Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Krishna @ Cheeku on 26 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 64/2013
Unique Case ID: 02404R0358852011
State Vs. 1. Krishna @ Cheeku
S/o Ram Niwas,
R/o H. No. 310, Gali No. 1,
Village Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
(Convicted)
2. Sumit
S/o Shyam Sunder,
R/o Jhuggi No. 49/1, Ayurvedic,
Camp, Haiderpur, Delhi.
(Convicted)
3. Ravi
S/o Jai Prakash
R/o H. No. 101, Village Shalimar
Bagh, Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 359/2011
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
Under Section : 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code
25/27/ Arms Act.
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 14.3.2012
Date on which orders were reserved : 31.5.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced : 15.7.2013
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 1 of 51
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
(1) As per the allegations, on 6.10.2011 at about 11:50 PM at Road in front of Ayurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur, Delhi, the accused Krishna @ Cheeku, Sumit and Ravi along with one Mafia (since not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention stopped the vehicle i.e. Vikram (Three Wheeler) belonging to complainant Vinod Kumar and robbed him of Rs.2300/, RC and some papers and also robbed the son of Vinod Kumar namely Lalit of his Rs.450/ and driver license. It is further alleged that while committing the robbery, the accused persons also used criminal force on the victims Vinod Kumar and Lalit Kumar and assaulted them on the point of knife i.e. deadly weapon.
Brief Case of the Prosecution:
(2) Brief case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 06/07.10.2011 at about 12.10 AM on receipt of DD No.3A Rajesh Kumar along with Ct. Amit reached the spot near Ayurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur where they found the complainant Vinod Kumar and his son Lalit Kumar along with a vehicle i.e. Vikram and they alleged that they have been robbed by four boys.
(3) SI Rajesh Kumar recorded the statement of Vinod Kumar who alleged that on 06.10.2011 he had put his weekly shop at Sector State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 2 of 51 16, Rohini at around 11:45 PM and after winding up his work he was going to his house at Shalimar Village but when he reached near Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur, four boys suddenly came in front of his vehicle i.e. Vikram and stopped the same. He has further alleged that he was driving the vehicle and his son was sitting besides him adjoining the driver seat. According to him the said boys compelled him to stop the vehicle by jumping in front of it while two boys pulled his son Lalit out of the vehicle and the third boy put a knife on his throat and the fourth boy removed the money from the top pocket of his shirt while the boy who had put the knife on his throat said "jo kuch hai nikal de" and the other boy removed the money from the shirt pocket of his son. The complainant has further alleged that his son was having Rs. 450/ and he himself was carrying Rs 2300/ which were removed by these boys. According to him, the said boys also took the RC of his van and also took the driving licence of his son from his pocket thereafter ran towards the railway lines. The complainant further told SI Rajesh Kumar that thereafter he made call at 100 number from his mobile phone which he had hidden in the dash board of the vehicle.
(4) Thereafter, at the pointing out of Vinod Kumar, accused Krishna @ Cheeku, Ravi and Sumit were apprehended by the police from the railway lines while one of the assailants managed to escape, State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 3 of 51 and form their personal search, the stolen articles along with the knife used in the incident were recovered which were duly identified by the victim Vinod Kumar and his son Lalit Kumar pursuant to which all three accused were arrested and after completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE (5) Charge under Section 392/394/397/34 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Krishna @ Cheeku, Sumit and Ravi. Charge under Section 411 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Ravi. Further, charge under Section 25/27 Arms Act was also settled against the accused Krishna @ Cheeku and Sumit. All the accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE (6) In order to prove the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses:
Public Witnesses:
(7) PW4 Vinod Kumar has deposed that he is residing at the given address along with his family and he sells articles in the weekly market. According to him on 06.10.2011 he had put his weekly shop at Sector 16, Rohini at around 11:45 PM after winding up his work and State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 4 of 51 going to his house at Shalimar village and when he reached near Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur, four boys suddenly came in front of his vehicle i.e. Vikram and stopped the same. The witness has deposed that his son Lalit was also with him at that time and was driving the vehicle and his son was sitting besides him adjoining the driver seat.
According to the witness the said boys compelled him to stop the vehicle by jumping in front of it and while two boys pulled his son Lalit out of the vehicle, the third boy put a knife on his throat and the fourth boy removed the money from the top pocket of his shirt. The witness has deposed that the boy who had put the knife on his throat said "jo kuch hai nikal de" while the other boy removed the money from the shirt pocket of his son. The witness has deposed that his son was having Rs. 450/ and he himself was carrying Rs 2300/ which were removed by these boys. According to the witness the said boys also took the RC of his van and the driving licence of his son from his pocket thereafter they ran towards the railway lines after committing the incident. He has deposed that after the boys went away he made a 100 number call from his mobile phone which he had hidden in the dash board and the police came to the spot and recorded his statement vide Ex.PW4/A. The witness has further deposed that thereafter he pointed out towards the railway lines where the accused had run away and he along with four police officials went towards the railway lines State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 5 of 51 where he identified them as the assailants and on his pointing out all the four boys were apprehended. On interrogation, these boys disclosed their names as Ravi, Sumeet, Cheeku and one other boy whose name he does not recollect. The witness has correctly identified all the accused Ravi, Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku as the boys who were apprehended at his instance along with another boy who is not present in the court (having escaped).
(8) The witness has deposed that after the apprehension of the accuser persons, they were duly searched and the personal search of accused Ravi revealed Rs 450/ which he had stolen from his son; personal search of Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku revealed presence of knives and it was Krishna @ Cheeku who had put the knife on his neck. The witness has clarified that the boy who is not in the court had removed the cash from his pocket which was not recovered. The witness has deposed that all the accused were interrogated during which they disclosed their involvement in the present case. The arrest memo of accused Ravi is Ex.PW4/B, his personal search is Ex.PW4/C and his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW4/D. The arrest memo of accused Sumit is Ex.PW4/E, his personal search is Ex.PW4/F and he made his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW4/G. The arrest memo of accused Krishna @ Cheeku is Ex.PW4/H, his personal search is State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 6 of 51 Ex.PW4/I and he made his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW4/J. (9) The witness has deposed that the police official also converted the cash recovered from accused Ravi into a pullanda which he seal and thereafter seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/K and the police official then prepared the sketch of both the knives on papers. According to the witness the sketch of the knife recovered from the possession of the accused Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku are Ex.PW4/L and Ex.PW4/M and the sketch of the knife Ex.PW4/M and thereafter the Investigating Officer converted the same into pullandas and sealed the same after which he prepared the seizure memos of the knives as Ex.PW4/N and Ex.PW4/O, the seizure memo of the knife Ex.PW4/N. The witness has identified the currency notes totally Rs 450/ i.e. two currency notes of Rs 100/ each, four currency notes of Rs 50/ each and five currency notes of Rs 10/ each and one colored photocopy of driving licence which the witness says recovered from the possession of accused Ravi and are Ex.P1 and the duplicate DL is Ex.P2. The witness has also identified that kitchen knife with a wooden handle as the same as recovered from the possession of accused Sumeet. This court has observed that the said knife so produced matches with the sketch Ex.PW4/L and Ex.P3. The witness has also identified the buttondar knife as the same as recovered from the possession of accused Krishna @ Chiku which matches the sketch State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 7 of 51 Ex.PW4/M and Ex.P4.
