Delhi District Court
State vs . (1). Pradeep @ Suresh on 30 July, 2014
FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 166/14
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0011262008
State Vs. (1). Pradeep @ Suresh
S/o Sh. Khubi Ram
R/o G17, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
(2). Madan
S/o Sh. Mangal Singh
R/o H3/105, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
(3). Pradeep
S/o Sh. Lala Ram
R/o H3/255, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
FIR No. : 371/07
Police Station : Sultan Puri
Under Sections : 392/394/397/411/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 22.05.2007
Date on which judgment was reserved : 18.07.2014
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 30.07.2014
JUDGMENT:
The case of the prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is as under:
i. On 06.03.2007 at about 10.20 pm, intimation was received in PS Sultanpuri that one boy had been stabbed with knife. The said intimation was recorded vide DD no. 72B (Ex.PW10/B) and copy thereof was handed over to SI State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 1 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 Balwan Singh (since deceased) for necessary action.
ii. On receipt of DD No. 72B, SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) alongwith Ct. Devender, No. 2088/NW went to the spot i.e. Kirari Road, near Timber Market where it was revealed, on enquiry, that injured had already been removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital (SGM). Accordingly, SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) and Ct. Devender went to the said hospital where two injured persons namely Amrish S/o Sh. Ved Prakash and Manglu S/o Sh. Hari Prakash were found admitted.
iii. Injured Manglu was declared fit for statement and accordingly, SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) recorded his statement (Ex.PW4/A) wherein he claimed that on 06.03.2007 at about 10.00 pm while he alongwith his cousin brother namely Amrish were going for sleeping at shop situated in Timber market after taking their dinner and reached at Kirari Road, 34 boys came to them and started beating them with kick and fists blows. One of those boys also took out knife and gave stab injury on the abdomen of his cousin brother namely Amrish. Then, the same boy also gave injury on his nose and right hand. One of those boys took out mobile phone and cash from the pocket of Amrish while another boy took out his purse State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 2 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 containing cash amount of Rs. 100/ from his pocket. Thereafter, all those boys fled away. He further told that those boys were in the age group of 2025 years.
iv. On the basis of said statement, SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) prepared rukka (Ex.PW10/A) and got the FIR in question registered in respect of offences U/s 392/ 394/397/34 IPC through Ct. Devender. The investigation was entrusted to SI Balwan Singh (since deceased). v. During the course of investigation, SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of witnesses, seized pullanda containing blood stained clothes of injured Amrish besides sample seal of the hospital. He also prepared site plan and arrested the accused persons namely Pradeep @ Suresh, Madan and Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram.
vi. It is alleged in the chargesheet that all the accused persons made disclosure statements before SI Balwan Singh (since deceased), pointed out the place of occurrence and got recovered robbed mobile phone and purse. All the accused persons refused to participate in judicial TIP got conducted on 12.03.2007.
After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court.
State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 3 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the charges u/s 392/394/34 IPC against accused Pradeep @ Suresh S/o Sh. Khubi Ram, Madan and Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram as also charge in respect of offences u/s 397/411 IPC against accused Madan and also charge in respect of offence u/s 411 IPC against accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram vide order dated 25.07.2007 to which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses namely PW1 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, PW2 Sh. Amrish, PW3 HC Devender, PW4 Sh. Manglu, PW5 HC Bhagwan Singh, PW6 HC Mohan Singh, PW7 HC Ramesh Kumar, PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, PW9 Ct. Samunder Singh, PW10 ACP Mohd. Iqbal and PW11 Ct. Biri Singh.
Thereafter, statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of all three accused persons were recorded during which all the incriminating evidence were put to them which they denied. All three accused persons claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing was recovered from their possession or at their instance. They further stated that complainant namely Sh. Manglu and other public witness namely Sh. Amrish were personally knowing them as all of them used to collect the donation for jagran and there was a dispute between them.
I have already heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional PP on State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 4 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 behalf of State and Ld. Counsel Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate on behalf of all three accused persons. I have also gone through the material available on record.
Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses is detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES PW2 Sh. Amrish is one of the alleged eye witnesses/victim to the incident of robbery as per case of prosecution. He deposed on the lines of prosecution story. He deposed that accused Madan had given stab injury in his stomach while accused Pradeep @ Suresh had given stab injury to his brother. He further deposed that accused Pradeep S/o Lala Ram had given kick and fist blow to him as well as to his brother. He further deposed that one boy had robbed his mobile phone and purse containing Rs. 300/ from his pocket. He correctly identified all three accused persons to be the robbers involved in the incident in question. He also deposed that he had identified all three accused persons in Rohini Court on 26.03.2007 and his statement was recorded in this regard. He also identified his blood stained shirt Ex.P2 and baniyan Ex.P3 during trial. He also identified mobile phone on which words 'Reliance' and 'LG' Ex.P4 as well as black colour purse Ex.P1 during trial. He has been cross examined at length on behalf of accused persons. State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 5 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 PW4 namely Sh. Manglu is the complainant on whose statement FIR in question was registered. As per case of prosecution, the said witness was also robbed after being caused injuries including knife injury by the assailants during the incident of robbery. The said witness also deposed on the lines of prosecution story by narrating about the entire incident of robbery which had taken place on 06.03.2007 at 10 pm near Timber Market, Kirari Road, Delhi. He deposed that accused Madan had given knife blows to him as well as to his brother Amrish, accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Khubi Ram had caught hold of Amrish whereas accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram had caught hold of him. He further deposed that police had reached the hospital where his statement Ex.PW4/A was recorded. He also deposed that IO had prepared site plan at his instance. He also deposed that he alongwith his cousin brother Amrish had reached at Rohini Court where he had identified all three accused persons to be the robbers/assailants involved in the incident in question. He also identified one purse containing two visiting cards and one paper slip to be the same purse which was belonging to him and which was robbed by the accused persons. The said witness was also cross examined at length on behalf of accused persons on various dates. POLICE WITNESSES PW3 HC Devender deposed that on 06.03.2007 on receipt of DD No. 72B, he alongwith IO/SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) reached at Balbir Nagar near Timber Market, Kirari Road, where they came to know that State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 6 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 injured had been shifted to SGM Hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith IO reached at SGM Hospital where two injured namely Amrish and Manglu were found admitted in the hospital. PW3 further deposed that IO recorded statement/complaint of Manglu and prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him. He went to PS, got registered the FIR and came back to the hospital and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. PW3 further deposed that doctor handed over one sealed pullanda to the IO, stated to be containing blood stained clothes of injured Amrish and same were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, they alongwith Manglu reached at the spot where IO prepared site plan at the instance of Manglu. They searched for accused persons but in vain. This witness has been cross examined at length on behalf of accused persons.
PW5 HC Bhagwan Singh deposed that on 08.03.2007 at about 6.30 pm, accused Pardeep @ Suresh was arrested by him from the beat of PS Aman Vihar in case FIR No. 380/07, U/s 25 of Arms Act. During interrogation, accused Pardeep @ Suresh made disclosure statement thereby confessing his involvement in the present case also. He gave information to the concerned IO of present case FIR No. 371/07 of P.S. Sultanpuri and handed over carbon copy of disclosure statement Ex. PW5/A to him. During his cross examination, PW5 deposed that when accused Pardeep @ Suresh was arrested, no other public person was present there. He further deposed that a knife was recovered from the possession of said accused. He admitted that in the present case, no knife was recovered from the accused in his State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 7 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 presence.
PW6 HC Mohan Singh has proved factum regarding registration of present FIR No. 371/07 at PS Sultanpuri on 07.03.2007 at about 12.10 am. He proved computerized copy of said FIR as Ex.PW6/A and his endorsement Ex.PW6/B made on the rukka vide DD no. 3A regarding registration of FIR. The said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite grant of opportunity PW7 HC Ramesh Kumar is the MHC(M) of P.S. Sultanpuri. He deposed that on 07.03.2007, SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) had deposited one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of SGMH alongwith sample seal in Malkhana.
