Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Gulzar @ Chotu on 19 February, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.P.GARG, DISTRICT
JUDGE IV NEW DELHI
S.C.No.53/09
State vs. Mohd. Gulzar @ Chotu
s/o Mohd. Jamal,
r/o Vill. & P.O. Behri Distt.
Darbhanga, Bihar
Another Address:
WZ 75/B, Village Dashghara House
of Banarsi Nagar, Delhi.
(presently lodged in J.C)
FIR No.104/09
P.S.Mandir Marg
U/s 395/412 IPC
Date of institution of the case : 07.09.2009
Date of committal of the case : 05.11.2009
Date when case reserved for orders : 19.02.2010
Date of announcement of judgment : 19.02.2010
(Decided within 3½ months after committal )
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Mohd. Gulzar @ Chotu was arrested by the police of Police Station Mandir Marg vide FIR No.104/09 and was challaned to the court for the commission of offence 2 punishable u/s 395/412/75 IPC. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is as under: (A) Brief Facts :
2. Present case was registered by the police of Police th th Station Mandir Marg on the night intervening 26 /27 June 2009 on the complaint of complainant Shiv Kumar Pathak. In his complaint, complainant Shiv Kumar Pathak disclosed the police that he was working as camera man in "India TV". On 26.6.2009 at about 11 p.m he was returning from his office at Noida on his motor cycle No.DL 4S NA 2427. When he reached at round about, Tal Katora Stadium, Shanker Road at about 11.30 p.m, 5 boys got stopped his motor cycle. When he enquired from the said boys as to why they had stopped his motor cycle, one of the boys aged about 25 years wearing red colour shirt hit him from behind with a brick. He raised alarm 'Bachao Bachao'. However, none came forward. Thereafter the three boys dragged him from his motor cycle and started 3 giving beatings to him. The said boys started dragging him towards the forest. There the three boys took out their knives and threatened to kill him if he raised alarm. He was robbed of his purse and mobile phone. The purse contained Rs.15,000/, two ATM cards of J & K Bank and ICIC Bank. Thereafter the said 5 boys fled away towards the forest.
3. The complainant further disclosed that he reached at Police Station Rajinder Nagar in a TSR. There he was informed that the area where the incident took place fell within the jurisdiction of P.S. Mandir Marg. The complainant further disclosed that the assailants had also taken the key of his motor cycle. He had sustained injuries on his person due to the beatings given by the assailants.
4. After registration of the FIR, the investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Rajbir Singh Lamba. He got the complainant medically examined at RML hospital. During investigation he visited the place of occurrence. 4 However, no clue was found. One Ashok also met the I.O and his statement was recorded.
5. On 29.6.2009 complainant came at the Police Station and produced the bill of his mobile phone which was seized by the I.O vide seizure memo. I.O also prepared site plan at the spot on the pointing out of the complainant.
6. On 9.7.2009 SI Charan Singh posted in Special Staff West District received secret information that accused Mohd. Gulzar who was involved in many theft cases would come in Salvage Park, Maya Puri to meet his associate. He also received information that accused Mohd. Gulzar was also involved in a robbery case which took place on the intervening th th night of 26 /27 June 2009 with a motor cyclist at Shanker Road. SI Charan Singh organized a raiding party. At about 10.15 p.m one boy came from the side of Lajwanti Garden Chowk and stopped near Salvage Park and he started waiting for some one. At the instance of the secret informer he was 5 apprehended and on enquiry his name was known as Mohd. Gulzr @ Chottu. He was interrogated and he confessed his guilt regarding commission of robbery in this case. He also disclosed the name of his associates as Ramesh, Rajesh, Lambu and Deepak. SI Charan Singh recorded his disclosure statement. Personal search of the accused was conducted and from his possession one mobile phone make LG having IMEI No.352834010661771 was recovered. It was seized vide seizure memo. Accused was arrested and he was instructed to cover his face. Intimation was given to the police of Police Station Mandir Marg.
7. On receipt of information from Special Staff, West District, Inspector Rajbir Singh Lamba came to the concerned court and after taking permission from the concerned M M, he interrogated the accused and formally arrested him. Disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded. Application was moved by the IO to get TIP of the accused 6 conducted. The accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings conducted by the ld.M.M.