(10) In leading question put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he deposed that it is correct that the police also prepared the site plan of the spot of occurrence at his pointing out which is Ex.PW4/P bearing his signatures at point A. (11) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness deposed that the day on which the incident took place was Thursday and on that day he had paid teh bazari charges to the MCD but he is unable to produce the teh bazari receipt and has no permission to have teh bazari. He has deposed that Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur is at a distance of half a kilometer from the Ring Road. He admits that heavy traffic used to ply on the road which is going from Ayurvedic hospital Haiderpur towards Shalimar village and has explained that he was stopped after crossing the hospital. According to the witness, on his call to police at 100 number, two police officials came to the spot on government motorcycle after 15 minutes of his call and after four to five minutes, other two police officials visited the spot. He is unable to tell the name of one police official who visited the spot or that if his name was Rajesh Verma. The witness has deposed that the accused persons were apprehended at about 12:301 AM (midnight) and admits that there is a jhuggi cluster near the railway line but the police officials did not call any person from the State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 8 of 51 jhuggi cluster to join the investigations. According to the witness the police officials who conducted the search of accused did not get themselves searched prior to the conducting the search of the accused. He admits that the currency notes allegedly recovered from the accused Ravi did not bear any specific identity mark nor he had provided the number of the notes to the police. According to him he had told the police the detail denominations of the stolen currency notes when his statement was recorded but when confronted with the statement Ex.PW4/DX1 it was not found so recorded. The witness has admitted that the knife Ex.P3 is an article of common domestic use and is easily available in the market. He is not aware if the police had put any identity mark on the buttondar knife prior to sealing the same and has explained that the police was measuring the knife in his presence. He admits that the place of the incident i.e. road in front of Aurvedic hospital is a motorable road with a heavy traffic round the clock. He has deposed that after the incident he did not raise any alarm and has voluntarily explained that there was no body on the road and therefore no body stopped. According to him the documents were prepared near the railway lines and the accused were arrested from a distance of about 34 for long from the Max hospital. Witness has deposed that Investigating Officer did not join any security guard of the hospital or any other public witness from the hospital. He has State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 9 of 51 denied that no incident as alleged by him had taken place or that he had merely gone to the police station on their calling and signed the documents on their asking. He has further denied that since he is involved into illegally putting his shop in the weakly market, hence he is a stock witness of the police and whenever required, he oblige the local police with what they asked him to do.
(12) PW5 Lalit Kumar has deposed that he is residing at the given address along with his family and he sell articles in the weekly market along with his father. On 06.10.2011 he puts his weekly shop at sector 16 Rohini at around 11:45 PM after winding up his work and going to his house at Shalimar village and when he reached near Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur, four boys suddenly came in front of their vehicle i.e. Vikram and stopped the same. According to him his father was also with him at that time and was driving the vehicle and he was sitting besides him and they said boys compelled his father to stop the vehicle by jumping in front of it. While two boys came towards him two went towards his father. He has deposed that one boy put the knife on the neck of the his father and one boy put the knife on his neck and threatened them to hand over their belongings to them and said "jo kuch hai nikal de". The witness has further deposed that one boy removed the money from the shirt pocket of his father and another boy removed Rs 450/ from the pocket of his shirt and the said State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 10 of 51 boys also took away his driving licence from his pocket and thereafter ran towards the railway lines after committing the incident. He has deposed that after the boys went away his father made a 100 number call which he had kept in the dash board and the police came to the spot and they informed them of whatever had transpired and he also told the police that the said boys had rushed towards the railway lines on which he and his father took the police officials towards the railway line near the Max hospital. The witness has deposed that he saw four boys going from the side of the Max hospital and he pointed out towards them as the assailants and on their pointing out three boys were apprehended while one managed to escape. On interrogation they disclosed their names as Ravi, Sumeet, Cheeku and one other boy whose name he does not recollect.
(13) The witness has correctly identified the accused Ravi, Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku as the boys who were apprehended at his instance along with another boy who is not present in the court. According to the witness after the apprehension of the accused persons, they were duly searched and the personal search of accused Ravi revealed Rs.450/ which he had stolen from his pocket; the personal search of Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku revealed presence of knives and it was Sumit who had put the knife with a wooden handle on his neck. The witness has deposed that thereafter disclosure State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 11 of 51 statement of the accused were recorded, they were arrested, their personal search was conducted and the recovered articles were taken into possession. The witness has correctly identified the case property / recovered articles in the court which are Ex. P1 to P4. (14) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that the day on which the incident took place was Thursday and on that day his father had paid teh bazari charges to the MCD but he could not produce the receipt of the same. According to him the Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur is at a distance of one Kilometer from Ring Road and admits that the driving license Ex.P2 which was stolen is duplicate and not original and that is why he had not taken the same back till date. The witness has deposed that heavy traffic used to ply on the road which is going from Ayurvedic hospital Haiderpur towards Shalimar village and they were stopped in front of one shopping mall. The witness has deposed that on call to police at 100 number, two police officials visited the spot on government motorcycle and the police reached after 510 minutes of giving call by his father and after after 45 minutes, other two police officials visited the spot. Witness is unable to tell the name of one police official who visited the spot. According to him, they along with the police officials remained at the spot for about one hour and thereafter they left towards railway line and the accused persons were apprehended at about 1212:30 State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 12 of 51 (midnight). He has denied that there is a jhuggi cluster near the railway line. He has deposed that police officials who conducted the search of accused did not get themselves searched prior to the conducting the search of the accused. He admits that the currency notes allegedly recovered from the accused Ravi did not bear any specific identity mark nor he had provided the number of the notes to the police. According to him, he did not tell the police the detail denominations of the stolen currency notes when his statement was recorded. He admits that the knife Ex.P3 is an article of common domestic use and is easily available in the market and has stated that police had not put any identity mark on the buttondar knife prior to sealing the same. He admits that the place of the incident i.e. road in front of Aurvedic hospital is a motorable road with a heavy traffic round the clock and that after the incident he did not raise any alarm and has voluntarily explained that there was no body on the road and therefore no body stopped. He has deposed that the documents were prepared near Max hospital. According to him the accused were arrested from a distance of about 10 to 15 paces from the Max hospital and Investigating Officer did not join any security guard of the hospital or any other public witness from the hospital. He has denied that no incident as alleged by him had taken place or that he had merely gone to the police station on their calling and signed the documents on their State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 13 of 51 asking. He has also denied that since he is involve into illegally putting his shop in the weakly market, he is a stock witness of the police and whenever required, he obliges the local police with what they asked him to do.
Police / Official Witnesses :
(15) PW1 ASI Surender Singh has deposed that on 07.10.2011, he was posted at Police Station Shalimar Bagh as Duty Officer from 12:00 mid night till 8:00 a.m. and at about 3:25 p.m., he received a rukka sent by SI Rajesh through Constable Amit for registration of FIR on the basis of which he recorded FIR copy of which is Ex.PW1/A. He also made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. This witness has not been crossexamined on behalf any of the accused despite opportunity and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(16) PW2 Ct. Shambhu Tiwari has deposed that on 06.10.2011, he was posted at Police Station - Shalimar Bagh as Constable and was on duty from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. i.e. till 07.10.2011. According to him on that day, he along with HC Shyam Kishore were on patrolling duty in the area of Police Station Shalimar Bagh and HC Shyam Kishore were on patrolling duty in the area of Police Station Shalimar Bagh and at about 12:10 a.m., when they State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 14 of 51 reached on the road opposite Ayurvedic Hospital, Haider Pur, where they met SI Rajesh and Constable Amit Kumar alongwith two public persons namely Vinod Kumar and his son Lalit and Investigating Officer SI Rajesh recorded statement of Vinod Kumar and thereafter, they all proceeded towards railway line for the search of the accused persons. The witness has deposed that the complainant pointed out four persons who were standing towards railway line, opposite Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh and told the Investigating Officer that they were the boys, who robbed them. The witness has deposed that they apprehended three boys, out of those four boys, as the fourth boy succeeded to escape and the names of boys, who were apprehended by them, revealed as Ravi, Cheeku and Satish. The witness has deposed that the name of the fourth companion of the accused persons who was succeeded to flee was revealed a Mafia. According to the witness he apprehended accused Satish and from his search, one kitchen knife was recovered. The witness has explained that the correct name of the accused Satish is Sumit and inadvertently he has referred the name of Sumit as Satish. According to the witness the accused Cheeku was apprehended by HC Shyam Kishore and from accused Cheeku, one buttondar knife was recovered while accused Ravi was apprehended by SI Rajesh and from accused Ravi, Rs. 450/ and DL of Lalit were recovered. The witness has deposed that the complainant told the State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 15 of 51 Investigating Officer that accused Sumit is the same person, who put knife on the neck of Lalit and accused Cheeku also put the knife on the neck of Vinod, whereas the third accused Ravi took out the money and articles from them. The witness has identified the currency notes of Rs. 450/ i.e. two currency notes of Rs 100/ each, four currency notes of Rs 50/ and five currency notes of Rs 10/ each and one colored photocopy of driving licence as the same as recovered from the possession of accused Ravi. The currency notes are Ex.P1 and duplicate DL is Ex.P2. He has also identified that the kitchen knife with a wooden handle as the same as recovered from the possession of accused Sumit which is Ex.P3.
