DALVEER BHANDARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgnnent of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 20th February, 1991 given in Sessions Case no. 15 of 1989.

( 2 ) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 451 Indian Penal Code. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 2 ye. ars and to pay a fine of Rs. 5 () ( ). 00 , and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R. I. for three months, under Section 392, Indian Penal Code. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 years and to pay a fine ofrs. 300 ). 00 , and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R. I. for two months, and under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. l. for 7 years. In addition to this, the accused/ appellant has been further convicted under Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act and awarded a sentence to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 / -, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R. I. for two months. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts, according to the prosecution are that at 1. 30 P. M. on 6. 5. 1988, the complainant (Public Witness -3) Smt. Munni Chandra was alone in her house while her husband had gone to the office and the children were at school. She heard the sound of tapping at the door. While she was opening the door, someone pushed the door from outside and opened it. The intruder came inside the drawing room and took out a country-made pistol and after putting the pistol on Smt. Munni Chandra, he demanded that all jewellery and money be handed over to him. In panic, she gave the jewellery and money to him.

( 4 ) THE prosecution in support of its case has examined 15 witnesses, including the complainant.

( 5 ) THE accused was examined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. He denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded innocence.

( 6 ) MR. Mukesh Kalia, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant submitted that conviction of the accused/appellant is based on inadmissible evidence, conjectures and surmises. The prosecution wanted to conduct Test Identification Parade after the accused/appellant was shown to the witnesses. The accused/ appellant was arrested on 16th March, 1989. On the same day, he was taken to the residence of the complainant and was shown to all the witnesses and immediately thereafter, on 7th March, 1989, the prosecution wanted to conduct Test Identification Parade. Since the accused/appellant was shown to the witnesses immediately before the Test Identification Parade, therefore, he refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/ appellant submitted that the accused/ appellant was fully justified in not participating in the Test Identification Parade. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the statement of the various prosecution witnesses to support his contention. He referred to the statement of the complainant (Public Witness -3 ). In her statement, she has mentioned that "i saw the accused in the company of my husband, afterwards at the Police Station. "

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel has drawn my attention to the statement of PW-7, Constable Sri Bhagwan, who, in his cross-examination, has stated that "on 6. 3. 89, after making disclosure statement, the accused took the Police Party to the house of Munni Chandra, during day time from the spot. Public Witness. 14, Lala Ram in the Security Staff of Rashtrapati Bhawan stated in his statement that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by him correctly which is Ex. Public Witness. 17/a signed by me, the witnesses and the accused at point B. The accused thereafter led the Police party to the place of incident.

( 9 ) SHRI R. K. Yadav, Metropolitan Magistrate (P. W. 4) has mentioned that on 7. 3. W, he was working as M. M. Delhi Tis Hazari Court. On that day application Ex. PW-4/a was marked to me by Shri P. D. Gupta for holding TIP. He further mentioned in his statement that accused was asked about his willing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document