State vs . Sandeep @ Raju Etc Fir 475/13 ... on 7 April, 2018

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Sandeep @ Raju Etc Fir 475/13 ... on 7 April, 2018

State  Vs.  Sandeep @ Raju etc                                   FIR 475/13 (56620/16)




           IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI
          ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 05: WEST : DELHI.
       
      IN THE MATTER OF 
      Case No. 56620/16
      FIR No. 475/13
      PS Hari Nagar
      U/s  410/411/420/328/34 IPC 

      STATE  

                      VERSUS


      (1) SANDEEP @ RAJU (A1)
      S/O HARPAL SINGH
      R/O Q59, BHAGAT ENCLAVE, 
      UTTAM NAGAR, PS BINDA PUR, 
      DELHI. 

      (2) DEEP SINGH @ DEEPA @ BABA (A2)
      S/O LATE SH.TEJA SINGH
      R/O H.NO. 123, SARIKA ENCLAVE, 
      GOPAL NAGAR EXTN., 
      PHASEI, PS JAFFARPUR KALAN, 


Result:  Acquitted                                                        Page 1  of   68
 State  Vs.  Sandeep @ Raju etc                                   FIR 475/13 (56620/16)




     NEW DELHI.       


        Date of Institution                              :      15.03.2014
        Date of Reserving Judgment                       :      03.04.2018
        Date of Judgment                                 :      07.04.2018
        Offence Complained of                            : U/s 410/411/420/328/34 IPC
        Offence Charged with                             : U/s 420/328/411/34 IPC


JUDGMENT 
1.

Accused persons namely Sandeep @ Raju and Deep Singh @ Deepa @ Baba have been tried for committing offence Punishable U/s 420/328/34 IPC. Accused Sandeep @ Raju has also been tried for committing offence Punishable U/s 411 IPC. PROSECUTION'S CASE :

2. The Prosecution case unfolds on receipt of DD no. 25PP dt.

22.10.2013 (Ex.PW14/A) which records that one S.K.Kumar who was found near Petrol Pump, Ghanta Ghar is admitted through his Son in DDU hospital as a case of unknown poisoning. Hence, HC Sham Narayan Singh, now ASI (PW21) reached DDU hospital with Ct.Mohd Rafiq (PW7) and obtained MLC No. 24826/13 (Ex.PW Result: Acquitted Page 2 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) 8/A) in respect of Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj who was 'unfit for statement'. On the said DD, endorsement Ex.PW21/B for registration of the FIR was prepared and accordingly FIR Ex.PW 6/B was registered by DO/HC Dashrath Kumar (PW6) vide his endorsement Ex.PW6/A for commission of offence Punishable U/s 328 IPC.

2.1. Investigation was also undertaken by HC Sham Narayan (PW21) during which he visited the place of incident i.e. Petrol Pump, near Ghanta Ghar, Hari Nagar, Delhi. No eye witness could be found. He recorded statements of relevant witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. The Site Plan was prepared.

2.2. On 25.10.2013, the complainant Sh.S.K.Bhardwaj also joined the investigation and gave a statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/A. According to him, he retired from Ministry of Urban Development. On 22.10.2013, at about 09:30 AM, he had gone to Pratap Nagar dispensary for taking some medication for himself and his wife. After about one hour, he obtained the Medicine and left the Dispensary and started crossing the road to proceed towards Ghanta Ghar. While in the process, two persons out of whom one was a Sikh Result: Acquitted Page 3 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) asked him the way to Saraswati Bal Vidyala stating that a 'Fair' is organised in the School and they have to sell the Lotteries there. They also asked him if he wanted to purchase Lottery. They also gave him three Lottery Tickets stating that his luck is very good and that both of them will give him Rs.200/ and Rs.500/ on account of Lottery. They also purchased Cold Drink Bottle of 'Fanta' and offered it to the complainant. The glass in which it was offered broke due to which some 'Fanta' fell on his clothes. In the meantime, the complainant came alongwith said persons towards Ghanta Ghar. The complainant went to his house for arranging more money. He had started feeling giddiness after consuming 'Fanta'. Nevertheless, he picked up one Bag, Passbook of Punjab & Sindh Bank, a Cheque and an F.D. and reached Hari Nagar Branch of Punjab & Sindh Bank at 02:00 PM. From the Bank, he withdrew an amount of Rs.17 lacs and reached near Ghanta Ghar, where he met the accused persons again. All of them started looking for a desolate place for playing Lottery and hence, reached such a place situated near the Parsu Ram Park and located between the Petrol Pump and the Fire Station. The accused persons cheated him of Rs.17 lacs at this place Result: Acquitted Page 4 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) on the pretext of playing Lottery. He thereafter, lost consciousness at the said place and found himself in DDU hospital after regaining consciousness.

2.3. As per statement of his Son Sanjeev Bhardwaj, it was he who was found his father at the above place in unconscious state and shifted him to DDU hospital. Section 420 r/w Section 34 IPC was added to the FIR. Further investigation was transferred on 26.11.2013 to Spl.Staff and the case was further assigned to ASI Ishwar Singh (PW25).

2.4. The IO received DD no.5 (Ex.PW17/A) on 21.12.2013 regarding apprehension of accused Sandeep @ Raju (A1) and Deep Singh @ Deepa (A2) by Spl.Staff, North West District U/s 41.1 Cr.P.C. in connection with another FIR No. 445/12 U/s 328/420/34 IPC PS Subhash Palace. The said A1 and A2 had disclosed about their involvement in the present FIR. It was informed that they will be produced in the concerned Court at Rohini Courts, Delhi. The case IO accordingly made contact with Spl.Staff concerned and obtained Production Warrants of A1 and A2 for 02.01.2014. A2 was formally interrogated and arrested formally. A Result: Acquitted Page 5 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) 1 was, at the relevant time, on PC Remand and hence, he was arrested subsequently on 07.01.2014. On the basis of disclosure statement, Section 411 IPC was also added. Both the accused persons refused participation in Judicial TIP. Both of them were interrogated during PC Remand for recovery of cheated amount of Rs.17 lacs. 2.5. On 26.12.2013, the case exhibits were also sent for obtaining Expert opinion to FSL, Rohini, Delhi. The complainant had identified both the accused persons during Court proceedings on 11.01.2014. On 13.01.2014, recovery of Rs.2 lacs made at the instance of accused persons was deposited in Police Malkhana. The WagonR Car bearing No. DL9CN4686 from which A2 was apprehended by the Spl.Staff was also got transferred as case Property in the present case. Officials of PNB, Hari Nagar from where the complainant had a Bank Account and had withdrawn the cheated amount were also joined in investigation. The owner of WagonR Car Smt.Parminder Kaur had disclosed that the Car was sold by her to one Vikram Singh S/o Deep Singh @ Deepa (A2) for Rs.2,10,000/ on 06.10.2013. The Vehicle was used by Deep Singh (A2) only. It was not found that the amount of consideration money for purchase Result: Acquitted Page 6 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) of the Car was was from the Cheated amount.

2.6. The IO also obtained opinion on nature of injury and kind of weapon/Poison. The nature of injury was "Simple" and as per the subsequently filed FSL opinion, (Ex.PW25/F), "On chemical, Microscopic & TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in Exhibit '1'. After conclusion of investigation, Chargesheet was filed against both the accused persons before the Court of Ld.MM from where it was committed to Sessions.

THE CHARGE :

3. On 24.05.2015, detailed Order on Charge was passed. Both the accused persons are Charged as under :

(1) A1 and A2 are charged U/s 420/34 IPC to the effect that on 22.10.2013, after 09:30 AM at Road near Petrol Pump, near Ghanta Ghar, Hari Nagar, Delhi they in furtherance of their common intention, dishonestly induced the complainant to invest money in the lottery and thus deceived him to deliver Rs.17 lacs. (2) Both the accused persons were also Charged for committing Result: Acquitted Page 7 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) offence Punishable U/s 328/34 IPC to the effect that they, in furtherance of their common intention had, at the above date, time and place, administered some stupefying substance in Fanta of the complainant with intention to facilitate the commission of an offence of theft knowing that hurt may be caused to the complainant.

(3) A1 was also charged U/s 411 IPC as on 20.12.2013, he got recovered Rs.2 lacs as part money out of Rs.17 lacs cheated from the complainant (herein) from his House No. Q59, Bhagat Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi which he allegedly received or retained having knowledge or reason to believe that it is a stolen property. The accused persons denied these Charges and claimed trial.

3.1. A2 subsequently moved an application U/s 216 Cr.P.C. seeking alteration of Charge on the ground that no case U/s 328 IPC was made out in view of the FSL report. This application was considered and rejected vide Order dt. 14.05.2016.

