Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak Kabadwal on 24 October, 2017
SC/44717/2015
State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC/44717/2015
State Versus Deepak Kabadwal
S/o Shekhar Chand Kabadwal
R/o M53, Gali No.25, Sadatpur
Extension, Delhi
FIR No.33/12
PS Khajuri Khas
under Section 392/397/411 IPC
Date of institution of case : 10012013
Reserved for judgement on : 16092017
Judgement announced on : 17102017
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case filed on behalf of State whereby prosecution is seeking conviction of accused Deepak Kabadwal, who along with coaccused Anshul Bisht (Juvenile) has allegedly committed robbery from one Bikram Singh with the help of a knife for the offences punishable under Section 392/397/411 of the Indian Penal Code FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 1 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal (hereinafter in short shall be referred as "IPC").
2. I have heard both the sides and meticulously gone through the record of the case.
3. Learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and further prays that accused may be convicted for the offences charged against him.
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and further prays for the acquittal of the accused.
5. The facts of the case in concise format are that on 2701 2012 at about 10.30 pm on Service Road Khajuri Pusta Road, Near PTS Wazirabad, accused Deepak Kabadwal along with coaccused Anshul Bisht (Juvenile) had committed robbery from complainant Bikram Singh by using deadly weapon Knife by removing a pocket FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 2 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal purse containing Rs.2,500/, his ITI Card, school identity card along with other documents and his scooty.
6. The detailed facts of the case shall be appreciated at the relevant stages of the judgment.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the sequence of events which are as under;
8. The present case has been committed for trial and the Chargesheet was received by the Court on 10012013. Charge was framed against the accused on 20022013 for the offences punishable under Section 392/397/411 IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the offences charged against him.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses.
10. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded on 05092017.
11. In his defence, no witness has been examined by the accused.
FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 3 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE LED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE ITS CASE OCCULAR EVIDENCE
12. The prosecution in order to prove its case has brought in the witness box its star witness complainant Bikram Singh as PW1. Before the Court, he has stated that on 27012012, there was a wedding function of uncle of his friend at Darshil Vatika, Biharipur, Main Khajuri Khas Pusta. For attending the marriage, he set out from his house on his scooty. He further stated that he first reached the wedding venue where some of his friends had arrived but others were yet to come. When he called one of his friends, he replied to him that he is present near PTS Wazirabad. He then proceeded to reach PTS Wazirabad and when he again called his friends, they responded that they have already reached the wedding venue. From PTS Wazirabad, he again proceeded for Darshil Vatika through service lane. While on the way, he saw one Auto Rickshaw and two boys present there. As that Auto Rickshaw and those two boys had blocked the road, he FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 4 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal requested them to get aside and allow him to pass through. Those two boys objected to his request and in the meanwhile, Auto Rickshaw was taken away by its driver. While those two boys engaged in altercation with him, one of them took out a knife and put it on his neck and they asked him to take out whatever he had. When he told them that he did not have any valuables with him, they started searching his pocket and they took out a purse from right side back pocket. The purse had contained ITI Card, School Card and an amount of Rs.2,500/. Thereafter, those two boys asked him to take out his mobile phone which he had kept in his left side pant pocket and accused started to search the mobile phone and he resisted the act of accused, who tried to take out that mobile. As he tried to physically resist the act of accused, the boy holding knife assaulted him and caused injuries on his neck, back, on the left thigh and on his little finger. He ran to rescue himself leaving behind his scooty and reached Darshil Vatika and narrated the incident to his friends, who came to the spot but neither his scooty was there nor the two assailants FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 5 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal were present there. He gave a call at 100 number. Police arrived there and took him to GTB Hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A.
