IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Ali Hussain S/o Mohd. Ali - Appellant
Versus
The State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 708 of 2023 and CRL.M.(Bail) No. 1229 of 2023
Decided On : 16-01-2024
Code of Criminal Procedure - Criminal Appeal - 374(2), 383 - The judgment discusses the offences punishable under sections 394/397/411/34 IPC and the use of deadly weapons in the commission of the offence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a robbery at a residence resulting in injuries to the housemaid and theft of valuables. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 394/34 IPC, 397 IPC, and 411 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the testimony of the complainant, evidence of injuries, recovery of stolen articles, and the use of a deadly weapon during the robbery.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, the recovery of stolen articles, and the classification of the weapon used in the offence as a deadly weapon.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and corroborative testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the recovery of stolen articles, and the nature of the weapon used to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal and related applications were dismissed, upholding the impugned judgment and order on sentence.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J. - The present criminal appeal is filed under sections 374(2) read with section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") to set aside the judgement dated 10.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") and order on sentence dated 03.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned sentence order") passed by the court of Sh. Sachin Sangwan, Additional Sessions Judge-01 (Fast Track Court), South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in sessions case bearing number 1550/2016 titled as State V Mohibul Islam & Ors arising out of FIR bearing no 0374/2013 registered at P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin.
2. The factual background of the case is that SI Ajay Kumar along with Ct. Baldev on 25.11.2013 after receipt of DD No.12A regarding robbery in House no. 6, 1st Floor, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi involving assault and confinement of a housemaid namely Sushma (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") reached there and met with owner Kapil Advani and his mother Kavita Advani. The house was found to be in ransacked condition. SI Ajay Kumar recorded statement of the complainant wherein the complainant stated that owner Kapil Advani had employed Islam for doing cleaning of house who used to come around 9/10 am every day. The complainant on 25.11.2013 at about 8.30 am was preparing breakfast for Kavita Advani who was sitting on a chair outside the kitchen. The doorbell was rung about 9 am and door was opened by Islam. Two unknown persons aged about 21/22 years entered into house and Islam claimed that those boys were known to him. The short heighted boy took out knife from his pocket and another tall boy caught hold of the complainant and placed a knife at neck of the complainant. Those persons and Islam gave beatings to the complainant and her legs and hands were tied with crepe bandage. The tall boy placed knife on neck of Kavita Advani and threatened to kill her. The short heighted person and Islam went upstairs and after sometime came downstairs. Islam removed chain and bangle (kara) which were worn by the Kavita Advani. They also threatened Kavita Advani to kill her and family. They again beat the complainant and thereafter ran away from the spot. The complainant managed to untie her and informed owner Kapil Advani. Kapil Advani came at the spot and informed the police by calling at 100 number. Kapil Advani on checking found that cash amount of Rs.25 lacs and other valuable articles were missing. The mobile phone of the complainant was also found missing. FIR under sections 394/397/34 IPC was got registered and SI Ajay conducted investigation. SI Ajay seized one knife and crepe bandage from the spot. The nature of injuries stated to be received by the complainant was opined to be simple.
2.1 Mohd.Mohibul Islam and MA (who was determined as juvenile during trial) were arrested during further investigation and they refused to participate in TIP. During investigation one bag containing Rs.16 lakhs and one chain with locket was recovered at instance of Mohd. Mohibul Islam. Rs.7,68,750/-, gold ring and knife recovered at instance of juvenile. The offence punishable under section 411 IPC was also added during investigation. Mohd. Ali Hussain could not be traced. The charge sheet after conclusion of investigation was filed against Mohd. Mohibul Islam and juvenile for offences punishable under sections 394/397/411/34 IPC before the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. The case was committed to court of sessions vide order dated 15.03.2014 passed by the court of Ms. Neha, Metropolitan Magistrate-03, South-East, Saket.
2.2 Mohd. Ali Hussain surrendered on 06.03.2014 before the concerned court and was accordingly arrested. He refused to participate in TIP. During investigation one bangle (kara) and one pearl chain kept in a green coloured purse were recovered which were identified by Kapil during TIP of the case property. The
The main legal point established is the reliance on consistent and corroborative testimony, recovery of stolen articles, and the nature of the weapon used to establish guilt in a criminal case.
The testimony of the complainant as the victim should be accorded great weightage unless there are strong grounds for rejection.
The broad interpretation of the use of weapons in armed robbery under Section 397 of IPC, emphasizing that the mere display of a weapon or any action inducing fear in the victim's mind is sufficient ....
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 22.02.202....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence, doubts exaggerated testimony, and highlights the significance of recovery evidence and incriminating circumstances in establishing guilt.
It is trite law that even if the weapon of offence is shown after snatching had taken place for running away along with snatched article, offence under Section 397 IPC is attracted.
A dock identification of an accused, particularly when the witness had prior exposure to the accused at a police station and no independent corroborative evidence exists, is insufficient to sustain a....
The court emphasized the necessity of credible witness accounts for conviction, finding significant contradictions and lack of independent corroboration in the prosecution's case.
Point of law : whenever the charge is framed for higher offence, the Court retains the power to convict an accused for a lesser offence even in the absence of a charge being framed for lesser offence....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to establish a solid evidentiary basis results in acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.