-1- INTHECOURTOFSH[ENTITY]SANJEEVAGGARWAL ADDL[ENTITY]SESSIONSJUDGE02,NORTH ROHINICOURTS,DELHI STATECASENo 57493/16 FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010 PSNarela U/s:457/458/392/394/397/34[ACT] [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] S/oSh[ENTITY]Rahish R/oHouseofRahish,VillageKureni, NewBasti,Delhi Alsoat; VillageNarela,Kuraini,Delhi[ENTITY] Dateofinstitution:01[ENTITY]07[ENTITY]2014 Judgmentreservedon:09[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2018 Judgmentdeliveredon:14[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2018 ORDER/JUDGMENT: Theaccusedisconvictedoftheoffence(s) u/S392/394/458/34[ACT][ENTITY] JUDGMENT 1[ENTITY]
Brieffacts,asstatedinthechargesheetarethaton26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010 on receipt of DD No[ENTITY] 7B, HC [ENTITY] along with Ct[ENTITY] [ENTITY] reachedthespot,wherefromthecrowd,twopersonsnamelyMazhar Hussain and [ENTITY], both residentsofVilage Kureni produced SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]1 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] oneperson,whosenamewaslateronrevealedas[ENTITY]@NagS/o [ENTITY][ENTITY][ENTITY]andCt[ENTITY] Subhash[ENTITY]Itwasrevealedthatinjuredpersonshadbeenremovedto SRHC Hospital[ENTITY] Thereafter, HC [ENTITY] after leaving Ct[ENTITY] [ENTITY] andCt[ENTITY][ENTITY]atthespotreachedSRHCHospitalandobtained the MLCs of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] on which the doctor opinedthenatureofinjuriesas'Simple'[ENTITY]Thereafter,herecordedthe followingstatementof[ENTITY]whichreadsasunder:
"That on 26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010, at about 10:00 pm, he alongwith [ENTITY] was sleeping[ENTITY] At about 1[ENTITY]45 am, he heard some noiseandhewokeupandsawtwopersonshadentered hishouseafteropeningthedoor[ENTITY] Theywerecollecting thehousearticlesandonseeinghimawake,bothofthem triedtoleavethehouse[ENTITY]Hegotupandapprehendedone oftheboywhilehewastryingtoleavetheroomandhe raisedanalarm[ENTITY]Thesaidboywashavinganironrodin hishandandhehitthesaidrodonhishead[ENTITY]Onhearing hisalarm,neighbourersalsowokeupandwhiletheytried to apprehend anotherperson,[ENTITY], his neighbour and managed to escape from the spot and they came to know the name of the apprehendedpersonbyhimas[ENTITY]@Nag[ENTITY] Someone madeacallat100number[ENTITY]PCRreachedthespotandhe alongwith [ENTITY] were taken to SRHC Hospital for theirmedicalexamination[ENTITY] Localpolicealsoreachedat thespotandhisstatementinthisregardwasrecorded"[ENTITY]
2[ENTITY] [ENTITY],endorsementwasmadebyHC[ENTITY] andhesentconcernedconstabletothepolicestationNarela,who SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]2 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] gotregisteredanFIRu/s457/380/511/323/34[ACT]atPSNarela[ENTITY]
3[ENTITY] Theinvestigationsweretakenup,thesiteplanofthespotwas prepared[ENTITY] The statement of the witnesses u/S[ENTITY] 161 [ACT] were recorded[ENTITY] Accused[ENTITY]@Nagwasarrestedandhisdisclosure statement was recorded[ENTITY] Pursuant to his disclosure statement, he disclosed the involvement of his coaccused [ENTITY] in the presentcase[ENTITY]
Thereafter,coaccused[ENTITY]wasalsoarrestedandhis disclosure statement was recorded[ENTITY] Certain stolen articles were seized u/[SECTION] Cr[ENTITY]PC[ENTITY] regardingwhichtheaccused[ENTITY] couldnotgiveanyplausibleexplanation[ENTITY]Accusedpersonsweresent toJC[ENTITY]Thereafter,[SECTION][ENTITY]
4[ENTITY] After completion of investigations, a charge sheet u/s [SECTION] filed against both the accused personsnamely[ENTITY]@Nagand[ENTITY][ENTITY]
