The court confirmed that credible eyewitness testimony and recovery of weapon and stolen items are sufficient to uphold convictions under IPC sections for murder and robbery.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J.

1. This appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 17th January, 2019 passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 394 and 397 IPC but acquitting him of charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act; and order on sentence dated 19th January, 2019 awarding the following sentence to the appellant:

(i) Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/- (simple imprisonment for six months, in default of payment of fine) for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.20,000/- (simple imprisonment for two months, in default of payment of fine) for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

(iii) Rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.20,000/- (simple imprisonment for two months, in default of payment of fine) for offence punishable under Section 394 IPC.

(iv) Rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.20,000/- (simple imprisonment for two months, in default of payment of fine) for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.

All sentences to run concurrently.

The Incident

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant PW-1 Bhuri Singh and his family members were returning to their house in Section- 29, Gurgaon, Haryana on 27th October, 2013. He and his brother-in-law Naresh were riding on his Bajaj Platina Motorcycle whereas his wife PW-6 Laxmi was riding on the other motorcycle being driven by his maternal uncle PW-8 Satyavan. Satyavan stopped his motorcycle for filling petrol on the way and the complainant alongwith Naresh waited on the motorcycle near Chand Cinema, Mahila Park. One unidentified boy (later identified as the appellant) came near their motorcycle and asked Naresh to hand over whatever he had on him on his person. When Naresh refused, the boy stabbed him in his stomach with a knife and snatched the Micromax mobile of Naresh. The appellant asked the complainant PW-1 to hand over his purse and when he refused to do so, he assaulted PW-1 with a knife and caused injury on his left arm. The appellant took away the complainant's purse having two currency notes of Rs.500/- each. The appellant tried to run from there, but the complainant and deceased chased him and apprehended him while he was trying to jump the wall adjacent to the park. Public also reached there and gave beatings to the appellant and subsequently the PCR reached the spot and took the complainant and the deceased to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, while apprehending the appellant and recovering the knife from him. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant. Charges were framed under Sections 394, 397, 302, 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses in support of the case, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and one witness was examined in defence.

Submissions of the Appellant

3. The appellant submitted through his appeal and arguments led by his counsel, that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory particularly on the issue of apprehension of the appellant. While PW-6 deposed that the appellant was apprehended by PW-1 and the deceased, PW-8 deposed that the deceased had stab injury and was sitting there, and the appellant was apprehended only by PW-1. It was contended that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered that PW-8 was declared hostile on this point and therefore his testimony was not reliable. The testimony of DW-1 Smt. Somwati, mother of the appellant ought to