Delhi District Court
State vs ) Liladhar on 17 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 86/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R0299892010
State
Versus
1) Liladhar
Son of Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o B426, A Block,
WPIA, Delhi.
FIR No. 267/2010
PS - Keshav Puram
U/s. 411 of IPC
Date of Decision: 17/07/2013
Date of order on sentence: 17/07/2013
ORDER ON SENTENCE
17/07/2013
Present. Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Liladhar in person with counsel.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict Leeladhar is aged about 26
years. He is having parents and two brothers to support. He is unmarried. He is working
as a daily wager and is earning Rs.150200 per day. He is having his own jhuggi.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that he is not a previous convict nor habitual
offender. It is further contended that he remained in custody during trial from 19/08/2010 to
26/09/2011, which comes to 13 months and 7 days.
On the other hand, ld. APP has contended that convict Liladhar has been
convicted for offence U/s. 411 of IPC, hence, appropriate sentence be awarded.
Offence U/s. 411 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description,
SC No. 86/1 1/13
which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
Considering the above facts and circumstances with age, antecedents and
character of convict Liladhar coupled with the value of the recovered stolen articles i.e.
mobile phone, sentence of one year simple imprisonment is imposed U/s. 411 of IPC with
fine of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for nine months.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to the convict.
Fine not deposited.
If fine is deposited and no appeal is preferred within the period of limitation
then out of fine Rs. 2500/ be given to the complainant as compensation.
Convict is remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court (Virender Kumar Goyal)
today on 17th of July , 2013 Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,Delhi.
SC No. 86/1 2/13
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 86/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R0299892010
State
Versus
1) Mohd. Rafiq
Son of Sh. Ali Hussain
B63, Jhuggi Udham Singh Nagar,
WPIA, Delhi.
FIR No. 267/2010
PS - Keshav Puram
U/s. 411 of IPC
Date of Decision: 17/07/2013
Date of order on sentence: 17/07/2013
ORDER ON SENTENCE
17/07/2013
Present. Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Rafiq in person with counsel.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict Rafiq is aged about 22
years. He is having parents, brother and sister to support. He is married. He is working as
goods rickshaw puller and is earning Rs.5500/ per month. He is having his own jhuggi.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that he is not a previous convict nor habitual
offender. It is further contended that he remained in custody during trial from 19/08/2010 to
02/11/2010, which comes to two months and 13 days.
On the other hand, ld. APP has contended that convict Rafiq has been
convicted for offence U/s. 411 of IPC, hence, appropriate sentence be awarded.
Offence U/s. 411 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description,
SC No. 86/1 3/13
which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
Considering the above facts and circumstances with age, antecedents and
character of convict Rafiq coupled with the value of the recovered stolen articles i.e. old
purse, sentence of two months simple imprisonment is imposed U/s. 411 of IPC with fine
of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment
for nine months.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to the convict.
Fine not deposited.
If fine is deposited and no appeal is preferred within the period of limitation
then out of fine Rs. 2500/ be given to the complainant as compensation.
Convict is remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court (Virender Kumar Goyal)
today on 17th of July , 2013 Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,Delhi.
SC No. 86/1 4/13
SC No. 86/1 5/13
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 86/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R0299892010
State
Versus
1) Liladhar
Son of Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o B426, A Block,
WPIA, Delhi.
2) Deepak
Son of Sh. Ram Murat
R/o Jhuggi No. N20/458,
Udham Singh Park, WPIA.
3) Mohd. Rafiq
Son of Sh. Ali Hussain
B63, Jhuggi Udham Singh Nagar,
WPIA, Delhi.
FIR No. 267/2010
PS - Keshav Puram
U/s. 394/397/411/34 IPC
Date of institution of the case: 17/11/2010
Arguments heard on: 16/07/2013
Date of reservation of order: 16/07/13
Date of Decision: 17/07/2013
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the statement of one Krishan Kumar dated 16/08/2010 U/s. 394/34 IPC.
During investigation, rough site plan was prepared. Copy of the DD was collected. Blood stained shirt of injured was taken into possession from the hospital.
