Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Lalit on 5 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 02/2014
Unique Case ID: 02404R0305782012
State Vs. (1) Lalit
S/o Rajender Pal
R/o G33, PhaseI,
Vijay Vihar, Delhi.
(Convicted)
(2) Ranbir
S/o Vasudev
R/o G33, Vijay Vihar,
PhaseI, Delhi.
(Since PO)
FIR No. : 520/2008
Police Station : South Rohini
Under Section : 392/394/397/34 Indian Penal Code.
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 13.01.2014
Date on which orders were reserved : 02.09.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced : 02.09.2014
JUDGMENT:(Oral) BRIEF FACTS:
(1) As per the allegations, on 18.08.2008 at about 12:25 AM, at Main Road near Pocket B6, School, Sector 5, Rohini, the accused State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 1 of 48 Lalit along with his associate Ranbir (since PO) in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of chain and mobile phone of one Babloo and while doing so the accused Lalit used deadly weapon i.e. knife and assaulted the said Babloo and one Sunny, thereby causing Simple injury on the person of said Sunny. It is further alleged that the accused Lalit was apprehended at the spot along with the knife.
CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF:
(2) The case of prosecution in brief is that on 18.8.2018 on receipt of DD No. 4 PP regarding snatching of mobile phone SI Varun Dalal along with Ct. Prahlad reached the spot i.e. near MCD Primary School, Sector 5 Rohini, where they came to know that the injured had been shifted to BSA Hospital, therefore, they went to BSA Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Sunny. The accused Lalit and Ranbir were also found present in the BSA Hospital in custody of the PCR Officials. SI Varun Dalal recorded the statement of Sunny who alleged that on 18.8.2008 at about 12 O Clock (Mid Night) he along with his friend Babloo were returning back after attending a party when they reached at Pocket 6, near School, Sector 5, Rohini, two boys came from the road side and on the pretext of asking time and thereafter they started doing maarpitai with them and one of those boys inflicted injuries on his right hand by some sharp edged object while the other boy snatched the mobile phone of Babloo make State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 2 of 48 Sigmatel of black colour but in the meantime some passersbye came and tried to overpower the assailants and there was some hathapai after which both the assailants jumped the wall of the school and went away. The complainant Sunny further stated that thereafter one PCR Van came there and he narrated the entire incident to the PCR Officials after which they sat in the PCR van and went towards the directions in which the assailants had run away and after some chase they apprehended both the assailants whose name on inquiry came to know as Lalit and Ranbir. He further stated that both the assailants were made to sit in the PCR Van but they did hathapai with the PCR Officials and while going towards the Police Chowki those boys also hit their heads opposite PCR Van and seeing the situation out of control, the PCR officials took the assailants to the BSA Hospital.
The complainant Sunny further stated that in the hospital also the accused Lalit misbehaved with the doctors and also hit his head on the wall and got himself injured. On the basis of the above statement made by the complainant Sunny, a rukka was prepared and FIR was got registered and after completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE (3) Charges under Section 392/394/397/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Lalit to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 3 of 48 EVIDENCE:
(4) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as Ten Witnesses:
Public Witnesses:
(5) PW4 Sumesh Dhingra has deposed that on he is running a mobile shop on the ground floor at CSC 2, Shop No. 4, Sector 5, Rohini in the name and style Om Telecom. According to him, on 8.5.2008, he had sold a phone make Haier C3010 having IMEI No. A10000065 7DAA7B for a sum of Rs.800/ to Munna Kumar vide receipt 3803. He has deposed that on 13.8.2008 he had sold another mobile phone make Haier C3010 having IMEI No. A10000065 5AF7F02 for a sum of Rs.1050/ to one Munna Kumar vide Bill no.
3802. The receipts are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively. (6) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that sometimes they used to take the signatures of the customers on the receipts and sometimes they do not take. He has deposed that for the purposes of sale of mobile, he did not take the ID proof of the customer. He has further deposed that in the year 2008, they used to maintain the record of the sale on line. He has deposed that he only asked to place the bill book before the police. He has denied that he did not sell the aforesaid phones to Munna and therefore he did not obtain his signatures on the bill.
State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 4 of 48 (7) PW5 Sunny has deposed that he is having the business of ladies sandal in the factory of Mohan Lal situated at Paschim Puri, Phase1. According to the witness, on the intervening night of 17/18.8.2008, he along with his friend Babloo were coming back after attending the party in Sultanpuri at about 12:15 AM. He has deposed that they were going to their house on foot and when they reached at B6, Pocket, near School, Sector 5, Rohini at about 12:20/12:25 AM, two boys came from roadside and they asked time from him and at the same time, they started beating him. He has deposed that on seeing them suspicious, his friend Babloo had dropped the mobile phone on the ground. He has deposed that one of them had given the blow with a sharp object on his right hand and the other boy started hathapai with with Babloo and picked the phone from the ground and there was a scuffle between themselves and those boys. According to the witness, there were fourfive persons passing through the road who on seeing the scuffle had tried to intervene and to save them and there was a hathapai with those public persons also. He has deposed that on seeing surrounded by the public persons, both of those boys jumped the wall of the school and ran away from the spot. He further deposed that at the same time, PCR was seen by them moving in the area and they stopped the PCR van and narrated the incident to the PCR official. He further deposed that PCR officials took them in the van and went towards the opposite side of the school and apprehended State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 5 of 48 the aforesaid two boys. The witness has deposed that the apprehended boys were interrogated which revealed the name of one of them as Lalit but the name of other boy he does not recollect. Witness has deposed that both the accused were then made to sit in the PCR van but they were trying to hit their heads on the wall of the PCR van as a result of which the accused Lalit sustained injury on his head. According to the witness, the PCR official made a call to the local police as both the accused were out of control and the PCR took them to the hospital where also the accused Lalit was creating a nuisance with the doctor and also did hathapai with the doctor. He has deposed that his statement Ex.PW5/A was recorded by the police. According to the witness, the accused Lalit had disclosed that he had left one mobile phone in the PCR Van and when the van was checked, the mobile was not found there. The witness has deposed that one another phone which was having only memory card and it was new one and not having any SIM was recovered from accused Lalit. He has further deposed that the accused Lalit was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/B and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW5/C and the other accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/D and his personal search was conducted vdie memo Ex.PW5/E. According to the witness, from the personal search of accused Lalit one mobile phone, some documents and some cash were recovered while one mobile phone make Sigmatel was got recovered by the other accused from State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 6 of 48 near the MCD primary school and the said phone was taken in to possession vide memo Ex.PW5/F. The witness has deposed that the accused Lalit got recovered one knife from near the wall of the MCD primary school and the IO prepared the sketch of the knife vide Ex.PW5/G and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/H. According to the witness, on the same day i.e. 18.8.2008, he and Babloo took the IO to the spot where at their instance, the IO prepared the site plan Ex.PW5/K. (8) In leading questions put to the witness by the Addl. PP, the witness has stated that due to lapse of time he is unable to tell as to how many mobiles were recovered from the personal search of accused Lalit.
