Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravi Ranjan on 22 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE02: CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI.
State Vs. Ravi Ranjan
FIR No. 260/18
PS : Kotwali
U/s: 392/397/34 IPC & 27/54/59 Arms Act
1. SC. No. of the case : 141/19
2. Date of commission of offence : 31.08.2018
3. Name and address of accused : Ravi Ranjan
S/o Sh. Ravinder
G79/74, Shiv Durga Vihar
Lakkadpur, Faridabad, Haryana.
4. Offence complained of : 392/397/34 IPC & 27/54/59
Arms Act
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final order : Acquittal
7. Date of institution : 08.02.2019
8. Date of such order : 22.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Ravi Ranjan is prosecuted for committing offence u/s 392/397/34 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act on the allegations that he alongwith his associate(not arrested) robbed PW5 Joginder Singh Chauhan at gun point.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.08.2018 at about 4.40 a.m., on receipt of DD No. 4 PP Red Fort, regarding robbery at gun point, State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 1 of 16 ASI Babu Lal alongwith Ct. Puran Mal reached at the spot i.e. on the back side of Red Fort, where they were informed by officials of PCR Van Sugar 34 that injured has already left the spot. On that, ASI Babu Lal came back at the Police Post, where injured Joginder Singh met and gave his statement to ASI Babu Lal that he is residing at Sadar Bazar, Delhi and working in Accuprobe Lab, Priya Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi and his nature of work is to collect the cash. On 31.08.2018 at about 4.30 a.m. he was going on his motorcycle No. DL5SAM3563 Apache via Geeta Colony. At Geeta Colony Fly Over the petrol in his bike got finished, therefore, he started pushing the motorcycle and reached at Red Fort where two boys came to him on a bike, white colour Apache and asked the reason of pushing the bike. Injured told them that due to finishing of petrol in the bike, he is pushing it. Those boys offered Joginder to give petrol, however, in the meantime the pillion rider of the bike took out the pistol type weapon from his pocket and threatened him to hand over whatever he has and the boy who was driving the bike also came there and took out the mobile phone make Vivo black colour having sim of Airtel bearing No. 9953394822 and valet containing Rs.27,000/ of complainant. Those boys gave Rs.200/ to complainant for filling petrol in his bike and fled away towards Shanti Van Chowk. He has stated in his statement that out of those two boys one removed his helmet, therefore, he can identify one of them, who was aged about 28 years. Complainant partly noted the number of the motorcycle of those boys as DL1441. At that point of time Joginder Singh was having one more mobile from which he made a State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 2 of 16 call at 100 number. He further stated that at the time of incident he was having some blood sample of his clients, therefore, he had to leave the spot. On the basis of his statement, FIR of this case was registered.
As per chargesheet, during investigation IO tried to trace the motorcycle of the wrong doers on the basis of information or part number given by complainant. Two such motorcycles bearing No. DL8SBC1441 and DL5SAM1441 were found.
3. On 10.12.2018 DD No. 36 B was received at PS Kotwali regarding the arrest of accused Ravi Ranjan in another FIR No. 228/18 u/s 356/379/411 IPC PS Lahori Gate who made his disclosure regarding his involvement in the present case. On the basis of said disclosure statement, accused Ravi Ranjan was arrested in this case also. He refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.
4. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the concerned MM, who vide order dated 08.02.2019, after compliance of Section 207 IPC, committed the case to Session.
5. Vide order dated 16.5.2019, the Ld. Predecessor of this court framed charge u/s 392/34 and 397 IPC against the accused to which he plead not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The accused u/s 294 CrPC admitted DD No 4 PP(Ex. C1), DD No. 36 B (Ex. C2) and TIP proceedings (Ex. C3).
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in its evidence.
State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 3 of 16
8. PW1 is ASI Ishwar Dayal Tyagi, Duty Officer, he has stated that on 31.08.2018 he registered the FIR of this case on computer on the basis of rukka brought by const. Puran Mal. The FIR is Ex. PW1/A, rukka is Ex. PW1/B and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act issued by him is Ex. PW1/C.
