Point of Law: Robbery and Dacoity - Conviction upheld - Complainant and appellant were known to each other being erstwhile classmates - Appellant from inception has taken consistent defence of false implication at instance of one N and also on account of previous quarrel between him and complainant - Prosecution failed to prove its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 383 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment on conviction dated 09.08.2019 and the order on sentence dated 09.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05 (North District), Rohini Courts, Delhi in SC No. 58477/2016 arising out of FIR No.605/2015 registered under Sections 392/394/34 IPC at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 07 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. For the sake of felicity, the facts of the case as noted by the Trial Court are extracted hereunder:-

“1. Prosecution case in brief is that on 01.05.2015 a PCR call was received in Police Station Mukherjee Nagar vide DD No. 69 B. After receipt of call, SI Manzoor Alam along with staff reached at H. No. 33/1, Indira Vikas Colony, Delhi, where the complainant Sunil got recorded his statement that he was going towards his home after meeting his friend. When he reached in front of H. No. 22/7, Indira Vikas Colony, Delhi, suddenly one Sonu S/o Nanak Chand, who earlier used to reside in Munshi Ram Dairy came along with three persons and pointed a knife at his waist and demanded money. When the complainant objected this, Sonu slapped him. His three accomplices caught hold of the complainant and Sonu took out Rs.1000/- from his pocket and said that if the complainant told anything to anyone, he would kill him. On the complaint of the complainant the above case was registered and investigation was taken up.

2. During investigation, the accused was searched at H. No. 118, Jhuggi Munshi Ram Dairy, Delhi but he was not found there. It was transpired that the accused and his family had vacated the house and were living somewhere else. The accused and his accomplices were searched but could not be found.

3. On 05.05.2015, the complainant came to PS and stated that he had seen accused Sonu along with some of his friends sitting at Yograj Colony, Bus Stand. The said facts were brought into the notice of SHO, who prepared a raiding team to arrest the accused. A raid was conducted on the instance of complainant and accused Sonu was arrested in the case. During the search of accused, one knife was also recovered and the same was identified by the complainant. The recovered knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C and deposited in Malkhana. During his interrogation, accused Sonu stated that he along with his three accomplices robbed the complainant. He further stated that he did not know the address of the accomplices namely Raju, Monu and Sunil but he could get arrest the accomplices. One day PC remand of the accused was obtained and search of other co-accused was made but the accused Sonu did not cooperate in the investigation and the co-accused persons could not be arrested. After one day PC remand, accused was sent to JC”.

3. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the appellant was charged under Sections 392/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC by the Trial Court. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. While arguing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the conclusions arrived at in the impugned judgment by contending that: (i) there are contradictions in proving of the place of incident by the prosecution as to whether it occurred near 22/7 Indira Vikas Colony or at 33/1 Gurdwara Wali Gali, (ii) no public witness present at the time of arrest of the appellant was made to join the proceedings, (iii) the knife recovered during apprehension of the appellant could not be connected with him as no fingerprints were taken, and (iv) the Trial Court did not consider the testimony of DW-1, Raju Paswan @ Pannu Chai Wala, who had stated t