Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajay Kumar & Ors on 11 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Ajay Kumar & Ors
FIR NO: 282/2017
P. S Kalkaji
U/s 392/34 IPC
Crc No./3769/2017
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 21/08/2017
Name of the complainant : Ms. Pushpa Sharma,
W/o Sh. Hari S Sharma
R/o H. NO. 20B, Pocket A-10,
Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 22.06.2017
Name of the accused : 1. Ajay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Rajpal,
R/o H. No. A-118, Navjeevan
Govindpuri, New Delhi.
2. Shivam @ Munia,
S/o Sh. Tilak Ram,
R/o H. NO. C-327, Navjeevan
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : 392/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 24.12.2021
Final Order : Convicted/Acquitted
Date of orders : 11.02.2022
1
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused persons namely Ajay Kumar and Shivam @ Munia for having committed the offence punishable u/s 392/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2. Briefly stated, as per the prosecution, on 22.06.2017 at about 11 AM, the complainant i.e. Mrs. Pushpa Sharma was going towards CGHS dispensary situated at Kalkaji. When she had reached near Mini Market, DDA Flat, Kalkaji, the accused persons came on a snooty and snatched her gold chain. Accused had snatched the said chain from the complainant after pushing her. Due to the push, she fell down on the road. Co-accused Shivam was sitting on the snooty which was already started and was waiting for accused Ajay. When the chain was snatched, then the complainant raised alarm due to which some public persons had apprehended the accused Ajay. In the meanwhile, the co-accused Shivam fled away from the spot. The stolen gold chain was thrown by the accused Ajay near the spot which was recovered subsequently at his instance. Beat constable of the said area also arrived at the spot after hearing the alarm raised by the complainant. He saw the complainant in lying condition on the road and also saw that the accused was apprehended by public persons. Thereafter, he had informed the police station. On the basis of statement given by the complainant, the present FIR was registered. The complainant, accused and some public persons were taken to the police station where the accused Ajay for interrogated and arrested. The recovered case property was also handed over to the IO by the complainant. On the basis of disclosure statement of the accused Ajay, co-accused Shivam @ Munia was arrested during the course of investigation.
3. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out by PS Kalkaji and a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. Thereafter, charge u/s 392/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Ajay Kumar and Shivam @ 2 Munian vide order dated 03.10.2017, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The accused persons had admitted the fact of registration of present FIR, age verification of accused Ajay and TIP proceedings Ex. P1, P2 and P3 respectively u/s 294 Cr.P.C. During the TIP proceeding, one of the witnesses i.e. Gaurav had correctly identified the accused Shivam @ Munia. Relevance of this TIP proceeding will be discussed at the later part of this judgment.
5. In order to prove the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined following seven witnesses:
• Mrs. Pushpa Sharma, complainant in the present case deposed as PW-1;
• Ms. Deepa Sharma, deposed as PW-2;
• Sh. Gaurav Mishra deposed as PW-3;
• HC Satish Kumar deposed as PW-4;
• Sh. Monu Katyal deposed as PW-5;
• Ct. Prabhat deposed as PW-6; and • SI Rahul deposed as PW-7.
5. PW1 was the complainant and eye witness of the present case. She did not remember about the date of incident when was examined-in-chief. She had deposed at about 10:30/11:00 am, when she was going to CGHS dispensary situated at Kalkaji, one boy aged about 22 years came from her back and snatched her gold chain and pushed her due to which she almost fell down. One of the co-
accused was already sitting on the scooty which was already started and waiting for the other accused. The accused climbed upon the said scooty. She made a noise that someone had snatched her gold chain. Thereafter, two persons who were on a motorcycle chased the accused persons and caught both of them. They also 3 recovered the said gold chain from the hand of accused Ajay. PW1 had correctly identified accused Ajay. The person who had apprehended the accused persons called the police at 100 number. Police reached at the spot after sometime and recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter police arrested the accused Ajay and conducted his personal search vide arrest memo and personal search Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C respectively. Police also made seizure of stolen case property i.e. gold chain vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D. After 4 days, she appeared before the court and got the stolen property i.e. gold chain on superdari released on superdari through her daughter-in-law namely Deepa Sharma. PW 1 also correctly identified the case property i.e. gold chain and same is Ex. P-1.
