Delhi District Court
State vs Chandan Kumar on 27 May, 2015
FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 14/15 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0049212915 State Versus Chandan Kumar S/o Sh. Puran Srivastav R/o N44/515, Sanjay Colony, Samay Pur Badli, Delhi. FIR No. : 1093/14 Police Station : S.P. Badli Under Sections : 392/394/397/411 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 09.02.2015 Date on which judgment was reserved: 16.05.2015 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 27.05.2015 JUDGMENT
1. The factual matrix of the the present case is as under:
(i). That on 28.09.2014 at about 1.20 pm, intimation was recorded in PS S.P Badli vide DD no. 47B that caller was robbed of his mobile phone after being beaten up. Said DD entry was entrusted to SI Sachin Maan for appropriate action. Accordingly, SI Sachin Maan (PW6) alongwith Ct. Sher Pal State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 1 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 (PW7) went to the place of information where they met complainant Ram Vilas (PW3);
(ii). SI Sachin Maan recorded statement (Ex.PW3/A) of complainant Ram Vilas wherein he claimed that on that day, he had boarded green line DTC bus from Singhu Border but he felt severed pressure to ease out due to which he got down from the bus at bus stand situated just before Bypass. He made enquiry from one person about the place where he could find water on which said boy who was also having water bottle with him, told that he was also going to ease out. Accordingly, said boy took him inside bushes situated near the said place. The moment they reached inside the bushes, said boy pushed him and gave fist blow on his back and face and also took out knife and put the same on his neck. He threatened him (complainant) not to raise any noise failing which he would cut his neck and would also give knife blow in his abdomen. The said boy robbed him of his chinese mobile make K9 having dual SIM number 9034339702 and 9671847685 from pocket of his wearing shirt and also robbed his purse containing cash amount of Rs. 1500/ from back pocket of his wearing pant. He took out both the SIMs from his mobile hand set and threw them away and went away in the opposite direction from there. Somehow, he got up and lifted both the SIM cards and went towards road where he narrated the entire incident to public persons. He alongwith State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 2 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 several public persons went towards the direction in which offender had gone and one of those public persons after seeing the offender from a distance, claimed that name of offender was Chandan. On seeing those public persons, said offender fled away from there. He made PCR call at 100 number after borrowing phone of one of those public persons;
(iii). On the basis of said statement, FIR in question was got registered for offences punishable U/s 392/397 IPC at PS S.P Badli and investigation was entrusted to SI Sachin Maan. SI Sachin Maan prepared site plan ( Ex.PW6/C) at the instance of complainant. He also showed dossiers available in the PS to the complainant. Complainant identified photograph of accused Chandan Kumar from said dossiers and claimed that he was the same person who had committed robbery of his mobile phone and purse containing Rs. 1500/ at the point of knife;
(iv). On 18.10.2014, accused Chandan Kumar was arrested by ASI Udaiveer (PW5) and robbed mobile phone of complainant is claimed to have been recovered from him. Accordingly, he was arrested in the present case. During police custody remand, accused also got recovered robbed purse of complainant and knife used by him at the time of incident of robbery, from his house. After completion of investigation, chargesheet had been filed before the Court.
State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 3 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Predecessor of this Court had framed the charges u/s 392/394/397/411 IPC against the accused vide order dated 12.02.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses namely PW1 Dr. N.K. Singh, PW2 HC Chetan Kumar, PW3 Sh. Ram Vilas, PW4 Sh. Rohit, PW5 ASI Udaibir Singh, PW6 SI Sachin Mann, PW7 Ct. Sher Pal, PW8 Ct. Pramod, PW9 HC Jagat, PW10 Ct. Naresh and PW11 HC Gordhan Lal, during trial.
4. It may be noted here that Ld. Additional PP dropped PW namely Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, from the list of witnesses on 13.05.2015 as the said witness was a formal witness in respect of CDRs of mobile phone of the complainant.
5. Thereafter, statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded during which all the incriminating evidence were put to him which he denied. Accused claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance. However, he did not opt to lead any evidence towards his defence.
6. I have already heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Ld. counsel Sh. R.S. Yadav, Advocate on behalf of the accused. I have also gone through the material available on State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 4 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 record.
7. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES
8. PW3 Sh. Ram Vilas : He is the complainant/victim of this case. He deposed on the lines of prosecution story during chief examination. He narrated about the sequence of facts leading to the incident of robbery committed against him. He identified not only accused Chandan Kumar as robber who had committed robbery of his mobile phone and purse at the point of knife but also identified his purse containing deposit slip/receipt of Allahabad Bank as Ex. P3 (colly.) and Chinese mobile phone make K9 as Ex. P4 during trial. He also identified knife Ex P5 to be the same knife which was used by accused while committing robbery against him.
In his cross examination, he deposed that accused was not known to him prior to occurrence of the present case. No other person was present near the place of occurrence at the time of incident and the entire occurrence took place within 56 minutes. He admitted that he did not participate in judicial TIP of accused during investigation. He did not enquire the name of the person from whose mobile phone, PCR call at 100 number was made. He had seen as many as 5060 dossiers on the computer screen in PS and only after seeing them, he had identified accused Chandan State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 5 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 Kumar from his photograph appearing in his dossier. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him during cross examination.
9. PW4 Sh. Rohit: This witness deposed that on 28.09.2014, he was going towards Fish Market near Libaspur on foot. While he had reached at Sanjay Colony, near Fish Market, he met one person namely Ram Vilas who stated to him that one person had robbed him of his purse and mobile phone. Said Ram Vilas also stated to him that offender had also assaulted him. Thereafter, he made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone bearing no. 9718650347. Thereafter, he had left the said place.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he had stated his mobile number to the IO but when he was confronted with his statement Ex.PW4/DA, his mobile phone number was not found mentioned there. He further deposed that he had left the said place before reaching of police officials there. He was not knowing Ram Vilas prior to that day. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused. POLICE WITNESSES
10. PW2 HC Chetan Kumar: This witness is the Duty Officer who has proved factum regarding registration of present FIR No. 1093/14 at PS S.P. Badli. He proved computerized copy of said FIR as Ex.PW2/A, his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW2/B and Certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act issued by him regarding registration of FIR as Ex.PW2/C. Nothing material came on record during cross examination of State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 6 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 this witness.
11. PW5 ASI Udaibir Singh: This witness deposed that on 18.10.2014, concerned SHO instructed him to reach at Lower GTK Road, Fish Market, Samaypur Badli as one person i.e. accused Chandan Kumar had been apprehended by the Beat Staff of that area. Said witness reached at the said place, where Ct. Pramod and HC Jagat Singh had produced accused Chandan Kumar before him. He took formal search of said accused and one Chinese mobile make K9 was recovered from his possession. He checked the IMEI numbers of said mobile phone and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Said witness arrested the accused and also conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively. Said accused also made disclosure statement Ex.PW5/D to this witness. Thereafter, he deposited the case property in Malkhana. He also recorded supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW5/E of the accused. Thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to SI Sachin Mann. Said witness duly identified the aforesaid mobile phone as Ex.P4 during trial.
In his cross examination, this witness deposed that no public person was available near the place of apprehension of accused. He had not sealed the recovered mobile phone. He further deposed that he made efforts to join independent public witnesses during investigation but none agreed and left the said place showing their inability to do so. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused.
12. PW6 SI Sachin Mann and PW7 Ct. Sher Pal: Both these State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 7 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 witnesses had visited the place of occurrence on receipt of DD no. 47B (Ex. PW6/A). Both these witnesses deposed on identical lines and have narrated the entire enquiry/investigation carried out on 28.09.14.
PW6 deposed that he had recorded statement ( Ex. PW3/A) of complainant Ram Vilas and had prepared rukka (Ex. PW6/B) and got the FIR registered through Ct. Sher Pal (PW7). He also deposed that he had prepared site plan (Ex. PW6/C) at the instance of complainant and had seized DTC bus pass of complainant, vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. PW6 further deposed that he had taken complainant to PS. where complainant was shown 5060 dossiers on the computer screen, out of which complainant had identified photograph of Chandan Kumar from his dossier and confirmed that it was accused Chandan Kumar who had committed robbery against him. Accordingly, he took out two print outs of the dossier of accused and obtained signatures of complainant Ram Vilas on said print outs.