Result: Acquitted Page 8 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE (IN BRIEF) :

4. 25 Prosecution witnesses have been examined excluding FSL Expert in this case. HC Anil (Srl.No.6) was dropped by the Prosecution as PW11 HC Shri Pal had already deposed about the relevant facts.

5. The herein below tabulated Chart indicates the witnesses produced and their brief testimonies :

S.No.        Name   of                   Evidence
             Witness/
             Nature
PW1 Sushil                      (1)    The witness  has  made  oral  testimony  in
     Kumar                       support   of   Prosecution's   case   regarding   the
     Bhardwaj                    incident dt. 22.10.2013 and has implicated A1
     (Complain                   and A2  regarding  meeting  them on the said
     ant)                        date,  allurement   &   deceit  regarding  Lottery

Ticket; regarding consumption of Soft Drink 'Fanta' in a Plastic glass due to which he became Nervous and the fact that he had withdrawn Rs.17 lacs from his Bank which amount was duped by the accused persons.

(2) The Prosecution also crossexamined him on certain facts which the witness could not depose during his examination in Chief.

Result: Acquitted Page 9 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) (3)The witness proved the Superdaginama / Bond of Rs.2 lacs Ex.PW1/PX.

(4) In his crossexamination, the witness was confronted with his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/DA.

PW2 Sh.Sanjeev (1) The witness has also led oral evidence Bhardwaj (Son stating that he received a Phone Call from of the his house that his father had not come Complainant) back on 22.10.2013 and that he found him, during search, in unconscious condition and taken to DDU hospital.

(2) He had shown this place to the Police who prepared Site Plan Ex.PW2/A. (3) He also deposed about the conversation he had with his father regarding the incident dt. 22.10.2013, on 24.10.2013.

PW3 Sh.A.S.Bhasin, (1) As he was Branch Manager of Hari (Ex.Manager, Nagar Branch on 24.01.2014, the case IO Punjab & sought documents regarding FDR No. Sindh Bank, 08911400003082 of PW1 vide Hari Nagar application Ex.PW3/A. Branch, Delhi) Result: Acquitted Page 10 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) (2) The Bank Statement was provided and seized vide Memo Ex.PW3/B. (3) His response letter to Notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. is proved as Ex.PW3/C. (4) Copy of Statement of Account of the above A/c No. is proved as Ex.PW3/D. (5) Attested copy of FDR No. 599654 of Rs.12 lacs is proved Ex.PW3/E. (6) Computer generated Statement of account is proved as Ex.PW3/F. (7) The original FDR and the original Cheque No. 546206 dt. 02.10.2013 issued by PW1 were seen and returned.

PW4 Ms.Brij Pandey (1) Witness produced Account Opening (Manager, Form of PW1 in respect of A/c No. Punjab & Sindh 08911000002583. It was opened on Bank, Hari 20.03.2004. Name of Smt.Champa Rani Nagar Branch, Bhardwaj i.e. wife of PW1 was added Delhi) later as Joint Account Holder on request of PW1 dt. 01.03.2005. The operation basis of account was on "either or survival" basis.

Result: Acquitted Page 11 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) (2) Account opening Form is Ex.PW 4/A. (3) Application dt. 01.03.2005 is proved as Ex.PW4/B. (4) Attested copy of Cheque No. 546206 dt. 22.10.2013 is Ex.PW4/C. (5) Attested copy of FDR No. 599654 was identified as Ex.PW3/E. (6) Attested copy of Statement of account between 01.10.2013 to 01.12.2014 is Ex.PW4/D. (7) Certificate U/s 2A(b) of Banker's Books Evidence Act is Ex.PW4/E. PW5 Chittar Singh (1) The witness produced records of (official, registration of Car No. DL9CN4686 licencing in the name of Vikram Singh S/o A2 as authority, second owner w.e.f. 08.10.2013. Dwarka).

(2) Vehicle was officially registered to one Parminder Kaur on 14.10.2006.

The relevant record is Ex.PW5/A.1 to Ex.PW5/A.12 (OS&R).

Result: Acquitted Page 12 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) PW6 HC Dashrath The witness as Duty officer on (Duty Officer on 22.10.2013 received rukka from 22.10.2013) Ct.Mohd.Rafiq for registering the case on which FIR Ex.PW6/D was registered vide endorsement upon the rukka made by the Duty Officer Ex.PW6/A. PW7 Ct.Mohd.Rafiq The witness responded to the Call dt.

(witness was in 22.10.2013 and accompanied HC Sham investigation Narayan (PW21) to DDU hospital and with IO on found PW1 unfit for statement. He 22.10.2013) carried rukka for registration of the case and after it, copy of FIR and rukka was handedover to the IO in the hospital where the IO obtained a Parcel vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW7/A. PW8 Dr.Bobo Singh (1)The witness medically examined PW1 (proved MLC of at about 06:00 PM on 22.10.2013 who was PW1) brought to DDU hospital with history of unknown substance ingestion / unknown Poison as told by his Son. Patient was found conscious but drowsy. An abrasion was found on right foot Ankle. His gastric lavage was obtained and handedover to the IO.

(2) MLC of PW1 is Ex.PW8/A. Result: Acquitted Page 13 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) PW9 Dr.Sikander This witness has proved his opinion on the Kumar Das MLC of PW1. On 17.02.2014, the doctor (SR, made an opinion on the MLC that nature of Department of injury of PW1 was "Simple". The Opinion Medicine, is Ex.PW9/A. DDU hospital, Delhi) PW Sh.Sunil (1) Witness produced judicial file of FIR 10 (Ahlmad in the no.445/12 PS Subhash Palace and Court of ASJ produced Seizure Memo regarding recovery FTCNW, of Rs.2 lacs allegations as per its copy Rohini Courts, Ex.PW10/A. Delhi).

(2) Confessional statement of A1 was proved as Ex.PW10/B. PW HC Shri Pal (1) According to this witness, their team had a 11 (Member secret information regarding suspects of similar Spl.Staff, North cases that they received on 13.12.2013. HC West, Delhi) Anil and SI Rajeev Ranjan were with him. At a place opposite Shiva Market, near Madhubhan Chowk, Delhi, the secret informer pointed towards two persons and hence apprehended. Their names were Bijender Gupta and Sandeep @ Raju (A1). They were interrogated and they disclosed of their involvement in another FIR No. 445/12. A1 also confessed about his complicity in the present case with his associate Deep Singh.

Result: Acquitted Page 14 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) He confessed of receiving Rs.8.50 lacs out of which Rs.6.50 lacs was already spent by him. His Supplementary statement was recorded which is Ex.PW10/B. Accordingly, A1 led the members of Spl.Staff of his house and got recovered cash of Rs.2 lacs from an Iron Almirah kept in a room of the ground floor of his house.

PW12 ASI Subhash (1) The witness deposes that on (Member of 20.12.2013 in his presence besides SI Spl.Staff, North Ajay and SI Rajeev Ranjan who were West, Delhi) investigating FIR No.445/12 PS Subhash Palace, A1 had pointed out towards WagonR Car bearing No. DL9CN4686 parked near Aggarwal Sweet House, Madhubhan Chowk and identified it as the Car of A2.

(2) A2 was also sitting on the front passenger Seat of the Car. He was apprehended and interrogated. During interrogation, he revealed that he was recently released in a rape case registered in Dehradoon and also confessed about his involvement in this case with A1.

Result: Acquitted Page 15 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) (3) The Spl.Staff had arrested him in a Kalandra vide DD no.34A PS Maurya Enclave including as per Memo Ex.PW 12/A. (4) His personal search was conducted vide Memo Ex.PW12/B. (5) His disclosure statement was recorded by Spl.Staff as Ex.PW12/C. (6) Seizure Memo of WagonR Car is Ex.PW12/D. (7) A Bag containing 270 fake Lottery Tickets seized from the Dicky of said Car is Ex.PW12/E. PW13 Sh.Devender The witness proved TIP Proceedings of Nain, Ld.ACMM, the accused persons who had refused to Rohini, North participate therein. The Proceedings are West, Delhi. Ex.PW13/B. PW14 HC Gaikwad This witness proves to have recorded Ram (DD Writer DD no. 25 PP Ex.PW14/A on on 22.10.2013 at 22.10.2013.

PS Hari Nagar) Result: Acquitted Page 16 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) PW15 ASI Shashi Kant In his presence, ASI Ishwar had arrested (Member of A2 on 02.01.2014 after due permission Spl.Staff, West, from the Court of concerned Ld.M.M. Delhi). vide Memo Ex.PW15/A. He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW15/B. PW16 ASI Laxman (1) In his presence, ASI Ishwar Singh Singh(Member of had arrested A1 in the present case Spl.Staff, West, outside the court of MM PS Hari Nagar Delhi) on 07.01.2014 vide Memo Ex.PW16/A. He also made a disclosure statement Ex.PW16/B. (2) On 10.01.2014, A1 and A2, during PC Remand, led Police team to Petrol Pump, Clock Tower, where they pointed towards a Footpath as the place of committing the offence vide Memo Ex.PW16/C (A1) and Memo Ex.PW 16/B (A2). No further recoveries could be effected at their instance.

