Delhi District Court
State vs Pradeep Kumar Ors on 19 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (NORTH),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No : DLNT01-001548-2012
Session Case No. : 58117/2016
FIR No. : 318/2012
PS : Shahbad Dairy
U/S : 397/365/384/411/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. PRADEEP KUMAR
S/o Sh. Rampat,
R/o Village: Pipli, PS Kharkhoda, Sonepat,
Haryana.
2. RAMESH DAHIYA
S/o Sh. Partap Singh @ Jaipan,
R/o Village: Pipli, PS Kharkhoda, Sonepat,
Haryana.
3. AJIT @ AMIT
S/o Sh. Ramdiya,
R/o: Village Datauli, Ganaur, Sonepat,
Haryana.
4. PAWAN
S/o Sh. Dilbag,
R/o Village: Sanaspur, Charka Dadri, Bhiwani,
Haryana.
5. VIKRAM MALIK
S/o Sh. Umed Singh,
R/o: DJ-139, Railway Road, Samalkha, Panipat, Haryana.
Digitally
SC No. 58117/2016 Page No.1 of 23
signed by
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy
SUSHIL
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
16:59:02
+0530
6. LALITA @ JIYA (Declared PO vide order dated 02.01.2024)
W/o Sh. Abhishek,
R/o: T-585/J, Baljeet Nagar,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 15.12.2012
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 16.01.2013
Date of institution in Sessions Court : 23.01.2013
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 19.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of prosecution are that on receipt of DD No.
3A dated 02.09.2012, SI Arun Kumar had telephonic conversation with SI Manoj who
informed that he along with complainant is standing at Deep Vihar Pansali. After
receiving the afore-said information, SI Arun Kumar reached Deep Vihar Pansali where
he met SI Manoj and Complainant Sh. Joginder Singh. SI Arun Kumar called Crime
Team for the inspection of the scene of crime at R-61, Gali No.15A, Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi. Crime Team inspected the scene of crime and complainant’s car bearing
registration no.DL4CAP9697. On 02.09.2012, complainant refused to give any statement
due to shock. Thereafter on 05.09.2012, complainant went to PS Shahbad Dairy along
with his son. Statement of complainant Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Singh was
recorded.
2. Complainant Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Singh, stated in his statement
that he is having an office in the name of Punjab Properties at Deep Vihar Pansali, Delhi.
That on 01.09.2012, he had entered into a property deal with one person and he received
cash amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- as Bayana amount from the purchaser and he was
having cash amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- with him. On that day, he kept the aforesaid
amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- in a briefcase and at about 7.45 pm, he left his office for his
Digitally
SC No. 58117/2016 signed by Page No.2 of 23
SUSHIL
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy SUSHIL KUMAR
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
16:59:06
+0530
house in a Varna Car bearing registration no. DL-4CAB-9697. While driving the car,
when he reached at outside Deep Vihar Panshali Colony, one person wearing police
Hawaldar’s uniform gave a signal to him by hand for stopping his car and accordingly, he
stopped his car. The said person asked him for showing the documents of his car and
further stated to him that a complaint has been lodged against him. That he started having
arguments with him and when he put out his mobile phone and started dialing the same,
the said person snatched his mobile phone. In the meantime, two more persons came
there and all three persons forcibly put him on the back seat of the car. They touched
some weapon kind of thing on his waist and asked him to keep mum. The person in
police uniform sat on the driver seat and started driving the vehicle. Two of his
accomplices sat on the back seat and tied his hands and covered his mouth and eyes and
also made a spray on his face. After about half an to forty five minutes of driving the car,
they got down him from the car and took his three gold rings and gold bracelet.
Thereafter, they made him walk nude and after about 100 meters, removed cover from
his eyes and he found himself in a shed without having roof where a boy and a nude girl
were standing already. All the said persons got clicked his photographs with the nude girl
from the said boy. Thereafter, they put him on their shoulder and put him inside his car’s
dickey. After about 15-30 minutes of driving the car, they stopped the same, opened the
dickey and thrown car’s key on him. They want that if he would disclosed anything to
anyone, he would be killed. That he remained as it is for some time and after some time,
opened his hands and came out of the car’s dickey. He stopped a champion vehicle and
made a phone call to his son. After sometime, his son and other known persons came
there and he made a call on 100 number. That, he identify the offenders if shown to him.
