Delhi District Court
State vs Joginder Rana @ Kukka S/O Sh. Jawahar ... on 21 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
NORTH DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
SC No.181/2010
FIR No.22/2010
PS S.P. Badli
u/s 365/392/397/34 & 411 IPC
State
Vs.
1. Joginder Rana @ Kukka s/o Sh. Jawahar Singh
R/o H.No.208, Village Siraspur, Delhi.
2. Jeetu @ Arun s/o Sh. Ram Lakhan Yadav
R/o Bhagat Singh Park, Siraspur, Delhi.
3. Hardeep Rana @ Chottu s/o Sh. Hukam Singh
H. No.531/Village Siraspur, Delhi
4. Ashok Yadav @ Rahul s/o Sh. Net Ram
R/o Village Nagla Raja, Bharatana, District
Itawa, UP.
5. Sushil Tyagi s/o Sh. Murli Lal
R/o C32, Komalpur, Burari, Delhi.
Date of institution in this court :16122010
Date when arguments concluded:15032014
Date when Judgment pronounced:21032014
State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 1 of26
Appearances: Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. S.P. Dhankhar, counsel for accused Jogender
Rana, Hardeep Rana and Sushil Tyagi.
Mr.Ashok, counsel for accused Ashok Yadav
JUDGMENT
1. Initially five accused were forwarded by police to face trial u/s 365,392/34 and 411 IPC. Accused Jeetu @ Arun was declared juvenile by this court vide order dated 21022014.
2. Facts are that one Gurbir Singh was driver of truck No.HR55D7402 attached to M/s DFC Company, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi and he used to ply the truck from Delhi to Nagpur. He loaded 390 sacks of suapri in the truck on 17012010 from J.M. Transport Nagar, Nagpur for M/s Jagdamba Enterprises, Delhi and the goods were to be unleaded at the godown of the company at Siraspur, Delhi. The words "1008 picked" was written on each sack. He reached the godown in village Siraspur, Delhi on 22012010 at 3.30 AM and informed Mr. Vikas Chabbra about his arrival. Vikas Chabbra is the owner of the goods. After some time some one knocked at the window of the truck and when driver opened it, four persons forcibly entered the truck. His hands were State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 2 of26 tied with the rope and mouth was gagged with vest and he was made to lie on the back seat. From their conversation, he came to know accused's names as Kukka, Ashok, Chottu and Arun @ Jeetu. Accused Kukka sat on his chest with knife, Ashok caught him by head, Chottu caught his legs and accused Arun @ Jeetu drove away the truck. The truck was stopped after some time, two accused alighted from it but two remained inside the cabin. They unloaded the sacks of supari till evening. After unloading of the supari, three persons who were overseeing the process of unloading, also came in the cabin at 9.30 PM and drove away the truck to Bahalgarh, District Sonepat, Haryana and left him there. The driver got him untied from a cyclist and brought the said truck to Delhi. He was feeling perplexed and was scared and hence went to his relatives with truck and made statement before police only on 25012010 though the incident had taken place on 22012010.
Dossiers of some known criminals were shown to the complainant and he identified one Joginder Rana @ Kukka. Accused Joginder Rana @ Kukka and Jeetu @ Arun were arrested in the night of 26012010. Two accused namely Hardeep Rana @ Chottu and Ashok Yadav @ Rahul were arrested on 27012010.
State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 3 of26 Joginder Rana led the police party to the transport office of Sushil Tyagi and he was arrested. Sushil Tyagi made disclosure statement and got recovered 390 sacks on superdari on 27012010 from the godown of M/s New India Transport, Bhagat Park, Siraspur, Delhi.
3. Charge u/s 365,392/34 IPC was framed against Joginder Rana, Jeetu @ Arun, Hardeep Rana and Ashok Yadav. Additional charge against accused Joginder Rana is u/s 397 IPC and charge against accused Sushil Tyagi is only u/s 411 IPC. All accused claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Accused did not examine a single witness in defence. Accused Sushil Tyagi relied upon two receipts mark PW11/DA and PW11/DB to show that 390 sacks of supari were of one Mr.M.K. Accused Ashok Yadav filed photostat copies of some documents to show that he is not Ashok and rather his name is Rajiv Kumar. Joginder Rana filed certified copies of PCR forms dated 250110 timed at 3:51:24 and 3:55:32.
