Delhi District Court
State vs . Virender Pratap Singh on 20 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 92/2012
Unique Case ID: 02404R0249072012
State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh
S/o Yogender Pratap Singh
R/o Village Ballipur
Police Station Nawab Ganj,
District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 135/2012
Police Station : Keshav Puram
Under Section : 392/394/397/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 05.10.2012
Date on which orders were reserved : 21.02.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced : 13.03.2013
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
(1) As per the allegations on 28.5.2012 at about 12 O'clock (noon) at A17, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi, the accused Virender Pratap Singh along with his associate Rajesh Kumar (since not arrested) committed robbery of Rs.20,000/ to Rs.25,000/ and some documents from the victim Manohar Lal who was the cashier State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 1 of 65 of M/s. Rahul Beverages and also voluntarily caused hurt to Manohar Lal. It is also alleged that while committing the aforesaid robbery, the accused Virender Pratap Singh used country made pistol which country made pistol was later on recovered from his possession after his apprehension at the spot itself.
Case of prosecution in brief:
(2) The case of prosecution in brief is that on 28.5.2012 a PCR Call vide DD No. 13A was received in Police Station Keshav Puram regarding robbery and apprehension of one of the assailants along with revolver. The said DD was marked to SI Deepak Bhardwaj who along with Ct. Bijender Dhama reached the spot i.e. A17, Lawrence Road Industrial Area where the complainant Manohar Lal and injured Vinod Bohra met them who produced before them two country made pistol and one apprehended person namely Virender Pratap Singh.
(3) SI Deepak Bhardwaj recorded the statement of complainant Manohar Lal who alleged that on 28.5.2012 he was working as Cashier with M/s Rahul Beverages and was present in his office when at about 12.00 Noon, two boys came to his cabin accompanied by Vinod Bohra the Chowkidar of the firm who informed him (Manohar Lal) that the said boys had come to deposit cash. Manohar Lal further alleged that one of those boys sat in front State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 2 of 65 of him in a chair and the other one kept standing near the door.
Manohar Lal further alleged that he asked the boy sitting in front of him to show the receipt on which the said boy took out a pistol and pointed the same towards him and asked him to hand over whatever cash he was having or else he would kill him. According to Manohar Lal he caught the barrel of the pistol but in the meanwhile the said boy pushed him as a result he (Manohar Lal) fell down after which the said boy hit him by the butt of pistol and thereafter he lifted the black coloured bag lying on the table containing Rs.20 to 22 thousand and some documents and after keeping the said bag into another bag and both the boys started running away from the spot. According to Manohar Lal he raised an alarm 'PakroPakro' mujhe loot kar bhag rahe hain' on which the boy who was carrying the bag fell down on the stairs and the bag was removed from his hand and in the meantime the other boy who was keeping a watch at the door of the office, lifted the said bag and ran away but in that process his pistol was dropped at the spot. The complainant further told the IO that the other boy also tried to run away but in the meantime the Chowkidar Vinod Bohra and the owner of the factory namely Rahul reached there and they all apprehended the said boy who tired to run away also took out a pistol and hit the same on the mouth of Vinod Bora. According to Manohar Lal the apprehended boy revealed his name as Virender Pratap Singh after which police was informed and State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 3 of 65 after the police reached the spot, the accused Virender Pratap Singh and the recovered pistols were handed over the the police. (4) On the basis of this statement of Manohar Lal, the present FIR was registered. The accused Virender Pratap Singh was arrested. Efforts were made to apprehend the other assailant also but he could not be traced. After completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE:
(5) Charge under Section 392/394/397/34 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act were settled against the accused Virender Pratap Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses.
Public Witnesses:
(7) PW10 Manohar Lal has deposed that he is residing at the given address and is working with Rahul Beverges at A17, 2nd Floor, Lawrence Road Industrial Area as a cashier and the company is State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 4 of 65 involved into supply of packets of soft drink, water and juices etc. According to the witness on 28.05.2012 at about 12 PM (afternoon) he was working in his office when the chowkidar of the company namely Vinod Bohra came to his office along with two boys and he (Vinod) left the boys in the office and told him (witness) that they wanted to give some cash payment which he should take (cash lai loo) and thereafter went away. The witness has deposed that one boy sat in front of him on the chair whereas the other boy stood outside and the boy who sat in front of him was having a jalidar / netted cloth bag of purple color and that boy kept the bag on his table. According to the witness he asked that boy for the payment on which that boy took out pistol from the bag and pointed the same on him and threatened him by saying that he (witness) should hand over the cash to him or else he would shoot him "cash do verna goli mar doonga".
The witness has deposed that on this he got scared and disturbed and in order to save himself, he immediately caught hold of barrel of the pistol which was being held by this boy and pushed it in a direction away from him. The witness has deposed that the pushed him as a result of which he fell down and thereafter he hit him on his hand with the butt of the pistol. According to the witness this boy immediately picked up a black color bag which he (witness) had kept near the table which bag was containing about 2022 thousand rupees and some documents of the company and thereafter he ran out from State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 5 of 65 the cabin. The witness has deposed that he saw that both these boys were going downstairs after taking the staircase and he immediately raised an alarm "bacho, mujhe loot liya, maar rahe hai". He has deposed that the boy who had snatched his bag slipped while going downstairs and both the bag and fire arm which he was carrying fell down. According to him the other boy who was earlier standing outside his cabin immediately picked up the said bag containing the cash and ran away after leaving the fire arm / pistol behind. The witness has deposed that in so far as he had noticed the assailants had put his black bag in the bag which they were carrying. The witness has deposed that on hearing his alarm, the chowikdar Vinod Bohra also came to the spot along with labour and they all caught hold the boy who had fallen down and when this boy was apprehended by Vinod Bohra, he also hit Vinod Bohra (Vinod Bhora se bhir gaya) with his butt as a result of which Vinod received injuries. According to the witness the said boy had also received some injuries when he had fallen down and he immediately dialed 100 number after which the police came to the spot. The witness has deposed that while he and Vinod Bohra taken to BJRM hospital the accused / assailant who had been apprehended by them was handed over to the police by them along with the two pistols i.e. one which was thrown at the spot by the accused who had run away and the other which was in his (accused's) possession and with which he had hit Vinod. State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 6 of 65 (8) According to the witness after they returned from the hospital the accused was interrogated in his presence and he disclosed his identity as Virender Partap Singh, resident of district Gonda, U.P. The witness has deposed that he had also given the details of his village, which he does not recollect at present. He has deposed that thereafter on his return from the hospital, he informed the police about the details of the incident and also showed them his office after which his statement Ex.PW10/A was recorded by the police. The witness has deposed that the police prepared the site plan in his presence and also the photographs of the spot where he used to sit, i.e. his office where the incident had taken place were also taken which photographs are Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A7. The witness has deposed that the police also took into possession the kattas/ pistols and first they opened the same and found each katta containing a live cartridge. According to the witness the police prepared the khaka / sketch of the katta and the live cartridges which sketches are Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B and thereafter IO prepared two pullanda of the said kattas and sealed them in his presence after he seized them vide memos Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D both bearing his signatures at point B. According to the witness the police lifted the blood sample from his cabin i.e from the chair kept in his cabin vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/E bearing his signatures at point C. The witness has also deposed that in his presence the accused Virender State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 7 of 65 Partrap Singh was arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/F bearing is signatures at point C and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW9/G bearing his signatures at point C. The witness has correctly identified the accused Virender Partap Singh in the court. He has identified the country made pistol and one test fired cartridge case as the same which were recovered from the accused which country made pistol is Ex.P1 and fired cartridge is Ex.P2. He has also identified another country made pistol along with one test fired cartridge Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively.
