Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil on 11 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02/WEST : DELHI
FIR No. 82/2011
STATE Vs. Anil
U/SEC : 392/34 IPC
PS Rajouri Garden Delhi
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0644752011
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 98/II/11 Date of commission of offence 10.03.2011 Date of institution of the case 07.05.2011 Name of the complainant Ranjana Goel W/o Sh. Manoj Goel Name of accused, parentage & Anil S/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o B4/5, address Sultan Puri, Delhi Offence proved Sections 392/34 IPC Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Date of arguments 11.12.2015 Final order Convicted Date of Judgment 11.12.2015
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case filed by SI Hansram (hereinafter referred as IO) on the complaint of Ms. Ranjana Goel (hereinafter referred as complainant) against Anil (hereinafter referred as accused) for committing an offence under section 392/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC). FIR No. 82/2011 PS Rajouri Garden Page No. 1 of 8 BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 10.03.2011 PW1 complainant was coming from TC Camp, Raghubir Nagar in a rickshaw and at about 12:30 PM when she reached at Main Market, Sabzi Mandi, Tagore Garden, she observed that some one put his hand on her shoulder.
When she tried to see behind, she saw that accused snatched the gold chain alongwith pendant from the neck of the complainant. Accused also tried to turn over the rickshaw but he could not do so. Complainant got down from the rickshaw and chased the accused and apprehended him with the help of PW4 Ct. Mukhtar. Coaccused Deepak fled away from the spot with the chain and could not be arrested during investigation. Matter was reported to the police upon which PW5 SI Hansaram alongwith PW2 Ct. Vishnu reached at the spot. PW4 handed over the accused to IO PW5. PW5 recorded the statement of PW1 which is Ex. PW1/A, prepared rukka which is Ex. PW5/A and handed over the same to PW2 Ct. Vishnu, who went to PS and got the FIR registered. PW5 arrested the accused vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW4/A, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW4/B, recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW2/A and prepared site plan which is Ex. PW5/B.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under section 392/34 IPC against the accused on 07.05.2011. Charge for offence under FIR No. 82/2011 PS Rajouri Garden Page No. 2 of 8 section 392/34 IPC was framed against the accused person on 28.05.2011 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was put up for prosecution evidence.
EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL:
4. Prosecution has examined five witnesses to prove its case against the accused persons.
5. PW1 Ranjana Goel is the complainant and she deposed on the lines of prosecution case.
6. PW2 Ct. Vishnu accompanied the IO to the spot. He deposed about the investigation being carried out by IO in his presence. He took the rukka and went to PS for registration of FIR.
7. PW3 SI Yashpal being the duty officer exhibited copy of FIR as Ex.
PW3/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/B.
8. PW4 Ct. Mukhtar was on patrolling duty and he apprehended the accused with the help of complainant.
9. PW5 SI Hansram is the IO in this case. He deposed about the investigation being carried out by him in this case.
10. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 17.09.2015. Statement of accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded on 23.09.2015 in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he denied in toto and stated that he was coming from his sister's house. When he reached near Sabzi Mandi, Tagore Garden, he FIR No. 82/2011 PS Rajouri Garden Page No. 3 of 8 saw several persons had gathered there. He inquired the matter from the police and they asked him about his residence. He stated that he is residing in Sultan Puri and thereafter, he was taken to police gypsy and thereafter, he was falsely implicated in the present case. He did not snatch chain of the complainant with his associate Deepak. He opted not to lead defence evidence.
11. I have heard the final arguments put forth by ld. APP for the State and by Ld. defence counsel Sh. Satbir Singh.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
12.It is alleged against the accused that he alongwith his associate Deepak (not arrested) committed robbery of gold chain from the possession of complainant Ranjana Goel. Accused is facing trial U/s 392/34 IPC.
13.It is argued by Ld. counsel that no public witness was examined by the IO despite their availability at the spot. It is further argued that rickshaw puller on whose rickshaw complainant was going to Tagore Garden was also not examined by the IO.
