Delhi District Court
State vs Rinku Etc on 16 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-03, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
FIR No.316/2013
PS Keshav Puram
(a) Session Case No. SC 14/2014 51712/2016
(b) Date of offence 20.10.2013
(c) Accused 1. Rinku @ Rajender @ Sunil
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o H.No.11041, Gali Peepal
Wali, Motiya Khan, Sadar
Bazar, Delhi.
2. Rakesh Kumar @ Vikki
S/o Sh. Pikesh
R/o H.No.11133, Gali Peepal
Wali, Motiya Khan, Sadar
Bazar, Delhi.
3. Manohar Singh @ Manoj
S/o Sh. Puran Singh
R/o H.No.22, Rampali, Post
Office Bhogpur, District
Dehradun, U.K.
4. Ganga Prasad
S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o H.No.2094/9A, Prem Nagar,
Gali no.19, New Delhi.
(d) Offence u/s.392/394/397/411/174A IPC
(e) Plea of accused Not guilty
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Page 1 of 36
Digitally signed
BABRU by BABRU
BHAN
BHAN 2025.01.16
Date:
17:13:20 +0000
(f) Final Order accused Manohar @ Manoj is
convicted for offence u/s 411 IPC.
accused Rinku @ Rajender and
accused Rakesh @ Vicky are
convicted for offence u/s 394 r/w
34 IPC.
(g) Date of institution 14.02.2014
(h) Date when judgment 11.09.2024
was reserved
(i) Date of judgment 16.01.2025
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that Satish
Kumar PW-2 (hereinafter referred as complainant) was
going to his house in his white colour Maruti Van on
21.10.2013. At about 11:45 pm, he took a U turn from
underpass at Onkar Nagar. Suddenly, 3-4 boys came on
separate motorcycles. One of the motorcyclist stopped his
motorcycle in front of the van of the complainant. Two
motorcycles were stopped on left and right side of the
van of the complainant. The motorcyclist on the right
side threw a stone towards eyes of the complainant.
Thereafter, he snatched the keys of the Maruti Van and
gold chain from the complainant. Thereafter, one
motorcyclist removed 4 gold rings from the complainant.
The motorcyclist on the left side pointed a country made
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BABRU BHAN Page 2 of 36
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:15:57
+0000
pistol towards the complainant. One of the motorcyclist
exhorted the one carrying the country made pistol to
shoot the complainant. Complainant pleaded before the
assailants to take anything they wanted but not to kill
him. He also handed over his purse containing
Rs.22,000/-, ATM card, PAN card and driving license.
Complainant informed about the incident to his friend
Ravinder who made a PCR call in this regard.
2. PW-10 / Woman Ct. Anju Bala was posted at PCR HQ
CPCR. She received the call regarding the incident and
filled up the PCR form Ex.PW10/B (supporting
certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is
Ex.PW10/A). She thereafter transmitted the information
to PS Keshav Puram.
3. At PS Keshav Puram, PW-1 / Ct. Jagjit was discharging
duties of DD writer. On receipt of information regarding
the robbery from PCR HQ, he recorded the same in form
of DD No.4 PP, Shanti Nagar Ex.PW1/A.
4. The aforesaid DD Ex.PW1/A was assigned to PW-19 /
ASI Dharampal for further necessary action. ASI
Dharampal along-with PW-5 / Ct. Manjeet reached the
spot near underpass, Onkar Nagar, Trinagar, Delhi. There,
he met complainant PW-1 / Satish Kumar. In the
meanwhile, PCR also reached at the spot and removed
the injured to hospital where he was medically examinedDigitally signed
BABRU by BABRU
BHANBHAN Date:
2025.01.16 STATE Vs. RINKU ETC 17:16:02 +0000 Page 3 of 36
by Dr. Parveen Bhati vide MLC Ex.PW17/A.
5. IO / ASI Dharampal recorded statement of complainant
Ex.PW2/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW19/A and handed
over the same to Ct. Manjeet for registration of FIR.
6. In the meantime, crime team consisting of SI Nand
Kishore PW-15 and Ct. Subhash PW-6 reached the spot.
SI Nand Kishore PW-15 inspected the spot and prepared
his report Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B. Ct. Subhash
PW-6 took the photographs of the scene of the crime
Ex.PW6/B-1 to Ex.PW6/B-5.
7. After registration of FIR, Ct. Manjeet PW-5 returned at
the spot with Insp. Mukesh PW-20. SI Dharampal PW-19
had also collected the blood samples of complainant vide
seizure memo Ex.PW19/B. He also seized the van of the
complainant bearing no.DL4CAM1270 vide seizure
memo Ex.PW2/C. Since the further investigation was
handed over to Insp. Mukesh therefore, SI Dharampal
handed over all the case property and documents to Insp.
Mukesh.
8. During further course of investigation, Insp. Mukesh
Kumar prepared the site plan Ex.PW20/A at instance of
complainant.
9. In the intervening night of 21/22.10.2013, SI Vikas Pannu
PW-12 was posted as SI at the Special Task Force of
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU
Date:
BHAN
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:16:07
+0000 Page 4 of 36
South District, Vasant Vihar. On that day, he alongwith
other police staff including HC Sachin PW-11, HC
Satender PW-18, HC Umesh, HC Vinod and Ct. Satish
had left the PS for investigation of case FIR NO.430/13
u/s.397/394/34 IPC PS Hauz Khas vide DD No.17 of
STF South District. At about 08:15 pm, secret informer
informed SI Vikas Pannu that a wanted criminal Rinku
would be coming to Hauz Khas. Subsequently, the secret
informer told SI Vikas Pannu that accused Rinku would
be coming at Nanakpura Gurdwara on motorcycle. The
police party accordingly employed barricading. At about
04:40, two persons came from Daula Kuan side. The
secret informer pointed out towards them and they were
apprehended. Their names were subsequently revealed as
Rinku @ Rajender and Rakesh @ Vicky.