PW17 Ct.Vikrant (DD The witness, on 21.12.2013 had Writer spl.Staff, recorded DD no.5 Ex.PW17/A West, Delhi) regarding apprehension of the accused U/s 41.4 Cr.P.C. by team of Spl.Staff, North West District who had disclosed about their involvement in the present case.

Result: Acquitted Page 17 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) PW18 Insp.Rajeev (1) This witness has supported the Ranjan (Member testimony of PW11. He has deposed Spl.Staff, North about receipt of secret information and West, Delhi) apprehension of A1 & A2 in FIR no.

445/12 PS Subhash Palace. He identified these accused persons in the Court. One Bicycle was recovered pursuant to disclosure statement of A1 which was used in commission of offence in this case. Recovery of Rs.2 lacs was also made in his presence at the instance of A1.

(2) The witness identified photographs of the recovered Currency Notes as Mark PW18/1.

(3) The witness also deposed about the apprehension and arrest of A2 from the Wagon R Car in the manner stated by PW11.

PW19 HC Sukhbir This witness had collected case property Singh from MHC(M) PS Hari Nagar on 26.12.2013 and deposited the same in FSL in intact condition and obtained acknowledgement from the FSL Mark PW19/A. Result: Acquitted Page 18 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) PW20 ASI Krishan (1) As an Incharge, Malkhana PS Hari Kumar (MHC(M) Nagar, he had received one sealed PS Hari Nagar) pullanda from HC Sham Narayan on 22.10.2013 bearing seal of CMO, DDU hospital alongwith Sample Seal in intact condition. He deposited same in the Malkhana and made necessary entry no.

3735 in Register no.19 Ex. PW20/A. (2) The sealed Pullanda was handedover with Sample Seal to Ct.Sukhbir (PW19) on 26.12.2013 after due entry at Portion X on Ex.PW20/A vide RC no.

160/21/13, Ex.PW20/B. Due acknowledgement Mark PW19/A was also received.

PW21 ASI Shyam (1) The witness had responded to DD Narayan Singh no. 25PP on 22.10.2013 with (1st IO of this Ct.Mohd.Rafiq (PW7) and has case) accordingly deposed about the preliminary investigation that he conducted. He applied for permission to record statement of injured vide Application Ex.PW21/A. Result: Acquitted Page 19 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) (2) He also met PW2/Sanjeev Bhardwaj in the hospital. He got the FIR registered after making his endorsement Ex.PW 21/B on DD no.25PP. He had gone to the place of incident with Ct.Mohd.Rafiq (PW7) and since no eye witness was found, they returned to the hospital.

Injured was "unfit for statement".

(3) Witness again went to the hospital on 23.10.2013 and made an application Ex.PW21/C for recording statement of injured and as per Doctor, he was "fit for statement".

(4) No such statement could be recorded as PW1 did not agree to it as he was suffering from headache.

(5) The witness again attempted to record statement of PW1 on 24.10.2013 but by that time, injured was discharged from the hospital. Witness met PW1 but again, PW1 made excuse regarding his ill health.

Result: Acquitted Page 20 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) (6) Statement Ex.PW1/DA was finally recorded on 25.10.2013. Further investigation was transferred to SI Shiv Dutt.

PW22 HC Gajender (1) He received one sealed pullanda in (MHC(M) PS intact condition on 20.12.2013 Subhash Palace. containing Rs.2 lacs recovered in investigation of FIR no. 445/12 PS Subhash Palace and seized U/s 102 Cr.P.C. against entry no. 5201 in Register no.19 Ex. PW22/A. (2) Some other case property was also deposited but in relation to FIR no.

445/12.

(3) The sealed pullanda of this case was handedover to ASI Ishwar Singh (PW

25) vide RC no. 5/21/14 Ex.PW22/B. Result: Acquitted Page 21 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) PW23 ASI Prakash (1) The witness produced Register nos (Current MHC(M) 19 & 21, proving that on 20.12.2013, PS Maurya SI Ajay Kumar, Spl. Staff (PW24) Enclave. deposited a WagonR Car bearing no.

DL9CN4686 with him as per the Entry No. 2663 Ex.PW23/A. (2) This Car, vide RC no. 01/21/14 Ex.PW23/B, was handedover to SI Ishwar Singh on 14.01.2014.

(3) These entries are in the handwriting of the then MHC(M) HC Jairoop which PW23 identified.

PW24 Insp.Ajay (1) The witness was in investigation of (Member Special FIR no. 445/12 PS Subhash Palace on Staff, North West 20.12.2013 with A1 and other accused District, Delhi) of the said case in two private vehicles.

(2) In his presence, A2 was apprehended from the WagonR Car DL9 CN4686 from a place near Aggarwal Sweet House, Madhubhan Chowk.

Result: Acquitted Page 22 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) (3) The witness has supported the testimonies of HC Subhash (PW12) and Ct.Shri Pal (PW11).

(4) The witness has deposed with respect to interrogation of A2, his disclosure statement Mark PW24/A already exhibited as Ex.PW12/C and Seizure Proceedings with respect to WagonR Car vide Memo Ex.PW24/B already exhibited as Ex.PW12/D. (5) From the Car, a Bag was seized comprising of 270 small Envelops, Bundle of papers in the size of Currency Notes and some Lottery Tickets. These articles were seized vide Memo Mark PW24/C already exhibited as Ex.PW12/E. (6) This fact was reported vide DD no.34A Mark PW24/D in PS Maurya Enclave.

(7) Kalandra U/s 41.1 (ba) Cr.P.C.

Ex.PW24/E was registered against A 2 and he was produced in the concerned Court.

Result: Acquitted Page 23 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) (8) The witness identified the hand Bag recovered from the Car, 270 small Envelops used for dispensing medicines and Bundle of Papers as Ex.PW24/A (colly.). Identity of the WagonR Car was not disputed.

PW25 SI Ishwar Singh He took over investigation from 1st IO (2nd IO of this HC Sham Narayan (PW21). He made case). inquiries with Banker of the complainant. On receipt of DD no.5 (Ex.PW17/A), he collected case documents from Spl.staff, West and sought permission to arrest Deep Singh (A2) and Sandeep @ Raju (A1) who were accordingly arrested on 02.01.2014 and 07.01.2014 respectively. After their arrest, he recorded their disclosure statements. They refused to participate in TIP Proceedings. IO sought PC Remand wherein A1 and A2 took him and HC Laxman to their respective houses.

Nothing incriminating was recovered.

Result: Acquitted Page 24 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) As per the IO, Deep Singh (A2) made Supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW25/A on 10.01.2014.

A1/Sandeep @ Raju made similar disclosure statement Ex.PW25/B. Pointing out memos of the place where Victim was left unconscious and the Punjab & Sindh Bank where they had accompanied Victim from Dispensary, Hari Nagar were prepared.

Gastric lavage of the Victim was sent for Chemical Analysis through Ct.Sukhbir.

On 13.01.2014, case property i.e. Pullanda containing Rs.2 lacs was transferred to PS Hari Nagar from PS Subhash Place in intact condition vide RC Ex.PW22/B. Likewise, the WagonR Car was got transferred from PS Maurya Enclave to PS Hari Nagar vide RC Ex.PW23/B. The IO has disclosed about serving Notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. to the Manager of Complainant's Bank, relevant replies and relevant documents that were seized vide Memo Ex.PW3/B. Result: Acquitted Page 25 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) The IO verified ownership details of WagonR Car and same were received from Transport Authority vide letter Mark PW25/B. The IO had handedover the G.C.Notes of Rs.2 lacs to the complainant on Superdari as per the Panchnama Proceedings Ex.PW25/C after noting their Srl.Nos.on Sheets Ex.PW25/D (Colly.). The Photographs are Ex.PW18/1.

Lastly, the IO deposed that on 10.01.2014, the complainant had met him by chance when the accused were pointing towards the place of incident and he accordingly identified the accused persons of this case. After receipt of FSL Result, the IO made an application Ex.PW25/E for submitting it. The Result is Ex.PW25/F which was forwarded by the Director, FSL, vide letter Mark PW25/G.

6. As already said, the Prosecution dropped witness no.6 HC Anil as PW11 HC Shri Pal had already deposed on the facts to be proved Result: Acquitted Page 26 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) through him.

