Delhi District Court
Sc No: 727/2018 State vs . Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon on 17 August, 2023
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 02
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
S. C. No. 727/2018
CNR No. DLSW01-016502-2018
FIR No. 198/2018
Police Station Janakpuri
Under Section Under Section 392/394/397/
411/120B/34 IPC
State
Versus
Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
W/o Sh. Shokat Ali
R/o Purani Bazar, PS Barharia
District Siwan, Bihar ... Accused
Date of institution 12.09.2018
Judgment reserved on 03.08.2023
Judgment Pronounced on 17.08.2023
Decision Convicted
Judgment 1 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial in the present case on allegations that she along with her husband in conspiracy committed robbery at A-2/266, Janakpuri and while doing so accused not only injured Shyama Devi but accused attempted to kill her also. Accused is also facing trial on allegations of possessing robbed jewellery and cash. Brief Facts
2. On 24.05.2018, a DD No. 26A (Ex PW16/A) was recorded at PS Janakpuri that at C-1/A 262 there had been a fight with a lady. Caller Jagdish Bakshi informed that place of incident was A-2/266, Janakpuri. Upon this information SI Umesh Yadav (PW16), ASI Kishan Chander (PW8) and Ct Vinod (PW12) reached at spot and it came to their knowledge that injured Shyama Devi (PW6) was already taken to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital.
Judgment 2 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
3. Leaving Ct Vinod at the spot, SI Umesh and ASI Kishan on receipt of information vide DD No.29A reached Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and found injured was under
treatment and not fit for statement. They collected clothes of injured thereafter came to spot. SI Umesh recorded statement Ex PW1/A of complainant Yashbir Singh (PW1). English translation of his statement reads as under:
I live with my family at above and I am retired from Haryana Police. My elder brother Sh. Balbir Singh Saroha lives with family at A-2/266, Janak Puri New Delhi. Today on 24.05.2018 at about 4 PM I along with his wife Smt. Sunita Saroha reached A-2/266, Janak Puri New Delhi to meet my elder brother. Main Gate of the door was half opened and inner door was closed. I knocked on the door 2-3 times, but no one opened the door, Then I went towards the window and saw my sister-in-law Smt. Shyama Devi w/o Sh. Babir Singh address above, aged about 75 years inside lying soaked in blood and she was pointing for help by hitting the window upon which I immediately broke the mash door and also pushed the inner door which opened the latch of the and door got opened. When I went inside and saw, my sister-in-law Smt. Shyama Devi was lying soaked in blood and the cupboard door was open inside Judgment 3 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon the room and the belongings were scattered. I immediately with the help of my wife took my sister-in-law in my Ciaz (Maruti) car no. DL-9C- AM-9361 and reached Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and got her admitted in the hospital and informed the family members by calling. After leaving my wife in the hospital with my sister-in- law, I came back to their house A-2/266, Janak Puri, New Delhi, where other family members had also reached. Upon checking at home, the almiarh of two rooms were open and belongings were scattered and jewellery and cash were missing from it. On investigation, it was found that the maid who was working at my brother's house, who had been employed for 10-12 days, was also found missing, who used to go to work till at 7 O'clock in the evening. The one who had told her name as Pooja. I suspect that maid Puja, who was working at my brother's house, with the intention of looting my sister-in-law Smt. Shyama Devi has committed robbery by causing fatal injuries. You have read my statement written at my brother's house....
4. On the basis of circumstances and statement of informant, FIR under Section 392/394/307 IPC was got registered. Crime Team inspected the place of occurrence. Further investigation, were carried out by SI Parminder Judgment 4 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon Kumar (PW17). During the investigation, SI Parminder seized exhibits and prepared site plan (Ex PW17/A). He obtained dossier (Ex PW17/B) of the accused Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon from the records of the police station. From the photograph accused was identified by the family members and they informed that she is the one who was working as maid in their house.
