Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Manjeet Singh, on 3 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI,
DJIIICUMASJ (WEST), DELHI
***
SC No. 13/10
Unique Case ID No.02401C0026122010
State Vs. 1. Manjeet Singh,
S/o Sh. Tarsem Singh,
R/o H.No.410, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
2. Ashwani Singh,
S/o Sh. Udaibir Singh,
R/o C556, Avantika,
Sector1, Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No.126/09
U/s : 394/397/411/34 IPC
PS : Maya Puri
Date of Institution : 20.01.2010
Date when reserved for orders : 03.11.2010
Date when order pronounced : 03.11.2010
J U D G M E N T
Accused Manjeet Singh and Ashwani Singh have been sent to face trial for committing the offence punishable under Sec.394/34 IPC and under Sec.397/411 IPC on the basis of complaint made by Sh. Sachin. As per the complaint Ex.PW2/A, the complainant used to work at S.K. Royal Ornat, Maya Puri, PhaseI and on 27.11.2009 at about 3.00 am, he was returning home on foot. When he reached near Junk Market Bus stand, (SC No.13/10 1 of 13 main road, Maya Puri, two boys, whose names were later on revealed as Manjeet Singh and Ashwani Singh, came on a motor cycle and stopped in front of him. Ashwani Singh asked him to hand over whatever he had or he would tear him and Manjeet Singh caught him. Ashwani Singh started taking search of him and took out his mobile phone make NOKIA from the right side pocket of his pant. When he resisted, Ashwani Singh took out a razor from pocket of his pant and caused injuries on his left cheek and thereafter they fled away on their motor cycles. When he tried to chase them, he saw a PCR van parked at some distance. He informed the PCR staff about the occurrence, thereafter the two boys who committed the robbery were chased and apprehended at some distance. During search, his mobile phone was recovered from accused Manjeet Singh and razor was recovered from accused Ashwani Singh which was still having blood stains on its blade. Local police was informed and on the basis of the statement made by the complainant, case FIR No.126/09 was registered at PS Maya Puri. Injured was sent to DDU hospital for his medical examination and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons.
2. During investigation accused Manjeet Singh absconded and was declared PO by Ld. MM vide order dated 11.03.2010.
3. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 22.03.2010 in respect of accused Ashwani Singh.
4. After hearing on the point of charge, accused Ashwani Singh was charged on 05.04.2010 for the offence punishable under Section 394/34 and (SC No.13/10 2 of 13 397 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During trial of accused Ashwani Singh, on 04.06.2010 accused Manjeet Singh was arrested from Mangol Puri and his supplementary challan was filed and after compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC, the case in respect of accused Maneet Singh was committed to the Court of Sessions on 26.07.2010.
4. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses in all in support of its case. Accused persons have also been examined under Sec.313 CrPC to enable them to explain the evidence appearing against them. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons have preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
5. I have heard Sh. S.C. Sharma, ld. Addl.PP for the State and Sh. Mohit Batra, counsel for accused Manjeet and Sh. Mohit Vohra, counsel for accused Ashwani and carefully gone through the record.
6. Out of the ten witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW6 is HC Ghanshyam who was working as duty Officer on 27.11.2009. He stated that at about 4.25 am he received information from HC Jagbir of PCR regarding apprehension of two boys who robbed one Sachin of his mobile and also caused injuries to him, on the basis of which he recorded DD no. 5A and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW6/A. At about 4.55 am he also received information from HC Ram Chander from DDU hospital regarding admission of Sachin which was recorded by him vide DD No.6A and he has proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW6/B. He has also proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW6/C which was recorded by him on the basis of tehrir sent by ASI Prahlad through HC Yogesh and also the endorsement as (SC No.13/10 3 of 13 Ex.PW6/D made by him on the tehrir.
7. PW7 HC Fateh Chand is the MHC(M) who has proved the relevant entries in register No.19 regarding deposit of case property in the Malkahana as well as sending the case property to FSL for examination vide RC no.40/21 as Ex.PW7/A and B. PW8 Ct. Mukesh Kumar took the sealed pullandas to FSL, Rohini vide RC no.40/21 and deposited the same there and on return, handed over the receipt to the MHC(M). They have stated that so long the case property remained in their possession, the same was intact.
8. PW10 Dr. Rita Baruah has proved the MLC No.23382 of Sachin as Ex.PW10/A which was prepared by Dr. A. Kaushik who examined Sachin on 27.11.2009 under her supervision. She stated that on 30.11.2009 Sachin was brought to the hospital for collection of blood sample and she took his blood sample and prepared his MLC Ex.PW10/B.