DEFENCE U/S 313 CR.P.C. :

7. All the incriminating circumstances in evidence were put to the accused persons who have denied the Prosecution's case. 7.1 As per A1, he is innocent. He was called at the office of Spl.Staff to satisfy their demands but as he failed to do so, he was falsely implicated in this case. According to him, all the Prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. Further, he claimed that he was shown to PW1 not only by the officials to Spl.Staff but also of PS Hari Nagar and hence, he refused to take part in TIP. He denied having made any disclosure statement. He denied that he led to discovery of Currency Notes of Rs.2 lacs. He denied that he led the Police to coaccused Deep Singh near Aggarwal Sweet House, Madhuban Chowk as alleged. He did not know if the police seized Fake Lottery Tickets vide Memo Ex.PW12/E from Deep Singh. He denied entire Prosecution's case. He did not opt to produce any witness in his defence.

7.2. A2 Deep Singh also claims innocence. As per him, he Result: Acquitted Page 27 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) was at his home on 18.12.2013. At about 07:00 PM, 67 persons including SI Rajan had come to his house. SI Rajan was in Police Uniform while others were in Civil dress. They searched his house and took away his Wife's gold ear rings weighing 5 gms. He stated that one Kewal Singh residing next to his house, was in habit of parking his Car in this accused's Plot on which he had resisted. He was therefore threatened by Kewal Singh that since he knew Police Officials, he will implicate the accused in a false case. 7.3. The accused claims all the Prosecution witnesses as 'interested witnesses'. He also claims like A1 that he was shown to complainant by Police officials of Spl.Staff as well as PS Hari Nagar and hence, he refused to take part in TIP Proceedings. Denying the Prosecution case, he claims that he was never taken in Police custody from the WagonR Car on 20.12.2013 but apprehended from his house on 18.12.2013 only at 07:00 PM.

7.4. Regarding recovery of Rs.2 lacs from his house, he denies any knowledge of such recovery having been effected. He also denies the entire case of the Prosecution but did not lead evidence in defence.

Result: Acquitted Page 28 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) ARGUMENTS BY LD.ADDL.P.P.FOR THE STATE :

8. The ld.Prosecutor Mr.B.B.Bhasin was assisted by Complainant's Counsel Sh.Jatin Sapra, Advocate. The Prosecution opened its arguments by stating that the Prosecution has proved its case against both the accused persons on both the Charges. The argument that Mr.Bhasin initially made, on being probed by the court, is that before the Victim PW1 was administered Soft drink Fanta comprising of a stupefying substance, the accused persons had already induced him fraudulently and dishonestly in the game of playing lottery tickets leading to delivery of Rs.200/ thereby completing the offence Punishable U/s 420/34 IPC.

9. According to him, PW1 felt uneasy after consuming Fanta and even while the accused persons got him involved in further talks, they continued their attempt to cheat him/ take away further cash amount from him on the pretext that if PW1 had more money to invest, then they will return double of such investment. It is thus, urged that the Victim thereafter went to his house, collected Bank related documents/FDR. He went to his Bank and got a sum of Rs.17 lacs withdrawn from his account. It is this amount that was obtained by Result: Acquitted Page 29 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) the accused persons while the Victim was under influence of the stupefying substance offered to him in Fanta and thus, completing the offence Punishable U/s 328/34 IPC.

10. These arguments was subsequently modified by the Prosecution urging that there is over lapping of the ingredients of offence Punishable U/s 420 as well as 328 IPC as evident from the testimony of PW1. It was thus urged that bifurcation of the time period prior to and after consumption of stupefying substance in Fanta will be inconsequential as both offences were committed simultaneously.

11. It is urged that PW1, at the time of incident was a 60 years old person retired from a Sr.Post from Ministry of Urban Development, Department of Publication and thus, there is no reason for him to falsely implicate the accused persons at all. His testimony is said to be completely believable. It is urged that as per PW8, the doctor found the Patient i.e. PW1 as conscious but "drowsy". It is submitted that version of PW1 supplements version of his Son PW

2. It is submitted that both the Bank Managers i.e. PW3 and PW4 have proven the relevant documents regarding the banking transactions. It is pointed out that refusal of accused persons to Result: Acquitted Page 30 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) participate in TIP for no apparent and cogent reason is an instance of drawing adverse inference against them. It is pointed out that recovery of Rs.2 lacs out of the cheated amount has been made from A1. It is contended that no previous enmity is shown by the defence for false implication. It is urged that the defence is highly improbable. DEFENCE ARGUMENTS :

12. For A1, Advocate Sh.Himanshu Bhuttan has presented arguments while on behalf of A2, Sh.R.P.Sarwan, legal Aid Counsel has presented arguments.

13. According to the Counsels for both the accused persons, the Prosecution has failed to produce any medical evidence at all with respect to offence Punishable U/s 328 IPC. It is also accordingly argued that mere oral evidence of PW1 odes not inspire confidence visavis administration of stupefying substance to him after mixing it in Soft Drink 'Fanta' in view of glaring improbabilities found recorded in his statement in the Court. It is urged that the conduct of complainant in not giving his statement to Police at his first instance and instead getting discharge and giving statement subsequently does not inspire confidence. It is submitted that there are marked Result: Acquitted Page 31 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) improvements in testimony of Complainant, which are liable to be viewed carefully as such contradictions and improvements, when viewed carefully, puts the veracity of the entire statement of PW1 under a question mark.

14. It is also jointly argued by both the counsels that the Prosecution has not produced evidence sufficient enough to comprise into a coherent version incorporating all the ingredients of offence Punishable U/s 420 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.

15. In order to demonstrate the same, the defence submitted that DD no.25 PP recorded at 06:05 PM on 22.10.2013 was received from DDU hospital implying that PW1 was already at the hospital by that time. Support to that is sought by Prosecution from PW2 i.e. Son of the Victim who claimed that he found his father unconscious at the abandoned land between the two Petrol Pumps, Fire Station and Samta Dham, near Ghanta Ghar. PW2 shifted his father/PW1 to hospital on a Cycle Rickshaw. Police had reached the spot. Further, PW1 was relieved from the hospital (as per PW2) on 23.10.2013.

He was unwell. It was only on 24.10.2013 that his father told him about the incident dt. 22.10.2013.

Result: Acquitted Page 32 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16)

16. Defence urges to note that as per PW1, he had lost consciousness after reaching the said abandoned land and regained his consciousness at DDU hospital on next day i.e. 23.10.2013.

17. Further more, he saw Police but did not make statement to them on 23.10.2013 due to giddiness. On the same day, he came back to his house from hospital. As per him, the Police recorded his statement either on 24th or 25.10.2013.

18. In this back drop of oral testimony, the defence urges the Court to note that as per Ex.PW8/A (MLC), PW1 was examined on 22.10.2013 at 06:00 PM in DDU hospital and was found "Conscious" but "drowsy".

19. Accordingly, it is urged that as per the medical opinion, the Patient was conscious even at 06:00 PM on 22.10.2013 and therefore entire evidence to the fact that he lost consciousness at "Abandoned land" and regained the same only on the next day i.e. 23.10.2013 is highly improbable.

20. The defence also urges the Court to note the fact that PW1 was examined for the first time by the case IO U/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 25.10.2013 i.e. after three days of the incident. This statement is Result: Acquitted Page 33 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) Ex.PW1/DA.

21. Attention of the court is drawn to the statement of case IO/PW21 HC Sham Narayan. The injured was not "fit for statement on 22.10.2013" as per Ex.PW21/A. He was still unfit when the IO returned back after making preliminary investigation on the spot. On 23.10.2013, the injured was 'fit for statement' as per Ex.PW21/C but he admittedly did not agree to give his statement on the pretext that he was suffering from headache. The IO had again attempted to record the statement on 24.10.2013 but by then, the injured had been already discharged. On the same day, the IO went to house of injured for recording his statement but he refused to make it on the premise that he is still suffering from headache. As per the IO, the injured had given different grounds on 24.10.2013 for not getting his statement recorded. It was only on 25.10.2013 could the IO finally succeed to record the statement. The aforesaid conduct of the Complainant is urged to be extremely doubtful making his testimony subject to extensive scrutiny.

22. Having highlighted this much, the defence sought comparison between Police statement Ex.PW1/DA and the Court Statement of Result: Acquitted Page 34 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) PW1/Complainant and pointed out to numerous instances of improvements and also facts narrated only for the first time in the Court. It is pointed out that the entire Prosecution version of implication of accused persons in this case and their doubtful chance identification by the complainant smacks of suspicion.

