Delhi District Court
State vs Karan on 9 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 548/2021
CNR NO. DLCT01-017888-2021
STATE Versus Karan
S/o Sh. Raju
R/o H. No. 16/39-H,
Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi
FIR No. 243/2021
U/S. 392/397/411 IPC
P.S. Prasad Nagar
Date of institution before Ld MM : 13.09.2021
Date of receipt in sessions Court : 18.10.2021
Date of final arguments : 09.10.2023
Date of Decision: : 09.10.2023
Final Judgment: : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
A. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IN BRIEF:-
1. Briefly stated : Case FIR No. 243/2021 was registered in the instant matter upon complaint of complainant Sh. Laxmi Raj Singh who has alleged that on 14.07.2021 at around 2:50 pm, he alongwith his son Vikas Solanki and driver Pardeep was going for some work and when he reached near Rajender Place parking, his son dropped him in the parking area and his son alongwith driver went from there. He proceeded towards his office by using stairs and when he went to the washroom outside FCI office near SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11 stairs, the door of the same was found locked. He further alleged that when he was was going upstairs suddenly one boy caught hold of him from behind and wrapped his left hand around his neck, hold the collar of his shirt and grabbed him and pulled out a revolver from his waist with his right hand and showed it to him and asked him if he shout and move then he will shoot him. Thereafter, the said boy took out a knife from his right side pant pocket and put on his abdomen and while pulling down his mask he asked him to give as much money as he have otherwise he put the knife inside. He further alleged that due to fear he took out around rupees 15-16 thousand from the left hand side pant packet and handed over to that boy. He further alleged that his driving licence was also went amidst this money. He further alleged that at the same time, there was a sound of someone coming from upstairs and the boy suddenly told him to go up, when he started going up the stairs and the boy came down from the stairs and ran away. Thereafter, he called the phone number 100 from his phone. He further stated that he can identify the said boy, if shown to him.
2. Consequently, FIR No. 243/2021 PS Prasad Nagar under Section 392/397/411 IPC was registered. The investigation was accordingly carried out against accused Karan. At the instance of complainant, site plan was prepared. On 15.07.2021, accused Karan was apprehended in case FIR no. 244/2021, u/s 392/397/34 IPC, PS Prasad Nagar and he made disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the present case. During investigation, Rs.9000/- and driving licence of complainant were recovered from his possession. On 30.07.2021, TIP of accused SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11 was got conducted in which he was identified by the complainant.
3. Investigation culminated in filing of instant chargesheet and accused was accordingly produced in judicial custody for facing trial for commission of the offence under Section 392/397/411 IPC. After compliance with provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to Sessions Court for trial.
B. CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST ACCUSED
4. On the basis of material on record, vide order dated 16.03.2023, accused Karan was prima facie charged for offence punishable under Section 392/397/411 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
C. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION:-
5. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as many as two (03) witnesses on record.
6. The star witness of prosecution is complainant/victim PW1 Laxmi Raj Singh. He deposed that he was running a business of courier company and having his office at 147, First Floor, Rajender Bhawan, Rajender Place, New Delhi. He further deposed that on 14.07.2021, he reached near Rajender Place parking along with his son Vikas. He further deposed that his son dropped him in the area of parking. He along with driver went from there. Thereafter, he proceeded towards his office and he SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11 went to washroom near FCI office. He further deposed that when he was going upstairs suddenly someone caught hold of him from behind and wrapped his hand around his neck. He further deposed that he put a revolver on his waist. He further deposed that he told him that whatever he had, he should hand over to him otherwise he will shoot him or stab him. He also took out a knife and put on his abdomen. He was wearing a mask. He again threatened him to kill if he would not give money to him which he had. Thereafter, he handed over Rs.15000-16000/- to him along with his driving licence which he had in his pocket. Thereafter, someone came there and the said boy ran away from the spot. Thereafter, he made a call on 100 number from his mobile phone. After sometime police came and his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. He further deposed that he could not see the face of the said boy as he was wearing a mask and he did not remove the mask from his face during entire incident. He deposed that he cannot identify the said boy even if he is shown to him. PW1 shown the place of occurrence to the police and IO prepared site plan at his instance. He further deposed that during investigation, he did not see the accused at any point of time.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Chief PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross- examination by ld. Chief PP for the State, he deposed that he did not state before police in his statement that during incident accused pulled down his mask when he was extending threat to him. He admitted that during investigation he had gone to Tihar Jail for identification of accused but he could not identify the accused during TIP proceedings. He denied the suggestion that he had seen the face of accused when he had pulled down his SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11 mask. He further denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused being won over by him.
This witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
7. PW2 Sh. Krishan Kunal deposed that on 06.09.2021, IO had served a notice under section 91 CrPC to the Director, FCI and the same was assigned to him. He further deposed that on the request of the IO, he had provided CCTV footage of CCTV Camera installed near entry gate of FCI building between 3.20 pm to 3.40 pm dated 14.07.2021 through his covering letter Ex.PW2/A. During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he denied the suggestion that he had not provided any CCTV footage to the IO or that due to this reason his statement was not recorded by the IO.
