Delhi District Court
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 January, 2025
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CA/12/2020
CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu
S/o Sh. Bhagmat
R/o VPO Karawara Manakpur,
Distt. Rewari, Haryana. .....Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) .....Respondent
Date of institution : 13.01.2020
Date of conclusion of arguments : 14.01.2025
Date of judgement : 23.01.2025
AND
CA/11/2020
CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu
S/o Sh. Dhir Singh
R/o House No. A-115, Rama Park,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059. .....Appellant
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 1 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). .....Respondent
Date of institution : 13.01.2020
Date of conclusion of arguments : 14.01.2025
Date of judgement : 23.01.2024
JUDGEMENT
1. These two appeals under Section 374 CrPC are directed
against the judgement of conviction dated 12.12.2019 and order on
sentence dated 21.12.2019 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-03,
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Case No. 70848/2016 titled
as State Vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. instituted upon FIR No. 124/2006, PS
Maya Puri. For sake of convenience the appellants would also be
referred to as accused.
2. Notices of appeals were issued to respondent/State. Trial court
record was summoned and arguments were heard.
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case as per charge sheet is that on 8.4.2006 at
about 12:10 am (midnight), complainant Rahul Gupta (PW1) was
returning on his motorcycle no. DL4SAN-7857 after attending an
engagement ceremony of his sister. When he was passing through
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 2 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Gali no.5, Sagarpur, Delhi near Aggarwal Sweets, Pankha Road,
accused Bhupender Kumar and Sunil Kumar stopped him and
slapped him. They robbed him of his gold chain, gold ring and his
mobile phone etc.. Accused Bhupender Kumar took the keys of his
motorcycle and rode over it while the complainant was made to sit on
the motorcycle sandwiched between these two accused persons.
The accused persons drove the motorcycle, thus abducting the
complainant to Gurgaon. There, they beat him up and threw him at
Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana and then, decamped with the
aforesaid motorcycle. Somehow complainant reached Sheetla
Dharam Kanta and made a call to his brother Vijay Gupta, who came
and took him to PS Dabri and then to DDU Hospital, Delhi. The
matter was reported to police of PS Maya Puri, which had jurisdiction
over the place of robbery. ASI Gian Singh was assigned the matter,
who reached DDU Hospital, recorded statement of injured Rahul
Gupta, who took ASI Gian Singh to place of robbery. After writing a
Rukka below the statement of injured, it was sent to Police Station
Maya Puri, where an FIR under Section 394/365/34 IPC was
registered and investigation was assigned to ASI Gian Singh.
Accused Bhupender Kumar was apprehended on a secret information
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 3 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
and at his instance, the stolen motorcycle was recovered from his
house. Accused Bhupender Kumar also got recovered the stolen
finger ring from a jeweller namely Gagan Deep Dhalla. During
investigation, accused Bhupender Kumar refused to take part in Test
Identification Parade. Later on investigation taken over by Inspector
Surender Sharma. Accused Sunil Kumar surrendered in the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate. With permission of the court, he was
interrogated, arrested and was sent to judicial custody. Accused Sunil
Kumar participated in Test Identification Parade and he was duly
identified by complainant. Thereafter, police remand was taken during
which he got recovered the stolen mobile phone from his residence.
4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
Charge
5. After hearing arguments, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate framed a
charge under Section 365, 394/34 IPC and Section 411 IPC against
accused Sunil Kumar and Bhupender Kumar. A separate charge
under Section 411 IPC was framed against accused Gagan Deep
Dhalla.
6. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 4 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Prosecution Evidence
7. Prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses.
8. Statement of PW1 Rahul Gupta is complainant (victim). PW2
Vijay Gupta is the brother of complainant. PW3 Ct. Shashi Kumar
turned hostile and testified that police officials never recorded his
statement Ex.PW3/A and that he never participated in investigation.
He denied that Investigating Officer handed over a rukka to him and
he went to police station and got FIR registered. PW4 Ajeet Kumar
Gupta testified that he had given his mobile phone to Rahul Gupta,
who later on told him that it had been robbed by two or three persons.
He identified the said mobile as Ex.P1. PW5 ASI Virender Kumar
was posted as constable in PS Maya Puri at the relevant time. He
had participated in the investigation with the Investigating Officer. PW6
HC Raj Singh had also joined the investigation. PW7 SI Gyan Singh
is the first Investigating Officer. PW8 WSI Nirmala proved present
FIR Ex.PW8/A. PW9 Dr. Vineet Kumar Soni, CMO, DDU proved
MLC of complainant as Ex.PW9/A. PW10 Inspector Surender
Sharma took over the investigation after 26.5.2006. He completed
the investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW11 HC Anil
participated in investigation on 2.6.2006. PW12 ASI Bodh Raj proved
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 5 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
DD Entry no. 8A Ex.PW12/A. PW13 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate proved TIP proceedings in respect of
accused Bhupender Kumar, who refused to take part in TIP
proceedings. PW14 Sh. P. S. Malik proved TIP proceedings in
respect of accused Sunil Kumar, who was duly identified by
complainant. PW15 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate conducted TIP proceedings in respect of gold ring, which
was identified by complainant. PW16 SI Joginder Singh is MHC(M)
and proved relevant entries as Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/B and
Ex.PW16/C.
Statements under Section 313 CrPC
9. All the accused persons denied all the allegations.
Defence Evidence
10. The accused persons did not prefer to lead any evidence in
defence.
Crux of impugned judgement dated 12.12.2019 and order on
sentence dated 26.12.2019.
11. Vide impugned judgement accused Bhupender Kumar and Sunil
Kumar were convicted under Section 365, 394/34 IPC as well as
under Section 411 IPC. Accused Gagan Deep Dhalla was convicted
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 6 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
under Section 411 IPC.
12. After hearing arguments, following sentences were awarded to
Sunil Kumar and Bhupender Kumar (both the appellants herein) :
Sl. Section Sentence Compensation Sentence in default
No. of payment
1. 394 IPC Rigorous Nil Nil
Imprisonment
for two years.
2. 365 IPC – do – Total Simple
compensation imprisonment for
of Rs.20,000/- three months.
to be paid by
each appellant.
Note : Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The appellants
herein did not deposit the aforesaid compensation because of the
order of suspension of sentence passed by this court on filing of these
appeals.
13. It appears that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate understood the error
in this judgement that the robbers cannot be convicted as dishonest
receivers of the stolen property. It may the reason that in the
aforesaid order on sentence, he did not impose any sentence under
Section 411 IPC upon the appellants herein, though they were
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 7 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
convicted under Section 411 IPC in the main judgement. Framing of
charge under Section 411 IPC against them and their conviction
under Section 411 IPC appears to be inadvertent.
14. Convict Gagan Deep Dhalla was sentenced to pay a fine in the
sum of Rs.10,000/-. This fine was deposited by him. It is informed
that he has not filed any appeal against the said conviction and
sentence.
Appeal
15. Ld. Counsel for appellants has vehemently assailed the
impugned judgement and has submitted that the impugned judgement
suffers from wrong appreciation of facts. On the other hand, Ld.
Additional Public Prosecutor has defended the impugned judgement.
Testimony of PW1 Rahul Gupta
16. I would like to reproduce the entire testimony of complainant
Rahul Gupta (PW1) as under.
“I am running a battery shop. On 07.042006 I was
coming from gali number 5 Sagar Pur, Delhi after joining the
engagement ceremony of my sister. On that day at about
12:00 Midnight when I reached near Aggarwal Sweets,
Sagar Pur, Delhi on my motorcycle bearing registration
number DL-4SAN-7857 meanwhile accused Bhupender
whose name later on disclosed called me. I stopped my
above mentioned motorcycle bearing registration number
DL-4SAN-7857 thereafter the other co-accused Sunil whose
name later on disclosed came near me and slapped me.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 8 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025Two other boys were also accompanied the above
mentioned accused persons. Accused Bhupender took the
keys of my above mentioned motorcycle bearing registration
number DL-4SAN-7857. Accused Bhupender pushed me
and accused Sunil hit me at my head with some object.
Both accused Bhupender and Sunil took me on my above
mentioned motorcycle bearing registration number DL-
4SAN-7857. The above mentioned motorcycle bearing
registration number DL-4SAN-7857 was driven by accused
Bhupender and I was sitting in between the accused
Bhupender and accused Sunil on my above mentioned
motorcycle bearing registration number DL-4SAN-7857.
Thereafter we reached at Vikas Puri Petrol Pump, Delhi.
Accused persons took the petrol from Vikar Puri Petrol
Pump Delhi and accused persons also picked up my purse
containing Rupees2,660/- (Rupees Two Thousand Six
Hundred Sixty), my voter identity card and my pan card.