10.On personal search of the accused persons, accused
Rinku was found in possession of automatic country
made pistol and two live cartridges. Accused Rakesh @
Vicky was also found in possession of one country made
pistol loaded with live cartridge. SI Vikas Pannu prepared
sketch of the weapons Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW12/A. Both
the weapons were converted into separate pulandas and
thereafter were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/D
and Ex.PW12/B. Thereafter, SI Vikas Pannu prepared a
rukka and sent HC Sachin PW-11 for registration of FIR.
On basis of rukka, case FIR No.182/13 PS South Campus
was registered. Thereafter, he prepared a site plan
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:16:11
+0000
Page 5 of 36
Ex.PW12/C.
11.SI Vikas Pannu recorded the disclosure statement of both
the accused persons namely Rinku @ Rajender and
Rakesh @ Vicky which are Ex.PW11/F and Ex.PW12/D.
In their disclosure statements, both the accused persons
confessed about their involvement in the present case
FIR.
12.Thereafter, accused Rinku and Rakesh led the police
party to the house of Rakesh situated at IIIrd Floor of
A-65, Jwalapuri. In the said house, accused Rinku took
out the case property from the shelf. Case property i.e.
Rs.40,000 cash, keys of the van and one ring, same were
seized by SI Vikas Panuu vide Seizure memo
Ex.PW12/E. Identical statements have been made by HC
Sachin PW-11 and HC Satender PW-18 regarding arrest
of accused Rinku @ Rajender and Rakesh @ Vicky.
13.On 24.10.2013, Insp. Mukesh PW-20 received an
information from STF South regarding arrest of accused
Rinku @ Rajender and Rakesh @ Vicky and their
disclosure about their involvement in the present case.
On 28.10.2013, IO / Insp. Mukesh Kumar went to STF
South Office and collected relevant documents from SI
Vikas Pannu and recorded his statement. On 29.10.2013,
IO / Insp. Mukesh Kumar filed an application seeking
issuance of production warrants against accused Rinku @
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:16:16
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
+0000
Page 6 of 36
Rajender and Rakesh @ Vicky.
14.On 31.10.2013, accused Rinku @ Rajender was produced
before the Court. IO moved an application Ex.PW20/B
for interrogation and formal arrest of accused Rinku @
Rajender. After interrogation, he formally arrested him
vide memo Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, he moved an
application Ex.PW20/C for TIP of accused Rinku @
Rajender. On 01.11.2013, similar application Ex.PW20/D
was moved for accused Rakesh @ Vicky. Both the
accused persons refused to participate in the TIP
proceedings. On 06.11.2013, accused Rakesh @ Vicky
was produced in the Court. IO / Insp. Mukesh moved an
application Ex.PW20/F for interrogation. During
interrogation, accused Rakesh @ Vicky made a
disclosure statement Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, IO formally
arrested accused Rakesh @ Vicky Ex.PW3/A.
15.After refusal of TIP proceedings, IO obtained two days
PC remand of the accused Rakesh @ Vicky by moving an
application Ex.PW20/K. During police custody remand,
accused Rakesh @ Vicky pointed out the place of the
robbery and IO prepared the pointing out memo
Ex.PW4/A in this regard. Thereafter, they returned back
to PS where complainant Satish visited to verify the
progress in the case. Complainant identified the accused
persons in the PS.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU
Date:
BHAN
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:16:21
+0000 STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Page 7 of 36
16.On 16.11.2013, further investigation of the case was
handed over to SI Sandeep PW-21 because Insp. Mukesh
Kumar had proceeded on leave. On 21.11.2013, SI
Sandeep PW-21 received an information regarding
presence of accused Manohar @ Manoj at Rampura
Village. He alongwith Ct. Manjeet PW-5 visited there and
arrested accused Manohar @ Manoj vide memo
Ex.PW5/A and conducted his personal search vide memo
Ex.PW5/B. During search, one golden ring was
recovered from the possession of accused Manohar @
Manoj upon which OM was inscribed. Two mobile
phones were also recovered from possession of accused
Manohar @ Manoj. IO converted the mobile phones and
the ring into two separate pulandas and thereafter, seized
the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/E.
IO / SI Sandeep also recorded disclosure statement
Ex.PW5/C of the accused. Accused Manohar @ Manoj
was taken to the spot of the offence where he pointed out
towards the spot. SI Sandeep prepared pointing out
memo Ex.PW5/F in this regard.
17.On next day, accused Manohar @ Manoj was produced
before the court and was sent to JC. He moved an
application for TIP of accused Manohar @ Manoj on
26.11.2013 but he refused to participate in the TIP
proceedings.
18.One of the accused namely Ganga Prasad could not be
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU BHAN STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Date:
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:16:26
Page 8 of 36
+0000
arrested initially and therefore, process u/s 82 Cr.PC was
obtained against him. The said process was assigned to
Ct. Sanjay PW-16 who executed the same vide report
Ex.PW16/E.
19.On 12.12.2013, HC Mohar Singh PW-14 appeared before
the court of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Ld. MM alongwith
complainant Satish Kumar for TIP of the rings. Ld. MM
conducted the TIP of the rings. During the TIP,
complainant correctly identified the rings. His statements
in this regard are Ex.PW13/D and Ex.PW13/E. The TIP
proceedings have been proved by Sh. Bhupinder Singh
Ld. MM PW-13.
20.After filing of chargesheet against Rinku @ Rajender and
Manohar @ Manoj, accused Ganga Prasad was arrested
by Insp. Surajpal PW-24, ASI Ajay Kumar PW-22 and
ASI Parveen PW-23 on 04.07.2015 vide arrest memo
Ex.PW22/B. His personal search was conducted vide
memo Ex.PW22/C. IO recorded his disclosure statement
Ex.PW22/D.