On 19/08/2010, one of the accused Liladhar was arrested. One churi, which was used in the incident, was recovered from his possession. Sketch of the same was prepared. It was taken into possession by preparing a memo. One mobile SC No. 86/1 6/13 phone make Motorola belonging to the complainant was also recovered from the possession of accused Liladhar.
Thereafter, accused Rafiq was also arrested on 19/08/2010. Purse containing some belongings of complainant was also recovered from his possession. It was also taken into possession by preparing a memo. Another purse was recovered from the possession of accused Rafiq, which was seized U/s. 102 of Cr.P.C.
Accused Deepak was also arrested in this case and he pointed out the place of occurrence on 20/08/2010. Prior to that, accused Liladhar and Rafiq also pointed out the place of occurrence on 19/08/2010. Accused Rafiq and Liladhar made disclosure statement on 19/08/2010 and accused Deepak also made disclosure statement on 20/08/2010. Their arrest memos and personal search memos were also prepared.
TIP of accused persons were also got conducted. Accused Liladhar and Deepak refused to join the TIP. In the TIP, complainant failed to identify accused Rafiq. MLC of injured was also collected. Exhibits were sent to FSL and result was obtained. CDR of mobile phones was also obtained.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed U/s. 394/397/411/34 IPC against the accused persons.
Case was committed to the Court of Session on 20/12/2010 and it was received on 03/01/2011.
On 12/01/2011, separate charges U/s. 392/34 of IPC and U/s. 394/34 of IPC were framed against accused Deepak and Mohd. Rafiq, whereas charge U/s. 392/34 IPC, U/s.394/34 IPC and U/s. 397/34 of IPC was framed against accused Liladhar , to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW17 in all. On completion of evidence of prosecution, statements of all the three accused persons have been recorded, wherein they have denied the case of the prosecution and have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in SC No. 86/1 7/13 this case. They have not opted to lead any evidence in defence.
I have heard learned APP for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced.
Complainant krishan Kumar has been examined as PW1. He has stated that at the time of incident, he was working as Security Guard in SLV Security Company and his duty was at City Centre Mall, Shalimar Bagh. On the day of incident i.e. on 15/08/2010, after finishing his duty, he was going towards his house and at about 9.30 p.m., when he reached near Prem Bari Pul and was crossing the road by the side of Canal, after crossing the bridge, there were bushes on the left side as it was rainy season, suddenly, four boys came there, out of which, two came at his backside and two came in front of him. One of the boy, who was in his front, put a knife on his stomach. He immediately said to them "Mere paas jo kuch hai le lo aur mujhe chhod do", but they did not pay any heed to his request and dragged him inside the bushes. The boy, who was having knife with him, gave knife blow on his hand and thereafter, put the knife on his neck and made him to lay down on the ground and they removed his purse containing Rs. 3000/, ATCM card of Axis Bank, some documents, his mobile phone, election I/card and left.
PW1 Krishan Kumar has further deposed that due to darkness, he could not identify those boys and has not been able to identify as at that time, he became nervous due to sudden attack. Thereafter, on the asking to take a look in the Court and to identify the accused persons, complainant identified accused Liladhar as the same, who came in front of him, having knife in his hand, and inflicted knife injury on his hand and his other associates made him to fall on the ground. PW1 Krishan Kumar has identified the knife before the court as Ex. P1, with which, injuries were caused to him, his blood stained shirt as Ex. P2, black colour purse containing I/card and visiting card as Ex. P3 and the mobile phone make motorola as Ex. P4.
As PW1 Krishan Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution on SC No. 86/1 8/13 certain aspects, hence, he has been cross examined by learned Addl. PP., wherein he has admitted that accused Deepak and Mohd. sRafiq were also with accused Liladhar and Pankaj (juvenile) and due to laps of time, he had forgotten the faces of accused Deepak and Mohd. Rafiq. PW1 Krishan Kumar was further examined on the aspect that his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded and FIR was registered.
