Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA MANN
SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 100/2023
CNR NO. DLCT01-002357-2023
STATE Versus 1. Vipin
S/o Shripal Singh
R/o Kh.No.944, Gali No.5,
Sabha Pur Extn., Loni
Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Nitin
S/o Harpal Singh
R/o H.No.32, Gali No.2.
Sabha Pur Extn. Loni,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Ajay
S/o Raj Kumar
R/o H.No.49, Gali No.2.
Sabha Pur Extn. Loni,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
Also at:H.No.279, S Block,
Shakarpur, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
FIR No. 426/2020
U/S. 392/394/397/411/34 IPC
r/w 25 Arms Act
P.S. Civil Lines
Date of institution before Ld MM : 29.12.2020
Date of receipt in sessions Court : 13.02.2023
Date of final arguments : 08.11.2024
Date of Decision: : 08.11.2024
Final Judgment: : Acquitted
J U D G M E N T
A. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IN BRIEF:-
1. On the complaint made by complainant PW Raj Kumar
SC No.100/23 FIR No.426/2020
State Vs Vipin etc.
Pages 1
-- 1 of 6 --
that on 30.10.2020 at around 9:15 p.m, he boarded an auto from
ISBT for going to Mukundpur and in the said auto, two
passengers were already sitting and when the auto reached near
Burari bye-pass flyover then one of the co-passenger caught hold
of his neck and put a knife on his stomach then the auto driver
stopped the auto and caught hold of his both legs and other
person took out his mobile phone make Vivo from the right
pocket of his pant and Rs.7000/- and ATM card from the other
pocket of his pant and pushed him on the ground and the said
accused auto driver and the other two accused persons left him at
the spot. But, complainant with the help of a passer by
motorcyclist chased the said auto and noted the number of the
said auto as DL1RZ2093. On this, complaint, FIR was registered
and investigation was carried out and all the three accused were
arrested and the chargesheet was filed u/s 392/394/397/411/34
IPC r/w Section 25 Arms Act. After compliance with the
provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the present case was committed
to the Sessions Court for trial.
B. CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST ACCUSED
2. On the basis of material on record vide order dated
25.08.2023, finding a prima facie case, all the three accused
persons were charged for offence punishable U/S 392/34 IPC r.w.
Section 411 IPC and accused Ajay was also charged for offence
U/S 397 IPC to which all accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. Thereafter, case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
C. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION:-
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total four
witnesses. Prosecution examined witness namely PW2 ASI Anil
Kumar and he deposed that on 31.10.2020 investigation of this
SC No.100/23 FIR No.426/2020
State Vs Vipin etc.
Pages 2
-- 2 of 6 --
case was assigned to him and he recorded the statement of
complainant Raj Kumar as Ex.PW1/A and prepared site plan of
the spot as Ex.PW1/B and thereafter, investigation was assigned
to SI Praveen.
4. Prosecution examined PW4 SI Praveen Sharma,
subsequent Investigating Officer and PW3 Ct.Sachin Awasthi and
they proved that on 01.11.2020, they joined the investigation and
arrested the accused Nitin and Vipin vide Memos Ex.PX5 and
Ex.PX3 and their personal search were conducted vide memo
Ex.PX4 and Ex.PX6 and their disclosure statements were
recorded. They further deposed that at the instance of accused
Vipin, the TSR along with Rs.1200/- were recovered and seized
vide memo Ex.PW3/C and the currency notes of said Rs.1200/-
is Ex.P-1. They further deposed that at the instance of accused
Nitin, Rs.1400/- were recovered and seized vide memo
Ex.PW3/D and the currency notes of said Rs.1400/- is Ex.P-2.
PW4 SI Praveen Sharma further deposed that on 03.11.2020, he
apprehended accused Ajay at the instance of a secret informer
from Khazuri Chowk and arrested him vide memo Ex.PX-7 and
conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PX-8 and recorded
his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/B. He further deposed that at
the instance of accused Ajay, he recovered Rs.800/- and mobile
phone of the complainant and seized them vide memo Ex.PW4/C
and the currency notes of said Rs.800/- is Ex.P-3. He further
deposed that TIP of accused Ajay was not successful but accused
Nitin and Vipin had refused to participate in TIP. He further
proved the remaining investigation conducted by him and he
filed the chargesheet in the Court. He correctly identified all the
three accused present in the Court.
SC No.100/23 FIR No.426/2020
State Vs Vipin etc.