(9) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that when he made the 100 number call, he had told them that two assailants had come to commit robbery. He has deposed that the entire incident lasted for hardly 1015 minutes and that he must have made a 100 number call by 12:15 PM but he does not recollect. According to him he had received the injury where the accused had hit him with the butt of the pistol. He has deposed that his clothes were little bit stained with blood and has voluntarily explained that there were just one or two drops of blood. He admits that Vinod Bohra had also received injuries and he had seen him bleeding from his mouth / lips but he cannot tell whether his clothes had also become blood stained or not. According to him the police had not seized the shirt which he was wearing and which contained the blood stains. He has deposed that he had told the doctor who had State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 8 of 65 examined him about the incident of robbery and assault. According to the witness he had told the doctor that he had been hit with the butt of the pistol by the assailants. He has deposed that his statement was recorded by SI Deepak after his return from the hospital but he is unable to tell the exact time and has voluntarily added that it must have been after about one to one and a half hours. According to him it was not in the evening and has voluntarily explained that it was still afternoon at the time when his statement was recorded. He has deposed that all the documents were prepared at the spot of the incident i.e. at the factory and he had signed the same there. Witness has denied that these documents were prepared in the police station and he had signed the same in the police station. He is unable to tell the detail description of the assailant who was standing outside his office and had run away with the bag thereafter and has voluntarily explained that he had become perplexed and disturbed (ghabra gaya tha) at the time of the incident which had taken place in quick succession and therefore he does not recollect the same at present. The witness has deposed that the accused Virender Partap Singh was dressed in trouser and T shirt but color he does not recollect because he had become disturbed at that time. He admits that it took him around one or one and a half hours to become normal after the incident and has voluntarily explained that it normally takes such time. He has deposed that he did not tell the doctor that he had State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 9 of 65 become perplexed and scared at the time of the incident. Witness is unable to tell the direction in which the other accused had run away and has voluntarily explained that they were inside at that time. (10) This witness has admitted that there are other offices situated in the same complex where his office is situated. He has deposed that Vinod Bohra is only a Chowkidar and not a gunman and has voluntarily explained that Vinod did not carry any fire arm. The witness has deposed that at the time of the incident, he was alone in his office and further states that there were other employees of Rahul beverages in the complex but they were in other places in the complex. He does not know if any other person from the factory had tried to follow the person / assailant who ran away from the spot. Witness is unable to tell as to whether Vinod Bohra or Rahul caught the accused first and has voluntarily explained that he was caught on the ground floor. The witness is unable to tell the distance between his office and the place where the accused was apprehended. He has denied that at the time when he raised an alarm Rahul, the owner of the factory and Vinod Bohra on hearing his crises caught hold of the accused Virender Partap Singh and has voluntarily added that Virender Partap Singh was caught after he fell down on the staircase. (11) The witness has denied that Virender Partap Singh was not the person who robbed him and that there were some persons who came in his office and robbed him. He has also denied that this State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 10 of 65 is the reason DD No. 13 A contains the words "kuch log" and further denied that he has not received any injury on the head or his body. The witness has further denied that there was no bleeding from his head or any other part of the body and that this is the reason that the injury on the part of head is not mentioned in his MLC. The witness has also denied that he is deposing falsely or that his statement was recorded after the due deliberation with the police officials and that the accused had been wrongly implicated in the present case on account of misunderstanding only because he was present in the vicinity of the area when he raised the alarm.
(12) PW13 Vinod Bohra has deposed that he is residing at the given address at Delhi for the last about five years and is working as Chowkidar at Rahul Beverages situated at A17, Lawrence road. According to him Manohar Lal is the cashier of the company / factory and his job is to collect the payment from the party. The witness has deposed that on 28.05.2012 he was on duty at gate when two persons came to him and told him that they wanted to deposit some cash in the factory on which he took the two boys to the company cashier Manohar Lal on the second floor and told him that the boy had come to deposit some cash and thereafter he (witness) returned to the main gate. The witness has further deposed that after about 1015 minutes he heard the voices of cashier Manohar Lal saying "bachao yeh cash le kar bhag rahe hai" and on hearing the State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 11 of 65 voices of Manohar Lal, he ran towards the direction of second floor but before he reached there he saw that one boy had run away but one boy of the boys who was holding a pistol on his hand was climbing down and he (witness) caught him when he hit him with the butt of the pistol on his face and chest. The witness has deposed that the owner of the factory Rahul also came out and other persons also gathered and they could manage to apprehend this boy. The witness has correctly identified the accused Virender Partap Singh in the court by pointing out towards him and putting his hand on him. According to the witness later on he came to know that his name was Virender and he had disclosed that he was original resident of district Ghonda, UP. The witness has further deposed that somebody informed the police and police came to the spot and the accused along with the fire arm recovered from him and also left by the absconding accused was handed over to them. The witness has deposed that it was the police who inquired about his name and whereabouts when his name was disclosed by him as Virender. According to him the police then took them to the BJRM hospital where he along with Manohar Lal were provided treatment after which they returned back to the factory. The witness has deposed that the Police also took into possession the kattas/ pistols and thereafter first they opened the same and found each katta containing a live cartridge. According to the witness, the crime team also State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 12 of 65 inspected the spot and photographs were also taken there after which police prepared the khaka / sketch of the katta and the live cartridges which sketches are Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B bearing his signatures at point B. The witness has deposed that IO thereafter prepared two pullanda of the said kattas and sealed them in his presence after he seized them vide memos Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D. He has further deposed that the police lifted the blood sample from his cabin i.e from the chair kept in his cabin vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/E bearing his signatures at point C. The witness has deposed that in his presence the accused Virender Partrap Singh was arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/F and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW9/G. Witness has also identified one country made pistol along with one test fired cartridge case as one of the kattas which was recovered by them from the accused. The country made pistol is Ex.P1 and fired cartridge is Ex.P2. Witness has identified the said katta as the one which was found lying on the stair case after the assailant who had escaped from the spot had dropped it / left it there. The witness states that he has identified the same as he had himself picked it up from the staircase and handed over the same to the police later. He has further identified another country made pistol along with one test fired cartridge case Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively and has stated that this katta is the one which was in the hand of State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 13 of 65 accused Virender Partap Singh and with which he i.e. Virender Partap Singh had hit him (witness) on his face and on his chest. (13) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that is is not exactly aware as to who made the 100 number call and has voluntarily added that could be the chacha of the owner who made the call but he is not sure. According to the witness the whole incident lasted about 1015 minutes i.e. the time when he left the two boys with the cashier and till the time one of them was apprehended. He has deposed that he 100 number call was immediately made after the assailant was apprehended and has voluntarily explained that it is must be around 12:35 12:40 PM (afternoon). Hew has deposed that there was not much bleeding from the injury which he had received on his face and chest. He admits that the complainant Manohar Lal also received the injury and was bleeding. Witness is not aware if the shirt of Manohar was stained in blood or not and has voluntarily explained that he had seen blood on his chair. According to the witness there was no blood on his clothes and has voluntarily explained that there was swelling on his cheek and and his chest on account of the blow which was given by the assailant. The witness has deposed that he does not recollect if he had told the doctor at the BJRM hospital about the manner in which he had received the injuries and has voluntarily explained that in so far as he recollect he only told him where all he had received State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 14 of 65 injuries. According to the witness in so far he recollects his statement was never recorded by the IO at any point of time. He does not recollect having seen the police recording the statement of Manohar Lal. According to him him he had signed the various documents prepared by the police in the factory itself. He has denied that he was later called to the police station and it was on the directions of the senior police officers and the owner Rahul that he had signed the documents in the police station. The witness has denied that Virender Partap Singh was not the person who robbed Manohar Lal or that there were some other persons who came in his office and robbed Manohar Lal. The witness has also denied that this is the reason DD No. 13 A contains the words "kuch log". Witness has denied that he did not receive any injury on his chest and on his face. He has further denied that he is deposing falsely and that the accused Virender Partap Singh had been wrongly implicated in the present case on account of misunderstanding only because he was present in the vicinity of the area when he raised the alarm. (14) PW15 Rahul Khanna has deposed that he is residing at the given address along with his family and is running a factory under the name of Rahul Beverages at A17, Industrial Area, Lawrence Road, Delhi and is into business of manufacturing and packing of drinking water and supply of soft drinks. According to the witness on 28.05.2012 around 12 PM (afternoon) he was State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 15 of 65 standing outside his factory, when he suddenly heard alarm/ voices of Manohar Lal Joshi who is a cashier in his factory, which voices were coming from the second floor. The witness has deposed that he could only hear the voice "pakro pakro" on which he started running towards the second floor along with the Chowkidar Vinod Bohra. According to the witness while they had started climbing on the staircase and just climbed 34 steps we found a pistol lying there. He has deposed that he asked Vinod to pick up the pistol and while they hardly moved 34 steps they found a boy lying there, who was trying to get up and run away but they immediately got him and asked him who he was, on which the said boy brought out the pistol and hit Vinod on his head in an attempt to run away. According to the witness in the meanwhile out other staff also join them and they were able to apprehend him. The witness has deposed that in the meanwhile Manohar Lal Joshi also came and told them that he was the boy who had come inside his office and had looted him after showing a pistol. Witness has deposed that he also informed them that there was another boy with him and which boy was no longer there and had run away. According to the witness he also noticed bleeding on the face of Sh. Manohar Lal Joshi and a little bleeding on his hand. He has deposed that they immediately made a call to 100 number and tried to look for the other boy who had absconded with the cash but could not locate him and in the meanwhile the PCR State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 16 of 65 officials also came to the spot. The witness has deposed that before the PCR officials came when her made inquiries from the said boy and he informed that his name was Virender Partap Singh and he was a resident of Nawabganj Gonda UP. He has further deposed that thereafter police reached at the spot and they handed over Virender Partap Singh to the police along with two pistols i.e. the one which was found lying on the staircase and the other one which was in the hand of the accused with which he had hit their Chowkidar Vinod while trying to flee from the spot. The witness has correctly identified the accused Virender Pratap Singh by specifically pointed out towards him.