8. PW3 Retd. SI Gajender Singh deposed that on 14.07.2021, on receipt of DD no. 25 A, Ex.PX3, he reached the spot and recorded the statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that he made endorsement Ex. PW3/A and got the case registered through Ct. Kailash. After registration of FIR, Ct. Kailash returned to the spot and handed over to him original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex. PX1 at the instance of complainant. He further deposed that on 15.07.2021, he came to know that accused had been arrested in FIR no. 244/21 at police station Prasad Nagar. He interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B. He took his personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/C. Thereafter, accused made his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/D. Accused SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11 pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW3/F. Thereafter, he got the TIP of the accused conducted in which accused was identified by the complainant vide proceedings Ex. PX-10. PW3 placed on record the CCTV footage which he received from FCI office. He recorded the statement of witnesses. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the court.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he denied the suggestion that accused did not commit any offence as entioned in this case. He further denied the suggestion that before TIP, accused and his photographs were shown to the victim. He also denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that accused was lifted from his shop at about 4 pm in the presence of other shop keepers. He further denied the suggestion that other shopkeepers had filed affidavits in the favour of the accused.
9. During the course of proceedings, the admission/denial was carried out and accused admitted the following documents:
1. Copy of FIR Ex. PX-1, certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PX-2
2. GD No. 25A Ex. PX-3.
3. Site plan Ex.PX-4.
4. Copy of seizure memo of scooty Ex.PX-5.
5. Copy of disclosure statement of accused made in FIR NO. 244/2021, PS Prasad Nagar Ex.PX-6.
SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11
6. Arrest memo of accused of FIR No.244/2021 Ex.PX-7.
7. Seizure memo of toy pistols Ex.PX-8.
8. Seizure memo of knife Ex.PX-9.
9. TIP proceedings of accused Ex. PX-10.
10. During the course of proceedings, Ld. CPP for the State submitted that PWs Ct. Kailash, SI Ram Avtar, Ct. Vijay and SI Sanjay Kumar need not be summoned and examined in the present case being formal witnesses and their role being repetitive in nature. Accordingly, their names were deleted from the list of witnesses filed by the prosecution.
11. Vide order dated 07.10.2023, Prosecution Evidence was closed.
D. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:-
12. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused has denied all the incriminating evidence put against him.
E. DEFENCE EVIDENCE LED BY ACCUSED:-
13. Accused had chosen not to examine any witness in his defence.
F. FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
14. I have heard Ld Chief PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused. I have perused the record carefully.
SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan
Pages 11/11
G. OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 411 IPC.
15. During the course of proceedings, accused submitted that he is ready and inclined to settle the dispute with respect to commission of offence under Section 411 IPC to which the complainant/PW1 submits that he has no objection to the submission of accused. Accordingly, statement of complainant was recorded in this regard. In view of the same, instant case for commission of offence under Section 411 IPC is disposed off as compounded.
H. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.
16. Accused Karan is facing trial upon the allegations that on 14.07.2021 at about 2. 50 PM, he had robbed the complainant/victim of Rs.15-16,000/- as well as his driving license. At the time of commission of offence, accused had used knife and pistol. Out of robbed money of Rs.15-16,000/-, Rs.9000/ and driving licence of complainant were recovered from his possession.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has produced the only star witness i.e. complainant /PW1 Laxmi Raj Singh. The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced herein:
"....On 14.07.2021, I reached near Rajender Place parking along with my son Vikas. My son dropped me in the area of parking. He along with driver went from there. I proceeded towards my office and I went to washroom near FCI office. When I was going upstairs suddenly someone caught hold of me from behind and wrapped his hand around my neck. He put a revolver on my SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11 waist. He told me that whatever I had, I should hand over to him otherwise he will shoot me or stab me. He also took out a knife and put on my abdomen. He was wearing a mask. He again threatened me to kill if I would not give money to him which I had. Thereafter I handed over Rs.15000-16000/- to him along with my driving licence which I had in my pocket. Thereafter someone came there and the said boy ran away from the spot.
From the abovesaid deposition, it is seen that PW1/complainant has consistently deposed as per the story of the prosecution but in the later part of his testimony, he changed his version and failed to identify the accused as the one who had robbed him by stating that :
"......I could not see the face of the said boy as he was wearing a mask and he did not remove the mask from his face during entire incident. I cannot identify the said boy even if he is shown to me..."
"...During investigation I did not see the accused at any point of time...."
Despite elaborate cross-examination by Ld Chief PP for the State nothing material could be elicited out which could fortify the stand of the prosecution for bringing home the guilt of the accused.
17. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that there is nothing incriminating come on record against the accused as there are contradiction in the statement of complainant/PW1 SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11 which completely shaken the credibility of the witness. Applicant/accused was not even seen in the CCTV footage obtained from FCI office. There is no other eye-witness to the incident. No efforts were made by the prosecution to trace an independent witness to prove the incident in question. The other witnesses to the case of prosecution are all police officials who had come on the spot subsequent to the incident. Even if their proposed testimonies and remaining documents of prosecution are taken on face value, there is not even remote possibility of conviction of accused Karan.
18. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution version appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637,it has been observed herein as under:-
"Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted."
19. The identity of accused in commission of a criminal offence is the most crucial aspect of any criminal trial. Consequently, I do not have any hesitation in observing that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11 Karan for commission of offence under Section 392/397 IPC and he deserves the benefit of doubt.
I. CONCLUSION:-
20. In view of the above discussion, accused Karan stands acquitted for commission of offence under Section 392/397 IPC.
21. Ordered accordingly.
22. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 09.10.2023 (Sunil Kumar) Special Judge (NDPS) (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11