3. On the basis of statement given by Complainant Sh. Joginder Singh, the present
FIR was registered for the offences punishable under section 365/397/34 IPC. During
SC No. 58117/2016 Digitally Page No.3 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy signed by
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
16:59:12
+0530
the course of investigation, site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and the
offenders were searched but no clue was found. Thereafter on 15.09.2012, complainant
Sh. Joginder Singh came to PS Shahbad Dairy and informed that he has received a threat
letter wherein demand of Rs.4,00,000/- was made. After having discussion with senior
police officials, SI Arun Kumar put bundles of fake currency notes of Rs.500/- in a
briefcase and handed over the same to complainant. SI Arun Kumar, SI Vijay and other
police staff along with Complainant Sh. Joginder went to Ochandi Border and asked
complainant Sh. Joginder to stand at some distance from them. After some time, two cars
make Scorpio and Honda City came from village Mungesh Pur side and stopped near
complainant Sh. Joginder Singh. A person got down from car make Honda City, snatched
the briefcase from the hand of complainant Sh. Joginder Singh and tried to ran away
from spot in the said Honda City Car. SI Arun Kumar with the help of other police
officials apprehended the person sitting inside Honda City Car as well as three other
persons sitting inside the Scorpio Car. The person sitting inside the Honda City Car
disclosed his name as Ajit @ Amit and the complainant identified him as the person who
was wearing police uniform at the time of alleged incident of abduction and robbery.
4. Accused Ajit @ Amit was arrested and he made a disclosure statement. The
briefcase snatched from the possession of complainant Sh. Joginder Singh was seized
from the possession of Ajit @ Amit. Further, cash amounting to Rs.46,000/- was also
recovered from the said Honda City Car which was in possession of accused Ajit @ Amit
at that time. Thereafter, investigation was made from the other three persons who were
sitting inside Scorpio car and they disclosed their names as Pawan, Ramesh Dahiya and
Pardeep Kumar. On seeing accused persons namely Pawan and Pardeep Kumar,
complainant identified to them to be the persons who had forcibly put him inside his car
on the day of alleged incident. Accused persons namely Pawan, Ramesh Dahiya and
Digitally
SC No. 58117/2016 signed by Page No.4 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy SUSHIL
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
16:59:17
+0530
Pardeep Kumar were arrested, case property was seized and deposited in Malkhana of PS
Shahbad Dairy. Thereafter, on 16.09.2012, accused Lalita @ Jiya (declared PO during
trial) was arrested in the present case. Thereafter, on 18.10.2012, an information was
received that one of the accused namely Vikram Malik has been arrested by Crime
Branch and after taking permission from Court, accused Vikram Malik was arrested in
the present FIR case. Thereafter, specimen handwriting of all accused persons were
obtained and same were sent to FSL for comparison. Other case property such as fire
arms recovered from the possession of accused persons were also sent to FSL. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet against accused persons namely Pradeep
Kumar, Ramesh Dahiya, Ajit @ Amit, Pawan, Vikram Malik and Lalita @ Jiya was filed
for the offence punishable under section 397/365/384/411/120B IPC & U/s 25/27 Arms
Act, 1959 in the Court of Ld. MM having jurisdiction over the area of PS Shahbad Dairy.
5. After compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM committed the
case to the Court of Sessions.
6. Arguments on the point of charge were heard. As prima facie case was made out,
charges for offences punishable under section 365/384/392/397/411/419/ 120B/34 IPC &
U/s 25/27 Arms Act were framed against accused persons namely Pradeep Kumar,
Ramesh Dahiya, Ajit @ Amit, Pawan, Vikram Malik and Lalita @ Jiya vide orders dated
10.07.2013 and 21.05.2015, to which, above-named accused persons pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial and thereafter the matter was fixed up for recording of prosecution
evidence. It is pertinent to mention that accused Lalita @ Jiya was absconded during the
trial and she was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 02.01.2024.
7. In order to prove its case against accused persons, prosecution has examined
SC No. 58117/2016 Digitally Page No.5 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy signed by
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
16:59:25
+0530
sixteen prosecution witnesses namely PW-1 HC Mahender Kumar, PW-2 W / Ct. Sudesh,
PW-3 Sh. Joginder Singh, PW-4 HC Murari Lal, PW-5 Ct. Jitender, PW-6 SI Manoj,
PW-7 Dr. N. P. Waghmare, PW-8 Sh. Syed Ahmar Ali Hashmi, PW-9 SI Anil Tushir,
PW-10 SI Mahesh Kumar, PW-11 SI Sukhi Ram, PW-12 SI Avdesh Narayan, PW-13 Ex.
SI Arun Kumar, PW-14 SI Vijay, PW-15 HC Satish and PW-16 Ms. Shweta Chauhan.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined u/s 313
Cr. P C., and their separate statements under section 313 Cr PC have been recorded
wherein all of them pleaded innocence and false implication. However, all of them did
not wish to lead defence evidence.
9. This Court has heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. Counsel for the accused
persons and has also carefully gone through the judicial record.
10. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to have glance at the
depositions made by above-named sixteen prosecution witnesses examined by
prosecution as under:-
11. PW-1 HC Mahender Kumar is Duty Officer, PS Shahbad Dairy. He has proved on
record the present FIR bearing No.318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy as Ex. PW1/A and his
endorsement on rukka at point X.
12. PW-2 W / Ct. Sudesh had joined the investigation along with IO and she is witness
of arrest of accused Jiya @ Lalita. She has testified on the lines of prosecution story. She
has identified her signature on arrest memo Ex.PW2/A, personal search memo Ex.
