SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Del) 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Naresh @ Pappu Pager - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2018; Criminal Miscellaneous (Bail) No. 576 of 2018
Decided On : 06-01-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Salman Hashmi, Advocate, Mohd Adil, Advocate, Kusum Dhalla, Advocate

The use of a deadly weapon in committing robbery is sufficient to establish the offence under Section 397 of the IPC, and recovery of the weapon is not essential for conviction.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Robbery - Sections 392/394/34 and Section 397 - Summary of Acts and Sections

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 392/394/34 and Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code for a robbery incident involving the use of a knife at an ATM.

Finding of the Court:

The Trial Court found the appellant guilty based on consistent testimonies of witnesses and evidence of the robbery involving the use of a knife.

Issues: Inconsistencies in testimonies regarding the recovery of the knife and the use of deadly weapons in the robbery.

Ratio Decidendi: The use of a deadly weapon in committing robbery was established, and the recovery of the weapon was not necessary for conviction under Section 397 of the IPC.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for the charged offence.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 03.06.2017 passed by the Learned ASJ, (North), Rohini Courts, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 392/394/34 and Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). By an order dated 07.06.2017, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 393/34 of the IPC; five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 394/34 of the IPC and in default, simple imprisonment for a further period of three months; and seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine for Rs. 3000/- for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC and in default, simple imprisonment for a further period of four months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are that in the intervening night of 15.12.2012 and 16.12.2012, on receipt of DD no. 2B, PSI Pawan Kumar reached the spot, that is, near Kotak Mahindra Bank, ATM, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp where he met Beat Ct. Om Prakash and came to know that injured had already been moved to B.J.R.M Hospital by P.C.R Van. He, along with HC Om Prakash, went to the hospital and collected the MLC of Saurav and Hritvik Singh and accused Pradeep and Naresh. He also met HC Jitender (Incharge of P.C.R Van), who produced a knife that was handed to him by the injured Saurav. Saurav had, in turn, grasped it from the appellant. PSI Pawan recovered a Rs. 500/- currency note from the pocket of the appellant, which was taken into possession and a Titan wrist watch from the other accused, which too was taken into possession as the same was claimed to be robbed from Saurav (Complainant).

3. The investigating officer (IO) recorded the statement of Saurav, who stated that on 15.12.2012/16.12.2012 at around 12 at night, he had come to GTB Nagar from Netaji Subash Place by Auto and had withdrawn Rs. 500/- from the ATM of Kotak Mahindra Bank. After withdrawing the amount from the ATM when he had moved ahead, the appellant had caught hold of his neck and pointed a knife on his waist and under the said threat, demanded to surrender his belongings. The complainant gave Rs. 500/- note from his pocket, which was snatched by the appellant. In the meanwhile, two other accused reached the spot. One of them (Pradeep) snatched complainant's wrist watch and the other accused (Gaurav@ Deepak@ Nitin) removed his purse from his pocket, which contained ATM Cards, PAN Card, etc. The complainant resisted the accused and on his doing so, the appellant delivered a blow towards the abdomen of the complainant. The complainant moved his hand over his abdomen due to which the knife struck his hand. The other two accused assaulted the complainant with kicks and fists blows. Consequently, the complainant raised an alarm. Some public persons reached the spot and caught hold of the appellant and the other accused. However, one of the accused (Gaurav@ Deepak@ Nitin) managed to escape. The officials of PCR van reached there and he handed over the knife snatched from the appellant. The PCR van took all of them to BJRM hospital, where the two accused were arrested and subsequently, the third accused was arrested on 1.02.2013.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid events, a FIR was lodged under Sections 392/394/397/34/411 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereafter the 'Arms Act'). Charges under Sections 392/394/34 of the IPC were framed against all the accused and separate charges under Section 397 of the IPC and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act were framed against the appellant.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: PW-1 (HC Sanjay Kumar, No. 273/NW, PS Mukherjee Nagar), PW-2 (Mr. Hritvik Singh), PW-3 (HC Jitendra, No. 771/PCR, North West Zone, Delhi), PW-4 (HC Om Prakash, No 154/NW, CAW Cell, North West

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top