Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Geeta Etc. Judgement Dt. 26.9.2019 on 26 September, 2019

State Vs. Geeta etc.                                     Judgement dt. 26.9.2019


               IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­05
                       (NORTH) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

CNR No. DLNT01­001157­2013
SC No. 58185/2016
FIR No. 267/2012
PS Mahendra Park
State Vs. 1.   Geeta
               W/o Sh. Ompal
               R/o B­4/107 I Floor, DDA Flats, Narela, Delhi.
               (Also called as Flat No. 107, DDA Flat, Pocket D, Sec. B 2,
               Narela, Delhi).
               Permanent Address : Village Tatesar,
               PS Kanjhawala, Delhi.

                2.     Ompal
                       S/o Sh. Mahaveer
                       R/o Village Tatesar, PS Kanjhawala, Delhi.

Date of institution before Ld. MM : 29.12.2012
Date of institution in this Court after committal : 6.3.2013
Date of final arguments : 20.9.2019
Date of judgement : 26.9.2019

JUDGEMENT

1. As per prosecution story, the accused Ompal (A­2) was driver of vehicle no. DL­1RY­5­60 Maruti ECCO and on 28.09.2012, he was accompanying the complainant - Hemant Kumar, Brijesh and Yogesh for loading the cash in different ATMS. Out of Rs.81 lac, firstly Rs.7 SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 1 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 lacs were loaded in ATM of OBC at Kishanganj, thereafter, Rs.3 lac in ATM of OBC at Kamla Nagar and after loading Rs.10 lac in ATM of Central Bank of India at Ghantaghar, when the complainant came out of the ATM, he saw that the driver Ompal (A­2) was not near the vehicle. Upon asking from Brijesh, he was told that he would be coming back in five minutes. After sometime Ompal came and took some sweets from the small box of sweets in his hand and gave one piece to Brijesh, one piece to Yogesh and one piece to the complainant. It is alleged that after taking sweets, the complainant, Yogesh and Brijesh felt dryness, palpitation, headache and intoxication. It is alleged that the accused made Yogesh, Brijesh and complainant sit in a vehicle. It is only in the hospital, that the complainant came to know that out of Rs.81 lacs, only Rs.30 lacs were deposited in ATM and remaining amount of Rs.51 lacs was missing. Driver Ompal was also missing. It is alleged that the accused gave intoxicated sweets to Hemant, Yogesh and Brijesh and made them unconscious and committed theft of Rs.51 lacs from iron box which was lying in the vehicle. Thereafter, accused Ompal fled away leaving the vehicle in a position from which it appeared that the vehicle had struck against an electric pole.

State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 Investigation by SI Kaptan Singh (PW25) In the intervening night 28/29.09.2012, SI Kaptan Singh was posted in PS Mahendra Park. At about 1.15 a.m., HC Chaturvedi received a call from PS Mahendra Park regarding an accident. HC Chaturvedi reached at the spot i.e. at Service Road near Metro Station Jahangirpuri from where HC Chaturvedi informed the SHO that three person were in the Maruti Ecco car in unconscious condition and that it was the delivery van of cash. On the instruction of SHO, SI Kaptan Singh reached there alongwith Const. Kethal, where HC Chaturvedi met him.

In the meanwhile one employee of Logicash Company namely Nirmal also came there. Nirmal told police that persons who were in unconscious condition belonged to his company and they had gone to feed cash in ATMs of three banks in Maruti Ecco, Nirmal also identified the employees of his company as Hemant and Yogesh, Custodian of cash and third person Brijesh as Gun Man. Fourth person i.e. driver Om Pal (A­2) was not present in the Maruti Ecco, Nirmal checked the cash after taking the key from the pocket of Hemant and no money was found in the box in the Eco car. In this box, the cash used to be kept by the custodians.

State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 HC Chaturvedi handed over one revolver and three live cartridges SI Kaptan Singh. These fire arm and ammunition belong to Gun Man Brijesh. HC Chaturvedi and const. Naresh took the victim Hemant, Yogesh and Brijesh to BJRM Hospital. Crime team was called at the spot. Crime Team reached there and Incharge of crime team inspected the Maruti Ecco and proficient expert tried to lift the chance print but same could not be lifted. Photographer of the crime team took the photographs. SI Kaptan Singh then proceeded to BJRM Hospital.

He obtained the MLCs of victims from the hospital and doctor opined that the victims were not fit for recording the statement. The doctor had preserved gastric lavage and blood samples of victims.

Thereafter, SI Kaptan Singh came back to the spot. Nirmal and other employees of Logi Cash Company were present there. On the checking of Maruti Ecco, deposit slips of ATMs were found. On checking of the slips, Nirmal told that Rs. 30 lacs were deposited in the ATMs and Rs. 51 Lacs were found missing from the Maruti Ecco. SI Kaptan Singh again reached in the hospital and doctor opined that victim Hemant was fit for recording his statement.

Statement of Hemant which is Ex.PW2/A was recorded. SI Kaptan Singh made endorsement on the statement of Hemant SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 4 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 Ex.PW25/A and same was handed over to HC Chaturvedi who went to the Police Station for registration of the case. Thereafter, SI Kaptan Singh came back at the spot.

