Delhi District Court
State vs . Mukesh @ Matka 1 on 20 October, 2009
FIR No. :208/08
P.S. :Patel Nagar
State vs. Mukesh @ Matka 1
IN THE COURT OF MS.POONAM CHAUDHARY
ASJ (CENTRAL01) : DELHI
FIR No. :208/08
P.S. :Patel Nagar
U/Ss :394/397/411 IPC and 25 of Arms Act
STATE
VERSUS
MUKESH @ MATKA
S/o Shri Dharam Singh
R/o H. No. B431, Pandav Nagar Delhi
Arguments heard on : 20.10.2009
Judgments reserved for : 20.10.2009
Judgments announced on : 20.10.2009
J U D G M E N T
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 13.05.2008 at about 6.00 AM at DMS Booth Pandav Nagar Road, Patel Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Patel Nagar, Delhi accused voluntarily caused hurt to complainant Kamal Talwar in committing robbery of Rs. 16,000/ from the possession of complainant at the point of dagger(Churri) and thereby accused committed an offecne punishable under section 394 r/w 397 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is also that on 21.05.2008, from tenanted room of accused at H. No. B431, Pandav Nagar, accused got FIR No. :208/08 P.S. :Patel Nagar State vs. Mukesh @ Matka 2 recovered a sum of Rs. 2,000/ belongs to complainant Kamal Talwar, which had been received/retained by accused having knowing/reason to believe to be a stolen/robbed property and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
3. It is also the case of prosecution that on 21.05.2008 at a place near bushes in Satya Park accused got recovered one dagger/churri measuring 32.5 cm long, which was in accused possession in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration thus accused committed an offence punishable under section 25 of Arms Act.
4. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses in support of his case.
5. PW 1 HC Pratap Singh who is duty officer who stated that he received rukka Ex. PW 1/A for registration of the FIR and recorded the FIR Ex. PW 1/B.
6. PW 2 HC Om Singh stated that on the date of incident he was on emergency duty at PS Patel Nagar when at about 6.10 AM a DD no. 6/A Ex. PW 2/A was assigned to him by the duty officer in connection of stabbing of one man after snatching cash from him whereupon he and FIR No. :208/08 P.S. :Patel Nagar State vs. Mukesh @ Matka 3 Ct. Mohan reached the spot i.e., DMS Booth, Pandav Nagar and found that injured had already been removed to the DDU hospital by PCR officials. He also stated that he went to the DDU hospital and collected the MLC of complainant Kamal Talwar which is Ex. PW 2/B. He further stated that as the injured had been discharged hence he returned to the spot and where he found the injured present and recorded his statement which is Ex. PW 2/C and bears his signature. He further deposed that he made endorsement on the same Ex. PW 2/D and got the FIR registered . He also stated that he inspected the place of occurrence at the instance of injured. He further testified that ASI Om Singh came to the spot and handed over to him a copy of DD for further investigation. He also testified that in the mean time constable Mohan Kumar also reached the spot and gave a copy of FIR to I.O, thereafter IO inspected the place of incident at the instance of the injured. He also deposed that complainant Kamla Talwar had produced his knicker/half pant having blood stains to the IO, the same was sealed in a parcel with the seal of OP and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/E. He also stated that unscaled site plan was prepared by the IO. He further testified that they made search for the accused but they could not traced him. He correctly identified the knicker/half pant Ex. P 1.
7. PW 3 Kamal Talwar complainant stated that on 3.05.2008 FIR No. :208/08 P.S. :Patel Nagar State vs. Mukesh @ Matka 4 again said 13.05.2008 at about 5.15 AM he was present at Milk Booth Pandav Nagar when 34 boys snatched rs. 16,000/ from him. He also stated that he could not identify the boys and also stated that police did not inform him regarding the arrest of any of the boys. He further stated that accused was not one of the boy who had snatched away the money from him. As the complainant resiled from his previous statement, the request of Ld. Addl. PP to cross examine him was allowed. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he denied that he knew the accused prior to the date of occurrence. He also stated that the statement Ex. PW 2/C bears his signature but further stated that police obtained his signature on blank paper. He denied that the statement Ex. PW 2/C read over to him by the police. He further denied that accused had forcibly snatched Rs. 16,000/ from him. He was confronted with the portion A to A of Ex. PW 2/C wherein it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion that accused gave knife blow to his thigh, he was confronted with the portion B to B of Ex. PW 2/C wherein it was so recorded.
