Delhi District Court
State vs : Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi Ors. on 21 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
State Vs : Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi Ors.
FIR No. : 349/2015
U/s : 392/397/411 IPC
PS : New Friends Colony
Unique I.D. No. : 02406R0317582015
Date of Institution : 16.10.2015
Date of Judgment reserved on : 12.04.2022
Date of Judgment : 21.04.2022
Brief details of the case
A) Case No. : 2379/2016
B) Offence complained of or proved : U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC.
C) Date of Offence : On the intervening night of
24th July and 25th July, 2015
D) Name of the complainant : Sh. Marut Sharma S/o
Sh. Ravi Sharma
E) Name of the accused : 1) Jaswinder Singh @
Jassi
S/o Late Amarjeet
Singh
State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 1 of 34
R/o House No.62/4G,
Teliwada, Shahdara,
Delhi
2) Neeraj
S/o Om Prakash
R/o House No.B495,
New Seemapuri, Delhi
3) Chandan
S/o Suresh Chand
R/o House No.A46,
Road No.64, New
Seemapuri, Delhi
F) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
G) Final order : Conviction
H) Date of Order : 21.04.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi, Neeraj and Chandan faced trial for offences, punishable under Section 392/397/411 IPC.
2. Criminal Law was set into motion, in this case, when DD no.2A was received at police station New Friends Colony on 25.07.2015. Vide said DD entry, concerned police station was informed that one caller had informed by making a call to J54 Operator, that he was robbed State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 2 of 34 off Rs.50,000/, one gold chain, one gold ring and mobile phone, when he was commuting in an Innova Car bearing no.DL4C, brown colour. The informer also disclosed that driver of the said car was a Sardar and front side glass of the said car noted "Omkar". Based on said DD entry, SI Lokender along with constable Mahender left police station and reached Ashram Chowk, Mathura Road, NFC, New Delhi. They did not meet complainant at the spot. Since, concerned caller had made call through his mobile, so he was called on his mobile by SI Lokender. Complainant informed him that he was coming back from Badarpur to the spot. Later on, complainant reached the spot along with another person namely Ankur Sharma.
Statement of Marut Sharma, who was the concerned caller/complainant was recorded. In the said statement, he disclosed that while returning from his office, he had boarded one Innova car around 10.30PM at H.P. Petrol Pump, Mathura Road, NFC along with Ankur Sharma. Besides a Sardar, that Innova car had three passengers who were sitting in it. After moving further, that car took left turn from a red light. One of the boys, sitting in the said car put pistol like article on the stomach of complainant whereas another boy had put one knife on Ankur Sharma. Both complainant and Ankur Sharma were threatened by those boys to keep mum. One of those boys, snatched mobile phones and purse of complainant, which contained Rs.400/ in cash besides two ATM cards of Axis bank and Corporation Bank. That assailant boy also snatched golden ring and State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 3 of 34 chain of complainant. The other boy snatched away mobile phone of Ankur Sharma alongwith Rs.1800/ in cash. The driver of the car continued to make rounds in the area. On the way, said car was stopped at three ATM counters. Complainant and Ankur Sharma were forced to disclosed PIN numbers of their ATM cards by those boys, which were disclosed by them, considering the said threats. Later on, Rs.30,000/ were withdrawn by the said boys by making use of Axis bank card of complainant, Rs.10,000/ were withdrawn by making use of said Axis bank card and lastly Rs.10,000/ were withdrawn by making use of Corporation bank ATM card. After roaming around for sometime, complainant and Ankur Sharma were left, near Gurudwara, NFC and those boys, fled away. Complainant told that he can identify those assailants. Based on said statement, rukka was prepared by SI Lokender and it was sent to concerned police station with constable Mahender for registration of FIR. After receiving said rukka, FIR in question was recorded. Copy of FIR with original rukka was given to constable Mahender who reached at the spot. Thereafter, investigation ensued.
3. During investigation, police recorded statement of Ankur Sharma, site plan of place of incident was prepared, notice was issued to concerned bank officials seeking CCTV footage from ATM booths. Local inquiries were made for tracing out accused persons. On 05.08.2015, secret information was received from Inspector Ram State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 4 of 34 Niwas and consequently concerned investigating officer reached Seemapuri Chowk with police team and prepared a trap. Around 01.30AM, secret informer pointed out one Innova car bearing number DL3CAM1274, which was going towards Seemapuri from the round about, which was stopped. Police found two persons in the said car, one accused Jaswinder and other accused Neeraj. Both the said persons confessed their involvement in the alleged robbery, which was disclosed by complainant Marut Sharma. Those accused persons were arrested, they were personally searched and their disclosure statements were recorded. At the instance of accused Neeraj, knife, which was used in the said robbery was recovered from the back seat of the Innova car and that knife was thereafter seized, after its sketch was prepared. Police also recovered two wrist watches from the said Innova car. Rs.3850/ was recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj, regarding which he has no explanation and regarding which he told that it was the remaining amount of the alleged robbery. Those currency notes were seized and car was deposited in malkhana. Based on the disclosure statements of accused Neeraj and Jaswinder, police apprehended accused Chandan and arrested him. Accused Chandan disclosed that countrymade katta used in the robbery was lying in the house at his house, said katta was recovered. Based on disclosure statement of aforesaid accused persons, search for coaccused Mannu was made but he was not found. Thereafter, police recorded the statements of witnesses, State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 5 of 34 deposited the seized and sealed articles in malkhana along with Innova car.
