Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Pankaj Kumar Sharm on 23 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR ,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (SHAHDARA) , DELHI.
ID No. 170-18
Sessions Case No. 28/18
Assigned to Sessions on 13.04.2018
FIR No. 97/2017
Police Station Madhu Vihar
Under Section U/S 395/397/411/34 IPC
Charged Under Section U/S 395/397/411/34 IPC
State Vs 1. Pankaj Kumar Sharm
S/O Suresh Chand Sharma
R/O A-20, Police Staff
Quarter,Vivek Vihar,
Delhi
2. Amit Rajput
S/O Late Ashok Kumrs
R/O H. No.5, Gali No.11,
Block-C Christen,
Colony, Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
Arguments heard on 23.09.2019
Date of Judgment 23.09.2019
Final Order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case are that complainant Mukesh Kumar Sharma, who was working as Incharge (Cash) of M/s. Insta Kart Services Pvt. Ltd., at Plot no. 194, Anand Vihar, Patparganj, Delhi got recorded his statement with police that on 25.03.2017 at about 7.30-7.45 pm when he was present in his office, all of a sudden 5-6 persons entered in their office. They had covered their faces with cloth and some of them were having helmet on their head.
S.C. No. 28/18 State Vs Pankaj & Ors Page 1/8Some of them were carrying danda, some other were having bamboos of small sizes. On hearing some sound he came out from the office and saw those persons who entered in theirr office. On seeing him, one of them slapped him. He was caught hold from the collar and forcibly took aside and pulled-up, he was scared and in that process his urine was released. Some one kicked the door of cash room and the door was then opened with that kick.
2. The another employees namely Ashish, Vikas, Arun and Gaurav Chauhan were forcibly taken to another room and they were kept in that room. He was again slapped and kicked in that room, he fell down in the room. Those persons also threatened them, if anyone tried to come out from that room, they will shoot him. After 2-3 minutes, they heard security guard as he was calling them by saying "kahan ho kahan ho". On hearing his voice, all of them came out from the said room, he noticed that there was an injury on the forehead of the security guard and blood was oozing out from his injury. He found cash was missing which was taken away by those persons. One of them employee namely Mukul informed the police. Police arrived at the spot and made enquiry from them. They were directed by the police not to touch anything. He narrated all the facts to the police. His statement was recorded.
3. After registration of FIR, on the above said statement, the investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency S.C. No. 28/18 State Vs Pankaj & Ors Page 2/8 and the accused were arrested. During investigation the statement of the witnesses were recorded. IO collected the documents, prepared the challan for the alleged offences U/S 395/397/411/34 IPC and filed the charge sheet in the Court of Ld. Illaqa Magistrate. The charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. was committed U/S 209 Cr P C to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (Shahdara), Delhi for the trial of offences U/S 395/397/411/34 IPC. The accused persons were also sent to face the trial. The case was marked to this Court for trial by th Ld District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi
4. After considering the material on record and hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld Counsel for accused persons prima facie case for the offence punishable under section U/S U/S 395/397/411/34 IPC is made out against the accused persons . Accordingly, charge was framed for the offence U/S U/S 395/397/411/34 IPC against the accused persons to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and have claimed trial.
5. In support of its case the prosecution has examined PW1 Mukesh Kumar Sharma, the complainant. PW2 Sh Vikas Singh, PW3 Sh Ashish Kumar, PW4 Sh Gaurav Chauhan, PW5 Sh Mukul, PW6 Sh Prakash Pant, PW 7 ASI Devender, PW 8 Ct Mahender Singh, PW9 Sh Sanjay Saxena, PW10 HC Satya Narain, PW11 HC Jasbinder, PW12 Ct Sanjay Kumar, PW13 Inspector D.P. Singh and PW14 Dr Suraj Prakash.
S.C. No. 28/18 State Vs Pankaj & Ors Page 3/86. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons, under section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded so as to enable them to personally explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. All the incriminating evidence were put to the each accused separately to which they have denied, as being incorrect and have stated that a false case has been registered against them and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that no recovery was effected from them and the recovery shown from them is planted. They, however, have not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
7. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the record and the arguments advanced by them. It is a settled proposition of law that to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt by establishing an unbroken chains of events, leading to commission of the offence. It is further a settled proposition of law that once this chain is broken or a plausible theory of another possibility is shown, the accused becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt which ultimately leads to his/her acquittal. Emphasis supplied upon case titled as Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes 55.