Revolver and live cartridges were kept in a pullanda and pullanda was sealed with the seal of KS and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/B. ATMs transaction slips (Ex.PW7/C colly.) and cash balance report were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. Steel Box alongwith lock and key were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. SI Kaptan Singh recorded the statement of Nirmal. Thereafter, Nirmal left the spot. SI Kaptan Singh prepared site plan Ex.PW25/C. Documents i.e. RC, fitness certificate, insurance certificate and pollution certificate of Maruti Ecco bearing registration No.DL­1RY­ 5060 were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/D. One bag containing clothes of accused Ompal was also sealed with the seal of KS and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/E. Eco car was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/F. SI Kaptan Singh recorded the statement of HC Chaturvedi and Maruti Ecco was brought to PS Mahendra Park.

Then SI Kaptan Singh reached BJRM Hospital and recorded the statement of Yogesh and Brijesh. Doctor BJRM Hospital handed over six parcels containing gastric lavage and blood samples of victims with SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 5 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 the seal of hospital and three sample seals to him and same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/G. Thereafter, he came back to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana. SI Kaptan Singh recorded the statement of Incharge of PCR van namely ASI Dharm Singh. He also recorded the statement of const. Kethal and const. Naresh.

On 30.09.2012, Manager namely Dinesh Kumar Mehra of Logi Cash Company came to PS Mahendra Park and SI Kaptan Singh recorded the statement of Dinesh Kumar Mehra. Thereafter, SI Kaptan Singh was sent to Hyderabad for departmental course. So, he handed over the case file to MHC(R).

Investigation by SI Manoj (PW37) with the help of Sub Inspector Rajiv Ranjan (PW35) and other staff.

2. On 01.10.12 SI Rajiv Ranjan was posted at Spl. Staff, North West Distt. He had received a secret information with regard to presence of accused Geeta, who is a wife of Om Pal. He shared the said information with Senior Officials, who directed him to take action. He briefed them that accused Geeta is expected to come near Muthoot Finance of Durga Puri Chowk, Shahdara, Delhi.

He along with secret informer went to Nand Nagri where they met the police official of PS Mahendra Park i.e. SI Manoj, Lady Ct.Anju SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 6 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 Bala, HC Yash Pal also joined him. They all along with secret informer reached at Muthoot Finance near Durga Puri Chowk at about 1.30PM. The trap was laid near the office of Muthoot Finance. The officials of Spl. staff were in civil clothes. Therefore, they took position near the office of Muthoot Finance and police officials of PS Mahendra Park who were in uniform took position away from the office of Muthoot Finance.

At about 3/3.15 PM one female was seen coming to the side of Muthoot Finance Office. On the identification of secret informer accused Geeta was apprehended by lady Ct. Anju Bala. The accused Geeta was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo and personal search vide Ex.PW­24/A and 24/B respectively.

The search of the accused Geeta was conducted by Lady Ct. Anju Bala, one bundle of 100/­ currency notes of 500 denomination (total amount of Rs.50,000/­) was recovered from accused Geeta. The said bundle was having a stamp of Logi Cash solutions Pvt. Ltd., Noida (UP) which was taken in possession by wrapping the same in a piece of cloth converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of MKM. The said pullanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW­24/D. Accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW­24/C. SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 7 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 Geeta led them to her rented room at Narela, DDA flat. Accused opened the room and produced two bags from the bed which was lying in the said room. The bags were checked. One bag was found containing 90 bundles of currency notes of denomination 100 each and the other bag was found containing 75 bundles of currency notes of denomination 500/­.

All the bundles were put in plastic containers which were converted into pullandas sealed with the seal of MKM and given serial no.1 and 2. both the bags were also taken in possession and given serial no.3 which was sealed with the seal of MKM. All the three pullandas were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW­24/E. Case property was deposited with MHC(M).

3. On 30.10.2012 accused Geeta was produced in the court. SI Manoj obtained police custody remand. On 4.10.2012 she led the police to A­1/281, Nand Nagri, which is mobile shop of Dharam Telecom and SI Manoj seized two empty boxes of mobile phones vide memo Ex.PW8/A. SI Manoj collected the documents of the loan taken by Geeta vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. On 5.10.2012 SI Manoj Along with Ct. Yashpal and Lady Ct. Poonam made inquiry from Sulesh, Vishnu and Ram Chaurasiya, the property dealers. Smt. Geeta led them to a shop of Parveen Saini where she had purchased a mobile SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 8 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 phone. SI Manoj seized the mobile phone bill vide memo Ex.PW21/B. On 6.10.2012 Geeta was produced in the court and sent to JC. On 7.10.2012 Ranjan Bisht handed over 12 certified copies of Logicash Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Regarding replenishment of cash etc. which were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. Vineet Arora from ABP Travels came to police station and produced documents pertaining registration of company, agreement of maintenance of vehicle and details of driver deputed by the company. These documents were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A.

4. On 10.10.2012, She Sanjay Khandelwal, Vice President of Logicash Solutions Pvt. Ltd., came to police station and got the cash released. However, photocopies of the currency notes were kept as per the court order. On 24.11.2012 Vinod Hooda, the field officer of Yo Cab Pvt. Ltd., produced documents pertaining to vehicle DL­1RY­ 5060 which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A. On 23.10.2012 SI Kaptan Singh seized employment proof of accused Ompal vide seizure memo Ex.PW33/B. FSL report Ex.PW33/C was placed on record. SI Manoj Kumar prepared the charge sheet, which was filed by SHO in the concerned court.