Accused persons gave my money in lieu of petrol to petrol
filler at Vikas Puri Petrol Pump Delhi. Accused persons took
me to Sohna Road Gurgaon Haryana. Accused persons
tried to strangulate me with my belt. Accused Sunil jumped
on my chest and I became unconscious. After some time I
gained my consciousness and with the help of public
persons I reached at Sheetal Dharamkanta Sohna Road
gurgaon Haryana from where I called telephonically to my
brother Vijay Gupta. After some time my brother Vijay
Gupta reached at the spot and took me to DDU Hospital,
Hari Nagar, Delhi. Police was called and I made complaint
regarding this incident to the police which is exhibited as
Ex.PW1/A, which bears my signature at point A. My worn
golden chain, golden ring and my mobile phone make Nokia
1100 were also snatched by accused persons.
I had identified accused Sunil in Tihar Jail Hari
Nagar, Delhi. Later on my above mentioned snatched
golden ring was recovered and I had taken the same on
superdari vide superdaginama exhibited as Ex.PW1/B,
which bears my signature at point A. Today I have brought
my above mentioned snatched golden ring. My above
mentioned snatched golden ring is exhibited as Ex.P-1.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 9 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025XXXXX by Shri R. S. Chauhan Counsel for accused Gagan
Deep.
Nil opportunity given.
XXXXXX by Shri S. P. Yadav for accused Bhpender and
accused Sunil.
The engagement ceremony of my sister has been
got done with relative of MCD Councillor Ram Naresh
Gupta. In this function my entire family had come.
Voluntarily Said. All my ten brothers including my cousins
and all the ladies of my family. All the ten brother are
residing in same locality close by. Mahesh Gupta who is my
cousin brother was also there in this function. It is correct
that there are criminal cases including murder cases against
my cousin Mahesh Gupta. I was alone on my above
mentioned motorcycle. Above mentioned motorcycle
belonged to Deepak Kapoor friend of my brother Vijay
Gupta. I do not know the place of residence of Deepak
Kapoor. I had met Deepak Kapoor several times. I had
taken above mentioned motorcycle 10-12 days prior to the
day of this incident. I had my driving license on date of
incident. My driving license was also snatched away by
accused persons. However, I had not told the snatching of
my driving license by accused persons. Voluntarily Said.
Police did not ask me about snatching away of my driving
license by accused persons. It is true that I had told the
police on my own about the articles that were snatched from
my possession by accused persons. I made complaint to
Police Station Dabri Delhi about the snatching away of my
driving license for the purpose of getting a duplicate driving
license. I do not know the date of complaint to the Police
Station Dabri Delhi. I did not have the RC and the helmet
with me at the time of the incident. Deepak Kappor was not
present in this engagement ceremony. The incident took
place in front of Cadbury Shop Near Aggarwal Sweets Shop
Sagar Pur Pankha Road Delhi. The above mentioned place
of this incident is about one bus stand away from Police
Station Hari Nagar Delhi. Voluntarily Said. The above
mentioned place of this incident is about 200-300 meters
away from the place of this incident. This incident laster forCA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 10 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025about five-seven minutes at in front of Cadbury Shop Near
Aggarwal Sweets Shop Sagar Pur Pankha Road Delhi.
There were no public persons at that time however on a
pulsar motorcycle one person who was connected with the
accused was standing nearby. It is correct that I had told
the police that two persons also accompanied with accused
persons. I do not know the registration number of
motorcycle. Meat shop was opened and two persons were
present there. I raised a he and cry but none came forward
to save me. Dharmender shopkeeper saw this incident.
Dharmender was also called at Police Station. Police made
enquiries from Dharmender. Voluntarily Said. However
statement of Dharmender was not recorded by police in my
presence. I had told to the police in my statement that
Dharmender had seen this incident. My motorcycle was
pulsar. I did not know accused Bhupender and accused
Sunil prior to this incident. I had not taken the name of
accused Bhupender and accused Sunil in my complaint to
police which is exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. At the time of this
incident at Sagar Pur Delhi no PCR van was present. It is
correct that there is police picket at D-Block Janak Puri
Delhi and police personnel remains in this police picket at
D-Block Janak Puri Delhi. I cannot tell the distance
between the place of incident at Sagar Pur Delhi and police
picket at D-Block Janak Puri Delhi. The accused
Bhupender and accused Sunil took me towards Uttam
Nagar side Delhi after making my sit on my above
mentioned motorcycle. It is correct that on the way towards
Uttam Nagar Delhi there are two Police Stations.
Voluntarily Said. There were no police barricades on the
Uttam Nagar road Delhi at that time. There was no PCR
Van also on the Uttam Nagar road Delhi. I cannot tell what
is the distance between the above mentioned pertrol pump
and Uttam Nagar T-Point Delhi. it is incorrect to suggest
that there are PCR Vans at Janak Cinema Delhi, Dabri More
Delhi, C-1 Janak Puri Delhi and Uttam Nagar T-point Delhi.
We had reached at above mentioned petrol pump at about
12:00 to 12:30 midnight. I cannot tell the name and
company of above mentioned petrol pump. It is correct thatCA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 11 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025there were about five-six sales persons of the above
mentioned petrol pump. No other vehicle was there at the
above mentioned petrol pump. At the above mentioned
petrol pump accused Sunil go down and I did not get down.
Payment was made at the above mentioned petrol pump by
accused Sunil. I do not know the quantity of petrol that was
filled in my above mentioned motorcycle at the above
mentioned petrol pump. On my above mentioned
motorcycle the accused persons did not have any weapon.
I had not told the sales persons of above mentioned petrol
pump about this incident of snatching and my kidnapping. It
is correct that Police Station Vikas Puri Delhi also situated
adjacent to above mentioned petrol pump. After the above
mentioned petrol pump the same route was taken on the
return to go to Gurgaon Haryana. I cannot tell whether we
had taken the N118 to go to Gurgaon Haryana. I had gone
to Gurgaon Haryana before this incident but I am not aware
about the route of Gurgaon Haryana. I cannot tell whether
we had crossed the Haryana Border at Kapeshera Delhi or
Rajo Puri Delhi. I had not seen the gypsies of Haryana
Police or the gypsies of Delhi Police at the Haryana Border.
All of us were without helmets. I do not know whether we
had crossed the toll booth at Haryana Border. It is correct
that there were many public vehicle on the way of Vikas Puri
Delhi to Gurgaon Haryana. Just before Gurgaon Haryana
we took a turn where I raised hue and cry on seeing police
gypsy. However accused Sunil shut my mouth. It is wrong
to suggest that accused Sunil had not shut my mouth.
Accused Sunil was wearing a white shirt and accused
Bhupender was wearing a gray shirt. I do not know the
colour of trouser of accused Sunil and of accused
Bhupender. Due to this incident my button of my shirt were
broken, my shirt was torn underneath the armpit and my
shoes were taken off. It is correct that when I was medically
examined I was wearing the same clothes. It is also correct
that when police recorded my statement I was wearing the
same clothes and my torn clothes were not seized by police.
I had called telephonically to my brother at about 03:00 AM.
At Sheetla Dharam Kanta Sohna road Gurgaon HaryanaCA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 12 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025there was one STD booth person and one truckwala. I
cannot tell the time when accused left me at Sohna Road
Gurgaon Haryana. I did not pay to the above mentioned
STD booth wala. I had told the police that I had called the
above mentioned STD booth. Police did not record the
statement of above mentioned STD booth wala in my
presence. I cannot tell whether the police enquired from
STD booth wala about his name, address as well as the
date and time of police enquiry from the STD booth wala. I
cannot say whether the police during the course on
investigation took any document about my above mentioned
call from above mentioned STD booth from above
mentioned STD booth wala. The accused beat me up firstly
near Cadbury shop Delhi and then just before Gurgaon
Haryana when I was raising hue and cry on seeing the
police gypsy. I got injuries on my eyes and on my neck. My
eyes were bleedings. I was beaten by fist blow at my eyes
by accused persons and blood came in my eyes when I was
strangulated by accused person. I did not sustain injury on
my chest. I had told about my injury to doctor at DDU
Hospital Hari Nagar Delhi. At about 03:00 to 03:45 AM my
all brothers reached at Sohna road Gurgaon Haryana. I
was taken not taken to any hospital at Haryana by my
brothers. Neither my brother nor myself made any call at
PCR 100 from above mentioned telephone booth. When
we came back to Delhi I first went to Police Station Dabri
Delhi where I met the police persons and gave a complaint
in writing and the police persons of Police Station Dabri
Delhi then took me to DDU Hospital Hari Nagar Delhi for
medical examination. I reached Police Station Dabri Delhi
at about 04:00 AM and at DDU Hospital Hari Nagar Delhi
after about 10-15 minutes. Ex.PW1/A was recorded in DDU
Hospital Hari Nagar Delhi by a police man of Police Station
Dabri Delhi whose name I do not know. Ex.PW1/A was
recorded at 06:30 in morning at DDU Hospital Hari Nagr
Delhi in presence of my brothers. I was discharged at 08:00
AM from DDU Hospital Hari Nagar Delhi. From DDU
Hospital Hari Nagar Delhi I was taken to the place of
occurrence.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 13 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025Further cross examination of this witness is deferred
due to paucity of time.