6. PW-2 was the daughter in law of the complainant who had got the case property released on superdari. She had deposed that on 05.07.2017 she filed an application for release of case property i.e. gold chain vide superdarinama Ex. PW2/A on the instruction of her mother in law Smt. Pushpa Sharma.
7. PW-3 was the eye-witness of the present case. He was an independent witness. He deposed that on 26.02.2007, at about 11.00 a.m. he was on a motorcycle alongwith his friend Monu Kotyal and was going for buying some electronic items. In the meantime, they heard a noise "chor-chor" and they saw that one boy was running and a lady was lying on the road. In the meantime, the accused was apprehended by some public person and PW3 alongwith his friend also rushed to the spot and caught hold the accused who was trying to run away from the spot. Another co- accused who was on scooty was able to flee away. Thereafter, his friend also helped him to hold the accused Ajay. PW3 correctly identified the accused. Friend of PW3 had also got recovered the gold chain which the accused had thrown away on seeing the public. Someone called the police at 100 number. After some time, police came at the spot. Police had prepared the seizure memo already Ex.PW1/D. Police also prepared the arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW-1/B and also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW-1/C. IO also recorded his statement to this effect.
48. PW-4 was the police official deputed in the ares where the incident took place. He had deposed that on 22.06.2017, when he was on beat duty at DDA Flat, Kalkaji, he had heard loud noise at the road. After hearing the noise, he went to the spot and saw one lady aged about 75 years was lying on the road who told that her chain was snatched by two persons who had come on a scooty . One person namely Ajay was already apprehended by public persons namely Gaurav and Monu Kotiyal at the spot and the chain was also got recovered. He also informed to SI Rahul about the same and thereafter, he came at the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW-4/ A, recorded the statement, arrest memo, personal search memo and two disclosure statements are Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/C and Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-4/C. PW4 correctly identified the accused in the court.
9. PW-5 was another eye-witness of the incident who was friend of PW3. He was present at the spot at the time of incident. dHe had stated that he was standing outside the house of his friend Gaurav Mishra when they heard a noise of "Chor- chor", at a distance of 100 feet. Thereafter, he along with PW3 went to the spot where they saw that public had apprehended one person and giving beatings to him. Thereafter, they also helped in apprehending the said accused. One chain was recovered from the spot at the instance of 10 meters which the IO had seized and taken alongwith him. Police had prepared the seizure memo of gold chain which Ex.PW-1/D and also arrested the accused and his personal search was also conducted before him which is already Ex.PW-1/B.
10. PW-6 was another police official who was examined by the prosecution. He had deposed that on 22.06.2017 he was asked by the IO to join the investigation. Thereafter, the accused Ajay who was already arrested was interrogated. During the interrogation, the accused Ajay had disclosed that he had committed the offence with the help of co-accused Shivam who was residing at Navjeevan Camp. Thereafter, he was asked by the IO/SI Rahul to join the investigation and accused Ajay Kumar had given an supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW6/A, whereon at the instance of accused Ajay, he got arrested the co-accused Shivam @ Miniya 5 from Navjeevan Camp, PS Govindpuri. IO had prepared the arrest memo of accused Shivam and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Shivam, one scooty bearing no. DL-35DA-8010 was recovered. Thereafter, IO had prepared the seizure memo of the scooty Ex.PW6/D. Thereafter, they got deposited the said scooty at Malkhana. IO also recorded his statement to this effect. He had correctly identified both the accused persons.
11. PW-7 was the IO of the present case. He had deposed that on 22.06.2017, he received a call at about 11.00 a.m. from HC Satish Solanki about apprehension of one person by public who had snatched gold chain of an old lady after pushing her. The said accused was apprehended when two persons on a motorcycle had chased him. The other co-accused was able to flee away on scooty. PW7 asked him to bring the victim, accused and public persons who had apprehended the accused to the police station as lot of public had gathered at the spot and there might be a problem of law and order situation. They all had come at police station. Thereafter, the victim on formal inquiry narrated the incident and she had given a written complaint to him PW-1/A and also handed over him the case property i.e. gold chain which was recovered by the public persons on the spot. Thereafter, he prepared a rukka and got registered the FIR Ex.PW-7/A.
