Delhi District Court
State vs . : 1) Sachin S/O on 20 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No: 58638/16
FIR No. : 648/16
U/s : 395/397/412/34 IPC
P.S. : KNK Marg
State Vs. : 1) Sachin S/o
S/o Sh. Naresh
R/o H.No.622, Infront of Post
Office Village Auchandi, PS:
Bawana, Delhi.
2) Sushil @ Akshay
S/o Sh. Satbir
R/o Village Jagsi, PS: Baranda,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana
Present Address: Vijay Colony,
near Johra Main chowk,
Bawana.
3) Dev Raj @ Kalu
S/o Sh. Jai Kishan
R/o H.No.520, Balvinder
Mohalla, Vill. Auchandi,
PS: Bawana, Delhi.
4) Govind @ Aman
S/o Sh. Om Parkash
R/o H.No.135, Mukhtiyar Singh
Marg, near Dispensary, Bawana,
Delhi.
5) Anil @ Tota @ Mota
S/o Sh. Dharambir
R/o H.No415, Village Auchandi,
PS: Bawana, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 395/397/412/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 1 ::
Final Order : Convicted
Date of committal : 09.10.2015
Date of Judgment : 20.12.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Neeraj was working as driver on vehicle No. DL 4C NE 1167 make Toyota owned by Samarjeet Chauhan. On 20.06.2015 he went to his village in that vehicle and on 22.06.2015 at about 2:15 am he parked his above said vehicle in A4 block near small park. He also noticed that one Santro white car was also parked there. He started moving towards the house of his owner Samarjeet Chauhan. In the meanwhile three persons came from behind and caught hold him. Out of them one took out his purse forcibly from his pocket. The purse was containing Rs.6,000/-, Aadhar card, Voting card, photocopy of the driving licence and ATM Card. In the meanwhile the other person who was medium built forcibly took out his mobile phone make Aptra having mobile phone No.9599755417 and 8650199481. They both caught hold of their hands and the third boy took out the key of the vehicle. They all started beating him. In the meanwhile Santro car started moving towards them. He pushed them and also gave fist blow to one of the accused and started State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 2 ::
running. While he was running one the accused also said shoot him. He reached the house of his owner and told him the entire facts. He along with Samarjeet Chauhan reached there. He found that all the three persons boarded their car and fled away. The Santro car also followed that Innova car. On this statement of Neeraj the FIR was registered. On 24.06.2015 a wireless message was received from PS: Rai that the accused persons had been arrested by the Haryana police in case FIR No:235/15 and 239/15. The accused persons also got recovered the Innova car. Application for their TIP was moved but all the accused persons refused to join the TIP. The accused persons also got recovered the Santro car. The Innova car got recovered by the accused persons was brought to Delhi. Supplementary statement of Neeraj was recorded wherein he stated that there were five persons involved in the commission of offence and accused Anil @ Tota and Sushil were also having weapons in their hands. Section 395 and 397 were added. After completion of investigation charge sheet against accused persons was filed. Ld. MM after complying with the provisions of section 207 Cr.PC committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence punishable u/s 395 and 397 IPC are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
2. All the five accused were charged for the offence State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 3 ::
punishable u/s 395 r/w 34 IPC. They were also charged for the offence punishable u/s 412 IPC. Accused Sushil @ Akshay and Anil @ Tota were also charged for the offence punishable u/s 397 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. Ct. Ram Avtar was examined as PW-1. He was on emergency duty in the intervening night of 21/22.06.2015 along with SI Gurjant Singh. On 22.06.2015 on receipt of information about the robbery of vehicle he along with SI Gurjant Singh reached A-4 Block near DDA Market, Sector-
17, Rohini. Neeraj met them there. SI Gurjant Singh recorded the statement of Neeraj prepared the rukka and handed over to him. He went to the police station and got the FIR registered. He came back on the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to SI Gurjant Singh.