9. PW2 is Ct. Gaurav, who on 18.12.2018 joined the investigation of this case with ASI Parth. He has stated that on 18.12.2018 ASI Parth being IO of the case obtained one day PC remand of the accused and made efforts to search coaccused who was not found.
10. PW3 is ASI Parth who has stated that on 12.12.2018 investigation of this case was handed over to him. Accused Ravi Ranjan made his disclosure statement in FIR No. 228/18 PS Lahori Gate regarding his involvement in the present case. This PW moved an application before concerned MM for production of accused Ravi Ranjan. In pursuant to production warrants accused was produced in the Court on 14.12.2018 when accused was arrested in this case also vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A and his disclosure statement is Ex. PW3/B. This PW also moved an application for TIP of the accused. Accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. This PW took one day PC remand of the accused and made efforts to arrest coaccused who could not be traced.
11. PW4 is ASI Babu Lal who has stated that on 31.08.2018 he was posted at PP Red Fort. On that day on receipt of DD No. 4 PP he alongwith Ct. Puran went to spot where they do not find anyone, therefore, they came back to the chowki where complainant Joginder Singh was already sitting State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 4 of 16 who gave his statement. On the basis of statement rukka Ex. PW4/A was prepared by this PW and handed over to Ct. Puran Mal who got registered the FIR from duty officer. This PW visited the place of occurrence with the complainant and prepared the site plan Ex. PW4/B. On 03.12.2018 this PW was transferred, therefore, file was handed over to MHC(R).
12. PW5 is complainant/injured Joginder Singh Chauahan who has stated that he is residing at Sadar Bazar, Delhi and working in Accuprobe Lab, Priya Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi and his nature of work is to collect cash. On 31.08.2018 during night hours he was going on his motorcycle No. DL5SAM3563 Apache from Laxmi Nagar to his house at Sadar Bazar via Geeta Colony. On that day at about 4.30 a.m. when he reached at Geeta Colony Fly Over the petrol in his motorcycle got finished and he started pushing his motorcycle and reached at Red Fort where two boys came to him on a white colour Apache motorcycle and asked the reason of pushing the bike. Injured told them that due to finishing of petrol the bike is being pushed by him. Those boys offered Joginder to give petrol, in the meantime, the pillion rider of the bike took out the pistol type weapon from his pocket and threatened him to hand over whatever he has and the boy who was driving the bike also came there and took out mobile phone make Vivo black colour having sim of Airtel bearing No. 9953394822 and valet containing Rs.27,000/ of PW5. Those boys gave Rs.200/ to him for filling petrol in his bike and fled away towards Shanti Van Chowk. He could partly noted the number of the motorcycle of those boys as DL1441. At that point of time State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 5 of 16 this witness was having one more mobile from which he made a call at 100 number. He has further stated that at the time of incident he was having some blood sample of his clients which was to be kept in fridge, therefore, he had to leave the spot. Thereafter, he went to chowki police post of PS Kotwali and gave his statement Ex. PW5/A. Witness identified the accused as assailant of the crime.
13. PW6 is Ct. Hem Raj, who has stated that on 09.12.2018 he was posted at PS Lahori Gate and was on patrolling duty alongwith ASI Virender. At about 8.15 p.m. they were present at Church Mission Road and suddenly saw accused Ravi Ranjan came while running and one person was chasing him by saying "ChorChor Pakro Pakro". Accused was apprehended by both these police officials and FIR No. 288/18 PS Lahori Gate was registered against him in which he gave his disclosure statement (Ex.PW6/A) regarding his involvement in the present case.
14. PW7 is ASI Virender IO who has stated that on 09.12.2018 he was posted at PS Lahori Gate and was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Hem Raj. At about 8.15 p.m. they were present at Church Mission Road and suddenly saw accused Ravi Ranjan came while running and one person was chasing him by saying "ChorChor Pakro Pakro". Accused was apprehended by both these police officials and FIR No. 288/18 PS Lahori Gate was registered against him in which he gave his disclosure statement (Ex.PW6/A) regarding his involvement in the present case.
