Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
Arun @ Vicky - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 74 of 2016 & Crl.M.B. 1036 of 2016
Decided On : 21-07-2016
Robbery - Criminal Law - IPC 392/34 - Summary: The court examined the prosecution case of robbery and found glaring infirmities and discrepancies, making it unsafe to convict the appellant without independent corroboration. The court highlighted deficiencies in the prosecution's case, including conflicting versions of events, lack of evidence, and failure to associate key witnesses, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for committing robbery under Sections 392/34 IPC based on the prosecution's case of robbing a woman of her bag containing various articles. However, the court found glaring infirmities and discrepancies in the prosecution case, leading to the appellant's appeal against his conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found deficiencies and infirmities in the prosecution's case, including conflicting versions of events, lack of evidence, and failure to associate key witnesses. As a result, the court concluded that the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court could not be sustained, and the appellant deserved the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's case, the lack of independent corroboration, and the failure to address deficiencies and infirmities in the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of independent corroboration, conflicting versions of events, and the failure to associate key witnesses, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was accepted, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 20.11.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.53/2011 arising out of FIR No.163/2011 PS Saket by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC. By an order dated 24.11.2015, he was sentenced to undergo RI for forty months with fine Rs.2,000/-.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 07.05.2011 at around 10.45 p.m. on Press Enclave Road near red light, Malviya Nagar, the appellant – Arun @ Vicky in furtherance of common intention with his associate -Amit Tomar committed robbery upon Ms. Seema Duhan and deprived her of a bag containing various articles. The incident was reported to the police and Daily Diary (DD) No.29A (Ex.PW-6/A) came into existence on 07.05.2011 at 11.40 P.M. The complainant’s statement (Ex.PW-4/A) was recorded on 18.05.2011 and the FIR was lodged. Efforts were made to find out the perpetrators of the crime but to no effect. On 20.05.2011, on the basis of secret information a raiding party was organised and the appellant along with his associate was apprehended at around 11.30 p.m. Certain recoveries were effected from their possession. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant and his associate were arrested in this case. They declined to participate in the Test Identification Proceedings. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his associate in the Court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction. It is relevant to note that co-accused – Amit Tomar was also held guilty and convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. It appears that conviction has not been challenged by him.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The appellant’s conviction is primarily based upon the sole testimony of the complainant. However, many glaring infirmities and discrepancies have emerged in the prosecution case, which make it unsafe to convict the appellant without independent corroboration.
4. The occurrence took place on 07.05.2011 and DD No.29A (Ex.PW-6/A) came to be recorded at PS Saket on 07.05.2011 at around 11.40 P.M. The investigation was assigned to ASI Suresh Chand. In his Court statement he disclosed that after assignment of the investigation, he along with a constable reached the spot and met the complainant. She was, however, not ready to give her statement due to urgency to go abroad. On 18.05.2011 she came at the police station and recorded her statement (Ex.PW-4/A). The complainant, on the other hand, has given an entirely different and conflicting version. She disclosed that on 07.05.2011, the incident was conveyed to the police at 100 after she raised alarm by three boys passing through that side. She elaborated that on 07.05.2011 she had given an interim complaint Ex.PW-4/A lodged on 18.05.2011 was not the complaint lodged by her. She even stated that on the day of incident, she had visited the police station and had given an interim complaint. The said interim complaint was not on record. Ex.PW-4/A rather records that incident could not be reported on 08.05.2011 as she was in a hurry to go abroad. In the complaint (Ex.PW-4/A), the victim had disclosed about robbery of many articles including mobile phone make Nokia. However, she did not furnish the IMEI number of the mobile phone; she even did not give the SIM number used in the said mobile. The Call Details Record of the mobile allegedly recovered from the appellant’s possession was not collected.
5. The appellant was not acquainted with the complainant. In her complaint (Ex.PW-4/A), she did not give the number of the motorcycle on which the assailants h
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
