Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. After the formal arrest of the appellant - accused in the present case he was interrogated by the investigating officer of the present case PW-24 Inspector Ishwar Singh and then he had made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-24/1 to the effect that he had sold for Rs. 50,000/- the stolen jewellery to PW-10 Shri Sushil Verma. Pursuant to that disclosure statement the appellant - accused had taken the police to the shop of PW-10 in Arjun Nagar which was by the name of Soni Jewellers and from there the police seized some of the stolen articles which included one VCR and some jewellery items which were produced by PW-10 Sushil Verma. PW-10 also handed over one Girawinama Ex. PW-24/2 to the investigating officer which was also seized vide memo Ex. PW-10/A. The appellant also got recovered one screw driver(Ex. P-15) and it is the prosecution case that when that screw driver was got examined from an expert at the CFSL the opinion given was that the steel cupboard in the house of the complainant from which valuables had been removed could be opened with the said screw driver and further that the tip of the screw driver was found to be having some paint material which matched with the paint on that steel cupboard. The appellant - accused had also got recovered one wrist watch(P-7) (SWATCH) from his house in Arjun Nagar on 27-3-96 when the screw driver was also got recovered. During the investigation the entire articles which the police had recovered from the appellant's possession on 18-3-96 and then from his house in Arjun Nagar on 20th March, 1996 were put up for test identification parade and for that purpose the victims of the robbery in respect of three FIRs including that of the present case were asked to participate in the test identification parade which was conducted on 13-5-96 by PW-16 Shri Ravinder Dudeja, Metropolitan Magistrate. During that test identification parade the complainant of this case PW-1 Rakesh Khanna identified some of the stolen articles and thereafter those articles were separately sealed by the Magistrate as case property of the present case. The articles identified by the complainant had been earlier mentioned in the list of stolen articles(Ex. PW-1/B) which he had handed over to the police. A separate test identification parade was got conducted in respect of the articles which were recovered from the jeweller's shop on 27-3-96 as also the watch recovered on the same day from the appellant's house in Arjun Nagar. That TIP was conducted by Shri M.K.Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate(PW-24) vide TIP proceedings Ex. PW-22/A. During that Test Identification Parade the complainant's wife Mrs. Laveena Khanna (PW-2) had participated and had identified the wrist watch (SWATCH)(Ex. P-7), two gold kadas(Ex. P-8/1-2), one gold chain(Ex. P-9), two gold rings(Ex. P-10 and 11), one pair of jhumkas(bundas)(Ex.P-12) and two pairs of ear tops(Ex. P-13 and 14) which were got recovered by the appellant from the shop of PW-10. These articles had also been shown by the complainant in the list of stolen articles Ex. PW-1/B which he had handed over to the police after the incident.

14. As noticed already, when the appellant - accused was interrogated after his arrest on 18-3-96 he had made a confessional statement admitting his involvement in many crimes including the present one. A joint test identification parade was conducted in respect of the afore-said articles which the appellant - accused had got recovered on 18-3-96 and 20-3-96. Test identification parade was conducted by PW-16 Shri Ravinder Dudeja, Metropolitan Magistrate, who has proved the TIP proceedings as Ex. PW-16/A. The evidence of the Metropolitan Magistrate and a perusal of TIP proceedings conducted by him show that on 13-5-96 the complainants of different cases including the present one(PW-1 Rakesh Khanna) had participated in the test identification parade one by one and all of them had identified some of the articles which the police had seized on 18-3-96 and 20-3-96 to be belonging to them and after those articles had been identified by them they were separately sealed by the Magistrate as case properties of individual cases in respect of which TIP was conducted. The complainant of the present case PW-1 Rakesh Khanna had identified the following articles:

1. Two silver coins (Ex. P-1 and P-2).
2. Five silver coins bearing the picture of Lakshmi - Ganesh and word 'Bango' written on all of them.(Ex. P-3/1 to 5).
3. Seven small bangles of some white metal(Ex. P-4/1 to 7).
4. 87 coins of foreign currency(Ex. P-5/1 to 87).
5. One silver coin on which 'Shree' was written on one side and Lakshmi- Ganesh picture was on other side(Ex. P-6).