(15) According to the witness the police in his presence had checked both the kattas/ country made pistol and each one of them found to contain live cartridge. He has deposed that the police had taken Manohar Lal Joshi and their chowkidar Vinod Bohra to the hospital while he (witness) remained outside the factory as the police was inside the factory and carrying out various proceedings at the spot of the incident. The witness has deposed that the police also prepared the various documents i.e. sketch of the kattas/ cartridges and thereafter converted the same into pullandas and also prepared other documents but he is not aware of the details. According to him the police also interrogated him and he informed them about whatever had happened. The witness has identified the katta and the State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 17 of 65 cartridges Ex.P1 to P4. The witness has correctly identified the country made pistol is Ex.P3 and fired cartridge is Ex.P4 as the one which was in the hand of accused Virender Partap Singh and with which he i.e. Virender Partap Singh had hit his chowkidar Vinod on his face and on his chest.
(16) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he is not very sure, but perhaps the 100 number was made by his chachaji and has voluntarily explained that he had immediately informed his chachaji about the incident as he had also reached the spot, hence he is not very sure if it was his chachaji who had made the call to 100 number or Sh. Manohar Lal Joshi. After the same the witness has again stated that Manohar Lal Joshi did not make the call and explained that he is sure because Manohar Lal was very perplexed and scared at that time (ghabraye hue thai). The witness has admitted that none of the documents bears his signatures. He does not recollect if the clothes of Manohar Lal Joshi were also smeared with blood on account of the injuries received by him and has voluntarily explained that he had seen the blood on his chair. The witness has denied that Virender Partap Singh was not the person who robbed Manohar Lal and has voluntarily explained that Manohar Lal Joshi was following him while raising the alarm. He has denied that there were some other persons who came in his office and robbed Manohar Lal. He has State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 18 of 65 also denied that the accused Virender Partap Singh had been wrongly implicated in the present case on account of misunderstanding only because he was present in the vicinity of the area when Manohar Lal Joshi raised the alarm.
Medical Evidence:
(17) PW11 Dr. Prem has deposed that on 28.05.2012 at about 2:10 PM Manohar Lal, S/o Bishan Dass, male 62 years was brought at the casualty of the BJRM hospital by Ct. Jitender with alleged history of physical assault and Dr. Gagan JR medically examined above said Manohar Lal under his supervision at the casualty. The witness has deposed that Dr. Gagan prepared the MLC No. 42021 after his medical examination which is Ex.PW11/A bearing signatures of Dr. Gagan at point A which the witness has duly identified. According to the witness they found abrasions on right thumb dorsal surface and abrasions on right forearm dorsal surface in the local examination and the above said injuries are simple in nature and caused by blunt object. He has proved his opinion at point X on the Ex.PW11/A bearing his signatures at point B. This witness has further deposed that on the same day at the same time Dr. Gagan also medically examined Vinod Bohra, S/o Purna Kant Bohra, male 40 years who was also brought at the hospital by State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 19 of 65 Ct. Jitender with alleged history of physical assault and after his medical examination Dr. Gagan prepared the MLC No. 42022 which is Ex.PW11/B bearing signatures of Dr. Gagan at point A which the witness has duly identified. According to the witness in the local examination they found minor abrasions inner surface of upper lip and states that the above said injuries are simple in nature and caused by blunt object. The witness has proved his opinion at point X on Ex.PW11/B bearing his signatures at point B. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(18) PW12 Dr. Gagan has deposed that on 28.05.2012 at about 2:10 PM Manohar Lal, S/o Bishan Dass, male 62 years was brought at the casualty of the BJRM hospital by Ct. Jitender with alleged history of physical assault and he (witness) medically examined above said Manohar Lal at the casualty and prepared the MLC No. 42021 after his medical examination which is Ex.PW11/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to the witness he found abrasions on right thumb dorsal surface and abrasions on right forearm dorsal surface in the local examination. The witness has deposed that on the same day at the same time he also medically examined Vinod Bohra, S/o Purna Kant Bohra, male 40 years who was also brought at the hospital by Ct. Jitender with alleged history State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 20 of 65 of physical assault and after his medical examination he prepared the MLC No. 42022 which is EX PW 11/B bearing his signatures at point A. The witness has further deposed that in the local examination he found minor abrasions inner surface of upper lip and the injuries are simple in nature and caused by blunt object.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. (19) PW14 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has proved the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Azia Manjoor and has identified his handwriting and signatures having seen him while writing and signing during course of his official duties. According to the witness on 17.10.2012 at about 12:45 PM Manohar Lal, S/o Bishan Dass, male 62 years was brought at the casualty of the BJRM hospital by police for medical examination and collection of the blood sample and Dr. Azia Manjoor medically examined above said Manohar Lal at the casualty. The witness has proved that Dr. Azia Manjoor prepared the MLC No. 45786 after his medical examination which is Ex.PW14/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to the MLC Blood sample collected and sealed and handed over to the IO. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 21 of 65 Forensic Evidence:
(20) PW8 Puneet Puri, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics) has deposed that on 25.06.2012 two sealed parcels sealed with the seal of DB of this present case were received in FSL and same were marked to him for examination. According to the witness on opening the first parcel, one country made pistol of .315 inch bore and one 8mm/.315 inch cartridge were taken out and marked as exhibits F1 and A1 by him. The witness has deposed that on opening the second parcel, one country made pistol of .315 inch bore and one 8mm/.315 inch cartridge were taken out and marked as exhibits F2 and A2 by him. He has deposed that on examination he found that the country made pistols marked Exs. F1 and F2 were in working order, test fire conducted successfully. He further deposed that the cartridge marked Ex A1 was test fired through country made pistol marked ExF1 and the cartridge marked Ex A2 was test fired through the country made pistol marked EX F2. According to the witness the country made pistols marked exhibits F1 and F2 were fire arms and the cartridges marked exhibits A1 and A2 were ammunition as defined in Arms Act 1959. The witness has proved his detailed ballistic examination report vide Ex.PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A on both the pages. The witness has correctly identified the country made pistol along with one test fired cartridge Ex.P1 and fired cartridge is Ex.P2. He has also identified another country made pistol along with State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 22 of 65 one test fired cartridge case which are Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. Police Witnesses:
(21) PW1 HC Naresh Kumar is formal witness being MHC (M). He has been examinedinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1. He has proved the relevant entries of Register No. 19 and 21 vide S. No. 2846/12 copy of which is Ex.PW1/A (five pages) and S.No. 3031/12 copy of which is Ex.PW1/B, entry in register no.
