Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikas @ Vicky Etc. Judgement Dt. ... on 22 October, 2018
State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05
(NORTH) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT010006802015
SC No. 57921/2016
FIR No. 609/2015
PS Mukherji Nagar
U/s 392/394/397/412 IPC
State Vs. (1) Vikas @ Vicky
S/o Sh. Shantu Verma
R/o Jhuggi No. N15C, Indira Vikas Colony,
Delhi09.
(2) Vipin
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal
R/o Jhuggi No. N15, B112, Indira Vikas Colony,
Delhi09.
(3) Vicky @ Sotta
S/o Sh. Devender
R/o Jhuggi No. N15, A224, Indira Vikas Colony,
Delhi09.
Date of institution : 1.12.2015
Date of arguments : 12.10.2018
Date of judgement : 22.10.2018
JUDGEMENT
1. Prosecution case in brief is that on 4.5.2013 at about 1:20 am near Shiv Mandir opposite Munshi Ram Colony, accused Vikas @ Vicky (A SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 1 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018
1), Vipin (A2) and Vicky @ Sotta (A3) along with one juvenile namely Naveen blocked the road and stopped a three wheeler, which was being driven by one Zakir and robbed its passenger Sukant Vats of his wallet containing Rs.4000/, two ATM cards, one hundred dollar note, PAN card, Voter ID, 8 passport size photographs etc. as well as his black colour bag having a Tshirt, blue jeans, mobile phone. They also robbed Rs.700/ from driver Zakir Ali. SI Madan Lal (PW14) received information about it and went to spot along with Ct. Hawa Singh. He came to know that injured Sukant Vats and TSR driver had been shifted to hospital. In hospital, he recorded the statement of Sukant, got FIR registered, case was investigated. Thereafter, he along with injured Sukant and Zakir went for search of accused persons. At about 4:45 pm, they found that four boys were standing inside Coronation park main gate. They were identified by Sukant and Zakir Ali and were apprehended. Bag containing Tshirt and blue jeans of Sukant was recovered from accused Vikas @ Vicky (A1). Stolen amount of Rs.400/ was recovered from juvenile Naveen. Stolen amount of Rs.700/ was recovered from accused Vicky @ Sotta (A3). Rs.900/ was recovered from the pocket of accused Vikas @ Vicky (A1). Accused persons were arrested. Naveen the juvenile offender was sent to JJB. Case was investigated and charge sheet was filed against the adult accused persons on 9.7.2015 in the court of Ld. ACMM, North District, Rohini, Delhi and it was SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 2 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 committed to Sessions Court vide order dated 29.7.2015.
2. After hearing arguments, a charge under Section 395/394/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to note that case of juvenile was sent to Juvenile Justice Board by the police.
3. Prosecution examined PW1 Dilbagh Singh, the registered owner of TSR No. DL1RQ4480. He testified that he had given the said TSR to Zakir during night. PW2 ASI Hawa Singh recorded FIR Ex.PW2/A. PW3 Ct. Amar Singh recorded DD no. 6B Ex.PW3/A on the information received from PCR about this incident. PW4 Dr. Avinash Tripathi proved MLC Ex.PW4/A of Zakir Ali. PW5 Dr. Rakshit Garg took the blood sample of Sukant and handed over the same to Investigating Officer. PW6 Dr. Suhail proved the nature of injury as simple on the basis of Xray report in respect of Sukant. His report is Ex.PW6/A. PW7 Dr. Abhishek Arora proved his report Ex.PW7/A and opined no bony injury. PW8 ASI Rajbir was Incharge Mobile Crime Team and gave his report Ex.PW8/A. PW9 Ct. Sandeep is the photographer in Mobile Crime Team. He took 12 photographs of the place of occurrence. PW11 Dr. Vidhan Kumar proved the MLC of Sukant, which is Ex.PW6/A and referred him to Neuro Surgery Department and Ortho Department for further examination and management. PW12 HC Ramesh and PW13 Ct. Hawa Singh joined the investigation with SI Madan Lal, the SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 3 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 Investigation Officer. PW14 SI Madan Lal is the Investigating Officer. It is pertinent to note that TSR Driver Zakir Ali could not examined by prosecution because he could not be served despite the best efforts as he had left his address.
4. PW10 Sukant Vats is the victim and I would like to reproduce his evidence verbatim as under :
"03.04.2017 PW10: Sukant Vats S/o Sh. Kameshwar Nath Singh R/o 15K, Hirapuri Colony, Gorakhpur, UP.
