Delhi District Court
State vs Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath on 9 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02)
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSE01-000026-2014
SC 1137/2016
FIR no.138/2014
PS Govind Puri
State
Versus
1. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath
Son of Anil Devnath @ Ram Singh
Resident of Flat no. 1412, Gali no. 14, Govind Puri,
New Delhi, presently residing as a tenant
at House no. 1642, Tughlakabad Village,
New Delhi.
(Permanent address)
Village East Chandmari, Post Office Bankumasi,
East Agartala, Agartala Urban,West Tripura
Temporary Address 1466-C,
Gali No. 13, Govindpuri, New Delhi.
2. Chandeshwar @ Sunil
Son of Kamal Ram
Resident of House No. 3118, Gali No. 5, TA Block,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
(Permanent Address)
Village Sakara, Police Station Dholi District,
Muzzaffarpur, Bihar. .....Accused
Persons
Date of Institution : 13.05.2014
Judgment reserved on : 04.04.2024
Date of Decision : 09.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer-in-charge of the Police Station Govind Puri before the FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 1 of 48 concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offences under Sections 328/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused persons, namely, Arjun Singh @ Parth Debnath and Chandeshwar @ Sunil for having committed the said offences and to proceed with committal of the case.
2. As per the police report on 04.02.2014, this case FIR was registered in Police Station Govind Puri for the offences punishable under Sections 328/379/34 IPC.
3. As per the police report on 04.02.2014, on receiving a DD no.13A, Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar along with Constable Shiv Nath reached at the place of incident, met complainant, Smt. Malti Jaswal who got her statement recorded.
4. As per the police report, it is, inter-alia, stated by the complainant that on 04.02.2014, after deposited some gold in the Karvy Finance and she was going back to her home and while she reached in front of A-1 Back Restaurant at the Okhla Service Road, one boy aged about 14-15 years came to her and asked about the way leads to Nizamuddin; that she was telling him the way, in the meantime, another boy aged about 25-26 years with fair complexion having red colored cloth in his hand came to them and flared that cloth in front of her due to which she lost her control and she was not in her senses; that thereafter, on the asking of the second boy she gave gold bangles (Kada) weighing about 22 grams, one gold chain with locket weighing about 15 grams and two rings gold rings weighing about 4 grams; that at that time, she was out of her control and both the boys took away FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 2 of 48 her jewelery and left from there; that she could identify those boys and her jewelery articles. It is further stated by the complainant that action, as per law, be taken against the offenders.
5. It is further reported in the charge-sheet that from the statement of the complainant and the circumstances, offences under sections 328/379/34 of Indian Penal code, 1860 was made out and after registration of FIR, further investigation was assigned to Head Constable Rajender and the investigation was started.
6. It is further reported in the police report that during investigation, Head Constable Rajender prepared site plan of the place of incident, recorded the statements of the witnesses, interrogated the suspects and made search for the case properties and the accused persons but despite several attempts, no information was received.
7. It is further reported in the police report that on 23.02.2014, Sub Inspector Pappu Lal Katewa AATS/South East District vide DD no.9A dated 23.02.2014 had sent information to the police station Govind Puri about the arrest of the accused persons, namely, Arjun Singh @ Parth Debnath and Chandeshwar @ Sunil in case FIR no.156/14 under section 328/379/411/34 IPC and in their Discloser Statements, they have disclosed about their involvement in the offence in case FIR no.138/14, thereafter, the further investigation of the present case FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 3 of 48 was assigned to Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar, as per the order of the Officer-in-charge of the police station.
8. It is further reported in the police report that on 03.03.2014, Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar met Sub Inspector Pappu Lal Katewa who informed that discloser statements of the above-said two accused persons have been recorded, wherein, they have disclosed about their involvement in several other incidents and during police custody, they had got recovered the stolen articles and sleeping pills from their rented house no.3118, Gali no.5, TA Block, Govind Puri, New Delhi which articles were taken into police custody on preparation of Memo under section 102 Cr.P.C.; that Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar obtained copies of all the documents and the statements from Sub Inspector Pappu Lal Katewa; that on checking of list of mobile phones recovered from the accused persons, it came to know that the mobile phones stolen have been recovered from both the accused persons at their instances.
9. It is further reported in the police report that both the accused persons, namely, Arjun Singh @ Parth Debnath and Chandeshwar @ Sunil were, on their production in the court pursuant to the issuance of production warrants, interrogated with the permission of the court and they were formally arrested in the present case and the information qua their arrest were sent to their relatives and their Discloser Statements were recorded.
10. It is further reported in the police report that on 04.03.2014, Investigating Officer of this case had made an FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 4 of 48 application to the concerned court for conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused persons which was fixed for the Court on 13.03.2014; that the accused Arjun Singh @ Parth Debnath had refused to join TIP proceedings; that the accused Chandeshwar @ Sunil had agreed to join the TIP proceedings.
11. It is further reported in the police report that the Investigating Officer of this case obtained one day PC remand of the accused Arjun @ Parth Debnath and during PC remand, the accused Arjun @ Parth Debnath had taken the Investigating Officer to the place of incident i.e., Okhla Service Road in front of A1, Back Restaurant and disclosed that was the same place where he along with accused Chandeshwar @ Sunil had committed an offence with one lady, however, the case property could not be recovered from the accused, during PC remand.
12. It is further reported in the police report that on 13.03.2014, TIP proceedings of the accused Chandeshwar @ Sunil were conducted by Ms. Neha, Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby, the complainant Smt. Malti Jaswal had correctly identified the accused.
13. It is further reported in the police report that on 15.03.2014, one day PC remand of the accused Chandeshwar @ Sunil was obtained and during PC remand, the accused Chandeshwar @ Sunil had taken the Investigating Officer to the place of incident i.e., Okhla Service Road in front of A1, Back Restaurant and disclosed that was the same place where he along FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 5 of 48 with accused Arjun @ Parth Debnath had committed an offence with one lady, however, the case property could not be recovered from the accused, during PC remand.
14. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, statement of the witnesses were recorded and both the accused persons were in Judicial Custody.
15. It is further reported in the charge-sheet that sufficient evidence has been collected against the accused persons and the afore-said acts on the part of offenders revealed commission of offences punishable under section 328/379/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
16. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offences committed by offenders may be taken and they should be tried as per the provisions of law.
17. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
18. On the police report, on 13.05.2014, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offences.
19. On the date of taking cognizance, both the accused persons were also produced from the Judicial Custody before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Copies of police report and other FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 6 of 48 documents in compliance of section 208 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused persons on 23.05.2014.