4. On 07.08.2015, investigating officer recovered one gold chain, at the instance of accused Jaswinder, which was robbed in the alleged robbery. That gold chain was seized. Police also recovered one mobile phone of ASUS company in damaged condition from the house of accused Neeraj at B495, New Seemapuri, which was involved in the alleged incident. From the house of accused Chandan, at A46 road number 64, at the instance of accused Chandan police recovered the clothes, which accused Chandan was wearing at the time of incident and they were also sealed. All the accused persons, then took the investigating officer to the spot of incident at Ashram Chowk and also at the places where they had used the ATM cards of complainant. Pointing out memos were accordingly prepared. Thereafter, application for conducting TIP proceedings of said three accused was moved by the investigating officer but said accused persons refused to join judicial TIP before Ld. Magistrate. All the said proceedings were noted and they were made a part of chargesheet.
5. On 20.08.2015 TIP of gold chain, involved the alleged robbery was conducted and complainant successfully identified his gold chain. The investigating officer obtained permission and collected two live cartridges of 0.9mm which were sealed in a pullanda and sent to State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 6 of 34 FSL, Rohini. Thereafter, FSL result was obtained and file was placed before Additional DCP, Rajeev Ranjan who granted permission to prosecute accused Chandan and based on that supplementary chargesheet was filed. Police also collected CDR of mobile phone of complainant bearing no.8826605617. Statement of Axis bank and Corporation bank regarding the said withdrawal through ATM booths were collected. Photographs of ATM booths were also collected, from where money was withdrawn by accused persons. Mobile phone of complainant was released by the court to his father. All the accused persons were thereafter chargesheeted before the court under Section 392/399/411/34 IPC.
6. After filing of the chargesheet, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences against accused persons. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded and then matter was committed to this court as per law.
7. Consequent, to the receiving of this matter, arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused persons were charged with offences punishable under Section 392/397/34 IPC to which accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Accused Jaswinder @ Jassi and Neeraj were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Accused Neeraj was State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 7 of 34 charged for the offence punishable under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
8. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses, in total viz PW1 HC Raghuraj Singh, PW2 Sh. Marut Sharma, PW3 Ankur Sharma, PW4 Ct. Mahendra, PW5 SI Lokender Tyagi, PW6 Ct. Dharamvir, PW7 Sh. Ramesh, PW8 Sh. Puneet Puri, PW9 SI Janak Singh, PW10 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, PW11 Sh. Kapil Kumar, PW12 Sh. Chander Shekhar, PW13 Sh. Chander Mohan.
9. PW1 HC Raghuraj Singh deposed that in his official duty, when he was posted at police station NFC, DD no.2A was received from PCR call on 2425.07.2015 around 12.30am, which was given to SI Lokender for necessary action. At 02.05am, a rukka was received from SI Lokender through constable Mahender, based on which FIR in question was registered, regarding which endorsement was made by him on rukka. He identified the copy of FIR in question as Ex.PW1/A and DD no.2A as Ex.PW1/C.
10.PW2 Marut Sharma was the complainant in this case. He deposed facts regarding the alleged incident dated 24.07.2015, as already mentioned above. Same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. In his testimony, he identified his statement, which he made before the police Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. He identified State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 8 of 34 accused persons being the persons who had robbed him with his mobile phone, ATM cards and other things. He specifically pointed out accused Chandan, who had put countrymade katta on his stomach and accused Neeraj, who had put knife on other victim namely Ankur. He produced two ATM cards viz one of Corporation Bank having number 4027 4104 7915 9909 and another Axis bank ATM card having number 4902 2390 1389 5813. Those ATM cards were exhibited as Mark 2/B1 and 2/B2. He deposed that he cannot identify the country made katta and the knife, as it was dark at the time of incident. He identified the application of release of his chain on superdari Ex.PW2/B and superdginama Ex.PW2/C. He also testified that he had signed TIP proceedings of his chain and identified said proceedings by admitting his signatures at point X. He identified his gold chain and referred it as Ex.P1. Copy of the said chain was taken on record and was referred as Ex.P1A.