9. PW9 ASI Prahlad Singh is the IO of the case. He stated that on 27.11.2009 at about 4.25 am on receipt of copy of DD No.5A, he alongwith HC Yogesh reached Pankha Road near Aggarwal Sweet where HC Jagbir, Incharge, PCR power20 alongwith his staff and complainant Sachin was found present. Two boys namely Manjeet Singh and Ashwani were also there and Sachin disclosed about the robbery committed on him by those two persons. He took search of Manjeet and one mobile was recovered from the pocket of his pant and during search of accused Ashwani, one Ustra was recovered from the pocket of his pant. ASI Prahlad further stated that he recorded the statement of Sachin and prepared the sketch Ex.PW2/E of the Ustra and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/B after sealing the (SC No.13/10 4 of 13 same. The recovered mobile was also sealed and seized vide memo Ex. PW2/C. Injured Sachin was sent to DDU Hospital for medical examination and later on he also went to the hospital. After medical examination of Sachin, he alongwith him returned to the spot and prepared site plans Ex.PW2/L and Ex.PW9/A of the places where the occurrence had taken place and of the place of apprehension. He further stated that he made his endorsement Ex. PW9/B on the statement of Sachin and handed over the same to HC Yogesh who got registered the case at the PS and on return to the spot, handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. Thereafter both the accused were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW2/H and Ex.PW2/J and their disclosure statements Ex.PW5/A and PW5/B were recorded. One motor cycle bearing No. DL 8SAR6349 make Hero Honda Stunner of Black Colour was seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/K and one Jacket (Denim) of the injured was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/D. He further stated that he recorded the statements of PCR officials at the spot and thereafter they returned to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana, statement of HC Yogesh was recorded, both the accused were got medically examined. PW9 ASI Prahlad Singh further stated that on 30.11.2009 the blood sample of the injured was got seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/C and he also the MLCs of the victim as well as of the accused persons and that on 14.12.2009 the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini for examination. PW5 HC Yogesh was associated with IO ASI Prahlad Singh during the investigation of this case and has deposed on the identical lines. PW4 Ct. Shri Pal was given up by ld. Addl. PP for State (SC No.13/10 5 of 13 being repetitive in nature.
10. PW2 Sh. Sachin is the injured/complainant. His statement was recorded two times i.e. on 12.05.2010 when accused Manjeet was PO and second time on 09.09.2010 after arrest of accused Manjeet. On 12.05.2010 when he appeared in the witness box, he stated that he was working as waiter in S.K. Royal Ornat, Maya Puri and on 27.11.2009 at about 3.00 am in the night when he was going to his house and reached near Bus Stand, Junk Market, Main Road, Maya Puri, two boys whose names were later on revealed as Ashwani and Manjeet, came on a bike from his back side and stopped the motorcycle in front of him. He has identified accused Ashwani and stated that he could also identify accused Manjeet. He further stated that accused Ashwani told him to handover what he had and also threatened to tear him (Cheer Dalunga) if he did not hand over what he had and when he said that he had nothing, accused Manjeet caught hold him from his head and accused Ashwani took out his mobile phone Make NOKIA from the right side pocket of his pant. When he objected, accused Ashwani took out razor from the pocket of his pant and attacked on his left cheek and left him there in injured condition. PW2 Sachin further stated that he tried to chase them and at some distance, he met PCR van and narrated the incident to them. He was made to sit in PCR Gypsy and they chased the accused persons and could manage to chase and apprehend the accused persons near Aggarwal Sweets, situated near Sagarpur red light. Thereafter, he was taken to DDU Hospital by the police and his statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded by the police in the PS. He further stated that police recovered the mobile from the pocket of Ashwani and informed him in the hospital that he (SC No.13/10 6 of 13 could get the same after decision of the case. Sketch Ex. PW2/E of Ustra was prepared and police also seized the Ustra and mobile phone after keeping the same in pullanda vide memo Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C and his jacket was also seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW2/D. The arrest memos Ex. PW2/F and G and personal search memos Ex.PW2/H and J were prepared. Motorcycle of the accused persons was also seized vide memo Ex. PW2/K. Later on his blood sample was also seized in DDU Hospital. He further stated that he had shown the place of occurrence to the police but the site plan Ex.PW2/L was not prepared by the IO in his presence. He has identified the mobile Ex.P1 to be belonging to him which was robbed by the accused persons.
11. After arrest of accused Manjeet Singh, when PW2 Sachin again appeared in the witness box on 09.09.2010, he pointed out towards accused Ashwani to be one of those boys who robbed him and stated that the person standing by the side of accused Ashwani was not the other associate to Ashwani. He also stated that his mobile was recovered from the pocket of Manjeet and that noting except Ustra was recovered from the possession of accused Ashwani.