23. The defence pointed out that Police never seized the "Fanta"

bottle, the Glass and even clothes of the complainant. It is heavily stressed upon that if main Pws i.e. PW1 and PW2 are to be believed then some 'Fanta' had fell on the clothes of PW1 and PW 2 had noticed that something had spilled over the clothes of PW1. The initial history given to the doctor is of consumption of unknown substance. Despite that the IO failed to seize the above articles thereby rendering the case extremely doubtful qua offence U/s 328/34 IPC.

24. The defence further tore into the testimony of PW1 by pointing out various anomalies. It is pointed out that PW1 claimed in his Chief examination that the accused "compelled me to bring money and they will give double amount to me". It is urged that if it is a case of compulsion then it cannot be a case of cheating at all.

Result: Acquitted Page 35 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16)

25. The defence has also tried to show from the testimony that the Victim, if believed, was administered 'Fanta' "after about 11:30 AM". Thereafter, the Victim went to his house, stayed there for some time and reached the Bank at about 01:50 PM. It is urged that in between, he stayed at his house for about 30 minutes but did not convey anything to his daughter in law about him not feeling well even though she had offered water to him.

26. It is urged that although there is nothing to show that the accused persons had offered the Victim 'Fanta' or that the 'Fanta' comprised of some stupefying substance, yet the fact that the Victim drank Water during the interregnum, is an additional fact to be considered by this Court as something could have been present in the water that he drank at his house that could have led to the Victim feeling uneasy, if at all such circumstances are to be believed.

27. It is further urged that the witness who reached the Bank at about 01:50 PM and claims to have withdrawn Rs.17 lacs from there, admittedly took 10 minutes in doing so. Thereafter, the Victim had gone to Ghanta Ghar to meet the accused persons and finally fell unconscious. It is thus, urged that there is a gap of almost five hours Result: Acquitted Page 36 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) in between administering 'Fanta' and loosing consciousness which is highly improbable.

28. It is pointed out that as per the witness, one of the accused had a bicycle but no evidence is produced on this aspect. It is further argued that there is no documents of Pratap Nagar Dispensary from where PW1 took medicine for himself and his wife.

29. It is pointed out that Police never seized any Lottery Tickets that the Victim had allegedly played on the date of incident.

30. It is further submitted that the Police seized the FDR but it is urged for this Court to see that the said FDR Ex.PW3/A comprises of cutting and signature over the name Column but none has explained about the said cutting showing that FDR was in the name of Sh.Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj which is later converted as Sh.Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj. It is nevertheless argued that even if any cash was withdrawn by the Victim, the Prosecution never connected it to be ever in possession of these accused persons. Regarding recovery of Rs.2 lacs, it is urged that there is no kind of identification in order to show that the recovered Currency Notes were the same which were withdrawn by PW1 from his Bank.

Result: Acquitted Page 37 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16)

31. The incident of recovery is said to be highly doubtful. Absence of public witness is projected as a major factor to discredit the recovery made by the officials of Spl.Staff/West.

32. The defence also attacked the testimony of PW2 who referred to the fact that when he found his father, some other persons were surrounding him. It is urged that these "some other persons" have not been examined. The defence also argued that the IO made no verification from the Bank.

33. It is submitted that as per PW2, Site Map was prepared on 23.10.2013 but physical perusal of the Site Map shows that it is undated. It is also submitted that PW1 and PW2 have given different Mobile Phone numbers in their testimonies. It is submitted that when PW1 had reached his house, he met his daughter in law only while wife of PW1 was away whereas when PW2 reached his house, he met his mother while his wife was away.

34. Regarding medical evidence, it is again argued that the doctor never recorded that any kind of spillage was found on Victim's clothes. It is urged that PW21 never tried to collect any CCTV Footage despite the fact that the place of incident is located near two Result: Acquitted Page 38 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) Petrol Pumps.

35. In support of these arguments, the defence has placed reliance on following Judgments :

(1) Joseph Kurian Philip Jose Vs. State of Kerela, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 20 "(h) In order to prove offence under Section 328 the Prosecution is re quired to prove that the substance in question was a poison, or any stupe fying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, etc., that the accused adminis tered the substance to the complainant or caused the complainant to take such substance, that he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be likely that he would thereby cause hurt, or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. It is, therefore, essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused was directly responsible for admin istering poison etc. or causing it to be taken by any person, through an other. In other words, the accused may accomplish the act by himself or by means of another. In either situation direct, reliable and cogent evi dence is necessary. Now on that basis it has to be seen whether A1 had any role to play in directly administering to or causing to be taken the poi sonous liquor by the deceased, who had purchased and consumed liquor from a retail shop, with intent to cause hurt to him or knowing it to be likely that it would cause hurt to him."

(2) Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State 2008 VII AD (DELHI) 151 "(4) The stomach wash of the victims was not preserved and therefore the MLC prepared shows the endorsement of the doctor Ms.Jyoti that a final opinion could not be given. The Trial Court has proceeded to convict the accused entirely on the evidence of the three victims and their father. It Result: Acquitted Page 39 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) concluded that according to the statements of these victims, both the ac cused had administered in intoxicating the material with the intention to kill such persons.

(6) The essential element of Section 328 is that the victim should be ad ministered "Poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing". The forensic examination of the stomach wash in order to determine the substance that administered was poison is therefore impera tive for ascertaining the commission of the offence under Section 328 IPC.

The opinion of the victim who is rendered unconscious after taking the substance may not be stated to be final as to whether the drug adminis tered was either "poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug". In this context the medical legal case sheets become relevant which were marked as Ex.PW6/A, PW3/A and PW9/A which contain endorse ments that the victims were unfit for making a statement. In respect of each of the victims, the endorsement of Dr.Jyoti is to the effect that "the stomach wash could not be preserved so that the final report could not be given"."

         (3)      Santosh Kumar Vs. State
                  2000 X AD (DELHI) 735

"(10) From the above quoted observations of the learned trial Judge it is very much clear that the findings rendered are not sustainable at all be cause of being conjectural. Simply on the basis of the statement of PW5 alone it could not be concluded that he had become unconscious because of eating the biscuit or drinking tea offered to him by the accused. There had to be medical evidence to the effect that PW5 had, in fact, become unconscious because of consuming any drug or intoxicating substance etc. mixed in tea or biscuit."

         (4)      Mukesh Chand & Anr. Vs. state of NCT
                  2010 {1} JCC 750

Result:  Acquitted                                                        Page 40  of   68
 State  Vs.  Sandeep @ Raju etc                                   FIR 475/13 (56620/16)

"(15) Now, coming to the arrest of other two appellants namely, Horam Singh and Mahender Singh. As per statement of PW4, on 3 rd June, 1994, he alongwith SI Roshan Lal, Ct.Jagdish and complainant Mata Parsad had come to the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and in the crowd, complainant identified appellants Horam Singh and Mahender Singh who were appre hended at the pointing out of the complainant.

(16) On the other hand, complainant nowhere states that appellants Ho ram Singh and Mahender Singh were apprehended at his pointing out. The complainant in his statement has stated that he saw other accused persons only in the Court and nowhere in between after the incident.

(21) Surprisingly no chemical report about the "stomach wash" has been proved on record. It is well settled that in order to prove Section 328 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the substance in question was a poison.

(23) After scanning through the entire evidence and facts of the present case, I have no hesitation in holding that case of prosecution is full of con tradictions and it has miserably failed to prove its case against any of the appellants. The impugned judgment of Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and present appeal stands allowed. All the appellants stand acquit ted."

         (5)      Mahinder Kumar & Anr.  Vs.  State
                  2017 (4) LRC 104 (Del)

"Section 328 - Causing hurt by means of poison, etc. with intent to com mit an offences - Proof - In a case under Section 328 IPC mere oral as sertions are not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of the offence. To hold an accused guilty for the offence, the oral assertions ought to be corrobo rated by other circumstances and evidence. In absence of any medical ev Result: Acquitted Page 41 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) idence corroborating allegation of injured, convicting appellants for the offence under Section 328 of IPC does not seem to be justified, especially when prosecution has not seized any liquid/substance for taking expert opinion so as to know the substance was poisonous, stupefying, intoxicat ing or unwholesome drug. Prosecution has also not produced any witness to rebut the plea of alibi on behalf of appellants except that of the injured witness. Defence witnesses specifically deposed before court that appel lants were not present at the spot and came later and removed the victim to hospital. Benefit of doubt extended to appellants. Acquitted.

(16) No doubt, the victim has specifically alleged that the appellant Ma hender had given tea due to which she felt giddiness and thereafter offered something to drink due to which she felt burning sensation and started vomiting. She has also remained consistent in her statement made before the police as well as before the Court. This court also went through the MLC of the victim. On a careful perusal of the MLC, this Court finds that the victim was brought to the hospital with the history of Ingestion, Acid (unknown variety) in the evening; patient conscious, oriented, pulse - 92/m; BP140/90 mm HS; Injury Note. Froth coming out from the mouth. However, the MLC nowhere mentions about any report regarding any poi sonous substance being found in the body of the victim."