5. SI Parminder then prepared a raiding team comprising of himself, Ct. Ombir, W. Ct. Pinki and Ct. Ram Narayan and they raided house of accused situated in District Siwan, Bihar. From her house, looted jewelry and cash from A-2 Block Janak Puri and from other places was recovered. Accused was arrested and section 397/411 IPC were added. Accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings.
Judgment 5 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
6. A one day police custody of accused was taken and at her instance a sota with which accused assaulted injured was recovered from the kitchen of place of occurrence. TIP of case property was got conducted and after those proceedings recovered articles belonging to victim were released.
7. Despite efforts co-accused Shokat Ali could not be traced. Statements of relevant witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and accused Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon was charge-sheeted.
Charge
8. On 27.10.2018, charge under Section 120-B / 392/394/397/307/411 IPC was framed against accused. She pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution Evidence
9. Prosecution examined 17 witnesses.
Judgment 6 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
Name Nature Deposition
PW1 Yashbir Singh Complainant Reached at the spot, took injured to
Hospital and made complaint
Ex PW1/A, proved seizure of blood
(Ex P-2), blood stained sheet (Ex P-3) and pillow (Ex P-4) from the spot vide memos Ex PW1/B to D. PW2 Dr Mohit Doctor Examined injured Shyama Devi vide MLC Ex PW2/A proved NCCT examination Report of head and face of injured as Ex PW2/B & C. PW3 Sunita Hooda Daughter of Identified recovered jewelry articles injured (photographs of same are (Ex PW3/D- Shyama Devi 1 to D-21) from possession of accused as Ex P-1. Proved panchnama of recovered articles during TIP proceedings as Ex PW3/A, superdarinama as Ex PW3/B, her Aadhar Card as Ex PW3/C and order dated 13.07.2018 of release of articles on superdari as Ex PW3/E. PW4 ASI Rajender Duty Officer Proved FIR Ex PW4/A, his Singh endorsement on tehrir as Ex PW4/B and certificate under Section 65(B) Indian Evidence Act in support of computerized record of FIR as Ex PW4/C. PW5 Balbir Singh Husband of Deposed that they kept accused as injured/ owner maid servant in their house and he of robbed identified accused as her maid from house the dossier show to him.
PW6 Shyama Devi Injured Deposed that accused was kept as maid servant in their house and on the Judgment 7 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon date of incident accused hit her head 5-6 times with intention to kill her and looted cash & jewelry from their house.
PW7 ASI Lalit Finger Print Proficient, lifted three chance prints from a LED TV vide his report Ex PW7/A PW8 SI Kishan Police Reached in the Hospital and proved Chand seizure of clothes of injured vide memo Ex PW8/A PW9 SI Deepak Police Filed Charge-sheet PW10 SI Kalyan Crime Team Inspected the spot and gave his report Singh In-charge as Ex PW10/A. PW11 HC Ombir Police Member of raiding party which arrested accused, recovered looted money and jewelry. Proved arrest & personal search of accused vide memo Ex PW11/A & B. Proved her disclosure statements as Ex PW11/C & I, he proved seizure of jewelry, cash of Rs 80,690/- and railway tickets vide memos Ex PW11/D to H, he also proved seizure of other stolen articles recovered at instance of accused vide memo Ex PW11/J. He identified articles from photographs and also currency notes as Ex P-5 PW12 HC Vinod Police Took rukka to police station and got registered FIR PW13 Ct Pinki Police Member of raiding party which arrested accused, recovered looted money and jewelry. (Deposed on similar lines of PW11) Judgment 8 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon PW14 HC Ram Police Member of raiding party which Narayan arrested accused, recovered looted money and jewelry. (Deposed on similar lines of PW11) PW15 HC Satish Photographer Took photographs of place of occurrence as Ex PW15/A-1 to A-53, CD containing photographs is proved as Ex P-15/Z and certificate under Section 65(B) Indian Evidence Act in support of digital record of photographs as Ex PW15/B. PW16 Insp. Umesh Police Proved DD No. 26A as Ex PW16/A, Yadav reached at the spot and then to Hospital, Seized clothes of injured as per memo Ex PW8/A. Recorded statement of complainant as Ex PW1/A, proved seizure of blood (Ex P-2), blood stained sheet (Ex P-3) and pillow (Ex P-4) from the spot vide memos Ex PW1/B to D. PW17 SI Parminder Initial Prepared site plan Ex PW17/A of Kumar Investigating place of occurrence, proved dossier of Officer accused Ex PW17/B. Lead raiding party which arrested accused, recovered looted money and jewelry.
