Delhi District Court
State vs Tej Pal @ Lala on 25 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
IN RE:
SC No. 44814/2015 (Old SC No. 17/2013)
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012
FIR No.138/2012
PS Karawal Nagar
U/s 324/394/34 IPC IPC, 1860
STATE VERSUS TEJPAL @ LALA & ORS
Date of committal : 09.04.2013
Date of arguments : 06.09.2023
Date of judgment : 25.09.2024
INDEX
S. No. Contents Page No.
1. Brief details of the case & memo of parties 2
2. Brief case of the prosecution 4
3. Prosecution Evidence 6
4. Admitted documents & Defense Evidence 24
5. Submissions made on behalf of the State 25
6. Submissions made on behalf of the accused persons 28
7. Relevant Law & the Case Laws 33
8. Appreciation of Evidence 41
9. Conclusion & Findings 52
Digitally signed
by ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date: 2024.09.25
11:17:52 +0530
(ATUL AHLAWAT)
ASJ (FTC)/North-
East/KKD Courts/
Delhi/25.09.2024
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 1/56
IN THE COURT OF SH ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
IN RE:
SC No. 44814/2015 (old SC No. 17/2013)
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012
FIR No.138/2012
PS Karawal Nagar
U/s 324/394/34 IPC IPC, 1860
Brief Details of the Case & Memo of Parties
STATE VERSUS TEJPAL @ LALA AND ORS.
Date of committal : 09.04.2013
Date of arguments : 06.09.2023
Date of judgment : 25.09.2024
Brief details of the case
A) Case FIR No. : 138/2012
B) Charges framed under section : 324/392/394/324
r/w 34 IPC, 1860 and
u/s 397 IPC,1860
against accused Tejpal
@ Lala and
324/392/394/324
r/w 34 IPC, 1860
against accused
Mahesh @ Atipati and
Sonu.
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:18:01
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 2/56
C) Name of the complainant : Ram Avtar Rai,
S/o Sh. Bigai Rai,
R/o D-5, Gali no.7,
Mukund Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
D) Name of the accused persons : 1.) Tejpal @ Lala,
S/o Sh. Jagat Singh,
R/o K-94, Near Govt.
Dispensary, Village
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-
94.
2.) Mahesh @ Atti Patti
Chauhan,
S/o Sh.Shree Chand,
R/o K-94, Near Govt.
Dispensary,Village
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-
94.
3.) Sonu,
S/o Sh. Mahabir,
R/o C-3 Gali No.9,
Mukund, Vihar,
Karawal Nagar,
Delhi- 94.
E) Plea of the accused persons : Not guilty
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 3/56
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:18:10
+0530
F) Final Order : Acquittal
G) Date of Order : 25.09.2024
JUDGMENT
(Pronounced on the 25th day of September, 2024) Brief Case of the Prosecution:
1. The criminal law machinery was set into motion on 06.05.2012, when DD no. 3B was registered at PS Karawal Nagar concerning a quarrel, after the Duty Officer received an information from Control Room North- East that "a quarrel had taken place at H.No. D-5, Gali No.7, B-Block, Mukand Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi."
2. After receiving the said call, SI Chetan Singh alongwith Ct.
Hukam Singh reached the spot and came to know that the injured was already removed to GTB Hospital by the PCR officials. On the spot, no eye witness was found and thereafter, the inquiry officer proceeded to GTB hospital and obtained the MLC of the complainant on which the concerned doctor had recorded the "alleged history of physical assault, which took place on 06.05.2012 at about 12.30 AM in Karawal Nagar ." The nature of injury was opined to be sharp and the complainant was declared "fit for statement."
3. The Inquiry Officer SI Chetan Singh recorded the statement of the CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 4/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:18:17 +0530 complainant Ram Avtar Rai, while he was still in GTB hospital. In his statement Ex. PW1/A, the complainant had stated that he was residing in Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi with his family and was running a restaurant by the name of Ganga Bhojnalaya at Karawal Nagar Chowk. On 06.05.2012, at around 12.30 AM, after closing his restaurant, the complainant was coming back to his house and when he reached Gali No.7, D Block, Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, he saw that three boys were quarreling with his neighbor Chander Yadav and the said boys were giving beatings to him. When he went near, he saw that accused Tejpal @ Lala, Sonu S/o Mahavir and Ati Chauhan, who were all residents of Karawal Nagar, were the assailants.
4. It was further recorded in his statement Ex. PW1/A, that when the complainant tried to intervene in order to save his neighbor Chander Yadav, accused Tejpal @ Lala took out one chaaku and started giving him blows by the said chaaku. When the complainant tried to save himself by grabbing the chaaku, accused Tejpal @ Lala immediately pulled the chaaku towards himself and in the process the complainant received a cut wound between his thumb and fingers of the right hand. Thereafter, accused Tejpal @ Lala also gave another blow with the said chaaku the chest of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant called the police by calling on the 100 number and the PCR van arrived at the spot and took him to the GTB hospital.
5. Upon recording of the statement of the complainant, the present case FIR was registered at Police Station Karawal Nagar on 06.05.2012 CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 5/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:18:23 +0530 under section 324/34 IPC, 1860. After the registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted by the IO and after completion of the same the charge-sheet was filed before the court of Ld. MM u/s 324/394/34 IPC, 1860. After compliance of section 207/208 Cr.P.C, the case was committed by the Court of Ld. MM before this court on 09.04.2013. Thereafter, the charges were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 22.11.2013 u/s 392/394/324 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and u/s 397 of Indian Penal code, 1860 against the accused Tejpal @ Lala, S/o Jagat Singh. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court also framed charges against accused Mahesh @ Atipati Chauhan S/o Shree Chand and accused Sonu S/o Mahavir u/s 392/394/324 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 The accused persons pleaded not guilty and they had claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence:
6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined twelve (12) witnesses:
(6.1.1) PW-1 is Ram Avtar Rai and he is the complainant of the present case. He had deposed that in the year 2012, he was running a restaurant/Bhojnalya in the name and style of "Ganga Bhojnalya" at Karawal Nagar Chowk. On 06.05.2012, after closing his Bhojnalya, while he was coming back to his house and at about 12.30 AM, when he reached at Gali No.7, B-Block, Mukand Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, he saw that accused Tejpal @ Lala, accused Sonu and accused Ati Chauhan were scuffling and giving beatings to one Chander Yadav, who was his CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 6/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:18:30
+0530
neighbor. He further deposed that when he objected to the same and tried to intervene, accused Tejpal @Lala took out a knife and attacked upon him with the said knife. He saved himself from the blow of knife with his right hand and in that process he received injuries on his right hand near the thumb. Thereafter, accused Tejpal @ Lala again attacked him with the knife and he gave a knife blow on his chest and he started bleeding from his chest and from his right hand thumb. He further deposed that after inflicting the said injuries, the accused persons ran away from there.
(6.1.2) PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai further deposed that thereafter, he made a call on 100 number and PCR van reached at the spot and he was removed to the GTB Hospital by the said PCR van. In the hospital, local police officials met him and his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded. In the next morning, he was discharged from the hospital and he had shown the spot where the alleged incident took place to the police officials and the site plan was prepared at his instance. He further deposed that his right hand thumb was not working properly due to injury caused by the accused persons. He correctly identified all the accused persons at the time of his examination-in-chief, conducted on 16.01.2014.
(6.1.3) PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel had deposed that he had been running " Ganga Bhojanalaya" in a rented premises and was paying monthly rent of Rs.8500/- per month, excluding electricity and water charges. He had four employees namely Sukhdev, Ram Kumar, Hare Ram Thakur and Dev Thakur working for him in the said restaurant. He further went on to CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 7/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:18:35 +0530 depose that he used to close his Bhojanalaya at about 11 PM and after closing the same, he used to get it cleaned from his employees.
(6.1.4) PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel had further deposed that Chander Yadav was his neighbor and on 06.05.2012, while he was coming to his house from his Bhojanalaya, he saw that accused persons were scuffling with the said Chander Yadav. He further deposed that Chander Yadav was not his friend and it was rather on the account of humanity since he was residing in the same locality, he tried to help him.
