State (Nct of Delhi) v. Pradeep @ Sonu & Ors

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. APRIL 29, 2019 / SU

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Judgment reserved on: 04th April, 2019 Judgment pronounced on: _29th April, 2019 STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.G.M. Farooqui, APP for State with SI Munna Kumar, PS Delhi Cantt. versus PRADEEP @ SONU & ORS ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL Crl. M. A 7768/18 (Delay in Filing) For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay 18 days in filing the present leave to appeal, the delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Crl. L. P. 277/18 1. By this petition under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as 'Cr.P.C'), the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6 were acquitted of the charge under Sections 394/395/120B/412/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as 'IPC'), and accused No. 3 was acquitted of the charge under Sections 397/394/395/120B/412/34 of IPC and accused No.5 was acquitted of the charge under Sections 394/395/120B/34 of IPC in FIR No. 18/12 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt, Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- i. That on 17.01.2012, at about 6.30 pm, PW1 (Tejas Uday Methani) was going in the company's car bearing registration No. DL1N3591, which was being driven by PW5 (Nand Kishore) to company's garage. He was sitting besides the driver seat and a bag having Rs.9 lacs cash was kept on the back seat of the car. ii. Near Hanuman Temple, a motorcycle having two riders came and they stopped their motorcycle in front of their car and when his driver asked them as to why they were not driving properly, then one of them showed pistol like thing to PW5 and further they started beating him with fist and leg blows. Further when PW1 stepped out to stop them, another motorcycle came and its rider slapped him and further removed the bag lying on the back seat of the car and fled away. PW1 noted down the registration number of one of the motorcycles as DL8C3464. iii. An information was given to the PCR and the DD No. 33A at PS Delhi Cantt was recorded which resulted into registration of FIR No.18/2012 under Sections 394/395/397/120B/412/34 IPC registered at PS Delhi Cantt. iv. All the accused persons except accused Raj Kumar were arrested in another case bearing FIR No. 42/12 of PS Delhi Cantt and few them also got recovered part of the robbed money. After their arrest in this case, some more money recovery of the robbed money, mobile phone and said bag was done from some of the accused persons. Further accused persons refused to participate in TIP proceedings. 3. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6 were charged under Sections 394/395/120B/412/34 of IPC, accused No. 3 was charged under Sections 397/394/395/120B/412/34 of IPC and accused No.5 was charged under Sections 394/395/120B/34 of IPC. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 27 witnesses. 4. Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein they stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case and claimed to be innocent. They chose not to lead any evidence in their defence. 5. After appreciating and considering the rival contentions of the parties and scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the charged offences. 6. Mr. G.M. Farooqui, learned APP appearing for the State contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is based on presumption, conjectures and surmises; that the learned Trial Court had erred in relying upon the minor contradictions pointed out in the evidence of the two eye witnesses, the small discrepancies do not affect the core of the prosecution case; that