Delhi District Court
State vs Mandeep Singh Etc.(3) on 30 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLWT010001012015 CNR No. DLWT01 - 000101/2015
State Vs. Mandeep Singh & Others
Case No. 55931/2016
FIR No. 409/2015
PS Vikas Puri
U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Unique Identification No. DLWT01-000101/2015
2. The date of commission of offence 21.04.2015
3. Name of the complainant Shri Manjeet Singh
4. Name, parentage and address of the 1. Mandeep Singh accused persons S/o Sh. Daljeet Singh R/o C-8, Ground floor Mukhram Garden, Near Raj Cinema, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi S/o Late Sh. Balvinder Singh R/o WZ-92, Ground floor, Gali no.4, Ravi Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 343. Maninder Jeet Singh @ Manni S/o Sh. Baldev Singh R/o WZ-209, Gali no.5, Guru Nanak Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Offence under which charge has Against accused Mandeep been framed (As per Amended Singh, Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi Charge dated 28.09.2024) and Maninder Jeet Singh @ Manni under Section 392/394/34 IPC.
Against accused Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi under Section 397 IPC.
Against accused Mandeep Singh under section 411 IPC
6. The plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Date of Institution of the case 24.07.2015
8. Date of Committal 23.10.2015
9. Date of framing of charge and 24.11.2015 and 28.09.2024 Amended Charge
10. Judgment reserved on 28.09.2024
11. Judgment announced on 30.09.2024
12. Final Result All the accused persons are Acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 34Brief facts of the case:
1. Accused persons namely Mandeep Singh, Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi and Maninder Jeet Singh @ Manni have been facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC; accused Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi is also facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and accused Mandeep Singh is also facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC on the allegations that on 21.04.2015 at about 5:00 p.m. at Outer Ring Road, Vikas Puri, Near Pillar No. P-41 Flyover, Delhi, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had committed robbery of Rs.1,00,000/- belonging to complainant Manjeet Singh on stabbing by knife. Thereafter, on 26.04.2015, accused Mandeep Singh was arrested on a secret information and he was found in possession of robbed purse of the complainant containing Rs.1,000/- and some personal documents of the complainant. On 20.05.2015, accused Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi was also arrested on secret information and on 13.07.2015, DD No. 40B received at PS Vikas Puri stating that accused Maninder Jeet Singh @ Manni has been arrested under Section 41.D Cr. PC and he had confessed his involved in the present case and thereafter, he was also formally arrested in the present case.
Statement of the Complainant and Investigation conducted:
2. FIR in the instant case has been registered on the complaint of complainant Manjeet Singh alleging that on 21.04.2015 at about 1:00 p.m., he went to Property Dealer G. S. Estate at Chander Vihar in his SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 34 car and after getting free from there, he purchased liquor from liquor shop, Vikas Puri and consumed some liquor in his car. Thereafter, at about 4:30 p.m., he went to the shop of Atif Ali at Shocker Mechanic at Tilak Vihar, Outer Ring Road to get his car repaired. Since, it was taking some time for repair, he went for a short walk on Outer Ring Road towards Meera Bagh. At about 5:00 p.m., when he was standing at Pillar No. P-41, two Sardar and one Mona came on a motorcycle and one scooty and asked him for money which he refused. In the meantime, one Sardar caught hold of his neck from behind and one person (Mona) caught hold of him with collar of his shirt and stabbed him on his thigh with a knife. The said Sardar took out Rs.50,000/-
from the pocket of his pants and the person (Mona) made him sit on the motorcycle and the said Sardar sat behind him. The person (Mona) took the complainant to Sehgal Clinic at Santgarh, Shahpura and got his medical treatment. It has been further alleged by the complainant that during his treatment, the Sardar having long beard brought new pants for him. He told to the doctor that he is having Rs.50,000/- in his pants and the accused persons will take his money but doctor refused to keep his money with him. The accused persons kept the pants of the complainant with them and dropped him to the place where his car was getting repaired, on scooty bearing No. DL-9SP-1454.
3. Thereafter, he went to the police station and on the basis of the statement of the complainant, rukka was prepared by the Investigating Officer for the offence under section 394/34 IPC and FIR was got registered in the present case under the aforesaid offences.
SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 344. Thereafter, IO along with a constable and complainant went to the spot and site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant. Complainant was medically examined at DDU Hospital. IO along with the constable reached at Sehgal Clinic and recorded the statement of treating doctor and also obtained the CCTV footage. During investigation, the complainant made a supplementary statement alleging that accused persons also took his one brown colour wallet containing Rs.4,000/- and some of his personal documents. On 26.04.2015, on a secret information, a raid was conducted New Delhi Railway Station where on pointing out of secret informer, accused Mandeep was apprehended and he was found in possession of one brown colour wallet containing Rs.1,000/- cash and some personal documents of the complainant. His disclosure statement was recorded and he refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.
