Delhi District Court
State vs Monu @ Seth on 18 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA, ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE02 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No.2446/19
FIR No.111/19
State vs Monu @ Seth
U/s 393/394/397/34 IPC
PS Geeta Colony
CRN No.DLET010060312019
State versus Monu @ Seth
s/o Sh. Rakesh Verma
Vagabond Geeta Colony,
Delhi
Date of institution 18.07.2019
Arguments heard 12.01.2021
Date of judgment 18.01.2021
JUDGMENT
1.The case of the prosecution is as under: (A) The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 09.05.2019 at about 12:27 a.m., a call was received at PS Geeta Colony that "एक आदमम कक ससथ मसरपमट व छमनस झपटम" in front of Chacha Nehru Hospital, Delhi. The said information was recorded into writing vide GD No.003A (Ex.PW5/A) and it was marked to SI Jaibir Singh, the IO of the case. Thereafter, IO along with HC Kapil reached Chacha Nehru Hospital where injured Dhananjay Pathak was found under treatment. IO collected MLC of injured and doctor opined nature of injuries as grievous sharp. IO recorded the statement of injured who stated that he works in CAR 24 and on the intervening FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 1 night of 8/9.05.2019 at about 12:15 a.m, he had come to Bank Enclave, Shakarpur to leave a car there. After leaving the car, when he reached at Ypoint Geeta Colony to catch a vehicle, two boys came on a motorcycle from the side of Shakarpur and stopped the complainant and asked him to hand over his mobile phone and cash and one of the boys started snatching the bag of complainant and when complainant resisted, the said boy caused injuries on complainant's face (head and beard) and ran away towards Shakarpur. Thereafter, complainant/injured came to Chacha Nehru Hospital where he got medical treatment. Thereafter, IO prepared a rukka and got registered the present FIR u/s 394/511/34 IPC through HC Kapil. IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant.
(B) During investigation, IO came to know through local people and secret informer that one Monu @ Seth r/o Geeta Colony used to cause such type of incidents. On 20.05.2019, while IO along with Ct. Hansraj was in the investigation of the case, accused Monu @ Seth who is known to IO being of criminal nature, was seen in the area of 16 Block near Labour Chowk, Geeta Colony. When IO and Ct. Hansraj tried to apprehend the accused, he started inflicting injuries on his person with a blade. In the meantime, Ct. Sharwan also came there and somehow accused was apprehended but accused managed to threw the blade in the drain. Thereafter, accused was got medically examined. IO interrogated the accused who disclosed that the said offence was committed by him along with coaccused Salim. IO tried to trace and arrest the coaccused but in vain. Accused Monu FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 2 was arrested in this case. During investigation, TIP of the accused Monu was got conducted on 07.06.2019 and he was identified by the complainant/injured. Accordingly, sections 393/397 IPC were added and section 511 IPC was removed. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused u/s 393/394/397 IPC.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, case was committed and it was marked to this court on 18.07.2019. On 23.07.2019, charge u/s 393/394/398/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the accusations against the accused, prosecution has examined following eight witnesses: (3.1) PW1 is complainant/injured Dhananjay Pathak. PW1 has very well supported the prosecution case and narrated as to how accused has caused injuries to him. PW1 deposed that he works as a driver in Car24. On the intervening night of 08/09.05.2019, he left the customer in Bank Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi at about 12 in the night along with car. Thereafter, he reached near Ypoint on Geeta Colony Flyover to catch some vehicle. While he was waiting there for some vehicle, two boys came on a motorcycle and asked him to hand over his mobile phone and cash to them. PW1 further deposed that one of the boys tried to snatch his bag and when he resisted, one of them caused injuries on his forehead and chin with a blade due to which he started bleeding. Thereafter, both the assailants fled away towards Shakarpur side. Thereafter, he reached Chacha Nehru FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 3 hospital and got medical treatment. Doctor concerned had called at 100 number and informed about the incident as complainant had not called the police because of his injury. Police officials reached at hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he took the police officer to the spot where IO prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B at his instance. PW1 further deposed that on 07.06.2019, he went to Mandoli Jail where he participated in TIP proceedings and identified the accused Monu as one of the offenders. TIP proceedings is Ex.PW1/C. During evidence before the court, PW1 has identified the accused Monu as one of the said assailants. PW1 also deposed that the other assailant who was driving the motorcycle had caused blade injury on his face and he can identify him, if shown to him.