PW9 Ct. Samunder Singh and PW11 Ct. Biri Singh accompanied IO SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) and Ct. Joseph Kutti besides complainant/ injured Manglu Singh to Sultanpuri Bus Terminal wherefrom all three accused persons were arrested by them. They proved arrest memos, personal search memos and disclosure statements of accused persons as Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/H. They also deposed that accused Madan got recovered robbed mobile phone make Reliance LG from below the mattress (gadda) of the bed of his house situated in Sultanpuri, in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PW9/H. The said mobile phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW9/J. They further deposed that accused Pradeep S/o Lala Ram got recovered one purse of black colour from below pillow in his house situated State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 8 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 in Sultanpuri. The said purse was also seized vide memo Ex.PW1/K. He correctly identified mobile phone Ex.PX (also exhibited as Ex.P4) and purse Ex.P1 during trial.
However, PW9 Ct. Samunder Singh identified accused Pradeep @ Suresh by pointing out towards accused Pradeep S/o Lala Ram during chief examination due to which he was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP. During said cross examination, he correctly identified accused Pradeep @ Suresh and explained that mistake occurred in identification of said accused due to lapse of time.
PW11 Ct. Biri Singh claimed during chief examination that it was accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Khubi Ram who got recovered black colour purse from his house. He was also cross examined by Ld. Additional PP on the said aspect. During such cross examination, he explained that he got confused in the name of accused at whose instance purse was got recovered as the names of both accused is similar i.e. Pradeep. At that stage, the said witness pointed out that it was accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram who got recovered the said purse.
Both the aforesaid witnesses were also cross examined at length on behalf of accused persons on various dates.
PW10 namely ACP Mohd. Iqbal entered into witness box for deposing on behalf of IO SI Balwant Singh (since deceased) by way of secondary evidence allowed to be produced by prosecution. He identified the signature of SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) at pointX on statement State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 9 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 Ex.PW4/A of complainant Manglu as also at point X1 on rukka Ex.PW10/A prepared by SI Balwan Singh (since deceased). He also exhibited copy of DD no. 72B as Ex.PW10/B and identified the signature of SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) at pointX on site plan Ex.PW10/C. He also identified signatures of IO SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) on seizure memo Ex.PW3/A, disclosure statements Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/E and Ex.PW9/H of accused persons as also on pointing out memos Ex.PW9/J, Ex.PW9/K and Ex.PW10/D. He also identified signatures of SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) on arrest memos and personal search memos Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/F and Ex.PW9/G of the accused persons. He has also been cross examined by accused persons.
MEDICAL WITNESSES PW1 Dr. Manoj Dhingra had been deputed by Medical Superintendent Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital to identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Afroz as he had left the hospital and his present whereabouts were stated to be not known. He deposed that one patient namely Manglu (PW4) with alleged history of physical assault, was examined by Dr. Afroz vide MLC Ex.PW1/A appearing in the handwriting of said Dr. Afroz. The said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
Dr. Manoj Dhingra was again examined as PW8. At that time, he had been deputed by M.S. to identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 10 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 Sameer Pandit. He proved MLC of patient Amresh S/o Sh. Ved Parkash as Ex.PW8/A who was brought in the hospital on 06.03.2007 with alleged history of physical assault. PW8 deposed that Dr. Sameer Pandit opined the nature of injury in the MLC Ex.PW8/A as simple. The said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED While referring to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor argued that prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor heavily relied upon the testimonies of both the public witnesses namely PW2 Sh. Amrish and PW4 Sh. Manglu. He contended that both the said public witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution on all material points and also correctly identified all the accused persons to be the offenders involved in the commission of robbery committed against them.
On the other hand, ld. defence counsel vehemently argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. He argued that there are various material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on the point of place of arrest of accused persons, on the point of place of recovery of purse as also on the point of identification of purse and accused persons by prosecution witnesses State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 11 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 during trial. He, therefore, submitted that reasonable doubt has been created in the prosecution story, benefit of which must be given to the accused persons.
