Delhi District Court
State vs Avadh Singh & Anrfir No.502/07 on 6 January, 2010
:1:
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No.58 /08.
FIR No.502/07.
PS : KESHAV PURAM
U/s. 392/397/411/34 IPC &
25/27/54/59 ARMS ACT.
STATE
VERSUS
1. AVADH SINGH
S/O. SH. MADHO SINGH
R/O. VEGABOND, J.J. COLONY,
WAZIRPUR, DELHI.
2. A. RAMU
S/O. SH. A. MADHU
R/O. VEGABOND, J.J. COLONY,
WAZIRPUR, DELHI.
Date of Institution : 10.12.2007.
Date of receipt of case in this Court : 24.11.2008.
Arguments heard On : 02.01.2010.
Order Announced On : 04.01.2010.
SHRI VIPIN SANDUJA APP FOR THE STATE.
MS. SADHNA BHATIA, AMICUS CURIAE FOR BOTH
ACCUSED PERSONS.
STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07
PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT
:2:
JUDGMENT
1. In brief the facts as stated in chargesheet are that on 07.09.2007 SI Bal Prakash, Ct. Jitender and Ct. Sunil Kumar were on patrolling duty in the Division No.1, PS- Keshav Puram and during patrolling at about 9 pm, when they reached near Keshav Dwar, Lawrence Road a noise heard about "Pakro-Pakro" and they rushed there two boys namely Jitender Kumar Chauhan and Ravinder had caught hold one boy alongwith a button actuated knife. On interrogation the name of that boy revealed as Avadh Singh. That boy and knife were handed over to SI Bal Prakash and statement of both boys, who caught hold the accused Avadh Singh were got recorded.
As per the statement of Jitender Kumar Chauhan/complainant, he has been doing the job of plumber and residing with his family at his uncle Ravinder's house i.e. at B-4/128C, Keshav Puram, Delhi. On that day he alongwith his uncle were going to Shakurpur and on that day at about 9 pm when they reached near sub-way at Keshav Dwar, where two boys were standing and as and when they reached there STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :3: one of the boy had caught hold of complainant and another boy caught hold of Ravinder and taken out a knife and threatened them to extract whatsoever they have possessed. Due to fear complainant handed over his mobile phone to accused Avadh Singh. Another accused did not possess knife. In the meantime while seeing the police patrolling party, they were trying to escape from the spot. Both had apprehended one accused who was having a knife in his hand. Another accused, who was possessing mobile phone of the complainant had fled away from the spot. Names of both accused persons had revealed thereafter, who was caught by the complainant was Avadh Singh and another who fled away from the spot was A.Ramu. The number of mobile which was taken away by co-accused was 9899965505 (Nokia-1100, White colour) and that of Ravinder (complainant's uncle) was 9899671480 (Nokia-2300, Black colour). Both accused persons had threatened them at point of knife and snatched their mobile phone.
Thereafter SI Bal Prakash had requested four-five public person to join the investigation, but none of them STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :4: joined and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter SI Bal Prakash prepared a sketch of knife and after measurement the total length of knife was 24cm (length of blade 11cm, length of handle 13cm and width of blade 2 cm) and description of knife was also mentioned on the sketch. Thereafter knife was kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of BP. Thereafter rukka was handed over to Ct. Jitender Kumar for registration of FIR. Ct. Jitender went to the PS, got registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 392/397/34 IPC and investigation was marked to SI Bal Prakash. During investigation site plan was prepared by the IO, statement of witnesses were recorded, accused Avadh Singh was arrested. Thereafter IO went in search of another accused namely A. Ramu and who was apprehended from under the flyover of Britania and mobile phones were recovered from his possession. Both the mobile phones were kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of BP and taken into possession. The chips/Sim of both the mobile phones were thrown by accused while accused A. Ramu was escaping from the spot. The same were searched STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :5: but could not find. Thereafter offence punishable under Section 411/34 IPC was added. After completion of investigation the chargesheet for offence punishable under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms prepared and presented before the court.