21.On completion of investigation, police filed the charge-
sheet accusing the accused persons for offence u/s
392/394/395/397/412/34 IPC.
22.On 20.11.2014, formal charges for offence u/s
392/394/411/34 were framed against accused Rinku @
Rajender, Rakesh @ Vicky and Manohar Singh @
Digitally
signed by
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:16:31
+0000
Page 9 of 36
Manoj. In addition, charge for offence u/s 397 IPC was
framed against accused Rinku @ Rajender. All the
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
23.Subsequently, on 23.11.2015, charge for offence u/s
392/394/34 IPC and u/s 174 A IPC was framed against
accused Ganga Prasad. He also pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
24.To prove the charges against the accused persons,
prosecution has examined 24 witnesses.
25.Satish Kumar PW-2 is the only material eye witness. His
statement shall be discussed in detail at the appropriate
subsequent stage. Remaining witnesses are the police
officials who had participated in process of the
investigation. Their respective brief roles have already
been discussed in the forgoing discussion and their
detailed testimonies are not required to be reproduced
again. The statements of the witnesses who have not been
discussed above are as under :
26.PW-1 / Ct. Jagjit had recorded DD no.4 PP Shanti Nagar
on 21.10.2013. Thereafter, he had joined the investigation
with Insp. Mukesh Kumar on 06.11.2013 and had
witnessed the disclosure statement of accused Rakesh
which is Ex.PW1/E. Again, on 31.10.2013, he joined the
investigation with IO and had witnessed arrest of accused
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU BHAN
Date:
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:16:37
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Page 10 of 36
+0000
Rinku vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his disclosure
statement Ex.PW1/D. He is attesting witness on the
aforesaid memos prepared by the IO.
27.PW-3 / Ct. Mukesh had joined the investigation with IO
on 06.11.2013 and witnessed the formal arrest of accused
Rakesh @ Vicky vide memo Ex.PW3/A and his
disclosure statement Ex.PW1/A. He is also attesting
witness on these memos.
28.PW-4 / Ct. Dharamraj had joined the investigation with
the IO on 31.10.2013 and witnessed arrest of accused
Rinku @ Rajender Ex.PW1/C. He is also attesting
witness of disclosure statement Ex.PW1/D made by
accused Rinku @ Rajender. Again on 12.11.2013, he
joined the investigation with IO during which, accused
Rakesh @ Vicky had pointed out the place of incident.
The pointing out memo Ex.PW4/A, bears the signatures
of this witness. On 05.12.2013, on instructions of IO, he
went to PS South Campus and collected the case property
where it was lying deposited in case FIR No.182/13 PS
South Campus.
29.PW-7 / Ms. Meenu Kaushik, Ld. MM had conducted the
TIP proceedings of accused Manohar Singh on
26.11.2013 but he refused to participate in the same. The
proceedings are Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/E.
30.PW-8 / Sh. Sushil Anil Tyagi, Ld. MM had conducted
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU
Date:
BHAN STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:16:42 Page 11 of 36
+0000
TIP proceedings of accused Rinku @ Rajender and
Rakesh @ Vicky on 07.11.2013 and 08.11.201
respectively. Both the accused persons refused to
participate in the TIP proceedings. The proceedings are
Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/M.
31.PW-9/ Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer has produced the
CAF and CDR of mobile no.9012955187. The documents
produced by him are Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/D.
32.PW-11/ Ct. Sachin, PW-12 / SI Vikas Pannu and PW-18 /
HC Satender have deposed in sync about the arrest and
recoveries effected from accused Rinku @ Rajender and
Rakesh @ Vicky. Details of their testimonies have
already been discussed.
33.PW-13 / Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Ld. MM had conducted
TIP of the rings recovered from the accused persons. The
proceedings are Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/F.
34.PW-14 / HC Mohar Singh had brought the case property
to court on 12.12.2013 for purpose of TIP.
35.PW-17 / Dr. Iftiquar Khan has proved the signatures of
Dr. Parveen Bhati on the MLC of complainant
Ex.PW17/A.
36.The prosecution evidence was followed by statement of
accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein the entire
incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the
Digitally
BABRU
signed by
BABRU
BHAN
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16 Page 12 of 36
17:16:47
+0000
case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence.
37.Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
38.This Court has heard the detailed final arguments from
Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsels appearing on
behalf of the accused persons. Now, this Court proceeds
to analyse the evidence for the purpose of final judgment.
39.One of the charge framed against all the accused persons
is for the offence u/s 392/394/34 IPC. As has been noted
above, complainant Satish Kumar PW-2 is the only eye
witness and therefore, his testimony is most pivotal to
prove these allegations against the accused persons.
Perusal of his statement would reveal that although PW-2
has identified accused Rinku @ Rajender and Rakesh @
Vicky in his court statement but he failed to identify
accused Manohar and Ganga Prasad. During cross-
examination, Ld. Addl. PP for state made a specific
suggestion to PW-2 that he had identified accused
Manohar @ Manoj in the PS. Witness denied having
made any such identification. He also denied the next
suggestion that he had stated to the IO that accused
Manohar @ Manoj was sitting pillion on one of the
motorcycle on date of the incident. Ld. Addl. PP
specifically pointed out towards the accused Manohar @
Manoj but he denied having identified him in the PS.
40.Similarly, PW-2 has deposed that he had gone to Tihar
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU BHAN
Date:
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:16:51
Page 13 of 36
+0000
Jail for identifying accused Ganga Prasad and had
identified him. He further explained that he had identified
accused Ganga Prasad only on the basis of photographs
of the accused shown to him by the IO. Since the PW-2
refused to identify the accused Ganga Prasad in the court,
Ld. Addl. PP for State subjected him to cross-
examination on aspect of identification of accused Ganga
Prasad. During cross-examination, a specific suggestion
was made to the witness that accused Ganga Prasad was
present with the co-accused at the time of the incident but
the witness denied the same. It is also relevant to note
that as per the witness, he had identified the accused
during TIP proceedings only because the IO had shown
his photographs to him. Another suggestion was made by
Ld. Addl. PP that no photographs of the accused Ganga
Prasad were shown to the witness but witness denied this
suggestion also. So, during cross-examination, the
witness again refused to identify accused Manohar @
Manoj and Ganga Prasad despite they were specifically
pointed out by Ld. Addl. PP for State. He also explained
the reasons for identifying accused Ganga Prasad during
TIP proceedings.
