ARVIND ALIAS BODY GUARD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

(2.) The case of prosecution is that on 09.06.2016 at about 9.30 am, during emergency duty, ASI Anand Kumar was assigned DD No.9A, who along with Ct. Dinesh reached just ahead of Metro line at Yamuna Bank Railway Line, near Pole No. 1/28, Shakarpur, Delhi, and in the way, he met complainant Anil Kumar, and with him, they walked towards the said spot, and the ASI Anand Kumar recorded statement of complainant who stated that he was working in a Security Office, at S-559, School Block, Shakarpur and on 09.06.2016, he was coming from Hapur to Delhi by a train and at about 8.00 am when train reached ahead of Metro Line at Yamuna Bank, Shakarpur, it stopped as no signal was received. Since his office was near to the said place, he got down from the train and started walking. In the meantime, train also went away after receiving signal and till then he had walked a little distance. A boy came from behind and asked him as to where he hailed from, and thereafter that boy took out a knife and asked him to take out whatever he was having with him. The said boy took a sum of Rs.7,000/- from his 'Pithoo Bag' (the bag hanging on his back) and took out his mobile phone make Nokia Lumia 730 (from left pocket of his pant) forcibly, however, that boy returned him, (the complainant) two SIMs No. 9212412810 and 9410454970 after taking out from the said mobile.

(3.) On the basis of the said statement of the complainant Anil Kumar, the ASI got registered the FIR, and during investigation, the site plan of scene of occurrence was prepared. Thereafter, on 25.08.2016, on an information of the secret informer, ASI Anand Kumar along with Ct. Harender and informant reached at Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, where the appellant was pointed out by the secret informer and he was arrested in the case. Thereafter, a request was made for conducting his TIP, to which the appellant refused before the concerned MM. During police custody remand of the appellant, the mobile phone of the complainant and the knife used in the commission of the offence could not be recovered. On 27.08.2016, the complainant came to the Police Station to hand over the copy of his mobile bill where he identified the appellant at the Police Station. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.