PW6 further deposed that he had again joined investigation of this case on 20.10.14 when police custody remand of accused Chandan Kumar was obtained from the Court. He recorded disclosure statement Ex. PW6/D of accused. In pursuance of said disclosure statement, accused led him and Ct. Naresh (PW10) to his house number N44/515, Sanjay Colony and got recovered one black colour rexin purse from behind the TV kept in the corner wall of room of said house. The accused claimed that it was the robbed purse which was found containing one deposit slip dt. 10.09.2014 of Allahabad Bank. After preparing pullanda of said purse, same was sealed State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 8 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 with the seal of SM and was seized vide memo Ex PW6/E. The accused had also got recovered one knife having red colour plastic handle and claimed it to be the same knife which was used by him in the commission of offence. Accordingly, he prepared rough sketch Ex. PW6/F of said knife and also prepared its pullanda which was sealed with the seal of SM and seized the same vide memo Ex PW6/G. In his cross examination, PW6 deposed that several public persons were present alongwith complainant Ram Vilas when he alongwith Ct. Sher Pal had reached at the place of information. However, statements of those public persons could not be recorded as they had left the place on arrival of the police. The mother of accused Chandan Kumar was present inside his house on 20.10.14. Despite request, mother of accused left the house and did not join the investigation. He had requested number of nearby residents to join the investigation but none agreed on one pretext or the other. He admitted that no application was moved for conducting judicial TIP of accused during investigation but explained that since complainant had already identified accused from his dossier, there was no need for getting his judicial TIP conducted.
In his cross examination, PW7 also reiterated the same facts that public persons were present alongwith complainant at the place of information but they all left on arrival of the police. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused.
13. PW8 Ct. Pramod and PW9 HC Jagat: Both these witnesses State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 9 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 also deposed on identical lines and have supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects. Both these witnesses deposed that on 18.10.2014, they were on patrolling duty on private motorcycle and when they reached at road towards Fish Market via CNG Pump, they saw accused walking towards Sanjay Colony Jhuggis. They apprehended the accused as his dossier was already shown to them by IO SI Sachin Mann. PW9 interrogated said accused. ASI Udaivir also came at the spot and took formal search of the accused. One Chinese mobile make K9 was recovered from the possession of accused. ASI Udaivir seized said mobile phone, vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. ASI Udaivir arrested said accused and also conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively. Said accused also made disclosure statement Ex.PW5/D. Thereafter, ASI Udaivir deposited the case property in Malkhana.
Nothing material came on record during cross examination of both these witnesses.
14. PW10 Ct. Naresh: This witness had joined investigation of this case with IO SI Sachin Maan on 20.10.2014. He deposed on identical lines as deposed by IO Sachin Maan (PW6) during chief examination. He also identified the recovered articles i.e. purse and deposit slip [Ex. P3(colly.)] and knife (Ex. P5) during trial.
In his cross examination, he deposed that mother of accused was present inside the house and despite request made by IO, she left the house without joining the investigation. IO had also requested some of the residents State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 10 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 to join the investigation but none agreed as they expressed their personal difficulties. He admitted that complainant had not accompanied them on 20.10.14. He deposed that IO had sealed the purse at the house of accused. He admitted that there was no specific mark of identification on purse and similar purse are easily available in the open market. However, he denied the suggestion that no purse or knife were got recovered at the instance of accused from his house.
15. PW11 HC Gordhan Lal: This witness was working as MHC(M) in PS S.P. Badli during the relevant period. He deposed that on 18.10.2014, ASI Udaivir had deposited one Chinese mobile K9 in Malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 4139 of register no. 19. He proved copy of said entry as Ex.PW11/A. He further deposed that on 20.10.2014, SI Sachin Mann had deposited two sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of SM in malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 4148 of register no. 19. He proved copy of said entry as Ex.PW11/B. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him during cross examination on behalf of accused.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
16. PW1 Dr. N.K. Singh: This witness deposed that on 28.09.2014, Dr. Prasoon Kumar J.R. (Casualty) had medically examined patient namely Ram Vilas S/o Sh. Anand Saha under his supervision, vide MLC Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that upon local examination, no fresh external injury was seen over the body of said patient. He has not been cross State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 11 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
17. Ld. Additional PP of State argued that prosecution has established the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In support of said contention, Ld. Additional PP heavily relied upon testimony of PW3 namely Sh. Ram Vilas who is complainant in this case. He argued that PW3 has completely supported the case of prosecution on all the material points and has also identified accused to be the offender who had committed robbery of his mobile phone and purse at the point of knife. He further submitted that knife (Ex.P3) has also been recovered at the instance of accused.
