YASEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 23.01.2010, the complainant Amarjit Singh, a resident of house no.F-107, East of Kailash, New Delhi came to the police station Amar Colony and submitted a complaint with respect to the robbery which had taken place in his house in the night intervening 22/23.01.2010. He stated that during the aforesaid night, he was sleeping in his bedroom on the second floor, whereas his son Kunal Gulati, along with his wife Ms. Beenu Gulati and his son Ramit Gulati was sleeping in their rooms on the first floor. At about 5 am, four boys entered into the room, threatening him and asked for the cash. One of those boys put a knife on his neck and asked him to open the almirah. The complainant opened the almirah and the robbers removed about Rs.83,000/- in cash which had been kept in the almirah. Thereafter, they forced the complainant to accompany them to the room of his son at the first floor. Hearing the noise, his son came out of the room, but was taken inside and about Rs.1.82 lac in cash, one digital camera,a wrist watch of his son and two mobile phones belonging to the son of the complainant and one to the complainant. It was also alleged in the complaint that the robbers were aged about 20-22 years, were slim and had dark complexion.

(2.) During the course of investigation, it transpired that one sim having number 9560705721 was being used in one of the stolen mobiles phones. The aforesaid sim was found to be in the name of one Smt. Julekha, who was arrested on 28.01.2010 and was interrogated. During the interrogation, she disclosed the involvement of the appellant Sikender and took the police officers to his place. Sikender was arrested on being pointed out by Smt. Julekha and one Rolex watch was recovered from his possession, which he was wearing on his wrist. On the basis of the information provided by Sikander, the appellant Yaseen and interrogated him. Yaseen, at that time, was in the custody of the Crime Branch. After disclosure statement of Yaseen has been recorded, the appellant Mamun was arrested from Santosh Colony, Faridabad on being pointed out by Yaseen and he was arrested after recovering a watch having blue strap from the pocket of his pant. The prosecution, thus, has explained to the Court how it had reached the appellants Sikander, Mamun and Yaseen.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that during the course of investigation, the appellant Sikender was identified by the son of the complainant whereas the appellants Mamun and Yaseen refused to join TIP. The fourth person namely Julekha who appears to have absconded during trial and the present appellants Sikender, Yaseen and Mamun were charge-sheeted. Since they pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. The appellant Sikender examined himself as defence witness - DW1.