(3.2) PW2 Dr. Gaurav Saxena had examined the patient/complainant. PW2 deposed that on 09.05.2019, at about 12:15 am, patient/PW1 visited the hospital in injured condition and on examination, the following three split lacerated injuries on the right side of face were found:
(a) right frontal region split lacerated wound, measuring 10 x 0.5 x 1 cm;
(b) right infra oral region split lacerated wound, measuring 6 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm;
(c) wound over cheek, measuring 0.5 x 0.5 x 1 cm.
PW2 further deposed that he prepared the MLC Ex.PW2/A and also gave the nature of injury as grievous. He also deposed that after medical examination, he informed the police at 100 number.
(3.3)PW3 is Ct. Hansraj, who assisted the IO in arresting the FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 4 accused. This witness deposed that on the intervening night of 20/21.05.2019, he along with IO SI Jaibir Singh reached at Labour Chowk in search of accused persons. On seeing the accused Monu @ Seth, they tried to apprehend him but he started inflicting injuries to himself by a blade. In the meantime, Ct. Sharvan Kumar also reached there and somehow, accused was apprehended. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Sharvan Kumar took the accused to SDN Hospital from where he was referred to GTB Hospital for his treatment and thereafter, he was taken to PS Geeta Colony. Thereafter, SI Jaibir Singh arrested the accused Monu vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A, recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/B and kept him in muffled face. Accused also pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW3/C. (3.4) PW4 is Ct. Sharvan, who assisted the IO in apprehending the accused. This witness has deposed more or less on the lines of PW3.
(3.5) PW5 is SI Rampal Singh, the Duty Officer who recorded DD No.3A Ex.PW5/A regarding admission of injured/PW1 in Chacha Nehru Hospital. PW5 also deposed on the point of recording of FIR Ex.PW5/C of the present case.
(3.6) PW6 is Ld. MM, East District, Karkardooma Court, who conducted TIP of accused vide TIP proceedings Ex.PW6/B. (3.7) PW7 is HC Kapil Kumar who assisted the IO in the investigation of the case and got registered the FIR of the present case.
(3.8) PW8 is SI Jaibir Singh, the IO of the case. He deposed more or FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 5 less on the lines as discussed in the para no.1 of the order.
4. After culmination of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded his innocence and claimed false implication. Accused stated that at the time of alleged incident, he was at home with his family. At about 7.45 p.m, he was taken by police from his house in presence of his wife for inquiry purpose and on the way, he was beaten mercilessly by the police officials due to which he suffered heavy head injuries and injuries all over his body and therefrom he was taken for medical treatment in SDN hospital from where he was taken to GTB Hospital. When his wife made complaint against the police officials, he was falsely implicated in this case. He has not made any disclosure statement and his signatures were forcibly obtained on blank papers. The accused further stated that he did not point out any place and pointing out memo Ex.PW3/C was fabricated by the IO who forcibly took his signatures on blank papers. His photograph was taken in PS and was shown to the witness also. He was kept on the sofa lying in the verandah of the PS in injured condition and without muffling his face upto 9/10 am and thereafter, he was produced before the court. The accused further stated that earlier also, he was falsely implicated by the police officials of PS Geeta Colony and his wife had made complaint against the police officials of PS against their harassment due to which they falsely implicated him in this case. The police officials of PS Geeta Colony knew his address and they deliberately showed him a vegabond and even did not inform his wife about his FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 6 arrest and falsely implicated him in the present case to save their skin regarding severe beatings given by them. Accused also opted to lead defence evidence.
5. In his defence evidence, accused examined his wife Pooja as DW1. DW1 deposed that her husband used to drive Erickshaw at that time. He used to go for his work in the morning at about 8.30 a.m and used to return by the evening by 7.00 p.m. On 20.05.2019, three police officials had come to her house at about 7.45 p.m and at that time, her husband was taking dinner. The said police officials told her that her husband is being taken for enquiry to the PS. The said police officials were namely, Kapil, Dhanraj and another police officials whose name she could not recollect. She know them as they used to come earlier also to her house for enquiry of her husband. At that time, she was having newly born child so, she could not accompany the accused alongwith the said police officials. Next day, in the morning she visited the PS Geeta Colony at about 9.30/10.00 a.m and she found her husband lying outside on the bench in injured condition with head injuries. When she asked about the injuries suffered by her husband, the police officials told her that he fell down and suffered injuries. DW1 further deposed that when she asked as to why they had kept her husband for full night then they told her that they would leave her husband after his medical treatment and she should not worry and asked her to go back to her house. When her husband did not return, she again visited the PS Geeta colony where she was told at the counter that her husband has been sent to FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 7 court and he will be released from there only. DW1 further deposed that she had made complaint against the police officials of PS Geeta colony earlier but she did not make any complaint at that time as earlier also he was released after sometime and as her new born child was only three months old.