Arrest of Ompal by SI Ajay Kumar (PW29/PW31)

5. On 11.07.13 SI Ajay Kumar was posted at Special Staff, North SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 9 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 West Distt. On that day he along with HC Subhash, Ct. Yogender, Ct. Ravi Rana were present at Haider Pur red light signal at about 6 PM, where they met a secret informer, who informed that Om Pal had been noticed going to the house of his sister. If raid conducted, he can be apprehended. SI Ajay Kumar convey this information to Inspector of Spl.Staff, who directed him to take action.

SI Ajay Kumar along with member of raiding party laid a trap at Haider Pur road, near Premier Inn Hotel. At about 6.30 PM one person was seen coming from the side of outer ring road, who was pointed out by the secret informer. They apprehended the Om Pal (A­

2). He was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW­31/A. The personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW­31/B. Accused made disclosure statement with regard to the present case which is Ex.PW­31/C. SI Ajay Kumar prepared kalandra Ex.PW­31/D. Thereafter, they returned to the office of Spl.staff and made arrival entry vide DD no.81/B Ex.PW­31/E. SI Ajay Kumar informed PS Mahendra Park about the arrest and disclosure made by accused Om Pal.

Investigation by SI Devender (PW37)

6. On 22.05.2013, SI Devender posted at PS Mahendra Park. On that day, further investigation of the case was marked to him for SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 10 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 investigation. On 12.07.2013, he was informed by SI Ajay Kumar regarding the apprehension of the accused Om Pal by Special Staff, North West at Haiderpur, Delhi near Rohini Jail through the duty officer Mahendra Park.

On the production of accused Om Pal at Rohini Court, SI Devender went to the concerned court alongwith HC Sudesh. He formally arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW37/A. The accused was taken on police remand in this case. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW37/B. Thereafter, SI Devender took the accused to the ATM where he had administered stupefying substance to the custodians of the bank notes and gun man. He prepared pointing out memo of the concerned ATM of the Central Bank of India at the instance of accused vide memo Ex.PW37/C. The accused took them to Chaudhary Mishthan Bhandar, GT Road, Shakti Nagar, Delhi where he identified the said shop from where he had purchased the sweats in which he had administered stupefying substance.

SI Devender prepared the pointing out memo of the same vide memo Ex.PW37/D. Accused also identified the place at Service Road, near Jahangirpuri Metro Station where he had left the Maruti Ecco Vehicle bearing no. DL­1RY­5060 after commission of crime. He SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 11 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 prepared the pointing out memo of the said place vide memo Ex.PW37/E. After that, SI Devender alongwith HC Sudesh and accused Om Pal went to Shahjahanpur, UP in search of co­accused Shyam Babu but he was not found at the place and thereafter, they came back at the police station.

On 15.07.13, the accused Om Pal got recovered two mobile phones make Monix and Soni Ericson from the kitchen of his rented house. SI Devender seized the said mobile phone after mentioning its particulars vide seizure memo Ex.PW37/F. He had also prepared the pointing out memo of his rented accommodation vide memo Ex.PW37/G and accused had also shown the bed in his house where he had kept the stolen money. He recorded the statement of PW HC Sudesh, SI Ajay, Const. Ravi Rana etc. SI Devender had also collected the copy of the previous involvement/convictions report of the accused Om Pal, which is mark "Y". He prepared the supplementary charge sheet and filed it in the concerned court.

7. Case was committed to Sessions Court.

Charge

8. A charge under Section 328 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 12 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 392 IPC read with 120B IPC was framed against both the accused persons. A separate charge was framed against accused Geeta under Section 411 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution Evidence

9. In order to prove its case prosecution examined following witnesses :

PW1 WHC Urmila recorded FIR Ex.PW1/A. PW2 Hemant Kumar S/o Late Sh. Mukti Nath Jha is a custodian in Logi Cash Pvt. Ltd. He testified that his duty was to load cash in different ATMs. On 28.9.2012 at about 3:30 pm, he received cash amount of Rs.81 lacs from Mehra Sir and proceeded from his office, which was situated at Jhandewalan. He was to load that money in ATMs belonging to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Central Bank of India and United Bank of India. He testified that he also obtained cash from Nirmal Sir. He proceeded in a vehicle Maruti ECO DL­1LY­5060. One Yogesh Kumar, who was also a custodian, gunman Brijesh and accused Ompal, the driver were along with him. The said cash was kept in a iron box. First they went to Oriental Bank of Commerce ATM at Kamla Nagar and loaded Rs.3 lacs in that ATM. Thereafter, he went to Ghantaghar and loaded Rs.10 lacs in Central Bank of India ATM. When he came out of the ATM, situated at Ghantaghar after loading SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 13 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 the money, he could not find driver/accused Ompal there. On inquiry, it was revealed that accused Ompal had asked gunman Brijesh Kumar to wait for five minutes. Yogesh made a call to driver/accused Ompal but Ompal disconnected the phone and came there within 2­3 minutes. Accused Ompal was having small box of sweets. One piece of sweets was eaten by accused Ompal himself and then he offered the sweets to them. All of them took one piece of sweets and ate the same. After eating sweets, they felt thirsty but could not find water there. Thereafter, they proceeded for next ATM of Oriental Bank of Commerce situated near Kirorimal College. PW2 further testified that when he was loading money in ATM, accused Ompal came inside the ATM and asked them to load the money little quickly. PW2 further testified that he told him that he was feeling giddiness and headache. In reply, Ompal said that he will arrange the medicine. When Yogesh also complained of giddiness, he (PW2) asked him to sit in the office and he continued to process the money in the ATMS. After loading Rs.10 lacs in the said ATM, he came out of the ATM and sat in the van. Gunman Brijesh also complained of giddiness and head ache. Accused Ompal was present in the vehicle and he asked them to sit in the van and stated that he would arrange the medicine for them. PW2 further testified that thereafter, he became unconsciousness and he regained SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 14 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 his consciousness in Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangirpuri. In the hospital, he saw that custodian Yogesh and Brijesh were also admitted in the said hospital. He came to know that they were also administered some intoxicate in the sweets and accused Ompal had fled away after taking Rs.51 lacs. He testified that his statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded by police.