11.PW3 Ankur Sharma also deposed regarding the alleged incident, on the same lines, as was deposed by PW2 Marut Sharma. In his testimony he also deposed that he had filed one application for release of his mobile phone on superdari vide Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. He identified superdarinama furnished by his father Ex.PW3/B for release of said mobile phone. He placed on record copy of bill of said phone as Ex.PW3/C, which was in the name of his father.
State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 9 of 3412.PW4 Ct. Mahender deposed that he had accompanied SI Lokender to the Ashram Chowk Bus stand, after receiving DD no.2 on 24/25.07.2015, around 12:40am. Nobody was found there and thereafter complainant was contacted on his phone, who told that he was in Badarpur and was coming back to the spot. Thereafter, complainant Marut Sharma reached the spot and SI Lokender recorded his statement and prepared rukka, which was given to this witness. Consequently, he went to police station and got the FIR in question registered. Thereafter, he returned to the spot with copy of Fir and original rukka. In his presence, SI Lokender, who was the initial IO went with complainant to ATM booths of HDFC, Indusland Bank and Axis bank, situated in the area of New Friends Colony (NFC). SI Lokender made inquiry from the guards of the said ATM booth but nobody was apprehended on that day. Thereafter, on 05/06.08.2015 he along with Ct. Dharamvir, HC Ombir were directed by SI Janak to meet SI Janak at Seemapuri Chowk where they eventually met. SI Janak informed him and other police officials that one Innova car at a distance was coming and persons sitting had to be apprehended. Consequently, around 01.00am, Innova car bearing number DL3CAM 1274 was caught in which accused Jaspreet @ Jassi and accused Neeraj were sitting. Both the accused persons were identified by this witness in the court.
13.PW5 SI Lokender deposed that after receiving DD no.2A on 24/25.07.2015, he had reached at Mathura Road near H.P. Petrol State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 10 of 34 Pump, near Ashram at 12.30am but could not find anybody there. Thereafter, complainant was telephonically called, who turned up at the spot. He recorded the statement of complainant vide Ex.PW2/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW5/A bearing his signatures at point A. He sent Ct. Mahender to the police station for registration of FIR. After receiving copy of FIR and original rukka, he proceeded further with the investigation and noted the statement of Ankur Sharma under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He prepared site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW5/B and gave notice to bank officials on 27.07.2015 for the CCTV footage of ATM booths and made local inquiry to trace out the offenders. Thereafter, investigation was transferred to SI Janak from him.
14.PW6 Ct. Dharamvir in his testimony deposed that on 05.08.2015,he was called by SI Janak and other police officials to be present at Seemapuri Chowk, where he eventually joined. Around 01.30 or 02.00am, at the instance of SI Janak, he had apprehended one Innova car bearing number DL3CAW1274 when one person had come there to board said car, whose name was Neeraj. HC Ombir apprehended one person, who was driving the said car and his name was Jaswinder. He remained seated in the said car as per the directions of IO and took the said car to police station of NFC. He identified accused Chandan as Neeraj and deposed that due to lapse of time he could not see accused Chandan properly. He again deposed that he did not know as to who was Chandan and who was Neeraj, in the State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 11 of 34 court.
15.PW7 Ramesh, Assistant Clerk from Deputy Secretary, Home (General) Delhi Administration deposed that he had appeared on behalf of dealing clerk, home General Department. He brought original notification number F.13/451/79Home(G)dated 29.10.1980, which was exhibited as Ex.PW7/A.
16.PW8 Puneet Puri, Assistant Director (Ballistics) FSL Rohini, New Delhi deposed that on 13.01.2016 one sealed parcel with the seal of JS was received in FSL through Ct. Charan Singh and it was marked to him for examination. Seals on the parcel were intact and as per the specimen seal provided with FSL form. After opening it, he found one countrymade pistol of 0.315 inch bore, which was taken out and was marked as Ex.F1 by him. He also deposed that two 8mm/0.315inch cartridges were received for test firing. On examination, he found that countrymade pistol Ex.F1 was in working order. Test fire was conducted successfully by making use of one of the two cartridges received for test firing. As per him, countrymade pistol Ex.F1 was a firearm as define in Arms Act, 1959, which was resealed with the seal of 'PP, FSL Delhi'. He identified his report Ex.PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A, which were made on both sides of his reports.
