Delhi District Court
State vs . Krishan Pal 2018.12.12 on 10 December, 2018
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV MEHTA
MEHTA Date:
State Vs. Krishan Pal 2018.12.12
15:32:58
+0530
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) 05,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Krishan Pal
FIR No. 1038/13
PS Mehrauli
U/s.392/506 (Part-I) IPC
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 2034491/2016
2 Date of commission : 08.12.2013
3 Date of institution of the case : 15.10.2014
4 Name of complainant : Sh. Vikash Kumar Dass
5 Name of accused : Krishan Pal
S/o. Sh. Manglee Ram,
R/o.178-M,Yogmaya
Apartment, Ward No. 2,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
6 Offence complained of : U/s.392/506 IPC
7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8 Arguments heard on : 10.12.2018
9 Final order : Acquitted
10 Date of judgment : 10.12.2018
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1 The brief facts of the case are that on 08.12.2013, at about 10.15
A.M. at Jeetu Arora Ki Dukan, Qutab Minar Bus Stand, New Delhi, FIR No. 1038/13 PS Mehrauli 1 of 10 State Vs. Krishan Pal
accused Krishan Pal in order to commit theft, forcefully took Rs.7000/- from the counter and dishonestly took away from the possession of the complainant Sh. Vikas Kumar Dass without his consent and accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences with intent to cause alarm to him and his shop. Thereafter, the present FIR No.1038/13 got registered against accused Krishan Pal for offence U/s.392/506 IPC CHARGE 2 The charge was framed U/s.392/506 (Part-I) IPC on 05.08.2015 wherein, accused Krishan Kumar pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE LED BY PROSEUCTION 3 The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove their case: -
PWs Name Designation
PW-1 Sh. Vikas Complainant
PW-2 Sh. Rajeshwar Owner of the adjacent Shop
PW-3 ASI Rajesh Rai First IO of the case
PW-4 Ct. Gaji Ram Accompanied ASI Rajesh Rai
PW-5 Dr. Gopal Bharat Witness to arrest of accused
PW-6 SI Gopal Singh Second IO of the case.
PW-7 ASI Krishan Kumar Third IO
PW-8 ASI Ishwar Singh Duty Officer
FIR No. 1038/13 PS Mehrauli 2 of 10
State Vs. Krishan Pal
4 The prosecution has relied upon the following documents: -
Srl. Exhibited by Documents Exhibited as
Nos.
1. PW-1 Sh. Vikas Statement of complainant Ex.PW-1/A
2. PW-5 Dr. Gopal Arrest Memo in respect of Ex.PW-5/A
accused
Bharat
3 PW-6 SI Gopal Original rukka Ex.PW-6/A
Singh Site Plan Ex.PW-6/B
4 PW-8 ASI Ishwar Copy of FIR Ex.PW-8/A
Singh Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW-8/B
5 PW-1 Sh. Vikas deposed that On 08.12.2013 at about 10.00-
10.30 am, the accused Kishan Pal came to his shop i.e. a khoka of Tea, situated near Qutab Minar bus stand in an inebriated condition and started throwing the goods kept in his shop. Complainant Vikas did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. PW-1 identified the accused in the Court.
6 PW-2 Sh. Rajeshwar deposed that on 08.12.2013, accused Krishan Pal had come to his Shop as well as to the adjacent Shop of Jeetu and displaced all the articles of both the Shops and he heard one Vikash, worker of Jeetu shouting that Rs.7000/- was taken forcefully from the Gullak (money box) by the accused Krishan Pal and accused also caused beatings to him.
FIR No. 1038/13 PS Mehrauli 3 of 10 State Vs. Krishan Pal
PW-2 correctly identified the accused Krishan Pal in the Court.
7 PW-3 ASI Rajesh Rai deposed that on 08.12.2013, on receipt of DD No. 20-A dated 08.12.2013, he alongwith Ct. Gazi Ram went to the spot i.e. Bus Stand, Qutub Minar where they found that shop articles were scattered and met with the complainant Sh. Vikash Kumar and he recorded the statement of complainant and prepared tehrir /rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Gazi Ram and sent him to PS for registration of FIR and after some time, SI Gopal came to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and investigation of the present case was marked to him by Sr. Police Officer and later on, SI Gopal prepared the site plan 'Mark A' and IO recorded his statement.
8 PW-4 Ct. Gazi Ram deposed on the same lines as PW-3 ASI Rajesh Rai.
9 PW-5 Sh. Dr. Gopal Bharat deposed that on 18.06.2014, he was residing at Yogmaya Apartments, Mehrauli, New Delhi and he took the accused to PS and HC Krishan Kumar arrested the accused vide Memo Ex.PW-5/A. PW-5 correctly identified the accused Krishan Pal in the Court.
10 PW-6 SI Gopal Singh deposed that on 08.12.2013, he was posted as SI at PS Mehrauli and on that day, DO informed him that the further investigation of the present case was marked to him and on receiving the information, he reached at the place of occurrence i.e. near Mehrauli Bus Stand, Qutab Minar and met with the complainant Vikas FIR No. 1038/13 PS Mehrauli 4 of 10 State Vs. Krishan Pal Kumar, who informed him about the incident. PW-6 SI Gopal proved the copy of FIR and original rukka as Ex.PW-6/A and the site plan as Ex.PW-6/B. 11 PW-7 ASI Krishan Kumar deposed that on 02.06.2014, the investigation of the present case was marked to him for further investigation and during the investigation, he searched for the accused and accused came at PS and on 18.06.2014, he arrested him and recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the challan.