21 vide RC 59/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW1/C, RC No. 85/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW1/D and the receipts issued by FSL copy of which are Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F. In his cross examination the witness has denied that the case property was tampered with during its possession with him.
(22) PW2 Ct. Jitender is also a formal witness and has been examinedinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1. He has proved the entry in Register No. 21 i.e. RC No. 85/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW1/D bearing his signatures at point A and the receipt issued by FSL copy of which is Ex.PW1/F bearing his signatures at point A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 23 of 65 (23) PW3 Ct. Mehar Singh is again a formal witness. He has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 bearing his signatures at points A and B. He has proved the entry in Register No. 21 vide RC No. 59/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A and the receipt issued by FSL copy of which is Ex.PW1/E bearing his signatures at point A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. (24) PW4 SI Ramesh Chand is formal witness and has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 bearing his signatures at points A and B. He has proved that Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW4/A bearing his signatures at point A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. (25) PW5 Ct. Parvinder is also a formal witness and has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 bearing his signatures at points A and B. He has proved having taken the photographs of the spot of incident which photographs are Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A7 and the CD containing the photographs is Ex.PW5/B. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 24 of 65 (26) PW6 ASI Hari Ram has tendered his examinationin chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1. He was working as duty officer and has proved the registration of the FIR No. 135/12 copy of which is Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A original of which was seen and returned and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW6/B bearing his signatures at point A. (27) In his cross examination by Ld. Amicus Curaei for the accused, the witness has denied that the FIR is antetimed. He admits that DD No.17 A dated 28.05.2012 does not have the name of the accused Virender Pratap Singh as well as Rajesh Kumar. The DD No. 17A is Ex.PW6/DX1. The witness has denied that the name of the accused was not known till the registration of FIR. (28) PW7 Ct. Pradeep Kumar is formal witness and has he tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW7/1 bearing his signatures at points A and B. He has proved the seizure of exhibits pertaining to the complainant Manohar Lal vide memo Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(29) PW9 Ct. Bijender Dhama has deposed that on 28.05.2012 he was posted at police station Keshavpuram on that day after receiving the DD No. 13A he along with SI Deepak Bhardwaj State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 25 of 65 reached at A17, Industrial area, Lawrence Road, Delhi. He has deposed that Manohar Lal, Chowkidar Vinod Bohra and factory owner Rahul met them there and Manohar Lal produced one Virender Partap Singh and two kattas before them (police) and alleged that Virender Partap along with his one associate namely Rajesh committed robbery at the second floor of the factory. According to the witness, the complainant Manohar Lal and Vinod Bohra were found in injured condition and they both were sent to the BJRM hospital through Ct. Jitender who met them on the way to the spot. According to the witness thereafter SI Deepak checked both the kattas after opening them, they were both found to be loaded with one live cartridge in each of them. The witness has deposed that he removed the live cartridges from the kattas and prepared the khaka/sketch of the katta and the live cartridges on a white paper which sketches are Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B. The witness has deposed that the IO thereafter prepared two pullanda of the said kattas and sealed them with the seal of DB and handed over the seal to me after use and gave the number to said pullanda as serial No. A1 and serial No. A2 after which he prepared the seizure memo of the same which seizure memo is Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D. According to the witness in the meanwhile the crime team also reached the spot after which IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. The witness has deposed that the IO also got the spot State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 26 of 65 inspected from the crime team who also took the photographs of the scene of crime and also lifted the blood sample from the cabin of the complainant from the chair kept in the said cabin after which he kept the blood sample lifted by him in a container and thereafter sealed the container with the seal of DB after taking the seal from him (witness) which seal he handed over to him thereafter. According to the witness IO prepared the seizure memo of the same vide Ex.PW9/E and in the meanwhile the accused also returned from the hospital and the IO prepared the rukka which he handed over to him (witness) to taking the same to the police station for getting the FIR registered. The witness has deposed that he took the tehrir to the police station where he handed over the same to the duty officer ASI Hari Ram who after registration of the case, handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to him.
(30) According to the witness he returned to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to SI Deepak after which the IO arrested the accused Virender Partrap Singh vide memo Ex.PW9/F, his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW9/G after which the accused was also interrogated wherein he disclosed about his involvement at A17, Industrial area, Lawrence road, which disclosure is Ex.PW9/H. The witness has deposed that thereafter they returned to the police station where his statement was recorded by the IO. The witness has correctly State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 27 of 65 identified the accused Virender Partap Singh in the court. He has also identified the country made pistol along with one test fired cartridge case which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively. The witness has further correctly identified Ex.P1 as the fire arm which was found lying at the spot and had been thrown by the absconding accused. The witness has again further identified another country made pistol along with one test fired cartridge case which are Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively and has stated that Ex.P3 is the same which was recovered from the accused Virender Partap Singh. (31) In his cross examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused, the witness has deposed that at that time, when he reached the spot, complainant Manohar Lal was bleeding from the mouth as well as head and Vinod Bohra had received internal injury on the chest. According to him the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded after the arrest and personal search of the accused at the spot itself. He admits that on the disclosure statement of the accused does not bears the signatures of any public witness. He has denied that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded in the police station and it is for this reason that it does not bears the signatures of either the complainant or both the injured. He further denied that he had told the IO in his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded in the police station. The statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. which is Ex.PW9/DX1 from State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 28 of 65 portion A to A wherein this fact so recorded. The witness has admitted that the seizure memo of the country made pistols do not bear the signatures of injured Vinod. Witness is unable to tell the reason why the signatures of Vinod are not present on the same. He has denied that all the documents were prepared in the police station which they had signed later on the directions of the senior officers and it is for this reason that the signatures of the injured Vinod are not present on many of the documents. The witness has denied that the injured Vinod Bohra was planted as a injured eye witness later on to boost the present case at the instance of the IO. He has further denied that the FIR is anti time only to suit the connivance of the IO or that the written complaint was given to the duty officer much later. The witness has also denied that he was never sent to the police station with the tehrir or that the investigating officer had blocked an entry in the FIR register which was filled up later on.