In the cross examination, PW1 Krishan Kumar has stated that there was no light at the place of incident but sufficient light was there to identify. He has further stated that after the incident, he went to City Centre Mall, Shalimar Bagh. Mall was open at that time. PW1 Krishan Kumar has further stated in the cross examination that he has no enmity with the accused persons, then why he will falsely implicate them. When initially, accused persons assaulted him, he was standing, but was lying on the ground, when they dragged him in the bushes and gave him fist and kick blows. Initially, when he fell down, his face was upwards, but when they started beating him, he turned his face towards the ground. Thereafter, accused persons removed his articles and fled away i.e. his ATM card of Axis bank, mobile phone and election I/card. His purse was containing visiting card, photocopy of I/card and Rs. 3000/. He was not able to see the faces of the accused persons at the time of removing his articles, as at that time, he was lying on his belly and his face was downwards.
From the cross examination of PW1 Krishan Kumar, it is clear that identity of accused persons is doubtful. Even during the TIP, complainant has not been able to identify accused Rafiq, whereas on the pointing of Ld. APP, he has identified accused Rafiq as one of the accused, who was present at that time. According to the statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A, he had told to the IO that he was caught hold by four boys, who had taken him towards the bushes and had given gave beatings to him with legs and fist blows. One boy, who was having knife in his hand, put the knife on his neck and asked to handover whatever he was having at that time and remaining three boys started removing the articles. When he resisted, the SC No. 86/1 9/13 said boy stabbed the knife on his both hands and thereafter, his mobile phone and purse were removed containing cash and articles, but before the Court, PW1 Krishan Kumar has stated that one of the boy in front of him put knife on his stomach. He immediately said to him "Mere Pass jo kuchh hai le lo aur mujhe chhod do". Thereafter, he was dragged in the bushes and the boy, who was having knife, gave knife blow to him on his hand and put the knife on his neck and was made to lay down on the ground and purse containing cash and articles and mobile were taken. PW1 Krishan Kumar has also stated that he was facing towards the ground, hence, who had removed articles with mobile and purse is not known to him. In this respect, PW1 Krishan Kumar has not been able to identify any of the accused before the Court, who had robbed mobile phone and who had robbed purse with cash and other articles.
Even PW1 Krishan Kumar has contradicted about the manner in which the incident had taken place from his statement Ex. PW1/A to the statement given before the Court.
According to evidence of PW1, after robbery and sustaining injuries, he went back to Shalimar Bagh Mall, whereas according to the case of the prosecution, he was removed to BSA hospital by the PCR, where he gave history of physical assault only and had not mentioned about the robbery. No PCR official has been examined in this respect, hence, it is not known whether PW1 Krishan Kumar was taken to BSA hospital from the place of incident or from the Mall, where he was working. No DD entry has been recorded in this respect. It is not known, who had informed the PCR and incident had taken place at about 9.30 p.m., whereas injured has been examined at about 10.30 p.m. According to the MLC, he sustained injury on right wrist and hand and also on left hand. According to the opinion regarding nature of injuries, he has sustained simple injuries.
According to the deposition of IO, when he reached at BSA hospital, injured Krishan Kumar was found fit for statement, so, he recorded his statement Ex. SC No. 86/1 10/13 PW1/A. According to MLC Ex. PW4/A, it is mentioned "fit for statement 10.30 p.m.", but neither it is signed by any doctor nor has been proved in any manner, so, it is not known, who had given the opinion regarding fitness of the patient at that time, when his alleged statement was recorded.
According to PW2 Constable Balwant Singh, on 16/08/2010, he was on duty at BSA hospital. Injured Krishan Kumar was brought by PCR and was treated there. He has not been further examined in any manner and later on, prosecution has not been able to produce him, hence, his testimony cannot be looked into.
According to the IO PW15 ASI Basudev, on 15/08/2010, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. At about 00.20 a.m. night, DD No. 5A, copy Ex. PW15/A, was received by him in respect of admission of injured Krishan Kumar. It was informed from PS Shalimar Bagh. As they had already received DD No. 34A, SI Rattan Kumar reached there and found the area was withing the jurisdiction of PS Keshav Puram.
