Delhi District Court
State vs . : 1) Satish on 28 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No: 84/17
FIR No. : 802/16
U/s : 365/392/394/395/397/411/34 IPC
P.S. : Samay Pur Badli
State Vs. : 1) Satish
S/o Sh. Lala Ram
R/o H.No.214, Dayal Market,
Near Subzi Mandi, Alipur, Delhi.
2) Manoj son of Smarjit
r/o Vill. Rajwapur,
PS Sangramgarh
Distt.Pratap Garh UP
3) Sunil @ Pilliya s/o Ramdev
r/o Vill/Rajwapur,
PS Sangramgarh
Distt. Pratap Garh UP.
4) Satpal son of Bhure
Vill.Ghodhna, Tyagi Market,
Gali no.8 Ghazibad UP.
5) Bablu @ Habsi
son of Munna Lal
R/o H.No.199/33, Shakti Nagar
Extn, Ashok Vihar,Ph-III
Delhi
6) Manohar @ Lambu
son of Suryalala
Vill.Liloikalan, PS Athai Shah
Begumgarh, Distt.Gohana UP
7) Ramjan
son of Sh.Naseebuddin
State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 1
r/o C-467, Machhli Market,
Jahangir Pur, Delhi
8)Chandan
son of Harender Shah
r/o C-216, Jhuggi Machhi Market,
Chander Shekhar Azad colony
Wazirpur Indl.Area, Delhi.
9) Harbhajan son of Sonpal
r/o Vill./Pastora, PS Bahajoi,
Distt.Sambhal UP.
Offence complained of : Under Sec.394/395/397/365/412/
34 IPC and 25 Arms Act.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Conviction
Date of committal : 10.02.2017
Date of Judgment : 28.03.2018
JUDGMENT
1. On 27.08.16 Santosh Kumar, driver along with helper Vineet got loaded his truck no.UP24H 8113 with 20 tons of rice from village Poyan, Dist.Shahjahan Pur (UP) and started for Delhi. They reached Delhi on 28.08.16 at 3 AM. It was told that the vehicle will be unloaded on 29.08.16, therefore, the truck was parked near Om Dharam Kanta, Khera Kalan, Delhi. On the intervening night of 28/29.08.16 at about 12 mid night, Santosh Kumar went to sleep in the cabin of the State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 2 truck and Vineet on the roof of the truck. After about an hour, some body knocked the door of the cabin. Santosh opened the door and found four persons standing there. All those four persons entered the cabin after pushing him. They were in the age group of 25 to 30. One of them who was having beard sat on the driver seat. The other three persons gave him beatings. On his resistance one of them took out a knife and hit on his hand. Out of those persons, one was having gun and the two were having knives. They tied his hands and legs with the help of rope lying in the truck. They asked for the keys of the truck and also inquired if there is any body else in the truck. Due to fear he handed over the key of the truck and told that helper is sleeping on the roof. Thereafter the person who was sitting on the driver seat continued to sit there and the other three went on the roof. After some time those three persons came down. His face was also tied. The truck was driven by them for about 10 minutes. He and his helper were taken down and accused took them to some forest. Accused persons remained with them for some time and then left. Santosh some how untied himself and then his helper Vineet. They came out on the main road and reached near Bada Jain Mandir. Police vehicle met them there. They were taken to BJRM hospital and they got medically State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 3 examined. Santosh also told that his mobile phone make Lava having mobile nos.7897751728 and 9455235046 which was in the truck was also taken away by the accused persons. During investigation on 09.09.16 accused Satish, Manoj, Sunil, Satpal and Bablu were apprehended. They disclosed about the commission of the offence. These accused persons led the police team to Irshad Colony, Ghaziabad and got recovered 100 bags of rice from one under construction house. Accused Ramjan, Manohar @ Lambu and Chander were found sleeping on those bags. They were also arrested. Accused Manohar and Satpal led them to the jhugis at Shadi Nagar near railway line. From the first floor of the jhugi of Ganga Ram, Manohar got recovered one button actuated knife and Satpal got recovered one country made pistol containing two live cartridges.
2. On 31.08.16 Harbhajan was apprehended at Kasba Gava Chowk Sambhal with truck no.UP24 H 8113. He was arrested. The truck was seized. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. Ld. MM after complying with the provisions under Sec.207 Cr.PC committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence punishable under Sec. 395 and 397 are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 4
3. Accused Satish, Manoj, Sunil, Satpal, Bablu, Manohar, Ramjan and Chandan were charged for the offence punishable under Sec.365 read with sec.34 of IPC, 395 IPC and 394 read with Sec.34 IPC. Accused Harbhajan was charged for the offence punishable under Sec.412 IPC. Accused Manohar and Satpal were also charged for the offences punishable under Sec.397 IPC and 25 Arms Act. Accused Sunil was also charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 397 IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined 27 witnesses.
5. Ct. Vaibhav Kumar Ojha was examined as PW-1 but his testimony could not be completed and hence the same cannot be relied upon.
6. ASI Raj Kumar was examined as PW-2. He deposed that in the intervening night of 28-29 August 2016 he was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Vikas. At about 4 am they reached at service road Swaroop Nagar. Santosh and Vipin Kumar met them. They informed that their truck No. UP 24H 8113 had been robbed by 5-6 persons on the point of weapons. Both the persons were having injuries. They State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 5 removed both the injured to BJRM hospital where they were admitted. They informed police station Samay Pur Badli as it was told that their truck, loaded with sacks of rice, wer robbed near Om Dharam Kanta near Nangli Puna, Khera road which falls in the area of PS: Badli.
7. During cross-examination for accused Satish, Chandan, Manoj and Manohar, he stated that he did not record the statement of the injured. They were in ERV vehicle. They reached BJRM hospital at about 4:10 or 4:15 am. They left the hospital after dropping the injured there. He admitted that both the injured were found on the road which is a thorough fare. He denied the suggestion that injured were not admitted in the hospital.
8. The same cross-examination was adopted for accused Harbhajan and Sunil @ Peelia.
9. During cross-examination for accused Ramjan he stated that no police official of PS: S.P. Badli met him in the hospital. While they were leaving the hospital they met 2-3 police officials of PS: S.P. Badli but he does not know their names. Later on SI Sunil Kumar met him, but he does not remember the date and time. He does not remember if SI Sunil recorded his statement in this case.
10. Santosh Kumar was examined as PW-3. He deposed State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 6 that on 27.08.2016 the sacks of rice weighing 20 tons were loaded in truck from Sukhbir Agro, Kasba Poyan, Distt. Shahjahanpur, U.P. On 28.08.2016 at about 3 am he along with Vineet Kumar helper reached with the loaded truck at Om Dharam Kanta, Khera Kalan. The truck could not be unloaded it being Sunday. In the intervening night of 28/29 August 2016 he parked his loaded truck bearing No. UP24H 8113 at Om Dharam Kanta. At about 12 midnight on 29.08.2016 while he was sleeping inside the truck and Vineet was sleeping on the roof of the truck, 3-4 persons banged the door of truck and also broke its glass. He opened the window of the truck. 4 persons boarded the truck and he was pinned down. They gave him beatings and asked for the keys of truck. They also caused injury on his right hand with knife. He handed over the keys of truck to those persons. He was tied with Angoocha and rope. Other persons reached the roof of the truck where Vineet was sleeping. They stabbed Vineet 6-7 times and tied him with ropes. Those persons started driving the truck. They continued driving for about 10 minutes and thereafter parked the truck at service road. He and Vineet were taken out from the truck and dragged in the jungle. They threw them on the ground. 3-4 persons were talking with each other at some distance and 3 persons were State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 7 standing near them. They were covered with blanket and threatened to be killed. Those persons were carrying weapons in their hands. 2 persons put katta on his head and back and threatened to kill. At about 4:00 am the accused persons left the spot. He untied himself and thereafter untied his helper. They reached the road near Radha Krishan Jain Mandir where there is office of TATA company. They found one police vehicle. They informed those police officials about the incident. They were taken to BJRM hospital where they were admitted. Local police reached the hospital. Those persons had also taken away his mobile phone, his wrist watch and Rs.16,000/-. They had also robbed the truck loaded with rice bags. Police took him to Dharam Kanta. He has also pointed out the place where they were covered with the blanket. At that place the rope in pieces and blanket were found. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A. The pieces of rope and blanket were seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW3/B. IO prepared site plan of both the places which are Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. The witness identified Chandan as the person who was having katta in his hand and put the same on his head and said, "Gadi tumhe mil jayge Badaiyun ki taraf". The witness also identified Harbhajan, Manohar, Babloo and Ramjan. Ramjan is the State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 8 person who caused injury with the knife on his hand. He identified the truck in the photographs. The truck is Ex.PW3/Article-1. He also identified the blanket and 3 pieces of plastic rope as Ex.PW3/Article-2. He identified the sacks of rice in the photographs Ex.PW3/E1 to E4. The witness was cross-examined by APP for the State. Accused Satish was pointed out and asked whether he is the person who drove truck but the witness was not able to identify him. However, witness identified accused Sunil and Satpal also among those persons who gave them beatings and tied them. He also stated that accused Sunil and Manohar were having knives in their hands. He stated that he cannot identify Chandan and Manoj because when he was taken down from the truck his eyes were tied with the cloth. He also stated that Satpal was also having katta in his hand. The witness also stated that the accused persons had also offered him money for not deposing against them. He pointed towards accused Ramjan, Satish and Harbhajan. He also went to Tihar Jail for identification where he identified one of the accused. The TIP proceedings are Ex.PW3/X. It is the TIP proceeding of accused Ramjan S/o Sh. Nasibuddin conducted by Ld. MM Jitender Partap Singh.
11. During cross examination for accused Satish, State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 9 Manohar, Chandan and Manoj he deposed that he is 9 th standard pass. He know how to read and write Devnagri script but does not know how to read and write English. He does not know who is the owner of Sukhbir Agro. The truck was loaded at 2 pm. They started for Delhi at about 4:00 Pm. He admitted that there were toll booths on the way to Delhi. He made the payment at all the toll booths. He did not hand over the toll receipts to the police as those receipts were in the truck itself and the truck was taken away by the accused persons. No document or cloth was found in the truck when it was recovered as per his information. He did not tell the police that the toll receipts were left in the truck. 397/398 sacks of rice were loaded in the truck. He denied the suggestion that he did not tell the police as to how many bags were loaded in the truck. He cannot tell if there was any mark of identification on the bags loaded in the truck. He is employed by Bhupinder Singh R/o Lakhimpur having phone No. 9415148063. He has no document to show that he is employed as driver by Bhupinder Singh. The distance between the place where his truck was loaded and Delhi is about 350 to 375 kilometers. He did not call his owner or the person where goods were to be unloaded at 3:00 am after reaching Delhi. He made the call at about 7 or 8 am to the State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 10 person where the goods were to be unloaded. He was told that the person will come and get the goods unloaded. He does not remember the phone number of the party whom he called. There were other trucks parked nearby. He does not know if there were drivers in those trucks. He was confronted with his statement where it is not found mentioned that the glass of driver side of truck was broken. However it was found mentioned that they banged on the door of the truck. He told the IO that the offenders tied him with rope and angoocha. He was confronted with his statement where it is not found mentioned that Vineet had sustained 6-7 stab injuries. However, it is mentioned that Vineet had sustained injuries with knife. He was confronted with his statement where it was not found mentioned that he was covered with blanket and threatened to be killed. However, in his supplementary statement it is mentioned that the accused persons made them lay with faces downwards and covered with the blanket. He was also confronted with his statement where the time of their leaving is not mentioned. Police vehicle was found parked near Jain mandir. He was confronted where it was not found mentioned that accused persons had also taken away his wrist watch and Rs.16,000/-. He was also confronted where it was not found State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 11 mentioned that accused told him that they will get the vehicle towards Badaiun.
12. Police reached BJRM hospital at about 7 am. He cannot tell the names of the police officials who met him in the hospital but he was having two stars. They left the hospital after about 30 minutes with the police. Accused persons tied cloth on his eyes after 15-20 minutes of entering cabin of the truck. Before that they gave him beating and caused injury with knife and also tied his hands and legs. After his eyes were tied the cloth remained on his eyes till the accused persons left. He denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place. He did not tell about the incident to the doctor as the doctor did not ask him.
13. During cross-examination for accused Ramjan he stated that the vehicle was recovered on third day of incident. He cannot tell when his last statement was recorded by the police. Police never read over his statement to him. The person of the party came to him after he had made the telephone call and took the sample at 9:00 am. He cannot tell the name and address of the person who took the sample. He admitted that in the photographs Ex.PW3/E1 to E4 the mark of the company on the bag is not visible. He denied the suggestion that he was asked by the police to identify the State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 12 photographs in the court. He came to know about the apprehension of one of the accused when he went to jail for identification. His owner told him that one of the accused has been apprehended and he has to come for evidence. He was called to police station before he went to Jail for identification. He denied the suggestion that photograph of accused was shown to him by IO. He denied the suggestion that he identified the accused as his photograph was shown to him by the police. He never left his truck unattended. There were 5-6 trucks parked in that area. He had no talks with driver or helper of any other truck. He told that 8 persons committed this offence when his statement was recorded first time. They reached the hospital after 5 am. He does not know if the police official who removed them to the hospital recorded his statement. From the hospital police took them first to Dharam Kanta where the police also prepared the site plan. They remained at Dharam Kanta for about 30 minutes. When they started from hospital there was only one vehicle. Lateron on more vehicle joined them. He did not count the number of police officials who were with them. He denied the suggestion that accused Ramjan was not involved in the commission of offence or that he has not caused any injury on his person. He denied the suggestion that he identified State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 13 Ramjan in the court at the instance of police.