15. PW8 is HC Naval Kishore, who on 14.12.2018 joined the State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 6 of 16 investigation of this case with IO ASI Parth. He has stated that IO moved application before Ld. MM for interrogation and arrest of accused who was accordingly arrested in this case.
16. PW9 is Ct. Manoj, who has stated that on 19.12.2018, he joined the investigation with IO ASI Parth. IO took one day PC remand of accused and made efforts to search coaccused, however, the coaccused was not traced out.
17. After conclusion of evidence, statement u/s 313 Cr.PC of the accused was recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and has stated that he was falsely implicated. He has stated that he is working as designer with Akriti Apparels, Bata Chowk, Faridabad. He was falsely lifted and implicated in a case of PS Lahori Gate, in the present case and in two more cases.
18. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the written arguments filed by them.
19. Ld. APP has submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as all the prosecution witness have supported the case on all material aspects. PW5 the victim has narrated the entire incident in his evidence and also correctly identified the accused in court.
20. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case since except disclosure statement of accused and his identification by PW5, nothing has come against him. Regarding the disclosure statement, Ld. Counsel for accused submits that as per Section 27 of Evidence Act, any statement given to police is not admissible. He submits State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 7 of 16 that police took the signatures of the accused on blank papers and thereafter converted the said blank papers into the disclosure statement of the accused mentioning that accused has committed the offence of this FIR also but in pursuance of the said disclosure statement nothing was recovered from him. On the identification of accused by PW5, counsel has submitted that PW5 correctly identified the accused since his photographs were shown to him prior to TIP proceedings.
21. The entire case of the prosecution is revolving around the testimony of PW5 Sh. Joginder Singh Chauhan with whom the alleged incident has happened. PW5 in his statement Ex. PW5/A given by him to the police as well as in the court has stated that on 31.08.2018 at about 04:30 PM, he was coming on his motorcycle from Laxmi Nagar to his house at Sadar Bazar. When he reached at Geeta Colony Flyover the petrol in his motorcycle got finished, therefore, he started pushing his motorcycle and while pushing so, he reached behind Red Fort where two boys suddenly came to him and inquired the reason of pushing the motorcycle. PW5 told them that there is no petrol in his motorcycle. On hearing this, those two boys said that they would provide petrol but in the meantime, the pillion rider of the motorcycle took out the pistol type weapon and pointed the same upon PW5 and the other boy who was driving the motorcycle took out mobile and cash of Rs. 27,000/ from the pocket of PW5 and ran away. At that point of time, PW5 was also having one more mobile from which he made a call at 100 number. However, PW5 left the spot prior to the police State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 8 of 16 reached there. PW5 met the police at the police station where he gave his statement. PW5 does not seem to be a reliable witness since he started narrating the occurrence of alleged incident with him by saying that the fuel in his bike got finished, therefore, he was pushing it and while pushing so he reached at Red Fort. It is surprising that PW5 due to finishing of petrol in his bike was pushing it and suddenly after the incident and making call at 100 number, he left the spot and reached at the Police Station (PS) without even waiting for the police to reach at the place of occurrence. This has remained unexplained by the prosecution that when there was no petrol in his bike then how he left the spot and reached at the PS. PW5 has stated that the he had to leave the spot since he was carrying the blood samples of some patient with him which were to be kept in a fridge but this statement of PW5 is contrary to his own averment as during his cross examination, he has stated that he collected the blood samples at 07:00 PM, thereafter, he went to his mosi's house at Sahibabad from where he left at 03:45 PM. He also admitted that during the said night, he did not keep the said blood samples in any fridge. These statement of PW5 create dent on the entire story of the prosecution on the alleged incident since at on place PW5 stated that the fuel in his bike got finished but surprisingly after reporting the alleged incident at 100 number call, he immediately left the spot without even waiting for the police to reach on the pretext that he had to keep the blood samples in fridge but admittedly no blood samples were kept by him in fridge then no reason has come forth that why PW5 left the spot without State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 9 of 16 even waiting for the police to reach at the spot and how thereafter he immediately reached the Police station when there was no fuel /petrol in his bike and surprisingly even no police was found by him on the way from Red Fort to Police Station Kotwali. During cross examination, PW5 also admitted that he did not produce his motorcycle to the police to find out whether the petrol in the motorcycle was actually finished or not. The entire testimony of PW5 creates doubt on the alleged incident.
