S.P.GARG, J. - (1.) NASIM (A-1) and Puneet @ Ashu (A-2) challenge correctness of a judgment dated 10.02.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 88/2009 arising out of FIR No. 129/2009 PS Seelampur whereby they were held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. By an order dated 08.03.2011, they were directed to undergo RI for four years with fine Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 392 IPC and RI for seven years with fine Rs. 3,000/- each under Section 397 IPC.
(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellants were that on 05.04.2009 at about 01.00 A.M. at Old G.T. Road, near Mandir Shastri Park, they were armed with 'ustara' and 'knife' and robbed Manoj and Gulbir of cash Rs. 150/-, purse and wrist watch. First Information Report was lodged at PS Seelampur after recording complainant Manoj's statement (Ex.PW-1/F). Both the accused persons were arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against them in the Court. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove their guilt. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, they claimed themselves to be innocent and alleged false implication. They did not prefer to examine any witness in defence. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence and taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, held both the appellants perpetrators of the crime. Appellants' counsel urged that the Trial Court did not Appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error to base its conviction on the testimonies of PW-1 (Manoj) and PW-2 (Gulbir) who were interested and partisan witnesses. The appellants being bad character (B.C.) of the area were falsely implicated by the police of PS Seelampur. The story presented by prosecution is full of contradictions and loopholes. It is alleged that the appellants were first taken to PS Kashmiri Gate, however, no proceedings regarding recovery of the articles from their possession were conducted there. PW-1 (Manoj) and PW-2 (Gulbir) have given contradictory version about arrival of PW- 2 in PS Seelampur. Investigating Officer did not move any application for holding TIP of the articles or of the assailants. It was not possible for the victims to identify the assailants due to darkness. PCR officials were not examined to corroborate the complainant's version. Section 397 IPC is not attracted as weapons were not used to cause injuries. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that there were no sound reasons to discard the testimonies of the victims who had no prior animosity with the assailants.
(3.) THE occurrence took place at about 01.00 A.M. on the night intervening 4/5.04.2009. Daily Diary (DD) No. 24A (Ex.PW-5/B) was recorded at PS Seelampur at 03.20 A.M. on getting information that PCR officials had caught hold two snatchers near ISBT and they were taking them to PS Seelampur. Manoj (TSR driver) lodged complaint (Ex.PW- 1/F) and gave vivid details of the incident as to how when he was driving the TSR No. DL-1RE-6094 with passenger Gulbir and reached near Seelampur Metro Station, two individuals, whose names were ascertained as Nasim (A-1) and Puneet (A-2) entered in the TSR forcibly and robbed them at the point of ustara / knife. They directed to take the TSR as per their command. At about 01.30 A.M. at ISBT, on finding a PCR van located there, he informed PCR officials who caught hold of A-1 and A-2 and took them to PS Kashmiri Gate. They were asked to report at PS Seelampur as the incident of robbery took place in their jurisdiction. Rukka (Ex.PW-7/A) was prepared and First Information Report was lodged at 05.50 A.M. There was no delay in lodging the report. Early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of the version. In the case of 'Jail Prakash Singh v.State of Bihar & Anr.', 2012 CRI.L.J.2101, the Supreme Court held:- "The FIR in criminal case is vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question." ;