5. PW2 Shailesh Pandurang Falzale was booking clerk/ computer operator in M/s Deonandi Trading Company, Bhandara Road, Nagpur on 16012010. He handed over bill No.104 Ex.P2 State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 4 of26 dated 16012010 regarding loading of 390 bags of supari in truck No.HR55D7402. Destination of the goods was M/s Jagdamba Enterprises, Chander Vihar, Delhi. The bill was seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. PW3 Mohd. Alim was booking clerk in M/s Delhi Maharashtra Karnatka Roadlines Transport Company on 16102010. He deposed that booking of truck No.HR55D7402 was done vide bill No.104 dated 16012010. He sent the said truck to M/s Deonandi Trading Company for loading of supari sacks to be delivered at M/s Jagdamba Enterprises. He handed over bilty No.403 Ex.P3 dated 16012010 to police which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed the said truck was being driven by Gurbir Singh. PW1 Richpal is the owner of the truck. He deposed that he had employed Gurbir Singh as the driver on his truck. Gurbir Singh met him on 2501 2010 and told that the truck was snatched on 22012010 and that it was left deserted near Kundli after robbing supari. Police officials of PS SP Badli had brought the truck to the PS which he got released on superdari. Gurbir Singh had told him that he loaded supari from Nagpur for Delhi and that the truck was looted with supari. He proved superdarinama as Ex.P1. PW5 ASI Rajbir State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 5 of26 Singh was working as DO on 25012010. He deposed that Gurbir Singh came to PS on that day at 5.15 PM and made statement consequent to which case FIR Ex.PW5/B was registered by him. PW10 HC Parmod was MHC(M) in PS Samaipur Badli on 2501 2010 when PW11 SI Satish Kumar deposited truck HR55D7402 with him and he made entry No.6025 in register no.19. He further deposed that SI Satish Kumar deposited with him 390 sacks of supari for which he made entry No.6026. The truck and supari bags except one bag were released on superdari on 29012010. PW8 HC Sudhir brought the record Ex.PW8/A of previous involvement of accused Joginder Rana.
6. PW4 Gurbir Singh is the star witness. He deposed that he is driver of truck No.HR55D7402 attached with M/s DFC Roadline Transport. On 17012010, after loading 390 bories of supari from M/s J.S. New Mauka Transport, J.M. Transport Nagar, Nagpur he started for Delhi as the goods were to be unloaded at the godown in village Siraspur of M/s Jagdamba Enterprises. The words "1008 picked" were written on each sack. He reached Siraspur on 22012010 at 3.30 AM and informed owner of goods Mr. Vikas Chabbra and requested to send the labour. After some State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 6 of26 time he heard the knockings on the window of the truck and when he opened it, accused Joginder Rana @ Kukka, Jeetu @ Arun, Hardeep @ Chottu and Ashok Yadav barged in the cabin forcibly. They tied his hands behind his back with the rope brought by them and gagged his mouth with a vest and was thrown on the back seat. Accused Kukka sat on his chest with knife and at that time accused Ashok was holding his head and accused Hardeep was holding his feet. Accused Jeetu @ Arun drove away truck but stopped after some distance. He further deposed that he came to know the names of the accused from their conversation. After stopping the truck, two accused got down but two remained with him in the cabin. The truck was completely unloaded by the evening and then the two persons who were overseeing the process of unloading also came in the cabin and took the truck somewhere between 9.3010.00 AM and left him and truck. He got himself untied with the help of a cyclist, started the truck and came to M/s DFC Transport, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and informed his owner Richpal Singh about robbery. He further deposed that owner took him to PS after 23 days as he was not feeling well and was scared of accused persons during that period. His statement State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 7 of26 was recorded in the PS. He produced the truck before the IO on the same day which was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that on that very day, police had shown him some files and photographs and from those photographs he identified one person namely Joginder Rana @ Kukka. At that time Vikas Chabbra, owner of supari was also present with him. Then he led the police party to the place where truck was robbed and left by the accused persons. While making inquiry from neighbourers, police came across a person who informed that accused Joginder used to reside in the nearby area. He (accused Joginger) and accused Arun @ Jeetu were seen coming near a dhaba and they were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and personal search memos Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E respectively. He further deposed that he again joined the investigation next day when police apprehended two accused namely Hardeep Rana @ Chottu and Ashok Yadav as they were found standing outside a house in village Siraspur. They were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW4/G and personal search memos Ex.PW4/H and Ex.PW4/I respectively. He further deposed that accused Joginder made disclosure statement that he had handed over supari bags to State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 8 of26 one Sushil Tyagi and then led the police party to his office from where he was arrested. Sushil Tyagi led police party to a godown in village Siraspur, opened the shutter and got recovered 390 supari sacks. He identified a sack of supari as Ex.P4.