13. In the cross examination, PW1 was confronted with his earlier statement Ex.PW1/A with regard to slight change in the statement before the Court. The presence of Auto Rickshaw was not mentioned in the statement made to the police and he also did not mention the fact that initially on the date of incident, he had reached wedding venue Darshil Vatika and there he had given a phone call and he came to know that one of his friends, who was to reach that wedding venue had reached PTS Wazirabad and accordingly, he went to PTS Wazirabad on his scooty. The fact that knife was put on the neck of the victim is also not mentioned in Ex.PW1/A. He has denied the suggestion that he did not raise any hue and cry as there was no incident of robbery. It is further elicited in the cross examination that he was discharged from the GTB Hospital at about 2 am. Few other suggestions have been given to him that his scooty was there on the FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 6 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal spot or that it has not been taken away by anyone or that it always remained in his possession and custody or he himself handed over the scooty to the police. All these suggestions have been denied by the witness.
14. PW6 Ct. Somvir was with SI Anuj Kumar, who joined the investigation of the case and when they reached at the spot, they found that the victim had already been taken to GTB Hospital. According to him, SI Anuj collected the MLC of Bikram, who then recorded the statement of Bikram. Rukka was prepared by SI Anuj Kumar and Ct. Somvir took the same to Police Station and got the FIR registered and brought the rukka and copy of FIR along with SI Amit Prakash back to the GTB Hospital. Thereafter, SI Amit Prakash took over the investigation of the case from SI Anuj.
15. In the cross examination, a suggestion has been put that no statement of injured was recorded in his presence or that the statement was not recorded in the hospital by the IO and no rukka was taken by him to the Police Station. Both the suggestions have been FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 7 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal denied by the witness. In the cross examination, it is further elicited that no description or age of the robbers were told or stated by injured Bikram at the time of recording of his statement.
16. PW7 SI Amit Prakash has also deposed on the similar lines as that of PW6 Ct. Somvir.
17. In the cross examination of PW7, suggestion has been given that IO has not conducted free and fair investigation or that he has manipulated the same in order to implicate the accused which suggestion has been denied by the witness. PW7 has admitted that complainant has not disclosed the bodily description of the accused. He has also stated in the cross examination that he did not send the clothes of the complainant for chemical examination.
18. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross examination of these witnesses carried out on behalf of accused to demolish or discredit the testimonies of these witnesses.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED
19. PW1 Bikram Singh has identified accused Deepak FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 8 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal Kabadwal in the Court as the person who was involved in the crime. The witness has also identified accused Deepak Kabadwal on 0504 2012 in PS Khajuri Khas.
20. In the cross examination, he stated that accused Deepak Kabadwal at that point in time was present in the Police Station with face uncovered and open when he saw the accused on 05042012. It is also elicited that he had not denied if that date was 29022012. On further cross examination, he has clearly stated that accused Deepak Kabadwal was inside a room in the police station when he had identified him and other accused was not there in the police station when he had identified accused Deepak Kabadwal in the Police Station.
21. PW7 SI Amit Prakash has corroborated the statement of PW1 Bikram Singh when he stated in his testimony that on 0504 2012, accused Deepak Kabadwal was identified by PW1 Bikram Singh in the Police Station and he also recorded his supplementary statement to this effect. PW7 has also stated in his statement that on FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 9 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal 17032012, judicial TIP of accused Deepak Kabadwal was got conducted in Tihar Jail and accused refused to participate in the judicial TIP proceedings by stating before the Magistrate that he had already been shown to the witness. TIP proceedings of accused Deepak Kabadwal is Ex.PW7/B.
22. In the cross examination, suggestion has been put to PW7 that he has falsely implicated the accused in the present case which suggestion has been denied by the witness.
23. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses which could discredit or demolish the testimony of these witnesses made with regard to identity of accused Deepak Kabadwal.