State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 12 of 3417.PW9 SI Janak Singh was the second investigating officer, in his case, who had taken investigation from SI Lokender. He deposed that on 05.08.2015, he got the investigation in present case. He alongwith Ct. Vijay Pal and other police officials had gone to Seemapuri Chowk, on the basis of information given by Inspector Ram Niwas. After reaching the said spot, a trap was laid. Around 01.30am, secret informer pointed out one Innova car going towards Seemapuri from the round about, which was stopped. It was bearing number DL3CAM1274. That car was carrying accused Jaswinder and Neeraj Both of them were interrogated and they confessed their involvement in the incident of robbery as mentioned by complainant, in this case. Consequently, he prepared arrest memo of accused Jaswinder Ex.PW9/A, personal search memo of accused Jaswinder PW9/B, arrest memo of accused Neeraj PW9/C and his personal search memo PW9/D. He also noted disclosure statements of accused persons Ex.PW9/E and Ex.PW9/F. All the said documents notes his signatures at point X. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Neeraj knife which was used in the alleged robbery was recovered from the backside of Innova car regarding which he prepared sketch Ex.PW9/G. Further, from the said car, he recovered two wrist watches and one mobile phone, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW9/H. Accused Neeraj was having Rs.3850/ and no explanation was given by him regarding the said amount, though, he disclosed that it was remaining amount of robbery. That amount was State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 13 of 34 seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/I earing his signatures at point X. The knife was seized in a pullanda with the seal of JS vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/J bearing his signatures at point X. The Innova car was deposited in Malkhana of the police station. Accused Jaswinder and Neeraj disclosed the names of their associates namely Chandan and Manu. Consequently, house of Chandan at A46, Road number 64 New Seelampuri was raided, from where accused Chandan was apprehended vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/K. Personal search memo of said accused Ex.PW9/K was prepared and his disclosure statement Ex.PW9/M was recorded. All the said documents notes his signatures at point X. Consequently, at the instance of accused Chandan one countrymade pistol was recovered from the Taand of his room in his above house. Sketch of the said pistol Ex.PW9/N was prepared and it was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of 'JS' vide memo Ex.PW9/O. Thereafter, it was deposited in malkhana. On 06.08.2015, all the above said accused persons were produced in the court and two day police custody remand was obtained. Their medical examination was conducted and thereafter, they were brought to police station. During investigation, one of the associates of accused persons namely Manu was not found in the area.
18.SI Janak Singh further deposed that on 07.08.2015, he alongwith HC Ombir and accused persons had gone to the house of accused Jaswinder at 62/4G Teli Bara, Shahdra from where one gold chain, State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 14 of 34 involved in above robbery was recovered. It was sealed in a pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/P by making use of seal of 'JS'. Thereafter, said police team reached at the house of Neeraj at B495, New Seemapuri from where accused Neeraj produced one phone of ASUS Company, which was in damaged condition and which was involved in robbery. That phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW9/Q. Thereafter, they reached at the house of accused Chandan at A46, Road no.64, New Seemapuri, from where accused Chandan got recovered the clothes, he was wearing at the time of alleged incident which was sealed with the seal of JS vide memo Ex.PW9/R. Thereafter, all the accused persons took the police team to the spot of incident and the places where they had used ATM cards of complainant. Based on said details, pointing out memos Ex.PW9/S 1, Ex.PW9/S2 and Ex.PW9/S3 were prepared. All the said documents notes signatures of SI Janak Singh at point X. Thereafter, accused persons were asked to join judicial TIP, but they refused. On 20.08.2015 TIP of gold chain was conducted. Necessary record of said TIP proceedings were prepared. Apart from it, statement of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, SI Janak Singh obtained permission and collected two live cartridges of 0.9mm, which he sent along with pullanda of countrymade to FSL Rohini. The report from FSL Rohini was obtained, necessary sanction was obtained from DCP Rajeev Ranjan under Section 39 Cr.P.C for prosecuting accused Chandan and consequently, supplementary chargesheet was filed in State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 15 of 34 the court with the result of FSL and sanction.
19.As per SI Janak Singh, he had collected CDR of mobile phone of complainant Marut Sharma bearing number 8826605617, bank statements of Corporation bank of complainant Ex.PW9/X1, bank statement of Axis bank of complainant Ex.PW9/X2, photographs of the ATM booths from where accused persons had withdrawn money Ex.PW9/X3 (collectively) and bill of mobile phone of complainant Ex.PW9/X4. He identified the knife Ex.P2 and countrymade pistol Ex.P3, which was produced by MHC(M), in a sealed pullanda, which were involved in present case. He identified accused persons in the court, correctly.
20.PW10 Rajeev Ranjan, DCP Traffic, Head Quarter Todapur, New Delhi deposed that he had given sanction order Ex.PW10/A in this case under Section 39 Arms Act after due consideration of the documents placed before him, with respect to one countrymade pistol, for prosecuting accused Chandan.
