Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 2156
DELHI HIGH COURT
Sunita Gupta, J.
Ravinder Paswan - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Crl. A. 319 of 2004
Decided On : 05-07-2013
For the Appellant :Mr. Ujas Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP.
The guilt of the accused can be established based on un-rebutted and unchallenged testimony, identification by witnesses, and recovery of incriminating evidence from the accused's possession. The acquittal of a co-accused does not necessarily lead to the acquittal of another accused.
Headnote:
IPC - Snatching of Chain - Section 392/411/34 IPC, 27/54/59 Arms Act - Section 392, Section 397, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27, Section 54, Section 59 of the Arms Act were referenced and discussed by the court. The court analyzed the evidence related to the snatching of the chain, the recovery of the chain and knife, the identification of the accused, and the acquittal of the co-accused. The legal provisions were interpreted to establish the guilt of the appellant and reject the plea for acquittal based on the acquittal of the co-accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the snatching of a chain from the complainant, identification and apprehension of the accused, contradictory statements by the accused, and the subsequent conviction of the appellant under Section 392 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 392 IPC based on the un-rebutted testimony of the complainant, identification of the accused, and the recovery of the chain from the appellant's possession. The plea for acquittal based on the acquittal of the co-accused was rejected.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of witness testimony, the identification of the accused, the recovery of the chain and knife, and the plea for acquittal based on the acquittal of the co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The un-rebutted and unchallenged testimony of the complainant, the identification of the accused, and the recovery of the chain from the appellant's possession formed the basis for the court's decision. The court also established that the acquittal of the co-accused was not a ground for the appellant's acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 392 IPC.
Sunita Gupta, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 3rd March, 2004 and order on sentence dated 17th March, 2004, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Session Case No. 07/2002 arising out of FIR No. 576/2001, Police Station Dabri, under Section 392/411/34 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act whereby the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 392 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
2. Prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 9th July, 2001 SI Prahlad Singh along with Constable Rajesh was on patrolling and surprise checking in the area. At about 8.40 pm when they were going to Kailashpuri via Gali No. 5, Main Sagarpur, they heard noise coming from the Gali. They saw two boys running and they tried to apprehend them but one of the boys managed to escape. They, however, managed to apprehend one of the boys, who, on inquiry gave his name as Shamshe Alam. Both of them along with Shamshe Alam reached near the crowd and found that the crowd had also apprehended another boy who was handed over to SI Prahlad Singh. Meanwhile, Smt. Bhagwan Devi came and gave her statement, inter alia, to the effect that on that day at about 8:30 pm, she along with her grand-daughter aged about 1½ years was coming from the shop of Dr. Mudgil. She was on foot and coming to her house. When she was in front of Kesho Ram Sweets in Gali No. 5, three boys aged about 20-22 years suddenly came from the side of Gali No. 5, Main Sagarpur and one boy who was a little fat and was wearing a cap snatched her wearing chain weighing about 18-20 grams on which a thread of ‘Babaji’ had been tied. As soon as she tried to catch hold of him and raised alarm, he whipped out a knife and his two other accomplices pushed her. She fell down along with her grand- daughter who was in her arms and also received injuries on her right hand and also on stomach. She raised alarm on which all the three boys ran towards Gali No. 5. On hearing her noise, her son Ghanshyam and public persons started following those boys. One of the boys who had snatched the chain and was a little fat was apprehended at a distance of about 200 meters by the public and she identified that boy. The boy was beaten by the public. His other accomplices were also apprehended and given beatings but two of them managed to escape. She identified both the boys Shamshe Alam and Ravinder Paswan and also stated that when Ravinder Paswan was searched, from his wearing black pant pocket, her chain which was broken was also recovered. The knife was also recovered from his pant. The statement Ex. PW1/1 of Smt. Bhagwan Devi became bed rock of investigation. After making endorsement Ex.PW7A, same was sent to police station for registration of the case on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW4/1 was recorded by Head Constable Om Prakash (PW4). Chain (Ex.P1) was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/4. Sketch of the knife Ex.PW1/2 was prepared which was sealed in a pulanda and was taken into possession by memo Ex.PW1/3. From the possession of accused Shamse Alam, a knife was recovered for which separate proceedings were initiated. Both the accused were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex. PW1/6. The accused Ravinder Paswan was sent to DDU Hospital for his medical examination. His MLC Ex.PW5/1 was prepared by Dr. Devender Singh Chauhan (PW5). After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused.
3. Charge for offence under Section 392 r/w Section 397 IPC was framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined seven witnesses in order to substantiate its case. All the incriminating evidence was put to both the accused while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C., wherein they denied the case of prosecution.