RECOVERY OF CASE PROPERTY AND WEAPON OF OFFENCE AND THEIR IDENTIFICATION
24. For the recovery of case property, a team of four police officials was constituted comprising of PW2 Ct. Sushil Kumar, PW3 HC Mohd. Rahisuddin, Ct. Tejvir and PW7 SI Amit Prakash. FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 10 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal
25. PW2 Ct. Sushil Kumar in his testimony before the Court has stated that on 28022012, an informer came to Police Station and conveyed an information to SI Amit Prakash regarding scooty which was robbed in the incident and the boy, who robbed that scooty which is in his possession is residing at District Patiala, Punjab, whose name is Deepak and he lives with his aunt (bua). He further stated that on the aforesaid date, they reached PS Model Town and local police had joined in the proceedings. They went to a house at Income Tax colony at about 22.30 am, where they found accused Deepak present in the house. He was interrogated and his disclosure statement is Ex.PW2/C. In his disclosure statement, he has informed that robbed scooty had been kept by him in a room situated in Dayalpur, Delhi in a property bearing no.C7/12 which is a rented accommodation. Thereafter, they reached Dayalpur and found a scooty red colour parked on the ground floor on the parking side in that building. The vehicle was seized by the police. Vehicle is clearly identified by FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 11 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal PW1 Bikram Singh as Ex.P1. PW2 also identified the Scooty Ex.P1.
26. In the cross examination, he stated that they left Patiala at about 2.30 am and reached House No. C7/12, Dayalpur, Delhi at about 89 am and the scooty was recovered from the said premises which was parked in the gallery of the said house. A suggestion was given that he never visited the premises which was denied by the witness. He further stated that he has removed the seized scooty to the PS which was deposited in the Malkhana. It is also elicited that secret informer had come to PS Khajuri Khas at about 11.30 pm and gave information to SI Amit Prakash.
27. PW3 HC Mohd. Rahisuddin has also deposed on the same lines as that of PW2.
28. In the cross examination, a suggestion has been given that Bikram was also with them in the raid which was denied by the witness. Two questions have been asked in the cross examination regarding the identification of the location which have been answered FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 12 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal by the witness. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of this witness to discredit his testimony.
29. PW7 SI Amit Prakash has also supported and corroborated the statement of PW2 and PW3 with regard to the manner in which the scooty was recovered based on the information given by the accused Deepak.
30. In the cross examination, he has stated that the scooty was recovered which was parked in the corridor of the premises at Dayalpur. A question has been asked about joining of any public person to which PW7 has replied that he has asked the public persons to join the investigation at Dayalpur but none agreed and he did not give any notice to them as they did not inform their names and addresses.
31. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses in order to impeach their credibility.
32. As far as alleged weapon of offence knife is concerned, no knife was recovered from the person of accused or at his FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 13 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal instance.
DEPOSITION OF OTHER FORMAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES
33. Besides these witnesses, prosecution has also examined other formal witnesses to prove as follows;
S.No. Name of witness To prove
1. PW4 ASI K.S. Solanki Duty Officer proved FIR as Ex.PW4/A,
endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW4/B
2. PW8 Dr. Devender Proved detailed report of Dr. Narender as
Ex.PW8/A, detailed report of Dr. Latif as Ex.PW8/B
3. PW10 ASI Bijla Malkhana Moharar proved entry no.1464 and 1505 in Register No.19 as Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
34. No defence evidence has been led on behalf of accused. The defences were raised only in the form of suggestions given to various witnesses. Suggestion has been given that PW1 had lodged a false report and police has falsely implicated accused Deepak Kabadwal. A suggestion was also given that because there was a fight or quarrel between accused Deepak and the friends of PW1 namely Rahul and Nitin Nagar and PW1 was also present with his friends in FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 14 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal that fight and because of that enmity, he got Deepak falsely implicated.
35. The other defence raised is that the scooty had not been recovered from the House No.C7/12, Dayalpur, Delhi and that in fact scooty had been recovered from the house of one Yashbir Choudhary R/o K147/43, Shahdatpur Extension, Delhi94 and the Yashbir Choudhary was also brought to the Police Station, who told the police that Bikram had sold the scooty to him without the knowledge and consent of his brother Rinku, who was the real owner of that scooty and that accused Deepak Kabadwal was falsely implicated.