(9) In his cross examination by Addl. PP, the witness has denied that he is not giving the fact of recovery of three mobile phones from the accused or that when the accused Lalit and other accused were interrogated, the name of other accused was known to him as Raghubir @ Ranbir. The witness has further denied that he had stated in his statement Ex.PW5/PX2 that among three phones as recovered from personal search of accused Lalit, two phones were belonging to Munna Ram and Pankaj. He has denied that he is not deposing regarding recoveries of three phones as were recovered in the personal search of accused Lalit of which two of them were State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 7 of 48 belonging to Munna Ram and Pankaj deliberately in order to give the benefit to the accused persons. He further denied that two mobile phones make Classic and Motorola were recovered from accused Ranbir and he is not giving the details deliberately in order to save the accused.
(10) The witness has identified the accused Lalit in the court. He has also identified the kitchen knife Ex.P1 as same with which the accused had given blows on him. He has also identified the mobile phone make Sigmatel of black colour as got recovered by the co accused and is Ex.P2. The witness has not been able to identify two mobile phones make Haier and Indicom as to from whom the same were recovered, the said phones are Ex.P3 and ExP4. (11) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that when the incident took place, he did not raise any alarm and has voluntarily explained that at the same time PCR Van was coming towards him and he stopped the same for help. According to the witness there were four police officials on the PCR Van and the assailants were apprehended at the spot by the PCR Officials. He has deposed that he and Babloo did not go to the police station on the same day and has voluntarily explained that they were taken to the hospital from the spot on that day in the PCR Van. He has further deposed that both the assailants were taken to the hospital by the police and they were in intoxicated condition and were State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 8 of 48 aggressive. According to the witness, he did not notice if smell of alcohol was coming from the assailants or not. He has deposed that there was light behind the school, but due to trees, there was darkness though there was no complete dark at the spot. He has further deposed that when the accused and they (victims) both came some steps ahead while scuffling, there was light and therefore he identified the accused. According to the witness, when the PCR Van came to the spot, the public persons who came on the bicycle and scuffled with the accused had already gone. He has deposed that he was not known to Lalit prior to this incident and after the incident he did not see the accused Lalit. He has deposed that he did not visit the police station about 23 days thereafter and on that day accused Lalit and Raghubir were not present in the Police Station. Witness has deposed that he has seen the mobile phone at the time of recovery from near the wall of the MCD School and at that time both the assailants and the police officials were present there. He has deposed that the site plan was prepared by the IO in the morning hours on 18.08.2008. Witness has denied that no such incident had taken place as alleged or that no recovery of knife was effected at the instance of accused Lalit. (12) PW6 Pankaj Kumar Thakur has deposed that he is residing at the given address along with his family. According to the witness, on 18.08.2008 he along with his brother Munna Kumar were going home after completing the work in the shop which is also near State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 9 of 48 their house situated at A block. He has deposed that when they reached near the corner of the park at Sector 5, two boys came to them, out of them one gave him a slap, the other boy showed him a knife and asked him to hand over his mobile phone and at that time he was using a Reliance phone in which he was using a number which he does not recollect but it was starting from 13 and ending at 38 and they snatched his phone. According to the witness, they also snatched the phone of his brother of Haier company with a number starting from 92, the rest of the number he does not recollect. He has deposed that after snatching their phone they ran away after which they then returned to their house. He has deposed that in the morning when they went to the Police Station to lodge complaint, they saw those boys there. He has further deposed that they lodged complaint and thereafter returned back home. According to the witness, one of the boys who had snatched their belongings was Lalit whom he knew previously because he had seen him coming and going in the area and is staying in Vijay Vihar. Witness does not recollect the name of the other person but states that he can identify one of the boys but not the other though he can try. He has deposed that he and his brother had also handed over the receipts regarding the purchase of their mobile phones which the police seized. The seizure memo of bill of his mobile phone is Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at Point A. He has deposed that the police recorded his statement and relieved him. State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 10 of 48 (13) The witness has correctly identified the accused Lalit both by name and by pointing out but has wrongly identified another person sitting in the court as the other assailant. (14) In leading questions put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has admitted that at the time of the incident he was using SIM No. 9312841838 and has voluntarily explained that he has forgotten the complete number. He has deposed that he is not sure if two mobile phones were snatched from his brother and has voluntarily explained that he can only tell about his mobile phone. Witness has admitted that his brother at the time of the incident 9212972314 but he is not aware if he was using another phone with SIM No. 9250488260.
(15) The witness has identified the mobile set of Classic 701 of silver white color which on opening found to be having no SIM. Model Classic 701, Made in China having RSN No. RKTHSC000160394 and S/N No. LA0073300260. The mobile phone is EX P5. He has also identified the other two mobiles which were stolen from his brother and states that they were both of Haier company which he had recently purchased at that time. (16) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he had stated to the IO in his statement that on 18.08.2008 he along with his brother Munna Kumar were going State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 11 of 48 home after completing the work in the shop which is also near their house situated at A block. Witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW6/DX1 where it is not so recorded. He has deposed that due to fear he did not go to the police station at the same time of the incident and has voluntarily explained that he had gone to the police station on the next day morning. Witness has further deposed that they remained in the police station for about half an hour and in his presence the police officials had also recorded the statement of his brother. He admits that police had not apprehended or arrested the accused at his instance.
