Delhi District Court
State vs Accused on 11 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0696562007 SC NO.98/08 Date of Institution :04.07.2008 FIR No.352/07 Date of Argument :11.10.2012 PS New Ashok Nagar Date of Order :11.10.2012 U/S 399/402 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act State Versus Accused 1. Parmod @ Pammi S/o Sh. Har Prakash R/o E-67, Block No.4, MCD Quarter, Nand Nagri, Delhi. 2. Mohinder Singh S/o Sh. Ram Bharosi R/o 20/256, Kalyanpuri Delhi. 3. Mahesh @ Pappu S/o Sh. Ram Sewak R/o A-315, G.D. Farm, Delhi. 4. Ramjani S/o Sh. Akhtar Hussain R/o 33/500, Trilokpuri, Delhi. JUDGMENT
The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.08.2007 SI Rajesh, Ct. Veerpal, Ct. Lalit, Ct. Mahesh, Ct. Arun were on patrolling duty in the area of Phase-III, Mayur Vihar and when at about 7 p.m., they arrived at Mulla SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 1 of 14 Colony near cremation ground, a secret informer informed him that 4-5 young boys armed with weapons were hiding themselves behind the bushes, behind Mulla Colony and they were making plan to rob CNG Petrol Pump and if prompt action was taken they may be apprehended. SI Rajesh Dangwal organized a raiding party of the police officials and also tried to join 4-5 passers by but all of them left after telling their genuine problems. The raiding party without wasting their further time, arrived at Mulla Colony near CNG Pump at about 7:20 p.m. and he informed the members of raiding party that he was going near those persons who were hiding behind the bushes to hear their conversation and that raiding party should apprehend them on giving signal by him by use of torch. Raiding party took their positions. SI Rajesh Dangwal arrived near the bushes as per indication of secret informer. He heard that those young boys were talking about robbing of CNG pump and were calling each other by name of Pammi. They were also saying that Pammi was having loaded katta, Ramjani was having buttondar knife and Pappu was also having buttondar knife and Mohinder and Anil were having iron pipe. They were also saying that by that time a plenty of cash must have been collected at CNG Pump. They also planned that in case any person makes any hindrance during robbing of CNG pump then they would attack on SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 2 of 14 them with their weapons. On hearing this conversation, SI Rajesh Dangwal gave signal to the raiding party by use of torch by switching it on and off. The raiding party cordoned all the young boys and at about 7:45 p.m. on seeing the police party those young boys tried to escape. However, four of them were apprehended and one of them escaped taking advantage of darkness. On inquiry the name of those young boys revealed as Parmod @ Pammi, Ramjani @ Javed, Pappu @ Mahesh, Mohinder and the name of that boy who was succeeded in escaping revealed as Sunil. SI Rajesh Dangwal and Ct. Arun Kumar apprehended accused Pramod @ Pammi. Ct. Veerpal apprehended accused Ramjani @ Javed. Ct. Lalit apprehended accused Pappu @ Mahesh, Ct. Mahesh apprehended accused Mohinder. On taking search of accused Pramod @ Pammi, one country made katta was recovered from right side pocket of his pant loaded with .315 bore cartrdige. It was opened and cartridge was removed from its chamber. On search of accused Ramjani @ Javed, one buttondar knife was recovered from right side pocket of his pant. On search of accused Pappu @ Mahesh one buttondar knife was recovered from left side pocket of his pant. On search of Mohinder, one piece of iron pipe was recovered. SHO was informed through wireless. He arrived at the spot at about 8:15 p.m. Accused persons were produced before him. SI SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 3 of 14 Rajesh Dangwal prepared sketch of country made katta and cartridge on a white paper and thereafter, these were converted into a pullinda and seized these after sealing with the seal of RD. The sketches of buttondar knives were also prepared. These were measured and converted into sealed pullindas and after sealing these with the seal of RD, these were also taken into possession. Iron pipe was also converted into pullinda and it was sealed with RD and it was also seized. All the documents relating to seizure of case property were prepared. SI Rajesh Dangwal prepared a rukka and sent Ct. Lalit to the P.S. for registration of case. Ct. Lalit returned with SI Yogender Kumar as further investigation of the case was assigned to him. SI Rajesh Dangwal delivered all the case property to him and accused were produced before him. SI Yogender inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. He also interrogated the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements. After investigation of the case, police filed a charge sheet against accused persons for their trial for the offences punishable u/s 399/402 IPC and u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
2. After supplying of copies of charge sheet and documents to the accused persons, Ld. M.M. committed this case to the courts of sessions and it was assigned to SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 4 of 14 this court.