PW3 Yogesh is the another custodian in Logi Cash Pvt. Ltd. He also testified about the entire incident in the same way as testified by PW2.

PW4 Brijesh Singh Tomar was posted as gunman at Matrix Security. On 28.9.2012 he was on duty with Logi Cash Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. Company. On that day, his duty was on the cash vehicle along with Hemant and Yogesh and accused Ompal. He testified that Maruti cash vehicle was being driven by accused Ompal. His testimony is also on the same lines as that of PW2 and PW3.

PW5 Dinesh Kumar Mehra testified that he was working with Logi Cash Solution Pvt. Ltd. as Volt Incharge. On 28.9.2012 his duty was at Jhandewalan Office. He handed over Rs.81 lacs to custodian Hemant for North­1 route for loading the said money in the ATMs of Oriental Bank of Commerce, United Bank of India and Central Bank of India. Hemant had issued the receipt for the same. The aforesaid SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 15 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 currency notes were flapped and were stamped with round stamp of Logi Cash Solution Pvt. Ltd., Noida U. P. 201301. A­79, Sector­4. The said check was handed over to Hemant at around 3:30 pm. On next day i.e. 29.9.2012 at about 6:00 pm, their Executive Shashi Ranjan told him that Ompal, the driver of the vehicle, had run away along with the cash of Rs.51. Lacs and that gunman Brijesh, custodian Hemant and Yogesh were unconscious and were hospitalized.

PW6 Sanjay Khandelwal is Vice President of Logi Cash Solution Company Ltd.. He testified that in the same manner as PW5. He further testified that he came to know from the police that Rs.47 lacs hd been recovered from the flat of the accused Ompal. The said cash belonged to their company as it was having the stamp of company along with the flap. He got the cash released after furnishing indemnity bond Ex.PW6/A. The coloured photographs of the cash were taken and the photo copies of the currency notes were also taken. The photo copies of the currency notes Ex.P2 and coloured photographs of the said currency notes Ex.P3/1 to 6 were identified by PW6 as the same which belonged to his company and which were stolen.

PW7 Nirmal Kumar Singh is the Executive Operations at Logi Cash Pvt. Ltd. Company. His testimony is on the same lines as that of SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 16 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 PW5 and PW6. He also testified that on 28.9.2012 at about 3:30 pm, custodian Hemant had taken Rs.81 lcas from Dinesh Kumar Mehra for loading the same in the ATMs, Rs.65 lacs were to be loaded in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rs.10 lacs were to be loaded in ATMs of Central Bank of India and Rs.6 lacs were to be loaded in the ATMs of United Bank of India. He testified that he had issued the indent for the same. The cash was loaded in the vehicle no. DL1RY­5060 and the name of driver was Ompal and name of gunman was Brijesh Singh Tomar. Custodian Hemant was also handed over the route chart for loading the cash in various ATMs. At around 6:30 pm, custodian Hemant told him that he was at third ATM but thereafter, the said custodian Hemant could not be contacted. Once, the other custodian Yogesh picked up the phone but he was speaking in a very strange way. PW7 further testified that he came to know from his seniors that the aforesaid vehicle collided with the electric pole near Jahangir Puri Metro Station and that the boys, who were in the vehicle were found under the influence of some intoxication. PW7 testified that he along with Senior Executive reached at the spot. Police was already there. Police asked them to check the steel box, which was lying at the back of the vehicle. They took out the key of the box from the pocket of the Hemant and it was found empty. However, they found transaction SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 17 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 slip and cash balance report slip lying in the vehicle. On checking the same, PW7 told that cash had been loaded in four ATMS i.e. Rs.7 lacs in Oriental Bank of Commerce at Kishanganj and Rs.3 lacs in the ATM of Oriental Bank of Commerce at Kamla Nagar, Rs.10 lacs in the ATM of Cental Bank of India at Ghantaghar and Rs.10 lacs in the ATM situated at Kirorimal College. Except these ATMS, no cash was loaded in any other ATMs. The steel box along with the lock and key was seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. ATM transaction slip and cash balance report were seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C. PW8 Hemant S/o Sh. Shiv Lal is a driver by profession and is a resident of A­1/327, Nand Nagri, Delhi. He testified that a person namely Dharambir is running a shop of mobile phone in the name of Dharam Telecome in their area. He asked him to arrange for renting out one Eco vehicle, which belonged to one Geeta. PW8 testified that with the help of his friend Anil, Geeta had negotiations with one Sahil, vendor of Logi Cash Companby. He testified that in his presence police took into possession two empty mobile box from the shop of Dharambir. Dharambir told that the police that Geeta had taken the said mobile phone without making payment and thereafter she vacated the house where she was residing as a tenant. The said two SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 18 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 empty mobile baoxes were seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. He identified the two empty mobile boxes, which are Ex.P2.