(32) PW16 SI Deepak Bhardwaj has deposed that on 28.05.2012 he was posted at police station Keshavpuram and on that day he received the DD No. 13A which is EX PW 16/A, he along with Ct. Bijender Dhama reached at the spot A/17, Lawrence road, Industrial area, Keshavpuram where Ct. Jitender met him who was on patrolling duty in the area. According to the witness Manohar Lal and factor owner Rahul met them at the spot and they produced accused Virender Partap Singh before him and also produced two State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 29 of 65 country made pistols before him alleged that one country made pistol was used by the accused Virender Partap Singh and another country made pistol was left at the spot by the other assailant Rajesh who ran away from the spot. The witness has deposed that Manohar Lal, Vinod Bara Chowkidar were found in injured condition and they were sent to the BJRM Hospital along with Ct. Jitender. The witness has deposed that he inspected the site and in the meanwhile Ct. Jitender brought Manohar Lal and Vinod at the spot and handed over MLCs to him. The witness has deposed that he checked the both above said recovered country made pistols which were found loaded and he took out one live cartridge from each pistol. According to the witness thereafter he prepared the sketch of the country made pistol allegedly recovered from the accused Virender Partap Singh and its live cartridge which is Ex.PW9/B bearing his signatures at point C. The witness has deposed that on measurement length of pistol from the top of the barrel to the top of butt was 26.5 cm and the barrel was 15 cm long and that there was a transparent tape on the butt of the pistol. The witness has deposed that he also took measurements of the other parts of the pistol and cartridge and he mention all the measurements and the description in the sketch. The witness has deposed that he kept the pistol and cartridge in a cloth pullanda and marked the same as A1 and sealed the same with the seal of DB and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C. The witness has State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 30 of 65 further deposed that he also prepared the sketch of the second country made pistol and its live cartridge vide Ex.PW9/B and on measurement length of the pistol from point of barrel to the point of butt was 24.5 cm and length of barrel was 12.8cm and the right side of wood on the butt was found in the broken condition and he also took measurements of the other parts of the body of the pistol and cartridge and mentioned the same with description in the sketch Ex.PW9/B. The witness has deposed that he also kept these pistol and cartridge in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of DB and marked the pullanda as A2 and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/D. According to the witness he filled the FSL Form in respect of both pistols and he handed over seal to Ct. Bijender Dhama after use after which he recorded the statement of Manohar Lal which is Ex.PW10/A. The witness has deposed that he made endorsement upon the same vide Ex.PW16/B and handed over the same to Ct. Bijender Dhama for registration of the FIR. According to the witness he also called the crime team officials at the spot and they took photographs and after inspection handed over the crime team reports Ex.PW4/A and prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex.PW16/C. The witness has deposed that he recorded the statements of witnesses and in meanwhile Ct. Bijender reached at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 31 of 65 to him for further investigations after which he interrogated accused Virender Partap Singh and arrested him vide Ex.PW9/F and took his personal search vide Ex.PW9/G and also recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW9/H. According to the witness thereafter he inspected the cabin of the complainant at the second floor where blood was fell down during the incident, he lifted the blood from there with the help of cotton and kept the same in a small plastic container and prepared the cloth pullanda. The witness has deposed that he took his seal from Ct. Bijender and sealed the pullanda with the seal of DB and handed over the seal to Ct. Bijender again. He also seized the pullanda vide Ex.PW9/E bearing his signatures at point C and also recorded the statements of witnesses. According to the witness on the next day accused was produced in the court of Ld. MM and he was remanded upto 03.06.2012. He has deposed that during the police custody remand other accused could not be arrested and thereafter case file was handed over to SI Rakesh for further investigations. The witness has correctly identified in the court the accused Virender Pratap Singh and the case property i.e. country made pistols and cartridges Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
(33) In his cross examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused, the witness has denied that he took the statement of the complainant to be the gospel truth and did not try to find out the true facts and circumstances. He has further denied that nothing was State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 32 of 65 recovered from the accused Virender Partap Singh from the spot. The witness has further denied that the FIR was antetimed or that the blood was planted on the chair. He has also denied that he did not investigated the matter fairly and sincerely.
(34) PW17 SI Rakesh Duhan has deposed that on 07.06.2012 he was posted at police station Keshavpuram and on that day investigations of this case was marked to him after which he tried his best to arrest the other accused Rajesh but he could not apprehended. He obtained the opinion of the doctor on the MLCs. The witness has deposed that on 25.06.2012 exhibits of this case (fire arms and cartridge) were sent to the FSL Rohini through Ct. Mehar Singh. He also recorded the statement of Ct. Mehar Singh and MHC (M). The witness has deposed that on 09.07.2012 he obtained the NBWs of coaccused Rajesh. According to the witness on 17.08.2012 complainant was produced at the BJRM Hospital and his blood sample was taken and doctor handed over his blood sample in sealed condition with the seal of the hospital with sample seal to him in the presence of Ct. Pardeep Kumar and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A and deposited the same in the malkhana. The witness has further deposed that on 21.08.2012 all the remaining exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Jitender. He also collected the positive photographs and the CD from the crime team photographer. The witness has deposed that he recorded the State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 33 of 65 statements of witnesses and after completion of investigations he submitted the charge sheet against accused Virender Partap Singh. (35) The witness has deposed that during his investigations he collected the Balastic expert report which is Ex.PW8/A and obtained the Sanction under Section 39 Arms Act from the concerned DCP which is Ex.PX1 and submitted the supplementary charge sheet against the accused. The witness has further deposed that on 06.09.2012 process U/s 82 Cr. PC was issued against the accused Rajesh and on 17.11.2012 he was declared as PO by the hon'ble court of Ld. MM. He has deposed that he also collected the FSL result in respect of blood sample which is Ex.PX2 (two pages collectively) and he submitted further supplementary charge sheet in this case. The witness has correctly identified the accused Virender Partap Singh in the court.
(36) In his crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused, the witness has denied that the charge sheet was filled by him without application of mind. He has also denied that to cover up the lacunas in the present case, he took the blood samples of the complainant. He has also denied that he didn't investigate the matter fairly and sincerely.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(37) After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused Virender Pratap Singh was recorded under State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 34 of 65 Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. The accused has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him he has nothing to do with the alleged incident. He has further stated that he visited the place but suddenly the incident happened and when the complainant was shouting pakro - pakro, all the persons present there mistook him as one of the assailants and caught hold of him while the actual assailants ran away from the spot. According to the accused the kattas and the bag were planted upon him by the police officials to show him involvement in the present case. The accused has not examined any witness in defence.
FINDINGS:
(38) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused:
(39) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Virender Pratap Singh was apprehended by the public at the spot of incident itself. He has been specifically named in the FIR. The accused has State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 35 of 65 also been correctly identified in the court by the victims and the public witnesses i.e. Manohar Lal (PW10), Vinod Bohra (PW13) and Rahul Khanna (PW15). Even otherwise the accused does not dispute his identity rather in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC he admits being caught at the spot, his only defence being of mistaken identity. I hereby hold that the identity of the accused Virender Pratap Singh as the person who was apprehended at the spot and handed over to the police, stands established.
Medical / Forensic Evidence:
(40) Dr. Prem (PW11) and Dr. Gagan (PW12) have duly proved the MLCs of the injured Manohar Lal and Vinod Bohra which MLCs are Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B. They have proved that in so far as the victim Manohar Lal is concerned he was brought to the hospital with alleged history of physical assault and he has suffered abrasions on right thumb dorsal surface and on right forearm dorsal surface which injuries have been opined to be Simple in nature and caused by blunt object. In so far as the injured Vinod Bohra is concerned he was brought to the hospital with alleged history of physical assault and he has suffered minor abrasions inner surface of upper lip which was opined to be Simple in nature caused by blunt object. Both these doctors Dr. Prem (PW11) and Dr. Gagan State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 36 of 65 (PW12) not having been cross examined on behalf of the accused, the entire evidence have gone uncontroverted. (41) Further, Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary (PW14) has proved that on 17.10.2012 the injured Manohar Lal was brought to the hospital by the police for his medical examination and collection of the blood sample. He has further proved that Dr. Azia Manjoor has collected the blood sample of Manohar Lal and handed over the same to the IO in sealed condition vide MLC Ex.PW14/A. (42) It is evident that the blood sample of Manohar Lal and also the blood lifted from the spot was sent to the FSL for examination however the FSL report Ex.PX2 (not disputed by the accused) does not assist the prosecution in any manner since no opinion could be given on account of putrification of the blood sample.
(43) In view of the above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to effectively establish that the victims Manohar Lal and Vinod Bohra were brought to the hospital with alleged history of physical assault and had received simple injuries on their bodies caused by blunt object.
Ballistic Report:
(44) It is the case of the prosecution that two country made pistols were recovered from the spot i.e. one from the spot left State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 37 of 65 behind by the assailant who had run away from the spot with bag containing cash and could not be apprehended and the other one was recovered from the possession of the accused Virender Pratap Singh with which he had hit Manohar Lal and Vinod Bora. Both the recovered pistols were duly seized and sealed at the spot itself after which they were sent to the FSL for ballistic examination. Sh. Puneet Puri, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics) (PW8) has examined both the country made pistols Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 of .315 bore each and the cartridges Ex.P2 and Ex.P4 of 8mm each. He has proved that both the pistols were in working order and had been test fired successfully and the cartridges of 8mm were also successfully fired from the said country made pistols. He has further proved that the country made pistols were fire arms and cartridges were ammunition as defined under Arms Act. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW8/A and has also identified the two country made pistols and cartridges which had been sent to him for examination which are Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 respectively. The said witness has not been cross examined and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (45) In view of the above, the hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish that the country made pistols sent for ballistic examination were arms and ammunition as denied under the Arms Act.