14. During cross-examination for accused Harbhajan he denied the suggestion that Harbhajan was not involved in the commission of crime. The witness stated that Harbhajan was found along with the vehicle when it was recovered. He was not present at the time of recovery of truck. However, his some known person was there. Later on he also reached the place of recovery of truck. Brother of Bhupender Singh was also present at the time of recovery of truck. He denied the suggesti9on that he identified accused Harbhajan at the instance of police.
15. During cross-examination for accused Babloo. He stated that in his first statement he did not tell the police that 3-4 persons were standing nearby when he and Vineet were left by the accused persons as this fact was not asked by the police. The distance between Jain Mandir and the place where he and Vineet were left by the accused persons was about one fourth of one kilometer. He did not check if there was any person in the temple. He denied the suggestion that his truck was not robbed or that none of the accused was armed. He denied the suggestion that he concocted the story in connivance with the police.
16. During cross-examination for accused Sunil he denied State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 14 the suggestion that he identified Sunil at the instance of police.
17. During cross-examination for accused Satpal he denied the suggestion that he deposed at the instance of police or that police told him the name of the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that katta was not shown to him by the accused or that he signed on blank papers.
18. Bhupinder Singh was examined as PW-4. He is the owner of truck No.UP24 H8113. Santosh was driver on that truck. On 27.08.2016 the bags of rice were loaded in the truck from Kasba Payan, Distt. Shahjanpur, UP. The truck was to be unloaded in Delhi. He came to know that his truck has been robbed and the valuables of his driver and helper were also taken away by the robbers. Lateron he got the truck released on superdari from police station Samay Pur Badli. He executed the indemnity bond Ex.PW4/A. He also brought the truck and identified the same as Ex.PW3/ Article1. The photograph of the truck are Ex.PW4/B. The photocopy of the RC is Ex.PW4/C.
19. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Satish, Chandan, Manoj and Manohar he stated that he had not handed over any document to the police that Santosh was driver on his truck and Vineet was helper. Driver told him that State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 15 400 bags of rice had been loaded i.e. 20 tons. On 29.08.2016 at about 5 am driver informed him on telephone from hospital about the incident. The same cross- examination was adopted on behalf of the other accused persons.
20. HC Virender Singh was examined as PW-5. He deposed that on 29.08.2016 on the direction of SHO he collected two pullandas from MHC(M) having seals of SK and deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide RC No:316/21/16. He deposited both the pullandas at FSL Rohini Ballistic division and obtained the acknowledgment. On return to the police station he handed over the acknowledgment to the MHC(M). one leading question was put by APP wherein he admitted that he collected only one pullanda and not two pullandas.
21. During cross-examination for accused Satpal he denied the suggestion that he had not taken any pullanda to FSL or that the case property was tampered. No question was put to the witness on behalf of other accused persons.
22. Vineet was examined as PW-6. He deposed that in the year 2016 he was working as helper on truck No. UP 24 H 8113. Santosh was working as driver. On 27.08.2016 20 tonnes of rice was loaded in the truck from Kasba Poyan, State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 16 Shahjahanpur UP. On 28.08.2016 they reached Delhi with the truck. The truck was to be unloaded on 29.08.2016. Santosh Kumar parked the aforesaid truck near Om Dharam Kanta, Khera Kalan, Delhi. In the intervening night of 28/29 August 2016 at about 12:00 night he was sleeping on the back side of truck over the rice bags. Santosh Kumar was sleeping inside the cabin. While he was sleeping three persons caught hold of him on which he woke up. Out of those three persons two were having knives and one was carrying katta. Those three persons gave him beatings and while giving beatings they asked him to lay down. At that time he also noticed that 4-5 persons were standing near the truck i.e. near the driver side door of the truck. Those 3 offenders tied his legs, hands with rope and his face with tehmad. Thereafter, those three offenders sat around him at that place where he was sleeping and truck started moving. The truck was driven for about 10-12 minutes and thereafter, it was halted at some secluded place. He was brought down from the truck. The hands and legs of driver Santosh Kumar were also tied. He was covered with blanket. The offenders made him and Santosh lay on the ground and they put blanket over them. After some time driver Santosh managed to untie himself and thereafter he untied him also. They State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 17 noticed that the truck is missing with the bags of rice. He and Santosh walked for about 15 -20 minutes. On the way they noticed some police vehicles. They reached there and narrated the facts to the police. The police took them to BJRM hospital where they were medically examined. He has received injury over his eye. Santosh had also received knife injury over his hand. Santosh also informed him that his mobile phone has been left in the robbed truck. He and Santosh led the police team to Dharam Kanta from where the truck was taken by the offenders and they were abducted by the offender thereafter, they led the police officials to the place where they were thrown by the offender. From that place police found plastic rope pieces and the blanket. Police seized those articles vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He stated that he cannot identify the offenders as the attack was so sudden that he got terrified. He identified the truck in the photograph as Ex.PW3/Article-1. He identified the pieces of ropes and blanket as Ex.PW3/Article-2. He identified the sacks of rice in the photographs Ex.PW3/E-1 to Ex.PW3/E4.
23. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP. He admitted that during course of investigation he along with Santosh came to Rohini Court Complex. He also admitted that during his said visit he had seen police producing State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 18 accused persons before the court. He denied the suggestion that he identified the accused persons at that time. The accused persons were also pointed out to him but he did not identify any of the accused. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW6/A.
24. During cross-examination for accused Satish Manohar, Chandan and Manoj he stated that he does not remember the exact time when they left the Shahjahan Pur perhaps it was 8 or 9 pm. The truck was loaded at about 5 or 6 pm. He does not remember if there was any toll barrier on the way to Delhi from Shahjahan Pur. There are two ways to reach Delhi from Shahjahanpur. On one way there are toll barriers and on the other there is no toll. The distance between Shahjahanpur and Delhi is about 300 to 350 km. He was not having any wrist watch but perhaps they reached BJRM hospital after 4 am and before 5 am. Perhaps they left the hospital at 6 am with the police.
25. During cross-examination for accused Ramjan he stated that it was first time when they came to Delhi with rice. He does not know if there was any mark of the company on the bags. The photographs of the bag shown to him are of the same bags which were loaded in the truck. He identified these photographs as he himself counted the bags. He State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 19 denied the suggestion that bags are not of rice or that the case property was planted by the police.
26. During cross-examination for accused Babloo he stated that there were about 4 or 6 vehicles parked at that place where there truck was parked. They were left at the place where there were shops and if a person is lying then he would not be visible from the road. The distance between the place where they were thrown and the main road was about half kilometer. As it was night therefore, they were not knowing the direction and it took them more time to reach the road. The police vehicle met them on the service road. Police prepared the site plan at their instance. They also took the police to the place from where the blanket and ropes were recovered. There was no temple or any other installation where they were thrown or from where they could get water.
27. During cross-examination for accused Sunil he admitted that such rice bags are available in the market. He denied the suggestion that he could not identify the bags which were loaded in the truck. Same cross-examination was adopted by accused Satpal. No question was put on behalf of accused Harbhajan.
28. Sachin Malik was examined as PW-7. He deposed that he was working as Senior Manager in Sukhbir Agro State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 20 Energy Ltd. Situated at A-16 Narain House, Green Park, New Delhi. On 10.09.2016 he went to PS: S.P. Badli where he identified the white bags containing rice loaded from Kasba Poyan, Distt. Shahajahan Pur in truck No. UP 24 H 8113 and reached at Om Dharam Kanta, near Khera Kalan, Delhi. On 28.08.2016 when the above loaded truck reached at the Om Dharam Kanta he went there and took sample of rice from the bags after removing Tirpal. 100 rice bags were released on superdari to the company. He got released the bags on behalf of company and executed indemnity bond Ex.PW7/A having his signature at point A. He gave the detail of the bags and other particulars of the vehicles vide mark Ex.PW7/B. At the time of release of bags to him the photographs were taken. The same are Ex.PW3/E1 to E4. He stated that he cannot identify the two Tirpals which were found lying on the floor when he draw the samples from the rice bags.
29. During cross-examination for the accused persons he stated that he did not draw the sample from the bags but took the sample from the material which was lying on the floor of the truck. This was the material which had fallen on the floor of the truck as some katta's were torn during loading- unloading and transportation. He admitted that in the State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 21 photographs none of the torn bag is visible. He does not know if any other company is also supplying same quality of rice. The mark of Sukhbir Agro is printed on the bags in which rice is supplied. There was no mark of Sukhbir Agro on the bags which he had seen in the police station and got released on superdari. After drawing the sample he sent the photograph of rice to his boss Sh. Mahesh Chand Mishra who confirmed that rice is of Sukhbir Agro. He worked in rice industry for 7 months. On the bags there was no mark of Sukhbir Agro as the rice was to be exported and was not filled in the bags of Sukhbir Agro. In his presence IO did no draw any sample of rice from the bags before release on superdari. No bag was kept in the police station as sample at the time of release of case property. He admitted that such type of bags are easily available in the market.
30. HC Gulzar was examined as PW-8. On 29.08.2016 he was working as duty officer. On that day at 4:30 am he received information on telephone from HC Raj Kumar posted on ERV of PS: Swaroop Nagar that, "Ek truck chalak jiska naam Santosh Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwati Prasad hai U.P Truck No:UP 24 H 8113 jo chawlon se bharar tha khera kalan se kucch log maar peet kar ke, driver aur conductor ke haath pairr bandh kar chhod gaye hain aur truck ko le kar State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 22 chale gaye hain". He conveyed this message to SI Sunil Kumar and SHO on telephone and recorded DD No.6A. He proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW8/A. On the same day at 6:30 am Ct. Umed brought a rukka sent by SI Sunil Kumar. On the basis of rukka he got registered the FIR. The computer generated copy of FIR is Ex.PW8/B. The endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW8/C. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is Ex.PW8/D.
31. During cross-examination for the accused persons he denied the suggestion that Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B are ante dated, ante timed and fabricated.
32. HC Jagat Singh was examined as PW-9. He was working as MHC(M) and proved the register No.19 as Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/D. He proved the entries in register No.21 as Ex.PW9/E and the acknowledgment receipt from FSL as Ex.PW9/F. During the period the case property remained in his possession nobody tampered with the same.
33. During cross-examination by the accused persons he stated that he does not know the time when the truck was handed over to him on 01.09.2016. He does not remember the time when Tirpal, rice bags were handed over to him on 10.09.2016. He denied the suggestion that entries in register No.19 are ante timed, ante dated and fabricated. State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 23
34. ASI Nahar Singh from special staff Rohini District was examined as PW-10. He deposed that on 09.09.2016 he was posted at special staff Rohini District. On that day HC Surender received information that the robbers, who robbed the truck loaded of rice bags, could be apprehended on lower GT Karnal road near CNG Petrol Pump. HC Surender conveyed the information to SI Sombir. Matter was discussed with senior officials who directed for necessary action. A raiding team was constituted of HC Balkishan, HC Rajesh, HC Jasbir, Ct. Naveen, HC Surender, SI Sonu, Ct. Narender and ASI Nahar Singh was constituted. They all left with secret informer in private vehicles for G.T. Karnal Road. At about 8:45 pm they reached at G.T. Karnal Road near CNG petrol pump. At about 9 pm the secret informer pointed out 5 boys standing near the truck. They apprehended all the five boys with the help of the staff. This witness caught hold of Satish. The other four accused were also caught by the special staff. Accused Satish was interrogated. HC Surender telephonically informed PS: Samay Pur Badli regarding apprehension of accused persons. SI Suresh Chand and the other police staff of PS: Samay Pur Badli reached the place of arrest. The accused were interrogated. Accused Satish was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/A. His personal search State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 24 was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/B. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW10/C.
35. All the five accused led them to the water tank Loni Ghaziabad to the house of Sajid which was under
construction. From that house of Sajid 100 bags of rice were recovered found covered under the Tirpal of blue and green colour. 3 boys were sleeping over the bags of rice. Those three boys were also apprehended. One of those boys was found with knife. Those 100 bags were given sl.no.1 to 100 and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D. He identified the Tirpal as Ex.PW10/Article1, he identified the rice bags recovered in the four photographs Ex.PW1/E1 to E4.
36. During cross examination for accused Manoj, Satish, Manohar, Chandan and Babloo, he deposed that the secret information was not received by HC Surender Dahiya in his presence. At about 7:30 pm they were informed about the secret information and were directed to join the raiding party. In his presence the secret information was not reduced into writing by HC Surender Dahiya. He does not remember the registration number of two private vehicles by which they reached place of arrest. He does not remember the names of the owners of those private vehicles. One vehicle was make State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 25 Maruti and the other was make Santro. Both vehicles were of white colour. SI Sombir made the departure entry. He does not remember the number of DD entry. In the departure entry it was not mentioned that the robbers, who robbed the trucks loaded of rice bags, could be apprehended at lower GTK Road near CNG petrol pump. Santro car was driven by HC Surender and Maruti car was driven by HC Jasbir. In Santro car he, Surender, Ct. Narender and Ct. Naveen were sitting and in Maruti car ASI Sombir, HC Rajesh and ASI Balkishan were sitting. He was carrying weapon when he left the office. It was issued from the malkhana of police station South Rohini.