6. I have heard Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Ld. LAC for the accused and gone through the records of the case.
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that PW1 is the injured/complainant and star witness of this case and he has well supported the prosecution case in all material aspects. PW1 has specified the entire incident in his statement word byword and correctly identified the accused Monu as one of the offenders, who tried to snatch his bag. PW1 has also specified the role of accused as well as his associates (since not arrested) at the time of commission of alleged offence. Thus, it is prayed that accused may be convicted for the offences charged with.
8. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police official because the police officials of PS Geeta Colony knew accused and used to harass him about which wife of accused had made a complaint against those FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 8 police officials due to which they have falsely implicated the accused in the present case. It is further submitted that accused was lifted from his house and was brought to PS and he was mercilessly beaten and in order to save their skin, they falsely implicated him in this case. It is further submitted that the complainant has not specified the height, colour and built of the offenders. No weapon was recovered from him and coaccused has not been arrested which shows that this case has been foisted upon the accused. It is further stated that accused has previous involvements and therefore to work out the case, accused has been made scape goat. CCTV cameras were installed around the spot but no CCTV footage has been collected by the IO. Further, spot is a crowded place but no public person has been joined in this case. Motorcycle which was allegedly used in the offence has not been recovered. Thus, it is submitted that the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful and therefore, accused may be acquitted of charges leveled with.
9. As per prosecution case, on the intervening night of 08/09.05.2019 at about 12.15 am, at 'Y' Point Geeta Colony Flyover, Delhi, accused along with his associate (since not arrested) tried to snatch the bag, mobile and cash of complainant and thus, attempted to rob the complainant and in that process, accused Salim caused injuries to the complainant by using a blade. Now let us see whether the prosecution has been able to successfully prove the aforesaid allegations against the accused or not.
10.The complainant/injured who has been examined as PW1 has FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 9 supported the prosecution case in all material particulars. PW1 has proved his statement made to the police in hospital after the incident as Ex.PW1/A. In his deposition, complainant has brought on record the entire facts and circumstances as to how and in what manner the accused along with coaccused (since not arrested) have attempted to commit robbery of his bag, mobile and cash. PW1 Dhananjay Pathak (Complainant/victim) has stated that after leaving the car at Bank Enclave, he reached Y point Geeta Colony flyover and when he was waiting for some vehicle, two boys came on a motorcycle and asked him to hand over his mobile phone and cash to them. One of them tried to snatch his bag and when he resisted, one of them caused injury on his forehead and chin with a blade due to which he started bleeding. Thereafter, both the assailants fled away towards Shakarpur side. He further stated that one of the assailant is present in the court and he correctly identified accused Monu as one of the assailant and stated that he tried to snatch his bag. He further stated that other assailant who was driving the motorcycle had caused blade injuries on his face and he can identify that assailant, if shown to him. During investigation, PW1 had identified the accused in TIP. PW1 was cross examined on behalf of the accused but no material contradiction surfaced during his cross examination barring a few minor variations. During cross examination, the testimony of complainant remained unshaken on all material aspects.
11.Accused has taken a specific defence that he was taken to PS at about 7.45 pm in presence of his wife on the pretext of inquiry and FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 10 there he was beaten mercilessly. His photograph was taken in PS and he was shown to the witness. He was kept in the PS in injured condition on a sofa lying in the verandah of PS without muffled face upto 9/10 am and thereafter, he was produced before the court. However, this plea of the accused appears to be not trustworthy on two counts. Firstly, as per statement of PW4 and PW8, accused was apprehended on 20.05.2019 at about 9.30 pm and after his medical examination, he was produced before the court on the next day. From the first JC remand application Ex.PW6/A which was moved before Ld. ACMM/East for conducting TIP of the accused, it is clear that accused was produced before the Ld. ACMM in muffled case. If the accused was beaten mercilessly and would not have been kept in muffled face, accused would have mentioned all the facts to the Ld. ACMM but nothing of this sort has been mentioned in the order passed on the application for TIP. Accused did not take such defence before the Ld. ACMM when TIP was being fixed that his photograph was taken by the police in PS and same has been shown to complainant. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused has simply stated that his photograph was taken in PS and shown to the injured/complainant but he has not disclosed as to on which date and time his photograph was taken and shown to injured/complainant. In his crossexamination, PW1 has clearly denied the suggestion that IO had shown the photograph of the accused to him in PS. PW1 has further denied the suggestion that he has identified the accused in TIP at the instance of IO. In such circumstances, the plea of the accused FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 11 that his photograph was shown to injured/complainant in PS prior to his TIP is not trustworthy.
