Delhi District Court
State vs Raja on 20 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 28419/2016)
FIR No. 201/2015
Police Station Maurice Nagar
Charge-sheet filed under Sections Sec. 392/394/397/170/34
IPC.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 392/394/34 IPC, Sec.
Raja. 170 IPC & Sec. 397 IPC.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 392/394/34 IPC &
Akash @ Vikas Chauhan. Sec. 201 IPC.
State Versus 1. Raja,
S/o Sh. Lekh Raj,
R/o H. No. C-12/492,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi,
2. Akash @ Vikas Chauhan,
S/o Late Sh. Mukesh Chauhan,
R/o H. No. V-1355/1, Street No.
8A, Vijay Park, Maujpur,
Delhi.
...Accused Persons.
Date of Institution of case 10.12.2015
Date of Arguments 20.04.2024
Judgment reserved on 20.04.2024
Judgment pronounced on 20.04.2024
Decision Acquitted
FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 1 of 31
State Vs. Raja & Anr.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Raja and Akash @ Vikas Chauhan are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 392/394/34 IPC. Additionally, accused Raja is also facing trial for offences punishable under Sec. 397 IPC and Sec. 170 IPC and accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan is facing trail for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC. The prosecution story is that on 09.08.2015 at about 03:00 pm, inside Bonta Park, University of Delhi, both of the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention robbed bag of Sh. Manpreet Singh containing camera make Nikon with lens, two spare lenses and cash amount in sum of Rs.1,700/- by voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant Sh. Shivam Kumar and Sh. Manpreet Singh and at the time of commission of robbery accused Raja used deadly weapon i.e. knife in inflicting injury to them. Further on the abovesaid date, time and place, accused Raja impersonated himself as army officer to the complainant Sh. Shivam Kumar, Manpreet Singh and Sh. P. Murlidharan knowing that he does not hold such office and in that capacity he attempted to check the bag belonging to Sh. Manpreet Singh. Further accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan caused evidence of the offence to disappear by throwing the aforesaid bag of Sh. Manpreet Singh as well as one mobile phone bearing SIM card No. 7834943023, used in the commission of offence into Ganga River, Haridwar with intention of screening himself from legal punishment.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 2 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
case are that on 09.08.2015, on receiving DD No. 23A regarding quarrel at Red Light, Mall Road, PW-12 IO/SI Rohit Kumar went to the spot of incident where Ct. Raghuraj met him and it was revealed that injured persons were shifted to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital through PCR. Thereafter, PW-12 IO/SI Rohit Kumar went to the Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where he collected the MLC of injured Shivam Kumar and recorded his statement, Ex. PW- 7/A. On the basis of statement of Sh. Shivam Kumar, IO prepared rukka and got the present FIR registered at PS Maurice Nagar through Ct. Raghuraj. In the meantime, eye-witness P. Murlidharan also came in the hospital who identified accused Raja. IO also collected MLC of accused Raja who was referred to GTB Hospital, hence IO sent him to GTB Hospital in police custody. Thereafter IO alongwith Sh. P. Murlidharan returned to the spot and he prepared site plan, Ex. PW-2/1 at his instance. IO called the Crime Team who inspected the spot of incident. IO lifted the exhibits and spectacles of accused Raja from the spot. IO also recorded statement of eyewitness P. Murlidharan. During investigation IO also collected the cloths of injured Shivam and accused Raja with blood sample from hospital. He also recorded supplementary statement of injured/complainant Sh. Shivam Kumar.
3. On 13.08.2015, brother of accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan produced accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan in PS who claimed himself to be juvenile. Meanwhile complainant Shivam Kumar also came to PS who identified accused Akash @ Vikas FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 3 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
Chauhan as one of the robbers. Thereafter IO called Juvenile Welfare Officer SI Sandeep and accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan was produced before JJB and IO obtained his protected custody. IO brought accused Raja after treatment from the hospital and he was interrogated and arrested in this case. IO also conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. IO also got recovered laptop and one motorcycle along with its key, which was given by one Nadeem Khan to him, at instance of accused Raja. IO recorded statement of Sh. Nadeem Khan in this respect and accused Raja was remanded to JC. IO obtained on day custody of JCL Akash @ Vikash Chauhan from Ld. JJB and efforts were made for recovery of case property but same could not be recovered. As per direction of Ld. JJB, IO verified age of JCL Akash @ Vikash Chauhan from his first attended school and it was revealed that on day of offence he was major. Accordingly, IO produced him before concerned court and arrested accuse Akash @ Vikas Chauhan in the present case and recorded his disclosure statement. During investigation, IO collected CDRs of mobile phones and seized the ID of P. Murlidharan which he had shown at the time of incident to the accused. IO also sent the exhibits to FSL. After the completion of investigation, IO prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in Court through SHO.