Statement of Rahul Gupta (Recalled for further cross
examination) after 21.07.2012.
XXXXX by Sh. S. P. Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused
Bhupender and Sunil.
I had not described the description of the other two
persons accompanied the accused Bhupender and Sunil. I
had only RC of the motorcycle on the day of incident out of
the all documents. Police officials had not taken my RC.
Vol. As my purse was sntached by the accused persons
and that purse had contained my RC. It is correct that it is
not mentioned in my complaint Ex.PW-1/A that purse had
contained my RC. Vol. I had told to the police about the
same and they replied that they will add subsequently. It is
wrong to suggest that I was not on motorcycle and I was not
having any RC. It is wrong to suggest that I was not
abducted and not beaten by the accused persons and no
such robbery was committed by accused persons. Today, I
can not tell the number of my Pan Card due to the lapse of
time. It is correct that I had not handed over any income tax
return to the police officials. Vol. They had not demanded
the same. I had a bakery shop at the time of incident, since
2-3 years prior to the incident. I got unconscious when
accused persons hit against my head at the spot. I can not
tell whether blood was oozing from my head. I regained my
consciousness at Vikaspuri. At that time, I did not observe
whether blood was oozing from my head. When I was taken
to the hospital, I was in unconscious condition. At D Block
Flyover accused persons again hit against at my face and
on my head, due to which, I again become unconscious and
I regained my consciousness nearby one mall situated in
Gurgaon after seeing the lights and at that time, blood was
not oozing from my head. When I regained my
consciousness I was nearby Sheetla Dharamkanta and I
called my brother and we went to the Dabri PS and when I
sit in the car I again became unconscious and I regained my
consciousness in the hospital after the admission. It is
wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely about the sameCA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 14 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025and I depose to the doctor that I sustained injury in RTA
(road traffic accident). I was got admitted by my brother.
Vol. we are eight brothers and one of them got admitted me
in the hospital as 5-6 brothers including my mother were
present over there. It is correct that my MLC mentioned the
name of my brother Mahesh as I was got admitted by him.
It is correct that Mahesh is my cousin (tau ka beta). I
sustained injuries on my hands, chest, on neck and on my
head. Some X-rays were also taken during treatment but I
do not remember whether my surgery was done or not. It is
wrong to suggest that I did not sustained any injury in the
incident. My clothes were torn in the incident. I did not
hand over those cloths to the police officials on my own.
Vol. My socks were recovered from Sheetla Dharamkanta,
Gurgaon.
The phone which was robbed from me by accused
persons was belongs to one doctor namely Ajeet Kumar
and his clinic was was nearby my bakery shop and I do not
know on whose name the sim was with respect to that
mobile. I disclosed that phone was belongs to Ajeet Kumar
to the police officials. Police officials called the Ajeet Kumar
and investigate the matter in PS. It is wrong to suggest that
I was not having any mobile and it was not robbed from me.
I can not tell about the weight of ring. I did not hand over
any ownership proof of the ring to the police officials as it
was not demanded by police. Vol. I identified my ring in
court. It is wrong to suggest that I handed over other rings
to IO at the time of TIP. I had not disclosed to the police
officials from which shop I purchased the ring. Today, I do
not remember whether there was any identification mark of
manufacturing on my ring. Vol. due to the lapse of time. It
is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to falsely
implicate the accused persons.”
17. Ld. Counsel for appellants has assailed the credibility of PW1 on
various grounds, which will be discussed by me under separate head.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 15 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Whether the incident took place at a different place than testified
by the prosecution witnesses.
18. As per aforesaid DD entry no. 8A Ex.PW12/A, an information
was received about quarrel in front of Aggarwal Sweets Pankha Road
Delhi and that injured was admitted in hospital by his brother Mahesh.
On the other hand as per Rukka written beneath the statement Ex.
PW-1/A of Rahul Gupta, the incident took place in front of Cadbury
Shop, Pankha Road Delhi. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel
that these are two different places and that the prosecution has failed
to establish the place of occurrence.
19. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has countered the arguments
submitting that DD 8A as well as the statement Ex.PW1/A of victim
Rahul Gupta mention the place to be near Aggarwal Sweets, Pankha
Road. It is submitted that there are many shops on Pankha Road
including Aggarwal Sweets as well as Cadbury Shop. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the places of incident are different.
20. I have considered the rival submissions on this point. The DD
No. 8A Ex.PW12/A shows that this DD was recorded on an intimation
by ASI Surender Singh from DDU Hospital. As per this DD, the
incident took place near Aggarwal Sweets in front of Pankha Road.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 16 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
In the statement Ex.PW1/A, victim Rahul Gupta has specified the
place of incident of abduction to be the road near Aggarwal Sweets
leading towards Janak Cinema, Pankha Road just after crossing the
red light. In the rukka written by ASI Gian Singh below the statement
Ex.PW1/A, he has mentioned that he reached on Pankha Road near
red light of Maya Puri Road with Rahul Gupta, who pointed out the
place of incident in front of Cadbury Shop. PW7 ASI Gian Singh has
testified that he returned to the spot along with the victim, who showed
him the place of incident. Thereafter, he prepared a site plan
Ex.PW7/A. Perusal of this site plan shows that Maya Puri Road
touches Pankha Road and makes a T point. Aggarwal Sweets has
been shown at this T point and Cadbury Shop has been shown at a
very short distance from it at point A in the site plan Ex.PW7/A. Thus,
both the shops are very near to each other and therefore, it cannot be
said that the place of incident mentioned in the DD No. 8A
Ex.PW12/A and in the rukka written below the statement Ex.PW1/A of
the victim Rahul Gupta are different. Accordingly, I find no substance
in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel and I hold that the place of
incident has been correctly identified in the investigation and duly
proved by the prosecution.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 17 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Whether the incident was only a quarrel and not abduction.
21. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has drawn my attention to the
DD entry no. 8A dated 8.4.2006 Ex.PW12/A, which is an information
in respect of a quarrel and not in respect of kidnapping. I have
perused the aforesaid DD. Perusal of the same shows that ASI
Surender Singh informed from DDU Hospital telephonically that
Rahul, who was injured on Pankha Road near Aggarwal Sweets, in an
incident of quarrel (झगड़ा) has been admitted to hospital by his brother
Mahesh. Perusal of this DD shows that matter has been reported to
police by ASI Surender Singh, who is not an eye witness to the
incident. Therefore, the information sent by ASI Surender Singh is
only general in nature and the same does not contain the details of
the incident. Further, it is nowhere mentioned in this DD as to whether
it was injured himself or his brother Mahesh, who gave such
information. The said DD was recorded at 2:15 am on 8.4.2006. The
time of dispatch of rukka written after the statement Ex.PW1/A of
Rahul Gupta is 10:00 am. Perusal of the rukka shows that DD entry
no.8A was assigned to ASI Gian Singh, who reached DDU Hospital,
recorded his statement and thereafter, took him to the place of
incident and thereafter, wrote this rukka and dispatched it at 10:00
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 18 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
am. As per evidence of PW1 Rahul in cross examination, his
statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded at 6:30 am and he was discharged
from hospital at about 8:00 am. Thereafter, he was taken to the spot
of abduction. Thus, it is clear that the statement Ex.PW1/A of victim
Rahul Gupta was recorded promptly and the FIR was registered at
10:15 am on 8.4.2006 as reflected from an endorsement below the
rukka as well as from copy of FIR on record. In this statement, Rahul
Gupta has described the incident of robbery and his abduction in no
uncertain words. Therefore, the incident cannot be brushed aside by
terming it to be a simple case of quarrel. I am convinced that it is a
case of robbery and abduction as testified by PW1 Rahul Gupta.
Whether non examination of Mahesh, the brother of victim, is
fatal to prosecution case?
22. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has drawn my attention to DD
Entry No.8-A vide which injured was informed to have been
hospitalized by his brother Mahesh at DDU Hospital. Ld. Counsel for
accused persons has further drawn my attention to the MLC
Ex.PW9/A of the injured, which shows that victim was brought to
hospital by his brother Mahesh. However, Rahul Gupta (PW1) has
testified that his brother Vijay Gupta had come to Gurgaon and took
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 19 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
him to DDU Hospital in Delhi.