(17) He has deposed that one of the mobile phones was purchased by him was second hand from the same shop keeper from whom his brother had purchased the set of Haier. He has deposed that at that time he had purchased the said phone for a sum of Rs 500/ to Rs 600/. Witness is unable to produce any document relating to the purchase of this mobile Ex.P5. He has deposed that he had hardly used the phone which was robbed from him for about a month. He has further deposed that he had given the SIM number to the IO and has voluntarily explained that he had given the mobile details to the IO and not the SIM number. Witness has denied that no mobile had been stolen from his possession and that is the reason he had made no police complaint immediately. According to him the spot where the robbery had taken place is hardly 15 minutes walking State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 12 of 48 distance. The witness has deposed that the incident took place at around 10:3010:45 PM and he and his brother did not raise any alarm. According to the witness they did not stop any passerby to take help nor they made any call to the police on 100 number to inform them about the incident and has voluntarily explained that he had became extremely scared and therefore went back home. He has deposed that he have never appeared in the court previously in any case. He has denied that he is a stock witness of the police or that the entire incident has been concocted and planted on the accused. Witness has admitted that they have not taken the mobile sets back from the police till date and has voluntarily explained that they became busy in their work and that is why they did not take the sets back. He has denied that he is not the owner of the mobile set Ex.P5 and that is why he has not claimed the same back from the police. (18) He has deposed that the spot of the incident has a society on one side and a park on the other side. He admits that there was no light in the area. He has deposed that he could see Lalit and identify him at the time of the incident as he came from the front side. According to him he did not tell the police in the morning that one of the assailants who had snatched his mobile phone was Lalit who was previously known to him and has voluntarily explained that he came to know the name of Lalit only in the police station. He has deposed that he did not tell the police that one of the snatchers was a resident State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 13 of 48 of Vijay Vihar whom he had previously seen in the area. The witness has deposed that when he went to the Police Station, the mobile phones were lying on the table. He has deposed that the recovery of the mobile phones did not take place in his presence and has admitted that it is only when the police informed him that the mobiles had been recovered from the accused Lalit and the other boy that he came to know that they were involved in the incident. The witness has deposed that Lalit was in open face and not muffled at that time. According to the witness the first time he had seen Lalit was in the area of Vijay Vihar which is before the incident of snatching. He has deposed that he had also seen him at the time of the incident and thereafter in the Police Station. He has denied that no incident of mobile snatching took place with him as alleged by him or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(19) PW7 Babloo has deposed that he is a tailor by profession and stitches the leather jackets in a factory situated at Peera Garhi. According to him, on the intervening night of 17/18082008, he along with his friend Sunny were coming back after attending the party in Sultanpuri and were going to their house at about 12 p.m. He has deposed that when they reached at Sector5, Rohini at about 12.30 AM, two boys came to them and they asked the time from them and at the same time, they started beating them and one of them had given slap to him and one of them given knife blow to his friend Sunny State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 14 of 48 which hit on his left hand and they started scuffling with them "woh humse hathapai or cheenajhapti karne lage". According to the witness, one of them snatched the mobile from him which was of China make i.e. Sigmatel of black colour and at the same time, 34 persons were coming on the cycles and on seeing the public persons, both of them jumped wall of school. The witness has deposed that after a short while the PCR van was found coming there which was stopped and they narrated the entire incident to the PCR officials and they took them in the PCR van and went on the opposite side of the school. According to him, on their identification, both the boys were apprehended by the PCR officials and they were taken in the PCR and they were interrogated and one of them was known as Lalit and the name of the other boy came to be known as Raghubir. The witness has deposed that the accused Lalit was hitting his head on the wall of PCR van and causing obstruction on which the PCR made the call to local police and they were taken to some hospital name of which he does not remember now. According to him, the accused Lalit had hit his head on the wall of the hospital also and started arguing with the doctor. Local police came to the hospital and thereafter, both the accused were brought to the Police Station where they were thoroughly interrogated. The witness has deposed that one phone was recovered from the personal search of accused Lalit which belonged to him. He does not remember as to what article and other mobile State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 15 of 48 were recovered from accused Lalit. According to him, the accused was arrested in the case vide memo Ex.PW5/B, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/C and the accused Raghubir was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW5/D and his personal search was also conducted. The witness has deposed that the document Ex.PW5/L, Ex.PW5/M, Ex.PW5/I and Ex.PW5/J bear his signature at pointB. He does not remember as to who among the aforesaid two persons got recovered the knife. According to the witness, the knife which was hit to his friend Sunny was recovered from one of the accused persons but he does not remember as to from where the same was recovered. Witness states that he does not know anything else. (20) In leading questions put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for State, the witness has deposed that he did not tell the IO to his statement Ex.PW7/PX1 that the personal search of accused Lalit was conducted in the hospital and three mobile phones, Rs.424/ and one purse containing documents were recovered from his personal search. Witness has admitted that his phone was recovered from the accused Raghubir. Witness admits that he had identified his mobile at the same time when it was recovered from accused Raghubir. According to him, he does not know as to from where the knife was recovered or by which of the accused the said knife was got recovered. State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 16 of 48 (21) In his crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, the witness states that he did not state in his statement Ex.PW7/PX1 that the accused Lalit took them near the wall of MCD Primary School, Sector5, Rohini and got recovered one knife. According to him, he has not stated in his statement Ex.PW7/PX1 that the aforesaid two boys had snatched three mobile phones prior to the time when the incident happened with them and those phone were also recovered from accused Lalit. Witness has denied that he is not giving the details against the accused persons as he has been won over by them. He has further denied that he has stated in his statement Ex.PW7/PX1 that the knife was recovered from the wall of the MCD Primary School, Sector5, Rohni at the instance of accused Lalit. He has further denied that the IO prepared the sketch of the knife vide Ex.PW5/G. Witness admits that his signatures was taken on the sketch Ex.PW5/G but he does not know as to where the said sketch was prepared. He has denied that the knife was wrapped in his presence in cloth and sealed with the seal of VD