Firstly, I shall discuss the offence u/s 397 IPC charged against accused Madan. As per the case of prosecution, it was accused Madan who was armed with knife and had voluntarily caused hurt to PW4 namely Manglu at the time of committing robbery. No doubt, both the star witnesses of prosecution namely PW2 Sh. Amrish and PW4 Sh. Manglu testified during their respective statements that it was accused Madan who had inflicted knife injuries to them but Court does not agree with the argument raised by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that offence U/s 397 IPC has been proved against said accused merely on the basis thereof. The reason is quite obvious that there is no recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife allegedly used in the commission of offence of robbery. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever on record which may show or prove that knife allegedly used in the commission of robbery, was a deadly weapon as per the expression used in section 397 IPC. It has been held by our own High Court in the matter titled as 'Charan Singh Vs. The State' reported at 1988 Cr.L.J NOC 28 (Delhi) that in the absence of recovery of knife which was allegedly used at the time of commission of the robbery/dacoity, it cannot be presumed that the knife so used was a deadly weapon. The Hon'ble High Court observed in the said judgment as under: "............. At the time of committing dacoity one of the offenders caused injury by knife on the hand of the victim but State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 12 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 the said knife was not recovered. In order to bring home a charge under S. 397 the prosecution must produce convincing evidence that the knife used by the accused was a deadly weapon. What would make knife deadly is its design or the method of its use such as is calculated to or is likely to produce death. It is, therefore, a question of fact to be proved by the prosecution that the knife used by the accused was a deadly weapon. In the absence of such an evidence and particularly, the non recovery of the weapon would certainly bring the case out of the ambit of S.397............." Similar view has been taken by our own High Court in subsequent judgments reported at MANU/DE/3149/2009 and 2011 Criminal Law Journal 901.
The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of our own High Court. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove offence U/s 397 IPC against accused Madan. Consequently, accused Madan stands acquitted in respect of said offence.
Now, I shall deal with the offences U/s 392/394/34 IPC charged against the accused persons. In this regard, prosecution has examined two public witnesses as discussed above. Both the said witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW4 have identified all three accused persons to be the assailants involved in the offence of robbery committed against them. There is no substance in the argument raised by ld. defence counsel that doubt is created in the prosecution story merely because no cash amount was found in the purse Ex.P1 claimed to have been recovered in this case.
State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 13 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 No doubt, there is slight contradiction appearing in the testimonies of both the aforesaid public witnesses as both of them have identified the said purse Ex.P1 as belonging to them but the said contradiction is of trivial nature which does not go to the root of the prosecution story so as to throw out the entire case of prosecution on this ground. Likewise, the contradiction as pointed out by ld. defence counsel that PW2 Sh. Amrish identified accused Pradeep @ Suresh to be the person who had given stab injury to his brother Manglu (PW4), is also inconsequential in the light of the fact that said Manglu (PW4) has correctly testified that it was accused Madan who had given knife blows to him as well as to Amrish (PW2).
Ld. defence counsel argued that there is contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on the point that PW4 Manglu had accompanied the police officials at the time of arrest of accused persons on 07.04.2007. In this regard, he referred to the relevant portion of cross examination of PW4 whereby he claimed that he had identified the accused persons as robbers and on his instance, accused persons were apprehended. Ld. defence counsel also referred to the relevant portion of statements of PW9 Ct. Samunder Singh and PW11 Ct. Biri Singh wherein both the said witnesses deposed that on 07.03.2007, PW4 Manglu had joined investigation of this case with them in PS Sultanpuri and all of them had gone to Sultanpuri Bus Terminal from PS Sultanpuri.
On the other hand, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor argued that State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 14 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 there is no contradiction as such appearing in the testimonies of PW4 viza viz PW9 and PW11. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that PW4 merely claimed to have identified the accused persons to be the robbers by stating that accused persons were apprehended by the police at his instance.