5[ENTITY] Initially charge u/[SECTION] [ACT] was framed against both the accused persons vide order dated 06[ENTITY]03[ENTITY]2014[ENTITY] Thereafter, PW1 was also partly examinedinchief, however, vide orderdated23[ENTITY]06[ENTITY]2014of[ENTITY][ENTITY]MM,onthesubmissionsof[ENTITY][ENTITY]APPfor SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]3 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY][ENTITY] was made out, which was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions[ENTITY]Accordingly,[ENTITY][ENTITY]MMvidethesaidorderdated23[ENTITY]06[ENTITY]2014 committedthepresentcasetotheCourtofSessions[ENTITY]
6[ENTITY] OncommittalofthecasetotheCourtofSessions,videdetailed orderdated26[ENTITY]07[ENTITY]2014,charge(s)u/[SECTION] wereframedagainstboththeaccusedpersonstowhichtheypleaded notguiltyandclaimedtrial[ENTITY]
7[ENTITY] Duringproceedingsofthepresentcase,areportwasfiledbyIO ASI [ENTITY] regarding death of accused [ENTITY][ENTITY] Thereafter,videorderdated20[ENTITY]10[ENTITY]2015,proceedingsquaaccused [ENTITY]@Nagstoodabated[ENTITY]
8[ENTITY] Thereafter,prosecutioninsupportofitscasehasexamined10 witnesses:
a) PW1 is Dr, [ENTITY],whohasprovedtheMLCofthe injured[ENTITY]asEx[ENTITY]PW1/AandtheMLCoftheinjured [ENTITY]asEx[ENTITY]PW1/B[ENTITY]
b) PW2isCt[ENTITY][ENTITY],DDWriter,whohasprovedthe recordingofDDNo[ENTITY]7BvideEx[ENTITY]PW2/A[ENTITY] SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]4 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY]
c) PW3isHCKaranSingh,DutyOfficer,whohasproved thecopyofFIREx[ENTITY]PW3/Aandendorsementmadebyhimon therukkasentbyIOvideEx[ENTITY]PW3/Baswellascertificateu/[SECTION][ENTITY]PW3/C[ENTITY]
d) PW4 is Ct[ENTITY] [ENTITY], who had joined the investigations along with HC [ENTITY] on 26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010 and provedthevariousmemos[ENTITY]
e) [ENTITY],thelandlordofthecomplainantPW6 [ENTITY],whohassupportedtheprosecutionstoryregarding thetime,placeandthemannerofincident[ENTITY]
f) PW6 is the complainant / injured [ENTITY], who has supportedtheprosecutionstoryregardingthetime,placeand themannerofincidentaswellasidentityoftheaccused[ENTITY]He hasalsoprovedhisstatementgiventothepoliceEx[ENTITY]PW6/A[ENTITY]
g) [ENTITY],whohadjoinedtheinvestigations alongwithHC[ENTITY]on26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010[ENTITY]
h) PW8 is ASI [ENTITY], who on 26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010 was working as MHC (M), with whom IO had deposited the relevantcasepropertyofthiscasewithhimvideserialno[ENTITY]203 as Ex[ENTITY] PW8/A[ENTITY] Thereafter, on 28[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010, IO had also depositedthecasepropertywithhimvideserialno[ENTITY]208Ex[ENTITY] PW8/B[ENTITY]
i) [ENTITY],whodeposedonthesamelinesas SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]5 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] deposedbyPW6[ENTITY]andwhohadalsosupportedthe prosecution story and had also suffered the injuries in the incident[ENTITY]
m) [ENTITY],IOofthiscase,whohas deposedregardingtheinvestigationsaswerecarriedoutby himduringthecourseofthepresentcase[ENTITY]
9[ENTITY] Thereafter, statement of the accused u/[SECTION] Cr[ENTITY]P[ENTITY]C[ENTITY] was recordedinwhichtheentireincriminatingevidenceappearingagainst theaccusedwasputtohim,inwhichthedefenceoftheaccusedwas that he had been falsely implicated in the present case[ENTITY] He further statedthat henevercommittedtheoffenceinquestion[ENTITY] However,he chosenottoleadanyevidenceinhisdefence[ENTITY]
10[ENTITY] I have heard Sh[ENTITY] [ENTITY], [ENTITY][ENTITY] Amicus Curiae for the accusedandSh[ENTITY][ENTITY][ENTITY][ENTITY][ENTITY]Addl[ENTITY]PPforthe[ENTITY][ENTITY]
11[ENTITY] [ENTITY][ENTITY] Defence counsel had argued that the testimony of PW6 [ENTITY] ofcontradictionsandimprovementsintheirtestimonies,whichmakes thecaseoftheprosecutionunbelievable[ENTITY]Healsosubmitsthatnumber of public persons were present aroundthespot,yetnoother public witnessexcepttheinjuredpersonshadjoinedtheinvestigations,who SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]6 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] wouldhavebeenindependentpublicwitnesses[ENTITY]