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE
36. The prosecution case starts on 27012012 when PW1 Bikram Singh had gone to Darshil Vatika, Biharipur, Main Khajuri Khas Pusta to attend a marriage and when he reached the venue, he was informed that his other friends are present near PTS Wazirabad. He then proceeded to that place in order to fetch them but on reaching there, he found out that his friends have already reached the wedding FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 15 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal venue. From PTS Wazirabad, he started coming back to the place of wedding venue and when he was passing through a service lane, he saw one Auto Rickshaw and two boys blocking the road. He asked them to allow him to pass through. In the meanwhile that Auto Rickshaw driver drove away but those two boys started asking him to handover his valuables and one of them took out knife and put it on his neck and told him to hand over whatever he had. He informed that he has nothing in his pocket but they had taken out purse from his pant pocket containing ITI Card, School Card and an amount of Rs.2,500/. They also asked him to give his mobile phone to which he resisted. Thereafter, the boy holding the knife started assaulting him with that knife and inflicted injury on his person. In order to rescue himself, he ran away from the spot leaving behind his scooty. After sometime, he came back to the spot with his friends and found no one present there and thereafter, he gave a call at 100 number and police arrived and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A.
37. PW1 has clearly identified accused Deepak Kabadwal in FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 16 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal the Court. The witness has also identified accused Deepak Kabadwal on 05042012 at PS Khajuri Khas and his supplementary statement was also recorded. PW7 SI Amit Prakash also corroborates the fact that on 05042012, PW1 has identified the accused Deepak Kabadwal in the Police Station.
38. The fact that he had refused the TIP proceedings on 1703 2012 is also a factor that goes against the accused.
39. PW1 Bikram Singh has also identified his robbed scooty Ex.P1. The scooty was recovered at the instance of accused Deepak Kabadwal when on 28022012, a police team was formed comprising of PW2, PW3, Ct. Tejvir and PW7 SI Amit Prakash, who on the basis of secret information had nabbed accused Deepak Kabadwal at the house of his bua at District Patiala, Punjab. The accused informed that he had kept the scooty at House No.C7/12, Dayalpur, Delhi. On the basis of said information, the police team had got recovered the Scooty Ex.P1 from the aforesaid house which was parked at the gallery of the parking side of the ground floor. The part of the FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 17 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal information in the disclosure statement that had led to the discovery of the scooty is admissible within the ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The scooty was also identified by PW2. The said scooty belonged to the brother of the complainant, who had got it released on Superdari.
40. At this stage, a look at Section 392 IPC is desirable. The essential ingredients of Section 392 IPC are as under; (1) Accused committed theft as defined in Sec. 378 in the process;
(2) Accused caused or attempted to cause to some persons
(i) death, hurt or wrongful restraint;
(ii) fear of death or of instant hurt or instand wrongful
restraint;
(3) Accused did either act
(a) in committing such theft, or
(b) in order to commit theft, or
(c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away the
property obtained by such theft Venu v State (2008)3 SCC 94: AIR 2008 SC 1199 is relied upon.
FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 18 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal (4) Accused acted voluntarily.
41. From the testimony of PW1, it is absolutely clear that accused Deepak Kabadwal under the hurt had robbed Bikram of his scooty and purse containing certain valuables, however, the purse was not got recovered. The scooty was recovered at the instance of accused Deepak Kabadwal.
42. In view of Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act, presumption is also raised against the accused that it is the accused, who had committed robbery of scooty. The said provision reads as under;
Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act "Court may presume existence of certain facts 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 account for his possession."
43. In a case titled as Satnarain Sao Vs. The State of Bihar, FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 19 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal reported in AIR 1972 SC 1561, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe as under;
"Where the accused is found in possession of stolen property and he is unable to account for such possession, legal presumption under Section 114(a) of Evidence Act, that the accused is either the thief, or receiver of stolen property knowing it to be stolen, can be drawn."