On S.A. In the intervening night of 3/4.05.15, I was coming from Nirmal Vihar in TSR to Indira Vikas Colony and at about 1.20a.m, reached near Shiv Mandir, Munshi Ram Colony and near Sewa Bharti. Barricades were put there on the road and 56 boys were standing there and on seeing the TSR, they blocked the road by pulling the barricades and told that the road was closed when the TSR driver tried to drove away the TSR by the side of the barricades, they started assaulting the TSR driver. When I tried to stop him, they started beating me and they took me out from the TSR and hit on my head with a liquor bottle and also gave beatings to me with stones and bricks. Those boys robbed my purse containing cash Rs. 4000/ two ATM Card, 100 dollar note , pan card , driving licence, voter I card and my passport size photographs ( 8 ), my black colour nike bag having my T shirt and blue jeans, my mobile phone HTC black colour having sim of reliance no. 9312456070. I become semi conscious again said unconscious and after regaining my consciousness, I went towards my house which was about 500 meters from that place. I met my friend Pankaj who called at 100 number. My friend Pankaj shifted me to Trauma Centre , Civil Lines. I was medically examined there. I received about 15 stitches. Police persons met me in the hospital and I made my statement Ex.PW10/A which bears my signatures at point "A".
Police persons prepared the site plan at my instance Ex.PW10/B. The TSR driver in that incident also suffered injuries at the hands of those boys including injury on head.
SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 4 of 16State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 In the afternoon of 04.05.15 at about 3 .30 p.m., I alongwith TSR driver Zakir Ali again join the investigation in this case as we went to the police station to know the progress of our case. I alongwith TSR driver Zakir Ali alongwith police staff went in search of accused person. We went to Indira Vikas colony in search of accused person but without success. We thereafter went to Nirankari Colony, Shamshan Ghat but without success. At about 4.45 p.m. when we reached in search of accused at coronation park , Main Gate, I saw 4 boys and immediately identified them being the robberers . TSR driver also identified them. One of the boy was having my black colour nike bag . Out of aforesaid 4 boys, three boys present in court today who committed robbery. At this stage, witness pointed out towards accused Vikas @ Vicky , Vipin & Vicky @ Soota present in court today ( correctly identified). The police persons checked my bag which found containing my T shirt (black Colour) and blue jeans which I identified belonging to me. Fourth boy who was apprehended there was found to be juvenile and robbed money was recovered from him. From the three accused persons present in court today also the robbed money were recovered separately from each which were taken into possession by the police vide separate seizure memoes. My bag containing my clothes was also seized by the police. Because of the lapse of time, I do not remember the exact amount of cash which was recovered from each of accused.
One of the accused, who was apprehended was found to be juvenile, aged about 17 years, whose name was revealed as Naveen. His apprehension documents were prepared already exhibited as Ex.PW12/A1 to Ex.PW12/A3, all bears my signatures at point B. My robbed money i.e. Rs.400/ (Rs.100X4) were recovered from JCL Naveen, which were taken into possession after sealing the same with the seal of ML vide seizure memo already Ex.PW12/A4, bearing my signature at point B. My robbed bag (Nike) alongwith black Tshirt and blue jeans recovered from one of the accused was also turned into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of ML and taken into possession vide seizure memo already exhibited Ex.PW12/B, bears my signature at point B. At this stage witness pointed out towards accused Vikas, who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness being the accused from whom his robbed bag containing Tshirt and Jeans were recovered).
SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 5 of 16State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 Accused Vikas @ Vicky was arrested and his personal search was carried out. Arrest memo of accused Vikas @ Vicky is already Ex.PW12/C and his personal search memo is already exhibited as Ex.PW12/C1, both bears my signature at point B. From the cursory search from another accused my robbed money Rs.700/ (Rs.500X1 & 100X2) were recovered from the left side pocket of his pant. The same was turned into a parcel, sealed with the seal of ML and taken into possession vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW12/D, which bears my signature at point A. At this stage witness pointed out towards accused Vicky @ Sota, who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness being the accused from whom his robbed money of Rs.700/ were recovered).
Accused Vicky @ Sota was arrested and his personal search was carried out. Arrest memo of accused Vicky @ Sota is already Ex.PW12/E and his personal search memo is already exhibited as Ex.PW12/E1, both bears my signature at point B. From the cursory search from another accused my robbed money Rs.900/ (Rs.500X1 & 100X4) were recovered from the left side pocket of his pant. The same was turned into a parcel, sealed with the seal of ML and taken into possession vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW12/F, which bears my signature at point A. At this stage witness pointed out towards accused Vipin, who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness being the accused from whom his robbed money of Rs.900/ were recovered).