After considering the testimonies of aforesaid three prosecution witnesses available on record, Court is entirely in agreement with the submission made by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor. PW4 Manglu claimed during cross examination that he did not remember the place wherefrom the accused persons were apprehended but he categorically deposed that accused persons were duly identified by him as robbers at the time of their apprehension by the police at his instance. The testimonies of both the police witnesses PW9 Ct. Samunder Singh and PW11 Ct. Biri Singh are in line with the relevant portion of cross examination of PW4. Both the said police witnesses deposed that PW4 had joined the investigation with them on 07.03.2007 and he had accompanied them to Sultanpuri Bus Terminal where accused persons were arrested in the presence of PW4.
Ld. defence counsel argued that there is contradiction in the testimony of PW9 Ct. Samunder Singh vizaviz the prosecution story when PW9 claimed that accused Pradeep @ Suresh S/o Sh. Khubi Ram was also arrested from Sultanpuri Bus Terminal in contradiction of prosecution story which says that accused Pradeep @ Suresh was already arrested in some other case U/s 25 of Arms Act of PS Sultanpuri and he was formally arrested in this case in PS Sultanpuri itself. However, it may be noted that PW9 was State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 15 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 cross examined by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on the said aspect and at that time, he duly explained that said mistake occurred due to lapse of time since the date of incident. PW9 also correctly identified accused Pradeep @ Suresh during such cross examination and also deposed that said accused was arrested by IO SI Balwan Singh (since deceased) at PS Sultanpuri whereas it was accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram who was arrested from Sultanpuri Bus Terminal.
At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that incident in question had taken place on 06.03.2007 and the testimony of PW9 was recorded on 08.05.2013 i.e. after a gap of more than six years. It goes without saying that human memory is bound to fade with the passage of time and such type of mistake as committed by PW9, is quite normal. In this backdrop, the testimony of PW9 is found to be more credible and natural as had it been the situation where said witness had been tutored by IO or by any other person, he would not have committed said mistake.
The next bone of contention raised by ld. defence counsel was that there is contradiction in the testimonies of PW2 Amrish vizaviz PW9 Ct. Samunder Singh and PW11 Ct. Biri Singh in as much as PW2 deposed that purse Ex.P1 was found lying on the road whereas said two police witnesses i.e. PW9 and PW11 testified that porse was got recovered by accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram. He further argued that PW9 and PW11 also could not tell the description of houses of accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram and Madan due to which reasonable doubt has been created in the case State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 16 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 of prosecution. He also pointed out that public witnesses claimed that they had informed the police about the presence of accused persons which ultimately led to their arrest whereas police witnesses claimed that PW4 Manglu had accompanied them to the place of arrest of accused persons. He also tried to create doubt in the testimony of PW2 Amrish in view of relevant portion of his testimony wherein he claimed to have seen the accused persons prior to the incident in question.
However, the aforesaid contradictions as pointed out on behalf of accused, are minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the prosecution case so as to disbelieve the testimonies of prosecution witnesses in entirety. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are immaterial and no benefit should be given to an accused on the said aspect. Still if any authority is required then reference with advantage can be made to the judgment reported at "JT 1999 (9) SC 43 State of H.P. Vs. Lekhraj and another" wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "In the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like".
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr." reported at (1981) 2 SCC 752 has held that in the State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 17 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 depositions of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful the witnesses may be and these discrepancies are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like.
There is no merit in the other argument of ld. defence counsel that PW2 Amrish and PW4 Manglu are interested witnesses and their testimonies do not inspire confidence. Ld. defence counsel also argued that no independent public witness was joined by the investigating agency either at the time of arrest of accused persons or even at the time of alleged recovery of aforesaid articles i.e. mobile phone and purse from the respective houses of accused Madan and Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram which is fatal to the case of prosecution and benefit of doubt should be given to the accused persons.
