Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Mehraj S/O. Azam Khan, R/O. 12A1, ... on 7 September, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH BHATT, ASJ04 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No.: 27612/16
Unique ID no.: 0241R00744352005
State Vs. 1. Mehraj S/o. Azam Khan, R/o. 12A1, Gali No. 7
Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur. Presently R/o. Village &
PO Sahavar, Tehsil Sahavan, PS Sahavar, District
Kashganj, U.P.
2. Asif S/o. Mashuk Ali R/o. K70, Sunder Nagari,
Gali No. 2, PS Nand Nagri, Delhi.
3. Mustakin S/o. Mohd. Muslim, R/o. 12A126, Gali No. 9,
Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi.
4. Safiullah (PO)
5. Meherban S/o. Hazi Kallu, R/o. Maniharo Wala Kuan,
Mohalla Rukkan Sarai, PS Kotwali city, Bulanshahar,
U.P.
6. Shamsher S/o. Mohd. Mustaq, R/o. D13/23,
Gali No. 6, Kabir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
7. Gulzar (PO)
8. Sameer S/o. Sirajuddin, R/o. Bajrang bali Mohalla, H. No.
12/15, Maujpur, Delhi.
Case arising out of:
FIR no. : 67/2005
Police Station : Maurice Nagar
Under Section : 395/397/120B IPC
Date of Institution : 16.08.2005
Date on which order was reserved : 06.09.2016
Date of Decision : 07.09.2016
FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 1/18
2
J U D G M E N T:
1.This is a case U/s 395/397/120B/412 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
2. Prosecution's case is that in PS Maurice Nagar, a report about snatching of money and mobile near Shri Ram Institute, Delhi University, was received and accordingly, IO along with other police officials went to the spot. They found complainant Nand Kishore, who disclosed that he along with his companions were travelling in his Honda City Car and were carrying Rs. 3 lacs cash in his bag / suitcase. At the said spot, one white Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL3792 intercepted their car and four armed persons (three armed with katta and one with knife) got down from the said Maruti Esteem Car and asked them to open the door of their car, which was not opened, on which, one accused broke the door's glass with pistol butt and by pointing gun, robbed their bag and mobile phone. The accused persons also took their car's key while fleeing in their Car from the spot. They had also noticed one another accused, who had been standing on the road and had been threatening the passerby and did not allow them to stop at the said place. Complainant's statement was recorded, wherein complainant had disclosed broad identification features of accused persons as being between 3035 years of age, tall height, wheatish or dark complexion, wearing pantshirt. He also disclosed that his robbed Rs. 3 lacs were including one new note gaddi of Rs. 500/ with series number 4EE389901 to 390000. FIR was lodged. Crime team came to the spot. They took photographs and chance fingerprints were lifted from the car. Site plan was prepared. Later, IO was informed that seven accused persons wanted in the present case had been arrested in FIR No. 240/05, PS Sarai Rohilla, and had made disclosure statement about their FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 2/18 3 involvement in the present case. The accused had also led the police party and three accused persons got recovered part robbed money and the car used in the offence in question. IO formally arrested the accused persons. Another accused Asif of the present case was overpowered and apprehended when at the barricade, pointed pistol towards the police officials. Separate FIR for the said offence was lodged. Accused Asif was formally arrested in the present case. One witness identified accused Mehraj in his TIP. Chance fingerprints were also lifted from the recovered Esteem Car and were sent for comparison. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. Later, report of fingerprints was received, as per which, finger / palm prints of accused Mustakin and Mehraj had matched with the chance finger / palm prints found on the recovered esteem car. The same was filed in the court. Presently, only six accused persons are facing trial, and two were declared PO.
3. Prosecution has examined 26 witnesses.
4. PW1 complainant stated that on the day of incident, accused persons intercepted their car, robbed their money, mobile phone and also took their car's key and fled away from the spot. He identified his recovered money and pointed out the figures of 84 and 78 written by him on the same, but stated he was unable to identify any accused present in the court.
5. PW2 was the brother of the complainant and PW4 & PW5 were the other occupants of their car and have deposed similarly as PW1.