PW15 ASI Basudev has further deposed that he alongwith Constable Prabhu Shah went to BSA Hospital and collected MLC of Krishan Kumar. Doctor declared him fit for statement. He recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A and prepared rukka Ex. PW15/A and got registered the case through constable Prabhu Shah, who came back and handed over to him copy of FIR and rukka. In the hospital, duty constable Balwant Singh handed over to him blood stained Tshirt of injured Krishan Kumar, which was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "BDS" and was seized vide memo Ex. PW10/A. PW15 ASI Basudev has further deposed that he obtained the call details of mobile No. 9891004635 through ACP Ashok Vihar Ex. PW15/B and on the basis of the same, he alongwith HC Peera Ram and Ct Jitender reached at the address of Naresh at H.No. A199, A block, DSIDC, Udham Singh Park, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi, where Naresh met them and he made inquiries from him, who disclosed that one Liladhar had used his SIM in a mobile phone. They joined him and after that, SC No. 86/1 11/13 they reached at the house of accused Liladhar i.e. Jhuggi No. B426, A block, Udahm Singh Park, Wazirpur Industrial Area, where accused Liladhar met them. He made inquiries and accused produced the robbed mobile, which was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of BDS and was seized vide memo Ex. PW9/A. Accused Liladhar was arrested vide memo Ex. PW9/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/C. He made disclosure statement Ex. PW9/D and produced one knife from inside the jhuggi. Sketch of the same was prepared Ex. PW9/E. Knife was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of BDS and was seized vide memo Ex. PW9/F. The prosecution has not been able to connect this knife with the injuries of PW1 Krishan Kumar. The shirt having dark brown stains of injured Krishan Kumar and knife were sent to FSL. According to biological examination, shirt was found having human blood of "B" group, whereas knife was found having human blood, but no reaction was found.
PW15 ASI Basudev has further deposed that thereafter, accused Liladhar led the police party to the house of accused Rafiq. He made inquiries from him and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW9/G. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/H. Accused Rafiq also made disclosure statement Ex. PW9/I and got recovered on black colour purse, which was found containing photocopy of I/card and visiting card of SLV security services. It was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "BDS" and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW9/J. Accused Rafiq also got recovered one more purse, which was seized U/s. 102 of Cr.P.C. vide memo Ex. PW9/K. After arrest, both accused pointed out the place of occurrence vide memos Ex. PW9/L and Ex. PW9/M and after medical examination, they were locked up. Case property was deposited in the malkhana.
PW7 Naresh has deposed that on 17/08/2010, in the day hours, accused Liladhar asked him to give the SIM of his mobile to him as he had to check his mobile phone, so, he handed over the SIM of his mobile phone No. 7838299625, which he was using at that time and it was in his name. In his presence, accused SC No. 86/1 12/13 Liladhar put the SIM of his mobile phone in a mobile phone, which he was having at that time and dialed one number. Thereafter, he removed the SIM and handed over the same to him and left with his phone.
PW7 Naresh has further deposed that he called accused Liladhar and produced him before the police. One mobile phone was recovered from his possession, which is Ex. P4. In the cross examination also, PW7 Naresh has stated that accused Liladhar had taken his mobile phone and took out the SIM from his mobile and then used the same in his mobile phone in his presence, which he was having at that time. PW7 Naresh has further deposed that accused Liladhar was having same Motorola mobile phone, which was recovered from the possession of accused by the police and has further stated that it was not belonging to accused Liladhar, but he had seen Motorola phone in his possession. So, PW7 Naresh being independent witness is inspiring confidence and he has corroborated regarding the use of Motorola phone, which on the next day i.e. 17/08/2010, he had seen in the possession of accused Liladhar and the incident is of 16/08/2010.
CDR of mobile phone has been proved by PW12 Pawan Singh. This number 9891004635 was issued in the name of one Dinesh Sada and the documents are Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW12/B. He has also produced the call detail record of this number from 10/08/2010 to 17/08/2010, which is Ex. PW12/C. He has also proved certified issued U/s. 65 of Evidence Act Ex. PW12/D. PW12 has not been cross examined in any manner, so, it has been corroborated that from the SIM card of PW7 Naresh, accused Liladhar made a call at this number 9891004635 on 17/08/2010 by inserting the same in Motorola mobile phone, which was robbed from PW1 Krishan Kumar. According to seizure memo of Motorola Mobile Ex. PW9/A, IMEI number of mobile was 355558/01/005241/1 and according to the CDR Ex. PW15/B, after inserting the SIM card of PW7 Naresh, a call was made on 17/08/2010 at about 2.12 p.m. It was a outgoing call and SIM of Motorola is appearing against the number of Naresh, which corroborates the deposition of PW7 Naresh that once SIM card of his SC No. 86/1 13/13 mobile phone was used by accused Liladhar by inserting the same in the mobile set Motorola, which he was having at that time.
