Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Sunil Kumar Meena on 28 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST-02) , DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 506/2017
Assigned to Sessions on 22.08.2017
FIR No. 227/2016
Police Station Moti Nagar
Under Section U/S 392/394/411/450/34 IPC
Charged Under Section U/S 392/394/397/411/34 IPC
State Vs 1. Sunil Kumar Meena
s/o Attar Singh
r/o Flat No. 902, A-2 Block, Golf
Link Residency, Sector-18B,
Dwarka, Delhi
2. Rohit Kapoor
s/o Jagdish
r/o RZ-75, Indra Park,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi
Arguments heard on 28.07.2022
Date of Judgment 28.07.2022
Final Order Acquitted.
Appearances: Sh. Alok Saxena, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
JUDGMENT:
(A) PRELUDE :
1. The case pertaining to the charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No. 227/2016 u/s. 392/394/411/450/34 IPC of PS Moti Nagar was committed to the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (West), Delhi vide order dated 17.08.2017 of the Ld. MM.S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 1 of 15
(B) PROSECUTION VERSION :
2. The brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that on 15.03.2016 on receipt of DD No.38A, SI Hira Lal alongwith Ct. Nahar Singh reached at the spot i.e. 10/159, New Moti Nagar where complainant Madan Lal was met. His statement was recorded wherein he alleged that he was working at Payal Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. SS Auto Deals at 10/159, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. He was working in the said office for the last 17-18 years and one Ravi Prakash was also working with him. On 15.03.2016, he and Ravi Prakash were sitting in their office and were about to leave after closing the day work, when at around 7:00 pm, two boys entered their office and both of them were wearing helmets but their helmets were without glasses. One of the said boys hit the butt of some desi katta like material on his head and also slapped him due to which he was hurt. They asked them to hand over whatever cash they had.
He handed over to them cash amount of Rs. 4530/-. Thereafter, he snatched his purse and also snatched the gold ring weighing around half tola from him which he was wearing in his right hand. He had also snatched his wallet, which was containing Rs. 11,000/- 12,000/- cash, ATM card of SBI, ATM card of Corporation Bank, Driving License, Volter I-card. The second boy slapped and gave fist blows to his colleague Ravi Prakash and snatched his purse which was containing Rs. 1200/-, his Driving License, Voter I-card, RC and other documents of his scooter. In the meanwhile, another fellow, third accomplice of these two also came inside and was searching the room on the back side. The two boys had snatched his mobile phone make Samsung S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 2 of 15 which was having two SIM cards one of MTNL and the other of Vodafone as well as of MTS. One of them also snatched his laptop bag which was containing office files and details of transactions and the passbook of Kangra Cooperative Bank. The other accused snatched the hand bag belonging to Ravi Prakash which was containing SBI cheque book, some financial papers and the Apple Mobile phone belonging to the owner. Thereafter, all three of them pushed them and took them inside the inner room and asked them not to move from there and all three of them ran away with those articles snatched by them. On the basis of statement, offence u/s 392/394/34 IPC was found to have been committed and accordingly, rukka was prepared and sent Ct. Nahar Singh alongwith rukka to PS and got the present FIR registered. Thereafter, enquiry was made from another eye witness Ravi Prakash and his statement was recorded. In the meantime, Ct. Nahar Singh came back after registration of FIR. Thereafter, medical examination of complainant Madan Lal got conducted and site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant and his supplementary statement was recorded.
During investigation, on 16.06.2016, ASI Naresh Kumar of Anti Snatching Cell, West District informed the police officials of PS Moti Nagar that accused Sunil Kumar Meena and Rohit Kapoor had made their disclosures about their involvement in the present case. Thereafter, after taking permission from the concerned court, both the accused persons were formally arrested in the present case and their disclosure statements were recorded. On 29.06.2016, TIP of both the accused persons were conducted during which complainant correctly identified accused Sunil Kumar Meena, however, could not identify S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 3 of 15 accused Rohit Kapoor. The mobile phone belonging to the complainant was recovered from the house of accused Rohit Kapoor. Thereafter, IO recorded statement of witnesses produced the accused in the court after completion of entire investigation, IO filed charge sheet in the court for judicial verdict.
(C) THE CHARGE:
3. After considering the material on record and hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused, Ld. Predecessor of this Court found a prima facie case for the offence punishable under section 392/394/397/34 IPC against both the accused as well as offence punishable u/s 411 IPC against accused Rohit Kapoor. Accordingly, charge was framed under the said offences to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the case was proceeded for recording of prosecution evidence.
(D) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4. In order to prove its charge, prosecution had cited 17 witnesses to prove its case. Six witnesses had been examined.
On 25.07.2022, considering the testimonies of material witnesses of this case, this court had closed the prosecution evidence after declining the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State to examine remaining prosecution witnesses.