23. My attention has been drawn by Ld. Counsel for accused
persons to DD Entry no.8A Ex.PW12/A as well as MLC of the injured
Ex.PW9/A in which it is mentioned that Rahul Gupta was admitted to
DDU Hospital by Mahesh Gupta. It is submitted that the prosecution
has deliberately withheld Mahesh Gupta. It is further submitted that
the prosecution version that Vijay Gupta (PW2) brought the victim to
Hospital is unworthy of credence and is a concocted story.
24. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has controverted the aforesaid
arguments submitting that Vijay Gupta (PW2) in cross examination
has testified that he received the call from his brother from landline
number, which belonged to Sheetla Dharam Kanta. PW2 further
testified that his brother Mahesh was all along with him when he went
to Sheetla Dharam Kanta and had taken his brother to police station
and hospital. It is argued that this evidence of PW2 regarding being
accompanied by Mahesh Gupta has not been controverted by
defence in his cross examination. Therefore, it is submitted that it
cannot be said that Vijay Gupta did not go to Gurgaon and bring the
victim to Delhi.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 20 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
25. I have considered the rival submissions on this point. In his
statement Ex.PW1/A recorded by ASI Gian Singh, Rahul Gupta has
stated that his brother Vijay Gupta brought him from Gurgaon and
admitted him in DDU Hospital. Prosecution examined Rahul Gupta as
PW1 and his testimony has already been reproduced by me. In his
evidence, PW1 has testified that accused persons took him to Sohna
Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. They had beaten him up due to which he
became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he reached
at Sheetla Dharam Kanta, Sohna Road, Gurgaon from where he
called his brother Vijay Gupta. On receiving this call, Vijay Gupta
reached there and thereafter, took him to DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar,
Delhi. Prosecution examined Vijay Gupta as PW2. In his examination
in chief, PW2 has testified that on receiving the call, he immediately
reached at Sheetla Dharam Kanta, Sohna Road Gurgaon along with
4-5 companions, where he found the victim in injured condition.
Thereafter, he took him to PS Dabri and thereafter, went to DDU
Hospital for treatment. In cross examination dated 5.6.2017, PW2 has
testified that his brother Mahesh was all along with him, when he went
to Sheetla Dharam Kanta and had taken his brother (i.e. Rahul Gupta)
to police station and hospital. This testimony is enough to convince
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 21 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
this court that Mahesh Gupta had also accompanied PW2 Vijay Gupta
to Sheetla Dharam Kanta and both of them had brought Rahul Gupta
to DDU Hospital. This is the reason that the name of Mahesh finds
mention in MLC of the injured as the person, who had admitted Rahul
Gupta in hospital. It is for this reason that in DD entry no. 8A
Ex.PW12/A, name of Mahesh has also been mentioned as the
person, who got admitted the injured in hospital. As Vijay Gupta and
Mahesh Gupta are witnesses to the same facts, it was enough from
the Investigating Agency and Prosecution to mention the name of one
of them as prosecution witness. Investigating Officer chose to cite
Vijay Gupta as a witness and prosecution examined him as PW2.
There is nothing on record to show that name of Mahesh Gupta has
been deliberately withheld by the Investigating Officer. It is necessary
to mention that all the witnesses are not required to be cited by the
prosecution. An adverse inference can be drawn only if a particular
witness is withheld deliberately. There is nothing on record to suggest
that Mahesh Gupta was deliberately withheld and had he been
examined, he would have testified contrary to the prosecution case.
Consequently, I hold that name of Mahesh Gupta has not been
deliberately withheld by prosecution. Therefore, non examination of
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 22 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Mahesh Gupta is not fatal to the prosecution case.
Whether the statement EX. PW-1/A of Rahul Gupta and the rukka
below it were prepared in a pre-planned manner?
26. Ld. Counsel for appellants has submitted that as per PW-7 ASI
Gian Singh, statement Ex.PW1/A of Rahul Gupta was recorded
opposite Cadburry Shop, Pankha Road, Near Red Light, Maya Puri
Road Delhi at about 10:06 a.m. on 08.04.2006 after discharge of
injured from DDU Hospital, Delhi. But as per the testimony of the PW-
1 and PW-2, statement of PW1 was recorded at DDU Hospital on
08.04.2006 at 06:30 a.m. by the police of P.S. Dabri, Delhi. Ld.
Defence Counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove as
to where Rukka was recorded and by whom and in which police
station.
27. Ld. Defence Counsel further submits that this indicates that the
said statement Ex. PW- 1/A and the rukka were recorded after lot of
deliberation in a pre-planned manner. Further, it is submitted that the
endorsement/Rukka/Tehrir of the IO ASI Gian Singh was not
exhibited.
28. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has countered the aforesaid
arguments submitting that in last few lines of his statement
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 23 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Ex.PW1/A, Rahul Gupta has stated as under :
“और फिर मुझे DDU Hospital ले आए जहाँ पर अब
आप आए. आपने मेरा ब्यान लिखा ……………”
29. It is submitted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that it makes
clear that the statement of Rahul Gupta was recorded by ASI Gian
Singh in the hospital itself. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has
drawn my attention to the contents of endorsement/rukka/tehrir below
the statement of Rahul Gupta and it clear mentions that ASI Gian
Singh wrote the said rukka after taking Rahul Gupta to the spot for
identification of place of abduction. Ld. Additional Public Prosecution
has drawn my attention to the evidence of PW7 ASI Gian Singh, who
has testified that he recorded the statement of Rahul Gupta, which is
Ex.PW1/A and thereafter, he handed over the original Tehrir to Ct.
Shashi Kumar for getting the FIR registered. It is submitted that
though the Tehrir has not been separately exhibited but from his
testimony, it is clear that he had written a Tehrir/rukka after the
statement of Rahul Gupta and that the entire statement of Rahul
Gupta along with Tehrir have been marked as Ex.PW1/A. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the Rukka/Tehrir has not been proved.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 24 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
30. Regarding the contradiction in the testimony of PW7 ASI Gian
Singh and the rukka/tehrir regarding the place of writing rukka, Ld.
Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is a minor contradiction
and does not affect the merit of the case.
31. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. It is true that the
time of recording of statement Ex.PW1/A has not been mentioned in
the rukka. However, it is mentioned in the statement Ex.PW1/A by
Rahul Gupta that his statement was recorded in DDU Hospital. The
rukka/tehrir below this statement mentions that Rahul Gupta was
taken to Pankha Road after being discharged from the hospital. The
MLC Ex.PW9/A of the injured Rahul Gupta mentions the time of
examination of the injured at 5:15 am. This indicates that statement of
Rahul Gupta was recorded after 5:15 am. PW1 Rahul Gupta has
testified in his cross examination dated 21.7.2010 as under :
“Ex.PW1/A was recorded at 6:30 in morning at DDU
Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi in presence of his brothers. I
was discharged at 8:00 am from DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar.
From DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi, I was taken to place
of occurrence.”
32. This part of testimony makes it clear that his statement
Ex.PW1/A was recorded after 6:30 am and Rahul Gupta was
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 25 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
discharged from DDU Hospital at about 8:00 am on 8.4.2006.
Thereafter, he was taken by ASI Gian Singh to Pankha Road where
PW1 identified the place of his abduction. Then, the rukka/tehrir was
written below the statement Ex.PW1/A and the same was dispatched
to police station at 10:00 am. FIR thereafter was recorded promptly
on the statement Ex.PW1/A at 10:15 am on 8.4.2006. Ld. Defence
Counsel wants to submit that the non mention of time of recording of
rukka is due to the reason that it took time for police to convert the
story of quarrel to the story of abduction. I disagree with this
submission. The timeline mentioned as above shows that police was
quite prompt in recording the statement of Rahul Gupta and lodging
FIR. I have perused the testimony of PW7 ASI Gian Singh. He has
testified that on receiving a DD no. 8A on 8.4.2006, he went to DDU
Hospital where he obtained the MLC of the victim and made inquiry
from him which was reduced in writing, which is already Ex.PW1/A.
Therefore, the submission of Ld. Counsel for appellants that the
statement of victim was recorded at the place of abduction is not
correct. In fact PW7 has testified that the same was recorded at the
Hospital itself. However, the submission of Ld. Defence counsel is
correct to the extent that PW7 ASI Gian Singh has testified that after
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 26 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
recording the statement Ex.PW1/A, he handed over the original Tehir
to Ct. Sushil Kumar for getting FIR registered. On the other hand,
Tehrir/rukka reveals that first ASI Gian Singh went along with Rahul
Gupta to Pankha Road, then wrote Tehrir and thereafter, he sent it to
police station for registration of FIR. This contradiction should be
seen in light of the first paragraph of examination in chief of PW7,
which is reproduced as under :
“I am retd. SI and I had met with an accident on
19.02.2016 and was admitted to ICU of Trauma Centre,
AIIMS for several days and I had sustained head injuries
and I had lost my memory due to the said accident.”