5. On 20.05.2015, on secret information, IO along with Ct. Anil reached at DDA Park, Keshopur, Vikas Puri and on the pointing out of secret informer, accused Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi was arrested. Despite sincere efforts, weapon of offence i.e. knife could not be traced. Accused Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi also refused to join TIP proceedings. During investigation, complainant produced his mobile phone and stated that the audio/video recording has been done in his mobile phone wherein it is shown that he was being taken by the accused persons to the Sehgal Clinic. The said phone was seized by the IO.
6. On 13.07.2015, vide DD No. 40B, an information regarding arrest of accused Maninder Jeet @ Manni was received, who had confessed his SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 34 involvement in the present case. After obtaining permission from the Court for interrogation accused Maninder Jeet @ Manni was formally arrested. Accused Maninder Jeet @ Manni also refused to join TIP proceedings.
7. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.
Charge:
8. Vide order dated 24.11.2015, charge was framed against all the accused persons. However, accused Mandeep Singh, Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi and Maninder Jeet Singh @ Manni were charged for the offence punishable under section 392/394/34 IPC; Accused Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi also charged for the offence under Section 397 IPC and accused Mandeep Singh has been charge for the offence u/s 411 IPC, vide amending the charge on 28.09.2024. All accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
The Trial Prosecution evidence:
9. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses viz. PW-1 Dr. Ramandeep Singh (Treating Doctor), PW-2 Ct. Vijay Pal (Joined investigation with IO), PW-3 Dr. Sana Khanam (proved MLC of complainant/victim), PW-4 Ct. Harish Kumar and PW-5 Ct. Anil Kumar (Joined investigation with IO), PW-6 HC Sugreev (Duty Officer), PW-7 Ms. Swati Singh, Ld. MM-01 (NI Act) (Conducted TIP of accused Mandeep Singh), PW-8 SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 34 Sh. Manjeet Singh (Complainant/victim), PW-9 Ct. Ramesh Singh (Joined investigation with IO), PW-10 Sh. Pankaj Arora, Ld. MM-02, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Courts, Delhi (Conducted TIP of accused Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi and Maninder Jeet Singh @ Manni), PW-11 Ct. Virender Singh and PW-12 HC Bahadur Singh, PW-13 SI Rajendra Dhaka, (Joined investigation with IO), PW-14 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer (Document) (Forensic Expert), PW-15 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Asstt. Director (Physics), FSL Rohini, Delhi (Forensic Expert), PW-16 SI Rajesh (Investigating Officer), PW-17 HC Bablu Lal, PW-18 HC Rajesh, PW-19 ASI Satbir Singh and PW-20 ASI Parmanand (Joined investigation). The relevant portion of their testimony is reproduced below in succeeding paragraphs.
10. PW-1 Dr. Ramandeep Singh is doctor, who examined the victim first in his clinic, deposed that 6-7 months ago he was sitting in his clinic and patient Mandeep Singh came in the evening at about 7:00 O'Clock having injuries on his leg and he was bleeding profusely. On enquiry, patient disclosed that the said injuries had caused when he was coming out of the metro station at Tilak Nagar, as an iron rod had peirced leg. On persistently asking him 2-3 times about the injuries was whether caused by any person, he replied in negative . He further deposed that the patient was accompanied by two more persons, who were stated to be his friends and while they were coming out of the metro station, he got injured. He gave him first aid and applied 5-6 stiches on the wound. Thereafter, he referred the patient to DDU Hospital. This witness further deposed that he wrongly mentioned the name of patient SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 34 as Mandeep Singh instead of Gurpreet Singh and proved the medical examination of patient Gurpreet Singh as Ex.PW1/A (OSR). He further deposed that he had given the prescription of the patient to ACP Mr. Malik and SHO PS Vikas Puri when he had examined the patient and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW1-B. He further deposed that he had provided the copy of recording of the camera (CCTV footage) which was converted into CD to the police.
10.1. During cross examination, the witness stated that the patient Gurpreet Singh @ Manjeet Singh was in drunk condition and his blood pressure was high. He further stated that the injured was telling that the persons with whom he had come are like his brothers. That at the time of treatment the patient told his name as Gurpreet Singh. Later on, police disclosed his real name as Manjeet Singh therefore he has written name of patient as Gurdeep @Manjeet Singh in his statement given to the police proved as Ex. PW-1/B.
11. PW-2 Ct. Vijay Pal is witness to the investigation, who deposed that on 22.04.2015, on receipt of DD NO. 53A, he along with Rajesh Kumar and IO reached at the spot i.e. at Outer Ringh Road, Vikas Puri, Delhi Near Flyover Pillar No. P-41, where neither eye witness nor complainant met them and they returned to police station where complainant met them and IO recorded his statement. After endorsement on the complaint, the same was handed over to Duty Officer for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, the copy of FIR and original rukka was given to the IO. Thereafter, he along with IO left the police station in search of accused persons and reached at Sehgal Hospital/clinic. IO SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 34 collected the CCTV footage from there and they returned to police station.