20. On 27.05.2014, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the offences to be exclusively triable by the court of Sessions and therefore, committed the case to the Learned Sessions Judge and thereafter, the present case was assigned to this court.
21. On 24.01.2015, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr. P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and Counsel for the accused persons, the charges were framed against the accused persons for their having committed offences punishable under Sections 328/379/34 of Indian Penal Code.
22. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offences charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
23. In support of its Case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal (complainant), PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Yad Ram, PW3 Constable Narender, PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh, PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh, PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar, PW10 Sub Inspector Rajendra Kumar (Investigating Officer), PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender, PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Prasad Sharma. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 7 of 48 Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/E, Ex.PW8/F, Ex.PW8/G, Ex.PW8/H, Ex.PW8/I, Ex.PW8/J, Ex.PW8/K, Ex.PW8/L, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A, were also tendered in evidence.
24. On 29.02.2024, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C and for his statement.
25. On 16.03.2024 this court examined the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statement were recorded. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons, Arjun Singh @ Parth Debnath and Chandeshwar @ Sunil denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
26. I have heard Mr. A.T. Ansari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. Naina Bajaj, Advocate for both the accused persons and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
27. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal (complainant), PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Yad Ram, PW3 Constable Narender, PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh, PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh, PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 8 of 48 Kumar, PW10 Sub Inspector Rajendra Kumar (Investigating Officer), PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender, PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Prasad Sharma and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/E, Ex.PW8/F, Ex.PW8/G, Ex.PW8/H, Ex.PW8/I, Ex.PW8/J, Ex.PW8/K, Ex.PW8/L, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A, and the law laid down in the judgments in Mohd. Wasim v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11174, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that there are 9 similar cases against the accused persons. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the incident took place on 04 February and in the same month AATS arrested the accused persons on the tip of secret informer in case FIR no. 156 and recovery was affected. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that no recovery of the stolen articles in the present case could be affected. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that accused Chandeshwar was subjected to TIP in the complainant had duly identified him during TIP which is the substative evidence for his involvement in the present case, however, the accused Arjun had refused to join the TIP. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that during dok identification she had identified him also. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that total 28 mobile phones were recovered from the accused persons and they are modus operandi in almost of cases has been the same which is corroborated by FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 9 of 48 the recovery of 11 strips of Ativan tablets. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant and the other witnesses were subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons but nothing has been culled out from their cross-examination. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that since no recovery was affected in the present case.
28. Per contra, counsel for the accused persons has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal (complainant), PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Yad Ram, PW3 Constable Narender, PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh, PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh, PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar, PW10 Sub Inspector Rajendra Kumar (Investigating Officer), PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender, PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Prasad Sharma; and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/E, Ex.PW8/F, Ex.PW8/G, Ex.PW8/H, Ex.PW8/I, Ex.PW8/J, Ex.PW8/K, Ex.PW8/L, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A, and submitted that in the statement of PW1 Malti Jaswal, the complainant had informed the age of accused persons at 14-15 years and 25-26 years, however, they are not of that age. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused persons that no document of purchase of jewelery articles by the complainant has been placed on record by the prosecution. It is further submitted by the counsel for FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 10 of 48 accused persons that the complainant was having a mobile phone in her hand but she had not called the police and her daughter had called the police from home. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused persons that in MLC no stupefying substance has been mentioned and therefore, main case under section 328 IPC is not made out. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused persons that prosecution has produced only one witness i.e., Malti Jaswal and no other witness has been produced.
29. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
30. The accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable under sections 328/379/34 I.P.C. Section 328 IPC reads as under: -
"328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.-Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
31. Theft is the most basic and widespread offence against property under the IPC. Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for theft whereas, theft is defined in Section 378 of the IPC. This section contains five explanations for the said definition and is accompanied by 16 illustrations. Section 378 reads as follows: -
FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 11 of 48"378. Theft. -- Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft."
32. The essential ingredients of the offence of theft under Section 378 of the IPC are as follows:-
1. The subject of theft should be a movable property;
2. It should be in the possession of anyone;
3. There should be a dishonest intention to take it out of that person's possession without his consent and;
4. A moving in order to such taking.
33. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
34. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses.
35. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal is the complainant, who deposed that in the year 2014 she was doing private job as Staff Nurse. It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that on 04.02.2014, while returning from Karvi Finance at Okhla Road, where she had gone for the purpose of depositing the interest on gold deposit, at about 02:20-02:30 pm, when she reached at the service road by the side of main Okhla Road, one person came to her and asked about the route to go to Nizamuddin by bus. It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that she was telling him the route and, in the meanwhile, another person came and asked as to what address the other person was asking and further said that he also wanted to know about some address. It is further FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 12 of 48 deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that by that time, the accused Arjun flared some red colored cloth from the packet type thing in front of her, due to which she lost her consciousness. It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that she was not able to speak and she was stammering/could not speak properly. It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that both the accused persons got removed her two gold Karas (bangles) weighing about 22 grams, one gold ring weighing about 2 grams, one silver ring with a stone/moti (white Stone), one gold chain with locket and left from the spot. It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that after sometime she made a call to her daughter and she was weeping. It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that she somehow reached home and her daughter made a call to the police. It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that the police had come to her place, inquired from her and recorded her statement (Ex.PW1/A). It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that after some days police made a call to her and asked her to go to Tihar Jail to identify accused persons. It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that on 13.03.2014, she had gone to Tihar Jail where she had identified one of the accused amongst other persons as he along with his associate had robbed her (the witness points towards accused Chandershwar @ Sunil whom she had identified in the Tihar Jail). It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that Learned Magistrate had conducted TIP proceedings (Ex.PW1/B). PW1 Smt. Malit Jaswal had correctly identified accused Arjun and Chandeshwar @ Sunil who robbed her belongings. It is further deposed by PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal that she could identify her jewelery, if shown to her.
FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 13 of 4836. During her cross-examination, PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal has, inter-alia, deposed that she had told in her statement that she had gone to Karvi Finance at Okhla Road for the purpose of depositing the interest on gold deposit. PW1 was confronted with statement (Ex.PW1/A) where it was mentioned that she was coming after gold deposit. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal further deposed that public persons were passing on that road at that time. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal further deposed that she had told the police that the accused who first approached her had asked her about the way to the Nizamuddin and whatever happened to her was told to the police. PW1 was also confronted with Ex.PW1/A where the word 'bus' is not mentioned. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal further deposed that she had told the police that she advised the accused to take the bus route no.429 from the red light. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal is also confronted with the statement (Ex.PW1/A) where it is not so recorded. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal further deposed that she had told to the police that another boy came to her and asked her as to what address the other person was asking and further said that he also wanted to know said address. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal was also confronted with statement (Ex.PW1/A) where it is not so recorded. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal further deposed that she had told in her statement about the taking of one silver ring with a 'moti'. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal was also confronted with statement (Ex.PW1/A) where it is not so recorded. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal further deposed that it takes about 10 minutes from the spot to reach her home but she could reach home in an hour. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal further deposed that none of her known person met her on the way but the school children asked her as to why she FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 14 of 48 was weeping. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal further deposed that she do not recollect now if some major person also asked as why she was weeping. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal further deposed that there were about 6-7 more persons when she had identified accused Chandeshwar @ Sunil in Tihar Jail. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal further deposed that she had never visited the Police Station after making the complaint. PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal denied the suggestion put to her that she had identified the accused Chandeshwar @ Sunil at the instance of Investigating Officer or that Investigating Officer had already shown the photographs of the accused Chandeshwar to her. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
37. PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Yad Ram deposed that on 04.02.2024, he was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Govindpuri and on that day, upon receipt of 'rukka' Mark-X through Constable Shiv Nath, he got recorded the FIR on computer in CIPA. It is further deposed by PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Yad Ram that the computerized print out of the FIR is on record (Ex.PW2/A), original FIR was seen and returned. It is further deposed by PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Yad Ram that after registration of case, he had handed over the 'rukka' and the copy of the FIR to Head Constable Rajender who was entrusted with the investigation of the case. It is further deposed by PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Yad Ram that his endorsement on 'rukka' (Ex.PW2/B). PW2 was not cross-examined by counsel for accused persons.
FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 15 of 4838. PW3 Constable Narender deposed that on 15.03.2014, he along with the Investigating Officer had come to Saket Court where the Investigating Officer got the accused Chandeshwar taken out from lockup of Saket Courts and produced him before the court concerned and procured one day PC and brought him to the police station in muffled face. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Narender that the Investigating Officer interrogated the accused, pursuant to which the accused led them to the spot and pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo (Ex.PW3/A).
39. PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal (Ajay Katewa) deposed that on 21.02.2014 at about 04:00 pm, he had received a secret information in his office that two notorious, namely, Arjun Singh and Sunil, who used to rob the public by administering stupefying substance, would come near Pooja Masala Store, Govind Puri. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that on that information, he had constituted a raiding team and briefed them about the secret information and at about 05:00 pm, he along with his raiding team as well as secret informer had reached at Pooja Masala Store, Govind Puri. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that he asked five six persons to join the raiding team but none was willing. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that they had taken their positions in different directions near Pooja Masala Store, Govind Puri and at about 07:00 pm, secret informer pointed out towards two boys, who were coming from Majidia Hospital side towards Govind Puri Metro Station. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that they apprehended both boys and FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 16 of 48 their names were revealed as Arjun Singh @ Parth Debnath and Chandeshwar @ Sunil.
40. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that he had conducted the formal search of both the accused, Arjun and Chandeshwar and during search three mobile phones were recovered from the pocket of Arjun out of which two cell phones were without SIM cards, however, one was carrying SIM card. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that from search of accused Chandeshwar, two mobile phones without SIM card and 18 sleeping pills were recovered from his pocket. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that on verification, one of the cell phones recovered from accused Chandeshwar was found to have been stolen in the present case. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that on further verification, two phones recovered from accused Arjun were found connected in the theft cases of Police Station Govind Puri and Police station C. R. Park, respectively. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that he had taken into possession the two cell phones recovered from accused under section 102 Cr.P.C. vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW7/B). It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that he had also taken into possession the cell phones recovered from accused Arjun under section 102 Cr.P.C. vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/B). It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that 18 Ativan tablets recovered from accused Chandeshwar were taken into possession by me vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/A).
FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 17 of 4841. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that he had interrogated accused Chandeshwar and Arjun and arrested them vide Arrest Memos (Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D), respectively, and conducted their personal searches vide Personal Search Memos (Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW8/F), respectively. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that during course of interrogation, he had recorded the Disclosure Statements of accused persons, Arjun and Chandeshwar (Ex. PW8/G and Ex.PW8/H), respectively. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that in pursuance of the Disclosure Statements, both the accused persons led them to their rented Jhuggi No.3118, Gali No.5, TA Block, Govind Puri, New Delhi and got recovered one black colour bag and on checking, it was found that the bag had contained 48 cell phones, 3 wrist watches, 1 chain along with two lockets, one battery and 110 Ativan sleeping pills. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that he had taken into possession the 48 cell phones under section 102 Cr.P.C. vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW7/C). It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that he had further seized the three wrist watches under section 102 Cr.P.C. vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/K). It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that he had prepared a 'pullanda' of the chain along with lockets recovered from the bag and sealed the same with the seal of 'PK' and took into possession the same vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/J). It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that seal after use was handed over to Head Constable Niraj. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that he had taken into possession the battery under section 102 Cr.P.C. vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/M) and FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 18 of 48 also took into possession the Ativan tablets under section 102 Cr.P.C. vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/L). It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that both the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence where he had prepared the Site Plan (Ex.PW8/N). It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that the recovered case property was deposited in the 'Malkhana' of Police Station Govind Puri. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that thereafter, they came to their office and during verification the recovered mobile phones were found to have been stolen from the area of different police stations, and accordingly, he had informed the Investigating Officers of the concerned FIRs which the recovered cell phones were connected with. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that the Investigating Officers of those cases had contacted him and he had handed over to them the copies of disclosure statements of the accused persons recorded in the present case, the seizure memos and other relevant documents. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that the concerned Investigating Officers had also taken the respective case properties. PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal had correctly identified both the accused persons, Arjun and Chandeshwar in the Court. It is further deposed by PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal that he can identify the case property, if shown to him.
42. During his examination-in-chief, 45 cell phones bearing a chit having serial number on each phone was produced by MHC(M) in unsealed condition and shown to PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal and he had correctly identified the same and FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 19 of 48 deposed that five cell phones were recovered from the search of the accused persons and 48 phones were recovered from the bag kept in their Jhuggi, so in all, there were 53 cell phones and some of them have been released on 'Supardaari' and 45 cell phones are Ex.Pl to Ex.P45.