44. In the present case, the robbery was committed on 2701 2012 and the scooty was recovered on 28022012 at the instance of accused Deepak Kabadwal based on the information given by him, which was seized by the police on 29022012. The recovery of scooty clearly connects the accused with the crime coupled with the fact that the accused has been twice clearly identified by the complainant Bikram.
45. As per medical report, Bikram had received certain injuries on his person but the complainant has not clearly stated as to who has inflicted the said injuries. Moreover, no weapon of FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 20 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal offence was recovered which could connect the accused with the said offence. In such a situation, the charge Section 397 IPC is not made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
46. Moreover, the present case does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Section 411 IPC for the simple reason that accused is the robber and not receiver of stolen property.
47. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued on the point of identification of the accused on the premises that;
(1) accused was not known to the victim. (2) the spot was quite dark. (3) no description of the accused was given to the police. (4) the victim has seen the accused in the police station.
48. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for accused has got no legs to stand for the simple reason that the accused has been clearly identified firstly, in the Police Station on 05042012 and secondly, in the Court itself. Moreover, though as per PW1 in his FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 21 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal cross examination has stated that the place of incident was quite dark but he has given a clear account of places around the place of incident when he stated in the cross examination that on the place of incident, there was a dustbin on the side in that lane and towards the left side of that dustbin were houses which goes to show that he was in a position to clearly identify the accused. Even if he has not given any description of the accused to the police that does not imply that he had not identified the accused. Nothing on record has come which could reflect if the accused has been shown to the victim any time prior to the TIP which was conducted on 17032012 and his refusal clearly goes against the accused himself. It was only after refusal of TIP, on 05042012, the accused has been identified by the complainant in the Police Station. Therefore, it is not a case where accused has been identified for the first time in the Court.
49. The defences raised on behalf of accused are self contradictory in nature and do not make their own defences believable in any manner whatsoever. Firstly, the accused has taken a defence FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 22 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal that there was some fight between the accused and friends of the complainant and in that fight, the complainant was also present and out of that revenge accused has been falsely implicated. The said defence is totally made out defence and is absolutely unbelievable. Moreover, the same is not proved on record.
50. The other defence is also totally unbelievable for the simple reason that if the accused was not involved in the crime in any manner how he had come to know that the scooty was sold to Yashbir Chaudhary by the complainant or the same was recovered from the house of Yashbir Chaudhary at K147/43, Shahdatpur Extension, Delhi94. The defence is completely an after thought for the reason that for the first time, it has been raised in the testimony of PW3 and nowhere it has been put to all important witness i.e. PW1. Therefore, both are sham defences and are unworthy of any credence.
51. Learned counsel for accused has also raised a feeble defence that it is not clear from the testimonies as to who has deposited the scooty in the Malkhana.
FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 23 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal
52. The aforesaid argument will not affect the merits of the case in any manner and does not create a chink in the case of the prosecution in any manner considering the fact that PW10 ASI Bijla has clearly stated that on 29022012, SI Amit Prakash had deposited one scooty which was recorded in the Register No.19 at Serial No.1505 which is Ex.PW10/B. Though PW7 in his cross examination has stated that he does not exactly say as to who took the recovered scooty from Dayalpur to Police Station probably it was Ct. Tejvir yet it does not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever.
53. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused has also stressed that FIR is ante timed and in his cross examination, PW1 has stated that he gave his statement at about 10 o'clock in the morning whereas the FIR was recorded at 1.55 am.