41.Since the only eye witness has failed to identify accused
Manohar @ Manoj and Ganga Prasad as the participants
in the robbery, the charges of offence u/s 392/394 are not
proved against both of them.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU
Date:
BHAN
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:16:57
+0000
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Page 14 of 36
42.One more charge framed against accused Ganga Prasad is
for offence u/s.174A IPC. On this aspect, the prosecution
has claimed that proceedings u/s.82 Cr.P.C. were initiated
against the accused by Sh. Neeraj Gaur, Ld. MM. The
proceedings were assigned to Ct. Sanjay PW-16. He
executed the proceedings on 28.01.2014. As per
proceedings, accused had to appear before the Court on
07.03.2014. Proceedings were duly executed, but accused
Ganga Prasad failed to appear within the statutory period.
Therefore, by not complying with the order u/s.82
Cr.P.C., he committed an offence u/s.174A IPC.
43.Recently, in case titled as Amandeep Gill & Anr vs The
State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi, Delhi High Court 2024 ,
has made following relevant observations :
“12.12. Be that as it may, it is unmistakably
evident that the omission of Section 174-A from
the purview of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be
treated as a mere inadvertent oversight. It gets
more particularly obvious, when viewed through
the lens of the deliberate simultaneous legislative
action taken to amend Schedule-1. This deliberate
choice to eschew any alteration in Section
195 Cr.P.C. while making concurrent changes
elsewhere in the same Code suggests a level of
intentionality that cannot be readily discounted. …
12.15. Nevertheless, even if we were to entertain
the notion that the non-exclusion of Section 174-
A of IPC from the purview of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
was by an inadvertent oversight/omission in the
Digitally signed
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BABRU by BABRU
BHAN
Page 15 of 36
BHAN 2025.01.16
Date:
17:17:03 +0000
legislation, it is crucial to recognize that any
benefit arising from such an inadvertence or
oversight would accrue to the advantage of the
accused, rather than the prosecution. In the realm
of criminal jurisprudence, matters pertaining to
personal liberty hold a paramount position. Such
matters pertaining to personal liberty should never
be predicated upon inferences drawn against the
accused from presumed intentions and/or
inadvertent omissions on the part of the legislature.
The sanctity of personal liberty demands nothing
less than clear and categorical legislative
provisions ensuring that justice is not compromised
by inferences drawn against the accused from
legislative ambiguity or oversights.
12.16. In conclusion, it is held that Section 195 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), in its
present form, encompasses Section 174-A of the
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) within its purview.”
44.It is the legal position that where the law bars any court
from taking cognizance of the offence except on a
complaint filed in particular manner, such Court is
precluded from taking cognizance in any other manner.
Since the offence u/s.174A IPC, as interpreted above by
Hon’ble High Court, falls in the ambit of Section 195
Cr.P.C., the cognizance could have been taken only on a
complaint u/s.195 Cr.P.C. made by the Court, which had
declared the accused as a proclaimed offender u/s.82
Cr.P.C. The record of this case would reveal that
Digitally signed
BABRU by BABRU
BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
17:17:08 +0000
Page 16 of 36
cognizance here was taken on a police report filed
u/s.173 Cr.P.C., which was not even annexed with any
complaint u/s.195 Cr.P.C. Since, the cognizance taken in
the matter was bad in law, the entire proceedings against
the accused initiated u/s.174A IPC are accordingly
vitiated. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for
offence u/s.174A IPC also. Accused Ganga Prasad is
accordingly acquitted from the charges of this offence
u/s.174A IPC as well.
45.One allegation against accused Manohar @ Manoj is that
he was arrested by SI Sandeep PW-21 on 21.11.2013.
Upon his search, one golden ring was recovered from his
possession, upon which OM was inscribed. SI Sandeep
prepared a pulanda and sealed the same with seal of SK.
SI Sandeep seized the said ring vide seizure memo
Ex.PW5/D. Ct. Manjeet PW-5 was also accompanying SI
Sandeep at the time of recovery.
46.The cross-examination of PW-5 Ct. Manjeet conducted
on behalf of accused Manohar would reveal that Ld.
Counsel for the accused had made some general
suggestions to the witness that no disclosure statement
was made by the accused and the case property was
planted upon him. Witness denied the aforesaid
suggestion. Similarly, during cross-examination of SI
Sandeep PW-21, ld. Counsel asked few questions
regarding the time when he reached the spot in pursuant
to the information given by secret informer. Ld. Counsel
Digitally signed STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BABRU by BABRU
BHAN
Page 17 of 36
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:17:13 +0000
also asked some questions about the staff who
accompanied him when he went to arrest accused
Manohar @ Manoj. Some questions relating to the
conduct of accused Manohar @ Manoj on seeing the
police party were also asked which the witness
satisfactorily answered. The cross-examination of PW-5
Ct. Manjeet and SI Sandeep PW-21 would show that
nothing has come which can affect the credibility of these
witnesses.
47.One argument has been made on behalf of accused
Manohar @ Manoj that accused Manohar @ Manoj was
arrested in the evening at about 06:15 pm from a public
place. Since the accused Manohar @ Manoj was arrested
from a public place, there would not have been any
dearth of public persons. However, the IO did not make
any effort to join the public persons in the recovery
proceedings. Ld. Counsel has raised the contention that
non-joining of public persons despite their availability,
shall bring the case of the prosecution under shadow of
doubts.
