Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Rawat & Ors. on 15 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT SHARMA: ASJ-02 :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
State Vs Amit Rawat & Ors.
FIR No.: 15/2022
U/s : 392/397/411/34 IPC
PS : Jaitpur.
Date of Institution : 11.03.2022
Date of Judgment reserved on : 10.03.2023
Date of Judgment : 15.03.2023
Brief Details Of The Case
Case Number : 149/2022
Offence complained of : U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC
Date of Offence : 05.01.2022
Name of the complainant : Sh. Vikas Kumar Jha
S/o Sh. Ravinder Jha
R/o O-447A, Saurav Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi-44.
Name of the accused : (1) Amit Rawat
S/o Sh. Mohan Singh Rawat
R/o House No.L-383,
Gali No.16, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur, New Delhi.
State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 1 of 16
(2) Keshav Gupta @ Dhinchu
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta
R/o House No.M-68,
Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur,
New Delhi.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : a) Accused Amit Rawat is
convicted of the offence
punishable u/s 392/411/34
IPC.
b) Accused Keshav Gupta is
convicted of the offence
punishable u/s 392/34 IPC.
c) Both the accused are
acquitted of the offence
punishable u/s 397 IPC.
Date of Order : 15.03.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Amit Rawat and Keshav Gupta were charged with offences punishable u/s 392/397/34 IPC. Besides that accused Amit Rawat was separately charged for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC. Both accused persons faced trial for the said offences.
State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 2 of 162. As per chargesheet, on 05.01.2022 ASI Ramesh Chand received information regarding snatching of phone by two persons who had fled away from the spot, which was recorded vide DD no.26A. On receiving said information ASI Ramesh Chand along with Ct. Sachin went to house no.447A, O block, Saurabh Vihar, New Delhi where the caller told them that spot of occurrence was near Nehar. Thereafter, nearby area was searched and statement of complainant Vikas Kumar Jha was recorded.
3. In his statement, complainant told that while returning from his place of work, he alighted from Gramin Seva (taxi) at Lohiya Pul while coming from the side of Kalindi Kunj. Around 10.00/10.15AM he started walking towards his home and when he moved for about 20-25 meters two boys were standing near Lohiya Pul police booth. One of those boys approached him and asked him for his mobile for making a call. Before complainant could have reacted the other fat boy came and demanded his mobile phone and flashed knife in his hand. Mobile phone of complainant was snatched and both the said boys fled away towards Nehar Road. Thereafter, complainant returned to his home, in fear and told the incident to his mother. He called police at 100 number by using mobile phone of his mother. The robbed mobile phone of complainant was blue coloured, Redimi 9 in which SIM of number 880000018 was functioning. He claimed that the boy who had looted him was fat boy having long hairs. The other boy was leaner. Both the said boys aged between 20-25 years. Complainant claimed that he can identify those boys if they are State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 3 of 16 shown to him. Based on said complaint FIR in question was registered u/s 397/34 IPC and investigation ensued.
4. During investigation, IO ASI Ramesh Chand prepared site plan at the instance of complainant and searched for accused persons but could not find them. During investigation, for handing over photocopy of bill of robbed mobile phone to IO, complainant came to police station with his father where he saw accused persons sitting. He identified both of them and claimed that those boys had looted him, as stated by him in his complaint. Both the accused persons were arrested in FIR no.16/22, P.S. Jaitpur by SI Satyapreet and that is why they were in police station, where complainant identified them. IO ASI Ramesh Chand collected all documents pertaining to arrest of accused persons in FIR no.16/22 P.S. Jaitpur. Disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded, they were arrested and their personal search memos were prepared. Thereafter, both accused persons were sent to lock-up and were remanded to judicial custody as per law. After completing investigation, chargesheet was filed against both accused persons for offences punishable u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC.
5. 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.
State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 4 of 166. 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 u/s 392/397/34 IPC. Accused Amit Rawat was also charged with Section 411 IPC separately. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
7. Prosecution examined two (2) witnesses.
8. PW-1 Vikas Kumar Jha was the complainant and victim in this case. He deposed facts in tune with prosecution story in his examination in chief. He identified his statement Ex.PW1/A, site plan Ex.pW1/B, arrest memos Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW1/D, superdginama for taking his mobile phone Ex.PW1/E and photographs of his mobile phone as Ex.P-1. He also identified his mobile phone as Ex.P-2 and knife used by accused Amit Rawat for committing robbery as Ex.P-3.
9. PW2 ASI Ramesh Chand deposed facts mentioned regarding the manner in which this case was registered and the manner in which he had conducted investigation after registration of FIR in question as mentioned in preceding paragraphs of this judgment. Same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. He identified documents viz. DD No.26A Ex.PW2/A, rukka Ex.PW2/B, disclosure statement of accused Amit Rawat Ex.PW2/C, disclosure statement of accused Keshav Gupta Ex.PW2/D, arrest of accused Amit Rawat Ex.PW1/C and arrest of accused Keshav Gupta Ex.PW1/D, personal State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 5 of 16 search of accused Amit Rawat Ex.PW2/E and personal search of accused Keshav Gupta Ex.PW2/F and site plan Ex.PW1/B prepared at the instance of complainant.
