Back
High Court of Delhi
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
Sandeep @ Sanjeev
Versus
State
Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2012
Decided On : 28-11-2013
Robbery - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 397; Arms Act, 1959, Section 25 - Section 397 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act - The court discussed the testimonies of the eye witnesses, the use of a deadly weapon, and the interpretation of 'uses' in Section 397 IPC. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 for robbing a complainant at knife point. The prosecution's case was supported by the testimonies of the complainant and an associate, as well as the recovery of the knife and stolen items from the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of the eye witnesses credible and trustworthy, rejecting the defense's contention of material contradictions. It also held that the prosecution had successfully established the use of a deadly weapon and upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues raised included material contradictions in the testimonies of the eye witnesses, non-joining of public witnesses during the trial, and the use of a deadly weapon in the robbery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that minor discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses do not invalidate the entire prosecution case. It also clarified the interpretation of 'uses' in Section 397 IPC, stating that actual use of the deadly weapon is not required for the offense.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order on sentence were upheld.
Siddharth Mridul, J.
1. Appellant Sandeep @ Sanjeev, by way of the present appeal, has assailed the judgment and order on sentence dated 29.04.2011 and 13.05.2011 respectively whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years under Section 397 IPC and for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10 days. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) has been granted to the appellant.
2. The prosecution case in brief is under:-
(i) On 22.10.2010, a PCR information was received and recorded vide DD No. 30A. On receipt of DD No. 30A, Sub Inspector Gaje Singh (PW-5) along with Ct. Satish (PW-4) proceeded to Pankha Road flyover, Delhi Cantt, where complainant Raghunath Giri (PW-2) and his associate namely Ram Pravesh Mehto (PW-3) were present. PW-5 SI Gaje Singh recorded the statement (Ex PW-2/A) of the complainant Raghunath Giri (PW-2) to the effect that he and his associate Ram Pravesh Mehto were returning to their house after delivering goods at Sangam Vihar, Delhi. At about 11:00 PM when they reached the middle of Pankha Road Flyover, a young boy sitting on the slab of the flyover immediately came in front of him. The said boy was holding a churra (knife) in his right hand and on the point of the churra asked the complainant to part with his belongings and removed the purse containing Rs 550/- and one diary from the pocket of the pant of the complainant. On seeing this, complainant’s associate Ram Pravesh, raised alarm and consequently the young boy along with stolen articles tried to flee from the spot but fell on the stairs of the flyover. Thereafter, some public persons detained the young boy at the stairs of the flyover along with stolen belongings. The name of the boy on enquiry was revealed as Sandeep @ Sanjiv, the appellant herein. Complainant further stated that appellant along with churra and purse containing Rs. 550/- and diary was handed over to the police on their arrival at the spot.
(ii) On the basis of the statement made by Complainant Raghunath Giri, PW-5 SI Gaje Singh prepared the rukka, proved as Ex PW-5/A, and despatched the same through PW-4 Ct. Satish Kumar. Thereafter, FIR No.165/2010, marked as Ex PW-1/A, was registered with PS Delhi Cantt under Section 392 IPC.
(iii) The appellant was arrested by PW-5 SI Gaje Singh vide arrest memo Ex PW-2/E and personal search of the appellant carried out vide Ex PW-2/F. The churra was seized vide ExPW-2/D and the sketch of the churra (Ex PW-4/A) was prepared at the spot. The currency notes worth Rs. 550/-and one diary allegedly stolen by the appellant were seized vide Ex PW-2/C.
(iv) On completion of the investigation, the appellant was charged and sent for trial under Sections 392/397/411 IPC. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined five witnesses. None appeared in defence. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded false implication and innocence.
(v) After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellant as mentioned above.
3. In the present appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgments on three counts. Firstly, it has been urged that there are material contradictions in testimonies of the two eye witnesses namely Raghunath Giri (PW-2), the complainant himself and Ram Pravesh Mehto (PW-3) which the Trial Court has failed to appreciate. The Learned Counsel pointed out that PW-3 Ram Pravesh in his testimony has stated that after being attacked with the knife by the appellant PW-2 Raghunath Giri fell unconscious. However
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