7. PW7 Vikas Chabbra is the owner of robbed supari bags. He deposed that he was running godown in village Siraspur under the name and style of M/s Jagdamba Enterprises. He was running a transport business also at A79, Shop no.6, Himgiri Enclave, Chander Vihar, Extension Nilothi, Delhi. 390 bags of supari were loaded in truck No.HR55D7402 attached with M/s Delhi Maharashtra Karnatka Roadlines, on his order, from M/s Deonandi Trading Company, Bhandara Road, Nagpur. He further deposed that goods were to reach Delhi on 21012010 but reached on 22012010 as at 3.30 AM he came to know of arrival of goods through the telephonic call of driver Gurbir Singh. He requested him to send labour to unload the truck. He sent the labour to his godown but driver and truck were not found there. He tried his best to contact Gurbir Singh on his mobile phone but mobile was going switched off continuously. At last he reached the godown at 11.30 AM but did not find Gurbir Singh and truck there. Then he State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 9 of26 made anxious call at Nagpur to know the whereabouts of the driver and truck. He further deposed that Gurbir Singh came to him on 25012010 and hence he alongwith driver and owner reached PS where driver was shown some photographs and he (driver) identified one accused from those photographs as the person who had committed robbery. He deposed about the arrest of accused Joginder Rana @ Kukka and Jeetu @ Arun and recovery of 390 sacks at the instance of accused Sushil Tyagi on 27 012010. That part of evidence has already been discussed in the testimony of Gurbir Singh.
PW6 Ved Prakash is manager in M/s New India Transport, Bhagat Singh Park, Siraspur, Delhi. It is the same transport company from whose godown 390 sacks supari were got recovered by accused Sushil Tyagi. He deposed that Sushil Tyagi was running a transport office in village Libaspur and known to him previously as his (Sushil) vehicles used to come to his godown several times to load the booked goods. Sushil Tyagi came to him on 22012010 at 9.00 PM with two tempos loaded with supari bags. He told him (PW6) that goods were to be transported to Kanpur. It is further deposed that on the asking of accused Sushil State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 10 of26 Tyagi, he got the supari bags unloaded in his godown. At that time Sushil Tyagi had claimed that documents of transportation of supari bags were not ready. He had assured that he would lift the bags as soon as the papers were ready. He did not turn up for 23 days and hence he (PW6) called him to send the papers of the supari bags so that goods may be transported to Kanpur. When he did not send the papers , PW6 asked him to take away the goods from his godown but Sushil Tyagi did not turn up. At last, police came to his godown on 27012010 and told that supari bags kept in his godown were robbed on 22012010.
8. PW11 SI Satish Kumar is IO and PW9 HC Begraj was always associated with him in the entire investigation. PW11 deposed that investigation was assigned to him on 25012010 after registration of FIR. Complainant Gurbir Singh and supari owner Vikas Chabbra met him in the PS. Gurbir Singh produced truck No.HR55D7402 which he seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He showed the photographs of some historysheeter to complainant and he identified one of the accused from those photographs as Joginder Rana @ Kukka. He visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW11/A. Accused Joginder Rana @ Kukka and Arun @ Jeetu State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 11 of26 were arrested on 26012010 on the basis of secret information and they made disclosure statements Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C respectively. They were taken on two days police custody. Accused Ashok Yadav @ Rajiv and Hardeep were arrested on 27 012010 at 2.002.30 PM on the identification of complainant and they made disclosure statements Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/A respectively. IO further deposed that Joginder Rana led them to village Libaspur and got arrested accused Sushil Tyagi who made disclosure statement Ex.PW11/D. Thereafter accused Joginder Rana and Sushil Tyagi, pursuant to disclosure statements, led the police party to the godown of M/s New India Transport, Bhagat Singh Park, Siraspur situated in khasra No.267 and got recovered 390 bags of supari on which words "1008 picked" were written. At the time of recovery, Gurbir Singh and Vikas Chabbra were also present. He lastly deposed that accused Joginder Rana, Ashok Yadav and Hardeep pointed out the place of occurrence leading to the preparation of pointing out memos Ex.PW11/E, Ex.PW11/F and Ex.PW11/G respectively.