HefurthersubmitsthatPW9[ENTITY]hasfailedtoidentifythe accused [ENTITY] astheperson,whohadabscondedfrom the spot as per his crossexamination[ENTITY] He also submits that the IO has admitted in his crossexamination that such like rods, which were allegedly recovered from the possession of accused were freely availableontheconstructionsitesandthesaidrodswerenotsentto FSLandIOalsoadmittedthathedidnottrytoliftfingerprintsfromthe rod,whichalsoshowsthatthesaidrodshavebeenplanteduponthe accused[ENTITY]Healsosubmitsthatasperestablishedlawarodisnota deadlyweapon,therefore,nooffenceu/s397[ACT]inthiscaseismade outandtheaccusedisliabletobeacquitted[ENTITY]
12[ENTITY] Ontheotherhand,[ENTITY][ENTITY]Addl[ENTITY]PPforthe[ENTITY]hascontroverted theaboveargumentsandhasarguedthatfromthetestimoniesofPW6 [ENTITY],complainantandthatofPW9[ENTITY]regardingthetime, placeaswellasthemanneroftheincident,prosecutionhasbeenable to prove that the accused [ENTITY] along with his coaccused Saleem@Naghadcommittedlurkinghousetrespassbybreakingin thenightinordertocommitrobberyandthereafter,whenPW6wokeup andPW9alsoreachedthespotonhearinghiscries,bothofthemwere assaultedbytheaccusedpersonsandintheconfusiononeofthemi[ENTITY]e[ENTITY] thepresentaccusedranawaywhiletheotherwasapprehended[ENTITY]
SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]7 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY][ENTITY] establishedasPW6andPW9hadseentheaccusedpersonsfromvery close distance, as PW6 and PW9 had grappled with them[ENTITY] He also submitsthattherecoveryofrodsfromthepossessionoftheaccused personsclearlyprovesthattheyhadcommittedlurkinghousetrespass into the dwelling house of the complainant after house breaking by usingtheimplementsofhousebreakingi[ENTITY]e[ENTITY]rodandtheyalsocaused hurttothePW6andPW9whichisprovedbytheirMLCprovedonthe recordEx[ENTITY]PW1/AandEx[ENTITY]PW1/Brespectively[ENTITY]Hefurthersubmitsthat therodisadeadlyweapon,therefore,offenceu/[SECTION] be made out in this case, as the accused had used said rod while committing the said robbery upon PW9 [ENTITY], therefore, prosecutionhasbeenabletomakeoutacaseu/s457/458/392/394/34 [ACT]readwithSection397[ACT][ENTITY]
13[ENTITY] Ihavegonethroughtherivalcontentions[ENTITY]
14[ENTITY] PW6 [ENTITY] in his testimonial deposition has deposed as under:
"That On26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010Ialongwith[ENTITY]wassleepingin thathouse[ENTITY] Atabout1[ENTITY]45amIheardsomenoiseandI woke up and saw two persons entered my house after SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]8 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] openingthedoor[ENTITY]Theywerecollectingthehousearticles andonseeingmeawaken,bothofthemtriedtoleftthe house[ENTITY]Igotupandapprehendedoneoftheboywhilehe wastryingtolefttheroomandIraisedalarm[ENTITY] Thesaid [ENTITY] rodonmyhead[ENTITY]Onhearingmynoise,neighbourersalso woke up and while they tried to apprehend another person, he gave iron rod blow to [ENTITY], my neighbourandhemanagedtoescapefromthespotand wecametoknowthenameofapprehendedpersonbyme as [ENTITY][ENTITY] Someone had made a call at 100 number[ENTITY] Both the persons entered our house with the intentiontocommittheftandthepersonwhomanagedto escapefromthespotalsotookourtwomobilephones[ENTITY] PCR reached at the spot[ENTITY] Accused [ENTITY] was handedovertopolice[ENTITY]Ialongwith[ENTITY]weretaken to SRHC Hospital for our medical examination[ENTITY] Local policealsoreachedatthespotandmystatementinthis regardwasrecorded[ENTITY] SameisEx[ENTITY] PW6/[ENTITY] read over and explained to me after found it to be the correct I put my LTI at point A[ENTITY] On the basis of my statement,casewasregistered[ENTITY]
