Delhi District Court
22.It Has Been Further Held In The Case Of ... vs State Through on 13 January, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH EAST DELHI, SAKET
State v. Chinedu Sunshin @ Okeke
FIR No. 518/12
PS Jamia Nagar
U/s 420 IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 164/2/12
Date of Institution : 25.08.2012
Date of Commission of Offence : 21.06.2012
Name of the complainant : Musheer Azam Saifi
S/o Khursheed Azam Saifi
R/o D-258, Abul Fazal Enclave
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
Name & address of the accused : Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke
S/o Okeke
R/o Arondizuogu, Nigeria
Offence complained of : 420/511 IPC
Plea of accused : Plead not guilty
Final Order : Convicted under Section 420 IPC
Date of reserve for judgment : 03.01.2014
Date of announcing of judgment : 13.01.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. By this judgment, the court shall decide the present case under Section 420/511 IPC.
State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 2
2. Briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 20.06.2012 the accused approahced the complainant Mushir Alam at Sarojini Nagar market where he was running one footwear shop. The accused introduced himself as Mustafa and a Nigerian citizen, and expressed his wish to buy 2000 pair of shoes. Also, he told the complainant that he has black money and produced some black papers. He cleaned them using some chemical and the black papers turned out to be currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/-. Complainant deposited the said currency notes in different banks and was convinced that they were real currency notes. Thereafter, the accused came to the house of the complainant and took Rs.3,00,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500/- and started the procedure of converting them into Rs.6,00,000/-. He asked the complainant to put the chemical in refrigerator. Since the complainant did not have any refrigerator he went to the neighbourhood shop. It has been alleged that in between the accused took out the currency and replaced with another gaddi of notes. The accused said that the chemical had spoiled and that he would get fresh chemical. He also asked the complainant to arrange for Rs.10,00,000/- which he would convert into Rs. 1 crores. However, the complainant opened his bag later on and realised that the accused has replaced the State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 3 currency notes. Thus, on the next day when the accused came with the chemical, the complainant videographed the whole procedure. The next time the accused came to his home, he locked him in his house and called the police on 100 number. The police seized two bags carrying black color currency note size papers and equipment i.e chemical etc from the accused. The camera from which the complainant had videographed the procedure of conversion of black paper into currency notes was handed over to the IO.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under Section 420 IPC read with section 511 IPC was framed against him vide order dated 27.08.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses namely (1) Musheer Azam (2) Ct. Tej Pal (3) HC Abdul Wahid (4) SI Manjeet Singh
5. PW-1 Musheer Azam deposed that he is running a shoes shop at Sarojini Nagar Market at shop no.29. He deposed that on 20.06.2012 at about 2.00 pm, one person who told his name as Mustafa came at his shop and gave order for 2000 pair of shoes. He introduced himself as a citizen of State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 4 Nigeria and showed his passport and Visa in this respect. He also told him that he had some black money. Witness asked him to confirm him whether it was original or fake. Witness deposed that the accused put one chemical on four black plain papers and these papers after sometime converted in two currency notes of Rs.500/-. Later on the witness deposited both the notes in two separate bank, in ING Vaisya and Axis Bank and both the notes were taken without any objection. On the next day, i.e 21.06.2012 he called the accused to his flat. He talked with him about the technique by which black papers can be converted into currency notes. Accused assured him that he can convert Rs.3 Lacs into Rs.6 Lacs by his technique of black paper and chemical. Witness arranged Rs.3 Lacs. Accused kept one black paper and cotton and thereafter currency note of Rs.500/- each and repeated the same procedure for all the currency notes of Rs.3 Lacs (total number of notes being six hundred). Thereafter, accused wrapped this arranged bundle of currency notes and papers in a foil paper and injected a syringe of chemical in this bundle. After this, accused took out another syringe with chemical and wrapped it in a foil paper and asked the witness to keep this wrapped syringe in a refrigerator. Witness was not having any fridge so he kept this wrapped State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 5 syringe in a fridge of a confectionery shop near his house. When he returned back , accused again took out another bottle of chemical and told him that somehow the chemical got soaked and that new chemical is required for further procedure of conversion of notes. He also told him that without this chemical, the conversion of wrapped currency notes is not possible. In the whole proceedings, accused was using three types of chemicals. Witness has deposed that the the accused had told him to arrange Rs.10 Lacs for purchase of the said chemical. He had also shown the bills of the said chemical. The witness asked time from him for arranging the said Rs.10 Lacs. On that day, accused left his bag after locking it along with one wrapped bundle of notes. In the meanwhile, the witness had suspicion about the intention of the accused. After two-three days, he opened the bag from the back side after removing the pins and saw that one wrapped bundle was inside the bag. He found that there were only black papers and no currency notes which were given by him was found in the bundle. He felt that accused had cheated him and taken his money on the pretext of converting it. He again fixed the pins in the backside of the bag and closed the bag as it was earlier. He again contacted the accused and informed him that he had arranged the State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 