43. During his examination-in-chief, three wrist watches are produced by the MHC(M) in unsealed condition and same are shown to the PW6 which he has correctly identified and the wrist watches are (Ex. P46, Ex. P47 and Ex. P48), respectively.
44. During his examination-in-chief, 13 strips of Ativan tablets containing 10 tablets each and one strip containing 8 tablets were also produced by MHC(M) in the wrapper of Ativan and shown to the witness. PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal Katewa deposed that 18 tablets were recovered from the search of accused Chandeshwar whereas 11 strips containing 10 tablet each were recovered from the bag kept in the Jhuggi of the accused persons, so, in total, 128 tablets were recovered in the present case and the rest of the tablets may be the case property of other 9 cases of Police Station Govind Puri. The 128 tablets of the present case are exhibited as Ex. P49(colly).
45. During his further examination-in-chief, one sealed 'pullanda' duly sealed with the seal of 'PK' bearing the particulars of this is produced by the MHC(M) and same is opened from which one golden colour chain with two lockets are taken out and shown to PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal Katewa FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 20 of 48 who correctly identified the same and the gold chain along with the lockets are Ex. P50(colly).
46. During his cross-examination, PW6 Inspector Ajay Katewa has, inter-alia, deposed that he was Investigating Officer of FIR no.156/14 Police Station Govindpuri and he had conducted investigation of FIR no.156/14 and during investigation both the accused had made disclosure statements. PW6 Inspector Ajay Katewa further deposed that he had not conducted any investigation of the present case and he came to know from the disclosure statement of the accused that they are involved in present case also for which he had informed the concerned police station. PW6 Inspector Ajay Katewa further deposed that he had not participated/conducted investigation in the present case and he had not affected the arrest of the accused persons in the present case. PW6 Inspector Ajay Katewa further deposed that he had not affected any recovery from the accused related to the present case. PW6 Inspector Ajay Katewa further deposed that accused persons have not recovered anything relating to present case as he was not conducted investigation in the present case. Other formal suggestions were denied by the witness as wrong and incorrect.
47. PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh deposed that on 03.03.2014, in connection with the investigation of this case, he along with Investigating Officer/Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar went to AATS/South East District at Ghari, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that Sub Inspector Pappu Lal met there and who informed FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 21 of 48 the Investigating Officer that he had arrested the accused persons, Arjun Singh and Chandeshwar @ Sunil in case FIR No.156/14, Police Station Govind Puri and in that case, both the accused persons had made their disclosures regarding the commission of offence of the present case. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that Investigating Officer had collected the disclosure statements of accused persons from Sub Inspector Pappu Lal and thereafter, they both came to Saket Court and the Investigating Officer made an application for interrogation and formal arrest of both the aforesaid accused persons. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that after obtaining the due permission of the Court, the Investigating Officer formally arrested both the accused persons vide the Arrest Memo (Ex.PW7/A) of accused Chandeshwar @ Sunil and Arrest Memo (Ex.PW7/B) of accused Arjun Singh. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that the Investigating Officer interrogated the accused persons and recorded the Disclosure Statement vide Memo (Ex.PW7/C) of accused Chandeshwar @ Sunil and Disclosure Statement vide Memo (Ex.PW7/D) of accused Arjun Singh. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that Investigating Officer produced the accused persons before the Court and they were remanded to JC.
48. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that on 04.03.2014, he again joined the investigation of this case, pursuant to which he along with Investigating Officer came to the Court. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that on that day, at the instance of Investigating FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 22 of 48 Officer, the lockup In-charge at Saket had produced the accused persons before the Court in the muffled face and the Investigating Officer had made an application for Test Identification Parade of the accused persons. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that accused Arjun Singh had refused to join the TIP proceedings but the co-accused Chandeshwar shown his willingness to join the TIP proceedings, therefore, the accused Chandeshwar was sent to JC. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that Investigating Officer obtained one day police remand of accused Arjun Singh and they took accused Arjun Singh to the police station.
49. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that the Investigating Officer made further interrogation from accused Arjun Singh and he led them to the place of occurrence i.e., A-1 Back Restaurant, Service Road and pointed out the Place of Occurrence vide Memo (Ex.PW7/A) and thereafter, they took the accused to police station. It is further deposed by PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh that Investigating Officer recorded his statement in this regard. PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh had correctly identified the accused persons, Arjun and Chandeshwar, present in Court.
50. During cross-examination of PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh has, inter-alia, deposed that Investigating Officer, Rajender Kumar obtained the copies of Disclosure Statements, Arrest Memos and Recovery Memos pertaining to FIR No.156 registered at Police Station Govind Puri and he also prepared the handing over memo of all above mentioned papers pertaining FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 23 of 48 FIR no.156 registered at Police Station Govind Puri. PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh further deposed that Arrest Memos of both the accused persons were prepared in his presence. PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh further deposed that there were 5-6 persons sitting outside the Court when Disclosure Statements of accused persons were being recorded. PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh further deposed that Investigating Officer asked 2-3 public persons to join the proceedings, but none had agreed. PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh further deposed that the Investigating Officer asked 3-4 passerby to join the investigation at the time of preparation of pointing out memo of the place of occurrence. PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh further deposed that no staff member of A-1 Back Restaurant, Okhla Service Road was called to join the investigation. PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh further deposed that nothing had been recovered pursuant to the Disclosure Statement of accused Arjun Singh. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
51. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh deposed that on 21.02.2014, he was posted at AATS, South-East District as Head Constable and at about 04:30 PM, Sub Inspector Satender Khari and Sub Inspector P.L. Katewa had called him, Head Constable Neeraj, Constable Deep Chand, Constable Kuldeep and Constable Jogender in the office and they were told about the secret information regarding two boys who used to commit robbery after administering some stupefying substance to the passengers and those boys would be coming at near Pooja Masala, Govind Puri at about 07-08:00 PM. It is further deposed FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 24 of 48 by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that accordingly, raiding party consisting of the members as mentioned above prepared by Sub Inspector P. L. Katewa and they along with Secret Informer in two private vehicles left for the place as per the secret information. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that Sub Inspector P. L. Katewa had made departure entry with regard to case FIR No.156/14, Police Station Govind Puri. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that Sub Inspector P. L. Katewa, the investigating Officer requested 8-10 public persons to join investigation but nobody came forward to join investigation and left without giving their names and addresses. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that the Investigating Officer briefed them and as per the instructions of the Investigating Officer the raiding party staff took positions, while the Investigating Officer stood along with informer. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that at about 07:00-07:15 PM, two persons came from the side of 'Machhi' market and thereafter, on the signal of Investigating Officer, they over-powered those two boys. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh had correctly identified both the accused persons who were present in the Court. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that their names were revealed as Chandeshwar and Arjun. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that the Investigating Officer interrogated the accused persons and conducted their search and during search, from the right pocket of accused Chandeshwar, two mobile phones and from left pocket two strips of Ativen tablet were recovered and in one of the strip, there were FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 25 of 48 eight tablets and other consisting ten tablets. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that Investigating Officer got the particulars of the record mobile checked and it was found that one of the mobile phone was involved as case property of FIR no.156/14, Police Station Govind Puri, while the whereabouts of the other mobile could not be revealed. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that Investigating Officer seized the mobile phones while preparing seizure memo and photo copy of the seizure memo of mobile phone Mark (Ex.PW8/A) and seizure memo of the Ativin tablet strip Mark (Ex.PW8/B). It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that thereafter, search of accused Arjun was conducted and from his right pocket, three mobile phones recovered and the Investigating Officer got the particulars of the record mobile checked and it was found that one of the mobile phones was involved as case property of FIR no.78/14, Police Station Govind Puri and FIR no.42/14, Police Station C.R. Park, while the whereabouts of the third mobile could not be revealed.
52. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that Investigating Officer seized the mobile phones while preparing seizure memo which is Mark (Ex.PW8/C). It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that Investigating Officer arrested both the accused persons in FIR no.156/14 Mark (Ex.PW8/D) and conducted their Personal Search Mark (Ex.PW8/E), both bearing his signatures at point A. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that Investigating Officer recorded their Disclosure FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 26 of 48 Statements as per their version Mark (Ex.PW8/F and PW8/G). It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that Investigating Officer had also prepared site plan. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that thereafter, accused persons lead the police party to Jhuggi No.3118, TA, Govind Puri, where they have pointed out a bag of black colour and stated that the case property which they obtained while committing theft and robbery is lying in that bag. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that Investigating Officer checked that bag and the bag was found containing 48 mobile phones, 11 strips of Ativin tablets i.e., total 110 tablets, 3 wrist watches and one golden chain and two lockets of 'Om' (Hindi Om figure as per Hindu religion). It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that the golden chains and lockets were found lying wrapped in a white paper and Investigating Officer converted the same into a cloth 'pullanda' which were sealed with the seal of 'PK' and seized by the Investigating Officer while preparing seizure memo. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that seal after use was given to Head Constable Neeraj and Investigating Officer had prepared separate seizure memos of the 11 strips of Ativin (Ex.PW8/H), three wrist watches (Ex.PW8/I), lockets (Ex.PW8/J) and 48 mobile phones, all bearing his signatures at point A. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that besides that, accused persons also got recovered one automative battery of blue colour (Ex.PW8/K) and Investigating Officer also seized the same while preparing seizure memo. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that during investigation, accused FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 27 of 48 persons had pointed out the place of incident where they have committed robbery in FIR no.156/14 and in this regard the site plan Mark (Ex.PW8/L) prepared by the Investigating Officer. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that after completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer deposited the case property in 'malkhana' and accused persons were taken to office of AATS after getting of medical examination. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that during interrogation the accused persons had confessed to have the committing crime of the present case FIR. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that he was witness in FIR no.156/14, Police Station Govind Puri and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer/Sub Inspector P. L. Katewa and Investigating Officer of the present case Sub Inspector Rajender.
53. During his cross-examination, PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh has, inter-alia, deposed that when Sub Inspector P. L. Katewa called him, he was present in the office of AATS, South-East District, however, he was present in the other room. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that they were called at about 04:30 PM in office. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that the place where accused persons were apprehended by them was at RD Marg, Govind Puri. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that he could not tell the distance between AATS office and the place where accused persons were apprehended.
FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 28 of 4854. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that the secret informer had already informed Sub Inspector P. L. Katewa and secret information was not given in his presence. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that he does not remember the registration number of two private vehicles through which they reached the RD Marg, Govind puri. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that one of the vehicles was procured by Sub Inspector Satender Khari and another vehicle was procured by Sub Inspector P. L. Katewa. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh that as per his knowledge, these two vehicles remained with them from the time they start from their office and till the time of their returning to office of AATS. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that they reached the place from where the accused persons apprehended at about 05:45 PM. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that including secret informer, they were eight persons. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that Sub Inspector P. L. Katewa only told "yeh ladke vardaat karte hain" as told by the informer. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that he was only having information about the secret information and there was no discussion between them about the description of the accused persons. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that the memos were prepared by the Investigating Officer at the place where the accused persons were apprehended and the memos which were prepared by the Investigating Officer during recovery and pointing out were prepared at the time of respective proceedings. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 29 of 48 the accused persons were surrounded by them after they were pointed out and Investigating Officer physically apprehended them. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that prior to apprehending and arresting the accused persons, the secret informer had already left and the secret informer had pointed out the accused persons to the Investigating Officer and thereafter, the Investigating Officer signaled them. PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh further deposed that he never joined investigation of the present case, however, his statement was recorded by Sub Inspector Rajender, who was Investigating Officer of this case. Other formal suggestions were denied by the PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parveer Singh as wrong and incorrect.
55. PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar deposed that on 21.02.2014, at about 04:30 PM, Sub Inspector P. L. Kateva and Sub Inspector Satender Khari called him along with Head Constable Parveer, Constable Joginder, Constable Deep Chand and Constable Kuldeep in the office and told them that there were two boys who used to commit robbery after administering some stupefying substance to the passengers and they would be coming near Pooja Masala, Govind Puri and if raid is conducted, they may be apprehended. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that thereafter, information was given to Inspector Mukesh Kumar and at his instructions, raiding party was formed including him and above-mentioned police officials under the guidance of Sub Inspector P. L. Kateva. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that thereafter, they went to Bus stand near Pooja Masala in two private vehicles FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 30 of 48 with secret informer and Sub Inspector P. L. Kateva asked 8-10 public persons to join the investigation but none had agreed. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that thereafter, Sub Inspector P. L. Kateva instructed them to take their positions near Pooja masala and Sub Inspector P. L. Kateva stand near the bus stand along with secret informer. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that at about 07:00-07:15 PM, two persons came from Machhli Market towards Pooja Masala and at the signal of the Investigating Officer, they over powered those two boys. PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj had correctly identified both the accused persons who were present in the court. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that the names of the accused persons were revealed as Sunil @ Chandeshwar and Arjun @ Parth. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that Investigating Officer had interrogated the accused persons and conducted their personal search and from the right pocket of accused Chandeshwar, two mobile phones were recovered.
56. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that one was of Micromax and he does not remember the make of another mobile phone. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that he was also found in possession of two strips of Ativan Tablets 2 mg (18 Tablets) which were kept in his left pocket and same was recovered. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that Investigating Officer checked the recovered mobile phones and found one of the mobile phones was involved in FIR no.156/4 Police Station Govind Puri. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 31 of 48 Kumar that Investigating Officer seized the mobile phones vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/A). It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that Investigating Officer also seized the Ativan tablets vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/B). It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that thereafter, search of the accused Arjun was conducted and from his right pocket three mobile phones were recovered. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that upon the search, he got particulars of the recovered mobile phones and found one mobile phone was of case property of FIR No.42/14 Police Station C. R. Park and another mobile phone was case property of another case of Police Station Govind Puri. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that Investigating Officer seized the mobile phones vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/C). It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that thereafter, Investigating Officer recorded the Disclosure Statement of both the accused persons (Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW8/G), respectively. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that thereafter, Investigating Officer arrested both accused persons vide Arrest Memos (Ex.PW8/D and Ex.PW8/E), respectively. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that at the instance of the accused persons, they went to the house no.3118, Gali No.5 TA Govind Puri, where they pointed out a bag of the black colour and they stated that the case property which they obtained while committing theft and robbery lying in that bag. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that thereafter, Investigating Officer checked the bag and found containing 48 mobile phones of different make and colour, 3 wrist watch, one golden chain, two lockets of OM (OM figure FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 32 of 48 as per Hindu religion) and 11 strips of Ativan tables i.e., 110 tablets. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that Investigating Officer prepared the 'pullanda' of case property i.e., chain and locket and sealed with the seal of 'PK' and seized vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/J). It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that after use of the seal, seal was handed over to him. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that Investigating Officer seized the Ativan tablets vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/H). It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that Investigating Officer also seized the wrist watches vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/I). It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that Investigating Officer also seized the recovered mobile phones vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW9/A). It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that they also recovered one battery of a TSR which they disclosed that they had committed theft of the battery from a TSR at Bhoghal, the Investigating Officer seized the same vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW8/K). It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that thereafter, accused persons pointed out towards the place of incidence where they had committed robbery in case FIR No.156/14 Police Station Govind Puri.
57. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that thereafter, Investigating Officer prepared the Pointing Out Memo (Ex.PW8/L) of the place of occurrence. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that thereafter, they went to Police Station Govind Puri and deposited the case property in the 'malkhana' and after medical examination, FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 33 of 48 accused persons were kept in the office of the AATS. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that Investigating Officer had recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
58. During his cross-examination, PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar has, inter-alia, deposed that he was aware about the FIR in which he was deposing before the court. PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar further deposed that they were investigating FIR No.156/14 and during investigation, case property was recovered at the instance of accused persons. PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar further deposed that he was not aware whether the case property of the present case was recovered or not during the recovery proceedings in FIR no.156/14. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that he could not say whether case property of the present case was released on 'superdari' or not as it might be in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer of this case. It is further deposed by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar that he was not participated in the investigation of the present case, however, Investigating Officer had recorded his statement qua recovery proceedings in FIR no.156/14. Other formal suggestions were denied by PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar as wrong and incorrect.
59. PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar deposed that on 23.02.2014, further investigation of the present case was marked to him and on 03.03.2014, he along with Head Constable Jaipal went to AATS office Garhi Gaon, Greater Kailash where they met Sub Inspector Ajay Katewa, who handed over case file FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 34 of 48 of FIR No.156/14 i.e., copy of FIR, Disclosure Statement of the accused persons, Seizure Memo of case properties, Arrest Memo and Personal Search Memo of the accused persons. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that accused persons had disclosed in case no.156/14 about their involvement in the present case. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that he had recorded the statement of Sub Inspector Ajay Katewa, Head Constable Neeraj and Head Constable Parvir under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that he along with Head Constable Jaipal had made an application (Ex.PW10/A) in the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for seeking permission of Formal Arrest of accused persons, Chandershwar and Arjun and arrested them vide Arrest Memos (Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B), respectively. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that he had also recorded Disclosure Statements of the accused persons (Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D).
60. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that on 04.03.2014, he had produced the accused persons in the concerned Court in muffled face and made an application (Ex.PW10/B) for TIP of the accused persons, however, the accused Arjun had refused to participate in TIP proceeding. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that he had got one day Police Custody of the accused Arjun and tried to recover the case property. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that he prepared the Pointing Out Memo (Ex.PW7/E) of the place of occurrence at his instance.
FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 35 of 4861. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that TIP of the accused Chandeshwar was conducted on 13.03.2014 and during TIP, the complainant had correctly identified him. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that he had obtained one day Police Custody of accused Chandeshwar on 15.03.2014 and prepared the Pointing Out Memo (Ex.PW3/A) of the place of occurrence at his instance. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that he had recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C and after completion of the investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the court.
62. During his cross-examination, PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar has, inter-alia, deposed that he had got investigation of this file from Head Constable Rajendra on 23.02.2014 and he recorded the statement of Sub Inspector Ajay Katewa in the office of AATS. PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar further deposed that Sub Inspector Ajay Katewa stated that accused persons were involved in the present FIR and he had shared that information with him vide DD No.9. PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar further deposed that recovery of the case property of this case was not affected during investigation. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that accused persons had pointed out the place of occurrence i.e., A- Block in front of Okhla Road, Govind Puri. It is further deposed by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar that he did not examine any public witness except the complainant. Other formal FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 36 of 48 suggestions were denied by PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar as wrong and incorrect.
63. PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender deposed that he received DD No.13A from Duty officer and he along with Constable Shiv Nath went to the spot i.e., Al-Bake Restaurant, Okhla where, he met the complainant, Smt. Malti Jaswal. It is further deposed by PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender that she narrated the whole incident occurred with her and recorded her statement (Ex.PW1/A) and also prepared 'rukka' (Ex.PW11/A) and sent the same to Police Station through Constable Shiv Nath for registration of FIR. It is further deposed by PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender that after registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to Head Constable Rajender.
64. During his cross-examination, PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender has, inter-alia, deposed that the spot was located at a busy road. Other formal suggestions were denied by PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender as wrong and incorrect.
65. PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Prasad Sharma deposed that on 04.02.2014, further investigation of the present case was marked to him and thereafter, he along with Constable Shiv Nath went to the spot i.e., A- Block, Tuglakabad Extension, where they met Sub Inspector Jitender and complainant, Smt. Malti Jaiswal.
66. It is further deposed by PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Prasad Sharma that he had prepared the Site FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 37 of 48 Plan (Ex.PW12/A) at the instance of the complainant. It is further deposed by PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Prasad Sharma that he also recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant.
67. It is further deposed by PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Prasad Sharma that on 23.02.2014, further investigation was marked to Sub Inspector Rajender and he handed over the present case file to MHC(R). During his cross- examination, PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Prasad denied all formal suggestions as wrong and incorrect.
68. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies has remained consistent. During the course of final arguments, certain contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant have been pointed out by the Defence Counsel, however, those seem to be minor contradictions.
69. On 20.03.2023, the accused persons, namely, Chandeshwar @ Sunil and Arjun Singh @ Parth Debnath have made their joint statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced as under: -
We have consulted with our lawyers. We are not disputing the genuineness of the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex. A1), DD no.9A (Ex. A2), DD no.13A dated 04.02.2014 (Ex. A3) FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 38 of 48 and TIP proceedings of accused Chandeshwar dated 03.03.2014 (Ex. A4).
The above-mentioned documents will be read in evidence as per Section 294 Cr.P.C.
70. In the light of the charge framed against accused and the arguments advanced before the court, following are the points for determination:
1. Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, have waved red colour clothe containing stupefying substance near the face of the complainant, Smt. Malti Jaswal due to which she had become unconscious with the intent to commit, or to facilitate the commission of offence.
2. Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, have waved red colour clothe containing stupefying substance near the face of the complainant, Smt. Malti Jaswal due to which she had become unconscious and they had dishonestly taken away jeweleries articles worn by the complainant out of possession of the complainant without her consent.
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
71. On these points, to prove the commission of theft of jewelery articles of the complainant by the accused persons, the testimonies of PW1 Malti Jaiswal, PW3 Constable Narender, PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh, PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh, PW9 Sub FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 39 of 48 Inspector Neeraj, PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar, PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender and PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Prasad Sharma, are relevant. As per the testimonies of PW1 Malti Jaswal, on 04.01.2014 at about 02:20-02:30 PM, when she was returning from Karvi Finance at Okhla Road and reached Service Road by the side of main Okhla Road, the accused Chandeshwar @ Sunil had come to her and asked about the way to go to Nizamuddin by bus and when she was telling him the way, in the meantime, the accused Arjun also came and after making some inquiry flared a red colour cloth in front of her, due to which she had lost her consciousness and also was not able to move and taking benefit of such condition of the complainant, both the accused persons got removed her two gold kadas (bangles) weighing about 22 grams, 1 gold ring weighing about 2 grams, 1 silver ring with stone/moti (white stone), 1 gold chain with locket and they left from the spot; that after some time, she somehow reached her home and her daughter made a call to the police and the police came to their home and recorded her statement (Ex.PW1/A).
72. Regarding registration of this case, the testimonies of PW1 Smt. Malti Jaswal, PW3 Sub Inspector Yad Ram and PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender are relevant. As per the testimonies of PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender, on receiving of DD, he along with Constable Shiv Nath met the complainant, Smt. Malti Jaswal (PW1) who had narrated the whole incident occurred with her and he had recorded her statement (Ex.PW1/A), prepared the 'rukka' (Ex.PW11/A) and got the FIR registered through Constable Shiv Nath and further investigation of the case was FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 40 of 48 marked to Head Constable Rajender. Nothing material has come out from the cross-examination of these witnesses.
73. As per the testimonies of PW2 Sub Inspector Yad Ram, he was posted as Duty Officer in the Police Station Govind Puri on the date of incident and upon receipt of 'rukka', he had got the FIR registered on computer in CIPA and he also identified his endorsement (Ex.PW2/B) on the 'rukka'. This witness was not cross-examined.
74. From the testimonies of PW1 Malti Jaswal, PW11 Sub Inspector Jitender and PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Yad Ram, the prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR against unknown persons. During the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses and in the course of arguments, the registration of FIR against the accused persons has not been disputed by the Defence Counsel. No delay in the registration of FIR has been pointed out by the defence.
75. PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Prasad Sharma that after the further investigation was marked to him, he along with Constable met the complainant and prepared the Site Plan (Ex.PW12/A) at her instance and recorded her supplementary statement and the further investigation was assigned to Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender.
76. Regarding apprehension of the accused persons and recovery of stolen properties from the possession of the accused persons, the testimonies of PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW9 FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 41 of 48 Sub Inspector Neeraj, PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh and PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar are relevant. As per the testimonies of PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj, on 21.02.2014, they were posted in the office of AATS, South East District and on the information received from secret informer about the involvement of the accused persons, namely, Arjun and Chandeshwar in the cases of robbery, at the instance of the secret informer, they apprehended both the accused persons and conduced their personal search.
77. As per the testimonies of PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj, on personal search of the accused Arjun, 3 mobile phones were recovered from his pocket out of which 2 were without SIM Card and on the personal search of the accused Chandeshwar, two mobile phones and 18 sleeping pills were recovered SIM Card were recovered from his pocket out of which 1 mobile phone was found to have been stolen in the present case. The mobile phones and the sleeping pills (Ativan) were taken into police custody under section 102 Cr.P.C. vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW7/B, PW8/B and PW8/A). As per the testimonies of PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj, the accused persons were interrogated and arrested vide the Arrest Memos (Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D) and their personal search was conducted vide Personal Search Memo (Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW8/F) and during the course of interrogation, their Disclosure Statement (Ex.PW8/G and Ex.PW8/H) were also recorded. PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj, in pursuance of their disclosure statement, both the accused persons led them to their rented FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 42 of 48 Jhuggi at Govind Puri, New Delhi and got recovered one black colour bag containing 48 cell phones, 3 wrist watches, 1 chain with two lockets, 1 battery and 110 Ativan Sleeping Pills which mobile phones, wrists watches, chain with lockets and the Ativan tablets were seized vide Seizure Memos, (Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW8/K, Ex.PW8/J and Ex.PW8/L) respectively, which case properties were deposited in the 'Malkhana' Police Station Govind Puri. PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW9 Sub Inspector Neeraj, during verification, the mobile phones were found to have been stolen from the areas of different police stations and, accordingly, information to the Investigating Officers of the concerned FIRs regarding recovery of sell phones were sent and the concerned Investigating Officers contacted Sub Inspector Pappu Lal who handed over to them copies of disclosure statements of the accused persons recorded and the seizure memos and the other relevant documents.