37. The distance between the GT Karnal Road and their office is about 10 to 12 kilometers. He admitted that there are many shops in between and those shops were lying open. IO requested the passerby to join the proceedings but none agreed. He admitted that there is a CNG petrol pump nearby. IO did not request anybody at petrol pump including the employees to join the proceedings. The truck was at a distance of about 100 steps from the CNG pump. They had parked their vehicle at a distance of about 400 meters from the truck. The 5 boys were talking with each other when they firstly saw them. He does not know what they were talking. State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 26 He was in civil clothes. He cannot tell which of the accused was apprehended first and by whom. He admitted that nothing suspicious was recovered in the formal search of Satish. People were moving on the road at that time. All the five accused were apprehended by 9 pm. They remained there for about 1 or 1½ hour. No document was prepared before the arrival of police staff of PS: SP Badli. The arrest documents and disclosures were prepared by SI Suresh Chand in his own handwriting. He cannot specify any reason for not signing the disclosure of accused Satish. He denied the suggestion that he was not present and therefore did not sign the same. He admitted that the time of arrest in Ex.PW10/A is over written from pm to am. He cannot tell the distance in between place of arrest and place of recovery.
38. There were houses near the house of Sajid. There were no numbers on those houses. No document regarding ownership of Sajid was seized. People were residing in the adjoining houses. IO requested the neighbours to join the investigation but none agreed. House of Sajid was under
construction and was single story. No information was given to the local police. He did not sign the seizure memo Ex.PW10/D. They remained at the house of Sajid for an hour. He did not sign any document pertaining to the arrest and State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 27 disclosure of the other accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he was not present in the investigation and therefore did not sign the documents. The distance between place of recovery and police station SP Badli is approximately 30 to 35 kms. He does not remember the time when they left the house of Sajid, however, it was after midnight. The case property was taken to PS: Samay Pur Badli in Govt. vehicle but he does not remember the number of that vehicle. He also does not remember the name of the driver of the govt. vehicle. Govt. vehicle was of PS: SP Badli. The pointing out cum seizure memo of rice bag was prepared in his presence but he did not sign the same. He denied the suggestion that nothing has been recovered at the instance of accused persons or that the accused persons did not make the disclosure statement.
39. No question was put to the witness on behalf of accused Harbhajan.
40. During cross-examination for accused Ramjan he stated that he was having mobile phone No.9015577078 and was carrying the same. He denied the suggestion that on 07.09.2016 between 10 am to 11 am accused Ramjan was lifted by him and other officials of special staff from his house by saying that his brother-in-law Sajid had caused an State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 28 accident with scooty. He does not know if father of Ramjan made a call at 100 number from mobile No. 9891937721. He denied the suggestion that he demanded Rs. 20,000/- from the accused when he was not able to tell anything about Sajid. He denied the suggestion that when accused refused to pay this amount he was falsely implicated in this case.
41. SI Suresh along with 4-5 police officials reached at the place of arrest in Govt. vehicle TATA 407. There was no mark on the bags of rice. He denied the suggestion that rice bags were recovered from Seelampur or that the person from whom the bags were recovered was let off after taking money. They reached Ghaziabad in TATA 407 and two private vehicles. The accused along with other staff were in TATA 407. One or two officials of special staff were also in TATA 407 but he cannot tell their names. He denied the suggestion that Sajid does not have any house in Ghaziabad. There was no street number in the locality where house of Sajid was situated. They parked their vehicle at a distance of about 300 meters away as the vehicle could not enter the street. Later on the vehicle was taken near the house of Sajid from other side and the bags were loaded. Accused persons loaded the bags in TATA 407 on their direction. It took them 30 minutes in loading the bags. They State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 29 remained at the spot when TATA 407 left for unloading the bags at SP Badli police station. TATA 407 came back within an hour after leaving the spot of recovery. He left the spot along with entire team but does not remember the time. The accused persons were taken in TATA 407 in the second time. His statement and statement of other witnesses were recorded on the spot. He was not carrying any typewriter with him. He admitted that his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC is typed one. He does not remember the DD entry made at arrival. He denied the suggestion that his signatures were obtained on blank papers or that was converted into disclosure statement. The same cross-examination was adopted on behalf of accused Sunil and Satpal.
42. ASI Surender was examined as PW-11. He fully corroborated the testimony of PW-10. He proved the arrest memo of accused Satpal as PW11/A. Personal search memo of Satpal as PW-11/B. The disclosure statement of Satpal as ExPW11/C. He deposed that all the 5 accused persons along with the special staff of outer district & police of PS: SP Badli, he himself and SI Suresh Chander went to Irshad colony. The accused persons led them near water tank Loni Ghaziabad to an under construction house of Sajid after walking out about 2 or 2½ km from Rashid Ali gate. In that State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 30 house three boys were sleeping on the rice bags covered with Tirpal of blue and green colour. Those three boys were also apprehended by them. Those three boys revealed their names as Ramjan, Manohar @ Lambu and Chandan. He also identified all the three accused persons. Tirpals were seized vide memo Ex.PW11/D. He identified the Tirpals as Ex.PW10/Article-1. The bags of rice were also seized and he identified those bags in the photographs Ex.PW3/E1 to E4.
43. During cross-examination he stated that secret informer reached his office at about 7:30 pm. He reached the spot at about 8:45 pm. On the way to the spot he requested public persons to join the raiding team. Public persons and vehicles were passing from the road. He did not request employees of CNG pump to join the raiding team. He did not serve any notice in writing upon the public persons. He also did not note down the numbers of vehicles and the names of the public persons. He did not enter the registration number of the private vehicles used by them when they left the raiding team. He is not able to recollect the name of the members of the raiding party who drove the vehicles. On the spot they made two groups. The two groups were standing at a distance of 20-25 steps from each other facing each other. He along with secret informer took position behind one State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 31 stationed truck near the bushes with other staff. The secret informer pointed out the accused persons from a distance of about 20-25 ft. All the 5 accused were standing in a circle in between the trucks. First of all the two accused came there and then the three followed them. He does not remember the colour of clothes worn by accused persons. The police party was in civil clothes. Both the group of the raiding team simultaneously rushed to the place where those boys were standing and succeeded in apprehending all of them. He was carrying his service pistol. Other staff was also carrying pistols. He does not remember which of the police official caught which of the accused. They did not give any chance to the accused persons to run away. After apprehending the accused persons he again requested public persons to join but they refused.
44. After about 11 pm they left the place of arrest for going to Loni Ghaziabad. IO did the writing work at the place of arrest. IO wrote documents while sitting on the stone lying there. It took about 3 hours in completing documents at the place of arrest. He signed the documents regarding arrest of accused Satpal. The other members of the raiding team also signed the arrest and other documents with respect to the co-accused. He denied the suggestion that all the documents State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 32 were prepared in the police station or that Satpal did not make any disclosure statement.
45. Due to night odd hours no public person was requested to join at the time of recovery of rice bags. IO did not inform Sajid. He denied the suggestion that they did not visit the house of Sajid or that no recovery of rice bags was effected from the house of Sajid.
46. During cross-examination for accused Ramjan, Manoj, Satish, Manohar, Chandan and Babloo he deposed that his mobile phone numbers are 9810228773 and 8130827774. He does not remember if he was carrying these mobile number at the time of raid. He denied the suggestion that on 07.09.2016 he along with special staff between 10 am to 12 noon lifted accused Ramjan from his house as his brother-in- law Sajid had caused accident with scooty. He does not know if father of Ramjan made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone No.9891937721. He denied the suggestion that he demanded Rs.20,000/- from accused Ramjan for his released or that on the refusal of Ramjan he was falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that no secret information was received by him. He does not remember the DD number of the departure entry. After departure he did not get issue any pistol from PS: South State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 33 Rohini. Both the private vehicles were parked at the distance of about 100 meters before CNG pump.
47. They reached Loni Ghaziabad at about 2:00 or 2:30 am. Local police station was not informed. The vehicles were parked about ½ kms from the house of Sajid. The vehicles were parked for the purpose that the sound of vehicle could not be heard by the offenders. The vehicles were brought near the house of Sajid for loading the bags. The house of Sajid was under construction. There was roof over two room and open gallery at the house of Sajid and it was in the area of about 50 to 60 sq yards. The accused persons informed them that this house belong to Sajid. Due to night ownership could not be verified from the neighbours. The police staff and accused persons loaded the rice bags in the vehicle. All the bags were removed from there in one go. He does not remember the exact time when he left for police station SP Badli in the morning. The accused persons were taken to police station in TATA 407. He does not know if any official of special staff was in the TATA 407. In the first round only rice bags were taken to police station in TATA 407. TATA 407 came back and were taken accused persons to the police station. He does not remember when TATA 407 left and then came back. TATA 407 returned after about 2 hours. He does State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 34 not remember who accompanied TATA 407 when the rice bags were shifted. He along with the secret informer was sitting in Santro car, but he does not remember the names of other police officials sitting with them.
48. He denied the suggestion that accused Ramjan was not arrested from the house of Sajid on 10.09.2016 or that accused was earlier lifted from his house on 07.09.2016. He denied the suggestion that bags were recovered from Seelampur or that the person from whose possession the rice was recovered was let off after taking money. He denied the suggestion that there is no house of Sajid in Loni or that all the documents was prepared while sitting in police station. No question was put on behalf of accused Sunil @ Peeliya and Harbhajan.
49. ASI Rajesh was examined as PW-12. He corroborated the testimony of PW-10 and PW-11. He stated that out of the five accused he apprehended Babloo. He proved the arrest memo of Babloo as Ex.P12/A. The personal search memo of Babloo is Ex.PW12/B. Babloo also made the disclosure statement. He also proved the recovery of the rice bags. He Identified the Tirpals and rice bags in the photographs.
50. During cross-examination for accused persons he stated that he does not know the name of the police officials State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 35 of PS: SP Badli, who boarded Govt. Tempo for reaching police station. He did not get issue any arm & Ammunition on that day. His statement was recorded in the police station. IO/SI Suresh accompanied them in Govt. Tempo. SI Suresh did not visit the spot of recovery again. SI Suresh Chand arrested the accused persons on 09.09.2016 in his presence. He did not sign the disclosure statement of Babloo. He denied the suggestion that nothing was disclosed by any of the accused persons or that no recovery was effected at his instance. They left their office at 8:00 or 8:15 am in two private vehicles. One of the car was Santro but he does not remember the make of the other car. The cars were arranged by SI Sombir. He denied the suggestion that no raid was conducted by them or that accused Ramjan was lifted from his house by the special staff police on 07.09.2016. He does not know if father of accused Ramjan namely Nasibuddin made a call to police at 100 number from his mobile phone number 9891937721 informing the police that his son was lifted from his house.
51. He does not know the distance between their office and the place of arrest. Secret informer left the place at about 9.00pm after pointing out that place. He was sitting with SI Sombir in the Santro car along with some other police State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 36 officials whose name he is not able to recollect. Secret informer pointed out the accused persons after 15 minutes of their reaching the spot. They remained on the spot for about 4 to 5 hours. Staff of PS:S.P Badli reached there at about 10:00 pm. The staff of PS: S.P Badli came there in Govt. Tempo.
52. They reached Loni in Govt. Tempo with accused persons. 5-6 officials of special staff were also in Govt. Tempo but he is not able to recollect their name. He does not know the distance between Irshad colony and the place of arrest. At about 3:00 or 3:30 am they reached Irshad colony. He does not know who informed SI of PS: SP Badli about house of Sajid Ali. That house was under construction. No labourer or chowkidar was present in the house. IO did not make any inquiry about the ownership of the house. The vehicles were parked at a distance of about 1 or 2 km from the house of Sajid Ali and they reached there on foot. Lateron Govt. Tempo was brought to the house of Sajid for loading the articles. Two rounds were made to take the articles from the house of Sajid to police station. In the first round bags were loaded in the govt. tempo and some of the police official boarded the same but he does not remember the names of the police officials. Eight accused persons State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 37 boarded the tempo with police staff in the first round. Three - four police officials remained outside the house of Sajid Ali. He boarded the tempo in the first round and came to PS: S.P. Badli at about 7 or 8 am. He left the police station at about 11 or 12 noon.
53. HC Naveen Kumar was examined as PW-13. He fully corroborated the testimony of PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12. He proved the arrest memo of Manoj as Ex.PW13/A and his personal search memo is Ex.PW13/B. He deposed that accused Manoj also made the disclosure statement. He also deposed about the recovery of the rice bags from Loni Ghaziabad, Irshad colony from the house of Sajid. He identified the tirpals as Ex.PW10/Article-1. He identified the rice bags in the photographs Ex.PW3/E1 to E4.
54. During cross-examination for the accused persons he stated that he got the information from SI Sombir and HC Surender about the secret information at about 8:00 pm. Immediately thereafter they left the office in two private cars. He does not remember the registration number of those cars. One of the car was Santro in which he was sitting. SI Sombir was driving the Santrol car. HC Rajesh was also in the same car. He does not remember the names of other police officials sitting in the car. The other car was driven by HC State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 38 Surender. He does not remember who else was sitting in that car. The approximate distance between their office and CNG petrol pump is about 10 to 12 kms. IO asked public persons to join the raiding team, but none agreed. The vehicles were parked at a distance of about 100 meters from the place from where accused were apprehended near the CNG petrol pump. He was not carrying any weapon. He does not know if any other member of raiding team carrying weapon. The staff from PS: SP Badli reached there at 9:30 pm. SI Sombir made inquiries from the accused persons. The IO of the PS:
SP Badli prepared the arrest memos, personal search memos and also recorded their disclosure statements. The staff of police station SP Badli reached in TATA 407. They left the spot of arrest at about 1:30 or 1:45 am. Rs.220/- were found in personal search of accused Manoj.
