Delhi District Court
State vs . Ranjeet on 11 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENA CHAHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -08 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 142/2016
PS : Kotwali
U/s 392/411/34 Indian Penal Code
State vs. Ranjeet
CIS No. 302974/2016
Date of Institution of case: 07.04.2016
Date when Judgment reserved: 10.01.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 11.01.2023
JUDGMENT
a. Serial No. of the case : FIR No.: 142/2016 PS:
Kotwali b. Date of the commission of the : 03.02.2016 offence c. Name of the Complainant : Muneshwar Das S/o Bhikhodas d. Name of Accused person and : Ranjeet Kumar S/o his parentage and residence Rajeshwar Rai R/o Village-
Alineura, PO-Dharampur, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
e. Offence complained of : 392/411/34 Indian Penal Code f. Plea of the Accused person : Pleaded not guilty.
and his examination (if any)
g. Final Order : Acquittal
State Vs. Ranjeet
FIR No. 142/16
PS Kotwali
1/19
h. Order pronounced on : 11.01.2023
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Phithly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 03.02.2016 at about 06:00 pm, at main road, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, near metro gate no. 3, Chandni Chowk, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali, the accused Ranjeet along with his co-associate(since not arrested) in furtherance of common intention committed robbery by extorting mobile phone and several other articles of the complainant namely Muneshwar Das as mentioned in complaint Mark X and further, on same day soon after the incident the accused was apprehended nearby the spot at the instance of complainant and several robbed articles of the complainant were found from the possession of the accused as mentioned in seizure memo Mark-X-1, which accused had retained knowingly or having reason it to be believe a stolen property thereby leading to the registration of present FIR u/s 392/411/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC).
2. After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offence u/s 392/411/34 IPC was prepared against the accused person. The aforementioned charge sheet was filed before the State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 2/19 court on 07.04.2016 whereupon the cognizance of the offence mentioned in the chargesheet was taken against the accused. The copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). After hearing the arguments, charge u/s 392/411/34 IPC was framed against the accused on 31.05.2018 for the alleged commission of the offence u/s 392/411/34 IPC to which accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and instead claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution has examined 05 (five) witnesses.
4. PW-1 Muneshwar Das S/o Bhikho Das in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 03.02.2016 at about 4 p.m., he along with his son Sanjay went to the Old Delhi Railway Station and waited for the train but he could not catch the train and went towards the Inquiry Counter, where he came to know that the train for Bihar was of 11:40 p.m. He deposed that he along with his son went outside the station and sat there, at that time two boys came and they apprised him that they also belonged to Bihar and they know one TTE, who can arrange them in the train. Both the boys took to the road and one of the boys told him that he should leave my son near his goods and he should accompany them near the road near Kacha Bagh to bring the ticket for the train. He deposed State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 3/19 that he left the son near the goods and he accompanied the said boys to Kacha Bagh. On reaching there the said boy slapped him and snatched Rs.400/- from him and fled away from the spot. He reached a nearby station on the road but he could not find his son. He further deposed that he started crying. At about 6 p.m., one Constable namely Sunil came to him and he disclosed all the incident to him. Constable Sunil and he went in search of his goods and his son. Accused Ranjeet was found near the gate of Lal Quila, who was apprehended by Constable Sunil and his goods were recovered from him. Police recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. Police seized his goods vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that he can not identify the accused if shown. He had not brought the case property.
After seeking due permission from the court, PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the state. During cross- examination of the witness, PW-1 denied the suggestion that the accused was personally searched in his presence vide memo. (Confronted with document Ex. PW1/DA, where it is recorded.) The attention of the witness was specifically towards the accused but the witness failed to identify the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was not identifying the accused as he had been won over by him.
State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 4/19 An opportunity for cross-examination of the witness was given to the accused, however the same was not availed.
