Delhi District Court
State vs . on 4 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH TEWARI ASJVI(OUTER),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO.175/10, 176/10, 197/10, 198/10
FIR NO. 57/07, 58/07, 59/07, 60/07
U/S 399/402 IPC & 25 Arms Act
PS Hari Nagar
Unique Case ID No. :02404R0151922007, 02404R0189362007,
02404R0133392007, 02404R0151942007
State
Vs.
1. Santosh @ Antosh s/o Pratap Narain
r/o Village Parora, PS Sahib Pur Kamal,
District Begu Sarai, Bihar.
Present address:
House of Kamal, Gali No.36,
Village Matiala, Delhi.
2. Raju (declared as Proclaimed Offender on 29.11.2010)
3. Mohd. Hafizul Rehman (declared as Proclaimed Offender on
27.08.2010)
4. Anwar @ Karamat s/o Kalam Sheikh
r/o Village Tumsar Kalkam, District Mandoripur,
Bangladesh.
Present address:
H.No. 1/10070, Subhash Park, Navin Shahdara, Delhi.
SC No.175/10, 176/10, 197/10, 198/10 Page 1/9
5. Pawan Jha @ Mantle s/o Gandharv Jha
r/o Village Jangal Bhakra, PS Shambhu Ganj,
District Bhagal Pur, Bihar.
Present address :
C151, Village Matiala, New Delhi.
Date when committed to the court of Sessions :10.05.2007
Date when case reserved for judgment : 04.08.2012
Judgment pronounced on : 04.08.2012
JUDGMENT:
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the said four cases as the case u/s 399/402 IPC is the main case and other three cases are offshoots of the said case wherein some of the accused were allegedly found in possession of unlawful arms.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that SI Dalip Kaushik was having an information that a gang of persons belonging to Bangladesh would assemble between 6.30 p.m to 7 p.m, in the deserted part of Hari Nagar at DDU hospital road, in front of MTNL Telephone Exchange, having unlawful possession of arms with them and the said information was communicated to the SHO on telephone and thereafter on 31.01.2007, a raid party was organized consisting of the said SI, ASI Umed Singh, ASI Jai Hind, HC Randhir, Ct. Ashok, Ct. Om Prakash, Ct. Vijay, Ct. Rajender and Ct. SC No.175/10, 176/10, 197/10, 198/10 Page 2/9 Suresh, out of which ASI Umed Singh and Ct. Ashok were in police uniform and the said secret information was reduced to writing in DD No.30A and the said party went to the spot in three separate private maruti cars along with the secret informer and 4/5 passersby were requested to join the raid party but they went away hearing about the ruffians involved in the case and thereafter the raid party took the position after it was divided into five groups and at about 6.35 p.m, one person came at the gate of the park and at about 6.40 p.m, two other persons came there and at about 6.50 p.m, yet other two persons came towards the park and the secret informer pointed out towards the said persons as the same belonging to the said gang, out of which one Anwar @ Karamat was pointed out as the leader of the gang. Thereafter the said five persons entered the park and were talking among themselves and ASI Jai Hind, who was deputed to hear their talks, returned back at about 7 p.m and informed that they were talking to commit dacoity at the Petrol Pump of Bharat Company by the side of the said Telephone Exchange at the point of weapons in their possession and thereafter the said five persons were cordoned off and from the possession of accused Anwar @ Karamat, accused Hafizul Rehman (PO) and accused Pawan Jha, button actuated knives from each were recovered which were sealed and seized and different FIRs were got registered by different police officials by sending the rukka to that effect and from the possession SC No.175/10, 176/10, 197/10, 198/10 Page 3/9 of accused Santosh and Raju (PO), one iron rod each were recovered and thereafter the FIR was got registered u/s 399/402 IPC and other FIRs u/s 25 of the Arms Act were registered against the said three accused.
3. On the basis of the said evidence and the charge sheet, vide my order dated 21.12.2010, charge was framed against all the accused u/s 399/402 IPC and separate charges were framed against accused Pawan Jha and accused Anwar @ Karamat u/s 25 of the Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has produced as many as 6 witnesses in all, which were recorded in the main case FIR no.57/07 and which have been discussed below.
5. The statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded wherein they pleaded their innocence and denied the incriminating evidence against them as false and examined Smt. Neelam and Sh. Randhir Singh as DW1 and DW2 in their defence.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the state, Sh. Rajender Kumar, Advocate for the accused and perused the record.
7. PW1 Ct. Rajender Singh was the member of the raid party who along with Ct. Ranvir Singh apprehended accused Pawan Jha, from whose possession the knife was recovered and he proved the SC No.175/10, 176/10, 197/10, 198/10 Page 4/9 sketch of the same as Ex.PW1/A and he deposed that it was sealed with the seal of RS and was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B and he further deposed that from the possession of accused Santosh and the other accused who is not present in the court (referring to accused Raju who is PO), iron rods were recovered but he did not remember as to what weapon was recovered from the possession of other two accused and thereafter IO prepared the rukka, handed over to him which he took to the PS and he got the FIR no.60/07 registered (u/s 25 of the Arms Act) and he came back to the spot with the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to HC Prahlad Singh to whom the further investigation of the case was entrusted. He further deposed that HC Ranvir Singh handed over the case property and the accused Pawan Jha and memos to HC Prahlad Singh, who arrested the said accused vide memos Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D and HC Prahlad Singh prepared the site plan and he identified the knife recovered from the possession of accused Pawan Jha as Ex.P1.
