Delhi District Court
State vs Sandeep @ Hukku on 20 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAGANDEEP JINDAL: MM09:
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 69/2018
PS Defence colony
U/s 392/394/34 IPC
State Vs Sandeep @ Hukku
JUDGMENT
(a) The Serial No. of the Case : 20429/19
(b) The date of commission of offence : 04.04.2019
(c) The name of complainant : Sh. Rahul Sharma S/o Sh.
Rakash Sharma
(d) The name & address of accused : Sandeep @ Hukku S/o late Sh.
Sachin, R/o House No.1E servant quarters, Hudco Place, New Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : 392/411/34 IPC
(f) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Convicted
(h) The date of such order : 20.08.2019
Date of Institution of Case : 04.06.2019
Judgment Reserved for : 08.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 20.08.2019
1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.04.2019, at
about 10:00 PM, at service lane main entry sector1, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi, accused Sandeep @ Hukku alongwith one Child in Conflict with FIR No.69/2019 PS Defence Colony State Vs. Sandeep @ Huku No. 1 of 8 Law (CCL) Yash had beaten the complainant Rahul Sharma and robbed his wallet containing Rs.1500/ Metro Card, Driving License, RC and visiting cards. The wallet of complainant was recovered during the search of robbers. Complaint was made to police and present FIR was registered.
2 After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Charge for the offence u/s 392/392/411/34 IPC was framed against accused Sandeep @ Hukku to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 Prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove the case:
3.1 PW1 Dr. Pratibha Mishra had medically examined the complainant on 05.04.2019 and prepared his MLC No.3839/19 Ex.PW1/1.
3.2 PW2 HC Bali Ram produced the register no.19 of the year 2019 and proved the entry no.871 Ex.PW2/A made therein for deposition of case property in malkhana.
3.3 PW3 Sh. Rahul Sharma is the complainant in the present case.
He reiterated the allegations made in his complaint Ex.PW3/A. He proved seizure memo Ex.PW3/B for seizing the recovered wallet, pointing out memo Ex.PW3/C. Police prepared site plan Ex.PW3/D at the instance of complainant. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/E and personal search memo Ex.PW3/F in the presence of complainant. Wallet was released to complainant on court order vide panchnama Ex.PW3/G and indemnity bond Ex.PW3/H. FIR No.69/2019 PS Defence Colony State Vs. Sandeep @ Huku No. 2 of 8 3.4 PW4 SI Rakesh Kumar is the IO of this case, who after receiving the DD entry no.17A reached at the spot alongwith Ct. Maan Singh where they met with the complainant. They all searched for the assailants and apprehended the accused near park at Sadiq Nagar at the instance of complainant. He proved rukka Ex.PW4/A. He also proved arrest memo Ex.PW3/E and personal search memo Ex.PW3/F. 3.5 Accused vide statement dated 31.07.2019 recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C has admitted the factum of the registration of the FIR No.69/19 as Ex. A1, certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.A2, DD No.5A dated 05.04.2019 as Ex.A3, DD No.17A dated 04.04.2019 as Ex.A4.
4 After the completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has denied all the allegations and has stated that he has been falsely implicated. 5 Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 6 I have heard the arguments and have gone through the case file. 7 Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. The eye witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution. He has argued that the accused should be convicted and deserves maximum punishment. 8 Ld. LAC Mohd. Ashraf Hasnain for accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of complainant and that there are material contradiction in the testimony of witnesses. 9 There is nothing to show that the victim / PW3 was previously known to both the assailants. PW3/complainant had seen both the FIR No.69/2019 PS Defence Colony State Vs. Sandeep @ Huku No. 3 of 8 assailants at the time of incident and one of them was apprehended near the spot after some time during the search of assailant whereas second assailant was apprehended on the disclosure of first one, who was found a minor for whom separate proceedings under Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of children) Act, 2015 were carried out. Complainant had no personal interest in false implication of the accused as he had no enmity with him. The testimony of PW3/complainant remained unchallenged and corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. 10 The complainant/PW 3 has deposed as follows:
" I am doing job in private company in Faridabad. On 04.04.2019, I was going from my house to my office. When at about 9:50 PM, I reached service lane, Sadiq Nagar, BRT Road, near Moolchand Metro Station. One boy suddenly pushed me. He started to argue with me. When his another associate came there, both of them started to beat me. The second boy is present in the court (Witness has pointed towards the accused Sandeep and correctly identified him). I tried to save myself. They both dragged me to a place where the street light was not coming near by the park. The second boy pick out my wallet from back side of my pant while the first boy tried to take my mobile from my side pocket of pant, but I hold his hand and raised alarm. 23 persons gathered there. Then both of boys ran away from there. I made a call at number 100. Local police also arrived there. They recorded my statement, which is now Ex.PW3/A, running into two pages, bearing my signature at point A. Police took me in PCR van for search of those two boys. During the search I pointed out towards one of those two boys i.e. accused Sandeep, who was standing outside Sri Jalkaribai Park. Police officials apprehended him and I told him that he is one of those two boys who had robbed my wallet. During the cursory search of that boy, police recovered my robbed walled from back side of his pant.
