Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Lalit @ Montu - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 78 of 2016
Decided On : 27-03-2017
IPC - Criminal Law - Sections 328, 379, 34 - The judgment discusses the recovery of drugs, theft of a battery-operated rickshaw, and the involvement of the accused in the crime. The court analyzes the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense, ultimately upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 328, 379, 34 IPC and modifying the sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the theft of a battery-operated rickshaw and the drugging of the victim, resulting in his unconsciousness and theft of his belongings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Sections 328, 379, 34 IPC and modified the sentence based on the facts of the case and the appellant's lack of previous involvement in such crimes.
Issues: The issues revolve around the recovery of drugs, theft of the rickshaw, and the credibility of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the victim, the recovery of drugs, and the testimony of witnesses to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 328, 379, 34 IPC and modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- on both counts, to run concurrently.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The court emphasized the importance of relying on credible evidence such as witness testimony and recovery of incriminating items to establish guilt in criminal cases [judgement_subject].
The case involved the theft of a battery-operated rickshaw and the drugging of the victim, leading to his unconsciousness and theft of his belongings [Fact of the Case].
The court found the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 328, 379, and 34 IPC, and upheld the conviction while modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- on each count, to run concurrently [Finding of the Court][Final Decision].
The evidence included the recovery of Lorazepam tablets, the seizure memo, and forensic reports, which supported the prosecution’s case that the victim was drugged (!) .
The victim’s statement and medical reports corroborated the fact that he was found unconscious due to unknown poisoning, and he had injuries consistent with being assaulted or injured during the incident (!) (!) .
The prosecution proved the theft of the battery-operated rickshaw through testimony of witnesses and the recovery of the vehicle, despite the absence of certain documents and the accused's inability to explain possession (!) .
The court noted inconsistencies in the defence’s claims, particularly regarding the arrest date and the involvement of other persons, and found the defence evidence to be unreliable (!) .
The appellant and his co-accused did not participate in identification procedures and failed to explain possession of the stolen vehicle, which supported the prosecution’s case (!) .
The court considered the appellant’s lack of previous criminal involvement and the period already served in custody, leading to a modification of the sentence rather than an outright reversal of conviction (!) .
The appeal was disposed of with the conviction maintained and the sentence modified, and directions were issued to update jail records accordingly (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
1. Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 328, 379, 34 IPC Lalit @ Montu challenges the impugned judgment dated 23rd September, 2015 and the order on sentence dated 30th September, 2015 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 328 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. Since the convict Pappu @ Amrish has not preferred any appeal, this Court is only concerned with the appeal of Lalit @ Montu.
2. Assailing the conviction, learned Counsel for Lalit @ Montu submits that the motorcycle on which the two convicts came has not been recovered. Apart from the two convicts, there was one more person who had offered lichi juice to PW-1 Farid. However, neither was he interrogated nor charge-sheeted nor summoned as an accused. No statement of person from whose cart Farid ate momos has been recorded. Farid stated that he was not taken anywhere for the investigation. Thus no pointing out was done by PW-1, hence the memos are false and fabricated. Defence evidence has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. PW-13 SI Sumit Kumar states that there was recovery of three strips of Lorazepam tablets Larpose-2 however, Ex. PW-13/B mentions that only 2 tablets were recovered. Alternatively, it is prayed that since the appellant has already undergone nearly 2 years, he be released on the period already undergone.
3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand submits that insofar as the recovery of Lorazepam tablets Larpose-2 is concerned, the same has been proved by the seizure memo Ex. PW-7/H and the FSL report Ex. PW-14/L. Name of the third person who offered the juice was mentioned in the disclosure statement and PW-14 SI Jai Prakash in his deposition stated that he tried to search the third person but could not find him. Farid was consistent in his statement with respect to the allegations leveled against the two convicts. Version of Farid with regard to unconsciousness and being drugged is proved by the presence of drug in gastric lavage duly corroborated by the MLC and the FSL report. The recovery of battery operated rickshaw has been proved by PW-7 Ct. Rajesh Kumar, PW-9 HC Bhuvan Chandra, PW-10 Ct. Sita Ram and PW-13 SI Sumit Kumar. Version of the defence witnesses is highly unreliable and doubtful as they state that the convicts were arrested on 31st July, 2013, however Farid was not fit for statement on that day and his statement was recorded on 1st August, 2013 for the first time and only thereafter, the FIR was registered.
4. Process of law was set into motion on receipt of DD No. 12A at 10:10 A.M. on 31st July, 2013 at PS Kashmere Gate informing that a quarrel has taken place at Gate No. 3 of Kashmere Gate Metro Station. The same was assigned to PW-14 SI Jai Prakash. He along with PW-11 Ct. Gopal Chandra went to the spot from where he came to know that the injured has already been taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. When he reached the hospital, the injured was found to be unfit for statement. The doctor handed over the blood sample and gastric lavage in a sealed condition to PW-14 SI Jai Prakash. On 1st August, 2013, statement of the injured Farid Khan was recorded when he was discharged from the hospital.
5. Farid Khan stated that for the past 7-8 years, he was selling bananas on a hand cart near ISBT Kashmere Gate. He sold his cart 10-15 days before the registration of this case. His friend PW-3 Brijesh, who used to sell kachori on a cart near his cart, gave him his battery operated rickshaw to ply on rent. After paying the rent to Brijesh every day, he used to park the rickshaw at B-67, Gali No. 6, Shastri Park and sleep there only. On 30th July, 2013 around 6:30 P.M., when he was waiting for the passengers at the red light of Shastri Park, two boys came on a motorcycle and said that some items h
AI
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
