Delhi District Court
State vs . Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna & Anr. on 6 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
PRESIDIING OFFICER: SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna & Anr.
FIR No. 98/12
PS : Gulabi Bagh
U/s 392/394/411/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 291848/16
Date of Commission of Offence : 05.10.2012
Date of Institution : 19.12.2012
Name of the complainant : Sh. Amit Kumar Sinha
Name & address of the accused : (1) Hanny Singh @ Bangali @
Munna
S/o Late Sh. Dalip Singh,
R/o B299, Shish Mahal Enclave,
Prem Nagar3rd, Nangloi, Delhi.
(2) Pankaj Sah (already convicted)
S/o Sh. Ram Dayal,
R/o M209, Gali No.14, Shastri
Nagar, Delhi.
(3) Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu
S/o Sh. Rajender Bhardwaj,
R/o Vegabond, Bandar Wala Park
FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 1 /11
alternate address : Village Banchari,
District Palwal, Haryana.
Offence complained of : U/s 392/394/411/34 IPC
Plea of accused person : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali
@ Munna and Sushil Kumar @
Raju @ Sonu acquitted for the
offence U/s 392/394/34 IPC.
Accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali
@ Munna convicted for the offence
U/s 411/34 IPC.
Date of reserve for judgment : 06.03.2020
Date of announcing of judgment : 06.03.2020
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused persons namely Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna, Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu and Pankaj Shah pursuant to charge sheet filed by P.S. Gulabi Bagh U/s 392/394/411/34 IPC subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 98/12.
2. As per the prosecution, on 05.10.2012 at about 10:30 pm at Public Toilet, Kalidas Marg, Delhi, the complainant Sh. Amit Kumar Sinha was beaten and FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 2 /11 robbed by two assailants. The said robbers took away his Nokia Mobile1600, purse containing Voter I.D. Card and Voter I.D. Card of his wife, CM Office I.D. Card, Social Welfare Department I.D. Card, SBI ATM Card and Rs. 400/. Later on, at the pointing out of one secret informer accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna was arrested on 19.10.2012. One Voter I.D. Card of complainant Sh. Amit Kumar Sinha and Voter I.D. Card of complainant's wife, CM Office I.D. Card, Social Welfare Department I.D. Card were recovered from the possession of accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna. Accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna refused to take part in TIP. Later on, accused Pankaj Shah was also arrested by Crime Branch on 23.10.2012 from whom possession mobile phone of the complainant was recovered. Later on, on 21.03.2013 accused Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu was arrested in the matter. During his police custody, he was identified by complainant in the police station as one of the assailant. Accordingly, after completing the formalities, investigation was carried out and chargesheet as well as supplementary chargesheet were filed against the accused persons in the Court.
3. Complete set of chargesheet, supplementary chargesheet and other documents were supplied to the accused persons. After hearing arguments, charge for offences punishable under section 392/394/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons namely Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna and Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu. Charge for offences punishable under section FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 3 /11 411/34 IPC were also framed against the accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna. Separate charge for offences punishable under section 411/34 IPC were also framed against the accused Pankaj Shah to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is to be noted that accused Pankaj Shah has already been convicted in the present matter vide order dated 30.04.2015.
4. In support of his case, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
5. PW1 Sh. Amit Kumar Sinha deposed that on 05.10.2012 after finishing his duty when he was going to his house via Kalidas Marg on foot and reached near public toilet situated at Kalidas Marg, Gulabi Marg, he went in the urinal of said toilet. In the meantime, two persons had reached there, one out of which had hold him from his back side by neck and second person had started beating this witness. When he tried to save himself, both had started beating him. They had taken out his mobile phone make Nokia 1600, his purse containing his I Card and his wife, his service ICard, Social Welfare Department Card, ATB Card of SBI Bank and Rs. 400/. Thereafter, they had ran away from there. It is stated that his spectacles were also broken in the said incident. He had made call on 100 number from his house. After sometime, police official came to his house and took him to the spot. It is stated that he had shown the place of offence, his broken spectacles were recovered from there. Police officer had recorded his statement, Ex. PW1/A. Police officer prepared site plan at his FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 4 /11 instance, Ex. PW1/B. IO had prepared pulanda of abovesaid broken spectacles and taken the same into possession through seizure memo, Ex. PW1/C. Police officer had taken him to Hindu Rao Hospital where he was medically examined. Shirt of this witness which was worn by him at the time of incident was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D. He exhibited case properties i.e. one wallet containing Election I.D. Card in the name of this witness; Election I.D. Card in the name of Priya Sinha (wife of this witness); Delhi Secretariat, Govt. of NCT of Delhi I.D. Card in the name of this witness; Samaj Kalyan Vibhag I.D. Card in the name of this witness and one mobile phone make Nokia 1600 (brought by him as released to him) as Ex. P1. Photographs of the said case properties are Ex. P2 (Colly). He also exhibited case properties i.e. one torned blood sustained shirt and one broken spectacles as Ex. P3 (Colly) (correctly identified). It is stated by him that on 05.10.2012 when two persons committed robbery with him there was dark at the spot so he could not see the face of accused persons. It is stated that during abovesaid incident his spectacles also got broken due to which it was difficult for him to see the face of accused persons. It is stated by him that he could not identify the accused persons due to abovementioned reasons. In his crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, he could not tell whether on 21.03.2013 he went to the police station, or not. It is stated that he did not identify accused persons before police officer. He denied that he identified accused persons on 21.03.2013. On pointing out towards accused persons, it is stated by this witness that he has FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 5 /11 never seen accused persons. He denied that he saw accused persons in police station. On confronting with his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. from PointA1 to A2 where it is so recorded which is Ex. PW1/XA, it is stated by this witness that he never made such statement.
