Delhi District Court
State vs Rahim @ Naim @ Langra And Ors on 28 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI, ASJ-04
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-004184-2021
SC No. 211/2021
FIR No. 161/2020
U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act
PS Kashmere Gate
STATE
vs.
1. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra
S/o. Sh. Liyakat
R/o. Village Pasonda near Madina
Maszid, PS Teela Mod, U.P.
2. Riyasat @ Ayan
S/o. Sh. Iliyas
R/o. Village Pasonda, Near Sunehri Maszid,
PS Teela Mod, U.P.
Date of institution of case : 12.03.2021
Date on which judgment reserved : 30.10.2023
Date on which judgment pronounced : 28.11.2023
Decision : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, accused namely Rahim @ Naim @ Langra has been facing trial for the charge of offences under Section 392/394/397/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms FIR No. 161/2020 State Vs. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and Anr. PS Kashmere Gate, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act 1 of 10 Act and accused Riyasat @ Ayan has been facing trial for the charge of offences under Section 392/394/34 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant Amit Kumar that on 20.07.2020, in the evening when he was going from Shahdra to Sonia Vihar on his scooty, at around 8.15 p.m., when he reached at the loop on the flyover at ISBT Kashmere Gate, two persons came on the motorcycle and the pillion rider took out the keys of his scooty due to which his scooty stopped and thereafter that pillion rider asked him to give whatever he was having. On his refusal that pillion rider started beating him and in the meanwhile, the other person who was driving the motorcycle also came to him and also started beating him. The pillion rider took out Rs. 3,000/- from the pocket of his shirt and purse from the pocket of the pant which was having Rs. 4,000/-, PAN card, Axis Bank ATM Card, RC of scooty and Driving License. When he demanded his documents, the pillion rider hit right side of his face with the butt of the pistol due to which he suffered injuries. Thereafter, both the accused persons fled away from the spot on their motorcycle.
3. During investigation, both the accused persons were formally arrested on the basis of their disclosure statements made while they were in custody in another case FIR No. 294/2020, PS Lajpat Nagar. The TIP proceedings were conducted during which the FIR No. 161/2020 State Vs. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and Anr. PS Kashmere Gate, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act 2 of 10 complainant rightly identified both the accused persons. No case property could be recovered from the accused persons.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court against both the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act.
5. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C., Ld. M.M. committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
6. The charge u/s 392/394/397/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act was framed against the accused Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and charge u/s. 392/394/34 was framed against accused Riyasat @ Ayan, to which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. During prosecution evidence, in order to substantiate its case against the accused persons, the prosecution examined total 6 witnesses.
8. PW-1 Amit Kumar is the complainant in the present case.
He deposed as per the contents of the FIR but he refused to identify the accused persons as the robbers/assailants. He proved his statement Ex. PW-1/A given to the police and site plan Ex. PW-1/B prepared at his instance. He also admitted his signatures on the TIP proceedings of accused persons i.e. Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D respectively.
FIR No. 161/2020 State Vs. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and Anr. PS Kashmere Gate, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act 3 of 10
9. PW-2 Sh. Mayank Goel was the Duty MM, Tihar, Delhi who conducted the TIP proceedings with respect to accused Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and accused Riyasat @ Ayan vide Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D respectively.
10. PW-3 SI Yogesh Tanwar was the IO in FIR No. 294/2020, PS Lajpat Nagar. He proved the copy of FIR bearing no. 294/2020, PS Lajpat Nagar as Ex. PW-3/A. He arrested the accused Riyasat @ Ayan vide Ex. PW-3/B and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW-3/C and also recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-3/D. He also arrested the accused Rahim @ Naim @ Langra vide Ex. PW-3/E and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW- 3/F and also recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW- 3/G.
11. PW-4 SI Satender accompanied the IO SI Satish Kumar during investigation. He proved the formal arrest of the accused persons vide arrest memo Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B respectively and their disclosure statements vide Ex. PW-4/C and Ex. PW-4/D respectively. He also proved the application Ex. PW-4/E filed by him for collection of TIP proceedings.
12. PW-5 Dr. Vivek Sharma examined the complainant vide MLC Ex. PW-5/A on 20.07.2020 where the nature of injury was opined to be simple.
