Contradictions in witness testimonies are not necessarily fatal if they can be attributed to poor recollection, and a lack of credible explanation from the accused can lead to the court upholding a conviction.

V.K. Jain, J. (Oral)

1. On 17.01.2009, at about 8.25 PM, Police Station Mansarovar Park was informed of a robber having been caught red handed near water overhead tank, Railway Station Street, Shri Ram Nagar. The information was recorded vide DD No. 38A, copy of which was given to ASI Pawan Singh of the aforesaid Police Station for investigation. When the police officer reached the spot, Head Constable Parmod Kumar and Constable Manoj Kumar produced the appellant Imran, alongwith a buttondar knife and the stolen earrings. The complainant Jyoti was also present on the spot along with her husband. The statement of the complainant was recorded by the police officer. She, inter alia, told him that on the aforesaid date, at about 7.30 PM, she along with her husband got down from an auto rickshaw near the water tank and thereafter both of them proceeded through the street adjoining water tank. They claimed that there was darkness in the street at that time. After they had walked a little bit in the street, a boy all of a sudden came in front of them, took out a knife and threatened to kill her, unless she parted with her earrings. When she objected to it, the aforesaid person forcibly removed the earrings she was wearing in her right ear. When her husband tried to catch hold of him, the boy ran in the street towards the railway station. She as well as her husband chased him raising alarm at the same time. Two police officials came from the opposite direction and apprehended the boy along with earrings. The appellant Imran, according to the complainant, was the boy who had robbed her of the earring, after threatening her with a knife. She also stated that in her presence, a knife was seized from the right side of the pant of the appellant and her stolen earring was recovered from the left side pocket of his pant.

2. The appellant was prosecuted under Sections 392/397 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. Since he pleaded not guilty to the charge, as many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. One witness was examined in defence.

3. The complainant Jyoti came in the witness box as PW-1 and inter alia stated that on 17.01.2009, she along with her husband got down from an auto-rickshaw near water tank, Shahdara. When they were proceeding towards the Metro Station, Shahdara through the street, the accused all of a sudden came in front of her, took out a knife and asked her to hand over her earring to him. When she refused to do so, the accused snatched the ear ring from her right ear and ran towards GT Road, Shahdara. Her husband chased him and raised an alarm for help. Two police officials, who were coming from the front direction, over-powered the appellant. She also reached there and one knife was recovered from the possession of the accused along with her earring, both of which were seized by the police. She identified the appellant Imran as the person who had threatened her with knife and had removed the earring from her ear and was later apprehended on the spot.

4. PW-2 Sukhbir Singh is the husband of the complainant. He corroborated the deposition of his wife and identified the appellant as the person who had shown knife to his wife and snatched her earring. He further stated that when he chased the appellant, two police officials coming from the front side, over-powered him and the knife was recovered from the right side of his pocket, whereas the ear-ring of his wife was recovered from the left side of his trousers. He also stated that the appellant was taken to Police Station where documents were prepared and statement of his wife was recorded. Both the complainant as well as her husband identified ring Ex.P-1 which was recovered from the possession of the appellant. The knife recovered from the appellant was also identified by the complainant.

5. Head Constable Pramod Kumar PW-3 is one of the two Constables who claimed to have apprehended the appellant while being chased by the husband of the complainant. He inte