State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 38 of 65
Allegations against the accused Virender Pratap Singh:
(46) Case of prosecution is that a robbery had taken place at the office premises of Rahul Beverages situated at A17, Lawrence Road Industrial Area wherein two assailants were involved. In the said robbery a black coloured bag containing cash amount of approximately Rs. 2022 thousand had been looted from the cashier Manohar Lal by the assailants and carried away by the assailant who had managed to escape from the spot. One of the assailants i.e. the present accused Virender Pratap Singh had been apprehended by the victims / public persons at the spot itself while he was trying to escape because while coming down the staircase he had fallen down and the victims had raised an alarm.
(47) The prosecution in support of its case has relied upon the testimonies of Manohar Lal (PW10) and Vinod Bohra (PW13) both of whom had received injuries in the incident and also the testimony of Rahul Khanna (PW15) who is the owner of the factory and had seen the accused Virender Pratap Singh running away and had along with the other staff of factory overpowered the accused Virender Pratap Singh and apprehended him along with the fire arm at the spot itself.
(48) In rebuttal, the Ld. Defence Counsel has also placed his reliance upon the cross examination of the above witnesses and has highlighted various contradictions in the same. He submits that there State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 39 of 65 are material contradictions in the testimonies of the alleged witnesses who the prosecution claim are eye witnesses and also the contradictions in the nature of injuries as mentioned in the MLCs.
He has pointed out that Ct. Bijender Dhama (PW9) states that Manohar Lal was bleeding from mouth as well as head and Vinod Bohra received internal injuries on the chest whereas Manohar Lal (PW10) states in his cross examination that Vinod Bohra had received injuries on the mouth / lips and he was bleeding. He has also pointed out that Manohar Lal has informed the court that police had not seized his blood stained clothes and this apparently means that no injury as claimed was sustained. Ld. Defence Counsel has further relied upon the testimony of Vinod Bohra (PW13) who in his examinationinchief has stated that the accused hit him with the butt of the pistol on his head / chest and in his cross examination he admits that he himself was having swelling on cheek and chest. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that according to Rahul Khanna (PW15), the injured Vinod Bohra was hit by the accused on the head and he saw bleeding on the face of Manohar Lal and also some bleeding on his hand whereas the injuries shown in the MLC are different i.e. abrasions on right thumb dorsal and forearm with no mentioning of bleeding. He has pointed out that the MLC of Vinod Bohra (PW13) shows minor abrasion on the inner surface of upper lip with no bleeding. Ld. Counsel has further pointed out that there was blood State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 40 of 65 on the chair of cabin and hence if none of the victims were bleeding from where it had come. Also, if the victims were bleeding why their clothes were not seized by the investigating officer. He has further pointed out that according to Manohar Lal it was he who made call at 100 number but according to Vinod Bohra and also Rahul, it may be Chacha of Rahul Khanna who had made call at 100 number but they are sure that Manohar Lal had not made the call. It is argued that none of the witness is able to explain as to who had made the call and even the 100 number call form has not been a part of the charge sheet which creates a doubt that there can be something fishy. Ld. Defence counsel has further pointed out that according to Manohar Lal they had shouted 'Bachao, mujhe loot liya, maar rahe hain whereas Vinod Bohra stats that he shouted 'Bachao - Bachao'. He has further pointed out that Manohar Lal is not even able to tell the physical description of the other coaccused which again creates a doubt on the prosecution version.
(49) I have considered the rival contentions and before coming to the merits of the same I first come to the testimony of Manohar Lal (PW10) relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:
"I am residing at the aforementioned address and I am working with Rahul Beverges at A17, Lawrence road industrial area as a cashier. The company is involved into supply of packets of soft drink, water and juices etc. State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 41 of 65 My job is to receive the cash payments from the various parties. My office is situated on the second floor of the building. On 28.05.2012 at about 12 PM (afternoon) I was working in my office when the chowkidar of the company namely Vinod Bohra came to my office along with two boys. He left the boys in the office and told me that they wanted to give some cash payment which I should take (cash lai loo) and thereafter went away. One boy sat in front of me on the chair whereas the other boy stood outside. The boy who sat in front of me was having a jalidar/netted cloth bag of purple color.
He kept the bag on my table. I asked him for the payment on which he took out pistol from the bag and pointed the same on me and threatened me by saying that I should hand over the cash to him or else he would shoot me " cash do verna goli mar doonga". On this I got scared and disturbed. In order to save myself, I immediately caught hold of barrel of the pistol which was being held by this boy and pushed it in a direction away from me. He pushed me as a result of which I fell down and thereafter he hit me on my hand with the butt of the pistol. This boy immediately picked up a black color bag which I had kept near the table which bag was containing about 2022 thousand rupees and some documents of the company and thereafter he ran out from the cabin. I saw that both these boys were going downstairs after taking the staircase and I immediately raised an alarm "bacho, mujhe loot liya, maar rahe hai". The boy who had snatched my bag slipped while going downstairs and both the bag and fire arm which he was carrying fell down. The other boy who was earlier standing outside my cabin immediately picked up the said bag containing the cash State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 42 of 65 and ran away after leaving the fire arm/pistol behind. In so far as I had noticed the assailants had put my black bag in the bag which they were carrying. On hearing my alarm, the chowikdar Vinod Bohra also came to the spot along with labour and we all caught hold the boy who had fallen down. When this boy was apprehended by Vinod Bohra, he also hit Vinod Bohra (Vinod Bhora se bhir gaya) with his butt as a result of which Vinod received injuries. The said boy had also received some injuries when he had fallen down. I immediately dialed 100 number after which the police came to the spot. While I and Vinod Bohra taken to BJRM hospital the accused / assailant who had been apprehended by us was handed over to the police by us along with the two pistols i.e. one which was thrown at the spot by the accused who had run away and the other which was in his possession and with which he had hit Vinod. After we returned from the hospital the accused was interrogated in my presence and he disclosed his identity as Virender Partap Singh, resident of district Gonda, UP. He had also given the details of his village, which I do not recollect at present."
(50) I may observe that Manohar Lal has also identified both the country made pistols / kattas Ex.P1 and P3 one of which was dropped by one of the assailants who had escaped from the spot and the other which was recovered from the possession of accused Virender Pratap Singh. He has also proved the arrest of the accused. In his cross examination he has explained that there were not many blood stains on his clothes and that there were just one or two drops State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 43 of 65 of blood. He has further explained that Vinod Bohra had received injuries and was bleeding from his mouth and lips but he is unable to tell if the clothes of Vinod Bohra were having blood stains but police did not seize his shirt. He has further explained that Vinod Bohra is only a Chwokidar and not a gunman and was not carrying any fire arm and also states that at the time of incident he was alone at his office and other employees were working in the factory were present in the complex but were at other places. Manohar Lal is most categorical in identification of the accused and has explained that in fact it was Virender Pratap Singh who had come inside his office and robbed him and when he raised cries he was caught by Vinod after which he fell down in the staircase. He has denied that the accused has been falsely implicated on account of mistaken identity only because he was present in the vicinity of the area. (51) Coming now to the testimony of Vinod Bohra (PW13) relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:
"I am residing at the aforementioned address at Delhi for the last about five years and I am working as a chowkidar at Rahul Beverages situated at A17, Lawrence road. Manohar Lal is the cashier of the company/factory and his job is to collect the payment from the party. On 28.05.2012 I was on duty at gate. Two persons came to me and told me that they wanted to deposit some cash in the factory. I took the two boys to the company cashier Manohar Lal on the second floor and told him that the boy had come to deposit some cash State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 44 of 65 and thereafter I returned to the main gate. After about 1015 minutes I heard the voices of cashier Manohar Lal saying "bachao yeh cash le kar bhag rahe hai". On hearing the voices of Manohar Lal, I ran towards the direction of second floor but before I reached there I saw that one boy had run away but one boy of the boys who was holding a pistol on his hand was climbing down and I caught him when he hit me with the butt of the pistol on my face and chest. The owner of the factory Rahul also came out and other persons also gathered and we could manage to apprehend this boy. I can identify the assailant.
At this stage, the witness has correctly identified the accused Virender Partap Singh who is present in the court today by pointing out towards him and putting his hand on him.