(Deposed on similar lines to PW11) Took transit remand of accused vide orders Ex PW17/C, moved a TIP application Ex PW17/D, proved refusal of accused Ex PW17/E to join proceedings. Prepared pointing out memo Ex PW17/G of place weapon of offence at instance of accused, seizure of wooden sota (Ex P-6) vide memo Judgment 9 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon as Ex PW17/H, seizure of screw drivers (Ex P-7) vide memo as Ex PW17/I, got conducted TIP of case property vide proceedings Ex PW17/J, recorded statement of injured Ex PW17/K and obtained blood of injured vide memo as Ex PW17/L.
10. In her statement recorded under Section 294 CrPC, accused admitted TIP of the case property as Ex. PX-1, FSL Result in respect of seized case property as Ex. PX-2, DD No. 47B and 49A as Ex. PX-3 & 4 and her medical examination vide MLC as Ex. PX-5. In view of the admission of the aforesaid documents by the accused, formal proof of the documents was dispensed with.
Plea of Accused
11. In her statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC accused stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused stated that she never worked in the house of injured nor any recovery has been affected from her house. Accused did not lead any evidence in her defense.
Judgment 10 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
12. In her statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, accused stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused stated that she never worked in the house of injured nor any recovery has been affected from her house. Accused did not lead any evidence in her defense. Arguments
13. Sh. V.K.Swami, Ld. Addl. PP for State submitted that testimony of injured proves that accused assaulted her and the house in which accused was working was looted by her. It is submitted husband of injured (PW5) has also duly identified accused and brother-in-law of injured (PW1) also explained that on his arrival at the spot he saw injured lying injured soaked in blood and accused was not present there. It is argued that robbed jewelry and cash was recovered from the house of accused at her instance and hence, case of prosecution stands proved against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment 11 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
14. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel submitted that accused has been framed in the present case. It is argued that that neither the identity of the accused has been proved in accordance with law not recovery from accused in absence of any independent person can be relied upon to hold accused guilty. It is argued that none of the injuries sustained by injured suggest that any murderous assault was made upon her and in absence of any credible evidence, accused is entitled to be acquitted in the present case.
15. I have heard Sh. V.K.Swami Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh Sumit Kumar Ld. defence counsel at length and have perused the material on record.
Analysis and Discussion
16. As per prosecution story accused was working as house maid in the house bearing number A-2/266, Janakpuri, Judgment 12 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon New Delhi and on 24.05.2018 accused committed robbery of jewelry and cash and while committing robbery she assaulted Shyama Devi (PW6) with intent to kill her. Statutory Provisions
17. Besides the offences punishable under Section 120 B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy) and Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) other statutory provisions applicable to this case are, as under:
390. Robbery.-In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
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.
When extortion is robbery.- Extortion is ''robbery'' if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Judgment 13 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
Explanation.- The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
392. 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 on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.-- If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
397. Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.-- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with Judgment 14 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
18. Identification of accused as house maid and the assault:
Owner of house bearing no. A-2/266, Janakpuri, New Delhi, Balbir Singh has been examined as PW5. Deposition of Balbir Singh reads as under:
1. I am running a private business. At the time of incident, I was not present at home. Victim is my wife. She was alone at home. I alongwith my wife resides at the ground floor of the above property.
