there. He requested some of them to join the proceedings, but none agreed. One lady was also found in the said room, who claimed herself to be wife of accused Sanjay @ Silencer.
PW7 Ct Bal Kishan has stated that accused Sanjay @ Silencer and accused Daljeet and one another accused, whose name he does not remember, got recovered two currency packets amounting to Rs.15000/-.
PW9 Ct Dharmender has stated that accused persons led the police party to Tri Nagar at the house of Avtar Singh and got recovered Rs.15,000/-, which were in two bundles in the denomination of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-. The currency notes were sealed and were seized vide memo Ex.P'W7/B. PW10 HC Harjeet has stated that accused Sanjay @ silencer also got recovered Rs.15,000/-. These were sealed with the seal of SS and were seized SC No. 27/1 25 vide memo Ex.PW7/B. PW7 Ct Bal Kishan has identified the currency notes of Rs.100/- and Rs.50 denomination bearing the seal of UTI bank, Pitampura dated 05/01/02 and a canvass bag. He has identified bag as Ex.P-6 and currency notes of Rs.5000/- as Ex.P-7 and currency notes of Rs.10,000/- as Ex.P-8.
PW9 Ct Dharmender has also identified the bag and currency notes as Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8. Similarly PW10 HC Harjeet and PW12 SI Surjit Singh have also identified the bag, currency notes as Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7 and Ex,.P-8.
PW7 CT Bani Singh has been cross examined only to the aspect regarding serial number of currency notes to which he has stated that he could not tell the same as these were in the knowledge of the IO where these were got recovered.
PW9 Ct Dharmender has been cross examined about the look and appearance of the house of Avtar Singh.
Ld defence counsel has contended that witnesses have contradicted each other regarding the fact as to whether Avtar Singh was present there or not.
PW9 has stated that Avtar Singh was not present there. PW10 HC Harjeet Singh has stated that accused Sanjay @ Silencer and accused Sanjay @ Billu got recovered Rs.15000/- from a room in Tri Nagar, which were found kept in a bag. He has stated that he does not remember whether the statement of Avtar Singh was recorded by the IO or not. At the time of recovery of the currency notes of Rs.15,000/-, some public persons were asked to join the proceedings but they refused to join the proceedings.
PW10 HC Harjeet has further stated that a bag was lying on the floor alongwith the bedsheet and mattress. They stayed there for about one and half hour and came back to PS about 8/9.00 pm. PW10 HC Harjeet Singh, in the cross examination conducted by Ld defence counsel for accused Sanjay @ Silencer, has stated that Avtar Singh was SC No. 27/1 26 present at the time of recovery and in his presence, statement of Avtar Singh was not recorded by the IO.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that no documentary proof has been produced that accused Sanjay @ Silencer was possessing a room in the house of Avtar Singh. Ld defence counsel has further contended that PW12 SI Surjeet Singh has in his cross examination has stated that he did not record the statement of Avtar Singh. He did not obtain any rent slip either from accused Sanjay @ Silencer or any documents in respect of occupancy from Avtar Singh. PW12 has denied the suggestion that no room on second floor was taken on rent by the accused Sanjay @ Silencer and he was not using the same as tenant.
Ld defence counsel have contended that except the recovery of currency notes and bag, PW 12 has not prepare any inventory of the goods which were lying in the room. It is further contended that there is no public witness to the recovery proceedings. Even Avtar Singh did not join the proceeding as deposed by the witnesses. So the witnesses cannot be believed that Rs.15,000/- and bag were recovered from a room in the house of Avtar Singh or that the same was occupied by the accused Sanjay @ Silencer.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that it is also not certain whether currency notes were recovered at the instance of accused Sanjay @ Silencer or at the instance of accused Sanjay @ Billu, Sunil, Daljeet or at the instance of any other accused person.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that prosecution has not been able to connect the accused Sanjay @ Silencer with the room in any manner. It is further contended that the currency notes were not shown to the complainant PW2 Ramphal Sharma during his examination. So it cannot be said that these currency notes, which were recovered, were part of the robbed amount.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that the currency notes were not taken on superdari by the complainant or by his company, which shows that these were not belonging to complainant.
SC No. 27/1 27Ld defence counsel has further contended that in fact the currency notes were of accused Sanjay @ Silencer, which were planted upon the accused as case property. He has further contended that this suggestion was given to PW12 SI Surjit Singh in his cross examination. PW12 has denied the suggestion that accused Sanjay @ Silencer was lifted from his house and his own money was planted upon him as case property.
On the other hand, Ld APP has contended that such suggestion were not given to other witnesses during their cross examination i.e. PW7. PW9 and PW10.
Ld APP has further contended that if money has been claimed by accused Sanjay @ Silencer, then he has not placed any proof as to from where, he had withdrawn Rs.15000/-, which were recovered from room on his pointing out bearing the slip of UTI bank. So the plea of the accused Sanjay @ Silencer that his own money has been planted by the police against him is not tenable in any manner.