(6.1.5) PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel had further categorically deposed that the accused persons were not known to him prior to the incident. He admitted the suggestion that kitchen knife was used for the purpose of cutting vegetables at his Bhojanalaya. He categorically denied the suggestion that he sustained the injury on his hand from kitchen knife used at his Bhojanalaya.
(6.1.6) PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel had deposed that the spot where the alleged incident took place was about 15 minutes walking distance from his Bhojanalaya. At the time of incident, the residents were sleeping in their houses, since it was the winter season. He further denied the suggestion that accused Tejpal never inflicted any injury on his person at any point of time. He denied all the other suggestion that the accused persons had been falsely implicated in the present case, in order to extort money from CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 8/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:18:41 +0530 them.
(6.2.1) PW-2 is Ct. Hukum Singh and he had deposed that in the intervening night of 05/06.05.2012, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar and on that night at about 1.00 AM, an information was received in PS Karawal Nagar and the same was registered as DD No. 3 B. After receiving the same, he accompanied IO/SI Chetan Singh and reached House No. D/5, Gali No. 7, Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar and found that the injured was already removed to GTB hospital and no eye witness was found there.
(6.2.2) PW-2 Ct. Hukum Singh further deposed that thereafter, they went to the GTB hospital, where injured/complainant Ram Avtar was found admitted and the IO SI Chetan recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A. He further deposed that the IO prepared the rukka and he took the same to PS for registration of the case. After getting the case was registered, he came back to the hospital, along with copy of the FIR and the original rukka and handed over the same to IO SI Chetan. By that time, SI Ashwani Ambaria reached the hospital and the IO handed over the MLC, copy of the FIR and the original rukka to SI Ashwani Ambaria.
(6.2.3) PW-2 Ct. Hukum Singh further deposed that thereafter, he along with SI Ashwani Ambaria and injured Ram Avtar reached the spot and on reaching there, SI Ashwani Ambaria prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ram Avtar. He further deposed that they also met one person by the name of Chander Yadav and the IO SI Ashwani CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 9/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:18:45 +0530 Ambaria also recorded his statement. The IO recorded his statement and thereafter, they came back to the PS. (6.2.4) PW-2 Ct. Hukum Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel had deposed that one Ct. Kailash, who was the motorcycle rider had informed that about the fact that the injured was removed to GTB hospital. He further deposed that he did not remember as to whether the said Ct. Kailash was inquired by SI Chetan or not. He denied the suggestion that Chander Yadav had never met them at the spot and he did not join the investigation as deposed by him. However, he admitted the fact that the statement of Ct. Kailash was not recorded by the IO in his presence.
(6.3.1) PW-3 is HC Om Prakash and he was the Duty Officer. He had deposed that on the intervening night of 05/06.05.2012, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar as DO and his duty hours were from 12 mid night to 08.00 AM. On that night, at about 01.00 AM, he received an information from Control Room, North- East regarding a quarrel at H. No. D-5, Gali no. 7, Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar and after receiving the said information, he reduced the same in to writing vide DD no.3B Ex.
PW3/A. He further deposed that on the same night, at about 04.30 AM, he received the rukka through Ct. Hukum Singh sent by SI Chetan Singh. After receiving the abovesaid rukka, he made an endorsement Ex. PW3/B on it and thereafter the case FIR no. 138/12, u/s 324/34 IPC Ex. PW3/C was registered and he handed over the computer print out CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 10/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:18:50 +0530 copy and the original rukka to Ct. Hukum Singh. The certificate u/s 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW3/D was brought on record.
(6.4.1) PW-4 is ASI Vijendra Singh and he was also the Duty Officer, posted at PS Karawal Nagar. He had deposed that his duty hours were from 12 midnight to 08:00 AM. On that night, at about 12.10 AM, he received a phone call from PS Usmanpur, made by HC Satpal and he was informed that accused Sonu S/o Mahaveer was arrested in case FIR no.199/12, u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act, and during his disclosure made in the said case, accused Sonu s/o Mahaveer had admitted his involvement alongwith other accused persons in the cases bearing FIR No.136/12 u/s 326/34 IPC, FIR No.137/12 u/s 323/324/341/506 IPC, FIR No.138/12 u/s 324/34 IPC and FIR No. 259/12 u/s 392/34 IPC of PS Karawal Nagar. He was further informed that deposed that accused Sonu was to be produced before Court room no.66, Karkardooma Courts on 31.07.2012. He reduced the said information into writing vide DD no.3A Ex. PW4/A. (6.5.1) PW-5 is ASI Ravinder Kumar and he had deposed that on 07.05.2012, he had joined the investigation along-with IO SI Ashwani Ambaria. IO SI Ashwani Ambaria had interrogated the accused Tej Pal @ Lala, who was already in police custody in case FIR No.136/12, PS Karawal Nagar. After interrogation, the IO had arrested accused Tej Pal @ Lala in the present case vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A. After the arrest, accused Tej Pal @ Lala led them to the spot situated at gali no.7, D CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 11/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:18:55 +0530 Block, Mukund Vihar and he pointed out the place of occurrence where he had committed the offence in question along-with his associates. The IO then prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW5/B. (6.6.1) PW-6 is SI Chetan Singh and he is the first IO of the present case. He had deposed that on the intervening night of 05/06.05.2012, after receiving DD no.3B Ex. PW3/A, he along-with Ct. Hukum Singh went to the spot i.e. Gali No.7, D Block, Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar and found that the injured was already removed to GTB hospital and no eye witness was found there. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to the GTB hospital, where injured/complainant Ram Avtar was found admitted and he recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A. He further deposed that the he prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Hukum Singh, to be taken to the PS for registration of the case. After getting the case was registered, Ct. Hukum Singh came back to the hospital, along with copy of the FIR and the original rukka and handed over the same to him. By that time, SI Ashwani Ambaria reached the hospital and the he handed over the MLC, copy of the FIR and the original rukka to SI Ashwani Ambaria, since the investigation was assigned to SI Ashwani Ambaria by the SHO.
(6.6.2) PW-6 SI Chetan Singh further deposed that on the same night, accused Tejpal @ Lala was arrested by him in case FIR No. 136/12, U/s.326/34 IPC of PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi. During the course of interrogation in the said case, accused Tejpal made a disclosure and his statement regarding his involvement in case FIR No. 137/12 under section 326/394/34 IPC and in the present case FIR No. 138/12 was CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 12/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:19:00 +0530 recorded. The information in this regard was then passed to the Investigating Officers of the said case FIR No. 137/12 and the present through MHC(R) and subsequently he handed over the photocopies of said disclosure statement Ex. PW6/A and arrest memo Ex. PW6/B of accused Tejpal @ Lala to the respective IOs.
(6.6.3) PW-6 during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel had deposed that DD No. 3B was marked to him at about 1.00 AM and after receiving the same, he along-with Ct. Hukum singh reached the spot within 5-7minutes. The information regarding the injured being already been removed to GTB hospital was given to him by motor rider Ct. Kailash. He categorically deposed that the did not record the statement of any witness in the present case, since after registration of the case, the investigation was handed over to SI Ashwani Ambaria.
(6.6.4) PW-6 during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel had deposed that accused Tejpal @ Lala was arrested by him in the early morning of 06.05.2012 and his disclosure statement was recorded by him at the place of his arrest, however he did not remember the exact time when the same was recorded. He categorically denied the suggestion that accused Tejpal @ Lala never made any disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the present case.
(6.7.1) PW-7 is HC Narender Kumar and he had deposed that on CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 13/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:19:06 +0530 23.06.2012, he along-with IO SI Ashwani Ambaria came to the Karkardooma Court, where accused Mahesh @ Atti Patti had surrendered himself in case FIR No. 136/12 & 137/12. After taking permission from the Court, accused Mahesh @ Atti Patti was also arrested in the present case i.e. FIR No. 138/12 vide seizure memo Ex.
PW7/A and he was interrogated and during interrogation he made his disclosure statement Ex. PW7/B. (6.7.2) PW-7 during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel and he denied the suggestion that accused Mahesh @ Atti Patti was forced to sign on blank papers and his disclosure statement was recorded by the IO on his own.
