Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

At about 9.00 p.m., the train reached railway station Sonepat. At that time, two police officials alighted from the general compartment and boarded the next compartment.

When the train departed from railway station Sonepat, 6­7 boys in the age group of 20 - 30 years boarded the train from the other side of the platform. When the train reached near railway station Narela, those 6 - 7 boys covered the general compartment. Some took out knives and razors while one of them took out country made pistol. Then they started robbing the passengers in general compartment.

While appearing in court as PW4 Shashi Kant again narrated the manner in which occurrence took place. He stated that on 27.09.09 at 7.09 p.m. he boarded the general coach of Himalayan Queen train form Kurukshetra for Delhi. Further, according to PW4, at 9.00 p.m. train reached Sonepat railway station. There two policemen, who were present in the coach got down at the railway station. When the train started moving 6­7 boys entered the coach, from the opposite site of the platform, scattered in the coach, and then started moving around.

Statement of PW1 Udhal Singh ­ Victim

12. Prosecution has examined PW1 Udhal Singh, another eye witness to the occurrence. According to this witness, he boarded Himalayan Queen train at about 4.40 p.m. from Kalka for Delhi. When the train reached Sonepat railway station, police officials present in the compartment went to other compartment. By stating so, PW1 has supported the statement of PW4 Shashi Kant.

According to PW1, 10­12 persons entered the compartment after the police officials went to other compartment. These 10­12 persons were armed with fire arms and knives. As noticed above, even according to PW4 Shashikant, persons involved in commission of crime were armed with knives and revolver.

In his cross examination, the witness admitted to have seen Mehfooz accused who was present at PS Subzi Mandi on 05.10.09. The witness volunteered that he had himself pointed out towards the boys present amongst the boys present there.

As noticed above, Mehfooz, accused was arrested on 20.11.09. He was so arrested on the basis of production warrants issued on the basis of prayer made by the police vide application dt.12.11.09. In the application dt.12.11.09, it finds mention that accused was in custody in case FIR no.57/09 of PS GRP Sonepat and confined at District Jail Sonepat, Haryana. So the fact remains that accused Mehfooz was not in the custody of Delhi Police as on 05.10.09. It is significant to note that when Mehfooz accused was arrested, consequent upon his production in court on production warrants on 20.11.09, he was so produced with muffled face as finds recorded on the application Ex.PW13/B filed by the IO for holding of his Test Identification Proceedings. It was only after his refusal to participate in Test Identification Proceedings that vide order dt. 20.11.09 he was remanded to police custody. When PW14 stated to have seen boys on 05.10.09 while they were present at PS Subzi Mandi, he cannot be said to have referred to Mehfooz. It appears that memory of PW14 Hemvardhan did not help him on the point of the presence of the boys who were present at PS Subzi Mandi on 05.10.09. There is nothing in the statement of PW14 that he was having any enmity against Mehfooz, accused, for naming him as one of the robbers at the time he was robbed him of his mobile phone, having regard to the fact that the witness was robbed in the cabin at the point of knife and he specifically pointed out towards Mehfooz accused as he could certainly point out in the given situation. So, this court does not find any ground to disbelieve this version regarding identity of the accused Mehfooz as the robbers simply because this witness visited PS Subzi Mandi on 05.10.09 by which date accused Mehfooz had not been arrested.