4. During cross-examination by the Amicus for accused Sushil, Anil and Govind he stated that they left the police station at about 2:25 pm on private motorcycle owned by SI Gurjant Singh. He does not remember the colour or registration number of the said vehicle. It took them 7-8 minutes in reaching the spot. 8 to 10 public persons and 3 PCR officials were present on the spot. He went to the police station on foot along with the rukka. It took about an hour in State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 4 ::
registering FIR and reaching back to the spot. He along with SI Gurjant Singh went in search of the vehicle on the motorcycle of SI Gurjant. The complainant & his employer accompanied them in white car but he does not remember the registration number and make of the said car. They searched for the vehicle for about an hour and thereafter they returned to the police station. His statement was typed by SI Gurjant Singh in his personal laptop. The same cross- examination was adopted on behalf of accused Sachin and Devraj.
5. ASI Ramesh Kumar was examined as PW-2. He was working as duty officer. He proved the copy of DD No.4A as Ex.PW2/A. He also registered the FIR on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Ram Avtar sent by SI Gurjant Singh and proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/B. The endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW2/C. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
6. Monu was examined as PW-3. He is the registered owner of vehicle No. DL 4C NE 1167 Innova. He got released the said vehicle on superdari vide superdiginama Ex.PW3/A. At the time of release the photographs of the vehicle were taken and he identified the photographs as Ex.PW3/A1 to A5. He also proved the photocopy of the RC as Ex.PW3/B. State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 5 ::
7. Samerjeet Chauhan was examined as PW-4. He stated that his Innova vehicle No. DL 4C NE 1167 was driven by his driver Neeraj. On 22.06.2015 his driver informed him that the vehicle along with his purse and mobile phone had been robbed. He reached the spot along with Neeraj. After 2- 3 hours they came to know that said vehicle has been recovered in the area of Sonepat. During cross-examination he stated that police reached the spot after 10-15 minutes of his making call from his mobile No. 9268073339. They went in search of their vehicle in the meantime police official from PS: Sonepat arrived at his house and informed that the above said vehicle is involved in some criminal case in the area of Sonepat. He had also shown them the copy of the present FIR to the police of PS: Sonepat.
8. Sh. Devender Kumar deputy record keeper Judicial Record room Sonepat was examined as PW-5. He has brought the record of FIR No:239/15 u/s 25 Arms Act PS:
Rai. He has proved the photocopies of the disclosure statement of Anil @ Tota @ Mona as Ex.PW5/A. The seizure memo of country made pistol of 12 bore and live cartridge as Ex.PW5/B. The sketch of the country made pistol as Ex.PW5/C and the statement of Ct. Suresh Kumar and Ct. Devender as Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/E. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 6 ::
9. Bijender Singh was examined as PW-6. He deposed that he is the registered owner of Santro car bearing registration No. HR 13 G 5701 the car was seized by the police which he lateron got released on superdari vide superdginama Ex.PW6/A. He produced the car and identified the same as Ex.PW6/Article-1. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
10. HC Ajmer was examined as PW-7. He is the Investigating Officer of FIR no.239/15 PS Rai registered under Sec.25 Arms Act. The investigation of that case was assigned to him on 24.06.15. He stated that during investigation accused made the disclosure statement about the robbery of santro car. The disclosure is Ex.PW-5/A. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that accused did not make any such disclosure or that his signatures were obtained on blank papers.
11. ASI Manoj Kumar was examined as PW-8. He deposed that on 14.07.15 he was posted in K.N.Katju Marg as HC. On that day on the direction of SI Gurjant Singh, he went to Sonepat court and moved application for release of Innova car bearing registration no.DL4C State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 7 ::
NE 1167. The court passed the order regarding transfer of the car from PS Rai to PS K.N.Katju Marg. Vide RC no.89/15, he collected the car from PS Rai and produced the same before IO. The IO seized the car vide memo Ex.PW-8/A. The testimony of this witness has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
12. Ct. Man Mohan was examined as PW-9. He deposed that on 06.07.15 he joined the investigation of this case with SI Gurjant Singh. They came to Rohini Court. Accused Sachin, Sushil @ Akshey, Devraj @ Kalu, Govind @ Aman and Anil @ Tota @ Mona were produced. IO moved application for interrogation which was allowed by the court. IO interrogated them and arrested them vide memos Ex.PW-9/A to PW-9/E respectively. All the accused persons made disclosure statements, the same are Ex.PW-9/A1 to E1 respectively. All the accused persons were in muffled face and were sent to JC.