(6.8.1) PW-8 is Ct. Rakesh Kumar and he had deposed that on 23.08.2012, he along with SI Sushil Tiwari had come to Karkardooma Courts, Delhi as accused Sonu had to be produced on production warrants. Accused Sonu was produced before the concerned Court and after seeking permission from the Court, he was interrogated and arrested by SI Sushil Tiwari in the present case i.e. case FIR No. 138/12 vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/A. He further deposed that during the course of interrogation, accused Sonu had made disclosure statement Ex. PW8/B. Thereafter, he remanded for one day PC. During PC, accused Sonu was also interrogated by the IO of case FIR No. 136/12 and the IO of the said case had also arrested the accused in the said case. During police custody, accused had pointed out the place of occurrence vide CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 14/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:19:10 +0530 pointing out memo Ex. PW8/C and accused Sonu had also pointed out the place of occurrence in case FIR No. 137/12. Thereafter accused Sonu had taken the police party in a jungle situated at Wazirabad, for recovery of knife in case FIR No. 136/12, but no knife could be recovered in the said case from there.
(6.8.2) PW-8 during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel had denied the suggestion that he had put his signatures on document i.e. arrest memo etc, while sitting in the PS or that accused never took the police party to any place for that accused Sonu never pointed out any place of occurrence.
(6.9.1) PW-9 is ASI Satyapal and he deposed that accused namely Sonu S/o. Mahavir was arrested by him in case FIR No. 199/12, U/s.33 Delhi Excise Act, registered at PS New Usmanpur, Delhi and during the course of interrogation accused Sonu had made disclosure statement regarding his involvement in four cases including the present case i.e case FIR No. 138/12 of PS Karawal Nagar. He further deposed that he gave information to PS Karawal Nagar in this regard and DD No. 3A Ex. PW4/A. In the morning, SI Ashwani Ambaria met him and he handed over the disclosure statement Ex. PW9/A and other relevant documents to him.
(6.10.1) PW-10 is Dr. Sudhanshu Goyal and he deposed that he has been deputed by M.S, GTB Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Sarabjeet CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 15/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:19:15
+0530
Singh, SR Surgery, since the said doctor had left the services of the hospital and his then present whereabouts were not known to them. He had seen the noting Ex. PW10/A, prepared in the handwriting of Dr. Sarabjeet Singh, according to which, the doctor had opined the nature of injury was given as 'simple'.
(6.11.1) PW-11 is Dr. Amit Srivastava and he deposed on the behalf of Dr. Nishant that he had seen the Ortho Notes Ex. PW11/A of Dr. Nishant, mentioned on the MLC of injured Ram Avtar Rai, according to which, nature of injury was 'simple'.
(6.12.1) PW-12 is Inspector Ashwani Ambariya and he is the main IO of the present case. He deposed that he was posted as SI at PS Karawal Nagar and the investigation of the present case was marked to him. On 06.05.2012, he reached at GTB Hospital, where he met SI Chetan Singh, complainant Ram Avtar Rai, Ct. Hukum Singh. SI Chetan Singh handed over the copy of FIR, the original rukka and MLC of the complainant to him. The complainant was under treatment there and SI Chetan Singh left from there. After sometime, the complainant was discharged from the said hospital.
(6.12.2) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya and he further deposed that he along-with complainant Ram Avtar Rai and Ct. Hukum Singh had reached the spot i.e. Gali No. 7, D-Block, Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and he prepared the site plan Ex. PW12/A at the instance CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 16/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:19:29 +0530 of the complainant. He further recorded the supplementary statement of complainant and the complainant had pointed out the house of the victim Chander Yadav, which was in the same locality. The complainant left from there and then PW-12 visited the house of Chander Yadav and met him. Chander Yadav then joined the investigation with him and thereafter he along-with Chander Yadav reached the spot and he was being informed that after Chander Yadav had parked his motorcycle in the Gali no. 7, and when he was coming towards his house and reached at the spot, accused Tej Pal @ Lala, Mahesh @Atti Chauhan and Sonu have committed a robbery of his mobile phone, Rs. 500/- and other document i.e. DL/RC and I-card etc., after showing the knife and they had given beatings to him. Chander Yadav further informed him that in the meantime, complainant Ram Avtar reached there and when he tried to save him, the accused persons had also started giving beatings to the complainant Ram Avtar and accused Tej Pal @ Lala had given knife blow injuries to the complainant on his right hand and chest. Chander Yadav further stated that thereafter, the accused persons ran away from there and the complainant Ram Avtar made a call to 100 number and the PCR van reached there and took the complainant Ram Avtar to the hospital, while he went back to his house. He had recorded the statement of Chander Yadav Ex. PW12/B. He further deposed that Chander Yadav had also shown the place of incident to him.
(6.12.3) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed that on the same day i.e. 06.05.2012, in the night time, accused Tej Pal @ Lala was arrested by the SI Chetan Singh in case FIR no. 136/12 u/s CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 17/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:19:34 +0530 326/34 IPC, PS Karawal Nagar and he was informed about the same by SI Chetan Singh himself. He further deposed that SI Chetan Singh handed over the copy of the disclosure statement Ex. PW6/A, arrest memo Ex. PW6/B and personal search memo Mark-X of the accused Tejpal @ Lala, prepared in FIR No. 136/12 to him.
(6.12.4) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed that on 07.05.2012, he started the interrogation of the accused Tej Pal @ Lala in the meantime, victim Chander Yadav came to the PS and he identified the accused Tej Pal @ Lala and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A in the presence of the victim Chander Yadav and HC Ravinder. He further deposed that he recorded the supplementary statement of the victim Chander Yadav Ex. PW12/C and he also prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW5/B. (6.12.5) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed that thereafter, he along-with accused Tejpal @ Lala and HC Ravinder reached the spot and at the instance of accused Tejpal @ Lala, he prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW5/B. He further deposed that he made searches for the weapon used in the commission of the offence, however, the same could not be found.
(6.12.6) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed that during the investigation, he made searches for co-accused Mahesh @ Atti Chauhan and Sonu, however they were untraceable. Thereafter, he deposited the MLC of complainant, for taking opinion regarding the CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 18/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:19:38 +0530 nature of the injuries. Thereafter, the opinion on the said MLC, wherein the injury was opined as 'simple' was received from the hospital.
(6.12.7) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed that on 23.06.2012, accused Mahesh @ Atti Chauhan had surrendered before the Karkardooma Courts and he along-with Ct. Narender reached there. After taking permission from the concerned Court, he interrogated and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A. He recorded the interrogation report/disclosure statement of accused Mahesh @ Atti Chauhan Ex. PW7/B and also arrested him in case FIR No. 136/12 and FIR No. 137/12, since he was the deputed IO for the said cases as well.
(6.12.8) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed that during the investigation he also made searches for Sonu S/o Mahavir, however, he could not be found. Thereafter, he got NBW's issued against him. On 31.07.2012, he received the DD No. 3A Ex. PW4/A, which has been recorded at PS Karawal Nagar by HC Satpal of PS New Usman Pur that accused Sonu has been arrested in case FIR no. 199/12 u/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act, registered at PS New Usman Pur. The MHCR handed over the copy of the DD entry no. 3A to him. He collected the copy of the disclosure statement, arrest memo etc., from the IO HC Satpal, the Investigating Officer of the case FIR No. 199/12.
