Delhi District Court
Fir No. 677/07; State vs . Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 1 Of 23 on 29 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 63/11
FIR No. 677/07
P.S. Rajouri Garden
U/S: 392/397/411 IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) UTTAMJIT SINGH @ BOBBY
s/o Sukhdev
r/o 11A/29, WEA Karol Bagh, Delhi
(2) AJAY KUMAR @ JANU
s/o Ranbir Singh @ Kala Bhagat
r/o 2780, Sidhipura, Gali no. 14B,
Rani Jhansi Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi
Date of Institution: 12112007
Date of arguments: 29042013
Date of judgement: 29042013
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 30082007, on receipt of DD no. 46A, Ct. Brijpal and SI Sita Ram reached at Mayapuri Flyover where they met complainant Smt. Vajanti Vardhrajan who gave her statement to the police. In her FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 1 of 23 statement, complainant stated that she works in Oriental Insurance Company, Asaf Ali Road as Asstt. Manager. On 30082007 at about 6:30 pm she was going to her home at Vasant Kunj via Ring RoadRaja GardenMayapuri Chowk by driving herself in her Esteem car bearing no. DL6CK5013. When complainant entered Mayapuri Chowk, one scooter rider aged 2225 years pointed towards the tyre of her car as if it was punctured. Complainant stopped her car on the side of the road and that person also came to complainant and told that the tyre was wobbling and he can repair the same. That person asked the complainant to repair the car at petrol pump. When complainant tried to start the car, that person came near the complainant and took out the ignition key of the car. Complainant tried to start the car again, and that person again took out the ignition key of the car. In the meanwhile, that person took out a knife from his pocket and showed it to complainant and asked the complainant to hand over her mangalsutra, three rings, one diamond, one pearl and one garnet, and one gold kada. Complainant handed over these articles to that person. Rs. 15,000/ cash, ATM card were also taken by the person on the point of knife. FIR u/s 392 IPC was registered. Crime Team was informed and investigation was conducted by SI Sita Ram. In her supplementary FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 2 of 23 statement, complainant also stated that due to fear she told the PIN number of HDFC ATM card to the accused and there was one pair of jhumka in the mangalsutra which accused had also taken.
2. On 06092007, information was received in PS Rajouri Garden through DD no. 11A that accused Uttamjit Singh @ Bobby was arrested in case FIR no. 545/07 u/s 392/397/411 IPC, PS Hauz Khas and he has made disclosure about this case. On 08092007, SI Sita Ram obtained relevant papers of case FIR no. 545/07 from IO SI Rajeev. It was also revealed that one more accused Ajay was arrested and jewellery was recovered from him. On the direction of court dated 10092007, accused Uttamjit Sigh and Ajay were interrogated in the jail on 11092007 and they were arrested in this case. Section 397/411 IPC was added. On 17092007, accused Ajay was granted bail from the court. On 04102007, accused Uttamjit refused to participate in TIP and on 08102007, the case property was identified by the complainant. During interrogation, it was revealed that accused Uttamjit @ Bobby withdrew Rs. 10,500/ from the ATM by using the card of complainant and the looted jewellery was given to accused Ajay. The clothes worn by accused Uttamjit Singh on 30082007 were taken into possession. Scooter no. DL6SK8229 make Bajaj whose rear number plate was defected FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 3 of 23 and the knife both used in the crime were also taken into possession. The looted jewellery was also recovered from accused Ajay. After completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 411 IPC against accused Ajay and u/s 392/397 IPC against accused Uttamjit Singh @ Bobby was filed.
3. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 397 IPC r/w section 392 IPC was framed against accused Uttamjeet Singh @ Bobby and charge u/s 411 IPC was framed against accused Ajay Kumar to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. therein they denied all the allegations made against them. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
5. I have heard Ld. Defence counsel and Ld. APP for State and have perused the entire records.
6. Ld. Defence counsel for accused persons argued that PW1, PW3, PW6, PW9 and PW11 are the material witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the Prosecution. There is no witness of Crime Team and security guard examined by the prosecution. Site plan is doubtful. Site plan was not prepared in the FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 4 of 23 presence of PW1. No witness of PCR cited nor any statement of PCR official was recorded. No witness of PS Naraina or PS Kirti Nagar examined. Statement of the complainant was recorded in PS Raja Garden and not at the spot. It is not enough to prove the scooter and knife in question unless shown to the accused. No footage of security camera demanded nor recovered. Nothing has come on record as to what amount was withdrawn from the ATM. No statement of ATM card filed. Identification of accused in the court after much time is not relevant. PW3, PW6 and PW11 are the witnesses of arrest of the accused. No public witness was joined during arrest. The accused Uttamjit Singh was arrested at the PS. There is a contradiction in the pointing out memo. Nowhere it has come in the testimony of PW3, PW6 and PW11 that the accused Utttamjit Singh was in muffled face. The recovery from the accused Ajay is doubtful. Jewellery articles have not been identified by PWs. Unless the accused is in custody, the recovery made is inadmissible in evidence. Dishonest intention is the basic ingredient u/s 411 IPC. Prosecution has failed to prove that accused Ajay had the dishonest intention and it was a stolen property. There is no recovery witness. No sketch, no search qua the accused Ajay. There is no evidence that accused Ajay was in exclusive possession of the house. The FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 5 of 23 Ld. Counsel for the accused Uttamjit Singh in support of his arguments relied upon the judgement reported in the case of Pradeep Gandhi Vs. State 2010 (1) Crimes 723 (DHC).
7. Ld. APP for State argued that the accused Uttamjit Singh committed robbery from the complainant and the gold jewellery were recovered from the accused Ajay. The complainant identified the accused Uttamjit. The accused Uttamjit Singh refused to participate in TIP. The complainant also identified her jewellery articles in TIP proceedings. PW2 has proved the DD no. 46A. FIR in this regard has also been proved. The accused Uttamjit Singh also led the police officials to the house of accused Ajay and got recovered the jewellery articles from there. The recovery witnesses has also identified accused Ajay. The Ld. APP for State, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgements reported in the case of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhanda, AIR 2011 SC 200; Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920 and Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of MP, 1991 CRI.L.J. 2653(1).
8. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel and the Ld. APP for the State, let us examine the evidence led in this case as to whether the accused persons had committed FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 6 of 23 the offence as charged or whether they have been falsely implicated. PW1 Vajaynti Vardhrajan is the complainant. She deposed that she is working as Asstt. Manager with Oriental Insurance Company at Asaf Ali Road. On 30082007 at about 6:30 pm, she was going to her house via Mayapuri flyover in her Esteem car no. DL6CK5013. As she approached Mayapuri flyover, one person riding two wheeler scooter, pointed out towards the left side back tyre of the car that there was something wrong in the tyre. She stopped her car towards one side of flyover and came out to see the tyre. Scooter rider also stopped behind her car and said that the tyre was wobbling and said that if she had tools, he would repair the tyre. The complainant opened the dicky of the car for taking out he tools but that person shut the dicky and asked her to get the car repaired from the petrol pump. PW1 got inside her car and when she was starting the car, he knocked the windowpane and asked her to roll down the window. PW1 asked the direction of petrol pump from the scooterist. He used abusive language and said "udhar ja kar bata dena main kaun huin". He took out the ignition keys and threw it on her lap. PW1 tried to start her car again. This time, he took out the ignition key and kept in his hand. PW1 tried to open the door but he slammed the door shut. He abused and took FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 7 of 23 out a knife from his pocket and kept at some distance from her neck and asked her to take out the jewellery which she was wearing. He also asked PW1 to hand over whatever cash she had with her.