8. Two days police remand of the accused was taken. Efforts were made to search coaccused persons. On 21.7.2009 complainant came to the Police Station and identified the accused as one of the assailant. Accused led the police party to the place of incident and the pointing out memo was prepared. Supplementary confessional statement of the accused was recorded during the investigation.
9. During further investigation, I.O recorded statement of concerned witnesses at different stage of investigation. He also collected the call details of the mobile phone. After completion of the investigation, the police of PS Mandir Marg filed challan against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 395/412/75 IPC in the court of learned M.M. (B) Committal Of Case:
10. After completing with the provisions of section 7 207/208 Cr.P.C, learned M.M committed the case to the court of Sessions on 5.11.2009.
(C) Charge:
11. After hearing the learned Addl. P P for the State and learned counsel for the accused Shri A.K.Sahu Advocate/amicus curiae, charge for the commission of offence punishable u/s 395/34 IPC was ordered to be framed against the accused vide order dated 20.11.2009. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
(D) Prosecution Evidence:
12. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses in all. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW1 W.Const.Rubinsa, PW2 W.Const. Ranjana, PW3 Constable Suresh, PW4 ASI Sant Ran, PW5 Ashok, PW6 Manoj Gupta, PW7 Coonstable Kamlesh, PW8 Constable Suresh Kumar, PW9 ASI Gulab Singh, PW10 Shri R.K. Singh, PW11 Jyotish Maharana, PW12 H C Girdhar Singh, PW13 8 Dr.Sandesh Kumar Gupta, PW14 Manjeet Singh, PW15 Vinod Kumar Yadav, PW16 Vidhya Sagar Avasti, PW17 Shiv Kumar Pathak, PW18 Deepak Kumar, PW19 Sh.Rupender, PW20 Const. Anoop Singh, PW21 Shri Pritam Singh ld.M.M, and PW22 Inspector Rajbir Singh Lamba.
(E) Statement of Accused:
13. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied his involvement in the commission of the offence. Plea of the accused is that on 6.7.2009 when he was present at Sindhi Park near Rajinder Nagar, the police officials came there and took him to Police Station and was falsely implicated in this case.
14. Accused however, did not prefer to lead any evidence in his defence.
(F) Arguments:
15. I have heard learned Addl. P P for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused and have gone 9 through the file.
16. Contention of learned Addl. P P for the State is that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution on all material facts and there is nothing to disbelieve his testimony. The robbed mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused.
17. Contention of learned counsel for the accused is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which make it unsafe to convict the accused. The accused was not named in the FIR. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the accused. Coaccused persons were not apprehended by the police. Complainant sustained injuries when he had a quarrel with the doctor at 10 RML hospital and had hit his hand against glass. (G) Findings:
18. I have considered the rival contention of both the parties and have scrutinized the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
(1) Incident of robbery:
19. Incident of robbery with the complainant has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the accused. Only plea of the learned counsel for the accused is that accused was not instrumental in the incident of robbery happened on the person of the complainant. On scanning the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it stands established that the incident of robbery took place with the complainant on the th th intervening night of 26 /27 June 2009 when he was returning from his office at Noida to his residence at around 12.30 a.m. (night) near Tal Katora round about, Shanker Road. Complainant Shiv Kumar Pathak lodged the report with the 11 police at the earliest soon after the occurrence. His statement Ex.PW4/A was recorded in which he gave graphic details as to how the incident of robbery had taken place on his person and how he had sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants. The complainant was not imagined to concoct a false story of robbery on his person. Complainant was not going to be benefited by faking the incident of robbery. Other circumstances on record also establish that the incident of robbery took place on the person of the complainant. PW 19 Sh. Rupender, an independent public witness has testified that th th on the intervening night of 26 /27 June 2009 at about 12.30 night he along with his family was returning from Gurudwara Bangla Sahib to his house and when he reached at Shanker Road roundabout, he saw a boy who was bleeding and was requesting for help. He informed PCR on 100 number about the said boy. The testimony of this witness corroborates the version given by the complainant in his testimony before the 12 court also. This witness had seen the incident of robbery though due to his own apprehension, he did not intervene in the incident. PW 5 Ashok another independent witness, who used to ply TSR No.DL1RK5836 also testified that on the th th intervening night of 26 /27 June 2009 at about 12.20 a.m (night) when he reached Shanker Road from the side of Tal Katora Stadium, he heard noise of 'Bachao Bachao'. He stopped his TSR and saw three boys pulling one person towards jungle and a motor cycle was also found standing on the road side. He started abusing those three culprits. The said three persons started pelting stones upon him. One stone hit against his TSR. Apprehending the culprits having weapons, he immediately ran away from the spot in his TSR to bring the police. He further stated that he informed the police. He also made telephone call at 100 number and the PCR reached there. The victim who was robbed by the culprits also came there and he was in injured condition. The victim 13 informed the police that a sum of Rs.15,000/, two ATM cards, key of the motor cycle, mobile phone and purse were robbed by the culprits. This independent witness has no ulterior motive to make false statement regarding the incident of robbery. His presence at the spot has not been controverted.