(17) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that they received the information about the incident at about 12:30 AM through the transmissions on wireless set. He admits that his departure entry was made at the time, he left the police station, however he could not tell the number of the said DD. He is unable to tell the time when Ct. Amit and SI Rajesh met them with the complainant and states that when they met SI Rajesh he was recording the statement of Vinod. He is unable to tell the time for how long they remained at the spot. He has deposed that Ct. Amit brought the copy of the FIR near the Max hospital where the accused persons were apprehended by them. He is unable to tell by which mode of State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 16 of 51 transportation, Ct. Amit went to the police station nor he is aware of the time when Ct. Amit went to the police station and the time he returned back to the spot. He deposed that Investigating Officer did not offer his search and their search before taking the search of accused persons. He has denied that there was a heavy traffic near the Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur at the night time. According to him Rs 450/ robbed amount was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo and it has not been shown as recovered during his personal search. He has further denied that the knives which had been recovered from the accused are easily available in the market. The witness has deposed that the distance between place of the incident of robbery and the place where the accused persons were apprehended by them is less than half a kilometer. He has deposed that accused persons were apprehended at a distance of 100 meters from the gate of the Max hospital however they did not call any guard from the Max hospital. The witness has admitted that the recovered driving licence of Lalit Kumar was a coloured photocopy. He does not remember whether Investigating Officer had made any specific mark on the currency notes recovered from accused Ravi. He has denied that there is a mall on the road in front of Aurvedic Hospital going towards Shalimar village. He admits that the spot from where the accused persons were arrested is a cluster area (jhuggie area) and does not State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 17 of 51 remember whether the Investigating Officer had called any public person to join investigations at any stage during their stay at the spot. The witness has deposed that no public persons were called by the complainant by making any hue or cry when the incident took place with him. He has denied that the place from where accused persons were apprehended is a dark place and there is no source of light had been situated there and has voluntarily explained that Max hospital was under construction and a flash light had been installed there. He has deposed that no labour was called by the Investigating Officer to join the investigations at the time of apprehension. He has deposed that he does not remember the time spent in preparation of pullanda of buttondar knife. According to him the Investigating Officer had not lifted any finger prints from the said knife. He has deposed that he had not signed any documents prepared at the spot during the investigations. He has also denied that he was not conducting any patrolling at the night time or that he did not join any investigations with the Investigating Officer. He has further denied that the accused persons were lifted from their respective houses and falsely implicated in the present case or that Investigating Officer did not make any investigations in his presence or that he put his signatures while sitting in the police station at the instance of the senior officers. State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 18 of 51 (18) PW3 HC Mukesh has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B wherein he has relied upon document i.e. Entry in Register No. 19 vide S. No. 3925/11 copy of which is Ex.PW3/A (three pages). In his crossexamination he has deposed that he received the pullandas on 07.10.2011 at about 11.30 PM. He has deposed that he received the pullandas in sealed condition and was not informed by the Investigating Officer what was in the pullandas. According to him he presumed himself by touching the pullandas that the same were containing knives and he voluntarily explained that he recorded in the register as per the seizure memo which was handed over by SI Rajesh Kumar Verma.
(19) PW6 HC Shyam Kishore has deposed that in the intervening night of 06/07.10.2011 he was posted at police station Shalimar Bagh and on that day he along with Ct. Shambhu Tiwari was in patrolling duty in the area of Haiderpur village area and at about 12:30 AM SI Rajesh Kumar and Ct. Amit Kumar met him on the Road in front of Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur. According to him, SI Rajesh Kumar recorded the statement of Vinod Kumar and thereafter they searched the assailants to the railway line area near Max hospital and the victim Vinod Kumar pointed out towards the four persons as the assailants. He has deposed that they apprehended three persons from State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 19 of 51 there whereas one managed to escape from the spot and the apprehended disclosed their names as Krishna @ Cheeku, Sumit and Ravi. He has deposed that he along with Ct. Amit apprehended Krishna @ Cheeku and one buttondar knife was recovered from the possession of accused Krishna @ Cheeku. Witness has deposed that on the formal search of accused Ravi Rs 450/ i.e. two currency notes in denominations of Rs 100/ four currency notes in denomination of Rs 50/ and five currency notes in denomination of Rs 10/ and one driving licence of Lalit Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar recovered from his possession. He has further deposed that one kitchen knife was recovered from the possession of accused Sumit and the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of the buttondar knife vide Ex.PW4/M and sealed the same in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of RKV and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/N. The witness has deposed that thereafter the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of the knife vide Ex.PW4/L and seized the same vied Ex.PW4/O. The witness has deposed the Investigating Officer also sealed the above said currency notes totalling Rs 450/ and the driving licence of Lalit in a pullanda with the seal of RKV and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/K. He has deposed that SI Rajesh prepared the rukka and send the Ct. Amit for registration of the FIR with rukka and Ct. Amit came at the spot after FIR got registered and State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 20 of 51 handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the Investigating Officer for further investigations. According to the witness the accused Ravi, Sumit and Krishan @ Cheeku were arrested vide Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/H respectively and their personal search was taken vide Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW4/I respectively and the disclosure statement of accused Ravi, Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku were recorded vide Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/G and Ex.PW4/J respectively. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons as well as the case property / recovered articles in the court.