and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/H. Witness admits that sketch Ex.PW5/G and the seizure of knife Ex.PW5/H bear his signatures at pointB. He does not know as to from where the phone make Sigmatel was recovered and on whose instance the same was recovered. Witness has denied that aforesaid phone make Sigmatel State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 17 of 48 was got recovered by accused Raghubir from near the wall of MCD Primary School, Sector 5, Rohini. Witness has further denied that he is not giving the aforesaid details deliberately to save the accused persons. He also denied that he is not giving the aforesaid facts deliberately in order to give the benefit to the accused. (22) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he did not know Lalit prior to the incident. Witness has denied that there was no incident of snatching or robbery as claimed by him. He admits that there was a maar pitai with the accused Lalit and Lalit had also received injuries. According to the witness, Lalit was intoxicated and appeared to be drunk at the time of incident and when Lalit stopped them and asked them the time, he was drunk and has voluntarily explained that he was only smelling the alcohol but was able to walk. Witness has denied that on account of the altercation which took place between them and Lalit all of them had received injuries and the PCR officials who were passing through the area took them to the hospital and has voluntarily explained that he was doing the snatching with the other boy. Witness has denied that the mobiles were never snatched by accused Lalit or that they had voluntarily handed over their mobiles to the police which they planted on Lalit and the other boy only to aggravate the nature of crime. The witness has deposed that he had not taken his mobile phone back and has explained that he did not know from where he could take back his State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 18 of 48 mobile phone. Witness has denied that the mobile in question does not belong to him that is why he did not take the same back. Witness has denied that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the police station and he has merely signed the same at the instance of the police officials to falsely implicate the accused. (23) PW8 Munna has deposed that he is having a Barber Shop at Sector 5, Rohini, Delhi and his brother Pankaj Kumar also works with him. According to the witness, on 17082008, he along with his brother Pankaj were going to their house after closing the shop. He has deposed that at about 10.30 or 10.45 p.m. when they reached near MCD Primary School, Sector 5, Rohini two boys came from Rithala side and one of them showed him the knife and the other boy slapped him. He has deposed that he was having one mobile phone of make Haier and his brother Pankaj was also having one mobile phone of same make. Witness does not recollect the mobile number of both the mobile phones. According to the witness, those boys snatched both the mobile phone from him and his brother Pankaj and also threatened him to leave and thereafter they ran away from there. The witness has deposed that firstly they went to their house and on the next morning i.e. on 18082008 he along with his brother Pankaj went to the police station where they found both the aforesaid boys sitting in the police station. According to the witness, he had identified both of them as the same persons who had committed the State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 19 of 48 incident with them on the previous night. He has deposed that one of those two persons was known to him as Lalit but he does not remember the name of other boy. According to the witness, two mobile phones were shown to them which they had identified as belonging to them. According to him, he handed over the receipts of both the mobile phones to the IO which receipts are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. Witness has admitted that he was having two mobile phones of Haeir having the phone numbers 9212972314 and 9250488260 and his brother Pankaj was having another mobile phone number 9312841838. He further admitted that all the three mobile phones have been snatched from them and due to lapse of time he has forgotten to state three mobile phones instance of two mobile phones. The witness has identified the accused as well as the case property in the court.
(24) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he did not raise any alarm when the incident took place as he was scared and nervous (ghabrahat ho gayee thee). He has further deposed that there were no light where the incident took place and has voluntarily explained that there was a light at the crossing. Witness has denied that he could identify the assailants as there was no light. According to him, the distance between the police station and the place of incident is at a walking distance of about 15 State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 20 of 48 minutes. He has deposed that due to nervousness, he did not go to the police station on the same day. He has further deposed that he went to the police station on the next day at about 10.0011.00 a.m. he does not remember at what time his statement was recorded by the police. Witness has denied that he had told the police that his friend was with him at the time of incident and has voluntarily explained that Pankaj is his real brother. He has deposed that when he went to the police station he did not see anybody in muffled face and has voluntarily explained that even Lalit was not in muffled face. He has deposed that he did not tell the police that the assailant Lalit was a resident of the same area and he had seen him personally in the area. Witness has denied that no incident of snatching of mobile had taken place and this is reason he had made no police complaint immediately. He states that the incident took place at around 10.30 - 10.45 p.m. According to him, they did not stop any passerby to take help nor they made any call to the police on 100 number to inform them about the incident and has voluntarily explained that he had become hopeless at that time and therefore went back home. He has deposed that he has not taken back his mobile phone and has voluntarily stated he was told that he can take back the same from the court. Witness has denied that he is not the owner of the mobile phone Ex.P5 and that is why he has not taken the same back from the police.
State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 21 of 48 Medical Evidence:
(25) PW10 Dr. Florence Almeida has deposed that on 18.08.2008 he was working as CMO at Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini and on that day he examined the patient Sunny S/o Roop Singh, aged around 29 years, male with alleged history of assault with knife as given by the patient himself vide MLC Ex.PW9/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to the witness, as per the clinical examination the injury was opined by him as Simple vide endorsement at point B. He has deposed that on examination he found the following injuries:
1. Cleaned incised wound measuring approximately .
7cm x.2cm on base of right ring finger.
2. Cleaned incised wound measuring approximately . 7cmx.2cm on the base of right middle finger.
(26) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has denied that the opinion regarding nature of injury has been given at the instance of the Investigating Officer. Police Witnesses:
(27) PW1 HC Jagdish has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 and has relied upon the the documents i.e. entry in register no.19 at S.No. 4638 copy of which is State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 22 of 48 Ex.PW1/A. In his cross examination, he has denied that the entry in Register No. 19 has been fabricated at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(28) PW2 ASI Sushil Kumar has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B. In his cross examination he has stated that Sunny and Babloo came towards him at around 12:25 AM. According to him, Lalit and Ranbir were apprehended after about half an hour in the presence of Sunny and Babloo and Lalit was not injured at that time.