6. PW2 ASI Inderjeet deposed that on 06.10.2012 he was posted as Duty Officer from 12:00 pm to 8:00 pm. He had received a rukka from Ct. Naveen at about 1:40 pm on the basis of which he registered FIR and handed over Tehrir and copy of FIR, Ex. PW2/A to Ct. Naveen for further course of action. He made endorsement on rukka from PointA1 to A2 which is Ex. PW2/B. He has also issued certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW2/C. It is stated that on 24.10.2012 he received information from HC Shiv Veer, Crime Branch regarding apprehension of accused Pankaj. Same was recorded by him vide DD No. 9A, attested copy of the same is Ex. PW2/D.
7. PW3 Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma deposed that on 23.10.2012 HC Shiv Veer came to his house and enquired about accused Pankaj Shah (already convicted) and he informed to HC Shiv Veer that he resides at 14209. He alongwith HC Shiv Veer went to 14209, Shastri Nagar where accused was standing. HC Shiv Veer apprehended accused and enquired him about the phone make Nokia. Accused produced one mobile phone and handed over to HC Shiv Veer. HC Shiv Veer seized the said phone vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 6 /11 correctly identified Nokia mobile phone from photograph which is Ex. P4.
8. Separate statements of accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna U/s 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as U/s 294 Cr.P.C. recorded wherein he admitted contents of seizure memo which is Ex. A1 bearing his signatures at PointA; contents of pointing out memos which are Ex. A2 and Ex. A3, respectively, both bearing his signatures at PointA and his disclosure statements which are Ex. A4 and Ex. A5. He also admitted complaint which is already Ex. PW1/A in his statement U/s 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C.
9. It is to be noted that there was only one eye witness of the alleged robbery in the present matter i.e. complainant/ victim Sh. Amit Kumar Sinha who was failed to identify any of the accused persons in the Court as assailants who committed robbery with him. The only charge against accused Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu is of robbery. However, the charge against accused Hunny Singh was qua robbery as well as recovery of stolen properties. The charge of robbery cannot sustain in the present matter. Accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna has admitted contents of recovery/ seizure memo as well as the factum of recovery of stolen articles from him. Thus, there is no need to examine any other witness in the present matter qua factum of recovery from him. Accordingly, P.E. was closed. Statement of accused Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu dispensed with as there was nothing incriminating against him on record. Separate FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 7 /11 statement of accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna recorded U/s 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he opted not to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
10. Ld. APP for State has argued that on a combined reading of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, offence of robbery punishable U/s 392/394/34 against accused persons namely Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna and Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu as well as recovery of stolen property from accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna are proved beyond doubt.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons namely Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna and Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu has argued that offence of robbery has not been proved on record as Sh. Amit Kumar Sinha who is the only eye witness of the matter has failed to identify any of the accused persons as assailants and denied entire prosecution story in his examination. Hence, accused persons namely Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna and Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu Rakesh are entitled to be acquitted for the offence of robbery. It is further stated that accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna has pleaded guilty for offence qua recovery of stolen properties, thus a lenient view may be taken against him for the said offence.
FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 8 /11FINDINGS:
12. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons namely Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna and Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.
13. Section 392 IPC provides punishment for committing robbery i.e. in order to commit theft or in carrying away the property obtained by theft if the offender for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restrain or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restrain.
14. Section 394 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery i.e. if the offender in committing or in attempting to commit robbery voluntarily causes hurt.
15. Section 411 IPC provides punishment for dishonestly receiving and retaining any stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 9 /1116. In the present matter, PW1 Sh. Amit Kumar Sinha who is the only eye witness of the present matter in his examination has failed to identify any of the accused persons as assailants. In his crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, it has been specifically stated by him that he did not identify accused persons before police officer. He specifically denied that he identified accused persons on 21.03.2013 in the police station. On pointing out towards accused persons, it is stated by him that he has never seen accused persons. He denied that he saw accused persons in police station. On confronting with his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. from PointA1 to A2 where it is so recorded which is Ex. PW1/XA, it is stated by him witness that he never made such statement. In view of the same, it can be safely held that prosecution has failed to prove identity of the accused persons namely Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna and Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu as perpetrators of the offence of robbery in question U/s 392/394/34 beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the case property was stolen on 05.10.2012. I.D. Card and other identity proofs of complainant were recovered from accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna on 19.10.2012, due to this gap of 14 days it cannot be held that accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna was found in possession of stolen property soon after the theft. Thus, he cannot be presumed to be the thief as per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act.
17. However, factum of recovery of stolen property belonging to the complainant has been duly proved on record in view of admission of accused FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 10 /11 Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna in his statements recorded U/s 294 Cr.P.C. wherein he admitted contents of seizure memo which is Ex. A1 bearing his signatures at PointA; contents of pointing out memos which are Ex. A2 and Ex. A3, respectively, both bearing his signatures at PointA and his disclosure statements which are Ex. A4 and Ex. A5 as well as U/s 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, offences punishable U/s 411/34 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna.
18. In view of the abovestated discussions, accused persons namely Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna and Sushil Kumar @ Raju @ Sonu are acquitted for commission of offences punishable U/s 392/394/34 IPC. However, accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna is convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s 411/34 IPC.
19. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the accused Hanny Singh @ Bangali Digitally signed by GAJENDER @ Munna free of cost.
GAJENDER SINGH
SINGH NAGAR
Date: 2020.03.11
NAGAR 16:21:17 +0000
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
COURT ON 06.03.2020 ACMM02 (CENTRAL)DELHI
Containing 11 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) ACMM02 (CENTRAL)DELHI FIR No. 98/2012 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs. Hanny Singh @ Bangali @ Munna etc. Page No. 11 /11