48.In context of the abovesaid arguments, reliance can be
placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Delhi
High court in case titled as Ravi Seikhar vs State on 15
December, 2014. The relevant observations are :
“31. As regards, the first submission that despite
availability, no public witness was joined by the
police, as such recovery is doubtful, same is
Digitally signed
by BABRU
BABRU BHAN
Date:
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:17:18 STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
+0000
Page 18 of 36
devoid of any merit. The recovery has been
effected pursuant to the disclosure statement
made by the appellants – Mohd. Rizwan and
Afzal Hussain. In State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
v Sunil AIR 2001 Crl. LJ 506, the Hon’ble Apex
Court took the view that recovery of an object
pursuant to the information supplied by the
accused in custody is different from the
searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of
the Code. Moreover, the mere fact that no
independent witness was joined in the
proceedings itself is not sufficient to render the
recovery doubtful. The recovery of jewellery
from accused Ravi from his shop stands proved
from the testimony of PW6 HC – Mangal Ram
and PW9 – SI Naresh Kumar. Despite cross
examination nothing material could be elicited
to discard their testimony. The testimony of
police personnel have to be treated in the same
manner as testimony of any other witnesses and
there is no principle of law that without
corroboration by independent witnesses their
testimony cannot be relied upon. The
presumption that a person acts honestly applies,
as much in favour of police personnel as of other
person and it is not a proper judicial approach to
distrust and suspect them without good
ground. It will all depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and no principle of
general application can be laid down as held in
Karanjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 2003
5 SCC 291, C. Ronald & Anr. Vs. Union
Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, (2001)
1 SCC (Crl.) 596. In Sunil Clifford Daniel vs.
State of Punjab, 2012 11 SCC 205, Apex Court
referred to State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil
and Anr., (2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein Court held
as under:-
“20. … But if no witness was present or if no
person had agreed to affix his signature on the
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BHAN
Date:
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:17:22
+0000
Page 19 of 36
document, it is difficult to lay down, as a
proposition of law, that the document so
prepared by the police officer must be treated as
tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable.
The court has to consider the evidence of the
investigating officer who deposed to the fact of
recovery based on the statement elicited from
the accused on its own worth.
21. We feel that it is an archaic notion that
actions of the police officer should be
approached with initial distrust…..At any rate,
the court cannot start with the presumption that
the police records are untrustworthy. As a
proposition of law the presumption should be
the other way round. That official acts of the
police have been regularly performed is a wise
principle of presumption and recognised even by
the legislature. Hence when a police officer
gives evidence in court that a certain article was
recovered by him on the strength of the
statement made by the accused it is open to the
court to believe the version to be correct if it is
not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for
the accused, through cross-examination of
witnesses or through any other materials, to
show that the evidence of the police officer is
either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted
upon in a particular case. If the court has any
good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such
records of the police the court could certainly
take into account the fact that no other
independent person was present at the time of
recovery. But it is not a legally approvable
procedure to presume the police action as
unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such
action merely for the reason that police did not
collect signatures of independent persons in the
documents made contemporaneous with such
actions.”
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:17:27 STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
+0000
Page 20 of 36
32. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve
the testimony of police official as it is not the
case of the appellant that any of the police
personnel was known to him from earlier or they
had any ill-will or grudge against him to falsely
implicate in this case while leaving all the
jewellers in Delhi.”
49.In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi has clarified that the testimony of police personnel
has to be treated in the same manner as the testimony of
any other witness and there is no principle of law that
without corroboration by independent witness, their
testimonies cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a
person acts honestly applies as much in favour of the
police personnel as of other person and it is not a good
judicial approach to suspect them without any good
reason. Here in this case, the cross-examination of PW-5
Ct. Manjeet and PW-21 SI Sandeep would reveal that no
such ground of previous enmity of the aforesaid police
officer with accused Manohar @ Manoj has been taken.
Accused Manohar @ Manoj had an opportunity to
explain the reasons for his alleged false implication when
his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded. However, he
again repeated in his statement that he was falsely
implicated. No reason for the alleged false implication
was given. This Court also has to consider the fact that it
is not an easy task for the police to join public persons in
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:17:31
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
+0000
Page 21 of 36
investigation because general public is usually not
inclined to participate in such proceedings as same are
time consuming and also cause a lot of inconvenience.
Thus, the testimony of aforesaid police witnesses cannot
be visited with suspicion merely because public persons
were not joined. Recovery of ring from accused Manohar
@ Manoj accordingly stands proved.
50.Now the next question is whether the ring was a stolen
property or not. SI Sandeep PW-21 has deposed in his
court statement that ring was sealed in a pulanda with
seal of ‘SK’ vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D. Sh.
Bhupinder Singh PW-13 had conducted the TIP of the
ring recovered by SI Sandeep PW-21. He has deposed in
his court statement that HC Mohar Singh PW-14 had
produced a sealed pulanda with seal of ‘SK”. After taking
out the case property from sealed pulanda, same was
mixed with sample rings. The complainant was called
and he correctly identified the ring taken out in the sealed
pulanda vide his statement Ex.PW13/D. This witness was
not cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused
persons despite given opportunities. So, the evidence
given by this witness went unrebutted.
51.PW-2/ complainant Satish Kumar has also deposed in his
court statement that he was called for identification of the
case property and he identified the same. Cross-
examination of this witness would reveal that no effective
cross-examination on the aspect of identification of the
Digitally
signed by
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BABRU BABRU
Date:
BHAN
BHAN 2025.01.16
Page 22 of 36
17:17:35
+0000
ring was conducted. Only general suggestions that the
case property identified by him during the TIP did not
belong to him were given. The witness denied that
suggestion. In considered opinion of this Court, bald
suggestions without any explanation shall not be
sufficient to discard the TIP proceedings regarding the
identification of ring by the complainant. Thus, it stands
proved that a ring belonging to complainant was
recovered from possession of accused Manohar @
Manoj. It was for the accused to explain the
circumstances under which it came into his possession.