He has deposed that they along with victims and accused reached the hospital at around 2:00 AM and that nothing was recovered in his presence. He has deposed that the IO recorded his statement in the Police Station. He has further deposed that no other witness was present at the time of recording of his statement. He does not know what is written in the affidavit of evidence. According to him, he remained in the hospital for about 1520 minutes and at that time victim Sunny and Babloo were declared fit for statement. He has deposed that no statement of the victims were recorded in his presence. He has denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(29) PW3 HC Prahlad Singh has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1. He has identified the accused Lalit both by name and also by pointing out towards him. The State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 23 of 48 witness has further identified the case property i.e. knife Ex.P1, mobile phone make Sigmatel of black color having IMEI No. 357569000228328 as got recovered at the instance of accused Ranbir which is Ex.P2.
(30) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence , the witness has deposed that on the day of the incident he was on duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM on emergency duty at police Chowki Vijay Vihar. He has deposed that he reached the hospital within 20 minutes of the receipt of the call. According to him, four public persons were present in the hospital along with PCR officials, two of them were the assailants and two were victims and out of the four persons, three were injured, i.e. Lalit, Sunny and Babloo. He has deposed that the statement of the complainant was recorded in the hospital by SI Varun Dalal. He has further deposed that SI Varun had obtained the fitness from the doctor, prior to the recording of statement of the complainant. He is unable to tell whether SI Varun had taken the endorsement from the doctors on duty on the statement of the complainant which was recorded by him. The witness has deposed that the recovery of the mobile phone was made prior to the registration of the FIR and has voluntarily explained that the tehrir was sent later to the police station. He has deposed that they left the hospital after 3:11 AM i. e. after the preparation of the MLC of the injured. According to the witness, at that time both the injured and both the assailants were with State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 24 of 48 them and the beat staff had also joined them. According to the witness, one Ct. Parmanand was in the beat staff along with one other police official whose name he does not recollect. The witness has further deposed that they all reached the spot of the incident on two wheeler scooters and has voluntarily explained that four of them were having scooters and one of the accused was with him. He has explained that SI Varun Dalal on their scooter and the other boy was with Ct. Parmanand and the other officer on his scooter. The witness has deposed that the spot of the incident is hardly 200250 meters from the hospital. He has further deposed that at the spot Lalit pointed out the place where he had thrown the knife near the gate of the school. He has further deposed that no independent public witness was joined by SI Varun in the proceedings. He further deposed that the Chowkidar of the school was not called and has voluntarily added that he had locked the main gate of the school and was apparently sleeping some where. According to the witness, the local chowkidar of the area was also not joined in the proceedings. He has deposed that no public person was joined by the IO and has voluntarily explained that nobody was available. He further deposed that there is a park opposite the school only after which the residential area starts. According to the witness, the IO also did not stop any passerby on the Road to join the proceedings and has voluntarily explained that there was very little traffic during the night on the State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 25 of 48 road. The witness has deposed that at the time the accused were taken to the spot no information was given to the family of the accused regarding their detention by the police and has voluntarily explained that the information was given after they returned to the Chowki. Witness is unable to tell the details of the family member of the accused Lalit who was informed about his apprehension and arrest and the mode in which his apprehension was communicated and has voluntarily explained that it is IO SI Varun Dalal who can tell. According to him, he was given the rukka by SI Varun Dalal at 3:35 AM and SI Varun Dalal had prepared the tehrir by making his endorsement at the spot while standing under the pole. He left the spot at around 3:40 AM and then went to the police station where he reached within 10 minutes and the FIR was recorded within half and hour and he left the Police Station at around 4:25 AM. According to the witness thereafter he reached police chowki Vijay Vihar at 4:40 AM where he handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to SI Varun Dalal. He has deposed that both the accused were in the police Chowki at that time but when he reached back to the chowki there was no body from the family of the accused Lalit present there. He has denied that his signatures are not present in any of the documents because no such incident had taken place or that the entire proceedings were manipulated and fabricated while sitting in the Police Station itself. According to him, all the seizure memos i.e. State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 26 of 48 sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW3/DX1, seizure memo of knife which is Ex.PW3/DX2, seizure memo of mobile phone of SIGMATEL which is Ex.PW3/DX3 are in the same condition in which they were prepared and nothing had been added or deleted nor any changes have been made in the same.