11.1. During cross examination, the witness stated that CCTV footage was given by the doctor in a pen drive, provided by the IO, which was carried by him before proceeding to the Sehgal Hospital. He further stated that the doctor concerned did not hand over the Digital Video Recording which was installed in the Nursing Home to the IO in his presence. He further stated that the complainant did not accompany them to the hospital.
12. PW-3 Dr. Sana Khanam, Junior Resident, DDU Hospital deposed that the patient was already been treated from Sehgal Clinic and she had medically examined the injured patient vide MLC No. 6234 with alleged history of physical assault brought by Ct. Vijay Pal and proved the MLC of injured as Ex.PW3/A.
13. PW-4 Ct. Harish Kumar is the witness to investigation of this case and deposed that 26.04.2015, SI Rajesh Kumar briefed him and HC Satender regarding secret information about the accused involved in the present case and thereafter, he along with IO, HC Satender and secret informer reached at New Delhi Railway Station in a private vehicle and at about 1:40 p.m., accused Mandeep Singh was found coming on foot and at the instance of secret informer, accused Mandeep Singh was apprehended and on enquiry, he confessed his involvement in the present case. He further deposed that upon personal search of accused, one brown colour purse was recovered form right pocket of his wearing lower and the same was found containing two currency notes of SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 34 Rs.500/- each, one voter I-Card in the name of Manjeet and some visiting cards. The said purse was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of 'RY' and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A and accused Mandeep was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/B and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/C. IO also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/D and at his instance IO prepared the pointing out memo. Witness correctly identified the accused Mandeep before the Court. Witness correctly identified the case property i.e. one brown colour purse containing one election I- Card of Manjeet Singh, one visiting card of Manjeet Manjeet Singh and two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each as Ex.P1 (Collectively).
13.1. During cross examination, PW-4 stated that no site plan of the place of apprehension of accused was prepared and no public person was asked by SI Rajesh Kumar to join the investigation.
14. PW-5 Ct. Anil Kumar is also one of the witnesses to investigation of this case and deposed that on 20.05.2015, SI Rajesh was informed that one person who is involved in the present case will come in the DDA Park, Desho Pur Village, Vikas Puri, Delhi at 6:00 p.m., and he can be apprehended, if raided. Thereafter, he along with SI Rajesh and secret informer reached at DDA Park, Desho Pur Village, Vikas Puri, Delhi and at about 6:30 p.m., secret informer pointed out towards the accused Jasveer Singh standing near the gate of the park and at his instance, they apprehended the accused Jasveer Singh. He further deposed that upon enquiry, he confessed his involvement in the present case and IO SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 34 SI Rajesh arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/B and his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/C was recorded by the IO. He further deposed that accused Jasveeer Singh led them to the place of incident and IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW5/D at his instance.
15. PW-6 HC Sugreev is the duty Officer who proved the copy of the present FIR as Ex.PW-6/A, endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW-6/B and certificate issued under section 65 B of Evidence act as Ex.PW-6/C. He also proved DD No 4A as Ex.PW-6/D regarding registration of the FIR.
16. PW-7 Ms. Swati Singh, the then Ld. MM proved the TIP proceedings of accused Mandeep as Ex.PW-7/A, the certificate of said TIP proceedings as Ex.PW-7/B, application for conducting TIP by the IO as Ex.PW-7/D and copy of the TIP to the IO as Ex.PW-7/C.
17. PW-8 Manjeet Singh/ Complainant has deposed that on 21.04.2015 at about 4:00-5:00 p.m., he went to the mechanic at Vikas Puri, Outer Ring Road for getting repair shocker of his Hyundai car. However, at that time, his mechanic was busy therefore, he went near Pillar No. 41 of the flyover which was under construction opposite to the shop of the mechanic. While he was waiting there, three boys (2 Sikh Persons and one Non-Sikh Person) came at the spot and started demanding money from him but he refused to the same. One of the Sikh boy caught hold of him by hands and the other took out knife from his pants and the third was who also Sikh said "Paise De Raha Hai Ya Nahi De Raha"
but when he again refused, the Non-Sikh boy stabbed him by knife on SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 34 lower portion of his thigh and took out Rs.50,000/- from left pocket of his pants as he was carrying Rs.1,00,000/- at that time. After sustaining injury, he fell on the road and then two of the accused persons i.e. one Sikh boy and the other Non-Sikh boy forcibly made him sit on their motorcycle and took him to nearby two nursing homes but since they were closed, they took him to the third nursing home namely Sehgal Nursing Home. He was medically treated by doctor and the doctor had also torn of his pants for giving him stitches on the wound and his pants also got blood stained. Meanwhile, third accused also reached there and brought one pant for him for changing. Under force of the accused persons, he changed his pants and accused persons also took remaining