33. The aforesaid reason explains as to why the aforesaid
contradiction has occurred. Further, I agree with Ld. Additional Public
Prosecutor that this contradiction does not go to the root of the case.
It is necessary to mention here that this contradiction cannot even be
considered because Ld. Defence Counsel has not confronted PW7
with rukka/tehrir prepared by him where it is written that PW7 wrote
the rukka at Pankha Road. Sufficient is it to say that there is no
circumstance on record to show that Rahul Gupta fabricated a new
story at the instance of police officials. So far as exhibition of
Tehrir/rukka is concerned, I am satisfied with the explanation given by
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 27 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor above that the entire statement of
Rahul Gupta and Tehrir below it were collectively marked as
Ex.PW1/A. All these facts convince me that there was no preplanned
and premeditated design to concoct a story by converting it to
statement Ex.PW1/A.
Whether police withheld a material eye witness namely
Dharmender and whether the site plan EX.PW-7/A, which does
not show his shop is doubtful?
34. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has drawn my attention to
cross examination dated 21.7.2010 of PW1, who has testified that he
raised hue and cry at the time of abduction but none came forward to
save him. He further testified that one shopkeeper namely
Dharmender saw this incident and he was also called at the police
station and police had made inquiries from him but his statement was
not recorded by the police in his presence. Ld. Counsel for accused
persons submits that the Investigating Officer has withheld a very
material eye witness, who could have testified fairly about the whole
incident and could have proved that it was only a case of quarrel and
not of abduction. It is submitted that as per site plan various shops
have been shown at the place of occurrence. However, shop of
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 28 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Dharmender has not been shown in the site plan Ex.PW7/A. Thus, it
is submitted that even the authenticity of the site plan is doubtful.
35. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed this
arguments submitting that it is not prosecution case that Dharmender
was eye witness to the incident. My attention is drawn by Ld. Defence
Counsel to the cross examination of PW7 ASI Gian Singh, who had
testified in cross examination that he had not examined any
shopkeeper of the shop, which are located near place of incident. It is
submitted that no suggestion was given to PW7 that he had called a
shopkeeper namely Dharmender and made inquiries from him.
Further no suggestion was made to subsequent Investigating Officer
Inspector Surender Sharma (PW10) to this effect. Ld. Additional
Public Prosecutor argues that PW1 Rahul Gupta was examined after
about four years from the incident and he was subjected to long and
torturous cross examination. In such a situation, a witness is likely to
mix facts. It is submitted that if any shopkeeper with the name
Dharmender had witnessed the incident, it was for the defence to ask
the witness as to how he came to know about the name of said
witness and what was his address. This would have facilitated not
only the accused/appellants to summon him in their defence but could
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 29 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
have enabled the court to summon him under Section 311 CrPC. It is
argued by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that accused shirked from
eliciting necessary details of said Dharmender from PW1 and
therefore, the said part of cross examination of PW1 would not
support the defence. It is submitted that when there is no eye
witness namely Dharmender, the shopkeeper, there was no need for
showing his shop in the site plan.
36. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. No question was
asked by defence as to whether the shopkeeper namely Dharmender
was known to PW1 even prior to the incident or he came to know
about him after the incident. PW1 in his statement Ex.PW1/A made
to the police has no where mentioned the name of shopkeeper as eye
witness. The rukka prepared by Investigating Officer also does not
refer to any such shopkeeper. The name of Dharmender as eye
witness has occurred during long cross examination. However, as
soon as name of Dharmender appeared, Ld. Defence Counsel did not
proceed to ask further details of said Dharmender. Ld. Counsel for
accused persons also did not put any question to the Investigating
Officers namely ASI Gian Singh (PW7) and Inspector Surender
Sharma (PW10) in respect of any Dharmender. When a witness is
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 30 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
being cross examined after about four years, his memory may fail.
Further, a witness may feel confused while testifying in awe inspiring
atmosphere of the court and under the incisive cross examination by
the defence. Therefore, one stray statement about the presence of an
eye witness appears to be the outcome of some confusion. Ld.
Defence Counsel himself did not take this issue further and did not put
any question regarding an eye witness namely Dharmender, a
shopkeeper to any of the witnesses including the Investigating
Officers (PW7 and PW10). Therefore, I disagree with Ld. Counsel for
accused persons that one Dharmender was an eye witness in the
present case and he was deliberately withheld by the prosecution.
As there was no such eye witness, there was no reason for the
Investigating Officers to mention his name and his shop in the site
plan.
Existence of Motorcycle No.DL4S-AN-7857 : whether doubtful?
37. Ld. Counsel for accused persons submits that as per statement
Ex.PW1/A Rahul Gupta has claimed himself to be the owner of
motorcycle no. DL4S-AN-7857 and that he was driving this motorcycle
and was passing through the street near Aggarrwal Sweets at Pankha
Road. However, no authentic documents regarding his ownership has
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 31 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
been produced by PW-1 Rahul Gupta. It is submitted that during
investigation the photocopy of motorcycle’s bill were seized by the
police from one Deepak Kapoor on 08.04.2006. It is submitted that
as per photocopy of the duplicate Bill Ex.PW-7/D-1 the said
motorcycle was purchased on 11.08.2004 in the name of Deepak
Kapoor but the copy of said bill was not signed by any official of the
agency. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer also did not
collect the original bill to prove the ownership of the said motorcycle
from agency (Swadeshi Auto Pvt. Ltd.). Further, no investigation was
conducted by collecting the record from concerned Transport
Authority, where the said motorcycle was registered. It is argued that
it is also a question as to whether or not the motorcycle bearing
no.DL4S-AN-7857 is registered motorcycle. Ld. Counsel for accused
persons submits that the said owner Deepak Kapoor was not
examined before the court during trial.
38. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for appellants that even the
photographs of the said motorcycle were not retained by police before
releasing the said motorcycle on superdari.
39. Ld. Counsel for appellants has drawn my attention to the
following cross examination of PW7 :
“The said house was found open on our arrival, but I
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 32 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025cannot tell how many member were available at that time.
The said motorcycle was recovered from the house of the
accused. The said motorcycle was in working condition.
Ct. Birender brought the said motorcycle to PS. The keys of
the motorcycle were found in the motorcycle only, but the
seizure memo of the motorcycle does not mention the
seizure of the keys of the motorcycle. The register no.19 of
MHC(M) is silent about the deposition of the above said
keys. I cannot tell the time when the said motorcycle was
deposited in the safe custody of MHC(M). The motorcycle
was not mechanical inspected. It is correct that the
motorcycle was slightly damaged due to the fall at Sona
Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.”
40. Pointing out to the aforesaid testimony, it is argued by Ld.
Counsel for appellants that without keys, it is not possible to start the
motorcycle and bring it to police station for its deposition in Malkhana.
However, there is no reference to the keys in the seizure memo or the
Malkhana register.
41. It is argued that all these aspects reveal that actually there was
no such motorcycle in existence and the story about the motorcycle
has been concocted with a view to convert a small case of quarrel into
a case of kidnapping.
42. Countering the arguments of Ld. Counsel for appellants, Ld.
Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to Section 60 of
Indian Evidence Act 1872, which is reproduced as under :
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 33 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
60. Oral evidence must be direct
Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be direct,
that is to say, –
If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be
the evidence of witness who says he saw it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be
the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any
other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence
of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in
that manner;
……………..”
43. It is submitted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that in view of
Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, oral evidence of an object is
sufficient. Therefore, it is submitted that the testimony of PW1 that he
was driving the said motorcycle cannot be disbelieved. Ld. Additional
Public Prosecutor argues that for proving a theft or robbery, it is not
incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the ownership. It is
submitted that the offences of theft and robbery are the offences
against the possession of a movable property. Ld. Additional Public
Prosecutor submits that the testimony of PW1 that he was riding the
said motorcycle at the time of his abduction requires no corroboration
and therefore, even if the photographs, bills, record of its registration
and the motorcycle itself have not been produced, it does not affect
the authenticity of prosecution case. Regarding the keys, Ld.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 34 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Additional Public Prosecutor admits a flaw in investigation but it is
submitted that same is so minor that this flaw should be ignored.
44. In nutshell, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused persons that
neither the ownership of the said motorcycle was proved, nor its the
original bill or registration certificate of the motorcycle was proved.
Further, superdar Deepak Kapoor was not examined and the
motorcycle was never produced in the court. Even the photographs of
the motorcycle were not kept by MHC(M) before release of the said
vehicle. Further, there is no recovery of keys of the motorcycle and
the said keys are also not mentioned in the Malkhana register.
