Delhi District CourtFir No. 227/16 State vs . Naseem 1/13 on 23 December, 2016IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
     SESSIONS JUDGE(NE), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.


SC No. 112/16

FIR No. 227/16
PS : Gokal Puri
U/s. 392/394/397/34IPCState

                                      Versus

Naseem
S/o Sh. Nabi Hassan
R/o. H.No. 192, C-Block, Gali no. 16,
Rajiv Vihar, Kachi Khajoori, Delhi.


Date of Committal                                      :    15.07.2016
Date of Arguments                                      :    21.12.2016
Date of Pronouncement                                  :    23.12.2016


JUDGMENT :1.     Prosecution case: It is the case of the prosecution that on
18.03.2016, complainant Madhu produced the accused before the
Duty Officer of PS Gokul Puri who was apprehended by her with the
help of the public persons. On personal search of the accused, an
ustra was recovered from his pocket which was seized after
preparation of its sketch. Complainant made a statement thereby
alleging that she boarded an auto from Khajoori Khas to Ashok


FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem1/13
 Nagar and two boys also sat in the said Auto besides and during her
transit, one of them put an ustra on her neck and other assailant
robbed her tablet. Both the assailants ran away after jumping of the
Auto after committing robbing the tablet of the complainant, but auto
driver raised alarm alongwith complainant and accused Naseem was
apprehended by the public persons in front of the PS, but other
associate ran away with the robbed tablet. FIR was lodged on the
basis of the statement of the complainant. IO arrested accused and
seized ustra from him. Accused has been chargesheetedu/s
392/394/397/34IPC.2.       This charge-sheet committed to this court after compliance of
Section 207 Cr.P.C.3.        Accused was charged underSection 392/34andu/s 397IPC
vide order sheet dated 26.07.2016 and pleaded not guilty and claim
trial.4.       Prosecution has examined PW1 HC Yashpal, PW2 HC Sandeep
Kumar, PW3 Ct. Budh Prakash, PW4 Madhu, PW5 Dr. Nadeem,
PW6 HC Shopal Singh, PW7 SI Om Pal Singh Rathi, PW8 Gaurav
and closed PE.5.        After PE, entire incriminating evidence explained to the
accused undersection 313Cr.P.C and his statement was recorded.
Accused has preferred to lead any defense evidence, but failed to



FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem2/13
 lead any DE despite availing opportunity and this Court closed
Defence Evidence vide order dated 03.12.2016.6.      To prove the case, prosecution has examined many witnesses
including the complainant. The evidence led by the prosecution is as
under:-6.1.      PW1 HC Yashpal has proved the entries of Register no. 19
dated 18/03/2016 regarding the depositing of sealed parcel
containing exhibits deposited by HC Shopal which is Ex.PW1/A.


6.2.    PW2 HC Sandeep Kumar was DO on the day of incident and
received a rukka Ex.PW2/A recorded by HC Shopal on which he
made his endorsement Ex.PW2/B to get registered FIR. he got
registered the FIR through Computer Operator Ct. Satish vide DD
No-22A. FIR is Ex.PW2/C. Investigation was assigned to SI Om Pal.Certificate of correctness of computer system is Ex.PW2/D.


6.3.     PW3 Ct Budh Prakash has deposed that on 18/03/2016 at
about 7:00 pm, he was present at the main gate of PS Gokul Puri
and heard a noise 'chor chor pakdo pakdo' and saw that one person
was being beaten up by the public persons near service road at a
distance of about 100 meters from PS. He brought the person to the
PS after saving from public persons and produced before the DO.
Complainant was also there and made a statement before DO and
disclosed that she was robbed of his tablet make i-ball by two
persons on the point of ustra, but another accused had run away

FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem3/13
 towards C-Block, but that accused was overpowered by the public
persons while running with ustra. It is further deposed that she
identified the accused to be the robber and HC Shopan Singh took
the personal search of the accused and one ustra was recovered
from his right side pocket of pant which was used by the accused
during incident as identified by the complainant.6.3.1. PW3 has further deposed that HC Shopal Singh took the
measurement of the ustra and prepared a sketch Ex.PW3/A in the
presence of complainant and seized it vide memo Ex.PW3/B. HC
Shopal presented rukka before DO and got registered FIR and
investigation was assigned to him. He arrested accused vide arrest
and personal search memo Ex PW3/C1 and Ex. PW3/C2 in the
presence of complainant. Accused made his disclosure statement
Ex.PW3/D and pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of
the accused which is Ex.PW3/E. He has correctly identified the ustra
recovered from the accused.6.3.2.     During cross examination, he has admitted that 10-12
persons were beating the accused but none joined the investigation.
He did not observe any injury on the body of the complainant. IO
prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant but he was
not aware whether complainant was made witness to it or not. Driver
of TSR had also come to PS but he was not cited witness to this
case. He noticed minor injuries on the body of the accused but
accused did not ask for his medical examination. It is denied that


FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem4/13
 ustra was planted upon the accused or that accused was lifted from
the way when he was going from Yamuna Vihar towards Mohan
Nagar or has been falsely implicated in this case.6.4.      PW4 Madhu is the complainant and has deposed that on
18/3/2016 at about 6:30 pm, she was going from Khajuri Red Light to
Ashok Nagar by TSR when three persons sat on back seat and
another passenger was sitting besides the driver. It is further
deposed that when TSR reached near Jal Board / BSES office, one
boy took out ustra and put on her neck and uttered 'Kaat Dunga Tab
De Dijeye' and other boy immediately snatched his Tab holding in
hand and both jumped out of TSR and ran away. She has pointed
out towards accused to be the person who pointed ustra on her
neck. She alongwith TSR driver chased accused and overpowered
him with the help of public persons. Meanwhile, one police official
also reached there and took the accused to PS and she also
followed him. It is further deposed that police took the personal
search of the accused and one ustra was recovered from his pocket.
Public persons also gave beating to the accused. Police recorded
her statement Ex.PW4/A. She also pointed the spot of incident and
IO prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/E. She has admitted that the
sketch, seizure memo of ustra and arrest papers of accused which
are Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/D are bearing her signatures. She has also
produced bill of Tab which is Ex.PW4/B. It is further deposed that
accused also tried to run away but he was apprehended again. She
has identified the ustra as Ex.P1.FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem5/13
 6.4.1.     During cross examination, she has deposed that two boys
were sitting with driver at the time when she boarded the said TSR
and she was single passenger at that time in the back seat of the
TSR. It is further deposed that within 2-3 minutes both boys came to
her and sat on her left and right side. It is further deposed that the
boy who was sitting in the left side put ustra on her neck. It is further
deposed that there were five persons at the time of incident in
moving TSR including him and TSR was stopped at red light at the
time of incident and she got nervous when accused put ustra on her
neck. It is further deposed that tablet was in her hand at the time of
incident. No one tried to chase the accused who took away his tab,
but he tried to nab the accused thereby chasing him on the same
road in similar direction and caught him about 100 meters away
wherefrom he left the auto to escape him. It is further deposed that
the police official present near the spot assisted her to nab the
accused besides the public persons and auto driver. Accused was
taken to the police station after apprehending. She neither remember
the registration of auto number in which incident took place nor the
name of TSR driver. Accused was beaten up by the publice persons
after apprehending but no blood oozed out of his injuries. It is denied
that accused has not committed any offence.6.5.      PW5 Dr. Nadeem has proved the MLC of accused Nasim
dated 18/3/2015 with the alleged history of beaten by public persons
prepared by Dr. Manik Tikoo which is Ex.PW5/A.




FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem6/13
 6.6.     PW6 HC Shopal Singh has deposed that on 18/03/2016, at
about 7.00 pm, complainant Madhu came to PS alongwith accused
Nasim thereby stating that he alongwith his associate robbed her
tablet on the point of weapon in running TSR. She stated that she
apprehended the accused with the help of TSR driver and public
persons. He recorded the statement of complainant Ex.PW4/A and
made his endorsement Ex.PW2/A and presented for registration of
FIR before DO and investigation was assigned to SI Om Pal Singh.
He took personal search of accused in which an ustra was recovered
of which sketch Ex.PW3/A prepared by him before its seizure vide
seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. He has identified the ustra as Ex.P1.6.6.1. During cross examination, he has deposed that complainant
was accompanied with Constable of PS Gokul Puri, but no public
person came to PS due to no public person is cited a witness to this
case. It is further deposed that accused had suffered injuries on his
head, face and hands when he was brought to him and was taken to
hospital before producing the court. Ustra recovered from the
accused was having blade. Complainant neither told the name of the
TSR driver nor TSR driver come to him. He did not try to search the
associate of the accused, but it is denied that accused has been
falsely implicated in this case.6.7.    PW7 SI Om Pal Singh conducted the investigation of this case
and accused was produced before him by HC Shopal Singh. HC
Sandeep Kumar delivered the copy of FIR and rukka. He arrested



FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem7/13
 the accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo
Ex.PW3/C1, Ex. PW3/C2 and Ex.PW3/D. He inspected the spot of
incident and prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant in
the presence of Ct. Budh Prakash which is Ex.PW3/E. He could not
trace the tablet or co-accused of this case. He seized the bill of the
Tablet Ex.PW4/B produced by the complainant and verified from the
proprietor of M/s Four Square Computer Centre, Bhajan Pura, Delhi.
He made a request Ex.PW7/A to DCP Office to put the number of
Tablet on surveillance. He also collected MLC of accused Ex.PW5/A
prepared on examination of the accused being beaten up by the
public persons. During investigation, he collected the certificateu/s
65Bof Evidence Act regarding correctness of computer system on
which FIR was typed.6.7.1.     During cross examination, he has deposed that during his
visit at the spot, TSR driver was not present there. No recovery was
affected at the instance of accused during PC. It is denied that
accused has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not aware
whether complainant sustained any injury during incident. It is denied
that accused was lifted from the road and falsely implicated to work
out this case.6.8.     PW8 Gaurav has proved the bill Ex.PW4/A regarding
purchasing of the Tablet against a sum of Rs. 7,100/- and he issued
this bill in his business name M/s. 4 Square Computer.FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem8/137.      I have heard the arguments and perused the record. This case
has been lodged on the basis of the statement of the complainant
Madhu. She has standby her statement Ex.PW4/A made before the
police and has duly proved that statement before this court also.
PW4 Madhu has categorically deposed before this court that she
was sitting in a TSR and having a Tablet in her hand when accused
Naseem put an ustra on her neck and his other associate robbed her
Tab and ran away. She apprehended the accused soon after the
incident with the help of public persons and driver of TSR when he
tried to run away from the spot. She has also deposed that one ustra
used by accused in the incident was also recovered from his pocket
and has identified that ustra before this court also. She has given the
description of the clothes worn by accused at the time of incident
from which ustra was recovered. PW4 has duly identified the
accused to be the persons who put ustra on her neck to facilitate her
associate to rob her Tablet and ran away.8.      PW3 Ct. Budh Prakash and PW6 HC Shopal Singh have duly
corroborated that the accused was apprehended by the complainant
with the help of public persons and TSR driver. PW3 has deposed
that he heard the noise and saw that public persons were beating
the accused and he saved him and produced before the PW6 and
PW6 has also corroborated it. PW7 SI Om Pal Singh has also
deposed that the accused was produced before him on assignment
of investigation of this case and he had sustained injuries being
beaten up by the public persons and he got him medically examined


FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem9/13
 and his MLC was prepared with the same alleged history of injuries.
PW7 arrested the accused after his medical examination vide arrest
and personal search memo which are Ex.PW3/C1 to Ex.PW3/C2.He
also made his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/D.9.      Further, PW4 complainant, PW3 Ct. Budh Prakash and PW6
HC Shopal Singh have witnessed the recovery of the ustra from the
accused and they have duly proved that it was recovered from the
personal search of the accused and PW4 has duly corroborated its
use during the incident. PW6 HC Shopal Singh has proved that he
prepared the sketch Ex.PW3/A before its seizure vide seizure memo
Ex.PW3/B. No material contradiction has come on record during the
testimonies of PW3, PW4 and PW6 except putting the suggestions
to them that accused has been falsely implicated in this case which
have been denied by them. As such, it stands proved that the
accused was involved in the incident and he was apprehended soon
after the incident and found in possession of the weapon used during
the incident.10.     So far admissibility of recovery of ustra Ex.P1 is concerned, it
was seized by PW6 in the presence of PW3 and PW4 vide seizure
memo Ex.PW3/B during personal search of accused, but it was
recovered prior to recording of disclosure statement of accused
which is Ex.PW3/D and Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that this
recovery is not admissibleu/s 27of Evidence Act. However, this
argument of Ld. Counsel for accused has no substance. Though this


FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem10/13
 recovery of ustra Ex.P1 is not admissibleu/s 27of Evidence Act as it
was not in pursuance of disclosure statement, yet this recovery is
very well relevantu/s 8of Evidence Act that the accused used this
weapon during incident as deposed by PW4 and thereafter it was
recovered out of his possession immediately after apprehending him
by the complainant with the help of public persons. Similarly, the
recovery of tab is also not relevant to prove the charges against the
accused as complainant has duly proved before this court that her
tab was robbed by the accused and she has also produced the
document Ex.PW4/B to prove the purchase of said tab which was
also put on surveillance vide document Ex.PW7/A. Admittedly,
associate of accused ran away with the tab soon after the incident
after jumping from TSR and in such condition the recovery of tab
was out of question in the absence of arrest of co-accused. As such,
it is not fatal to this case.11.     So far investigation of case is concerned, PW2 has proved
rukka Ex.PW2/B which has also disclosed that accused was beaten
up by public persons and produced by the complainant before HC
Shopal Singh in the presence of Ct. Budh Prakash and FIR
Ex.PW2/C recorded by PW2 has also corroborated this fact. Site
plan Ex.PW3/A has proved the spot of incident as well as spot where
accused was apprehended by public persons. The information
regarding recovery of ustra and beatings to accused by public
persons has been corroborated by disclosure statement Ex.PW3/D
also and the same is also relevant. The arrest of accused vide


FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem11/13
 document E.xPW3/C1 and Ex.PW3/C2 is not disputed. Even MLC
Ex.PW5/A proved by PW5 has also proved the involvement of
accused. Pointing out memo of the spot of incident was also
prepared which is Ex.PW3/E and it has also proved that accused
committed the robbery at the spot of incident shown in site plan.
Accused tried to escape from the spot after committing the offence
and this conduct of accused is also relevant and against him.12.     Contrary to it, accused has taken a defence that he was
moving form Yamuna Vihar towards Mohan Nagar when he was
apprehended by the public persons, but no explanation has been
tendered by accused as to why he was apprehended by public and
TSR driver when he has not committed any wrong. Admittedly, he
was beaten by public persons and PW5, who has proved the MLC of
accused has also proved this fact which was prepared with alleged
history of beaten by public and he sustained injuries. PW3 has
proved that he saved accused from public persons when they were
beaten him and PW6 and PW7 have corroborated that accused had
sustained injuries during beatings after arrest. In the absence of any
explanation, this fact has also corroborated the testimonies of PW4
that accused committed the offence and she apprehended the
accused with the help of public. As such, the defence taken by
accused that he was beaten up by the public persons without any
reason or that he was going towards Mohan Nagar when he was
apprehended by public persons without any reason have no
substance.In fact, accused committed the offence and was


FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem12/13
 apprehended soon after the incident and has committed the offence.13.     Even the arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused have no
substance that public person and TSR driver have not been cited
witnesses to this case and it is fatal. PW4 and other police officials
have duly proved the involvement of the accused to this case and
PW6 has tendered an explanation that public persons and TSR
driver did not come to PS due to they have not been cited witness to
this case and it has duly explained the reason of their non-
examination in this case. As such, it is not fatal to this case.14.     Keeping in view of the fact and circumstances of the case, I
am of considered opinion that prosecution has proved beyond doubt
that accused has committed the offenceu/s 392/34IPC. Accused is
hereby convicted for the offenceu/s 392/34IPC.15.     So far the offenceu/s 397IPC is concerned, recovery has
been effected from accused which is Ex.P1 and the use of this
dangerous weapon stands proved by the testimony of PW4 who is
the complainant as well as victim of the incident. As such, this
offence also stands proved against accused and he is also convictedu/s 397IPC.Announced in open court                            (Devender Kumar)
today on 23.12.2016                             Additional Sessions Judge-03
                                           (NE): Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.




FIR No. 227/16State Vs. Naseem13/13