PW2/B and disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C. She also identified accused Ramesh and
SC No. 58117/2016 Digitally Page No.6 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy signed by
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
16:59:29
+0530
Jiya @ Lalita in the Court.
During her cross-examination, PW-2 testified that no resident of locality
had come at the time when accused Ramesh led police party to the house of Jiya @
Lalita. She denied the suggestion that accused Jiya @ Lalita was never pointed out by
accused Ramesh Dahiya or that accused Ramesh Dahiya did not led police party to the
house of accused Jiya @ Lalita.
13. PW-3 Sh. Joginder Singh is the victim in the present FIR case. The present FIR
case has been registered on the statement of complainant / PW-3 Sh. Joginder Singh. In
his examination-in-chief, PW-3 failed to identify accused persons as the persons who had
robbed him and he did not support the version of prosecution. In his examination-in-
chief, PW-3 has deposed that he is having a property business in the name of Punjab
Properties having office at Deep Vihar Panshali, Delhi. PW-3 further deposed that on
01.09.2012, he entered into a property deal with one person and he received cash
amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- as bayana amount from the purchaser and he was having
cash amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- with him. He further deposed that on that day, he kept
the aforesaid amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- in a briefcase and at about 7.45 pm, he left his
office for his house in a Varna Car bearing registration no. DL-4CAB-9697. He further
deposed that while driving the car, when he reached at outside Deep Vihar Panshali
Colony, one person wearing police uniform gave a signal to him by hand for stopping his
car and accordingly, he stopped his car. He further deposed that the said person asked
him for showing the documents of his car and further stated to him that a complaint has
been lodged against him. Upon this, he downed the window pane of his car and inquired
from him about the nature of the complaint.
PW-3 further deposed that in the meantime, two more persons came there
and all three persons forcibly put him in between the back seat and front of the car and
SC No. 58117/2016 Digitally Page No.7 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy signed by
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
16:59:34
+0530
the person in police uniform sat on the driver seat and two of his accomplices sat on the
back seat. That one of the offender who sat on the back seat took out one revolver and
pointed out the said revolver over his abdomen and threatened him not to raise alarm. He
further deposed that thereafter, both the persons who were on the back side seat of the
car, tied his both hands, covered his eyes with a piece of cloth and covered his lips with a
doctor tape/strip. He further deposed that thereafter, the person in police uniform started
driving his Verna Car. He further deposed that he kept on driving his Verna Car for about
45 minutes and stopped the said car and thereafter they made him alight from the car and
took out all his wearing clothes including underwear, baniyan and robbed his three gold
rings, gold bracelet, gold chain and his wrist watch.
PW-3 further deposed that thereafter, they made him walk for about 100
yards and upon reaching there, they took off the doctor strip from his lips and cloth from
his eyes and also untied his hands. He further deposed that when he was able to see, he
saw one girl standing in naked condition in front of him and the said place was a shed.
Thereafter, they forcibly took photographs of him as well as the said girl in different
obscene positions in a mobile being belonged to the said offenders. He further deposed
that thereafter, they again asked him to put on his clothes and accordingly, he worn his
clothes and the said offenders put him in the dickey of his Verna Car. He further deposed
that then, they drove his Verna car for about 15-20 minutes and they stopped the car near
a Canal situated at Village Nahara. He further deposed that thereafter, they opened the
dickey of the car and thrown the key of his car over him and threatened him that if he
made any call, they would kill him.
PW-3 further deposed that he kept himself sitting in the dickey of the car
for about 5-7 minutes. He further deposed that thereafter, he managed to untie his hands
and he came out from the dickey of the car. He further deposed that he gave a signal to
one Champion vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle stopped his vehicle. He further
SC No. 58117/2016 Page No.8 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy Digitally
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
16:59:39
+0530
deposed that he borrowed the mobile of the driver of the said Champion vehicle and
made a call to his son namely Lalit. He further deposed that when he checked his Verna
Car, he found the briefcase containing cash sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- being robbed. He
further deposed that his mobile phone was also found lying in his car but the battery was
lying separately and the SIM card of his mobile was found missing. He further deposed
that his son Lalit made a call to his relatives residing at Village Nahara and few of his
relatives from Village Nahara and thereafter, his son Lalit reached there. He further
deposed that thereafter, they came to their residence at Narela and his son Lalit made a
call at 100 number. He further deposed that after some time, PCR Van reached at his
house and the police officials of PS Narela also visited his house and made enquiries
from his and suggested them to visit PS Shahbad Dairy. He further deposed that
accordingly, he alongwith his son Lalit and few relatives went to PS Shahbad Dairy. He
further deposed that he made a statement Ex.PW3/A to the police at PS Shahbad Dairy
and on the basis of my statement, police registered FIR in the present case.
PW-3 further deposed that thereafter during investigation, he accompanied
the police officials to the place from where he was abducted and IO prepared site plan at
his pointing out. He further deposed that after about 7-8 days thereafter, while he was
present at his house, one person thrown one stone at his house wrapped with a piece of
paper. He further deposed that he read the said piece of paper in which a demand of Rs.