(20) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that they received the information about the incident at about 12:1512:30 AM through the communications going on in the wireless set. He has deposed that SI Rajesh had already recorded the statement of Vinod before their reaching there and they remained at the spot only for 510 minutes. He has deposed that Ct. Amit brought the copy of the FIR near the Max hospital where the accused persons were apprehended by them. According to him Ct. Amit went to Police Station by the motorcycle of SI Rajesh at about 3:10 AM and returned back at about 4:20 AM. The witness has deposed that the complainant pointed out towards the four assailants from a distance of 1015 meters. He has denied that there was a heavy State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 21 of 51 traffic near the Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur at the night time. According to the witness Rs. 450/ robbed amount was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo and it has not been shown as recovered during his personal search. He has denied that the knives which had been recovered from the accused are easily available in the market. He has deposed that the accused Ravi was arrested at about 4:30 AM. He has deposed that the distance between place of incident of robbery and the place where the accused persons were apprehended by them is about 500 meters and the accused persons were apprehended at a distance of 10 meters from the gate of the Max hospital but they did not call any guard from the Max hospital. The witness has deposed that there is no Mall on the road in front of Aurvedic Hospital going towards Shalamar village. He has denied that he was not on any patrolling duty at the night time or that he did not join any investigations with the IO or that Investigating Officer did not make any investigations in his presence. He has also denied that he put his signatures while sitting in the police station at the instance of the senior officers or that he is deposing falsely or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. (21) PW7 Ct. Amit has deposed that on 06.10.2011 he was posted as constable at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on the intervening night of 06/07.10.2011 he was on emergency duty and at State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 22 of 51 about 12:10 AM (midnight) they received DD No. 3A, pursuant to which he along with SI Rajesh reached the spot of incident at in front of Auyrvedic Hospital where they met Vinod Kumar and his son Lalit Kumar. According to the witness in the meanwhile beat HC Shyam Kishore and Ct. Shambhu Tiwari also reached the spot while patrolling in the area. The witness has deposed that SI Rajesh recorded the statement of complainant Vinod Kumar who has disclosed that the assailants had gone towards the railway Line towards the Max hospital side. According to the witness, on this, without wasting the time, they went towards the side of Max hospital where near the railway line four boys were standing. The witness has deposed that the complainant pointed out towards those boys and informed the police that they were the same boys who had committed robbery on him pursuant to which they apprehended three boys while one boy managed to escape. The witness has deposed that the said boys were interrogated and they disclosed their names as Ravi, Sumit and Chiku. According to the witness, he along with HC Shyam Kishore carried out the search of the accused Cheeku @Krishna and his search revealed one buttondar knife. The witness has deposed that SI Rajesh then converted the statement of the victim into tehrir and handed over the same to him (witness) and he went to the Police Station and got the FIR registered and returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 23 of 51 original tehrir to SI Rajesh. The witness has correctly identified the accused Krishna @ Cheeku, Sumit and Ravi in the court as the person who had been apprehended at the spot.
(22) In leading question put by Ld. APP for the State, the witness has admitted that the personal search of the accused Ravi revealed Rs 450/ which were recovered from the back side of his pant and one driving licence in the name of Lalit Kumar along with his photograph affixed on the same which Lalit Kumar who was present there. He has identified the same as the one which was removed from his pocket along with Rs. 450/. He has voluntarily explained that the personal search of Sumit also revealed a knife which was recovered from his pocket of which the Investigating Officer prepared a khakha and thereafter measured the same and then converted the same into a pullanda with the help of a cloth and sealed the same with the seal of RKV and also prepared the seizure memo of both the knives recovered from Krishna @ Cheeku and Sumeet. He has also identified currency notes totally Rs 450/ i.e. two currency notes of Rs 100/ each, four currency notes of Rs 50/ and five currency notes of Rs 10/ each and one colored photocopy of driving licence as the same as recovered from the possession of accused Ravi. The currency notes are Ex.P1 and duplicate DL is Ex.P2. He has further identified kitchen knife with a wooden handle as the same as recovered from the possession of State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 24 of 51 accused Sumeet. The said knife is Ex.P3.
(23) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness is unable to tell the exact time but states that they reached at the spot after ten minutes of the receiving of the DD. According to him they were already on another call and when they received the information they reached directly at the spot and when they reached at the spot, only complainant and his son were present and Investigating Officer inquired from the complainant and after recording his statement they left in search of accused persons. He has deposed that no public person gathered at the spot on their arrival and recording the statement of complainant. According to the witness they did not offer their search to the accused persons before taking their search and has clarified that the accused persons were arrested at about 11:15 AM (midnight). He has deposed that the accused persons were apprehended at a distance of 50100 meters from the gate of Max hospital and at that time they did not see even a single person at Max Hospital. According to him the Rukka was handed over to him at 3:10 AM and it took about one hour in registration of the FIR. He has denied that he did not join the investigations of this case that is why he has not signed any documents or that the documents were not prepared in his presence or that the road adjoining the place of incident has heavy traffic movement. He has further denied that the place from where the State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 25 of 51 accused persons were arrested was a dark place or that there was no source of light. He has denied that he did not join any investigations with the IO or that accused persons were lifted from their respective houses and falsely implicated in the present case or that Investigating Officer did not make any investigations in his presence. (24) PW8 SI Rajesh Kumar has deposed that in the intervening night of 06/07.10.2011 he was posted at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and he was on emergency duty and on that day he received a DD No. 3A at about 12:10 AM (midnight) and on receipt of the said DD He along with Ct. Amit reached at near by Auyrvedic Hospital, Haiderpur where they found two persons along with vehicle Vikram who disclosed their names as Vinod Kumar and his son Lalit. According to the witness, Vinod Kumar made his statement which is Ex.PW4/A wherein he alleged that at about 11:50 AM while he was coming back from weekly market after closing their shop four boys stopped his vehicle out of whom two boys pulled his son out of the vehicle and the other two had got him down from the vehicle. According to the witness, one of the said boys kept a knife on the neck of Vinod Kumar and told him "jo kuch tere pass hai, woh humko de de nahi to chaku se tera gala kat denge" whereas the other boy took money and his RC from the pocket of his shirt. The witness has deposed that HC Shyam Kishore and Ct. Shambhu Tiwari also reached State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 26 of 51 the spot. Thereafter they went in search of accused persons towards railway lines area near Max hospital and the victim Vinod Kumar pointed out towards the four persons as the assailants and three boys were apprehended by them while one boy managed to escape from the spot. The witness has deposed that he apprehended a boy whose name he came to know as Ravi and on the personal search of accused Ravi currency notes of Rs 450/, driving licence of Lalit were recovered and the victim Lalit had identified his driving licence and the currency notes. The witness has deposed that Ct. Shambhu Tiwari apprehended accused Sumit and on his personal search, a kitchen knife was recovered which was sealed after making its sketch Ex.PW4/L. The witness has deposed that the victim Lalit identified accused Sumit as the boy who had kept the knife on his neck. According to the witness, HC Shyam Kishore and Ct. Amit apprehended accused Krishna @ Cheeku and one buttondar knife was recovered his possession whose sketch is Ex.PW4/M. The witness has deposed that the accused Krishna @ Cheeku was identified by complainant Vinod as the person who had kept knife on his neck.
(25) The witness has deposed that he thereafter prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW8/A and handed over the same to Ct. Amit for registration of the FIR. He thereafter prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW4/B. The witness has deposed that in the personal search of State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 27 of 51 accused Krishna, one used mobile phone was also recovered while another mobile was recovered from accused Sumeet. The witness has further deposed that accused Ravi, Sumit and Krishan @ Cheeku were arrested vide Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/H respectively and their personal search was taken vide Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW4/I respectively and their disclosure statements were recorded vide Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/G and Ex.PW4/J respectively. According to the witness thereafter he taken into possession all the recovered articles. The witness has deposed that one of the accused who had run away could not be traced and during the interrogation, the coaccused had mentioned that the name of said assailant was 'Mafia' but there were no other particulars and hence the said 'Mafia' could not be traced. The witness has correctly identified the accused Krishna, Sumit and Ravi in the court. He has also identified the recovered / stolen articles i.e. Ex. P1 to Ex.P4.