However, neither during the cross-examination nor at the
time of recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused
put-forth any such explanation. Thus, it stands proved
that accused Manohar @ Manoj retained the ring of the
complainant with the knowledge or reasons to believe
that same was a stolen property. The offence u/s 411 IPC
accordingly stands proved against accused Manohar @
Manoj.
52.Now comes the role of accused Rinku @ Rajender and
Rakesh @ Vicky in the robbery in question. In order to
prove these allegations of robbery, prosecution has placed
heavy reliance on testimony of complainant Satish
Kumar PW-2 who is projected as a sole eye witness. He
has deposed in his court statement that on 21.10.2013, at
about 11:45 pm, 3-4 boys came on their motorcycle in
front of his van and stopped his van by stopping a
Digitally
signed by STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BABRU BABRU BHAN
BHAN
Date:
2025.01.16
Page 23 of 36
17:17:40
+0000
motorcycle in front of it. Thereafter, one of the
motorcyclist threw stone towards his face and snatched
keys of his Maruti Van, his gold chain, 4 gold rings, his
purse containing cash of Rs.22,000/-, ATM card, PAN
card and driving license. One of the accused had also
pointed a country made pistol towards him during the
incident. In his initial court statement, complainant Satish
Kumar identified accused Rakesh @ Vicky and Rinku @
Rajender.
53.During cross-examination, Ld. Defence Counsel for
accused Rinku @ Rajender and Rakesh @ Vicky asked
Satish Kumar PW-2 regarding not citing his friend as a
prosecution witness. He was also asked about the name
of the police officials who took him to nursing home and
then to hospital. Witness failed to tell the same. The
argument in context of the above statement of the
complainant Satish Kumar PW-2 is that one of the friend
of the complainant who had made the PCR call was not
cited as a witness by the police and the complainant also
did not remember the name of the police official who
had removed him to hospital. Ld. Counsel also pointed
out that in his court statement, the witness stated that one
of the accused had exhorted the one carrying a pistol to
shoot the complainant (goli maar) but he had not stated
any such fact in his statement Ex.PW2/A given to the
police. Ld. Counsel further highlighted that witness
admitted that he did not hand over bills of the articles
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU BHAN
Date:
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:17:45
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Page 24 of 36
+0000
robbed from him to IO. He also did not tell the police
when these articles were purchased. He had also not
mentioned the details and description of the case
property. In light of the aforesaid defects in the testimony
of the complainant, the argument made by Ld. Counsel is
that his statement cannot be relied upon to convict the
accused persons.
54. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narayan
Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
(2000) 8 SSC 457, has considered the minor
contradictions in the testimony, while appreciating the
evidence in criminal trial. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the said judgment that only contradictions in
material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a
ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses.
Relevant portion of Para 42 of the judgment reads as
under:
“42. Only such omissions which amount to
contradiction in material particulars can be used
to discredit the testimony of the witness. The
omission in the police statement by itself would
not necessarily render the testimony of witness
unreliable. When the version given by the
witness in the court is different in material
particulars from that disclosed in his earlier
statements, the case of the prosecution becomes
doubtful and not otherwise. Minor
contradictions are bound to appear in the
statements of truthful witnesses as memory
sometimes plays false and the sense of
observation differ from person to person. The
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU
Date:
BHAN
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:17:49
+0000 Page 25 of 36
omissions in the earlier statement if found to be
of trivial details, as in the present case, the same
would not cause any dent in the testimony of
PW 2. Even if there is contradiction of statement
of a witness on any material point, that is no
ground to reject the whole of the testimony of
such witness.”
55.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in the
afore-noted judgment that minor contradictions are bound
to appear in the testimony of truthful witnesses. The
sense of observation of every person is different and it
also depends upon the quality of memory of a witness.
Here in this case, the initial statement which was made
by Satish Kumar PW-2 was made by him soon after the
incident when he must be under the trauma of robbery. In
that state of mind, he cannot be expected to remember
and mention every minute detail of the incident to the IO.
Some of the details of the incident would have come to
his mind after he returned to normality. Therefore, the
minor contradictions pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel
as noted above shall not be sufficient to discard the
testimony of Satish Kumar PW-2.
56.Further, it is not the case of the defence that accused
persons were already known to the complainant or
complainant had any previous enmity with them. Since
the accused persons did not have any enmity with the
complainant, why he would falsely implicate them and
would protect the actual perpetrator of the crime. Thus,
this court has no reason to accept the argument of false
Digitally signed
by BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:17:54 +0000
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Page 26 of 36
implication without any reason.
57.The testimony of complainant Satish Kumar PW-2 is
further corroborated by the PCR call which was recorded
at about 12:16 pm in form of DD No.4PP Shanti Nagar
PS Keshav Puram Ex.PW1/A. As per complainant Satish
Kumar PW-2, the incident had occurred at about 11:45
pm. No cross-examination of the complainant regarding
the time of the incident has been conducted, therefore,
this Court has no reason to disbelieve that incident had
occurred at 11:45 pm. As per the aforesaid DD, the matter
was reported to the police within half an hour and
without any delay. The promptness in reporting of the
matter to the police shall rule out the possibility of
concoction of the facts as there was no time for the same.
58.The complainant Satish Kumar PW-2 has deposed in his
initial statement Ex.PW2/A as well as in his court
statement that during the incident, one of the assailant
had thrown a stone towards his eyes. This fact alleged by
the complainant is corroborated by the MLC Ex.PW17/A
which records that on 21.10.2013, at about 01:45 am,
Satish was brought to the hospital with alleged history of
physical assault. On examination, attending doctor found
a lacerated wound on the right eye brow of the patient.