(6.12.9) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed that on 23.08.2012, in pursuance of the production warrants, accused Sonu CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 19/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:19:43
+0530
was produced before the concerned Court and since there were multiple cases registered against the accused persons, SI Sushil Tiwari, who was the IO in case FIR no. 137/12, had also moved an application seeking the production of the accused person from JC and thereafter, he had moved an application seeking one day police remand of the accused after arresting him in the said case. When the accused was brought to PS, he had interrogated the accused Sonu, in the presence of Ct. Rakesh and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW8/B. He further deposed that thereafter, he arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/A and the accused had pointed out the place of incident to him and he had prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW8/C at his instance. At the time of pointing out, SI Sushil Tiwari and SI Chetan who were also the IOs in the other cases registered against the accused persons were present. Ct. Rakesh had signed the said pointing out memo Ex. PW8/C. They alongwith accused Sonu reached Wazirabad Jungle, in order to search the case property, i.e. weapon of offence, however no clue was found. He further deposed that after completing the investigation, he prepared the charge- sheet and filed it before the concerned Court. Copy of the involvement of the accused persons were brought on record as Ex. PW12/D to Ex. PW12/F. (6.12.10) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya during his cross examination conducted by Ld. LAC for accused Sonu had categorically admitted that accused Sonu was brought in PS in FIR No.137/12, PS Karawal Nagar. He further admitted the suggestion that he was not in his custody when he interrogated him. He further denied the suggestion that CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 20/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:19:48 +0530 accused Sonu had not made the disclosure statement or that he obtained signature of the accused person on blank papers or converted the same into a disclosure statement. He denied all the other suggestions being put to him regarding the investigation conducted by him.
(6.12.11) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel for accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh @ Atti Chuahan had admitted that he was apprised about the present incident by DO at about 4.30 AM on 06.05.2012. He could not tell the DD number by which the DO had informed him. He volunteered that as per the direction of the SHO, investigation of the present case was marked to him. He further deposed that the present case FIR was registered on 06.05.2012 at 04.30 AM.
(6.12.12) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel for accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh @ Atti Chuahan that he had not recorded the statement of the complainant. He volunteered that the statement of the complainant was already recorded by the first IO SI Chetan Singh. He further deposed that at about 05.00 AM, he had met SI Chetan Singh Meena in GTB hospital in respect of the present case for the first time and SI Chetan had not recorded the statement of any person in his presence.
(6.12.13) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel for CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 21/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:19:53 +0530 accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh @ Atti Chauhan that he did not remember the exact number of the robbery cases registered in the intervening night of 05/06.05.2012 at PS Karawal Nagar. He categorically admitted that at the time when the investigation of the present case was marked to him, accused Tejpal @ Lala was already arrested by SI Chetan Singh in the other case bearing FIR No. 136/12, registered at PS Karawal Nagar. He further deposed that he had not got the TIP of the accused persons on the present case. He volunteered that since the accused were already named in the present case FIR, therefore he did not deem it necessary to get their TIP conducted. He further deposed that the site plan Ex. PW12/A was prepared on the same day of the registration of the FIR i.e. 06.05.2012. He further deposed that the site plan Ex. PW12/A was prepared at the instance of complainant, however he had not taken the signature of any public person on it. He admitted that the site plan does not bear the signature of complainant. The site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant.
(6.12.14) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel for accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh @ Atti Chauhan that the victim was discharged from the hospital on 06.05.2012, in the early morning itself at about 05.00 AM and he met the first IO SI Chetan Singh Meena in GTB hospital on 06.05.2012 at 5.00 AM, regarding the present case for the first time. He denied the suggestion that he had not examined any public witness or that no recovery was effected from the accused persons, as no such incident had taken place.
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 22/56
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25
11:19:57
(6.12.15) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed
during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel for accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh @ Atti Chauhan that he had not obtained the PCR form regarding the PCR call allegedly made by complainant Ram Avtar. He had not inquired from the complainant as to the number from which he had made the alleged call to the police on 100 number. He denied the suggestion that the PCR form was not taken, since no such call was ever made to the police. He further deposed that he had not examined the PCR official, who had first responded to the spot after the alleged call. He denied the suggestion that no such police official was examined, since no such call was ever made by the complainant.
(6.12.16) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further deposed during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel for accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh @ Atti Chauhan that he had cited one more public witness except the complainant, namely Chander Yadav. His statement was recorded on the spot and also at the PS on 06.05.2012. He further deposed that Chander Yadav came to the PS on his own and he had not called him.
(6.12.17) PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambariya had further denied the suggestion during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel for accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh @ Atti Chauhan that CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 23/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:20:02 +0530 accused Tejpal @ Lala was already illegally locked up in the PS on 05.05.2012, since the evening hours. He went on to depose that on 06.05.2012, he came to know that SI Chetan Singh Meena had already arrested accused Tejpal@ Lala in case FIR No. 136/12, PS Karawal Nagar and he got to know about it before 12.00 PM on the said day. He further deposed that he had not procured the CCTV footage of the area near the alleged spot of occurrence. He volunteered that there was no such CCTV camera installed there. He denied the suggestion that he was purposely deposing falsely regarding there being no CCTV cameras near the spot, as there were CCTV camera installed on both ends of the said gali. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared all documents while sitting in PS. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused persons or that he had not conducted investigation fairly and properly or that he was deposing falsely.
Admitted Documents And Plea of the Accused Persons:
7. On 06.08.2022, the accused persons suffered a joint statement through their counsels u/s 294 Cr.PC and they admitted the MLC No. B-
1947/12 of injured Ram Avtar Rai, and the same was exhibited as Ex. X and the nature of injury mentioned in the said MLC.
8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, PE was closed. The statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they had pleaded their innocence.
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 24/56
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25
11:20:07
+0530
9. The accused persons chose not to lead any Defense Evidence.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Kamal Akhter, Ld. Additional PP for the State and Sh. Mohit Bansal, Ld. Counsel for accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh, Sh. K.N Sharma and Ld. LAC for the accused Sonu. I have also minutely gone through the evidence brought on record and also the material aspects of the case.
Submissions made on behalf of the State:
11. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 06.05.2012 at about 12.30 AM, in front of Gali No.7, B Block, Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, accused Tejpal @ Lala alongwith his associates co-accused Mahesh @ Atipati Chauhan and Sonu had committed robbery of the a cash amount of Rs. 500/-, one mobile phone make LG, having SIM number 7827159951, RC of the motorcycle, Driving License and ID card from the pocket of the pant which victim Chander Yadav was wearing at the time. At the time of committing the said robbery, accused Tejpal @ Lala was armed with a deadly weapon namely a knife. Furthermore, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention shared with each other, caused injuries upon the person of victim Chander Yadav. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed the robbery and at the time of committing the said robbery, CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 25/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:20:12 +0530 accused Tejpal @ Lala was armed with deadly weapon and he attempted to cause grievous hurt to the victim Chander Yadav, therefore, all the ingredients of the offences punishable u/s 392/394/34 IPC, 1860 have been fully made out in the present case against the accused persons. Furthermore, all the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 397 IPC, 1860 is made out against accused Tejpal @ Lala.
12. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that at the time of commission of the robbery, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention shared with each other, also caused injuries on the person of the complainant Ram Avtar Rai, with a sharp object, when he tried to rescue the victim Chander Yadav from the clutches of the accused persons. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC, 1860 are clearly made out in the present case.
13. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the testimony of the complainant PW1 Ram Avtar Rai is categorical in nature. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution and had deposed that the accused persons were scuffling and giving beatings to his neighbor, victim Chander Yadav. When the complainant tried to rescue the victim Chander Yadav, accused Tejpal @ Lala took out a knife and attacked him. The PW-1 had further categorically deposed that when he tried to save himself from the said blows of knife, his right hand got cut, near his thumb. Thereafter, accused Tejpal @ Lala also gave a knife blow on his chest. After inflicting the said injuries, all the accused persons fled from the spot. The testimony of PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai was CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 26/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:20:20 +0530 fully corroborated by the testimony of other prosecution witnesses.
14. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the identity of the accused persons was fully established in the present case as they were duly identified by all the prosecution witnesses, at the time of their examination before the Court.
15. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that in the intervening night of 05/06.05.2012, DD No. 3B Ex. PW3/A was registered at PS Karawal Nagar. During the same night, accused Tejpal @ Lala was arrested by PW-6 IO SI Chetan Singh in case FIR No. 136/12 registered u/s 326/34 IPC, 1860 at PS Karawal Nagar itself and during the interrogation in the said case, accused Tejpal @ Lala made his disclosure statement regarding his involvement in two other cases, i.e. in case FIR No. 137/12 u/s 326/394/34 IPC and in the present case. On the basis of the said disclosure statement, accused Tejpal @ Lala led the IO and other police staff to the jungle situated in Wazirabad area, however the weapon of the offence i.e. the knife could not be recovered.
16. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that in the present case, the prosecution could not examine the victim Chander Yadav, since he could not be traced in spite of best efforts. PW Chander Yadav was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dated 07.02.2023, however his non examination is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, since the testimony of the complainant PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai was categorical in nature and he had fully deposed regarding the incident of robbery committed by the accused persons upon the victim CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 27/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:20:26 +0530 Chander Yadav. The complainant PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai is himself an injured witness and his testimony carries more weight and the defense could not bring out anything during his cross examination, to make his testimony unbelievable. The testimony of PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai is sterling in quality and his credibility could not be shook at the time of his cross examination. His testimony is further corroborated through the medical evidence i.e. the Ortho notes Ex. PW11/A and the opinion as to the nature of injury Ex. PW10/A, on his MLC Ex. X prepared at GTB hospital. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to discharge the burden beyond the reasonable doubt and that the accused persons may be convicted for commission the said offences.
Submissions made on behalf of the accused persons:
17. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh and Ld. LAC for accused Sonu that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant and that they are completely innocent. The genesis of the prosecution story i.e. the accused persons committing robbery of the a cash amount of Rs. 500/-, one mobile phone make LG, having SIM number 7827159951, RC of the motorcycle, Driving License and ID card from the pocket of the pant which victim Chander Yadav was wearing at the time, could not be proved by the prosecution, since the victim Chander Yadav was never examined before this Court.
18. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Tejpal @ Lala and CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 28/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:20:30 +0530 Mahesh and Ld. LAC for accused Sonu that the accused persons were falsely implicated by the police officials of PS Karawal Nagar and in the intervening night of 05/06.05.2012, number of FIR's including the present case FIR were registered. The accused persons were falsely implicated in all the said cases by the police officials of PS Karawal Nagar and all the witnesses were planted against them. There is no such person by the name of Chander Yadav and the IO had falsely prepared the documents such as his statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C, pointing out memo etc., and it is clear from the report dated 06.02.2023 filed through the office of DCP concerned that when the process server had visited the permanent address of the victim Chander Yadav, no such person with the said name was found residing there. The process server conducted the inquiry from the wife of one Late Ram Kumar, who was shown as the father of the victim Chander Yadav. During the said inquiry, it had come to the notice of the process server that she had only two sons by the name of Nagender and Pushpender and no such person by the name of Chander Yadav was ever born to her and her deceased husband Late Ram Kumar.
19. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh and Ld. LAC for accused Sonu that it has further come in the report dated 06.02.2023 that the process server also made inquires from the Gram Pradhan of village Hafizpur Langoli, PS Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar, UP and it was found that no such person by the name of Chander Yadav s/o Ram Kumar ever resided in the said village. The process server also obtained and inspected the copy of the voter list of CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 29/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:21:09 +0530 the said village, however the name of the victim Chander Yadav was not found there. The DCP concerned had directed the SHO to inspect the police file, the judicial file and to consult the IO, to find more clues about the victim Chander Yadav s/o Ram Kumar. However, no such clues could be found and eventually he was dropped from the prosecution list of witnesses.
20. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh and Ld. LAC for accused Sonu that the articles which were allegedly robbed from the victim Chander Yadav were never recovered in the present case. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim was using a mobile phone having number 7827151159, which was allegedly robbed by the accused persons. However, no effort was made by the IO to trace out the whereabouts of the victim Chander Yadav by obtaining his CAF and CDR. The IO/SHO concerned never made such efforts to trace him, since no such person ever existed and it would have been fatal to their case, if the CAF and CDR of the said mobile number were recovered.
21. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh and Ld. LAC for accused Sonu that the accused persons have faced the trial for the last 12 years on the basis of the final report filed by the IO PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambaria, wherein the entire story was cooked up by the IO and a fictitious person was shown as the victim therein, whereas no such person ever existed. The complainant PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai is also a planted witness and the injuries allegedly received by him were accidental/self inflicted injuries. The entire CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 30/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:21:14 prosecution story is highly unbelievable since in his statement Ex. PW1/A, the complainant had mentioned the names of the accused persons to the IO on 06.05.2012 itself. However, when he stepped into the witness box as PW-1 on 15.07.2014, he had categorically deposed that the accused persons were not known to him prior to the incident. Therefore, the factum of the accused persons being named specifically in the statement Ex. PW1/A creates a dark shadow upon the entire case of the prosecution.
22. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh and Ld. LAC for accused Sonu that there is no recovery of any article from the accused persons and the entire case of the prosecution is resting upon the disclosure statement made by accused Tejpal @ Lala in another case bearing FIR No. 136/12 and the said disclosure statement has no value in the eyes of law, since it is inadmissible in evidence.
23. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh and Ld. LAC for accused Sonu that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the offence punishable u/s 392/394/34 IPC, 1860 were committed by the accused persons or that the of offence punishable u/s 397 IPC, 1860 was committed by accused Tejpal @ Lala, since the entire story of the prosecution case centered around the statement of victim Chander Yadav, however he was never examined before this Court.
24. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh and Ld. LAC for accused Sonu that there are serious CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 31/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:21:19 +0530 contradictions in the testimony of the formal prosecution witnesses including IO PW-6 SI Chetan Singh and IO PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambaria. It has categorically come in the testimony of IO PW-12 Ashwani Ambaria that he was apprised about the present incident by the DO at about 4.30 AM on 06.05.2012. The present case FIR was registered on 06.05.2012 at 4.30 AM and he had categorically admitted that at the time of investigation of the case being marked to him, accused Tejpal @ Lala was already arrested by SI Chetan Singh in the other case bearing FIR No. 136/12. Therefore, it is evident from the testimony of the main IO PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambaria that at the time of registration of the present case FIR accused Tejpal @ Lala was already arrested in the said other case. Therefore, the statement Ex. PW1/A, recorded by IO SI Chetan Singh, which contained the names of the accused persons was recorded, after the accused Tejpal @ Lala was already in his custody. Therefore, the naming of the accused persons by their specific names was at the behest of the IO himself, since PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai had categorically deposed that the accused persons were not known to him prior to the incident. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is shrouded in mystery and the accused persons cannot be convicted on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present case. Therefore, it was humbly submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels that the accused persons may be acquitted for committing the offences they are being charged with.Digitally signed by ATUL
AHLAWAT ATUL AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:21:26 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 32/56 Relevant Law and Case Laws:
25. In the background of the above, before discussing the evidence brought on record in the present case, it is pertinent to point out that the accused person can be convicted on the basis of credible evidence brought on record and the appreciation of the said evidence must be done in correct and true perspective manner and in the natural course of events, what would have been occurred. Appreciation of evidence beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that it should be assessed beyond any iota of doubt. Beyond Reasonable Doubt means that the prosecution is required to place evidence at a higher degree of preponderance of probabilities compared to what is degree of preponderance of probability in civil cases. The theory of Beyond Reasonable Doubt means expecting higher degree of preponderance of probabilities and the natural conduct of human beings, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in "State of Karnataka Vs Venkatesh @ Venkappa & Anr" , Criminal Appeal No. 100492 of 2021, decided on 18.12.2023.
26. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines "evidence". The evidence can be broadly divided into oral and documentary. "Evidence" under the Act can be said to include the means, factor or material, lending a degree of probability through a logical inference to the existence of a fact. It is an adjective law highlighting and aiding the substantive law. Thus, it is neither wholly procedural nor substantive, though trappings of both could be felt.
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 33/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date: 2024.09.25 11:21:40 +0530
27. The definition of the word "proved" though gives an impression of a mere interpretation, in effect, is the heart and soul of the entire Act. This clause, consciously speaks of proving a fact by considering the "matters before it". The importance is attached to the degree of probability in proving a fact through the consideration of the matters before the court. What is required for a court to decipher is the existence of a fact and its proof by a degree of probability, through a logical inference.