After two days of the incident i[ENTITY]e[ENTITY] on 28[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010, I was SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]9 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] standing outside my house and at that time police officials got accused [ENTITY] and I identified accused[ENTITY]tobethesamepersonwhoalong withhisassociate[ENTITY]@Nagenteredinourhousewith intention to commit theft and when I awaken, his associateassaultedmeandaccusedSalmanmanagedto escapeafterhittingironrodtomyneighbour[ENTITY][ENTITY] AccusedSalmankhanisalsopresentinthecourttoday (correctlyidentified)[ENTITY]
Thereafter, accused [ENTITY] was arrested after I identifiedhimvidearrestmemoalreadyEx[ENTITY]PW4/Bwhich bearsmysignaturesatpointB[ENTITY]Thereafter,mystatement was recorded by the IO[ENTITY] I can also identify the co accused[ENTITY]@Nag,towhomIapprehended([ENTITY]@ Nagisalreadyexpired)[ENTITY]Icanidentifythecaseproperty,if showntome[ENTITY]
Atthisstage,MHC(M)hasproducedoneironrod,sameis showntothewitnesswhoidentifiestheironrodtobethe samewhichwasusedby[ENTITY]@Nag[ENTITY] Thesaidrodis alreadyEx[ENTITY]P3"[ENTITY]
15[ENTITY] PW6 in his above testimonial deposition has supported the prosecution story regarding the time, place and the manner of the SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]10 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] incidentaswellasidentityofthepresentaccusedbeinginvolvedinthe said incident dated 26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010[ENTITY] He also identified the accused on 28[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010 when he was brought by the police officials outside his houseandheidentifiedhimtobethesamepersonwhoalongwithhis coaccused [ENTITY] had entered into his house with the intentiontocommittheftandwhenhewokeup,hisassociateassaulted himandthepresentaccusedmanagedtoescapeafterhittingwithrod uponhisneighbourer[ENTITY][ENTITY]
In his crossexamination nothing has come out, in fact, in the crossexaminationasuggestionwasgivenasunder:
"Itiscorrectthatwhenaccused[ENTITY]managedto escapefromthespot,atthattimeitwasdark"[ENTITY]
Bygivingsaidsuggestion,thedefencealsoadmitsthepresence ofaccused[ENTITY]atthespoton26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010[ENTITY]Inanycase,the observational sensitivity of this witnesshad been testedimmediately on28[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010whentheaccused[ENTITY]wasshowntohimby thepoliceofficialsandhehadseentheaccused[ENTITY]from closerangeashehadwokeupafterseeinghimandhisassociatein hishouseaftertheyhadenteredintohishousebyopeningthedoor andwerecollectinghouseholdarticles,therefore,hehadseenhimfrom very close distance and he again saw the present accused on 28[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010afteralapseofonlytwodays,therefore,hisidentitywould have been fresh in his mind and therefore it cannot be said his SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]11 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] observationalsensitivitysufferedfromtheerrorsofperception,which areruledoutduetothecloseproximityoftimebetweentheincident dated26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010whenhesawtheaccused[ENTITY]forthefirst timeandthereafterimmediatelyon28[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010whenhesawhimagain, therefore,theidentityoftheaccused[ENTITY]hasbeenclearly establishedfromthetestimonyofPW6[ENTITY]
16[ENTITY] Regarding the testimony of PW9 [ENTITY], he has clearly supportedtheprosecutionstoryregardingtime,placeandmannerof theincidentashehasdeposedthaton26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010,atabout1:45am, hewaspresentinhisrentedaccommodationandheardthealarmof Mohd[ENTITY][ENTITY]residingnearhisroomandwhenhecameoutofhis roomhesawtwopersonswhowererunning[ENTITY]Hetriedtoapprehendone ofthem,butoneofthemhithimwithironrodonhisheadandranaway andotheronewasapprehendedbyPW6,whowasalsoassaultedhim byironrod,whosenamewasrevealedasSaleem@Nag[ENTITY]