6 proposed money and called the accused on 28.06.2012 at his residence. He had also fixed video camera in the room for recording the whole procedure. In the evening, accused came at his residence and started his proceeding of changing the money. He asked the witness for water. The witness went out to bring the bisleri bottle. He gave him bottle of bisleri after purchasing it from a shop. Accused opened the bag which was left at his residence and which the witness had already seen. At that time, 2-3 notes of Rs.500/- were lying inside the bag. Witness deposed that the accused satisfied him that notes might be converted if he arranged Rs.10 Lacs money for chemical. He went outside to his house and called at 100 number. Police came and the witness told the above said incident to the police and when checked the fixed video recording and it is clearly shown that the accused had taken out 2-3 notes of Rs.500/- from his pocket and put inside the bag when he left the house for purchasing the bisleri bottle. Police also observed the said video recording and inspected the materials of the bag, visa, passport of the accused. There, police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. Police also seized the bag along with its articles vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. After lodging the FIR, police arrested the accused in his presence and conducted his personal search vide memo State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 7 Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D respectively. Police also recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/E. Thereafter, he developed two CDs of the said video recording from the chip and handed over to the police. Witness identified all the recovered case property and the accused in the court. Later on he came to know the name of accused as Chinedu Sunshine. The CD attached with the judicial file was run in the court in which accused is shown doing the process of conversion of black papers into currency notes in the presence of witness. One CD is of the date when police was called by the witness and second CD of the date on which accused had visited the premises of the witness to see that whether witness had tampered with the bag or not.
6. During cross examination, witness deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO in the police station at about 6.00 pm in the evening. IO had also recorded the statement of one police person whose name he could not remember. He remained in the police station on 28.06.2012 for approximately about four hours. He left the police station at about 11.00 pm. He stated that he might have stated to the police in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C to the effect that he had put the chemical in the freezer of one confectioner. The said fact was confronted State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 8 with Statement Ex. PW1/A in which the same is not recorded. He admitted that he had not noted down the number of passport or particulars of Visa of accused when he had shown him Visa and passport on 21.06.2012. He stated that when accused showed him four notes of Rs.500/- each there was no other public person / neighbour present at the shop. On 21.06.2012 accused remained with the witness up to one hour. IO recorded his statement only once. He had told to the police in his statement Ex. PW1/A to the effect that he had deposited one note of Rs.500/- Axis Bank and one note of Rs.500/- in ING Vaishya. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A where name of the bank is not mentioned. He could not produce the counterfoil in respect of deposit of the money in the aforesaid banks. He stated that on the next day i.e 22.06.2012, the accused remained with him approximately for about 1 - 1 ½ hours. At that time, he was alone in his house. He arranged Rs. 3 Lacs from sale of shoes during 18 days earlier to this incident. Witness deposed that he used to maintain daily record of daily sales and ledger. Police did not seize register/ details of sale made by him in respect of arrangement of Rs.3 Lacs. He stated that on 22.06.2012 during the time 3.00 - 4.00 pm he did not convert Rs.3 Lacs into Rs.6 Lacs in his presence. On 22.06.2012 accused left his State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 9 house at about 5.00 pm. He told the police in his statement Ex. PW1/A to the effect that accused wrapped this arranged bundle of currency notes and papers in a foil paper and injected a syringe in this bundle. He was again confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it was not so recorded. He stated that accused did not meet him after 26.06.2012. Police did not take call details from him. He did not tell the police in respect of regular contact with the accused on phone during the above said period. I had told the police in his statement Ex. PW1/A to the effect that in the evening time accused came at his residence when accused started his proceeding of changing the money, he asked him for water and he went to bring the bisleri bottle for drinking from outside. He gave him bottle of bisleri after purchasing from the shop. The said fact was confronted with earlier statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. He called the police and police remained in his residence for 3 - 4 minutes. Police did not make any enquiry from him neighbourhood or any public person present outside his residence. Police remained present outside his house for about 7-8 minutes. Thereafter, police took him to police station. He signed 7 - 8 papers in the police station. He had read the said papers before signing. Out of the said documents, he remember his complaint. He did State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 10 not remember what was written in those papers. He denied the suggestion that those papers were blank at the time when he put the signatures on it. He admitted that IO did not hand over any seal to him after sealing the seized property. He denied the suggestion that he had never handed over Rs.3 Lacs to the accused as such he could not produce or any hand over any document / register to the IO. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. He denied the suggestion that accused was not arrested in his presence. He denied the suggestion that no jamatalashi of the accused was conducted in his presence.