PW8 Sh. Rakesh Sayal, the then Ld. MM has stated that on 25/02/02, SI Surjit Singh, IO has also moved an application for conducting of the TIP of case property, which was marked by the concerned Court of Sh. A.K. Kuhar, Ld MM and was fixed for consideration on 27/02/02. On 27/02/02, on the request of IO, it was fixed for 2.03.02, 04,03,02, 05/03/02, 13/03/02 and lastly it was fixed for 18/03/02. PW8 has further stated that on 18/03/02, nobody appeared and application was ordered to be put up on 21/03/02, thereafter on 23/02/02 on the request of IO, it was fixed for 26/03/02. O n 26/03/02, an application f or cancellation of TIP was moved by IO SI Surjit Singh. After hearing the IO, the application for TIP case property was dismissed. Application moved by SI Surjit Singh is Ex. PW8/H and order thereon is Ex.PW8/I. Ld defence counsels for accused persons have contended that in view of the above deposition of witnesses, neither complainant has identified the currency notes allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused persons from a room at the second floor of the house of Avtar Singh nor the TIP of cash and bag has been got conducted by the IO. So prosecution has not been able to prove the ownership of the SC No. 27/1 28 currency notes as the same, which were robbed from PW2 complainant Ramphal Sharma as the part of the robbed money recovered from the room in the house of Avtar Singh on the pointing out of accused persons.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has not been able to prove the fact beyond reasonable doubts the identity of the recovered currency notes of Rs. 15,000/- having a slip of UTI Bank by showing during examination of complainant- PW2 Ramphal Sharma or during examination of PW5 Atin Gupta, the then Cashier, who had delivered the cash to PW2 Ramphal Sharma in the bank on that day.
There is no public witness to the recovery of currency notes on the pointing of the accused persons from a room of house of Avtar Singh at second floor. It is also doubtful whether Avtar Singh was present at the spot or not and if he was present, then neither his statement was recorded by the Investigating officer in this case nor he is a witness to the seizure memo of currency notes.
In view of the contradictions, police witnesses do not inspire any confidence and are not trustworthy regarding the recovery of the currency notes. Prosecution has also not been able to connect accused Sanjay @ Silencer to the extent that he had taken the said room on rent and was using the same as tenant. Accused has claimed that the currency notes belongs to him and the same have been planted upon him as case property by the police, but accused has also not been able to prove the ownership of the currency notes of Rs. 15,000/- having slip of UTI Bank and it is also doubtful whether currency notes were recovered on the pointing of the accused persons, particularly on the pointing of accused Sanjay @ Silencer from the room of second floor of the house of one Avtar Singh.
PW12 SI Surjit Singh has further stated that after the arrest of accused persons on 15/01/02, they led the police party to Guru Gobind Singh college, Pitam Pura and pointed out one TSR no. DL-1RF-9196, which was found parked in front of the gate on road. All the accused persons disclosed that it was the same TSR, which was used by them in committing robbery. It was seized vide memo Ex. PW7/A. SC No. 27/1 29 Regarding the ownership of the TSR, prosecution has examined PW11 Suresh. He has stated that he is the owner of TSR no. DL-IRF-9196. The said vehicle was handed over to the accused Mukesh on hire in the month of January, 2002 for two days. He has also identified accused Mukesh in the Court. He has further stated that he did not remember when the TSR was given on hire, but it was given on rent @ Rs.150/- per day. On 15/01/02, he came to know that some case has been registered in which the TSR is involved. TSR was seized by the police. He got released the vehicle on superdari. He has further stated that he had replied to the notice u/s 133 Motor Vehicle Act, which is Ex.PW11/A. Ld defence counsels have contended that from deposition of PW11 Suresh, it is clear that TSR was given on hire only for two days. Robbery was committed on 08/01/02 as per the case of the prosecution whereas the recovery of TSR has been effected, as stated by police witnesses, on the pointing out of accused on 15.01.02 i.e. at least after about one week. Ld defence counsels have further contended that it is highly improbable that TSR was standing abandoned in front of Guru Gobind Singh College for about one week. They have further contended that it is also highly improbable that PW11 Suresh, who had given TSR to accused Mukesh on rent did not make any inquiries from accused Mukesh as to why his TSR was not returned by him. He did not taken any action against accused Mukesh in any manner for not returning the TSR, which was given to accused Mukesh on rent.
On the other hand, Ld APP for State has contended that PW11 Suresh has denied the suggestion that he had not handed over the TSR to accused Mukesh. He has also denied the suggestion that he had not given the vehicle on rent to Mukesh @ Rs. 150/- per day.