9. PW1 further stated that when complainant was taking out the cash from her purse, he asked for the debit cards. He took away her Mangalsutra with pendent, gold kada, three rings out of which one was of diamond, one of pearl and one was of garnet, cash of Rs. 1500/ and ATM card. He asked complainant for the PIN number of the ATM card which she refused. He again put the knife close to her neck and she told him the PIN number. He threatened complainant that if the number was found wrong, he would come back again. The complainant identified accused Uttamjit Singh in the court. PW1 called the police at 100 number. Police came there and recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A. She also showed them the place of occurrence. After few weeks, police told her that accused have been apprehended and her jewellery have been recovered. Complainant was called to identify the accused on 04102007 at jail no. 4, Tihar, Delhi but accused Uttamjit Singh refused to participate in TIP. On 08102007, complainant was again called to identify the recovered things and she came to Rohini court and she identified her Mangalsutra, three FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 8 of 23 rings (2 rings without peal and garnet) and one gold kada before Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. MM. Complainant stated that when she identified her Mangalsutra, it was without corals. The complainant produced her jewellery articles which were exhibited as Mangalsutra as Ex. P1, rings Ex. P2 to P4 and gold kada as Ex. P5. She signed the TIP proceedings Ex. PW1/B. PW1 further stated that on 25102007, she had come to court to meet the IO and on that day she identified accused Uttamjit before the IO when he was being produced before the court.
10. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Uttamjit Singh, PW1 stated that on the day of incident she was going from Raja Garden to Vasant Kunj via Mayapuri Flyover. After incident, she informed the police on 100 number from her mobile number 9810740047. PCR van reached at the spot within 15 minutes of her call which she roughly remembered. PW1 further stated that her statement was recorded in the police station Rajouri Garden but she could not recall if police recorded her statement on subsequent occasion or not however, she met police official on several occasions. PW1 stated in her statement to the police Ex. PW1/A that "He took the ignition keys and threw it on my lap." confronted with Ex. PW1/A, where the word 'keys and threw it on FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 9 of 23 my lap' it was not recorded. PW1 volunteered that only 'lap' word was not there in the said statement. PW1 categorically stated in her crossexamination that whatever articles were snatched off by the accused belonging to her, she had stated to the police in her complaint Ex. PW1/A. Police had asked her to produce the bills of her jewellery articles snatched off by the accused and she told them that the jewellery were given by her parents at the time of her marriage and she had informed them that she had a bill of her diamond ring but she did not hand over the copy of the said bill. However, PW1 did not recall if the police had asked her to hand over the said bills to them.
11. PW1 also stated in her crossexamination that there was a cash withdrawal done on her ATM Card which was snatched off by the accused Uttamjit. PW1 stated that she was informed about the arrest of the accused by the police. PW1 also stated in her cross examination that she had stated to the police about the description and identification of all her jewellery articles snatched off by the accused at the time of the incident. PW1 further stated in her cross examination that she brought the jewellery articles taken by her on superdari and which were snatched by the accused. PW1 shown all those articles to the Ld. Defence Counsel. PW1 however did not FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 10 of 23 remember if she had stated to the police the minute details of the jewellery articles snatched by the accused, however, she had stated the ring with diamond, Mangalsutra, pearl ring, kara and garnet ring in her statement to the police. PW1 also stated to the police about initials of MM on her Mangalsutra. PW1 denied the suggestion that she had never been robbed off by the accused Uttamjit. PW1 further denied the suggestion that her car was never got stopped by the accused. PW1 also denied the suggestion that accused Uttamjeet Singh was shown to her in the police station by the police officials. PW1 also denied the suggestion that all the jewellery articles were also shown to her in the police station itself. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in this case or that he has no concern with the present case.
12. PW1 the complainant is the victim in this case. In this regard, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal, 2008 (8) JT 650:
2008 (11) SCALE 233, it was held that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement. In Raja Vs. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del.), it was held that it is wellknown FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 11 of 23 principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to a conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the Prosecution. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him a truthful witness. It has been further held that Section 134 categorically lays down that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In the present case, the testimony of PW1 has not only inspired the confidence but also trustworthy. Moreover, PW8 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. ACJcum ARC proved the TIP proceedings of accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby vide Ex.PW8/B. The accused Uttam Jit Singh refused to take part in the TIP proceedings. PW8 also proved TIP proceedings of case property as Ex.PW8/E (colly.).