55. While going to Loni Ghaziabad all the accused were sitting in TATA 407. All the members of raiding team went to Ghaziabad. He does not know if the local police station was informed. Accused persons led them to that house. That house was under construction. No watchmen or labourer was found there. He does not know if IO collected any document regarding ownership of that house. The vehicles were parked at a distance of about 2 or 2 ½ km away from State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 39 the house of Sajid Ali. The vehicles were parked at a distance so that the accused may not flee after hearing the noise of vehicles. It took them 15 to 20 mintues to reach the house of Sajid after parking the vehicles. Lateron all the three vehicles were brought to the house of Sajid. The police officials and accused persons loaded the recovered bags in TATA 407. The bags were removed to PS: SP Badli in two rounds. He does not remember as to how many bags were loaded in the first round. There were some other houses also near the house of Sajid. He does not know if IO asked any neighbour to join the raiding team. He did not accompany TATA 407 in the first round. He does not know if any official of special staff went along with TATA 407 in the first round. He does not know if HC Rajesh went along with TATA 407 in first round. The accused persons were taken from the spot to PS:
S.P. Badli in second round. About 12 to 13 police officials were left on the spot after TATA 407 left for the first round. He does not remember at what time TATA 407 left the spot of recovery for the first time. He does not know if SI Suresh Chand left the spot in the first round. TATA 407 returned to the spot after about 2 hours.
56. After the sun had risen IO tried to join public persons but none agreed. They reached police station at about 10 or State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 40 11 am in the second round.
57. He denied the suggestion that Ramjan was lifted from his house on 07.09.2016 by the officials of special staff to inquire about Sajid Ali. He does not know if father of Ramjan made a call at 100 number on 07.09.2016 from his mobile no.9891937721. He deposed that Ramjan was not lifted by special staff on 07.09.2016. he denied the suggestion that Ramjan has been falsely implicated as Sajid could not be apprehended. He denied the suggestion that no recovery from Loni from the house of Sajid was effected or that he is deposing falsely.
58. Ct. Narender was examined as PW-14. He fully corroborated the testimony of PW-10, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-13. He proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Sunil. He also deposed that Sunil made the disclosure statement ExPW14/C. He also proved the recovery of 100 rice bags from the house of Sajid from where three accused persons were arrested. He identified the Tirpal as Ex.PW10/Article-1 and the rice bags in the photographs Ex.PW3/E1 to E4.
59. During cross examination for all the accused persons he deposed that the private vehicles were arranged by SI Sombir. Both the vehicles were driven by police officials. He State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 41 was sitting in the vehicle driven by Surender. The other vehicle may be driven by SI Sombir. He is not able to recollect the registration number of both the vehicle. They left the police station at about 8:15 pm. The vehicles were parked before crossing the petrol pump at a distance of about 100 meter. There was a distance of about 150 meter between the place where they parked the vehicle and from where the accused persons were apprehended. They hid themselves behind the truck which were at a distance of about 20 to 25 steps from the place where the accused were apprehended. They had taken the position and after 10-15 minutes thereof accused persons reached there on foot. Firstly, three accused persons reached and thereafter two accused persons came there following them on foot. There was a gap of about 1 to 2 minutes in arrival of accused persons in the group of three and two. He cannot tell who were the first three accused who reached at the spot and who were the other two followed them.
60. He was carrying service pistol at that time. Other police officials were also carrying arms. First of all the personal search documents were prepared and thereafter the accused were arrested. He cannot tell who was the first accused to be arrested. There is a distance of about 10 to 12 State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 42 km between the place of arrest and the office of special staff. It took them 30 minutes to reach that place. SI Sombir requested 2-3 passersby to join but they refused. His statement was recorded by the IO in the police station on 10.09.2016 at about 10 or 11 am. SI Suresh reached the place of arrest at about 10 pm along with the staff in the tempo. They remained on the spot of arrest upto 1:30 or 1:45 pm.
61. While going to Ghaziabad he was in the car driven by HC Surender and one accused Sunil was in his custody with two more officials sitting in the same car. He does not know how many accused persons boarded the tempo for going to Loni. They reached Loni at about 3 am. The vehicles were stopped about 2 km before the house of Sajid. The road was damaged therefore the vehicles were stopped about 2 km away from the house of Sajid. IO requested 2-3 public persons to join the recovery near the house of Sajid. It took 15-20 minutes to reach house of Sajid on foot from the place where they parked their vehicles. House was under
construction. No labourer or watchmen was found at the house. IO made a call to the driver to reach the house of Sajid. The bags were loaded by the police and the accused in the tempo. They reached the place of recovery at about State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 43 3:15 am and tempo reached there at 4:00 or 4:15 am. The private cars remained at the same place where they were parked on the first round of the tempo he along with two police officials of special staff and two police officials of PS and bags reached the police station. He does not remember the names of those 4 police officials. Accused did not accompany them in the first round. They reached the police station after 6:30 am. He again came back at the place of recovery at 7 am. Second time they reached at 8:45 am. He boarded the tempo with 5 accused and 7 police staff. They reached the PS: Badli at about 9:45 am. He denied the suggestion that Ramjan was lifted from his house by the special staff on 07.09.2016 at around 10:30 am. He does not know if father if Ramjan made a call to the police at 100 number from his mobile No. 9891937721. He denied the suggestion that documents were prepared while sitting in the police station or that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused persons.
62. Ct. Ramesh was examined as PW-15. He deposed that on 21.09.2016 he joined investigation with Ct. Tushar and SI Suresh Chand. Accused Satpal and Manohar Lal were taken out from the lockup and interrogated. Both the accused led them to the house of Ganga Ram near railway State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 44 line Shadi Nagar Azad Pur. Accused Satpal produced one bag hanging in the room. The bag was found containing one country made pistol and two cartridges. The sketch of the same were prepared which is Ex.PW15/A. The country made pistol and cartridges were wrapped in cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW15/B. He correctly identified accused Satpal.
63. Accused Manohar produced one knife from the taand over the jangla in the room. The sketch of the same was prepared which is Ex.PW15/C. The knife was wrapped in a cloth piece, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW15/D. He also identified accused Manohar. He identified the country made pistol and cartridges collectively as Ex.PW15/Article-1. He identified the knife as Ex.PW15/Article-2.
64. During cross-examination he stated that he joined the investigation at about 10 am on 21.09.2016. He does not know if IO made any entry with regard to taking out accused persons from the lockup. He does not know if IO made the departure entry. They left the police station in Govt. vehicle. He does not know the name of the driver of that Govt. vehicle. There is a distance of about 5 km in between police station and rented accommodation of accused. That rented State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 45 room was at first floor. Landlord Ganga Ram was residing on the ground floor. Ganga Ram was not present at home at that time. IO made inquiry from Ganga Ram later on. No person was present on the ground floor of that house. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation or that no recovery was effected as deposed by him. He denied the suggestion that case property was planted upon the accused.
65. Sh. Jitender Pratap Singh Ld. MM was examined as PW-16. He deposed that on 15.09.2016 application for TIP fo accused Satish, Manoj, Chandan, Babloo, Satpal, Sunil and Manohar and Ramjan was assigned to him vide application Ex.PW16/A. All the accused persons refuse to join the TIP. They were warned that if they don't join the TIP and refused an adverse inference may be drawn against them at the time of trial but they still refused on the ground that their photographs have been shown to the witnesses in police station. Their statements were recorded as Ex.PW16/B, 16/C, 16/D, 16/E, 16/F, 16/G and 16/H. Accused Ramjan agreed for the TIP. The TIP of Ramjan was fixed for 17.09.2016. vide order Ex.PW16/I. On 17.09.2016 he reached Central Jail No.4. Accused was produced before him by Asstt. Supdt. Jail Sh. Puneet vide endorsement State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 46 Ex.PW16/J. In the TIP proceedings Ex.PW16/K the witness Santosh correctly identified him vide proceedings Ex.PW3/X. He appended the certificate as Ex.PW16/L that it is the true and correct recording of the TIP. Copy of TIP proceeding was supplied to the IO vide application Ex.PW16/M.
66. Ct. Rambir Antil was examined as PW-17. He deposed that on 09.09.2016 on receipt of DD No.87B by SI Ramesh Chand he along with HC Chetan, Ct. Vaibhav, Ct. Satish and Ct. Vijay left the police station in Govt. Vehicle TATA 407 DL 1LM 6888. They reached the lower GT Karnal road near CNG petrol pump at about 10 pm. SI Sombir and other persons of special staff who had already caught 5 accused persons namely Satish, Manoj, Sunil @ Peeliya, Satpal and Babloo met them. The accused persons informed that they had committed dacoity 10-12 days ago at Nangli Khera Kalan near Om Dharam Kanta with other associates Ramjan, Manohar @ Lambu and Chandan by using country made pistol and knives. They looted the truck by giving beatings to truck driver and helper after tying them. The truck was found loaded with rice bags. All the 5 accused were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. All the five accused, special staff officials and the staff from the police station SP Badli left for Ghaziabad Loni led by the State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 47 accused persons. The accused persons took them to Rashid Ali colony where they reached near water tank Irshad Colony Ghaziabad. The accused persons pointed out a house under construction. Three boys were found sleeping on tirpal laid on those bags. Those three boys were caught. He caught Chandan. The other two boys were also caught. They disclosed their names as Manohar @ Lambu and Ramjan. 100 bags of 50 kg each of rice were found under the tirpal. Accused Chandan was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW17/C. He identified all the accused persons. He identified the Tirpal as Ex.PW10/Article-1 and the rice bags in the photographs Ex.PW3/E1 to E4.
67. During cross-examination for accused Ramjan, Manoj, Satish, Babloo, Manohar and Chandan he stated that they left the police station at about 9:40 or 9:45 pm in Govt. Vehicle. The vehicle was parked near CNG pump. They remained near CNG pump for about 2 or 2½ hrs. He cannot tell the exact time when they left the spot of arrest. He did not sign any ducment near CNG pump. IO did not serve any notice upon public persons who refused to join the investigation. He does not remember which of the accused wax arrested first in time. The distance between PS: SP State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 48 Badli and the CNG pump is about one and a half km. It took them 15 minutes to reach there.
68. They reached Rashid Ali gate at about 1:30 or 1:45 am on 10.09.2016. SI Suresh, HC Chetan, Ct. Vijay, Ct. Vaibhav, he himself and 5 accused persons were with them in TATA 407. The vehicle was stopped at a distance of about 2 /2½ km away from the place of recovery. The driver was left with the vehicle. Later on the vehicle was taken to the place of recovery. There were two private vehicles also. Later on those two private vehicles were also brought at the place of recovery. It took them 30 to 45 minutes to reach the place of recovery from the spot where TATA 407 and the other two vehicles were parked. The vehicles were parked as the road was bad and also that the accused persons at the place of recovery may not get alarmed. IO asked the residents of house falling on the way to join the investigation but none agreed. They remained at the place of recovery for about 4-5 hours. Finally they left the spot at about 5:45 or 6:00 am on 10.09.2016. The rice bags were taken to police station in TATA 407 in two rounds. He does not know at what time TATA 407 for the first time left the place of recovery. In the first round some officer of spacial staff and few officer of police station accompanied TATA 407 but he does not State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 49 remember their names. He has not accompanied TATA 407 in the first round. In the first round 50 rice bags were loaded in TATA 407 by them with the help of accused persons. TATA 407 came back on the spot after about 1½ or 2 hours. He left the place of recovery in TATA 407 with all the accused persons. After leaving the place of recovery the accused persons led them to the place of incident and pointed out the same. He cannot tell the exact time of reaching the place of occurrence. TATA 407 was parked at the place of incident itself. He does not remember if IO made any arrival entry after reaching the police station. He denied the suggestion that accused Ramjan was not arrested from the place of recovery of rice bags or that he was lifted from his house on 07.09.2016 by the police at about 11:30 am. He does not know if father of accused Ramjan i.e. Nasibuddin made a call at 100 number from his phone No.9891937721. No mason or labour was found in the house of Sajid. No watchmen was present at the house of Sajid.
69. The same cross-examination was adopted on behalf of accused Harbhajan. No question was put to this witness on behalf of the other accused persons.
70. Ct. Satish was examined as PW-18. He corroborated the testimony of PW-17. He proved the arrest memo of State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 50 Manohar as Ex.PW18/A and his personal search memo as Ex.PW18/B. He also identified the Tirpal as Ex.PW10/Article1 and the rice bags in the photographs as Ex.PW3/E1 to E4.
71. During cross examination he stated that they left the police station at about 9:35 or 9:45 pm. They reached near CNG petrol pump at 10 pm in TATA 407 which was parked near CNG pump. He does not remember which of the accused was arrested first in time. They left CNG petrol pump at about 12:30 or 1:00 am on 10.09.2016. He was along with SI Suresh HC Chetan Ct. Ranbir, Ct. Vaibhav, Ct. Vijay in TATA 407 along with the accused persons. No officer of special staff was in TATA 407 when they left for Ghaziabad Loni. The officials of special staff were in the private vehicles. They reached Rashid Ali Gate at about 2:00 or 2:30 am on 10.09.2016. He does not know if IO informed the local police but no official from local police was with them. The TATA 407 and other two private vehicles were parked at a distance of about 1½ or 2 km away from the place of recovery. The vehicles were not taken to the place of recovery as the accused at the place of recovery would have been alarmed if their vehicles have been taken there. It took them 30 to 40 minutes to reach at the place of recovery from the place where they parked the vehicles. He does not know if IO State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 51 asked any neighbour or public person to join the investigation. He does not remember at what time TATA 407 was brought at the place of recovery. The other two vehicles were also brought to the place of recovery along with TATA
407. He does not remember at what time TATA 407 left the place of recovery first time and also the name of the police official who went along with TATA 407 in the first round. He was not there in TATA 407 in the first round. TATA 407 returned after about one and one and a half hour. The officials who went along with TATA 407 did not come back to the spot. Only the driver brought the vehicle in the final round. In the final round staff of police station along with the accused persons and the rice bags were taken in TATA 407. They all left the place of recovery at about 4:00 am. From the place of recovery the accused led them to the place of incident. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW18/DX where it was not found mentioned that the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence. It took them 1½ or 2 hours to reach at the place of occurrence from the place of recovery. He does not remember if the vehicles were parked on the pakka road or taken to the place of occurrence. He does not remember at what time they left the place of occurrence. Police staff also came to the police station from State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 52 the place of occurrence. He does not remember at what time they reached the police station. He does not remember if IO made the arrival entry. He denied the suggestion that accused Ramjan, Chandan and Manohar were not arrested from the place of recovery or that accused Ramjan was lifted from his house on 07.09.2016 at 11:30 am. He denied the suggestion that father of accused made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone No:9891937721. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not arrested near CNG pump as deposed by him or that they had also not made any disclosure statement.