(26) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that he received the information about the incident at about 12:10 AM on his mobile phone and it took about five minutes in reaching the place of incident. According to him he handed over the rukka to Ct. Amit near the Max hospital and Ct. Amit went to Police Station on his motorcycle at about 3:10 AM and returned back at about 4:154:20 AM. The witness has deposed hat the complainant pointed State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 28 of 51 out towards the four assailants from a distance of 30 meters. The witness has deposed that he had asked the accused persons if they wanted to search him prior to their personal search in the presence of all police officials but he has not mentioned this fact in the charge sheet. He has denied that there was a heavy traffic near the Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur at the night time. According to him the accused persons were arrested at about 4:30 AM and the distance between place of incident of robbery and the place where the accused persons were apprehended by them is about half to quarter a kilometer. The witness has deposed that the accused persons were apprehended at a distance of 100 meters from the gate of the Max hospital but he did not find any security guard present at the Max hospital. He has denied that there is a mall on the road in front of Aurvedic Hospital going towards Shaliamar village. According to the witness the accused Krishna @ Cheeku did not try to use or show the knife carried by him. Witness has admitted that the recovered knife was only seen after the personal search of accused Krishna @ Chiku. He has deposed that he prepared the seizure memos and personal search memos before registration of the FIR. He has further deposed that no public person except the complainant was found present at the place of incident nor he tried to call upon any public person from the slums / jhuggies situated at the spot. The witness has deposed that the accused persons had run State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 29 of 51 towards the railway line. He has denied that the accused persons were lifted from their respective houses and falsely implicated in the present case or that he did not conduct investigations of this case in the fair and proper manner or that he did not visit the spot of the incident. The witness has further denied that he did not record the statement of the complainant or that the signatures of accused persons were obtained on blank papers which were later on converting into certain incriminating documents against them.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(27) After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied.
(28) According to the accused they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the police after lifting from from their respective houses. Hey have stated that nothing was recovered from their possession or at their instance and the aforesaid articles have been planted upon them by the police only to falsely implicate them in this case. According to the accused persons they have nothing to do with the alleged incident. They have stated that their signatures were obtained on blank papers forcibly which were later on converted into State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 30 of 51 various memos against them. The accused have not examined any witness in defence.
FINDINGS:
(29) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused. My findings are as under:
Ocular Evidence:
(30) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborates each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.
(31) The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the testimony of the complainant / victim Vinod Kumar (PW4) and his son Lalit Kumar (PW5) who have both supported the case of prosecution not only the identity of the accused and the incident but State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 31 of 51 also on the aspect of recovery of the stolen currency amount and duplicate driving license and other documents. (32) Coming first to the testimony of the complainant Vinod Kumar (PW4) relevant portion of which is being reproduced as under:
"I am residing at the aforementioned address along with my family and I sell articles in the weekly market. On 06.10.2011 I had put my weekly shop at sector 16 Rohini at around 11:45 PM after winding up my work and going to my house at Shalimar village and when I reached near Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur, four boys suddenly came in front of my vehicle i.e. Vikram and stopped the same. My son Lalit was also with me at that time. I was driving the vehicle and my son was sitting besides me adjoining the driver seat. The said boys compelled me to stop the vehicle by jumping in front of it. Two boys pulled my son Lalit out of the vehicle. The third boy put a knife on my throat and the fourth boy removed the money from the top pocket of my shirt. The boy who had put the knife on my throat said "jo kuch hai nikal de". One boy removed the money from the shirt pocket of my son. My son was having Rs 450/ and I was carrying Rs 2300/ which were removed by these boys. The said boys also took the RC of my van and also took the driving licence of my son from his pocket. The said boys ran towards the railway lines after committing the incident. After the boys went away I made a 100 number call from my mobile phone which I had hidden in the dash State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 32 of 51 board. The police came to the spot and recorded my statement vide EX PW 4/A bearing my signatures at point A. Thereafter I pointed out the railway lines where the accused had run away and I along with four police officials went towards the railway lines. I saw four boys going towards the railway lines and identified them as the assailants. On my pointing out all the four boys were apprehended and on interrogation they disclosed their names as Ravi, Sumeet, Cheeku and one other boy whose name I am not remembering. The said boys are also present in the court.
At this stage, witness has correctly identified all the accused Ravi, Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku as the boys who were apprehended at his instance along with another boy who is not present in the court.
After their apprehension the said boys were duly searched and the personal search of accused Ravi revealed Rs 450/ which he had stolen from my son. The personal search of Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku revealed presence of knives. It was Krishna @ Cheeku who had put the knife on my neck. The boy who is not in the court had removed the cash from my pocket which was not recovered. They were interrogated during which they disclosed their involvement in the present case (objected to by the Ld. Defence counsels). The arrest memo of accused Ravi is EX PW 4/B bearing my State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 33 of 51 signatures at point A. His personal search is EX PW 4/C bearing my signatures at point A. He made his disclosure statement vide EX PW 4/D. The arrest memo of accused Sumit is EX PW 4/E bearing my signatures at point A. His personal search is EX PW 4/F bearing my signatures at point A. He made his disclosure statement vide EX PW 4/G. The arrest memo of accused Krishna @ Cheeku is EX PW 4/H bearing my signatures at point A. His personal search is EX PW 4/I bearing my signatures at point A. He made his disclosure statement vide EX PW 4/J bearing my signatures at point A. The police official also converted the cash recovered from accused Ravi into a pullanda which he seal and thereafter seized the same vide seizure memo EX PW 4/K bearing my signatures at point A. The police official then prepared the sketch of both the knives on papers. The sketch of the knife recovered from the possession of the accused Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku are EX PW 4/L and EX PW 4/M. The sketch of the knife EX PW 4/M bearing my signatures at point A. Thereafter the IO converted the same into pullandas and sealed the same after which he prepared the seizure memos of the knives as EX PW 4/N and EX PW 4/O. The seizure memo of the knife EX PW 4/N bearing my signatures at point A respectively. I can identify the knives and the cash recovered from the possession of the accused.
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 34 of 51
At this stage, MHC(M) Shalimar Bagh has produced three sealed pullandas, all duly sealed with the seal of RKB. The seal of the first pullanda is broken and the same is found to contain currency notes totally Rs 450/ i.e. two currency notes of Rs 100/ each, four currency notes of Rs 50/ each and five currency notes of Rs 10/ each and one colored photocopy of driving licence Court observations : the said DL appears to be duplicate and not original which the witness says was recovered from the possession of accused Ravi. The currency notes are EX P1 and the duplicate DL is EX P2.
Second pullanda is opened after breaking the seal and one kitchen knife with a wooden handle is taken out and same is shown to the witness who correctly identified the same as recovered from the possession of accused Sumeet. The said knife matches the sketch EX PW 4/L and is now EX P3.
Third pullanda is opened after breaking the seal and one buttondar knife is taken out and same is shown to the witness who correctly identified the same as recovered from the possession of accused Krishna @ Chiku. The said knife matches the sketch EX PW 4/M and is now EX P4.
At this stage, Ld. APP for the state seeks permission to put leading question to the witness.
Heard, Permission granted.
It is correct that the police also prepared the site plan of the spot of occurrence at my State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 35 of 51 pointing out which is EX P W4/P bearing my signatures at point A...... "
(33) Vinod Kumar has been exhaustively cross examined wherein he has not only supported the earlier version given to the police in his complaint made by him but has also denied having falsely implicated the accused persons in connivance with the police officials. He has proved that he is the one who had made a call on 100 number from the mobile hone which was kept in the dais board of his vehicle and has been left by the assailants after which four police officials had come to the spot and since they had seen the assailants running towards the railway lines hence he and his son accompanied the police officials towards the railway lines in search of the assailants and it was then they noticed four boys there after which the police could have apprehended three of them while one o them escaped. Vinod Kumar has explained that the boy who had run away was the one who had removed the cash amount from his pocket. He has correctly identified the accused Krishna @ Cheeku as the person who had put knife on his neck and also identified the accused Sumit and Ravi as the other assailants. He has proved the recovery of the knives from the possession of the accused Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku and recovery of duplicate copy of license of his son from the possession of accused Ravi.