21.PW11 Kapil Kumar, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank, Sector 62 Noida had brought bank statement of account number 913010036191169 belonging to complainant Marut Sharma bearing his signature and seal of bank at point A and A1 respectively. He deposed that he was authorized to produce the said record by Manager Rahul Tyagi on the basis of letter Ex.PW11/B bearing signatures of Rahul Tyagi at State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 16 of 34 point A.
22.PW12 Chandrashekhar, Nodal Officer, Bhartiya Airtel Limited, 224 Okhla PhaseIII, New Delhi20 brought summoned record pertaining to mobile phone bearing number 8826605617, registered in the name of Vijay Kumar, which included customer application form Ex.PW12/A, copy of election ID Ex.PW12/B, call details Ex.PW12/C, Cell ID chart Ex.PW12/D and a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding correctness of said computerized record Ex.PW12/E bearing his signatures at point A. He deposed that those documents were supplied to police during investigation by his colleague Surender Kumar Nodal Officer of his company.
23.PW13 Chandermohan Ld. MM04, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi identified the TIP proceedings records prepared by him Ex.PW13/A, bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of accused at point B. He identified the copy of TIP proceedings provided to IO vide application Ex.PW13/B.
24.After examining aforesaid witnesses prosecution closed his evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons.
25.Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the incriminating evidence was put to accused persons separately which they denied. They claimed that prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and they were State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 17 of 34 falsely implicated in his case. They raised the plea of innocence and did not prefer to lead defence evidence. Consequently, matter was fixed for final arguments.
26.After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
27.Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, I must mention here the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 18 of 34 the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.
28.Keeping in mind aforesaid tenet, I am proceeding further and appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution.
29.In order to appreciate and decide, as to whether prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, I have to appreciate the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Since, prosecution had examined 25 witnesses, inclusive of public witnesses, doctors and police officials, I will be appreciating the veracity of testimonies of those witnesses, separately, in my subsequent paragraphs.
Appreciation of testimonies of public witnesses.
30.PW2 Marut Sharma and PW3 Ankur Sharma were the victim persons and eyewitnesses to the alleged incidents dated 24.07.2015. In their testimonies, both of them deposed facts regarding the said incident. They deposed that they had boarded one Innova car on the day of incident, near bus stand on Mathura Road around 10.30PM. In the said car, as per them, there were four persons including one driver. They identified the said driver on the basis of turban, he was State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 19 of 34 wearing. They deposed that one of the accused persons had put Katta on the stomach of PW2 Marut Sharma while another accused person had put a knife on the throat of PW3 Ankur Sharma. They identified accused persons in the court and based on their identification, I find that it was accused Chandan who had put Katta on PW2 Marut Sharma, it was accused Neeraj who had put knife on PW3 Ankur Sharma and it was accused Jaswinder who was driving the alleged car on the day of incident. Not only that, both the said witnesses deposed that another culprit, accompanying accused persons had used ATM cards of PW2 Marut Sharma for withdrawing money from ATM machines located at NFC area near temple, Tpoint of New Friends Colony and near Maharani Bagh bus stand. Both of them also deposed that concerned driver i.e. accused Jaswinder continued to roam around in the said area of New Friends Colony, from one ATM to another. Those witnesses also deposed that accused persons had beaten PW3 Ankur Sharma and had threatened both the said witnesses, in case they raised alarm or in case they avoided/refuted the demands of accused persons. Those witnesses also deposed that accused persons were given mobile phone, some currency, ATM cards and gold chain by PW2 Marut Sharma when he was threatened by them. PW2 identified his gold chain Ex.P1 whose copy Ex.P1A was taken on record. As per them accused persons had snatched away mobile phone of PW3 Ankur Sharma, of ASUS Company, which was identified by PW3 in the court. PW3 State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 20 of 34 placed on record copy of bill of said phone and referred it as Ex.PW3/C which was in the name of his father. PW3 also deposed that Rs.2000/ were taken by accused persons in the said incident. Both of them deposed that the person who withdrawn money from ATM machines by making use of ATM cards of PW2 Marut Sharma was not in the court. As such, both of them stuck with the prosecution story, while deposing above facts.
31.Both PW2 & PW3 were cross examined at length by accused persons. So far as PW2 is concerned, he was cross examined with regard to aspects viz the office he was working at the relevant time, his duty hours, the manner in which he used to commute from his own, the length of the gun which was put to him, the length of cartridges in the said gun, the speed of car in which he was sitting and likewise. All the said aspects were not relevant, for the purpose of adjudication of this case.
32.PW2 in his cross examination explained that there were public persons on the road when he was sitting in the car but he did not raise alarm. He explained that he was under threat from accused persons and that is why he had not raised alarm. That explanation is found by me to be tenable, as person, in his position, ordinarily would have wanted to save himself from any injury, at any cost. PW2 as such, did not do any unreasonable thing by not raising alarm.