The argument put forth by Ld. Defence counsel pertains to number of witnesses to be examined in a criminal trial. By virtue of Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act and several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, law in this regard is settled that it is the quality and not the quantity which is important in a criminal trial. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of number of witnesses. It is the sole FIR No. 82/2011 PS Rajouri Garden Page No. 4 of 8 prerogative of the prosecution to examine as many witness to prove its case. A person can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony provided he is cogent, convincing, clear and unimpeachable. In case titled as Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju and others Vs. State of Kerala AIR 2004 SC 2688 and in Rama Krishna Madhusudhan Nayar Vs. State of Maharasthra AIR 2008 SC 927 it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a person can be convicted on the basis of the solitary evidence, if he is wholly reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticisms and the court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone, conviction can be maintained. In the present case PW1 complainant and PW4 Ct. Mukhtiyar have deposed in an unambiguous manner that accused was apprehended at the spot when he was trying to flee away after snatching of gold chain. It has been deposed by complainant that accused had stopped the rickshaw and tried to turn turtled the rickshaw for the purpose of commission of offence but he could not do so which suggests that accused had used criminal force for the purpose of commission of offence. Complainant is a public witness whereas Ct. Mukhtiyar was also present at the spot therefore, non joining of rickshaw puller or any other witness from the public has no consequence on the merits of this case. Therefore, argument put forth by Ld. counsel Sh. Satbir Singh stands rejected.
FIR No. 82/2011 PS Rajouri Garden Page No. 5 of 8
14. It is further argued by Ld. counsel that section 392 IPC is not made out against the accused as contents of FIR are not fulfilling the ingredients of section 392 IPC and he has not wrongfully restrained the complainant. It is argued that accused has not caused any threat of death or hurt to the complainant during the commission of alleged offence. In absence of any specific averment in this regard by the complainant, offence under section 392 IPC stands unproved.
Argument of Ld. defence counsel is devoid of any merit as offence committed by accused is squarely covered section 390 IPC. As per deposition of PW1 accused had stopped the rickshaw that amounts to wrongful restrained and he also tried to turn turtle the rickshaw which amounts to attempt to cause hurt to the victim. Therefore, the conduct of the accused during the occurrence is squarely covered as he wrongfully restrained the complainant by stopping her rickshaw and thereafter robbed her gold chain. Section 390 IPC talks about situation when theft is converted into the offence of robbery. The present case is squarely covered under the definition. Therefore, the argument put forth by Ld. defence counsel stands rejected accordingly.
15.It is argued by Ld. counsel that PW1 stated in her cross examination that accused was apprehended at a distance of about 1 km whereas in her statement given to the police she stated that accused was apprehended after 1520 steps away from the spot whereas PW4 Ct. FIR No. 82/2011 PS Rajouri Garden Page No. 6 of 8 Mukhtiyar has stated that the distance between the spot and ghorewala mandir was about 300400 meters. It is further argued that site plan of place of occurrence does not bear the signature of complainant despite the fact that same was prepared at the instance of complainant which has created a doubt in prosecution's story.
After going through the contradictions pointed out by the ld. Defence counsel, the point under consideration is whether these contradictions are major or minor in nature. It is settled law that certain contradictions are bound to occur in a criminal trial but the court has to see whether these contradictions are merely minor or major enough to shake the roots of the case in entirety or not. Those contradictions which do not go roots of the case, are to be termed as minor contradictions. Talking about contradictions in the testimony of a prosecution witness it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1999 9 (SCC) 525 wherein it held as under:
"it is indeed necessary to note that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishment sometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give a slightly exaggerated account. The court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of FIR No. 82/2011 PS Rajouri Garden Page No. 7 of 8 trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same".
The fact in issue in this case is whether accused was apprehended on the spot after commission of robbery of gold chain of the complainant or not. This fact has been duly proved by the oral evidences of PW1 and PW4. It is not disputed from the said of the defence accused was not apprehended from the alleged spot by PW1 and PW4. The explanation given by the accused qua his presence near the spot sounds to be childish and seems to an afterthought. The minor contradictions qua the distance between the place of occurrence and place of apprehension of accused in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are not going to held the accused in any way.
16. Considering the above discussion and material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution has successfully proved the allegations against the accused. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed robbery of gold chain of complainant. Therefore, accused is held guilty for committing offence under section 392 IPC.
17. Put up for arguments on sentence on 16.12.2015.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DHIRENDRA RANA
ON 11th December, 2015 MM02/WEST DELHI
FIR No. 82/2011 PS Rajouri Garden Page No. 8 of 8