78. Regarding arrest of the accused persons in the present case, the testimonies of PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh and PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar are relevant. As per the testimonies of PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh and PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar, they went to the office of AATS and met Sub Inspector Ajay Katewa who handed over the case file of FIR no.156/2014 (copy of FIR, Disclosure Statement of the accused persons, Arrest Memo, Personal Search Memos of the accused persons). As per the testimonies of PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh and PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar, the accused persons had made disclosure in the case FIR no.156/2014 regarding their involvement in the present case. As FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 43 of 48 per the testimonies of PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh and PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar, the Investigating Officer (PW10) made an application (Ex.PW10/A) to the Court for formal arrest and interrogation of the accused persons, which was allowed and he formally arrested the accused persons Arjun and Chandeshwar vide Arrest Memo (Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B) and recorded their disclosure statement (Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D).
79. Regarding identification of the accused persons, namely, Arjun and Chandeshwar, testimonies of PW1 Malti Jaswal, PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal and PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh, PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar and PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir are relevant. Both the accused persons were initially apprehended by Sub Inspector Pappu Lal (PW6), Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh (PW8) and other police officials of AATS of South East District and both these witnesses have also correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court and deposed that during interrogation, both the accused persons have disclosed about their involvement in the present case. As per the testimonies of the Investigating Officer, PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar and Head Constable Jai Pal Singh (PW7), after arrest of both the accused persons, the Investigating Officer (PW10) had made an application (Ex.PW10/B) for conducting Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused persons, however, the accused Arjun had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. As per the testimonies of PW1 Malti Jaswal (complainant) and PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar (Investigating Officer), the accused Chandeshwar was correctly identified by the complainant in the TIP proceedings.
FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 44 of 48The accused persons have also admitted the TIP proceedings in their joint statements under Section 294 Cr.P.C. During trial also, the complainant PW1 Malti Jaswal, PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar and Head Constable Jai Pal Singh (PW7) have correctly identified both the accused persons present in the Court. From the testimonies of PW1 Malti Jaswal, PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal, PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh, PW10 Sub Inspector Rajender Kumar and PW7 Head Constable Jai Pal Singh, the identity of the accused persons, namely, Arjun and Chandeshwar as the offenders is duly proved and established.
80. Regarding recovery of the case property, it is noteworthy here that the case properties stolen from the complainant i.e., the jewelery articles could never be recovered during investigation. After the accused persons were apprehended by the staff of AATS South East District, as per the testimonies of PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal and PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh, 53 mobile phones, 3 wrists watches, 1 gold chain with locket, 1 battery and 128 Ativan sleeping pills were recovered from the personal search of the accused persons and from their jhuggi.
81. It is important to note here that recovery of the articles stolen in respect of other cases and Ativan sleeping pills was made by police officials (PW6 and PW7) posted at AATS of South East District and not by the Investigating Officer of this case. During interrogation, it was disclosed by the accused persons that they have also involved in the commission of offence in the present case and thereafter, information was sent to FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 45 of 48 the Police Station Govind Puri and pursuant thereof the Investigating Officer of the present case had formally arrested the accused persons and took copies of the relevant documents from the police officials of AATS South East District. Recovery of sleeping pills by the staff of AATS South East District who were unconnected with the investigation of the present case is worthy of credit and their testimonies carry the guarantee of the trustworthy witness. Therefore, in the light of testimonies of PW6 Sub Inspector Pappu Lal and PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Parvir Singh coupled with recovery of sleeping pills from the possession of the accused persons goes to suggest that the accused persons have been committing offences by administering those sleeping pills in the general public.
82. Next comes the question of causing the stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome drug, or other thing to be taken by the complainant with the intent to commit, or to facilitate the commission of offence.
83. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has referred to the judgment in Mohd. Wasim's case (supra) to argue that since, a cloth having some stupefying substance was made near the face of the complainant due to which she lost her senses for some time and taking benefit of that situation, the accused persons have taken away the jewelery articles of the complainant, therefore, the said act could not be established by any medical evidence, however, in the light of the above judgment, the accused persons are liable to be convict for the FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 46 of 48 offence under section 328 IPC. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mohd. Wasim's case (supra) as follows:-
"20. As regards offence punishable under section 328 IPC is concerned, the case of the victim was that her uncle used to give her tablets everyday due to which she felt drowsy and unconscious. Since the report was lodged after a few days and immediately medical examination was not conduced and gastric laverage not preserved, there would be no evidence besides the evidence of the victim to support this contention. In her cross- examination also the victim reiterates that after consuming tablets given by the appellant she used to sleep and wake up in the next morning. She stated that prior to the day when she threw the tablet in the drain and refused to eat it she was not aware that her uncle was committing any wrong act with her or anything wrong had happened to her. However, she is categorical about her being given the tablets everyday and to this extent her testimony remains unchallenged. Thus the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under section 328 IPC is upheld."
84. As per the testimonies of PW1 Malti Jaswal, the accused persons had waved a red colour cloth containing some stupefying substance near her face between 02:20-02:30 PM on 04.02.2014 and she regained his consciousness after sometime. During the cross-examination of the complainant (PW1), his above-said testimonies had remained intact and nothing has come out in his cross-examination which goes against said testimonies. In light of testimonies of the complainant, PW1 Malti Jaswal and in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mohd. Wasim's case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that it is safe to convict the accused persons for the offence under section 328 IPC.
85. The accused persons, namely, Arjun Singh @ Parth Debnath and Chandeshwar @ Sunil have not tendered any reasonable explanation of their conduct.
FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 47 of 4886. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Sections 328/379/34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, namely, Arjun Singh @ Parth Debnath and Chandeshwar @ Sunil, so accused persons, namely, Arjun Singh @ Parth Debnath and Chandeshwar @ Sunil are found guilty of having committed the said offences and hence they are convicted of offence punishable under Sections 328/379/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
87. Let the convict be heard on the question of sentence.
DR Digitally signed
by DR RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
Date: 2024.04.09
KUMAR 15:32:44 +0530
Pronounced in the open court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR)
th
on 09 of April, 2024. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi(JKu) FIR no. 138/2014 State v. Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Page 48 of 48