Testimony of PW9 is identical to the evidence of PW11.
9. APP argued that four accused had entered into the State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 12 of26 cabin of the truck, tied the hands of driver Gurbir Singh and gagged his mouth with vest and drove away the truck. He submitted that accused were calling each other by their names and in that way Gurbir Singh came to know their names. He next submitted that accused Joginder Rana and Jeetu @ Arun were arrested on 26012010 in the night. Accused Hardeep @ Chottu and Ashok Yadav @ Rahul were arrested in the noon hours of 27 012010. All these persons were identified by Gurbir Singh at the time of arrest. Accused Joginder Rana made disclosure statement in which he named one Sushil Tyagi to whom he had sold 390 bags of supari. At the instance of Sushil Tyagi, supari bags were seized on the same day i.e. 27012010 . He lastly contended that case against Sushil Tyagi is well proved u/s 411 IPC and against remaining accused is it proved beyond reasonable doubt u/s 365,392/34 IPC.
On the other hand defence counsels argued that the incident had taken place on 22012010 but FIR was registered on 2501 2010 i.e. after three days and there is no explanation. Objection of nonmentioning of time arrest of accused Joginder Rana @ Kukka and Jeetu @ Arun in their arrest memos has also been taken.
State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 13 of26 About accused Joginder Rana it is argued that he has been shown to have been arrested on 26012010 but actually he was lifted illegally on 25012010 at 3.55 PM. Thereafter he was shown to driver Gurbir Singh and then FIR was registered at 5.15 PM. The counsels raised apprehension that goods might have been stolen by Gurbir Singh himself and he, in collusion with police and owner of the truck, has falsely implicated the accused.
10. DELAY As per PW4 Gurbir Singh, incident had taken place on 22012010 in the morning. In examination in chief itself he deposed that after unloading the truck, the accused drove it away between 9.3010.00 AM. It means that incident had taken place between 9.0010.00 AM. PW7 Vikas Chabbra deposed that Gurbir Singh informed him on 22012010 at 3.30 AM that he had arrived in Delhi. He sent labourers but the truck and driver were not found. At last he reached godown at 11.30 AM but did not find Gurbir Singh. PW1 Richpal also deposed that Gurbir Singh told him that supari bags were robbed on 22012010. Deposition of all these witnesses prove that robbery had taken place on 22012010.
State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 14 of26 FIR was registered on 25012010. Delay has been explained by PW4 Gurbir Singh in examination in chief by saying that he went to PS on 25.01.2010 with owner Richpal and during that period he was not well and was scared of the accused. So as per PW4, it was fear which restrained him to go to the PS and report the matter. But he has been exposed in crossexamination wherein he deposed that he had gone to the PS first time on 23012010, handed over truck to the police and also told the facts. It means that matter had been reported to the police on 23012010 itself but it did not register the FIR. It is the fault of the police for which complainant's version cannot be thrown at threshold. Complainant cannot be blamed for the mistake committed by the police. It is held that there was no delay in reporting the matter to the police as PW4 had told the facts to the police on 23012010 itself.
Delay of three days in lodging the FIR is fatal only in respect of accused Joginder Rana. It is the case of the police and PW4 that FIR was registered on 25012010 and thereafter some dossiers were shown to Gurbir Singh and he identified from the photographs, one person as Joginder Rana who alongwith his associates had committed robbery. Further case is that he was State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 15 of26 arrested on 26012010 at 4.30 AM ( as per arrest memo). Arrest date and time have been seriously doubted by the accused by placing on record PCR forms Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. As per Ex.D2 timed at 3:51:24 dated 25012010, caller informed that 78 persons had taken her husband from the H. No.224, Apni Colony, Alipur. PCR van reached the spot and reported that Joginder s/o Jawahar Singh, aged 28 years had been taken by 34 persons whose description was unknown. Height of Joginder Rana had been stated as 5' 6''. As per Ex.D3 timed at 3:55:32, information was that some persons had taken the informant's husband towards Haryana in WagonR car. PCR van reached the spot gave identical observation as mentioned in Ex.D2. As per conviction slip, height of accused Joginder Rana is 5' 6'' and same height was responded by the PCR van to the PCR Headquarter in Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. So PCR call was made regarding accused Joginder. He was apprehended by police persons on 25012010 at 3.51. After his apprehension the FIR was registered swiftly. PW4 had deposed that police had shown him the photographs and thereafter he identified the accused Joginder Rana. At that time accused Joginder was already in the police custody and so probable State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 16 of26 inference is that it was accused who was shown to PW4 and not his photograph. So story of the police about arrest of accused Joginder Rana on 26012010 at the instance of PW4 at 4.30 AM is totally false. Identification of accused Joginder Rana in the court by PW4 and other witnesses is of no consequence as he had already been shown to the complaint by the police before registration of FIR. There is no material on file regarding accused Hardeep @ Chottu, Ashok @ Rahul to signal that they were apprehended with accused Joginder. These two accused have been duly identified by PW4 and PW7 Vikas Chabbra at the time of arrest and deposition.