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 36 of 51 (34) The testimony of Vinod Kumar finds due corroboration from the testimony of his son Lalit Kumar (PW5) who was also with him when the incident of robbery took place. The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced as under:
"I am residing at the aforementioned address along with my family and I sell articles in the weekly market along with my father. On 06.10.2011 I had put my weekly shop at sector 16 Rohini at around 11:45 PM after winding up my work and going to my house at Shalimar village and when I reached near Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur, four boys suddenly came in front of our vehicle i.e. Vikram and stopped the same. My father was also with me at that time and was driving the vehicle and I was sitting besides him. The said boys compelled my father to stop the vehicle by jumping in front of it. While two boys came towards me two went towards my father. One boy put the knife on the neck of the my father and one boy put the knife on my neck and threatened us to hand over our belongings to them and said "jo kuch hai nikal de". One boy removed the money from the shirt pocket of my father and another boy removed Rs 450/ from the pocket of my shirt. The said boys also took away my driving licence from my pocket and thereafter ran towards the railway lines after committing the incident. After the boys went away my father made a 100 number call which he had kept in the dash board. The police came to the spot and we informed them of whatever had transpired. The police then made inquiries from State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 37 of 51 us and I told them that the said boys had rushed towards the railway lines. Thereafter I and my father took the police officials towards the railway line near the Max hospital. I saw four boys going from the side of the Max hospital and I pointed out towards them as the assailants. On our pointing out three boys were apprehended while one managed to escape. On interrogation they disclosed their names as Ravi, Sumeet, Cheeku and one other boy whose name I am not remembering. The said boys are also present in the court.
At this stage, witness has correctly identified all the accused Ravi, Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku as the boys who were apprehended at his instance along with another boy who is not present in the court.
After their apprehension the said boys were duly searched and the personal search of accused Ravi revealed Rs 450/ which he had stolen from my pocket. The personal search of Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku revealed presence of knives. It was Sumit who had put the knife with a wooden handle on my neck. They were interrogated during which they disclosed their involvement in the present case (objected to by the Ld. Defence counsels). The accused were arrested and their personal search was taken and they were interrogated by the police. Police also recorded their disclosure statements. The disclosure statement of accused Ravi is EX PW 4/D bearing my signatures at point A. The disclosure statement State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 38 of 51 of accused Sumit is EX PW 4/G bearing my signatures at point A. The police official also converted the cash Rs 450/ recovered from accused Ravi into a pullanda which he seal and thereafter seized the same vide seizure memo already EX PW 4/K bearing my signatures at point B. The police official then prepared the sketch of both the knives on papers. The sketch of the knife recovered from the possession of the accused Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku are EX PW 4/L and EX PW 4/M. The sketch of the knife with the wooden handle which is EX PW 4/L bearing my signatures at point A. Thereafter the IO converted the same into pullandas and sealed the same after which he prepared the seizure memos of the knives as EX PW 4/N and EX PW 4/O. The seizure memo EX PW 4/O bearing my signatures at point A. I can identify the knives and the cash recovered from the possession of the accused.
At this stage, MHC(M) Shalimar Bagh has produced three unsealed pullandas, which were already opened during the examination of previous witness. The first pullanda is found to contain currency notes totaling Rs 450/ i.e. two currency notes of Rs 100/ each, four currency notes of Rs 50/ each and five currency notes of Rs 10/ each and one colored photocopy of driving licence Court observations : the said DL appears to be duplicate and not original which the witness says recovered from the possession of accused Ravi. The currency notes are already EX P1 and the duplicate DL is already EX P2.
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 39 of 51
Second pullanda is found to contain one kitchen knife with a wooden handle is taken out and same is shown to the witness who correctly identified the same as recovered from the possession of accused Sumeet. The said knife matches the sketch already EX PW 4/L and is already EX P3.
Third pullanda is found to contain one buttondar knife is taken out and same is shown to the witness who correctly identified the same as recovered from the possession of accused Krishna @ Chiku. The said knife matches the sketch already EX PW 4/M and is already EX P4.
(35) Lalit Kumar has also been similarly and exhaustively cross examined wherein he has confirmed that the driving license (Ex.P2) which has been recovered from the possession of the accused Ravi, is not original license but his the coloured copy and that is the reason he has not taken it back on superdari. He has corroborated the testimony of his father Vinod Kumar to the extent that they were stopped by the assailants in front of the shopping mall and that the police had reached there after 510 minutes and two more police officials reached there after which statement of his father was recorded and thereafter they went in search of the accused persons towards the railway lines where they could identify three persons (while one of them had escaped) and from possession the of the apprehended accused, two knives and part State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 40 of 51 of the stolen amount was recovered. He has identified the accused Sumit as the person who had put knife on him and the accused Krishna @ Cheeku as the person who had put the knife on the neck of his father and Ravi as the one who had removed the various articles from his pocket.
(36) It is evident that the incident took place at around 11:45 PM when the boys compelled Vinod Kumar and Lalit Kumar to stop the vehicle by jumping in front of the said vehicle. It is a matter of common knowledge that for fear of their lives and so also fear of getting entangled in troublesome litigations often prevents the public persons from providing assistance to the victims. Even otherwise, being virtually midnight, there was no much traffic on the road and coupled with the fact that the entire incident would have lasted for hardly few seconds. Therefore, under the given circumstances it is writ large that merely because some passerbye had not stopped to help, would not render the prosecution case improbable. Further, the accused were apprehended within 30 to 45 minutes of the incident.
(The victims have explained that it was 12:30 to 1:00 AM (midnight) when the accused were apprehended). It is this fact of immediate apprehension of the accused persons near the spot of the incident minutes after the incident which lends authenticity and credibility to the case of the prosecution since it is the victim themselves who State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 41 of 51 accompanied the police in search of the accused and pointed out towards the assailants, which aspect has been proved by them in their testimonies and has not been effectively controverted. (37) Further, there is no history of animosity between the accused persons and the victims to falsely implicate the accused persons. The only defence of the accused that the alleged victims were stock witnesses of the police does not cut much ice being a vague allegation. The accused have failed to bring on record even a single instance case where either of the victims i.e. Vinod or Lalit had even previously appeared before the court as witnesses of the police or were involved any other litigation. Both Vinod Kumar and Lalit Kumar have corroborated each other on material particulars relating to the accused of commission of the offence and their testimonies also find due independent corroboration from the testimonies of the various police officials who had reached the sot on receipt of the call i.e. Ct. Shambhu Tiwari (PW2), HC Shyam Kishore (PW6), Ct. Amit (PW7) and SI Rajesh Kumar (PW8). The testimonies of these witnesses are authentic, credible and trustworthy and they have also identified all the three accused persons namely Krishna @ Cheeku, Ravi and Sumit as the person who were apprehended soon after the incident from near the spot of incident itself.
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 42 of 51 Arrest & Apprehension of accused and Recovery of Stolen Articles:
(38) The case of the prosecution is that within an hour of the incident, the Investigating Officer along with the other staff were able to apprehend the accused persons from near the spot of incident and part of the cash which was stolen along with the copy of driving license and other documents of Lalit were also recovered from the possession of the accused persons. The victim Vinod Kumar has proved that soon after the assailants / accused left the spot of the incident, he made a call at 100 number from his second mobile which he used to keep in the dash board of the vehicle and has not been taken away by the assailants. On the basis of the said, call the information was sent to the local police vide DD No. 3A recorded by L/Ct. Archana which call had been received from number 9250904386 on the basis of which SI Rakesh Kumar had reached to the spot along with Ct. Amit when they found that Ct. Shambhu Tiwari and HC Shyam Kishore were already present there who also joined the investigations.