PW9 Pradeep is a resident of B­1/383, Nand Nagri, Delhi. He runs a business of hosiery. He testified that Geeta came to his house as a tenant along with her family on 20.8.2012 and stayed there for one month only. He testified that he rented out one room to Geeta on the recommendation of his neighbour Dinesh without any police verification. Geeta paid a rent of Rs.2000/­ to him for one month. Husband of Geeta was having one white Eco vehicle. She vacated his house in the month of September 2012 saying that she was taking another house near Gagan Cinema. PW9 testified that Geeta had purchased Fridge and Washing Machine on installments on my address. After, Geeta left the said house, the finance/company officials visited their house many times for collecting the installments from Geeta. PW9 told those officials that Geeta had already left the house and had shifted somewhere else. PW9 identified Geeta but could not identify her husband i.e. accused Ompal.

PW10 Dharambir runs a mobile shop in the name of Dharam Telecom. His testimony is on the same lines as testified by PW8. He testified that on 23.9.2012,, Geeta had chosen two mobile phones and SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 19 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 had told him that she will take these two mobile phones to her house and show the same to her family members and whichever phone is finally liked by them, she will purchase the same and will return back the second one. In good faith, he allowed her to take the two mobile phones and did not asked for the payment at that time but thereafter, she never came back. On inquiry from the neighbours, he came to know that she had alrady left the room. He identified the two empty boxes seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. PW11 Mahesh Kumar Gupta testified that his wife Nisha Gupta had purchased a flat no. 107, Pocket­D, Sector­B2, Narela. They contacted one property dealer by the name of Naval Kishore for renting flat of Narela. To his knowledge, the flat was vacant as he had not rented it out to anyone. On 5.10.2012 police officials of PS Mahendra Park called him and informed him that one lady by the name of Geeta had been arrested from the said flat along with lacs of rupees. In cross examination, he testified that he had given the keys of said flat to Naval Kishore for renting out the said flat.

PW12 Vinod Kumar Jain Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd. Durga Puri Chowk, Delhi testified that on 4.10.2012 accused Geeta was brought by police to her office. He handed over the certified copies of the documents relating to gold loan account of SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 20 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 Geeta in their branch. These documents were seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. The certified copies of the documents are Ex.PX1 to PX5 including the election identity card of the accused. In cross examination, he testified that Geeta had taken first loan of Rs.12000/­ on 2.4.2012 by pledging one gold chain and locket and the second loan was takne on 18.8.2012 for Rs.6000/­ on the same jewellery. On 19.9.2012, extra jewellery i.e. studs (two ear rings), were again pledged and additional loan of Rs.7000/­ was again taken. So the total loan amount stood against her was Rs.25000/­. She did not return the said amount till date and had never approached the company again.

PW13 Raj Chaurasiya testified that he was working with Mahgalaxmi Properties owned by Naval Kishore, the property dealer. He received a call from one Vishnu and asked him about availability of flat, which could be rented out. PW13 testified that he replied in affirmative and after sometime Vishnu and Suresh Mittal, property dealer, along with accused Geeta came to his office. PW13 testified that he was introduced to accused as Suman by herself. He showed flat no. 107, Pocket­D, Sector­B2, Narela to accused. She liked the flat and the said flat was rented out to her at a monthly rent of Rs.2500/­. Accused handed over Rs.500/­ to him as token money and on next SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 21 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 day, she handed over Rs.2000/­ to him and her two photographs. She stated that she would hand over her identify proof later on when she bring her articles. PW13 handed over the keys of flat to her. After two days, accused brought her articles along with two children but she did not submit her identity proof. PW13 further testified that the flat belonged to Mahesh Kumar Gupta, a friend of Naval Kishore. Mahesh Kumar Gupta had handed over the keys of the said flat to Naval Kishore for renting out the same. He further testified that on 5th day of the next month, when accused Suman @ Geeta was brought by police, he immediately identified her as the same lady, who had taken the aforesaid flat on rent.

PW14 Sulesh Kumar is a property dealer. He testified that on 21.9.2012 accused Suman @ Geeta came to his office and told her name as Suman and told him that she needed a house on rent for few days in Narela. PW14 testified that he told her that he was not having any rentable flat but she requested that she needed the flat urgently because her children with her. Therefore, PW14 contacted Vishnu, another property dealer, who took them to the office of another property dealer i.e. Mahalaxmi Properties, Raj Chaurasiya, the employee of Naval Kishore of Mahalaxmi Properties has shown them flat no. 107, Sector­B2, Pocket­D, DDA Flat, Narela, Delhi. His rest of SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 22 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 the testimony is on the same lines as testified by PW13.

PW15 Vishnu, Property Deal, testified that on 21.9.2012, Shailesh Mittal, a property dealer, asked him about availability of the flat. He told him that a flat was available and he introduced him to Raj Chaurasiya, an employee of Naval Kishore, the proprietor of Mahalaxmi Properties. He testified that Shailesh Mittal brought accused Suman @ Geeta, who had come along with her two children. He took them to Mahalxmi Properties and introduced them to Raj Chaurasiya. PW15 testified that accused told her name as Suman.