(31) Witness has admitted that when he saw Lalit in the hospital, he was having injuries on his person. According to him, they reached at the hospital at around 1:00 AM and the knife was recovered at around 3:20 AM. He is unable to tell tell what was written on the alleged recovered knife. He has deposed that the alleged knife was recovered from near the wall from an open space. (32) PW9 SI Varun Dalal has deposed that in the intervening night of 17/18.08.2008 he was posted at PP Vijay Vihar, Police Station Rohini and was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8AM and at around 12:30 AM (Midnight) he received a call vide DD No. 4 PP regarding snatching of mobile phones and thereafter he along with Ct. Parhlad immediately reached the spot i.e. Near MCD Primary School, Sector 5, Rohini where he came to know that the injured had already shifted to Dr. BSA Hospital. According to him, thereafter he along with Ct. Parhlad reached at Dr. BSA Hospital where he found victim Sunny and accused persons namely Lalit and Ranbir. The witness hs deposed that the accused persons were in the custody of PCR officials where as the victim Sunny was being provided medical treatment in State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 27 of 48 the hospital. He obtained the MLC of the victim Sunny which is Ex.PW9/A on which the doctor has opined the nature of injury as Simple after which he called the beat staff in the hospital and recorded the statement of Sunny which is Ex.PW5/A and thereafter he made his endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW9/B and converted the same into tehrir and send Ct. Parhlad to the Police Station along with rukka with the directions to register the case. The witness has deposed that he thereafter arrested the accused Lalit and Ranbir and conducted their personal search and after a detailed interrogation recorded their disclosure statements. The witness has deposed that he along with beat staff, victim and accused persons reached back to the spot where the accused Lalit got recovered the knife from near the gate of the school and stated that it was the same knife which he has used in the incident. He has deposed that he measured the knife and found 20cm long, its blade was of 10 cm and handle was of 10 cm and he prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW5/G and thereafter he prepared the pullanda of the said knife with the help of a cloth and sealed the same with the seal of VD and thereafter seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/H. (33) The witness has deposed that thereafter accused Ranbir got recovered one mobile phone make SIGMATEL from near the gate of the school and stated that the said mobile was robbed by him along State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 28 of 48 with his coaccused Lalit from victim Babloo. He thereafter took the said mobile into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/F bearing his signatures at point C. According to the witness, thereafter he prepared the site plan at the instance of Sunny and Babloo which is Ex.PW5/K bearing his signatures at point C. (34) The witness has deposed that in the meanwhile Ct. Parhlad returned back to the spot along with the copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him and he mentioned the FIR number on all the documents prepared by him. According to the witness thereafter they along with both the accused persons returned back to the police chowki. The witness has deposed that when he was further interrogating both the accused when in the meanwhile public persons Pankaj and Munna came to the police Chowki and gave their statements regarding robbery of their mobile phones. According to the witness, in the police Chowki when they saw both the accused persons namely Lalit and Ranbir, public witnesses Pankaj and Munna pointed out towards the accused Lalit and Ranbir as the same persons who had snatched their mobile phones at the point of knife and also inflicted injuries on them. He has deposed that at that time four mobile phones were also lying on the table and after seeing the same Munna informed him that out of those mobile phones, two mobile phones both make Haier belonged to him out of which one was being used by him and one was being used by his brother Pankaj. State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 29 of 48 (35) The witness has deposed that the accused was produced before Ld. MM on 18.08.2008 and took his police remand for one day. He further deposed that during his police remand he was thoroughly interrogated and thereafter he recorded the statements of Pankaj and Munna and deposited the case property including the personal search with the MHC (M) with the directions not to release the personal search to the accused persons. He has deposed that on 19.08.2013 both the accused persons were produced before Ld. MM and got sent to JC. He has further deposed that he collected the receipt of mobile phone from Munna which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B and took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. (36) He has identified the accused Lalit as well as the case property i.e. knife Ex.P1, mobile phone make Sigmatel of black color having IMEI No.357569000228328 as got recovered at the instance of accused Ranbir which is Ex.P2, mobile set of Haier of black color having IMEI No. A100000655A7F02 as the same which was recovered from the personal search of accused Lalit and the same is Ex.P3, mobile set of Haier of black color having IMEI No. A100000657DAA7B as the same which was recovered from the personal search of accused Lalit and is Ex.P4, mobile set of Classic 701 of silver white color, Model Classic 701, Made in China having RSN No. RKTHSC000160394 and S/N No. LA0073300260, as the State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 30 of 48 same recovered from the personal search of accused Ranbir which is Ex.P5 and mobile set of Motorolla of black and grey color having SIM No. 9992260384 as the same which was recovered from the personal search of accused Ranbir and is Ex.P6.
(37) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he sent the rukka at about 3.35 PM and Ct. Prahlad took about one and a half hour in bringing the FIR at the spot and after investigation, he finally left the spot at about 5.30 AM. According to him, he recorded the first statement of Sunny in the hospital and also recorded his supplementary statement later on. He has deposed that Babloo was also present with Sunny in the hospital and his statement was recorded in the hospital on 18.8.2008. Witness does not remember if Lalit was under influence of liquor at that time. He has denied that the knife and mobile phones have been planted upon the accused persons with connivance with the complainant or that the witnesses have not given their statements on the dates mentioned by him or that their statements have been recorded by him of his own later.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(38) After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein the entire incriminating material / evidence against the accused were put to him State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 31 of 48 which he has denied.
(39) According to the accused Lalit he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police. He has stated that on the date of incident at about 11:00 PM he was present at the divider of Sector 4 and 5 at Rohini when the IO SI Varun Dalal who was already known to him and he told him what he was doing there in the night and he also told him (accused) to offer his search on which he (accused) told him (IO) what he has done but on this he got annoyed and said police walon se baat karni nahi aati and thereafter he took him to the police station and falsely implicated him in this case. He has further stated that he was shown to the complainant and other public witnesses in the police station. According to the accused, the entire case has been planted upon him by the IO SI Varun Dalal. He further stated that nothing was recovered from his possession.
(40) In his defence, the accused has examined himself as DW1 (under Section 315 Cr.PC) and has deposed that he is a driver by profession and is owner of a Xylo vehicle which he ply's in a Call Centre. According to him, on 29.9.2007 his sister had gone missing as a result of which his family filed a missing complaint at Police Station Vijay Vihar but since no investigation was being carried out on their complaint, he was visiting Police Station Vijay Vihar regularly to inquire about the same on which the local police got irritated. He has further deposed that he had even made a complaint to the senor police State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 32 of 48 against the local police / IO on which they got further annoyed. He has deposed that later the said case i.e. FIR No. 895/07, PS Vijay Vihar which is Ex. DW1/A was transfered for investigation to the Crime Branch. According to him, one day when he along with his friend Ranbir were sitting and consuming alcohol at his house, his father came and gave beatings to him after which he left the house and they went out and were present at the divider of Sector 4 and Sector 5, Rohini, when IO SI Varun Dalal along with one police official came there in a motorcycle and questioned them on which there was verbal altercation and public persons also intervened and there was hathapai after which police forcibly took him and his friend Ranbir to the Police Station and implicated in this case. (41) The accused Lalit further states that he has not committed any robbery though he concede that at the time of incident he was in a state of intoxication being extremely disturb on account of his family circumstances and had a verbal altercation with the local police. He has stated that he is a hardworking person who earn his livelihood by driving the vehicle and he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of his persistence to pursue the case of his missing sister with local police. According to him, his sister has now returned and is married.
