Delhi District Court
State vs Salman on 9 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINEET KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No. 152/2020
FIR No. 60/2020
U/S: 392/397/411/34 IPC
& 25 Arms Act.
P.S: Anand Vihar.
State Versus Salman
S/o Usman
R/o House No. 1/271, Gali no.3,
Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 07.09.2020
Date on which Judgment reserved : 08.06.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.06.2022
Accused represented by : Ld. Counsel Mr. Sidharth Joshi
State represented by : Addl. PP Mr. Rakesh Kumar
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly, the case of prosecution is that on 13.02.2020, at about 10.35 pm, at MCD Food Junction, Cross River Mall, Delhi accused alongwith his associate Shahnawaz in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of mobile phone and purse of complainant Rahul Mittal containing Rs.13,200/ with other documents on the point of Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date:
____________________________________________________________________ 2022.06.09 16:24:33 +0530 FIR No. 60/2020, State vs. Salman Page No.1/5 pistol like weapon. On the basis of DD No. 43A dated 13.02.2020, IO ASI Satender reached at the spot and recorded statement of complainant Rahul Mittal. IO prepared rukka and also got the FIR registered in the Police Station. Further investigation was carried out by 2 nd IO SI Rajender. During investigation, on 07.03.2020 SI Rajender kept the IMEI number of robbed mobile phone on tracking and came to know that SIM of said mobile was active. IO got information regarding ownership and came to know that one Salman s/o Usman r/o House No. 1/271, Gali no.3, Masjid Wali Gali, Ram Nagar, was using the said mobile phone. Thereafter, SI Rajender alongwith ASI Subhash, HC Kaptan and HC Yashvir constituted a raiding party and apprehended accused Salman under Flyover, Main GT road, Shahdara, near Shyam Palace who got recovered the robbed mobile phone, motorcycle used while doing robbery as well as one country made pistol under flyover, main GT road, Shahdara, opposite Shri Shyam Palace and Hotel, near Kehra village. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed by IO before the court.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge for the offences under Section 392/34/397/411 IPC & 25 Arms Act was framed against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2022.06.09
16:24:51
+0530
____________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 60/2020, State vs. Salman Page No.2/5
3. In order to prove its case Prosecution examined ASI Ajay Kumar Mali, duty officer as PW1 who has proved copy of DD No. 43A as Ex. PW1/A, copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/B, endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/C and certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/D.
4. Complainant Rahul Mittal has been examined by prosecution as PW2. He deposed that on 13.02.2020 at about 10.00/10.30 pm, he was coming to his house and when he reached near Mcdonald, Cross River Mall, two men on motorcycle waylaid him from behind and snatched his mobile phone and purse containing cash of Rs.13,200/ and other documents. He further deposed that he lodged report in Police Station where IO recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that after 1/1½ month he was informed by IO that his robbed mobile phone had been recovered. Thereafter, he got released the mobile phone vide indemnity bond Ex. PW2/B. PW2 / complainant further deposed that he cannot identify the accused if shown to him. Even during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he has failed to identify the accused shown to him in the court.
5. During the course of trial, complainant appeared in the court and stated that he has settled the present matter with accused Salman qua offence under Section 411 IPC and he may be permitted to compound the present case with respect to the said offence. Separate statement of complainant was recorded to the said effect.
Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2022.06.09
____________________________________________________________________ 16:25:05 +0530 FIR No. 60/2020, State vs. Salman Page No.3/5
6. Further, accused has moved an application alongwith an affidavit stating that he wants to plead guilty for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act. Statement of accused was also recorded to the said effect whereby he has pleaded guilty for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act.
7. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh.
Sidharth Joshi, Ld. Defence Counsel. Ld. Defence counsel argued that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused as far as offence under Section 392/397 IPC are concerned, whereas offence under Section 411 IPC has been compounded. Therefore, it has been argued that accused be acquitted of the charges under Section 392/397/411 PC.
8. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for State has vehemently objected the contentions of Ld. Defence counsel and has argued that the present case warrants a conviction.
9. Pertinently, PW2 Rahul Mittal/complainant is the star witness of the prosecution but he had failed to identify the accused, upon which, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State. However, still PW2 did not support the case of prosecution. Other witnesses being formal in nature, were not examined as the same would have been a futile exercise. There is no incriminating evidence available on record against accused Salman for the offence under Section 392/397 IPC. Further, complainant/PW2 Rahul Mittal compounded the offence under Section 411 IPC with Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date:
____________________________________________________________________ 2022.06.09 16:25:20 +0530 FIR No. 60/2020, State vs. Salman Page No.4/5 the accused. Accordingly, granting the benefit of doubt, accused Salman is acquitted of the offences under Section 392/397 IPC. As compounding of offence amounts to acquittal, therefore, accused Salman is also acquitted for the offence under Section 411 IPC. However, accused is directed to furnish personal bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
10. Since accused Salman has pleaded guilty for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act, vide a separate statement, so accused Salman is convicted for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act. Let him be heard on point of sentence. Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.06.09 16:25:31 +0530 Announced in the open (Vineet Kumar) court on 09.06.2022 Addl. Sessions Judge02 ECourt/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi ____________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 60/2020, State vs. Salman Page No.5/5