28. Matters are necessary, concomitant material factors to prove a fact. All "evidence" would be "matters" but not vice versa. In other words, matters could be termed as a genus of which evidence would be a species. Matters also adds strength to the evidence giving adequate ammunition in the Court's sojourn in deciphering the truth. Thus, the definition of "matters" is exhaustive, and therefore, much wider than that of "evidence". However, there is a caveat, as the court is not supposed to consider a matter which acquires the form of an evidence when it is barred in law. Matters are required for a court to believe in the existence of a fact.
29. Matters, do give more discretion and flexibility to the court in deciding the existence of a fact. They also include all the classification of evidence such as circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence, derivative evidence, direct evidence, documentary evidence, hearsay evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence, presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 34/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:21:52 +0530 evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc.
30. In addition, they supplement the evidence in proving the existence of a fact by enhancing the degree of probability. As an exhaustive interpretation has to be given to the word "matter", and for that purpose, the definition of the expression of the words "means and includes", meant to be applied for evidence, has to be imported to that of a "matter" as well. Thus, a matter might include such of those which do not fall within the definition of Section 3, in the absence of any express bar.
31. What is important for the court is the conclusion on the basis of existence of a fact by analyzing the matters before it on the degree of probability. The entire enactment is meant to facilitate the court to come to an appropriate conclusion in proving a fact. There are two methods by which the court is expected to come to such a decision. The court can come to a conclusion on the existence of a fact by merely considering the matters before it, in forming an opinion that it does exist. This belief of the court is based upon the assessment of the matters before it. Alternatively, the court can consider the said existence as probable from the perspective of a prudent man who might act on the supposition that it exists. The question as to the choice of the options is best left to the court to decide. The said decision might impinge upon the quality of the matters before it.
32. The word "Prudent" has not been defined under the Act. When the court wants to consider the second part of the definition clause instead of CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 35/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:21:58
+0530
believing the existence of a fact by itself, it is expected to take the role of a prudent man. Such a prudent man has to be understood from the point of view of a common man. Therefore, a judge has to transform into a prudent man and assess the existence of a fact after considering the matters through that lens instead of a judge. It is only after undertaking the said exercise can he resume his role as a judge to proceed further in the case.
33. The aforesaid provision also indicates that the court is concerned with the existence of a fact both in issue and relevant, as against a whole testimony. Thus, the concentration is on the proof of a fact for which a witness is required. Therefore, a court can appreciate and accept the testimony of a witness on a particular issue while rejecting it on others since it focuses on an issue of fact to be proved. However, the evidence of a witness as whole is a matter for the court to decide on the probability of proving a fact which is inclusive of the credibility of the witness. Whether an issue is concluded or not is also a court's domaine.
34. While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue, it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case where evidence is not believable. When evidence produced is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 36/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:22:03 +0530 in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in other matters. The aforesaid principle of law has been enunciated in the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras" , 1957 SCR 981 wherein it is held as under:
"In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid it down that "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case, be required for the proof of any fact". The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's Law of Evidence -- 9th Edn., at pp. 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in s.134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well-recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 37/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:22:10 +0530 depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well- established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 38/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:22:14
+0530
above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution."
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 39/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date: AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:22:19 +0530
35. Before proceeding ahead with appreciation of the evidence brought on record, this court deems it fit to discuss section 397 IPC, 1860 which is reproduced below:
"397. Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt ;
If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."
36. As per the ingredients of offence punishable u/s 397 IPC, 1860 an act would fall within the mischief of the section if at the time of committing the robbery/dacoity the offender:
(a) uses any deadly weapon; or
(b) causes grievous hurt to any person; or
(c) attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in "Shrawan Dashrath Datrange Vs. State of Maharastra"
(1997) 2 Crimes 47 (Bom).
37. As far as the interpretation of the word " uses" for the purpose of section 397 IPC, 1860 is concerned, what is essential to satisfy the word CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 40/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:22:24 +0530 "uses" is that the robbery being committed by an offender who was armed with deadly weapon which was within the vision of the victim, so as to be capable of creating a terror in the mind of victim and not that it should be further shown to have been actually used for cutting, stabbing, shooting, as the case may be. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Ashfaq Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)" (2004) 3 SCC 116.
Appreciation of Evidence:
38. In the background of the abovesaid decisions, I shall now appraise the evidence brought on record. As per the case of the prosecution, there are two transactions which took place on 06.05.2012. The first being the robbery which was allegedly committed by the accused persons of the mobile phone, Rs. 500/-, driving license and Id-Card of the victim Chander Yadav. At the time of commission of the said robbery, the complainant Ram Avtar Rai, who was allegedly the neighbor of the victim Chander Yadav had intervened to save him from the clutches of the accused persons. It is further the case of the prosecution that during the commission of the said robbery, accused Tejpal @ Lala was armed with a knife and when the complainant Ram Avtar Rai intervened, he was given knife blows on his right hand thumb and chest by accused Tejpal @ Lala and thereafter all the three accused persons fled away fro the spot.
39. It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant Ram CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 41/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:22:31
+0530
Avtar Rai made a call to the police by calling on 100 number. The PCR van arrived on the spot and took him to the GTB hospital, where he was treated for his injuries. His statement was recorded by the first IO SI Chetan Singh in the hospital itself and on the basis of the said statement/tehrir, the present case FIR was registered.
40. The prosecution could not prove the genesis of their own story, i.e. the call made by the complainant on 100 number. The said call Ex. PW3/A was recorded by Duty Officer PW-3 HC Om Prakash and as per Ex. PW3/A, the said call was regarding a ' quarrel' that had taken place at H.No. D-5, Gali No.7, Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar. It was not a call regarding any robbery or that the caller had received any injuries from a knife. Furthermore, the names of the assailants were not mentioned by the caller.
41. It is pertinent to point out that in the statement Ex. PW1/A, the complainant Ram Avtar Rai had specifically named all the three accused persons by their respective names. He had further mentioned in his statement that all the three accused persons were residing in Karawal Nagar itself. Therefore, from the said statement, it was prima-facie evident that the accused persons were already known to the complainant. Furthermore, it had come during the testimony of the main IO PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambaria, at the time of his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh, that he did not get the TIP of the accused persons conducted, since they were already named in the FIR. However, the caller i.e. the complainant CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 42/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date: 2024.09.25 11:22:40 +0530 had not named the accused persons in the said call Ex. PW3/A made on 100 number.
42. When the complainant PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai stepped in to the witness box on 15.07.2014, he had categorically deposed that " the accused persons were not known to me prior to the incident ". The said deposition of the complainant Ram Avtar Rai assumes significant importance in the background of the facts of the present case, since the main victim, Chander Yadav was never traced and he was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dated 07.02.2023, after a report was received from the DCP concerned, wherein no such person was found residing at the given address and in spite of best efforts made by the process server, no clue of the victim Chander Yadav was found. Furthermore, his permanent address and parentage were also found to be incorrect.
43. The prosecution is merely relying upon the testimony of the sole public witness i.e. PW-1 Chander Yadav and the statements of the victim recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C by the IO, was merely brought on record through the testimony of IO PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambaria. The said statements of the victim Chander Yadav have no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The first limb of the prosecution case, was relating to the robbery which was allegedly committed by the accused persons upon the valuables and cash being carried by the victim Chander Yadav, could not be proved in the present case, since the said victim was never examined before this Court.
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 43/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date: AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:22:46 +0530
44. There is no recovery of the alleged articles that were robbed from the victim Chander Yadav i.e. cash amount of Rs. 500/-, one mobile phone make LG, having SIM number 7827159951, RC of the motorcycle, Driving License and ID card at the time of the investigation.
45. The weapon i.e. a knife which was allegedly used by accused Tejpal @ Lala at the time of the commission of the offence was also not recovered during the investigation.
46. Except for the complainant, PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai, there is no other ocular witness, who had seen the alleged incident. There is no CCTV footage of any camera that was procured by the IO during the investigation.
47. The inherent contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai, wherein he had categorically deposed that he had never seen the accused persons prior to the incident and his earlier statement Ex. PW1/A, wherein he had stated the names of the accused persons and also that they were residing in the same locality, has cast serious doubts upon his credibility as a witness.