PW16 Vineet Arora is authorized signatory of ABP Travels Private Ltd., Sector 31, Gurgaon, Haryana. He handed over the photo copy of an agreement for vehicle maintenance between his company with Logi Cash Ex.PA, voter identify card of driver Ompal Ex.PB and card details of driver Ompal Ex.PC/1 to Ex. PC/6 given by driver Ompal at the time of agreement. He also proved the photo copy of registration/certificate of corporation of their company, which is Ex.PD1/ to Ex.PD/1. All the photo copies of the documents were seized by SI Manoj Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. PW16 further testified that he informed IO SI Manoj Kumar that vehicle no. DL1RY­5060 belonging to Ompal Singh was sent to Logi Cash Solution Pvt. Ltd. through their company.

State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 PW17 Vinod Kumar Huda is a filed officer in Yo Cab Pvt. Ltd. His job in the company was to collect the rent from vehicles. Accused Omapl had come to their company for taking a vehicle. Accordingly, the company provided Eco vehicle bearing no. DL1RY­5060 to him on monthly rent of Rs.10,000/­ on 22.3.2012. The wife of accused i.e. Geeta used to give rent/installment to them. Sometimes she used to give them by calling them at ISBT. In the month of November 2012, he handed over the photo copy of application for of Ompal Ex.PE/1 to Ex.PE/2, Ex.PG/1 to Ex.PG/6 and Ex.PH/1 to Ex.PH/3. All these documents were seized by SI Manoj Kumar vide memo Ex.PW17/A. PW18 Ranjan Bisht was Senior Executive/Administrative Officer in Logi Cash Solutions Pvt. Ltd.. On 7.10.2012 he handed over certified copy of scheduled cash order, cash replenishment form, custodian wise list of cash and balance report, which were seized by SI Manoj Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. PW19 Mohit testified that in the year 2012, he used to sit in mobile shop of his father at shop no. 1020, Paana Paposia, Narela under the name and style of Rathi Telecom. In September 2012, accused Geeta purchased a SIM card of TATA Indcom and she handed over one photo copy of identity proof of one Mahavir as a proof of identity.

 State Vs. Geeta etc.                                  Judgement dt. 26.9.2019


                PW20 Ramesh Chand was Incharge, Crime Team.                         On

29.9.2012, he insepcted the spot, where one Maruti Eco no. DL1RY­ 5060 was found in accidental condition after hitting the electric pole. One iron box was lying in the dickey of the van and one bag containing ATM slips was lying on driving seat. Ct. Parvender, photographer, took the photographs of the spot. PW20 prepared inspection report Ex.PW20/A. PW21 Praveen Saini testified that he was running the mobile shop in the name of Shri Sai Telecom at 55/1, Railway Road, near Canara Bank ATM. Narela. On 5.10.2012 accused Geeta came along with Investigating Officer to his shop. On 30.9.2012 she had purchased one mobile hand set, C­5300, HUAWEI and at that time she had disclosed her name as Suman. He proved the bill no. B757 Ex.PW21/A. Copy of which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/B. PW22 Dr. Ravinder proved the MLC of Yogesh Ex.PW22/A, MLC of Hemant Kumar as Ex.PW22/B and MLC of Brijesh Singh as Ex.PW22/C. PW23 Ct. Pravinder is the photographer of Crime Team. He took the photographs Ex.PW23/A1 to A9. The negatives are Ex.PW23/A10 to Ex.PW23/A18 SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 25 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 PW24 Ct. Yashpal joined investigation with SI Manoj Kumar on 1.10.2012. His testimony is same as that of SI Manoj Kumar.

PW25 SI Kaptan Singh received a call from HC Chatarvedi on the intervening night of 28/29.9.2012. His investigation has already been described by me.

PW26 HC Chattarbedi, his investigation has already been discussed by me.

PW27 Ct. Praveen Kumar testified that on 23.10.2012, he took six exhibits from MHC(M) and deposited th same at FSL, obtained acknowledgement from the office of FSL and handed over the copy of road certificate with acknowledgement to FSL.

PW28 Ct. Naresh had joined SI Kaptan Singh (PW25). PW29 SI Ajay Kumar was posted in Special Staff, North West District. His testimony is same as the testimony of SI Rajiv Ranjan (PW35).

PW30 Ct. Akhtar Hussain had joined investigation with SI Ajay, SI Rajiv Ranjan, SI Manoj, L/Ct. Anju Bala, HC Yashpal and Ct. Ravi Rana.

PW31 SI Ajay was previously partly examined as PW29 and has been given a new number as PW31 inadvertently. His testimony is same as that of SI Rajiv Ranjan (PW35).

State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 PW32 ASI Dharam Singh was posted in PCR van as Incharge at Jahangir Puri Metro Station on the intervening night of 28/29.9.2012. At about 1:00 am on 29.9.2012, one person informed them that one vehicle had hit against police of electricity on the service road of Metro Station, Jahangir Puri. He along with PCR staff went there and found one Maruti Eco no. DL1RY­5060 struck against the police. Three persons were found in the said vehicle, who were unconscious. He informed the control room. One person, who was sitting on front seat was found in possession of one loaded revolver. He again informed to control room. Police officials including HC Chatarvedi from PS Mahendra Park reached there. HC Chatarvedi picked up the phone of the injured and caller informed that this vehicle was carrying ATM cash. The company employees also reached there and opened the box placed in Eco van with the key, which was in possession of the occupants of Eco vehicle. No cash was found in box. He handed over the revolver and cartridges to HC Chatarvedi.

PW33 SI Manoj Kumar, his testimony is same as that of PW35 Inspector Rajiv Ranjan in respect of Geeta and recovery of cash.

