Back
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
Pardeep @ Sandy & Others
Versus
State
CRL.A. Nos. 719, 720 of 2013 & 165 of 2014
Decided On : 12-03-2014
Robbery - Indian Penal Code - Section 392/397/506/34, Section 27 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the delay in lodging the FIR, the necessity for holding a Test Identification Parade, and the admissibility of disclosure statements. The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 392 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof, but reduced their substantive sentence from seven years to three years each.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was robbed of his motorcycle by three boys, and the appellants were later arrested and charged under Section 392/397/506/34 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant identified the appellants, and the stolen motorcycle was recovered from the house of one of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty of robbery under Section 392 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof, and upheld their conviction. However, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants was reduced from seven years each to three years each.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the FIR, the necessity for holding a Test Identification Parade, and the admissibility of disclosure statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was not motivated, and the delay in holding the Test Identification Parade did not render the evidence of identification inadmissible. The court also found the disclosure statements admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 392 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof, but reduced their substantive sentence from seven years to three years each.
V.K. Jain, J.
1. On 29.08.2010, about about 12.45 pm, an information was received that a person had been robbed of his motorcycle – Bajaj Discover, red colour, bearing registration number DL 8S NC 4908 at Bawana Road, DSIDC, H-Block, Main Road. The information when conveyed to Police Station Bawana, was recorded vide DD No.22A, a copy of which was given to Head Constable – Brijesh Kumar for investigation when Head Constable – Brijesh Kumar reached the Main Ganga Toli Road, near Lal Flat, Sector – 3, DSIDC, Bawana, the complainant – Abhinav Dhruv was present there. The statement of the complainant was recorded by him. The complainant, inter alia, stated that on the aforesaid date, he was returning from Bawana on his motorcycle number DL 8S NC 4908, bearing chasis number – MD2DSPAZZ SPL 47751 and Engine number JBUBSI 94103. At about 12.40 pm, when he reached the Main Ganga Toli Road near Lal Flat, Sector-3, DSODC Bawana, three boys driving a red colour motorcycle got his motorcycle stopped. One of them showed a knife to him and asked him to leave the motorcycle, failing which he would be killed. Being scared, the complainant got down from his motorcycle. The other boy then took charge of the motorcycle and drove it. The other two boys also drove away on the red colour Pulsar motorcycle. The investigation was later transferred to SI – Pawan Kumar of Police Station – Bawana.
2. On 03.09.2010, an information was received with respect to arrest of the appellants – Deepak, Pawan and Pardeep in the case registered vide FIR No.277/2010, by the staff of Outer District, Delhi. It is also the case of the prosecution that in the aforesaid case, the appellants made disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the robbery of the motorcycle of the complainant. After their arrest, the appellants refused to join Test Identification Parade. The motorcycle which the appellants are alleged to have stolen during the robbery is alleged to have been recovered from the house of the appellant – Pardeep, pursuant to the disclosure statements made by the appellants. All the three appellants were then charge-sheeted under Section 392/397/506/34 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court, however, charged all the appellants under Section 392/34 of IPC. Appellant – Deepak was also charged under section 397 of Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty, as many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Two witnesses were examined in defence.
3. The complainant – Abhinav Dhruv came in the witness box as PW2 and, inter alia, stated that on 29.08.2010, when he was returning from Bawana and when he reached the corner of Main Ganga Toli Road, Sector-3, Bawana, all the three accused persons came on a Pulsar motorcycle of red colour. The accused – Deepak gave him a signal to stop, by waiving his hands. Thereupon he slowed down his motorcycle. His way was blocked by the motorcycle on which the accused persons were travelling. The appellant – Pawan got down from that motorcycle, put a knife on his belly region and asked him to go away leaving the motorcycle. When he asked him as to what happened, Deepak slapped him and then fled away on his motorcycle. The other two accused namely – Pawan and Pardeep also fled away on their Pulsar motorcycle. He also claimed that though he went to the Police Station, being perplexed, he was not in a condition to narrate the complete facts and, therefore, after two days he again went to the police station and made his statement. He further stated that on 26.09.2010, he went to Rohini Courts where all the three accused persons seen by him.
4. PW3 – Head Constable Narender, inter alia, stated that on 02.09.2010, a call was received from the Special Staff that three persons had been apprehended along with illicit arms and stolen vehicles near Bawana Naher Guest House. When he reached there, Head Constable – Surender along with other officials was present there. The accused Deepak,
AI
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
