Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
Arvind @ Body Guard - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 589 of 2018
Decided On : 14-01-2021
IPC - Robbery - Section 392, Section 397 - The judgment discusses the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case of robbery under Section 392 and 397 of the IPC. The court analyzed the identification of the accused, the recovery of stolen items, the conduct of the police, and the reliability of the prosecution's case. The court highlighted the lack of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and ultimately acquitted the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence for the offences punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. The prosecution's case was based on the complainant's statement that he was robbed at knifepoint near a lonely place. The appellant was arrested based on secret informer's information, and the stolen items were not recovered. The complainant identified the appellant at the Police Station.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the identification of the accused and the circumstances of the arrest, did not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted discrepancies in the evidence, lack of recovery of stolen items, and questionable conduct of the police. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt and acquitted the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's case, the identification of the accused, the recovery of stolen items, and the conduct of the police. The court examined the discrepancies in the evidence and the lack of conclusive proof to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted discrepancies in the evidence, including the identification of the accused and the circumstances of the arrest, and emphasized the lack of recovery of stolen items. The court also questioned the conduct of the police and the reliability of the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant and set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence. The appellant was discharged from all charges, and the appeal was allowed and disposed of. The Jail Superintendent was directed to release the appellant forthwith, if not required in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19.03.2018 passed by learned ASJ, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No.2316/2016 pertaining to FIR No.624/2016, for the offences punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC, registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi and to acquit the appellant.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 09.06.2016 at about 9.30 am, during emergency duty, ASI Anand Kumar was assigned DD No.9A, who along with Ct. Dinesh reached just ahead of Metro line at Yamuna Bank Railway Line, near Pole No. 1/28, Shakarpur, Delhi, and in the way, he met complainant Anil Kumar, and with him, they walked towards the said spot, and the ASI Anand Kumar recorded statement of complainant who stated that he was working in a Security Office, at S-559, School Block, Shakarpur and on 09.06.2016, he was coming from Hapur to Delhi by a train and at about 8.00 am when train reached ahead of Metro Line at Yamuna Bank, Shakarpur, it stopped as no signal was received. Since his office was near to the said place, he got down from the train and started walking. In the meantime, train also went away after receiving signal and till then he had walked a little distance. A boy came from behind and asked him as to where he hailed from, and thereafter that boy took out a knife and asked him to take out whatever he was having with him. The said boy took a sum of Rs.7,000/- from his ‘Pithoo Bag’ (the bag hanging on his back) and took out his mobile phone make Nokia Lumia 730 (from left pocket of his pant) forcibly, however, that boy returned him, (the complainant) two SIMs No. 9212412810 and 9410454970 after taking out from the said mobile.
3. On the basis of the said statement of the complainant Anil Kumar, the ASI got registered the FIR, and during investigation, the site plan of scene of occurrence was prepared. Thereafter, on 25.08.2016, on an information of the secret informer, ASI Anand Kumar along with Ct. Harender and informant reached at Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, where the appellant was pointed out by the secret informer and he was arrested in the case. Thereafter, a request was made for conducting his TIP, to which the appellant refused before the concerned MM. During police custody remand of the appellant, the mobile phone of the complainant and the knife used in the commission of the offence could not be recovered. On 27.08.2016, the complainant came to the Police Station to hand over the copy of his mobile bill where he identified the appellant at the Police Station. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
4. Vide order dated 09.12.2016, the Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 392/397 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses in the case, whose depositions inter-alia would be discussed.
6. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him as false and claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
7. PW4 ASI Vinod Kumar was the duty officer, who proved copy of the FIR as Ex.PW4/A on the basis of the rukka Ex.PW2/A, the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/B and proved DD No.9A dated 09.06.2015 as Ex.PW4/C.
8. PW5 Sh. Shishir Malhotra, the Nodal Officer, of M/s Aircel Ltd, deposed that the mobile phone numbers 9212412810 and 9410454970 were not found operational during the period from 09.06.2016 to 05.09.2016 and from 29.08.2016 to 05.09.2016 respectively as per IMEI No. 357168066773544 and IMEI No. 353894070528921. PW6 Sh. Subhash Kumar Mishra, Metropolitan Magistrate, proved application for conducting TIP of the appellant as Ex.PW6/
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