These articles were separately sealed with the seal of the Magistrate and were then got deposited in the malkhana at the police station Vasant Kunj. All these articles were produced in Court also when the complainant Rakesh Khanna had come for his evidence and in Court also he had claimed that these articles which he had identified during the test identification parade belonged to him. He had also deposed that the wedding coins he had received at Nainital at the time of marriages. He also claimed that the silver coins had been received as Diwali gifs from friends etc. and that the silver kadas had been received on the occasion of the birth of his daughter Niharika on 13-7-95. Regarding the foreign currency coins he had stated that those coins he had brought from abroad whenever he used to go abroad and that his daughter used to collect the same as her hobby. As noticed already, the appellant - accused has not claimed these articles to be belonging to him and in the cross-examination of the complainant the ownership of the same was not challenged.

15. As noticed already, the prosecution had also relied upon the recovery of one wrist watch(SWATCH) at the instance of the appellant on 27-3-96. The complainant had mentioned about the theft of this watch also in the list of stolen articles Ex.PW-1/B. That watch was also put up for test identification parade which was conducted by PW-24 Shri M.K.Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate who has proved his TIP proceedings as Ex. PW-2/A. In that test identification parade the complainant's wife Mrs. Laveena Khanna had participated and had correctly identified the afore-said SWATCH watch Ex.P-7. She had also deposed during her evidence regarding her having identified the said watch in the test identification parade. During that test identification parade the jewellery articles which the appellant - accused had got recovered from the shop of Soni Jewellers owned by PW-10 Sushil Verma and which were seized vide memo Ex. PW- 10/A were also put up for identification and PW-2 Mrs. Laveena Khanna had identified two gold kadas Ex. P-8/1-2, one gold chain Ex. P-9, two gold rings Ex. P-10 -11, one pair of bundas(jhumki) Ex. P-12 and two pairs of ear tops Ex. P-13 and 14. All these articles had been got released on superdari and PW-2 had produced the same in Court at the time of her evidence. The appellant - accused did not claim the same to be belonging to him. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, had contended before us that the recoveries from the shop of the jeweller at the instance of the appellant cannot be relied upon since PW-10 Sushil Verma had not supported the prosecution when he was examined in Court. There is no doubt that PW-10 Sushil Verma has not supported the prosecution case regarding his having handed over to the police the afore-said articles along with one Girwinama allegedly executed by the appellant while pledging the jewellery items with him as security for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- given by him to the appellant as mentioned in the said Girwinama. However, in our view this witness turning hostile does not affect the prosecution case in view of the evidence of the investigating officer PW-24 Inspector Ishwar Singh who has deposed about these recoveries from the shop of PW-10 at the instance of the appellant-accused. PW-10 has clearly made a false statement in Court when he denied these recoveries from his shop and that is evident from the fact that he admitted his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. PW-10/A in respect of the recoveries from his shop. PW-10 has not claimed that the police had forced him to sign the seizure memo Ex. PW-10/A which clearly records that he had produced the jewellery items when the police team had gone to his shop. In these circumstances we are inclined to place full reliance on the evidence of the investigating officer PW-24 Inspector Ishwar Singh who has deposed about the production of jewellery items by PW-10 from his shop when the police team along with the appellant - accused had gone there on 27-3-96. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has successfully established that incident of robbery took place in the house of the complainant on the night of 16/17-11-95 and lot of valuable items including jewellery, foreign currency coins etc. were stolen at that time and that between 18-3-96 and 27-3-96 some of the stolen items were recovered from the possession of the appellant - accused and some were recovered at his instance pursuant to his disclosure statements.