PW2 Amrish and PW4 Manglu are shown to have been injured during to the incident of robbery as both the said witnesses were beaten up by the offenders at the time of committing robbery and were also given stab injury with knife. Both the said witnesses have categorically deposed about these facts in their respective chief examination. They were not cross examined by accused persons on this aspects. Thus, there is no iota of doubt that both the said witnesses had sustained injuries including stab injury with knife on their persons. Even otherwise, this fact is also corroborated by MLC Ex.PW1/A of injured Manglu (PW4) which shows that PW4 had sustained incised cut mark on right nasal, incised cut mark over right hand on dorsal State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 18 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 aspect and incised cut marks (three in number) on right side of abdomen. The said MLC is shown to have been prepared at about 10.45 pm on the date of incident itself i.e. 06.03.2007. In this backdrop, there is no reason to disbelieve the unassailed testimonies of both the injured witnesses examined during trial.
The law on the point of testimony of stamped witness is now well settled. The testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant to go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
In the matter titled as "Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" reported at 2010 IX AD (S.C) 615 = MANU/SC/0702/2010: (2010) 10 SCC 259, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"xxxxxxxxxx
28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by the Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. " Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".
State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 19 of 22
FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 In another matter titled as State of U.P v. Kishan Chand, a similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon.
There is no substance in the other argument of ld. defence counsel that TIP of case property were not got conducted during investigation as both the aforesaid robbed articles are shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused persons in the presence of PW4 Manglu. In this backdrop, there was no necessity of getting the TIP of case property conducted by investigating agency.
Both the public witnesses i.e. PW2 Amrish and PW4 Manglu have correctly identified all the three accused persons herein to be the robbers/assailants involved in the commission of offence of robbery committed upon them. Both the said witnesses have been consistent in their deposition that all three accused persons had caused injuries by giving kicks and fists blows to them. Accused persons could not impeach their testimonies on these aspects. There is a recovery of mobile phone LG at the instance of accused Madan whereas there is recovery of purse at the instance of accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram.
It is nowhere case of accused persons that PW2 Amrish and PW4 Manglu were having any previous enmity with them. During cross examination of both the said public witnesses, no specific defence was taken State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 20 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 by accused persons except giving suggestions that due to darkness, they could not see the assailants on the day of incident and the accused persons had not robbed them but the said suggestions were denied by the witnesses. In their respective statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C., all the three accused persons claimed that PW2 and PW4 were personally knowing them as all of them used to collect donation for Jagran and there was a dispute between them due to which both the said witnesses got them falsely implicated in the present case. However, none of the accused persons disclosed any specific date, month or year of so called dispute and/or the nature or the cause of such dispute. They also failed to bring on record any material to substantiate the said defence due to which Court is of the view that the aforesaid defence raised by accused persons in their statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C., could not be substantiated. Moreover, there is reason as to why both the aforesaid public witnesses would falsely implicate the accused persons or would wrongly identify them during trial to be the assailants involved in the commission of offence while sparing the actual culprits of the crime.
As already mentioned above, there is nothing on record to suggest untrustworthiness of the witnesses including police officials. Although the accused persons in their statements claimed that they are innocent and that case property was planted upon them by the police but the defence taken by the accused persons does not inspire any confidence whatsoever. It would be anybody's guess as to why police officials would do this. If the accused persons want this Court to believe that they have been State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 21 of 22 FIR No. 371/07; U/s 392/394/397/411/34; PS Sultan Puri D.O.D.: 30/07/2014 implicated falsely, the least which was expected from the accused was to at least come out as to what could have been the motive for the police for their false implication and as to what was that reason for which police official could have done so. But no such reason is even mentioned or suggested to the witnesses. The accused cannot expect this Court to believe their version by simple bare allegation that they are falsely implicated. At least some reason should have been put forth by the accused persons to suggest as to what could have been motive of the police in implicating them. In the absence of this, I do not find any reason to throw out the testimonies of the witnesses.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the considered view that prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of all the three accused persons namely Pradeep @ Suresh, Madan and Pradeep S/o Sh. Lala Ram in respect of offence u/s 394/34 read with section 392 IPC. All three accused persons stand convicted accordingly for the said offence.
Announced in open Court today
dt. 30.07.2014 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04
North District, Rohini Courts
Delhi
State V/s Pradeep @ Suresh etc. ("Convicted") Page 22 of 22