Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The investigation of the case was entrusted to the Sub Inspector R.C. Kalia. On September 14, 1972, at about, 7.30 P.M., the Sub Inspector accompanied by Parshotam Lal and Hari Kishan held a nakabandi at Mayapuri Road. At about 8.15 p.m. the scooter in question was seen coming and was stopped. It was being driven by accused Sikander while accused Siri Ram was sitting in the scooter. The scooter at that time bore registration no. DHR 1426 showing that the figure '1' had been added to the original number.

5. Kuldip Singh PW-4 who is another scooter driver is stated to have also arrived at the spot in his scooter and in his presence personal search of both the appellant was carried out. Insurance certificate is Ex. PM and permit is Ex. PN. pertaining to the scooter in question were recovered from the person of the accused Siri Ram along with Rs. 3/-, Rs. 10/- were recov-

ered from the personal search of Sikander. Open shirt and pant of Sikander and open shirt of Siri Ram were taken into possession. Complainant Parshotam Lal had identified the said two accused as the persons who had robbed him of his scooter and money.

9. Sri Ram on the other stated in his statement had stated that he had a quarrel with Parshotam Lal as he did not make the payment for the job done by him regarding fixing of punctures and tubes.

10. One defense witness Sri Ram was examined by Sikander who had deposed that he was a scooter driver and used to park his scooter at Red Fort Stand where the accused also used to park his scooter. Parshotam along with his companions used to encourage gambling at the said scooter stand in connivance with the local police particularly Sub Inspector Kalia. Parshotam was an informer of the police, who used to demand money from the scooter drivers for parking their scooters at that particular scooter stand. Accused Sikander used to oppose his demands which had led to enmity between the two.

12. The appellant Sikander Kumar aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has preferred this appeal before this court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire prosecution version is inherently improbable, unbelievable and the conviction on the strength of such prosecution witnesses has led to grave injustice in this case. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged incident had taken place in the intervening night of 12/13 September, 1972. The complainant went to the Police Station Moti Nagar and DD entry was recorded and he was asked to Police station Punjabi Bagh, where the FIR was recorded.