7. PW-2 Ct. Tejpal deposed that he is a Home Guard and posted at PS Jamia Nagar. He deposed that on the date of incident his duty was with Duty Officer in the PS. Duty Officer gave him a copy and directed to give it to SI Manjeet in the Police Station. Thereafter, he along with SI Manjeet came at Abul Fazal Enclave. They entered in house no. 258, Ground Floor room and met with one Nigerian person and the Complainant. Nigerian was having two bags, one was travel bag and another was leather briefcase. SI Manjeet opened both the bags in front of complainant. When travel bag was opened, another leather bag was taken out from the travel State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 11 bag and in that leather bag, there was some chemical bottle of plastic and cotton. In the leather briefcase bag, black color papers of currency note size was found. All the above said items and bags were seized by the IO. One Sony Camera was produced by the complainant in which one video film was prepared was also seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos already Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D. He identified the seized case property and the accused in the court.
8. During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that he received DD entry at about 2.30 pm on 28.06.2012. They reached at the house of complainant at about 2.45 pm and remained at the spot up for 30-45 minutes. When they reached at the house of complainant, the gate was latched from the outside. They found a bag inside and IO seized the bag at the spot. IO did not seal the case property in his presence. Witness signed 3-4 documents at the spot. He deposed that he had signed one arrest memo at the spot but he could not tell the nature of remaining documents which he had signed. He had signed on his statement recorded by the IO at the spot. IO recorded the statement of complainant at the spot. He admitted that he along with IO reached at the State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 12 spot by motorbike. He did not remember whether FIR and section were mentioned on the documents which he had signed at the spot. He did not remember whether IO had sent rukka / documents to the police station for registration of FIR. He admitted that when he had signed on the arrest memo Ex. PW1/C and personal search memo Ex. PW1/D, the FIR number and Section were written on the same. He admitted that he did not see any video clip from any mobile or camera. He did not remember whether IO sealed or seized the camera in his presence. He admitted that IO did not record the statement of accused in his presence. He admitted that camera and bags which was shown to be recovered from the accused is easily available in the market. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation on the date of incident. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused or that he had signed on the blank papers.
9. PW-3 HC Abdul Wahid proved the FIR as Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/B. During cross examination, he admitted that Home Guard Tejpal came at the PS only with the rukka and 45 minutes were taken for registration of FIR.
State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 13
10.PW-4 SI Manjeet Singh deposed that on 28.06.2012 he was posted at PS Jamia Nagar as SI. On that day he had received DD No. 64B regarding apprehension of a Nigerian person along with fake currency notes. He along with Home Guard Tej Pal reached at the spot i.e D-258, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar. There, complainant Musheer Azam Saifi met them and handed over one Nigerian person whose name was disclosed as Chinedu Sunshine. Complainant had made a complaint that Chinedu had cheated him by luring him to convert black papers into currency notes. Complainant had also handed over two bags. One bag was travelling bag and another bag was leather bag. He opened the travelling bag and found one briefcase inside the bag. On opening the briefcase, he found that it was containing black color note size papers and cotton. In leather bag there were some documents in which it was mentioned that how to convert the currency notes. Complainant has also handed over one bottle wrapped with aluminum foil which contained liquid. Complainant also showed him a video clip recorded by his digital camera. Complainant gave him a written complaint Ex. PW1/A. He prepared rukka Ex. PW4/A and handed over to Home Guard Tejpal for registration of FIR. He seized Sony Digital Camera with memory card which was handed over by the State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 14 complainant is already Ex. PW2/A. Bags were seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B. Home Guard Tejpal returned back at the spot and handed over the witness a copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos already Ex. PW 1/C and Ex. PW1/D. He also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW1/E. He identified the accused as well as the seized case property in the court.
