Delhi District Court
State vs Rajbir Singh @ Babloo @ Roshan on 27 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS: DELHI
S.C. NO.: 63/2016
FIR NO.: 149/2016
PS: SARITA VIHAR
U/S.: 365/395/34 IPC
CNR: DLSE01-000196-2017
THE STATE
VERSUS
RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN
S/O SH. SUDARSHAN SINGH @ ATTAR SINGH
R/O PLOT NO. 4, GALI NO. 1,
GURU NANAK AVANUE, GHANUPUR,
PS CHHARHETA, DISTT. AMRITSAR, PUNJAB. ...ACCUSED
Date of Institution : 16.08.2016
Order reserved on : 16.05.2024
Order delivered on : 27.05.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Rajbir Singh @ Babloo @ Roshan is facing trial for the offence U/s.365/395/34 IPC.
SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 1 of 34 BRIEF FACTS
2. The case of prosecution is that on on 21.03.2016 on receipt of DD no. 19A, regarding admission of injured truck driver Shyam Singh during robbery, IO Inspector Nagender Nagar reached at Valencia Hospital, Faridabad, obtained MLC of injured who handed over a written complaint to him. On the basis of said complaint, IO Inspector Nagender Nagar prepared rukka and handed over the same to the Duty officer for registration of the FIR. On the basis of statement of Shyam Sunder and the MLC, FIR u/s. 365/395 IPC was registered against accused Rajbir @ Babloo @ Roshan. 2.1 During course of investigations the IO seized the Hywa truck which was used in the commission of offence, prepared the site plan of the place where injured/complainant was dumped, obtained the documents qua seizure of Honda City car bearing no. DL-3CS- 7023 seized in FIR no. 172/2016, PS Sunlight Colony used in the commission of offence in the present case and the accused was arrested on 02.04.2016 from Amritsar. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against accused Rajbir @ Babloo @ Roshan for the offence u/s. 365/394/395/411/34 IPC.
3. On the basis of charge-sheet so submitted before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and after compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 2 of 34 CHARGE
4. After hearing arguments on point of charge and finding a prima facie case against accused, requisite charges U/s. 365/395/34 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as fourteen witnesses.
5.1 PW-1 ASI Bhupinder Singh, posted at Amritsar has deposed that on 01.04.2016 Inspector Nagender Nagar alongwith SHO Inspector Mahender Singh and other police staff came at PS Chheharta in connection with the present case and HC Jaspal was sent with them; that at about 2.15 p.m. he came to know that accused had attacked the police party upon which he reached at H. No. 4, Gali no. 1, Gurunanak Avenue, Ghanupur where Inspector Nagender Nagar met him; that he recorded statement of Inspector Nagender Nagar upon which FIR no. 56/2016 u/s. 186/353/332 Ex.PW1/A was registered and he arrested accused in the said FIR and was produced before the concerned Court; that thereafter Delhi police obtained his two days transit remand. He was extensively cross examined by the ld. defence counsel.
5.2 PW-2 Inspector Sudhir Sharma is the IO of FIR no. 172/2016, u/s. 406 IPC, PS Sunlight Colony. He has deposed that accused was arrested in the said FIR wherein he disclosed that he was in possession of car no.DL-3CS-7023 and took police remand of the SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 3 of 34 accused and produced before the concerned court; that his wife namely Ms. Sonia Singh brought the said car to the police station which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A; that IO of the present case informed about the said fact and he also collected the said seizure memo. He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel.
5.3 PW-3 Shri Shyam Singh is the victim/complainant. His testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of judgment. 5.4 PW-4 Dr. Himanshu has proved MLC of PW-3 Shyam Singh as Ex.PW4/A and he opined the nature of injury suffered by him as "simple". He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel. 5.5 PW-5 Shri Sahil Arora has deposed that he has installed the GPS in Hywa truck bearing no. HR-38T-5588 owned by Shri Naveen Yadav; that in the month of March 2016 Naveen Yadav informed him that said Hywa truck was stolen and requested him to track the same; that he sent the tracking report of the same to Shri Naveen Yadav and proved the same as Ex.PW5/B which was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel.
5.6 PW-6 is Shri Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel and he brought the details of mobile nos. 9915339016 and 9872384977 which were registered in name of Rajbir Singh vide certified copy of CAF alongwith ID proof which are Ex. PW6/A and Ex.PW6/C and the CDR of same is Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/D; that he also brought the certified copy of CDR of IMEI no.
SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 4 of 34 911366650306720 w.e.f. 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 which is Ex.PW6/E and also proved certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW6/F. 5.7 PW-7 Smt. Vasundhara Chhaunkar, Ld. MM has proved the TIP proceedings which is Ex.PW7/A and application of the IO qua the same is Ex.PW7/B. 5.8 PW-8 SI Nem Chand is duty officer who registered the present FIR no. 149/2016 Ex.PW8/A on the basis of rukka brought by SI Nagender Nagar. He made endorsement on the same as Ex.PW8/B and also gave certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the correctness of the contents of the FIR which is Ex.PW8/C. After registration of the FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR, original rukka and certificate u/s. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to SI Nagender Nagar.