3. My Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 01.04.2010 opined that there was a prima facie case against all the four accused persons for their trial for the offences punishable u/s 399/402 IPC and u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act. Accordingly, a common charge against all the four accused persons for the offence u/s 399/402 IPC and separate charges against accused Pappu @ Mahesh and accused Ramjani @ Javed for the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act were framed and read over to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the pendency of this case, accused Mohinder expired. Death verification report in respect of accused Mohinder Singh were also received from P.S. New Ashok Nagar and accordingly vide order dated 04.04.2012 proceedings against accused Mohinder Singh was abated.
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined Ct. Veer Pal as PW-1; HC Shailender as PW-2; Ct. Lalit Kumar as PW-3; SI Yogender Kumar as PW-4; Ct. Arun Kumar as PW-5; Ct. Mahesh as PW-6; ASI Sunita as PW-7; Sh. V.R. Anand, Asst. Director, Ballistic, FSL as PW-8; and SI Rajesh Dangwal as PW-9.
SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 5 of 146. After closing of prosecution evidence. statement of all the three accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused persons either expressed their ignorance about the evidence on record or denied the same. Accused Ramjani pleaded that after picking him from his house at 7 p.m. on 20.08.2007 he was falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Pramod @ Pammi pleaded that on the day of arrest he was going to take medicine and two police officials came and apprehended him and falsely implicated him in the present case. Accused Mahesh pleaded that he was standing at bus stop when he was apprehended and falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
7. After closing of evidence of both the parties, I have heard arguments addressed by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons and Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused file.
8. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. defence counsel that there are contradictions on material points in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which have created doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 6 of 14 case and accused are entitled for acquittal. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that accused persons are entitled for acquittal on getting the benefit of doubt.
9. On the other hand Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the contradictions highlighted by Ld. Defence Counsel are of minor nature and these may be ignored and accused persons may be convicted.
10. On perusal of file, analyzing the prosecution evidence and considering the arguments of Defence Counsel as well as Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, I find that there are contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on the following points:
Use of Vehicle for going to Police Station
11. PW-1 in his statement/cross examination, stated that Ct. Lalit took the rukka from the spot to P.S. for registration of FIR at about 10 p.m. on his motorcycle. PW-3 Ct. Lalit in his cross examination stated that he took rukka from the spot at about 10:30 p.m. in auto rikshaw. Thus, PW-1 deposed that he used motorcycle whereas PW-3 deposed that he used the auto-rikshaw.
SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 7 of 14Departure Entry
12. PW-1 deposed in cross examination that they made departure entry at the P.S. at about 6 a.m. PW-3 deposed that they made departure entry at about 5:30 p.m. Thus PW-1 deposed that departure entry was made in the morning at 6 a.m. whereas PW-3 deposed that departure entry was made in the evening at 5:30 a.m. Use of Gypsy
13. PW-5 deposed that after completing the investigation at spot, accused persons were taken to P.S. at about 2 a.m. Police gypsy came from P.S. to took them from P.S. PW-3 deposed that they finally left the spot at about 2 a.m. in TSR. PW-1 deposed that they left the spot finally at about 1:30 am on government vehicle (gypsy).
Joining of CNG Employee
14. PW-1 deposed in his cross examination that IO did not ask any CNG employee by calling IO there to join the investigation. PW-3 deposed that IO asked 2-3 CNG employees by calling there to join the investigation.
Information Regarding Arrest of Accused
15. PW-1 deposed that IO arrested the accused Ramjani in his presence at about 1:15 a.m. and the arrest SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 8 of 14 of Ramjani was informed to his family members through telephone. PW-4 in cross examination stated that it took 1 ½ hour in completing the proceedings at the spot and he gave the information about the arrest of accused persons to their family members by his mobile phone. PW-9 on this aspect deposed that he did not inform the family members of accused about their arrest.
Place where writing work was done
16. PW-1 deposed that IO did the writing work at the spot while sitting on the footpath under the street light. PW-3 deposed that writing work was done by the IO under the CNG Pump Light while sitting at petrol pump.