36. In rebuttal, the Ld.Prosecutor has submitted that merely because there is absence of medical evidence, it cannot be said that no stupefying substance was administered to PW1 as the MLC reveals that when the patient was brought in the hospital, he was 'conscious' but at the same time he was also 'drowsy'. It is contended that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had upheld the Result: Acquitted Page 42 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) Conviction U/s 328/379 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC in Judgment dt. 27.01.2014 passed in Crl.Appeal No. 32/2013 in case titled as Rafiqul Vs. State (GLCT of Delhi).

37. The said Judgment is also relied to show that in the said case, the complainant was made to consume a stupefying drug and he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in Safdarjang hospital and noticed that his various articles were missing. In the said case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that as per the MLC, the Victim was brought to hospital in a 'drowsy' condition and it was in deposition of complainant that he became unconscious on consuming the Cold drink. This testimony was read with the factum of refusal of Judicial TIP by one of the accused therein for no apparent reason and for want of Proof in the form of any evidence that has photographs were obtained in the PS. The subsequent identification of both the accused by complainant in the Court was held to be sufficient in view of the facts and circumstance including of the fact that from both the accused a sizeable quantity of medicine name "Ativan 2 mg" was recovered. It was also held that not taking Viscera sample of complainant was inconsequential as it is Result: Acquitted Page 43 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) relevant only if a person is administered poison or any poisonous substance.

38. The Ld.Prosecutor also placed reliance on Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Mohd.Zuber & Anr. Vs. State, 2015(2) JCC 1229, wherein it is held that :

"(18) Section 328 of IPC to the extent it is relevant provides that whoever administers or causes to be taken by any person any stupefying drug, or other thing with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an of fence shall be liable to be punished.

(19) A perusal of the MLC goes to show that when the complainant was brought to the hospital on 4th January, 2011 at 01:55 PM, he was in a state of unconsciousness at that time and it was only on 5 th November, 2011 that he became conscious and then his statement was recorded by PW15SI Murtaza.

(20) It has come in the statement of complainant that he became uncon scious on consuming tea offered to him, therefore, there can be no reason able doubt that some stupefying drug or substance was mixed in the tea which the appellants made the complainant to consume. This obviously was done with the intent of committing theft of the articles belonging to the complainant which he was having on his person and was carrying with him. A number of articles belonging to the complainant were thereafter actually stolen. The appellants, therefore, were rightly held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 328 and 379 IPC r/w Section 34 thereof.

(21) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that gastric lavage of the complainant was not taken and in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwhole Result: Acquitted Page 44 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) some drug or other thing was administered to him. I, however, find no substance in this contention. The viscera would have been necessary had the complainant been administered poison or any poisonous substance.

Nothing could have been found in the viscera on account of complainant taking a stupefying substance mixed in tea."

39. In this case also there was a conviction that was upheld for Offences U/s 328/379 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. Here also no medical evidence was found present but the testimony of complainant was believed. Absence of Viscera sample was held to be inconsequential for want of administration of poison or poisonous substance.

FINDINGS :

40. For purposes of Section 354(B) Cr.P.C, it would be suffice to say that this Court is required to ascertain if the accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the complainant of sum of Rs.17 lacs in the manner alleged and if for the said purpose, they administered him some stupefying substance in Cold drink 'Fanta' in the manner alleged with an intent to cause hurt with a further intent to commit offence of theft or not?

41. The Court has already set out the arguments made for and against the case of the prosecution in the preceding paragraphs.

Result: Acquitted Page 45 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16)

42. The Court has also highlighted that the Prosecution modified its arguments visavis the point of time that separates the two offences with which the accused persons are charged with. The said 'point of time' is the time when Victim PW1 was made to consume 'Fanta' allegedly laced with some stupefying substance.

43. The latter argument that ingredients of both the offences i.e. offences Punishable U/s 328 and 420 IPC are over lapping is not found to be a reasonable argument. To put it simply, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the accused persons are bound to abandon their alleged approach of justifying their common intention to deprive PW1 of his money. It is so as their purpose would be solved the moment the PW1 consumed 'Fanta laced with a sedative'. From that point onwards, it would no longer be necessary for them to either have or continue having a dishonest intention or a fraudulent intention to deceive PW1 or induce him to deliver Rs.17 lacs to them.

44. Section 328 IPC postulates requirement of the following viz :

(a) Administration or cause to be taken by any person;

(b) Any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or Result: Acquitted Page 46 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) unwholesome drug or other thing;

(d) Or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence;

(e) Or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt.

45. Given the facts in this case, the 'substance' that was given to PW 1 has not surfaced. The Court is left with oral testimony only on that count. It is however clear that Prosecution does allege an intent on A 1 and A2 to commit commission of an offence. The said offence, in this case, as per the Prosecution, is offence of Cheating Punishable U/s 420 IPC. Hence, the ingredients of offence of Cheating becomes of greater importance.

46. As per Section 415 IPC, the following is necessary to constitute ofence of Cheating viz :

(a) Deceiving any person either fraudulently or dishonestly and inducing such person to ;

(b) deliver any property to any person;

(c) or to consent that any person shall retain any property;

Result: Acquitted Page 47 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16)

(d) or intentionally inducing the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived;

(e) and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

47. The offence requires element of deceit coupled with fraudulent or dishonest inducement. It will not be difficult to comprehend that for inducing a person (in this case PW1), it is necessary that he is not in a state of influence of (in this case) stupefying or intoxicating substance or even unwholesome drug. To put it simply, a person will not be in a position to be deceived or induced if he is not in his ordinary senses.

48. The above analysis of the legal Provisions reveals that in this case, there is either cheating or administration of stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug. If the Prosecution avers that there are both, then it stands faced with a hurdle of proving these allegations on the basis of strong, cogent, coherent, unimpeachable evidence. The Prosecution has to travel from a mere possibility to certainty.

Result: Acquitted Page 48 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16)

49.To this Court, the former argument of the Prosecution appears to be more logical and legal than the latter one.

50. However, there is a strong catch which is unexplained in the present scenario. To begin with, there is unusual delay in the Victim making his statement to the Police and a certain amount of confusion regarding his state of consciousness.

51. The defence has made a very strong argument regarding the time lapse between the alleged administration of some stupefying, intoxicating substance or unwholesome drug and the time when PW1 lost complete consciousness. Nevertheless, it is in his statement Ex.PW1/DA that he started feeling uneasiness (घबररहट) after consumption of 'Fanta' but it is quite obvious from bare reading of this statement that he started feeling 'घबररहट' after certain amount of time of consumption of soft drink 'Fanta'. In between, he travelled back to Ghanta Ghar with the accused persons and on their asking, he went to his own house for arranging more money.

52. Prior to it he was offered Rs.500/ against playing lottery of Rs.200/ and accused persons actually gave three Lottery Tickets to him. Nowhere does he say that he had returned the three Lottery Result: Acquitted Page 49 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) Tickets. As to what happened to three Lottery Tickets has never seen light of the day. These were never recovered. There is absolute silence on any investigation regarding the same.

53. The above is a missing link and a crucial one too, as there is a gap of almost three months between the incident and apprehension of A1 and A2.

54. Proceeding ahead, Ex.PW1/DA then records that even though the complainant felt 'घबररहट' at his house yet he proceeded to collect bank documents at his house and proceeded to his Bank at Hari Nagar where he reached at 02:00 PM. It has to be noticed here that he left for dispensary at 09:30 AM. At the Dispensary, he consumed one hour and it was only after it that he met the accused persons. Thus, he ought to have consumed the Soft drink between 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM. This fact stands proved and nailed from his Court testimony establishing that he reached dispensary at 10:00 AM. He would have left the dispensary by 11:00 AM. He admits of meeting the accused persons at 11:30 AM. He stayed for 15 minutes with them and therefore, he would have consumed 'Fanta' actually between 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM in the light of evidence on record.

Result: Acquitted Page 50 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16)

55. He reached his house after 30 minutes of 11:45 AM i.e. by 12:15 PM. He stayed at his house for 30 minutes i.e. till 12:45 PM. He does not convey anything to his daughter in law which is very very surprising. As a matter of fact he was offered water at his house.

56. Nevertheless, he left for his Bank located 500 mtrs. away from his house taking 1012 minutes to reach there. Thus, he was at his Bank by 01:00 PM. As per him, he took 10 minutes in the bank to withdraw money. Accordingly, he would have left his bank by 01:10 PM. From there, he proceeded to Ghanta Ghar again.

