The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between different offences under the IPC, the concept of conspiracy, and the possession of stolen property, influencing the court's decision.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By these appeals, appellants Pushpa, Poonam, Pooja, Raju and Vijay @ Vinay @ Bable challenge the impugned judgment dated 30th November, 2016 wherein Pushpa, Poonam and Pooja were convicted for offences punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 395/34 IPC and Section 412 IPC and Raju and Vijay @ Vinay @ Bable were convicted for offences punishable under Section 395 read with Sections 397/412 IPC in FIR No. 369/2011 registered at PS Prashant Vihar and the order on sentence dated 5th December, 2016 directing Pushpa, Poonam and Pooja to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 395/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC. Raju and Vijay @ Vinay @ Bable were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC read with Section 397/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC.

2. Assailing the conviction, learned Counsel for appellants submits that conviction under Section 394 and Section 395 IPC cannot be sustained together. Learned Trial Court erred in returning the finding of ingredient of Section 395 IPC as it does not provide for hurt. He also submits that since there was injury, Section 395 IPC cannot be invoked. He further submits that SI Manoj Kumar (PW-12) was the only witness who deposed that the knife could not be recovered. The nature of injury was simple. He submits that the only allegation against the appellants Pushpa, Poonam and Pooja as per the statement of Poonam Ahuja (Ex.PW-8/C) was the suspicion about their involvement as they did not come on calling by the complainant Poonam Ahuja (PW-1) so they might be involved in the robbery. He submits that HC Ram Kumar (PW-3) did not lift chance prints from the door. Poonam Ahuja was the only eyewitness and there were no allegations in the rukka. However, after a month, the complainant mentions about the involvement of Poonam, Pooja and Pushpa in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30th August 2011.

3. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the articles have been identified and seized from the appellants. Prosecution has proved its case from the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 9th August 2011, at about 1:05 P.M., information was received regarding theft at E-28, Prashant Vihar, Sector-14, Rohini. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No. 20A (Ex.PW-8/A) and was assigned to SI Manoj Kumar. He along with Ct. Om Prakash reached the place of incident i.e. House No. E-28, Ground Floor, Prashant Vihar where they met the complainant Poonam Ahuja and found that the articles in the house were lying scattered and the iron almirahs were lying open. Thereafter, the crime team was called. SI Anil Kumar inspected the spot and prepared a report vide Ex.PW-4/A. HC Ram Kumar collected the chance prints from the panel of almirah with the help of black powder and sent the same to Finger Bureau, Kamla Market for analysis. Ct. Rajbir took the photographs of the scene from different angles vide Ex.PW-2/A-1 to Ex.PW-2/A-9.

5. Statement of Poonam Ahuja was recorded vide Ex.PW-1/A wherein she stated that on 9th August 2011, at about 12:00 P.M., her husband Sanjay Ahuja had left for Village Libaspur, Samaypur Badli