5. PW-2 Sanjay Kumar S/o Muneshwar Das in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 03.02.2016 at about 4 p.m., he along with his father went to the Old Delhi Railway Station and waited for the train but he could not catch the train and went towards the Inquiry Counter and he came to know that the train for Bihar was at 11:40 p.m. He deposed that he along with his father went outside the station and sat there. At that time, two boys came and they apprised his father that they also belonged to Bihar and they know one TTE, who can arrange tickets for them. Both the boys took them on the road. One of the boys told his father that he should leave him near goods and he should accompany them near the road near Kacha Bagh to bring the ticket for the train. He deposed that his father left him near the goods and he accompanied the said boys to Kacha Bagh. On reaching there, the said boy slapped his father and snatched Rs.400/- from him and fled away from the spot. His father reached a nearby station on the road but he could not find him as the said boy took him somewhere and stole his goods. He deposed that he can not identify the accused if shown. He had not brought the case property.
State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 5/19 After seeking due permission from the court, PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the state. During cross- examination of the witness, attention of the witness was specifically towards the accused but the witness failed to identify the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was not identifying the accused as he had been won over by him.
An opportunity for cross-examination of the witness was given to the accused, however the same was not availed.
6. PW-3 SI Bachoo Singh in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 03.02.2016, he was posted at PS Kotwali. On that day, he left the police station for patrolling vide DD No.54 B. He reached Red Fort, where he met with Constable Sunil, Ct. Shyam Kumar and complainant Muneshwar Das. They had apprehended a thief. They handed over to him the accused Ranjeet with two black color bags and one black and white TV which was tied with a cloth. He recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW1/A, which bears his signature at point B. He prepared a rukka which is Ex.PW3/1A from point X to Xl, bearing his signature at point A. He handed over the rukka to Constable Shyam Kumar for registration of FIR. He had left the spot. He arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A and he conducted his personal search which is Ex.PW1/DA State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 6/19 bearing his signature at point B. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/B, bearing his signature at point A. He also prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/C, bearing his signature at point A and seized the case property vide memo Ex.PW1/B, bearing his signature at point B. In the meantime, Constable had returned to the spot. Thereafter, he mentioned the FIR number on all these documents. He tried to search co-accused Manoj with the accused, however, he could not be traced. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. The accused was medically examined. On the next day, one PC remand of the accused was obtained. However, co-accused could not be traced. He prepared the challan and filed it in the Court. PW-3 correctly identified the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that he is not disputing the identity of the case property, however, the defence is that no such property was recovered from the possession of the accused or at his instance.
During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-3 stated that he left the police station for the purpose of patrolling and not for investigation of this case. He did not get any information regarding the present case when he left the PS. However, he reached the spot i.e. Red fort at randon at about 5:30 p.m. He prepared a rukka at the spot. It took 35-40 minutes to prepare a rukka. He deposed that he State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 7/19 sent a rukka at about 9:45 p.m. from the Red fort and he prepared all the documents after registration of FIR. However, he only prepared a seizure memo before the registration of FIR. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the police station and not at the spot i.e., Red Fort. He prepared the site plan at about 10:30 p.m., at the spot. He prepared an arrest memo at about 11 p.m., at the spot. Personal search memo and disclosure statement also prepared at the said time and the same place. He left the spot at about 11:45 p.m., for PS along with both the constable and the accused. The son of the complainant was found at about 10 p.m. he had also come at the spot. He had recorded the statement of the son of the complainant and both the constables at the spot itself. He denied the suggestion that he had made false allegations against the accused. He further denied the suggestion that he had given a false statement in the Court and that the accused was innocent. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW-4 Ct. Shyam Kumar in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 03.02.2016, he was posted at PP Red Fort, PS Kotwali as Constable. On that day, at about 6:30 p.m., Ct. Sunil alongwith Munesh Das were coming in a rickshaw from Shish Gani Gurudwara and stopped at the State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 8/19 main gate of Red Fort, where he was on duty. They then asked him to apprehend one person who was also in one rickshaw ahead of them. He then quickly ran and apprehended that person and brought him to the red fort. The name of that was later on revealed as Ranjeet. The accused was in possession of two black bags and one black TV. Constable Sunil then inquired the accused from where he obtained these goods. The accused then informed that he had robbed one person and took the goods from him on that day. IO SI Bachoo Singh arrived at the spot. The IO arrested the accused in his presence vide arrest memo already Ex. PW3/A, bearing his signature at point B. The accused personally searched vide search memo Ex.PW1/DA, bearing his signature at point B. The seizure memo was prepared which is Ex.PW1/B, bearing his signature at point C. IO handed over rukka to him to get the FIR registered. He then got the present FIR registered and came back at the spot. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement. The accused was shown to the witness to which he stated that he does not remember as he had recently met with an accident.