(42) In his cross examination by Addl. PP for the State, the accused Lalit has stated that he used to drive the vehicle of Call State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 33 of 48 Centre at Gurgaon and is working there prior to one year of this incident. He is unable to produce any document showing that he is working in the said Call Centre. He has deposed that the coaccused Ranbir is a resident of Palwal, Haryana and had come to meet him at Delhi on the date of incident. He has further deposed that SI Varun Dalal was the IO of case FIR No. 895/2007 under Section 363 IPC in which his father was the complainant regarding missing of his sister. He admits that SI Shri Ram was the initial IO of the said case. He is unable to produce any document showing that SI Varun Dalal was the subsequent IO in the said case. He has deposed that he knew SI Varun Dalal as he used to visit his resident with regard to the complaint lodged by his father regarding missing of his sister. Witness admits that he did not mention the aforesaid facts at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC in the present case despite having been given opportunity to do so. Witness has denied that he is coming up with this new version in order to save himself from penal consequences in the present case. He further denied that the above mentioned facts are afterthoughts and on legal advice. According to the accused, he did not make any complaint against the IO SI Varun Dalal regarding his false implication in the present case at any point of time to any higher police officials or any other authority including the court and has voluntarily added that he was scared being already harassed enough by the police. Witness has State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 34 of 48 denied that the present case is the true case therefore he did not make any complaint regarding his false implication to any higher authority or the senior police officials.
FINDINGS (43) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel, considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and the memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused and the prosecution.
(44) Firstly in so far as the identity of the accused Lalit is concerned, the same is not disputed. He was apprehended at the spot of incident itself by the public persons, which fact he has not disputed.
(45) Secondly it is the case of the prosecution that at the time of the incident, the accused Lalit was in a state of intoxication, a fact which the accused Lalit does not dispute. Rather, in the cross examination, the Ld. Defence Counsel has himself suggested to the witnesses that the incident relates to a verbal altercation with the accused Lalit who was under intoxication on one side and the complainant and other persons on the other side.
(46) Thirdly it is evident that Lalit is resident of Vijay Vihar and is previously known to the alleged victim. Rather, PW6 Pankaj State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 35 of 48 who is also the resident of Vijay Vihar has admitted that he had seen Lalit in the area. Under the given circumstances, the probability that the accused would commit incident of robbery upon the persons living in the same area i.e. Munna and Pankaj appears remote. (47) Fourthly though it is the case of the prosecution that Lalit and his associates had snatched their mobile phones which were recovered from their possession, yet in the court they have not supported their versions. None of the public witnesses i.e. Sunny, Pankja, Bablu and Munna have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the recovery of the mobile phones rather they have turned hostile on the said aspect. In so far as the witness Sunny (PW5) is concerned, he has stated that his friend Bablu had himself thrown the mobile phone on the ground and has denied that from the personal search of accused Lalit, two mobile phones were recovered. In so far as the witness Pankaj (PW6) is concerned, he has also turned hostile on the aspect of theft and recovery of the mobile phone. He has not been able to produce any document relating to the purchase of the mobile phone. He has further admitted that recovery of the mobile did not take place in his presence and has explained that when he went to the Police Station he found the mobile phones lying on the table. He further admits that he has not claimed the alleged mobile phone from the police. Further, the witness Babloo (PW7) has also turned hostile on the version regarding the theft of the mobile State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 36 of 48 and has stated that two boys had snatched the mobile phone prior to the incident which were recovered from Lalit. He has also denied that any knife was recovered at the instance of the accused Lalit from the wall of the MCD Primary School, Sector 5, Rohini. Further, witness Munna (PW8) in his examinationinchief has stated that the mobile phone of his brother was snatched but he does not prove the recovery of the same. He states that on next day morning i.e. 10.11.2014 when he and his brother went to the Police Station he found those boys there. He does not support the prosecution case regarding the recovery of the mobile phones and says that he saw the mobile lying in the Police Station. Further, witness Pankaj and Bablu have admitted that they had seen Lalit so many time in the area and know that the was resident of the same area i.e. Vijay Vihar.
(48) It is large from the above discussion that the recovery of the mobile phone from the possession of the accused Lalit does not stand established. It is also the case of the prosecution that after accused was apprehended he got recovered a knife from the wall of the MCD Primary School which he had used in the incident, a fact which has been denied by the public witnesses who state that no knife was recovered either from the possession of accused Lalit or at his instance. The medical evidence shows that the injuries received by the victim Sunny were simple and there was two incised wounds on the tip of the middle finger but neither the knife has been sent to the State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 37 of 48 doctor for his opinion nor there is any opinion of the doctor that the said injuries present on the finger of the injured were caused by the said knife.
(49) Lastly none of the public witnesses have claim themselves to be the victims and have not been able to show the documents of purchase of the mobile phones allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused Lalit nor they had claim the same back, which creates a doubt in the mind of the court with regard to the authenticity and the manner in which the alleged incident had taken place.
(50) In his testimony as Defence Witness, the accused Lalit has submitted that he is a driver by profession and previously his sister had gone missing on which he lodged a complaint in the Police Station Vijay Vihar and he was regularly visiting the Police Station to inquire about the outcome of the said complaint in question and not being satisfied he even made complaint of the Investigating Officer on the said case to the senior officers after which the investigations were given to the Crime Branch and hence he was threatened by the Investigating Officer that he would appropriately deal with him. He has further deposed that it was in this background that when on the date of incident when he was consuming alcohol with his friend and was picked up PCR officials after which there was a verbal altercation and also a hathapai between him and some of the PCR officials who State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 38 of 48 caught him after taking assistance of public persons, the local police then implicated him in this case by falsely showing the same as robbery. He submits that the actual incident was only drunken brawl to which he admits but disputes the incident of robbery. In this regard he has placed his reliance on the case FIR 895/2007 Police Station Vijay Vihar which was transfered to Crime Branch for investigation and which establishes the fact that he had made a missing report of his sister in Police Station Vijay Vihar which falls in the same Sub Division as South Rohini.
