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

2022 Supreme(Del) 1949

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Rahis - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 344 of 2020, Crl.A. 567 of 2020 and Crl.A. 568 of 2020
Decided On : 06-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
U A Khan, S A Khan & Shahrukh Khan, Advocates. Appellant through VC from JC in CRL.A. 344/2020.
Gautam Khazanchi, Advocate, Appellant through VC from JC in CRL.A. 567/2020.
Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, Advocate, Appellant through VC from JC in CRL.A. 5

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are consistent in relation to all material particulars and there exists no ground whatsoever for the modification of the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2020, nor for the modification of the impugned order on sentence dated 28.02.2020.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - Robbery - Conviction - Section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant challenged the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2020 and impugned order on sentence dated 28.02.2020 of the Court of the learned ASJ-02, E-Court, Shahdara, KKD, Delhi in relation to FIR No.244/16, PS Welcome registered under Sections 392/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant contended that the complainant had not supported the prosecution version, discrepancies in the testimonies of the eye witnesses, the ustara is not a deadly weapon, and the prosecution had failed to show that the mobile phone recovered from him was the same mobile phone as was allegedly robbed from the complainant - HELD, dismissing the appeal, that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are consistent in relation to all material particulars and there exists no ground whatsoever for the modification of the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2020, nor for the modification of the impugned order on sentence dated 28.02.2020.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Trial Court in relation to FIR No.244/16, PS Welcome registered under Sections 392/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Finding of the Court:

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are consistent in relation to all material particulars and there exists no ground whatsoever for the modification of the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2020, nor for the modification of the impugned order on sentence dated 28.02.2020.

Issues: Whether the impugned judgment and order on sentence are liable to be set aside?

Ratio Decidendi: The testimonies of all prosecution witnesses examined in the matter are consistent in relation to all material particulars qua the occurrence of robbery having taken place on 03.06.2016 at the 66 Foota Road near the Idgah Pulia, Welcome Delhi at about 11:00 PM and of there being the user of an ustara for the commission of the robbery from the passengers in the TSR bearing No. DL 1RQ 1537, which was done at the point of an ustara.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The appellants namely Rahis, the appellant of CRL.A. 344/2020, Javed, the appellant of CRL.A. 567/2020 and Jakir @ Chuhi, the appellant of CRL.A. 568/2020 assail the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2020 and the impugned order on sentence dated 28.02.2020 of the Court of the learned ASJ-02, E-Court, Shahdara, KKD, Delhi in relation to FIR No.244/16, PS Welcome registered under Sections 392/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 qua which the three appellants were held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and vide the impugned order on sentence dated 28.02.2020 were all sentenced to RI for a period of seven (7) years under Sections 392/34 r/w Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of the payment of the said fine to further undergo SI for a period of three months with the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. having been given to all the convicts. In as much as all the appeals arise out of the same impugned common judgment dated 22.02.2020 and impugned order on sentence dated 28.02.2020, the three appeals though filed separately are being taken up together for consideration in terms of proceedings dated 01.09.2021.

2. Notice of the appeals was issued to the State.

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

4. The nominal rolls dated 03.07.2022 qua the three appellants are on the record.

PROSECUTION VERSION

5. As per the prosecution version set forth through the impugned judgment and as also indicated through the FIR No.244/2016, PS Welcome which was registered at 1.50 hours on 04.06.2016, DD No.96B was recorded on 03.06.2016 at 11:47 PM on receipt of a call from a passenger of an auto-rickshaw that at Lakdi Market, Z1 block, near Usmania Masjid three boys who had boarded the auto-rickshaw as passengers had beaten the passenger and looted Rs.12,000/- from him and had run away on foot, that this call was received from Mobile No. 9897905054 of which information was given by Constable Sudhir 2913 PCR and was recorded in the Rojnamcha and entrusted to SI Brij Mohan who along with Constable Vinay 3389 NE left for the spot and on reaching there they found a TSR No. DL 1RQ 1537 stationed there and also found the complainant Bhagat Singh S/o Sh. Kuwar Pal Singh and another passenger of the vehicle who on enquiries gave his name to be Altabarak Haq S/o Mohd. Sharif at the spot and SI Brij Mohan recorded the statement of the complainant Bhagat Singh who stated to the effect that on 03.06.2016, he came to Delhi for his personal work and at about 10.50 PM, he boarded an auto-rickshaw bearing No. DL 1RQ 1537 from Moujpur Red Light to go to Welcome in which one passenger was already sitting on the rear seat and he too sat with him and when the TSR reached a little ahead of the red-light at Moujpur, three boys of ages between 20-25 years also boarded the TSR, of whom two of them sat towards the left and right side of the driver and the third one sat on the rear seat on the left side of the complainant. It has inter alia been stated through the FIR that at about 11:00 PM, when the TSR reached near the under construction metro station of Jafrabad before the Idgah Pulia, then the boy who was seated on the right side of the driver who was tall, thin and of dark complexion asked the driver to park the TSR on the side of the road and as the TSR driver parked the TSR on a side, the boy who was seated on the left of the complainant who was of a short height, fat and of dark complexion took out one ustara from his pocket and showed the same to the complainant and to the other passenger (whose name was subsequently learnt to be Altabarak Haq) and asked them to give whatever they had with them and in the meantime, the other two boys who were seated in the TSR, got down from the TSR and apprehended both the complainan

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top