Rs.50,000/- lying in his torn pants. Though his condition was serious and doctor advised him for admission in the hospital, but he refused for the same. He then requested the accused persons to leave him and on assurance that he will not make any complaint against them. Accordingly, one Sikh accused took him to the spot and left him there. The accused also returned his mobile phone robbed at the time of incident after leaving him at the spot. Thereafter, he called his family members at the spot and he visited the police station concerned for making complaint which is proved as Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter, he was taken to DDU hospital by the police for again conducting his medical examination. After 1-2 days, he visited the spot with the police and site plan was prepared at his instance, which is proved as Ex.PW8/B. The complainant correctly identified the accused Jasveer and Maninder Jeet in the Court but did not identify the third accused stating that he did not SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 34 see his face at the time of incident. He also deposed that he was robbed of his brown colour purse containing documents and Rs.3,000/- - 4,000/- but during his examination, he only identified his Vote I-Card, visiting card and voter's slip as Ex.PW8/A1 and refused to identify remaining articles which are two currency notes of Rs.500/- each, two coins of Rs.2 and Rs.1 and one coin of Vasino Devi Temple. 17.1 He was cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor as he resiled form his previous statement made to the police during which he failed to remember any supplementary statement recorded by the police on 25.04.2015 or to have joined the investigation on 25.04.2015. He denied that he stated in his supplementary statement recorded on 25.04.2015 that one of the Sikh accused caught hold of him by his neck from backside and removed Rs.50,000/- from front pocket of his pants along with his brown colour purse from back pocket containing Rs.4,000/- cash, Voter I-card, visiting card etc. However, he admitted to have provided his mobile phone to the IO on 03.07.2015 containing audio video recording of the incident, which was automatically recorded, vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C. 17.2. However, the mobile phone received from the FSL could not be run before the Court as it was not in working condition but the same has been identified by the witness and proved as Ex.PW8/E. The CD received from FSL Delhi having video clipping was run in the Court and in the said footage, three persons were visible and the witness identified PW1 Dr. Ramandeep and accused Jasveer in the said video. Therefore, the CD is proved as Ex.PW8/D. He further admitted that SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 34 accused Mandeep Singh is the person who held him by his neck from backside and removed Rs.50,000/- from pocket of his pants along with his purse.
17.3 During his cross examination by defence, he admitted that before the incident, he consumed liquor. He also admitted that the spot was thickly populated and there are number of motor mechanic shops at/around the spot. He was also confronted from his statement Ex.PW8/A where the manner of receiving the injury narrated to the doctor has not been mentioned, though the witness stated so. He also deposed that after returning to the spot at around 6:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m., he collected the keys of his car from the mechanic and immediately left from there. He even brought his bank statement of Axis Bank Account of the relevant period which is proved as Ex.PW8/X1.
18. PW-9 Ct. Ramesh Kumar joined the investigation with IO on 13.07.2015 and proved the arrest memo and disclosure statement of accused Maninder Jeet Singh as Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B respectively.
19. PW-10 Sh. Pankaj Arora, the then Ld. MM proved the TIP proceeding of accused Jasveer as Ex.PW10/A, application filed by the IO for the said TIP proceedings as Ex.PW10/C and supply of copy of TIP proceedings to the IO as Ex.PW10/B. He also proved TIP proceedings of accused Maninder Jeet Singh @ Manni as Ex.PW10/D, application filed for the same by the IO as Ex.PW10/F and supply of copy of TIP to the IO as Ex.PW10/E.
20. PW-11 Ct. Virender Singh and PW-12 HC Bahadur Singh joined the SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 34 investigation with IO on 16.07.2015 and proved the pointing out memo by accused Maninder Jeet Singh as Ex.PW11/A, supplementary statement of accused Maninder Jeet Singh as Ex.PW11/B. Both identified the said accused in the Court.
21. PW-13 SI Rajender Dhaka proved the FSL report dated 22.09.2016 and 13.10.2016 received from MHC(M) as Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B respectively. He also proved the application for submitting the same before the Court as Ex.PW13/C.
22. PW-14 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Document), FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 26.07.2016, one sealed parcel containing one Sony made purple black colour mobile phone which is Marked as MP1 along with one memory card of scan disk marked as MC1 was received but on examination, the relevant data could not be retrieved from the said exhibits since the same was password protected. Hence, it was returned unexamined. His detailed report is proved as Ex.PW13/A.
23. PW-15 Sh. V. Laxmi Narsimha, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed on the same lines of PW-14 and also deposed that the relevant audio/video file was not found available after retrieving the data of mobile phone provided by the Computer Forensic Unit. His detailed report is proved as Ex.PW13/A.