This injury thus corresponds with the statement of the
complainant that during the incident, one of the accused
had thrown a stone towards him and caused injuries.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:18:04 STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
+0000
Page 27 of 36
59.One more evidence, the prosecution has relied upon
against the accused Rinku @ Rajender and Rakesh @
Vicky is that they refused to participate in the TIP
proceedings which were conducted by PW-8 on
07.11.2013 and 08.11.2013 by Sh. Sushil Anuj Tyagi, ld.
MM PW-8. In this regard, the argument made by Ld.
Counsel for the accused Rinku @ Rajender and Rajesh @
Vicky is that accused persons had been shown to the
complainant in the PS, therefore, they refused to
participate in the TIP proceedings. In support of this
argument, Ld. Defence Counsel has taken reference of
the cross-examination of the complainant wherein he
admitted that after the incident, he had visited the PS
once. At that time, accused Rakesh @ Vicky and Rinku
@ Rajender were present in the PS where he identified
them.
60.The proceedings Ex.PW20/H of accused Rinku @
Rajender would reveal that he had refused to participate
in the TIP proceedings stating that he was shown to the
witness outside Patiala House Court on 22.10.2013 when
he was under arrest of STF. He did not state that he was
shown to the complainant in any PS. Similarly, in TIP
proceedings Ex.PW20/E, accused Rakesh @ Vicky
refused to participate in the TIP proceedings stating that
his photographs had been taken with the mobile phones
when he was in the custody of STF. He did not state that
he refused to participate in the TIP proceedings because
Digitally signed
BABRU by BABRU
BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:18:09 +0000 STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Page 28 of 36
he was shown to the complainant in PS. So, the reasons
for refusal mentioned in the aforesaid TIP proceedings
would show that the accused persons did not even claim
that they refused to participate in the TIP proceedings
because they were shown to the witness in PS. Thus, it
can be safely believed that the witness identified the
accused persons in the PS after they had refused to
participate in the TIP proceedings. This argument made
by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused Rinku @ Rajender
and Rakesh @ Vicky were shown to the complainant is,
therefore, liable to be rejected.
61.SI Vikas Pannu PW-12, HC Sachin PW-11 and HC
Satender PW-18 have deposed that in the intervening
night of 21/22.10.2013, they were conducting
investigation of a case FIR No.430/13 u/s 394/397/34
IPC of PS Hauz Khas. At that time, secret informer
informed SI Vikas Pannu about accused Rinku @
Rajender. At about 04:00 am, the accused Rinku @
Rajender and Rakesh @ Vicky came on a motorcycle and
they were apprehended by the aforesaid police party.
Thereafter, police party conducted the search of accused
Rinku @ Rajender and one automatic country-made
pistol was recovered which was loaded with two live
cartridges. On search of accused Rakesh @ Vicky, one
country made pistol loaded with a live cartridge was
recovered. He prepared the sketch of the pistols and
seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/D and
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU
Date:
BHAN
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:18:14
+0000 Page 29 of 36
Ex.PW12/B. Thereafter, a case FIR No.182/2013 was
registered at PS South Campus. PW-12 SI Vikas Pannu
has further deposed that Rinku and Rakesh both the
accused persons had led the police party at house of
Rakesh which was at IIIrd floor of A-65 Jwalapuri. From
there, accused Rinku took out Rs.40,000/-, keys of van
and one ring. He converted the said property into three
separate pulandas and took the same into possession.
These pulandas were sealed with seal of ‘VP’. Same were
seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/E. PW-11 HC Sachin
and PW-18 HC Satender also made the similar statement
regarding the arrest and recovery of accused Rinku @
Rajender and Rakesh @ Vicky.
62.Ld. Defence Counsel attempted to assail the credibility of
the aforesaid witnesses by putting some questions
regarding the availability of the public witnesses and
efforts made by the IO to join the public person in the
investigation. All the aforesaid three witnesses stated that
although SI Vikas Pannu asked some persons to join the
proceedings but they refused for the same.
63.Relevant it would be to note that the accused Rakesh @
Vicky and Rinku @ Rajender were arrested at about
04:00 am in the morning. Firstly, it would have been
difficult to find a public witness at that early hour of the
day. Secondly, as has been noted above, while discussing
the veracity of the recovery effected from Manohar @
Manoj, public witnesses are generally reluctant to join
BABRU by
Digitally signed
BABRU
BHAN
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BHAN Date: 2025.01.16
17:18:19 +0000 Page 30 of 36
the investigation. Further, the observations made by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Ravi Seikhar
vs State are relevant regarding the recovery made by the
police officials from accused Rinku @ Rajender and
Rakesh @ Vicky also. The statement of police witnesses
deserves to be given the same credit which is to be given
to any other witness. A statement cannot be visited with
suspicion merely because it is given by a police witness.
Here in this case, the cross-examination of PW-11,
PW-12 and PW-18 has been perused and this Court has
not observed any material contradiction strong enough to
discard their testimony. The statement of PW-11, PW-12
and PW-18 thus proves that a ring and cash of
Rs.40,000/- was recovered from house of accused Rakesh
at instance of accused Rinku @ Rajender.
64.One argument may be made on behalf of the defence that
since the recovery was effected at instance of Rinku @
Rajender, same cannot be used against accused Rakesh. It
is relevant to note here that the recovery was effected
from the house of Rakesh @ Vicky but the exact place in
the house where the property was kept was pointed out
by accused Rinku @ Rajender. Thus, although the
property was kept in house of Rakesh @ Vicky but it was
recovered at instance of accused Rinku @ Rajender.
Therefore, the knowledge of accused Rakesh @ Vicky
that property was kept in his house can be safely inferred
because it was in his house and accused Rinku @
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU
Date:
BHAN
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BHAN 2025.01.16
17:18:24
+0000 Page 31 of 36
Rajender could not have kept the same without
knowledge of Rakesh @ Vicky. It will be used against
accused Rinku @ Vicky also because he had pointed out
the specific place where the property was kept in the
house. Thus, this recovery can be used against both
accused persons namely Rinku @ Rajender and Rakesh
@ Vicky.