2. 4-5 days prior to the incident, we had kept accused present in the court today, correctly identified as our maid servant. On receiving a call from my son Harjinder Saroha, I reached at Chanan Devi Hospital and found my wife admitted there. She was having severe head injury and was profusely bleeding from her head and her eyes, her both eyes were swelled and blackish. On the basis of dossiers shown by police, I identified the accused and when we checked our house we found whole of the jewellery articles and cash missing.
Judgment 15 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
19. PW6 Shyama Devi, injured and the victim in her examination-in-chief has deposed as under:
1. My above said house is built up to two and half storeys i.e. ground floor (having five rooms, kitchen, washroom and store room)first floor (having three rooms and drawing room) and second floor (having one room and servant room and washroom).
2. I know the lady namely Pooja @ Sabiya Khatoon, who was my maid servant and she is present in the court today(correctly identified).
3. Incident in question has occurred in our home on 24.05.2018. The said accused Pooja started working in our home for last 4-5 days. On being asked about production of I'd proof from accused, she told that she will provide the same later on. I had not seen the accused Pooja while in possession of any mobile phone with her nor she had given her any mobile phone number.
4. The household work of ground floor of my house was assigned to the accused Pooja We are joint family consisting of myself, my husband Sh.
Balbir Singh, my son Virender Kumar, his wife Seema and their children namely Sahil & Harshil, my other son Harjinder, his wife Meenakshi and their children Ujjwal and Sania and we all used to reside in the entire premises together.
Judgment 16 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
5. On 24.05.2018, I was taking rest in my room at ground floor. At about 3 p.m, accused was doing household work at ground floor. Except accused and me, nobody else was present at my house.
6. At about 3 p.m, I heard some abnormal noise (ajeeb si aawaz), thereupon, I came out from my room and saw that accused was standing near almirah in other room and the said almirah was in opened condition. I asked accused as to why she had opened the said almirah. On being surprised, I told her that I will call the police. On this, accused immediately ran towards kitchen and brought a wooden Sota used for making chatni and accused hit the said Sota on my head. Accused hit me on my head brutely by said Sota for 5-6 more times with intention to kill me and consequently, I became unconscious and fell down.
7. When I regained consciousness, I found myself admitted in Sir Ganga Ram hospital. Thereafter, I came to know from my family members that accused Pooja had looted our valuable articles including jewelry items and cash from our house.
20. Both PW5 Balbir Singh and his wife PW6 Shyama Devi in unison have deposed that incident in question has Judgment 17 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon occurred in their home on 24.05.2018 and accused Pooja started working in their house 4-5 days prior to incident. Both of them have duly identified that accused in the Court as their house- maid.
21. To dispute the identity of accused, it is submitted on behalf of accused that no chance prints have been lifted from the scene of crime and there is no evidence on record that accused ever worked in the house of accused. Ld defence Counsel has further indicated towards cross-examination of PW5 Balbir wherein witness deposed that:
"During the span of keeping the accused as maid, I did not get her police verification done, due to paucity of time. It is correct that I was not present at the time of incident."
22. Though Balbir Singh (PW5) deposed that he did not get the verification of accused from police but testimony of both PW5 & 6 reveals that accused started working in their Judgment 18 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon house just 4-5 days prior to incident. PW5 has explained that he did not get police verification of accused done, due to paucity of time.
23. PW6 Shyama Devi got injured in the assault by accused. She categorically deposed that accused assaulted her with a wooden sota (Ex P-6) used for making chatni and accused hit the said sota brutally 5-6 times on her head with intention to kill her.
24. Testimony of an injured witness has been accorded a special status in law. Fact that PW-6 received injuries establishes her presence at the scene of occurrence. In other words, presence of injury is an inbuilt guarantee of her presence at the time of incident. Testimony of PW6 Shyama, who has no reasons to falsely implicate accused, cannot be discarded in the absence of any compelling reasons.