13. During cross examination he stated that he does not remember the colour of the cloth by which faces of the accused persons were covered. He denied he suggestion that accused persons did not make any State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 8 ::
disclosure statement or that they were made to sign on blank papers which were subsequently converted into disclosure statement.
14. Ct. Sanjeev Kumar was examined as PW-10. He deposed that on 08.07.15 he joined the investigation with SI Gurjant Singh, Ct. Rajesh, Ct. Pawan, Ct.
Sandeep and Ct. Vinod. They reached the court of Ld.MM at Rohini court complex. Accused Sushil, Sachin @ Akshey, Devraj @ Kalu, Govind @ Aman and Anil @ Tota @ Mona were produced in muffled face. Accused were taken for TIP but they refused to join the TIP. IO moved an application for their police remand which was allowed. The accused persons were got medically examined. Thereafter accused persons led them to sukhi nehar, Bawana, Narela road, Dariya Pur side where santro car no.HR 13G 5701 was found parked on footpath in front of Jyoti Service Station. Accused Govind led them to the bridge of sukhi nehar and from the heap of bricks produced the key of the santro car. Santro car was opened with that key. The santro car was seized vide memo Ex.PW-10/A. Efforts were also made to recover the robbed mobile and wallet but the State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 9 ::
same could not be recovered. The witness identified the car in photographs Ex.PW-10/A1 to PW-10/A5.
15. During cross examination, he stated that they left the PS at about 12/12.30 PM in the private car arranged by the IO. He does not remember the colour, make, model and registration number of the said vehicles. The faces of the accused persons were covered with plain cloth but he does not remember the colour of the cloth.
They reached sukhi nehar at about 5 PM. IO did not ask any public person to join the investigation. IO prepared the seizure memo while standing on the road. He does not know if IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery.
16. Neeraj/complainant was examined as PW-11. He stated that he was working as driver for the last 2-3 years under Samarjeet Chauhan r/o A-1, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi. He used to drive Innova car number DL- 4C NE 1167 of golden colour. On 20.06.15 he went to his village in the above car and returned Delhi on 22.06.15. He parked the above said Innova car near the small park of A Block, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi. He locked the car and put the keys and wallet in his pocket.
State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 10 ::
He was carrying Rs.6000/-, his identity card and ATM card in the wallet. It was about 2.30 AM. When he turned his back he was over powered by three boys, one of the boy caught his neck and pushed him down ward and second boy put pistol on him and third boy gagged him. Thereafter two other boys reached there. One of them was in white colour santro car. He was forced to sit in the santro car which was driven by one of the accused. Out of those three boys one boy sat on the driver seat of Innova car. Those boys also snatched his wallet and key. He escaped from those boys. While he was running, those boys also abused him and said, "is saale ko goli maar do". He reached the house of his employer Samarjet Chauhan and informed him. This witness along with his employer and nephew of his employer reached the place of incident. The santro car and Innova car were not there. His employer made a call at 100 number. Police came there and recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A. Witness identified all the accused except Sachin as the persons, who robbed his wallet, Innova vehicle and the key. He also said that the person, who had shown him the pistol while committing State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 11 ::
robbery is not present in the court. He identified the Innova car in the photographs Ex.PW-3/A-1 to A-5 as Ex.P1.