Metal of Torch
17. PW-1 on this aspect deposed that the torch was of silver colour and it was made of steel. PW3 deposed that the torch which was used by IO for giving signal was made of plastic.
Place of Recording of Statements of Witnesses
18. PW-4 deposed that he recorded statements of witnesses at the spot. PW-5 stated that after reaching at PS, IO recorded his statement. PW-6 deposed that after reaching at PS IO recorded his statement.
SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 9 of 14Place of Recording of Disclosure Statement
19. PW-3 on this aspect deposed that IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused at P.S. IO PW-9 deposed that he interrogated the accused persons at the spot and recorded their statements.
20. In a case Appabhai And Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, the Apex Court observed that when a doubt arises in respect of a certain fact alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story.
21. My attention also goes to a case Babu Lal and Others v. State, 1994 JCC 111 wherein, the Delhi High Court observed that:
"10. As far as these appellants, namely Babu Lal, Arjun Das and Leela Ram are concerned, there are material contradictions in the statements of the two injured, Om Parkash and Bhagwan Das who are the real brothers. The other alleged eye witnesses have also contradicted themselves on the most material points and the contradictions cannot be said to be minor and have occurred on account of passage of time. Moti Lal, PW13 on whose statement the case was registered has also not supported the case of prosecution in as much as he has denied that he has seen the incident or he saw these appellants giving injuries to the injured.*** There are serious lapses in the prosecution story in SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 10 of 14 connecting these appellants with the offence. The story put up by the prosecution as far as these appellants are concerned, is unbelievable and doubtful. The weapon of offence, Rampi, was not sent to the doctor for examination, as such the doctor has not stated that these injuries could have been caused by the Rampi."
22. It has to be seen if the above referred contradictions can be termed as minor contradictions or these are the contradictions on material points which may create any doubt about the genuineness of the occurrence under adjudication. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence available on record, I am of the view that principles of law laid down in cases Appabhai And Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (supra), and Babu Lal and Others v. State, (supra), are applicable on the facts of present case. The discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses particularly mentioned above have created doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution case as all the material witnesses deposed in quite contradiction of each other on each material aspect. These contradictions goes to the root of the case and these glaring contradictions which have been found on record have shaken the very root of the prosecution case and demolished it completely.
23. My attention goes to a case reported as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, it was inter alia held by Apex court that:
SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 11 of 14"It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt."
The principles of law laid down in above case are applicable on the facts of present case and therefore, it is held that accused person are entitled to get benefit of doubt as in the present case two views, one, leads to their innocence and another leads to their involvement in the crime are possible.
24. It is one of the principles of criminal jurisprudence that let hundred criminals may go unpunished but one innocent should not be punished, and the other principle is that accused must be presumed innocent till prosecution proves its case against accused beyond reasonable suspicion and doubt. Both these principles are applicable in present case. It would be just fair and appropriate, if the accused persons are given benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond suspicion and reasonable doubt that either all or any of them committed offence punishable u/s 399/402 IPC or punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 12 of 14ORDER
25. Consequent upon the above reasons, discussion and conclusions, and evidence on record and particularly mentioned here in above, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against all or any of the accused persons beyond reasonable suspicion and shadow of doubt as the prosecution neither could prove that they committed offence of making preparation to commit dacoity or offence of assembling for purpose of committing dacoity punishable u/s 399/402 IPC nor offence of possessing of arms punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act. Therefore, all the accused are entitled to get benefit of doubt and consequently by giving them benefit of doubt, all accused persons namely Parmod @ Pammi, Mohinder Singh, Mahesh @ Pappu and Ramjani are acquitted for said offences.
26. Accused Pramod @ Pammi and Ramjani @ Javed are in Judicial Custody. They be released forthwith from jail if they are not required in any other case.
27. However, all the accused are directed to furnish their personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 13 of 14 surety of like amount as per provisions of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months for ensuring their presence before the Appellate Court within a week. Accused Pramod @ Pammi and Ramjani @ Javed are directed to furnish surety bond within a week from the date of their release from Jail.
Announced in the open court on 11.10.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge-02 East District,KKD Courts,Delhi SC No. 98/08 State vs. Parmod @ Pammi & Ors. Page 14 of 14