Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Prasad @ Gullu And Monty on 12 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. AMBIKA SINGH, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE06,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No: 185/2010
Under Section: 392/34 IPC
PS: Parliament Street
State Vs Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty
JUDGMENT U/s 355 Cr.P.C
a) Sl. No. of the case : 02403R0023982011
b) Date of commission of the
offence : 15.11.2010
c) Name of the complainant : Kulwant Singh
d) Name, parentage & address
of accused. : 1) Ram Prasad @ Gullu S/o Sh. Bhawani (R/o
Village Naran Ghat, Distt. Chitaun, Province
Narayani (Nepal)
2) Monty S/o Sh. Harjeet Singh R/o 31/326,
Trilokpuri, Delhi92.
e) Offence complained of or proved: 392/34 IPC.
f) The plea of the accused and his
examination : In their statement u/s 313 CrPC as
recorded on 28.08.2012, both the accused
have denied all the material incriminating
circumstances appearing in the prosecution
evidence on record against them.
They further stated that the present case is
a false case and they do not want to lead
evidence in their defence.
g) The final order : Accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty
convicted.
h) The date of such order : 12.10.2012
Date of institution of case : 13.01.2011
Date of reserving of order : 06.09.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2012
FIR No. 185/10 P.S. Parliament Street Page 1 of 9
BRIEF FACTS / STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu and accused Monty are facing trial on the allegation of the prosecution that on 15.11.2010 at about 09:00 PM at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road in front of Kothi No. 32, both of them in furtherence of their common intention along with Kallu and Sonu (not arrested) indulged in scuffle with the complainant Kulwant Singh and you people overpowered him and you Ram Prasad @ Gullu took out one one mobile with two SIMs bearing No. 9464167106 and 8010242741 and both of them committed an offence of robbery punishable under section (in short u/s) 392/34 IPC.
2. After hearing the arguments, charge u/s 392/34 IPC was framed against accused both the accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty on 03.02.2012 to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined total five witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW1 Const. Kulwant Singh, PW2 HC Kaushal Kumar, PW3 ASI Inderpal, PW4 Const. Shiv Narayan and PW5 SI Kedar Yadav.
4. Statement of both the accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC on 28.08.2012 wherein both the accused have denied all the material incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence on record against them. Both the accused further stated that this was a false case against them and they did not prefer to lead evidence in their defence.
FIR No. 185/10 P.S. Parliament Street Page 2 of 9
5. I have heard the final arguments and carefully perused the record.
6. As mentioned above, the prosecution in support of its case, has examined total five witnesses.
PW1 Const. Kulwant Singh deposed in his testimony that on 15.11.2010 he was posted as Constable in Punjab Police. On that day, he was performing his duty as Personal Security Officer of Sh. Balbir Punj, M.P. at Kothi No. 32, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. At about 9 pm after having his dinner while he was having his walk, four persons were doing HallaGulla. He told them to go away from here but they started beatings him. In that scuffle, one person amongst the four took away his mobile phone from the pocket of lower track suit and he ran away from there. It was of make GFive, Model No. H92. His mobile No. was 9464167106 and the other No. was 8010242741. He apprehended the two other accused, called the police on 100 number. He handed over the two accused to the police. After handing over the two accused persons to the police, he went back to his duty with the M.P. Sh. Balbir Punj. His complaint in this regard is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at pointA. The persons who were apprehended by him at the spot disclosed their names as Monty and Gullu. The IO had arrested accused Monty vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at pointA. Accused Gullu @ Ram Prasad was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C which bears his signature at pointA. Both the accused were personally searched vide FIR No. 185/10 P.S. Parliament Street Page 3 of 9 personal search memo Ex. PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E respectively, both bearing his signatures at pointA. The mobile phone recovered from the possession of accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F bearing his signature at pointA. Later on, the said mobile phone was obtained by PW1 on Superdari vide Superdaginama Ex. PW1/G bearing his signature at pointA. On that day, PW2 had brought the said mobile phone, same is Ex. P1. The police prepared the site plan at his instance. PW1 further deposed that he could identify the accused persons and both the accused were correctly identified by him. His statements were recorded by IO. PW2 HC Kaushal Kumar who recorded the FIR on the basis of rukka, has proved his endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW2/A. PW3 ASI Inderpal deposed in his testimony that on 15.11.2010, he was posted as ASI at PS Parliament Street. On that day he had received DD No. 22A. He along with Ct. Shiv Narain went to the place of occurrence i.e. in front of Kothi No. 32, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi where he met with complainant, namely, Kulwant who was the Punjab Police Constable. Constable Kulwant handed over him two accused persons, namely, Ram Prasad and Monty and got recorded statement regarding snatching of mobile phone. PW3 further deposed that he took the search of the accused persons and a mobile belonging to the complainant was recovered from the pocket of Ram Prasad. He seized the mobile phone vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/F which FIR No. 185/10 P.S. Parliament Street Page 4 of 9 bears his signature at point B. The mobile phone which he had recovered from the accused was handed over to SI Kedar Singh. Both the accused persons were arrested and personally searched by the second IO vide memos already Ex. PW1/B, C, D and E respectively. All the memos bears his signatures at pointB. PW3 identified both the accused persons present in the court as the same persons as arrested on the date of incident. Statement of PW3 was recorded by SI Kedar Singh at the spot.