20. PW1 W.Constable Rubina and PW 2W.Constable Ranjana have proved the forms Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A filled up by them on receipt of necessary messages. PW 1 filled up form Ex.PW1/A on receipt of message from PW 19 Rupender Singh. PW 2 W. Consts. Ranjana filled up form Ex.PW2/A on receipt of information from telephone No.9654664912 belonging to PW 5 Ashok. The statements of these witnesses have remained unchallenged. These statements also prove beyond doubt that the incident of robbery had taken place on the date, place and time disclosed by the complainant in his statement before the court as well as in his statement before the police.
14
21. DD No.43A dated 27.6.2009 Ex.PW9/B recorded at about 1 a.m (night) at P.S Mandir Marg on the basis of information given by PCR reveals that three boys were giving beatings to one person at Shanker Road towards Tal Katora Road and was dragging him to the forest. Similarly DD No.42 A Ex.PW9/A recorded at 0045 hours on the basis of QST received from PCR shows that one boy was in injured condition. On receipt of this DD ASI Sant Ram and Constable Anoop Singh reached at the spot. These DD entries recorded at the P.S further lend credence to the version given by the complainant.
22. From the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses including that of the complainant it stands established that incident of robbery took place on the person of complainant Shiv Kumar Pathak in which he was deprived of his valuable articles including cash of Rs.15,000/, 2 ATM Cards and mobile phone.
15
(2) Involvement of Accused Gulzar:
23. The prosecution has further established beyond doubt that accused Muhd. Gulzar @ Chotu arrested in this case was one of the assailants who had participated in the commission of robbery on the person of the complainant. Complainant Shiv Kumar Pathak in his complaint Ex.PW4/A made to the police at the first instance gave detailed description of the assailants and asserted that he could identify them if produced before him. While appearing as PW 17 complainant Shiv Kumar Pathak testified that the accused arrested in this case was amongst those 5 boys who had committed robbery on his person. He further testified that the accused forcibly took out his mobile phone make LG model KG 300 from his pant pocket. He stated that the assailants were in the age group of 25 - 30 years. Two of them were talking like Biharies and two of them were speaking normal Hindi. He further deposed that on 21.7.2009 he went to P.S Mandir Marg 16 to know the progress of the case and there he identified the accused Mohd. Gulzar and told the police that he was the same person who along with 4 assailants had robbed his cash and mobile phone. The accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW7/A in his presence. He also led the police party to the place of occurrence and the pointing out memo Ex.PW7/B was prepared. The witness identified the mobile phone Ex.PW17/1 which was robbed by the accused from the pocket of his pant on the day of occurrence.
24. This witness was tested in cross examination by the learned defence counsel. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he was alone at the time of occurrence. There was not much traffic on the said road when the assailants stopped him. The assailants did not allow him to go further after stopping his motor cycle. When the assailants dragged him towards jungle, his motor cycle fell down as he was sitting on his motor cycle after stopping the same. He 17 requested four/five vehicles to have lift. When the assailants were dragging him towards jungle, he cried for help. One auto rickshaw driver stopped there and came near him but at that point of time, the assailants abused him and threatened him to cause injuries with bricks on his person. The said auto rickshaw driver went away. The witness further stated that the assailants dragged him inside the jungle about 15 meters from the road. He reached Police Station Rajinder Nagar in the TSR. His motor cycle remained at the spot. He along with police officials of Police Station Rajinder Nagar reached the spot within 5 - 10 minutes from PS Rajinder Nagar. From PS Mandir Marg, police officials namely Anoop Singh and Sant Ram had also reached at the spot. He was sent for medical examination at the hospital. The witness denied the suggestion that he gave statement to the police after due deliberation. He further denied the suggestion that the accused was not present at the time of incident or that he was 18 falsely implicated in this case.
