Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul@Sunny@Jahri on 27 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEETIKA KAPOOR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-06, SOUTH WEST DWARKA, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
DLSW020363412017
FIR Number : 193/2017
P.S. : Dwarka North
U/s : 392/341/411/506/34 IPC
STATE VS. RAHUL @ SUNNY & ANR.
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 9966/2017
b) Name & address of the Complainant : Satvinder Singh, S/o Jaswant
Singh, R/o A-17, M.B.R.,
Enclave, Pochanpur, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
c) Name & address of the accused : (1) Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri,
S/o Late Sh. Jagpal Singh,
R/o Village Chhochi, Jhajjar,
Haryana.
(2) Sachin S/o Bijender
Singh, R/o VPO Ladpur,
Tehsil Badli, Jhajjar
Haryana.
d) Date of Commission of offence : 27.06.2017
e) Offence complained of : 392/341/506/411/34 IPC
FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 1 of 12
Digitally signed by
NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2024.03.27
18:10:07 +0530
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquittal
Date of registration of FIR : 28.06.2017
Final arguments heard on : 26.03.2024
Judgment Pronounced on : 27.03.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri and Sachin are facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 392/341/506/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) in connection with the case FIR No. 193/2017 registered at P.S. Dwarka North.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 27.06.2016 at about 10:30 pm, near Cremation Ground, Sector 18, Dwarka, complainant Satvinder Singh was driving towards his house in his vehicle bearing registration No. HR26BP 2471 when suddenly one Swift Dzire stopped in front of his vehicle and two boys stepped out of the car and forcefully sat in complainant's car. One of the boys was wearing a yellow T-shirt and was approximately 25 years in age and sat in the front whereas the other boy was wearing a brown T-shirt and sat in the back seat. Both the boys gave beatings to the complainant and grabbed him and stole his gold chain (weighing approximately 02 tolas) and threw the complainant out of the car and fled with his car. Mobile phone (Samsung A5) belonging to the complainant was also in the car. Public persons gathered at the spot. One of them called PCR on No. 100. Statement of complainant was recorded based on which rukka was prepared by SI Sunil and present FIR was registered and SI Sunil was appointed as the Investigating Officer of the case.
FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 2 of 12 Digitally signedNEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.03.27 18:10:13 +0530
3. During investigation, IO inspected the site of the incident and having inspected it, prepared a site plan. On 30.06.2017, DO of PS Dwarka North had informed IO about recovery of Verna Car and gold chain from accused persons and thereafter, both accused persons were interrogated and formally arrested in the present case. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and based on the material collected, accused persons namely Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri and Sachin were found responsible for the commission of offences punishable under Section 392/341/506/411/34 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, case file was handed over by the IO to SHO of Police Station Dwarka North who after following the codal formalities, prepared and filed the instant challan against the accused.
4. On finding sufficient material on record against accused persons namely Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri and Sachin, they were summoned before this court and on their appearance, copies of the challan and other documents were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as Cr.P.C).
5. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused persons namely Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri and Sachin under Sections 392/341/506/411/34 of I.P.C., charge was put to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defense to make. Thereafter, during the course of proceedings offence u/s 411 IPC was compounded by complainant Satvinder Singh and Raju and statutory acquittal for offence u/s 411 IPC was announced in favour of the accused persons.
6. Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 03 witnesses. PW-1 Raju and PW-2 Satvinder Singh are eye witness and complainant to the case and PW-3 SI Sunil is the IO in the present case.
7. Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 294 r/w Section 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the accused persons admitted the present FIR No. 193/2017, certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, DD No. 47A dated 27.06.2017, DD No. 26B dated 30.06.2017, FIR No. 193/2017 PS Chhawla and TIP FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 3 of 12 proceedings which are Ex.P/A/1, Ex.P/A/2, Ex.P/A/3, Ex.P/A/4, Ex.P/A/5 and Ex.P/A/6 respectively.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution was put to accused persons by recording their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence and preferred not to lead any evidence in their defense. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
9. I have heard Mr. Pushpendra Verma, Ld. APP for State and Sh. Vipin Sehrawat, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused persons and have gone through the records carefully.
10. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that the evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points, and it can be used to prove the offence charged against the accused. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be punished for the said offence.
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that main witnesses have turned hostile and despite reading their evidence as a whole, nothing has come on record against the accused persons. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be acquitted for the said offence.