4. Vide order dated 1 9 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 5 , copy of the charge- sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to the accused persons by the order of Ld. MM. Vide order dated 03.12.2015, FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 4 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
the present case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
5. Vide order dated 10.02.2016, the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to pass order on point of charge and on 24.02.2016 charges under Sec. 392/394/34 IPC were framed against both the accused persons. Additional charge under Sec. 397/170 IPC was framed against accused Raja and additional charges under Sec. 201 IPC was also framed against accused Akash @ Vikash Chauhan, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
7. PW-1 HC Gajender, is the Duty Officer who recorded DD No. 23A, Ex. PW-1/A. He proved copy of FIR No. 201/15, Ex. PW-1/B, endorsement on rukka Ex. PW-1/C and certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, Ex. PW-1/D. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had recorded the Kaimi DD No. 29A at the time of registration of FIR. He denied the suggestion that he himself did not handover personally DD No. 23A, Ex. PW-1/A to anyone. He denied the suggestion that entire proceedings including the preparation of rukka was conducted by the IO in the police station in his presence.
8. PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan, is the eyewitness of alleged FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 5 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
incident. He deposed that on 07.08.2015, he received a call and caller told his name as Akash and stated that he had got his number from his facebook account and he wanted to have his portfolio shooting to be done by him. He further deposed that on 09.08.2015 the said person again called him and stated that whether he was also ready to shoot for his portfolio as he was ready for the shoot. He further deposed that Shivam was his room-mate and Manpreet had come to him on 08.08.2015 and had stayed with them in their room till 09.08.2015. He further deposed that caller asked him to have his photo shoot at Bonta Park at 03:00 pm. He also deposed that he along with Shivam and Manpreet reached at Vishvavidhyalaya Metro Station at 03:00 pm and after five minutes, accused Akash came there and took them to Bonta Park. He further deposed that they entered into the Bonta Park and he found a suitable place for the photo shoot but in the meantime accused Akash skipped the photo shoot and went deeply inside the Bonta Park. He further deposed that in the meantime, one person came there and stated that he was an Army officer and asked them to show their identity cards for the purpose of security regarding 15 th August. He further deposed that he showed his Aadhar card to the said person and told him that he was student of Delhi College of Photography. He further deposed that when he took out the camera from his bag, the said person suddenly took out a sharp edged knife from his pocket and asked them to give the camera to him and after that Manpreet and Shivam tried to hold that guy to take a control on the person who was having a knife. He further deposed that FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 6 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
the guy stabbed Manpreet and after seeing blood, he felt dizzy and he was not in control and he also tried to hold that guy. He also deposed that the fake customer/accused Vikas pushed him down and he tried to help his friend and one guy took the bag from Manpreet and both of them ran away from the spot. He further deposed that during the incident of robbery, Manpreet and Shivam sustained stab injuries and accused persons also pushed him on the rock due to which he also sustained hidden injuries. During his examination-in-chief, he deposed that he was not in a position to identify the two persons who had robbed him as he could not see their faces. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the accused in order to save them from legal punishment as he had been won over by them. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
9. PW-3 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. proved CAF and CDR of mobile phone no. 9711296072 issued in the name of Murlidharan Pilaniswamy alongwith certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act exhibit as EX. PW-3/A to Ex. PW-3/C. In his cross-examination, he admitted that without having seen the Cell ID Chart, he cannot tell about the tower location. He also deposed that he cannot tell the range of the tower due to the technical reasons.
