Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1767
DELHI HIGH COURT
A.K.Pathak, J.
Ramesh - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Resopndent
Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2002, Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2002 & Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 2001
Decided On : 07-01-2013
For the Appellants : Mr. A.J. Bhambhani , Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Advs. along with appellant in person.
For the State : Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP with SI Prem Singh, P.S. Malviya Nagar.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and corroborated testimonies in criminal cases, and the impact of discrepancies and doubts on the court's decision.
Headnote:
Robbery - Criminal Law - IPC 392/34, IPC 397 - The court discussed the factual matrix of the case, the testimonies of the witnesses, discrepancies in the prosecution's story, and the doubts raised regarding the conduct of the police officials at the spot. The judgment highlighted the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses and the lack of corroboration, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Sections 392/34 IPC and one of the appellants under Section 397 IPC for a robbery incident. The trial court found the testimonies of the witnesses trustworthy, but the judge disagreed, citing discrepancies in the statements and doubts about the conduct of the police officials at the spot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimonies of the witnesses were not reliable and trustworthy due to discrepancies and lack of corroboration, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the witnesses' testimonies, discrepancies in the prosecution's story, and doubts about the conduct of the police officials at the spot.
Ratio Decidendi: The discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses and the lack of corroboration led to the court's decision to acquit the appellants.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. Their personal bonds and surety bonds were discharged.
A.K. Pathak, J.;—
1. All the above mentioned three appeals are disposed of together, since same arise out of the same incident, FIR and judgment of trial court.
2. Appellants have been convicted under Sections 392/34 IPC. Appellant Ramesh has also been convicted under Section 397 IPC.
3. Factual matrix, as unfolded from the record, is that the complainant PW2 Satya Narain Singh was intercepted by the appellants on 8th April, 1992 at about 7:25 PM near the nursery at Gitanjli Enclave while he was passing through that area on his bicycle. Ramesh took out a knife and asked PW2 to handover all his belongings to them. Vijay Pal and Raj Kumar grappled with him. Finally, Raj Kumar snatched bicycle make Atlas, Vijay pal snatched wrist watch make HMT and Ramesh removed Rs.200/- from the pocket of PW2. On hearing the alarm raised by PW2 few police officials namely ASI Ramesh Dixit (PW5), Constable Brij Pal (PW4), SI Vijender Singh (PW3) and Constable Mool Chand, who were present in the nearby police picket, arrived there. PW5 SI Ramesh Dixit with the help of Constable Mool Chand apprehended Raj Kumar; PW3 SI Vijender Singh with the help of PW4 Constable Brij Pal apprehended Ramesh and PW2 Satya Narain Singh had apprehended Vijay Pal and handed over him to the police officials.
4. Appellants were searched. From the possession of Ramesh a buttondar knife and Rs.200/- were recovered; from Vijay Pal one wrist watch make HMT and from Raj Kumar one cycle make Atlas was recovered. Statement of PW2 Satya Narain Singh was recorded at the spot by PW5 SI Ramesh Dixit, who prepared rukka and sent the same to Police Station Malviya Nagar for registration of FIR per hand Constable Mool Chand, pursuant whereof FIR No. 169/1992 under Sections 392/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
5. Thereafter, appellants were arrested. Seizure memos were prepared which were signed by PW2 and Constable Mool Chand. These proceedings were conducted at the spot.
6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, who after completing the formalities committed the case to Sessions Court, since offence under Section 397 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge.
7. Charges under Sections 392/34 IPC were framed against all the appellants on 16th November, 1992 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Separate charge under Section 397 IPC was also framed on the same day against the appellant Ramesh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Constable Mool Chand was not examined by the prosecution. Material witnesses in this case are PW2 Satya Narain Singh, PW3 SI Virender Singh, PW5 SI Ramesh Dixit and PW4 Constable Brij Pal. PW2 is the victim who was robbed by the appellants. As regards PW3 to PW5 they had reached the spot after the incident and had apprehended Ramesh and Raj Kumar. Robbed articles were also recovered by them from the appellants in presence of PW2. PW1 Duty Officer HC Raghubir had simply recorded the FIR and is a formal witness. Trial court has found testimonies of PW2 to PW5 trustworthy and sufficient enough to conclude that it is the appellants who had robbed PW2 of his wrist watch make HMT, Rs.200 and bicycle make Atlas on 8th April, 1992 at about 7:25 PM and while committing robbery Ramesh had used the deadly weapon.
9. I have heard the arguments and perused the trial court record carefully, more particularly the statement of PW2 Satya Narain Singh and am of the view that the trial court was not right in accepting his testimony as trustworthy and reliable. Statement of PW2 not only suffers from inherent discrepancies but also is not in line with the prosecution story. His statement is also not consistent with the statements of the police witnesses. His statement also makes the whole prosecution story doubtful and suspicious. As per the prosecution, on PW2 raising alarm PW3 to PW5 along with Constable Mool Chand reached the spot and apprehended Ramesh and R