24. PW-16 IO/SI Rajesh Investigating Officer deposed that on 21.04.2015, on receipt of DD no. 53A (Ex.PW16/A), he along with Ct. Vijay Pal reached at the spot i.e. Outer Ring Road, Near Flyover Near Pillar no. P-41 Vikas Puri where none met him. Thereafter, they returned to PS SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 34 and in the meantime, ASI Paramjeet Singh from PP Tilak Vihar produced complainant Manjeet Singh having injury on his left thigh. He recorded his statement (Ex.PW8/A) and made his endorsement (Ex.PW16/B) on the same and handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant reached at the spot where he inspected the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW8/B). He further deposed that he took the injured/complainant to DDU Hospital for his medical examination. After his medical examination, he collected the MLC and thereafter, they returned to the spot. In the meantime, Ct. Vijay Pal reached there and handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka for investigation. He further deposed that thereafter, he along-with complainant reached Sehgal clinic where he met the Incharge of the Clinic Dr. Ramandeep Sehgal and recorded his statement and directed him to keep preserve the CCTV footage of the recording. Thereafter, he relieved the complainant from the investigation and he along with Ct. Vijay Pal returned to police station. Thereafter, he searched the accused persons but none were traced out. He further deposed that on 25.04.2015, complainant met him in the police station and he recorded his supplementary statement wherein he stated that the accused who was Sikh who had pressed his neck and taken Rs. 50,000/- from his pocket and also taken his brown purse containing Rs. 4,000/- and containing photocopies of his IDs. He further deposed that on 26.04.2015, he received secret information from the informer in the police station that one of the accused of this case would at come at New Delhi Railway Station for the purpose of going SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 34 out from Delhi. On this information, he alongwith secret informer, HC Satender, and Ct. Harish in private vehicle reached at New Delhi Railway Station where accused Mandeep was apprehended at the instance of the secret informer. On interrogation, his name revealed as above and he confessed his involvement and guilt in the present case. On taking formal search, one brown purse containing Rs. 1,000/- and one photocopy of Voter ID of complainant was recovered along-with one visiting card. He seized the same vide memo, proved as Ex.PW4/A and kept the same in cloth parcel with the seal of 'RY'. He arrested the accused Mandeep vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/C and his disclosure statements which is Ex.PW4/D. Thereafter, accused Mandeep led them at place of occurrence and pointing out the same vide pointing out memo Ex.PW4/E. Thereafter, he produced the accused before the Court and took his PC remand and during the PC remand, they searched the co- accused persons but none could be arrested. He further stated that on 20.05.2015, he received secret information from the informer in the police station that accused Jasbir who is involved in this case would come at DDA Park, Keshav Puram in the evening time. On this information, he along-with secret informer, Ct. Anil in private vehicle reached there where accused Jasbir was present and sitting on a bench and at the instance of informer, they apprehended him. On interrogation his name revealed as Jasbir and he confessed his involvement and guilt in the present case. Thereafter, he arrested the accused Jasbir vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 34 Ex.PW5/B and his disclosure statements which is Ex.PW5/C. Thereafter, accused Jasveer led them at place of occurrence and pointing out the same vide pointing out memo Ex.PW5/C. He produced the accused before the Court and took his PC remand. During the PC remand, they searched the co-accused persons but none was traced out. He further deposed that on 03.07.2015, complainant came in the police station and produced his mobile phone and stated that some recording was made in the mobile phone automatically while the accused persons were taking him to Sehgal clinic. He seized the said mobile of complainant vide memo Ex.PW8/C with memory card and sealed the same in a parcel of cloth and deposited it in Malkhana and recorded the supplementary chargesheet. He further deposed that on 13.07.2015, he received information from PP Tilak Vihar regarding the arrest of accused Maninderjeet Singh @ Manni under Section 41.1 Cr.PC and making his disclosure statement of present case and regarding his production before the Court at Tis Hazari vide DD no. 40B (Ex.PW16/C). He reached at the concerned court of Tis Hazari and with the permission of the Court, he interrogated the accused and thereafter, he arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A and recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW9/B). He also obtained his PC remand and during the PC remand, he tried to recover the weapon of offence but same could not be recovered. Accused also pointed out the place of occurrence vide Ex.PW11/A. He recorded the supplementary statements (Ex.PW11/B). He further deposed that he collected the documents from the HC Satbir from PS Tilak Nagar, PP Tilak Vihar SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 34 who had apprehended the accused Maninderjeet Singh. He further deposed that during investigation, he also collected the CD of CCTV footage of recording from Dr Ramandeep Singh along with certificate proved as Ex. PW16/D and also tried to fix the identity of the accused persons through judicial TIP but accused persons refused to participate the same. He collected the copy of TIP and also collected the medical record of complainant of Sehgal clinic (Ex.PW1/B and PW3/A). 24.1 During cross examination, this witness stated that " It is correct that many mechanic shops were situated on the east side towards the Peeragarhi to Janakpuri Road side. I had visited many times on the spot during the investigation of the present case. I had made inquiry from Atif Ali Shocker Mechanic." He further stated that "He had not collected any CCTV footage from New Delhi Railway Station. No public person from the railway station had joined the investigation at the time of arrest of accused and no site plan for arrest of accused Mandeep was prepared." He further stated that all the documents related to the arrest of accused Mandeep Singh were prepared at the place from where he was arrested i.e. New Delhi Railway Station.