Ld APP has further contended that merely reply i.e. PW11/A, was got written by him from the police does not mean that it was not given by PW11. PW11 has explained this fact and has stated that it is not in his own handwriting as he is illiterate and has further denied the suggestion that he had not informed the IO regarding the hiring of the TSR. So, PW11 cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
SC No. 27/1 30In view of above discussion, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the TSR was recovered on 15/01/2002 on the pointing of accused persons from in front of Guru Gobind Singh College, which was used, while committing robbery by the accused persons on 08/01/2002, because it is highly improbable that TSR was lying there for the last one week and no one noticed that it was lying abandoned there. Guru Gobind Singh College is not a deserted place. Owner of the TSR i.e PW11 Suresh has been examined, who had given the TSR to one of the accused Mukesh on rent for two days, but when the TSR was not return, then he did not take any action against accused Mukesh nor made any inquiries from accused Mukesh as to where TSR was. Number of the TSR was neither noted down by PW2 Ramphal Sharma nor by PW4 Gulab Singh, who was conductor of the bus at that time. Even TSR has not been produced during the examination of both the witnesses for identification to prove that it was the same TSR, which was seen by them following the bus at the time of incident, and in which, after committing robbery, all the boys fled away from the spot after boarding the same. Accordingly, recovery of the TSR is also doubtful and prosecution has not been able to connect the TSR with the incident in any manner.
After the recovery of currency notes of Rs.15000/- and TSR, accused persons, led the police party to Karan Vihar and got recovered one motorcycle bearing no.1655, found parked in the side wall of house no.105, Karan Vihar, which was purchased by accused Sanjay @ Silencer from the robbed amount and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/C. PW7 Ct Bal Kishan has also identified the seizure memo of motorcycle as Ex.PW7/C. SC No. 27/1 31 Ld defence counsel has contended that PW7 Ct Bal Kishan has contradicted with PW12 SI Surjit Singh and has stated in the cross examination that motorcycle was recovered from the house of accused Sanjay @ Silencer, whereas it was recovered from Karan Vihar. He has further contended that motorcycle has not been produced during the examination of PW7.
PW9 CT Dharmender has stated that accused persons led the police party to Karan Vihar, Sultanpuri and got recovered one motorcycle bearing registration number 1655 from a house. It was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/C. Thereafter, they came back to PS Saraswati Vihar. During the examination of this witness motorcycle has been exhibited as Ex.P10, as the identity of the vehicle was not disputed by Ld defence counsels of accused persons.
Ld defence counsel has contended that PW9 has stated in the cross examination that motorcycle was found standing with the wall of house of Karan Vihar. Ld counsel has further contended that it has not been verified as to who was the owner of the house and no explanation has been called from him as to whether he was the owner of the motorcycle. Ld defence counsel has further contended that the place from where the motorcycle was seized was a public placed, hence it cannot be said that the motorcycle was in possession of the accused in any manner. He has further contended that witnesses have not been able to prove that motorcycle was purchased by accused Sanjay @ Silencer from the robbed amount. Ld defence counsel has further contended even the police witnesses have not been able to depose the house number where the motorcycle was standing with the wall of the house.
PW10 HC Harjeet Singh has stated that accused Sanjay @ Silencer got recovered a motorcycle, which he has purchased from the looted amount. It was seized vide memo Ex. PW7/C. During the examination of PW10, PW12 appeared and submitted that motorcycle was surrendered with PS Saraswati Vihar by superdar Ritu Duggal and thereafter Ld Predecessor of Court directed not to produce motorcycle again and again and to take photographs of the same and accordingly he SC No. 27/1 32 took four photographs of the motorcycle lying in the malkhana of PS Saraswati Vihar, showing the number plate of the same as DL-8SE-1655. It has not been objected by Ld defence counsel for accused persons. So motorcycle has been exhibited as Ex.P10.
Ld defence counsel has contended that PW10 HC Harjeet Singh has stated that motorcycle no. DL-8SE-1655 was not recovered from the possession of accused Sanjay @ Silencer, but it was got recovered from the spot. He has further contended that PW10 has not explained as to from which spot, it was recovered, either it was the place from where the accused persons were apprehended or the place from where the accused persons allegedly got recovered Rs.15,000/- or the place from where the accused persons allegedly got recovered the TSR. So the witness cannot be believed in any manner.
PW12 SI Surjit Singh has stated in the cross examination that he did not seized any sale letter of the said motorcycle in this case. Motorcycle was of bullet Enfield. Motorcycle was purchased from one Kukku. He tried to search Kukku, but could not find him. He did not find any documents regarding the ownership of the motorcycle from the accused. He did not record the statement of Ritu Duggal, who was superdar of the motorcycle. He came to know that Ritu Duggal was owner of the motorcycle.