11.During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that he had received DD No. 64B at about 4.00 pm. He along with Ct. Tejpal of Delhi Home Guard reached at the spot by his private vehicle, but he could not tell the number of that vehicle. He reached at the spot at about 4.15 pm and remained at the spot for 1 ½ - 2 hours. During the above period, he interrogated the matter and thereafter he seized two bags and prepared seizure memo and arrested the accused and took his jamatalashi. Thereafter, he sent rukka through Ct. Tej Pal at about 6.00 pm. Ct. Tej Pal came back at the spot after registration of FIR at about 6.15 pm. Immediately thereafter he left the spot along with Ct. Tejpal, accused and reached at police station Jamia Nagar at about 6.30 pm. During the above said period of 4.00 pm to 6.15 pm, he did not interrogate any public person State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 15 including neighbourers of complainant. He recorded the statement of complainant only once. The complainant told him in his statement recorded by him that the accused met with the complainant in his house on 21.06.2012, 22.06.2012 & 25.06.2012. He again said complainant told me about the incident of 21.06.2012. He did not verify from the complainant as to in whose fridge he had kept the chemical. He admitted that during the period 4.00 pm -6.15 pm there were many public persons present but he did not interrogate them as public persons were busy in their own work. He admitted that he had never visited the shop of the complainant and seized any receipt / register regarding sale of shoes from the complainant. He did not verify from the complainant when he handed over Rs. 3 Lacs to the accused and from where he managed the said Rs. 3 Lacs. He denied the suggestion that the alleged paper kept in the bags were not of the same size and shapes of any Indian Currency Notes. Witness is confronted with the alleged papers in the briefcase and is asked that the same are not of the same size and shape as any Indian Currency notes in any denomination. Witness answered that the same is not correct and the alleged papers are of the same size and shape as that of Indian Currency Notes.
State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 16
12.He further stated that he handed over the seal to the complainant after sealing the camera, one bag i.e sports bag and he had taken bag the seal from the complainant on the next day i.e 29.06.2012. He did not make any handing over / taken over memo of the seal. He did not do anything after reaching police station at about 6.30 pm and sent the accused in the Lock Up. He admitted that the alleged clipping do not bear any date of making. He denied the suggestion that the clip was made after arrest of the accused with the help of complainant. He denied the suggestion that the accused had told him that complainant had taken 6 thousand Euros from the accused and in order to grab those 6 thousand Euros complainant had falsely implicated the accused in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he intentionally did not visit the shop of the complainant in order to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. He denied the suggestion that despite the presence of public persons at the spot i.e D-258 Abul Fazal Enclave, he did not make them witness of search and arrest. He denied the suggestion that he did not seal the camera and bag at the spot.
13.Thereafter PE was closed. Statement of accused was recorded wherein accused pleaded innocence but did not lead any evidence in his defence.
State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 17
14.I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. APP for State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused.
15.Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence accused is entitled to be acquitted. He submits that there is no independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. Further, the prosecuted bottle which was sent to the FSL was in an unsealed condition. He submits that the videoclip relied upon by the prosecution are also undated. Ld. Counsel further submits that in the FSL report, Ex. A1, there is nothing to suggest that the chemical, cotton, black rectangle paper pieces and plastic bottle seized from the possession of the accused were having any chemical. He submits that plastic bottle seized from the possession of the accused was found to be containing only water and the remaining exhibits were containing only a residue of kerosene.
16.On the other hand, Ld. APP for state has submitted that the testimony of the complainant is sufficient to prove the guilty of the accused. He submits that the genuineness of the video clips has not been questioned by the Counsel for accused during the trial and now he cannot question the same.
State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 18
17.Let us first discuss the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused are:-
18.Section 415 of IPC defines cheating as under :-
"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if her were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to Cheat".
19.Thus the main ingredients to be proved to establish cheating are:-
1. Fraudulent and dishonest intention to deceive.
2. Inducement to the complainant to deliver any property or consent to deliver any property or to do or omit to do something which he would not otherwise do.