6. PW3 duty officer registered the FIR of the present case.
7. PW6 duty officer PS Mandi Marg registered FIR No. 278/05 u/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and 411/482 IPC against accused Asif and handed FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 3/18 4 the copy of the same to Const. Kanwal Jeet for further investigation by SI Satyavrat.
8. PW7 Raza Begh, an independent witness, was alleged to present near the spot at the time of incident, but did not support the prosecution case and stated that he saw two vehicles parked in the manner intersecting the other vehicle. Police had recorded his statement and had identified accused Mehraj in TIP, but clarified that he had not seen the said accused on the spot.
9. PW8 Nodal Officer produced the call detail records of the mobile no.
9891712183 for the period 14.06.2015 to 16.06.2015.
10. PW9 was the MHC(M) PS Maurice Nagar and had produced the record dated 26.06.2005, 02.08.2005 & 12.08.2005 relating to the deposit of the recovered money from three accused, deposit of esteem car and deposit of mobile phones of accused Sameer and Mustkeen.
11. PW10 was the MHC(M) PS Sarai Rohilla and produced record dated 17.06.2005, whereby ASI Ramesh Kumar had deposited five country made pistols with live cartridges, one buttondar knife and rope recovered from accused. Further record relating to deposit of one motorcycle recovered from accused Mustkeen as well as personal search articles of the accused. Record of deposit of one esteem car no. DL8CA3972 on 02.08.2005 and entry relating to sending of motorcycle, two mobile phone, parcel containing money, suit case, watch etc. to PS Maurice Nagar.
12. PW11 was part of police team who along with SI Nasib Singh (IO of another case) reached 56 Bigha Park, where ASI Ramesh Kumar handed seven accused persons to SI Naseeb Singh along with recovered weapons FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 4/18 5 and documents. SI Naseeb Singh took over further investigation of the said case, wherein accused made disclosure statements relating to the present case and led the police party to their houses, where accused Mustakeen got recovered 22 notes of Rs. 500/ each and also got recovered one Esteem Car which was seized and chance fingerprints were taken from it. Accused Meherban led to his house and got recovered Rs. 45000/ containing notes of Rs. 500/ each. Accused Shamsher Singh got recovered 24 notes of Rs. 500/ totalling to Rs. 12,000/.
13. PW12, PW14, PW17 & PW18 were part of the police party, who on receiving the information from the secret informer, put up barricades and intercepted accused Asif while travelling on his motorcycle. Accused Asif was apprehended and one Katta along with live cartridges were recovered and sealed. FIR No. 278/05 was registered for the same. Accused made disclosure statement about his involvement in the present case and was arrested in the present case.
14. PW13 (SI Naseeb Singh) (IO of another case) deposed similarly as PW11.
15. PW15 had lifted seven chance fingerprints from the Car No. DL7CF0196, photographs of the car were taken and he prepared his report.
16. PW16 had accompanied IO ASI Parvinder Singh of this case. At the spot, found complainant's car with broken window panes. IO prepared rukka and he took the same for registration and returned with the copy of the FIR. Subsequently, on 18.06.2005, his statement was recorded by the IO and six accused persons were formally arrested, who made disclosure statements. On 19.07.2005, accused Arif and on 30.08.2005, accused Satprakash were formally arrested after seeking permission from the court.
FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 5/18 6
17. PW19 recorded the FIR No. 240/05 (other case against accused) on the basis of rukka and produced the original of the same.
18. PW20 produced court file FIR No. 278/05, PS Mandir Marg, u/s 25/27 Arms Act titled as State Vs. Asif Ali containing Asif's disclosure statement.
19. PW21 deposed similarly as PW11 and also that in his presence, chance fingerprints were lifted from the car.
20. PW22 photographer visited the spot and took four photographs of the complainant's car.
21. PW23 had conducted TIP of accused Mustakeen, Meherban, Mehraj and Mohd. Sameer but only one accused was identified in TIP.