65. Again the next relevant question is whether the ring and
the cash of Rs.40,000/- recovered from accused Rakesh
@ Vicky was a stolen property or not. SI Vikas Pannu
PW-12 has deposed in his court statement that the ring
was sealed in a pulanda with seal of ‘VP’ and was seized
vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/E. Sh. Bhupinder Singh
PW-13 had conducted the TIP of the ring recovered by SI
Sandeep PW-21. He has deposed in his court statement
that HC Mohar Singh PW-14 had produced a sealed
pulanda with seal of ‘VP”. After taking out the case
property from sealed pulanda, same was mixed with
sample rings. The complainant was called and he
correctly identified the ring taken out in the sealed
pulanda vide his statement Ex.PW13/E. This witness was
not cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused
persons despite given opportunities. So, the evidence
given by this witness went unrebutted.
66.PW-2/ complainant Satish Kumar has also deposed in his
court statement that he was called for identification of the
case property and he identified the same. Cross-
Digitally signed
BABRU by BABRU
BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:18:30 +0000 STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Page 32 of 36
examination of this witness would reveal that no effective
cross-examination on the aspect of identification of the
ring was conducted. Only general suggestions that the
case property identified by him during the TIP did not
belong to him were given. The witness denied that
suggestion. In considered opinion of this Court, bald
suggestions without any explanation shall not be
sufficient to discard the TIP proceedings regarding the
identification of ring by the complainant. Thus, it stands
proved that a ring belonging to complainant was
recovered from possession of accused Manohar @
Manoj. Now, it was for the accused persons to explain the
circumstances under which the ring and cash of
Rs.40,000/- came into their possession. However, neither
during the cross-examination nor at the time of recording
of statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused persons put-forth
any such explanation. The aforesaid recovery from the
accused persons was made within about 24 hours of the
robbery, therefore, this recovery can be used as an
additional circumstance to connect the accused persons
with the crime in question.
67.Although, accused Rinku @ Rajender has been charged
for the offence u/s 397 IPC but the complainant Satish
Kumar PW-2 has not stated anywhere in his court
statement that it was accused Rinku @ Rajender who had
used the country made pistol to threaten him at the time
of robbery. Complainant has also not specified name of
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:18:34
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
+0000
Page 33 of 36
any other accused person who had used the pistol to
threaten him. The reason is clarified by the
supplementary statements of the accused persons wherein
they stated that the pistol was used by co-accused Kishor
who could not be arrested during investigation. Thus, no
evidence has come against accused Rinku @ Rajender
that he had used a dangerous weapon during the
commission of robbery. He is accordingly acquitted from
the charges of offence u/s 397 IPC.
68.The conclusion of aforesaid discussion is that accused
Rinku @ Rajender and accused Rakesh @ Vicky along-
with their associates committed robbery of cash and other
jewellery articles from complainant Satish Kumar.
During the commission of robbery, they, in furtherance of
their common intention, caused injuries to the
complainant. One of their associate had used a pistol also
but he could not apprehended. Complainant has identified
accused Rinku @ Rajender and Rakesh @ Vicky in his
court statement. They were apprehended within 24 hours
of the robbery and were found in possession of some
stolen property. The reasons for possession of the stolen
property were not explained by them at any stage.
Although, they pleaded false implication but did not
explain the reasons for which accused could have falsely
implicated them. Prosecution has thus proved beyond
reasonable doubt that accused Rinku @ Rajender and
Rakesh @ Vicky had committed robbery with the
Digitally signed
BABRU by BABRU
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:18:39 +0000
Page 34 of 36
complainant and during the robbery, they caused injuries
to him. Accordingly, accused Rinku @ Rajender and
Rakesh @ Vicky are convicted for offence u/s 394 r/w 34
IPC.
69.As far as role of accused Manohar @ Manoj is
concerned, besides the recovery of a ring, there is no
evidence against him that he had participated in the
robbery. He had refused to participate in TIP proceedings
stating that he was shown to the witness. Complainant
failed to identify him during his court statement. Since
the complainant has failed to identify accused Manohar
@ Manoj in the court, it would not be safe to convict him
for robbery merely on the account of refusal to
participate in the TIP proceedings. There may be many
reasons for such refusal. On basis of recovery of the ring,
accused Manohar @ Manoj is convicted for offence u/s
411 IPC.
70.Accused Ganga Prasad was arrested subsequently after
issuance of process u/s 82 Cr.PC. IO moved an
application for TIP and complainant identified him
during the TIP proceedings. However, in his court
statement, complainant failed to identify accused Ganga
Prasad and explained that he had identified accused
Ganga Prasad during the test identification parade as the
IO had shown him the photographs. Thus, accused Ganga
Prasad cannot be convicted for robbery merely on basis
of identification during TIP proceedings when
Digitally
signed by
STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Page 35 of 36
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:18:44
+0000
complainant himself deposed that he had identified
accused Ganga Prasad as IO had shown him in the
photographs. Accused Ganga Prasad is also charged with
offence u/s 174A IPC. As this Court has discussed earlier
that said charge cannot sustain in absence of a complaint
u/s 195 Cr.PC which is not there in this case. Accused
Ganga Prasad is accordingly acquitted from all the
charges leveled against him.
71. Accused Ganga Prasad is directed to furnish bail bond in
the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in like amount in
terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
72.Matter be put up for order on sentence against accused
Rinku @ Rajender, Rakesh @ Vicky and Manohar @
Manoj on 30.01.2025.
73.Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the
Convicts. Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
Announced in open BHAN Date:
2025.01.16
17:18:51Court on 16.01.2025
+0000( BABRU BHAN)
ASJ-03, N/W, ROHINI COURTS
DELHI/ 16.01.2025STATE Vs. RINKU ETC
Page 36 of 36