5.9 PW-9 is Shri Ajit Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. and he brought the details of mobile nos. 9582349676 w.e.f. 01.03.202 which was registered in name of Raj Kumar vide Ex. PW9/D and proved the CDR of the same which are Ex.PW9/A and Ex. PW9/C and also proved certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW9/B; that he also brought copy of order dated 14.05.2012 which is Mark A in terms of which CAF etc. were destroyed; that he also proved certificate u/s. 65-B as Ex.PW9/E. He was cross examined by the ld. Defence counsel.
5.10 PW-10 ASI Raj Mohan has deposed that on 01.04.2016, he joined the investigation alongwith Inspector Maninder (SHO), SI SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 5 of 34 Nagender Nagar, HC Surender and other police officials and they had gone to PS Chareta, PP Ghanupur, Amritsar for search of accused Rajbir @ Babloo. When they reached at PP Ghanupur, one Head constable Jaspal had joined them for the purpose of investigation. After verifying the address of accused Rajbir @ Babloo, they all reached there and he opened the door. During interrogation by SI Nagender Nagar, the accused became aggressive and he pushed the table towards them which was having a glass-sheet due to which he alongwith HC Surender received injuries. He was overpowered only with the help of local police and FIR u/s 186/353/332 IPC was also registered against him. He was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/A and personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW13/B and was brought to Delhi on transit remand of two days after recording his disclosure statement Ex.PW10/A. He was cross examined by the ld. Defence counsel.
5.11 PW-11 is HC Rahul and he has deposed that on 27.06.2016 he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith SI Nagender Nagar; that they had gone at the office of M/s. J.S. Securetech at NIT Faridabad where they met the owner namely Mr. Sahil Arora and requested the GPS track record of dated 21.03.2016 between 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. installed in Hywa vehicle; that Mr. Sahil Arora handed over 29 certified pages of GPS tracking record of the said vehicle and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel.
5.12 PW-12 Shri Naveen Yadav is the public witness and his SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 6 of 34 testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of judgment. 5.13 PW-13 ASI Surender Singh has deposed that on 01.04.2016, he alongwith SHO PS Sarita Vihar and HC Raj Mohan, HC Biju, SI Nagender Nagar, Ct. Dilshad and other police officials reached at PS Charheta, Amritsar, Punjab in search of accused Rajbir Singh and the local police officials had also accompanied them; that they reached at the house of accused Rajbir where they met one person who revealed his name as Rajbir; that the accused lifted the glass top on the table and thrown towards them on which he and Ct. Raj Mohan received injuries; that the information regarding the said act was given to the local police on which the local police officials reached at the said spot and FIR u/s 186/353/332 IPC was registered against the accused and the local police had arrested the accused Rajbir; that on 02.04.2016, accused Rajbir was produced before the concerned Court and SI Nagender moved an application before the concerned Court for interrogating and to arrest the accused; that accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/A and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW13/B; that thereafter SI Nagender Nagar sought transit remand of the accused and he was got medically examined; that thereafter accused was brought to PS Charheta and IO recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW10/A and he was brought to PS Sarita Vihar, Delhi. He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel.
5.14 PW-14 Inspector Vijender Rana has deposed that on 21.03.2016, he was posted as Inspector Investigation at PS Sarita SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 7 of 34 Vihar and on that day at about 12:30 in the afternoon he alongwith SI Nagender Nagar, HC Suresh, HC Satish, Ct. Rahul and Ct. Krishan alongwith the vehicle owner Naveen Yadav had proceeded for Sonipat, Haryana, in two different cars and reached at Bahalgarh Road, Transport Market, Sonipat; that at about 02:00 PM as per the GPS location of the Hywa in question Sh. Naveen Yadav identified his Hywa which was stationed/parked in a plot; that thereafter they all reached near the said Hywa truck and it was found that the number plate and the name of the transporter were erased with the black colour spray; that on inquiries it was revealed that the said Hywa was taken to a painter shop by an unknown person in the morning for getting it painted however no clue was found about the said person who had parked the said Hywa in the mentioned plot nor the painter was found; that the IO took the photographs of the said Hywa through his mobile and was same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A; that the registration number of the vehicle was found to be HR38T5588 and the said Hywa was of green colour upon its body while the cabin was of white colour; that the registration documents of the Hywa were found inside the Hywa and engine number and chasis number were tallied from the registration document; that thereafter they left for Delhi at about 03:30 PM alongwith the seized Hywa and for driving the same the driver was arranged by the Hywa owner Sh. Naveen Yadav; that they returned to police station at about 05:30 in the evening and at that time the actual driver Shyam Singh met them in the police station. He was cross SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 8 of 34 examined by the ld. defence counsel.