12. After registration of FIR, PW7 had prepared the seizure memo of gold chain Ex.PW-7/B. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and his personal search was also conducted vide memos already Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C. Thereafter, he recorded disclosure statement of accused Ajay and Ex.PW-4/D. During the investigation, he also prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW-4/A. He also recorded the statement of complainant and two other eye witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On the same day, he produced the accused in the court and obtained his PC. During the course of interrogation, the accused Ajay had revealed name of co- accused Shivam with whom he had committed the crime. Thereafter, he again recorded the disclosure of accused Ajay Ex.PW-6/ A and on the basis of his 6 disclosure they had gone to the residence of co-accused Shivam @ Munian and at the instance of accused Ajay, they had apprehended the accused Shivam @ Munian from near his house. Thereafter, he arrested the accused Shivam @ Munian vide arrest memo already Ex.PW-6/B and conducted his personal search Ex.PW-6/C and produced him in a court and obtained one day PC. During sustained interrogation, accused Shivam had disclosed about the offending scooty which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/D. During investigation, he also recorded the statement of other police witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet before in the Court.
13. Accused persons have admitted certain documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. the factum of registration of FIR no. 282/17, the age verification of accused Ajay Kumar by Principle of SDMC Primary School and TIP proceedings which are Ex.P-1 to P-3.
14. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, PE was closed on 15.03.2019. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons were recorded on 08.05.2019 u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") wherein they denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated.
15. The Ld. APP urged that testimony of complainant could be relied upon even though he has resiled from his statement during his cross-examination. The testimonies of other material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies. The Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that material contradictions have appeared in the testimonies of the PWs and prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
16. I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
17. Section 390 IPC provides for the offence of robbery. It defines robbery in the following manner:
7"390. Robbery.--In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery.--Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint When extortion is robbery.--Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation.--The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint."
18. Bare reading of the above provision will clearly show that robbery is an aggravated form of theft or extortion which is committed when the person interalia voluntarily causes or attempt to cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint to the victim either while committing the theft or while carrying away the stolen property.
19. "Theft" is defined u/s 378 IPC in the following manner:
"378. Theft.--Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.--A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.--A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3.--A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4.--A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.8
Explanation 5.--The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
20. Having discussed the legal provisions involved in the present case, I shall now be examining the culpability of the accused persons namely Ajay and Shivam for the offence of robbery against the backdrop of discussed legal position. For the sake of convenience, I shall be examining their culpability separately.
Culpability of the accused Ajay Kumar for the offence of robbery
21. As discussed in he preceding paragraph of this judgment, it is required for the prosecution to prove following ingredients in order to prove the culpability of an accused for the offence of robbery.
i. The accused has committed theft, and ii. He has voluntary caused or attempted to cause interalia death, hurt or wrongful restraint while committing theft or attempting it or while carrying away the stolen property.
22. In order to prove the above ingredients, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7.
23. PW1 was the complainant and eye witness of the present case. In her testimony, she had completely supported the case of prosecution. Although she could not state the date of incident, however, she had given a detailed account of the manner in which the accused Ajay had snatched her gold chain after pushing her. Perusal of her testimony would clearly show that on the date of incident, the accused Ajay had snatched her gold chain and pushed her due to which she almost fell down on the road. After snatching the gold chain, the accused Ajay climbed on a motor cycle which was being driven by some other person. Thereafter, PW1 raised an alarm due to which the accused Ajay was apprehended by the public persons present there. The stolen gold chain was recovered from accused Ajay when he was caught 9 "
red handed at the spot. The said accused was duly identified by PW1 during the trial.
24. PW1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel wherein she had stood by her statements made during the examination-in-chief. There are no material contradictions in her testimony. She had categorically denied the suggestions that no recovery was effected from the possession of accused Ajay in her presence and that he accused did cause her hurt while snatching her gold chain.
25. Further, the fact of theft committed by the accused Ajay and subsequent recovery of stolen gold chain from his possession was also proved by public witness PW3. He had actually helped in apprehending the accused Ajay along with some other public persons. In his testimony, PW3 had categorically deposed that on the date of incident, he had heard noise of "chor-chor" being raised by some one. After hearing the noise, he had seen that one boy was running and one lady was lying on the road. Thereafter, he had rushed to the spot when he found that the said boy was apprehended by some public person and he also caught hold of the boy when he was trying to run away from the spot. PW3 had correctly identified the accused Ajay in the Court as the boy who was caught hold by him on the date of incident. Further, he had also stated that his friend PW5 had recovered the gold chain which the accused had thrown away on seeing the public.