Later on I came to know that his name was Virender and he had disclosed that he was original resident of district Ghonda, UP. Somebody informed the police and police came to the spot and the accused along with the fire arm recovered from him and also left by the absconding accused was handed over to them. It was the police who inquired about his name and whereabouts when his name was disclosed by him as Virender."
(52) This witness has also correctly identified the kattas and the cartridges Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 which had been seized by the police and also the arrest memo of the accused which memo bears his signatures. He has specifically denied the suggestion made by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case on account of mistaken identity because he was State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 45 of 65 present in the vicinity of the area. He has also denied the suggestion that he had not received injuries on his chest or face and has clarified that there was no blood on his clothes and there was only swelling on his cheek and chest.
(53) Coming now to the testimony of Rahul Khanna (PW15) who was also present in the factory complex at the time when the incident had taken place on the ground floor and on hearing the alarm raised by Manohar Lal, he started running from the second floor along with Vinod and found a boy who was lying there and was trying to get up and running away and immediately the said boy pulled out a pistol and hit Vinod Bohra and thereafter tried to run away but they overpowered him and apprehended him and in the meanwhile Manohar Lal also reached there who informed them that he was the boy who robbed him along with another boy who had already ran away from the spot. Rahul Khanna has proved that they then made a PCR call at 100 number and also looked for the other boy who ran away with the cash but could not locate him. The relevant poztion of his testimony is reproduced as under:
"I am residing at the aforementioned address along with my family and I am running a factory under the name of Rahul Beverages at A17, Industrial area, Lawrence road, Delhi. I am into business of manufacturing and packing of drinking water and supply of soft drinks. On 28.05.2012 around 12 PM (afternoon) I was standing outside my factory, when I suddenly heard alarm/ voices State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 46 of 65 of Sh. Manohar Lal Joshi who is a cashier in our factory, which voices were coming from the second floor. I could only hear the voice "pakro pakro" on which I started running towards teh second floor along with the chowkidar Vinod Bohra. While we had started climbing on the staircase and just climbed 34 steps we found a pistol lying there. I asked Vinod to pick up the pistol and while we hardly moved 34 steps we found a boy lying there, who was trying to get up and run away but we immediately got him and asked him who he was, on which the said boy brought out the pistol and hit Vinod on his head in an attempt to run away. In the meanwhile out other staff also join us and we were able to apprehend him. In the meanwhile Manohar Lal Joshi also came and told us that he was the boy who had come inside his office and looted him after showing a pistol. He also informed us that there was another boy with him and which boy was no longer there and had run away. I also noticed bleeding on the face of Sh. Manohar Lal Joshi and a little bleeding on his hand. We immediately made a call to 100 number and tried to look for the other boy who had absconded with the cash but could not locate him. In the meanwhile the PCR officials also came to the spot. Before the PCR officials came when I made inquiries from the said boy and he informed that his name was Virender Partap Singh and he was a resident of Nawabganj Gonda UP. Thereafter police reached at the spot and we handed over Virender Partap Singh to the police along with two pistols i.e. the one which was found lying on the staircase and the other one which was in the hand of the accused with which he had hit our chowkidar Vinod while trying to free from the spot. I can identify the assailant if shown to me. At this stage, the witness has correctly identified the accused Virender Paratap Singh State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 47 of 65 by specifically pointed out towards him. The police in my presence had checked both the kattas/ country made pistol and each one of them found to contain live cartridge. Police had taken Sh. Manohar Lal Joshi and our chowkidar Vinod Bohra to the hospital while I remained outside the factory as the police was inside the factory and carrying out various proceedings at the spot of the incident. Police also prepared the various documents i.e. sketch of the kattas/cartridges and thereafter converted the same into pullandas. They also prepared other documents but I am not aware of the details. They interrogated me and I informed them about whatever had happened. "
(54) The witness Rahul Khanna has also identified the country made pistols Ex.P1 and P3 and the cartridges Ex.P2 and P4. In his cross examination he has explained that he is not very much sure as to who made the 100 number call whether it was his Chacha or somebody else. According to him he did not see Manohar Lal making call at 100 number and explained that Manohar Lal was very much perplexed at that time. He has also specifically denied the suggestion made by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of mistaken identity because he was present in the vicinity of the area. (55) It is evident from the aforesaid that all the above witnesses have identified the accused as the boy whom they had apprehended at the spot of the incident while trying to escape after an armed robbery and even the accused Virender Pratap Singh does not State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 48 of 65 dispute his presence at the spot (in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC) but claims that he was an innocent passerbye in the area. I may observe that the spot of incident is a private property i.e. Factory Complex and not a thoroughfare and incident has been committed on the 2nd floor and the accused was apprehended while he was rushing down form the 2nd floor through staircase where he slipped and fell. The onus of explaining what he was doing there now shifts upon the accused who incidentally has not been able to offer any explanation how he reached inside the factory on the 2nd floor and also why he was carrying a fire arm. The injuries on the bodies of the victims have been proved to be caused by a blunt object and victims claim it was by butt of the revolver and accused has not been able to successfully controvert their claims.
(56) Further, coming now to the contradictions as pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel. In the judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly explained reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses which are as under:
(a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 49 of 65 the mental screen.
(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(c) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 50 of 65
(f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated lateron.
(g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing crossexamination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.
(57) Applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present case I hereby hold that both Manohar Lal and Vinod Bohra are the persons who had even received injuries in the incident. Manohar Lal has explained that it was the accused entered in his cabin and sat in front of him whereas the other boy stood outside. Having closely observed both the boys who came to him and even conversed with him on the pretext of making payment but thereafter State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 51 of 65 having threatened him to handover the cash to him, it is writ large that there was sufficient time for Manohar Lal to have closely observed both the assailants who were bare faced and the incident having taken place in broad day light it rules out any possibility of a mistaken identity. Manohar Lal has very categorically identified the accused Virender Pratap Singh as the one who had robbed him and while he raised an alarm, it was Virender Pratap Singh who had robbed of his bag, slipped down on the stairs on account of which both the bag as well as the fire arm fell down when immediately the other boy lifted the bag and ran away from the spot. He has also explained that the assailants were having another bag with them and they put the robbed bag in their bag and thereafter ran away. I may add that the discrepancies as pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel are not material. In a incident which occurred all of a sudden and large number of events take place in quick succession, there is a possibility of the victims getting shocked on account of the incident and then mixed up with the sequence of events which have transpired. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), it is not proper to expect from the eye witness to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident as it is a video tape is replayed on the mental screen and it is also unrealistic to expect people to remember the exact words and reproduce them as if tape State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 52 of 65 recorded and it is sufficient if main purport of the conversation is given. Further, the powers of observation differ from person to person and what one may notice, another may not and hence the discrepancies in the testimonies of Manohar Lal, Vinod and Rahul what Manohar Lal has observed from 2nd floor at a given point of time would be different to what has been observed by Vinod standing on the ground floor when Manohar Lal raised an alarm and similarly the observation of Rahul who was standing on the ground floor near gate of factory could be different when he heard the alarm. I may further observe that witness Manohar Lal, Vinod and Rahul though truthful yet on account of the court atmosphere and the piercing crossexamination by the Defence Counsel out of nervousness did get mix up and confused on facts regarding sequence of events and extent of injuries as received and thereafter tried to fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment by exaggerating the injuries. This was a kind of psychological defence mechanism which gets activated on the moment. There is no history of previous animosity between the complainant or of the other eye witnesses and the accused and hence there is no reason for them to falsely implicate him. On the contrary in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC the accused admits that he was present at the spot of the incident when the complainant was shouting pakropakro and has tried to explain that he was apprehended and implicated on account of mistaken State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 53 of 65 identity whereas the actual assailants ran away. (58) As already discussed here in above, there is no reason for the victims and other eye witnesses to falsely implicate the accused as the person who had wiped out a pistol and robbed Manohar Lal. What was the accused doing inside a private property used as a factory and that too duly armed with a country made fire arm which he showed to the people who caught him. In fact the victim Rahul Khanna (PW15) has not been cross examined on this aspect of the accused having pulled out the pistol and shown the same to him and therefore under these circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve him on this aspect. I hereby hold that the contradictions if any are immaterial and will not affect the prosecution case on merits. It also makes no difference as to who made PCR call whether Manohar Lal or anybody else. The fact of the matter is that the accused had been apprehended at the spot by the public persons and the country made pistol was recovered from his possession after which he was handed over to the police. Also the fact that Manohar Lal and Vinod Bohra had received injuries which were simple in nature stands established on merits. The victims have exaggerated their injuries and were not bleeding at that time yet it would not help the accused in any manner because the injuries received by the victims have been caused by blunt object which the victims have explained was the butt of the revolver carried by the accused. The blood found on the chair could State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 54 of 65 have been caused on account of head bleeding form mouth / teeth etc. since injuries have been found on faces of the victims. I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the charge against the accused Virender Pratap Singh of committing armed robbery upon victims and also causing injuries to the victims by dangerous weapons / fire arm.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
(59) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 55 of 65 except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(60) Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that identity of the accused Virender Pratap Singh stands established. Further, it stands established that on 28.5.2012 the victims Manohar Lal (Cashier) and Vinod Bohra (Chwokidar) were present in the factory M/s Rahul Beverages situated at A17, Lawrence Road Industrial Area. It stands established that the accused Virender Pratap Singh along with his associate (not arrested) came to the factory and told Vinod Bohra that they wanted to deposit money; that Vinod Bohra accompanied both of them to the cashier Manohar Lal; that the accused Virender Pratap Singh sat in front of Manohar Lal while his associate stood outside to keep a watch; that when Manohar Lal asked the accused to show the receipt, the accused Virender Pratap Singh pulled out a pistol and shown it to Manohar Lal and asked him to handover the cash; that Manohar Lal offered resistance to the accused but in that process State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 56 of 65 Manohar Lal fell down and in the meantime accused lifted the bag from the table which bag was containing cash and some documents and started running away; that Manohar Lal raised an alarm on which the Chowkidar Vinod Bohra and the owner of the factor Rahul Khanna rushed towards the ground floor; that while running away, the accused slipped and fell down on stairs and the bag and the pistol slipped from his hand and in the meantime the other assailant came there and lifted the bag and ran away from the spot whereas the accused Virender Pratap Singh was apprehended by the victims and other staff after which police was informed and the pistols and the accused were handed over to the police.