18. Per contra, Ld. defence counsel assailed the testimony of key witness of prosecution namely PW3 Ram Vilas on the ground that he is an interested witness being victim of this case. After referring to the story of prosecution as propounded in the charge sheet to the effect that after accused went away from the place of occurrence, complainant had initially gone towards the road side and after narrating the entire incident, he alongwith public persons went towards the direction in which accused had gone and one of those public persons identified accused by disclosing his name as Chandan, Ld defence counsel argued that it would have taken considerable time for complainant in reaching the road side from the place of occurrence and after having narrated the entire incident, to accompany those public persons towards the place where accused had gone. Thus, it is not believable State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 12 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 that accused would still allow himself to be identified by any public person or being apprehended by them. He, therefore, urged that a false story has been concocted by the investigating officer in order to falsely implicate the accused in the present case on the basis of his previous record available in the PS. For the said purpose, he also pointed out that complainant is claimed to have identified accused from his photograph available in the dossier maintained at PS.
19. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of accused appears to be impressive at the first instance but same does do not carry any force in the eyes of law. There is nothing on record which may show or even suggest that there was considerable time gap between the time when accused had left the place of occurrence and the time when complainant alongwith public persons had chased the accused till the place where he had reached after committing the incident of robbery against the complainant. If the accused wanted to create any doubt in the case of prosecution or on said aspect, it was his duty to put relevant questions during cross examination of complainant (PW3) so as to bring to the fore the relevant facts which would have thrown sufficient light on the said aspect. Moreover, the testimony of complainant (PW3) clearly suggests that the place of occurrence was at a little distance away from main road and accused had walked away after committing robbery whereas complainant alongwith public persons had chased the accused while running towards him. That being so, I do not see any doubt as such either in the testimony of complainant or in the case of prosecution as mentioned in the charge sheet.
State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 13 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015
20. No doubt, complainant (PW3) is shown to have identified accused from his photograph appearing in his dossier available in the record maintained at PS S.P Badli. However, no unnatural conduct can be inferred from the said fact. Had it been the case where IO had falsely implicated the accused in connivance with complainant, it would not have been difficult for him to come out with different story regarding arrest of accused on the identification of complainant.
21. Be that as it may, the accused has been correctly identified by complainant/victim examined as PW3 during trial, to the offender who had committed robbery of his mobile phone and purse containing cash amount of Rs. 1500/. In addition thereto, the complainant/victim has also identified knife ( Ex. P5) shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused from his house, to be the same knife which was put on his neck by the accused while committing robbery upon him. The accused could not impeach the testimony of victim i.e. PW3 on relevant aspects through litmus test of cross examination. The testimony of complainant/victim (PW3) is rather found to be natural having ring of truthfulness and thus, same inspires confidence of the Court.
22. Even otherwise, it is nowhere the defence raised by accused that he was previously known to the complainant Ram Vilas or that complainant had any sort of ill will or previous enmity with him so as to got him falsely implicated in the present case. Rather, the accused has failed to create any concrete defence either during cross examination of complainant or otherwise as only simple suggestions have been put from the side of State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 14 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 accused to the complainant that he was falsely implicated in this case and had not committed any robbery against him.
23. Moreover, the complainant (PW3) is also shown to have been beaten up by the accused. PW3 categorically testified that accused had given fist blow on his back and had also slapped him while committing robbery against him. The said portion of testimony of complainant has gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of accused and thus, same amounts to admission thereof on the part of accused.
24. It is well settled law that the testimony of a witness cannot be brushed aside merely because he happens to be complainant/injured himself. Instead, the law is otherwise which provides that testimony of stamped witness can be taken into consideration by the Court and same can form basis of conviction of the accused in case it inspires confidence.
