Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHAMAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 109 of 1986
Decided On : 02/24/1987
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 392/34, 397 IPC - FACT OF THE CASE, FINDING OF THE COURT, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI, FINAL DECISION, MAIN LEGAL POINT, CATEGORY AND SUB-CATEGORY
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Chaman Lal, and his accomplice, Kailash, were convicted and sentenced for robbery under sections 392/34 and 397 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellants robbed the complainant, Ram Sahai, of his wristwatch, money, and a membership slip at knifepoint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was doubtful and surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The court noted that there was no test identification parade conducted, the disclosure statement of Kailash was unreliable, the search of the appellant's house was conducted in violation of legal provisions, and the recovery of the stolen items was not properly documented.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification of the appellants was reliable. 2. Whether the disclosure statement of Kailash was admissible as evidence against the appellant. 3. Whether the search of the appellant's house was conducted in accordance with legal provisions. 4. Whether the recovery of the stolen items was properly documented.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identification of the appellants was not reliable as there was no test identification parade conducted and the complainant did not know the appellants prior to the incident. 2. The court held that the disclosure statement of Kailash was not admissible as evidence against the appellant as it was not a confession but a piece of information obtained from a co-accused. 3. The court held that the search of the appellant's house was conducted in violation of legal provisions as it was not conducted in the presence of public witnesses and the provisions of Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not followed. 4. The court held that the recovery of the stolen items was not properly documented as the investigating officer failed to make a record of the search in the books of the concerned police station and failed to inform the Magistrate about it.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal of the appellant, Chaman Lal, and acquitted him of all charges. The court dismissed the appeal of the appellant, Kailash, but modified his conviction and sentence. Kailash was convicted under Section 411 IPC for receiving stolen property and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.
( 1 ) THE appellant was convicted and sentenced toundergo R. I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 100. 00 under sections 392/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo further R. I. forone month. His accomplice, one Kailash appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 103of 1986 was also sentenced to undergo similar sentence under sections 392/34ipc. He was, however, additionally convicted and sentenced to seven years r. I. and to a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default of payment of fine to undergo furtherr. I. for two months under section 397 IPC.
( 2 ) BAWA Gurcharan Singh argued the case of the appellant, Chamanlal, while counsel for second appellant namely Kailash did not appearthough the case was adjourned as part heard till today. In so far as the caseof the appellant Kailash is concerned, Mr. R. P. Lao in the absence of thecounsel for the appellant has very fairly taken me through the entire record.
( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 16/01/1985 thecomplainant Ram Sahai at about 10. 30 PM had gone to contact onebaij Nath at Chandni Mahal with a view to collect some cereals in regardof his avocation. Earlier in the day. Ram Sahai failed to deliver the sameto him as he had left the shop due to indisposition and his servant hadclosed the shop early. Ram Sahai complainant did not know the actuallocation of the house of Baij Nath though he was aware that Baij Nath isresiding in Chandni Mahal. After disembarking from the three-wheeler hemet a person whom he described as dark complexioned, 5 ft. tall and agedbetween 20 to 22 years. He also stated that the said person was wearing a Jersywith stripes and a trouser of black colour. On enquiry from the said personabout the house of Baij Nath he is alleged to have advised him to go tothe adjoining street, ft is alleged that the moment he took a turn to thatstreet the said person came and caught by the seller. It is also alleged thatthe said person took out a razor and at the point of inflicting an injury askedhim to hand over whatever he was carrying on his person. It is furtheralleged that another person with dark complexion, well-built body, 20 yearsof age and 5 ft. height joined him and these persons then robbed him ofhis wrist watch of Ricoh make and a sum of Rs. 500. 00 as well as onemembership slip which he was carrying in his pocket. This the appellant issaid to have done by putting the complainant in fear of death.
( 4 ) AT about 12. 05 AM of the same night, S. I. Punnu Ram alongwith S. I. Jai Ram, head constable, Ram Chander, Raj Singh, Satish Kumarand Satyawan constables visited the scene of incident. It is alleged that asecret information at this stage was received pursuant to which thay allwent towards Delite Cinema and they found a number of persons sleeping inthe Verandah. Kailash on seeing the police party made an attempt to runaway but on the pointing out of the complainant he was apprehended andricoh watch Ex. P-1 was recovered from his person. It is further said thathis disclosure statement was recorded and consequent to that statement heled the party to the house of Chaman Lal appellant and on his searchrs. 500. 00 of the denomination as given in the F. I. R. and one razor as alsoa slip belonging to the complainant were recovered from his person. Thisslip was in respect of membership fee of Rs. 20. 00 paid by the complainantto Delhi Patri Viyapar Mandal.
( 5 ) IT would be noticed that 8 witnesses were examined at trial. Ramsahai complainant had supported the prosecution case and he has partlybeen corroborated by PW1 Baij Nath in so far his business relations with himare concerned. Verinder Parkash PW3 has identified the seized wrist watchas belonging to Ram Sahai. He is his nephew. There is otherwise no disputein respect of the ownership of the wrist watch as I find the accused Kailashhas not owned it. Subhash Chopra PW6 has proved this slip Ex. PW6/afor a sum of Rs. 20. 00 as one issued by him in favour of Ram Sahai. Jairam
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