11. SECTION 397 IPC It has been mentioned in FIR and deposed by PW4 that accused Joginder Rana was armed with a knife when he was sitting on his chest in the cabin of the truck. Size and dimension of the knife has not been mentioned in the entire file. Knife has not been recovered though accused Joginder remained in police custody for two days.
State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 17 of26
12. DIFFERENT NAME A doubt has been raised about the name of accused Ashok Yadav as counsel argued that he is not Ashok Yadav and rather he is Rajiv Kumar Yadsv. In this regard he had filed photostat copy of ration card, domicile certificate, nakal pariwar register, school leaving certificate and PAN Card. There are only two documents i.e. domicile certificate and PAN Card on which photograph of a person is appearing. That photograph is not legible. For proving those documents, the accused should have examined the authorities by whom those documents were prepared. He did not file even the original copies. Domicile certificate was prepared on 23082013 whereas incident had taken place on 22012010. Nakal pariwar register has been shown to have been prepared on 16082012. School leaving certificate is dated 05082013. So these documents were prepared after the incident. Same is the case of ration card. Accused has failed to prove these documents. Also the said documents were prepared after a long time of the incident, so their genuinity is at stake.
State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 18 of26
13. CASE AGAINST ACCUSED SUSHIL TYAGI PW4, PW7, PW9 and PW11 deposed that accused Sushil Tyagi was arrested at the instance of Joginder Rana and he made disclosure statement and led the police party to the godown of M/s New India Transport, Bhagat Singh Park, Siraspur and got recovered 390 bags of supari. In this regard PW6 Ved Prakash deposed that it was accused Sushil Tyagi who had placed those sacks in his godown on 22012010 saying that those were to be transported to Kanpur. At that time Sushil Tyagi told him that he was not having papers for the goods and as soon as paper were received by him, the same shall be transported further. Accused Sushil Tyagi never produced the papers before PW6. He corroborated that supari bags were recovered from his godown by the police. Counsel for accused Sushil Tyagi argued that prosecution has failed to prove the recovery. His this argument has been cut short by the answer of accused in response to question No.14 u/s 313 Cr.PC. He answered that one Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, transporter and owner of Moonlight Transport had asked him to arrange two trucks and hence he arranged the trucks. Mukesh Agarwal did not handover the documents for transportation. Both State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 19 of26 trucks remained standing in loaded condition till two days. He further claimed that he was merely a commission agent and used to procure heavy vehicles for transportation. After loading the supari in two trucks, Mr. Mukesh Agarwal did not hand over the form No.31 which were required for transportation in UP and hence driver refused to transport the supari to Kanpur without that form. Then he asked the drivers to bring the trucks to his office in village Libaspur. He waited for form No.31 for days but Mukesh Agarwal did not turn up and hence both trucks were unloaded on his direction in the godowns of M/s India Transporter, village Siraspur. He claimed that he was not aware that supari had changed hands illegally. It was Mukesh Agarwal who came to him on 27012010 with the police to his office and got him implicated in false case.
In support of his claim u/s 313 Cr. PC the accused had put two documents mark PW11/DA and PW11/DB to the IO in cross examination. These are the photostat copies of receipts in which the name of consignor and consignee is mentioned as M.K. Description of the goods is mentioned in each receipt as 195 bags of supari. Sushil Tyagi has admitted that 390 supari bags were State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 20 of26 kept by him in the godown of M/s New India Transport. That fact has been proved even by PW6. Heavy onus was upon accused Sushil Tyagi to prove that supari bags were either not a stolen property or he was not aware it to be a stolen property. He could not prove the receipts. He did not place on record original receipts. Robbery was committed on 22012010 and robbed articles were kept in the godown of PW6 by accused Sushil in the evening of 22 012010. Case of the police is that three accused had sold supari bags to him. Sushil Tyagi has failed to discharge the heavy onus.