8. He further stated that he was medically examined. He also stated that his blood stained clothes were seized and taken into possession. He denied that rough site plan was prepared by the IO at his instance. He correctly identified half pant/knicker Ex. P 1. He however FIR No. :208/08 P.S. :Patel Nagar State vs. Mukesh @ Matka 5 did not identify the knife and 4 currency note of the denomination of Rs. 500/ and stated that currency notes were part of the robbed amount of Rs.1400/. He also stated that currency notes robbed from him were of Rs. 500/, 100/ and 50/ denomination and as well as coins. He denied that the accused is the same person who had robbed a sum of Rs. 16,000/ from him and inflicted a blow with the knife.
9. PW 4 ASI Ram Kumar stated that on the intervening night of 12/13.05.2008 he was posted in PCR and at about 6.00 AM he received an information on wireless set regarding the incident of stabbing of a person and robbery. He further stated that he along with his staff reached at the spot where he found injured present and he removed him to the DDU hospital.
10. PW 5 ct. Mohan Kumar stated that on the intervening night of 12/13.05.2008 he along with HC Om Singh went to the spot where them came to know that injured had been removed to the hospital, accordingly he along with the IO went to the hospital . He further stated that IO obtained the MLC of injured thereafter on learning that injured had been discharged from hospital they went to the house of injured. He also stated that IO recorded the statement of injured and prepared the rukka.
FIR No. :208/08
P.S. :Patel Nagar
State vs. Mukesh @ Matka 6
11. PW 6 I.O ASI Om Singh stated that on the date of incident he reached the spot along with HC Om Singh where the met the complainant and prepared the site plan Ex. PW 6/A at his instance. He also stated that complainant handed over to him blood stained half pant/ knicker which were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of OP and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/E. He also stated that they made search for the accused but could not find him. He further stated that on 21.05.2008 he received a secret information to the effect that accused could be arrested from from Narayana and at about 5.30 PM on the same day accused was arrested at the instance of the the secret informer from Narayana vide arrest memo Ex. PW 6/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 6/C. He further stated that accused made disclosure statement which is Ex. PW 6/D and got recovered a knife from the bushes. The sketch of knife was prepared which is Ex. PW 6/E. He also stated that knife was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of OP and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 6/F. He further stated that he recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex. PW 6/G. He also testified that in pursuance of the supplementary disclosure statement, accused got recovered Rs. 2,000/ from H. No. B431, Pandav Nagar which was sealed in pullanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 6/H. He also stated that pointing out FIR No. :208/08 P.S. :Patel Nagar State vs. Mukesh @ Matka 7 memo of the place of occurrence is Ex. PW 6/I. He further testified that he collected the FSL result which is Ex. PW 6/J. He correctly identified the half pant/knicker P 1 and 4 currency notes of Rs. 500/ Ex. P 2 to P 6 and knife P 7. In his cross examination he stated that no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery of knife. He denied that currency notes were planted upon the accused.
12. The statement of accused thereafter recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. . He denied all the allegations of the prosecution witnesses and stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case.
13. In order to prove the offence u/s 394 read with section 397 IPC., 411 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that accused while committing robbery voluntarily caused grievous hurt on the person of complainant and was found in possession of robbed articles/cash and he dishonestly retained the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen/robbed property. It was also incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that accused was in possession of dagger/chhuri in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration, thereby accused committed an offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act.
14. I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case FIR No. :208/08 P.S. :Patel Nagar State vs. Mukesh @ Matka 8 against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant did not identify the accused as one of the boys who snatched money from him on the date of incident. Complainant also denied having made statement Ex. PW 2/C to the police. He further denied that accused forcibly snatched Rs. 16,000/ from him and inflicted knife blow on his thigh. Complainant also did not identify the knife and stated that he was injured by another knife. Complainant also did not identify the 4 currency notes denomination of Rs. 500/ shown to him and stated that they were part of the robbed amount.
15. The prosecution has also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of knife from the possession of accused. In his cross examination, IO deposed that no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery of knife. I am of the view that independent witness ought to have been joined at the time of his arrest and recovery of knife from accused at Narayana at 5.00PM. Non joining of independent witness casts a doubt to the case of prosecution.
16. For the forgoing reasons I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is accordingly acquitted. His bail bond is cancelled and surety discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (POONAM CHAUDHARY) On this day of 20th October 2009 ASJ (Central01) DELHI