13. PW2 Ct. Brij Pal stated that on 30082007, he handed over DD no. 46A Ex. PW2/A to SI Sita Ram and accompanied him to Mayapuri Flyover. IO recorded statement of Smt. Vijayanti and handed over rukka to him for registration of FIR and he got the FIR registered and returned at the spot along with original rukka and FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 12 of 23 copy of FIR and same were handed over to IO. PW3 Ct. Rajinder Kumar stated that on 05.09.07, he was posted at PS Haus Khas and joined SI Rajiv Kumar in the investigation of case FIR No. 545/07, PS Haus Khas. On that day, accused Uttamjit Singh (correctly identified) was arrested from his house at Karol Bagh in case FIR No. 545/07. Thereafter, IO interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW3/A. The accused disclosed that scooter No. DL6XK8229 of matmaila colour can be recovered by him from the rear gali of his house. The accused also disclosed that he worn pant and shirt from the room No. 202 of his house which were worn by him on the day of incident and he can also got recovered the knife from his house which used by him and he can also get recovered other robbed article. Accused thereafter taken to PS. The accused was already arrested at the place of apprehension by the IO in FIR No. 545/07, PS Haus Khas. On the next day, after taking the accused from lockup. PW3 along with IO/SI Rajiv Kumar, SI D. P. Singh took the accused to Jhandewalan near Rani Jhasi road to the house of coaccused Anil and he got recovered the robbed jewellery i.e. gold jhumki, three gold rings, and other jewellery items and converted same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of RK and seized through seizure memo ExPW3/G. FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 13 of 23 Thereafter accused was brought to PS. IO deposited property into Malkhana. Thereafter the accused was produced in court and the accused was again taken on PC remand as IO made application in this regard before Ld. MM. Thereafter accused was taken to PS and interrogated.
14. PW3 clarified that on 05.09.07, after disclosure of accused Uttamjit Singh, he led them to gali behind his house and therefore he got the above said scooter which was seized by the IO while preparing seizure Ex. PW3/B and he also got recovered his clothes which were seized by IO while making pullanda sealed with the seal of RK through seizure memo Ex. PW3/D. The accused also got recovered the knife from the drawer of almirah from his aforesaid room. IO prepared the sketch Ex. PW3/F of knife and converted the knife into pullanda which was sealed with the seal of RK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/E. Document already Ex PW3/C pointing out memo of spot made by IO dt. 07.01.07 which was prepared by the IO during investigation when accused was led out the place of incident. PW3 identified one buttandar knife Ex P6 which was got recovered by the accused Uttamjit Singh; scooter bearing number plate DL6X K 8229 make Bajaj Ex P7 which was got recovered by the accused Uttamjit FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 14 of 23 Singh; black colour Tshirt upon which University of Geneva Switcher Vintage Style is printed in circle of red colour and between in letter S written as Ex. P8 and black colour pant as Ex P9 which was got recovered by the accused. PW3 also identified the gold mangalsutra/ gold chain having pendant in the shape of double MM and two pendants each engraved with the photo of goddess Lakshmi (part of the mangalsutra) as Ex. P1, three finger rings out of which in one ring affixed with diamonds as Ex. P2 to P4 and one gold kada as Ex. P5.