26. Perusal of the testimony PW3 would suggest that although he was not an eye-
witness of the accused committing the offence of theft by snatching gold chain of the complainant, however, his testimony would be relevant to the extent of proving the subsequent developments i.e. fact of apprehension of accused Ajay and recovery of stolen gold chain. His testimony would also be relevant to prove that the complainant was indeed lying on the road when the accused had snatched the gold chain. Hence, it would support the case of prosecution that the accused Ajay had caused hurt to the complainant by pushing her on the ground while committing the offence of the theft.
1027. PW5 was another public person who had reached at the spot after hearing the alarm raised by the complainant. He was accompanied by PW3 at the spot. In his testimony, he had also deposed on the similar lines of PW3. He had stated that when he reached at the spot after hearing he noise of the complainant, he saw that the public persons had apprehended the accused person. Thereafter, he along with his friend PW3 had also helped in apprehending the accused. Further, he had also stated that the stolen gold chain was also recovered at the instance of accused at the spot.
28. Although, PW5 had failed to identify the accused Ajay as the person who as apprehended at the spot, his testimony would be relevant to the extent of proving the fact of snatching of gold chain of the complainant and its subsequent recovery.
29. PW4, PW6 and PW7 were the police witnesses examined by the prosecution in the present case. PW4 was the beat constable of the area who had arrived at the spot after hearing the alarm raised by the complainant. In his testimony, he had stated that he had found the complainant in lying condition when he reached at the spot. The complainant had informed him about the fact of snatching of her gold chain. Accused Ajay was also present there who was apprehended by the public person. Complainant had informed PW4 that it was accused Ajay only who had snatched her gold chain. Thereafter, he had informed the IO about the present case.
30. Testimony of PW4 is very relevant in the present case. His testimony being res gestae is part of the same transaction and will be admissible in evidence u/s 6 Indian Evidence Act since he had reached at the spot immediately after hearing the noise of the complainant. Further, his testimony would also clearly corroborate the fact of snatching of gold chain of the complainant by accused Ajay and his subsequent apprehension by the public persons at the spot itself. Perusal of his testimony would also support the case of prosecution that the accused Ajay had caused hurt to the complainant while committing theft as she was found in a lying condition on road by PW4.
1131. PW7 was the IO of the present case. In his testimony, he had deposed that he was informed about the incident involved in the present case by PW4. After receiving the information, he had asked PW4 to bring the accused as well as complainant and other persons to the police station itself as the spot was a crowded place and law and order situation could have arisen. Thereafter, the accused was brought to the PS and was formally interrogated. Complainant gave a written complaint and also handed over the gold chain to the IO. PW7 got the FIR registered, arrested the accused, recorded the statements of witnesses and completed the other codal formalities.
32. Perusal of testimony of PW7 would highlight the developments which had taken place after the apprehension of the accused. His testimony is relevant to extent of registration of the present FIR, seizure of the case properties, preparation of site plan and arrest of the accused persons.
33. It should be noted that there are certain contradictions between the testimonies of PW4 and PW7. The same was also highlighted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons during the final arguments. PW4 in his testimony had interalia deposed that he had informed the IO about the incident after which the IO reached at the spot and completed necessary formalities. However, PW7, the IO of the present case, had stated that he had asked PW4 to bring all persons to the police station itself in order to avoid law and order situation. This is a clear contradiction in their testimonies.
34. However, in my opinion, this contradiction is not material enough to completely throw out the case of prosecution. It is immaterial as to whether IO had first visited the spot or asked PW4 to bring the complainant and accused in the police station. What is important is as to whether testimony of PW4 corroborates in material terms the testimonies of complainant and other eye-witnesses i.e. PW3. Perusal of testimony of PW4 would give the answer in affirmative. All these PWs had categorically proved the fact of snatching of gold chain by the accused Ajay, his 12 subsequent apprehension and recovery of stolen case property at his instance. The fact that the complainant was hurt when the chain was stolen was also proved by theses witnesses. Hence, in so far as the culpability of accused Ajay is concerned, the same has been clearly established by the prosecution by relying upon the testimony of complainant and PW3. Thus, this contradiction between PW4 and PW7 being minor is nature is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
35. It is a settled proposition of law that minor contradictions appearing in the testimony of the witness cannot be a ground to disbelieve him if his testimony is corroborated in material terms. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) and Ors. Vs. Laxman Kumar, AIR 1986 SC 250.
36. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of accused Ajay beyond reasonable doubt for having committed the offence of robbery in the present case.
Culpability of the accused Shivam @ Munia for the offence of robbery
37. After perusing and examining the testimonies of PWs and other material available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused Shivam in the present case beyond reasonable doubt for having committed the offence of robbery due to following reasons.
38. First, it should be noted that the accused Shivam was arrested in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused Ajay which is by itself is inadmissible in evidence. No recovery was made from his possession or at his instance.
39. Second, identity of the accused Shivam @ Munia could not be conclusively established by the prosecution as the second person who was involved with the accused Ajay in snatching the gold chain of the complainant. He could not be identified by any of the prosecution witnesses during the trial. Even identity of the 13 alleged scooty used during the commission of crime could not be established by the prosecution. It appears that entire case of the prosecution qua the culpability of the accused Shivam is based on the disclosure statement of accused Ajay which is not admissible in evidence.
40. While the accused Shivam was identified by PW3 during the TIP proceeding, however, he also did not identify the accused during the trial. In fact, when he was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, he had stated that he had only seen the back side of the co-accused who had run away from the spot.
41. Be that as it may, it is a settled proposition of law that the result of the identification parade conducted at the stage of investigation is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be the basis of a conviction by itself. The evidence against the accused must be the evidence given by the identifying witness in the witness box during the trial. Without this substantive evidence of identification by the witness in Court, the evidence of identification of the accused or property in a previous test of identification parade even by the self same witness cannot really be taken into consideration against the accused, what to speak of basing a conviction of the accused on such evidence. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasib v. State of Bihar, reported in 1972 Crl.L.J. 233.
42. Identity of an accused in a criminal trial is of utmost importance and the prosecution is requires to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt. Failure of the prosecution in conclusively establishing the identity of the accused will be fatal to its case. Since, prosecution has miserably failed in conclusively establishing the identity of the accused Shivam in the present case, he cannot be convicted for the offence of robbery.
43. Having examined the culpability of both the accused persons, it should be noted that the accused persons were charged for having committed the offence of robbery in furtherance of a common intention with each other u/s 34 IPC. Section 34 14 provides for the constructive liability of the accused persons for the acts done by any of them in furtherance of a common intention being shared among them. It is not a substantive offence rather a rule of evidence. It envisages the presence of at least two persons.
44. As discussed in the last paragraph, there is insufficient evidence to convict the accused Shivam for the said offence. Now, the question arises as to whether accused Ajay can be convicted in the present case when he will be the only accused left after the acquittal of co-accused Shivam.
45. It is a settled proposition of law that if two persons are charged for having committed a substantive offence with common intention and one is acquitted, the other person can be held guilty for commission of the substantive offence if the prosecution evidence is clear that he had committed the substantive office. There is no bar for the conviction for the substantive offence, provided there is evidence against him and no prejudice is caused to him. The omission to frame charge for the substantive offence alone being a curable omission is immaterial. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wllie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1955 SCR (2) 1140.
46. In the instant case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, the prosecution has conclusively proved the culpability of accused Ajay for having committed robbery. Complainant and other eye-witness PW3 had categorically deposed against the accused Ajay. He was duly identified by both of them. He was caught red handed by public persons along with PW3. Stolen case property was also recovered from the spot at the instance of accused Ajay. Further, the fact that the complainant was hurt when the gold chain was snatched was also established on the basis of her testimony along with the testimonies of PW3 and PW4.
47. The fact that the co-accused Shivam was given benefit of doubt in the present case would not prove fatal to the case of prosecution in so far as the culpability of the accused Ajay is concerned. No prejudice was caused to the accused Ajay as he 15 was always aware about the nature and substance of charge/accusation against him even though alternate charge for the substantive offence was not separately framed against him. Hence, accused Ajay an be convicted for the substantive offence of robbery punishable u/s 392 IPC.
48. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of accused Ajay for the substantive offence of robbery. However, while there are grave suspicions against the accused Shivam @ Munia, his identity could not be conclusively established by the prosecution in the present case. Hence, benefit of doubt has to be extended to him.
49. Hence, accused Ajay stands convicted for the offence of robbery punishable u/s 392 IPC and the accused Shivam @ Munia is acquitted for the offence u/s 392/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 11.02.2022 (Animesh Kumar) MM-06, South East, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Animesh Kumar) MM-06, South East, New Delhi/11.02.2022 16