Therefore, it is argued that prosecution has failed to prove that any
motorcycle actually existed.
45. I have carefully peruse the record on this point. The incident of
abduction took place at about 12:00 midnight as per the testimony of
PW1. As per evidence, the accused persons abducted PW1 on this
motorcycle itself, drove the motorcycle to Gurgaon and after beating
PW1, threw him on Sohna Road, Gurgaon. PW1 somehow reached
at Sheetla Dharam Kanta on Sohna Road, made a telephonic call to
his brother Vijay Gupta, who reached there and took PW1 to Delhi.
Thereafter, PW1 was taken to DDU Hospital, where he was medically
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 35 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
examined and was discharged at about 8:00 am. In the hospital itself,
PW1 gave his statement Ex.PW1/A to the police. This shows that
PW1 gave his statement to police at earliest possible time. Therefore,
it is not possible to hold that the averments in statement Ex.PW1/A
might be doubtful. In this statement, PW1 has specifically mentioned
that he was driving motorcycle no. DL4S-AN-7857, Pulsar and was
proceedings from Aggarwal Sweets towards Janak Cinema when this
incident of abduction took place. In his evidence before this court as
PW1, he has testified that he was driving his motorcycle bearing
registration no. DL4S-AN-7857. However, in his cross examination,
he has clarified that the said motorcycle belonged to one Deepak
Kapoor, friend of his brother Vijay Gupta and that he had taken the
said motorcycle a few days prior to the date of incident. Therefore, it
is clear that motorcycle is not owned by PW1 but he was simply using
the same. I have perused the bill Ex.PW7/D1 dated 11.06.2004
pertaining to a Pulsar Motorcycle in the name of Deepak Kapoor. This
bill was seized by ASI Gian Singh vide a recovery memo dated
8.4.2006 from Deepak Kapoor. I agree that this recovery memo has
not been proved by PW7. However, in cross examination, the defence
drew the attention of PW7 to the bill Ex.PW7/D1. Though PW7 ASI
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 36 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Gian Singh has also testified in cross examination that the bill does
not mention any registration number of the bike, this part of this
testimony should be rejected because the bill bears the registration
number of the motorcycle as DL4S-AN-7857. I agree that PW7 has
stated that this is a duplicate bill and that he did not make any inquiry
from the MLO/Transport Authority but I am of the opinion that by
collecting this duplicate bill, the Investigating Officer was convinced
that the bike was purchased by Deepak Kapoor from Swadeshi Auto
Pvt. Ltd. This duplicate bill should be seen in view of the fact that it
has been seized as corroboration to the prosecution case that the
vehicle was in the name of Deepak Kapoor and he had given it to
PW1. In fact PW7 ASI Gian Singh has testified that as per his inquiry,
the said bike was borrowed by complainant (PW1) from Deepak
Kapoor.
46. Here it is necessary to mention that prosecution cited Deepak
Kapoor as a prosecution witness but he could not be traced during
trial. In the order sheet dated 29.6.2019, the Trial Court has
specifically mentioned that summons to PW Deepak Kapoor received
back unserved through concerned DCP and therefore, the said
witness was dropped. I have perused the report on the summons,
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 37 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
issued for 16.12.2019 annexed with the Trial Court. On the back of
this summons, the statement of one Sh. Raj Kapoor has been
recorded by the Process Server to the effect that Deepak Kapoor is
his son and he is living separately and that he has been disowned by
him. The report on further summons also show that all the efforts
were made to trace out this witness but he could not served being
untraceable. Therefore, prosecution cannot be blamed for non
production and non examination of this witness and it cannot be held
that he was deliberately withheld by the prosecution.
47. I am of the considered opinion that the mentioning of motorcycle
registration number by Rahul Gupta in his statement Ex.PW1/A is
duly corroborated by the bill Ex.PW7/D1 bearing the registration
number of the bike, even if it happens to be a duplicate bill. This is
not a civil suit dealing with the ownership of a vehicle. Consequently
it is proved that bike with registration no. DL4S-AN-7857. is in
existence. This is further corroborated that the vehicle was recovered
and deposited in the Malkhana Register. Prosecution has proved the
relevant entry in the Malkhana Register as Ex.PW16/A showing that a
Motorcycle make Pulsar No. DL4S-AN-7857 was deposited in the
Malkhana vide entry no. 840 and the same was also released to
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 38 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Deepak Kapoor. Relevant entry is proved as Ex.PW16/A and its
released on superdari has been mentioned at point B to B1. PW16 SI
Jogender Singh has testified that on 30.4.2006, he was working as
MHC(M) in PS Maya Puri and the said motorcycle was deposited on
30.4.2006 in Malkhana and it was released on 23.5.2006 to Deepak
Kapoor in accordance with order of the Court. No such suggestion
has been given that this entry is false. Therefore, it is clear that not
only this motorcycle was being driven by PW1 on the date of incident
but it was also recovered and deposited in the Malkhana. Hence, all
the defects in the documents of ownership etc. as pointed by Ld.
Counsel for accused persons are of no consequence. Ld. Additional
Public Prosecutor has admitted the discrepancy in investigation and
fault on part of Investigating Officer of not mentioning the keys in
seizure memo and consequently no entry about keys in Malkhana
register. However, I agree with Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that
this is a minor lapse in investigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the motorcycle is a non existent property.
Recovery of Motorcycle No. DL4S-AN-7857 vide Seizure Memo
EX.PW-5/A.?
48. Ld. Counsel for appellants has drawn my attention to following
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 39 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
portion of cross examination of PW7 ASI Gian Singh, which is
reproduced as under :
“The accused Bhupender took us to his alleged
house from where the motorcycle of complainant was got
recovered at about 05:00 – 05:30 pm on 30.04.2006. I did
not make any inquiry from the local inhabitants of the area
regarding the ownership of the alleged house of the
accused Bhupender and I had not obtained any
documentary proof regarding the ownership of the alleged
house of the accused Bhupender. The said house was
found open on our arrival, but I cannot tell how many
member were available at that time. The said motorcycle
was recovered from the house of the accused. The said
motorcycle was in working condition. Ct. Birender brought
the said motorcycle to PS. The keys of the motorcycle were
found in the motorcycle only, but the seizure memo of the
motorcycle does not mention the seizure of the keys of the
motorcycle. The register no. 19 of MHC(M) is silent about
the deposition of the above said keys. I cannot tell the time
when the said motorcycle was deposited in the safe custody
of MHC(M). the motorcycle was not mechanical inspected.
It is correct that the motorcycle was slightly damaged due to
the fall at Sona Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.”
49. Ld. Counsel for appellants, while drawing my attention to the
aforesaid evidence of PW7 ASI Gian Singh, has submitted that it is
strange that he did not collect any document to ascertain as to
whether the House No.A-10, Gali No.1, Arjun Vihar, Najafgarh, Delhi
belonged to appellant Bhupender Kumar. Further, as per testimony of
PW7, the said house was open and some members were present. It
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 40 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
is submitted that despite fact that the family members were present in
the said house, none of them was made a witness to the recovery. It
is submitted that in the charge sheet, seizure memo of motorcycle
Ex.PW-5/A, arrest memo Ex.PW-5/B and personal search Ex.PW-5/C
the address of the accused Bhupender Kumar has been shown as A-
10, Gali No.1, Arjun Vihar Park, Delhi. But no site plan of the place of
recovery was prepared.
50. Further, it is submitted that even if it is presumed that the
motorcycle was recovered from the house, it is not proved that said
motorcycle was recovered from the exclusive possession of the
accused Bhupender because many other family members were also
present in the house.
51. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has countered the arguments
submitting that there was no need for asking any ownership proof of
the said house. It is submitted that if accused does not reside in the
said house, it is for him to prove as to what was his actual address at
the time of offence. Further, it is submitted that no clarification was
sought by the appellants in cross examination of PW7 as to why he
did not join any family members or neighbourers as a witness to the
recovery of motorcycle. Further, it is argued that appellant Bhupender
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 41 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Kumar may not be in exclusive possession of the motorcycle but it
must be kept in mind that he got the said motorcycle recovered
consequent to his disclosure statement and therefore, it is to be
explained by him as to how he knew that the stolen motorcycle was
lying in his house. It is argued that accused Bhupender Kumar has
not brought on record any material to throw light about his knowledge
of the stolen motorcycle found and recovered from his house.
52. I have considered the rival submissions. I am of the opinion that
focus of Investigating Officer was upon recovery of the stolen
motorcycle and he is not supposed to collect the ownership
documents of H. No. A10, Arjun Vihar. The accused could have
placed on record that the said house does not belong to him or he
was not residing in the said house but he did not. Therefore, I find no
substance in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for appellants on this
point.