25. PW-17 HC Babu Lal and PW-18 HC Rajesh joined the investigation with IO/PW-19 ASI Satbir Singh on 12.07.2015. All these witnesses have proved the arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Maninder Jeet Singh @ Manni as Ex.PW17/A to Ex.PW17/C respectively. They also proved the Kalandara prepared against the said accused Ex.PW17/D. PW-19 also proved the DD No. 20 and 23 PP as Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19B.SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 34
26. PW-20 ASI Parmanand deposed that on 26.04.2015, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS - Vikas Puri and on that day, IO SI Rajesh deposited one sealed pulanda recorded by him in Register No. 19 at Sr. No. 1762. He further deposed that on 03.07.2015, IO SI Rajesh deposited one more sealed pulanda recorded by him in Register No. 19 at Sr. No. 1963. The said entries have been proved as Ex.PW20A and Ex.PW20/B. He also deposed that on 04.08.2015, the pulanda containing mobile phone was sent to FSL Rohini and entry in Register No. 21 is proved as Ex.PW20/C and its acknowledgment of FSL Rohini as Ex.PW20/D. He also deposed that on alteration or addition took place in the said exhibits/pulandas while they remained in his possession.
27. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 28.08.2023 on submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. :
28. Thereafter, statements of all the three accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused Mandeep and Jasveer denied that the complainant sustained stab injuries however, admitted that the complainant sustained injuries and they took him to Sehgal Nursing Home for treatment. They also admitted the footage contained in the CD proved as Ex.PW8/D. They stated that on the alleged date of incident, they were called by co-accused Maninderjeet Singh for helping the complainant as he sustained some injuries and they only SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 34 helped him since he was belonging to same Sikh community. They took him to nearby Sehgal Clinic and the doctor gave him first aid treatment. After the treatment, the complainant had told him that he had lost money while gambling and the other gamblers gave him beatings due to which he sustained injuries. The complainant was under intoxication at the time of alleged incident. 28.1 Accused Maninder Jeet also stated on the same lines while further stating that he called co-accused Mandeep and Jasveer for helping the complainant since the complainant sustained some injuries and he was belonging to same Sikh community. The co-accused persons took him to nearby Sehgal Clinic and the complainant was under intoxication at that time.
29. All the accused persons opt to lead evidence in their defence and examined DW-1 Sh. Gurpreet Singh, who deposed that on 21.04.2015, while was going to Keshopur Mandi on Rickshaw, he saw crowd had gathered near Pillar No. 41 where construction work was going on. He saw accused Jasveer and Mandeep present in the Court taking one Sikh person with them on a motorcycle. On asking the public persons, they told him that the said Sikh person was playing gamble and lost some money due to which quarrel had taken place and in the said quarrel, he sustained injuries by falling on an iron rod. However, during his cross examination, he admitted that he had not seen the incident and had never given any statement or police regarding the same.
30. Thereafter, defence evidence was ordered to be closed vide orders dated 13.08.2024 on behalf of all accused persons.SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 34
Final Arguments:
31. The Court heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as well as Ld. Counsels for accused persons and have gone through the entire material available on record.
Arguments addressed on behalf of the Prosecution :
32. It is argued by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against all the accused persons. It has been further argued that the complainant examined as PW-8 has specifically deposed on oath regarding the said incident and has identified all the accused persons correctly in the court. It has been further argued that recovery of robbed articles have been made from one of the accused persons.
Arguments addressed on behalf of all the accused persons:
33. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel Sh. Deepak Sharma for the accused Jasveer and Mandeep that the story put forth by the complainant is concocted and it is nothing but an afterthought. It has been further argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter by the complainant for ulterior motive, as it has been the story of the complainant himself that after robbing him of his Rs. 1 lakh and wallet, accused Jasveer and Mandeep took him to the doctor for treatment and in the meanwhile the third accused brought new pants for him for changing his old pants as they were torn. Thereafter the accused SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 34 persons dropped him back to the spot and also returned his mobile phone to him. This story as putforth by the complainant itself shows concoction as no prudent person would believe that accused persons after robbing the complainant themselves took him to the doctor for treatment; brought new pants for him and thereafter left him at the spot while giving him his mobile phone back for his convenience. It has been further argued that there has been a lot of contradictions in his testimony. Reliance is also placed upon the testimony of the treating doctor examined as PW-1 who has stated that the complainant was accompanied by two persons and on enquiry the complainant/ patient apprised him that the two persons accompanying him are his friends and he sustained the injury while coming out of the metro station by an iron rod. It has also been argued that there is much delay in making call to the PCR by the complainant which itself shows that the information was given as an afterthought. Even the site plan has been relied upon in order to show that the offence was not possible in the said circumstances.
