Delhi District Court
State vs . Premu on 6 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK DABAS
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 42/2014
ID 02401R0134632014
U/S. 392/ 394 IPC
PS Patel Nagar
State Vs. Premu
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 342/PN/14
2. Date of commission of offence 19.1.2014
3. Name of complainant Sh. Bhuvaneshwar Bhagat
4. Name of accused Premu
s/o. Sh. Prahlad Kumar
r/o. H NO A615, Kathputli Colony
Pandav Nagar, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 392/394/411 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 6.1.15
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION : Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 19.1.2014 at about 11.00 PM near Shanti Place Hotel, West Patel Nagar, Delhi he alongwith his associate (not arrested) had robbed the complainant i.e. Sh. Bhuvaneshwar Bhagat of his mobile phone and State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 1/ while committing the said offence hurt was caused to the complainant.
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS : After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge.
3. CHARGE / NOTICE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED : Charge for offences punishable u/s. 392/394/411 IPC Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION : In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 6 witnesses. The testimony of the said witnesses in brief is as under :
(a) PW1 i.e. HC Rajesh Kumar was the duty officer. He deposed that on 20.1.2014 he had registered the FIR i.e. Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that he was also working as MHCm that day and had made entry regarding deposit of case property by the IO in the malkhana.
(b) PW2 i.e. Sh. Bhuvaneshwar Bhagat was the complainant. He deposed that on 19.1.2014 he was going to his house and when he State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 2/ was near Shanti Place Hotel, West Patel Nagar, Delhi two boys apprehended and dragged him in a lane. He further stated that one of the boys started beating him and other boy removed the mobile phone from his pocket. He further stated that he had resisted a lot and also raised alarm but none had come to his rescue due to late night time. He further stated that when the said boys were running away he had caught hold of one of them by his collar and had shouted chorchor, pakdopakdo. He further stated that he handed over the said boy to the police officials who came there from whom his mobile phone was recovered. He further stated that police recorded his statement and got him medically examined. He further stated that his mobile phone was taken into possession by the police and lateron he got the same released on superdari. PW2 identified the accused as well as the case property in the court.
(c) In his cross examination, PW2 stated that the accused had taken out the mobile phone from his pocket whereas other accused had given beatings to him. He further stated that 23 persons had come to the spot on hearing his cries and said persons had accompanied him to the police station. PW2 denied the suggestion that he had not seen the persons who had robbed him of his mobile phone as it was dark State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 3/ and had falsely implicated the accused.
(d) PW3 is Dr. Rakesh Sharma from Lady Hardinge Hospital. He deposed that he had given the opinion on the MLC of the injured as simple in nature.
(e) PW4 i.e. Ct. Yashpal Singh deposed that on 20.1.2014 he was posted at police station Patel Nagar and he had joined the investigation of a case with the IO i.e. SI Nitesh Nehra and when they were returning to the police station, they heard the noise of chorchor near Shanti Palace Hotel. He further stated that they noticed two boys running away in the bylane of Shanti Palace Hotel and followed them and one of the boys was apprehended by SI Nitesh Nehra. He further stated that one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of said boy and the said mobile phone was identified by the complainant who also reached there in the meantime. He further stated that IO recorded statement of complainant and seized the mobile phone after converting it into a pulanda. He further stated that thereafter he was sent to the police station for getting the case registered and thereafter accused was arrested and disclosure statement of accused was also recorded. State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 4/ PW4 was also cross examined on behalf of accused.
(f) PW5 i.e. Dr. Rigved Gupta had appeared from Lady Hardinge Hospital on behalf of Dr. Rahul Jaiswal. He proved the MLC Ex. PW3/A.
(g) PW6 i.e. SI Nitesh Nehra was the investigating officer. He deposed that on 19.1.2014 he alongwith Ct. Jaspal were returning to the police station and on the way the complainant had met them who was chasing two persons. He further deposed that he apprehended one of the boys and the robbed mobile phone was recovered from said boy. He also deposed regarding registration of the FIR; arrest of accused; search of coaccused etc. and the investigation carried out by him in this case. PW6 was also cross examined by Ld LAC.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED : Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused has stated that he was falsely implicated in this case and nothing was recovered from his possession. Accused had not led any evidence in his defence.
State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 5/
6. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that all the facts which constitute the offence in question have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of PWs and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, Ld defence counsel had argued that no independent/ public witness was joined in the investigation of this case and the factum of recovery is doubtful. Ld defence counsel had also argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled of being acquitted in this case.
7. REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
(a) In the present case, a charge for offences punishable u/s.
392/394/411 IPC was framed against the accused.
(b) Section 394 IPC postulates that if any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt such person and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 6/ to commit such robbery shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall be also be liable to fine.