5.15 PW-15 Inspector Nagender Nagar was the IO of the case. He has deposed that on 21.03.2016 on receipt of DD No. 19A Mark X, he reached at Valencia Hospital, Sector-37, Faridabad, where injured truck driver Shyam Singh was reported to be admitted during robbery; that he obtained his MLC Ex. PW4/A and truck driver Shyam Singh handed over written complaint Ex. PW3/A on the basis which IO prepared rukka Ex. PW15/A; that he handed the same to the DO for registration of FIR and after registration of the same, DO handed over the copy of FIR No. 0149 dated 21.03.2016 which is Ex. PW8/A alongwith the original rukka for further investigation; that on the same day at about 12:30 in the noon, the owner of the robbed Hywa namely Sh. Naveen Yadav came to the police station and informed him that his robbed Hywa bearing HR38T5588 was having a GPS system and he showed the present location of Hywa to be at Sonipat, Haryana; that thereafter, he constituted a team on the direction of SHO including Insp. V. S. Rana, HC Satish, HC Suresh, Ct. Rahul and Ct. Krishan and owner of Hywa Sh. Naveen Yadav also accompanied them; that they all reached at Bahlgarh Road, Transport Nagar, Sonipat where said Hywa was searched for and requisite inquiries were made; that in the meantime, owner informed him that his robbed Hywa has been parked/stationed in a plot and he alongwith HC Satish and Sh. Naveen Yadav reached near the said stationed Hywa where the number plates and the name of the transporter were found to be covered with black spray paint; that Sh. Naveen Yadav SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 9 of 34 identified the said Hywa truck; that they waited near the said Hywa for someone to arrive so that it can be gathered as to who had brought the said Hywa to the plot but none arrived; that after verifying from the registration documents lying inside the Hywa, the said Hywa was seized vide memo Ex. PW12/A; that he took the photographs of the said Hywa through his mobile which are Ex. PW15/B (colly) and prepared the site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex. PW15/C; that he made inquiries in the area around so as to know who had brought the said Hywa and who had blackened the number plates and the name of the transporter on the said Hywa but no clue was found about the said person; that the Hywa was drove back to the police station Sarita Vihar where it was deposited in the malkhana and driver met him in the police station; that IO prepared the site plan of the place from where the Hywa was robbed at the instance of the complainant/ injured Shyam Singh which is Ex. PW15/D; that he recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant/ injured; that the site plan of that place where complainant was thrown away, after being kidnapped, could not be prepared on that day since he had to leave for the last rites of his father; that he recorded the statement of the owner of the Hywa Sh. Naveen Yadav and other members of the raiding party HC Satish Kumar; that driver Shyam Singh told the IO that his mobile phone was taken away by the kidnappers and whenever a call comes on his mobile the same was attended by his kidnappers; that he collected CDR of driver Shyam Singh mobile bearing no. 9582349676 which is Ex. PW9/C (colly.) running into SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 10 of 34 five pages; that the location of this mobile was found to be Pali Crasher Zone, Faridabad to Pul Prahaladpur to Jamia Nagar, Noida uptill Mayur Vihar and from the CDR it was found that there was a constant receiving from mobile number 8427939084 on the mobile of the robbed driver and the location of the caller mobile was also found to be at Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar at about 01:36 AM in the night and the mobile location of both the mobiles was found extending to Rajghat, Burari and till Bakoli at 03:30 AM and this mobile location was found tallying with the GPS location of the robbed Hywa which confirmed the fact that the mobile phone no. 8427939084 was used by the offenders; that during the course of further investigations from the IMEI number, he obtained the CDR and from the same it was revealed that in the mobile bearing the said IMEI number another sim with no. 9872384977 was used previously and on getting the CDR of same it revealed that same was power off at 10:27 PM and its location was shown at Ashram, Hari Nagar, Delhi; that the call details of the said IMEI bearing no. 911366650306720 from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 is Mark Y (colly.) (running into three pages); that on checking the CDR of this mobile number 9872384977, it was revealed that a call was made at 04:55 AM in the morning of 21.03.2016 to another mobile no. 8930437878 and at that time, the caller number was at Haider Pur and at 06:16 AM it was at village Kurar, Tehsil Gannaur, District Sonipat and the said mobile remained in Sonipat till 12:14 PM; that call details of the mobile no. 9872384977 is Mark Z (colly) (running into 15 pages);
SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 11 of 34 that from the call details Mark Z, it was confirmed that this mobile no. 9872384977, depicted the location to be at Punjab since afternoon and he obtained the CAF of the said mobile which was found in the name of Rajbir Singh, S/o Sh. Sudarshan Singh and the same is Mark Z1 and it also bears the photographs of Rajbir Singh; that on 31.03.2016, he alongwith the raiding team including Insp. Maninder Singh, the then SHO, PS Sarita Vihar, HC Satish, Ct. Rahul, Ct. Rohit, HC Surender, HC Biju, Ct. Raj Mohan and others left for Amritsar, to the address of Rajbir Singh, which was reflected from the CAF Mark Z1 and reported their arrival at the local police station on 01.04.2016; that from there they went to local police post from where the staff was requested to be provided for carrying out the raid and they reached at the house of the accused, who was found present at his house; that thereafter he alongwith HC Surender, Ct. Raj Mohan and HC from local police went inside his house and while they werę having a talk with the accused, accused lifted a table glass and attacked them because of which HC Surender and HC Raj Mohan received injuries; that said incident was reported to the local police and from the nearby police post ASI Bhupender arrived to whom IO made an oral complaint upon which FIR no. 56/2016 u/s 186/332/353 IPC was registered at PS Chharheta, Amritsar, Punjab and copy of same is Ex. PW1/A and he annexed the translated version of the said FIR in Hindi which is Ex. PW15/E (running into two pages); that the accused was arrested by ASI Bhupender Singh in case FIR No. 56/2016 above; that on 02.04.2016, the accused Rajbir Singh was produced in the Court of SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 12 of 34 the Illaka Magistrate by ASI Bhupender Singh where he moved an application to interrogate the accused before the concerned Illaka Magistrate, which was allowed vide order which is Mark Z2; that he also sought transit remand of the accused which was allowed vide the said order and thereafter he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/A and personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW13/B; that thereafter the accused was brought to the local police station Chharheta, where he was interrogated in detail and his disclosure statement was duly recorded which is Ex. PW10/A; that on the next day the accused Rajbir @ Raju was searched for in the area around but as no clue of him was found therefore he alongwith the members of the raiding party and the accused Rajbir @ Babloo returned to Delhi where he lodged arrival entry which is Ex. PW15/F; that before proceeding to Amritsar the members of the raiding party were accorded permission to Amritsar and a departure entry made in this regard which is Ex PW15/G; that the accused was produced in the Court of Duty MM in muffled face and he was remanded for JC for one day vide order Mark Z3; that on 05.04.2016, he moved an application for TIP of accused Rajbir Singh which is Ex. PW15/H and on 12.04.2016 the TIP was conducted wherein the accused was rightly identified by the complainant/ injured Shyam Singh and he also obtained copy of same vide application Ex. PW15/J; that he prepared the site plan of the place where driver Shyam Singh was dumped away after being kidnapped and robbery of Hywa which is Ex. PW15/K; that said place of dumping was opposite Keshavpur Depot SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 13 of 34 where Shyam Singh stated himself to be dumped with his eyes covered and hands tied and he recorded the supplementary statement of Shyam Singh; that during the course of investigation, the recovered Hywa was released on superdari and efforts were made to trace out for the escaped accused Rajbir @ Raju and another named person namely Jasbir, whose name was revealed by the painter namely Bal Kishan, whose shop was situated opposite the plot from where the Hywa was recovered and it was Bal Kishan who was informed that Jasbir Dahiya had called him in morning and asked him to paint his Hywa, in the day time, as he will not be available during that time; that he searched for Jasbir Dahiya as well during the course of investigation, whose name was also mentioned in the disclosure of the accused Rajbir Singh however, no clue was found in respect of escaped accused person Rajbir @ Raju and Jasbir Dahiya, but they could not be arrested and hence their NBWs were obtained; that during the course of investigation, he obtained the result on the MLC of injured Shyam Singh; that he also interrogated the GPS installing person and had obtained the certified copy of the GPS tracking report vide memo Ex.PW5/A; that the GPS tracking report is Ex. PW5/B (colly)(running into 29 pages); that during the course of investigations, the car used in the commission of the offence make Honda City bearing registration no. DL3CS5023 was seized in PS Sunlight Colony vide FIR No. 172/2016 and he obtained the documents of the said car; that the copy of the FIR of PS Sunlight Colony is Mark Z4; that he also obtained the seizure memo of Honda City car registration no. DL3CS5023 SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 14 of 34 which is Ex. PW2/A on being produced by the wife of accused Rajbir Singh namely Sonia Singh; that he also correctly identified the recovered articles, seized and sealed articles and soft copy of chargesheet is Ex.P-15/A. He was extensively cross examined by the ld. counsel for the accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating material was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. He pleaded innocence and stated that he was never involved in the above said incident and was picked by the police officials at the instance of Jasveer who actually committed the crime and in order to save him from the clutches of law, he was falsely implicated in the present case. Though, the accused took the plea of being innocent in his statement u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. but did not prefer to lead any defence evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
7. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the complainant/PW-3 Sh. Shyam Singh has fully supported the case of prosecution and has identified the accused in the TIP proceedings as well as before the Court; that no material contradiction and improvement are established by the Defence Counsel in his testimony therefore his testimony is reliable before the Court; that further the location of mobile phone of the accused having IMEI no. 911366650306720 was also found nearby the place of incident on the day of incident which shows the presence of the accused Rajbir Singh SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 15 of 34 at the spot on the day of incident; that it is also established before the Court that the mobile number of the complainant i.e. 9582349676 was used in the mobile of the accused at the relevant time in which the mobile numbers i.e. 9872384977 and 9915339016 which are registered in the name of accused were also used in the said mobile phone and no explanation was given by the accused Rajbir as to how the mobile number of the complainant was used in his mobile phone which also make the additional link with the regard to the case of prosecution; that it is also established before the Court that the accused Rajbir alongwith his three associates abducted the complainant and wrongfully confined him in his car and thereafter robbed his mobile phone, Aadhar card, driving licence, cash of Rs. 8,600/- and Truck (Hywa) and gave injuries to the complainant therefore accused Rajbir is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 365/394 IPC; that further no motive was established by the accused before the Court as to why he was implicated by the complainant in the present case which is also supported the case of prosecution. 7.1. Per contra it was argued from the side of accused that the accused Rajbir Singh is innocent and has not committed the alleged offence with the complainant; that the prosecution is not able to prove that the location of the Hywa truck matched with the location of accused; that the identity of the accused is also not established by the prosecution before the Court as complainant did not disclose the names and particulars of his other associates before the Court as well as in his complaint; that the Hywa truck was not recovered from the SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 16 of 34 possession of the accused and more so the location of Hywa truck does not match with the case of prosecution and the location of mobile phone i.e. 9872384977 also does not match with the location of the Hywa truck at the relevant time; that the shop keepers or the painters from where the Hywa truck was recovered was not cited as a witness which also cause the dent in the case of prosecution; that the GPS location chart which was handed over by the owner of the Hywa truck has not been placed on record and the GPS record which is placed on record is taken after the recovery of alleged truck which shows that the aforesaid truck was not recovered from the place and the manner stated by prosecution. It is further submitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused which linked the accused with the case of prosecution moreover the mobile phone in question was also used by the accused at the relevant time or that the same was not recovered from his possession which did not support the case of prosecution; that the prosecution did not establish the ingredients of the offences u/s 395/365 IPC. In view of the same it has been prayed that accused be acquitted of the offences charged.
8. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the record.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
9. The accused is facing trial for the offence U/s. 365/395/34 IPC. Section 365 IPC deals with kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person. It states that:
"Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 17 of 34 confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
9.1 The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence u/s. 365 IPC are:-
(i) That the accused kidnapped or abducted a person.
(ii) That he did so with intent to confine him secretly and wrongfully.
(iii) That he had such intention at the time of kidnapping or abduction.
9.2 Section 395 IPC deals with punishment for dacoity. It states that "Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
10. Before deliberating upon the case of the prosecution and arguments advanced by ld. counsels for the accused, the court stands guided by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Akbar Vs. State, 2009 Cri LJ 4199, wherein it has enumerated certain principles for appreciation of ocular evidence:
"49. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a Herculean task. There is no fixed or strait-jacket formula for appreciation of ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles regarding the appreciation of the ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:-
SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 18 of 34 I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 19 of 34 V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 20 of 34 XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
11. The case of prosecution is that accused Rajbir @ Babloo alongwith co-accused in furtherance of their common intention abducted the complainant Shyam Singh with the intention to wrongfully confine him and further they committed dacoity by way of robbing the complainant and robbed truck bearing registration no. HR-38T-5588, one mobile phone (mobile no. 9582349676) and one purse containing Rs. 8,600/-, licence and Aadhar Card from the complainant.
12. Coming to the offence u/s. 365 IPC, the section 365 IPC embodies an aggravated form of "abduction" as defined in section 362 IPC. Section 365 IPC is attracted when abduction is committed with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine the victim. The allegations in the present case are that four accused persons abducted the complainant and that was done with the intent to confine him secretly SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 21 of 34 and wrongfully. The term "abduction" is defined u/s. 362 IPC which says that "whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person." The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence u/s. 362 IPC are:-
(i) Forcible compulsion or inducement by deceitful means; and
(ii) the object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person from any place.
13. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined complainant Shri Shyam Singh as PW-3 and he has deposed that " in year 2016 he was going to Jasolla in his truck bearing no. HR-38T- 5588; that his truck was loaded with rohri (building material); that at around 2:00 am, when he took turn towards Jasolla Village and reached at Shahin Bagh Pulia, a car came in front of his truck; that as there was no adequate space to give pass to the car, so he took his truck to the side of the road and stopped to allow the car to pass however, the car stopped just in front of his truck and blocked his way; that four persons got off the car; that two persons from left side of the car and two persons from the right side of the car came out and all the four accused persons came inside the cabin of his truck and all of them started beating him; that he was hit by heavy object on his head and he sustained injury on his head; that later on 20 stitches were stitched in his head; that he was pushed on the floor of the cabin of the truck and three persons sat on him; that one person started SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 22 of 34 driving his truck; that accused persons drove the truck to some distance and after reaching some place, they pulled him out from the cabin of the truck and pushed him inside a car space between front and back seat and four persons sitting at the back seat put their feet on him; that they kept on moving the car for about 3 hours; that his eyes and hands were tied; that thereafter, he was thrown outside the car and accused persons put him inside a cement pipe; that he heard noise of some rickshaw puller carrying vegetable vendors who were going for buying vegetables; that he shouted for help and they came to him and untied his hands and eyes and took him out from cement pipe; that thereafter, he walked to the bus stop on foot and alighted a bus for Badarpur; that he made a phone call to his owner Naveen from phone of the driver of that bus; that he met him at Badarpur bus stand and took him to hospital at Faridabad and he was given medical treatment there; that his owner Naveen sent him back to village as his father had expired because of shock of this incident; that he came to know his death only after reaching village as nobody informed him prior to that; that his mobile phone, Aadhar Card, driving license, cash Rs. 8,600/-, some amount of cash lying in his truck were taken away by the above said accused persons."
13.1 In the words of complainant, on the day of incident when he was going to Jasola in his truck loaded with rohri, one car stopped just in front of the truck and blocked its way. Thereafter four persons got off the car and came inside the cabin of the truck and started beating him. Thereafter one of those four persons started driving the truck and SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 23 of 34 drove it for around three hours. After driving the truck for three hours they blind folded the complainant and shifted him in some other car and again drove for sometime. Thereafter they abandoned him at some desolate place. The ingredients of the Section is that a person must be abducted with the intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined. From the aforesaid testimony it stands proved that accused alongwith other co-accused persons used force against the complainant to deviate from his usual route and took him to the place which was not in his knowledge. Not only that they forcibly shifted the complainant to some other vehicle and kept him secretly confined within that vehicle by putting their feet on him. The said conduct interferes with free locomotion of the complainant. The ingredients of the Section is that a person must be abducted with the intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined. On these facts, the abduction as defined u/s 365 IPC has been proved. He was cross examined at length by the ld. counsel for the accused but he failed to elicit anything substantial from his testimony which may raise question mark on his credibility. The witness properly answered all the questions and it cannot be said that he avoided giving any answer or that he has deposed falsely so as to implicate the accused in the present case. He has stated in his cross-examination that " he had been working with Mr. Naveen Yadav for last five to six years prior to the above said incident; that he had been carrying the building material (rohri) on the site of construction for the last five to six months prior to the alleged incident; that he used to load the truck at SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 24 of 34 Pali Village and unload the same at the said site; that he generally used to load unload for 5-6 times in 24 hours; that site where he used to unload the said truck is about 18 Kms. Away from the Pali Village; that whenever he used to load the truck at pali Village a chit of challan acknowledging the load of the rohri in the truck was issued by the staff of crusher at Pali Village and when it was unloaded he countersigned was made by the incharge of the side upon the said chit of challan; that he alone used to drive the said truck for 24 hours ". Secondly, the accused was identified by the complainant during the TIP proceedings and PW-3 has denied the suggestion that accused was shown to him.
13.2. Complainant/ PW-3 has deposed that after stopping the truck all the four accused persons came inside the cabin and started beating him; that he was hit by heavy object on his head due to which he got twenty stitches on his head. PW-4 Dr. Himanshu from Valencia Emergency and Criti Care hospital has proved the MLC of the complainant as per which the patient sustained injury on his scalp which is Ex. PW4/A. During cross-examination, PW-4 has denied the suggestion that "a person can sustain multiple scalp injury if he falls in drunken condition on the rough road; that it is not possible to say that a person can sustain multiple injury on his scalp if the rohri is poured/ thrown on his head from the height".