Thereafter, they all proceeded towards the railway lines in search of the accused persons and it was on the pointing out the victim Vinod and Lalit that the three accused were apprehended whereas one of the assailants namely "Mafia" had managed to escape. It is evident that, from the three boys apprehended at the instance of the victims, one kitchen knife was recovered from the accused Sumit, one buttondar State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 43 of 51 knife was recovered from the accused Krishna whereas coloured copy of the driving license and Rs.400/ were recovered from the possession of accused Ravi. When the police apprehended these boys on the pointing out of the victims and interrogated them, they disclosed their involvement in the present case and further disclosed that the name of their fourth associate who had escaped was "Mafia" and this fact finds due corroboration from the testimony of complainant Vinod Kumar who is most specific when he has identified Krishna @ Cheeku as the boy who had put the knife on his neck and the accused Ravi as the person who had robbed his son Lalit of the cash and other belonging by removing it from his pocket. The other boy Sumit was the one who was duly armed with a knife and had gone towards Lalit and pulled him out along with Ravi. The absconding accused "Mafia" was the one who according to Vinod had removed cash from his pocket. This testimony of Vinod on aforesaid counts further finds confirmation from the testimony of his son Lalit (covictim). The immediate apprehension and arrest of the accused persons at the instance of the victims coupled with the recovery of the robbed currency notes and copy of the driving license and other documents of Lalit Kumar which were identified by him at the spot itself is something which lends credibility and authenticity to the prosecution case. I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 44 of 51 of robbery against the accused Krishna, Ravi and Sumit and of use of arms in the said robbery by Krishna @ Cheeku and Sumit. Charge under Section 411 IPC and Arms Act:
(39) Case of the prosecution is that on the apprehension of the accused, knives were recovered from the possession of the accused Krishna and Sumit and part of the stolen property i.e. cash to the tune of Rs.450/ and copy of driving license and other document was recovered from the possession of the accused Ravi. (40) In so far as the recovery of knife from the possession of accused Sumit is concerned, it is writ large that the said knife whose blade is measuring (blade being 12.5 cms., length of handle 12 cms.
and total length being 24.5 cms.) is not covered as per the Gazette Notification (which provides that any person found in possession of a knife open or close with any of the mechanical device with a blade of 7.62 or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth, in public places should be regulated), and hence legally and technically he his not liable for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act, though he would be liable for the use of this knife as contemplated under Section 397 Indian Penal Code.
(41) In so far as the accused Krishna @ Cheeku is concerned, the knife recovered from his possession is a buttondar knife whose State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 45 of 51 specifications are covered as provided in Gazette Notification (blade being 11 cms., length of handle 13 cms. and total length being 24 cms.) with mechanical device and hence he is liable for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act.
(42) Coming now to the charge under Section 27 Arms Act, I hold that both the accused Krishna @ Cheeku and Sumit having used the knife at the time of commission of robbery, they are liable for offence under Section 397 IPC which duly covers the use of knife and hence legally they cannot be punished separately for the offence under Section 27 Arms Act (knife so recovered from the possession of Sumit even otherwise not being covered in the Arms Act but use of a knife being covered under Section 397 IPC).
(43) In so far as the charge under Section 411 IPC against the accused Ravi is concerned, he has been specifically identified as the person who had removed the belongings from the victim Lalit along which coaccused. Hence legally and technically the provisions of Section 411 Indian Penal Code are not separately made out as the ingredients of Section 411 Indian Penal Code are already covered within the definition of the offence of Robbery as provided under Section 390 Indian Penal Code.
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 46 of 51 FINAL CONCLUSION:
(44) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(45) Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of present case, the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses. From the testimonies of the victims and other evidence on record the following facts stand established: State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 47 of 51
➢ That Vinod Kumar used to sell articles in the weekly market at Sector16, Rohini.
➢ That 06.10.2011 at around 11:45 PM after winding up his work, Vinod Kumar along with his son Lalit was going to his house at Shalimar village in their vehicle i.e. Vikram (three wheeler) which was being driven by Lalit.
➢ That when they reached near Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur four boys suddenly came in front of their vehicle and stopped the same.
➢ That the said boys compelled Vinod Kumar to stop the vehicle by jumping in front of it.
➢ That two boys pulled Lalit out of the vehicle whereas the third boy put a knife on the throat of Vinod Kumar and the fourth boy removed the money from the top pocket of the shirt of Vinod Kumar.
➢ That the boy who had put the knife on the throat of Vinod Kumar said "jo kuch hai nikal de" while the other boy removed the money from the shirt pocket of his son Lalit. ➢ That Lalit was having Rs.450/ whereas Vinod Kumar was carrying Rs.2,300/ which were removed by the said boys. ➢ That the said boys also took the RC of the vehicle and the driving licence of Lalit from his pocket after which they ran State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 48 of 51 towards the railway lines after committing the incident. ➢ That Vinod Kumar made a 100 number call from his mobile phone which he had hidden in the dash board on which police came to the spot and recorded his statement. ➢ That Vinod Kumar pointed out towards the railway lines where the assailants had run away and he along with four police officials went towards the railway lines where he identified the assailants and on his pointing the assailants were apprehended. ➢ That Vinod Kumar identified the accused Ravi, Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku as the boys who were apprehended at his instance along with another boy who has managed to escape. ➢ That from the personal search of accused Ravi, Rs.450/ were recovered which he had robbed from Lalit.
➢ That knives were recovered from the personal search of accused Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku.
➢ That Vinod Kumar has identified the accused Krishna @ Cheeku as the boy who had put the knife on his neck. ➢ That Lalit has identified the accused Sumit as the boy who had put the knife with a wooden handle on his neck. (46) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 49 of 51 investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused Krishna @ Cheeku, Ravi and Sumit, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution in so far as the accused Krishna @ Cheeku, Ravi and Sumit are concerned. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link in so far as the accused persons are concerned.
(47) In this background, the accused Krishna @ Cheeku is hereby held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 Arms Act. He is State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 50 of 51 acquitted of the charge under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act.
(48) In so far as the accused Sumit is concerned, he is hereby held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 Arms Act.
(49) In so far as the accused Ravi is concerned he is hereby held guilty for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code (Section 411 stands covered). He is acquitted of the charge under Section 394/397 Indian Penal Code.
(50) Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 18.7.2013.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 15.7.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 51 of 51
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 64/2013 Unique Case ID: 02404R0358852011 State Vs. 1. Krishna @ Cheeku S/o Ram Niwas, R/o H. No. 310, Gali No. 1, Village Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
(Convicted)
2. Sumit S/o Shyam Sunder, R/o Jhuggi No. 49/1, Ayurvedic, Camp, Haiderpur, Delhi.
(Convicted)
3. Ravi S/o Jai Prakash R/o H. No. 101, Village Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 359/2011
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
Under Section : 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code
25/27/ Arms Act.
Date of conviction : 15.7.2013
Arguments heard on : 18.7.2013
Date of sentence : 26.7.2013
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 52 of 51
APPEARANCE
Present: Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
Convicts Krishna @ Cheeku, Sumit and Ravi in JC with Sh. Rajneesh Antil, Amicus Curiae and Sh. Mukesh Birla, Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
(1) As per the allegations, on 6.10.2011 at about 11:50 PM at Road in front of Ayurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur, Delhi, the convict Krishna @ Cheeku, Sumit and Ravi along with one Mafia (since not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention stopped the vehicle i.e. Vikram (Three Wheeler) belonging to complainant Vinod Kumar and robbed him of Rs.2300/, RC and some documents and also robbed the son of Vinod Kumar namely Lalit of his Rs.450/ and a driving license. It is further alleged that while committing the robbery, the convict persons also used criminal force on the victims Vinod Kumar and Lalit Kumar and assaulted them on the point of knife i.e. deadly weapon.