State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 21 of 34Moreso where windows of the said car were closed and gun like article was on his stomach. Accused persons, out numbered him and other victim. Therefore, it was but natural that this witness did not raise alarm.
33.PW2 in his cross examination deposed that he could not see the number of the car completely, which was used by accused persons in the alleged crime. Want of knowledge, in this regard did not make his testimony doubtful as it was night time and PW2 could not have apprehended or anticipated that he would face such incident, by sitting in the car. Therefore, his lack of observation with respect to registration number of the car, was not a relevant fact, for making his testimony untrustworthy.
34.PW2 in his cross examination deposed that he had one Samsung tablet in his bag at the time of incident, which accused persons could not find on the day of incident. The said lack of vigilance, so to say, on the part of accused persons, as such did not make his testimony doubtful.
35.PW2 deposed that he was threatened to be killed by accused persons but it was not written in his statement Ex.PW2/A. He was confronted with the said statement by counsel for accused Neeraj. That confrontation, was not legally tenable as police had not recorded his version for which he cannot be blamed. Even otherwise the fact that State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 22 of 34 above statement was not written by police, as such cannot be made the basis to contradict him, in the wake of judgment titled as "Tehsildar Vs. State (AIR 1959 SC 1012)".
36.PW2 admitted that his statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded by police.
He deposed that he obtained his gold chain on superdari after TIP proceedings with respect to said chain was conducted. He also deposed that he had not seen accused persons at any place other than place of incident and in the court, which indicated that he was not forced by police to identify accused persons. It also indicated that accused persons were not shown to him prior to TIP proceedings. In such circumstances, adverse inference is drawn against accused persons, in the wake of them refusing to join TIP proceedings vide proceedings Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C.
37.PW2 was confronted with his previous two statements, viz Ex.PW2/DA and Ex.PW2/DB. Those statements were recorded by police. Even if it is believed that those statements were falsely recorded, then also evidence of PW2, which he had given in the court, cannot be discarded, just like that. Therefore, the fact that this witness had denied his previous statements, as noted above, by itself did not make his testimony doubtful.
38.PW3, in his cross examination was asked questions with regard to State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 23 of 34 aspects viz his place of employment, his office timings, the manner in which he used to commute her home, whether police had examined public witnesses and likewise. All those aspects were not relevant, for the purpose of adjudication of this case.
39.PW3 in his cross examination, gave details of the manner in which accused persons and victim persons were sitting in the said Innova car on the day of incident. He deposed facts in sync with the prosecution story which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. He testified that he had made statement before the police. He admitted the suggestion that he had told police about the involvement of accused persons in alleged crime. He deposed as to which belongings of PW2 were taken by accused persons and which belongings of him were taken by accused persons. So he, in a way strengthen the prosecution story.
40.Both PW2 & PW3 refuted the suggestions, based on false implication of accused persons by them and by police. They stuck to their version, which they had made before police. No relevant fact with regard to them falsely implicating accused persons, was brought on record by accused persons, by cross examining them. Their remained a ring of truth in their testimonies. I had no reason to believed that they falsely implicated accused persons in this case. Therefore, I believed their testimonies, to be trustworthy and reliable.
State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 24 of 34Appreciation of testimonies of police witnesses
41.PW1 HC Raghuraj was the police official, who had recorded FIR in question. He identified copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka as point X. He also identified copy of DD entry no.2A as Ex.PW1/C, which noted his signatures at point A. That DD entry, pertained to the information, received at concerned police station, regarding the fact that a loot based incident had taken place in Innova car number DL4C, in which driver was a sardar. That DD entry also noted that Rs.50,000/, chain, ring and mobile phone were looted from the informant. That DD entry was dated 25.07.2015 and it was recorded at 12.30AM. That record, only supported the prosecution story. Accused failed to cull out any relevant fact, by cross examining this witness. Further this witness refuted the suggestions of not recording the FIR and making his endorsement on rukka. He refuted that he was deposing falsely. I believed his testimony, to be trustworthy and reliable.