13.3. Apart from the complainant and the doctor, Prosecution has examined PW-6 Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel Limited. He has proved that the mobile nos. 9915339016 and SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 25 of 34 9872384977 are registered in the name of accused and further proved the call detail records of said mobile numbers. He has stated in his examination that "The certified copy of CAF alongwith copy of ID proof of mobile no. 9915339016 is Ex. PW6/A (Colly) (OSR) which bears his signature and stamp of the company at point A; that the CDR of the said mobile phone for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016; that the same is Ex. PW-6/B which bears his signature and stamp of the company at point A; that the certified copy of CAP alongwith copy of ID proof of mobile no. 9872384977 is Ex. PW-6/C (Colly) (OSR) which bears his signature and stamp of the company at point A; that the CDR of the said mobile phone for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016; that the same is Ex. PW-6/D which bears his signature and stamp of the company at point A; that the certified copy of CDR of IMEI no. 911366650306720 for the period 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 is Ex. PW6/E and certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act qua the same is Ex. PW6/F". 13.4. PW-9 Sh. Ajit Singh, alternate Nodal officer, Vodafone Idea Limited has proved that the mobile no. 9582349676 is registered in the name of complainant and further proved the call detail records of said mobile number. He has stated in his examination that " as per record, the mobile no. 9582349679 was registered in the name of Raj Kumar C/o Sualal, R/o House No. A8 Bal Chand Camp, Lal Kuan, New Delhi-44; that the CDR (running into 5 pages back to back) has been generated from the computer of the company which was under
control and regularly used by Mr. Israr Babu the then Nodal Officer SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 26 of 34 and same are not tampered in any manner; the same is exhibited as Ex. PW9/A which bears seal and signature of Mr. Israr Babu at point A; that today I have brought the CDR, details of customer and certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act; that the CDR is Ex. PW9/C which bears my signature and seal of the company at point A; that the details of customer record is Ex. PW9/D which bears my signature and seal of the company at point A ".
14. In view of the same, it stands proved that the mobile nos. 9915339016 and 9872384977 are registered in the name of accused. Coming to mobile no. 9582349676, though as per the record brought by PW-9, the mobile no. 9582349676 was registered in the name of Raj Kumar, C/o Soha Lal however the complainant i.e. PW-3 has deposed that the mobile phone which was robbed during the incident was having sim bearing no. 9582349676 and no contrary suggestions was put to the witness regarding the fact that he was not using the said phone at the time of the alleged incident. Secondly, the CDR of the mobile IMEI no. 911366650306720 shows calls from different mobile numbers and one of that mobile number is 9872384977, the one which stands registered in the name of accused and that call was received on 21.03.2016 at about 04:55:47-04:56:44 hrs. i.e. the date and time of the alleged incident.
14.1 Complainant i.e. PW-3 has deposed that the accused alongwith co-accused persons intercepted the Hywa truck bearing no. HR-38T-5588 at Shaheen Bagh Puliya at the turn towards Jasola village. The fact that complainant was driving the said truck stands SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 27 of 34 proved by the testimony of PW-12 Sh. Naveen Yadav who has deposed that he had three vehicles for delivery of vending material at DDA site at Jasola and complainant i.e. Sh. Shyam Singh was driver on Hywa bearing no. HR-38T-5588. He has further corroborated the testimony of complainant about the incident. He has deposed that "on 21.03.2016 at about 5:30 a.m. Mr. Lalit had telephonically informed me that Shyam Singh driver had informed him that the above said Hywa had been robbed by some person from him and Shyam Singh had received injuries and they had taken away the abovesaid Hywa and thrown him on the way at some Garhi Depot as far as I remember; that Mr. Lalit had also informed me that Shyam Singh had made a call from DTC bus driver and told him that he was going in the said bus to Badarpur border; that on receiving the information, I also reached at Badarpur border at around 7 a.m. and met Shyam Singh there; that I had seen that he was having injuries on his face and on hand; I took him to Valencia Hospital, Sector-37, Faridabad where he was got admitted ". He has further deposed that "there was a GPS installed at the above said Hywa; that I had on the GPS and tracked the location of above said Hywa; that I had taken out the details of GPS track and shown the same to the police official". PW-5 Sh. Sahil Arora is the one whose company installed GPS in Hywa truck bearing no. HR-38T-5588 and he provided the GPS tracking report of the same which is Ex. PW5/B. The GPS tracking report confirms the fact that the Hywa truck bearing no. HR- 38T-5588 was in the area around Jasola on the date and time of SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 28 of 34 alleged incident. He was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsel but she failed to extract anything from the same which may cast doubt upon the veracity of his testimony. Ld. Defence counsel failed to produced any material in support of the suggestion that he handed over manipulated record pertaining to the GPS record. In view of the same, I conclude that the Prosecution is able to prove that accused alongwith other co-accused abducted the complainant and kept him wrongfully confined for three to four hours and after that they left him inside the cement pipe with his eyes blindfolded and hands tied.