4 lacs was made. He further deposed that he handed over the said letter to the police.
PW-3 identified one letter Ex.PW3/B being the same letter, which was thrown at his
house and which he had handed over to the police. He further deposed that IO had seized
the said letter vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C.
PW-3 further deposed that thereafter he had not joined the investigation of
the present case. He further deposed that Police had not conducted any further
proceedings / investigation in his presence. He further deposed that except this, he does
SC No. 58117/2016 Page No.9 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy
Digitally
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
17:00:09
not want to say anything in this case.
As PW-1 did not support the prosecution story and resiled from his
previous statement, he was cross-examined by LdAddl PP for state with the permission
of the Court.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl PP for state, PW-1 denied the
suggestion that when he handed over the letter Ex. PW3/B to the police, IO had discussed
the contents of the said letter with senior police officers. He further denied the suggestion
that thereafter IO had procured one briefcase and kept certain bundles in the said
briefcase in the shape and size of denomination of currency notes bundles and thereafter,
he along with SI Vijay and other staff went to Auchandi Border, in two private vehicles.
Statement Mark PW3/1 was read over the witness but he denied making
any such statement to the police or having joined investigation with the police. He was
confronted with portion A to A of the afore-mentioned statement.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that he had stated to IO that after reaching
Auchandi Border, they remained for sometime at some distance from Village Mungespur
and waited for the vehicles coming from the side of Village Mungespur or that he stood
towards Auchandi Border. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to IO that after
sometime, two vehicles i.e. one Scorpio Car and one Honda City Car came from the side
of Village Mungespur and halted near him and one person deboarded from Honda City
Car and had snatched the briefcase carried by him. He denied the suggestion that he had
stated to IO that the said person sat in the Honda City Car or that in the meantime, the
police officials put their vehicle in front of both the aforesaid vehicles or that thereafter,
police officials apprehended in his presence one person sitting inside the Honda City Car
and three persons sitting in Scorpio Car. PW-3 was confronted with portion B to B of
statement Mark PW3/1.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that the name of the person who was
SC No. 58117/2016 Page No.10 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy Digitally
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
17:00:13
+0530
apprehended from Honda City Car was revealed to him as Ajeet @ Amit. Attention of
the witness was drawn towards accused Ajeet @ Amit to which witness submitted that
said accused was not apprehended in his presence from Honda City Car.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that he had identified accused Ajeet @ Amit
before the police being the same person who was wearing police uniform on the day of
commission of offence against him. He was confronted with portion C to C of statement
Mark PW3/1.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that IO had effected the arrest of accused Ajeet
@ Amit in his presence or that personal search of accused Ajeet @ Amit was conducted
in his presence. Witness has identified his signature on the arrest memo Ex.PW3/D of
accused Ajeet @ Amit as well as on personal search memo Ex.PW3/E of said accused,
however, he voluntarily stated that he had signed the aforesaid memos at the PS itself and
when he had signed the same, the said memos were blank and he was not aware about the
contents of said memos. PW-3 denied the suggestion that he had signed the memos at the
place of arrest of accused Ajeet @ Amit or that he is intentionally not deposing true facts
before the Court being won over by the said accused.
PW-3 correctly identified his signatures towards the seizure memo of cash
amount of Rs.46,000/- and Honda City Car bearing vehicle no. DL-5SBK-1790 as Ex.
PW3/F and Ex. PW3/G, however, he voluntarily deposed that he had signed certain blank
documents at the PS itself and when he had signed the same, the said memos were blank
and he was not aware about the contents of said memos. He denied the suggestion that he
had signed the memos at the place of recovery of the aforesaid articles/Car or that he is
intentionally not deposing true facts before the Court being won over by the said accused.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that he had stated to IO that it was accused
Ajeet @ Amit, who had snatched the briefcase from his possession or that IO had seized
the said briefcase in his presence. PW-3 had correctly identified his signatures towards
SC No. 58117/2016 Page No.11 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy Digitally
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
17:00:22
+0530
the seizure memo of briefcase and bundles as Ex.PW3/H, however, he voluntarily
deposed that he had signed certain blank documents at the PS itself and when he had
signed the same, the said memo was blank and he is not aware about the contents of the
said memo. He denied the suggestion that he had signed the said memo at the place of
recovery of the aforesaid briefcase or that he intentionally not deposing true facts before
the Court being won over by the said accused.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that he had stated to IO that IO had
apprehended three persons from inside the Scorpio Car in his presence, whose names
were revealed to him as accused persons namely Pawan, Pradeep and Ramesh Dahiya or
that he had stated to IO that accused persons namely Pradeep and Pawan were the same
persons who had forcibly put him in his car on the day of commission of offence upon
him.
