Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 826
High Court of Delhi
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Jai Veer Singh
Versus
State
Crl. A. 249 of 2003
Decided on : 15-07-2013.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Jitender Tyagi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP.
The importance of recent possession of stolen goods and the need for explanation under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act in determining guilt for robbery and possession of stolen property.
Headnote:
Robbery - Criminal Law - IPC 392/397/34 - Summary: The court discussed the prosecution's case, the identification of the accused, the recovery of stolen property, and the application of presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act. The court emphasized the importance of recent possession of stolen goods and the need for explanation, ultimately setting aside the conviction for robbery under IPC 392 but convicting the accused under IPC 411 for possession of stolen property.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case involved a robbery of Rs.1,50,000/-, with the appellant being held guilty under IPC 392 read with Section 34 IPC. The complainant identified one accused but did not identify the appellant as the second accused involved in the robbery. The recovery of Rs.15,000/- from the appellant was a key point of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's identification did not implicate the appellant in the robbery. The recovery of stolen property at the instance of the accused was unexplained, leading to the conviction under IPC 411 for possession of stolen property.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the identification of the accused, the validity of the recovery of stolen property, and the application of presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of recent possession of stolen goods and the need for explanation, ultimately setting aside the conviction for robbery under IPC 392 but convicting the accused under IPC 411 for possession of stolen property.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction for robbery under IPC 392 but convicted the accused under IPC 411 for possession of stolen property. The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone and fined Rs.5,000/-.
Sunita Gupta, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 26.03.2003 and the order on sentence dated 31.03.2003 arising out of Sessions Case No.133/96 in case FIR 310/94 u/s 392/397/34 IPC, P.S. Okhla Industrial Area, vide which the appellant along with his co-accused was held guilty of offence u/s 392 read with Section 34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 27 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
2. Prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 8.10.1994, ASI Shiv Singh (PW 7) along with Ct. Anand Kumar (PW 3) and Ct. Brahm Singh reached Shyam Nagar at about 11.50 a.m where the complainant Ravinder Chetwani (PW1) met them and gave his statement, Ex.PW 1/A regarding commission of robbery of Rs.1,50,000/-. Endorsement Ex. PW 7/A was made by ASI Shiv Singh and the same was sent through Ct. Anand Kumar to police station on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW 2/B was recorded by Ct. Itwari Singh (PW2).
3. It is further the case of prosecution that on 03.02.1995, SI Vimal Kishore Tripathi (PW 9) posted at Spl. Staff South District interrogated two accused Ramesh Kumar and Jai Veer Singh who were arrested in case FIR No. 220/94 u/s 457/380 IPC P.S. Mehrauli and recorded their disclosure statements. In pursuance thereof, accused Ramesh got recovered Rs.50,000/-along with gold ornaments whereas accused Jai Veer Singh got recovered Rs.15,000. Insp. Narender Singh (PW 10), on receipt of investigation of this case, formally arrested the accused person. The accused refused to join test identification proceedings. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions since offence u/s 397 IPC was triable by a Court of Sessions.
4. On commitment, charge u/s 392/397 IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to accused persons while recording their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied the case of prosecution, pleaded innocence and alleged false implication in this case. Vide impugned order referred above, both the accused were held guilty u/s 392 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced separately. Since the accused Ramesh had already undergone the sentence, as such he was not taken in custody whereas the present appellant Jai Veer Singh had undergone only 11 months, therefore, in order to serve the remaining sentence, he was taken in custody. Feeling aggrieved by the order, appellant Jai Veer Singh has preferred the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Jitender Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Fizani Husain, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the Trial Court record.
6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant did not identify the appellant and in fact was categorical in stating that he was called in the police station on 04.02.1995 where he had identified only one accused and not the second accused. He specifically deposed that accused Jai Veer Singh was not the second accused who had put the country made pistol on his person. That being so, there was no occasion for his being convicted for offence u/s 392 IPC. As regards recovery of Rs 15000/-, it was submitted that recovery was alleged to have been effected in the presence of PW4 Ashok Rana. However this witness has categorically deposed that no recovery was effected in his presence. Although he admitted his signatures at recovery memo at Point A, however he clarified that his signatures were obtained on blank paper. Moreover, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant while raising presumption u/s 114(a) of the Evidence Act. However, in this case, that presumption is not available because the alleged recover
