Delhi District Court
Sate vs . Manoj Gautam & Anr. on 17 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH-
WEST) DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 214/06
PS Dwarka
U/s.: 394/34 IPC
Sate Vs. Manoj Gautam & Anr.
Date of Institution of case:-03/06/2008
Date of Judgment reserved:- 17/04/2015
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 17/04/2015
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of case : 020403R0399612008
Date of commission of offence : 10/03/2006
Name of complainant : Sh. Karan Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o F-230, Gali No. 19,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
Name and addresses of : 1. Manoj Gautam
both accused S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o RZF-243/5C, Raj Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
2. Ashok Kuamr
S/o Sh. Satya Narayan
R/o RZ-243/4C, Raj Nagar-II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : 394/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of order : 17.04.2015
FIR No. 214/06 PS Dwarka Page no.1/10
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
In the present case, the charge sheet was filed u/s 279/329/341/34 IPC.
It is the case of the prosecution that Karan Singh, i.e., complainant on 10/03/2006 at about 9:45 PM was traveling in his vehicle bearing No. HR 61MHQ 5868 from Airport to Raj Nagar and when he reached near Gali No. 4 then an Indica car occupied by three persons bearing No. DL 1YA 1194 was seen coming from the side of Bagdola and had hit the back side of the vehicle of Karan Singh while crossing it and thereafter the three occupants got down from the Indica Car and started giving beatings to Karan Singh. It is further the case of the prosecution that the driver of the Indica car brought out a sum of Rs. 6,500/-, a mobile phone make Nokia- 9312842150, his driving licence and some papers from the pocket of complainant. It is further the case of the prosecution that Pradeep Kumar, i.e., nephew of the complainant was coming from the side of Airport and saw the persons running away and obstructed their way by placing his motorcycle in front of their car, when two persons ran away but the driver gave beatings to Pradeep and even bit his finger. On the basis of the abovesaid allegations, the present FIR bearing no. 214/06 was registered and during investigation both accused persons were arrested and charge sheet u/s 279/329/34 IPC was filed against both accused with a request that a separate charge sheet against third person will be filed as an and when third person would be arrested.
2. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to both the FIR No. 214/06 PS Dwarka Page no.2/10 accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and matter was committed to Ld. Session Court, since, one of the offence u/s 329 was exclusively triable by the Ld. Sessions Court. It is a matter of record that it was observed by Ld. Sessions Court that offence u/s 329 IPC was not made out and accordingly, matter was remanded back to the ACMM for disposal in accordance with law. In these circumstances, vide order dated 22/07/2010, a charge u/s 394/34 IPC was framed against both the accused to which they plead not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
4. PW 1 is Insp. Sunil Kumar. He has deposed that on 11/03/2006, he was posted as Sub. Insp. DO at PS Dwarka from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. He has deposed that on that day, one rukka was sent by SI Chhatar Singh through Ct. Saybit Singh on the basis of which he recorded FIR No. 214/06 Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at point A and put his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW-1/B bearing his signature at point A.
5. PW 2 is Sh. Pradeep Kumar. As per prosecution story, he is the one of the eye witness in the present case, whose testimony would also be considered at appropriate stage.
6. PW 3 is HC Rakesh Singh. He has deposed that on 12/03/2006, he joined the investigation with the IO and on that day, accused Manoj Gautam (correctly identified), was arrested in FIR No. 214/06 PS Dwarka Page no.3/10 the case vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/A, DL of the accused was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B. He has further deposed that during investigation, accused Manoj Gautam made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-3/C. He has further deposed that on 20/03/2006, he again joined the investigation and on that day, accused Ashok Kumar (correctly identified) was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/D, personal search of the accused was carried out vide memo Ex. PW-3/E and during investigation, accused made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-3/F. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
7. PW 4 is Sh. Dr. Vineet Kumar Soni, Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, New Delhi. He has deposed that he was working in the DDU Hospital since 2002 and he can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Yogesh, Dr. Shubkam Arya and Dr. Satender Kumar Singh as he had seen them writing and signing in course of his official duty. He has further deposed that the abovesaid doctors are not available in the hospital now a days. He has further deposed that the MLC of Karan bearing No. 5351 is Ex. Pw-4/a bears the signature of Dr. Yogesh at point A, signature of Dr. Shubkam Arya is at point B and B1 and the MLC of Pradeep bearing No. 5633 Ex. PW-4/B bears the signature of Dr. Satender at point C. This witness was also cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, wherein he has deposed that there is no document/X-ray plate on record which could suggest that nature of injury as grievous.