5. Out of six witnesses, PW-1 is a formal witness being the S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 4 of 15 photographer, PW-2 Ravi Prakash is the victim, PW-3 Madan Lal is the victim/complainant, PW-4 Sh. Puneet Pahwa, Ld. ARC Delhi conducted TIP of accused persons, PW-5 SI Madan Lal is the duty officer and PW-6 Inspector Hira Lal is the first IO of the case. The testimonies of PW-2 Ravi Prakash, PW-3 Madan Lal and PW-4 Sh. Puneet Pahwa, Ld. ARC,Delhi are material and hence, their testimonies are reproduced hereunder:
PW-2 Sh. Ravi Prakash has deposed as under:
"In the year 2016, I was working at Payal Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. SS Auto Deals at 10/159, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. I was working there for the last 8-9 years. Madan Lal was also working with me. On 15.03.2016, I and Madan Lal were sitting in our office, when at around 7 pm, two boys entered our office and both were wearing helmets. After entering our office, both of them started slapping us. One of the said boys hit the butt of desi katta in the head of Madan Lal and they had snatched the cash amount of Rs. 4500/- approx. from Madan Lal. They had snatched the gold ring from Madan Lal which he was wearing. They had also snatched the wallet of Madan Lal which was having ATM card, Driving Licence and RC. The other fellow was giving me slaps and fists and he had snatched away my wallet which was having Rs.1200/- cash, my driving licence, RC, insurance and pollution certificate of my scooter and voter ID card. They had also snatched away my mobile phone and my hand bag. One of the said boys snatched the mobile phone of Madan Lal and the Laptop bag which was having files. In the end another fellow, who was also wearing helmet entered the room and all the said three boys pushed both of us in the inside room of our office and one of the accused, who had come lastly threatened us stating that "bahar nikloge to maar denge".S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 5 of 15
Thereafter, all three of them left from the spot after snatching away our said articles. Thereafter, I and Madan Lal kept on sitting in the inside room of our office for about 15-30 minutes and at around 8:30 pm we visited PS Moti Nagar, where Madan Lal lodged the complaint markable on the basis of which present FIR was registered. On 29.06.2016, I and Madan Lal alongwith the IO visited the Tihar Jail, where in the presence of Ld. MM, I was asked to identify the accused persons but I could not identify the accused persons as I have not seen the accused persons by face at the time of committing the offence. (Vol. All the accused persons were wearing the helmets at the time of incident). At this stage, two envelopes with the seal of PP taken out from the judicial file. Seal broken. The same is found containing TIP Proceedings of accused Rohit and Sunil Kumar Meena and shown to the witness. The witness identifies his signatures at point A on his statement recorded therein qua accused Rohit and he also identifies his signatures at point A on his statement recorded therein qua accused Sunil Kumar Meena. Hence, TIP proceedings of accused Rohit is Ex. PW-2/A and of accused Sunil Kumar Meena is Ex. PW- 2/B. At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for State seeks permission to cross examine the witness as he has not revealed the complete facts. Heard. Permission granted.
XXXX by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
It is correct that in the hand bag which was snatched by the accused persons was having SBI Cheque Book, other important papers and APPLE mobile belonging to our owner. It is also correct that the wallet of Madan Lal which was snatched by accused persons was having Rs. 11,000/- - 12,000/-. It is correct that the gold ring which was snatched by accused persons S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 6 of 15 from the hands of Madan Lal was weighing around half tola.