PW-3 deposed that accused persons namely Pawan and Ramesh Dahiya
were not apprehended in his presence from Scorpio Car. He denied the suggestion that he
had identified said accused persons before the police being amongst the offenders on the
day of commission of offence upon him.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that IO had effected the arrest of accused
persons namely Pawan and Ramesh Dahiya in his presence or that their personal search
was conducted in his presence, however, PW-3 has identified his signatures on the arrest
memo Ex.PW3/J of accused Pawan as well as on the arrest memo Ex.PW3/K of accused
Ramesh Dahiya as well as on the personal search memos of aforesaid accused persons.
He voluntarily deposed that he had signed the aforesaid memos at the PS itself and when
he had signed the same, the said memos were blank and he is not aware about the
contents of said memos. He denied the suggestion that he had signed the memos at the
place of arrest of aforesaid accused persons or that he is intentionally not deposing true
facts before the Court being won over by the said accused persons.
SC No. 58117/2016 Page No.12 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy
Digitally
signed by
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
17:00:26
+0530
TIP proceedings of accused persons namely Vikram and Lalita @ Jiya were
put to PW-3 to which he submitted that he had identified accused persons namely Vikram
and Lalita @ Jiya at the time of conducting of judicial TIP proceedings of both above-
named accused persons, however, he voluntarily deposed that he had identified both the
aforesaid accused persons namely Vikram Malik and Lalita @ Jiya in the judicial TIP at
the instance of police as he was pressurized to do so and further the aforesaid accused
persons have no role in the commission of offence of the present case.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not identifying all the
aforesaid accused persons being won over by them or that he is intentionally not
supporting the statements made to the police being entered into out of compromise with
the accused persons or being threatened by the said accused persons.
Attention of the witness was drawn towards accused Pradeep S/o Sh.
Rampath, however, PW-3 deposed he cannot identify if accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Rampat
was amongst the assailants/offenders. He denied the suggestion that he is intentionally
not identifying accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Rampat being won over by said accused.
PW-3 failed to identify case property i.e. briefcase and 8 bundles in the
shape and size of Rs. 500/- in denomination, having one currency note of Rs. 500/- on the
top of each bundle and submitted that he cannot identify the afore-said case property as
the police neither prepared any such bundles in his presence nor kept any bundle in the
briefcase. He denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not identifying the case
property shown to him being won over by the accused persons.
PW-3 was not cross-examined by accused persons despite opportunity
given.
14. PW-4 HC Murari Lal is the MHC (M) who was posted at PS Shahbad Dairy at the
relevant time. He proved on record relevant entries made in register no.19 regarding
SC No. 58117/2016 Digitally Page No.13 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy signed by
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
17:00:30
+0530
deposition of case property in the malkhana.
PW-4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
15. PW-5 Ct.Jitender had joined the investigation along with IO and he had assisted
the IO during the course of investigation. He is witness of the arrest of accused persons
namely Ajeet @ Amit, Pawan, Pradeep and Ramesh. He identified his signatures upon
the relevant documents such as seizure memos, arrest memo, personal search memo etc.
He has testified on the lines of prosecution story and has corroborated the testimony of
IO.
16. PW-6 SI Manoj has proved on record DD No.3A dated 01.09.2012 as Ex. PW6/A.
17. PW-7 Dr. N. P. Waghmare is the Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini, who had
examined the fire arms seized in the present case. In his examination-in-chief, PW-7 has
deposed that on 08.07.2014, their office had received one sealed parcel in connection
with the present FIR case which was marked to him for examination and opinion
purposes. He further deposed that he had checked the said parcel and the seals over the
said parcel was found intact as per FSL Form and the forwarding letter. He further
deposed that he had opened the said parcel and the said parcel found containing one
country made pistol of 8mm/.315 inch bore which was marked as Ex.F1 by him and the
said parcel also found containing two 8mm/.315 inch cartridges which were marked as
Ex. A1 and A2 by him. He further deposed that he had examined the aforesaid exhibits
and had given his detailed report dated 13.08.14 as Ex.PW7/A. He further deposed that
he had opined that exhibit Mark F1 is a fire arm as defined in Arms Act and was in
normal working order. He further deposed that the cartridges Mark A1 and A2 were live
ones and were test fired successfully through the country made pistol Mark F1 in the
SC No. 58117/2016 Digitally Page No.14 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy signed by
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
17:00:40
+0530
laboratory. He further deposed that the exhibits cartridges Mark A1 and A2 were
ammunition as defined in Arms Act 1959. After examination, the aforesaid case property
was resealed with the seal of FSL NPW DELHI.
During his cross-examination, PW-7 testified that he had not examined the
exhibit Mark-F1 to the effect as to whether the said Katta was ever used in firing earlier
also. He denied the suggestion that he has not conducted property examination or that he
has prepared false report at the instance of IO.