8. PW 5 is Sh. Karan Singh. As per prosecution story, he is the complainant in the present case, whose testimony would FIR No. 214/06 PS Dwarka Page no.4/10 also be considered at appropriate stage.
9. PW 6 is Insp. Chhatar Singh. He has deposed that on 10/03/2006, on receipt of No. 92 B, he alongwith Ct. Satbir reached at Raj Nagar Part-II where he did not find anybody and thereafter, they came to PS and then in the morning of 11/03/2006, complainant namely Karan Singh came to PS and gave his statement Ex. PW-5/A. He has further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Satbir visited at DDU hospital and obtained the MLC of the injured in the present and thereafter, he prepared tehrir Ex. PW-6/A and got the case registered through Ct. Satbir. He has further deposed that thereafter, he reached at the spot near Gali No. 4 where he found TATA Indical Car involved int he present case, keys of which were handed over to him by the DO which were given to him by PCR officials. He has further deposed that from the car, he found receipt book performa pertaining to the car. Thereafter, he contacted the officials of the company who told that officials by the name of Bhupender resident of the same area would come alongwith the relevant documents and thereafter, in presence of Bhupender, he seized the car vide Ex. PW-6/B, Duty from Ex. P1 was seized vide memo Ex. PW-6/C and car was taken to Malkhana where the car was deposited. He has further deposed that on 12/03/2006, during investigation, he visited house of the complainant and upon his pointing out, he prepared site plan Ex. PW-6/D and this vehicle, i.e., Vikram was seized vide memo already Ex. PW-5/PX2. He has further deposed that in the meanwhile, they came to know that one of the accused namely Manoj is residing nearby, accordingly, they reached at his house and accused Manoj was arrested vide and his personal search was FIR No. 214/06 PS Dwarka Page no.5/10 conducted, DL of the accused was seized, disclosure statement of accused Manoj was recorded. He has further deposed that on 20/03/2006 during investigation, accused Ashok was arrested and his personal search was conducted, disclosure statement of accused Ashok was recorded. He has further deposed that he was produced in the court in muffled face and later on his TIP proceedings were conducted, but accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings before Ld. MM. He has further deposed that during investigation, he had also got mechanically inspected both the vehicles and reports Ex. PW-6/E and Ex. PW-6/F were collected and he recorded the statement of the witnesses who joined the investigation with him. He has further deposed that he can identify the photographs of the vehicles, i.e., Vikram and the same are Ex. P2 & P3 and later he was transferred and file was handed over to MHC(R). In his cross-examination, he has deposed that it is correct that during investigation, no recovery what so ever was effected from the accused persons.
10. PW 7 is ASI Jitender. He has deposed that in the intervening night of 10-11/03/2006, on receiving a call, he reached at RZ-243, where he met with two injured namely Karan and Pradeep Singh who were made to sit in PCR for medical treatment who were got medically examined. He has further deposed that one of the accused who caused quarrel with those persons was also handed over to them by the public persons alongwith the key. He has further deposed that accused Manoj alongwith the key of the car was handed over to the DO. This witness was also cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR No. 214/06 PS Dwarka Page no.6/10
11. It is a matter of record that after examining all the material witnesses, PE was closed on 17/04/2015.
12. Subsequent to the recording of statement of witnesses, statement of both accused were recorded and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to both the accused in which they have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have further submitted that they do not want to lead defence evidence and final arguments were heard.
13. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, both accused as well as perused the record.
14. In the present matter, both accused have been charged with u/s 394/34 IPC and prosecution has to prove that both were involved in the robbery. In these circumstances, testimony of complainant as well as eye witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar is relevant.