22. Not only the prosecution has failed to prove the occurrence of incident but also the investigation carried out by IO has failed to connect the accused with the offence, even if occurred. The accused was arrested in pursuant to disclosure statement (Ex.PW3/B) dated 10.12.2018, allegedly given by him in FIR No. 228/18, PS Lahori Gate, regarding his involvement in the present FIR. It is matter of record that in pursuant to said disclosure statement neither anything like stolen articles of PW5 or weapon of offence (pistol type weapon) were recovered nor any coaccused was arrested. It is settled law that the disclosure statement given by accused to the police has no admissibility unless something incriminating connecting the accused with the alleged offence is recovered. In this case, disclosure statement did not lead to recovery of any weapon, stolen article or arrest of coaccused. Hence, the disclosure statement allegedly made by the accused to the police cannot be relied upon proving the involvement of the accused with the crime of this case.
23. As regard to the identity of the accused, which is the only State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 10 of 16 material in favour of prosecution since PW5 has identified the accused in the court as assailant of the crime. Before coming to the identity of accused by PW5 in the court, I would like to discuss the law of the land on the subject of identification of the accused by the victim first time in the court.
24. The legal position with respect to identification of an accused was summarized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dana Yadav @ Dahu and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar", (2002) 7 SCC 295 inter alia as under: "37...(c) Evidence of identification of an accused in court by a witness is substantive evidence whereas that of identification in test identification parade is, though a primary evidence but not substantive, one and the same can be used only to corroborate identification of accused by a witness in court.
xx xx xx xx xx
(e) Failure to hold test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible rather the same is very much admissible in law, but ordinarily identification of an accused by a witness for the first time in court should not form basis of conviction, the same being from its very nature inherently of a weak character unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 11 of 16 identification parade or any other evidence. The previous identification in the test identification parade in a check value to the evidence of identification in court of an accused by a witness and the same is a rule of prudence and not law.
(f) In exceptional circumstances only, as discussed above, evidence of identification for the first time in court, without the same being corroborated by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence, can form the basis of conviction.
(g) Ordinarily, if an accused is not named in the first information report, his identification by witnesses in court, should not be relied upon, especially when they did not disclose name of the accused before the police, but to this general rule there may be exceptions as enumerated above".
25. This judgment was also followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Rijaul Khan Vs. State", 2014 (1) JCC 670 and it was observed as under: "As a legal principle, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made by him in the Court.
State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 12 of 16 The identification for the first time in the Court, by its very nature, is of a weak character and, therefore, the Court normally looks for corroboration of such evidence by way of some other evidence which may, inter alia, include identification in a Test Identification Proceeding. Identification in a Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence, through it can be used as a piece of corroborative evidence if the witness identifies the accused while deposing in the Court".
26. In "Raman Bhai Naran Bhai Patel & Others Vs. State of Gujarat", (2000) 1 SCC 358, the two injured eye witnesses PW2 and PW14 tried to identify the accused only in the Court and they were not knowing them earlier. No identification parade was held during the course of investigation. It was held by the Apex Court that though their evidence is to be treated to be one of a weak nature, but it cannot be said to be totally irrelevant or inadmissible. The Court was of the view that since the aforesaid witnesses were seriously injured in the incident and could have easily seen the faces of the persons assaulting them and their appearance and identity would well remain imprinted in their minds especially when they were assaulted in broad day light, they could not be said to be interested in roping any innocent person by shielding the real accused who had assaulted them.