(c) Section 392 IPC provides punishment for robbery.
(d) Section 411 IPC provides punishable for dishonestly receiving or retaining any stolen property knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property.
(e) In the present case, PW2 is the complainant/ victim and is the most important witness from the prosecution point of view. PW2 in his testimony recorded in court had deposed in detail about the incident in question. PW2 categorically stated that accused alongwith his accomplice had dragged him in a lane. As per the testimony of PW2, he was beaten up by coaccused(not arrested) and the accused Premu had taken out mobile phone from his pocket. PW2 also deposed that accused was apprehended at the spot itself and his mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Premu at the spot. PW2 also deposed regarding his medical examination. PW2 was cross examined by Ld Legal Aid Counsel for accused Premu. In his cross examination, Ld Legal Aid Counsel had given State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 7/ some suggestion to PW2 regarding false implication of the accused in this case but PW2 denied those suggestions. Ld Legal Aid Counsel could not elicit anything from the mouth of PW2 to discredit his testimony. The testimony of PW2 is clear, consistent and inspires confidence. Moreover there is no other reason on the basis of which it can be presumed that the accused was falsely implicated by the complainant in this case. There was no previous enmity between the complainant and the accused. Accused Premu was apprehended at the spot itself.
(f) PW4 and PW6 i.e. police officials had also supported and corroborated the version of PW2. PW2 had also deposed that the police officials had reached the spot. PW4 and PW6 had also stated that they had seen one person running behind two other persons and one person namely Premu was apprehended. PW4 and PW6 had also correctly identified the accused in the court.
(g) PW3 and PW5 are the doctors and they had deposed regarding the medical examination of PW2 and also about the documents pertaining to medical examination of PW2.
(h) The question which arises for consideration at this stage is whether State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 8/ the accused can be convicted either for offences punishable u/s. 392 IPC or 394 IPC or 411 IPC or all of them?
(i) At this stage, reference can be made of section 220 of cr.p.c.
Section 220 cr.p.c. deals with trial of more than one offence. Section 220(4) cr.p.c. postulates that if several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them maybe charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by anyone, or more, or such acts. Illustration (m) to sub section 4 provides that: A commits robbery on B, and in doing so voluntarily causes hurt to him. A may be separately charged, with and convicted of offences u/s. 323, 392 and 394 of IPC.
(j) In the present case, the prosecution has been able to prove that the accomplice of accused Premu had given beatings to the complainant/ victim in order to rob him. As per section 394 IPC the person who causes hurt and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, both shall be State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 9/ liable for offence punishable u/s. 394 IPC. The essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s. 392 IPC have also been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
(k) In conclusion, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Premu alongwith his accomplice (not arrested) had robbed the complainant of his mobile phone and while being robbed the complainant was also beaten up. Accused Premu was caught red handed at the spot itself and the robbed mobile phone was recovered from his possession at the spot itself. PW2, PW4 and PW6 had correctly identified the accused in Court. Minor contradictions in the testimony of PW2, PW4 and PW6 do not make the whole prosecution case unreliable.
8. CONCLUSION : Hence, the accused Premu is hereby convicted for offences punishable u/s. 392/394 IPC.
Judgment dictated and DEEPAK DABAS
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
(This judgment consists of 10 pages)
State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 10/
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK DABAS
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 42/2014
ID 02401R0134632014
U/S. 392/394 IPC
PS Patel Nagar
State Vs. Premu
6.1.15
ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE
Present: Ld APP for State(substitute).
Convict Premu is produced from JC.
Sh. AK Jha, Ld LAC is also present.
I have heard Ld APP for State(substitute) as well as Ld LAC for convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by Ld LAC for convict that convict is not a previous convict. It is further submitted that convict is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest i.e. on 20.1.2014. It is further submitted that convict belong to poor strata of the society and had committed the offence State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 11/ in question due to extreme poverty. Convict has submitted that he is married and is having two small children and is the sole bread winner for his family. Convict has further submitted that he was never previously involved in any other case of similar nature. Convict has also prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State(substitute) has submitted that the convict be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offences in question.
In the present case convict has been convicted for offences punishable u/s. 392/ 394 IPC. No previous conviction/ involvement has been alleged or proved against convict. Convict is a young boy and is having a family to support. Convict is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest and had spent a period of about one year in judicial custody during the trial of the present case. Convict belongs to poor strata of society. Convict has undertaken not to repeat his conduct. There are chances of his reformation. The mitigating circumstances far outweigh the aggravating circumstances.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 12/ during the trial of present case and is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ each for offences punishable u/s. 392/394 IPC and ID one day SI.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT DEEPAK DABAS
on 6th of January 2015 ACMM:WEST DISTT
TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI
State Vs. Premu; FIR No. 42/2014; PS Patel Nagar 13/