15. PW4 ASI Ram Avtar, Duty Officer proved DD no. 46 as Ex.PW2/A and FIR as Ex. PW4/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW4/B. PW5 SI Ramesh Chander, Duty Officer proved DD no. 11A vide Ex. PW5/A regarding arrest of accused Uttamjit Singh @ Bobby in FIR no. 545/07 u/s 392/397/411 IPC, PS Hauz Khas where he made disclosure regarding the present case. PW6 Inspector Rajiv Kumar has also stated in his examinationinchief that investigation was entrusted to him and on 5.09.2007, he had arrested accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby (PO). During investigation, accused Uttam Jit Singh made his disclosure statement already exhibited as Ex.PW3/D. Accused Uttam Jit Singh also led to his house at 11A/29, WEA , Karol Bagh. Accused Uttam FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 15 of 23 Jit Singh disclosed of five incidents out of which one is the present one . At his pointing out behind the galli of his house, one scooter No. DL6SK8229 Bajaj was seized having dirty grey colour. The accused Uttam Jit Singh also disclosed that he used the said scooter for committing the crime. PW6 further stated that he prepared the seizure memo already Ex.PW3/B. One button actuated knife was also recovered from the house of the accused Uttam Jit Singh at his instance. PW6 prepared the seizure memo already Ex.PW3/E and also PW6 prepared sketch of knife already Ex.PW3/F. PW6 also prepared the seizure memo of the clothes worn by him at the time of incident already Ex.PW3/D. PW6 correctly identified one buttondar knife Ex.P6 which was shown to him which was recovered from accused Uttamjit Singh. PW6 also correctly identified one twowheeler scooter bearing registration No. DL 6SK 8229 make Bajaj Ex.P7 of dirty gray colour with defective number place which was shown to him which was recovered at the instance of accused Uttamjit Singh from rear street of his house No. 11/A/29, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. PW6 also correctly identified one black Tshirt and one black trouser Ex.P8 (colly) which were shown to him as the same were got recovered by accused Uttamjit from his house stated to be worn by him at the FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 16 of 23 time of incident of present case.
16. During the crossexamination, PW6 stated that they had made the departure entry in the PS. They reached at around 07.00 pm at the residence of accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby. No public persons gathered during and after the arrest of accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby. PW6 did not know the accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby prior to his arrest. The accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby was involved in a robbery case of PS Lodhi Colony in the year 199798 and SI Vijay Sarotia had arrested the said accused in his case. PW6 also stated in his crossexamination that they had also made arrival entry at PS Hauz Khas at about 11.00 pm. In the intervening night of 05.09.2007, they communicated the involvement of accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby to PS Rajouri Garden through telephone from PS Huaz Khas. On 06.09.2007, accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby was produced before the Court and thereafter, he was taken on PC remand. On 09.09.2007, PW6 met the IO of the present case and his statement was also recorded by the IO on the same day. PW6 denied the suggestion that he never visited the residence of accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby or that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the PS. PW6 also denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from or at the instance of FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 17 of 23 the accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby. PW6 further stated in his crossexamination that on 06.09.2007, he arrested the accused Ajay in case FIR no. 545/07. However, PW6 admitted that the accused Ajay was released in FIR no. 545/07 by the Court as the case property recovered from the accused Ajay was not required in the aforesaid case. PW6 denied the suggestion that he never visited the house of accused Ajay or that anything has been recovered from his possession in his presence. PW6 also stated that they went to the house of accused Ajay on 06.09.2007 and they made the departure entry in PS Hauz Khas prior to that. PW6 also denied the suggestion that he did not record any disclosure statement of accused Ajay or that no recovery was affected from his house. Arrest memo of the accused Ajay was prepared at his house on 06.09.2007.
17. PW7 HC Sukh Ram stated that on 12092007, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as Constable and joined the investigation of this case. He along with IO SI Sita Ram reached at Jail no. 4 and IO inquired from accused Uttamjit Singh @ Bobby and Ajay Kumar @ Tannu and after interrogation, they were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B. PW7 correctly identified accused Uttamjit Singh who was arrested by IO in his presence. FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 18 of 23 PW9 Retd. SI Sita Ram also stated that he recorded the statement of the complainant already Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement upon the same as Ex.PW9/A. PW9 also prepared the site plan as Ex.PW9/B at the instance of the complainant. He also recorded supplementary statement of the complainant u/s 161 CrPC. PW9 proved the bank statement Ex. PW9/C (colly) from HDFC Bank Ltd., Rajouri Garden as some amount was withdrawn from the ATM of the complainant. During crossexamination, PW9 stated that when he reached on the spot, he found the complainant standing near the car but no person had assembled there, however, public persons were passing through the way. PW9 further stated in his cross examination that he had recorded one supplementary statement of the complainant subsequent to the registration of FIR. DD no. 11A was also recorded in their PS by the DD writer but he could not recall the name of its author. WP9 further stated in his cross examination that so far as he remembered, the robbed items were mangalsutra, ATM card, a gold cada, ring and cash of Rs. 1500/. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation fairly and properly and falsely implicated the accused persons in this case.