48. The peculiar facts of the present case, wherein there were more than three FIRs were registered against the accused persons for committing separate offences on the same night i.e. 05/06.05.2012, before PS Karawal Nagar assumes great significance, since it has come in the testimony of the main IO PW12 Inspector Ashwani Ambaria that " the CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 44/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:22:52
+0530
present case FIR was registered on 06.05.2012 at 4.30 AM. I had not recorded statement of the complainant. (vol. The statement of the complainant was already recorded by the first IO SI Chetan Singh)." He had further categorically admitted at the time of his cross-examination that " It is correct that at the time when the investigation of the present case was marked to me, accused Tejpal @ Lala was already arrested by SI Chetan Singh in the other case bearing FIR No. 136/12, registered at PS Karawal Nagar."
49. It has further come in the cross-examination of the IO PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambaria that he had met the first IO SI Chetan Singh Meena in GTB hospital on 06.05.2012 at 05.00 AM, regarding the present case for the first time. Therefore, the first IO SI Chetan Singh Meena has recorded the alleged statement Ex. PW1/A at about 02.00- 02.30 AM, as deposed by him during his examination in chief conducted on 17.02.2018. As per the case of the prosecution, the rukka Ex. PW6/A was sent to the PS at about 03.30 AM. At the time of recording of the said statement Ex. PW1/A, IO SI Chetan Singh Meena has already arrested accused Tejpal @ Lala in case FIR 136/12, in which the same set of accused persons were named as accused.
50. It has further come in the testimony of the first IO PW-6 SI Chetan Singh that accused Tejpal @ Lala was arrested by him on the same night i.e. the intervening night of 05-06.05.2012, in case FIR no. 136/12 u/s 326/34 IPC, registered at the same police station i.e. PS Karawal Nagar. He further deposed that during the interrogation in the said case, accused Tejpal @ Lala made his disclosure statement regarding his involvement CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 45/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:22:58 +0530 in case FIR 137/12 u/s 326/394/34 IPC and also in the present case. The said disclosure statement, allegedly made by accused Tejpal @ Lala was brought on record as Ex. PW6/A and as per the said disclosure, the role of giving knife blows to the neighbor of the victim was leveled upon co- accused Mahesh @ Atti and there was no disclosure made by him that the knife was used by him during the commission of the present offence or that he could get the said knife recovered. Therefore, the said alleged disclosure statement Ex. PW6/A has no evidentiary value, since the same is hit by section 25/26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and no recovery of any article was made in pursuance of the said disclosure statement, therefore no refuge u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be sought as well.
51. Furthermore, as per the case of the prosecution, the IO had allegedly recorded the disclosure statement of accused Mahesh @ Ati Pati Chauhan, he had leveled the allegations of the knife being used during the commission of the offence, upon co-accused Tejpal @ Lala. Since, as per his disclosure statement the said knife was not attributed to be used by him, no statement was made by him that he could get the said knife recovered. Therefore, even his disclosure statement vanishes from the ken of evidence, for being inadmissible in nature.
52. There was no separate disclosure statement of the accused Tejpal @ Lala, recorded in the present case. Only as per the disclosure statement of the accused Tejpal @ Lala recorded in case FIR no. 136/12 vide Ex. PW6/A, the IO Inspector Ashwani Ambaria had made the search for the weapon of the offence and the same has categorically CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 46/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:23:03 +0530 come during his examination-in-chief conducted on 22.04.2024 that " We searched the weapon of offence and the case property but the same was not traceable". However, since it is not the case of the prosecution that the knife was used by accused Tejpal @ Lala, therefore the alleged search of the weapon of the offence made by the IO, at his behest of the said accused person, is shrouded in mystery and had become highly suspicious.
54. The coincidence of accused Tejpal @ Lala getting arrested in some other case on the same night and his alleged disclosure statement, wherein he had disclosed about his involvement in other cases including the present case, along-with his associates i.e. co-accused Mahesh and Sonu becomes too suspicious, especially when the complainant Ram Avtar Rai calls the police on 100 number during the same intervening night and making his statement Ex. PW1/A to the same IO namely SI Chetan Singh, after the said IO had already recorded the disclosure statement of accused Tejpal @ Lala and immediately thereafter, accused Tejpal @ Lala and his associates namely Mahesh and Sonu being mentioned by their specific names by the complainant, cannot be brushed away under the carpet and the doubts created by it are to be appreciated carefully in the background of the fact that the victim was never traced and the alleged robbed articles were also not recovered during the investigation. Furthermore, the complainant Ram Avtar Rai categorically deposed that he had never seen the accused persons, prior to the incident in question, therefore, the accused persons being named in the statement Ex. PW1/A becomes highly suspicious.
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 47/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:23:09 +0530
55. The prosecution could also not explain as to why the site plan Ex.
PW12/A, which was allegedly prepared at the instance of the complainant Ram Avtar Rai, as deposed by PW-12 IO Inspector Ashwani Ambaria and PW-2 Ct. Hukum Singh, does not bear signature of the complainant. Therefore, the doubt is created whether the said site plan was prepared at his instance or not.
56. In light of discussion above, the prosecution miserably failed to bring on record any cogent or credible evidence as far as the accused persons committing the robbery of cash amount of Rs. 500/-, one mobile phone make LG, having SIM number 7827159951, RC of the motorcycle, Driving License and ID card from the pocket of the pant which victim Chander Yadav was wearing at the time.
57. There have been serious lapses on the part of the investigation, especially when it is the case of the prosecution that accused Tejpal @ Lala was having a deadly weapon i.e. knife at the time of the commission of the alleged robbery, however in the disclosure statement of accused Tejpal @ Lala recorded by the IO of case FIR No. 136/12 registered at PS Karawal Nagar, the role of having used the knife in question was attributed to the co-accused Mahesh @ Atipati Chauhan and accused Tejpal @ Lala was not attributed with the role, for which he was charged u/s 397 IPC, 1860. Furthermore, in the disclosure statement of the accused Mahesh @ Atipati Chauhan which was recorded by the IO vide Ex. PW7/B in the present case, he had leveled the allegations of carrying the knife and using the same during the offence in question CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 48/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:23:13 +0530 upon his co-accused Tejpal @ Lala. Furthermore, the IO had allegedly made searches for the said knife at the instance of the accused Tejpal @ Lala and not accused Mahesh @ Atipati Chauhan. The accused Tejpal @ Lala never made any disclosure statement with regard to his involvement in the present case and that he had used the said knife. Therefore, the alleged search for the weapon and the other looted case properties at the behest of accused Tejpal @ Lala stood vitiated.
58. The entire prosecution story of the accused persons committing the robbery upon the victim Chander Yadav is shrouded in mystery, especially when the said victim was never examined before this Court and the testimony of the sole alleged eye witness i.e. PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai, does not inspire any confidence, since he had categorically deposed that he saw the accused persons scuffling and giving beatings to his neighbor, victim Chander Yadav and he had also deposed that accused Tejpal @ Lala had given injuries with a knife on his right hand thumb and chest, is also doubtful, since he had taken the names of the accused persons in his statement Ex. PW1/A, however in the MLC Ex. X, he had not disclosed the names of the assailants before the doctor who had examined him on 06.05.2012.
58. The version of the complainant is also extremely doubtful, as in his call made to the police on 100 number, which was registered as Ex. PW3/A, by HC Om Prakash he had only informed about a ' Quarrel ' and not of a robbery committed by accused persons or that the identity of the accused persons was already known to the caller. Furthermore, there is CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 49/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:23:18 +0530 no mention of the complainant himself receiving any knife injuries during the said scuffle.
59. As per the case of the prosecution, the call to the police on 100 number was made by the complainant Ram Avtar Rai, however the IO had not procured the PCR Form to substantiate the said call. It had categorically come in the cross-examination of the PW-12 IO Inspector Ashwani Ambaria that " I had not obtained the PCR form regarding the PCR call allegedly made by the complainant Ram Avtar . I had not inquired from the complainant as to which number did he make the call to the police on 100 number". He further went on to depose that " I had not examined PCR official who had first responded to the spot after the alleged call". Therefore, the link in the prosecution case as far as the genesis of the prosecution story, i.e. the call made at 100 number and the PCR van arriving at the spot and allegedly taking the complainant to the GTB hospital could not be proved by the prosecution.