17. The witness was cross examined by Ld.APP. In the cross examination of Ld.APP, he denied the suggestion that accused Anil @ Tota and Sushil were carrying weapon in their hands. He also denied the suggestion that accused Sachin removed his Actra mobile phone or that accused Sachin was also involved in the robbery. He admitted that accused persons slapped him and also gave him fist blows.
18. During cross examination by the defence, he stated that the place where he parked his vehicle is guarded by watchman but watchman was not there at that time. However after the incident the watchman came there and told that vehicle has gone towards Sector-11. He denied the suggestion that there was no electric pole near the spot or that it was very dark on the spot or that he had no occasion or chance to see the faces of assailants. After about 20-25 minutes since the call, police officials reached there. Police officials came there in Innova and gypsy. One police official made State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 12 ::
inquiries from him. He does not know who owned the mobile number 9268073339. After about 2 hours of the incident, he along with his employer and one more person went in search of the robbed vehicle in another private vehicle. His statement was recorded on the spot and also in the PS. He first time saw the accused persons at the place of robbery and then in the court. He does not remember for what purpose he visited the court second time. After 3-4 days of the incident he came to know that Innova vehicle was found in Hayana. His employer got this information from Haryana Police. He denied the suggestion that after about one hour of the incident, Sonepat police informed his employer that the vehicle has been recovered. He denied the suggestion that he identified the accused persons at the instance of police. He denied the suggestion that he saw the accused persons first time in court room no.202 when he came for evidence.
19. In the cross examination for accused Devraj, he stated that from his village he left for Delhi at about 9 PM. He went to village to see his ailing bhabhi. He reached Delhi at about 2.30 AM on 22.06.17. He paid State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 13 ::
the toll tax and the receipts were left by him in the dash board of the car. He was also carrying his voter I card and Aadhar card. However the ATM card was not working as he has not received its pin code. There was enough light at the spot as the electric pole was near the spot. His neck was bent but he was in position to see their faces. He denied the suggestion that he could not see the faces of assailants or that he is identifying them at the instance of IO. No question was put to him on behalf of accused Sachin.
20. Ct. Suresh was examined as PW-12. He deposed that on 24.06.2015 he was posted at CIA Staff Haryana Distt.
Sonepat. On that day he along with HC Sandeep, HC Devender was present at GT road near biswa mil in a private vehicle. One secret informer met HC Sandeep and informed that Anil @ Tota @ Mona is standing at HSIDC mor near Ethnic India, carrying illegal weapon, wearing yellow colour shirt and black colour pyjama. HC shared this information with them. They reached on the road of HSIDC near Ethinic India and apprehended one person who was wearing the clothes as informed by the secret informer. That person revealed his name as Anil @ Tota @ Mona. On the formal search one revolver 32 bore was found in the right dub of the State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 14 ::
accused. The revolver was checked and found containing one live cartridge. The revolver was put in a plain paper and its sketch was prepared which is Ex.PW5/C. The revolver and the live cartridge were put in separate pullandas and sealed with the seal of SD. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Devender. The pullanda containing the revolver and the cartridge were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/D. The accused was arrested. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW5/A. Accused disclosed about his involvement in the present case.
21. During cross-examination for accused Sushil, Govind and Anil he stated that he is not able to identify the accused by name. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation or that no weapon was recovered in his presence.