72. This cross-examination was adopted on behalf of accused Harbhajan. No question was put to the witness on behalf of the other accused persons.
73. ASI Chetan Kumar was examined as PW-19. He deposed that on 30.08.2016 he along with SI Suresh Kaushik and Ct. Pawan left the police station in private car for PS:
Rajpura Distt. Sambhal Uttar Pradesh. IO Suresh Kumar met the officials of PS: Rajpura who had seized the truck No. UP 24H 8113. IO collected the documents from the police officials of PS: Rajpura. The truck was found stationed and seized in PS: Rajpura in FIR No.427/16 u/s 41/102 Cr.PC and 412 IPC vide memo Ex.PW19/A. The truck was brought State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 53 to PS: SP Badli. He also corroborated the testimony of PW- 18 with respect to the arrest of accused persons. Satish, Manoj, Sunil, Satpal, Babloo and in the recovery of the Rice bags and Tirpal from where the other three accused namely Ramjan, Manohar @ Lambu and Chandan were arrested. He also proved the personal search memo of Satpal as Ex.PW19/B and the disclosure statement as Ex.PW11/C. The disclosure statement of Manoj as Ex.PW19/B and of Babloo as Ex.PW19/C. He proved the arrest memos & personal search memo of Ramjan as Ex.PW19/D & 19/E, arrest memo and personal search memo of Manohar as Ex.PW18/A & 18/B and that of Chandan as Ex.PW17/A & 17/B. He proved the disclosure statement of Ramjan, Manohar and Chandan as Ex.PW19/F, 19/G & 19/H. He stated that all the accused persons also pointed the place of occurrence vide memos Ex.PW19/I and Ex.PW19/J. He identified the Tirpal as Ex.PW10/Article-1, the rice bags in the photographs as Ex.PW3/E1 to E4 and the truck No. UP 24H 8113 in the photographs as Ex.PW4/B & Ex.PW3/Article1.
74. During cross examination, he stated that they left the PS at about 9.40 PM in TATA 407. The vehicle was stopped about 10 mtrs.away after crossing the CNG pump. The pump was lying closed at that time. First of all accused Satpal was State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 54 arrested at 11 PM. It took them 3 hours in recording the disclosure statement and preparing arrest documents. They left the place of arrest at about 2.30 AM. At about 3.30/3.45 AM they reached at Rashid Ali Gate, Loni. IO did not request any public person in between the Rashid Ali gate and place of recovery to join investigation. TATA 407 was parked adjacent to the place of recovery. He does not remember if the gate of the said place was wooden or iron. Half of the accused persons boarded TATA 407 in first round and half in the second round. For the first round TATA 407 left at 5.30 AM. He and IO came to the PS in the first round. IO again left for Loni for the second round at about 7/7.30 AM. He does not remember at what time TATA 407 reached PS in second round.
75. HC Umed Singh was examined as PW-20. He deposed that on 29.08.2016 after receiving information he along with SI Sunil Kumar went to BJRM hospital. Santosh Kumar and Vinay Kumar were found admitted in the hospital. SI Sunil Kumar recorded the statement of Santosh and prepared the rukka. He took the rukka to the police station and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he reached Om Dharam kanta, Khera Kalan. SI Sunil along with SI Santosh and Vinay Kumar met him there. He handed over original State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 55 rukka and copy of FIR to SI Sunil Kumar. On the spot one pink colour rope was found. It was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK. One blanket was found on the spot. It was also seized along with rope vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter, they returned to the police station. Santosh and Vinay were also taken to the police station. The dossier of the criminals were shown to them but they could not identify any of them.
76. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP wherein he admitted that both complainant Santosh and Vinay led them to Bhudpur nala on the service road opposite carriage way going towards Azadpur from the side of Alipur to the side of a jungle where they pointed out the place, where they find light pink rope and checkdar blanket. The blanket was put in a white bag sealed with the seal of SK. Seal after use was handed over to him. He identified the pieces of rope and blanket as Ex.PW3/Article-2.
77. During cross-examination by defence he stated that DD No.6A was received at 4:30 am. They left the police station just after receiving the DD. They reached BJRM hospital. It took them one or one and a quarter hour in preparing the rukka. At about 7:30 am he reached the spot after registration of FIR. They remained at Om Dharam State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 56 Kanta for about 10-15 minutes. He does not remember at what time they reached the place from where blanket and rope were recovered. They reached by motorcycle at the place where rope and blanket was found. He went alone from Om Dharam Kanta to the place where rope and blanket were found. That place was about 50-60 ft away from the main road where blanket and rope were found. IO made inquires from the public persons at the spot but he does not know their names and addresses. The distance between police station and the hospital is about 4 to 5 km. The distance between Om Dharam Kanta and the place where rope and blanket was found is about 50 to 60 ft. he denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
78. Ct. Vikas Rana was examined as PW21. He deposed that in the intervening night of 28/29 August 2016 he along with ASI Raj Kumar were in ERV. At about 4 am they reached near Jain Mandir where they met driver Santosh and Helper Vineet. They were in injured condition and informed that 8-9 persons looted their vehicle loaded with bags of rice. Santosh and Vineet also informed that those persons had tied their hands and drop them after crossing Nala. They both took them to BJRM hospital and also informed PS: S.P. Badli. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 57 and uncontroverted.
79. Ct. Tushar was examined as PW-22. He deposed that on 21.09.2016 he along with SI Suresh Kumar Ct. Ramesh and other staff joined the investigation. Accused Satish, Sunil @ Peeliya, Satpal, Manohar @ Lambu and Ramjan were taken out from the lockup and interrogated. They went to Shadi Nagar near railway station where accused Manohar @ Lambu has taken one room on rent. He corroborated the testimony of PW-15 regarding recovery of the country made pistol and two live cartridges at the instance of Satpal and the recovery of the knife at the instance of Manohar. He also identified the country made pistol and the cartridges collectively as Ex.PW15/Article1 and knife as Ex.PW15/Article2.
80. During cross-examination he deposed that he was asked at about 2 or 3 pm on 21.09.2016 to join the investigation. They left the police station at about 4 or 4:30 pm in govt. gypsy. The driver of the gypsy did not make entry in the log book in his presence. After leaving the police station firstly they went to the Jhuggies near Shadipur railway Phatak at jhuggie of Ganga Ram. He did not collect any documentary proof from Ganga Ram with regard to the ownership of Jhuggi. The Jhuggie was found locked. He State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 58 does not remember who opened the said jhuggie. They did not collect any agreement of the first floor of the said jhuggie. No family member of Satpal and Manohar were found there. He admitted that the jhuggie is situated in a thickly populated area. He does not remember if IO asked any public person to join investigation. He denied the suggestion that no such recovery was effected at the instance of accused persons or that the case property was planted upon them.
81. SI Manjeet was examined as PW-23. He deposed that on 15.09.2016 he joined investigation with SI Suresh. They reached the court of Ld. MM Sh. Virender Singh. Accused Harbhajan was produced in the court. SI Suresh moved application for interrogation and arrest of accused. Accused Harbhajan was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW23/A. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW23/B.
82. During cross-examination for accused Harbhajan he denied the suggestion that signature of accused Harbhajan were taken on blank paper or that accused did not make any disclosure statement.
83. SI Sunil Kumar was examined as PW-24. He deposed that on the intervening night of 28/29 August 2016 he was posted at PS: SP Badli and was on emergency duty. On that day at about 4:40 am he received DD No.6A. He along with State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 59 Ct. Umed went to BJRM hospital. HC Raj Kumar met him and handed over the MLC's of Santosh Kumar and Vineet Kumar. He recorded the statement of Santosh which is Ex.PW23/A. He made is endorsement Ex.PW24/A and handed over the rukka to Ct. Umed at 6 am. Ct.Umed left for the police station for registration of FIR. He along with injured reached the scene of crime. He prepared site plan Ex.PW3/C at the instance of the injured Santosh Kumar. Thereafter, Santosh Kumar led them to the place where they were thrown by the assailants. He found the pieces of rope and blanket lying in the bushes. He stated that the plastic rope as well as blanket were put in parcels sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He also prepared the site plan of place where they were thrown which is Ex.PW3/D. He made efforts to find out the assailants but no clue was found. He identified the rope and blanket as Ex.PW3/Article2.
84. During cross-examination for the accused persons he stated that he received DD No.6A at 4:30 am. He admitted that there is overwriting in the registration number of the truck in the DD. He admitted that there is over writing at 1 am in the rukka. At about 5 am they reached BJRM hospital. First of all he met HC Raj Kumar in the hospital. He did not record the statement of HC Raj Kumar. HC Raj Kumar State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 60 informed him that he had not recorded the statement of driver or helper. At about 5 am he met Santosh Kumar in the hospital. He admitted that there is no specific mark on ropes and blankets. He admitted that these types of ropes and blankets are easily available in the market. There was no public person present at the place where the injured were thrown. Complainant Santosh and Vineet were with him when these articles were taken in possession. He admitted that the signature of Vineet is not there on the site plan Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. They were on the motorcycle when they left the police station for BJRM hospital. They reached the scene of crime on the same motorcycle. They reached the spot at 7 am and remained their for an hour. Ct. Umed reached the spot on his motorcycle. They reached the place where the injured were thrown on two motorcycles. The blanket and ropes were found at a distance of about 2 killa from the main road. The place of recovery is not visible from the main road due to bushes.
85. SI Suresh Chand was examined as PW-25. On 30.08.2016 the investigation of this case was handed over to him. He along with HC Chetan, HC Pawan left for going out of station i.e. Sambhal in a private. He reached PS: Rajpura where they met the police officials. SI Ravinder of PS:
State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 61 Rajpura handed over him relevant documents of case FIR No:427/16. SI Ravinder also told him that he had apprehended Harbhajan with empty truck No. UP 20H 8183. He seized that truck vide seizure memo ex.PW25/A and recorded the statement of SI Ravinder. The truck was already seized in FIR No.427/16 vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A. He came back to the police station SP Badli and deposited the truck in the malkhana. On 01.09.2016 he moved application for production of accused Harbhajan. He also corroborated the testimony of PW10, PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, PW-14 with respect to arrest the accused persons and then the recovery of rice from the house of Sajid and the arrest of the three more accused persons. He identified the case property and also the accused persons. He also got conducted the TIP wherein accused Ramjan joined the TIP who was identified by witness Santosh in TIP but Vineet failed to identify him. He also deposed regarding the recovery of pistol and two live cartridges at the instance of Satpal and of the knife at the instance of Manohar and corroborated the testimony of PW-15 in this regard. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet in the court.
86. During cross-examination he stated that he along with State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 62 police staff left for Sambhal after making DD entry but he does not remember the number of the same. They left the police station in the evening on 30.08.2016. They travelled to Sambhal in car the number of which he does not remember.
They reached Sambhal at 10 am. The distance between Sambhal and Delhi is 250 km. The owner of truck provided a driver for driving the car to Delhi. He denied the suggestion that accused Harbhajan has been falsely implicated or that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers.
87. During cross-examination for accused Ramjan he stated that on 09.09.2016 at about 9:30 pm they left the police station S.P Badli for G.T Karnal road. HC Chetan and other staff whose name he does not remember were with him. They left vide DD No.87/B. It took them 10 to 15 minutes to reach G.T. Karnal road. He was not carrying any arm with him. He does not know if any staff accompanied him was carrying any arm. 5 police personals were already present at GTK Karnal road namely SI Sombir Singh, HC Surender Dahiya and others whose name he does not remember. He does not remember which of accused was arrested first in time by him. They remained at G.T. Karnal road till at about 4:30 or 5:00 am they reached at Irshad Colony Ghaziabad. All the staff of PS: S.P Badli who State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 63 accompanied him to GT Karnal Road also reached Irshad colony in TATA 407 with all the persons of special staff and all the accused. No public person was present at the time of arrest. Therefore, he did not ask any public person to join the proceedings. The CNG pump was at a distance of about 200 to 300 steps from the place where the accused were arrested. There is no shop or residential house near the place of arrest. The local police official of Ghaziabad /Loni were not joined. The TATA vehicle was stopped before the place of recovery i.e. 200 steps away. It took them 5 to 7 minutes to reach the place of recovery from the place where the vehicle was stopped. There were several houses near the place of recovery. No occupant of those houses was requested to join the investigation. No passersby was requested to join the investigation. They left Irshad colony at about 11 or 11:30 am along with other staff and accused persons. Accused persons pointed out the house of Sajid. He did not inquire from any neighbour as to who owned the place of recovery. There was no name plate on the said house and on watchmen was found. He does not remember how many bags were loaded in the vehicle for dropping at the PS in the first round. However, it is stated that more than half of the bags were loaded in the first round. He does not State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 64 remember how many persons and their names who boarded in the first round of the TATA 407. He does not remember at what time TATA 407 took the round and returned. Those police officials who went to police station in the first round came back at the spot after about one hand a half or two hours. They again returned in the second round. Special staff officials were in their private vehicle and they reached police station in their vehicle. All the police staff of PS: S.P Badli was with him in TATA 407 and some of accused persons were also in TATA 407 but he does not know their names. He denied the suggestion that accused Ramjan was not arrested on 10.09.2016 from Irshad colony Ghaziabad or accused was lifted from his house on 07.09.2016. he does not know if father of accused Ramjan made a call from his mobile No:9891937721 on 07.09.2016 at about 11:00 or 11:30 am. He denied the suggestion that accused Ramjan was taken to police station for inquiry regarding his brother in law Sajid or that he was falsely implicated in this case.