60. The testimony of PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai is also not of a sterling character, since he had himself deposed that he did not knew the accused persons prior to the incident, therefore how come he had named the accused persons by their specific names in his complaint Ex. PW1/A, could not be explained satisfactorily. As per his MLC Ex. X, he had allegedly told the doctor that the incident took place at about 12.30 AM on 06.05.2012, however during his cross-examination he had stated that he used to close his bhojnalaya at 11.00 PM and after getting the same cleaned, he was coming back to his house on foot and when he saw the alleged incident, which took place with the victim Chander Yadav, there CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 50/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:23:23
+0530
was no other public witness, since all of them was sleeping in their houses as it was winter season at that time. However, the said explanation given by him for no one else being present at that time, does not inspire any confidence since the alleged incident as per the case of the prosecution took place in the month of May, 2012 and there is no winter season in Delhi at that time. Therefore, it has further impacted the credibility of PW-1 Ram Avtar Rai as a witness.
61. The complainant Ram Avtar was allegedly brought to the GTB hospital on 06.05.2012 by HC Ved Pal, 715 PCR-B14, as recorded in the MLC Ex. X, however the said HC Ved Pal was not made a prosecution witness and the non examination of the first responder to the scene of the alleged incident, has struck a fatal blow on the prosecution case.
62. It has come in the testimony of PW-6 IO Chetan Singh and PW-2 Ct. Hukum Singh that the fact of the injured being shifted to the GTB hospital was informed to them by a PCR motorcycle rider namely Ct. Kailash. However, the IO did not record the statement of the said Ct. Kailash and he was not made a prosecution witness. Therefore, another essential link of the prosecution story could not be established in the present case.
63. There are also serious lapses in the part of the investigation. It is the case of the prosecution, that accused Tejpal@ Lala was already arrested by SI Chetan Singh in another case bearing FIR No. 136/12 registered at PS Karawal Nagar itself. The present case FIR was registered at 4.30 AM on 06.05.2012 and by 05.00 AM, the first IO SI CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 51/56 Digitally signed by ATUL AHLAWAT ATUL Date: AHLAWAT 2024.09.25 11:23:27 +0530 Chetan Singh Meena had already arrested accused Tejpal @ Lala and he met the second IO Inspector Ashwani Ambaria at GTB hospital at that time. However, perusal of the arrest memo Ex. PW6/B, vide which the accused Tejpal @ Lala was arrested in case FIR No. 136/12, clearly reflects his time of arrest as 11.15 PM on 06.05.2012. Therefore, the said document does not support the testimony of IO PW-6 Chetan Singh, wherein he had categorically deposed that " Accused Tejpal was arrested by me in the early morning of 06.05.2012."
64. In light of the numerous contradictions and improvements in the testimony of PW1 Ram Avtar Rai, corroboration on material aspects was necessary in the present case, however, there were no other public eye witnesses. There is not even a single witness who had witnessed the alleged crime in question, barring the complainant himself. However, his own testimony is not trustworthy and considering the serious lapses on the part of the investigation and on part of the prosecution, his sole testimony is not enough to convict the accused persons in the present case, especially when the main victim Chander Yadav could not be traced and his testimony could not be recorded before this Court.
Conclusion and Findings:
65. Therefore, the inherent contradictions and inconsistencies in the deposition of the sole eye witness for the prosecution case, has cast serious doubts upon the veracity of the testimony of the said witness. The contradiction, inconsistency and the exaggerations in the testimony CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 52/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:23:32 +0530 of the two IOs PW6 SI Chetan Singh and PW-12 Inspector Ashwani Ambaria is eroding the veracity of the entire prosecution story, since the discrepancies are going into the root of the credibility of PW1 Ram Avtar Rai and the case of the prosecution. In light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "State of Rajasthan Vs. Abdul Manan" (2011) 8 SCC 65, such discrepancies cannot be overruled.
66. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstantial from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Hanuman Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of MP" AIR 1952 SC 343, "Bodh Raj Vs. State of J&K" AIR 2002 SC 3164 and "Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra" AIR 1984 SC 1622 and "C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of A.P. " (1996) 10 SCC 193.
67. It is also settled law that accused has to only proboblize the defense and he is presumed to be innocent, till he is proved to be guilty. Suspicion, however, strong can never take place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between accused " May have committed the offence" and "Must have committed the offence", which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable evidence. Emphasis is CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 53/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:23:37 +0530 supplied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Kailash Gaur Vs. State of Assam " (2012) 2 SCC 34 and " Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" AIR 1990 SC 79.
68. There is another golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Kali Ram Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh" AIR 1973 SC 2773.
69. The improvements and the inherent contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses had certainly raised doubts in the mind of the Court and the effort of the Criminal Court is not to be prowl for imaginative doubts, unless is doubt is of a reasonable dimension and is what judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity, otherwise no benefit can be claimed by the accused. In the present case the doubts raised from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot be set to be merely imaginative and the same has been borne from the record of the present case. The said doubts are not merely imaginary or trivial in nature and it has dented the entire case of the prosecution. The burden of proof cast upon the accused persons is governed by the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" and in light of the discussion above, the accused persons in the present case have been able to raise reasonable doubts against the prosecution version of events and the hypothesis as propounded by the accused persons that they were CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 54/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date: 2024.09.25 11:23:42 +0530 falsely implicated in series of case FIRs registered at PS Karawal Nagar during the intervening night of 05/06.05.2012 and the discrepancies in the prosecution story itself, wherein the same role was attributed to accused Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh @ Atipati Chuahan and no efforts to get the alleged weapon of offence i.e. a knife recovered was made through accused Mahesh @ Atipati Chauhan. The discrepancies in the time of arrest of accused Tejpal @ Lala in case FIR No. 136/12 and his subsequent disclosure statement, followed by recording of the statement/tehrir Ex. PW1/A on the very same night by the same Investigating Officer SI Chetan Singh and lastly the complainant naming the accused persons by their specific names was too much of a coincidence, to have taken place in the span of few hours, especially when the complainant deposed before this Court as PW-1 that he had not known the accused persons prior to the incident in question. The PCR call was regarding a quarrel and not of robbery or that the accused persons were armed with any deadly weapon or that injuries were caused due to the said deadly weapon i.e. knife. Lastly, the IO did not record the statement of the first responder to the scene of alleged occurrence i.e. the PCR officials and it has also struck a fatal blow to the prosecution's case. Therefore, with the evidence brought on record, it cannot be said that the chain of prosecution witnesses and the evidence brought on record was so complete, so as to not leave any reasonable ground consistent with the innocence of the accused persons.
70. When the entire evidence of the present case is cumulatively read and appreciated in the background of the settled principle of law and in CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 55/56 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2024.09.25 11:23:47 +0530 the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the evidence brought on record is not worthy of acceptance and there is a serious shadow of doubt cast upon it. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses is not worthy of inspiring any confidence. Hence, they strike at the very root of the prosecution story rendering it to be improbable and unbelievable. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is no doubt that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, accused Tejpal @ Lala S/o Jagat Singh is acquitted of the charges for committing the offences punishable u/s 392/394/324 r/w section 34 IPC, 1860 and u/s 397 IPC, 1860. Furthermore, accused Mahesh @ Atipati Chuhan S/o Shree Chand and accused Sonu S/o Mahavir are acquitted of the charges for committing the offences punishable u/s 392/394/324 r/w section 34 IPC, 1860. Hence, they shall be set at liberty.
71. The case property, if any, be released to the rightful owner as per the law and the applicable rules.
72. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 25.09.2024.
This judgment consists of 56 pages and all
of them have been digitally signed by me. Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2024.09.25
11:23:55
+0530
(ATUL AHLAWAT)
ASJ (FTC)/North-
East/KKD Courts/
Delhi/25.09.2024.
CNR No. DLNE01-000325-2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Lala & Ors. FIR No. 138/12 Page no. 56/56