Accused Vipin was arrested and his personal search was carried out. Arrest memo of accused Vipin is already Ex.PW12/G and his personal search memo is already exhibited as Ex.PW12/G1, both bears my signature at point B. Accused persons Vikas @ Vicky, Vipin and Vikcy @ Sota, present in court today, made their disclosure statements already exhibited Ex.PW12/H, Ex.PW12/I and Ex.PW12/J, all bears my signature at point B. I can identify the case properties, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced a pullanda sealed with the seal of court and same is opened and out of it one bag is taken out and from the bag one Jeans pant and Tshirt are taken out and shown to the witness, who identify the same being his robbed articles recovered from accused Vikas @ Vicky. Same are SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 6 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 collectively already exhibited as Ex.P4.
At this stage, MHC(M) has also produced one sealed envelop sealed with the seal of court and the same is opened out of it Rs.700/ are taken out and shown to the witness, who identify the same being his robbed money, recovered from accused Vicky @ Sota. The same are already collectively exhibited as Ex.P5.
At this stage, MHC(M) has also produced one sealed envelop sealed with the seal of court and the same is opened out of it Rs.400/ are taken out and shown to the witness, who identify the same being his robbed money, recovered from accused JCL Naveen. The same are already collectively exhibited as Ex.P6.
At this stage, MHC(M) has also produced one sealed envelop sealed with the seal of court and the same is opened out of it Rs.900/ are taken out and shown to the witness, who identify the same being his robbed money, recovered from accused Vipin. The same are already collectively exhibited as Ex.P7.
XXXXX by Shri S.P. Sharma, ld. Counsel for accused persons Vikas @ Vicky and Vicky @ Sota and Shri Sanjay Kumari Tiwari, ld. Counsel for accused Vipin.
I am working as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at ITO, New Delhi. I was going to my house at Indra Vikas Colony. I had told the address of my residence to the police. It is wrong to suggest that I had not told my residential address to the police. I hired the TSR from Metro Station Nirman Vihar. I did not obtain any prepaid slip for the TSR from the PrePaid Booth. Voltd... I hired TSR, which was passing by from Metro Station Nirman Vihar. It is correct that at about 1:00 a.m. in the night metro train not used to run. My complaint was not personally written by me. I narrated the same and the same was written down and I signed the same. The same was written by police official, but I do not remember his name. The barricades by which the road was blocked, though there was some space in between them. They were of yellow colour and were like the barricades put by the police. The place where barricades were there was dark one due to night. But, there was light at there due to street light. I was alone in the TSR including TSR driver. It is wrong to suggest that at the time of incident, my friend Pankaj was also accompanying me.
Pankaj is my friend. His statement was not recorded in SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 7 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 my presence by police. I was dropped at Nirman Vihar Metro Station in a vehicle from Gurgaon, where I had gone to attend a cricket match. I went there to play in the said cricket match. That was a friendly match. It is wrong to suggest that the TSR driver was driving the TSR in a rash and negligent manner. It is further wrong to suggest that due to said rash and negligent driving the said TSR hit into the barricades and turned turtle. It is further wrong to suggest that I suffered injuries due to accident of the TSR.
It is correct that I did not disclose the denomination of my robbed currency notes in my complaint made to the police. I did not tell about the banks of the ATM Cards robbed from me. I had not told to police about the source of $100 robbed from me. It is correct that I had not given any photocopy / description of PAN Card, DL, Voter ID Card, Passport Size photograph robbed from me. It is also correct that I had not provided any ownership document in respect of my robbed Nike Bag, TShirt, Jeans Pant and Mobile HTC Dezire. It is wrong to suggest that the aforesaid articles were not robbed from me or that as such I had not given the ownership document and details to the IO. It is further wrong to suggest that all the robbed money recovered and the articles were planted upon the accused persons to falsely implicate them at the instance of the IO.
On the same night I visited the place of the incident with the police and showed the place of incident at about 4:00a.m. Police had not seized any sariya or glass bottle from the spot in my presence.
On 04.05.2015, I was not carrying any mobile phone, when I met with the police. Police recorded my statement only once. I was not called by the police and had not seen the accused sitting at the police station. I went to the police station in the morning to know the status of my case. Again said I went in the afternoon at about 12:00 p.m. It is wrong to suggest that all the accused persons were shown to me at the police station. It is wrong to suggest that I had given statement at the instance of police personnel, who tutored me.