(61) It further stands established that the victims Manohar Lal and Vinod Bohra have received injuries in the incident which injuries were simple in nature which were caused by blunt object which victims have proved was butt of the pistol which accused Virender Pratap was carrying.
(62) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 57 of 65 offence. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
(63) In view of the aforesaid, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Virender Pratap Singh who is hereby held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 394 read with 397 Indian Penal Code.
(64) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 19.3.2013.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 13.03.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 58 of 65 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 92/2012 Unique Case ID: 02404R0249072012 State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh S/o Yogender Pratap Singh R/o Village Ballipur Police Station Nawab Ganj, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh (Convicted) FIR No. : 135/2012 Police Station : Keshav Puram Under Section : 392/394/397/34 IPC Date of conviction : 13.3.2013 Arguments heard on : 19.3.2013 Date of sentence : 20.3.2013 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Virender Pratap Singh in Judicial Custody with Sh. Shubham Asri, Advocate / Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per the allegations on 28.5.2012 at about 12 O'clock (noon) at A17, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi, the accused Virender Pratap Singh along with his associate Rajesh Kumar (since State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 59 of 65 not arrested) committed robbery of Rs.20,000/ to Rs.25,000/ and some documents from the victim Manohar Lal who was the cashier of M/s. Rahul Beverages and also voluntarily caused hurt to Manohar Lal. It is also alleged that while committing the aforesaid robbery, the accused Virender Pratap Singh used a country made pistol which country made pistol was later on recovered from his possession after his apprehension at the spot itself.
On the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly the victims Manohar Lal and Vinod Bohra and public witness Rahul Khanna and also on the basis of other evidence on record, this court vide a detailed judgment dated 13.3.2013 observed that the identity of the accused Virender Pratap Singh stood established. Further, it has been established that on 28.5.2012 the victims Manohar Lal (Cashier) and Vinod Bohra (Chwokidar) were present in the factory M/s Rahul Beverages situated at A17, Lawrence Road Industrial Area; that the accused Virender Pratap Singh along with his associate (not arrested) came to the factory and told Vinod Bohra that they wanted to deposit money; that Vinod Bohra accompanied both of them to the cashier Manohar Lal; that the accused Virender Pratap Singh sat in front of Manohar Lal while his associate stood outside to keep a watch; that when Manohar Lal asked the accused to show the receipt the accused Virender Pratap Singh pulled out a pistol and shown it to Manohar State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 60 of 65 Lal and asked him to handover the cash; that Manohar Lal offered resistance to the accused in which process Manohar Lal fell down and in the meantime accused lifted the bag from the table which bag was containing cash and some documents and started running away; that Manohar Lal raised an alarm on which the Chowkidar Vinod Bohra and the owner of the factor Rahul Khanna rushed towards the ground floor; that while running away, the accused slipped and fell down on stairs and the bag and the pistol slipped from his hand and in the meantime the other assailant came there and lifted the bag and ran away from the spot whereas the accused Virender Pratap Singh was apprehended by the victims and other staff after which police was informed and the pistols and the accused were handed over to the police.
In view of the above, this Court has held the accused Virender Pratap Singh guilt of the offence under Section Section 392 read with 394 read with 397 Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Virender Pratap Singh is stated to be aged about 25 years, unmarried, B.A. Pass, labour by profession having a family comprising of aged parents and two sisters. Apart from the present case, the convict is also involved in the following cases :
1. FIR No. 848/08 under Section 395/397 IPC Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Gonda, U.P. State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 61 of 65
2. FIR No. 886/08 under Section 147/148/149/307/34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Gonda, U.P.
3. FIR No. 888/08 under Section 3/25 Arms Act Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Gonda, U.P.
4. FIR No. 150/09 under Section 3 (i) U.P. Gunda Act Police Station Nawab Ganj, Gonda, U.P. Ld. Amicus Curiae for the convict has vehemently argued that the convict is the sole bread earner of the family and a lenient view be taken against them. On the other hand the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has prayed for a stern view against the convict keeping in view the allegations involved and the previous criminal involvements of the convict.
I have considered the rival contentions. Law and order situation has been deteriorating in the country and has worsen in the recent past. Instances of young persons getting involved in criminal activities of robbing innocent persons by putting them under threat of death, are also on rise. Trigger friendly criminals unhesitatingly and indiscriminately use dangerous firearms on helpless victims who may or not offer any resistance thereby spreading terror in the society and adversely affecting social order and the faith of people in the system. There was no previous animosity between the convict and the victim and the intent was solely monetary gain. Undue sympathy, under these circumstances, to impose inadequate sentence would do more State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 62 of 65 harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of this court to award a sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. (Ref: Sevaka Perumal Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1991 SC 1463).
In the recent past Delhi has experienced a spurt and rise in the incidents of snatching, robbery, dacoity, murder and other kinds of crime. The deteriorating law and order problem of the City is a matter of serious concern and immediate steps are required to be taken at all levels for ensuring security and safety of the citizens. Under these circumstances the courts are required to find answers to the new challenges facing the society and to mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should be conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of the rime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Rajiv Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175).
The convict Virender Pratap Singh is having previous involvements at Gonda Uttar Pradesh and is a habitual offender and State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 63 of 65 history sheeter. He has committed an armed robbery in the broad day light without any fear of law and in the said process Manohar Lal and Vinod Bohra had even been injured. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations involved and criminal involvements of the convict Virender Pratap Singh he is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/ for the offence under Section 392 read with 394 read with 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him, as per rules.
The convict has been informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached with his jail warrant.
File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up on State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 64 of 65 arrest of the accused Rajesh Kumar who has not been arrested.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 20.3.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh, FIR No. 135/12, PS Keshav Puram Page 65 of 65