34. Ld. Counsel Sh. P.K.Garg for the accused Maninderjeet has also argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter by the complainant with ulterior motives. The testimony of the complainant is itself full of suspicion and there is no other public witness regarding the alleged incident. Hence the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the accused deserves acquittal.SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 34
Appreciation of law & evidence :
35. It is a fundamental doctrine of criminal law that the onus to prove its case lies on the prosecution. Thus, in a criminal trial, the onus to prove the commission of offence by the accused is always upon the prosecution and the same never shifts upon the accused. The prosecution has to establish before the Court that the accused had committed the offence beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nanjundappa and Anr. V. State of Karnataka, decided on 17th May, 2022 has reiterated its view taken in the judgment titled as S.L.Goswami V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Crl.L.J.511 SC that :
'....the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage, does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases, where defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false, that burden upon the prosecution does not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if, the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution'.
37. Thus, from the above, the inference which is culled out is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 34
38. However, the Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant Sections involved in the present case first before divulging into the merits, which read as under:
"Section 390 IPC In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery-- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery-- Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation-- The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Section 392 IPC for robbery - Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years."SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 34
"Section 397 IPC Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."
39. From the above, the essential ingredients of Section 390/392/397 IPC have surfaced as follows:
i. "Extortion" is committed by putting a person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person culminating into robbery.
ii. While committing robbery or dacoity, the accused used deadly weapon or cause grievous hurt to any person or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.
40. Hence, in order to prove the offences punishable under section 392 and section 397 IPC against the accused persons, the prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:
a) the commission of offence of robbery by the accused persons, and
b) the commission of said offence at the point of knife;
41. The star witness of the prosecution is the complainant/injured himself Sh. Manjeet Singh who deposed that on 21.04.2015 at about 04:00 to 05:00 PM, while he was waiting near Pillar no. 41, Outer Ring Road, SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 34 Vikas Puri, Delhi, all the three accused persons came there and started demanding money from him and on his refusal, threatened him while he was being caught by his hands and at the point of knife, he was robbed of his money amounting to Rs.50,000/- from left pocket of his pants and his brown colour purse containing certain documents and Rs. 3,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. While committing robbery, one of the accused persons namely Jasveer Singh also stabbed him on his thigh. Thereafter, two of the accused persons made him sit on their motorcycle and took him to nearby doctor for treatment, where he was medically treated and the third accused brought new pants for him as his wearing pants were torn by the doctor for giving stitches. Under the force of accused persons, he changed his pants and Rs.50,000/- was also taken by accused persons kept in his wearing pants. Thereafter, on request, one of the accused persons left him at the spot on his Scooty and while leaving him on the spot, returned his mobile phone also to him. From the spot, he made a phone call to his family and visited the concerned police station.
42. The version of the complainant with regard to the alleged offence seems highly improbable to the mind of prudent person as it is unlikely that any criminal will take the victim to the doctor for treatment after themselves giving stab injuries to him. No occasion seems to have arisen on record for doing so by the accused persons but admittedly, two of the accused persons took the injured to Dr. Ramandeep examined as PW-1 and the testimony with regard to the same has been well corroborated by the CCTV footage produced by PW-1 and proved SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 34 on record as Ex.PW-8/D. Further, the said version has been also corroborated by ocular evidence of DW-1 that he saw accused Mandeep and Jasveer taking the injured on their bike from the spot for treatment on the date of incident.
43. Even the testimony of complainant PW-8 is full of contradictions as he was cross-examined by the State since he resiled from his previous statement and denied to have made any supplementary statement to the IO on 25.04.2015. He even denied that in the said statement, he stated that one of the accused caught hold of him by his neck from behind and removed Rs. 50,000/- from front pocket of his pants alongwith brown colour purse from his back pocket.
44. Even the alleged weapon of offence has never been recovered by the police despite their best efforts. Further, the alleged robbed amount of Rs.1 lakh has also not been recovered ever from the possession of any of the accused persons.
45. Surprisingly, as per the testimony of the treating doctor PW-1 Dr. Ramandeep, the victim came to his clinic with two more persons on the alleged date of incident while he was having injury on his thigh where stitches were given and on asking by the doctor as to how he had sustained injury, PW-8/complainant stated that while he was coming out of the Metro Station, an iron rod stuck against him and he sustained injury. On further asking by PW-1 about the two persons accompanying PW-8, he told PW-1 that they are his friends and they are like his brothers. PW-8 had occasion to tell the doctor about the alleged offence committed against him but he chose not to tell the doctor about the SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 34 same and referred the accused persons as his friends who are like his brothers. This behaviour of PW-8 complainant is also very surprising as no one would refer the persons who committed robbery against him as his friends like brothers.
46. The mechanic Mr. Atif Ali to whom the complaint went for getting his car repaired at the time of alleged offence has not been cited as prosecution witness though he has been examined by the Investigating Officer/PW-16 in order to corroborate the testimony of PW-8/complainant. Admittedly, the spot is thickly populated area and there are many mechanic shops at/near the spot, as admitted by PW-8/complainant as well as Investigating Officer PW-16 during their cross-examination however, no public witness or the shop owners or the mechanics working at the shop have been made to join the investigation for corroborating the testimony of complainant/ PW-8.