12.In the MLC of injured Ex.PW2/A, complainant has also narrated about the incident which had happened with him. In the MLC, it has been mentioned that at around 12.10 am on 09.05.2019 near flyover at Geeta Colony, the patient was cornered by two goons i.e. assailants and they assaulted the injured with blade when he refused to part with his mobile. All these facts also corroborate the testimony of PW1 complainant/injured. As per MLC, the injured has sustained grievous injuries. PW5 is the Duty Officer. PW1 has brought on record DD3A Ex.PW5/A which was made in regard to incident.
13.It is also clear from the testimony of PW2 Dr. Inder Pratap Singh who had medically examined the injured/complainant on the date of incident that the complainant was having several injuries on his face i.e. (a) right frontal region split lacerated wound, measuring 10 x 0.5 x 1 cm (b) right infra oral region split lacerated wound, measuring 6 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm and (c) wound over cheek, measuring 0.5 x 0.5 x 1 cm. PW2 has brought on record the MLC of the complainant as Ex.PW2/A. Thus, the statement of the complainant that he was assaulted during the attempt of robbery has been corroborated by the testimony of PW2 as well as the MLC of complainant Ex.PW2/A. The statement of complainant regarding the time of incident has also been fortified from the MLC as it is clear that patient had himself reached the hospital immediately after the incident.
FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 1214.PW8 SI Jaibir, the IO of the case, also deposed that on 09.05.2019 at about 12.27 am, on receipt of DD No.3A, he along with PW7 HC Kapil (the then constable) reached Chacha Nehru Hospital where injured/PW1 was found admitted. Then he obtained MLC, recorded statement of complainant, prepared rukka Ex.PW8/A and got registered present FIR through PW7. PW8 further deposed that on 20.05.2019, at about 9.30 p.m, during investigation of the case, he along with Ct. Hansraj reached at labour chowk where accused Monu @ Seth was found standing. Then they tried to apprehend the accused upon which accused took out a blade and started causing injuries to himself. In the meantime, Ct. Sharawan also reached there and accused was apprehended by them. Thereafter, accused was sent to SDN Hospital and from there he was referred to GTB Hospital for further treatment.
15.Ld. LAC further submitted that the IO has intentionally not produced the medical documents of accused of GTB hospital to conceal the true facts. This plea of the accused does not carry much weight. Merely Nonfiling of medical documents of accused of GTB Hospital would not create doubt over the prosecution case. If the medical documents of accused of GTB hospital were actually relevant, accused would have examined the concerned official/doctor from GTB Hospital to bring his medical documents record to support his plea.
16.Further defence of the accused is that he was lifted from his house on the pretext of making inquiry and as per DW1, earlier also accused FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 13 was lifted from his house and in this regard she had made complaint against the police officials of PS Geeta Colony and this time she did not make any complaint as she was having a newly born child. This plea of the accused also does not inspire any confidence. If the accused was, in deed, lifted from his house and was falsely implicated in this case, a complaint ought to have been made on behalf of the accused but no such complaint was made and DW1 simply took defence that she could not make any complaint at that time as she was having new born baby. If the accused was lifted from house and was falsely implicated in the case, she ought to have made a complaint to concerned Sr. Officer either by herself or through her relatives or through a counsel but DW1 did not do anything in this regard.
17.Ld. LAC has argued that complainant has not specified the height, colour and built of the offender. This submission of the Ld. Counsel is of no consequence as it is clear from the record that complainant had identified the accused before the Court as well as during TIP. Ld. Counsel also submitted that no weapon was recovered from the accused and coaccused has not been arrested. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 that allegations of using the blade are against co accused Salim who has not been arrested. Thus, the point raised by the Ld. LAC regarding nonrecovery of weapon has no substance. Further, chargesheet also finds mention that coaccused Saleem was searched but he could not be traced. Thus, these submissions of Ld. Counsel has no merit. It is further stated that CCTV cameras are FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 14 installed around the spot but the same has not been collected by the IO. This is just an oral submission. There is no evidence on record which shows that CCTVs were installed at the spot and the same were in working condition. Furthermore, it is clear from the record that PW1 who is the victim in this case, has clearly identified the accused which leaves no scope for doubting the incident.
