Delhi District Court
State vs Amit & Anr. Sc No.75/12, Ps-Narela, Fir ... on 13 November, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE01: NORTH: ROHINI:DELHI
S. C. NO:75/12.
FIR NO.415/12.
PS : NARELA.
U/S:392/394/397/34 IPC & 25/27 ARMS ACT.
STATE
VERSUS
1. AMIT S/O. JAGDISH
R/O. H.NO.46, NARELA ROAD,
BAWANA, DELHI.
2. KRISHAN S/O. RISHI PRAKASH
R/O. ISHWAR COLONY, BAWANA, DELHI.
Date of Institution:27.11.2012
Date of Argument:13.11.2013
Date of Decision:13.11.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 05.08.2012 on receiving DD No.19A regarding a wagon car was snatched on the gunpoint, ASI Inderjeet reached at the spot i.e. STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 1 OF 11 2 Ghogha Mod, Narela and came to know that PCR Van had shifted two persons/complainant to SRHC Hospital, then ASI Inderjeet reached at SRHC Hospital and obtained the MLC of the complainant Amit and his wife Namita both resident of H.No.472, Panna Udhyan, Narela, Delhi40 and recorded statement of complainant Amit, who has stated that, "he has been residing at the abovesaid address and working as Income Tax Inspector and posted at Chandigarh, Sector17 and on 05.08.2012 he alongwith his wife Namita were going to Rohtak in a vehicle WagonR bearing registration number DL4CAA9604 and the said vehicle belonged to his friend Sunil Kumar Maan and when he had reached at Bawana Road near Indian Oil Petrol Pump at Parlor Road, at about 11am he had seen one motor cycle black colour was coming from front side bearing 8858 and the said motorcycle was coming from wrong side and the said motorcycle rider had stopped his motorcycle in front of his car in which persons were sitting and they were without helmet, so that, he had stopped his car. Thereafter out of those three boys, two boys who were pillion rider had alighted from the said motorcycle and come towards both the side of the their car and one of boy had shown him pistol and thrown chilly powder in his eyes and the other boy also thrown chilly powder in the eyes of his wife and told them to leave their car and get down from the said car after leaving all the STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 2 OF 11 3 articles lying in the car. Thereafter they had got down from the car and said boys had run away from the spot with their car and articles lying in the car and another boy who was riding the said motorcycle had also run away from the spot. Thereafter they both crossed the road and with the help of public persons made the call to 100 number and PCR van came at the spot and they were taken to SRHC Hospital".
Thereafter ASI Inderjeet alongwith HC Rajbir reached at the spot i.e. Bawana Road, Opposite Indian Oil Petrol Pump and they came to know that complainant and his wife have been shifted to SRHC Hospital by the PCR Van, then ASI Inderjeet and HC Rajbir reached at SRHC Hospital and obtained the MLCs of the complainant and his wife and recorded statement of the complainant and on the basis of said statement rukka was prepared u/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC and handed over to HC Rajbir for registration of FIR and he went to the PS and got registered the FIR and returned back with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over to the ASI Inderjeet. Thereafter IO had prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and recorded statement of complainant and his wife. Thereafter IO got an information through telephone, vide DD No.15A from SI Rajphool, IC PP Bahadurgarh, Haryana that accused persons Amit and Kishan were arrested in FIR No.305/12 and from their STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 3 OF 11 4 possession the snatched car was recovered. Thereafter accused persons were produced before the concerned court on production warrant and IO had arrested both the accused persons formally and thereafter IO obtained three days JC Remand and thereafter on 29.08.2012 IO had moved application for TIP of both the accused persons, but they have refused to participate in the TIP proceeding and thereafter IO obtained two days PC Remand of accused persons. Then after completion of the investigations IO had filed the chargesheet against the accused persons u/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act through SHO before the court for judicial verdict.
2. After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, Ld. MM committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, it was assigned to this court.
3. Vide order dated 22.12.2012, charges for offence u/s.
392/394/34 IPC is framed against both accused persons and charge u/s. 397 IPC is made out against accused Krishan, to which both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution in support of its case examined four witnesses i.e. PW1 Ct. Venkatesh Pawan, PW2 Amit, PW3 Namita and PW4 Vinod Kumar. Out of said witnesses PW2 and PW3 Namita are most material witnesses and eyewitnesses of this case.
STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 4 OF 11 5
5. PW2 Amit had deposed in his statement that, on 05.08.2012 he alongwith his wife were going to Rohtak from his house in his Maruti Wagon Car bearing Number DL4CAA9604, which was in the name of his friend Sunil Kumar and at about 11/11.30am, they reached around 100 meters prior to Ghogha More, at that time three persons came on the motorcycle i.e. black colour splendor having registration number .....8858 and blocked the way of his car. Thereafter, two persons got down from the said motorcycle and came towards them. One person out of those two persons was having a pistol in his hand and he rubbed chilly powder on his eyes and that of his wife Namita and after that, one among those two persons asked them to get down from the car. They got down from the car. He was having one mobile phone in his hand, since he was using three mobile phones, therefore, he could not say, on that day which mobile phone he was carrying in his hand. The other two mobile Phones, which he was using were in his said car, at that time. The third person, who had remained sitting on the motorcycle came on his motorcycle near him and snatched his mobile phone. They thereafter those two persons who had earlier come to him ran away with his car. At that time, in his car he had my other two mobile phones, his purse containing DL, RC, Identity Card which was issued by his department i.e. Income Tax Department, also having Rs.1500/, STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 5 OF 11 6 ATM Card. At that time he had three mobile phones, but he only remember at present number of two mobile phones i.e. 9530704339 (BSNL) & 8860202747 (Vodafone). The third number was also of Vodafone, but he does not remember the said mobile number. Since one of the mobile phone was having dual sim i.e. of Samsung Dual Sim, therefore, he had fourth mobile number also, but he does not remember the same. The other phones were of Samsung Corbi and third one was Blackberry. His wife was using the mobile number 8860202747, which was used in Blackberry handset. Thereafter, they came to the main road from service road where the said incident had happened and asked passersby to help them and some of the passersby gave him their phone and he made the call on 100 number. PCR Van came after sometime and took them to SRHC Hospital. There they were given treatment by the doctors. There one police official Inderjeet Singh (Sardarji) had recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A statement of my wife. Thereafter, he had taken the police to the spot, where the incident had happened and shown them the spot. Police prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/B. He had given to police mobile number of his brother bearing number 9212900376. He was informed by his brother as well as by ACP that, the person, who had committed robbery with them have been apprehended. He had once visited to the court and SI Manoj shown him two STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 6 OF 11 7 persons and asked from him whether these are the same persons, who committed robbery with him, but he told them, he is not sure whether these persons are the same persons, who had committed robbery with me.
He further deposed that the accused present in the court were not the persons who have committed robbery with him of his car and his belongings inside the car. He does not remember the date when he had visited the court to identify the accused persons. He had not seen the accused persons ever before. Thereafter, he was declared hostile and cross examined him at length, but nothing incriminating have come against the accused persons. He was not cross examined by accused persons.
6. PW3 Namita during her examination had stated that, on 5.8.12, she along with her husband Amit were going to Rohtak in WagonR No.9604 and at about 11 am, when they reached near Ghoga More, three persons came on the motorcycle from the wrong side and blocked the way of their car and they thought the motorcycle driver may be learning the driving of motorcycle her husband opened the door of driving side of Wagon R and those two persons were having pistol in their hands and put chilli powder on the eyes of her husband and forced her husband to get down from the car. Similarly another boy forced her to get STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 7 OF 11 8 down from the car from the other side of car. Those three persons had robbed her mobile phone make Blackberry bearing no.8860204747 which she was carrying at that time. Her husband had two mobile phones which were kept in the dashboard of the car along with his purse. All the three assailants after getting down her and her husband has taken the car driven by two persons and one person escaped from the spot on his motorcycle. The purse containing D/L, identity car of his deptt. and 1500/ cash and ATM card. She does not remember the phone numbers of her husband mobile phones. Thereafter they came towards road side and took the help of public persons and someone made a call at 100 number and one police official came there and recorded statement of her husband and her statement was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Later on police recovered the Wagon R car by the police but no other article was recovered by the police. The car was later on released on superdari. She further stated that, accused persons are not present in the court on that day. She had never seen the accused persons prior today. Neither her statement was recorded by the police thereafter.
Thereafter she was declared hostile by ld. Addl. PP for the State and cross examined her at length and attention of the witness is drawn towards accused persons. But witness denied that they are the same persons who had committed the STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 8 OF 11 9 robbery of their car and other articles. She denied the suggestion that police recorded her statement mark PW3/A in which she had stated that two persons who were in custody of police officials she identified the persons who robbed their car on 5.8.12 or that she has identified both the accused present in court on 29.8.12 and also given statement regarding identification of said accused persons or that accused persons are the same persons who had committed robbery of car and articles inside it. She further denied the suggestion that she was threatened by the accused persons that is why she is deposing in their favour or that she has been won over by the accused persons or that to avoid further rivalry with them, she is not identifying them deliberately. She was not cross examined by accused persons.
7. I have heard arguments from Shri A.K. Gupta, ld.
Addl. PP for the State and that of Shri Sanjay Dalal, ld. Counsel for accused Krishan.
8. Ld. Counsel for accused Amit submits that since PW2 and PW3, who are the only eyewitnesses have turned hostile and did not identify the accused persons, therefore, no purpose will be served by examining the remaining witnesses and requested for closure of Prosecution evidence.
9. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that, prosecution may be given opportunity to lead the STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 9 OF 11 10 evidence.
10. I have considered the rival arguments and gone through the record.
11. Considering the facts that PW2 Amit who is the complainant and PW3 Namita wife of PW2 Amit, who was travelling with PW2 when the robbery was committed with them have turned hostile as they had not identified both the accused persons as robbers who robbed them. The robbed wagon - R car was also not recovered from possession of accused persons but same was lying abandoned. Hence, examining the remaining witnesses would not serve the conviction of the accused persons, therefore, prosecution evidence is closed. Since nothing incriminating having come up against the accused persons, hence, statement of accused persons dispensed with.
12. Hence, considering the statement of PW2 Amit and PW3 Namita, I held that prosecution has failed to prove that, accused persons are the same persons who have robbed the wagon - R from the PW2 and PW3. Hence, accused persons Amit and Krishan stand acquitted from charge in which he has been charged.
13. In view of aforesaid fact, accused persons Amit and Krishan stand acquitted. They are in JC, so, they be released from JC forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 10 OF 11 11 accused persons are directed to furnish their personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety of like amount each, in compliance of provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. within a week. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (SANJEEV KUMAR) ON 13.11.2013. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 01 (NORTH) ROHINI:DELHI.
STATE VS AMIT & ANR. SC NO.75/12, PS-NARELA, FIR NO.415/12, U/S. 392/394/397/34 IPC PAGE 11 OF 11