The judgment emphasized the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and highlighted the importance of sentencing and reformation of the convict.

JUDGMENT

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The appellant Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Sikander Sahani assails the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2019 of the learned District & Sessions Judge, East, KKD Courts, Delhi in relation to FIR No.43/2016. PS Kalyanpuri and the impugned order on sentence dated 28.03.2019 vide which judgment and order on sentence, the appellant herein was convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 392/394 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the commission of the said offences with a fine of Rs.10,000/- having been imposed and in default of the payment of the fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months with the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 having been given to the appellant.

2. Though, CRL.M.(BAIL) 898/2019 was filed on behalf of the appellant, it was considered appropriate by this Court to hear the appeal in toto.

3. The Trial Court Record has been received and perused.

4. The appellant who is in judicial custody, was directed to be produced from judicial custody and was so produced.

5. Arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel and on behalf of the State by the learned APP for the State.

6. Written submissions were also submitted on behalf of the appellant.

7. The facts brought forth through the Trial Court Record and the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2019 of the learned District & Sessions Judge, East, KKD Courts, Delhi are to the effect that on 24.01.2016, Guddu @ Nand Lal i.e. the complainant was returning to his house from Kalyanpuri and at about 8:15 PM, he reached near Chand Cinema, Bus Stand and in the meantime, two boys stopped him and caught hold of him and when he objected to the same, one of the boys took out a knife from inside the right side of his shirt and wielded a blow on his left side and the other boy took out the micromax mobile phone from the left pocket of the pant of the complainant and when the complainant raised an alarm, those two boys started running towards Trilokpuri and the police personnel on patrolling reached there and apprehended those boys after chasing them upto some distance and the mobile phone and knife were recovered from their possession with the names of those two boys having been revealed as Shyam Babu (since declared a proclaimed offender) and Sanjeev Kumar i.e. the appellant herein and the complainant stated that it was Shyam Babu who had wielded the knife blow on him whilst the accused/appellant herein Sanjeev Kumar had removed the mobile phone from the possession of the complainant. The knife and the mobile phone were seized and the two accused persons were arrested. The mobile phone was released in favour of the complainant, the exhibits were sent to the CFSL and on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet qua the commission of offences punishable under Sections 392/394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused persons was filed. The charge qua the offences punishable under Sections 392/394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed against both the accused persons and a separate charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused Shyam Babu and a separate charge under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed against the appellant herein, to which the appellant herein pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. Through their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the accused persons denied the incriminating evidence led against them and pleaded innocence. The appellant herein also claimed that he was a student at the time of the incident and was lifted by the police whilst he was returning from the playground around 5.30 PM on 24.01.2016 and that he was not known to the co-accused and had never met him at any point of time prior to the incident but the accused persons did not lead any evidence in defence