10. PW-4 Ct. Suresh deposed that on 14.10.2015 he deposited FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 7 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
the sealed exhibits of the present case at FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 35/21/15 and after depositing the same, the acknowledgment was handed over to the MHC(M) by him. He also deposed that sealed parcels remained intact in his possession and were not tampered in any manner. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
11. PW-5 Sh. Nadeem, is the owner of Motorcycle which was allegedly used in commission of offence. He deposed that accused Vikas was his neighbour and accused Raja was his friend. He further deposed that both accused persons were involved in criminal case due to that reason he visited PS Maurice Nagar several times with Paras Chauhan, brother of accused Vikas, where police deposited his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 5S AG 5197. He proved supurdaginma, Ex. PW-5/A of aforesaid motorcycle. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. In his detailed cross-examination he did not support the case of prosecution. This witness was confronted with his statement, Ex. PW-5/B. He admitted that on 13.08.2015, he had produced his bike along with its keys before the IO at PS Maurice Nagar which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/D. He denied the suggestion that accused Vikas and Raja were the same persons who had taken his bike on 09.08.2015 or that he was deposing falsely on the material aspect of the case as he had been won over by the accused persons. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 8 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
despite opportunity given to them.
12. PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh is injured/eyewitness of the incident. He deposed that incident took place in 2015 and at the time of incident he, Shivam and Murlidharan were working as freelancer photographer. He deposed that on the day of incident, a call was received by Murlidharan regarding an assignment of photo-shoot thereafter he along with Shivam and Murlidharan went a place situated near Delhi University. He further deposed that they started photo-shoot there and during this a person who was standing there started quarrelling with them without any reason and during the said quarrel he received injury and he had been taken to the hospital. He further deposed that thereafter what happened, he did not know and he had not seen the faces of assailants. He also deposed that police had inquired him but did not record his statement. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he also did not support the case of prosecution. This witness was confronted with his statement, Ex. PW-5/B. This witness was not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
13. PW-7 Sh. Shivam is the complainant/injured in the present case. He deposed that on 09.08.2015, he along with his friend Manpreet went to Bonta Park to shoot the photographs at around 03:00 pm with their camera. He further deposed that he was having camera of make Nikon and his friend Manpreet was FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 9 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
also having camera of same make. He further deposed that when they reached in the said park, two persons were already present there and they tried to snatch their camera. He further deposed that they restrained the said efforts and during the said quarrel, one of the assailant, gave knife blow to him on his back and on the left shoulder and the said assailant also caused injury on the chest of his friend Manpreet and after causing injuries to them, both assailants fled away from there with bag of Manpreet, containing his camera and other documents. He further deposed that they tried to apprehend the said assailants but they could not succeeded. He also deposed that he made call to the police and police official came there and took him to Aruna Asaf Ali hospital and his friend was taken to Trauma Centre. He further deposed that in hospital, police made inquiries from him and took his signature on the blank paper by saying that they recorded his statement. He also deposed that he cannot identify both the assailants, who caused injuries to them due to lapse of time. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State at length in which he did not support the case of prosecution on the identity of accused persons and this witness was confronted with his statement, Ex. PW-7/B in which he admitted that his statement Ex. PW-7/A bears his signature at point A. He denied the suggestion that accused Raja (present in the court) caused knife injuries to them, on the day of incident. He also denied the suggestion that he identified accused Akash in the Police Station Maurice Nagar on 13.08.2015. He also denied the suggestion that both the accused persons present in the court, committed the FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 10 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
offence on 09.08.2015. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
14. PW-8 Ms. Archana Pandey, Head Mistress, St. James proved the attested copy of admission form of accused Vikas Chauhan, affidavit of his father Sh. Mukesh Chauhan and birth certificate of Vikas Chauhan issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi as Ex. PW-8/A to Ex. PW-8/D. She deposed that as per birth certificate, affidavit and admission form, the date of birth of Vikas Chauhan was 12.10.1996. This witness was not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
15. PW-9 Ct. Sudesh, is the Photographer at Mobile Crime Team, Central. He proved ten negatives of photographs Ex. PW- 9/A1 to Ex. PW-9/A10. He also proved two sets of ten photographs Ex. PW-9/B-1 to Ex. PW-9/B-10 & Ex. PW-9/C-1 to Ex. PW-9/C-10. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot or he had not taken the photographs. He also denied the suggestion that the photographs were taken by the IO himself.