57. A deeper probe into Chief examination of PW1 reveals that he actually pin points the time when he reached the Bank at 01:50 PM. Accordingly, he was conscious till this time. If he took 10 minutes in the bank then he would have left the bank actually at 02:00 PM.

58. From the bank, he reached near Ghanta Ghar, met the accused and all of them started looking for an abandoned place. He does not provide as to what was the time when he was at the said abandoned place. There is no crossexamination on that aspect.

59. By the above analysis of evidence, it is clear that the exact time when PW1 lost consciousness is not provided to this Court.

Result: Acquitted Page 51 of 68

State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16)

60. In this context, statement of PW2 is of some assistance. He received telephonic call between 03:30 PM - 04:00 PM that his father has not come back to the house. He went to his house and started searching him. He found his father lying in unconscious condition on the abandoned land between two Petrol Pumps, Fire Station and Samta Dham, near Ghanta Ghar. His crossexamination reveals that he reached his house within one hour of receiving the telephonic message. Thus, PW2 was at his house between 04:30 to 05:00 PM. He went in search of his father on foot and found him about 500 Mtrs. away from his house. He shifted his father to the hospital in a Cycle Rickshaw where he, as per MLC, was taken at 06:00 PM.

61. Thus, somewhere between 02:00 PM to a little before 06:00 PM, the PW1 would have fallen unconscious.

62. Thus, the defence has an argument worth appreciation that there was no immediate consequence of the stupefying or intoxicating substance and it took several hours before PW1 fell unconscious.

63. The medical evidence could have explained such a condition in which there could be a gap of several hours between a person being Result: Acquitted Page 52 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) administered an unwholesome drug or stupefying, intoxicating substance and loosing consciousness.

64. I am afraid to say that such evidence was available but was allowed to be lost without collection. PW1 is consistent not only in Ex.PW1/DA but also in his Court testimony that while consuming 'Fanta', some of it fell on his clothes.

65. PW2 lends credence to this version to some extent as he claimed, though in his crossexamination, that, "something had split on his clothes". This fact is not mentioned in statement of PW2 U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, it stands to reason to be a correct statement considering the fact that the MLC Ex.PW8/A records the alleged history of "unknown substance ingestion as told by B/B? Unknown poisoning". The MLC also records that on oral examination, PW1 was conscious but drowsy and that he was responding to verbal command. There was presence of an abrasion over his right foot with Ankle.

66. Despite the said clear and unambiguous history, there was nothing that was done to ascertain the kind of Poison. Only 'gastric lavage' was obtained, report of which is 'Negative' and not helpful to the Result: Acquitted Page 53 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) Prosecution. Had a blood sample been drawn, presence of a foreign substance in blood could be detected. In this case, no Viscera was preserved despite suspected diagnosis of administration of an unknown poison.

67. The reason the Court has provided the above details is to stress upon the need to carefully scrutinize the testimony of the Star witness of the Prosecution i.e. PW1 keeping in view the arguments pertaining to it being riddled with numerous improvements and anomalies.

68. As per Ex.PW1/DA, the PW1 met with a Turbaned Sikh who was supporting White and Black beard and speaking in Punjabi. He also met another person who was speaking in Bengali language. Age of the Sikh person is stated as 40 years while the age of the non Sikh person is said to be 35 years. The Sikh individual is identified as Deep Singh i.e. A2 in the Court and non Sikh person as A1 in the Court. Record reveals that when the A2 was apprehended, his age has been disclosed in the Conviction Slip as 67 years whereas the age of A1 is shown as 40 years. The defence argued and it is also observed on record that on 11.09.2015, PW1 was specifically Result: Acquitted Page 54 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) suggested that the age of A2 is about 67 years but surprisingly this suggestion was denied by PW1. He was also suggested that A2 is not the same person who had taken Rs.17 lacs from him. Of course, PW1 denied this suggestion. Nevertheless, incorrect mention of age of A2 despite the fact that the witness was categorically suggested to the contrary on this aspect and further despite the fact that he denied the suggestion implies that he had no explanation to offer as to why he would provide the age of A2 as 40 years in Ex.PW1/DA even though same is not correct age and there is a difference of about 27 years. This thus create a doubt on the identity of A2. Of course, TIP has been refused in this case but this court will not be in a position to apply the ratio of Judgment cited by the State in Rafiqul Vs. State (Supra) as in the present case, A2 has given an explanation in TIP proceedings Ex.PW13/B that his photographs were taken in the PS. Additionally, he also submitted that he has been seen by everyone as well as the complainant. Accordingly, he has provided two reasons for refusing TIP. It is the case of the Prosecution that there was a chance identification of both the accused persons by the complainant at the time when they took the Police party for pointing Result: Acquitted Page 55 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) out the place of incident. It being so, not only the reason for refusal of TIP assigned by A2 is believable but also similar reason given by A 1 is equally believable too. This Court is not in a position to draw an adverse inference regarding refusal of accused persons to take part in TIP proceedings.

69. It is essential for the Prosecution to establish that the PW1 had actually met A1 and A2 at the date, place and time complained of. If there arises any doubt regarding it, its benefit is liable to be given to the accused persons. The IO had proceeded to record a supplementary statement of PW1 on 10.01.2014 in this context. This statement has not been proven or put to the witness. It is recorded therein that on 10.01.2014, he had noticed the two persons standing with the Police while on the way for some domestic work. He recognized them as the persons who had duped him.

70. Here it is important to note that both the accused persons had refused to take part in TIP Proceedings on 08.01.2014. Merely one day after the same i.e. on 10.01.2014, PW1 chanced upon these accused persons while in Police custody. This Chance identification does not inspire confidence keeping in mind the fact that there was no Result: Acquitted Page 56 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) arrest in this case for almost three months of the date of incident. I shall touch upon the aspect of recovery of Currency amount of Rs.2 lacs in this Judgment.

71. Once a doubt arises regarding proper identification of the accused persons, it has become more important to carefully scrutinized PW 1's testimony.

72. Before administration of 'Fanta' to PW1, it is his case that first A2 stopped him to ask location of Sarvodya Bal Vidyala. In the meanwhile, A1 joined them. After joining, A1 stated to A2 that he is aware of location of the above referred School. Simultaneously, both of them told PW1 that they sell Lotteries and the Govt. pays to them against selling such Lotteries.

73. This scenario should have alerted the PW1 as any prudent person would be alerted after noting the fact that the two persons whom he met one by one were already known to each other and were in same line of selling Lotteries.

74. Nevertheless, the younger accused who is stated to be A1 asked him to purchase Lottery Tickets while saying, "आपकर लक अचछर हह". thereafter, the accused gave him three Lottery Tickets stating that if Result: Acquitted Page 57 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) he invests Rs.200/ in Lottery, he can get return of Rs.500/.

75. Here it is important to note that though it is not stated in Ex.PW 1/DA that Rs.200/ was paid but it is in the Court testimony that PW 1 did pay accused Deep Singh (A2) Rs.200/. It is further important to note that in none of the two statements does the PW1 state that accused actually gave him Rs.500/ in lieu of game of Lottery.

76. Soon thereafter, A2 brought a 'Fanta' bottle and a Plastic glass and offered the same to PW1.

77. Uptill this stage, it would have been possible for this Court to say that during the first segment of the Crime, the accused persons committed offence of cheating by duping Rs.200/ from the PW1 on the pretext of playing lottery. It cannot be however said for the reason that if Rs.500/ was never returned to him, PW1 would not have been further duped deceitfully to go and bring more money in the manner complained of.

78. It is further in evidence that after consumption of 'Fanta', the accused involved PW1 in talks and that if he invested more money, then double of it will be given to him. This fact is not stated in Ex.PW1/DA. It is also not recorded in Ex.PW1/DA that the Result: Acquitted Page 58 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) accused had obtained information about financial status and bank accounts of PW1. It is also not recorded in Ex.PW1/DA that PW1 had told the accused of having a FD of Rs.12 lacs at Punjab & Sindh Bank, Hari Nagar.

79. Moreover, Ex.PW1/DA reveals that PW1 felt 'घबररहट' after reaching his house whereas in his Court statement, he disclosed that during talks with the accused persons, he became "Nervous". He explained this term by saying, "जहसस कक ससध बसध नहह ह रहह".

80. These words are crucial and important. If that is to be believed then it is very surprising to note that after parting with the accused persons, the PW1 went all the way back to his house. He stayed there for sometime during which he was conscious. He collected his Bank documents. Thereafter, he left on foot for his Bank. Subsequently, he did all the formalities of withdrawing the amount of Rs.17 lacs after making request to the Branch Manager for withdrawal of the amount outstanding in the FDR, copy of which is Ex.PW3/E. He was conscious that he was carrying huge amount and deposes that the Cashier asked him if he needs Company as he has withdrawn a huge amount. PW1 even remembers that he kept Result: Acquitted Page 59 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) the money in a bag and walked all the way to Ghanta Ghar and met the accused persons. He remembers to have proceeded with them in the search of abandoned place. Then he becomes unconscious suddenly.