14.2. It is settled law that in case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is therefore evident that eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 29 of 34 prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref: Krishnan Vs. Sate reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978)
15. Coming to charge u/s 395 IPC, the term "dacoity" is defined u/s 391 IPC which states that " when five or more persons conjointly commit or atempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "Dacoity". 15.1. The essential ingredients of this offence are the co- operation of five or more persons to commit or attempt to commit robbery, person who are present as abettors of the crime being counted as amongst the number. Dacoity is commission of robbery by five or more persons. However complainant has deposed that " in year 2016 he was going to Jasolla in his truck bearing no. HR-38T- 5588; that his truck was loaded with rohri (building material); that at around 2:00 am, when he took turn towards Jasolla Village and reached at Shahin Bagh Pulia, a car came in front of his truck; that as SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 30 of 34 there was no adequate space to give pass to the car, so he took his truck to the side of the road and stopped to allow the car to pass however, the car stopped just in front of his truck and blocked his way; that four persons got off the car; that two persons from left side of the car and two persons from the right side of the car came out and all the four accused persons came inside the cabin of his truck and all of them started beating him....". Since the complainant has disclosed about four persons in his evidence, no offence u/s 395 IPC is made out.
15.2. Secondly, accused has been charged for robbing the mobile phone of the complainant and his purse plus truck bearing registration no. HR-38T-5588. For the purpose of convenience, the charge so framed is reproduced below:
"Secondly, on abovesaid date, time and place, he alongwith four accused persons committed dacoity by way of robbing complainant Shyam Singh and robbed a truck bearing registration no. HR-38T- 5588, one mobile phone (mobile no. 9582349676) and one purse containing Rs. 8,600/-, licence and Aadhar card from the complainant and thereby he commited an offence of dacoity punishable u/s 395 IPC".
15.3 Henceforth, accused has been charged for robbing the mobile phone of the complainant and his purse plus truck bearing registration no. HR-38T-5588. Reverting to the testimony of SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 31 of 34 complainant, he has deposed that "in year 2016 he was going to Jasolla in his truck bearing no. HR-38T-5588; that his truck was loaded with rohri (building material); that at around 2:00 am, when he took turn towards Jasolla Village and reached at Shahin Bagh Pulia, a car came in front of his truck; that as there was no adequate space to give pass to the car, so he took his truck to the side of the road and stopped to allow the car to pass however, the car stopped just in front of his truck and blocked his way; that four persons got off the car; that two persons from left side of the car and two persons from the right side of the car came out and all the four accused persons came inside the cabin of his truck and all of them started beating him; that he was hit by heavy object on his head and he sustained injury on his head; that later on 20 stitches were stitched in his head; that he was pushed on the floor of the cabin of the truck and three persons sat on him; that one person started driving his truck; that accused persons drove the truck to some distance and after reaching some place, they pulled him out from the cabin of the truck and pushed him inside a car space between front and back seat and four persons sitting at the back seat put their feet on him; that they kept on moving the car for about 3 hours; that his eyes and hands were tied; that thereafter, he was thrown outside the car and accused persons put him inside a cement pipe; that he heard noise of some rickshaw puller carrying vegetable vendors who were going for buying vegetables; that he shouted for help and they came to him and untied his hands and eyes and took him out from cement SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 32 of 34 pipe; that thereafter, he walked to the bus stop on foot and alighted a bus for Badarpur; that he made a phone call to his owner Naveen from phone of the driver of that bus; that he met him at Badarpur bus stand and took him to hospital at Faridabad and he was given medical treatment there; that his owner Naveen sent him back to village as his father had expired because of shock of this incident; that he came to know his death only after reaching village as nobody informed him prior to that; that his mobile phone, Aadhar Card, driving license, cash Rs. 8,600/-, some amount of cash lying in his truck were taken away by the above said accused persons." 15.4. The crux of the testimony is that accused alongwith co- accused shifted the complainant to a car from the Hywa truck bearing no. HR-38T-5588 after driving the same for sometime. Hence from the testimony of the complainant, it is clear that the intention of the accused was not to rob the Hywa truck bearing registration no. HR-38T-5588 since after driving the truck for some distance, accused persons shifted the complainant to a car and left the truck on the road. PW-15 has deposed that the Hywa was found parked in a plot from where it was recovered and it could not be found during investigation and how it reached the place from where it was robbed. Secondly, no recovery either of the mobile phone of the complainant or his purse was effected at the instance of the accused. In view of the same, I came to the conclusion that Prosecution has failed to prove the charge so framed against the accused.
SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 33 of 34
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion I conclude that the prosecution has successfully established that accused alongwith other co-accused abducted the complainant Sh. Shyam Singh with the intention to wrongfully confine him. However the Prosecution has failed to prove the charges of dacoity against the accused and not only that they also failed to prove the robbery of the truck or the mobile phone or his purse against him. In view of the same, accused Rajbir Singh @ Babloo @ Roshan is acquitted of offence punishable u/s. 395 IPC and convicted under section 365 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
Typed to the direct dictation and GEETANJALI
announced in the open court GEETANJALI Date:
2024.05.27
on this 27th day of May, 2024 15:55:40
+0530
(Geetanjali)
Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-03
South East District,Saket Courts
New Delhi/27.05.2024
SC 63/2016, FIR No. 149/2016 PS. SARITA VIHAR STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH @ BABLOO @ ROSHAN Page no. 34 of 34