22. PW24 produced the record pertaining to accused Asif Ali.
23. PW25 IO of the present case, on information reached the spot and found four persons along with vehicle with broken window panes. He recorded complainant's statement, who disclosed that accused used one Maruti Esteem Car for committing the offence and his money was also containing one new packet of 100 notes of Rs. 500/ bearing serial numbers 4EE389901 to 4EE390000. FIR was lodged. Crime team inspected the spot, lifted chance fingerprints, took photographs and prepared their report. He recorded statement of public witness Raza Begh. Site plan was prepared and complainant identified accused Asif and Gulzar from the their dosiers. During investigation, it was found that accused had used stolen car to commit the crime. The accused persons of this case were arrested in another case, where they disclosed about their involvement and got recovered part robbed money and car used in the offence from their FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 6/18 7 houses. Accused were formally arrested in the case. One accused Asif was arrested by another police team and he formally arrested him in the present case. The case property was deposited with PS Sarai Rohilla and was transferred to PS Maurice Nagar for the present case. The chance fingerprints of the offending car matched with the finger / palm prints of accused Mehraj and Mustakin. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
24. PW26 received the scene of crime examination report bearing S. No. 160/05 dated 14.06.2005 with seven chance prints marked Q1 toQ7 from North District Crime Team for comparison but found them unmatching. However chance prints marked Q 1 to Q 9 of FIR No. 240/05 PS Sarai Rohilla were found matching with the specimen finger prints of accused persons namely Mustakeen and Mehraz, and had prepared his detailed report Ex.PW25/A. He also produced the chance fingerprints and their enlarged photographs along with the report.
25. Thereafter, statements of all accused persons U/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded, wherein they denied their involvement in the present case.
26. Accused Shamsher stated that he was lifted from his house on 15.06.2005.
He denied his involvement in the offence and that there was no recovery from him.
27. Accused Mehraj also denied his involvement in the case. He stated that when he was purchasing eggs from a shop near his house, he was lifted by the police and falsely implicated in the present case. He admitted that he had participated in TIP, but did not know whether he was identified or not. He further stated that police had tortured him and forcible made him to make thumb impression on white colour vehicle by the Special Staff, FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 7/18 8 Crime Branch.
28. Accused Asif also denied his involvement. He stated that police had lifted him from M. K. Restaurant, where he had gone for purchasing articles and also planted katta and cartridge.
29. Accused Meherban denied any recovery from him and stated that he was lifted from outside the Karkardooma courts.
30. Accused Mustakeen stated that he was lifted from his house on 16.06.2005 and falsely implicated in the present case. There was no recovery from him and stated that his fingerprints were taken by the police at PS Maurice Nagar.
31. Accused Sameer also denied his involvement and stated he was lifted from his house on 1516/06/2005 and falsely implicated in the present case.
32. The allegations against the accused persons are that on 14.06.2005, they armed with weapons committed dacoity of the complainant's mobile phone & bag containing cash (Rs. 3 lacs); there was recovery of Rs. 45,000/ from accused Meherban, Rs. 12,000/ from accused Shamsher and Rs. 11,000/ from accused Mustakin.
33. Prosecution has relied to prove its case (i) on the version of five eye witnesses, (ii) recovery of car DL8CA397 used in the offence, (iii) the recovery of robbed money at the instance of the accused persons and (iv) matching finger / palm prints of accused from the finger / palm prints from car used in the offence.
34. PW1 complainant stated that on the day of incident, he along with his brother Praveen, driver Krishan and servant Munna Lal were travelling from Lajpat Rai Market in their Honda City Car bearing No. DL 7CF 0196 FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 8/18 9 and were carrying a bag containing Rs. 3 lacs including one new packet of Rs. 500/ denomination bearing S. No. 389901 to 390000 and other currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 1000/, Rs. 500/ and Rs. 100/. At about 8:30 PM, when they reached near University, Shree Ram Institute, suddenly a white Esteem Car stopped in front of their car causing their car to be stopped. 34 persons surrounded their car. One of them with the help of Katta broke the glass of the car and demanded mobile phone and bag of the complainant. He without any resistance complied with the same. Thereafter, the accused persons also removed the key of their car and fled away from the spot in their white colour car. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He correctly identified the recovered money Ex.P1, 2 and 3, but stated that he could not identify any of the accused persons. He also pointed out that the two currency notes (recovered) had in his writing written 78 & 84 on them. He admitted that he had told the police that the accused persons were in the age group of 3035 years, wheatish and fair complexion and could identify the four accused persons. He denied that the photographs and dossiers of the accused Asif Ali and Gulzar were shown to him for the purpose of identification and he had identified the said accused persons by seeing their photographs. He further denied that he hd identified accused Safiullah by seeing his photograph. He denied that he had identified two accused persons in the Lockup at Tis Hazari Court. He denied that he could identify the accused persons and gave the role played by them. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons.
