Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. Gauba, J.
Manoj Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 931 of 2005
Decided On : 12-03-2019
Armed Robbery - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 173 Cr.PC, Section 392, 394, 397 IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act - The judgment discusses the charges under Sections 394/397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act against the appellant and others. It highlights the evidence presented, the identification process, and the court's scrutiny of the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and others were tried for armed robbery and possession of arms based on reports under Section 173 of Cr.PC. The prosecution's case involved a detailed account of the robbery and subsequent arrest of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the evidence against the appellant and two others to be credible, leading to their conviction for offences under Section 394/397 IPC. However, the court disbelieved the evidence regarding the arrest and recovery of weapons from the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, including the identification process and the timing and place of arrest of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court scrutinized the identification process and the fairness of the investigative process. It emphasized the need for caution in relying on dock identification and highlighted the importance of prompt and fair test identification parades.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment holding the appellant guilty, citing unjust and unfair reliance on dock identification and the possibility of earlier identification at the police station. The appellant was released from jail.
R.K. Gauba, J.
The appellant along with five others stood trial in Sessions case no.101/2004 in the court of the additional sessions judge on the basis of reports (charge-sheets) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) which were submitted upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) no.53/2001 of police station Chitranjan Park and nos.202-05/01, all of police station Malviya Nagar. The FIR no.53/2001 had been registered on 07.03.2001 at the instance of Vineet Oberoi (PW-1) regarding offences punishable under Sections 392, 394, 397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On 08.03.2001 at about 8.20 a.m., the police officers of special staff allegedly arrested certain persons (who were sent up for trial) including the appellant herein from a public park in the area of Savitri Nagar behind Women Hospital, a brief case with currency notes of the total value of Rs.4,10,500/- having been recovered at that point of time, such arrestees also found having in their respective possession, knives and certain fire arms besides live ammunition regarding which FIR nos.202-05/2001 were registered in police station Malviya Nagar, each involving offence under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959. The said brief case and the currency notes were found, upon investigation, to be part of the property of which PW-1 had been relieved in the course of armed robbery on 06.03.2001.
2. Thus, the charge-sheets arising out of the said five cases were brought before the same court and clubbed for trial, the appellant herein with others being charged with offences punishable under Sections 394 IPC, Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC, a separate charge having been framed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, respecting recovery allegedly made of a country made katta from him. The trial concluded with judgment rendered on 27.07.2005, the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act against four persons including the appellant having been held to have failed, they thus having been acquitted for said offence. The trial court found the evidence led to show complicity of three co-accused namely Devender (A1), Mohd. Yunus (A5), Govind Singh (A6) to be not credible, they having been acquitted upon benefits of doubts being extended. By the same judgment, the appellant (A4), and two others namely Kishan @ Krishan (A-2), Mohd. Anis (A3), were found guilty and convicted on the charge for offences under Section 394/ 397 IPC. By order dated 29.07.2005, each of the said three convicts were sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr. PC being extended.
3. The State concededly did not challenge the judgment dated 27.07.2005 in so far as thereby A1 (Devender), A5 (Mohd. Yunus) and A6 (Govind Singh) had been acquitted. A2 (Kishan @ Krishan) challenged the judgment of conviction by Crl. Appeal no.788/2005, the same having been dismissed in default on 30.11.2018. On the other hand, A3 (Mohd. Anis) did not bring in challenge to the judgment of conviction or order on sentence, he having suffered the sentence awarded against him, and released from jail on 20.07.2007. A report to this effect has been submitted by the Station House Officer of police station Chitranjan Park pursuant to the earlier directions.
4. Thus, the appeal at hand is to be considered only qua the findings returned holding the appellant guilty and convicting him with sentence to the above effect having been awarded against him.
5. The case for the prosecution is set out succinctly in the judgment of the trial court thus :-
"2. The case of the prosecution is that on 6.3.2001, PW-1 Vineet Oberoi, proprietor of Soami Service Center, left the petrol pump around 11.30 p.m in his Honda City car bearing No.DLDCJ 7780. He was carrying with him the sale proceeds of 5th & 6th March, 2001 amounting to Rs.4,51,000/- in a brief case. Accused Govind Singh,
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
