Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Vinay & Another - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Crl. A. Nos. 790, 791 of 2016 & Crl.M. (Bail). No. 1353 of 2019
Decided On : 05-01-2021
Conviction - Robbery - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323, 354, 354A, 356, 394, 450, 452, 506 (Part II) read with Section 34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences including robbery, causing hurt, and outraging modesty under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the appellants entered her house, robbed her of jewelry and a mobile phone, and caused her injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the complainant's testimony credible and established the presence of the appellants at the scene. The court concurred with the trial court's decision to convict the appellants for the offences. However, the court found the sentence for the robbery offence harsh and reduced the sentences to the period already served, ordering the appellants' release.
Issues: Credibility of the complainant's testimony, presence of the appellants at the scene, and appropriateness of the sentences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the complainant's testimony and physical evidence to establish the appellants' presence and involvement in the robbery. The court also considered the mitigating circumstances and lack of criminal antecedents in reducing the sentences.
Final Decision: The court upheld the appellants' convictions but reduced their sentences to the period already served, ordering their immediate release.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants have impugned a judgment dated 21.07.2016, whereby the appellants were convicted of offences punishable under section 323, 354, 354A, 356, 394, 450, 452, 506 (Part II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In addition, the appellant Vinay was also convicted of an offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC. The appellants also impugn an order on sentence dated 25.07.2016, whereby the appellants were sentenced in respect of the offences committed by them.
2. A tabular statement indicating the sentences awarded to the appellants in respect of the offences for which they were convicted is set out below: -
| S. No. | Offence | Sentence |
| 1. | S. 323 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 30 days. |
| 2. | S. 354 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 30 days. |
| 3. | S. 354-A IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 30 days. |
| 4. | S. 356 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 30 days. |
| 5. | S. 394 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. |
| 6. | S. 450 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. |
| 7. | S. 452 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. |
| 8. | S. 506 Part II IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. |
3. In addition to the above, the appellant Vinay was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 30 days for committing an offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC. All the sentences awarded to appellants were directed to run concurrently.
Factual context
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint made by Dolly Mondal, an FIR (FIR bearing no. 677/14 under Sections 323/354/354A/394/397/452/411/506/34 of the IPC registered at PS Khajuri Khas) was registered against the appellants. The complainant alleged that on 07.07.2014 at 11.30 a.m. at H. No. B- 65, Gali No. 2, Dayal Pur, New Delhi, the accused Vinay and Raj Tilak entered the complainant’s house on the pretext of shifting the electricity meter. They robbed her of her jewellery and mobile phone thereby, causing hurt and outraging her modesty. It was also alleged that the accused used a knife - a deadly weapon, at the time of committing the said robbery. Upon hearing the alarm, the public near her house caught the accused Vinay. The accused Raj Tilak managed to escape and was apprehended from his house at around 8 pm later that day. Pursuant to aforesaid FIR, the accused were charged with the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323/354/354A/ 394/397/452/411/506/34 of the IPC. They pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial.
Evidence
5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses.
6. Dolly Mondal, the complainant, was examined as PW-1. She stated that on 07.07.2014 at 11.30 a.m., the accused Vinay and Raj Tilak entered the complainant’s house on the pretext of shifting the electricity meter. PW-1 called her
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
