Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.08.2008, at about 6:30 pm complainant Abhinav Singh Raghuvanshi was going in his Maruti Alto car bearing no. DL9CM­1738 to his friend's house and when he reached at the red light of Model Town, some unknown persons aged about 32­35 years, entered in his car forcibly by putting katta at him, just before the red light of Camp. Those persons asked complaint to take left side turn on the point of katta and complainant turned left side. As the complainant turned the vehicle towards left side, those persons asked the complainant to get down from the car and sit on the back seat. Those persons also threatened the complainant that if he raised noise or showed any cleverness, he would be killed. Complainant sat on the back seat and one person sat his left side while holding weapon. In the meanwhile, those persons started moving the car in the inner parts of the area and snatched the mobile and purse of complainant. The battery of the mobile phone of complainant was removed and thrown away and his purse was checked by those persons. Three Debit Cards of Axis Bank, HDFC Bank and SBI bank and credit cards of HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, HSBC Bank and SBI Bank were removed by those persons. Those persons asked the PIN numbers of ATM cards from the complainant and taken out Rs. 33,000/­ from Axis Bank ATM and Rs. 3,000/­ from HDFC Bank ATM in four shots which were situated in the area of Camp, Hudson Lane, and Mukherji Nagar.

5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for State and have perused the written arguments filed by the Ld. Defence counsel and Ld. APP for the State and also the entire records.

6. Ld. Defence counsel argued that there is no explanation for delay in filing the complaint. In the complaint Ex. PW3/A, the complainant has mentioned about some unknown persons and no specific number of persons stated by the complainant in his said complaint. There is no inference in the complaint that there were two persons. In the complaint, the complainant has stated about pistol used by the accused. Whereas, in his examination in chief as PW3, he deposed that katta was used by the accused. Meaning thereby, the katta has been developed by the prosecution. The prosecution case is based on the disclosure statement. Even otherwise, there is no recovery of katta. In the complaint Ex. PW3/A, it is mentioned that the accused withdrew the amount of Rs. 33,000/­ from Axis Bank ATM and Rs. 3,000/­ from HDFC Bank ATM at four different times. Whereas, in the examination in chief, PW3 deposed that the accused withdrew about Rs. 33,000/­ from the ATM of Axis Bank in three shots and an amount of Rs. 4,000/­ from the ATM of HDFC Bank. PW3/ complainant mentioned in his complaint that some unknown persons pointed the katta on him in his car but the complainant did not raise any alarm at that time. TIP is doubtful. There is a major contradiction between the contents of the complaint Ex. PW3/A and the examination in chief of PW3. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that TIP was conducted in the court. No site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant / PW3. The incident is dated 19­08­2008. However, the accused have been arrested on 22­10­2008 i.e. after more than two months. The Ld. Defence counsel in support of their arguments, relied upon the judgement reported in the case of Bhanda Garh Vs. State of Assam 1984 CrLJ 217; Hukam Singh Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi 2011 (3) Crimes 278 (Delhi); Shankar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 632; Ramdas & Ors Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 2007 SC 155; Balmiki Singh Vs. Ramchandra Singh & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 218; Mohd. Abdul Hafeez Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 367 and Ghanshyam @ Bablu Vs. State, 2010 (1) JCC 240.

11. PW3 further deposed that thereafter accused took him to the ATM of HDFC Bank at Mukherji Nagar complex from where accused Goverdhan withdrew Rs. 4,000/­ using his ATM Card. The accused persons then drove him in the interior of the colonies. During all these, they kept on talking on their mobile phone. After lot of pleadings, they ultimately left PW3 near the camp at around 10 pm and went away taking away his Law Centre­1, DU I­Card, bearing his address and his gold ring and threatened while leaving that they would kill him in case, he initiated any police action because they were having his address. They had also taken away Rs. 200/­ lying in his purse. They threw out the battery of his mobile phone. From there, he went to his house and narrated the incident to his family members. PW3 was starved and badly tired and therefore, went to PS Mukherji Nagar in the morning of 20.08.2008 and gave a complaint in writing Ex. PW3/A. PW3 was later informed by Inspector Rajesh Dahiya about the arrest of the culprits. At the request of Inspector Rajesh Dahiya, he went to Tihar Jail on 19.11.2008 for the TIP of the accused persons. However, the accused persons refused to take part in the TIP. On 01.12.2008, PW3 came to Rohini Courts where he identified both the accused persons present in the court. On 13.12.2008, he was again called in Rohini Courts for the TIP of his gold ring and he correctly identified his gold ring before the court in TIP. PW3 identified the proceedings of TIP of gold ring as Ex. PW5/C. He also identified gold ring as Ex. P­1; his Law Centre­I, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, I­card bearing his photograph as Ex. P­2. In response to leading question put by Ld. APP for State, PW3 deposed that Rs. 500/­ and an SBI Credit card were also there in his pocket and that in total four transactions, accused persons took out Rs. 33,000/­ from Axis Bank ATM and Rs. 3,000/­ from HDFC Bank ATM.

21. During examination in chief, PW1 Shubhashish proved the statement of account of Abhinav S. Raghuvanshi for the period 01­08­2008 to 31­10­2008 as Ex PW1/C. As per said statement, there were four withdrawals through ATM on 19­08­2008 in the sum of Rs. 20,000/­, Rs. 5020/­, Rs. 5020/­ and Rs. 3020/­. PW2 Surajit Baruah, Back­up Branch Manager, HDFC Bank deposed in his examination in chief that he furnished details of withdrawal to the IO dated 19­08­2008 from account no. 02931000020869 of Abhinav S. Raghuvanshi using ATM. Rs. 3100/­ were withdrawn on 19­08­2008 from the said account from Mukherji Nagar ATV vide ATM card no. 5264190103950324. Along with his reply Ex. PW2/A, he also enclosed bank account statement from 01­08­2008 to 22­08­2008. During cross­examination, PW3 Abhinav S. Raghuvanshi categorically deposed that he was kept in confinement in his car for about 3½ or 4 hours. The accused moved him around in the car in the interiors of the colonies. The car was being driven at an average speed of about 30­40 kmph and glasses of his car were light tainted. There was small logo of Ganesha in the centre of the ring and both the accused were pressing PW3 to give the PIN number. Accused were not known to PW3 prior to the incident. The accused carried out total four transactions and took out an amount of Rs. 33,000/­ from Axis Bank ATM and Rs. 3,000/­ from HDFC Bank ATM. PW3 also deposed in cross­examination that amount of Rs. 3000/­ was withdrawn and due to lapse of time, he mentioned Rs. 4000/­ instead of Rs. 3000/­. PW3 denied the suggestion that accused Akash was not involved in the incident or that accused Akash never intercepted him nor he robbed him or pointed any gun at him. PW5 Ld. MM proved that accused refused to join the TIP proceedings. Abhinav Singh Raghuvanshi/ PW3 correctly identified the accused and case property i.e. gold ring and his I­card.