Delhi High Court
Bhupender Singh @ Bhupi vs State on 19 May, 2014
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:19.05.2014.
+ CRL.A. 139/2006
BHUPENDER SINGH @ BHUPI
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv.
Versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order
of sentence dated 27.01.2006 & 31.01.2006 respectively wherein the
appellant along with his accomplice has been convicted under Section
392 read with Section 34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo
RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default
of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 3 months.
2 Nominal roll of the appellant has been requisitioned which
reflects that as on date when he had been granted bail i.e. on 18.07.2006,
he had undergone incarceration of about 2 months and 7 days.
3 Investigating machinery has been set into motion by Vidhya Devi
(PW-1). Her allegation was that on 17.11.2004 at about 12 noon, she
was present at her house i.e. House No. A-5, Gali No. 1, Mahavir
Enclave, Part III, New Delhi; she being alone in her house; her children
having gone to school and her husband being lodged in judicial custody
in a case relating to Narcotics, two persons entered her house. Appellant
Bhupinder gagged her mouth; his accomplice locked the door. Appellant
took out a knife and asked to handover the key of the almirah to him; In
almirah Rs.50,800/- were lying in a red purse; the same was removed as
well as her passbook. Her silver ornaments and gold ear rings were also
taken away. The accused persons had bolted the door from outside.
Further deposition of PW-1 being that she had raised alarm; her
neighbours opened the door; some of her neighbours went on motor-
cycle and chased them; they managed to apprehend accused Bhupinder;
her purse and cash was recovered from him. Police was called.
4 In her cross-examination, she admitted that a sum of Rs.39,890/-
which was recovered from the accused was taken on superdari by her;
she had informed the police at about noon time; she was alone in the
house at that time. She further admitted that the accused persons had
bolted the door from outside; she had raised alarm. The 'pradhan' of
their neighborhood had also reached the spot. One of their neighbours
who was a police officer had apprehended the appellant. Her thumb
impression was taken on some papers. She admitted that she knew SI
Lal Singh (PW-3). He was residing in Bindapur Police Station; she
further deposed that PW-3 came to her house at 02:00 PM. She admitted
that her husband was a vendor and was selling utensils on pheri; he at
that time being in jail in a NDPS case and was in custody for the last 2-3
years. She admitted that he had left no money with her. She further
admitted that she was doing the job of cleaning utensils and cleaning
houses of others; she was earning Rs.800/- per month. She admitted that
she let out two rooms on rent for which she was getting Rs.600/- each.
She admitted that PW-3 SI Lal Singh used to visit her house and she
also used to visit him. She admitted that she needed Rs.50,000/- to get
her husband released from jail and she had to give Rs.40,000/- to her
lawyer. She denied the suggestion she in connivance with PW-3 had
falsely implicated the appellant in the present case.
5 SI Lal Singh has been examined as PW-3. He was posted at PS
Janakpuri. This offence relates to PS Dabri. Testimony of PW-3 is that
on the fateful day i.e. on 17.11.1994 he was on patrolling duty. He
received a secret information that one badmas wil come at Bihar Dhabha
who was involved in a 'lootmar'. He along with SI R.D. Yadav (PW-4)
constituted a raiding party and the accused Bhupinder was seen coming
from Najafgarh side. At the pointing out of the informer, the appellant
was apprehended and from his search, a red colour purse was recovered
which contained Rs.39,890/- plus a passbook in the name of the
complainant Vidhya Devi.
6 In his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that he had not met Vidhya
Devi before 18.11.1994 and nor did she came to meet him in the police
station. In another part of cross-examination, he admitted that he knew
Vidhya Devi. He denied the suggestion that no recovery has been
effected from the accused and a false case has been planted upon him at
the behest of Vidhya Devi.
7 SI R.D. Yadav (PW-4) who had accompanied PW-3 was also
examined on oath. He had toed the line of PW-3. He had also deposed
that it was on the information of a secret informer that the appellant was
apprehended.
8 Relevant would it be to point out that the version of PW-3 who
had arrested the accused at 10:00 pm from a dhaba in the Janak Puri area
while he was on patrolling duty is in contrast with the version of PW-1;
PW-1 has deposed that the accused was apprehended when the
neighbors were chasing the appellant and they were successful in
apprehending him. From him, recovery of purse and passbook had been
effected. This is in contrast with the version of PW-3 who had stated
that on a secret information, the accused was apprehended at 10:00 pm
on the same day.
9 PW-3 has denied the suggestion that he knew PW-1 whereas
PW-1 has admitted this fact. PW-1 was a lady of little means; she was
earning her livelihood by washing utensils and was earning Rs.800/- per
month. It would be difficult to imagine that PW-1 who has two school
going children and her husband being lodged in judicial custody in a
Narcotic matter was having a sum of Rs.50,000/-; she admitted that she
needed Rs.50,000/- for the release of her husband from jail. She also
admitted that her husband was in the jail for the last 2-3 years. In this
background, how this amount of Rs.50,000/- came to be lying in the
almirah of PW-1 becomes questionable? From where, she had collected
so much money when she had no earning; it was difficult for her to meet
her own ends. The further admitted position that PW-3 was known to
the complainant but he has denied this factum; also makes the situation
suspicious. Moreover as per PW-3 and PW-4, the accused was
apprehended at 10:00 pm but the version of the victim (PW-1) is totally
different; her version is that the accused had been apprehended by the
neighbours.
10 In this background, the accused having been convicted for the
offence under Section 392 of the IPC by the trial Judge, the impugned
judgment suffers from a severe illegality. Benefit of doubt has to accrue
in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, giving him benefit of doubt, he
is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Bail bonds be cancelled;
surety discharged.
11 Appeal allowed in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY 19, 2014
A