18. PW10 HC Umed Singh proved the entry No. 2138 as FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 19 of 23 Ex.PW10/A and entry at Sl. No. 2139 as Ex.PW10/B. PW11 SI D. P. Singh also proved the disclosure statements as Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/G. During crossexamination, PW11 stated that accused Ajay was arrested on 06.09.2007 from his house. IO had made request certain public persons of that locality to join the investigation but none came ahead. The recovery was effected from the room of accused Ajay situated on the third floor of the building. PW11 denied the suggestion that he never visited the house of accused Ajay or that nothing was recovered from his possession in his presence. PW11 also denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement of accused Ajay was recorded or that no recovery was effected from his house. PW11 also denied the suggestion that documents were prepared subsequently in the PS. PW11 also denied the suggestion that address 11A/29 WEA, Kaarol Bagh is an Hotel and many person were there in the hotel. PW11 further denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused Uttam Jit Singh or at his instance. PW12 HC Bijender Singh brought the original register 19 which was in his handwriting and copy of the relevant entry taken on file, running into two pages back to back proved by him as ExPW12/A.
19. The Ld. Defence counsel argued that the police has not FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 20 of 23 fairly investigated and the investigation is defective. Ld. APP for State argued that if there is a defective investigation, the accused persons cannot take the benefit of it. It is relevant to mention here that even if the investigation is defective or faulty, the accused persons cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective or faulty investigation. In this regard, I would place reliance upon the Judgment reported in the case of State of UP Vs. Hari Mohan and others., AIR 2001 SC 142, it was held that if the investigation is defective in nature, it cannot be made a basis for acquitting accused. In Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920, the appellants had been convicted for offence punishable u/s 302 r/w section 34 IPC. It was held that accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective investigation. To do so, would tantamount to playing into the hands of investigating officer if investigation is designedly defective.
20. The Ld. Defence counsel further argued that there are major contradictions in the testimonies of PWs, therefore, their testimonies should not be believed. The Ld. APP for the State argued that the contradictions in the testimonies of PWs are not the major contradictions which do not go to the root of the case. I have also considered and found that there are some contradictions in the FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 21 of 23 testimonies of the aforesaid PWs yet these contradictions are minor contradictions and do not go to the root or core of this case. In this regard, a reliance can be placed upon the judgement reported in the case of State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors. 2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety. Ld. Amicus Curiae argued that no public person was joined in the investigation, therefore, in the absence of public witnesses during investigation, the investigation conducted by the police cannot be believed as trustworthy. Whereas, the Ld. APP for the State argued that generally public persons do not come forward to join investigation in such criminal cases. I am of the view that as far as public witnesses joining the investigation are concerned, the public persons are reluctant to become witnesses of criminal trial. Therefore, law is not that testimony of police officers apart from the eyewitness is absolutely untrustworthy or that it can never be acted upon. It has been held in a catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that merely because public witnesses are not joined in a case, the Prosecution case cannot be thrown out. In such circumstances, no benefit can be given to the accused persons FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 22 of 23 for nonjoining of independent public witnesses. In this context, I am supported with the judgements reported in the case of State of UP Vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998; Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State 2002 (2) Crimes 63 (SC); Dr. Krishna Pal & Anr. Vs. State of UP 1996 (7) SCC 194. The aforesaid judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Uttam Jit Singh is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
21. In view of the my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, hold the accused Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby guilty and convict him u/s 397 IPC r/w/s 392 IPC and the accused Ajay @ Janu for the offence u/s 411 IPC.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 29042013 FIR No. 677/07; State Vs. Uttam Jit Singh & Anr. Page 23 of 23