16. PW-10 SI Yashpal is the In-charge PCR Van S-19. He deposed that on 09.08.2015 at about 04:00 pm, he received a call regarding quarrel in Bonta Park thereafter he alongwith staff reached at the spot. He further deposed that on reaching at the spot, he saw near the gate of park, two persons were scuffling FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 11 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
with each other and blood was oozing out from the wounded area of both persons. He further deposed that he also saw that one person namely Shivam had caught hold of the waist area of accused Raja and he was trying to escape from there. He further deposed that he also heard the cries like 'Bachao-Bachao' then he sent his staff inside the park and they brought one boy who was crying from inside the park, whose name was later on revealed as Manpreet and he was having stab wound on his stomach. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, another PCR Van S-14 also reached at the spot whose Incharge was ASI Rajpal and he asked him to take Manpreet for admission in hospital as his condition was serious, accordingly ASI Rajpal took injured Manpreet to the hospital and he brought accused Raja and injured Shivam to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. He further deposed that in the meantime, IO/SI Rohit reached the hospital and he handed over injured Shivam and accused Raja to him. He narrated about the proceedings conducted by the IO at Aruna Asaf Ali hospital. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not read his statement and his statement was not read over to him by IO.
17. PW-11 Smt. Roshan Jahan, deposed that in the year 2014-15, her Aadhar card was lost and she got issued new Aadhar Card. She further deposed that some one got issued SIM on the basis of her Aadhar card which was lost. She also deposed that she did not know anything else about this case. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which she admitted that she was earlier residing on rent in the house of FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 12 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
Mohd. Qayyum at H. No. F-394, Gali No. 15, Chand Bagh, Dayalpur, Delhi and she got issued her Aadhar card on the said address. She also admitted that some unknown person had got issued the SIM of said mobile number 7834943023 on the basis of photocopy of her Aadhar card which was lost. In her cross- examination on behalf of accused persons she admitted that he had not got lodged any police complaint regarding missing of her Aadhar card.
18. PW-12 Inspector Rohit Kumar is the investigating officer of the present case. He narrated about the proceedings conducted by him during investigation of the case. He deposed that on assignment of DD No. 23A regarding quarrel at Red Light Mall Road, he went to spot along with Ct. Raghuraj where it was revealed that injured had already been shifted to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. He further deposed that he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of injured/complainant, thereafter he prepared rukka, Ex. PW-12/A and got the present FIR registered at PS through Ct. Raghuraj. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, eye-witness P. Murlidharan also came in hospital and identified one injured as the person who had committed offence and the name of identified person was revealed as Raja. He further deposed that he along with P. Murlidharan returned to the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW-2/1 at his instance. He also deposed that he got the spot inspected by crime team and seized the blood stained spectacles of accused Raju and lifted the exhibits from the spot and seized the same vide seizure memo FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 13 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
Ex. PW-2/2 and Ex. PW-2/3. He also collected the MLCs of injured Shivam Kumar and Manpreet Singh from hospitals and recorded supplementary statement of complainant/injured Shivam Kumar. He proved the arrest memo, personal search memo, pointing out memo and disclosure statement of accused Raja as Ex. PX-5, PX-6, Ex. PW-12/C and Ex. PW-12/D respectively. He also got recovered laptop and motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 5SAG 5197 at instance of accused Raja and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PX-4 and Ex. PW-5/D. He also deposed that as per direction of Ld. JJB he verified the age of JICL Akash @ Vikas from his first attended school and it was revealed that on the day of offence he was major. He also proved arrest memo and disclosure statement of accused Akash @ Vikas as Ex. PW-12/F & Ex. PW-12/G. He also collected CDR of phones, ID card of P. Murlidharan which was shown at the time of incident to the accused persons and sent the exhibits to FSL for expert opinion. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the FIR in question is ante-timed and and ante-dated. He also denied the suggestion that at the time of recording of alleged statement of Murlidharan, he was unable to read, write and understand Hindi and English. He admitted that as per the MLC, accused Raja was having grievous injury on his finger. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted fair investigation qua serious injury caused upon accused Raja as he had made a false case against him on the basis of false statements of witnesses which he noted down himself according to his own will. He also denied the suggestion that all FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 14 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
the recoveries were false and planted one and nothing was recovered in the manner as above stated by him and he planted false public witnesses in this case to make a false case against the accused persons.
