Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2074
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MOHD. SABIR @ SONU & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL. A. 108, 272, 623/2015
Decided On : 23-05-2016
Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate.
Mr. Varun Goswami, APP Insp. Anand Swarup with ASI Om Prakash, PS Hauz Khas.
The sufficiency and reliability of evidence, including recoveries and identification of stolen property, are crucial in determining the convictions of the accused.
Headnote:
dacoity - Criminal Law - Section 395/34, Section 412, Section 397, Section 27 Arms Act - The court discussed the evidence of the robbery, recoveries made, identification of stolen property, and the conduct of the accused. The court altered the convictions based on the evidence presented, holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for dacoity and other related offences based on a robbery incident where the victims were threatened and robbed in their house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the robbery and recoveries made to be sufficient to alter the convictions of the accused, holding them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.
Issues: Identification of stolen property, conduct of the accused, sufficiency of evidence for dacoity conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The recoveries made and identification of stolen property were crucial in altering the convictions of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeals were disposed of with altered convictions, and one appeal was allowed only for one appellant.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Vicky @ Raj Kumar @ Mukesh @ Vaqil, Mohd.Sabir @ Sonu, Vijay Shukla, Chandan Kumar and Raju Singh @ Sunny, the appellants of the three captioned appeals; in which Mohd.Sabir and Raju Singh have joined hands as appellants of Crl.A.No.108/2015 and Vijay Shukla with Chandan Kumar have joined hands as appellants of Crl.A.No.272/2015, question the verdict of guilt against the five returned vide impugned judgment dated December 18, 2014.
2. The conviction of the five is as under:-
Vicky @ Raj Kumar : Section 395/34 and 412 IPC.
Mohd.Sabir : Section 397 & 412 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
Vijay Shukla : Section 395/34 IPC.
Chandan Singh : Section 395/34 IPC.
Raju Singh : Section 395/34 and 412 IPC.
3. The sentence imposed for the offence of dacoity, and its aggravated form concerning Mohd.Sabir, is to undergo RI for 7 years. For other offences lesser sentences have been imposed with a direction that they would run concurrent. The focus therefore is for the offence of dacoity.
4. Early hours of the night : 8:15 PM of July 17, 2012, were a traumatic moment for Ritu Singhal PW-1 and her son Mehul Singhal aged about 11 years then. Cocooned in the comfort of their house the two could not even imagine the trauma they would be soon facing. The door bell rang. The family servant : appellant Chandan, opened the door. Three men barged in : Vicky, Mohd.Sabir and Raju (claims the prosecution). The mother and son were pounced upon. One put a knife on the throat of Ritu. The other put a gun on the temple of Mehul. The third had a saw like weapon in his hand. They were threatened with death if they shrieked. The two were tied with nylone and cloth ropes and so was Chandan. Pieces of cloth were thrust inside their mouth and they were gagged. The house was ransacked. Cash, jewellery, electronic item, laptop, mobile phones, i-pods etc. were stolen. The three armed robbers fled. Ritu Singhal managed to free herself and helped her son. Chandan also managed to free himself. Ritu called the neighbour and her husband from the landline number.
5. Information was conveyed to the police control room and relayed to PS Hauz Khas because the incident took place at D-30, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of the police station. DD No.39A Ex.PW-2/A was recorded at PS Hauz Khas by HC Sushil Sharma and investigation entrusted to SI Nihal Chand PW-10 who, along with Ct.Ram Rattan PW-5 proceeded to the house and recorded Ritu’s statement Ex.PW-1/A in which she narrated the incident as noted by me in paragraph 4 above. Making an endorsement Ex.PW-10/A beneath Ritu’s statement, FIR Ex.PW-3/A was registered at the police station by ASI Kashmiri Lal for an offence punishable under Section 397/34 IPC. The case was registered as one for robbery because there were three participants.
6. The needle of suspicion pointed towards the family servant Chandan who was introduced to the family about two months by co-accused Vijay Shukla, because contrary to the instructions not to open the door when the bell rang and only to allow entry to a stranger after peeping outside and seeking permission from the family members, Chandan had opened the door at the ringing of the bell to facilitate entry of the three armed hoodlums.
7. Chandan was arrested at 6:15 AM on July 18, 2012 as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-4/B by SI Sanjay Sharma PW-8 who had joined the investigation late night of July 17, 2012. His disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/A disclosed the names of the three who had entered the house as also the involvement of Vijay Shukla. All four being arrested on July 18, 2012, as per their respective arrest memos Ex.PW-4/D (Vijay Shukla), Ex.PW-4/H (Vicky), Ex.PW-4/I (Raju Singh) and Ex.PW-4/R (Mohd.Sabir).
8. Disclosure statements Ex.PW-4/G of Vijay Shukla, Ex.PW-4/L of Vicky, Ex.PW-4/M of Raju and Ex.PW-4/Q of Mohd.Sabir were recorded. Vijay Shukla’s disclosure statement is a confession sans any recovery. Pursuant to the disclosure statements of th