22. ASI Sunil Kumar was examined as PW-13. On 25.06.15 he was posted in CIA Staff Sonepat. He joined the investigation with ASI Som Dutt and HC Sandeep. Accused Anil @ Tota, Govind @ Aman, Devraj @ Kalu, Sushil @ Akshay and Sachin were taken out from the lockup and interrogated. They made the disclosure statements which are Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/E. They also confessed about the commission of this crime. All the accused were produced in the court of JMIC Sonepat and the police custody remand State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 15 ::
was taken. Accused Govind @ Aman led them to Dak Khana road, Bawana, Delhi vacant place near Sehrawat coal depot. One Innova car of silver colour was found stationed and was pointed out by accused Govind @ Aman. The car was having registration No. DL 4C NE 1167. The ignition key of the key was found under the brick lying near the said vehicle. The key was produced by the accused after removing the brick. The car was opened and the RC of the vehicle was found in it. The car and the RC were seized vide memo Ex.PW13/F. ASI Som Dutt prepared site plan of place of recovery which is Ex.PW13/G. In pursuance to the disclosure accused Sushil led them to his tenanted house at Vijay colony main chowk Bawana Delhi. From the North west corner of the tenanted room from one iron box accused got recovered one 12 bore country made pistol, sketch of the same is Ex.PW13/H. The pistol was put in a cloth parcel, sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW13/J. ASI Som Dutt also prepared site plan of place of recovery which is Ex.PW13/K. The witness identified the Innova car in the photographs Ex.PW3A1 to Ex.PW3/A5. The photocopy of the RC is Ex.PW3/B.
23. During cross-examination he stated that they took accused persons in the govt. vehicle of white colour. He does not remember the registration number of the said vehicle. IO asked 3-4 passers by to join raiding team but non agreed. No State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 16 ::
notice in writing was served on the public persons who refused to join the investigation. Neighbours were also asked to join raiding team but none agreed. The brick was found lying towards the left side of the Innova car under which ignition key was found and was about 1 step away from the vehicle. They reached the place of recovery at about 4 pm. The proceedings were recorded while sitting in the Govt. vehicle.
24. They reached the house of Sushil at about 6 pm. Public persons were asked to join but none agreed. No notice in writing was served on the public persons who refused to join the raiding team. Father and sister of Sushil were present at the home at that time. The same cross- examination was adopted for accused Devraj and Sachin by their respective counsels.
25. SI Som Dutt was examined as PW-14. He deposed that on 24.06.15 he was posted in CIA staff. Accused Anil @ Tota was apprehended by HC Ajmer of CIA staff being found in possession of Arm. He disclosed about commission of offence in FIR No.235/15 PS: Rai u/s 395/397/341 IPC and 25 Arms Act. On 24.06.15 he interrogated the accused in case FIR No.235/15. Accused also disclosed his involvement in the present case. On 24.06.15 he apprehended accused Govind @ Aman, Devraj @ Kalu, Sushil @ Akshay and State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 17 ::
Sachin from the area of PS: Bawana in case FIR No.235/15. He corroborated the testimony of PW-3 regarding the recovery of Innova car.
26. During cross-examination he stated that he arrested accused Anil @ Tota at about 3-4 pm on 24.06.15. They left the CIA office in Govt. Vehicle Travera. They reached Bawana at about 6 pm. It took them around 30 - 40 minutes to reach Bawana from the office of CIA. They made efforts to join public persons but none agreed. No notice was given in writing to the public persons who refused to join the raiding team. There were residential houses as well as shops near the place. He does not know if there was any hospital or bus stop near the place. He did not notice any school near that place. He did not prepare any site plan of the place of arrest. The brick underneath which the ignition key of Innova car was found was only 2-3 feet away from the spot. There was only one brick lying there. That was on the driver side of the car. In the site plan Ex.PW13/G the position of brick is not shown. He denied the suggestion that he did not arrest the accused persons or that the Innova car was not recovered in the manner as deposed by him.
27. Inspector Anwar Khan was examined as PW-15. He deposed that on 17.08.2016 he received the case file of present FIR for further investigation. He pursed the file. On State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 18 ::
28.09.2016 he recorded supplementary statement of Neeraj and prepared the charge sheet. He did not mention the name of SI Gurjant Singh in the list of witnesses.
28. ASI Surender was examined as PW-16. He was working as Malkahna moharrar and he proved the entries in register No.19 and register No.21 as Ex.PW16/A to Ex.PW16/B. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness.