FIR No.69/2019 PS Defence Colony State Vs. Sandeep @ Huku No. 4 of 8
11 Section 379 defines theft. The main ingredients of theft are that one should intend to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person, without that person's consent. Offender should also move the property in order to take it.
12 Section 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 carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for the 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.
13 Section 394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing 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.
14 Section 394 IPC is aggravated form of Section 392 IPC which provides for punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. In the present case, in order to commit the theft of wallet of complainant, the accused alongwith his accomplice firstly had caused hurt by beating the complainant and thereafter committed the theft of wallet of complainant. Complainant has suffered simple injuries i.e. FIR No.69/2019 PS Defence Colony State Vs. Sandeep @ Huku No. 5 of 8 abrasion below elbow joint and swelling on chin due to beatings as mentioned in MLC Ex.PW1/1. Thus, it is proved beyond shadow of any doubt that accused and his accomplice (CCL) had voluntarily caused hurt to complainant in order to commit theft of his wallet. The offence of theft has been converted into robbery because of hurt has been caused to complainant to commit such theft. The recovery of the robbed wallet from the possession of accused just after the incident also rules out the false implication of accused in this case.
15 Section 34 of IPC provides for the vicarious liability of the accused persons for the acts done by them in further common intention of all of them. One of the essential ingredient for invoking the provisions of Section 34 IPC is the common intention of all the accused persons and active participation in execution of pre arranged plan. The common intention can be implied from the facts and circumstances of the case.
16 In the present case, accused and his accomplice (CCL) had beaten the complainant in order to commit the theft of his wallet. Thereafter, they both dragged the complainant. Accused took out the wallet from back side pocket of complainant's bank. 17 These facts and circumstances prove that accused and his accomplice (CCL) had prearranged plan and shared common intention to rob the complainant. The complainant has correctly identified the accused as one of the assailants in the court during his testimony. Accused and his accomplice (CCL) actively participated in the act of robbing the complainant. Hence, accused and his accomplice (CCL) can FIR No.69/2019 PS Defence Colony State Vs. Sandeep @ Huku No. 6 of 8 be held liable for act of each others act u/s 34 IPC. 18 Contradictions pointed out by Ld. LAC for accused with regard to time at which police arrived at the spot, time of arrest of accused are minor contradictions, which do not go to the root of the case and such discrepancies are bound to occur in every case. Suffice to say that the contradictions are natural contradictions and do not affect the case of the prosecution at all. The benefit of minor contradictions in investigation cannot be given to accused especially when the testimony of eye witness/victim is found to be reliable.
19 To substantiate and prove the guilt of the accused, only the statement of complainant is sufficient. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that in Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P, 2010 IX AD (SC) 615= (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the reliability of testimony of injured witness, held as under:
"The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
20 In view of the above discussion, the court is of the considered opinion the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sandeep @ Hukku had voluntarily caused FIR No.69/2019 PS Defence Colony State Vs. Sandeep @ Huku No. 7 of 8 hurt to complainant in order to commit theft of his wallet. Hence, the stands convicted for the offence U/s 394/34 IPC. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence separately. Digitally signed by GAGANDEEP GAGANDEEP JINDAL JINDAL Date:
ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN 2019.08.21
15:24:00 +0530
COURT ON 20.08.2019
(GAGANDEEP JINDAL)
MM09, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT
SAKET: NEW DELHI
FIR No.69/2019 PS Defence Colony State Vs. Sandeep @ Huku No. 8 of 8