PW34 ASI Chandra Bhan Singh is MHC(M), who testified that on 29.9.2012, SI Kaptan Singh deposited the case property vide entry at serial no. 817. On 1.10.2012 SI Manoj Kumar deposited the case SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 27 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 property mentioned in serial no. 821. On 4.10.2012 SI Manoj Kumar deposited the case property in serial no. 825. All these entries were made in register no.19. Copy of the same are Ex.PW34/A. He testified that on 23.10.2012, Ct. Parveen took exhibits of the same and deposited the same in FSL. After depositing the same, he handed over the receipt to him. Copies of which are Ex.PW34/B. On 26.12.2012 FSL report Ex.PW34/C was received.

PW35 Inspector Rajiv Ranjan is the Investigating Officer. His investigation has already been described by me.

PW36 ASI Anju Bala joined investigation with PW 35 and her testimony is on the same lines as that of PW35.

PW37 SI Devender arrested accused Ompal on 22.5.2012. His investigation has already been described. He prepared supplementary charge sheet and filed in the court.

Statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC

10. Accused persons denied all allegations. However, they did not lead evidence in defence.

11. Final arguments were heard.

12. I take up the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel as under :

Whether Geeta is not a resident of flat from where the cash was recovered.

State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019

13. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW11 Mahesh Kumar Gupta, who is owner of flat no. 107, Pocket­D, Sector­B­2, Narela. The police had recovered the currency notes from this flat. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that PW11 Mahesh Kumar gupta has testified that aforesaid flat was vacant and he had not rented out the flat to anyone. It is argued that there is no documentary evidence like Rent Deed to show that this flat was let out to Geeta. It is argued that no rent receipt was seized by police to prove that Geeta was a tenant in this flat. Therefore, it is argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the currency notes were recovered from the flat in which Smt. Geta was tenant.

14. I have considered the defence submissions. It is true that neither any Rent Deed was recovered nor any rent receipt was recovered. It is also true that PW11 Mahesh Kumar Gupta, t he owner of this flat, had testified that he had not let out this flat to anyone. However, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that this flat was in occupation of Smt. Geeta when the cash was recovered from the flat. PW14 Sulesh Kumar has testified that on 21.9.2012 Smt. Suman had come to his office and told him that she wanted a house on rent for few days in Narela. PW14 was not having the details of any rentable flat, therefore he contacted Vishnu (PW15), who was another property SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 29 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 dealer. PW15 Vishnu referred them to Raj Chaurasia, an employee of Nand Kishore, who is the proprietor of Mahalaxmi Properties. PW15 Vishnu has testified that said Shailesh Mittal had brought accused Smt. Geeta and then they were taken to Mahalaxmi Properties. PW13 Raj Chaurasia, an employee of Mahalaxmi Property owned by Naval Kishore testified that he was contacted by Vishnu and after sometime Vishnu, Shailesh Mittal and Smt. Geeta came to his office. He showed the aforesaid flat to accused Smt. Geeta and rented it out for a monthly rent of Rs.2500/­. P'W13 handed over the keys of the flat to her. After two days, accused Smt. Geeta brought her articles along with her two children. PW13 also testified that this flat belonged to Mahesh Kumar Gupta, a friend of Naval Kishore and that Mahesh Kumar Gupta had handed over the keys of the flat to Naval Kishore for renting out the same. The entire chain of testimony shows that not one rather three property dealers are testifying that Smt. Geeta had taken the aforesaid flat on rent on 21.9.2018. The present offence took place on 28.9.2012 i.e. just after about a few days after Smt. Geeta occupied the said flat. The aforesaid evidence shows that flat was rented out to Smt. Geeta without the knowledge of Mahesh Kumar Gupta because tenancy period was very short i.e. about one month. The testimonies of so many wintesses cannot be doubted in SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 30 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 this regard.

Whether there is evidence that accused Smt. Geeta had conspired in commission of the offence.

Ld. Defence Counsel argues that there is no evidence against accused Smt. Geeta that she had conspired in commission of the aforesaid robbery. It is argued that no witness has testified that she had conspired with anyone. I have considered this submission. It is a known fact that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. Therefore, the conspiracy has to be inferred from various facts coming on record. First of all I would refer to the testimony of PW13 Raj Chaurasiya, PW14 Sulesh Kumar and PW15 Vishnu, who are all property dealers. All of them have testified that accused Smt. Geeeta had introduced himself as Suman when the flat was rented over to her on 21.9.2012. The fact that she was concealing her actual name and was impersonating as Suman while trying to get a flat on rent is a strong indicator that she was conspiring with Ompal with an objective that when after about a few days, robbery is committed, no one is able to find her as well as her husband at the previous address.

15. It is further necessary to note the conduct of accused Geeta. PW13 Raj Chaurasiya had testified that she handed over to him the rent amount and two photographs but did not give her identity proof.

State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 PW13 handed over keys of flat to her and after two days, she brought her articles along with her two children but she did not submit her identity proof. This conduct of accused further shows that she had planned to conceal her identity because she knew what is going to happen a few days later.