29. SI Gurjant Singh was examined as PW-17. He deposed that on 22.06.2015 in the night after receiving DD No.4A regarding snatching of Innova vehicle by four boys in sector 17A-4 DDA market, he along with Ct. Ram Avtar reached the spot. Neeraj met them there. He recorded the statement of Neeraj Ex.PW11/A. He made his endorsement Ex.PW17/A. Prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct. Ram Avtar at 3:20 am. Ct. Ram Avtar went to police station, got the FIR registered and came back. Ct. Ram Avtar handed over to him original rukka and copy of FIR. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW17/B. He made the efforts to trace out the vehicle and the accused persons but no clue was found.
30. On 25.06.2015 he received message from PS: Rai Distt. Sonepat regarding recovery of vehicle and arrest of accused persons. On 26.06.2015 he went to Sonepat and recorded the statements of witnesses and collected the State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 19 ::
documents of FIR No.235/15 and 239/15 of PS: Rai. He moved an application for production of accused persons. On 06.07.2015 the accused persons were produced. He moved application Ex.PW17/C for the interrogation and arrest of the accused persons with the permission of the court he interrogated the accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/E. Accused persons made the disclosure statements Ex.PW9/A1 to 9/E1. He moved application for TIP of accused persons but the accused persons refused to join that TIP. He collected the TIP proceeding. Thereafter, he obtained the police custody remand of accused persons. Accused persons were got medically examined. The accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW17/E. Thereafter, accused persons got recovered Santro car and in this regard he corroborated the testimony of PW-10. He got the Innova car transferred from PS: Rai to PS: KNK Marg and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW8/A. The Santro car as well as Innova car were released on superdari. The panchnama of Santro car is Ex.PW17/F and that of Innova car is Ex.PW17/G. He identified the Innova car as well as Santro car in the photographs and also all the accused persons.
31. During cross-examination he stated that he received the information vide DD No.4A at about 2:20 am. He reached State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 20 ::
the spot within 5 minutes of receipt of information. One person who was acquainted with the employer of the complainant was also there. He is not able to recollect the name of that person who was known to the employer of the complainant. They remained on the spot till 5 am. Thereafter, they went to the side of Bawana Road. Many persons were there when he initially reached the spot. He made inquiries from those persons but they were not acquainted with the facts of the case. No watchmen was present on the spot. He made efforts to find out as to who was the watchmen of the area but no watchmen was posted. Other vehicles were also parked on the scene of crime. There was no source of light on the scene of crime when he reached there. There was darkness on the scene of crime. He sent a message to the police station for deployment for search of robbers and vehicle. At about 4:30 am he received copy of FIR. He does not remember the time when he prepared the site plan. But the same was prepared after 4:30 am.
32. He does not know the time when he received information on 25.06.2015. He does not remember whom he initially arrested. The accused persons pointed out the scene of crime at 5:05 pm on 08.07.2015. Accused persons refused to sign the pointing out memo. He requested public persons to join but none agreed. They reached Sukhi nehar at about State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 21 ::
6:00 pm. There also he requested the public persons to join the proceedings but none agreed. The Santro car was found locked. Accused Govind got recovered the ignition key from the heap of bricks. The heap was of about 50 bricks. He denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were recorded while sitting in the police station.
33. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
34. The statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein they denied the entire evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. They did not wish to lead any evidence in defence and the case was fixed for final arguments.
35. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons and perused the record.
36. Ld. APP submitted that in this case the only eye witness is Neeraj, who was robbed of his wallet and also Innova car no.DL4C NE 1167 Ex.PW-3/Article 1. Neeraj was examined as PW-11. He has fully supported the prosecution case and deposed that on 22.06.15 when he return from his village, he parked the car near the small park of A Block, Sector-17, Rohini. He locked the car. Thereafter he put the key and his wallet in his State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 22 ::
pocket. When he turned back, he was over powered by three boys. One of them pushed him down by catching his neck. The other boy put a pistol on him and third boy gagged him. Thereafter two more boys came, one of them was in white colour santro car. His belongings were taken. He some how escaped from them and reached the house of Samarjeet Chauhan examined as PW-4, who also supported the version of PW-11. He stated that Neeraj PW-11 was working as driver on his car no.DL4C NE 1167 and that Neeraj told him that the persons had snatched his belongings and fled away in the car. He made the all at 100 number from his mobile no.9268073339. The fact that he made the call from this number is also corroborated from the fact that the same number is mentioning in DD no.4A Ex.PW-2/A. Neeraj when appeared in the witness box identified accused Sushil, Devraj, Govind and Anil as the persons, who robbed him and fled away in the Innova car.