17[ENTITY] FromthetestimonyofPW9,whichdulycorroboratestheversion ofPW6,theprosecutionhasbeenabletoestablishthetime,placeand themannerofincidentbeyondanydoubt,however,PW9inhiscross examinationstatedthathecannottellwhethertheaccusedSalmanwas thesamepersonwhohadhithimwithironrodandescapedfromthe spotduetolapseoftime[ENTITY]Therefore,thiswitnessthoughdidnotidentify SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]12 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] theaccused[ENTITY]duetolapseoftime,butPW6hadclearly identifiedhiminthecourtandhehadalsoseenhimimmediatelyafter theincidenton28[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010,whenhewasshowntohimbythepolice officials,therefore,anydoubtwithregardtohisobservationalsensitivity with regard to his identity is clearly ruled out due to proximate time betweentheincidentanddateofidentificationofthepresentaccused on28[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010[ENTITY]
18[ENTITY] Another witness PW5 [ENTITY] has also corroborated the prosecutionversionregardingthetime,placeandthemannerofthe incident as well as apprehension of accused [ENTITY] at the spot[ENTITY]HehasalsodeposedthatPW6andPW9werehistenantswhich alsofurtherstrengthenstheprosecutionstorythatPW6andPW9were present at the time of the incident in their respective rooms and regardingthatcommotionandapprehensionofaccusedSaleem@Nag fromthespot,therefore,theprosecutionstoryhasbeenstrengthened withregardtothemanneroftheincidentfromthetestimoniesofPW5 andPW9andthereisnodoubtleftwithregardtothesame[ENTITY]
19[ENTITY] Theprosecutionstoryisfurthersupportedbythetestimoniesof PW4Ct[ENTITY][ENTITY]whoonthatdaywasonpatrollingdutyalongwithCt[ENTITY] [ENTITY],accusedSaleem@Nag was handed over to him by the public persons[ENTITY] Further PW7 HC SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]13 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY][ENTITY],aswellastheIOPW10ASI[ENTITY],whohasalsodeposedthaton26[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010onreceiptofDDNo[ENTITY] 7BEx[ENTITY]PW2/Ahereachedthespoti[ENTITY]e[ENTITY]VillageKhureninearHanuman Dal Mill, Narela, where public persons were gathered and public personsMazharHussainandShahidAliproducedSaleem@Nagand thereaftertheyhandedoverthecustodyofsaidaccusedtoCt[ENTITY][ENTITY] andCt[ENTITY][ENTITY],whohadreachedthespotandcametoknowthatthe injuredhadbeenremovedtothehospital[ENTITY]Thereafter,hewenttoSRHC HospitalandobtainedtheMLCoftheinjuredpersonsandrecordedthe statementofPW6[ENTITY]Ex[ENTITY]PW6/AandgottheFIRregisteredand arrestedthesaidaccusedandrecordedhisdisclosurestatementEx[ENTITY] PW5/A and thereafter on 28[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2010 accused [ENTITY] was arrestedandhisdisclosurestatementwasalsorecordedEx[ENTITY]PW4/G and pursuant to his disclosure statement he got recovered from his house one iron rod seized vide memo Ex[ENTITY] PW4/F and also got recoveredoneDVDplayerandonemobilephoneofsomeothercase whichwereseizedvidememoEx[ENTITY]PW4/GandEx[ENTITY]PW4/H[ENTITY] Hewascrossexamined[ENTITY]Thoughheadmittedthatsuchkindof rodswerefreelyavailableattheconstructionsitesandsamewerenot senttoFSLnorfingerprintswereliftedfromthesame[ENTITY]However,from thetestimoniesofPW6andPW9,whichisalsocorroboratedbytheir MLCsEx[ENTITY]PW1/AandEx[ENTITY]PW1/B,whereinbothofthemhadsuffered SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]14 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] simpleinjuriesi[ENTITY]e[ENTITY]abrasionofleftelbowandbackofleftshoulderas wellasCLW[ENTITY]5x1cmatoccipitalregionwhichinjuriesareonlypossible with blunt weapon i[ENTITY]e[ENTITY] rod etc[ENTITY] therefore, the medical evidence duly corroboratetheeyewitnessaccountofPW6andPW9withregardto themanneroftheincidentandcausingofinjuriesuponthembythe accusedpersons[ENTITY]