42.PW4 Ct. Mahender, was the police official, who after receiving DD entry Ex.PW1/C, had gone to the spot of incident with SI Lokender. In his testimony, he deposed facts regarding preparation of rukka, registration of FIR, visiting the ATM machines at the instance of complainant from where amounts were withdrawn by accused, necessary inquiry regarding the Innova car involved in this case and State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 25 of 34 about the involvement of accused persons in the alleged crime. This witness in his cross examination deposed that he had reached at the spot within 10 minutes. As per him, no public person was present when he along with IO had apprehended the occupants of said car. No relevant fact, based on contradiction or improvement in his testimony was culled out, by accused persons while cross examining him. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
43.PW5 SI Lokender was the initial IO in this case, who deposed facts regarding registration of FIR, recording of statements of victims, visiting spot of incident, preparation of site plan Ex.PW5/B and giving notice to bank officials on 27.07.2015 for getting cctv footage of ATM booths. In his cross examination, he deposed facts viz that he had reached at the spot around 12.45AM, the inquiry he had made from the ATM guard of ATM booth of HDFC located at 500 meters from the spot of incident and the preparation of site plan. He deposed that the concerned guard of ATM booth of HDFC did not inform him anything. He did not find any public person at the spot and had not taken signatures of complainant or victim Ankur on the site plan. Those facts, only indicated, shortcomings in his investigation. Those shortcomings, by themselves, did not create doubt, regarding the veracity of testimonies of victim persons as noted above. Those shortcomings by themselves did not make the whole investigation conducted by this witness as faulty and tented completely. Therefore, State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 26 of 34 I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
44.PW6 Ct. Dharamvir was the police official, who had accompanied second IO, SI Janak on 05.08.2015 to conduct investigation. In his testimony, he deposed that one Innova car bearing no.DL3CAW1274 was apprehended around 02.00am on 05.08.2015 and that car was deposited in malkhana of concerned police station. He identified accused Jaswinder being the person driving the said car. He also identified accused Neeraj, who had come to board that car. In his cross examination, he deposed that based on secret information, he along with SI Janak and other police officials had apprehended the said Innova car. He had no knowledge about the investigation IO SI Janak had done. The said want of knowledge did not make him an untrustworthy witness. His presence to the place from where said Innova car was apprehended, remained a believable fact. I had no reason to doubt the said fact regarding apprehension of Innova car and accused Jaswinder and coaccused Chandan on 05.08.2015. No relevant fact, contradicting the said investigation was culled out during his cross examination. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
45.PW7 Ramesh, Assistant Clerk from Deputy Secretary, Home (General) Delhi Administration placed on record notification Ex.PW7/A, which noted that no person in Union Territory of Delhi State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 27 of 34 shall possess or sell spring actuated knives or buttondar knives or other knives having sharp edged blade of 7.62cm or more in length and 1.72cm or more in breadth without license. Now, that fact corroborated prosecution story as one knife Ex.P2 was recovered at the instance of accused Neeraj. Recovery of that knife from the possession of accused Neeraj, without license, therefore, made out offence u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act as against accused Neeraj. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
46.PW8 Puneet Puri, Assistant Director, Ballistics, FSL Rohini, deposed that on the basis of inquiry, he had filed his report Ex.PW8/A with regard to the countrymade pistol Ex.F1, submitted to him by the IO. He deposed that pistol Ex.F1 was a firearm as defined in Arms Act, 1959. As per him, from the said pistol test fire was conducted successfully and therefore, that pistol was in proper working condition. He refuted the suggestions that he had not conducted test firing from said pistol and had prepared his report mechanically. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
47.PW9 SI Janak Singh was one of the IO in this case. As per his testimony, he had apprehended Innova car bearing no.DL3CAM 1274 on 05.08.2015, on the basis of secret information. Accused Chandan and Neeraj, were sitting in the said car. Those accused persons were apprehended. Both the accused persons made State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 28 of 34 disclosure statements regarding commission of said crime. At the instance of said accused persons, knife which was used in the alleged incident was recovered from the said car. Besides that, he arrested coaccused Chandan and recovered case properties of the alleged crime, at the instance of said accused persons. He got TIP of case property viz Gold Chain conducted, in which complainant Marut Sharma identified the same. Various memos were prepared by him. Besides that, he obtained sanction u/s 39 of Cr.P.C. from DCP concerned, sent the katta to FSL, Rohini, obtained report from FSL, Rohini, arrested accused persons, identified accused persons in the court and deposed facts regarding filing of supplementary charge sheet, as was the case of prosecution.
48.Testimony of PW9 was challenged on the ground that no public person had joined the investigation, he had conducted. He explained that public persons refused to join the investigation. The said explanation is plausible as public persons, often are reluctant to join investigation. This witness was questioned with regard to the clothes of accused persons which they were wearing at the time of their arrest and the time when he had left police station for reaching the spot. He was unable to give specific details of the said facts. His want of knowledge regarding said facts, did not make his testimony doubtful as the manner in which he had conducted investigation, did not appear to be tainted or false. He had done investigation, to the best of his capacity. Case properties were recovered in his State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 29 of 34 investigation and one of them was identified by the complainant. Not only that, accused persons failed to cull out any relevant fact regarding their false implication, while cross examining him. This witness gave details of the manner in which he had arrested accused persons and had recorded their statements. He refuted the suggestions based on false implication of accused persons. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
49.PW10 Rajiv Ranjan Singh, DCP Traffic, Head Quarters, New Delhi had identified his sanction order Ex.PW10/A, which he had given u/s 39 Arms Act for prosecuting accused Chandan. He was not cross examined by accused persons. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
50.PW11 Kapil Kumar, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank, placed on record bank statement of victim Marut Sharma and referred it as Ex.PW11/A. He placed on record his authority to depose on behalf of Manager concerned vide Ex.PW11/B. Again he was not cross examined by accused persons. The said bank statements, noted that Rs.40,000/ were recovered from ATM booth, located in New Friends Colony, Delhi on 24.07.2015. Those withdrawals on 24.07.2015, therefore, coincided with the alleged incident. That statement, therefore supported prosecution story. I believed it to be true.