18. PW-8 Sh. Syed Ahmar Ali Hashmi is the Junior Forensic / Assistant Chemical
Examiner (Documents), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. In his examination-in-chief, PW-8 has
deposed that vide memo no. 2614, PS Shahbad Dairy dated 08.07.2014, their office
received 8 sheets in unsealed condition, out of which one sheet was having red enclosed
writings marked Q1 on plain sheet and red enclosed specimen writings marked S1 and S2
of Pradeep, marked S3 of Ajeet, marked S4 of Pawan, marked S5 of Ramesh Dahiya,
marked S6 of Lalita and marked S7 of Vikram Malik. He further deposed that he had
examined the said documents carefully and thoroughly with scientific instruments, but it
was not possible to express any opinion on the red enclosed writings stamped and
marked Q1 in comparison with red enclosed writings marked S1 to S7, in the absence of
admitted writing of concerned persons.
PW-8 further deposed that after examination, he had prepared report
Ex.PW8/A with the opinion that further attempt can be made, if some more specimen
writings as well as admitted genuine writings preferably of the contemporary period of
the concerned persons, if sent to laboratory. He further deposed that after examination,
the said documents were sealed with the seal of SAA FSL DELHI. He further deposed
that till date, he had not received the required documents as mentioned above, from the
Investigating Agency. Digitally
signed by
SC No. 58117/2016 SUSHIL Page No.15 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy SUSHIL KUMAR
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
17:00:45
+0530
PW-8 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite
opportunity.
19. PW-9 SI Anil Tushir is SO to Addl. DCP, Rohini, Delhi. He has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that in the month of September 2014, further investigation of the
present case was marked to him. He further deposed that during further investigation, the
FSL report was obtained from Ballistic Division. He further deposed that he had applied
for sanction U/s 39 Arms Act and the concerned Additional DCP had accorded sanction
U/s 39 Arms Act. He further deposed that after completion of further investigation, he
had prepared supplementary chargesheet thereby annexing with it the FSL report from
Ballistic Division as well as sanction U/s 39 Arms Act and filed the same in the Court.
PW-9 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite
opportunity given.
20. PW-10 SI Mahesh Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the year
2015, upon the receipt of FSL result in respect of documents, he had prepared
supplementary chargesheet thereby annexing with it the FSL report from Documents
Division and filed the same in the court.
PW-10 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite
opportunity given.
21. PW-11 SI Sukhi Ram deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 30.10.2012,
further investigation of the present case was marked to him. Accused Vikram whom he
correctly identified was on two day’s P/C remand as the P/C remand of said accused was
taken by SI Arun and since SI Arun was sent to District Line, further investigation was
marked to him. Digitally
signed by
SC No. 58117/2016 SUSHIL Page No.16 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy SUSHIL KUMAR
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
17:01:39
+0530
PW-11 further deposed that during P/C remand, accused Vikram had
pointed out the place of commission of offence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW11/A.
During P/C remand, efforts were made to recover the camera, but in vain. He further
deposed that after P/C remand, accused Vikram was sent to judicial custody. He further
deposed that thereafter, on 02.11.2012, further investigation of the present case was
marked to SI Avdesh.
22. PW-12 SI Avdesh Narayan deposed in his examination-in-chief that on
03.11.2012, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He further
deposed that on that day, he had got accused Pradeep Kumar whom he correctly
identified medically examined and thereafter, obtained his 14 days police custody
remand. He further deposed that thereafter, on 05.11.2012, he had obtained the judicial
remand of accused persons and on the same day further investigation of this case was
marked to some other police official.
PW-12 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite
opportunity.
23. PW-13 Ex. SI Arun Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the present FIR case. He
has narrated all the steps taken by him during the course of the investigation of the
present case. He has testified on the lines of prosecution version and has corroborated the
testimonies of other police officials.
24. PW-14 SI Vijay had joined the investigation along with the IO and he had assisted
the IO during the course of the investigation. He is also witness of arrest of accused
persons namely Ajeet @ Amit, Pawan, Pardeep and Ramesh. He has testified on the lines
of prosecution story. Digitally
signed by
SC No. 58117/2016 SUSHIL Page No.17 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy SUSHIL KUMAR
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
17:01:45
+0530
25. PW-15 HC Satish joined the investigation along with the IO and he had assisted
the IO during the course of the investigation. He is the witness of arrest of accused
Vikram. He has testified on the lines of prosecution story.
26. PW-16 Ms. Shweta Chauhan is Addl DCP, Outer-District, North-Delhi. She has
testified that on 15.12.2014, she was posted as above and on that day, a photocopy of
case file of FIR No. 318/12, U/s 397/365/384/411/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act with PS
Shahbad Dairy was placed before her including the report submitted U/s 173 Cr.P.C.,
statement of prosecution witnesses, documents relied upon by the police including the
seizure memos and report given by Assistant Director (Ballistic), FSL. After going
through all the relevant documents and on application of mind, she was satisfied that on
20.10.12, accused Pradeep, S/o Shri Rampat was found in conscious possession of one
country made pistol of 8 m.m/.315 bore alongwith 2 live cartridges of 8 m.m/.315 bore
without any licence in contravention of Section 3 of Arms Act. She further deposed that
accordingly, she accorded sanction U/s 39 of Arms Act for the prosecution of aforesaid
accused namely Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Rampat for offence punishable U/s 25 of Arms
Act. She proved on record the sanction accorded by her as Ex.PW16/A and identified her
signature upon the same at point A.