20[ENTITY] Therefore,prosecutionhasbeenabletoprovebeyondanydoubt thattheaccusedpersonshadcommittedlurkingtrespassbynightand alsocommittedhousebreakingbynightafterhavingmadepreparation to cause hurt by using iron rods in order to commit the offence of robbery and while committing the act of robbery they also caused simplehurtonthebodyofPW6andPW9[ENTITY]
21[ENTITY] Nowitistobeseen,whetheroffenceu/s397[ACT]wouldbemade outinthepresentcaseornot[ENTITY]Inthisregard,[ENTITY][ENTITY][ENTITY] uponthefollowingjudgments:
1[ENTITY] [ENTITY][ENTITY]The[ENTITY],Crl[ENTITY]Appealno[ENTITY]136of1981dated 02[ENTITY]03[ENTITY]1983[ENTITY]
2[ENTITY] [ENTITY][ENTITY]Vs[ENTITY],Crl[ENTITY]Appealno[ENTITY]580 of2000dated26[ENTITY]07[ENTITY]2000[ENTITY]
3[ENTITY] Santosh@MotaVs[ENTITY][ENTITY](NCTofDelhi),Crl[ENTITY]AppealNo[ENTITY] SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]15 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] 10412of2014dated09[ENTITY]09[ENTITY]2015[ENTITY]
In judgment Dhanai Mahto and Anr[ENTITY] Vs[ENTITY] [ENTITY] of Bihar, it has beenheldasunder:
"LearnedCounselcontendsthattheweaponsattributedto themcannot answerthedescription ofdeadlyweapons[ENTITY] We are persuaded to accept the said contention, particularly,inviewoftheabsenceofotherdescriptions giventotheweapons[ENTITY]Merely,thedescriptionofbamboo sticksorlathisisnotenoughtomadetheweaponslethal or deadly[ENTITY] There is no case that the accused inflicted grievoushurtorattemptedtoinflictgrievoushurttothe inmates[ENTITY] Therefore, the limitation prescribed in [SECTION]"[ENTITY]
In judgment Santosh @ Mota Vs[ENTITY] [ENTITY] (NCT of Delhi) the relevantparasareasunder:
"Evenotherwise,nothingtheadmissionofPW6thatthe bladewerewrappedinwrapperswhenrecoveredfromthe accused,itisallthemorereasontoholdthattherewas no 'use' of the 'deadly weapon'; both of which are necessary ingredients to establish a conviction under Section397ofthe[ACT]"[ENTITY]
Inthiscontext,thefollowingobservationsofaBenchofthisCourt SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]16 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] inMANU/DE/2866/2013DineshRaiVs[ENTITY][ENTITY]arerelevant;theyreadas under:
"In order to bring home a charge under S[ENTITY] 397, the prosecution mustproduceconvincing evidencethatthe knife used by the accused was a deadly weapon[ENTITY] What wouldmakeknifedeadlyisitsdesignorthemethodofits usesuchasiscalculatedtoorislikelytoproducedeath[ENTITY] It is, therefore, a question of fact to be proved by the prosecution that the knife used by the accused was a deadlyweapon[ENTITY]"
22[ENTITY] Thelawlaiddowntheabovejudgmentsissquarelyapplicableto the facts of the present case,asadmittedlythesaidrodwhichwas recoveredattheinstanceofaccusedSalmanpursuanttohisdisclosure statement and which was seized vide memo Ex[ENTITY] PW4/E was never shown to the witness i[ENTITY]e[ENTITY] the complainant PW6 or to the PW9 [ENTITY]towhomtheaccused[ENTITY]aspertheprosecution storyhadgiventherodblowduringthecommissionofrobbery[ENTITY]Infact, thesaidrodwasnotexhibitedinthetestimoniesofPW2orPW9and thesamewasonlyexhibitedduringthetestimonyofIOPW10,thereby implyingthattheprosecutionwasevennotsurethataccused[ENTITY]hadusedthesaidweaponquaPW9[ENTITY]
SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]17 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY]
23[ENTITY] Inviewoftheratiolaiddowninthesaidjudgment,whereinithas beenheldthatmerebamboosticksorlathiswithouttheirdescription cannot be considered to be lethal or deadly andsimilarly ashaving bladewasalsonotheldtobedeadlyweaponanditwasalsoheldthat merely because knife has been used would not make it a deadly weapon,andwhatwouldmakeaknifedeadlyisitdesignoritsmanner ofusewhichislikelytocausedeath[ENTITY]
