Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 624
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Imran @ Akhlakh & Another – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL.A. Nos. 1351 of 2013 & 553 of 2014
Decided On : 22-04-2015
For the Appellant :Riaz Mohd, K.N. Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ritu Gauba, APP
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and corroborated testimony, recovery of incriminating articles, and refusal to join the Test Identification Parade to establish the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Robbery - Criminal Conspiracy - Arms Act - [120B, 392, 397, 411, 25, 27] - The court found the accused guilty of robbery and criminal conspiracy under sections 120B, 392, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were also convicted under the Arms Act sections 25 and 27. The court upheld the convictions of the accused under sections 120B, 392, and 397 but set aside the convictions under the Arms Act sections 25 and 27.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, Ganga Ram Jat, was robbed at his garment business by two boys armed with a knife and a country-made pistol. The accused were apprehended, and incriminating evidence was recovered from them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed that the complainant falsely implicated them due to a money dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of robbery and criminal conspiracy based on the consistent and corroborated testimony of the complainant and other witnesses. The court also noted that the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused and their refusal to join Test Identification Parade supported the prosecution's case.
Issues: The main issue was the involvement of the accused in the robbery and criminal conspiracy. The court also considered the refusal of the accused to join the Test Identification Parade and the recovery of incriminating articles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and corroborated testimony of the complainant and other witnesses, the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused, and their refusal to join the Test Identification Parade to establish the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The court upheld the convictions of the accused under sections 120B, 392, and 397 but set aside the convictions under the Arms Act sections 25 and 27. The court also modified the quantum of fine imposed on the accused under section 411 IPC.
1. Complainant Ganga Ram Jat was running a garment business at X/234, Gali No. 0, Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. On 8th November, 2009, he was present in his shop when at about 7:30 pm, two boys entered the shop armed with knife and country made pistol and pulled down the shutter of the shop. He was robbed of approximately Rs.2,50,000/-, bank drafts worth Rs.6.5 lacs, his gold ring and mobile. Thereafter his hands were tied. On hearing the knock at the shutter, they opened the shutter and found Hanuman Prasad, employee of the complainant, who was threatened to kill and was asked to run upstairs. Therefore, both the boys ran away. He had seen these two boys along with one boy Akhlakh who used to do fabrication work at Lokesh Garments about half an hour ago. He informed the police on which DD No.31A was recorded. PW3-SI Chanderpal along with Constable Sukhbir reached the spot where he recorded statement of Ganga Ram Ex.PW2/A which culminated in registration of FIR Ex. PW1/A. Further investigation was entrusted to Sub Inspector Nalin Verma (PW10). Portrait of accused was got prepared. Call detail record of mobile phone No. 9990489985 and 9990303816 of accused Imran @ Akhlakh was obtained and his location was found to be of Gandhi Nagar. Call details of mobile phone No. 9718307229 and mobile phone 9990303816 was obtained which confirmed that both these numbers were in contact of each other at the time of incident and subsequent thereto and their location at the time of incident was found to be of Gandhi Nagar area.
2. On 13th November, 2009, on the basis of secret information, Accused Imran @ Akhlakh was apprehended from Pusar Chauraha Thana Doghat, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. He was arrested. He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW2/G and got recovered the robbed mobile phone, SIM card, cheques, bank drafts and photograph of Aash Mohd. from his factory at Prem Garden, Sahibabad which was taken into police possession. Motorcycle bearing No. DL 1SR 7539 used in the incident was also recovered from the factory.
3. Search for accused Aash Mohd. was made. Since he was evading arrest, NBWs were got issued against him followed by issuance of process u/s 82/83 Cr. P.C. and ultimately he was declared proclaimed offender on 9th November, 2010. On 15th November, 2011, accused Aash Mohd. was arrested by Head Constable Rambir of Police Station Gandhi Nagar. After seeking permission from the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, he was arrested in this case. He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW7/A. On 24th November, 2011, his Test Identification proceedings were conducted by Sh. J.P. Nahar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Ex.PW9/C, however, accused refused to join the proceedings. On 28th November, 2011, complainant identified the accused in police station.
4. Efforts were made to arrest co-accused Israr but due to incomplete address, he could not be arrested.
5. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused u/s 392/397/120B/411 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
6. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons while recording their statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. wherein they took the plea that Ganga Ram was running his factory and doing the job of encashment of cheques of the labourers, who were working nearby. It was further alleged that Imran @ Akhlakh used to go to Lokesh Garments where complainant was doing the business on the ground floor and he used to go to him for encashment of cheques, thus the complainant was known to him. There was some money dispute on the issue of encashment of cheques. As such, he got him falsely implicated in this case. Similar plea was taken by accused Aash Mohd. However, both the accused did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
7. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence of the accused, vide impugne