19. During trial, accused persons have admitted the genuineness of following documents through their counsels under Sec. 294 Cr.PC:-
Sl. No. Documents and its authors Exhibits
i. SOC Report prepared by SI Ex. PX-1
Surender Kumar
ii. Seizure memo of exhibits prepared Ex. PX-2
by IO/SI Rohit Kumar
iii. Seizure memo of exhibits produced Ex. PX-3
by Dr. Pooja, CMO of Trauma
Centre to the IO/SI Rohit.
iv. Seizure memo of laptop prepared Ex. PX-4
by IO/SI Rohit
v. Arrest memo and personal search of Ex. PX-5 & Ex.
accused Raja PW-6 respectively.
vi. Apprehension memo and personal Ex. PX-7 and Ex.
search memo of accused Akash @ PX-8 respectively.
Vikas
vii. Customer Application Form along
with its enclosures i.e. photocopy of
Aadhar card, CDR and certificate Ex. PX-9 (colly) issued under Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act, running into four pages.
viii. MLC of Shivam Kumar Ex. PX-10
ix. MLC of Raja Ex. PX-11.
x. MLC of Manpreet Ex. PX-12
FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 15 of 31
State Vs. Raja & Anr.
xi. Statement of SI Surender Ex. PX-13
xii. Statement of Ct. Suresh Ex. PX-14.
xiii. Statement of Ranbir Singh Ex. PX-15 & Ex.
PX-16.
xiv. Statement of HC Lokender Ex. PX-17.
xv. Statement of HC Naresh Ex. PX-18 & Ex.
PX-19.
xvi. Statement of Ct. Raghuraj Ex. PX-20 & Ex.
PX-21.
xvii. Statement of HC Gajender Rana Ex. PX-22.
xviii. Statement of SI Rohit Saraswat Ex. PX-23.
xix. Statement of SI Rajpal Ex. PX-24.
xx. Statement of Ct. Suresh. Ex. PX-25.
xxi. Statement of SI Sandeep and Ct. Ex. PX-26 & Ex.
Sandeep. PX-27.
20. After closing of Prosecution Evidence, separate statements of both the accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein they denied all the charges against them. Both of accused persons stated that they were innocent and they had been falsely implicated in the present case and for that reason, no public witness had stated anything against them. Both the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
21. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for accused Raja and Ms. Charu Nagpal, Ld. Counsel for accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan both the accused persons.
FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 16 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
22. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam have completely supported the prosecution story. He also argued that the laptop has been recovered from the possession of the accused Raja and he was apprehended at the spot of incident itself. He also argued that the CDR of mobile phone used by PW- 2 Sh. P. Murlidhran shows the call details between PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan and accused Akash @ Vikas. He further argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are of sterling quality and should be relied upon. He further argued that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 170/201/392/394/397/34 IPC and hence both the accused persons should be convicted under all the sections of law under which charges have been framed against them.
23. Ld. Counsels for accused persons argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons. They argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. To substantiate their point, they argued that PW- 2 Sh. P. Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam have turned hostile on identity of accused persons. They further argued that there is no other eyewitness of alleged incident nor any CCTV footage has been placed on record by the IO. They further argued that DD No. 23A pertains to quarrel only and does not pertains to robbery. They also argued that no FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 17 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
investigation has been conducted w.r.t the recovered laptop showing that the accused persons searched the facebook pages of PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan to contact him. They also argued that PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan could not tell as to from which number he had received the said phone calls from accused Akash. They also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons, both the accused persons should be acquitted under all the sections of law under which charges have been framed against them.
24. In the present case, charges under Sec. 392/394/34 IPC, 397/201 IPC & 170 IPC have been framed against the accused persons. These Sections have been elaborated as under:-
Section 170. Personating a public servant.
Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowingly that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, of with both.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 18 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence - shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years; imprisonment
- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations:-
A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine.
Section 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 FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 19 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
394. Voluntary causing hurt in committing robbery If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery shall be punished with imprisonment or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
397. Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
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.
25. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 20 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
26. PW-7 Sh. Shivam is the complainant in present case while PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan and PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh are also the victims as well as the eye witness of alleged incident and hence the testimony of all these three witnesses is to be appreciated as per established principles of law.
27. PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam narrated the incident in detail but they turned hostile on the identity of accused persons. Despite cross- examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for State and even by pointing out towards them, they failed to identify the accused persons. Thus, the identity of accused persons w.r.t the commission of alleged offences has not been established by the prosecution.
28. As per prosecution story, accused Raja was apprehended from the spot of incident itself by PW-10 Retd. SI Yashpal, while he was scuffling with PW-7 Sh. Shivam. PW-10 Retd. SI Yashpal deposed that on reaching at the spot of incident near the gate of park, he saw two persons scuffling with each other and blood was oozing out from the wounded area of both the persons. He further deposed that he brought accused Raja and complainant Shivam and admitted them to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. However, PW-7 Complainant/injured Sh. Shivam has not deposed that accused Raja was apprehended at the spot by PW-10 Retd. SI Yashpal or that he was also admitted to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital alongwith him. PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan as well as PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh who were the eye witnesses of alleged incident have also FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 21 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
not deposed that accused Raja was apprehended by PW-10 Retd. SI Yashpal Singh from the spot. Contrary to the version of PW-10 Retd. SI Yashpal, Pw-7 Complainant/injured Sh. Shivam deposed that they tried to apprehend the assailants but they could not succeed. Thus, as per the version of PW-7 complainant/injured Sh. Shivam, accused Raja was not apprehended from the spot. Thus, the version of PW-10 Retd. SI Yashpal Singh has not been corroborated by PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam and hence same cannot be relied upon.
29. As per the prosecution story, accused persons went to the spot of incident on the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5SAG 5197 of PW-5 Sh. Nadeem. PW-5 Sh. Nadeem turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In cross- examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-5 Sh. Nadeem denied the suggestion that on 09.08.2015, at about 01:00 PM, accused Vikas and Raja had taken his motorcycle or that accused Vikas and Raja had committed the offence of robbery in the area of PS Maurice Nagar. This raises serious doubts on prosecution story.
30. As per prosecution story, both the accused persons committed robbery of one bag of PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh containing camera Make Nikon with lenses, two spare lenses and cash amount of Rs. 1700/- . However, prosecution has not produced any ownership proof of above-said camera and of FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 22 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
lenses. The said case property has not been recovered by the IO during the investigation of the present case. This raises serious doubts regarding the existence of the said case property and its robbery.
31. The alleged incident took place at a public place i.e. at Bonta Park during day time. The IO has not examined any independent eye witness nor he has collected any CCTV footage of the park or the area near the park. Thus, the prosecution story has not been corroborated by any independent witness or evidence.
32. During the investigation IO PW-12 Insp. Rohit Kumar seized the laptop at instance of accused Raja. However, the laptop is not the robbed case property in the present case. As per prosecution story, accused persons visited the facebook page of PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan by using the said laptop. However, no scientific evidence through the examination of above-said laptop has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove that the accused persons visited facebook page of PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan and took his mobile number from there. Thus, the recovery of laptop in the present case is irrelevant.
33. PW-7 Sh. Shivam deposed that he made call to the police. PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan as well as PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh has also deposed on the same lines. DD no. 23 A Ex. PW1/A was recorded on the call made by PW-7 Sh. Shivam. As per the FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 23 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
contents of DD no. 23 A Ex. PW1/A, a quarrel had taken place at Mall road, Red Light. However, the incident in the present case does not pertain to quarrel but it pertains to the offence of robbery. PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Sing is the eye witness of alleged incident and had also sustained injury in the said incident deposed that he did not know the reason of said quarrel. Thus, from the testimony of PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh, serious doubts have been created on the prosecution story w.r.t the alleged incident of robbery.