PW4 Const. Shiv Narayan deposed in his testimony that on 15.11.2010, he was posted as Constable at PS Parliament Street. On that day on receipt of DD No. 22A relating to quarrel, he along with ASI Indrapal had gone to the spot i.e. at Kothi No. 32, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road. There, they found one person, namely, Kulwant Singh who had already apprehended two persons whose name were revealed as Monty and Ram Prasad @ Gullu. Thereafter, ASI Indrapal Singh had recorded the statement of complainant Kulwant Singh. Thereafter, search of the accused persons were conducted and one mobile phone make GFive was recovered from the right pocket of the half pant worn by accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu which was seized by ASI Indrapal Singh vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/F which bears his signatures at pointC. ASI Indrapal Singh handed over both the accused persons along with mobile phone and the seizure memo of the mobile to second IO SI Kedar Yadav. PW4 identified both the accused persons present in the court on that day. He further deposed that he could have also identified the mobile phone, if shown FIR No. 185/10 P.S. Parliament Street Page 5 of 9 to him as he remembered that the said mobile was of Gfive make and was of black colour.
PW5 SI Kedar Yadav deposed in his testimony that on 15.11.2010, he was posted as SI at PS Parliament Street. PW5 prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/A at the instance of complainant which bears his signatures at pointA. Thereafter, PW5 arrested and personally searched both the accused persons vide memos already Ex. PW1/B, PW1/C, PW1/D and PW1/E. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Monty and accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu, same are Ex. PW5/B & PW5/C respectively bearing his signatures at pointA. He identified both the accused persons present in the court on that day.
To prove the case against the accused persons, prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that both the accused, namely, Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty have committed the theft in furtherance of their common intention and while committing theft, they voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint to any person or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
PW1 Const. Kulwant Singh is the most material witness of the present case. He has deposed that on 15.11.2010 at about 9 pm while he was having his walk, four persons were doing HallaGulla. They started beating him and in FIR No. 185/10 P.S. Parliament Street Page 6 of 9 that scuffle, one person amongst the four took away his mobile phone from his pocket. He apprehended the two accused while the other two ran away. He had identified the two accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty present in the court on that day. It is further deposed by PW1 that mobile phone as stolen was recovered from accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F. He has also identified the mobile phone. He has also denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely. PW3 ASI Inderpal has deposed that he had received DD No. 22A and along with Ct. Shiv Narain he went to the place of occurrence where he met with the complainant PW1 Kulwant Singh. PW1 handed over two accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty. PW3 took the search of the accused persons and one mobile phone was recovered from the pocket of accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu.
PW4 Const. Shiv Narayan has deposed that on receipt of DD No. 22A, he along with ASI Inderpal had gone to the spot where he found one person, namely, Kulwant Singh i.e. PW1 who had apprehended two accused persons, namely, Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty.
From the careful perusal of the testimony of PW1, it is crystal clear that PW1 has deposed emphatically on oath that both the accused, namely, Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty present in the court on that day along with two other FIR No. 185/10 P.S. Parliament Street Page 7 of 9 companions had taken away his mobile from his pocket. Testimony of PW1 further shows that PW1 has deposed emphatically on oath that four persons including the two, namely, Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty had given him beatings and in that scuffle, one person took away his mobile phone. PW1 has deposed that there were four persons including present two accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty, though due to some inadvertent typographical error it has been written as two accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty along with their one companion in the charge.
In the statement u/s 313 CrPC, both the accused have stated in their respective statement that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. No motive has been shown at all on record as to why they will falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case. There is absolutely nothing on record to discredit the testimony of PW1 and reliance can be placed upon his testimony. PW1 has deposed emphatically on oath that four persons including present two accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty had given him beating and in that scuffle one of them took away his mobile phone. From the testimony of PW1, it is crystal clear that the accused persons, namely, Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty have taken away the mobile phone in furtherance of their common intention and while doing the same, they had caused instant hurt on PW1. FIR No. 185/10 P.S. Parliament Street Page 8 of 9 Hence, in the light of above discussion, it is crystal clear that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that both the accused persons committed theft in furtherance of their common intention and while committing theft, they used criminal force and caused instant hurt and wrongfully retrained PW1 i.e. complainant Kulwant Singh against his will and, hence, accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty are liable to be convicted u/s 392/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused Ram Prasad @ Gullu and Monty are hereby convicted in the present case for the offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC.
Announced in the open Court (Ambika Singh)
on 12.10.2012 Metropolitan Magistrate06,
PHC, New Delhi
FIR No. 185/10 P.S. Parliament Street Page 9 of 9