6. Similarly, PW-3 Madan Lal has deposed as under:
In the year 2016, I was working at Payal Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. SS Auto Deals at 10/159, New Moti Nagar, Delhi. I was working in the said office for the last 16-17 years and the owner of the said office was Mr. Subhash Chander. The said firm was dealing in the sale purchase of old commercial vehicles. Ravi Prakash was my colleague. On 15.03.2016, I and Ravi Prakash were sitting in our office and were about to leave after closing the day work, when at around 7:00 pm, two boys entered our office and both of them were wearing helmets and both of them were having good physique (hatte katte). After entering our office, one of the said boys both started beating us with fists and also slapped us and my mobile phone make Samsung and MTS phone were taken control of by one of the accused persons as both of the mobile phones were lying on the table. First of all Ravi Prakash was beaten and when I interjected and asked who were they and what they wanted, one of the said boys hit the butt of some desi katta like material on my head, as a result of which I started bleeding and the said fellow, who had hit me in my head, snatched the cash amount of Rs. 4530/- from me. He had also snatched my wallet, which was containing Rs. 11,000/- 12,000/- cash, two ATM cards, Driving Licence, Voter Card. He had also snatched the gold ring weighing aroung half tola from me, which I was wearing. Laptop bag which was having files was also snatched from me by the said fellow. The other fellow who was over powering Ravi Prakash snatched away his wallet and his hand bag. Ravi Prakash's mobile phone was also snatched from S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 7 of 15 him. In the meanwhile, another fellow, who was wearing helmet entered the room, went inside and checked the inside room and all the said three boys pushed both of us in the inside room of our office and one of the accused, who was having desi katta type weapon threatened us stating that "bahar nikloge to goli maar dunga". Thereafter, all three of them fled from the spot after snatching away our said articles. Thereafter, I and Ravi Prakash kept on sitting in the inside room of our office for about 5-10 minutes and both of us got stupefied on account of said incident with us and after coming out I took the mobile phone of one of the neighbours and informed about the incident to our owner Sh. Subhash Chander. He reached at the spot within 15-20 minutes and after his arrival 100 number call was made. Police came at the spot and made inquiries from me and Ravi Prakash. I had shown to the police the place of incident and police prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW-3/A bearing my signatures at point A. Thereafter I was taken to Acharya Bhikshu hospital for medical examination, where I was given first aid. Ravi Prakash was not having any apparent injury and thus he was not taken for medical examination. From the hospital I was taken to PS Moti Nagar. My colleague Ravi Prakash was already present in police station. At around 9:30 pm I lodged the complaint earlier mark A1, now Ex. PW-3/B bearing my signatures at point A, on the basis of which present FIR was registered. Thereafter I and Ravi Prakash went to our home. On 29.06.2016, I and Ravi Prakash alongwith the IO visited the Tihar Jail, where in the presence of Ld. MM, I was asked to identify the accused persons where I identified the accused Sunil through his physique, who is also present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). The TIP proceedings qua accused Sunil are S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 8 of 15 already Ex. PW-2/B and bearing my signatures at point B. I could not identify another accused namely Rohit in the TIP proceedings, as he was wearing helmet at the time of incident, even by his physique. The TIP proceeding qua accused Rohit are already Ex. PW2/A bearing my signatures at point B. Today I have brought the mobile phone make Samsung having IMEI no.
356554067891248 and another number 356555067891245 which was recovered by the police and later on I got released the said mobile phone on superdari. The said mobile phone make Samsung is Ex. P1.
7. PW-4 Sh. Puneet Pahwa, Ld. ARC, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi has deposed as under:
On 24.06.2016, I was posted as MM, West District and was first Link MM of the concerned MM of PS Moti Nagar. An application for conducting TIP of accused Rohit, s/o. Jagdish and accused Sunil Kumar Meena, s/o. Attar Singh was moved by the IO before the concerned court and the same was marked to me and both the accused persons were produced in muffled face before me. The TIP schedule was fixed for 29.06.2016 at Tihar Jail and I visited Tihar Jail no. 4 for conducting TIP of both the accused persons in the said case. IO and the witnesses, namely, Madan Lal and Ravi Prakash met me outside the jail and they were asked to wait outside the jail. I called the IO inside the TIP room alongwith the witnesses and he duly identified both the said witnesses namely, Madan Lal and Ravi Prakash. Thereafter, in the TIP room, accused Rohit was produced from Central Jail no. 4, duly identified by Assistant Superintendent Jail Sh. Sunil and I have explained to accused Rohit, the meaning of TIP proceedings in Hindi and he has understood it. I S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 9 of 15 asked him, if he wanted to join the TIP proceedings and he affirmed that he wanted to join the TIP proceedings. Ten under trials including accused Rohit, of the same physique were made to stand in a row in the TIP room and both the witnesses namely, Madan Lal and Ravi Prakash were asked to identify the accused Rohit amongst the said under trials, turn by turn. I recorded the observation of the first witness namely, Madan Lal that he failed to identify the accused Rohit as he was wearing the helmet and had not seen his face. I appended my signatures on the said observation. Similarly, witness Ravi Prakash also failed to identify the accused Ravi and I recorded the observation of witness namely, Ravi Parkash that he failed to identify the accused Rohit as he was wearing the helmet and he had not seen his face. I appended my signatures on the said observation. The TIP proceedings qua accused Rohit are already Ex. CW-2/A bearing my signatures at point X to X6. Thereafter, in the TIP room, accused Sunil was produced from Central Jail no. 1, duly identified by Assistant Superintendent Jail, namely, Sh. Som Kant Khare and I have explained to accused Sunil, the meaning of TIP proceedings in Hindi and he has understood it. I asked him, if he wanted to join the TIP proceedings and he affirmed that he wanted to join the TIP proceedings.