18.Moreover, the complainant PW1 is the victim as well as injured in the present case and it is well settled law that an injured is not supposed to spare the actual offender to falsely implicate a stranger. Thus, his testimony cannot be seen with suspicion especially when it does not suffer from any material contradiction. In this regard, this Court is supported by the case law reported as 2010 (10) SCC 259 Abdul Sayeed vs State of Madhya Pradesh. The relevant paragraph 26 of the judgment reads as under:
26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness". (Vide Ramlagan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2593; Malkhan Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 12; Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1984(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 412 ; Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 696; Bonkya alias Bharat Shivaji Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1995)6 SCC 447; Bhag Singh & Ors. (supra); Mohar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2002(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 182 : (2002)7 SCC 606; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2008)8 SCC 270; Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(5) R.C.R.(Criminal) 457 : (2009)10 SCC 477; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 15 Supreme Court 2261; Balraje alias Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, 2010(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 430 : 2010(4) R.A.J. 18 : (2010)6 SCC 673.
19.Ld. LAC submitted that the prosecution case is highly doubtful as the prosecution has cited only one public witness i.e PW1 and the auto driver who took the injured to hospital in TSR has not been examined. It is further stated that spot is a crowded place but no public witness has been joined. In the present case, complainant himself is the victim. He has supported the case of the prosecution and identified the accused during TIP as well as before the Court at the time of recording of his statement. Further the incident took place at about 12.15 a.m and it took place on a road from where a number of vehicle passes. But the time of incident is odd hours and after incident, complainant himself went to the hospital for treatment. IO has recorded the statement of the complainant in the hospital. Thus, there was no chance for the IO to join any other public person of the incident in this case. It is well settled law that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In this regard this court is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karthik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl. 308). It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that the complainant/PW1 as well as other prosecution witnesses have very well supported the prosecution case and their testimony is cogent and reliable. Thus, in view of these facts and circumstances, the prosecution case cannot be discarded merely because of nonjoining of the auto driver/any other public persons in this case.
FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 1620.Furthermore, it is clear from the unshaken testimony of complainant and other documents brought on record by him that the incident, had occurred in the same manner as spelled out by him and his stand has been duly corroborated by various documents brought on record by the prosecution during evidence. The complainant has corroborated his complaint on all the material points regarding the identification of the accused, the complicity of the accused in the offence, the use of blade by one of the offenders and the accused as one of the offenders who tried to snatch his bag. Thus, the points raised by Ld. LAC are not significant and they do not touch the core of the case. The prosecution witnesses were cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, however, no material contradiction has surfaced on record to disbelieve or discredit their testimony. Few minor contradictions which have emerged are insignificant and are insufficient to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and cannot be given undue importance in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jugendra Singh vs State of U.P. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2254.
21.Accused has been identified by PW1 Dhananjay Pathak during TIP. He has also been identified by PW1 as one of the accused at the time of evidence before the Court. PW1 has specifically stated in his statement that accused Monu tried to snatch his bag. Thus, there is sufficient evidence against the accused for the commission of offence punishable u/s 393/34 IPC.
22.Charge u/s 394 IPC has also been framed against the accused. Section 394 IPC contemplates Voluntarily causing hurt in committing FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 17 robbery - If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. In the matter of Shravan Dashrath Darange Vs. State of Maharshtra (1997) 2 Crimes 47 (Bom) it is stated that 'not only the person who actually causes hurt but an associates of his/her would equally be liable for the mischief contemplated by this section'.
23.In the present case, PW1 has stated that coaccused who was driving the motorcycle had caused blade injury on his face and he can identify that assailant, if shown to him. Thus, coaccused Saleem (since not arrested) had used the blade and caused injuries at the time of attempt to commit robbery with the complainant. As per statement of PW1, accused Monu @ Seth had tried to snatch the bag of the complainant Thus, the injuries were caused to the complainant at the time of attempt to commit the robbery and accused Monu was present at that time and he also tried to snatch the bag of the complainant. The injuries caused to the complainant have been corroborated by the MLC Ex.PW2/A according to which the injuries suffered by the complainant have been opined as grievous. In view of the aforesaid discussions and definition of section 394 IPC, it is held that prosecution has also successfully established the charge against the accused Monu @Seth u/s 394/34 IPC that he along with his FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 18 associate (since not arrested) tried to rob the complainant on the date, time and place as deposed by the complainant in his testimony. Accordingly, accused Monu @ Seth is also held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 394/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused is held guilty u/s 393/394/34 IPC and and convicted thereunder in this case.
24.So far as the offence u/s 398 IPC is concerned, the role of use of the blade has been attributed to coaccused Saleem. Thus, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Monu u/s 398 IPC. Accordingly, accused Monu @ Seth is acquitted for the offences u/s 398 IPC. AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY GUPTA Location: Karkardooma Court GUPTA Date: 2021.01.18 16:56:55 +0530 (Ajay Gupta) ASJ02/ KKD/East/Delhi Announced in open court on 18.01.2021 FIR No.111/19 State vs Monu @ Seth 19