13. PW-6 SI Satish Kumar was the IO in the present case who deposed that on receipt of DD No. 72A Ex. PW-6/A, FIR No. 161/2020 State Vs. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and Anr. PS Kashmere Gate, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act 4 of 10 he went to the spot and came to know that the complainant has gone to St. Stephen Hospital. He reached at the hospital and collected the MLC Ex. PW-5/A and recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW-1/A. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW-6/B and got the FIR Ex. PW-6/C registered through Ct. Rakesh, which was recorded by ASI Rajender Prasad who also gave certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW-6/C. Thereafter, he alongwith the complainant reached at the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. PW-1/B at the instance of the complainant. On 10.08.2020, on receiving information vide DD No. 6A Ex. PW-6/F about the arrest of the accused persons in FIR of PS Lajpat Nagar, he alongwith SI Satender went to Tihar Jail where he interrogated the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements Ex. PW-4/C and Ex. PW-4/D respectively and thereafter, formally arrested the accused persons vide Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B respectively. He also got the TIP proceedings of accused persons conducted and collected the copy of TIP proceedings vide application Ex. PW-4/E through SI Satender Singh. During PC Remand, accused persons pointed out the place of incident which was recorded vide memo Ex. PW-6/F but nothing could be recovered at the instance of accused persons. He collected the result of MLC of injured, recorded the statement of SI Satender and after completion of investigation, prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the Court.
FIR No. 161/2020 State Vs. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and Anr. PS Kashmere Gate, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act 5 of 10
14. In admission/denial proceedings u/s. 294 Cr. P.C., recorded on 06.01.2023, the accused persons admitted the genuineness of following documents :-
(a) FIR No. 161/2020 PS Kashmere Gate registered by ASI Rajender Prasad, Ex. PW- 6/C.
(b) Certificate u/s. 65B Indian Evidence Act given by ASI Rajender Prasad, Ex. PW-6/E.
(c) Endorsement of ASI Rajender Prasad on the rukka, at point X on Ex. PW-6/D.
15. Thereafter PE was closed. Statements of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they claimed false implication and stated that police officials have deposed against them being official witnesses. They further stated that the police officials of PS Lajpat Nagar lifted them from their house on 04.08.2020 and thereafter falsely implicated them in the present case as well as in case FIR No. 294/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar. Accused persons wished not to lead evidence in their defence. Hence, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. This court has heard the final arguments from both the sides and has meticulously perused the judicial record.
17. The gist of allegations against the accused persons, as per the present charge-sheet, are that the accused persons robbed the articles of the complainant Amit Kumar by using the deadly weapon i.e. pistol and also caused hurt FIR No. 161/2020 State Vs. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and Anr. PS Kashmere Gate, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act 6 of 10 to him while committing the robbery by hitting the butt of the pistol on the face of the complainant.
18. The complainant/victim Amit Kumar is the natural and main star witness of the prosecution. He was examined as PW-1 during the trial. He reiterated the contents of the FIR, however, he refused to identify both the accused persons as perpetrators of crime. Though, the complainant identified his signature on TIP proceedings Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D of the accused persons but further stated that he does not remember that whether he had identified the accused persons in TIP proceedings due to lapse of time. The complainant was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement but he denied all the suggestions to incriminate the accused persons. During cross- examination by Counsel for accused persons, he admitted that he had identified the accused persons in TIP proceedings on the basis of their physical descriptions. He also admitted that at the time of incident, he could not see the face of the robbers properly as it was dark.
19. It is also pertinent to note that the accused persons were not arrested at the identification by the complainant but they were formally arrested on the basis of their disclosure statement made while in custody in some other case. To add further, no case property has been recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused persons.
FIR No. 161/2020 State Vs. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and Anr. PS Kashmere Gate, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act 7 of 10
20. No other eye witness has been cited or examined to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. The complicity of the accused persons could have been proved by the ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. The ocular witness turned hostile and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. It is well settled law that to convict the accused on circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused and no other. It was held by the Apex court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), that:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
21. In case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down the test which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under :
FIR No. 161/2020 State Vs. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and Anr. PS Kashmere Gate, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act 8 of 10 (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (2) The circumstances concerned "must or should"
and not "may be" established;
(3) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (4) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
(5) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (6) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must so that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
22. It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused persons have a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused person is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The accused persons cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof.
23. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons by leading convincing or cogent evidence and thus, it has failed to discharge the burden FIR No. 161/2020 State Vs. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and Anr. PS Kashmere Gate, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act 9 of 10 placed upon it and therefore, the accused persons are entitled to be exonerated.
24. Resultantly, the accused Rahim @ Naim @ Langra is hereby acquitted of the charges u/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC r/w Section 27 Arms Act and accused Riyasat @ Ayan is hereby acquitted of the charges u/s. 392/394/34 IPC.
25. Bail Bonds u/s. 437-A Cr. P.C. have already been furnished and accepted, which shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
26. File be consigned to Record Room after completing necessary formalities.
Digitally signed
SUSHIL by SUSHIL ANUJ
ANUJ TYAGI
Pronounced in the open court TYAGI
Date: 2023.11.28
15:33:07 +0530
on 28th November, 2023
(SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI)
Additional Sessions Judge-04,
Central, Delhi, THC, Delhi.
FIR No. 161/2020 State Vs. Rahim @ Naim @ Langra and Anr. PS Kashmere Gate, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act 10 of 10