State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 13 of 16
27. From the above, the law can be summarized that the identification of the accused first time in the court is a weak type of evidence and the court should be reluctant in accepting the same unless it find corroboration from other independent incriminating evidence to connect the accused with the commission of crime alleged against him.
28. In cases of decoity and robbery where accused is unknown to the victim at the time of crime, if identified by the victim for the first time during trial after a gap of long time, elapsed between date of commission of offence and date of identification in court as doer of the crime renders such identification highly incredible if not corroborated by any independent evidence for brought two reasons, firstly it raises a question mark on human memory of the victim to remember for sure the identity of a person who robbed him in the incident after a long distance of time unless some distinct features like height, built up, colour, complexion of the accused are specifically mentioned in the FIR and secondly, absence of credible and reliable evidence by the prosecution that the victim had no occasion to see the accused before he identified accused in trial.
29. Undoubtedly, PW5 complainant/victim has identified the accused first time in the court since during investigation, the accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings on the ground that his photographs were already shown to the victim/complainant in the Police Station. The incident had happened in the early morning at 04:00 AM i.e. in the dark night. Nothing has come on record whether there was sufficient light at the spot State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 14 of 16 that PW5 could identify the accused. Neither PW5 in his evidence has stated about the sufficient light at the spot enabling him to identify the accused nor anything is mentioned in the site plan Ex. PW4/B whether at the spot the light was enough for PW5 to identify the wrong doer. The accused of this case otherwise has special features that he being a boy of long height of 6 ft. approximately, but the statement Ex. PW5/A of the victim does not mention such special feature of the accused.
30. Otherwise also, in this case, the IO had ample material available with him to connect the wrong doer of the alleged crime with the offence since PW5 gave the details of the bike on which the robbers came and snatched his articles as well as also provided his mobile number to the IO snatched by the robbers. In the statement Ex. PW5/A given by PW5 to the IO, he mentioned the part registration number as DL1441, the colour of the bike as white and make of Apache of the bike on which robbers came. As per chargesheet, the IO made inquiry from the concerned Motor Licensing Officer (MLO) regarding the bikes having the same number and on inquiry two such bikes having registration Number DL8SBC1441 and DL5SAM 1441 were found. In the chargesheet, it is mentioned that the IO made inquiries from the owners of those two bikes but no record was found. Surprisingly, the statement of none of the alleged owners of those bikes is on record to connect the accused with the offence. The IO was rather required to seize both such bikes, if found any, and to get conducted TIP of the bikes from PW5/victim to ascertain whether they are the same bikes on which the State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 15 of 16 offence was committed. Similarly, the IO also did not put the mobile phone of the PW5/victim on surveillance nor placed call detail record of such mobile to know the location of the mobile. The investigation carried by the IO is of shoddy nature. At this juncture, the conduct of the subsequent IO ASI Parth (PW3) is worthmentioning that instead of doing the needful to find out whether the incident actually occurred or not and if occurred to connect the wrong doers with the crime, he only in order to crack the unsolved investigation of this case, handed over to him on 12.12.2018, under anxiety within 2 days of handing over investigation to him arrested the accused on 14.12.2018, in this case only on the basis of his disclosure statement made by him in another FIR No. 228/18, PS Lahori Gate without making any efforts to connect the accused with the bike and the mobile number details of which were available with him.
31. In view of aforesaid discussion, accused is given benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 392/34 & 397 IPC. Accused is directed to furnish personal bond u/s 437 (A) IPC to the tune of Rs. 15,000/ with one surety of like amount.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2020.02.25
17:05:12 +0530
Announced in the open court (Charu Aggarwal)
on 22nd February, 2020 ASJ02/Central Distt./THC/Delhi.
State Vs. Ravi Ranjan Page 16 of 16