Delhi High Court
State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Naseem Jafri @Bhagu Singh & Ors. on 19 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 19th July, 2018
+ CRL.L.P. 528/2016
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP
for State with Inspector Veer
Singh and SI Vipin Kumar, PS
Kotwali.
versus
NASEEM JAFRI @ BHAGU SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 3 and 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Though non-bailable warrants have not been served on respondent
No. 5 however, this Court is proceeding to hear the leave to appeal with the
assistance of Mr. K. Singhal, who was appointed as amicus curiae for
respondent Nos. 3 and 6 before this Court and has assisted this Court besides
learned APP for State.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were charged for offence punishable under
Section 395/412 IPC and pursuant to the trial of the respondents except
Manoj Dashrath Gupta and Naseem Jafri, respondents have been convicted
for offence punishable under Sections 356 and 379/34 IPC and awarded
imprisonment for a period of one year and nine months and to pay a fine of
₹25,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months for the offence under Section 356/34 IPC and sentence of
imprisonment for a period of two years and nine months and a fine of
₹25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of three months for the offence under Section 379/34 IPC.
3. Manoj Dashrath Gupta/respondent No.5 has been acquitted of the
charges and Naseem Jafri has been convicted for offence punishable under
Section 411 IPC and awarded imprisonment for a period of two years six
months along with a fine of ₹25,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
4. The present leave to appeal is against acquittal of all the respondents
under Section 395 IPC.
5. The case of the prosecution hinges on the statement of complainant
(PW-4) who deposed as under:
"I am running a jewellery shop in the name and style of Facet
Jewels at 1106, 3rd floor, Chhata Madan Gopal, Maliwala,
Delhi.
On 7/11/2014 I got down from my office. It was about
3:20 pm when I left my shop. I was carrying bag red blue and
while colour. The said bag was having a brown colour bag on
which Kaushal Textiles was written. The said brown colour
bag was containing ₹4,75,000/- cash, 32 gold and diamond
rings, two pairs gold bangles and 4 pieces of diamond, one sun
glass make Tomy hill figure in a box. I was going to my friend
at Madhuras in order to take his auto. It was about 3:30 pm
when I reached in front of shop no.341/342 Dariba. One
person had put a bag on my shoulder. As soon as I moved
towards him other person snatched my bag containing
aforesaid articles and passed the same to other person. All the
persons disappeared from there. On suspicion I apprehended
accused Mohd. Ahmad present in Court today. I asked him
about my bag. For sometimes, he tried to fool me. After that I
took accused Mohd. Ahmad to PS Kotwali where my statement
was recorded by the IO."
6. From the statement of complainant PW-4 it is apparent that the bag
was snatched from him after Mohd. Ahmad had put another green colour
bag on his shoulder and when the attention of the complainant was diverted
to Mohd. Ahmad, other persons stole away the bag in possession of the
complainant which contained ₹4.75 lakhs cash, 32 gold and diamond rings,
two pair gold bangles, four pieces of diamond and one son glass make
Tommy Hilfiger in a box. Mohd. Ahmad was apprehended at the spot and
the entire incident was covered by the CCTV footage which was collected,
checked and after the arrest of Mohd. Ahmad, he took the police to the hotel
where his associate stayed. From the co-accused recoveries of ₹2.02 lakhs
cash, 32 gold and diamond rings and two pairs of gold bangles were made.
Thus no recovery of ₹2.73 lakhs cash, four pieces of diamond and one sun
glass could be made.
7. From the evidence of PW-4 it is evident that no threat of life nor any
fear of hurt or injury was extended to him. Hence the offence committed by
the accused would fall under Section 379 IPC and not under Section 395
IPC as prayed for by the State. From the CCTV footage it was evident that
Naseem Jafari was not present at the incident. Thus the learned Trial Court
rightly convicted him for offence punishable under Section 412 IPC.
8. The learned Trial Court acquitted Manoj Dashrath Gupta on the
ground that though he was seen in the CCTV footage but his presence at the
spot though suspicious but was not as an accomplice of the other accused.
Further no recovery of any robbed articles was made from Manoj Dashrath
Gupta except cash of ₹2,000/-. Considering the role of Manoj Dashrath
Gupta and that he did not act as an accomplice of the other co-accused and
could be a passerby the learned Trial Court committed no error in acquitting
Manoj Dashrath Gupta as he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
9. Thus this Court finds no error or illegality in the impugned judgment
of the learned Trial Court convicting the respondents Shamim Naseem Jafri
@ Badshah, Salim Malik, Madan Sen and Mohd. Ahmad for offences
punishable under Sections 379 and 356 IPC and awarding sentence as noted
above or acquitting Manoj Dashrath Gupta or convicting Naseem Jafri only
for offence punishable under Section 412 IPC.
10. Leave to appeal petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 19, 2018
'vn'