16. Now I refer to the testimony of PW9 Pardeep, a resident of B­ 1/383, Nand Nagari, Delhi, who testified that accused Geeta came to his house as a tenant along with her family on 20.8.2012 for one month. Her husband was having one white Eco vehicle. However, she vacated the house in the month of September 2012. He testified that she had purchased Fridge and Washing Machin on his addess but after Geeta left the said house, officials of Finance Companies visited his house many times for collecting the installment from Geeta but she had already left the house. This conduct for staying for one month in the house of Pardeep as a tenant and thereafter, leaving the said house without informing the Finance Companies is another indicator that she was planning for commission of the present offence.

17. Further conduct of Smt. Geeta can be seen from the testimony of PW19 Mohit, who testified that in September 2012 accused purchased a SIM card of TATA Indicom on the basis of photocopy of identify proof of Mahaveer as proof of identify. The entire conduct of Smt. SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 32 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 Geeta shows that she was changing her residences in quick succession and had taken a mobile SIM under the identity proof of someone else and had taken a flat no. 107, Pocket­D, Sector B­2, Narela on rent falsely mentioning her name as Suman. Finally police recovered the currency notes of Logicash Company from her flat at her instance as well as from her own possession. I may refer to testimony of PW35 Inspector Rajiv Ranjan, who had testified that when Geeta was arrested near Muthoot Company at Durga Puri Chowk, one bundle of Rs.100 currency note of Rs.500/­ denomination having a stamp of Logicash Solution Pvt. Ltd. was recovered from her. Accused thereafter led the police party to her rented room at Narela, where two bags containing the currency notes were found. The entire evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that she had actively participated her husband Ompal in commission of robbery by getting a flat under the fake name of Suman and by concealing her real identity as well as by concealing the stolen currency notes in the said flat. Whether there is any evidence against accused Ompal (A­2).

18. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that no witness has testified that Ompal had stolen the money in question. It is true that no witness has seen Ompal taking away the money from the steel box. However, it was not possible for them to see this incident. Ompal had given SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 33 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 sweets to two custodian and gunman due to which they became unconscious. The custodian and gunman were found in the van itself but Ompal, the driver of Eco van, was found absconding. When police reached at the spot they found no money in the steel box. The only inference that can be drawn is that it was Ompal, who had stolen the money in question. It was corroborated by the fact that this money was recovered from the room taken on rent by his wife.

19. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that the FSL report Ex.PW37/C does not show any poison/pesticide etc. in the blood samples of the custodian and gunman, who had become unconscious. Therefore, it is argued that they did not become unconscious because of the sweets given by accused Ompal. I disagree with this submission. It is not always necessary that the presence of poison is detected in chemical examination but fact remains that after eating the sweets, all the occupants of the van became unconscious except Ompal. When police reached, neither Ompal was there nor cash was there. Therefore, it is very clear that it was Ompal, who had committed the theft of these currency notes.

Whether no offence under Section 328 IPC and 392 IPC is made out?

20. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the MLCs of SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 34 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 PW2 Hemant Kumar, PW3 Yogesh and PW4 Brijesh Singh Tomar. It is submitted that in any MLC, it is not mentioned that any of the aforesaid persons received any injury. It is argued that as per Section 390 IPC, theft would be converted into robbery only if an injury is caused to the victim. Ld. Defence Counsel has further drawn my attention to Section 328 IPC and submits that the offence would be made out only if an injury is caused to the victim and not otherwise.

21. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel and I disagree with this submission. Section 390 IPC defines "Robbery". It lays down that theft is "robbery" if in committing the theft, the offender voluntarily causes hurt to the victim. Section 319 IPC defines "hurt" laying down that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. PW2 Hemant Kumar, PW3 Yogesh and PW4 Brijesh Singh Tomar have testified that after eating the sweets offered by accused Ompal, they started feeling giddiness and headache and thereafter, they became unconscious. Therefore, it is clear that the sweets given by Ompal to PW2, PW3 and PW4 had some poisonous substance, which cause bodily pain, disease as well as infirmity to them. Therefore, it can be said that the act of Ompal caused hurt to them in committing the theft. Actually the offence fell within Section 394 IPC because in committing the robbery, SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 35 of 37 State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019 accused Ompal had caused hurt. However, since charge has been framed under Section 392 IPC, which is a lesser offence, accused Ompal is required to be convicted under this provision only.

22. Similarly, the accused Ompal had administered poisonous or intoxicating substance through sweets to PW2, PW3 and PW4 with intention to cause hurt, offence under Section 328 IPC is also proved. Whether accused Geeta is liable to be convicted under Section 411 IPC.

23. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor argues that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that she had dishonestly received and retained the stolen cash fully knowing that it was a stolen property. I have considered the submission of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor. I am of the opinion that I have held her guilty of conspiracy in commission of the offence under Section 392 IPC. Therefore, her status is almost equal to a robber. Therefore, she cannot be convicted under Section 411 IPC because she herself is a conspirator in the robbery and therefore she cannot termed as dishonest receiver of the stolen property.

Conclusion

24. In view of above discussions, I convict Ompal for committing substantive offence under Section 328 IPC as well as 392 IPC.

State Vs. Geeta etc. Judgement dt. 26.9.2019

25. It is also proved that accused Geeta was also acting in conspiracy with Ompal in commission of the aforesaid offences, I convict her under Section 120B IPC read with Section 328 IPC and Section 120B IPC read with Section 392 IPC.

Announced in the open court on 26.9.2019. VINOD KUMAR Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR Date: 2019.09.26 16:14:32 +0530 (Vinod Kumar) Additional Sessions Judge­05 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi SC No.58185/2016, FIR No.267/2012 Page 37 of 37