81. The above analysis of facts is not inspiring confidence. The sheer time gap referred above plays a vital role in this opinion.

82. If PW1 is to be believed that he had become nervous that he was not having any 'ससध बसध' even before parting with the accused persons during the first segment of alleged crime then it is inconceivable that PW1 would be able to undertake so many tasks during the interregnum.

83. What is also equally important to note is that as per PW1, he had told the Bank officials to be in need of money and that he was expecting to get double amount against amount invested by him. No Bank official has been examined on this aspect. The Bankers who have been examined in this case i.e. PW3 Sh.A.S.Bhasin and PW4 Sh.Brij Pandey have never said anything about such a conversation. If that be true, the IO ought to have examined someone from the Bank to whom such the fact was stated by PW1. Again, there is silence on Result: Acquitted Page 60 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) this aspect.

84. For a moment, if this court ignores presence of any stupefying substance in the metabolism of PW1 when he was visiting his house and Bank, then also someone had to say that there was a prior concert amongst PW1 and the accused persons that they will wait at a particular spot and in the meantime, PW1 will get and collect Rs.17 lacs from his bank. Same ought to have been said atleast in the Court if not in Ex.PW1/DA. Nothing has been said on this aspect. This omission has resulted into a situation where there is no clear evidence to show that after learning about financial status of PW1; accused persons had deceitfully or fraudulently represented him that they will double this amount by way of Lottery Tickets.

85. As said earlier, dishonest and fraudulent intention coupled with deceit and delivery of property are essential ingredients of offence U/s 420 IPC. In this case, there is no charge against the accused persons of having committed offence of theft Punishable U/s 379 IPC. The only Charge beside Section 328 IPC is of commission of offence Punishable U/s 420 IPC. In concluding the same, it is essential that PW1 said that he had delivered the amount of Rs.17 Result: Acquitted Page 61 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) lacs to these accused persons. It is not the case. Neither in Ex.PW 1/DA nor in his Court statement does PW1 said that he had actually delivered the said amount to the accused persons.

86. As per PW1, he reached with the accused persons to the abandoned place between the two Petrol Pumps and all of them started talking. He did not know as to what happened as he became unconscious. He regained his consciousness on the next day in the hospital and it was then that he found that his cash of Rs.17 lacs and bank documents were missing. He was carrying a Bag in which he had kept the Currency Notes. He never said that the Bag was taken away or was given to the accused persons.

87. The above analysis of evidence therefore clarifies that in both the segments of the alleged crime, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are found missing.

88. Thus, I revert back to the Prosecution's case so far as it pertains to Section 328 IPC. The defence has cited from several Judgments which have been recorded above in preceding paragraphs. It has been categorically held in Joseph Kurian Philip Jose Vs. State of Kerela, supra that for proving offence U/s 328 IPC, the Prosecution is Result: Acquitted Page 62 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) required to prove that the substance in question was a 'Poison' or any stupefying intoxication or unwholesome drug etc; that the accused had administered such substance to the Complainant; that he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be likely that he would thereby cause hurt or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of offence.

89. It is held therein that it is essential for Prosecution to prove that the accused was directly responsible for the act which he may have accomplished by himself or by means of another. In either situation, direct, reliable and cogent evidence is necessary.

90. The defence has urged that medical evidence has not been adduced at all. The argument is well appreciated and is to be accepted. Despite presence of such evidence, none of it was collected. I agree with the defence that non seizing the clothes of PW1 is fatal to the Prosecution. I also agree with the defence that absence of drawing blood sample of PW1 is equally damaging to the Prosecution.

91. While agreeing with the Prosecution that 'Negative' Viscera report cannot be held to be demolishing its case, I will add that in this Result: Acquitted Page 63 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) case, the nature of poison, if any was never determined. As a matter of fact, it is nobody's case that poison or poisonous substance was administered to PW1. Hence, as also held in the Judgments cited above, the Viscera report does not make any difference. Moreover, Victim's gastric lavage Report is in "Negative".

92. As to why Stomach wash of the Victim was not taken or preserved is also very surprising. That is one more aspect that ought to have been looked into but was never done. This situation has been referred to in the Judgment titled as Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State, supra, in which case also the Stomach wash of the Victim was not preserved.

93. True, in the Judgment titled as Mohd.Zuber & Anr. Vs. State, supra, Conviction had followed on the basis of oral testimony of the Victim even though medical evidence was absent yet, several factors were taken into consideration. It was never the case in Mohd.Zuber & Anr. Vs. State, supra that the Victim had lost consciousness after inordinate delay. In all the Judgments that have been cited above, the Victims have lost consciousness soon after administration of stupefying substance. It is not so in the case in hand. It appears that various facts may not have been presented to the Court which if Result: Acquitted Page 64 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) presented, might have led to a different conclusion.

94. Whether or not I can rely on the sole testimony of PW1 is a question, the answer of which is already tilted in favour of the accused for the reasons explained above. Moreover, there is much force in the contention of the defence that the unusual delay in recording of the statement of PW1 makes his present testimony as more doubtful. It is in the statement of the IO that the Victim had been giving different reasons for not making his statement.

95. Merely because the Victim was found to be in the state of drowsiness, it cannot be said that he was administered with a stupefying substance by the accused persons only. He had also drank water at his house. When doubts are created in Prosecution's case, each fatctor is to be looked into carefully. Possibility of some substance in water that PW1 consumed at his house resulting into him feeling drowsy cannot be all together obviated although it is a very week possibility.

96. I agree with the defence that testimony of PW1 suffers from material inconsistencies and improvements as pointed out above.

97. The IO should have collected the prescription slips of medicines Result: Acquitted Page 65 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) that PW1 obtained from Dispensary. The IO should have also collected the three Lottery Tickets which ought to be in possession of the PW1. Nothing had been stated about the Currency Notes of Rs.500/ to be recovered from the possession of PW1 in case he is believed that such an amount was given to him after investing Rs.200/.

98. The IO should have made some efforts to try and obtain the serial numbers of the Currency Notes that were issued to PW1 by his Bank. It is another matter if the Bank could have provided the same or not for want of records. No such efforts was ever made.

99. The recovery of Rs.2 lacs from the house of A1 is also doubtful.

This accused was arrested much prior in point of time of recovery and therefore, this team of Spl.Staff West had ample opportunity and time to involve independent members of public in the event of recovery. No such efforts have been made as evident from the testimony of the Pws examined from the Spl.Staff (West). Further more, for proving Charge U/s 411 IPC, it is also important for the Prosecution to connect the recovered Currency Notes with the ones that were allegedly taken away from the PW1. No such connection has been Result: Acquitted Page 66 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) established for the reasons that I have pointed out above.

100. It was important for the Prosecution to have established that this amount of Rs.2 lacs that is allegedly recovered from A1 is the property that was obtained from and only from PW1 and none other.

101. In view of above observations of this Court, it is held that the testimony of PW1 who is Star witness of the Prosecution does not inspire confidence and is not of unimpeachable value. There is absence of ingredients of offence Punishable U/s 420 IPC. Commission of Offence U/s 328 IPC has not been proven. There are doubts in the testimony of Prosecution witness i.e. PW1. Support to it cannot be derived from testimony of PW2 as he is not the witness to any of the incident. There are glaring lapses by the case IO on this aspect. Case U/s 411 IPC is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION :

102. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the Prosecution is unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Sandeep @ Raju Result: Acquitted Page 67 of 68 State Vs. Sandeep @ Raju etc FIR 475/13 (56620/16) and Deep Singh @ Deepa @ Baba are hereby acquitted for the offences Punishable U/s 420/328/34 IPC. Accused Sandeep @ Raju is also hereby acquitted for the offence Punishable U/s 411 IPC.

They are directed to furnish PB/SB for Rs.15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand each) with one surety each in the like amount, in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Further it is ordered that the case property of this case, if any, be disposed of/destroyed after expiry of period of fil ing appeal, if any.

ing appeal, if any.

File be consigned to Record Room.



Announced in open Court                       (Manish Yaduvanshi)
on 07.04.2018                                  ASJ05(W)/THC
                                               Delhi/07.04.2018(P)

                                          Digitally
                                          signed by
                                          MANISH
                               MANISH     YADUVANSHI
                               YADUVANSHI Date:
                                          2018.04.09
                                          15:32:42
                                          +0530



Result:  Acquitted                                                        Page 68  of   68

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . Sandeep @ Raju Etc Fir 475/13 ... on 7 April, 2018