State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 30 of 3451.PW12 Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, placed on record customer application form Ex.PW12/A and copy of ID proof Ex.PW12/B with respect to one Vijay Kumar. Now, as per the testimony of PW3 Ankur Sharma, Vijay Kumar, was his father. The customer application form and election ID as mentioned above, indicated that father of PW3 Ankur Sharma had obtained mobile number 88288605617. It was the said mobile phone, which was carried by PW3 Ankur Sharma at the time of incident as per the testimony of PW3. The call detail records of said number Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D also noted the location of said phone, around the place of incident. Those records were accompanied with certification u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW12/E. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of said record.
52.PW13 Sh. Chander Mohan, Ld. MM04 Tis Hazari Courts, identified the TIP proceedings Ex.PW13/A, he had recorded under his signatures. I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
53.The net result is that testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were trustworthy and reliable.
54.So far as accused persons are concerned, their defence was based on denial. They claimed that they were falsely implicated by the police but in support of said claim, they did not give any reason or reasons. By cross examining prosecution witnesses, they failed to raise a State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 31 of 34 probable defence of their false implication. Therefore, I discarded the version of accused persons.
Offences Proved By The Prosecution
55.All accused persons were charged with offences punishable u/s 392/397/34 IPC. From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that all accused persons were sitting in offending Innova car and they had common intention to rob victim persons on the day of incident i.e. intervening night of 24/25.07.2015, around 10:30 pm. In order to execute the said plan, accused Chandan had put katta on victim Marut Sharma and thereafter, looted ATM cards, gold chain, gold ring and cash of Rs.400/. Further, one of the coaccused, namely Manu (who was not traced out by the police during investigation) had withdrawn Rs.40,000/ in total from ATM Booths by using ATM cards of Marut Sharma. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Neeraj had put knife Ex. P2 on victim Ankur Sharma and thereafter, under threat had looted one mobile phone of ASUS Zen make alongwith cash of Rs.1800/, on the day of alleged incident. Since accused Jaswinder was driving the offending car at the time of alleged incident, so I conclude that he had common intention with other coaccused persons to commit the said crime. In such circumstances, accused persons had intentionally put victim persons namely Ankur Sharma and Marut Sharma in fear of injury and had State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 32 of 34 dishonestly induced victim persons to deliver the abovementioned case properties, by making use of deadly weapons. So, ingredients of Section 397 IPC were proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
56.Further, prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Neeraj was carrying big knife, in violation of notification of Home Department and therefore, committed offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
57.Prosecution also proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Neeraj was having possession of Rs.3850/ without any justification and he had possession of the same as it was a stolen property, being robbed amount. Further, it is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Neeraj had possession of mobile phone of ASUS company belonging to victim Ankur Sharma having IMEI No.357294066350586 and 357294066350594, which he was retaining dishonestly being robbed articles. Thus, ingredients of Section 411 IPC were proved against him beyond reasonable doubt.
58.Prosecution also proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Jaswinder had got recovered stolen property i.e. one gold chain belonging to complainant Marut Sharma. So ingredients of Section 411 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused Jaswinder.
State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 33 of 3459.Lastly, prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Chandan was retaining country made pistol (katta) without any license or permission, in violation of Section 3 & 5 of Arms Act and therefore, had committed offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
60.The net result is that all accused persons namely Jaswinder @ Jassi S/o Late Amarjeet Singh, Neeraj S/o Sh. Om Prakash and Chandan S/o Sh. Suresh Chander, are convicted of the offence punishable u/s 397/34 IPC.
61.Further, accused Neeraj S/o Sh. Om Prakash is also convicted of the offences punishable u/s 411 IPC r/w Section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
62.Further, accused Jaswinder @ Jassi s/o Late Amarjeet Singh is also convicted for offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
63.Lastly, accused Chandan S/o Sh. Suresh Chander is also convicted for offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
64.Copy of this judgment be provided to the accused persons.
Announced in open Court
on 21.04.2022 (Prashant Sharma)
Addl. Sessions Judge02,
SE District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi & Ors. Page 34 of 34