27. In the present case, to prove its case against accused persons namely Ajeet,
Ramesh Dahiya, Pawan, Vikram Malik and Lalita @ Jiya, the prosecution was obliged to
prove that on 01.09.2012 at about 07:45 PM, Deep Vihar Pansali, near Main road, Delhi,
accused Ajeet @ Amit while wearing uniform of Hawaldaar of Delhi Police, stopped the
car of Complainant Sh. Joginder Singh. Thereafter, accused persons namely Pradeep
Kumar and Pawan forcibly put the complainant on back seat. Accused Pawan pointed a
revolver over the abdomen of complainant and threatened him not to raise alarm. Both
SC No. 58117/2016 Digitally signed Page No.18 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy by SUSHIL
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2024.12.24
17:01:50
+0530
hands of complainant were tied, eyes were covered with a piece of cloth and lips were
covered with doctor tape. Thereafter, the accused persons namely Ajeet @ Amit, Pradeep
Kumar and Pawan robbed three gold rings, gold bracelet, gold chain and wrist watch of
complainant and took the complainant to a place where accused Lalita @ Jiya was
standing in a naked condition. Accused persons took obscene photographs of
complainant along with accused Lalita @ Jiya forcibly with a mobile phone. The accused
persons also robbed the briefcase containing cash amounting to Rs.17,50,000/- from the
possession of the complainant.
The prosecution was also obliged to prove that the accused persons
conspired with each other for putting complainant Sh. Joginder Singh in fear to deliver
extortion money of Rs.4,00,000/- by way of a letter which was rapped upon a stone. The
prosecution was also obliged to prove that on 15.09.2012, accused Ajeet @ Amit was
found in possession of Rs.46,000/- which was out of the robbed amount of
Rs.17,50,000/- and that accused Pardeep was found in possession of cash amounting to
Rs.3,50,000/- out of the robbed amount of Rs.17,50,000/- on 20.10.2012. The
prosecution was also obliged to prove that accused Pardeep Kumar was found in
possession of country made pistol and two live cartridges, in contravention of provision
of Arms Act.
28. In the present case, prosecution has examined as many as sixteen prosecution
witnesses out of which only one is eye-witness. The said eye-witness is PW-3 Sh.
Joginder Singh who is also victim in the present FIR case and on whose statement the
present FIR case has been registered. The foundation of the case of the prosecution is
based upon the statement of the complainant / victim namely Sh. Joginder Singh,
however, when the eye-witness stepped into witness box, he turned hostile and did not
support the version of prosecution in his deposition. Eye-witness namely PW-1 Sh.
Digitally
SC No. 58117/2016 signed by Page No.19 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy SUSHIL
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
17:01:55
+0530
Joginder Singh has been cross-examined at length by Ld. Addl PP for state, however,
nothing incriminating against any of the accused persons namely Ajit @ Amit, Ramesh
Dahiya, Pawan, Vikram Malik and Pradeep Kumar could be elicited from PW-3. PW-3
did not identify accused persons namely Ajit @ Amit, Ramesh Dahiya, Pawan, Vikram
Malik and Pradeep Kumar as the one who had abducted him and robbed his briefcase
containing cash amounting to Rs.17,50,000/-, three gold rings, one gold bracelet, gold
chain etc on gun point and by blackmailing after taking obscene pictures with accused
Lalita @ Jiya. Further, PW-3 denied the suggestions that when he had handed over the
threatening letter to the police, IO had procured one briefcase containing bundles in the
shape and size of currency notes of Rs.500/- denominations or that he along with police
officials had gone to Auchandi Border. PW-3 further denied the suggestion that after
reaching Auchandi Border, he stood towards Auchandi Border and after some time, two
vehicles i.e. one Scorpio Car and one Honda City car came from the side of Village
Mungeshpur and haulted near him. PW-3 further denied the suggestion that accused Ajeet
@ Amit got down from Honda City Car and snatched the briefcase carried by him and in
the meantime, the police officials apprehended him by putting their vehicles in front of
both the afore-mentioned cards. PW-3 further denied the suggestion that accused Ajeet @
Amit was the same person who was wearing the police uniform on the day of
commission of the alleged offence against him. PW-3 further denied the suggestion that
cash amounting to Rs.46,000/- was recovered from the possession of accused Ajeet @
Amit in his presence. It is pertinent to mention that PW-3 voluntarily stated that all the
documents prepared by police such arrest memo, seizure memo, personal search were
blank when his signatures were taken at PS by the police officials. PW-3 also denied that
accused persons namely Pawan, Pradeep and Ramesh Dahiya were apprehended from
inside Scorpio Car in his presence or that accused persons namely Pradeep and Pawan
were the same persons who had forcibly put him in his car on the day of commission of
SC No. 58117/2016 Digitally signed Page No.20 of 23
by SUSHIL
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2024.12.24
17:01:59
+0530
alleged offences. PW-3 voluntarily deposed that he had identified accused persons
namely Vikram and Lalita @ Jiya during TIP proceedings conducted before Ld. MM at
the instance of police as he was pressurized to do so and that the said accused persons
had no role in commission of offence of the present case. He denied the suggestion that
he has been won over by accused persons. PW-3 failed to identify case properties i.e.,
briefcase and eight bundles in the shape and size of Rs.500/- in denominations having
one currency note of Rs.500/- on the top of each bundle and stated that police neither
prepared any such bundles in his presence nor kept any such bundles in the briefcase. It is
also important to mention that a letter, whereby extortion money of Rs.4,00,000/- was
allegedly demanded by accused persons, was sent to FSL, however, the handwriting on
the said letter could not be matched with handwriting of accused persons as per the FSL
report. Thus, in view of the testimony of sole eye-witness i.e., PW-3 Sh. Joginder Singh,
it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences punishable u/s 365
/392/397/384/419/411/34/120B IPC and U/s 27 Arms Act against any of the accused
persons namely Ajit @ Amit, Ramesh Dahiya, Pawan, Vikram Malik and Pradeep
Kumar.