12. As this witness did not fully support the case of prosecution, he was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for State. During cross examination by ld. Addl. PP, he did not remember if one mobile phone and one purse containing Rs.870/ were recovered from accused Ashwani. He has specifically denied the suggestion that accused Manjeet present in court was the person who was involved in the occurrence and caught hold him when accused Ashwani started taking his search and robbed his mobile from the (SC No.13/10 7 of 13 right side pocket of his pant. He has also denied the suggestion that his mobile phone was recovered from accused Manjeet and he has forgotten the face of Manjeet.
13. PW3 is HC Jagbir who stated that on the intervening night of 26/27.11.2009 he was posted as Incharge, PCR Van Power20 and was on duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am next day alongwith Gunman Ct. Shri Pal and Driver Ct. Dharamvir and their base was Lajwanti Chowk. At about 3.25 am, when they were present near Bus Stop, Lajwanti Chowk, one person namely Sachin met them and he was having cut mark on his left cheek and blood was oozing out from the injury. Sachin informed that two boys, who were on one motor cycle, had inflicted injury on his cheek with blade near Bus Stand, Junk Market and ran away towards Sagarpur side. He further stated that they alongwith Sachin rushed towards Sagarpur side and when they reached near Aggarwal Sweets TPoint, the two persons were seen going on a motor cycle towards Delhi Cantt from wrong side. Sachin identified those two boys to be the persons who inflicted injuries to him and those boys were over powered and on enquiry, their names were revealed as Manjeet and Ashwani. They informed the Control Room and one ASI from Police Station Maya Puri reached the spot and both the accused were produced before the said ASI. Statement of injured was recorded and thereafter he was sent for medical examination to DDU Hospital. He further stated that accused Manjeet was searched and he was found in possession of one Mobile make Nokia which was belonging to Sachin. The mobile was kept in pullanda and sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/C. On search, accused Ashwani was found in possession of (SC No.13/10 8 of 13 one Ustra. Sketch Ex.PW2/E of the Ustra was prepared and thereafter it was kept in pullanda and sealed and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. The motor cycle was also seized vide memo Ex. PW2/A and case was got registered through HC Yogesh of PS Maya Puri and accused persons were arrested. PW1 Ct. Dharamvir was also on duty in PCR with PW3 HC Jagbir and has deposed on the identical lines.
14. On behalf of State, it has been submitted that from the statement of PCR officials i.e. PW1 Ct. Dharamvir and PW3 HC Jagbir and PW9 ASI Prahlad Singh as well as the complainant PW2 Sh. Sachin, not only incident is proved but the fact that the mobile was recovered from one of the accused in itself is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution. It has been submitted that though there are certain contradictions in the statement of complainant Sachin as to from whom the recovery was effected but that in itself is not fatal to the case of prosecution and the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences complained of.
15. On behalf of accused persons, it has been submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It has been submitted that as per prosecution's case, the mobile was recovered from accused Manjeet but when the complainant appeared in the witness box, he refused to identify accused Manjeet to be the person involved in the occurrence. He claimed that mobile was recovered from Ashwani but as per statement of police officials, mobile was recovered from accused Manjeet. When identity of accused Manjeet is not established, there is no question of recovery of any mobile phone from his possession and the entire prosecution's case become (SC No.13/10 9 of 13 doubtful. Ld. defence counsels have prayed for acquittal of both the accused persons.
16. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the record. It is necessary to mention here that so far as the testimony of complainant is concerned, that in itself is not sufficient to base the conviction of the accused persons for the reason that the entire prosecution story as given in FIR stood changed when PW2 Sachin appeared in the witness box. Though PW2 Sachin stated that accused Ashwani took out mobile phone make NOKIA from right side pocket of his pant and when he objected, accused Ashwani took out a razor from the right side pocket of his pant and attacked on his left cheek and left him there in injured condition. He tried to chase them and on spotting PCR van, he narrated the incident and then they were chased in the PCR gypsy and apprehended at Sagar Pur red light. He stated that he was later on informed that the mobile phone has been recovered. He was cross examined by ld. Addl.PP regarding recovery of mobile phone from accused Manjeet Singh but he denied the suggestion that mobile Ex.P1 was recovered from accused Manjeet Singh or that he has forgotten this fact. He also denied about recovery of two other mobiles from accused Manjeet and one mobile phone and Rs.870/ from accused Ashwani or making statement to this effect before the police. He also did not identify the accused Manjeet to be the same person involved in this occurrence. Here the question arises that as per prosecution case, accused Ashwani and Manjeet were apprehended alongwith their motorcycles after being chased by PCR gypsy. When neither accused Manjeet is being identified by PW2 Sachin nor that his (SC No.13/10 10 of 13 mobile was recovered from accused Manjeet facing trial in this case, his changed version that his mobile was recovered from accused Ashwani cannot be made basis to convict accused Ashwani for committing robbery of the mobile.