Seizure memo of mobile phone make motorola is Ex.PW9/A, which is witnessed by SI Peera, Ct Jitender and Naresh @ Deepak and was prepared by ASI Vasudev.
PW7 Naresh @ Deepak has stated that on search, one mobile phone was recovered from the pant of accused Leeladhar. He has also identified the said mobile phone as Ex.P4, before the Court. Nothing came out in his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony.
PW9 Ct Jitender has also deposed that one mobile phone make motorola was recovered from the possession of accused Leeladhar, which was sealed and seized, in this case. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused Leeladhar, in any manner.
PW13 HC Peera Ram has also deposed the same facts regarding the recovery of mobile phone motorola from the possession of accused Leeladhar. He has also not cross examined on behalf of accused Leeladhar in any manner, so the testimony for both these witnesses are unrebuttable and unshaken.
PW15 ASI Basudev has also deposed the same facts regarding the recovery of mobile phone make Motorola recovered from the possession of accused Leeladhar and in cross examination, he has stated that he was having IO kit with him, with the help of which, mobile phone was sealed. So, nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony regarding recovery of mobile phone from the possession of accused Leela. Accused Leeladhar has not claimed the ownership of mobile phone.
PW7 Naresh @ Deepak is an independent witness, whose sim cad was used by accused Leeladhar in the mobile phone make Motorola and from the call detail records, accused Leeladhar was traced through PW7 Naresh @ Deepak. All these witnesses are inspiring confidence regarding the recovery of mobile phone SC No. 86/1 14/13 from the possession of accused Leeladhar, which was belonging to the complainant, so they cannot be disbelieved, in any manner.
According to seizure memo Ex.PW9/J, one purse containing certain items was also recovered from the jhuggi of accused Rafique. During investigation, accused Leeladhar had pointed out accused Rafique and led the police party to his jhuggi. Seizure memo was witnessed by HC Peera Ram and CT Jitender and was prepared by ASI Vasudev.
Ct Jitender has been examined as PW9. He has stated that after arrest of accused Leeladhar, they proceeded towards the jhuggi of Rafique, where he was apprehended at the instance of accused Liladhar and was interrogated. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/G and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/H. Accused Rafique also made disclosure statement Ex.PW9/I and in furtherance of same, he got recovered two purses. One of the purse was found containing I card photocopy and visiting card, belonging to complainant, it was sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW9/J. Second purse was seized u/s 102 of Cr.PC vide memo Ex.PW9/K. PW9 has also identified the black colour purse with its belonging before the Court as Ex.P3. PW9 has not been cross examined on behalf of accused Rafque, in any manner, so his testimony remained unrebutted and unshaken.
PW13 HC Peera Ram has also deposed the same facts regarding the recovery of black purse belonging to complainant from the possession of accused Rafique and has also identified the same before the Court as Ex. P3. PW 13 has also not been cross examined on behalf of Rafique, so his testimony also remained unrebutted and unshaken.
IO ASI Basudev has been examined as PW15. He has also deposed the same facts regarding the arrest of accused Rafique on the pointing out of accused Leeladhar and recovery of purse belonging to the complainant. He has also identified the said purse before the Court as Ex.P3. Nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony, in any manner. So PW7, PW9, SC No. 86/1 15/13 PW13 and PW15 have corroborated each other regarding the recovery of mobile phone make Motorola from the possession of accused Liladhar and black colour purse from the possession of accused Rafique, belonging to complainant.