PW-7 correctly identified accused Krishan Pal in the court.
12 PW-8 ASI Ishwar Singh deposed that on 08.12.2013, he was Duty Officer in PS Mehrauli and on that day, at about 11.55 A.M., Ct. Raje Ram came to PS and handed over a rukka to him for registration of the case sent by HC Rajesh Rai and on the basis of the rukka, he registered the present FIR, copy of which was proved as Ex.PW-8/A and made endorsement on rukka, which was proved as Ex.PW-8/B. 13 Thereafter, PE was closed on 22.11.2018 and the matter was listed for recording of statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. of accused .
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S. 313 CR.P.C. 14 Statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. of accused Krishan Pal was recorded on 29.11.2018, wherein he opted not to lead DE and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FIR No. 1038/13 PS Mehrauli 5 of 10 State Vs. Krishan Pal FINAL ARGUMENTS 15 Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have
given consistent depositions and have proved the case of the prosecution beyond doubt, therefore, accused Krishan Pal is liable to be convicted. Further, it is argued that the statement of PW-1 Sh. Vikash is corroborated by all the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the guilt of accused is proved beyond doubt.
The counsel for accused Krishan Pal has argued that there are serious inconsistencies and infirmities in the deposition of prosecution witnesses and therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond doubt and he is liable to be acquitted.
LEGAL PROVISIONS 16 Section 390 IPC is stated as under : -
When theft is robbery - Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Section 392 IPC is stated as under : -
Punishment for robbery: - Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed FIR No. 1038/13 PS Mehrauli 6 of 10 State Vs. Krishan Pal on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
Section 503 is stated as under : -
Criminal Intimidation: - Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Section 506 (Part-I) IPC is stated as under : -
Punishment for criminal intimidation: - Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. : - And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fin, or with both.
FIR No. 1038/13 PS Mehrauli 7 of 10 State Vs. Krishan Pal
Threat to reputation : - Where criminal intimidation was committed by threatening X and his daughter with injury to their reputation by having the indecent photographs published; the intent mentioned was to cause alarm to X and his daughter, hence the appellant was clearly guilty of the criminal intimidation and it was held that the conviction of the appellant under Section 506 is correct;
COURT OBSERVATIONS
17 On the basis of material on record and after going through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as arguments advanced by Ld. APP 0and Ld. Defence Counsel, this Court makes the following observations:-
(a) PW-1 Sh. Vikas is the main witness for the prosecution and is the complainant, who stated that on 08.12.2013, accused Krishan Pal came to his Shop in a drunken state and started throwing the goods kept in the Shop.
PW-1 Sh. Vikas did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and on being cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State, he stated that when the accused was scattering the goods of the Shop, some money fell down and the accused took away the said money, which she later returned to the complainant.
(b) PW-1 Sh. Vikas categorically stated that the accused did not threaten him at any point of time.
FIR No. 1038/13 PS Mehrauli 8 of 10 State Vs. Krishan Pal (c) In view of the clear testimony of the complainant Sh. Vikas,
offence U/s. 506 IPC i.e. criminal intimidation is not made out against the accused.
(d) As far as offence U/s. 392 IPC (pertaining to Robbery) is concerned, the prosecution had to prove that the accused committed robbery as defined U/s. 390 IPC.
Robbery as defined in IPC is of two kinds, one relating to theft and one relating to extortion. For theft to amount to robbery, the prosecution has to establish : -
(a) if in order to the committing of theft; or
(b) in committing the theft; or
(c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft;
(d) the offender for that end i.e. any of the ends contemplated by (a) to (c);
(e) voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
In other words, theft would only be robbery if for any of the ends mentioned in (a) to (c) the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. If the ends does not fall within (a) to (c) but, the offender still causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, the offence would not be robbery. That (a) or (b) or (c) have to be read conjunctively with (d) and FIR No. 1038/13 PS Mehrauli 9 of 10 State Vs. Krishan Pal
(e). It is only when (a) or (b) or (c) co-exist with (d) and (e) or there is a nexus between any of them and (d), (e) would amount to robbery.
(e) In the present matter, the prosecution has not been able to show that the accused at any point of time caused or attempted to cause to any person including the complainant, death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
The complainant in his testimony has only stated that the accused was scattering the goods in his Shop as a result of which some money fell down, which the accused took with him and later on returned back. Therefore, there was no element of causing death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. Therefore, the ingredients for the offence of robbery is not made out against the accused.
(f) Also, the prosecution has not been able to prove the element of dishonest intention on part of the accused and the testimony of the complainant is not sufficient to show that the accused took the money with dishonest intention out of his possession, therefore, the accused cannot be held liable even for the offence of theft.
17 For the reasons mentioned above, this Court acquits accused Krishan Pal U/s. 392/506 (Part-I) IPC.
Accused Krishan Pal is directed to furnish bail bond U/s. 437 A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA )
court on 10.12.2018 MM-5 (South), Saket Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 1038/13 PS Mehrauli 10 of 10