IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court must independently review evidence and legal reasoning, ensuring justice and rectifying errors in lower court judgments.

JUDGMENT :

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)

1. The Present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated 05.03.2022 and the order on sentence dated 31.03.2022 passed by Sh. Naveen Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge-05, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 1005/2016 arising out of FIR No. 153/2016, registered under Sections 394/397/411/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Jagat Puri, Delhi whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 394 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 397 IPC and Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.30,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 397 IPC. The convict is further sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of two months for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that on receipt of DD No. 14- A 21.05.2016, SI Praveen (PW-5) alongwith Ct. Shiv Hari (PW-4) reached on the spot where they found people gathered and beating a person. During inquiry it was found that the person who was beaten was Danish, the appellant herein. The complainant also met there who had suffered head injury. The complainant handed over one desi katta (country made pistol) to PW-5 and stated that the appellant along with his accomplice had come on a motorcycle and snatched the chain. The appellant took out a country made pistol and being resisted by the complainant and assaulted on his head. The complainant caught hold of the appellant. However, another person who was driving the bike ran away. It was found that the appellant snatched gold chain. On the statement of the complainant, FIR No. 153/2016, registered under Sections 394/397/411/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Jagat Puri was lodged. Appellant was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. After conducting the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded conviction of the appellant under Section394/397/411/34 IPC & 25 (1B) of Arms Act. The appellant has challenged the order of conviction on various grounds. It was submitted that no Test Identification Parade, and the dock identification is not admissible in the eyes of law. Reliance has been placed upon Amrik Singh vs The State of Punjab (2022) 9 SCC 402. It has further been submitted that even during the cross examination PW1 complainant has stated that he had not seen the appellant at the time of the offence. The appellant has also challenged the conviction on the ground that no independent public person has been examined. The appellant has also challenged the conviction on the ground that there is discrepancy in the case of the prosecution regarding recovery of country made pistol. It has been submitted that as per initial case of the prosecution.

4. It has been submitted that as per initial case of the prosecution, the complainant stated that when the police official reached on the spot, he handed over the country made pistol to them. However, in his testimony before the court, PW1 stated that he actually handed over the katta to public person present there and went to the Monga Hospital for medical treatment. The appellant has further submitted that has miserably failed to prove that while the alleged offence was committed, the accused had caused any hurt to the victim. It has been submitted that the alleged injury was even as per the case of the prosecution inflicted on the victim after the commission of the alleged offence.

5. The appellant has also submitted that the recovery of the chain is also doubtful as there is major contradiction between the statement of the victims PW1 and PW5. The appellant has further submitted that no case u