The use of a weapon to threaten during robbery is sufficient for conviction under relevant IPC sections, supported by credible witness testimony and immediate recovery of stolen items.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 415(2) read with Section 424 BNSS, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 09.05.2024 and order on sentence dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-07, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 341/2023 arising out of FIR No. 531/2023 registered under Sections 392/397/411 IPC at P.S. Jagat Puri.

Vide the impugned order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof he was sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months, for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC; RI for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC; and RI for a period of 1 year alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof the appellant was sentenced to undergo SI for 1 month, for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C, was extended to the appellant.

2. The facts, in brief, as noted by the Trial Court are extracted hereunder:-

“1. As per the case of prosecution, on 13.08.2023, on receiving DD no.5A, ASI Udaivir Singh along with Ct. Rajnish reached at Parwana Road, Jagat Puri, he searched for the caller, but in vain. ASI Udaivir Singh tried to call at the mobile phone of the caller, but that number was switched off. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and after waiting for the caller, they again went for the search of the caller and at the Khureji Red Light caller Yasin Saifi met them, who told about the incident that happened with him and took the ASI Udaivir and Ct. Rajnish to the spot i.e. Gali No. 4, Rashid Market, Jagat Puri, Delhi, near in front of H.No. 11/11- 11/12, where complainant Yasin Saifi told about robbery of his purse containing Rs. 2800/- and documents and the accused was searched in the nearby streets and when they reached near Patparganj Road, Block l5, Geeta Colony, Delhi, they saw one person, who was giving an indication to stop an auto, then the complainant Yasin Saifi identified that person as the one, who had shown knife and robbed his purse and when accused tried to flee, he was caught by the police and his name was revealed as Savej and one knife was recovered and black purse having Rs. 2800/-, copy of DL and Aadhar Card were recovered.

2. The complainant alleged that he was an auto driver and on 13.08.2023 at about 1 AM, he had dropped the passenger at Laxmi Nagar from Anand Vihar and was returning from Patparganj Road to his house at Seelampur and at about 1:30 AM, he reached near Rashid Market, where one person, who was standing on the side of the road, signalled with his hand to stop the auto and he stopped the auto and that person told complainant that his mother was unwell and she had to be taken to Hedgewar Hospital and Rs. 80/- fare was told to that person, to which he agreed and boarded the auto. Through Parwana Road, he took him inside the gali and at some distance near small 'Chauraha', he asked to stop the auto and de- boarded the same· and put knife on the neck of the complainant and told him to part with the articles he had, else he would inflict knife blow. Due to same, complainant got frightened and that person took out the purse from his pocket having Rs. 2800/-, copy of-DL and Aadhar Card and ran away from there and then complainant called at 112 number.”

3. On conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, and the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 392/397/411 IPC against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses in support of its case, with the material witnesses being the complainant himself, who was examined as PW-1; Ct. Rajnish, who was examined as PW-2; and ASI Udaivir Singh, who was examined as PW-4. The remaining two prosecution witnesses were also police officials, who deposed as to various a