10. Accused persons admitted registration of FIR Ex.P-1, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to photographs as Ex.P-2, DD no.27A dated 05.01.2023 as Ex.P-3, ownership documents of victim as Ex.P-4A, Ex.P-4B and Ex.P-4C and certificate with respect to hash value of pdf file of present FIR as Ex.P-5 u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
11. After examining above witnesses, prosecution closed its evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused.
12. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the incriminating evidence was put to accused persons separately which they denied. Accused Keshav Gupta claimed that on the day of incident he was working in his shop in Noida and around 04.00PM, he received call from his mother on his mobile and his mother told him to come to police station Jaitpur as police registered one complaint against his father. Thereafter, he reached in the police station around 05.30PM. Thereafter, he was beaten in the police station and the present false case was registered against him and he was sent to jail.
13. Accused Amit Rawat claimed in response to incriminating evidence put to him, that on the day of incident, around 08.00pm, he State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 6 of 16 was standing near his house i.e. L-383, Gali No.16, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur in the Gali alone. At that time, two police officials came in proper uniform on their bike, they asked him to come with them on their bike to police station. When he inquired from them, as to why he was being taken, they told him that a case is registered against him. At that time, his mother was inside his house but before he could tell her, said police took him to police station. In the police station, he was beaten by police officials due to which he sustained injury on his left knee and his knee got fractured. Then this case was registered against him.
14. Both the accused persons also claimed that prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated in his case. They claimed that all the documents were prepared by police officials in police station regarding which they were not aware. They did not prefer to lead defence evidence. Consequently, matter was fixed for final arguments.
15. After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
16. 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 State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 7 of 16 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 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."
17. So, in the wake of above mentioned law, evidence brought on record, has to be read as a whole and has to be appreciated as a whole. Minor discrepancies over trivial matters and hyper technical State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 8 of 16 approach while appreciating evidence, has to be avoided. It has to be seen whether shortcomings highlighted by accused persons, go to the root of the matter and if it so goes, then in that eventuality only evidence has to be discarded.
18. Keeping in mind aforesaid tenet, I am proceeding further and appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution.
Appreciation of testimonies of public witness
19. PW 1 Vikas Kumar Jha was the victim and the person who had complained to the police about the alleged incident dated 05.01.2022. In his testimony, he categorically deposed that accused Amit Rawat had shown knife to him and said accused was accompanied with co-accused Keshav Gupta. He categorically deposed that accused persons had followed him and demanded mobile from him. Later on, when he resisted accused Amit showed knife and under fear he gave his mobile phone to them.
20. Complainant identified accused persons being assailants. He identified the mobile phone, looted from him by accused persons, as Ex.P-2 and photographs of said mobile as Ex.P-1. He identified the knife with which he was threatened by accused Amit as Ex.P-3. He had claimed that said mobile phone was purchased by him from his friend Aman, regarding which he placed on record photocopy of receipt Ex.P-4A and Ex.P-4B. Those documents were not disputed by accused persons.
State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 9 of 1621. Complainant identified site plan prepared at his instance by IO as Ex.PW1/B and his statement recorded by police as Ex.PW1/A. He identified arrest memos of accused persons as Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. To the aforesaid extent, his testimony, as deposed by him in his examination in chief, supported prosecution story.
22. Complainant was cross examined by accused persons at length. So far as accused Keshav is concerned, his counsel asked questions with regard to colour of clothes of accused persons at the time of incident in question, regarding which he did not remember. It has come on record, in his testimony that on the day and time of incident in question, it was raining. It has also come on record, through his testimony that he used to wear specs at the time of incident in question. So, considering the facts viz, raining at the time of incident and complainant using specs for clear vision, chances of him not observing and remembering colour of clothes of accused persons, were natural. There was nothing abnormal about said want of knowledge, regarding colour of clothes of accused persons, on his part.
23. Accused Amit Rawat through his counsel also cross examined complainant at length. His cross examination was based on non- joining of public persons and non-joining of police officials present at police booth near the spot of incident. As such, public persons are reluctant to join investigation, considering their harassment and State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 10 of 16 therefore, non-joining of public persons did not make his testimony, doubtful. As regards non-joining of police officials from nearby police booth is concerned, complainant explained in his testimony that no police official was present in the said police booth at the time of incident in question. That explanation was not countered by accused by way of any question or suggestion.
24. Complainant testified in his testimony that site plan and sketch of knife used by accused Amit, were prepared by police in his presence. He admitted that complaint Ex.PW1/A was written by him in his own handwriting. He refuted the suggestion of falsely implicating accused persons.
25. Complainant did not depose that mobile phone Ex.P-2 was recovered by police in his presence from accused Amit Rawat.
26. As such, testimony of complainant was trustworthy and reliable to the extent that he was robbed of his mobile phone by accused persons on the day of incident in question in day time. To that extent his testimony was trustworthy and reliable.
