MANISH SONI Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant- Manish Soni challenges correctness of judgment dated 21.09.2011 and order on sentence dated 29.09.2011 in Sessions Case No. 09/2010 arising out of FIR No. 738/2007 PS Connaught Place by which he was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 328/379 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with total fine Rs. 30,000/-.

(2.) Allegations against the accused were that on 30.10.2007 at 05.30 P.M at Volga Restaurant, he and Co-Convict Sachin Gandhi administered some intoxicant substance to victim/ complainant- Chambak Vasu Dinesh and Rajesh Kalidass and deprived them of gold chain, locket, gold bracelet, cash Rs. 3,500/-, mobile phone, key of car, driving licence, PAN card and ABN-Amro bank credit card. It was also alleged that from 01.10.2007 to 15.01.2008, they dishonestly purchased two mobile phones using stolen credit card. Somesh Dua was arrested and challaned for committing offence punishable under Section 411 IPC being in possession of 10 gold chains, 3 bracelets, 2 karas, 2 gold rings knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove the charges. In their 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused did not deny the incriminating circumstance proved against them. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant and his associate Sachin Gandhi guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 328/379 IPC and sentenced them. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal. It is relevant to note that co-accused Somesh Dua compounded the offence under Section 411 IPC with the complainant and was acquitted vide order dated 18.02.2011.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. The prosecution could not establish what poisonous substance was administered to the complainant. No evidence was collected from Moolchand Hospital where the complainant was taken and admitted. Counsel highlighted discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of material witnesses PW-2 (Chambak Vasu Dinesh), PW-3 (Rajesh Kalidass) and PW-5 (Biju Kumar) to emphasize that they gave inconsistent version as to how the complainant was taken to Moolchand Hospital or Police Station Mandir Marg. They claimed that their friend Jobi reached the spot but the prosecution did not cite him a witness and he was not examined. The prosecution did not offer plausible explanation for inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Trial Court fell into grave error in putting questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to both the accused mechanically. The witnesses made vital improvements in their deposition in the Court. Learned APP urged that PW-2 and PW-3 had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused. In their 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused admitted his guilt.