Pages 3
-- 3 of 6 --
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined the most
crucial witness namely PW1 Raj Kumar i.e. complainant cum
eye witness cum injured and he turned hostile and not supported
the prosecution case.
6. All the three accused persons vide their joint statement
have admitted the following documents under Section 294
Cr.P.C:--
1. Copy of the FIR Ex.PX1.
2. Certificate u/s 65B Ex.PX2.
3. Arrest memo of accused Vipin Ex.PX3 and personal search memo
Ex.PX4.
4. Arrest memo of accused Nitish Kumar Ex.PX5 and personal search
memo Ex.PX6.
5. Arrest memo of accused Ajay Kumar Ex.PX7 and personal search
memo Ex.PX8.
6. Notice u/s 133 NB Act served to Ms. Saroj Ex.PX9.
7. TIP proceedings of the accused persons Ex.PX10, Ex.PX11 and
Ex.PX12.
D. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.PC:-
7. Since the main witness i.e. PW1 Raj Kumar i.e. injured
cum eye witness cum complainant has turned fully hostile and
not supported the prosecution case. So, the statement of all the
three accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stands dispensed
with vide order dated 08.11.2024.
E. FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Chief PP for
the State as well as Ld. Counsels for all the accused persons and
gone through the case file carefully and thoroughly.
SC No.100/23 FIR No.426/2020
State Vs Vipin etc.
Pages 4
-- 4 of 6 --
F. REASON FOR THE DECISION
9. Considering the fact that the most crucial witness i.e. PW1
Raj Kumar i.e. victim cum eye witness cum complainant deposed
that on 30.10.2020 when he boarded a TSR for going to his house
from Kashmere Gate and two persons were already sitting in the
TSR. He further deposed that when the TSR reached near Burari
by pass, one of the passengers caught hold of his neck and put a
knife on his stomach and the TSR driver caught hold of his legs
and another passenger took out his Vivo mobile phone and his
purse containing Rs.7000/-. He further deposed that after the
incident, they pushed him out of the TSR, but he chased the said
TSR with the help of one motor cycle rider. He further deposed
that he could not see the faces of those persons as they were
wearing masks and he could not note down the registration
number of the TSR. He further deposed that two police officials
brought him to the police station where his complaint was
recorded and same is Ex.PW1/A and IO prepared site plan at his
instance and the same is Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that later
on, police recovered his mobile phone and he took the same on
superdari. He further deposed that he cannot say whether the
accused persons present in the Court were the same persons who
robbed him as he had not seen the face of the robbers. He further
deposed that he has provided the bill of his mobile phone to the
IO on 23.12.2020. He further deposed that he does not know
anything else about this case. At this stage, he was declared
hostile and cross examined at length by Ld. CPP for the State. He
denied all the suggestions given by Ld. CPP for the State. This
fact erodes the credibility of entire prosecution case and it throws
doubt on the prosecution story.
SC No.100/23 FIR No.426/2020
State Vs Vipin etc.
Pages 5
-- 5 of 6 --
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasoning and in view of the
fact that PW3 Ct.Sachin Awasthi and PW4 SI Praveen Sharma in
their cross examination admitted that no public witness was
joined at the time of seizure of the recovered articles. They
further admitted that no mark of identification was put on the
currency notes recovered from the accused persons. This proves
that the recovery of currency notes could not be linked to the
accused persons. This fact further throws doubt on the
prosecution story. Further, the bill of the robbed mobile phone
has not been proved on record by the IO. This shows that IO has
failed to prove the chain of recovery of stolen mobile phone
because the ownership of the said robbed mobile phone is not
proved by the IO. Also, the recovered case property i.e. robbed
mobile phone has not been produced in the Court by the Superdar
i.e. PW1 Raj Kumar. This fact further throws doubt on the
prosecution story. No specific role has been alleged against the
accused. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused.
The identity of the accused is not proved. Thus, prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. All
these aforesaid facts throws doubt on the prosecution story. The
benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Hence, all the
three accused namely accused Vipin, accused Nitin and accused
Ajay are acquitted of the charges levelled against them by giving
them the benefit of doubt. Their bail bonds and surety bonds
stands discharged. Case property, if any be dealt with as per law.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court
on 8th November, 2024 (Ekta Gauba Mann)
Spl. Judge, NDPS-01, Central
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
SC No.100/23 FIR No.426/2020
State Vs Vipin etc.
Pages 6
-- 6 of 6 --