37. Ld. APP submitted that the police registered the FIR and tried to look for the accused persons but they could not be apprehended. However CIS staff of Sonepat apprehended them in case FIR no.235/15 of State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 23 ::
22.06.15 itself and 239/15 of both PS Rai. Accused Govind @ Aman also got recovered the Innova car on 25.06.15 from dak khana road, Bawana, Delhi from a vacant place situated near Sehrawat Coal Depot. The key was found under the brick lying near the said vehicle. Ld. PP submitted that identification of all the accused persons by Neeraj, the recovery of Innova car at the instance of Govind, the pointing out by them of the place of occurrence and also the recovery of santro car used in the commission of offence from near dry canal having registration no.HR13G 5701 parked near Jyoti Service Station on footpath clearly prove and establish that the accused persons robbed Neeraj of his belongings and Innova car. It is prayed that there is nothing on record that Neeraj has falsely implicated them. He is trust worthy. It is prayed that keeping in view the testimony of Neeraj all the accused persons whom he had identified be held guilty and convicted.
38. Ld. Counsel for accused persons submitted that witness Neeraj is not trust worthy and is not reliable. Neeraj has failed to identify Sachin during evidence. He has also not said that any of the accused persons in the State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 24 ::
court used any weapon or had shown him any weapon. There is no other witness supporting Neeraj or corroborating his testimony. He stated that the accused persons caught hold of his neck and pushed him downward, therefore, he was not able to see the faces of any person but at the instance of police he identified them. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there was no light or source of light on the scene of crime which is also evident from the testimony of SI Gurjant examined as PW-17 meaning thereby that there was no possibility of Neeraj being able to see the faces of the person, who allegedly robbed him and fled in Innova and santro car. Ld. Counsel submitted that keeping in view this statement of PW-17 and also the fact that the witness identified the accused persons in the court for the first time, his identification become doubtful. Ld. Counsel submitted that the accused persons were within their right when they refused to join the TIP as their photographs were published in the newspaper.
39. Ld. Counsel submitted that so far as the recovery of Innova car is concerned, that is also doubtful as according to PW-4 he got the information on the same State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 25 ::
night i.e. 22.06.15 that also after about one or two hour of the incident that the Innova car has been recovered, wheres the police has shown the recovery of car on 25.06.15 which again creates doubt about the truthfulness of the story of the prosecution. Ld. Counsel submitted that in fact no such recovery was effected as alleged by the prosecution. The car has been planted upon the accused persons.
40. So far as the pointing out of the place of occurrence is concerned, that place was already know to the police and hence simply pointing out the place of occurrence does not implicate the accused persons or show that they had the special knowledge of that place. It was also for the prosecution to establish that the Santro car no.HR 13G 5701 which was allegedly got recovered by Devraj was involved in the commission of offence. Neeraj has not identified this car as the same which was used in the commission of offence. It is prayed that keeping in view all these facts, the benefit be given to the accused persons and they be acquitted.