Judgment 19 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
25. In Sadakat Kotwar & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1046, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"2.....We see no reason to doubt the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution more particularly, PW7 and PW8 who are the injured eyewitnesses. It is required to be noted that PW7 and PW8 are the injured eye- witnesses. As held by this Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 para 9, the evidence of an injured eye-witness has great evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.....
26. In Lakshman Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2021) 9 SCC 191, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"9.1.....It is further observed that "where witness to occurrence was himself injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone". It is further observed that "thus, deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection Judgment 20 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon of his evidence on basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
9.2. The aforesaid principle of law has been reiterated again by this Court in Ramvilas and it is held that "evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard their evidence". It is further observed that "being injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted".
27. In Jodhan vs. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
29. From the aforesaid summarization of the legal principles, it is beyond doubt that the testimony of the injured witness has its own significance and it has to be placed reliance upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and inconsistencies.
As has been stated, the injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury sustained by him as an inbuilt-guarantee of his presence at the place of occurrence. Thus perceived, we really do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the evidence of the injured witnesses have been appositely discarded being treated as untrustworthy by the learned trial Judge."
Judgment 21 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
28. In Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his depositions.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the Judgment 22 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
29. Trustworthy testimony of both PW5 & 6 establishes that accused was working in their house. Further reliable deposition of injured witness PW6 establishes that when she asked accused that as to why accused opened the almirah upon this, accused immediately ran towards kitchen and brought a wooden Sota used for making chatni and accused hit the said Sota on head of the injured 5-6 times after which injured became unconscious and fell down. As stated above, no grounds have been raised for rejection of her evidence on basis of any major contradictions and discrepancies therein rather her testimony is trustworthy and inspiring confidence. No reason is forthcoming that why she would spare actual assailant in order to falsely implicate accused.
Judgment 23 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
30. Robbery and recovery of robbed articles from the house of accused and her arrest: It is argued on behalf of accused that alleged recovery of cash amount and jewelry articles from house (in District Siwan, Bihar) of accused is highly doubtful. It is submitted that no independent witness joined the recovery proceedings and there are material discrepancies in the testimony of police witnesses in respect of recovery of robbed articles which renders case of prosecution highly doubtful and cannot be believed to convict accused.
31. Testimony of PW1 Inspector Yasbhir Singh in respect of robbery reads as under:
I again reached at the house of my Bhabhi after leaving my wife in the hospital with my Bhabhi. My family members also reached their. Many public persons gather outside the house of my Bhabhi. To me does in the rooms were lying open and articles were ransacked. The jewellery and cash items were found missing. My elder brother and his family members also reached their. My brother informed Judgment 24 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon that they had employed one female has made seven namely Puja about 10-12 days ago and she used to work in the house and she was not found.....
32. PW5 Balbir Singh deposed that when he checked his house he found whole of jewelry articles and cash was missing. Similarly, PW6 Shayma Devi deposed that after gaining consciousness she came to know that accused had looted their valuable articles, jewelry and cash from their house. Photographs Ex PW15/ A-1 to A-53 shows ransacked house of the injured and blood can be seen scattered.
33. As per allegations of prosecution, robbery was committed by accused Pooja in house of injured on 24.05.2018. Accused was identified from the dossier and thereafter on 25.05.2018 a raiding team constituting of PW 11 Constable Ombir, PW 13 Constable Pinki, PW14 HC Ram Narayan led by PW17 SI Parminder Kumar went to Barharia, District Siwan, Bihar in search of accused.
Judgment 25 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
34. On 27.05.2018 raiding team reached PS Barharia and after putting efforts raiding team was able to apprehend accused on 01.06.2018. All the members of raiding party deposed that at the instance of accused looted jewelry articles and a cash amount of ₹ 80,690/- was recovered from the house of accused. At the instance of accused some other looted articles were also recovered in respect of which accused disclosed that she had committed a robbery in a case registered at PS New Friends Colony.