54. There is no force in the submission made by learned counsel for accused for the simple reason that in the examination in chief, PW1 has clearly stated that his statement was recorded in GTB FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 24 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal Hospital. PW5 has also supported the fact that Ex.PW1/A was recorded by him and in the cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that Bikram had gone back to his house from the hospital at about 2 O'clock and till then, he had not recorded his statement. He has also denied the suggestion that the statement of Bikram was recorded in the Police Station Khajuri Khas at about 10 am when he had been called from his house. PW6 has also denied the similar suggestion. PW7 has also stated that investigation of the case was assigned to him at about 2 am and by that time, PW5 SI Anuj Kumar had already recorded the statement of victim. Therefore, the question of FIR being ante timed does not arise.
55. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused has relied upon following authorities;
(i) Trimbak Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
(ii) A.P. Kuttan Panicker & Others Vs. State of Kerala before Hon'ble High Court of Kerala FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 25 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal
(iii) Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs. State of Maharastra before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
56. I am in complete agreement with the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, however, the aforesaid judgments are not at all helpful to the case of the accused herein as the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases are absolutely distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
57. Learned counsel for accused has also relied upon judgment titled as Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Others Vs. State of Bihar, Appeal (Crl.) 115657 of 2001.
58. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to lay down certain guidelines in the aforesaid case and the present case has been decided keeping an eye on the aforesaid judgment.
59. The defence either by way of cross examination or by raising defences has completely failed to discredit, demolish or denounce the case of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever. FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 26 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal
60. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case within the four corners of Section 392 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Deepak Kabadwal.
CONCLUSION
61. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of complainant Bikram Singh which is duly supported and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, the only irresistible conclusion points out a guilt towards the accused Deepak Kabadwal beyond reasonable doubt.
62. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Deepak Kabadwal for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 27 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal
63. Accused Deepak Kabadwal is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17th OCTOBER, 2017 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 28 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC/44717/2015 State Versus Deepak Kabadwal S/o Shekhar Chand Kabadwal R/o M53, Gali No.25, Sadatpur Extn.
Delhi
FIR No.33/12
PS Khajuri Khas
under Section 392 IPC
Date of institution of case : 10012013
Reserved for order on sentence : 24102017
Judgement announced on : 24102017
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. I have heard learned counsel for the convict Deepak Kabadwal and learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 29 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal
2. Learned counsel for the convict Deepak Kabadwal has submitted that convict is of young age and he may be released on probation of good conduct. Learned counsel for convict Deepak Kabadwal has also relied upon judgment titled as State Vs. Lucky, Crl. A. 539/2016 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
3. On the other hand, learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that convict Deepak Kabadwal may be dealt with stern hands.
4. It is trite that while considering the matter on the point of sentence, the retribution, reformation and correction of the convict must be kept in mind. Every endeavour shall be made that once a person has committed certain offence, he may be allowed to correct himself and become productive and proactive citizen of the country. No doubt at times correcting oneself is the best way out. At the same time, as the human being has progressed, the crime has also progressed side by side. It also cast a burden on the Courts to have deterrence effect on the citizens, so that they may not deviate from the FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 30 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal path of righteousness and choose a path which is not only detrimental to himself but his family as well. The illaction of the convict not only leaves an indelible scar on the victim's family but to some extent, he also puts his own family into lot of trouble.
5. No universal fixed rule can be applied while sentencing a person for an offence. The entire conspectus of facts and circumstances shall be pressed into consideration while awarding the sentence.
6. In the present case, convict Deepak Kabadwal had robbed one scooty from the complainant Bikram Singh on 27012012 which was later on recovered at his instance and for such an offence, he deserves appropriate punishment. Such like incidents are happening day in and day out and the law has to deal with them with some stern hands. No doubt the convict is of young age yet at this stage if he will not understand the consequences of his misdeeds, he may venture into some other heinous offence. The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the convict is not at all attracted to the facts and FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 31 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC SC/44717/2015 State Vs. Deepak Kabadwal circumstances of the present case.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, convict Deepak Kabadwal is sentenced Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/ (Five Thousand) and in default thereof, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Convict shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C., if applicable.
9. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24th OCTOBER, 2017 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No.33/12 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 32 / 28 under Section 392/397/411 IPC