29. Coming now to the charge for the offence punishable under section 25 of Arms
Act against accused Pradeep Kumar. There is no public witness associated with the
proceedings relating to apprehension of accused Pradeep Kumar from whom a country
made pistol and two live cartridges were allegedly recovered. As per the prosecution
story, on 20.10.2012 at Main Kanjhawla Road, Pooth Khurd Kalan, Delhi, accused
Pradeep Kumar was found in possession of country made pistol and two live cartridges
in contravention of provisions of Arms Act. It has come in the testimony of IO and other
police officials that they had tried to associate members of the public to join the
proceedings of police but none agreed. Non-joining of public witnesses at the time of
Digitally signed
SC No. 58117/2016 by SUSHIL Page No.21 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2024.12.24
17:02:05
+0530
alleged recovery raises serious doubts on the alleged recovery of country made pistol and
two live cartridges from the possession of accused Pradeep Kumar. In the judgments
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in cases titled as ‘Anoop Joshi v. State‘ 1999 (2)
C.C. Cases 314 and ‘Nanak Chand v. State of Delhi’ DHC 1992 Crl. LJ 55, Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, it has been observed that non-joining of public witnesses at the time of
alleged recovery raises serious doubts on the alleged recovery and that in every case, the
police officials should be treated as unworthy of reliance on their failure to join witness
from the public specially when they are available. Therefore, in view of the afore-
mentioned case laws, the omission / failure on the part of investigating agency to join the
independent public witnesses creates doubts on the prosecution story and is fatal to the
prosecution version. Thus, the prosecution has also failed to prove the charge for the
offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act against accused Pradeep Kumar.
30. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent,
convincing and reliance evidence to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond
reasonable doubt. Accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or
presumptions. Suspicion, howsoever grave may be, cannot take place of proof. Every
benefit of doubt goes in favor of accused.
31. There is nothing on record to establish the culpability of the accused in the
commission of the offence, charged against him. Complainant / victim (PW-3 Sh.
Joginder Singh) has turned hostile and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case
against accused persons namely Pradeep Kumar, Ramesh Dahiya, Ajit @ Amit, Pawan,
Vikram Malik and Lalita @ Jiya. In the light of the above testimony of
complainant/PW-1, accused persons namely Pradeep Kumar, Ramesh Dahiya, Ajit @
Amit, Pawan, Vikram Malik and Lalita @ Jiya cannot be held guilty for offence alleged
Digitally signed
SC No. 58117/2016 by SUSHIL Page No.22 of 23
FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy SUSHIL KUMAR
State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Date:
KUMAR 2024.12.24
17:02:09
+0530
against them. Since PW-1/complainant has turned hostile, the case of the prosecution has
fallen like a pack of cards and serious doubts have been created with respect to
truthfulness of the prosecution story. Therefore, accused persons are entitled for benefit
of doubt. In view of the above discussion, accused persons namely Pradeep Kumar,
Ramesh Dahiya, Ajit @ Amit, Pawan and Vikram Malik stands acquitted of the charges
for the offence punishable under section 365/392/397/384/419/411/34/120B IPC and U/s
25/27 Arms Act.
32. Accused persons namely Pradeep Kumar, Ramesh Dahiya, Ajit @ Amit, Pawan
and Vikram Malik are directed to furnish bail bonds U/s 437-A Cr.P.C., which shall
remain in force for a period of six months from today. Previous surety stands discharged.
Documents, if any, of the surety/sureties be returned to the rightful owner after due
acknowledgment and endorsement, if any, made on it be cancelled accordingly.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open Court SUSHIL by SUSHIL KUMAR today i.e. on 19th Dec, 2024. KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:02:14 +0530 (SUSHIL KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge-04 North District/Rohini Courts/Delhi. 19.12.2024. SC No. 58117/2016 Page No.23 of 23 FIR No. 318/2012 PS Shahbad Dairy State v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.