During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-4 stated that he does not remember how many times his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He had gone with the IO to get the accused medically State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 9/19 examined at 2:35 a.m. He deposed that he does not remember the time exactly as he had recently met with an accident. The accused was arrested at 11 p.m. He stated that he does not remember the time when the seizure memo was prepared and whether the seizure memo was prepared before or after the registration of FIR. He reached the PS at about 9 :50 p.m., to get the FIR registered and came back at the spot at about 10:30 p.m. He denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS, that police had falsely implicated the accused and that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW-5 ASI Sunil Kumar in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 03.02.2016, he was posted as constable at PS Kotwali. On that day, he was on patrol duty at Haldiram Beat, Chandni Chowk. At about 06:00 pm one person namely Muneshwar Dass came to him and he was crying and he stated that one person beat him and snatched his Rs.400/-. He further told him that two persons came to him and said to him that they will also go to Bihar and join them as TT was known. The accused Ranjeet further stated to the complainant that "main teri ticket banwa duga TT se". Thereafter the accused Ranjeet took the complainant to the Kacha Bagh and the accused Ranjeet snatched Rs.400/- from the complainant. The complainant was crying while stating the above mentioned facts. Thereafter, the complainant said to him that State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 10/19 he had left his son Sanjay near to the Rickshaw along with one person. Thereafter, he took the complainant in the search of the accused towards Red Fort. In between, the complainant shouted, "yeh ladka hai jo mere ladke ke pass rickshaw leke khada tha" after seeing one rickshaw puller. He inquired about the rickshaw puller to which he replied that he dropped one person along with some luggage at Lal Quila. Thereafter, he reached at the gate of Red Fort alongwith the Complainant. The complainant pointed out towards one person i.e. accused Ranjeet who was standing along with the luggage at the entrance of the Red Fort and the complainant stated that he is the same person who has snatched his Rs.400/-. Then with the help of Ct. Shyam Kumar who was already present there, apprehended the said boy with their luggage. In the meantime, SI Bachhu Singh came to the spot. Then, he handed over the custody of the accused to SI Bachhu Singh, who interrogated the accused. During interrogation, the accused revealed his name as Ranjeet and recorded his disclosure statement and took his signature upon it which is Ex. PW-3/B bearing his signature at point B. Then IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-5 correctly identified by the accused. The witness was shown four photographs of the case property which is Ex. P-1 (colly). After seeing the photographs, the witness correctly identified the case property.
State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 11/19 During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-5 stated that he cannot tell whether the photographs Ex. P-1 were taken when the case property was released on Superdari. He left the spot at about 7:00 pm. When he left the spot, SI Bachhu Singh, Ct. Shyam Kumar and the accused were present there. He did not note down the name and address of the rickshaw puller in which we went to the Red Fort. He also did not ask the name and address of the rickshaw puller who dropped the accused at the Red Fort. He reached the Red Fort at about 6:30 pm. No recovery of the Rs. 400/- were made in his presence. His statement was recorded at the spot at about 7:00 pm. He does not remember whether the FIR was registered at that time when he was present at the spot. He admitted that there were so many public persons present on the spot and no public person joined the investigation because of their personal reasons and they left the spot without disclosing their names. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and that they falsely implicated the accused at the instance of IO.
9. Vide separate statements under section 294 Cr.P.C dated 13.03.2019, the accused admitted the factum of an FIR Ex. A-1 u/s 294 CrPC. No other prosecution witness as per the list of witnesses in the charge sheet was left to be examined, and hence, PE was closed. Statements of the State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 12/19 accused were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 12.04.2022 wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him were put to him, to which he pleaded innocence, and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present matter. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were heard.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
10. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record. Let the applicable penal provisions are reproduced in verbatim as follow:-
Section 378. Theft.--Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that per- son's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
390. Robbery.--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 State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 13/19 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.
392. Punishment 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.
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 411 IPC. 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 three years, or with fine or both.
11. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favor of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
12. After scanning the available documents, it is found that there are two eye-wtinesses of the alleged offence of robbery punishable u/s 392/34 IPC. One is the complainant who was State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 14/19 examined as PW-1 and another is the son of the complainant who was examined as PW-2 and testimony of these two witnesses had sealed the fate of the prosecution's case. The entire prosecution case for the commission of offence of robbery of property belonging to the complainant while commission of such robbery against the accused was grounded on the statement of the complainant whereby he narrated the incident of robbery by the accused to police authorities. The case of prosecution of commission of offence of robbery cannot be considered to be standing on its own legs without the testimony of the complainant asserting the facts mentioned in his statement before the police /IO.
13. In the case at hand, the star witness of the prosecution i.e. Complainant who is the eye-witness as well as the victim of the alleged offence, has not supported the case of the prosecution, and he could not identify the accused in the Court and has failed to depose as per the prosecution version. As per the prosecution version, the accused was apprehended at the instance of the complainant and he was arrested and personally searched in the presence of the complainant. However, the complainant has completely resiled from his earlier statements given to the police. Further, the statement of the complainant recorded by IO u/s 161 Cr.P.C cannot be considered to be the conclusive proof of the commission of State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 15/19 alleged offence. Furthermore, the disclosure statement of the accused regarding the said offence cannot be the sole proof of the establishment of the fact of alleged offence. The complainant denied taking part in any investigation proceeding at the spot. Similar deposition is reflected in the testimony of PW-2, who was also present at the spot.
14. The testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 cannot be the basis to convict the accused as they were not the eye-witness of the alleged offence of robbery. They admittedly appeared in the scene after the commission of the alleged offence. PW-5 testified that the complainant narrated the entire incident to him and thereafter they chased the accused at the instance of complainant, which shows that his testimony is hearsay at the best which could not be treated as evidence in the light of section 60 of Indian Evidence Act. The testimony of PW-3/IO which is entirely formal in nature, who merely conducted the investigation proceedings. In the aforesaid circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt for the offence of robbery in furtherance of common intention punishable u/s 394/34 IPC.
15. As far as the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC is concerned, the complainant has categorically stated in his deposition that he cannot identify the accused. However, the State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 16/19 complainant has exhibited a seizure memo as Ex. PW1/B of the recovered articles which allegedly belonged to the complainant. For the purpose of establishing the identity of these allegedly recovered articles of the complainant as mentioned in the seizure memo, no identification was done during his testimony. Hence, the allegedly recovered articles from the accused were not identified by the complainant as the robbed/stolen property before the Court. It has not been proved that the recovered articles were the same which belonged to the complainant and which were stolen/robbed at the alleged date by the accused. Here, it is pertinent to observe that it is a settled legal proposition that the case property must fall within the definition of stolen property as defined U/s 410 IPC for making out a case U/s 411 IPC. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to even prove the identity of these recovered articles as they were never brought before the court. The prosecution has also failed to establish that alleged recovery was stolen property belonging to the complainant. Qua recovery proceeding, as per deposition of PW-3/IO, a seizure memo was prepared before registration of FIR and he himself stated in his examination-in-chief that he mentioned FIR number on all the documents after registration of FIR, which shows that alteration/addition was done in seizure memo after it is once being prepared. The possibility of tampering with the memo could not be ruled out. In the State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 17/19 light of above discussion, there is no material on record to implicate the accused for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
16. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
17. In the present factual matrix, since the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution, there is nothing incriminating to suggest that the accused had committed the offence of robbery or retained any stolen property belonging to the complainant. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of offence alleged against the accused in the present matter beyond a reasonable doubt.
18. Prosecution has failed to discharge its burden qua the offences punishable under Section 392/411/34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused Ranjeet Kumar s/o Rajeshwar State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 18/19 Rai stands acquitted of all the charges in the present case.
19. Bail bonds u/s 437A of Cr.PC are to be furnished which would remain valid for a period of six months.
20. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
today i.e. 11.01.2023 MEENA by MEENA
CHAUHAN
CHAUHAN Date: 2023.01.11
16:17:18 +0530
(MEENA CHAUHAN)
Metropolitan Magistrate-08 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi [This judgment contains 19 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Ranjeet FIR No. 142/16 PS Kotwali 19/19