I have visited the court for my statement for two/three times. I do not remember if there were residential houses near the Coronation Park. I cannot tell the number of the gate, but the gate at which accused persons were apprehended was on main road. Public persons were roaming inside the park. I went to the Coronation Park alongwith the police official. We were total SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 8 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 five/six persons. We went there in the vehicle of police. It is wrong to suggest that I had not visited the Coronation Park or that I am deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
I do not remember as to what articles the police personnel carried with them at that time. It is wrong to suggest that I signed the seizure memos while sitting at the police station. It is further wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
5. Ld. Defence Counsel submits the three wheeler had hit the barricade due to which the injured received lacerated injuries, which could be possible in a case of accident only. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW4 Dr. Avinash Tripathi, who has admitted in cross examination that such injuries are possible in vehicular accident as well as by simple fall. I have considered the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel and I disagree with his submission. I may point out that in cross examination Dr. Avinash Tripathi has only admitted a possibility. But this possibility of getting injuries by accident or fall cannot falsify the testimony of PW10 Sukant Vats.
6. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW10 Sukant Vats, who has testified that after the incident, he became unconscious and after regaining his consciousness he went towards his house. He met his friend Pankaj, who called at 100 number and Pankaj also shifted him to trauma center. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that police has not even cited the said Pankaj as a prosecution witness and thereby prosecution has deliberately withheld a material piece of evidence. I SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 9 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 disagree with the submission. Pankaj was not an eye witness. PW10 was robbed near his house. Therefore, it is natural that when he proceeded towards his house, as testified by PW10, his friend Pankaj met him, and he made a call at 100 number and shifted him to Trauma Center, Civil Lines. Since Pankaj is not the eye witness, it cannot be said that this witness was so material that withholding his evidence could have benefited the prosecution and prejudiced the defence of the accused.
7. Ld. Defence Counsel has further drawn my attention to the fact that Zakir Ali, the driver of three wheeler, has also not been examined by the prosecution. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that he was a very material witness and his non examination is fatal to the prosecution. I agree with Ld. Defence Counsel that Zakir Ali was a material witness, he being an eye witness to the incident. But it must be kept in mind that not only prosecution cited him as a prosecution witness but also made all efforts to trace him. Summons however could not be served upon him because he had left the given address as per report on the summons. The report on summon shows that best efforts were made to call this witness. But since his new address was not available, the prosecution was unable to examine him. Therefore, it cannot be said non examination of Zakir Ali amounts to deliberate withholding a material witness by prosecution.
SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 10 of 16State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018
8. Ld. Defence Counsel has further drawn my attention to the testimony of PW10, who testified that the accused persons had robbed his purse containing Rs.4000/, two ATM Cards, one 100 dollar note, PAN card, driving licence, voter I card and his passport size photographs, which were 8 in number, black colour nike bag having Tshirt and blue jeans, his mobile phone HTC black colour having SIM of reliance no. 9312456070. It is argued that except the bag containing Tshirt and blue jeans, no other item could be recovered by the police. It is argued that even the mobile phone could not be recovered. It is submitted that this makes the case of prosecution highly doubtful. I have considered the submissions. As per PW12 ASI Umesh Kumar and PW14 SI Madan Lal as well as PW10 have testified that Vikas @ Vicky (A1) was found carrying the stolen bag, which contained Tshirt and blue jeans of PW10 and from the remaining accused persons, some cash was found. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor argues that the PAN card etc. were not of any use for the accused persons and the documents and mobile phone could have been thrown by them. It is argued by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that it is not necessary that all the stolen property is recovered from the accused persons. I have considered the rival submissions. I am of the opinion that generally the complete stolen property is not recovered from the offenders. Therefore, the court is to assess the recovery of the stolen property. In the present case, it is proved beyond SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 11 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 doubt that the stolen bag belonging to PW10 containing shirt and jeans were recovered from the possession of accused Vikas @ Vicky (A1). As per the testimony of PW12 ASI Umesh Kumar and PW14 SI Madan Lal, the said bag, Tshirt and jeans were turned into a pulanda sealed with the seal of ML and were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B. PW10 Sukant Vats and Zakir Ali, the driver, have also witnessed this recovery and have signed on recovery memo Ex.PW12/B. Therefore, the recovery of stolen property from A1 is duly proved by prosecution.
9. Ld. Defence Counsel further argues that there is no specific evidence that the cash of Rs.700/ recovered from accused Vicky @ Sotta (A3) and recovery of Rs.900/ effected from accused Vipin (A2) is of no consequence because it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that this cash amount belonged to PW10 himself. I agree with this submission of Ld. Defence Counsel.