(2) On the basis of the oral testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly the victims Vinod Kumar (PW4) and Lalit Kumar (PW5) and also on the basis of other material placed on record, this court vide a detailed judgment dated 15.7.2013 observed that it has been established that the victim Vinod Kumar used State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 53 of 51 to sell articles in the weekly market at Sector16, Rohini. It also stands established that on 06.10.2011 at around 11:45 PM after winding up his work, Vinod Kumar along with his son Lalit was going to his house at Shalimar village in their vehicle i.e. Vikram (three wheeler) which was being driven by Lalit; that when they reached near Aurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur four boys suddenly came in front of their vehicle and stopped the same; that the said boys compelled Vinod Kumar to stop the vehicle by jumping in front of it; that two boys pulled Lalit out of the vehicle whereas the third boy put a knife on the throat of Vinod Kumar and the fourth boy removed the money from the top pocket of the shirt of Vinod Kumar; that the boy who had put the knife on the throat of Vinod Kumar said "jo kuch hai nikal de" while the other boy removed the money from the shirt pocket of his son Lalit; that Lalit was having Rs.450/ whereas Vinod Kumar was carrying Rs.2,300/ which were removed by the said boys; that the said boys also took the RC of the vehicle and the driving licence of Lalit from his pocket after which they ran towards the railway lines after committing the incident;
that Vinod Kumar made a 100 number call from his mobile phone which he had hidden in the dash board on which police came to the spot and recorded his statement; that Vinod Kumar pointed out towards the railway lines where the assailants had run away and he along with four police officials went towards the railway lines where he identified State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 54 of 51 the assailants and on his pointing the assailants were apprehended; that Vinod Kumar identified the accused Ravi, Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku as the boys who were apprehended at his instance along with another boy who has managed to escape; that from the personal search of accused Ravi, Rs.450/ were recovered which he had robbed from Lalit; that knives were recovered from the personal search of accused Sumit and Krishna @ Cheeku; that Vinod Kumar has identified the accused Krishna @ Cheeku as the boy who had put the knife on his neck; that Lalit has identified the accused Sumit as the boy who had put the knife with a wooden handle on his neck.
(3) This being the background, the convict Krishna @ Cheeku has been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code and also for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act, however, he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act. In so far as the convict Sumit is concerned, he has been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code, however, he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 Arms Act. Further, the accused Ravi has been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code, however, he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 394/397 Indian State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 55 of 51 Penal Code.
(4) Heard arguments on the point of sentence and considered the submissions made before me. The convict Krishna @ Cheeku is a young boy of 19 years of age, unmarried, totally illiterate and was previously working at a Rehabilitation Centre. He has a family comprising of aged mother (widow) who used to run a tea stall for the livelihood. He has two elder brothers and four elder sisters. He has already remained in Judicial Custody in the present case for a period of about One Year Nine Months Seventeen Days and is not involved in any other case.
(5) The convict Sumit is young boy of 24 years of age, unmarried and previously was doing a private job at a garment shop. He is having a family comprising of widow aged mother (housemaid), one elder brother and one elder sister. He has already remained in Judicial Custody in the present case for a period of about Nine Months Thirteen Days and apart from the present case, he is also involved in two other cases i.e. FIR No. 283/12 Police Station Shalimar Bagh under Section 307/34 IPC and FIR No. 364/05 Police Station Shalimar Bagh under Section 394/34 IPC.
(6) The convict Ravi is young boy of 25 years of age, married, studied upto 6th class, driver by profession having a family comprising State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 56 of 51 of father (Govt. servant), mother (Govt. servant), wife, one son and one daughter. He has already remained in Judicial Custody in the present case for a period of about Nine Months Thirteen Days and apart from the present case, he is also involved in case FIR No. 989/05 Police Station Shalimar Bagh under Section 379/356 IPC. (7) Ld. Defence Counsels for the convicts have vehemently argued that the convicts are young boys and sole bread earner of their respective families. It is also submitted that though the convicts Ravi and Sumit are involved in other cases, yet they have not been convicted in any case. It is requested that a lenient view be taken against the convicts.
(8) On the other hand the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has prayed for a stern view against the convicts keeping in view the allegations involved and the nature of offence. (9) I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that in the recent past Delhi has experienced a spurt and rise in the incidents of snatching, robbery, dacoity, murder and other kinds of crime. In the year 2012 alone, a total number of 54,287 cases were registered out of which 608 cases were of robbery; 28 cases were of Dacoity, 14,391 cases were of vehicular theft; 1,440 cases were of snatching and 521 cases were of murder.
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 57 of 51 (10) The deteriorating law and order problem of the City is a matter of serious concern and immediate steps are required to be taken at all levels for ensuring security and safety of the citizens. Instances of young persons getting involved in criminal activities of robbing innocent persons by putting them under threat of death, are also on rise. They unhesitatingly and indiscriminately use dangerous arms on helpless victims who may or not offer any resistance thereby spreading terror in the society and adversely affecting social order and the faith of people in the system. Under these circumstances the courts are required to find answers to the new challenges facing the society and to mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should be conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of the rime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175). Punishment ought to fit the crime and sometime it is desirability to keep the offender out of circulation.
(11) However, keeping in view the age of the convicts and also keeping in view their family background, I hereby award the following State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 58 of 51 sentences to the convict Krishna @ Cheeku:
1. For the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code the convict Krishna @ Cheeku is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. For the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act the convict Krishna @ Cheeku is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two (2) years and fine for a sum of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Week.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
(12) Further, the convict Sumit is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/ for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
(13) In so far as the convict Ravi is concerned, he is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Four (4) Years and fine for State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 59 of 51 a sum of Rs.1,000/ for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One week.
(14) Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convicts for the period already undergone by them, as per rules. (15) The convicts have been informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
(16) One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached with their jail warrants.
(17) File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up after the arrest of accused Mafia.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 26.7.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 60 of 51 FIR No. 359/2011 Police Station Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Krishna @ Chiku etc. 15.7.2013 Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All accused in JC with Sh. Rajnish Antil, Amicus Curiae. Vide separate detailed judgment dictated and announced in the open court but not yet typed, the accused Krishna @ Cheeku has been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 Arms Act. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act.
In so far as the accused Sumit is concerned, he has been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 Arms Act.
In so far as the accused Ravi is concerned he has been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 394/397 Indian Penal Code. Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 18.7.2013.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ/NWII, Rohini/15.7.2013 State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 61 of 51 FIR No. 359/2011 PS : Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Krishna @ Chiku etc. 18.7.2013 Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All convicts in JC with Sh. Rajnish Antil, Amicus Curiae and Sh. Imran Khan, Advocate.
Heard arguments on sentence. Counsels for the convicts are at liberty to file the written memorandum of arguments on the aspect of sentence by 22.7.2013. The Investigating Officer to place on record the previous antecedents of the convicts if any by 22.7.2013. Be listed for order on sentence on 24.7.2013.
(Dr. Kamini Lau)
ASJ/NWII, Rohini/18.7.2013
24.7.2013
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All convicts in JC with Sh. Rajnish Antil, Amicus Curiae and Sh. Mukesh Birla, Advocate.
Ld. Presiding Officer is on leave today.
As per directions of Ld. Presiding Officer, case is listed for the purpose already fixed on 26.7.2013.
Reader /24.7.2013
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 62 of 51
FIR No. 359/2011
PS : Shalimar Bagh
State Vs. Krishna @ Chiku etc.
26.7.2013
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All convicts in JC with Sh. Rajnish Antil, Amicus Curiae and Sh. Mukesh Birla, Advocate.
Vide separate detailed order, the convicts have been sentenced as follows :
1. For the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code the convict Krishna @ Cheeku is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. For the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act the convict Krishna @ Cheeku is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two (2) years and fine for a sum of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Week.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 63 of 51 Further, the convict Sumit is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/ for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
In so far as the convict Ravi is concerned, he is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Four (4) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.1,000/ for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One week.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convicts for the period already undergone by them, as per rules.
The convicts have been informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached with their jail warrants.
State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 64 of 51
File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up after the arrest of accused Mafia.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ/NWII, Rohini/26.7.2013 State Vs. Krishna @ Cheeku, FIR No. 359/11 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 65 of 51