PW3 Ct Parvinder has stated that on 20/08/10, he joined the investigation of this case with PW15 ASI Basudev and on that day at about 6.30 pm, they both reached at Keshav Puram Metro Station ins search of accused persons. There IO received the secret information that one of the accused of the present case was sitting on the bank of Prem Bari Pul Canal, wearing yellow colour strip shirt. Thereafter, he alongwith IO reached there. There IO asked 45 passers by to join the raiding party but they refused and left the spot without disclosing their whereabouts. At about 7.30 pm, on the pointing out of secret informer, accused Deepak, who was sitting on the bank of the canal. On interrogation, he confessed his guilt. He pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW3/A and he was arrestd vide emo Ex.PW3/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/C. IO also recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW3/D. Ld defence counsel has contended that nothing has been recovered from the possession of accused Deepak nor on his pointing out. It is further contended that accused has not been identified in examination in chief by PW1 as one of the robberors and he has been identified in the cross examination conducted on behalf of Ld APP.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that in the examination in chief, PW1 has stated that due to darkness, he was unable to identify those assailants and due to sudden attach, he became nervous and had not been able to identify, whereas in the cross examination conducted by Ld APP, he has stated that due to lapse of time, he had slightly forgotten the faces of accused Deepak and Rafique so he was unable to identify them in the court.
It has not been deposed by PW1 Krishan Kumar before the court in his examination in chief that he has not seen the face of assailants, so refreshing the SC No. 86/1 16/13 memory due to lapse of time as suggested by Ld APP is of no consequence. PW1 has specifically stated that due to darkness, he was unable to identified those boys. So again stating in the cross examination that there was sufficient light to identify those boys, although there was no light, is not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the identity of the accused persons. Incident had taken place by the side of canal at about 9.30 pm and nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution that in said area, there was sufficient light to identify those persons at that time. Incident had taken place in the month of August, so there could not be otherwise sufficient light at about 9.30 pm, in the said area, where no electricity light was available.
In the site plan Ex.PW15/E, IO has not shown any source of electricity light, so PW1 cannot be believed and relied upon, hence the identity of the accused Deepak as one of the assailant is not proved in any manner.
PW4 Dr. Ratnesh Singh has proved the MLC of injured Krishna as Ex.PW4/A. PW6 Dr. Bhavana Jain has also proved the MLC of injured Krishan Kumar as Ex.PW4/A from portion C to C. PW10 Ct Prabhu was posted at PS Keshav Puram on 16/08/10 and he joined the investigation of this case and on receipt of DD no.5A, he alongwith ASI Vasudev reached at BSA hospital, where IO has collected the MLC of injured, who was declared fit for statement. IO recorded statement of injured and prepared tehrir on his statement and handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR. He reached at PS and got registered the case and he again reached at the BSA hospital and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to IO. PW10 has further deposed that Duty Ct has handed over one sealed pullanda containing the clothes of injured, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW10A.
PW5 HC Narender Dharma was working as Duty Officer on 16/08/2010 and on that day, on receipt of rukka at about 3.15, brought by Ct Prabhu Shah and SC No. 86/1 17/13 sent by ASI Vasudev and on the basis of the same, he got recorded the FIR of this case through computer operator and has proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW5/A He also recorded the DD no. 5A regarding registration of FIR and has proved the same as Ex. PW5/B and has also proved his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW5/C. He has also produced the original FIR and DD register before the court. PW5 has not been cross examined in any manner.
In view of above, testimony of PW1 Krishan Kumar is not inspiring any confidence and he cannot be relied upon regarding the identity of all the three accused persons as the same, who had beaten him and had committed robbery of his belongings. The testimony of PW1 is also not inspiring any confidence due to improvements and contradictions as to by whom the weapon of offence was used, hence he cannot be relied upon. Accordingly, prosecution has not been able to prove offence u/s 392/34 and 394/34 of IPC against accused Deepak and Rafique and offence u/s 392/394/397/34 of IPC against accused Leeladhar, for which they are acquitted.
From the testimony of witnesses, who are inspiring confidence and can be relied upon being trustworthy regarding the recovery of mobile phone from the possession of accused Leeladhar, belonging to complainant and black colour purse from the possession of accused Rafique, belonging to complainant., which were recovered from there possession on 19/08/2010. It has not been proved that both accused Leeladhar and Rafique were having any knowledge that these were the robbed articles, which were robbed from the complainant. Robbery was committed on 16/08/2010 and recovery was effected on 19/08/2010, so both the accused Leeladhar and Rafique are held guilty u/s 411 of IPC and convicted for the same.
Announced in the open court (Virender Kumar Goyal)
today on 17th of July, 2013 Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,Delhi.
SC No. 86/1 18/13
SC No. 86/1 19/13
SC No. 86/1 20/13