10. Ld. Defence Counsel has further assailed the testimony of PW1 Dilbagh Singh, the registered owner of TSR No. DL1RQ4480. PW1 has testified that he had given TSR to Zakir Ali for driving during night. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that no document has been produced by PW1 to prove that the TSR was given/rented by him to Zakir Ali. I disagree with the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel. There is no ground for disbelieving the testimony of PW1 in respect of the person (i.e. Zakir Ali), who was driving SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 12 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 the vehicle. As per testimony of PW10 Sukant Vats, the driver was assaulted. He also testified that on 4.5.2015 at about 3:30 pm, he along with TSR driver Zakir Ali also joined the investigation. Zakir Ali also participated in investigation and identified the accused persons along with Sukant Vats and his signatures are available on various memos prepared by police. Therefore, testimony of PW1 is supported by the evidence of PW10 and police officials that Zakir Ali was the driver of three wheeler in question.
11. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that whereas one injured namely Zakir Ali was admitted in nearby hospital namely Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial Hospital, the other injured namely Sukant (PW10) was taken to Lok Nayal Hospital, which is quite away. It is argued that this is very strange situation. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the MLC of Zakir Ali Ex.PW4/A shows a minor abrasion on his lower lip and a very minor injury on his scalp. On the other hand, Sukant was having multiple injuries as per MLC Ex.PW6/A, which also shows that he was referred to Neuro Department as well as to Aurtho Department for further examination and management. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor submits that Sukant had become unconscious due to the assault and this may be the reason that he was sent to Lok Nayak Hospital for proper treatment. I have considered the submissions. Ld. Defence Counsel has no where sought clarification from the Investigating Officer in cross examination in respect of the reason as to SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 13 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 why the two injured persons were sent to different hospitals. In such a situation, no inference adverse to prosecution can be drawn.
12. I have carefully perused the testimony of PW10 Sukant Vats, which I have already reproduced above. His cross examination has not brought out any material to discredit the truthfulness of this witness. This testimony is further corroborated by the evidence of PW12 ASI Umesh Kumar and PW14 SI Madan Lal, who had apprehended the accused persons, when they were identified by the complainant. The stolen bag containing the clothes of PW10 has been recovered from one accused namely Vikas @ Vicky (A1). Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the incident took place in night at about 1:20 am and soon after the incident, as per testimony of PW10, he became unconscious. Therefore, it is argued that it is possible that PW10 might be faltering in identifying the accused persons. On the other hand, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor submits that PW10 had seen the accused persons from close quarters and they were arrested at the instance of the complainant (PW10) by police. Therefore, it is argued by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that identification of the accused persons being the assailants cannot be doubted.
13. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is true that PW10 had seen the accused persons from close quarters during the incident. But fact remains that the incident took place at 1:20 am in night. In his SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 14 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 evidence or in the evidence of Investigating Officer, it has not come out as to whether there was any lighting at the spot. Further more, the fact that PW10 became unconscious for sometime immediately after the incident compels me to look for additional evidence to be doubly sure in respect of the identity of the offender. Unfortunately, driver Zakir Ali has not come to the court. Had he identified the accused persons also, it would have lent credence to the power of observation of PW10. Therefore, simply on the basis of arrest of the accused persons after being identified by PW10, it would not be a safer proposition to convict the accused persons. However, recovery of stolen property from an accused would fortify the identification by PW10. As per the testimony of PW10, PW12 and PW14, accused Vikas @ Vicky (A1) was found having in possession bag containing black colour T shirt and blue jeans, which had been stolen from PW10 and which was duly identified by Sukant Vats (PW10). This recovery of stolen bag and clothes vide recovery memo Ex.PW12/B from accused Vikas @ Vicky (A1) fully corroborates his identification by PW10 as one of the assailants and robbers of the present offence.
14. Therefore, I give benefit of doubt to accused Vipin (A2) and Vicky @ Sotta (A3) and acquit them.
15. The testimony of PW10 does not specify as to which accused had hit him with a deadly weapon i.e. liquor bottle/stones/bricks. Therefore, I SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 15 of 16 State Vs. Vikas @ Vicky etc. Judgement dt. 22.10.2018 acquit all the accused persons under Section 397 IPC. In the present case, a charge under Section 395 IPC was also framed but perusal of testimony of PW10 is a vague statement that five or six boys were standing at the barricades and blocked the road. It is possible that such boys may be less than five. In the present case, four accused persons were arrested. Therefore, I give benefit of doubt on this account because it is not proved beyond doubt that five or more than five persons had committed the offence.
16. However, it is proved that in this robbery, injuries were caused to Zakir Ali as well as Sukant Vats. Therefore, accused Vikas @ Vicky (A1) is convicted under Section 394 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 22.10.2018. VINOD KUMAR Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR Date: 2018.10.22 11:36:09 +0530 (Vinod Kumar) Additional Sessions Judge05 (North) Rohini Courts Delhi SC No.57921/2016, FIR No. 609/2015 Page 16 of 16