(51) On the basis of the statements of the witness, two versions emerge, First of the prosecution that the accused had indulged into snatching and threatened the victim with the knife which does not appear to be probable in view of the fact that neither the use of knife nor the recovery of the same has been proved. Further, the ownership of the mobile phones and so also the recovery from the same from the accused Lalit also does not stand established and Second that on the date of the incident the accused Lalit was sitting and consuming alcohol at public place on which he was lifted by the police and public persons on which he even inflicted injuries upon himself as admitted by the public persons that he had banged his head against the wall and also threatened the doctors, which appears to be more probable.
State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 39 of 48 (52) It is a settled law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted [Ref.: Bhagwan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of MP reported in 2002 (4) SCC 85; State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram reported in 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran reported in 2007 (3) SCC 755].
(53) Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of present case, it is the second version given by the accused which appears to be more probable and truthful. Hence in so far as the version put forward by the prosecution is concerned, I hold that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas it is the other version put forward by the defence which appears to be probable i.e. the accused on the date of incident had consumed alcohol and was indulging into public nuisance while being stopped by the passersbyes and there was a physical altercation as a result of which Sunny received injuries for which the accused Lalit is liable for the offence under Section 341/323 Indian Penal Code.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
(54) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand SardavsState of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 40 of 48 recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(55) Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigations conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the Investigating Officers. Further, though the identity of the accused Lalit stands established and proved as both the complainant as well as the accused are residents of the same area but the allegations against the accused Lalit that on 18.08.2008 at Main Road near Pocket B6, School, Sector 5, State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 41 of 48 Rohini, he along with his associate Ranbir (since PO) in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of mobile phones of Babloo and while doing so he (Lalit) used deadly weapon i.e. knife (Ex.P1), have not been proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the recovery and use of the knife Ex.P1 has also not been proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. (56) It however stands established that on the date of incident the accused Lalit along with his associate (Ranbir since PO) had consumed alcohol and were indulging into public nuisance when stopped by the passersbyes and the PCR Van also reached the spot after which there was a physical altercation as a result of which Sunny received Simple injuries.
(57) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the Investigating Agency does not negate the offence.
(58) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 42 of 48 prepared, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
(59) In view of the above discussions, on the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and other material which has come on record, the accused Lalit is hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 392/394/397/34 Indian Penal Code but is held guilty for the lessor offence under Section 341/323 Indian Penal Code.
(60) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 05.09.2014 Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 02.09.2014 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 43 of 48 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 02/2014 Unique Case ID: 02404R0305782012 State Vs. (1) Lalit S/o Rajender Pal R/o G33, PhaseI, Vijay Vihar, Delhi. (Convicted) (2) Ranbir S/o Vasudev R/o G33, Vijay Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi. (Since PO) FIR No. : 520/2008 Police Station : South Rohini Under Section : 392/394/397/34 Indian Penal Code. Date of conviction : 02.09.2014 Arguments concluded on : 05.09.2014 Date of Sentence : 05.09.2014 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Taufeeq Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Lalit is present with Sh. R. K. Gupta Advocate. State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 44 of 48 ORDER ON SENTENCE:
(1) As per the allegations, on 18.08.2008 at about 12:25 AM, at Main Road near Pocket B6, School, Sector 5, Rohini, the accused Lalit along with his associate Ranbir (since PO) in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery of chain and mobile phone of one Babloo and while doing so the accused Lalit used deadly weapon i.e. knife and assaulted the said Babloo and one Sunny, thereby causing Simple injury on the person of said Sunny. It is further alleged that the accused Lalit was apprehended at the spot along with the knife.
(2) However, on the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and other material which has come on record, this court vide a detailed judgment dated 02.09.2014 has acquitted the accused Lalit of the charges under Section 392/394/397/34 Indian Penal Code but has held him guilty for the lessor offence under Section 341/323 Indian Penal Code. (3) Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Lalit is aged about 26 years, married, driver by profession having a family comprising of mother, father, two brothers, one sister and wife.
Apart from the present case, he is also involved in one other case bearing FIR No. 303/12 under Section 379/411 IPC Police Station Rohini North, which is still pending trial.
State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 45 of 48 (4) Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that though the convict is involved in one other case but not yet convicted and keeping in view his young age, any harsh view would be detrimental for the entire future of the convict and hence it is prayed that a lenient view be taken against the convict. (5) I have considered the submissions made before me. I have also considered the Report of the Probation Officer according to which the convict is working as a driver and used to drive his own vehicle on the route Rohni to Gurgaon and is getting monthly income of Rs.35,000/. He belongs to a joint middle class family residing in their own house constructed in 110 Gaj at G33, Phase 1, Vijay Vihar, Delhi. It is further reported that the family has proper love and affections to the convict and the interfamily relations are dominated with healthy attitude. It is further informed that the neighbours have also reported in fabour of the convict and his family and there is no complaint against them in the area for the last seven years and they have cordial and healthy relations with the community and the neighbours in the area. The convict belongs to a semi urban dominated environment and educated from dominated community. It is further informed that the convict is in a mental agony and suffering from neurotic problem of depressions and is in hopeless stage to think over the possible punishment. No defect in character of the convict or his family has been reported and they are reported to be highly State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 46 of 48 motivated to lead healthy social life of responsible citizen. It is further reported by the Probation Officer that the convict is an adult aged about 26 years and the social reputations of his family will be in danger if something adverse will be happened. He is stated to be the sole bread earner for his family and there are two brother, one sister and wife too who are dependent on him. It is further reported that the convict had shown rectified behaviour in open society and always observed disciplined norms of the society and fulfills all terms and conditions of probation and determined to follow the norms of the society. This being the background and also keeping in view the age of the convict and his family circumstances, any harsh view taken by this court at this stage will take away the chances of reformation. (6) In view of the above, I accordingly direct that the convict Lalit be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of One Year with Supervision on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one local surety of the like amount. The convict is directed to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In case of any default or repetition of offence, the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Year.
(7) The convict has been informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment. He has been apprised that in case he State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 47 of 48 cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
(8) Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs. One copy of the order on sentence be sent to the Probation Officer.
(9) File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up after arrest of the accused Ranbir (PO).
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 05.09.2014 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Lalit, FIR No. 520/2008, PS South Rohini Page 48 of 48