25. Entire testimony of the witness reveals that no material contradictions have been elicited to disbelieve his natural version. The witness stood the test of cross examination and answered all the quiries put to him by the learned defence counsel. Presence of this witness at the spot has not been controverted. The witness had sustained injuries on his person and had got himself medically examined at RML hospital. Being an injured, the testimony of this witness inspires more confidence. Being a victim, the injured must be interested to bring the real culprit to book and is not expected to let the real culprit go scot free. No motive has been assigned to this witness in cross examination for falsely identifying the accused to be one of the assailants. Nothing has come record to show if the complainant was known to the accused prior to the incident or was having any inimical terms to falsely rope in him in this case. In the absence of any ulterior 19 motive, the complainant is not expected to level false allegations of serious offence against an innocent person. The testimony of complainant without any embellishment inspires implicit confidence.
26. The police of PS Mandir Marg did not arrest the accused. Again no motive can be imputed to the police of PS Mandir Marg as the accused was not arrested by them in this case. Police of PS Mandir Marg came to know about the involvement of the accused in the present case only when he was arrested by the police of Special Staff West District on 10.7.2009. Prosecution has examined PW 8 Constable Suresh Kumar who was present along with SI Charan Singh at the time of apprehension of the accused on 9.7.2009. He testified that on the basis of secret information accused was apprehended at about 10.15 p.m when he was coming from the side of Lajwanti Garden Chowk and stopped near Salvage Park. The accused on interrogation confessed his guilt 20 regarding the commission of robbery in this case along with his associates. One mobile phone make LG was also recovered from the possession of the accused which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. Mobile phone Ex.PW17/1 was the same which was recovered from the possession of the accused Mohd. Gulzar.
27. In the cross examination the witness stated that the accused came alone at the time of his arrest. In addition to mobile phone, a sum of Rs.87/ was also recovered from him. The witness denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely arrested in this case.
28. Statement of this witness who was not connected with the FIR registered at PS Mandir Marg inspires confidence regarding arrest of the accused. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of this witness as to from where else accused was arrested by the police of Special Staff West District. Accused did not claim his presence at that time at any 21 other specific place. Infact in the cross examination no suggestion was put to the witness that the accused was not present at Salvage Park and he was not arrested from there. Suggestion has been put to the witness that after his arrest, the accused was taken to the Police Station and there complainant Shiv Kumar Pathak reached and the complainant took photograph of the accused. The witness has denied the suggestion. The suggestion rather shows apprehension of the accused by the special police of West District. There was no occasion for the complainant to reach at the office of the special staff to take photograph of the accused. No suggestion was put by the learned counsel for the accused to the complainant in the cross examination in this regard.
29. In his deposition before the court complainant Shiv Kumar identified the mobile phone Ex.PW17/1 recovered from the possession of the accused to be the same which was robbed from his possession. Police of PS Mandir Marg or the 22 police of Special Staff is not expected to plant the mobile phone belonging to the complainant on the accused simply to implicate him in this case. Complainant was not going to be benefited due to false implication of an innocent person.
30. PW 5 Ashok who had witnessed the incident also testified that he had seen one of the culprits at the spot who was blackish in colour and was wearing red colour T shirt. He stated that the accused present in the court 'might' be the person who had robbed the victim in this case along with his associates. This witness was got declared hostile by learned Addl. P P for the State and was cross examined. In the cross examination he further asserted that he had seen only one accused who was blackish, 5' in height and was wearing red coloured T shirt. He further admitted the suggestion of the learned Addl. P P for the State that the accused present in the court was one of the accused who had robbed the victim. This witness volunteered to add that 99 % to his view, the accused 23 present in court was the same person whom he had seen robbing the victim.
31. Presence of the witness at the spot bing a TSR driver is quite natural and probable. He had made telephone call to the police from his mobile phone No.9654664912 which also finds mentioned in the testimony of PW2. No suggestion was put to this witness in the cross examination that the accused was not one of the assailants or that he was not present at the spot. The identification of this witness to the extent 99% gives corroboration to the testimony of complainant where he categorically identified the accused to be one of the assailants.
