The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborated witness testimonies and evidence to prove the commission of the alleged offences, leading to the conviction of the appellants.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. Both these appeals are disposed of together by this common judgment as the same have been preferred against a common judgment of conviction and order on sentence.

2. The present appeals have been preferred aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 8th March, 2001, convicting the accused Sajan (appellant in Crl.A. No.605/2001) under Sections 452, 393 & 397 Indian Penal Code, 1985 (IPC) and the co-accused Om Prakash (appellant in Crl.A. No.958/2001) under Sections 452, 393 read with Section 34 of the IPC and order on sentence dated 8th March, 2001, vide which the sentence was passed against the appellants to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC, and five years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 393 IPC. The accused Sajan was also sentenced to undergo seven years RI under Section 397 IPC. In default of payment of fine under Section 452 and 393, it was ordered that the accused would undergo additional RI of three months and six months each respectively. The accused/appellants were given benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

3. The factual matrix emerging from the records are that on 10th June, 1999 at about 8.15 p.m., the appellants entered the office of the complainant i.e. Jagdish Goel at West Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla when one of the accused gave parchi to the complainant while the other bolted the door from inside. It was alleged by the complainant that the accused persons pointed out a desi katta towards him but he at once pounced upon them as a result of which one of the assailants i.e. Sajan fell down while the other i.e. Om Prakash ran away. It is clear from the record that desi katta, vegetable knife and parchi were recovered and the accused Sajan was handed over to the police. Thereafter upon checking, the police found one live cartridge loaded in the desi katta. The accused/appellant Om Prakash was declared as proclaimed offender but later on was arrested on 12th January, 2000. With respect to the allegations, the accused persons were challaned under Sections 452/386/392/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. The statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which the accused persons pleaded not guilty.

4. The accused Sajan was held guilty under Sections 452, 393 & 397 of the IPC while the accused Om Prakash was held guilty under Sections 452 & 393 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and by an order dated 8th March, 2001, appellants were ordered as given above to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC, and five years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 393 IPC. The accused Sajan was also sentenced to undergo seven years RI under Section 397 IPC. In default of payment of fine under Section 452 and 393, it was ordered that the accused would undergo additional RI of three months and six months each respectively. The accused/appellants were also given benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

5. The main grounds of challenge in Crl.A. No.605/2001 are that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the whole story by prosecution is not tenable in view of the ground of ‘Mens Rea’. The identity of the person who informed the police on telephone, remains doubtful. The accused/appellant went to ask for his money from PW 1 and instead of settling the lawful dues, the complainant called the police and labelled the victim as decoit. The prosecution was unable to prove the case under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and that no charge was framed under this Section. The appellant Sajan was additionally charged under Section 397 IPC which was against the law as it is not likely that a single person was carrying two arms,