41. Keeping in view the submissions the facts of the case, I found that in this case there is only one eye State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 26 ::
witness. The incident had taken place at about 2.30 AM and at that time there were no person moving on the road, therefore, to expect corroboration or finding other public persons is not possible. There is also nothing on record to show that Neeraj has any reason to depose falsely against the accused persons. He is reliable trust worthy and stood through the test of lengthy cross examination. Neeraj identified accused Sushil, Devraj, Govind and Anil as the persons, who caught hold of him and robbed of his wallet containing Rs.6000/- cash, Aadhar card, Voter I Card, ATM card and photocopy of his driving license along with Innova car Ex.PW-3/Article
1. This testimony that he has been robbed at about 2.30 AM is further corroborated from the testimony of PW-4, who deposed that Neeraj told him after reaching his house about the incident. He came there and found that Innova car is also missing. He made the call at 100 number. The fact that he made call at 100 number is corroborated by Ex.PW-2/A. PW-11 has also specifically stated that he parked the Innova car near the park put the wallet and put the key in his pocket. When he turned around, he was over powered by three persons. They State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 27 ::
forcibly removed his wallet and the key. He some how escaped from them and started running towards the house of his employer. He also heard the voice "saale to gli maar do". He reached the house of his employer and told him all the facts. When they came back the Innova car was also not there and santro car was also not there. He identified only Sushil, Devraj, Govind and Anil. He did not identify Sachin as one of the accused. Though he said that one of the accused also pointed a pistol on him but he stated that none of the accused persons in the court pointed any piston on him or was armed with any fire arm. It is pertinent to mention that in the DD no.4A Ex.PW-2/A as well as Ex.PW-11/A. The statement of Neeraj on the basis of which FIR was registered. There is mention of only four persons but later on it is mentioned that there were more than 4 persons. In the court also he identified only 4 persons. Charge sheet of police shows that the five persons sent for trial were only involved in the commission of offence. There is nothing on record that besides these 5 persons any other person was also involved. Keeping in view all these facts, it is clear that only four persons were State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 28 ::
involved in the commission of offence, therefore, in my opinion, no offence punishable under Sec.395 IPC is made outa gainst the accused persons. As Sachin is not identified, therefore, he is acquitted. So far as other four accused persons are concerned, they are held guilty under sec.392 read with Sec.34 of IPC.
42. The defence taken is that there was no light at the place of occurrence as deposed byPW17. The incident took place around 2.30 am and according to PW-11 there was light on the spot at that time. So far as PW-17 is concerned he reached the spot later on and hence if there was no light on the spot when he reached there, for that reason PW-11 can not be discredited.
43. So far as recovery of Innova car as at the instance of accused Govind is concerned, the testimony of PW-4 demolishes the same as according to him police of PS Rai, Haryana came to him on the same day after about one or two hours of the incident and informed that his car is found involved in the some other criminal case and has been recovered. He also handed over the copy of FIR to those police officials. There is also no reason for PW-4 to depose falsely in this regard. If PW-4 is to State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 29 ::
be believed then the story of the prosecution that Innova car was recovered on 25.06.15 can not be believed at all. Even otherwise no public person was joined at the time of alleged recovery of Innova car. Therefore, in my opinion that recovery is not established.
44. So far as the recovery of Santro car is concerned at the instance of Devraj, there is no evidence that this santro car was involved in the commission of offence except the disclosure statement. This car was never shown to Neeraj, who is the only person, who can say or depose that accused persons used that santro car or were in Santro car at the time of commission of offence. Keeping in view the above discussions, I found that except the testimony of Neeraj, there is no other evidence or circumstance against them to link them with the commission of offence. As mentioned above Neeraj is reliable and trust worthy. He has also stood through the test of cross examination and I found no reason to disbelieve him. Keeping in view the testimony of PW-11 accused Sushil, Devraj, Govind and Anil are held guilty and convicted punishable under Sec.392 read with Sec.34 IPC. Accused Sachin is acquitted. He be State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 30 ::
released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of court for a period of six months under Sec.437 A Cr.PC.
45. Let convicts Sushil, Devraj, Govind and Anil be heard separately on the quantum of sentence. Announced in the open court (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL) today on 20.12.2017 ASJ/Pilot Court/North District Rohini Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Sachin SC No.58638/16 :: 31 ::