88. During cross-examination for the remaining accused persons. He stated that it took them 15-20 minutes to reach G.T. Karnal road. All the police officials of special staff were found present with accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he did not record the disclosure statements State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 65 or that no documents was prepared there. The distance between GT Karnal road to Loni from where the recovery was effected is about 20 to 22 km.
89. The accused Manohar @ Lambu led them to the house of Ganga Ram from where one knife was recovered. Manohar was tenant in the said house of Ganga Ram. No document regarding tenancy was collected. He does not remember if he recorded statement of Ganga Ram. He admitted that Ganga Ram is not cited as a witness. He denied the suggestion that Manohar @ lambu was never a tenant of Ganga Ram. Some females were present at the ground floor of the house of Ganga Ram but they refused to give the statement. He requested the nearby residents to join but they refused. He does not remember when complainant met him first time. Complainant accompanied him for TIP of the accused persons. He did not serve any written notice on the complainant for joining TIP. He denied the suggestion that Photographs of all the accused persons were shown to complainant before TIP. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected at the instance of Satpal.
90. SI Harvinder from PS: Behjoi, Distt. Sambhalpur, UP was examined as PW-26. He deposed that on 31.08.2016 he was working as chowki Incharge at Kasba Gawa, PS:
State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 66 Rajpura. On that day he along with other staff was present at Kasba Gawa Chowk, Sambhal. At about 8:00 am one secret informer informed him that one truck which was looted from Delhi would come from the side of Anoop Sehar bridge and would go towards village. It was told that the truck will be having registration No. UP 24H 8113. He conveyed the same to other members of the staff. The trap was laid at the chowk. At about 8:20 am aforesaid truck came from the side of Anoop Sehar. The truck was stopped. Harbhajan s/o Sohan Pal was driving that truck. The accused was arrested in case FIR No.427/16 u/s 102 Cr.PC and 412 IPC. He accordingly informed PS: SP Badli that accused Harbhajan revealed about commission of offence. Delhi police came and he handed over the documents of the case FIR NO:427/16 to Delhi Police. He identified those documents and produced the same as Ex.PW26/A. He correctly identified the accused. He prepared the site plan. The site plan was prepared by SI Rajesh the same is Ex.PW26/B. The truck was seized and accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/C. He handed over the truck to Delhi Police who took the same.
91. During cross-examination he stated that they were patrolling on motorcycle NO:UP 23 4503. He shared the secret information with the SHO. He put the barricades at State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 67 8:05 am. They checked 10 to 15 vehicles and created the traffic jam condition. He did not record the registration number of the vehicles checked by them. They all apprehended the accused the moment he jumped from the truck. He asked the public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. No notice in writing was given to the public persons who refused to join. He does not know on which date IO prepared the site plan of place of recovery. He denied the suggestion that accused was not driving the truck. He does not know if accused was working as Halwai. He denied the suggestion that truck was found abandoned or that it was planted upon the accused. No cross-examination was done on behalf of other accused persons.
92. Sh. Gaurav Sharma was examined as PW-27. He accorded sanction for prosecution of accused Satpal u/s 39 Arms Act and he proved the sanction order as Ex.PW27/A.
93. During cross-examination for accused Satpal he denied the suggestion that he accorded the sanction in routine manner. No cross-examination was done on behalf of any other accused persons.
94. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. Statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein they denied the entire evidence. Accused State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 68 Ramjan wished to lead evidence in defence. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defence evidence.
95. ASI Jagat Singh was examined as DW-1. He brought the summoned record of the PCR form No.1 of 07.09.2016. according to the record at about 11:00/11:27 hrs a call was received from mobile phone bearing No. 9891937721 and the caller informed that "caller ke ladke Ramjan 24 years ko kucch log ek gadi No. UK mein utha kar le gaye". He proved the copy of that PCR form as Ex.DW1/A and the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act as DW-1/D. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
96. Sheikh Nasibuddin was examined as DW-2. He deposed that he purchase dried roti and sell the same to Gaushala. He is having a shop situated at Kushal Cinema road in front of Masjid. On 07.09.2016 at around 11:00/11:30 am he was sitting on his shop. One police officer came to his shop and asked him if he had provided any scooty to Sajid. He admitted that he had given one scooty to Sajid. He told that child had met with an accident and asked him to identify the scooty. He accompanied that police officer. His son Ramjan also accompanied him. Police officer started threatened his son Ramjan. He asked police officer that Ramjan is his son and don't threaten him. That officer asked State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 69 him to remain at his shop and he will show the scooty to Ramjan and will leave him after 2 minutes. The police took Ramjan at some distance where two cars of police were already parked. Police officer asked Ramjan to sit in the car but due to fear Ramjan did not sit in the car. Those police officers started beating Ramjan. Many persons gathered there. The police officer took out the pistol and threatened public who gathered there. The police officer told that they want to make some inquiry about Sajid from Ramjan. He made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone 9891937721 after the police left with his son Ramjan. Two PCR van reached after his call. They noted down his name and address. He was taken to PS: Jahangir Puri and was produced before SHO. Police made inquiries from him and asked if his name is there in some police station. He kept on sitting in police station for 2 hours. Thereafter, he made a call to Pradhan. He was taken out by Pradhan Sh. Ishrafil from the police station. At about 3:30 pm his son Ramjan made a call from mobile No.8882918478 and told that he is coming. His son was again brought to his shop. He requested the police officers to release his son and told that his both feets are broken and rods are inserted. Police demanded Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, police left with his son and reached State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 70 Rithala. Police lifted the father of Sajid and next day he was released. On 08.09.2016 he received a threatening call from mobile No.7557246966 witness has given the number which is written on a paper slip. The caller asked him to pay Rs.20,000/- but he could not arrange Rs.20,000/- as his wife was already admitted in private hospital at Adarsh Nagar Subzi Mandi.
97. On 09.09.2016 at about 5 pm he again received a threatening call from mobile No.8860668337. The caller asked him whether he want his son or not. Witness has given a paper slip on which the phone number is written. He noted down all these numbers in his diary which today he has given on a paper slip in the court.
98. On 10.09.2016 he went to police station Rohini where his son was taken along with Pradhan. He was told that Ramjan was released in the night itself but he told that Ramjan had not reached home. He and Pradhan came out of the police station while they were standing outside he received call from the IO from mobile No:9810973821 and inquired from him about Sajid and he said that he does not know where is Sajid. Thereafter, he returned home.
99. During cross-examination for the State he stated that he does not know what is the case against his son Ramjan. State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 71 He does not know the name of the police officers who came to his shop. He cannot tell the registration number of the vehicles in which police came. He told at 100 number that police officers had taken away his son Ramjan. Najma is his daughter who is married with Sajid. Sajid met him last time before the arrest of Ramjan at Rithala. At that time Sajid was residing at Rithala. Sajid and his daughter Najma are presently residing in rented house at Loni. Two children are born to Sajid and Najma. On 11.09.2016 he came to know about this case. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in order to save his son.
100. In reply to court question he stated that he was knowing before making call at 100 number that the persons who had taken away his son were police officers. He was asked why he did not tell this fact when he made a call at 100 number that his son had been taken away by the police and he stated that he told this fact.
101. Sh. Sheikh Israfil Ali was examined as DW-3. He deposed that on 13.09.2016 near Kushal Cinema there was a large crowd and lot of noise was there. He reached there and inquired from them as to what had happened. He was told that officials of special staff had taken away Ramjan. Thereafter, he came back to his office situated at C-51 near State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 72 Kushal Cinema. Mother of Ramjan came to his office and informed that police had taken away her husband and not releasing him. He went to PS Jahangir Puri. He asked the SHO as to why he had made Nasibuddin to sit in the police station on which SHO told him that he had made a call at 100 number. Thereafter, Nasibuddin was allowed to go.
102. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed. And the case was fixed for final arguments.
103. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Defence Counsels for all the accused persons and perused the record.
104. Ld. APP submitted that on the intervening night of 28/29.08.16 one truck bearing no.UP24H 8113 was robbed while it was parked at Om Dharam Kanta. There was driver in that truck namely Santosh Kumar examined as PW-3 and one helper namely Vineet examined as PW-6. Santosh Kumar was sleeping in the cabin of the truck and Vineet on the roof of the truck. Santosh Kumar and Vineet fully supported the prosecution case and deposed that on 27.08.16, the truck was loaded with 20 tons rice bags from Kasba Poyan, District Shahjahan Pur (UP). They reached Delhi on 28.08.16. The truck could not be unloaded on 28.08.16 being Sunday. Thereafter they parked the truck at State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 73 Om Dharam Kanta, Delhi. At about 12 mid night, some body bang on the window of the truck and as soon as PW-3 opened the window, 4 persons boarded the truck. Three persons went on the roof of the truck and over powered Vineet. Four persons, who entered the cabin of the truck gave beatings to Santosh caused injury on his person with knife and tied him. Similarly, Vineet was also beaten and tied. Thereafter the accused persons drove the truck, took them to secluded place, made them lay on the ground and covered them with the blanket. Thereafter they all fled away with the truck. Ld. APP submitted that both the witnesses PW-3 and PW-6 are consistent upto this point and corroborated each other except the small abrasion i.e. according to PW-3 the accused persons gave knife injury on the person of Vineet but Vineet is silent about that. PW-3 some how un-tied himself and then he also untied Vineet. They reached the main road near the office of TATA Company and Radha Krishna Jain Mandir. Both stated that they found a police vehicle there. They informed them and they were taken to hospital. The fact that the police officials met them is corroborated by the testimony of ASI Raj Kumar examined as PW-2 and Ct. Vikas/PW-21. Both stated that Santosh and Vineet came to them. They told that the truck no.UP24 H State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 74 8113 has been robbed by 5-6 persons on the point of weapons and thereafter they took them to BJRM hospital. They also informed the police. The fact that Raj Kumar informed the police is evident from the testimony of PW-8/HC Gulzar the duty officer, who told that HC Raj Kumar, who was on duty on ERV of PS Swaroop Nagar, informed that, "ek truck chalak jiska naam Santosh Kumar son of Bhagwati Pershad resident of UP, truck no.UP24H 8113 jo chawlo se bhara tha, kher kalan se kuch log maar peet ker ke driver and conductor ke haath per bandh ker chhod gaye hai and truck ko lekar chale gaye hai". DD no.6A Ex.PW-8/A was recorded in this regard. HC Umed/ PW-20 and SI Suresh PW-25 after receiving this information reached the hospital, got the FIR registered. The pieces of ropes, one blanket were recovered which were seized vide memo Ex.PW-3/B and were identified by PW-3 as the same with which he was tied and the blanket as the same with which he and Vineet were covered as Ex.PW-3/Article 2. Ld. PP submitted that all these circumstances and the evidence corroborate the testimony of PW-3 as well as PW-6 that the truck no.UP24H 8113 loaded with rice was robbed. The fact that this truck was loaded with rice bags is also corroborated by the testimony of PW-7 and there is no cross examination to this State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 75 witness that there were no such rice bags loaded in truck no.UP24H 8113 from Kasba Poyan. Ld. APP submitted that the witness PW-3 has identified Chandan as the accused who has armed with katta and he also identified Manohar, Bablu and Ramjan as the persons who robbed the truck. PW-3 has also identified Sunil and Satpal on the pointing out during cross examination by Ld. APP and also admitted that Sunil and Manohar were carrying knives. Ld. APP submitted that as he has identified 6 persons, who were involved in the commission of crime and were also armed with weapons, therefore, primafacie offence punishable under Sec.395 IPC is made out against accused Chandan, Manohar, Bablu, Ramjan, Sunil and Satpal. The witness has also stated that Chandan was having katta and that Ramjan, Sunil and Manohar were having knives, therefore, they are also liable to be held guilty under Sec.397 IPC. Ld. APP submitted that PW-6 is not able to identify any of the robbers but that would not effect the testimony of PW-3. Both the witnesses are consistent about the manner of commission of offence and also that they were taken in the same truck and thereafter confined at secluded place in the bushes after covering them with the blanket and therefore, prosecution has also proved that all the accused persons abducted Santosh Kumar and State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 76 Vineet. Both the witnesses have also stated that they have been assaulted by the accused persons and therefore, Sec.365 and 394 IPC are also established. Ld. APP submitted that onus which was on the prosecution has been discharged. It is prayed that accused persons be held guilty.
105. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that according to the prosecution story there were two persons in the truck Santosh, the driver examined as PW-3 and Vineet the helper examined as PW-6. PW-6 has failed to identify any of the accused. PW-3 has made various improvements in his testimony and is not reliable. Witness hass stated that after unting themselves they reached GT Karnal Road, near Jain temple and there was office of TATA Company nearby. There is no such mention in the statement of Santosh Ex.PW-3/A or in the statement of Vineet recorded under Sec.161 Cr.PC. PW-3 also stated that Vineet was stabbed 6- 7 times but Vineet is silent about this fact and this fact is also not mentioned in the statement of PW-3 Ex.PW-3/A and the statement of PW-6 recorded by the police. Ld. Counsel also submitted that PW-3 was confronted on every aspect. He no where stated to the police that his face was tied with Angochcha, injury was caused on his right hand with knife and that he was threatened to be killed or that one pistol was State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 77 put on his head and the other on his back. Ld. Counsel submitted that even the other witnesses have not corroborated the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6. ASI Raj Kumar, PW-2 and Ct. Vikas Rana/PW-21 stated that they reached while they were on patrolling, when Santosh and Vineet met them but according to Santosh and Vineet, they found the police vehicle and narrated them the whole story, which means that the vehicle of the police was found parked. They reached there and informed the story. Ld. Counsel submitted that he also identified Harbhajan, who was not present at the scene of crime. This fact itself shows that he is telling a lie. Ld. Counsel further submitted that according to this witness accused Chandan was having katta in his hand and Ramjan was having a knife and that Ramjan caused injury on his person with knife, which is not the story of the prosecution. As per the story, Satpal was having katta and Manohar and Sunil were having knives. This statement of PW-3 clearly shows that he is telling a lie and not reliable. The witness has failed to identify Satish and Manoj. He identified accused Sunil and Satpal only on the pointing out of APP and hence no reliance on the same shall be placed. Ld.counsel submitted that as one of the eye witness Vineet has not supported the case at all and the other witness State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 78 Santosh is not reliable as he has made improvements, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case. It is prayed that the benefit be given to the accused persons and they be acquitted.
106. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that there are only two witnesses of the incident i.e. PW-3 and PW-6. Both the witnesses are consistent on the point that the rice bags were loaded in the truck from Sukhbir Agro, kasba Poyan, Dist. Shahjahan Pur, UP on 27.08.16. They reached Delhi in truck no.UP24 H 8113 loaded with rice bags on 28.08.16. The truck could not be unloaded on that day and therefore, the truck was parked in the parking of Om Dharam Kanta. In the night while Santosh was sleeping in the cabin and Vineet was sleeping on the roof of the truck, 3-4 persons banged on the door of the cabin. When PW-3 opened the door 3-4 persons forcibly entered the cabin. They pin down him and also gave him beatings. Injury was also caused on his right hand with knife. He was tied with rope and Angochcha. The key of the truck was also taken from him. Two persons boarded the roof and they over powered Vineet, caused injury on the person and tied him. Both are also consistent on the point that therafter accused persons drove the truck for 10 minutes and stopped State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 79 at some secluded place. They were brought down from the truck and taken in some forest where they were made to lay on the ground and covered with blanket. Both also corroborated each other on the point that thereafter the accused persons went away with truck loaded with rice bags. Accused persons have also taken away the mobile phone of PW-3 which was left in the cabin of the truck. The only contradiction in the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6 is that PW- 3 stated that 6-7 stab injuries were caused on the person of Vineet but Vineet does not say so and this fact is also not mentioned in Ex.PW-3/A. On all other points they are consistent with each other and have also stood through the test of cross examination. Ld. Counsels also argued with respect to the improvements made by PW-3 in his statement regarding the tying of his face with angochcha, causing injury on his right hand with knife, making them lay on the ground and covering them with blanket and that they were having knives and gun. After going through the statement of PW-3, I found that there is no such improvement as he stated that his hands and legs were tied with ropes and also stated that his face was also tied. The only word Angochcha is missing. He also told the police that injury on his hand was caused with knife. The only word missing is knife. He specifically stated State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 80 that one of them was having gun and the other two were having knives. He also told the police that they were taken down from the truck and taken to the forest where they were kept for about 2 hours but the fact that they were covered with blanket is evident from the fact that blanket was recovered from the spot and in the seizure memo Ex.PW- 3/B, it is mentioned that at the time of recovery Santosh and Vineet told that they were covered with blankets. The blankets and pieces of ropes have been identified collectively as Ex.PW-3/Article 2. All these facts clearly shows that there is no such improvement made by PW-3 and in fact these are only clarifications.
107. They have also identified the rice bags recovered in the photographs Ex.PW-3/E-1 to E-4 as the same which were loaded in the truck and were taken away. Ld. Defence counsels have taken the plea that these are not the same rice bags, as according to PW-3 there was mark of the Mill on the bag but in the photographs Ex.PW-3/E-1 to E-4 no mark is visible on the bags. Ld. Counsel submitted that this fact itself shows that the bags recovered are not the same which were allegedly robbed and that PW-3 and PW-6 have wrongly identified the same. Here it is important to note that PW-6 specifically stated that as he himself got loaded these State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 81 bags in the truck, hence he identified the bags. Sh. Sachin Malik from Sukhbir Agro was examined as PW-7. He also correctly identified the bags of Sukhbir Ago which were loaded in the truck from village Poyan. He also stated that on the bags there was no marks of Sukhbir Agro as the rice was sent for export and that is why it was not filled in the bags of Sukhbir Agro. Keeping in view the testimony of PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7, I do not find any merit in the objection taken by the Ld. Counsel.
108. Ld. Counsel has also taken the objection that according to PW-6, Satnam Singh was the owner where as according to PW-3 Bhupinder Singh was the owner of the truck. I have gone through the testimony of Bhupinder Singh examined as PW-4, who stated that he is the owner of the truck. He also stated that Santosh was the driver on the truck and there was one helper also. He also got released the truck on superdari after furnishing indemnity bond Ex.PW- 4/A. He also stated that Vineet was the helper on the truck during cross examination. There is no cross examination of this witness that Bhupender was not the owner but Satnam was the owner. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions that Satnam is the owner of the truck and not Bhupender or that the two witnesses PW-3 and State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 82 PW-6 are deposing falsely. Ld.counsel has taken the plea that according to PW-2 and PW-21 they were on patrolling duty but PW-3 does not say that the police vehicle was moving. After going through the testimony of PW-3 and PW- 6, I do not find any merit in this contention as both of them no where stated that the police vehicle were found parked. In fact PW-6 specifically stated that they got stopped the vehicles.
109. Out of the two eye witnesses PW-3 and PW-6, PW-6 has failed to identify the accused persons. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP. The accused persons were also pointed out to him but he failed to identify them. So far as PW-3 is concerned, he has identified accused Chandan, Manohar, Bablu and Ramjan as the accused persons. He also identified Harbhajan as one of the accused but during cross examination for accused Harbhajan, he stated that;
"It is wrong to suggest that accused Harbhajan was not involved in the commission of offence. He was found along with the vehicle when he was recovered......... Lateron he also reached the place of recovery of truck......."
110. From this testimony of PW-3 it is clear that from the possession of Harbhajan the truck was recovered and therefore he identified him as one of the accused and not as the person who robbed him and Vineet of the truck. State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 83
111. Ld. counsel submitted that accused Ramjan was lifted from his house by the police as deposed by DW-2/the father. He also made a call at 100 number. The fact that he made a call at 100 number is also corroborated by DW-1, who proved the record of PCR in this regard. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the testimony of the defence witnesses, it is clear that Ramjan has been falsely implicated. I do not find any merit in this contention as according to the DW-2 Ramjan was taken away by the police official and this fact was also known to him before he made the call at 100 number but he did not tell the police while making call at 100 number that his son has been taken away by the police. It clearly shows that he has made improvements. He has also examined DW-3 to corroborate his statement but DW-3 has also not corroborated the testimony of DW-2. Hence I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the defence counsel.
112. The witness PW-3 also stated that Chandan was having katta and Ramjan was having a knife but in my opinion, as this is not the story of the prosecution that Chandan was having katta and Ramjan was having knife, no reliance on the same can be placed. According to the story Manohar and Sunil were having knives and Satpal was State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 84 having katta. The record shows that on this aspect witness is not reliable. He has correctly identified only four persons, who entered the cabin and robbed their truck loaded with rice bags along with his mobile phone which was left in the cabin. The witness has failed to identify Satish and Manoj. He also identified Sunil and Satpal, but on the pointing out of Ld. APP. There is no other evidence against Sunil and Satpal except the identity on the basis of pointing out, hence in my opinion, no reliance on that part of the testimony of PW-3 can be placed as he simply agreed with the suggestion given by the Ld.Addl.PP.
113. Keeping in view all these facts, there is evidence on record against Chandan, Manohar, Bablu and Ramjan that they forcibly entered the truck, gave beatings to Santosh and then Vineet, they both tied them with ropes. Thereafter they took them in the same truck and dumped them in a forest after covering them with a blanket and fled away with the truck loaded with rice bags and the mobile phone. Keeping in view all these facts, it is clear that prosecution has been able to prove and establish the guilt of the four accused persons regarding kidnapping of Santosh and Vineet, robbing them of the truck loaded with 20 tons of rice bags and the mobile phone of PW-3 and that they have also assaulted and State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 85 caused injuries on the person of Santosh and Vineet. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6 which gets corroboration from the testimony of PW-2, PW-4, PW-7, PW-21, PW-20 and PW-24. Keeping in view the above discussions, accused Chandan, Manohar, Bablu and Ramjan are held guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.365 read with Sec.34, 392 read with Sec.34 and 394 read with sec.34 of IPC.
114. Ld. APP submitted that in this case there is also recovery of 100 rice bags at the instance of accused persons from the house of Sajid situated in Loni, Ghaziabad. On 09.09.16 accused Satish, Manoj, Sunil, Satpal and Bablu were arrested near CNG pump GT Karnal Road by the police . They disclosed about the commission of offence and also that they can get recovered the rice bags from Loni, Ghaziabad, from the house of Sajid. All the five accused led the police team to that place. It was a under construction house. 100 rice bags were found stored in that house, covered with tirpal. Accused Ramjan, Manohar and Chandan were found sleeping on that tirpal. They were also apprehended. All the rice bags were seized. Prosecution has examined 9 witnesses to prove the apprehension of the accused persons and the recovery of the rice bags. All the State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 86 witnesses i.e. ASI Nahar Singh/PW-10, ASI Surender/PW-11, ASI Rajesh/PW-12, HC Naveen/PW-13, Ct. Narender/PW- 14, Ct.Rambir Antil/PW-17, Ct. Satish/PW-18, ASI Chetan/PW-19 and SI Suresh/PW-25 fully supported and corroborated each other regarding the arrest of accused persons near CNG pump, GT Karnal road on the night of 09.09.16. They are also consistent that thereafter the accused persons led them to the house of Sajid situated at Irshad Colony, Ghaziabad (UP). The public witnesses could not be joined as the arrest was at night time. The efforts were made to join the public witnesses but none agreed. The recovery of rice bags was effected late in the night, rather in the wee hours and therefore no public witness could be joined. Ld. APP submitted that all the witnesses are reliable and trust worthy. Their testimony can not be discarded merely because no public witnesses was joined. It is prayed that by examining these witnesses, prosecution has proved the recovery of robbed rice bags at the instance of all the accused persons i.e. Satish, Manoj, Sunil, Satpal, Bablu, Manohar, Ramjan and Chandan. This recovery is effected immediately after the robbery and therefore, the presumption arises that either they committed that offence or they received the rice bags with the knowledge that it is a stolen State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 87 property. It is prayed that they be held guilty.
115. Ld. Defence counsels submitted that accused persons Satish, Manoj, Sunil, Satpal and Bablu were apprehended from the public place i.e. near GT Karnal Road. One CNG pump was also situated nearby but no public witness has been joined. No employee of CNG pump was asked to join. Even the persons, who were present at the pump to get CNG filled were not joined. This fact itself creates doubt about the truthfulness of the story of prosecution.
116. Ld. Counsels further submitted that the police witnesses have also contradicted each other to such an extent that no reliance on their testimony can be placed. Ld. Counsels submitted that according to PW-10, he was sitting in the santro car along with HC Surender, Ct. Narender and Ct. Naveen. HC Surender was driving that santro car and HC Jasbir was driving the Maruti car. He also told that the CNG pump was open but IO did not request any body at CNG pump to join the proceedings. There were trucks at a distance of about 100 steps from the pump. The stopped their vehicle at a distance of about 200 mtrs.from the truck. This witness also stated that the five accused persons were talking with each other when they firstly saw them. The accused persons were apprehended at about 9 PM and they State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 88 remained them for about an hour. Witness PW-11 also stated that CNG pump was opened and customers were also there. He also stated that first of all two boys reached there followed by the three boys. Thereafter they stood in a circle and were apprehended. According to him they reached the spot at about 8.40 PM and it took them 3 hours in completing the documents of arrest, which is in contradiction with the testimony of PW-10, who stated that they remained there for an hour and that they saw all the five accused standing there. PW-12 has also contradicted PW-10 as well as PW-
11. He stated that he was sitting in santro car where as according to PW-10 Rajesh was sitting in Maruti car with SI Sombir. PW-12 also stated that SI Sombir was also sitting in the santro car. PW-12 also stated that they remained at the spot for about 4-5 hours, whereas according to PW-10 they remained there only for one hour and according to PW-11, it took them 3 hours in completing the proceedings. HC Naveen was examined as PW-13. He also contradicted the other witnesses. He stated that he was sitting in santro car with SI Sombir. According to this witness they left the spot at about 1.30/1.45 PM. According to this person SI Sombir was driving santro car whereas according to PW-10 it was HC Surender. He also stated that there was no private person in State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 89 the santro car. According to him Ct. Surender was driving maruti car but HC Surender did not say so when examined as PW-11. The other witnesses PW-14, he also contradicted the other witnesses. He stated that accused persons reached there after about 10-15 minutes of their reaching the spot. According to him firstly three accused persons reached there and thereafter two accused persons came but according to PW-11 firstly two accused persons came followed by three. He also stated that they remained at the spot of arrest upto 1.30/1.45 AM. Ct. Rambir Antil was in the team which reached the place of arrest at PS Samai Pur Badli and according to him they remained at that place for about two or two and half hours and then left for Ghazibad. According to PW-18 Ct. Satish, they reached the place of arrest at about 10 PM and left that place at about 12.30/1.00 AM. According to PW-19, CNG pump was lying closed when they reached there. First of all accused Satpal was arrested at 11 PM and they left the place of arrest at about 2.30 AM. IO of the case PW-25 has also contradicted the other witnesses. According to him they remained at the place of arrest till 2.30/3 AM. He does not remember which of the accused was arrested first in time but he stated that all the accused were arrested on 10.09.16 which is in contradiction with the documents i.e. State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 90 arrest memos of the accused persons which shows that accused Satish, Manoj, Sunil, Satpal and Bablu were arrested on 09.09.16 whereas Chandan, Manohar and Ramjan were arrested on 10.09.16. Ld. Counsels submitted that keeping in view all these contradictions, in the testimony of the witnesses, their apprehension from that place and making the disclosure statement itself is doubtful.