3. Such act/omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the complainant in body/mind/reputation or property.
State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 19
20.Section 511 IPC prescribes punishment for attempt to commit certain offences. Section 511 IPC comes into play when the accused attempt to commit an offence punishable under section in the IPC and does an act towards the commission of the said offence. He shall be punished with imprisonment of any description as provided for said offence to the extent of half of the longest term of imprionment provided for that offence or fine as provided.
21.It has been held in "Dilip Kumar & Ors. V. Jagnor Singh & Ors." 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 540 that an offence of cheating would be constituted when accused has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.
22.It has been further held in the case of "Sarvjeet Mehto vs State through CBI" (2013 IV AD (CRM) (DHC) 17, "For establishing the offence under Section 420 IPC, the fraudulent and dishonest intention are a mandatory requirement which has to be proved on the part of the accused at the time of making promise or representation. However, for inferring guilt on the part of the accused it is not necessary that a false pretence should be in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the circumstances and the conduct of the accused."
State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 20
23.In the case at hand, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had the fraudulent intention to deceive the complainant so as to induce him to deliver Rs.10 Lacs to him. PW-1 has specifically deposed in his testimony that the accused had induced him by giving allurement of changing black papers into currency notes. He has given a detailed account of the whole transaction and had even videographed the procedure undertaken by the accused to turn the black papers into currency notes. The said two video clips are on record and their genuineness has not been questioned by the defence Counsel during the trial. The testimony of PW-1 has remained consistent and the defence has not been able to impeach the credibility or destroy the veracity of his testimony. The testimony of remaining PWs also remained consistent.
24.Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that various improvements have been made by PW-7 in his testimony which he had not stated to the IO during investigation. However, Ld. APP submits that nothing new has been added by the complainant, he has explained in detail the brief facts which he had already stated to the IO.
25.Ld. Counsel for accused has further submitted that the videoclip which has been placed on record by the IO later on cannot be relied upon as it has State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 21 neither been sent to FSL for examination nor any certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act accompanies the same. However, even if the video clip wherein the procedure of alleged conversion of black papers into currency notes is not taken into consideration, then also the case of the prosecution stands proved by the testimony of PW-1. For the purpose of the present case it has to be proved that the complainant has been decieved and induced to deliver money to the accused. Actual delivery of the property is not important as Section 511 IPC provides punishment for an attempt to commit an offence i.e an act towards the commission of the offence. Thus, even if the videoclips are not taken into consideration, the testimony of PW-1 and remaining witnesses is sufficient to prove the allegations made against the accused. It is sufficient that a misrepresentation was made by the accused to the complainant so as to induce him to deliver money to him. Whether the money was actually delivered or not is not important for the purposes of present case as an attempt has already been made by the accused.
26.Further the articles seized from the accused i.e bag containing black papers with certain chemcial corroborate the testimony of PW-1. The accused has not been able to explain why was he carrying said articles in State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 22 his bag. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he has submitted that he had met with the complainant first time at Hazrat Nizammuddin on 27.06.2012 when he had come from Mumbai and the complainant took him to his house on the pretext of selling olive oil to him. He had stated that complainant took away his two bags in which six thousand dollars were kept and told him to take it on the next day. On 28.06.2012 when the accused came to his house, the complainant falsely implicated him in the present case. However, not even a suggestion of this fact has been given to the PW-1 during his cross examination. No evidence has been led by the accused to prove the above said contention. He has not placed on record any ticket from Mumbai to Delhi nor he has shown any proof of his carrying six hundred thousand dollars as alleged. Hence, the accused has failed to prove his innocence.
27.The counsel for accused has argued that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution except the complainant. However, it has been held in plethora of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and our own High Court of Delhi that the testimony of the sole complainant, if consistent and supports the story of the prosecution, then it is sufficient in itself for convicting the accused and does not need further corroboration. In State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar 23 the present case the testimony of PW-1 has remained consistent and there are no gaps which calls for further corroboration.
28.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under Section 420/511 IPC. Accordingly, accused stands convicted under Section 420/511 IPC.
29.List for arguments on sentence today itself at 2.00 pm. Announced in the open court (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) on 13.01.2014 MM-07/SOUTH EAST/SAKET State v. Chinedu Sunshine @ Okeke U/s 420 /511 IPC FIR No. 518/12 PS Jamia Nagar