Ld defence counsel has contended that PW12 SI Surjeet Singh has admitted the fact that according to the particulars of motorcycle, the same is registered in the name of Ritu Duggal, copy of which is Ex.PW12/DA. Ld defence counsel has further contended that according to Ex.PW12/DA , the date of registration of motorcycle is 07/05/96 and name of the owner has been shown as Ritu Duggal and transfer date has been shown as 05/07/01, whereas the incident of the robbery took place on 08/01/02, so it is highly improbable and impossible that motorcycle could have been purchased by accused Sanjay @ Silencer in the name of Ritu Duggal on 05/07/01, out of robbed money, which took place on 08/01/02.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that in view of the deposition SC No. 27/1 33 of witnesses, it has not been proved that the motorcycle was purchased by accused Sanjay @ Silencer from the robbed amount after 08/01/02.
On the other hand Ld APP for State has contended that according to the arrest memo of accused Sanjay @ Silencer in column no.9, one Rittu Duggal resident of B-4/80 Mangolpuri was informed about the arrest of accused Sanjay @ Silencer. She has been shown as wife of accused Sanjay @ Silencer and it has not been disputed by accused Sanjay @ Silencer that Rittu Duggal was not his wife.
Ld APP has further contended that PW12 SI Surjit Singh has stated in the cross examination that during investigation, he came to know that motorcycle, which was seized in this case was in the name of one lady, who was found in the room of second floor and she claimed herself to be the wife of accused Sanjay @ Silencer. So witnesses have been able to connect accused Sanjay @ Silencer with the motorcycle and the house from where the part of robbed amount was recovered on the pointing out of accused persons.
Ld defence counsel has contended that recovery of mobile phone make panasonic and pieces of half blades are of no consequences as these are not related to the incident in any manner and knife which allegedly was used while committing the robbery, was not recovered during the investigation on the pointing out of any of the accused persons or from the possession of any accused persons.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that in all the proceedings there is no public witness either of the seizure memo of the currency notes, TSR or regarding the seizure of motorcycle, which make all these recoveries doubtful.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has also not been able to prove that the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-8SE-1655 was purchased by accused Sanjay @ Silencer from the part of robbed amount. The incident of robbery is dated 08/01/2002, whereas motorcycle was purchased according to the particulars of the same Ex. PW12/DA by one Ritu Duggal and it was transferred in her name on 05/07/2001. so, it is otherwise highly improbable and was not possible for accused Sanjay @ Silencer to purchase the motorcycle in the name of his wife Ritu SC No. 27/1 34 Duggal and got the same registered in her name on 05/07/2001 by paying an amount, which was to be robbed by him on a future date of 08/01/2002. So, prosecution has not been able to connect the motorcycle with the robbery in any manner to the extent that it was purchased by accused Sanjay @ silencer from the part of the robbed amount in the name of Ritu Duggal. Motorcycle was also recovered from an open place accessible to all. Ritu Duggal has not been examined by the prosecution. So, if we believe the police witnesses, then it is not known as to why motorcycle was lying on the side wall of the house at Karan Vihar. According to the case of prosecution, neither accused Sanjay @ Silencer nor his wife Ritu Duggal were residing at Karan Vihar at that time.
In view of above, prosecution witnesses have not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts the recovery of the currency notes of Rs. 15,000/- on the pointing of accused persons as part of the robbed amount. The witnesses have also not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that recovered TSR was used while committing robbery. It has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubts by the witnesses that the motorcycle was purchased by accused Sanjay @ Silencer in the name of his wife by paying the part of the robbed amount.
In view of above discussion, offence U/s. 412 of IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubts against accused Sanjay @ Silencer and Daljeet for which they are acquitted.
As already held above, accused Sanjay @ Silencer and accused Sunil are convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 392/34 of IPC, accused Daljeet and Mukesh are acquitted for the offence U/s. 392/34 of IPC.
All the accused are acquitted for the offences U/s. 395/397/34 of IPC.
Announced in Open Court on dated 25th of May, 2010 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court SC No. 27/1 35 Rohini : Delhi SC No. 27/1 36 SC No. 27/1 37 ä å>æ å!ç~è é]ê!ç]ëÇå ì1é~èiê>æ}í î ï.ðñ ò ðÝó9å ô è õ å æé ê=é ö9åÖìfê æ õ7èiì1é×éQê:÷7ìfì!ø!ù å úzë/÷>æIûp÷ ü5ý ë8èkþiå>æ ìfå ñZ÷ ùö å5ö!÷ ù÷"þkñQå ÷7ú ü ø æ ú å>ñ ô7ê æ9å«ì!ø!ù é ê7ú!ü çQê ñ$ÿ !#"$ % '&)(* +,(* -' ÿ. $ 0/1)(*12,(3 -'' 4 5 6#"$ % ÿ 7(382 (* ' ÿ,4 9 ;: :< $ 1 SC No. 27/1 38