The sufficiency of evidence to establish the identity of the accused and their involvement in the offense, as well as the interpretation of the term 'deadly weapon' under Section 397 IPC.

G.P. Mittal, J.

1. These two Appeals are directed against a judgment dated 25.11.2011 and an order on sentence dated 22.12.201 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) whereby the Appellants were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 392 read with Sections 120-B, 397 and 411 IPC and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for offence under Section 120-B; and RI for three years each with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month for offence under Section 392/120-B IPC. They were further directed to undergo RI for seven years each under Section 397 IPC; and RI for one year each under Section 411 IPC.

2. On 19.11.2009 on receipt of DD No.31-A regarding commission of a robbery in house no.F-3/13, Vasant Vihar, SI Ajit Pal Tomar (IO) along with Constable Ramniwas reached the earlier said house. He met Smt. Suman Ratra, the occupant of the house. She informed the IO that at about 9:30 P.M. she was all alone on the first floor of the house. Her servant Mahesh and maidservant Sunita were carrying out some work on the ground floor. Suddenly two slim bodied boys aged 35-40 years and 25-30 years; the younger one being of wheatish complexion and the elder one being of dark complexion, came there. Both of them gave her beatings with fists and kicks. Younger one showed her a knife. They asked her about the money kept in the house. She handed over a sum of about Rs.3.50 lacs kept in the dressing room. Both of them (the culprits) searched the almirah and whatever valuables they could lay hands on were removed. She informed that they also took away her red colour wallet, credit cards, some documents, some silver idols, Saaligram made of stone, etc. etc.

3. She also informed the IO that her servants Mahesh and Sunita who came upstairs after the culprits escaped, informed her that one boy (aged 30 years), who was armed with a knife had confined them in the kitchen on the ground floor. The knife used by the culprit (Appellant Bhagirath) on the ground floor was recovered from the driveway. The complainant raised suspicion on her servant Mahesh. Mahesh was taken to the Police Station. On interrogation Mahesh admitted of having planned the robbery with his friends Manoj, Rajender and Bhagirath. Accused Manoj and Appellants Rajender and Bhagirath were apprehended from Majnu ka Tila where they used to reside. Their disclosure statements led to the recovery of a sum of Rs.3.63 lacs, one gold chain and Tulsi, two credit cards, one Sony Handy Cam with battery charger, one Sigma Tel mobile, one lady purse etc. Appellant Rajender got recovered a knife from the bushes near the Complainant’s house at Munirka Marg. The Appellants and co-accused Manoj were put to Test Identification Proceeding (TIP) which they refused to join.

4. During the course of investigation the mobile phones of the Appellants and co-accused Mahesh were seized. It was found that the co-accused Manoj Yadav was in constant touch with co-accused Mahesh Yadav, the servant employed at the house of the Complainant on the date of the incident, before and after the commission of the robbery.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses including Complainant Suman Ratra (PW-5), maidservant Sunita (PW-6) an eye witness to the incident, Constable Mahesh Kumar (PW-16) a witness to the arrest and recovery of the stolen property at the instance of the Appellants and co-accused Manoj and SI Ajit Pal Tomar (PW-17) IO of the case.

6. On closing of the prosecution evidence, the Appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Appellants denied that they were involved in the robbery or that they got recovered any stolen property in pursuance of the disclosure statements made by them. Appellant Bhagira