47. Even the complainant was confronted with his statement proved as Ex.
PW-8/A where the manner of receiving injury stated to be narrated to the doctor has not been mentioned. Further, as per the testimony of PW-8/complainant, he was dropped at the spot at around 06:30 - 07:00 PM and thereafter, he collected the keys of his car from the mechanic Mr. Atif Ali and left the spot. But again surprisingly, he had not disclosed about the offence to the mechanic while he was getting the keys of his car from him.
48. PW-1 Dr. Ramandeep Singh has also deposed that when complainant came for treatment, despite persistently asking him 2-3 times about the cause of injury by any person, the complainant/PW-8 replied in SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 34 'negative' while stating that he sustained injury while coming out of the Metro Station. The patient even told his name as Gurpreet Singh but later on, police disclosed his real name as Manjeet Singh. This conduct of the complainant/PW-8 also raises suspicion upon his version as in normal course of things, no person would tell a wrong name to the doctor.
49. Even the CCTV footage proved on record and seen by the Court shows that the injured was taken by two of the accused persons to the doctor for treatment. With so many doubts created upon the story of the prosecution by the conduct and deposition of the complainant/PW-8 which do not find corroboration either by documentary evidence or ocular evidence, the case of the prosecution falls flat on the ground with respect to the alleged offence of robbery and stabbing by the accused persons while committing the said offence.
50. In these circumstances, it is held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case u/s 392/394/34 IPC & u/s 397 IPC against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt.
51. Further, accused Mandeep Singh has been charged for the offence under Section 411 IPC. The Court deems is appropriate to reproduce the said section, which read as under :
"Dishonestly receiving stolen property - Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 34 three years, or with fine, or with both."
52. Section 410 IPC defines stolen property, which reads as under :
"Section 410 IPC - Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property."
53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Trimbak v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39 had laid down the ingredients of offence under section 411 IPC. It was held that in order to bring home the guilt under section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove :
"(1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person, other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that property was stolen property."
54. Even there is presumption in respect of possession of stolen property which is enumerated in Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act which states that the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 34 thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustration (a) to Section 114 Indian Evidence Act states that the Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can count for his possession. Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
55. As per the prosecution, in the testimony of PW-16/IO/SI Rajesh, it has been deposed that accused Mandeep Singh was apprehended on secret information on 26.04.2015 at New Delhi Railway Station and on his personal search, the brown colour purse containing Rs.1,000/- and some documents belonging to the complainant/PW-8 were recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A. However, no public person was made to join the investigation despite the place of recovery being a crowded place. Even no CCTV footage of New Delhi Railway Station was ever procured by the Investigating Officer to prove the recovery of alleged robbed articles from the possession of accused Mandeep Singh. In the cross-examination, Investigating officer has specifically deposed that no public persons had joined the investigation at New Delhi Railway Station but he failed to prove that efforts were made to join public persons by serving them notice for the same. Even if the public persons were not interested or refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer could have made the shopkeepers or Station Master to join the SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 34 investigation in order to prove recovery of alleged stolen/robbed articles from the possession of accused Mandeep Singh. Further, no time of recovery has been specified either in the testimony of the Investigating Officer or on the recovery memo. This casts serious doubt upon the recovery affected from the possession of accused Mandeep Singh by the Investigating Officer.
56. Reliance is placed upon by this Court upon the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as Mohammad Burhan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , cited as 'MANU/DE/3131/2017' that joining of independent public witness is not mere a formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid false implication of individual. In number of cases either no independent public witnesses are associated on the pretext that none of them is available; in some cases only passersby are requested to join the investigation. Non- examination of independent public witness in the instant case is serious flaw and adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding them.
57. In view of the above facts & circumstances, it is held that the prosecution is not able to prove beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt that accused Mandeep Singh found in possession of robbed articles.
58. With this background, the prosecution has not been able to prove the complicity of all the accused persons in the commission of crime beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and has not been able to prove all the ingredients of the offences u/s 392/394/34 IPC, u/s 397 IPC and u/s 411 IPC for which they have been charged and have faced trial.
SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 33 of 34Accordingly, all the three accused persons namely Mandeep Singh, Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi and Maninderjeet Singh @ Manni are acquitted of the Charge u/s 392/394/34 IPC; accused Jasveer Singh @ Sabbi is also acquitted of the Charge u/s 397 IPC and accused Mandeep Singh is also acquitted of the Charge u/s 411 IPC in the present matter.
59. All the accused persons have already been directed to furnish bail bonds in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C. which have been furnished and accepted for the period of six months. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI BARNALA
60. File be consigned to record room. BARNALA TANDON Date:
TANDON 2024.09.30
16:14:14
+0530
Pronounced in the open
Court on 30.09.2024 (Shefali Barnala Tandon)
Additional Sessions Judge -05,
(West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
It is certified that this Judgment contains 34 pages and each page Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI bears my signatures. BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date: 2024.09.30 16:14:24 +0530 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi SC No. 55931/2016 FIR No.409/2015 State v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 34 of 34