8. PW2 Ct. Om Prakash deposed the facts almost on the same lines on which the said FIR reproduced above was registered and also deposed by PW1 in his examination in chief, with the difference that he along with ASI Umed Singh apprehended accused Anwar, from whose search one knife was recovered and he proved the sketch of the same as Ex.PW2/A and which was sealed with the seal of US and was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/B and he deposed that SC No.175/10, 176/10, 197/10, 198/10 Page 5/9 from the possession of other accused, iron rods and knives were recovered but he did not remember as to what weapon was recovered from which of the accused as he was busy in the investigation of FIR no.58/07. He further deposed that IO prepared the rukka and handed over to him which he took to the PS and got the FIR no.58/07 registered and came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to HC Om Prakash to whom the further investigation was handed over and ASI Umed Singh gave him the case property, the accused and memos and HC Om Prakash arrested the accused Anwar vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D and thereafter said HC prepared the site plan also and he identified the knife recovered at the instance of accused Anwar as Ex.P2.
9. PW4 HC Om Prakash was the subsequent IO of case FIR no.58/07, who arrested accused Anwar.
10. PW5 was the third member of the raid party who, besides the said facts deposed by PW1 and PW2, proved the recovery of knife from the possession of accused Hafizul Rehman (PO) and he proved the sketch of the same as Ex.PW5/D1 which was sealed with the seal of RS and was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/D3 and he got the case registered vide FIR no.59/07 on the basis of rukka given to him by ASI Jai Hind and he came back at the spot with HC Ram Sahai, to whom the subsequent investigation was handed over and he SC No.175/10, 176/10, 197/10, 198/10 Page 6/9 identified the knife recovered from the possession of accused Hafizul Rehman (PO) as Ex.P3.
11. PW6 ASI Umed Singh, again a member of the raid party, deposed on the same lines on which PW5 has deposed and he further deposed that he was entrusted to conduct proceedings against accused Anwar @ Karamat from whose possession a button actuated knife was recovered, as deposed and proved by PW2 and he identified the said knife.
12. In their respective cross examination, such contradictions have appeared which cannot be reconciled and if we believe on one fact, the other fact is wiped out. For example, all the said four members of the raid party namely PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6 gave different times when the said members of the raid party finally left the spot after all the proceedings. For PW1, they left the spot at about 6 a.m; for PW2, they left at about 5 a.m. whereas PW5 claimed that he left the spot at about 11.45 p.m and yet PW6 left the spot at about 9.45 or 10 p.m. and PW5 and PW6 further claimed in their cross examination that they left the spot separately whereas PW1 and PW2 were claiming that all the members of the raid party left together.
13. PW1 answered that it took 4/5 hours in completion of all the proceedings at the spot, but PW2 finished all the proceedings at the SC No.175/10, 176/10, 197/10, 198/10 Page 7/9 spot within 1 or 1½ hour, as per his answer in the cross examination.
14. No member of the raid party could tell the registration number of the said maruti cars in which they left for the spot from the PS and even they failed to give the colours of the said cars. Admittedly, in their examination in chief itself, PW1, PW2 could not tell as to what was recovered from the other accused except the accused apprehended by them respectively. PW1 replied that the accused were apprehended after 50 or 100 paces inside the park whereas for PW2, the accused were apprehended at a distance of 30 to 40 paces inside the park.
15. Admittedly no public person was joined in the investigation despite their admitted availability and even PW5 could not tell as to which of the police official apprehended which of the accused. It is admitted case of almost all the said witnesses that no street light was shown in the site plan in the light of which the alleged proceedings were conducted at the spot.
16. It is otherwise difficult to swallow that only 11 police officials were deputed to apprehend such a dreaded gang of dacoits and further there is no specification with regard to any Petrol Pump and no person from the said Petrol Pump was even called to join the proceedings after the apprehension of the accused, which was admittedly situated nearby opposite to the said park, by the side of SC No.175/10, 176/10, 197/10, 198/10 Page 8/9 MTNL Telephone Exchange.
17. In view of my said discussion, accused Santosh, accused Anwar @ Karamat and accused Pawan Jha are acquitted of the charges u/s 399/402 IPC only and accused Pawan Jha and accused Anwar @ Karamat are also acquitted of the charge u/s 25 of the Arms Act. Their PBs and SBs are hereby discharged. The evidence recorded shall be read u/s 299 Cr.PC against the accused who have been declared as Proclaimed Offenders. A copy of this order/judgment be placed in all the files. The files be thereafter consigned to the Record Room.
(Announced in the open court on 04.08.2012) (RAKESH TEWARI) ASJ06(OUTER) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI SC No.175/10, 176/10, 197/10, 198/10 Page 9/9