34. As per prosecution story, accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan contacted PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan through phone. PW- 3 Sh. Ishrar Babu has proved the CAF and CDR of mobile phone no. 9711296072 of PW-2 Sh. P Murlidharan Ex. PW3/A to Ex. PW3/C. As per the prosecution story, accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan contacted PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan on his mobile phone no. 9711296072 by using 7834943023. The conversation between the two mobile phone numbers is reflected in CDR Ex. PW3/B on 07.08.2015 as well as 09.08.2015. However, PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan could not tell the mobile number from which he received the said calls. The alleged mobile phone numbers and the above-said SIM card number 7834943023 could not be recovered from the possession of the accused persons. As per prosecution story, mobile phone no. 7834943023 was issued in name of PW-11 Ms. Roshan Jahan. PW-11 Ms. Roshan Jahan deposed that she had not got issued the above-said mobile phone number in her name. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 24 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
fact that mobile phone no. 7834943023 was either in possession of accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan or that PW-11 Ms. Roshan Jahan had handed over the said mobile phone number to accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan or that accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan had used the said mobile phone number to make calls to PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan. This raises serious doubts on prosecution story.
35. PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan deposed that while the photo shoot was going on one person came there and stated that he was an Army Officer and he asked them to show their identity cards. PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh has turned hostile on this aspect and he denied the suggestion that at Bonta Park they met with another boy who told them that he was Army Officer. PW-7 Sh. Shivam has also not deposed that one person impersonated himself as Army Officer. Thus, there are contradictions in testimony of PW- 2 Sh. P. Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam w.r.t the same fact. Moreover, none of the above-said PWs have identified accused Raja who had impersonated himself as Army Officer as per the prosecution story. This raises serious doubts on prosecution story.
36. PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan deposed that he alongwith PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam reached at Vishwavidyalaya metro station and after 05 minutes Akash came there who took them to Bonta Park. PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh has not deposed on the lines of PW-2 Sh. P. Murlidharan. PW-6 FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 25 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
Sh. Manpreet Singh deposed that he alongwith Shivam and Sh. P. Murlidharan went to place situated near Delhi University and started photo shoot. Similarly, PW-7 Sh. Shivam deposed that he met two persons at bonta park and they were already present there. Thus, three different versions have been brought on record by PW-2 Sh. P Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam. This raises serious doubts on prosecution story.
37. As per prosecution story, accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan had thrown the bag containing camera and mobile phone at Ganga river at Haridwar. This fact has been brought on record by the prosecution only through the disclosure statement of accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan exhibit as Ex. PW12/G which is not relevant under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution has not produced any independent admissible evidence to prove the commission of offence under Section 201 IPC by accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan.
38. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 26 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
witness must be of sterling quality.
39. In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, it is held that :
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness"
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 27 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
40. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
41. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
42. The contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in the testimonies of PW-2 Sh. P Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam coupled with the fact of non identification of accused persons by them have created serious doubts about the prosecution story. The versions of PW-2 Sh. P Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam are not natural one. The different versions brought on record by the PW-2 Sh. P Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW- 7 Sh. Shivam coupled with the fact of not fixing the identity of accused persons casts a shadow of doubt on their veracity. The FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 28 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
things appears to have not happened in the manner these have been projected. The testimony of PW-2 Sh. P Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam in the present case cannot be said to be of sterling quality to secure the conviction of the accused persons.
43. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
44. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
45. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 29 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
46. In the present case, due to the contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW-2 Sh. P Murlidharan, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam, non identification of accused persons by them, non-examination of any independent eye witness and non recovery of robbed case property, serious doubts have been created on the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
47. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-2 Sh. P Murlidha- ran, PW-6 Sh. Manpreet Singh and PW-7 Sh. Shivam are not clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy and same is not corroborated by other material evidence.
48. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 392/394/34/397/170/201 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
49. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused persons namely Raja and Akash @ Vikas Chauhan are hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC.
FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 30 of 31 State Vs. Raja & Anr.
Accused Raja is also hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 397 and 170 IPC. Accused Akash @ Vikas Chauhan is also hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
50. Bail bonds of the accused except bail bonds filed under section 437A CrPC stands cancelled. His sureties stands discharged. Case property, if any, be released to the rightful owners.
51. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
VIRENDER Digitally signed by
VIRENDER KUMAR
Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA
th Date: 2024.04.20
on 20 day of April, 2024 KHARTA 11:39:51 +0530
(Virender Kumar Kharta)
ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:20.04.2024
FIR No. 201/2015, PS: Maurice Nagar, Page no. 31 of 31
State Vs. Raja & Anr.