12. On the basis of evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 27.06.2017 at about 10:30 pm, near Cremation Ground, Sector 18, Dwarka, accused Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri and Sachin in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained complainant Satvinder Singh in order to commit robbery of mobile phone FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 4 of 12 Digitally signed NEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.03.27 18:10:20 +0530 (Samsung A5), gold chain and Verna Car bearing registration No. HR26BP 2471 as alleged?
2. Whether on the aforesaid, time, date and place, both the accused persons threatened the complainant with dire consequences and thereby committed criminal intimidation, as alleged?
3. Final order.
13. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the reasons for my findings, my findings on the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No. 1: No Point No. 2: No Final order: The accused persons are acquitted as per the operative part of the judgment.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS POINT NO. 1 & 2
14. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 392 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Offence of Robbery is defined u/s Section 390 and punished u/s 392 PC and both are reproduced herein below:
390. Robbery.--In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.--Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 5 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.03.27 18:10:25 +0530 or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery.--Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. Explanation.--The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Section 392 IPC: Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years."
15. To bring home the culpability of accused persons under Section 341/411/506 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Section 341/411/506 IPC are reproduced herein below:
"Section 341 IPC - Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 6 of 12 Digitally signed
NEETIKA by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2024.03.27
18:10:30 +0530
"Section 506 IPC - Punishment for criminal intimida- tion - Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimi- dation shall be punished with imprisonment of either de- scription for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. - And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an of- fence punishable with death or (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
"Section 411 IPC - Dishonestly receiving stolen prop- erty.-Whoever dishonestly received or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprison- ment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
16. It is trite that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused must be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the case at hand, is to be weighed keeping in view these legal standards.
17. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined, PW1 Raju and PW-2 Satvinder Singh who being the complainants and eye witnesses are the star witnesses of the case.
FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 7 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2024.03.27
18:10:36 +0530
18. PW-1 Raju stepped into the witness box and deposed that the incident took place 4-5 years ago and on the day of the incident, he was driving his taxi but failed to state its registration number. He deposed that incident took place near Uttam Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that when he had reached near the breaker, he had opened the windscreen of his car and suddenly accused persons tried to stop his car but he did not stop his car and went to Gurugram. He went to PS and informed them about the incident. Witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and was cross examined.
19. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that on the day of the incident i.e. 27.06.2017 at about 10:15 am, he had dropped one of the passengers at Delhi Gate and was going towards Uttam Nagar from the wrong side when two persons came and forcefully sat in his car and drove his taxi bearing registration No. DL1Z3177 towards Najafgarh Water Tank. He further denied that the person who was sitting on the front seat had touched the weapon on his due to which he was threatened and went on the back seat of the car and the person started driving his car towards Dwarka Mor. He further denied the suggestion that the accused persons had stationed the car in front of a Verna car and had started arguing with the person who had driving Verna car and he had fled from the spot and ran towards Kargil Chowk and had given a call on No. 100. Witness failed to identify accused persons in the court. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he have been won over by the accused persons.
20. PW2 Satvinder Singh stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 27.06.2017 he was returning home in his car make Verna bearing registration No. HR2471 and had reached near Cremation Ground, Sector 18, Dwarka when two persons came in a Swift Dzire Taxi and blocked his way. Both of them got down from the car and forcefully sat in his car and started beating him. One of them snatched his gold chain from his neck and also stole his purse and mobile phone and pushed him out of the car. Total three persons were involved in the incident. Witness correctly FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 8 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.03.27 18:10:41 +0530 identified the stolen gold chain and the Verna Car from the photographs on record. Witness failed to identify the accused persons in the court. Witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP on the point of identity and was cross-examined.
21. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons as he has settled the matter with them. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
22. PW-1/eye witness and PW2/complainant have turned hostile in the instant case. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that under Indian Law, the evidence of a hostile witness is not discarded completely as the legal maxim "false in uno false in omnibus" is not applicable. Reliance can be placed on the following observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana(2013) 14 SCC 434:
"It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
23. Therefore, it must be seen if the evidence of such hostile witnesses can be relied in part. The perusal of the testimony of these witnesses show inconsistencies and contradiction in their versions. PW1 and PW2 in their testimony have failed to identify the accused persons. PW-2 has merely stated that three boys were present in the taxi and two of them had entered his car, beaten him and snatched his mobile phone, gold chain, purse and car on the day of the incident but failed to depose anything about the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged incident.
FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 9 of 12 Digitally signed byNEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.03.27 18:10:46 +0530 Both these witnesses failed to depose about the presence or involvement of the accused persons in the incident. Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witnesses is considered partly, there is nothing to implicate the accused persons as it is clear that an inference of use of criminal force or assault by the accused for committing robbery or criminal intimidation cannot be drawn from a simple testimony of the PW1 and PW2. Specific evidence has to be led by the prosecution in order to prove the same.
24. In order to prove its case, prosecution also examined PW-3 SI Sunil who stepped into the witness box and deposed that on the intervening night of 27 and 28th June, 2017, he was posted at PS Dwarka North and was on emergency duty when at about 11:10 pm, he had received information about robbery near cremation ground, Sector 18, Dwarka. Witness alongwith HC Anil went to the spot and recorded statement of complainant and prepared rukka which is Ex.PW3/A which was handed over to HC Anil Kumar for registration of FIR. Site plan was prepared which is Ex.PW3/B. No CCTV cameras were found at the spot of the incident. At PS, he met driver of Swift Dzire taxi who was identified by complainant. Statement of the driver namely Raju was recorded. Swift Dzire taxi and the driver were sent to PS Najafgarh alongwith HC Anil. On 30.06.2017, DO PS Dwarka North informed the IO that DO PS Chhawla had informed him about recovery of Verna car and gold chain from the accused persons. On 01.07.2017 and 03.07.2017, accused persons were interrogated and formally arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. Disclosure statements of both accused persons were recorded which are Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H. Accused persons refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. One day police remand of accused persons was taken and pointing out memo was prepared at their instance which is Ex.PW3/E. TIP proceedings of case property was conducted where the complainant had correctly identified the case property. Witness correctly identified the accused present in the court.
25. In his cross-examination by Ld. counsel, witness admitted that no CCTV cameras were installed at or around the spot of incident. He denied the FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 10 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.03.27 18:10:52 +0530 suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated and case property was not recovered from them. Witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
26. Perusal of testimony of PW3 reveal that he had only conducted the investigation after receiving the information regarding the incident and had reached the spot later and thus, cannot depose about the factual position of the incident and the use of criminal force by the accused persons, if any. Testimony of PW3 is at best corroborative in nature but not sufficient to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
27. Testimonies of other witnesses were dispensed with as they being police witnesses could only explain the factum of investigation conducted by them and could not explain in detail, the act of assault or use of criminal force by the accused persons to commit robbery or criminal intimidation by accused persons upon the complainant. Moreover, site plan prepared by the IO is not sufficient to prove the act of assault or criminal force on the part of the accused. While it shows the location of the incident which is undisputed, it could not be inferred that the incident had occurred as accused persons had blocked the car of the complainant and forcefully entered the same and had given beatings to complainant and committed robbery of his car, gold chain and mobile phone.
28. There is no other witness to establish the guilt of the accused persons. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the act of assault or use of criminal force on the part of the accused while committing robbery and their involvement in the present case and, therefore, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that accused persons namely Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri and Sachin in furtherance of his common intention had wrongfully restrained complainant Satvinder Singh in order to commit robbery of mobile phone (Samsung A5), gold chain and Verna Car of the complainant by threatening him with dire consequences. Testimony of eyewitness does not completely support the prosecution story and testimonies of the rest of the witnesses are not sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 11 of 12 Digitally signed NEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.03.27 18:10:58 +0530 persons. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons. Thus, these points are answered in the negative and is decided against the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER
29. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, since the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under section 392/341/411/506/34 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, accused persons namely Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri and Sachin are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392/341/411/506/34 of IPC.
30. Personal bonds/surety bonds stands cancelled. Endorsement, if any is also cancelled. Sureties stand discharged. Superdarinama, if any stands cancelled. Original documents, if any be returned to the rightful claimant against proper receipt as per rules.
31. The accused persons have already furnished personal and surety bonds as per the mandate of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they have undertaken that they shall put in their appearance before the appellate court within the prescribed period in case an appeal is filed and admitted for hearing. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced and signed in the open court on 27st day of March, 2024.
NEETIKA Digitally signed by
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR 18:11:06 +0530
Date: 2024.03.27
(Neetika Kapoor)
MM-06/SWD/Dwarka Court
New Delhi/27.03.2024
It is certified that this judgment contains 12 pages, and each page bears my signature.
FIR Number : 193/2017 State vs. Rahul @ Sunny @ Jahri & Anr. Page 12 of 12