8. It is to be borne in mind that the most important aspect of any successful prosecution is clear establishment or proof S.C. No. 28/18 State Vs Pankaj & Ors Page 4/8 of identity of the accused being the assailant who has committed the alleged offence. This aspect of identify becomes the most primordial when the accusation against the accused has been for the serious offence like the present one. It is also stated to be first and most important connecting link in the chain of events which are required to be proved by the prosecution before it could take its case towards the other connecting links for the purpose of proving the ingredients with which accused persons have been charged with.
9. Before adverting further to the facts of case I would like to discussed the ingredients of the offences with which the accused persons have been charged with. The accused persons have been charged with offences U/S 393/395/397/450/120-B IPC.
10. To constitute an offence u/s 395 of IPC, following ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution.
(i) Accused persons were 5 or more in number who committed or attempted or attempted to commit robbery;
(ii)All such persons were acting conjointly.
11. Similarly Section 397 IPC requires the following ingredients to be established:-
(i) Commission of Robbery or Dacoity by the accused persons
(ii) At the time of commission of robbery or dacoity, the accused person used deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
(iii)The above acts were done during the commission of robbery or dacoity.S.C. No. 28/18 State Vs Pankaj & Ors Page 5/8
12. To constitute an offence u/s 411 of IPC following ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution.
(i) Certain property was stolen;
(ii) Such property was in possession of the accused;
(iii) Such property was in possession of some other person before the accused got possession of the same.
(iv) Accused possesses the property with the knowledge that it was stolen property;
(v)Accused got possession of the property dishonestly.
13. First fact which has to be proved by the prosecution is as to whether the eye witnesses have been able to identify the accused persons or not to connect the accused persons with the alleged offence of present FIR. In the present case PW 1 Mukesh Kumar Sharma, PW2 Vikas Singh., PW 3 Ashish Kumar,PW4 Gaurav Chauhan, PW5 Mukul and PW6 Sh Parkash Pant have been examined as eye witnesses by the prosecution but none of the public witness/ eye witness have identified the accused persons facing trial before this Court. The prosecution is unable to prove the allegation U/S 393/395 read with Section 397 IPC against the accused persons facing trial before this Court.
14. So far as the offence U/S 411 IPC is concerned. The prosecution has relied upon the recovery of votor ID and Adhar card of Ashish Kumar from accused Pankaj Kumar Sharma and Votor I card of complainant Mukesh Kumar from accused Amit Rajput. On the point of recovery stolen articles. There is presumption U/s 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act that a man who is in possession of stolen S.C. No. 28/18 State Vs Pankaj & Ors Page 6/8 goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.
15. In the light of legal presumption and evidence on record. Let us examine the case of the prosecution. In the present case through the prosecution has relied upon the recovery of votor ID and Adhar card. Now the question arises that recovery can be considered being proved beyond reasonable doubt being recovered from accused Pankaj Kumar Sharma and Amit Rajput. On appreciation of evidence the recovery being effected from the accused Pankaj Kumar Sharma and Amit Rajput creates doubt. Firstly, the eye witnesses PW 1 Mukesh Kumar Sharma, PW2 Vikas Singh., PW 3 Ashish Kumar,PW4 Gaurav Chauhan, PW5 Mukul and PW6 Sh Parkash Pant who has seen the accused persons have not identified them. If accused are not identified by the witnesses and not connected with the offence U/S 393/395 r/w Section 397 IPC then a doubt is created why they will keep Votor ID and Adhar Card with them without any utility of the same for them.
16. Moreover, it has also come in my mind that a criminal who has committed the offence, like alleged against accused will keep the ID card of the person against whom they have committed heinous crime. The ID card being shown to be recovered having no value for them. If they are not concerned with those documents they would have S.C. No. 28/18 State Vs Pankaj & Ors Page 7/8 thrown the same at any isolated place. In the normal circumstances a prudent person will not keep I card in their house as has been shown being recovered from the accused persons. Moreover family members of the accused persons were available in the house at the time of recovery of ID card and Adhar card but they have not been called or made as witness of recovery documents. There is great doubt regarding recovery of I cards from both accused persons.
17. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case so as to complete the chain much less to prove the same beyond the pale of reasonable doubt. Resultantly, both the accused are entitled to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted of the charges.
18. In view of the statutory requirement of section 437-A Cr.P.C. both the accused are directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court, for a period of 6 months, to appear before the appellate court, if so required. Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR Location:
JAGDISH Shahdara KUMAR District, Karkardooma Courts ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN Date: 2019.09.27 11:43:01 +0530 COURT ON THIS 23.09.2019 (JAGDISH KUMAR ) ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-04 SHAHDARA, KKD:DELHI S.C. No. 28/18 State Vs Pankaj & Ors Page 8/8