35. PW2, PW4 and PW5 deposed on similar lines about the incident but also failed to identify any of the accused persons. They further stated that accused persons had used Maruti Esteem Car in the offence, but could not FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 9/18 10 say whether the number of the said car was DL8CA3972.
36. Besides these eye witnesses, there was one more eye witness namely PW7 Raza Begh who stated that he was travelling on his scooter near the spot in question. When it suddenly stopped working. He heard some 'shor' and he looked back and saw two vehicles, one vehicle was straight and another was parked in a manner intercepting the first vehicle. He ignored the same thinking some minor accident had taken place and went away by pushing his scooter. PCR van stopped him near Hindu College and enquired from him and took him to PS Maurice Nagar, where his statement was recorded. He also did not identify any accused persons stating that he had not seen anything. He denied that he had noted down the number of esteem car used by accused as DL8CA397. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW7/A wherein he having noted down the number of the esteem car as well as observed two more boys on the motorcycle was recorded. He also denied having seen the accused persons with country made pistol and knife. He however admitted that on 11.07.2005, he had gone to Tihar Jail at the instance of the IO to identify the accused persons and had identified one of the accused there and might have identified the accused Mehraj in the same, but volunteered that he had not seen him on the spot.
37. There is no other eye witness of the incident in question. All the aforesaid eye witnesses have corroborated each other in regard to the incident of robbery that about 45 accused persons had used their maruti esteem car to intercept the complainant's vehicle and robbed the complainant of his bag containing Rs. 3 lacs and mobile phone, but have failed to identify any accused person in the court. PW7 had identified one accused Mehraj in FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 10/18 11 the TIP, but in the court clarified that he had not seen the said accused at the spot. Complainant's initial complaint Ex.PW1/A mentions about the incident as well as part number of the Esteem car i.e. DL3972, used by the assailants in the offence in question and therein, complainant had also given description of the accused but the same were only broad descriptions with no specific feature or mark given to link the same with any accused. Thus, there is no eye witnesses who has identified or conformed involvement of any accused in the incident on the spot in question. Prosecution has however further sought to rely upon the recoveries of the robbed money and esteem car used in the offence at the instance of the accused persons, TIP of accused Mehraj as well as matching fing prints of accused Mustakin and Mehraj on the esteem car to connect them with the offence in question.
38. The prosecution's case is that after receipt of the DD No. 27A, PW25 alongwith PW 16 reached the spot and found PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5. They saw window of the complainant's car was broken. He recorded the statement of PW1 Ex.PW1/A and FIR Ex.PW3/A was lodged. PW15 reached and spot and checked the car and was able to develop seven chance prints from the said car. PW22 took the photographs of the car and crime team prepared their report Ex.PW15/A. Thereafter, on a later date on secret information, ASI Ramesh along with his team apprehended seven accused persons from the 56 Bigha Park where they were planning to commit another offence and a separate FIR was registered. In the said case, accused persons made disclosure statements about their involvement in the present case and thereafter, accused Meherban, Shamsher and Mustakin respectively led police team to their respective houses and got recovered Rs. 45,000/, Rs. 12,000/ and Rs. 11,000/ part of robbed FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 11/18 12 money.
39. PW13 SI Naseeb Singh was the IO of the said case who had arrested the accused persons, recorded their disclosure statements and accused persons led his team for recovery and got recovered the esteem car as well as above said currency notes. In crossexamination, he denied that the accused persons were arrested from their respective houses and one accused Meherban was arrested from Karkardooma Court and had been falsely implicated in the present case and there was no recovery from the accused persons. PW11 & PW21 also deposed on the similar lines. According to the said witnesses, accused Mustakin @ Bhura led them to his house and got recovered 22 notes of Rs. 500/ which were sealed with the seal of NS and also got recovered Maruti Esteem car bearing no. DL8CA397 Ex.PW13/H. Accused Meherban led the police team to his house and got recovered Rs. 45,000/ of Rs. 500/ notes seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/J and accused Shamsher got recovered 24 notes of Rs. 500/ seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/K. The notes were Ex.P1 to P3 and the car was Ex.PX.