53. So far as joining of family members of the appellant Bhupender
Kumar as witness to the recovery of motorcycle is concerned, I am of
the opinion that such expectations from those family members is
absolutely unrealistic. No person would agree to become a witness
against his own family member.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 42 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
54. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel for accused
persons on the fact that house was open at the time of recovery.
However, it is required to be noticed that the Investigating Officer
recorded a disclosure statement Ex.PW5/D in which he has stated
that the motorcycle in question is lying at his house. This portion of
evidence is a discovery of a fact pursuant to which, the motorcycle
was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.PW5/A. Even if the house
was open and few other family members were present at that said
house, it cannot be said that the fact was not discovered pursuant to
the aforesaid disclosure statement as such statement is relevant
under Section 27 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872. Pointing out and
getting the motorcycle recovered is also a relevant fact under Section
8 of The Indian Evidence Act. I would like to quote from Prakash
Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1979 AIR SC 400 as
under :
“For example, the evidence of the circumstance,
simpliciter, that an accused person led a Police officer and
pointed out the place where stolen articles or weapons
which might have been used in the commission of the
offence were found hidden, would be admissible as
conduct, under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective
of whether any statement by the accused
contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls
within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.”
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 43 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
55. In the present case, incident took place on 8.4.2006. As per the
evidence of PW7 SI Gian Singh, accused Bhupender Kumar was
arrested on 30.4.2006 on a secret information. This accused made a
disclosure statement Ex.PW5/D and pursuant to this disclosure, he
got recovered the aforesaid stolen motorcycle from his house. This
conduct is relevant under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act being a
subsequent conduct as it influences the fact in issue.
56. In view of above discussions and aforesaid case law, the
recovery of stolen motorcycle at the instance of accused Bhupender
Kumar is admissible irrespective of the admissibility of his disclosure
statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
57. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly relied upon the evidence
of PW7 in this regard. Accordingly, I hold that recovery of motorcycle
from the house of accused Bhupender Kumar at his instance stands
proved.
Recovery of Gold Ring vide Seizure Memo EX.PW-6/A
58. Ld. Counsel for accused persons argued that as per prosecution
the gold ring robbed from the complainant was recovered on
01.05.2006 from Gagan Deep Dhalla vide recovery memo Ex.
PW-6/A. But the description of the said Ring i.e. weight, size were notCA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 44 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025mentioned in the seizure memo. Further, it is submitted that PW-1 has
not described the description (weight, size and design) of the ring in
the complaint (Ex. PW-1/A) and in his statement before the trial Court.
It is submitted that PW-1 has not produced any bill of the purchasing
of the alleged Ring and was unable to tell the shop of the jeweller,
from where he had purchased the said ring.
59. It is further submitted that no public person was joined in the
investigation during recovery of the said ring which casts a serious
doubt on its recovery.
60. Further my attention is drawn to the statement of PW-16 SI
Joginder (MHCM), who has testified that the ring was deposited on
01.05.2006 vide entry no.841 Ex. PW-16/B and the said ring was
released on 25.05.2006 on superdari to the complainant, the said
entry is point C2/C1 on Ex. PW-16/A. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel
for accused persons that as per prosecution, the said ring was taken
out of Malkhana for TIP proceedings and it was placed before Sh.
Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, where Rahul Gupta
identified the said ring on 24.5.2006. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel
for accused persons that there is no entry in the Malkhana register
regarding taking out of the said ring on 24.5.2006. Therefore, it isCA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 45 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025argued that some other ring was put to TIP because the recovered
ring was never taken out from Malkhana.
61. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has countered the said
submissions and has argued that even if no purchase bills etc. have
been brought on record by the Investigating Officer to prove the
purchase of said finger ring, the recovery of finger ring cannot be
doubted on this ground. He further submits that as per the cross
examination of PW7 ASI Gian Singh, he requested 2 or 3 passerbys
to join the investigation but none of them agreed and they all left the
spot without disclosing their names and addresses. Therefore, it is
submitted that non joining of public witnesses is duly explained.
Regarding non existence of the entry in Malkhana register in respect
of taking out of the ring from Malkhana for its production before Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate for conducting TIP, it is submitted that this
aspect has been explained by PW16 SI Jogender Singh in cross
examination that when such case property is sent to court, a DD entry
is made. Further he has testified that a rough entry is made in this
regard, when the case property is received in the Malkhana again and
that now said record i.e. rough register is destroyed. It is submitted
by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that this is sufficient explanationCA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 46 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025as to why no entry in respect of taking out the ring for TIP exists in
Malkhana register.
62. I have considered the rival submissions. I am of the opinion that
collection of ownership proof of stolen gold ring could have be more
supportive of the prosecution case. However, even in its absence, the
ownership of the golden ring cannot be disputed. Although in the
complaint specific marks/features on the gold ring have not been
mentioned, the recovery memo Ex.PW6/A specifies that the finger
ring was having the design of leaves. I have no hesitation to say that
a person, who is wearing a jewellery continuously would not fail in
identifying the same. In Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa Vs.
State Of Karnataka, Date Of Judgment 11/03/1983 (AIR 1983
Supreme Court 446), it was held that as under :
“It is a matter of common knowledge that ladies have
uncanny sense of identifying their own belongings,
particularly articles of personal use in family ….. There is no
merit in the contention that the testimony of these witnesses
as regards the identity of the seized articles to be stolen
property cannot be relied upon for want of prior test
identification. There is no such legal requirement.”
63. It is pertinent to note that said finger ring was released to PW1,
who produced it during his examination and proved it as Ex.P1. No
suggestion has been given that Ex.P1 is not the ring, which was
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 47 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
stolen from him or which was identified by him during TIP
proceedings. So far as absence of the entry in Malkhana register for
taking it out for TIP purposes is concerned, PW16 has given an
explanation, which cannot to be said to be untrue. I may point out that
PW15 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, ADJ (earlier Metropolitan Magistrate at
relevant time) has testified that gold ring was produced in a pulanda,
which was sealed with the seal of GS. The recovery memo
Ex.PW6/A of the finger ring specifically mentions that the same was
enclosed in a pulanda and was sealed with the seal of GS. PW15 Sh.
Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. ADJ has testified that the pulanda containing
finger ring was enclosed with the seal of GS. Therefore, it is clear that
the finger ring, which was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.PW6/A
from one accused Gagan Deep, is the same which was produced for
TIP and exhibited as Ex.P1 in the testimony of PW1 Rahul Gupta.
64. As far as non joining public persons is concerned, I agree with
Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that the explanation by PW7 is
sufficient.
65. Thus, I hold that the disclosure statement Ex.PW5/D which
points out that the stolen finger ring was sold to Gagan Jewellers,
Som Bazar Road, Arjun Park by accused Bhupender Kumar and
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 48 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
consequent to it, the recovery of stolen finger ring from accused
Gagan Deep Dhalla vide recovery memo Ex.PW6/A stands duly
proved.
Recovery Of Mobile Phone Vide Seizure Memo EX.10/1.
66. During the examination of PW1 Rahul Gupta, the stolen finger
ring was marked as Ex.P1. However, inadvertently the mobile phone
was also exhibited as Ex.P1 at the time of recording of evidence of
PW4 Ajeet Kumar Gupta.
67. As per the testimony of PW4 Ajeet Kumar Gupta, he had given
this mobile make Nokia to his landlord Rahul Gupta. In the robbery in
question, the mobile phone was also robbed. He proved the said
mobile phone with IMEI No. 35565500-204818-1 and identified it to be
his own phone. He testified that SIM No. 9868804465 was allotted to
his brother Ranjeet Kumar but he i.e. PW4 was using it.
68. Ld. Counsel for accused persons submits that as per seizure
memo Ex. PW-10/I the recovery was only qua the handset from
accused Sunil Kumar. However, the said SIM No. 9868804465 was
not recovered from accused Sunil Kumar.
69. It is further argued that as per PW-1 and PW-2 the mobile
phone belongs to Ajeet Kumar Gupta, friend of PW-2. As per the
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 49 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
statement of PW-4 (Ajeet Kumar Gupta) the mobile SIM
No.9868804465 was in the name of his brother Ranjeet Kumar. The
Rajender Kumar Gupta was not examined during investigation and
during trial by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the
Investigating Officer has not collected any documentary proof i.e. CAF
(Customer Application Form), CDR (Call Details Report) and Location
Chart etc. from the service provider agency to prove as to whom the
said SIM was issued or who was the user of same.
70. Ld. Counsel for accused persons submits that the said mobile
was seized at the instance of accused Sunil Kumar on 03.06.2006
from his house. The TIP of the phone was not conducted by the
police during investigation. It is further submitted that no public person
has joined the investigation at the time of recovery of the mobile
phone. The ownership and residence proof of the said house of
accused Sunil Kumar was not collected by the police. Further, it is
argued that the house was open at the time of recovery and no
resident of the said house was made a witness to the recovery.