2. Learned MM after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
3. Vide order dated 20.3.2008 my learned predecessor framed the charge against accused accused persons for trial of offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act against accused Avadh Singh. 392 read with 34 IPC against both accused persons & offence punishable under Section 411 IPC against accused A. Ramu. Both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution in support of its case examined Eleven (11) witnesses. PW1 Jitender Kumar Chohan deposed that on 7.09.2007 he alongwith his cousin Ravinder were going to Shakurpur for visiting a friend, when they reached at Subway, Near Patrol Pump, Ring road, Lawrence Road, Delhi at about 9 pm they saw both accused were STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :6: standing there and caught them and took out a knife and told them to give whatever they were possessing. They were having mobile phones with them and same were handed over to accused A. Ramu, who ran away alongwith said mobile phones then we raised noise. He further deposed in the meantime on seeing the police patrolling party were coming from their front side, they apprehended one of accused namely Avadh Singh and handed over him to the police. He proved his statement recorded by IO Ex.PW1/A. He proved number of mobiles are 9899965505 (Nokia 1100) belonged to him and another number of mobile 9899671480 (Nokia 2300) belonged to his uncle Ravinder. He further deposed that IO had prepared the sketch of the knife Ex.PW1/B . He further proved that IO had seized the knife and prepared memo Ex.PW1/C and IO further prepared rukka and got FIR registered through a constable, arrested accused vide memo Ex.PW1/D, his personal search conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E. He further deposed that he alongwith IO and his uncle Ravinder went in search of another accused A. Ramu and after some time he was found standing near the STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :7: boundary of flyover near Britania Chowk and thereafter accused was apprehended alongwith both the mobile phones by the police officials and mobile phones were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/F. He further deposed that accused A. Ramu was thereafter arrested and proved memo Ex.PW1/G, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/H. He further deposed that he had given receipt and box of the mobile phones to the IO. Photocopies are marked as Mark PX and Mark PY and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/I. He further correctly identified both the mobile phones as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. He also identified the knife as Ex.P3.
In the cross examination by learned Legal Aid Counsel he deposed that he is plumber by profession and working in the area of Lawernece Road and Keshav Puram. His working hours from 9 am to 7 pm. He further deposed that on the day of incident he was going to meet a plumber namely Dharamveer at Shakurpur. He further deposed that the passersby were coming and going through spot and a street light placed at spot. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO at the spot and he STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :8: alongwith his uncle left the spot at about 9.30-10.45 pm. He further deposed that he is an illiterate but knew how to sign and his statement was not read over to him by the IO, however, it was recorded on my dictation. He further deposed that he does not know the meaning of seal, but again said that seal means stamp. He further deposed that he does not know from which vehicle police official went to the PS. He further deposed that IO had not informed any relatives of the accused persons in my presence. He further deposed that all the documents were prepared at the place from which another accused A. Ramu was arrested. He denid the suggestion that accused Avadh was not apprehended by him or Ravinder at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from accused A. Ramu or that accused persons were falsely implicated in this case or that mobile phones were planted on them. He further deposed that he alongwith police officials and his uncle went by feet for in search of accused A. Ramu. He further deposed that public persons were passing through the spot from where accused A. Ramu was arrested, but police official did not STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :9: make any efforts to join them in the proceedings. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that all documents were prepared in the police station or that photocopy of receipt of his mobile is a fabricated one which was produced by him at the instance of the IO.