15. PW 5 is Sh. Karan Singh, i.e., complainant in the present case. He has deposed that on 10.03.2006, it was around 9.30 - 9.45 PM, he was coming in his vehicle i.e. of make Vikram and reached near Raj Nagar in front of Gali No. 4, at that time one Indica Car came and hit against his vehicle from backside. He has further deposed that in that car, there were three persons and all of them started giving beatings to him and those persons also took away his money, mobile phone, DL and other documents. He has further deposed that his nephew Pradeep was also coming there and on seeing the incident, he chased them on his motorcycle and he got them stopped. He has further deposed that FIR No. 214/06 PS Dwarka Page no.7/10 one of those persons also gave bite on the finger of his nephew Pradeep. He has further deposed that Police had also reached at the spot and he gave his complaint Ex. PW-5/A to the police. He has further deposed that since, it was a dark night, therefore, he could not see their faces. He has not identified anyone in the court.
16. Perusal of his testimony shows that he has not identified the accused persons before the court. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. But Ld. Addl. PP for the State could not extract anything from the mouth of this witness. This witness has specifically deposed in his cross-examination that it is wrong to suggest that on 12/03/2006, he had identified the accused. Both accused persons were shown to the this witness but he has not identified them. It is also an admitted fact that no recovery was effected from accused persons as deposed by PW-6 in his cross-examination. Hence, his testimony is of no avail to the case of the prosecution as he has not identified both the accused.
17. Now coming to the testimony of PW-2 Sh. Pradeep Kumar, who has deposed that on 10/03/2006, he was telephonically informed by his uncle Karan Singh that he was beaten by Taxi Driver and his other associates. He has further deposed that on receiving this information, he reached at the spot. He has further deposed that he was again called by his uncle and informed that Taxi Driver was going towards another Gali and the Taxi was got stopped by him in the Gali which was being driven by accused Manoj, present in the court. He has further deposed that accused started quarreling with him and bit on his left hand finger.
FIR No. 214/06 PS Dwarka Page no.8/10 He has further deposed that accused was under influence of liquor and he made a call to PCR and PCR came at the spot and accused was handed over to police and they were taken to DDU hospital by the police. He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, wherein he has deposed that at the time of incident it was absolute dark and he was not able to see faces properly. He has specifically deposed that he did not see anybody quarreling with his uncle in his presence. He has specifically deposed in his cross- examination that accused present in the court today are not involved with the regard to incident in the present case. This witness was also re-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein he has specifically deposed that due to dark he was not able to see as whom the person quarreling with him. He has further deposed in his cross-examination that he deposed as told by the police. He has denied the suggestions that it is wrong to suggest that accused present was the persons who was stopped in th Gali. Hence, this witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution as he has not identified the accused before the court. All though this witness has identified the accused Manoj in his examination in chief but in his cross-examination he has taken U turn with regard to the identity of accused persons. It is pertinent to mention here that as per examination-in-chief of PW-2, he has deposed that accused Manoj was handed over to the police. However, the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6 show that accused Manoj was arrested on 12/03/2006. It is a very surprising fact that when accused Manoj was handed over to the PCR by witness PW-2, then why accused Manoj was arrested on 12/03/2006. It creates some doubt with regard to the identity of accused Manoj. Even otherwise nothing was happened in the presence of PW-2 as FIR No. 214/06 PS Dwarka Page no.9/10 he came to the spot on telephonically called given by his uncle. Hence, his testimony is also of no avail to the case of the prosecution as he has not identified both the accused.
18. Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal witnesses who have joined the investigation/conducted the investigation. Testimony of PW-7 is also of no relevance as he was not the witness of incident. In these circumstances, when complainant as well as eye witness have not identified both the accused, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against both accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to both the accused and both accused are acquitted for the offence under Section 394/34 IPC.
19. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
(Deepak Wason) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Court, New Delhi Announced in the open court today i.e on 17/04/2015 FIR No. 214/06 PS Dwarka Page no.10/10