17. It is relevant to mention here that date and time of occurrence is 27.11.2009 at 3.00 am. The PCR has been informed immediately and accused persons have been chased and apprehended within 1½ km as stated by PW1 Ct. Dharamvir who was on duty on PCR. However, the first DD entry i.e. DD No.5A has been recorded at 4.25 am as per which HC Jagbir, Incharge, Power20 was informed by Sachin that two boys had caused injury to him with a blade and snatched his mobile who had been chased and apprehended and they were standing at Aggarwal Sweets and the place of incident is between Junk Market and Lajwanti. This DD was assigned to ASI Prahlad Singh who reached the spot alongwith HC Yogesh. The second DD entry i.e. DD No.6A, copy of which is Ex.PW6/B was recorded at 4.55 am as per which HC Ram Chander from DDU hospital informed about admission of Sachin in injured condition in a quarrel at Junk Market, Maya Puri. When the time of incident is 3.00 am and within 1015 minutes, both the accused persons have been apprehended, then why the information was not conveyed to the local police station for more then one hour remained unexplained. It is also necessary to mention here that as per the MLC Ex.PW10/A, the history given by PW2 Sachin was that of alleged history of physical assault. If PW2 Sachin himself was giving the history of assault, how the case of robbery could have been made out against the accused persons, remained unexplained. It is also relevant to mention here (SC No.13/10 11 of 13 that as per PW2 Sachin, after getting the treatment from the hospital, he returned home and after coming home, he informed the police on his own mobile phone which was with the IO. If that call has been attended by the IO, as claimed by PW2 Sachin, then it means that the mobile phone was not sealed and seized at the spot. It is also important to mention here that PW2 Sachin has stated that he was informed in the hospital by the IO about the recovery of his mobile phone from the pocket of accused Ashwani and that he could get it back from the Court after decision of the case. If the mobile was not recovered in the presence of PW2 Sachin and he is also not identifying the accused Manjeet to be the person involved in the occurrence or to be the person from whom the mobile was recovered, the entire story of the prosecution becomes doubtful. It is also relevant to mention here that as per PW1 Ct. Dharamvir and PW3 HC Jagbir, the accused persons alongwith their motorcycle were apprehended near TPoint Sagar Pur whele they were going on the wrong side of road but during cross examination, PW2 Sachin has stated that the accused persons were apprehended in a narrow gali when they fell down after being hit against the the staircase made in that gali and that he remained standing near the PCR Van at that time. None of the police officials who apprehended the accused persons made statement to above effect and place of apprehension of accused persons also become doubtful in the given circumstances. PW2 Sh. Sachin has also stated that all the writing work was done at the PS and in light of that the statement of PW1 Ct. Dharamvir, PW3 HC Jagbir, PW9 ASI Prahlad Singh and PW5 HC Yogesh Kumar that writing work was done at the spot also cannot be relied upon. The statement of PW2 Sachin that (SC No.13/10 12 of 13 from hospital, he came to his house of his own and then informed the IO and his statement was recorded also make the statement of police officials doubtful regarding entire proceedings being conducted at the spot or seizure of the mobile in presence of complainant and cannot be relied upon to base the conviction of the accused persons. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that testimony of PW2 Sh. Sachin, as well as of PW1 Ct. Dharamvir, PW3 HC Jagbir - the PCR officials and of PW9 ASI Prahlad Singh and PW5 HC Yogesh Kumar - who reached the spot on receipt of DD No.5A, is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Ashwani and Manjeet beyond reasonable doubt and they are liable to be acquitted.
18. In view of above discussion, both the accused namely Ashwani Singh and Manjeet Singh are acquitted of the charge. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and their sureties are discharged. Accused Manjeet singh be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Case property shall be returned to its rightful owner after expiry of period of appeal, if any.
19. As required under Sec.437A CrPC, accused persons are directed to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each, which shall be in force for six months, to appear before the Higher Court as and when the appeal is filed against the judgment and such Court issues notice in respect thereof.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
03.11.2010 (PRATIBHA RANI)
DJIIIcumI/c ASJ (West)/Delhi
(SC No.13/10 13 of 13