Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3482
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
Rahish @ Ganja - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. A. 1087 of 2012
Decided On : 12-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.B. Dandapani
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Ahlawat
The trustworthy testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence, and the principles established in previous cases regarding the recovery of the weapon and identification evidence influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Section 397 - Robbery - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - [Cr.P.C.] - [Section 374] - [Section 392, Section 397] - The court discussed the testimonies of the victim, medical evidence, and the principles of identification evidence, recovery of the weapon, and the absence of independent witnesses. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant based on the trustworthy testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence, and the principles established in previous cases regarding the recovery of the weapon and identification evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the IPC based on the prosecution's case that he was involved in a robbery and inflicting injuries upon the victim. The appellant denied the allegations, claiming false implication and wrongful confinement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim's testimony to be trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court also rejected the appellant's contentions regarding the recovery of the weapon, the Test Identification Parade, and the absence of independent witnesses.
Issues: Reliability of victim's testimony, Recovery of the weapon, Test Identification Parade, Absence of independent witnesses
Ratio Decidendi: The trustworthy testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence, and the principles established in previous cases regarding the recovery of the weapon and identification evidence influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, dismissing the present appeal.
1. The present appeal has been instituted under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2011 and order on sentence dated 24.10.2011 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. The case of the prosecution as observed by the Trial Court is that:
“… on 04.08.2010 on receipt of DD No.28A. ASI Om Pal Singh along with Ct. Afzal reached at Ring Road in front of Richi Rich Restaurant near Rana Motors and found two motorcycles one of accused and other of victim and other of public persons had gathered there. ASI Om Pal Sigh left Afzal at the spot and he himself went to India Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Rishabh Sehgal who was under treatment and also recorded his statement. The inujred Rishabh Sehgal informed him that he was working with Thomas Cook India Pvt. Ltd. and on 04.08.2010, he was going to his office on his bike bearing No. DL-8S-AC-3598 make Bajaj Discover and when he reached in front of Rana Motors Wazirpur at about 7.30 PM, two boys came on a motorcycle of black colour make Pulsor, who were aged about 30 years and one of them was stoutly built, whereas other was thin. He further informed the police that he tried to overtake them but those boys blocked his way by stopping their motorcycle in front of his motorcycle and got him down and started firstly beating him with the helmets and then also with kicks and fists and blows after which they tried to snatch his bag as a result he fell down on the ground. One of them was having a sharp object who had given the blows with that object on his neck on the right side upto back, on right cheek and right ear and the other boy removed (victims) his chain from his neck, his wrist watch and Rs. 40,000/- from the pocket of his trousers belonging to his company. The complainant further informed the police that while both the accused were trying to run away and were in the process of starting their bike, he (victim) removed the keys of their bike and in the meantime public persons also gathered there. Finding no option the accused ran away from the spot leaving their motorcycle at the spot itself.”
3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove its case; statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the appellant denied all the allegations levelled against him, stated himself to be innocent, pleaded false implication and also that nothing has been recovered from his possession; that the officials of the Special Cell kept him in wrongful confinement for several days and he had been given beatings; that he was forcefully made to sign blank papers, which were then used to incriminate him; that his photographs were taken while he was in police custody at Police Station - Patel Nagar, which were later shown to several public persons.
4. After considering the evidence on record and the contentions of both the parties, the Trial Court found that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus held him guilty of offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the IPC. Hence, the present appeal.
5. The appellant contends that the testimony of PW3 is neither reliable nor trustworthy as PW3 has falsely implicated him in this case owing to the fact that a sudden fight took place between the appellant and the complainant whereby both suffered injuries; that from the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9, it can be clearly made out that independent witnesses were present at the spot of incident, yet there was not a single independent prosecution witness; that PW-3 was shown the photograph of the appellant before the
