IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Shekhar Pathak & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State – Respondent
Crl. A. 278 of 2003
Decided On : 11-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the basis of the prosecution's case and the events leading to charges. (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “CrPC”) against the judgment dated 27th February, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”) and against the Order-on- Sentence dated 9th April, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned Order on Sentence”) passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Session Case bearing No. SC No. 665/1996 arising out of FIR bearing No. 215/1991 registered at Police Station Tughlak Road, Delhi. The Appellants vide the impugned judgment were held guilty for committing the offences punishable under Sections 395 /34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “ IPC ”). The Appellants vide the impugned Order on Sentence were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, under Section 395 IPC and in default of payment of fine, each of the convict were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
2. Briefly stated, the Prosecution’s case as reflected in the impugned judgment is as follows:
“That on 24.8.91 Ramesh Mandal came in the police station and stated that he is a TSR Driver and is driving TSR no. DR4899 and that yesterday, he had taken a passenger from Karol Bagh for going to Air Force Station and at about 9.15/9.30 when he reached there, the passenger gave him the money and left, and when he started for his house, he saw one boy aged about 17-18 years, his height was about 5‘2“, wheatish complexion, and having small hair stopped him and told him that he had to go to New Delhi railway station via Air Force Station and he sat on his scooter as per his direction, he went to Air Force Station quarters, and he asked him to stop the scooter in a lonely place and went towards the quarters to fetch some goods, and at that time, five boys came from the backside and told him that he had come to sell the smake, and when he told him that he had come with the passenger, but by that time, the person who boarded his scooter again, came back, and one of them got hold of his hand from the back side, and two boys took out knives and threatened him that in case he will raise alarm, they will give him knife blows, and thereafter they took him towards the bushes. One boy took out the entire money which was in his pocket, and the second boy took search and took out one black purse, some slips and driving license, and they also took the H.M.T. watch and threatened him that in case, he will raise alarm or inform the police, they will kill him with a knife. Thereafter, they ran away from the spot. He told these facts to 2-3 boys sitting there and narrated the entire incident that 5-6 boys have snatched his money and also taken away his watch and they should help him then, one of them told him that there is a Chowkidar on the gate, and he should go there, but he became nervous, and without telling anybody, he came back to his house and told the entire incident to his brother Shri Mandal, and then he came with his brother to Police Station. He further stated that the persons who took out the knife were of the age of 20–21 years, their height was 5‘8“, middle body, long nose, short hairs, like a Fauzi and was wearing red T-shirt and black pant, and the second body was of 19 to 20 years of age, middle body, small moustache, and was wearing white shirt and black pant and was holding black bag in his waist, and he had snatched his purse and watch. Another boy aged about 18-19 years long hair, middle body, wearing green colour shirt and can identify everybody on the basis of the statement case under section 395 IPC was registered and the investigation of the case was handed over to SI Jagjit Singh. Site plan was prep
The Court established that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
Recovery of the weapon of offence is not a sine qua non for convicting an accused. Albeit under Sections 302/34 IPC, the Court in this case also opined that it was not possible to reject the ocular e....
The judgment reinforces the principle that eyewitness identification, when corroborated by other evidence, can be sufficient for conviction in criminal cases.
(1) FIR – In cases where FIR is lodged against unknown persons and persons made accused are not known to witnesses, material collected during investigation plays important role to determine whether t....
The court upheld the conviction for wrongful restraint but reduced the sentencing for robbery due to inconsistencies in evidence and time served without a prior criminal record.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroboration and the benefit of doubt for the accused.
(1) Although Apex Court is bestowed with capacious powers under Article 136 of Constitution, yet, while beseeching such powers in a criminal appeal by special leave, Apex Court would by and large abs....
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.