5. PW2 Ravinder Kumar deposed that on 2.9.2007, he alongwith his cousin Jitender were gone to Shakurpur and at about 9 pm they reached at Subway, near Petrol Pump, Ring Road, Lawrence Road, Delhi and saw that both the accused persons there. He identified both the accused persons correctly. He further deposed that accused A. Ramu caught Jitender and other accused caught himself and took out the knife and asked to give whatever they had. Thereafter he and Jitender both handed over their mobile phones to accused A.Ramu and they raised noise. He deposed that some police officials were coming and on seeing the police officials accused A. Ramu ran away with mobile phones. But Accused Avadh Singh was apprehended at the spot. He proved the sketch of knife Ex.PW1/B, and also making and sealing in a pullanda and seizing by the IO vide STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :10: memo Ex.PW1/C. He further proved the fact that IO prepared rukka and sent for registration of FIR. He further proved the Arrest memo of accused Avadh Singh Ex.PW1/D and personal search Ex.PW1/E. He deposed that thereafter they made search for co-accused A. Ramu, who was hiding in a park near the boundary near flyover near Britania Chowk and on their identification he was arrested and both mobile phones were recovered. He proved the seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. He further deposed that accused had thrown chips of both the mobile phones but identified both the mobile phones as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. He proved the arrest of accused A. Ramu vide memo Ex.PW1/G and personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/H. He also identified the knife recovered from accused Avadh Singh Ex.P3.
In the cross examination he deposed that he had been doing work of POP in the area of Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram. He lived with Jitender as his cousin and there are no fixed timing of their work but their work usually starts from 9 pm and remained busy till 7 pm or some time on late STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :11: hours. He further deposed that he never appeared in the witness box in any case. He admits that there were many people coming and going at the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that the police gypsy remains at Keshav Dwar round the clock, he reiterated that accused Avadh was apprehended at the place of occurrence when he tried to run away. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO at the spot between 9 am to 9.30 am. He can read Hindi and very less English and has studied in Punjabi Medium. He further reiterated that sketch of knife was prepared and seal was affixed and pullanda was prepared. The accused persons did not disclose near relative so none was informed regarding their arrest. However, he deposed that he does not remember exactly how many documents were prepared at the spot. He admits that the spot from accused A. Ramu was apprehended, people were coming and going. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused A. Ramu, and accused Avadh Singh was not apprehended by him and Jitender at the spot. The police officials did not ask to any STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :12: public person to join the proceedings. He denied the suggestion that all documents were prepared at the PS. The receipt of mobile phones is false and fabricated.
6. PW3 Ct. Kamal Singh DD Writer proved the DD Entry No.50B Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Dinesh Kumar proved that the mobile phone Nokia -1100 having IMEI No.351864011263138 sold by him on 9.7.06 to one Jitender vide cash memo number 248. Ex.PW4/A, C-3, Shop no.6, Shiv Hari Mandir, Keshav Puram. He identified the phone Ex.P1.
7. PW5 HC Narender deposed that on 7.9.07 he was MHC(M) and IO deposited two sealed pullandas with the seal of BP alongwith two copies of seizure memos which were entered in Register No.19 at serial no.2318. He proved the relevant entries Ex.PW5/A.
8. PW6 Ct. Jitender Kumar deposed that on 7.9.07 he was posted at PS-Keshav Puram and on patrolling duty with Ct. Sunil and reached at Keshav Dwar, Lawrence Road at about 9 pm and heard the noise of Pakro-Pakro and then found two persons already apprehended one person. Those two persons disclosed their names as Jitender and Ravinder STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :13: and the person who was apprehended by them was Avadh Singh. The accused was having button actuated knife in his hand. He deposed that he called SIBal Prakash, who came there and recorded statement of Jitender and made endorsement and converted into a rukka. He proved the seizure of knife and sealing of knife in pullanda vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He also proved the sketch of knife Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that rukka was taken by Ct. Sunil Kumar to the Police station. He further proved the arrest memo of accused Avadh Singh Ex.PW1/D, personal search memo Ex.PW1/E and disclosure statement Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed that accused Avadh Singh led police party to the Britania Chowk where co-accused A. Ramu was arrested, who was sitting under the flyover of Britania Chowk. He proved the arrest memo of A. Ramu Ex.PW1/C,personal search memo Ex.PW1/E and disclosure statement Ex.PW6/B. He further proved the recovery of two Nokia Mobile Phones from accused A. Ramu and seizure of them while confronting into a pullanda and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/A. He identified Nokia Phones Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and button actuated knife Ex.P3.
STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :14: In the cross examination he deposed that he left the PS at about 6 pm, but does not remember the DD Entry. He was going on his personal motor cycle with Ct. Sunil on patrolling near service road near the ring road towards the Keshav Dwar. He deposed that he does not know name of STD owner from where he made the call to SI Bal Prakash, who reached at the spot at about 9.15 pm. The sealing material was carried out by the IO. He further deposed that he went to Britania Chowk at around 1 am on the motorcycle. Accused Avadh Singh was sitting on the motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that accused was not arrested from the sot and they did not give any disclosure statement and nothing was recovered from their possession.
9. PW7 Neeraj Verma proved the notification of Delhi Government Ex.PW7/A. PW8 Harish Chand Duty Officer proved the registration of FIR Ex.PW8/A. He also proved the endorsement made by him on the rukka Ex.PW8/B. PW9 Ct. Sunil Kumar deposed and corroborated the facts stated by PW6 Ct. Jitender. He proved all the documents which were proved by other accused persons STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :15: regarding arrest of the accused persons and recovery of mobile phones and buttondar knife. In addition to this he proved the fact that he took the rukka Ex.PW1/A to the PS for registration and came back at the spot. He also identified mobile phone Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and knife Ex.P3.
In the cross examination he deposed that he left the PS at about 5.15 PM when departure entry was made having no.15B. He was on his personal motorcycle alone. Constable Jitender and SI Bal Prakash were on their own scooters. Accused Avadh Singh was apprehended by Ct. Jitender. Then they all reached at the spot. IO recorded the statement of accused Jitender while sitting on a wall in front of Bus stand under the street light. The sealing material was with the IO in his scooter. The accused A. Ramu was interrogated while sitting near Britania Chowk under the street light. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not apprehended from the spot and no disclosure statement of accused persons recorded by the IO. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons. He denied the suggestion STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :16: that all writing work done while sitting at the PS and accused persons were falsely implicated in this case.
10. PW10 Anuj Bhatia proved the ownership record of mobile phone no.9899965505 vide letter in original Ex.PW10/A. The owner of this mobile is Shrinath R/o. 88/G, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi. PW11 SI Bal Prakash deposed that on 7.9.2007 he alongwith Ct. Jitender and Ct. Sunil were on patrolling duty and about 9 pm reached at Keshav Dwar and heard noise of Pakdo-Pakdo and they reached near Sub-way where two persons were found present and already apprehended one person namely Avadh Singh, who is one of the accused. The accused was having a knife in his hand. He further deposed that he requested passersby to join the proceedings. But none agreed. He has proved the sketch of knife Ex.PW1/B. He further proved the fact that the knife was sealed with the seal of BP after making a pullanda and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C. However, prior to this he proved the fact that statement of Jitender Kumar Chohan Ex.PW1/A recorded, he made endorsement then converted into a rukka which was sent through Ct. Sunil Kumar. He also proved the STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :17: DD No.52B Ex.PW3/A. He proved the site plan Ex.PW11/A prepared at the instance of Jitender Kumar Chohan. He proved the disclosure statement of accused Avadh Singh Ex.PW6/A. He also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Avadh Singh. He further deposed that on 8.9.07 accused A. Ramu was arrested from underneath of flyover at Britania Chowk on the pointing out of complainant and accused Avadh Singh. He proved the arrest memo and recovery of two mobile phones Make-Nokia 1100 and 2300 from his possession. He proved the seizure memo of mobile phone Ex.PW1/F. He also proved the disclosure statement of accused A. Ramu Ex.PW6/B. He deposed that he noticed that both the mobile phones did not carry any chip (sim card). Which was thrown by the accused A. Ramu and on search same was not recovered. He further deposed that on 22.9.2007 complainant Jitender Kumar produced a photocopy of receipt Nokia Mobile Ex.PW4/A. He identified the case property i.e. two mobile phones Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 and knive Ex.P3. He further deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses and completed the investigation.
STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :18: In the cross examination he deposed that on 7.9.2007 at about 5.15 pm he was in uniform and departed after making the DD Entries from PS. He was on personal scooter. Ct. Sunit and Ct. Jitender were having their own motor cycle. They reached and heard the noise of Pakdo- Pakdo at Keshav Puram. There was bus stand. The statement of complainant Jitender recorded while sitting on the wall under the street light. Ct. Sunil took the rukka to the PS at about 1.14 pm returned at about 12.15 pm to the spot. He further deposed that the sealing material was with him in the IO bag and remained at spot upto 1 am. Thereafter went to Britania Chowk at about 1.05 am. Accused Avadh Singh pointed out towards accused A. Ramu. Writing work was done while sitting at motorcycle near TSR Stand. No public person joined the investigation, He denied the suggestion that accused persons were arrested from the spot and they did not make disclosure statement and nothing was recovered from their possession. Statement of learned APP for the State recorded that pertaining to the closure of prosecution evidence. Statement of both accused persons STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :19: have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to which both accused persons pleaded innocence and wish not to examine any witness in their defence.
11. I have heard Shri Vipin Sanduja, learned APP for the State and Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused.
12. The star witness of the prosecution are PW1 Jitender Kumar Chohan and PW2 Ravinder. PW1 Jitender Kumar Chohan in his testimony discussed herein above in detail explained the incident. He testified that on 7.9.2007 at about 9 pm when they reached sub-way near Petrol Pump, Ring Road, Lawrence Road then accused Avadh Singh and accused A. Ramu caught both of them and accused Avadh Singh joined the investigation and asked them give whatever they have. Both victim PW1 Jitender Kumar Chohan and PW2 Ravinder handed over two mobile phones which they were having. Accused A. Ramu ran away with the mobile phones. Both the witnesses identified both the accused persons that they are the same persons who committed robbery on 7.9.2007. PW1 Jitender Kumar Chohan proved his statement STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :20: made to the police Ex.PW1/A. He also explained robbed mobile phones Nokia 1100 and other mobile of Ravinder Nokia- 2300. both the witnesses further proved the recovery of knife which was used by accused Avadh Singh while committing robbery. PW1 further established the recovery of mobile phone from accused A. Ramu, who just after the incident ran away from the spot, but later on arrested near flyover boundary wall, Britania Chowk. The recovery of both mobile phones also proved by seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. The mobile phones belonged to the victim also proved by the prosecution on the basis of bill produced in the court and testimony of seller of the mobile phone PW Dinesh Kumar, who proved the bill Ex.PW4/A and also identified the mobile.
13. The testimony of PW1 Jitender Kumar Chohan is corroborated in all respect by PW2 Ravinder. In the cross examination they further explained how the incident happened. They denied the suggestion that accused persons falsely implicated in this case. PW1 Jitender Kumar Chohan categorically and specifically stated in the cross examination that police recorded his statement on his dictation. He also STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :21: proved that the sketch of the knife was prepared at the spot. Both the witnesses further remained coherent, cogent and consistent with regard to the arrest and recovery of both mobile phones Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 from the possession of accused A. Ramu by the police officials who just after the incident. PW6 Ct. Jitender Kumar and PW9 Ct. Sunil Kumar proved further fact that they were on patrolling duty and on hearing the noise they went to the spot and apprehended the accused Avadh Singh and later on accused A. Ramu. Both the witnesses further corroborated the facts which are explained by PW1 Jitender Kumar Chohan and PW2 Ravinder. These two witnesses further proved the police proceedings conducted at the spot and thereafter the case was registered. In the cross examination they explained further how they apprehended the accused persons and conducted the police investigation. PW11/IO SI Bal Prakash further corroborated the prosecution case. He in addition to proved the fact that preparation of site plan Ex.PW11/A. Arrest of the accused persons and recovery of mobile phones. All the above discussed material witnesses proved the recovery and STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :22: identification of mobile phone have been robbed by both accused persons i.e. Nokia 1100 and Nokia 2300 Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. All the material prosecution witnesses further established recovery of buttondar knife from the possession of accused Avadh Singh Ex.P3.