24[ENTITY] Inthepresentcase,noneofthesefactorsarepresent,therefore, rod used in the present case as per the prosecution story by the accused[ENTITY]cannotbeheldtobeadeadlyweaponwithinthe meaningofSection397[ACT][ENTITY]
25[ENTITY] Now with regard to common intention of both the accused persons,thelawregardingthecommonintentionhasbeenlaiddownin thejudgmenttitledasGirijaShankarVs[ENTITY][ENTITY]ofU[ENTITY]P[ENTITY],Appeal(crl[ENTITY]) 1034 of 1997 on 04[ENTITY]02[ENTITY]2004 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:
"Section34hasbeenenactedontheprincipleof joint liability in the doing of a criminal act[ENTITY] The Section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence[ENTITY] The distinctive feature of the Section is the element of participationinaction[ENTITY]Theliabilityofoneperson foranoffencecommittedbyanotherinthecourse of criminal act perpetrated by several persons SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]18 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] arises under [SECTION] if such criminal act is doneinfurtheranceofacommonintentionofthe personswhojoinincommittingthecrime[ENTITY]Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and,therefore,suchintentioncanonlybeinferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances[ENTITY]Inordertobringhomethecharge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial,thattherewasplanormeetingof mind of all the accused persons to commit the offenceforwhichtheyarechargedwiththeaidof [SECTION], be it prearranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime[ENTITY] The true concept of Sectionisthatiftwoormorepersonsintentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the sameasifeachofthemhasdoneitindividuallyby himself[ENTITY][ENTITY][ENTITY][ENTITY]of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 109), the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of thisSection[ENTITY]Itisnotnecessarythattheactsofthe several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar[ENTITY]Theactsmaybedifferentincharacter,but must have been actuated by one and the same commonintentioninordertoattracttheprovision[ENTITY] The Section does not say "the common intention of all", nor does it say" and intention commontoall"[ENTITY]Undertheprovisionsof[SECTION]theessenceoftheliabilityistobefoundinthe existence of a common intention animating the SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]19 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] accusedleadingtothedoingofacriminalactin furtherance of such intention[ENTITY] As a result of the applicationofprinciplesenunciatedinSection34, whenanaccusedisconvictedunderSection302 read with [SECTION], in law it means that the accusedisliablefortheactwhichcauseddeathof thedeceasedinthesamemannerasifitwasdone byhimalone[ENTITY]Theprovisionisintendedtomeeta case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party whoactinfurtheranceofthecommonintentionof allortoproveexactlywhatpartwastakenbyeach ofthem[ENTITY]AswasobservedinCh[ENTITY]PullaReddyand Ors[ENTITY] v[ENTITY] [ENTITY] of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1993 SC 1899), [SECTION] is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself[ENTITY] For applying [SECTION] it is not necessarytoshowsomeovertactonthepartof theaccused[ENTITY]"
