Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay And Anr on 24 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. APOORV GUPTA, JMFC-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR
E-FIR NO. 00590 / 2018
UNDER SECTION 356 / 379 / 34 IPC
POLICE STATION TIMAR PUR
Date of institution of the case : 24.08.2018
Date of judgment reserved : 03.06.2024
CNR No. : DLCT020270202018
Name of the complainant : Dr. Darshan
Name of accused and address : (1) SANJAY
S/o Late Sh. Govind
R/o House No. 2846, EE-Block,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
(2) ROCKY
S/o Sh. Yogesh Singh Chauhan
R/o C-39, Kaptan Chowk Wali Gali,
Libaspur, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 356/ 379 / 34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 24.07.2024
Final order : CONVICTION
STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 1 / 13
Digitally signed
APOORV by APOORV
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24
14:30:50 +0530
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
1. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 04.07.2018 at about 6.30 PM Dr. Darshan lodged a complaint regarding commission of snatching. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered for offence u/s 379 and investigation was entrusted to HC Pradeep. During the course of investigation, accused Sanjay and Rocky were apprehended.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. Investigation was completed and police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed for offences under Sections 356/379/34 IPC. Cognizance was taken and both the accused persons were summoned. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of both the accused persons.
CHARGE :
3. After hearing arguments on point of charge, charge for the offence under Section 356/379/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 2 / 13 Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:30:55 +0530
5. PW-1 Dr. Darshan is the complainant. She has deposed that on 04.07.2018, she went for an evening walk in the Gandhi Vihar park area at about 06.00 - 07.00 PM and was returning from the walk. As soon as she reached near A1 Property Gandhi Vihar, two unknown persons were riding without helmet on a black coloured Pulsar bike. They were roaming around her. The person who was sitting at the back of the motorcycle snatched her gold chain and after that they ran away on the motorcycle towards Nirankari Ground Road. She reached the Police Post in Gandhi Vihar and registered her complaint and two police officials came along with her to the spot. On 04.07.2018, she made an online complaint and thereafter police official came to her residence and recorded her statement Ex. PW- 1/A. She identified both the accused persons during TIP proceedings conducted at Tihar Jail Complex.
6. PW-2 Bhoora Singh Solanki produced record regarding the age of accused Rocky Chauahan having reference no. SBV/A-Block/J.P./2018 dated 24.07.2018. As per admission and withdrawal register, date of birth of the accused is 20.03.1997 Ex. PW-2/A. He identified the signatures of the Vice Principal on the letter dated 24.07.2018 Ex. PW-2/B.
7. PW-3 SI Ashok Kumar has deposed that on 15.07.2018, at about 06:10AM, DD no. 7-A was marked to him and after receiving the same, he went to Duty Officer, who produced both accused persons before him and told him that these accused were brought by the PCR van. He conveyed the information to ASI Sanjeev. The arrival of both accused persons was recorded vide DD no. 14-A Ex. PW-3/A. STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 3 / 13 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:31:00 +0530
8. PW-4 HC Lokendra Singh has deposed that on 15.07.2018 ASI Ashok handed over copy of DD No.14A and custody of two boys namely Sanjay and Rocky Chauhan to him with instructions to produce them before ASI Sanjeev. He produced those boys before ASI Sanjeev. He joined investigation with ASI Sanjeev and is a witness to proceedings conducted by him.
9. PW-5 SI Ram Mehar has deposed that on the intervening night of 14- 15.07.2018 at about 05:59 AM, he received a call regarding snatching near CNG Pump, Gandhi Vihar, Delhi. After receipt of the same, he reached at Gandhi Vihar Auto Stand where he met the caller Jitender and his brother Prince who produced two boys namely Rocky Chauhan and Sanjay and informed that they were the same person who snatched chain of his wife 3-4 days ago. People were gathered at the spot. He along with other staff and with the help of Prince, removed both the accused persons along with their motorcycle to PS Timar Pur and they were produced before Duty Officer.
10. PW-6 HC Pradeep has deposed that on 04.07.2018 complainant Dr. Darshan Singh lodged an e-FIR regarding theft of her gold chain and the said e-FIR was marked to him for further investigation. On 05.07.2018 he contacted the complainant telephonically and prepared the site plan at her instance Ex. PW-6/A. He inquired about the eye-witnesses and the CCTV cameras at the spot but they were not found. Further investigation of the present case was marked to ASI Sanjeev.
STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 4 / 13 Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:31:06 +0530
11. PW-7 ASI Sanjeev Kumar has deposed that on 14.07.2018 further investigation of the case was marked to him. He recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW-1/A. On 15.07.2018 ASI Ashok handed over to him DD No. 14-A along with 2 boys and a motorcycle recovered from them. ASI Ashok told him that on inquiry both accused persons had disclosed about their involvement in the present case. Motorcycle was found stolen from jurisdiction of PS Mukherjee Nagar in FIR No. 23544/18. On inquiry, both the accused persons disclosed their name as Rocky Chauhan and Sanjay. Motorcycle was seized U/s 102 Cr.P.C. vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/A. The information about the said motorcycle was given to PS Mukherjee Nagar and case property was deposited in the malkhana. Both accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW-4/D and Ex. PW-4/E and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-4/F and Ex. PW-4/G. Their disclosure statements are Ex. PW-4/C and Ex. PW-4/B. A pointing out memo Ex. PW-4/H was prepared on the instance of both accused persons. Accused persons disclosed that they had committed the incident by using a motorcycle of their friend Vikas. He tried to search for Vikas and his motorcycle but all efforts went in vain. He also prepared the age memos of both accused persons and collected their age related documents. An application Ex. PW-7/A was filed for conducting TIP of both accused persons. On 17.07.2018, TIP of both accused persons was conducted and complainant identified both accused persons in the TIP. The bone ossification test of accused Sanjay was conducted and his age was found to be between 20-21 years and the age related documents of accused Rocky were collected from Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, A-Block, Jahangir Puri and he was found to be major. After completion of formalities, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same.
STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 5 / 13 Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:31:13 +0530 ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS :
12. Accused persons, in their statement under section 294 Cr.P.C did not dispute the genuineness and correctness of TIP proceedings Ex. AD-1, DD No. 7A dated 15.07.2018 Ex. AD-2, DD No. 14A dated 15.07.2018 Ex. AD-3 and report no. AE-56 dated 25.07.2018 Ex. AD-4. In view of the admissions made, the evidence of Ld. MM Snigdha Sarvariya, HC Anil Kumar and Dr. M.K.Panigrahi was dispensed with.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS :
13. After conclusion of this evidence, the prosecution evidence was closed and separate statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
13.1 Accused Rocky has admitted that :
(I) PW-7 ASI Sanjeev filed an application Ex. PW-7/A for conducting his TIP and TIP of his associate.
(II) His age related documents were collected from Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, A-Block, Jahangir Puri and he was found major. (III) PW-2 Bhoora Singh Solanki produced record regarding the reference no. SBV/A-Block/J.P./2018 dated 24.07.2018 Ex. PW-2/B regarding his age. As per admission and withdrawal register Ex. PW-2/A his date of birth is 20.03.1997.
He pleaded innocence and false implication in the present case at the instance of police officials of PS Mukherjee Nagar. He further stated that investigating officer has shown his photographs to the complainant before TIP proceedings. He chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 6 / 13 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:31:18 +0530 13.2 Accused Sanjay has admitted that :
(I) PW-7 ASI Sanjeev prepared his age memo and collected his age related documents.
(II) PW-7 ASI Sanjeev filed an application Ex. PW-7/A for conducting his TIP and TIP of his associate.
(III) His bone ossification test was conducted and his age was found to be between 20-21 years.
He pleaded innocence and false implication in the present case. He further stated that investigating officer has shown his photographs to the complainant before TIP proceedings. He chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
14. The respective submissions of Sh. Deepak, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, Sh. H.S. Dubey, learned counsel for accused Sanjay and Sh. Vinay Rathi, learned legal aid counsel for accused Rocky have been considered. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
15. Ld. Defence Counsels for accused persons have argued that there is no recovery from the possession of accused persons. They have further submitted that accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt for want of a public witness. Further all the witnesses being police officials cannot be relied upon. It has also been submitted that there are many contradictions in testimonies of the witnesses which goes to the root of the case. On the other hand, Ld. APP submitted that there STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 7 / 13 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:31:24 +0530 is no reason to doubt the testimony of complainant and police witnesses. All the witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination and contradictions which have been pointed by the Ld. Defence Counsels are minor contradictions.
16. The accused persons have been charged for the offences under Section 356/379/34 IPC.
17. For offence under Section 356 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused assaulted or used criminal force on the complainant in order to commit theft of property which the complainant was carrying. For the offence of theft under Section 379 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused dishonestly took the property from the possession of the complainant, without his consent.
18. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
19. Reverting to the case in hand, PW-1 complainant Dr. Darshan is the most material witness of the present case. She has fully supported the prosecution. She has deposed emphatically on oath that on 04.07.2018, she went for an evening walk in the Gandhi Vihar park area at about 06.00 - 07.00 PM and was returning from the walk. As soon as she reached near A1 Property Gandhi Vihar, two unknown persons were riding without helmet on a black coloured Pulsar bike.
STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 8 / 13
Digitally signed by
APOORV APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24
14:31:29 +0530
They were roaming around her. The person who was sitting at the back of the motorcycle snatched her gold chain and after that they ran away on the motorcycle towards Nirankari Ground road. She reached the Police Post in Gandhi Vihar and registered her complaint and two police officials came along with her to the spot. On 04.07.2018, she made an online complaint and thereafter police official came to her residence and recorded her statement Ex. PW-1/A. She identified both the accused persons during TIP proceedings conducted at Tihar Jail Complex. She has correctly identified both the accused in the Court. The testimony of this witness remain unrebutted and unchallenged.
20. Hence, it can be seen that there is a categorical statement made by PW-1 implicating the accused persons in present case. There is no reason or motive for PW-1 to falsely implicate both the accused in the present case. Further, nothing material could be extracted by the defence counsels even in the cross- examination of witness. Further accused persons have been duly identified during TIP Proceedings and in the court. Hence, on the basis of above stated evidence, in the considered opinion of this court it stands established that on 04.07.2018 at about 06.30 PM accused Sanjay and Rocky snatched gold chain belonging to the complainant.
21. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have argued that the statement of the complainant is not supported/corroborated by any other independent witness. They have, thus, argued that the said testimony of the complainant cannot be made the sole basis for the conviction the accused. However, the said argument advanced by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons does not hold ground and is liable to be STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 9 / 13 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:31:43 +0530 discarded. The evidence is required to be weighed and not counted. It is well established rule of law that quality and not quantity of evidence matters. In each case the court has to consider whether it can be reasonably satisfied to act even upon the testimony of a single witness for the purpose of convicting a person. The observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Yakub Ismailbhai Patel V. State of Gujarat, 2004 CriLJ4205 are relevant and reproduced as under :
"The legal position in respect of the testimony of a solitary eyewitness is well settled in a catena of judgments in as much as this court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction upon it, such testimony must be of a nature which inspires the confidence of the court. While looking into such evidence this court has always advocated the rule of caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even if in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eye- witness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it."
Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the reliable and uncontroverted testimony of the complainant, who admittedly has no motive to falsely implicate the accused in the present case.
22. As regards, the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as pointed out by the counsels for the accused persons, is concerned, a perusal of entire evidence goes to show that the evidence of the STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 10 / 13 Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:31:49 +0530 witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely because of some minor contradictions, particularly for the reason that the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses are trustworthy. Not only that, the witnesses have consistently deposed with regard to the offence committed by the accused persons and their evidence remain unshaken during their cross-examination. There are catena of decisions to the effect that minor contradiction which does not affect the substratum of the case should not be given undue importance. Human memory also fade away with lapse of time.
23. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Ors.: (2011) 4 SCC 324, it was observed :-
"30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence."
STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 11 / 13 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:31:55 +0530
24. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.' Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. "
[Vide State v. Saravanan, (2008) 17 SCC 587, Arumugam v. State, (2008) 15 SCC 590; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2009) 11 SCC 334 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657.]
25. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest pronouncement reported as Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal No. 739 of 2017 decided on 14.07.2022 where it was observed as under :-
"Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole."
26. Mere non-recovery of case property does not cast any dent on the prosecution case. Plea of the accused that their photographs were shown to the STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 12 / 13 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:32:00 +0530 complainant prior to TIP is belied by record as no suggestion was given to the investigating officer that their photographs were taken by him or show to the complainant. Complainant has also denied that she identified the accused in police station at the instance of investigating officer prior to TIP. No other evidence has come on record to substantiate this plea. Hence, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that both the accused in furtherance of their common intention snatched gold chain from the neck of the complainant and for that purpose they used criminal force upon her. Thus, the prosecution has successfully discharged the onus placed upon it by leading convincing evidence.
27. Under the circumstances I hold that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Sanjay and Rocky are held guilty and convicted for offence u/s 356/379/34 IPC.
Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV
GUPTA
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24
(Apoorv14:32:05
Gupta)+0530
COURT ON 24th JULY, 2024 JMFC-02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/24.07.2024
This judgment consists of 13 pages and each and every page of this judgment is digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV
GUPTA
GUPTA
(Apoorv Date:
Gupta)2024.07.24
14:32:10 +0530
JMFC-02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/24.07.2024
STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 13 / 13