KASHI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 3.4.2008, the police control room was informed that 4-5 armed persons had entered the house of the informant in AE Block of Shalimar Bagh. The information, when transmitted to Police Station Shalimar Bagh, was recorded vide DD No.6A, copy of which was given to S.I. Sudhir Kumar for investigation. When the aforesaid police officer reached the spot along with other police officials, the complainant Dr. Umesh Yadav met him there and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. The complainant Dr. Umesh Yadav stated that at about 3:45 a.m. on that day, he got up to ease himself and when he was coming back from the toilet he saw the shadow of a person on the window curtain. Sensing danger, he woke up his wife and children and asked them to run inside. In the meanwhile about 5-6 persons entered his bedroom through the window. One of them who was aged about 20-25 years showed a country-made pistol to him and asked him to remain silent. The complainant asked them to take whatever they wanted. In the meanwhile the parents of the complainant also had woken up and there was a grappling. One of the boys who was aged about 20-22 years and was carrying a knife with him gave a mild blow on the back of the complainant but no serious injury was caused to him. Another boy gave a knife blow on the left thigh of his father who also did not sustain a major injury. Yet another boy aged about 20-22 years removed the chain which the mother of the complainant was wearing. One of the intruders also tried to snatch the chain of the complainant but only half of the chin came in his hand. The complainant, during the grappling, pushed the person who had put country-made pistol against him and bolted the door from inside. The complainant then took out his licensed pistol and fired two shots as a result of which the intruders ran away. On checking the room, the complainant found that his mobile phone Nokia 2626 IMEI No.354843014522143, having SIM of mobile No.9868503773 had been stolen. The complainant also noticed that the grill of the window had been removed by the intruders. He claimed that he could identify the intruders if brought before him.

(2.) During the course of investigation, an information was received by the Investigating Officer of this case that four persons who had been arrested in a case registered vide FIR No.98/2008 had admitted to their involvement in the present case. The appellants were thereupon arrested and an application was made for their Test Identification Parade (for short "TIP"). They, however, refused to join the TIP.

(3.) The appellants having pleaded not guilty as many as eighteen (18) witnesses were examined by the prosecution.