26[ENTITY] Inthepresentcase,thoughtheotheraccusedSaleemhaddied duringthetrial,however,commonintentionoftheaccusedpersonsis clearly evident from the fact that both of them had entered into the dwelling house of the complainantandhadcommittedlurkinghouse trespass or house breaking by night by the use of house breaking implementshavingmadepreparationtocausehurttoanyperson,who maystopthemandwhenPW6andPW9hadconfrontedtheminthe saidact,theyputtheminthefearofinstantdeathwhilecommittingthe theftfromthedwellingofhouseofPW6ofthehouseholdarticles,and SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]20 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] thusalsoassaultedthemwithironrods,therebycausingsimpleinjuries on their person, therefore, the common intention as well as active participationofboththeaccusedpersonsincommissionoftheoffence inquestionaswellasovertactisalsoclearlyprovedinthepresent case,therefore,thecommonintentioninthepresentcaseofboththe accusedpersonsasenvisagedu/s34[ACT]isclearlymadeout[ENTITY]Itshows premeditation before the commission of the offence[ENTITY] Therefore, the confederacyorthemeetingofmindsoftheaccusedpersonsisclearly visibleinthepresentcase[ENTITY]Therefore,bytheprincipleofagency,both areliablefortheactsofeachother[ENTITY]
27[ENTITY] Now, what is net probative forceof the prosecution case asa whole after this wholesomediscussion[ENTITY] That is to say, it is time to weightoranalyzetheprobativeforceofentiremassofprosecutionor defenceevidence,whichhasbeenletin[ENTITY]SincetheEvidenceActonly speaksmainlyabouttherulesofadmissibilityofevidencei[ENTITY]ewhatkind ofevidenceissafe,duetoprudenceandexperience,thereforeshould beletin,orwhichisnot,duetolongdrawnexperiencelikehearsay which should be discarded[ENTITY] Therefore, [ACT] mainly speaks abouttheadmissibilityornonadmissibilityofevidence[ENTITY]Now,oncethe entireevidenceisletin,whatisforceorweightwhichhastobegivento aparticularpieceoritemofevidence[ENTITY] Then,totheentirecumulative forceofevidencetakenasawhole[ENTITY]Afterconsideringthecounterpulls SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]21 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY] orcountervailingevidencewhichpullsdowntheweightofprosecution evidenceorsupportsthedefenceevidence[ENTITY] Theanswertothesame canonlybefoundintheprinciplesofmathematicalprobabilitywhich areusedtoanalyzethehappeningornonhappeningofanyeventon suchprobabilityscale[ENTITY]
28[ENTITY] On the scale of 1 to 10, where happening of any event is measuredtheprobativeforceoftheentiremassoftheevidencelead onrecordtakenasawholeistouchingthepointofcertainty[ENTITY]Itcanbe given8or9pointsonsuchscaleof'10'i[ENTITY]e80%or90%probability'1' beingthecertaintyor100%(whichthoughcanneverbeachievedin reality)[ENTITY]Onsuchkindofevidence,itcanbesafelysaidthatitwerethe accusedpersonswhohadcommittedlurkinghousetrespassandhouse breakinginthehouseofcomplainant[ENTITY]bynighthavingmade preparationforcausinghurttocomplainantandtocommitrobberyand infurtheranceoftheircommonintentiontheycommittedrobberyand voluntarilycausedhurttocomplainant[ENTITY]andone[ENTITY]by usingironrods,andis,therefore,guiltyoftheoffenceforwhichhehas been charged[ENTITY] The prosecution had to prove its case beyond reasonabledoubtandonsaidscales,itshouldbetouchingthepointof certaintyifnotone,itshouldhavebeensomewherearound8or9that istosay80%and90%whichisthecaseinhand[ENTITY]
SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]22 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY]
29[ENTITY] Tosumup:
Fromtheaforesaidanalysisofevidence,theprobativeforceof theprosecutionevidenceasawholeistouchingthepointofcertainty onthescales,whereprobabilityofhappeningofanyeventisassessed ormeasured,whereasthedefenceversionishavingverylowprobative force, which is almost touching the point of disbelief[ENTITY] As a consequence,theaccusedstandsconvictedu/S[ENTITY]392/394/458/34[ACT][ENTITY]
AnnouncedintheopenCourt ([ENTITY]) th onthis14 dayofMay2018[ENTITY]Addl[ENTITY]SessionsJudge02,North RohiniCourts,Delhi/14[ENTITY]05[ENTITY]2018 SCNo[ENTITY]57493/16,FIRNo[ENTITY]200/2010,P[ENTITY]S[ENTITY]Narela PageNo[ENTITY]23 of 23 [ENTITY][ENTITY]