35. Prosecution has proved our transit remand order dated of her transit remand as Ex PW17/C as per which accused was brought to Delhi. TIP of case property (Ex PX-1) was conducted in which PW3 Sunita Hooda daughter of injured identified the case property and case property was released to her vide punchnama Ex PW3/A. Judgment 26 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
36. Facts of the case shows that recovery of robbed articles was affected just within one week from the incident. It is also matter of record that accused was brought to Delhi by the raiding team after taking an order of her transit remand. Testimony of members of raiding team in respect of the apprehension of accused and the recovery of robbed articles is more or less same.
37. True that there are some discrepancies in the deposition of witnesses in the exact sequence of events and in respect of presence of son of accused at the time of raiding of house of accused but these contradictions are minor and does not dent the prosecution case in respect of the recovery of robbed articles and the arrest of accused specially when the case property stands duly identified.
Judgment 27 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
38. Injuries sustained by PW6 Shyama Devi: It is the case of prosecution that injured Shyama Devi who was aged about 75 years was assaulted by the accused while committing robbery. PW6 deposed that accused brought a wooden Sota (Ex P-6) used for making chatni and hit the said Sota on her head. Accused hit on her head brutally by said Sota for 5-6 more times with intention to kill her and as a consequence she fell down and became unconscious and fell down.
39. PW2 Dr Mohit medically examined injured Shyama Devi vide MLC Ex PW2/A and he proved NCCT examination report of head and face of injured as Ex PW2/B & C.
40. PW2 Dr Mohit deposed that patient was having complaint of swelling bilateral orbital region and vomiting. On medical examination of injured a CLW (contused lacerated wound) on skull (5 cm x 1 cm), frontal bone and Judgment 28 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon right tempro parital (3 x 1 cm) was found. As per NCCT Report Ex PW2/B there was a fracture involving right parietal bone extending upto the right temporal bone. As per NCCT examination of face Ex PW 2/C there was fracture involving right parietal bone.
41. FSL Result (Ex PX-2) finds blood of injured on her clothes and also at the place of occurrence. Medical and forensic evidence brought on record establishes that injured was assaulted and she sustained grievous injuries. However, though a charge has been framed against the accused for attempting to murder injured Shyama Devi but looking at weapon of offence, nature of injuries sustained, manner of assault, parts of the body on which injuries have been inflicted on injured and lack of medical opinion that any of the injuries were cumulatively dangerous to life and absence of material that the death of injured was attempted by the Judgment 29 of 31 SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon accused, it is concluded that ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC are not made out.
42. Testimony of prosecution witnesses establishes that accused committed robbery in the house of injured and while committing robbery she inflicted grievous injuries to injured an old woman of 75 years aged by sota which is a dangerous weapon keeping in view of age of injured. Recovery of robbed articles has also been affected at instance of accused from her house. Thus, accused is held to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 392/394/397/411 IPC.
43. Though accused is charged for offence punishable under Section 120 B IPC, however, there is no evidence on record in respect of any conspiracy. As stated above offence under Section 307 IPC is also not made out.
Judgment 30 of 31
SC No: 727/2018 State Vs. Puja @ Sabiya Khatoon
Conclusion
44. In the light of above discussions, it is held that:
i) Testimony of PW6 Shyama Devi injured witness and her husband PW5 Balbir Singh is found truthful and they have proved identity of accused as their maid servant and as the person who committed robbery in their house.
ii) PW6 Shyama Devi has narrated the incident in which she was brutally beaten by accused.
iii) Robbed articles are identified in TIP proceedings
iv) Recovery of robbed articles stands established from the possession of accused.
v) Medical evidence proves that grievous injuries were inflicted to injured.
45. Accordingly, accused Pooja @ Sabiya Khatoon stands convicted for offence punishable U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC. Announced in open Court on 17th day of August 2023.
Digitally signed by
GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date: 2023.08.17
14:44:48 +0530
Gautam Manan
Additional Sessions Judge-02
South-West, Dwarka, New Delhi
Judgment 31 of 31