25. The testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant to go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
26. In the recent judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "Mano Dutt & Anr. Vs. State of U.P." reported at 2012 State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 15 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 IIIAD (SC) 253, it has been held as under: "xxxxx In our view, nonexamination of Nankoo, to which the accused raised the objection, would not materially affect the case of the prosecution. Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain, protect the real culprit. We need not discuss more elaborately the weight age that should be attached by the Court to the testimony of an injured witness. In fact, this aspect of criminal jurisprudence is no more res integra, as has been consistently stated by this Court in uniform language.
xxxxxx"
27. In another judgment delivered in the matter titled as "Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" reported at 2010 IX AD (S.C) 615, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "xxxxxx
28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by the Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness."
xxxxxxx"
State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 16 of 20
FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015
28. There is no substance in the next argument raised by ld. defence counsel that no PCR official has been produced during trial despite the fact that PCR call at 100 number is claimed to have been made by the complainant (PW3). It is nowhere the defence raised by accused that no incident whatsoever had occurred at the given date, time and place or that PCR call was not made by complainant or that local police of PS S.P. Badli had not visited the place of occurrence. In this regard, the testimony of PW4 Rohit is relevant. The said witness categorically testified that PCR call at 100 number was made from his mobile phone no. 9718650347. The relevant portion of his testimony finds corroboration from copy of DD no. 47B Ex. PW6/A available on record. Moreover, no such suggestion has been given from the side of accused either to the complainant (PW3) or to the police witnesses during their respective cross examination, in this regard.
29. The next bone of contention raised on behalf of accused was that no independent public witness was joined by IO at the time of alleged recovery of robbed purse and knife from the house of accused despite the fact that house of accused was undisputedly surrounded by residential houses and thus, public persons would have been available in those houses. He also argued that no independent witness has been joined at the time of alleged recovery of mobile phone of complainant from the possession of accused. Therefore, reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution story and accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
30. No doubt, no independent public witness is shown to have been joined at the time of recovery of robbed mobile phone (Ex. P4) from the State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 17 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 possession of accused by PW9 HC Jagat Singh and PW8 Ct. Parmod. However, the circumstances in which the robbed mobile phone is shown to have been recovered, clearly demonstrates that said two police officials had no opportunity to make any effort for joining independent public witness at that time for the reason that they were on patrolling duty on their motorcycle and had occasion to see the accused walking towards Sanjay Colony jhuggies and they immediately apprehend him and robbed mobile phone was recovered during his search conducted by PW9.
31. So far as the recovery of robbed purse ( Ex. P3) and knife (Ex. P5) at the instance of accused from his house is concerned, both the recovery witnesses i.e. PW6 SI Sachin Maan and PW10 Ct. Naresh have consistently deposed during their respective cross examination that mother of accused found present in the house, was requested to join the investigation but she declined and left the house. Thereafter, some of the nearby residents were also requested to join the investigation but none agreed and they all expressed their personal difficulties to join the investigation.
32. It is not uncommon these days that public persons avoid to come forward to give evidence and civilized people are insensitive when crime is committed even in their presence and they withdraw both from the victim and vigilante.
33. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case "Ambika Prasad & Anr Vs. State" reported at 2002 (2) CRIMES 63 (SC) has held that it is a known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or to assist the State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 18 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured witnesses of the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not depose the truth before the Court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance. Other reason may be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournments in the Court. In any case if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, prosecution cannot be blamed at and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses. It was also held that non examination of investigating officer of the case is no ground to discard the evidence of eye witnesses.
34. The police witnesses namely PW5 ASI Udaibir Singh, PW6 SI Sachin Maan (IO), PW7 Ct. Sher Pal, PW8 Ct. Parmod, PW9 HC Jagat and PW10 Ct. Naresh have also deposed on the lines of prosecution story and have duly corroborated each other on all material points. They also successfully withstood the test of cross examination and the accused could not impeach their testimonies through litmus test of cross examination.
35. Even otherwise, it would be anybody's guess as to why police officials would falsely implicate the accused. If the accused wants this Court to believe that he has been implicated falsely, the least which was expected from the accused was to at least come out as to what could have been the motive for the police for his false implication and as to what was that reason for which police official could have done so. But no such reason is even mentioned or suggested to the witnesses. The accused cannot expect this State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 19 of 20 FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 Court to believe his version by simple bare allegation that he is falsely implicated. At least some reason should have been put forth by the accused to suggest as to what could have been motive of the police in implicating him. In the absence of this, I do not find any reason to throw out the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
36. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has been successful in establishing its case in respect of offence punishable U/s 397 read with Section 394 IPC. Accordingly, accused namely Chandan Kumar S/o Sh. Puran Srivastav stands convicted for the said offence.
Announced in open Court today
On 27.05.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 20 of 20
FIR No. 1093/14; U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC; P.S. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.05.2015 State V/s Chandan Kumar ("Convicted") Page 21 of 20