S. Muralidhar, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 22nd November 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) in SC No. 123 of 2013 convicting the three Appellants and co-accused Karan and Akash (who have not filed appeals) for the offences under Sections 365 and 395 IPC. Akash and Chandan were additionally held guilty of the offence under Section 397 IPC while Afzal was acquitted of that offence. Chandan was convicted under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. The three Appellants and Akash and Chandan were convicted for the offence under Section 391 IPC. One co-accused Nasir was acquitted.

2. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 9th December 2013 whereby Chandan was convicted to 7 years rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) with a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for 15 days for each of the offences under Sections 365, 395 and 397 IPC. He was sentenced to RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the offence under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. Appellant Karan was sentenced to 5 years RI with a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the offence under Section 365 IPC and 7 years RI with a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the offence under Section 395 IPC. Appellant Akash was sentenced to 7 years RI with a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default to undergo SI for 15 days for each of the offences under Sections 365, 395 and 397 IPC. Afzal was sentenced to RI for 5 years with a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the offences under Section 365 IPC and 7 years RI with a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default to undergo SI for 15 days under Section 395 IPC. Identical sentence was awarded to Appellant Mukesh as well. While it was directed that the sentences would run concurrently, it was further clarified that if the convicts were already undergoing sentence in some other case, the sentence imposed in the present case would run consecutively i.e. after the completion of sentence which they were already undergoing in other case.

3. The case of the prosecution is that Prashant Pandey (PW-2) came to police station (‘PS’) Adarsh Nagar on 14th March 2010 alleging that he had been robbed of his laptop and two mobile phones (one Motorola and one Nokia) by certain assailants on the intervening night of 27th/28th February 2010. In his complaint, PW-2 stated that he had reached Karnal Bypass between 12.30 and 12.45 am. At the pre-paid booth slip, he hired a three-wheeler scooter rickshaw (‘TSR’) No. 8224 being driven by Bhagirath Lal (PW-7) in order to go West Patel Nagar. PW-2 stated that when the TSR reached Adarsh Nagar flyover at about 1.15 am, a Maruti Alto car came from behind, stopped in front of the TSR and 3 or 4 boys got down from it. One of them pointed a Katta/pistol at PW-2. The boys then pulled PW-2 from the TSR and also beat up the TSR driver. PW-2 was made to sit in the car. His laptop (HCL) and purse were snatched. His mobile phones as well as an HDFC ATM card were taken. According to PW-2, he was forced to disclose the ATM password under threat.

4. In his deposition, PW-2 stated that the accused Chandan pointed the Katta towards him whereas accused Akash had shown him the knife. He stated that Afzal also alighted from the car. Karan was identified as a person who was sitting in the car. No role was attributed to Mukesh. PW-2 stated that they took him to Pahar Ganj and Darya Ganj where they tried unsuccessfully to withdraw monies from the ATMs there. However, from the ATMs at Punjab National Bank, Mauzpur and State Bank of India, Durga Puri they withdrew Rs.10,000 each using his ATM card. They then took him to Usman Pur, Seema Puri and pushed him outside the car at the red light signal. PW-2 stated that he then reached the PS Usman Pur and there he was told that the case was to be registered at PS Adarsh Nagar. He s