(3) Refusal to participate in TIP
32. The accused after his arrest was subjected to TIP proceedings. IO moved an application for conducting TIP of the accused. PW 21 Shri Pritam Singh ld. M M proved the TIP proceedings conducted by him on 14.7.2009. The TIP proceedings recorded by learned M M are Ex.PW21/B. 24 Accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the accused for not participating in the TIP proceedings. The justification given by the accused for refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings is without any basis. In the statement recorded by the ld. M M accused stated that he did not want to participate in the TIP proceedings because his photographs were already shown to the complainant. No such suggestion was put to the prosecution witnesses in the cross examination as to when the I.O had taken the photograph of the accused. It was also not suggested as to when and where the photographs of the accused were shown to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Rather contradictory suggestion was put to PW8 Constable Suresh Kumar that after his arrest, the accused was taken to the Police Station and there the complainant Shiv Kumar Pathak reached and he took the photograph of the accused. Had the complainant taken the photograph of the 25 accused as suggested by the learned counsel for the accused, there was no occasion for the IO to show the photographs of the accused to the prosecution witnesses. So there was no genuine justification for the accused not to participate in the TIP proceedings. Refusing to participate in TIP proceedings is an incriminating circumstance against him to connect him with the commission of the crime.
(4) Recovery of robbed mobile
32. Prosecution has further proved that the mobile phone make LG having its IMEI number 352834010661771 recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of his apprehension belonged to the complainant Shiv Kumar Pathak. In his deposition before the court complainant Shiv Kumar Pathak identified the mobile phone recovered from the possession of the accused. Prosecution also examined PW 6 Manoj Gupta who is running business of mobile phone since 2001 at Shahdara. He stated that he sold one mobile phone 26 make LG KG 300, IMEI number 352834010661771 on 18.7.2007 to Shiv Kumar Pathak for Rs.8700/ vide bill No.6512, book No.66. The original bill was exhibited as Ex.PW4/D which contained signature of his employee Ankur at point 'A' and the signature of the customer at point 'B'. The statement of this witness categorically proves the ownership of the mobile phone recovered from the possession of the accused in favour of the complainant. Accused failed to explain as to how and from where he had obtained the mobile phone recovered from his possession. The prosecution further examined witnesses to show that even after the robbery of the mobile phone, the accused had conversation on this mobile phone from different Sim cards. Accused did not produce on record any document of ownership of the mobile phone recovered from his possession. The recovery of the robbed mobile phone is a material piece of incriminating circumstance against the accused to connect him with the 27 commission of the offence.
(H) Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C
33. The accused did not give any plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He failed to prove his presence at any particular place at the time of occurrence. Accused did not examine any witness from his family to prove if he was present at odd hours at his home or at his place of work. He merely stated in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C tht on 6.7.2009 when he was present at Sindhi Park, near Rajinder Nagar, he was taken to the Police Station and involved in this case. The accused did not explain the purpose of his presence at Sindhi Park on 6.7.2009. No complaint whatsoever was was lodged against any police official by the family members of the accused for falsely lifting him from Sindhi Park on 6.7.2009.
34. Accused did not produce any evidence in defence to 28 falsify the positive case of the prosecution and to prove his innocence. Accused failed to justify his presence at the spot at the time of incident along with his assailants. The accused failed to lead any evidence regarding his antecedents or that he was gainfully employed to earn his livelihood. Contrary to that the prosecution has examined PW 15 Vinod Kumar Yadav who has proved the conviction record of the accused whereby he was earlier convicted by the court of Shri A.K.Kuhar, the then learned M.M in case FIR No.266/02, P.S Rajinder Nagar u/s 457/380 IPC and was sentenced therein. The photo copy of the finger print slip is Ex.PW15/A. This witness was not cross examined by learned defence counsel for the accused. Accused did not deny his conviction in the said FIR.
(I) MISCELLENEOUS
35. Minor contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are not fatal to the case of the prosecution as they do not go to the root of the case. The 29 complainant in his examination in chief itself has explained the discrepancies whereby in his complaint to the police he stated robbery of mobile phone make Nokia and not LG. He further testified that he could not give the exact time of incident as 12 mid night and stated the time of incident as 11 p.m. He explained that he could not narrate the correct time due to pain and trauma. This explanation of the complainant is in consonance with the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses on record and inspires confidence.
36. From the above discussion,it stands established that the accused was one of the assailants who participated in the commission of the incident of robbery on the person of the complainant.