14. On the basis of above observations and discussions established the charges against both the accused persons. Hence accused Avadh Singh is convicted for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act and accused A. Ramu is convicted for offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. Ordered accordingly.
(SANJAY KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 04.01.2010.
STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :23: THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I, DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI SC No.58 /08.
FIR No.502/07.
PS : KESHAV PURAM U/s. 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 ARMS ACT.
STATE VERSUS
1. AVADH SINGH S/O. SH. MADHO SINGH R/O. VEGABOND, J.J. COLONY, WAZIRPUR, DELHI.
2. A. RAMU S/O. SH. A. MADHU R/O. VEGABOND, J.J. COLONY, WAZIRPUR, DELHI.
Date of Institution : 10.12.2007. Date of receipt of case in this Court : 24.11.2008. Arguments heard On : 02.01.2010. Order Announced On : 04.01.2010. Order on sentence on : 06.01.2010. NONE FOR THE STATE.
MS. SADHNA BHATIA, AMICUS CURIAE FOR BOTH ACCUSED PERSONS.
STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :24: ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, learned Amicus Curiae for the convicts submits that convict A. Ramu is a young boy and aged about 22 years. He is unmarried and having an old mother and father to main, therefore, lenient view may be taken.
2. She further submits that convict Avadh Singh is aged about 24 years. He is married and having wife and seven year old daughter. He has also to maintain old mother and two sisters, therefore, lenient view may be taken.
3. I have considered respective submissions and gone through the record. Convict A. Ramu is convicted for offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. This is first offence committed by him. He is young boy of 22 years old and has to maintain his old parents, therefore, I award sentence to convict A. Ramu to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and 4 months.
4. Convict Avadh Singh used knife while committing robbery. He was previously also convicted for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act but no full detail is available. Learned Amicus Curiae has not disputed that convict Avadh Singh previously has been convicted as well for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms.
STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :25: Hence keeping in view of these facts and circumstances, I award sentence to convict Avadh Singh for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.
For offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, I award sentence to convict Avadh Singh to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. be provided to the convicts/accused persons.
Copy judgment as well as order on sentence be given to the convicts/accused persons free of cost, today itself.
Sessions file be consigned to record.
(SANJAY KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 06.01.2010.
STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT :26: STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANR.
SC No.58 /08.
FIR No.502/07.
PS : KESHAV PURAM U/s. 392/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 ARMS ACT.
06.01.2010.
Present: None for the State.
Both convicts in JC with Ms. Sadhna
Bhatia, Amicus Curiae.
Arguments on sentence heard. Vide separate order Convict A. Ramu is convicted for offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. This is first offence committed by him. He is young boy of 22 years old and has to maintain his old parents, therefore, I award sentence to convict A. Ramu to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and 4 months.
I award sentence to convict Avadh Singh for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.
For offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, I award sentence to convict Avadh Singh to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. be provided to the convicts/accused persons.
Copy judgment as well as order on sentence be given to the convicts/accused persons free of cost, today itself.
Sessions file be consigned to record.
(SANJAY KUMAR) ASJ-01(NW):ROHINI:DELHI.
06.01.2010.
STATE VS AVADH SINGH & ANRFIR NO.502/07 PSKESHAV PURAM/U/S. 397/392/411/34 & 25/27 ARMS ACT