40. IO PW25 deposed as per prosecution story about the intial investigation at the spot and further stated that he had prepared the site plan and shown the dossier of some accused persons to the complainant, who had identified two accused persons namely Asif and Gulzar from the same and he recorded supplementary statement of the complainant. Complainant also disclosed part registration number of the car used by the accused persons and the serial number of the robbed currency notes of Rs. 500/ of new packet. He had inquired about the ownership of the vehicle used by the accused and found that the same was belonging to Sh. Satyapal FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 12/18 13 Sharma who disclosed that the said vehicle was stolen on 14.06.2005 from Sahibabad, Ghaziabad and had lodged the complaint regarding the same in the concerned PS. On 18.06.2005, he received information about the arrest of the accused persons. He formally arrested the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements. Complainant and his associates were scared of the accused persons and were not ready to joint TIP. On 26.06.2005, he received three pulandas transferred from PS Sarai Rohilla to PS Maurice Nagar through road certificate vide Ex.PW25/D of the recovered money from the accused persons. Witness Raza Begh had identified accused Mehraj, vide TIP proceedings Ex.PW25/E. On 19.07.2005, he had received information that accused Asif was arrested by the New Delhi Special Staff and he formally arrested the accused and recorded his disclosure statement. The vehicle used by the accused persons was also recovered and same was transferred from PS Sarai Rohilla to PS Maurice Nagar, vide Ex.PW25/F1. Two mobile phones were also recovered from the accused persons and were deposited in the Malkhana of PS Sarai Rohilla and was transferred to PS Maurice Nagar vide Ex.PW25/G. He collected the CDR of accused mobiles phones of accused Sameer and Mustakeen Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW25/J. The location of the CDR was showing their presence at Lala Lajpat Rai Market near Bhagirath Place, where the complainant's shop was situated. During investigation, chance prints were got developed from the Esteem Car and were compared with the finger / palm prints of the accused persons, which matched with two accused Mehraj and Meherban, vide report Ex.PW25/K. The complainant got the recovered money on superdari. In cross examination, he denied that no disclosure statement was made by accused Asif. He had not collected the documents showing the ownership of the FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 13/18 14 esteem car in question being owned by Sh. Satyapal Sharma. He stated that Satyapal Sharma had himself produced the RC at the time of release of the vehicle. He denied that he planted the recovery on the accused persons. Rs. 11,000/ were recovered from accused Mustakin and Rs. 45,000/ from accused Meherban and the number of the series of the notes had matched with the series of the currency notes provided by the complainant.
41. PW26 conducted the comparison of the chance prints with specimen prints and had submitted his report Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW26/D & G. As per the same, the chance fingerprints lifted from Maruti Esteem Car Ex.PX matched with sample prints of accused Mustakin and Mehraj.
42. Ld. counsels for accused have argued that two accused persons after the arrest were forcibly made to put their palm and fingerprints on the recovered car or that there was no chance prints existing on the recovered car. It is also argued that the said car was not recovered at the instance of the accused person and that the recoveries have been planted.
43. In respect of the recovery of the car, the eye witnesses PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 in their testimony before the Court did not give the number of the car used by the accused persons in the offence in question, but also did not deny the involvement of the said car or dispute the given number of the car. Further, complainant in his statement Ex.PW1/B had mentioned that accused used esteem car DL3972 and he could not read the in between letters. His statement was recorded on 14.06.2005 i.e. immediately after the incident in question. PW25 also stated that the said car was belonging to one Satyapal Sharma who had informed that his car had been stolen on the same day of incident in question and has informed FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 14/18 15 about the theft of the same in PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. PW11, PW13 and PW21 sated that accused Mustakin @ Bhura got recovered the Maruti Esteem Car, which was parked near the wall of a school near his house and also that three accused persons led to their houses and got the money recovered (supra). There is no substantial contradiction in regard to the recovery of the same except for the fact that no public witness was associated by PW13 (IO of the said case). PW13 however clarified that he had asked public persons to join the proceedings but none had agreed. This fact that public persons normally do not agree to join criminal proceedings cannot be ignored. There were many police witnesses at the said time and all have deposed corroborating each other with no substantial contradiction shown in regard to recovery at the instance of accused Mehraj, Mustakin and Shamsher. There is also no reason to shown why the police witnesses would have deposed falsely against the said accused persons. There is also no evidence to suggest that accused persons had not been arrested in the manner claimed by the prosecution and there is also no evidence led by the accused persons to substantiate their defence. Thus, merely on the ground that IO of the concerned case failed to associate public witness in recovery of the same does not affect the recovery of the car or currency notes. But since none of the eye witnesses have identified any accused and particularly the said accused Mustakin to be present on the spot or being one of the assailants. Accordingly, mere recovery of the car used in the offence at his instance would not be sufficient to link the accused with the offence in question. However, in respect of the recovered currency from the three accused, it is further important to note that complainant not only identified his money but had also disclosed the series number of one of the new packet of Rs.
FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 15/18 16 500/ i.e. 389901390000. He also identified the figures 78 & 84 written by him on two of the recovered notes from the accused persons. These specific features would be sufficient to link the recovered money with the robbed money in question and rule out any wrong identification of the currency notes. There is also no dispute in regard to the money Ex.P1 to P3 belonging to the complainant. The said money has also not been claimed by any other person and there is no crossexamination of any witness on this aspect.
44. Thus, in respect of recovery from accused Meherbanj, Rs. 45,000/ in the denomination of Rs. 500/ Ex.P3. Complainant identified the same and also disclosed that they were bearing the S. No. of the robbed currency i.e. between 389901390000 and one of the note was having number 84 written on it in his own hand writing, which he usually used to write during the normal course of his business.
In respect of accused Mustakin, complainant identified the currency notes Ex.P1 and was also having number 78 written by the complainant in his own hand writing and stated that he used to write the same for counting during his business.
In respect of accused Shamsher, 24 notes of Rs. 500/ each Ex.P2 were recovered. The same were identified by the complainant and were bearing the same serial no i.e. 389901 - 389924.
45. In these circumstances, the onus would be on the accused to explain their possession of the same, but the same is missing.
46. There is no other recovery from any other accused. Accused Asif is stated to have been arrested from the Naka and during the same, he had shown pistol to police officials. He was arrested and pistol were recovered, but FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 16/18 17 the said recovery is not related to the present case.
47. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that from accused Meherban Rs. 45,000/, from accused Mohd. Shamsher Rs. 12,000/ and from accused Mustakin Rs. 11,000/, part of the complainant's robbed money were recovered.
48. The next question to be decided is whether there were four or more than four accused involved in the offence. The eye witnesses have stated that there were about four - five persons who had surrounded their car and robbed their money and mobile phone. PW1 stated three - four persons had surrounded their car. PW2 stated four persons got down from the car and surrounded their car. PW4 stated around four - five persons got down from the vehicle and committed the crime and thereafter fled in their car from the spot. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that four accused persons got down from their Esteem Car, and one remained in his car. But none of the witnesses have even stated anything about the presence of driver of the accused car and therefore accused would be entitled for benefit of doubt for the same. Accordingly, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that atleast four accused persons were involved in the offence in question. Consequently, the offence u/s 412 IPC is required to be converted u/s 411 IPC and three accused persons namely Meherban S/o. Haji, Mohd. Shamsher & Mustakeen @ Bhura are liable and are convicted for offence under section 411 IPC, but are acquitted for offence u/s 395/397/120B IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. Remaining accused persons are acquitted of all offences.
49. In terms of order of Hon'ble High Court in Crl. L.P. No. 3/2015, all remaining accused persons namely Mehraj, Asif, Safiullah, Gulzar and FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 17/18 18 Mohd. Sameer shall furnish their bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ (each accused) with one surety (each) along with latest passport size photographs and latest residential proof, which shall remain in force for a further period of 06 months in terms of section 437(A) Cr.PC.
Announced in the open court today Dinesh Bhatt
i.e. on 07.09.2016 ASJ04 (Central) / THC
Delhi / 07.09.2016
FIR no. 67/2005 State Vs. Mehraj & Ors. 18/18