117. Ld. Counsels further submitted that the witnesses have also contradicted each other about the manner of recovery of rice bags. According to PW-10, they left the place of apprehension after about one hour i.e. around 10 PM and then reached the house of Sajid. According to him the vehicles were stopped at a distance of about 300 mtr. away from the place of recovery as the vehicle could not enter the street. He also stated that later on the vehicles were brought to the place of recovery from the other side. The bags were loaded in TATA 407. All the bags were taken in the first round and they all stayed back on the spot of recovery. In the second round all the accused persons were taken in TATA 407 and they all also left the spot. According to PW-11 they reached Loni, Ghaziabad at about 2/2.30 AM. The vehicles were parked at a distance of one kilometer from the house of Sajid, so that the sound of vehicle could not be heard by the State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 91 other accused. He also stated that in first round all the rice bags were taken and then the accused persons were taken. All the three vehicles were also brought at the place of recovery. They also went to PS Samai Pur Badli and left the PS at about 9/10 AM. PW-12 stated that they reached Irshad colony at about 3/3.30 AM whereas according to PW-11 they reached there at about 2/2.30 AM. According to PW-12 the vehicles were parked at a distance of 1-2 km.from the house of Sajid Ali. He stated that two round were made to shift the articles from the house of Sajid to PS . In the first round the bags were loaded and the 8 accused persons also boarded the tempo along with police staff and only 3-4 police officials remained outside the house of Sajid Ali. He also boarded the tempo in the first round. He left the PS Samai Pur Badli at about 11/12 noon. PW-13 has further extended the distance of parking of vehicles. He stated that vehicles were parked at a distance of 2 or 2 and half km.away. Lateron all the three vehicles were brought near the house of Sajid. The bags were removed in two rounds but he does not remember how many bags were loaded in first round. The accused persons were taken in the second round. About 12 to 13 persons were left on the spot after the first round. According to him they reached the PS in the morning in the second round at State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 92 about 10/11 AM. Ld. Counsels submitted that according to PW-11, they left the PS at about 9/10 AM. Ld. Counsel further submitted that according to PW-17, they reached Loni at about 1/1.35 AM which is quite contradictory to the statement of PW-10. The vehicles were parked at a distance of about two or two and half km.from the place of recovery. He also stated that they remained on the spot of recovery for about 4 to 5 hours and left at about 5.45/6 AM. According to him in the first round, 50 rice bags were loaded in TATA 407 and some officers of Spl. Staff and some officials of PS were also sent in TATA 407 but accused were not sent and in the second round the remaining 50 bags were loaded and they all left. Ld. Counsels also submitted that this witness has also introduced a new fact that from the place of recovery the accused persons led them to place of incident and pointed out the place of occurrence which is not deposed by any other witness except PW-17 and PW-18. According to PW- 18 they reached Rashid Ali gate at about 2/2.30 AM, the vehicles were parked at a distance of about one and half or two kilometers. According to him in the first round, some police official also went in TATA 407 but they did not come back on the spot and only the driver brought the vehicle. They all left the place of recovery at 4 AM. According to PW- State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 93 19, they reached the Rashid Ali gate at about 3.30/3.45 AM and TATA 407 was taken adjacent to the place of recovery. According to him half of the accused persons were taken in the first round of TATA 407 and the other half were taken in the second round. He also stated that IO came to the PS in the first round but again went to the place of recovery. He also came in the first round whereas according to PW-17 only driver brought the vehicle back. He stated that IO left for Loni for the second round from PS at about 7/7.30 AM. Ld. Counsels submitted that PW-25 had also contradicted each other and according to him the vehicles were stopped only at a distance of 200 steps away from the place of recovery. They left the place of recovery at about 11.30 AM. More than half bags were loaded in the first round. He does not say that he also went in the TATA 407 in first round. Some of the accused were also sent in TATA 407 in first round. The police officials who went in TATA 407 in first round came back on the spot. Ld. Counsels submitted that keeping in view all these contradictions, it is clear that they were not there and no recovery was effected in their presence. They are not believable. The onus which was on the prosecution to prove the recovery of rice bags is not established. It is prayed that as the recovery is not established, therefore, benefit be given State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 94 to the accused persons and they be acquitted.
118. After hearing the arguments and going through the evidence, I found that there are only police witnesses about the arrest and recovery. No public witness was joined. The witnesses have contradicted each other not only about the time of arrest but also as to how the accused persons reached there. According to PW-10 all the five accused were already there but according to PW-11 firstly two boys came, followed by the three. According to PW-14, firstly three accused came and thereafter two accused followed them.
119. They have also contradicted as to who was sitting in which car. According to PW-10, ASI Nahar Singh, he was sitting in santro car driven by HC Surender. Ct.Narender and CT Naveen was also sitting with him and HC Jasbir was driving the maruti car in which SI Sombir, HC Rajesh and ASI Bal Kishan were sitting. ASI Surender when appeared in the witness box does not say that he was driving the car. However he was sitting in the santro car with the secret informer. HC Naveen PW-13 stated that SI Sombir was driving the santro car. HC Rajesh was also in the santro car but according to PW-10 HC Rajesh was in the Maruti car. PW-13 also stated that secret informer was also not in santro car.
State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 95
120. They have also contradicted as to how for much time they remained on the spot. According to PW-10 they remained at the spot for about one or one and half hours. According to PW-11 it took them three hours in completing the proceedings. According to PW-13 they left the spot at about 1.30/1.45 AM.
121. There is also contradiction in the statements as to where the vehicles were parked after reaching Ghaziabad. According to PW-10, the vehicles were parked at a distance of 300 km. According to PW-11, the vehicles were parked at a distance of about 1 or one and half km. According to PW- 12, the vehicles were parked at a distance of about 2 or two and half km. According to PW-19 the vehicles were taken upto the place of recovery and according to PW-25 the vehicles were stopped about 200 steps before the place of recovery.
122. According to PW-10 the vehicles could not enter that street and later on the vehicles were brought to the spot from other side whereas the other witnesses stated that vehicles were brought to the spot from the same side from which they reached the spot. There are also contradictory as to how the case property was shifted to the PS from the spot. The time of shifting and lastly leaving the place of recovery. PW-10 State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 96 and PW-11 stated that in the first round only the case property was sent and in the second round only accused persons and police staff went. According to PW-19, 50 bags were taken in first round and remaining half bags with accused were taken in the second round. Keeping in view all these contradictions and the contradictions pointed out by the defence, I found that no reliance on the testimony of PW- 10, PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, PW-14, PW-17, PW-18, PW-19 and PW-25. The onus was on the prosecution to prove the recovery of rice bags at the instance of accused Satish, Manoj, Sunil, Satpal and Bablu and that Manohar, Ramjan and chandan were found at the place sleeping on the rice bags which the prosecution has failed. Keeping in view the above discussions, I am of the opinion that prosecution could not establish this fact.
123. Ld. APP submitted that in this case accused Satpal and Manohar also led the police team to the jhugis of Shadi Nagar near Railway line on 21.09.16. They led the police team to Jhugi of Ganga Ram. Satpal got recovered the country made pistol from a bag. The country made pistol was checked and it was found containing two live cartridges. Similarly, accused Manohar also got recovered one button actuated knife from the same jhugi which was also seized. State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 97 The witnesses examined i.e. PW-15, PW-22 and PW-25 have fully supported and corroborated each other and have also identified the country made pistol and live cartridges as Ex.PW-15/Article 1 and the knife as Ex.PW-15/Article 2. The public witnesses could not be joined despite best efforts. Ld.PP submitted that as all the three witnesses are consistent and have proved the recovery of pistol with two live cartridges from the jhugi of Ganga Ram, therefore, they be held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.25 Arms Act.
124. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the recovery has been effected from thickly populated area. Public persons were also present. The ladies were present in the jhugi of Ganga Ram but they have not been joined. The jhugi was also found locked. The police must have procured/arranged the key of the lock but that person have also not been joined in the investigation. This itself creates doubt regarding the truthfulness of the story of prosecution. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is also no disclosure in this regard that they can get recovered the weapons. Even the arrest of the accused persons from the alleged place is doubtful. The only disclosure of Manohar is dt.10.09.16 and similarly the disclosure of Satpal is also dt.10.09.16 but there is no such State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 98 mention that they can get the weapons recovered. The recoveries are also after 11 days of their apprehension which again creates doubt. It is prayed that keeping in view all these facts, the benefit be given to the accused persons.
125. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that in this case there are three witnesses examined to prove the recovery of pistol and two live cartridges at the instance of Manohar from the jhugi of Ganga Ram and recovery of knife at the instance of Satpal. Admittedly public persons were there but no efforts what so ever have been made to join the public witnesses. This itself creates doubt regarding the truthfulness of the recovery proceedings. The room was also got opened as per the prosecution but the person who provided the key has also not been joined. Keeping in view all these facts, coupled with the fact that even the apprehension of the accused persons is shrouded with clouds of doubts as discussed above. The recovery is also after 11 days of the apprehension and disclosure statement that itself creates doubt about the story of the prosecution. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove the recovery beyond doubt.
126. Ld. APP submitted that in this case as deposed by State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 99 PW-3 and PW-6 one truck no.UP24H 8113 was robbed from Santosh/PW-3 and Vineet/PW-6 on the intervening night of 28/29.09.16. That truck was ultimately recovered on 31.08.16 by SI Ravinder Singh/PW-26. He deposed that on 31.08.16 along with staff was present at Kasba Gava Chowk, Sambhal . At about 8 AM he received secret information that a truck looted from Delhi having registration no.UP24H 8113 would come from the side of Anoop Shehr Bridge and would go towards village. He put the barricades. At about 8.20 AM accused Harbhajan reached there driving the truck and was apprehended. Ld. APP submitted that the truck was got stopped by PW-26 by stopping the traffic and thereby creating traffic jam. When the accused reached there and stopped his truck due to traffic jam, he was apprehended and arrested. The truck has been identified by PW-3, PW-6 and the owner PW-4 as the same which was lotted. The witness PW-26 has stood through the test of cross examination. He made efforts to join the public witnesses but none agreed. Ld. APP submitted that keeping in view the testimony of PW- 26 the recovery of truck from the possession of Harbhajan is proved. It is prayed that he be held guilty and convicted.
127. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused has been falsely implicated. He does not know how to drive the State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 100 vehicle. There is no evidence that recovery was effected from his possession and he has been falsely implicated. It is prayed that he be acquitted.
128. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that there is only one witness of recovery i.e. PW-26. He has stood through the test of cross examination. There is no such law that there must be more than one witnesses before reliance can be placed on the same, the only thing is whether the witness is trustworthy and reliable. PW-26 specifically stated that efforts were made to join the public witnesses but none agreed. There was also not sufficient time with him to start proceeding against the witnesses before stopping the truck. He has to firstly apprehend the accused and therefore, he put the barricades and stopped the flow of traffic, so that the accused may not flee with the truck. As the traffic jam was created, the accused had to stop his truck because there was no space to move further and the moment he jumped out of the truck, he was apprehended. It has already come on record that this truck was looted from PW-3 ansd PW-6 on the intervening night of 28/29.09.16 from the area of PS Samai Pur Badli, Delhi. The only defence taken by the accused is that he does not know how to drive the vehicle but that is not established. State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 101 On the other hand prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of truck from the possession of accused. There is no explanation as to how he came in possession of the truck, therefore the presumption arises that he came in possession with the knowledge that it is a stolen property. The onus of the prosecution stands discharged.
129. Keeping in view the above discussion, though the case of the prosecution that accused persons committed decoity but as prosecution has been able to show the involvement of only 4 persons in commission of offence, therefore, accused Satish, Manoj, Sunil, Satpal, Bablu, Manohar, Ramjan and Chandan are acquitted under Sec.395 IPC. Prosecution has also failed to prove that Manohar and Satpal got recovered the country made pistol and knife respectively, therefore, they are also acquitted of the charge of Sec.25 Arms Act. As witness has failed to identify that Manohar, Satpal and Sunil used any weapon in the commission of robbery, therefore, they are also acquitted under Sec.397 IPC. As only four accused have been identified by PW-3 i.e. Chandan, Manohar, Bablu and Ramjan that they entered the truck gave them beatings, took them to some secluded place in the truck, then dumped them in the forest and fled away with the truck loaded with rice State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 102 bags and mobile phone of PW-3, they all four are held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sec.365 read with Sec.34, 392 read with Sec.34 and 394 read with Sec.34 IPC.
130. Accused Harbhajan was found in possession of robbed truck as established by the prosecution, therefore, he is held guilty and convicted under Sec.411 IPC. However he is acquitted under Sec.412 IPC.
131. The accused persons Chandan, Manohar, Bablu and Ramjan and Harbhajan be heard on the point of quantum of sentence on 31.03.18.
132. Accused persons Satish, Manoj, Sunil and Satpal be released on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/-with one surety in the like amount under Sec.437A Cr.PC. Digitally signed by
VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2018.03.28
BANSAL 17:44:12 +0530
Announced in the open court (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL)
today on 28.03.2018 ASJ/Pilot Court/North District
Rohini Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Satish etc. FIR no.802/16 103