27. PW2 ASI Ramesh Chand was the initial IO in this case. In his testimony, he deposed that SI Satyapreet had given information regarding arrest of accused persons in FIR no.16/22 P.S. Jaitpur. SI Satyapreet also gave information regarding recovery of robbed property in this case from accused Amit. Based on said information, State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 11 of 16 accused persons were arrested and necessary memos were prepared. Both accused persons were identified by complainant in police station when he had come for furnishing ownership documents of robbed mobile phone. The robbed mobile phone was also recovered during investigation in case FIR no.16/22 P.S. Jaitpur from accused Amit.
28. Investigation of ASI Ramesh Chand as such got strength from the testimony of PW1 Vikas Kumar Jha, who categorically identified accused persons being the culprit.
29. In his cross examination, ASI Ramesh Chand did not categorically answer aspects viz the time when he had reached at the spot, the place where recorded statement of complainant, whether he had taken original bill of mobile phone from complainant, whether copy of FIR was sent to area Magistrate and with regard to visiting the house of accused Keshav Gupta. All those aspects were not relevant for the purpose of discarding his testimony. They were minor discrepancies, which did not go to the root of the matter. I discarded them accordingly.
30. PW2 ASI Ramesh Chand refuted the suggestion, based on false implication of accused persons. His said refutal supported prosecution story.
31. Testimony of ASI Ramesh Chand, held its ground regarding State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 12 of 16 involvement of accused persons, in robbing complainant on the day time and place of incident in question and recovery of mobile phone from accused Amit Rawat. He had collected all documents pertaining to investigation in FIR no.16/22, P.S. Jaitpur which are annexed with chargesheet of present case. I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable to that extent.
32. PW3 SI Satyapreet Tomar was another IO in this case. During investigation, he had recorded disclosure statements of accused persons which he identified as Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B. As per him, mobile phone was recovered from accused Amit Rawat. He categorically identified accused persons in the court. He was not cross examined with regard to false recovery of mobile phone from accused Amit Rawat. To that extent, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
33. Accused persons admitted documents i.e. registration of FIR Ex.P-1, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to photographs as Ex.P-2, DD no.27A dated 05.01.2023 as Ex.P-3, ownership documents of victim as Ex.P-4A, Ex.P-4B and Ex.P-4C and certificate with respect to hash value of pdf file of present FIR as Ex.P-5 u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
34. Evidence led by prosecution was trustworthy and reliable to the aforesaid extent.
State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 13 of 1635. Per contra accused persons claimed that they were falsely implicated by police. Both of them claimed in response to incriminating evidence put to them that police had taken them to police station where they were beaten and this case was planted upon them. The said explanation was not put by them by way of suggestion to any of prosecution witness. No defence evidence led by them in support of the said claims. Accused persons did not explain following questions:
(a) Why they were falsely implicated by the
police?
(b) What were the names and identities of
police officials who allegedly falsely
apprehended them?
(c) What grudge complainant had against
them in implicating in the present case?
(d) Whether accused persons did not lodge
any complaint to any authority regarding
police officials falsely implicating them in
this case?
(e) Why accused persons did not lodge any
complaint against complainant for
deposing falsely against them?
36. Failure on the part of accused persons to answer above mentioned questions made their defence unbelievable.
37. Further, explanation given by accused persons, in response to incriminating evidence put to them, was not put to prosecution witnesses, for checking its veracity. Said explanation was neither State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 14 of 16 trustworthy nor reliable. I discarded accordingly.
38. Ld. Counsel for accused Keshav Gupta has argued that there was no recovery from the said accused with regard to robbed article. He has also argued that identification of said accused by complainant in police station was a doubtful fact, which made the case of prosecution false, as against said accused. Therefore, he has submitted that Section 392 IPC is not made out against said accused.
39. The above arguments are not tenable. Reason being, that complainant categorically testified against accused Keshav Gupta, in the court, regarding his involvement in alleged crime. The said substantive evidence is found by me to be trustworthy and reliable. The aspect of non-recovery of robbed article is at best, reflection of defective investigation, so to say, for which testimony of complainant, cannot be discarded. Further, identification of accused Keshav Gupta in police station, by complainant as such cannot be seen with suspicion in the absence of any reasonable explanation. Moresowhere, accused Keshav Gupta did not answer above mentioned questions, highlighted by me in present judgement.
40. Victim was not injured by the accused persons. There was no evidence, to the effect that accused persons had caused or had attempted to cause death or grievous hurt of victim. Medical evidence was not present in present case. It was not deposed by complainant that he was under the fear of death or being inflicted State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 15 of 16 with grievous hurt when incident in question had taken place. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. Accordingly, both the accused are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 397 IPC for the reasons mentioned above.
41. Prosecution this proved that accused persons had robbed complainant on 05.01.2022. Accused Amit Rawat and Keshav Gupta are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC. Further, accused Amit Rawat is also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC, as no effective challenge was posed to the recovery of stolen mobile phone from the custody of accused Amit Rawat, by accused persons. In other words, no relevant cross examination was done with regard to said aspect.
Announced in open Court
on 15th March, 2023 [Prashant Sharma]
Additional Sessions Judge-02,
SE District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
State Vs. Amit Rawat & Ors, FIR No.15/2022 Page 16 of 16