(J) What offence proved
37. Regarding the commission of offence punishable u/s 395 IPC, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused along with his 30 associates committed the offence of dacoity. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of incident the accused was accompanied by 4 or more than 4 assailants. PW 5 Ashok who had witnessed the incident, in his examination in chief merely stated that he had seen three boys pulling the complainant towards the forest. In the cross examination by learned Addl. P P for the State, no suggestion was put to him that the assailants were 5 in number and he had witnessed 5 assailants. Rather suggestion was put by learned Addl. P P for the State to the witness that he had seen three culprits in the light at the spot.
38. DD No.43A (Ex.PW9/B), also reveals that three persons were giving beatings to one person. There is no mention about the presence of 5 assailants in this DD No.43A th th recorded at 1 a.m on the intervening night of 26 /27 June 2009. PW 12 H.C. Girdhar Singh, Incharge of PCR Van testified that at about 12.55 mid night a call was received from 31 PCR (Victor1) to the effect that 4/5 persons were giving beatings to a man on Shanker Road towards Tal Katora Stadium. He further stated that when he met the complainant at the spot, he informed him that 4/5 persons came from inside the jungle and robbed him after giving beatings. The testimony of this witness shows that even the complainant was not sure if the assailants were 4 or 5 in number. None of the associate of the accused was apprehended and arrested in this case. Their names were revealed by the accused. Despite that the police failed to apprehend them. So it can't be said with certainty that the persons named by the accused, all were present at the spot at the time of incident. During investigation only sketches of two assailants could be prepared as disclosed by the I.O. The prosecution has thus failed to establish the commission of offence of dacoity by the accused. The prosecution has however established the commission of robbery by the accused along with his associates whose 32 number is not certain in furtherance of common intention. (K) Result
39. In view of the above discussion, accused Mohd. Gulzar @ Chotu is held guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC only and is convicted accordingly. Announced in open court dated 19.02.2010 ( S.P.GARG ) District JudgeIV New Delhi 33 IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.P.GARG, DISTRICT JUDGE IV NEW DELHI S.C.No.53/09 State vs. Mohd. Gulzar @ Chotu 19.2.2010 Present: Ld. Add. P P for the State.
Accused produced from J C Shri A.K. Sahu amicus curai for accused Arguments heard. Vide separate order of even date, accused is convicted u/s 392/34 IPC.
Now to come up on 22.2.2010 for arguments on the point of sentence.
( S.P.GARG )
District JudgeIV
New Delhi
34
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.P.GARG, DISTRICT
JUDGE IV NEW DELHI
S.C.No.53/09
State vs. Mohd. Gulzar @ Chotu
s/o Mohd. Jamal,
r/o Vill. & P.O. Behri Distt.
Darbhanga, Bihar
Another Address:
WZ 75/B, Village Dashghara House
of Banarsi Nagar, Delhi.
(presently lodged in J.C)
FIR No.104/09
P.S.Mandir Marg
U/s 395/412 IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1 I have heard the convict and his counsel on the
point of sentence. The convict has prayed to take
lenient view as he has been falsely implicated in this case. He states that he will leave Delhi and shall settle at some other place.
I have considered the prayer of the 35 convict and have gone through the file. On perusal of the file it reveals that the offence committed by the accused is very serious whereby he along with his associates committed robbery on the person of an innocent complainant who was returning from his duty at mid night at a public place. The assailants of the accused were armed with weapons and the complainant even sustained injuries on his person. The court can well understand the trauma of the complainant who was given beatings and was dragged into the forest by the accused along with his associates. The prosecution has also filed on record the previous conviction of the accused in case u/s 457 IPC. Accused has today admitted that earlier he was convicted in a case u/s 25 Arms Act. The accused has failed to show if he is gainfully employed at any place. No member of his 36 family ever came to support him. It seems that accused is habitual offender and thus deserves no leniency.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of the convict, the gravity of the offence, the convict Mohd. Gulzar @ Chotu is sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 (three) years with fine of Rs.1000/ (one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months for the commission of offence u/s 392 IPC.
The period already undergone by the convict in this case shall be counted and set off against the substantive sentence u/s 428 Cr.PC.
Copy of the judgment and other relevant documents be given free of cost to the convict to enable him to file appeal before Hon'ble High Court. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court on dated 22/02/2010 (S.P.GARG) DJIV/ND 37