Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1166
High Court of Delhi
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Rajesh Gupta & Another
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi
CRL.A. Nos. 239 of 2010, 1047 of 2009 & Crl. M.B. 119 of 2013
Decided On : 11-09-2013
For the Appellants:S.B. Dandapani, Krishan Kumar, Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP. With SI Vinod Kumar, P.S. Pandav Nagar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible testimonies, unrebutted evidence, and the quality of evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused in a robbery case.
Headnote:
Robbery - Criminal Law - IPC 392/394/397/452/506(ii)/342/34, Arms Act 25/27 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case of robbery and the accused's plea of demanding money. The court analyzed the testimonies of the witnesses, the recovery of the pistol and cartridges, and the contradictions in the accused's statements. The court found the prosecution's case to be established beyond a shadow of a doubt and upheld the conviction and sentences.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a robbery where the accused entered the complainant's house, committed robbery at gunpoint, and were apprehended by the public. The accused pleaded not guilty, claiming they went to demand money from the complainant. The prosecution presented testimonies and evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the recovery of the pistol and cartridges, and the contradictions in the accused's statements. The court upheld the conviction and sentences, dismissing the appeals.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the testimonies, the recovery of the stolen items, and the contradictions in the accused's statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the unrebutted testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the recovery of the pistol and cartridges, and the lack of evidence to support the accused's plea of demanding money. The court emphasized the quality of evidence over the number of witnesses and rejected the challenges to the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentences, dismissing the appeals.
Sunita Gupta, J.
1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated 30.10.2009 and order on sentence dated 06.11.2009 arising out of Sessions Case No.76/2005 in case FIR No. 631/2004 u/s 392/394/397/452/506 (ii)/342/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act vide which the accused were held guilty for all the offences and were sentenced as under:-
* Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and were also directed to pay fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for offence u/s 397/394/392 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
* Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each for offence u/s 452/34 IPC;
* Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for offences punishable u/s 506(ii) IPC read with Section 34 IPC;
* Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence u/s 342 IPC;
* Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for offences punishable u/s 25 read with Section 27 Arms Act. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C was extended to each of the convicts.
2. Prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 27.11.2004, at about 8.15 p.m, both the appellants along with their third associate entered the house of complainant Savita Bhola at III Floor, A-12, Pandav Nagar, Delhi and committed robbery on pointing out a country made pistol and robbed her of her gold jewellery. The two accused were apprehended while they tried to flee away, below the house, by the public persons who gave severe beatings to them. The husband of the complainant also reached the spot and recovered one loaded country made pistol from the pant of accused Pankaj and four live cartridges from accused Rajesh. PCR also reached the spot and took the accused to L.B.S. Hospital. Local police arrived and took the complainant and her husband to L.B.S. Hospital where the statement of complainant was recorded, which culminated in registration of FIR against the accused persons. One sweater, muffler and a kitchen knife was also recovered from the dining room of the house of the complainant while one half sleeve sweater was recovered from the stair case. Same were seized. One gold pendent and one silver jhumka belonging to the complainant were also recovered from accused Rajesh and Pankaj respectively by the duty constable during their medical examination at the hospital. The country made pistol and cartridges were sent to CFSL, Hyderabad. Permission under Section 39 Arms Act was obtained from DCP (East). After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons
3. Initially on 19.05.2005, charge for offence u/s 392/394/397/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons. Subsequently on 27.01.2006, additional charge u/s 452/506(ii)/342/34 IPC read with Section 25/27 Arms Act was also framed. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused while recording their statements u/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein they denied the case of prosecution and alleged that accused Pankaj along with his co-accused Rajesh had gone to demand money from the complainant as he had worked with the complainant at his shop and amount of salary was to be taken from him. When they came to demand the dues, then a quarrel had taken place between them and Gagan Bhola who raised alarm of `chor-chor’ and got them apprehended with the help of public who gave beatings to them. Complainant handed over one piece of silver ear ring and one pendent to the police for planting the same upon them. They, however, did not prefer to lead any evidence.5. After meticulously examining th