14. In view of above discussion, accused Joginder @ Kukka is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Accused Jeetu @ Arun is already facing trial in Juvenile Justice Court. Accused Hardeep Rana @ Chottu and Ashok @ Rahul are held guilty u/s 365/392/34 IPC. Accused Sushil Tyagi is held guilty u/s 411 IPC. Their Bail Bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Surety, if any, is discharged. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court On day of 21st March, 2014.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL) ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS) North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 21 of26 IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) NORTH DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI SC No.181/2010 FIR No.22/2010 PS S.P. Badli U/s 365/392/397/34 &411 IPC State Vs.
1. Joginder Rana @ Kukka s/o Sh. Jawahar Singh R/o H.No.208, Village Siraspur, Delhi.
2. Jeetu @ Arun s/o Sh. Ram Lakhan Yadav R/o Bhagat Singh Park, Siraspur, Delhi.
3. Hardeep Rana @ Chottu s/o Sh. Hukam Singh H. No.531/Village Siraspur, Delhi
4. Ashok Yadav @ Rahul s/o Sh. Net Ram R/o Village Nagla Raja, Bharatana, District Itawa, UP.
5. Sushil Tyagi s/o Sh. Murli Lal R/o C32, Komalpur, Burari, Delhi.
Date of institution in this court :16122010 Date when arguments concluded:15032014 State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 22 of26 Date when Judgment pronounced:21032014 ORDER ON SENTENCE 21.03.2014 Present: MS Rajrani substitute APP for the State.
Mr. S.P. Dhankhad Counsel for accused Joginder Rana. Hardeep Rana & Sushil Tyagi.
Mr. Ashok Kumar counsel for Accused Ashok Yadav.
1. Accused Hardeep Rana and Ashok have already been held guilty u/s 365/392/34 IPC and accused Shushil Tyagi has been convicted u/s 411 IPC.
2. Ld. Counsel for convicts argued that convict Hardeep Rana is a young unmarried boy of 27 years. He has three married sisters and two married brothers. His father is a farmer having meager income . He has clean antecedents.
For convict Ashok, it is summited he is unmarried boy of 27 years having clean antecedents. His father is a peasant. He has three sisters, two of them are married and one is still unmarried. He has two brothers, one elder and one younger.
For convict Sushil Tyagi, it is stated that he is a man of 49 years having no liability as he is still unmarried. His parents have State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 23 of26 already expired. He has clean antecedents except the present case.
3. On the other hand, substitute APP argued that Capital of India has become unsafe due to the crimes committed by such like persons. Whenever there is darkness or at any deserted place, they pounce upon innocent lone persons having something in the pocket/vehicle. She further stated that people are afraid of stepping out of their houses after sunset. Lastly she submitted that maximum punishment be given to the convicts.
4. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances, convicts Hardeep Rana @ Chhotu and Ashok @ Rahul are sentenced to undergo RI for three years and a fine of Rs.2,000/ (Rupees two thousand only) each is imposed, in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo SI for two months for the offence punishable u/s 365/34 of IPC.
Convicts Hardeep Rana @ Chhotu and Ashok @ Rahul are sentenced to undergo RI for four years and a fine of Rs.3,000/ (Rupees three thousand only) each is imposed, in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo SI for three months for the offence punishable u/s 392/34 of IPC.
Convict Sushil Tyagi is sentenced to undergo RI for two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees five thousand only) is imposed, in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo SI for two months for the State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 24 of26 offence punishable u/s 411 of IPC.
5. Both sentences of convicts Hardeep Rana @ Chhotu and Ashok @ Rahul shall run concurrently.
6. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convicts.
7. Fine not deposited by convicts Hardeep Rana @ Chhotu and Ashok @ Rahul but deposited by Sushil Tyagi.
8. An application u/s 389 CrPc has been moved by convict Sushil Tyagi for suspension of sentence and bail. Charge against him was only u/s 411 IPC and he was on bail during trial. Sentence of only two years has been handed down to him. So application u/s 389 CrPc of Sushil Tyagi is allowed, his sentence is suspended for 30 days in order to enable him to approach High court in appeal. He be released on bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs. 20,000/ each.
9. Let a copy of Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to convicts free of cost.
10. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on 21 day of March, 2014.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL) State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 25 of26 ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS) North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi State v. Joginder Rana etc. 22/10. 26 of26