Nine under trials including accused Sunil, of the same physique were made to stand in a row in the TIP room and both the witnesses namely, Ravi Prakash and Madan Lal were asked to identify the accused Sunil amongst the said under trials, turn by turn. I recorded the observation of the first witness namely, Ravi Prakash that he failed to identify the accused Sunil as he was wearing the helmet and had not seen his face. I appended my signatures on the said observation. Similarly, witness Madan was asked to S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 10 of 15 identify the accused Sunil and his statement was recorded to the effect that he had not seen the face of the accused as he was wearing the helmet but from the built of the persons standing there, I think person standing at serial no. 4 from right to left is the offender. I recorded my observation that the said witness has correctly identified the accused Sunil but he was not sure. I appended my signatures on the said observation. The TIP proceedings qua accused Sunil are already Ex. CW-2/B bearing my signatures at point X to X6. After conducting the TIP proceedings, IO moved an application requesting to provide the copy of the TIP proceedings, hence, I allowed the said application vide my endorsement Ex. PW-4/A bearing my signatures at point A. Thereafter, the TIP proceedings were ordered to be sent to concerned court through proper channel after sealing the envelop with the seal of mine, hence, Ahlmad of the court sealed the TIP proceedings and sealed the same with my seal i.e. PP.
(E) STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements 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 accused 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. Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
(F) REASONS AND DECISION :
S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 11 of 159. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
10. It is argued on behalf of accused Rohit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as both the material/eye witnesses namely PW-2 Ravi Prakash and PW-3 Madan Lal failed to identify accused Rohit during TIP proceedings. As regards accused Sunil Kumar Meena, it is argued that PW-2 Ravi Prakash failed to identify him during TIP proceedings. Further, PW-3 Madan Lal though identified accused Sunil but he was not sure as he had identified him on the basis of his physique. It is argued that physique of a person cannot be considered as the basis of identification because there may be many persons with a similar type of physique. It is, therefore, argued that both the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.
11. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that though both the material witnesses PW-2 Ravi Prakash and PW- 3 Madan Lal could not identify the accused Rohit in the TIP proceedings as well as in the court, however, it is also a fact that the mobile phone belonging to the complainant was recovered from the house of accused Rohit which clearly establishes the story of the prosecution. Both these witnesses have narrated the entire incident corroborating each other.
12. As far as accused Sunil Kumar is concerned, he has been correctly identified by PW-3 Madan Lal during the TIP S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 12 of 15 proceedings as well as in the court to be the person who had committed robbery on 15.03.2016. Therefore, in view of the testimonies of the material witnesses, it is prayed that both the accused persons be convicted for the offences charged.
13. In rebuttal, It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused persons that as far as recovery of mobile phone from the house of accused Rohit is concerned, same is planted by the police in order to work out this case.
14. I have considered rival submissions and have given my thoughtful consideration to the record and the arguments advanced by them.
15. 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.
16. In the instant case, six witnesses have been examined. PW-1 Himanshu is the photographer who has taken the photograph of the mobile phone which was released on superdari. PW-2 and PW-3 are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-4 Sh. Puneet Pahwa, Ld. ARC Delhi conducted TIP of accused S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 13 of 15 persons, PW-5 SI Madan Lal is the duty officer and PW-6 Inspector Hira Lal is the first IO of the case.
17. The prosecution case is entirely based on the testimonies of the eye-witnesses namely PW-2 Ravi Prakash and PW- 3/complainant Madan Lal. Both these witnesses though narrated the entire incident corroborating each other's version, however, both of them have failed to identify accused Rohit Kapoor as he was wearing helmet and they could not see his face. In this regard, Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that the recovery of mobile phone belonging to the complainant from the house of accused Rohit Kapoor clearly establishes his involvement in the crime. However, this argument does not inspire confidence of this court as both the witnesses could not identify him during the TIP proceedings as well as in the court. It is also the settled proposition of law that where identity becomes doubtful, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Moreover, I am in agreement with the submissions of Ld. Counsel for accused that the mobile phone may have been planted upon him by the police to work out this case.
18. With regard to accused Sunil Kumar Meena, it is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that PW-3/complainant has correctly identified him during the TIP proceedings as well as during his testimony in the Court. In this regards, it is important to minutely peruse the testimony of PW-3 Madan Lal. In his deposition, he has categorically deposed in the court that he had identified accused Sunil Kumar Meena only on the basis of his physique as he could not see his face as he was wearing S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 14 of 15 helmet. He has also stated in his deposition in the court he was not sure if accused Sunil Kumar Meena was the same person who committed the robbery as he could not see his face.
19. Further, there is no scientific evidence which could point towards the guilt or involvement of accused in the crime.
(G) CONCLUSION :
20. 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 persons are entitled to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt and accordingly, both the accused persons stand acquitted of all the charges.
21. In view of the statutory requirement of section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused are directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, for a period of six months, to appear before the appellate court, if so required.
22. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by POORANANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN CHAND POORAN Date:
CHAND 2022.07.28
COURT ON THIS 28.07.2022 15:11:58
+0530
(POORAN CHAND)
ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-02
(WEST):DELHI
S.C. No. 506/2017 State Vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Anr. Page 15 of 15