Further, it is argued that exclusive possession of the mobile phone of
accused Sunil was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, it is argued
by Ld. Counsel for appellants that recovery of mobile phone at the
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 50 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
instance of accused Sunil Kumar is highly doubtful.
71. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has countered this submission
submitting that PW10 Sub Inspector Surender Sharma took up the
investigation on 26.5.2006. Accused Sunil moved an application for
surrender before the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. With the
permission of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, accused Sunil was
interrogated. My attention is drawn to the testimony of PW10 Sub
Inspector Surender Sharma, who testified that thereafer, accused
Sunil Kumar was arrested and accused was sent to judicial custody.
In TIP proceedings accused Sunil Kumar was identified as offender by
Rahul Gupta. Thereafter, accused Sunil Kumar was taken in police
custody for one day vide application Ex.PW10/F. He testified that
during police custody, accused Sunil Kumar made a disclosure
statement Ex.PW10/G and he himself led the police to his house and
the Nokia Mobile phone was recovered from his house at the instance
of accused Sunil Kumar. The said mobile phone was seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW10/I. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor submits
that this mobile phone has been identified by PW4 as the same which
was given by him to PW1 Rahul Gupta prior to robbery. Therefore, it
is submitted that this is enough evidence to prove that the mobile
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 51 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
phone recovered at the instance of accused Sunil Kumar, is the same
which was robbed from Rahul Gupta. It is submitted that rest of the
arguments are of no consequence.
72. I have considered the submissions. PW1 Rahul Gupta in his
initial statement Ex.PW1/A has mentioned his mobile SIM No.
9868804465. He testified that golden chain and golden ring worn by
him and his mobile phone make Nokia 1100 was snatched by the
accused persons. PW4 has testified that he had given the said
mobile phone to PW1 and that its SIM number is in the name of his
brother Ranjeet Kumar. PW4 identified the said phone in his
testimony. PW10 Inspector Surender Sharma has proved that the
said mobile phone was recovered at the instance of accused Sunil
Kumar from his house vide recovery memo Ex.PW10/I. In the
recovery memo, it is specifically mentioned by the accused Sunil
Kumar that the SIM card was thrown by him. However, he got
recovered the said mobile phone from the small Godrej Almirah in his
house. Therefore, it is clear that the mobile phone was in exclusive
possession of the accused Sunil Kumar. He has not claimed it to be
his own mobile phone. Nor he claims that it belongs to any of his
family members in statement under Section 313 CrPC. In face of the
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 52 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
testimony of PW4 that it was the mobile phone which was given by
him to PW1 and in face of testimony of PW1 that it was robbed by the
accused persons, the identity of the stolen mobile phone does not
remain in doubt. Non collection of its purchase bill, CAF and CDRs
etc. cannot belie the factum of its theft and subsequent recovery. Non
joining of public witness would not shake the prosecution case as
hardly any public person agrees to be a witness against criminals.
Whether the testimony of PW1 Rahul Gupta can be held to be
unworthy of reliance in view of certain defects in investigation?
73. I have already reproduced the entire testimony of PW1 Rahul
Gupta. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has assailed his testimony
submitting that it is unbelievable that the accused persons alleged to
have kidnapped Rahul Gupta would stop to fill petrol and Rahul Gupta
would not shout for help. It is argued that the prosecution has also
not produced any witness from the petrol pump from where as per the
allegation the petrol was filled up by the accused persons. Further,
there is no corroboration from Sheetla Dharam Kanta, Gurgaon, from
where Rahul Gupta made a call. Further, Rahul Gupta was first taken
to Dabri Police Station and then he was admitted in DDU Hospital.
Thereafter, the matter was taken by the police of Maya Puri. It is
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 53 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
submitted that version of PW1 made to PS Dabri has not been
brought to light by police or by PW1 himself. Further, it is argued that
as per the Section 166 Cr.P.C. the local police of Gurgaon was not
informed, call or taken up by the Delhi Police while investigating the
present case. Therefore, it is argued that taking of accused
Bhupender or PW- 1 to Gurgaon by the Delhi Police is highly doubtful
because local police was not informed or accompanied by them.
74. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the
judgements cited by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate viz State of
Rajasthan Vs. Kishore,AIR 1996 SC 3035 and C. Muniappan Vs.
State of T. N. (2010) 9 SCC 567 : [(2010) 3 SCC (Cri)1402] in the
impugned judgement and argued that any lapse of Investigating
Officer or perfunctory investigation cannot override an otherwise
proved case.
75. I have considered the rival submissions and I am of the opinion
that testimony of PW1 is duly corroborated by recovery of the stolen
motorcycle at the instance of accused Bhupender Kumar and
recovery of a gold finger ring from another accused Gagan Deep
Dhalla on the information of accused Bhupender Kumar. Further, the
stolen mobile phone was recovered at the instance of accused Sunil
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 54 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Kumar. Accused Bhupender Kumar refused to take part in TIP
proceedings as per T. I. P. Proceedings conduced by PW13 Sh. G. N.
Pandey, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Accused Sunil was identified
during TIP proceedings Ex.PW14/A. PW1 Rahul Gupta has
unmistakbly identified the accused persons in his evidence before the
court. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has tried to find out few
discrepancies in these TIP proceedings. However, I am of the opinion
that the accused persons remained in contact with PW1 Rahul Gupta
for a very long time, which gave sufficient opportunity to him to
observe their faces and features. Therefore, the identification of the
accused persons by PW1 in the court was sufficient. Ld. Counsel for
appellants submits that the whole case has been fabricated because
of the reason that the appellants were having criminal antecedents. I
disagree with this submission. PW1 Rahul Gupta appears to be a
responsible person. There is no previous enmity or any other motive
of PW1 to falsely implicate the appellants. It is unbelievable that he
would deliberately identify the appellants simply at the instance of
police. On perusal of the testimony of PW1, I find a ring of truth
around it and therefore, I hold that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has
rightly convicted both of them under Section 394/365/34 IPC.
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 55 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
Conclusion
76. To conclude, it is held that both the appellants in furtherance of
common intention had committed hurt to PW1 Rahul Gupta in
committing robbery. Therefore, the conviction of both the appellants
under Section 394/34 IPC is upheld. Prosecution has also proved
beyond reasonable doubt that both the appellants had abducted PW1
Rahul Gupta with intention to the secretly and wrongfully confined and
therefore, their conviction under Section 365/34 IPC is also upheld.
77. I have already held that their conviction under Section 411 IPC
is inadvertent and the judgement to the extent of conviction under
Section 411 IPC is set aside.
78. In view of above discussions, the impugned judgement dated
12.12.2019 is hereby upheld with the aforesaid modification.
79. I have also considered the quantum of sentence. Ld. Counsel
for appellants has submitted that the convicts have remained in
judicial custody for about six months and that they should be let off on
the sentence, which they have already undergone. I am of the opinion
that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has already taken a very lenient view
in sentencing the appellants and therefore, I am not inclined to show
any further leniency. However, I find that the appellants belong to
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 56 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
poor strata of society and do not have means to pay compensation of
Rs.20,000/- each as imposed by the Trial Court. Therefore, I set
aside the portion of compensation. Further, I find that Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate has not imposed any fine despite the fact that
Section 365/34 as well as Section 394/34 IPC mandate imposition of
imprisonment and fine. Therefore, the impugned order on sentence
as modified and both the appellants are sentenced as under :
Sl. Section Sentence Fine Sentence in default
No. of payment
1. 394/34 Rigorous Rs.100/- Simple
IPC Imprisonment imprisonment for
for two years. Seven Days
2. 365/34 Rigorous Rs.100/- Simple
IPC Imprisonment imprisonment for
for two years. Seven Days
80. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The custody period
during which they remained in judicial custody shall be set off against
the aforesaid sentences. Copy of judgement be supplied free of cost
to the appellants. They have been apprised that they can avail legal
aid from DLSA, West for filing of appeal. Separate note to this effect
be provided to the appellants as per rules. Both the appellants are
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 57 of 58
Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhupender Kumar @ Neetu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgement dt. 23.01.2025
taken to custody. Sentence warrants be prepared and be sent to jail
to serve the sentences. If fine is deposited, the receipts be issued.
Copy of this judgement along with trial court record be remitted to the
Trial Court. The signed copies of this judgement be placed in both the
appeal files and thereafter, same be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open
court on 23.01.2025.
Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR
VINOD KUMAR Date: 2025.01.23 14:18:27 +0530
(Vinod Kumar)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CA/12/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000191-2020
CA/11/2020 CNR NO.: DLWT01-000192-2020 Page 58 of 58
[ad_1]
Source link