IMPORTANT POINT
Robbery--Acquittal--Accused/appellant was not arrested on the basis of identification made by the injured (victim)--Prosecution failed to establish the recovery of material objects beyond reasonable doubt

Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J. (Oral):- The accused Pawan Kumar was convicted for offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo a further period of six months rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo a further period of three months rigorous imprisonment. Hence, the appeal preferred by the accused/appellant.

2. The brief case of the prosecution as spoken to by the witnesses examined on its side is as follows :-

a) Anil Kumar Jain (PW2) was a businessman residing at Hisar. He having purchased articles for his shop, boarded Sirsa bound train on 14.04.1995. He remained all alone in the compartment after almost all the passengers got down from the train when it reached Bhiwani. Two young boys entered into his compartment at Bhiwani Railway Station. They sat on the seat in front of him. He had a bag containing his bed sheet, light carpet, pillow cover and three coins. Putting the bag underneath his head, he was sleeping. Accused Pawan Kumar snatched his bag when the train was running. The juvenile co-accused Deepak Kumar inflicted knife blows on Anil Kumar Jain on his waist. Thereafter accused Pawan Kumar and the juvenile accused Deepak Kumar having stopped the train by pulling the chain, jumped out of the train and escaped. Unfortunately, Anil Kumar Jain who had received injuries could not get the help of the guard of the train on duty, but a Sardarji passenger who was travelling in the train extended him help to reach his home. PW1 Dr. S.M. Mehta, attached to B.D. Sharma Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, medico legally examined the injured Anil Kumar jain. He found a stab wound in the waist slightly lateral to the mid line. Both lungs were found punctured. After treatment Anil Kumar Jain was discharged on 21.04.1995. The discharge slip issued by PW1 was marked as Ex.PA.

b) On information the Assistant Sub Inspector Sajjan Singh (PW8) reached the house of Anil Kumar Jain and recorded his statement. A formal FIR was registered by him. He took up the case for investigation and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

c) On the basis of the disclosure statement given by the accused Pawan Kumar, the knife, bed sheet, light carpet and pillow cover were recovered from him. PW8 having completed the investigation filed final report as against the accused.

3. The trial Court relieved the accused/appellant of the charge under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, but it held the accused guilty of the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW2, the injured witness in this case, in the background of the medical evidence and recovery of the material objects returned a finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short ‘the Arms Act’).

5. The learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that there was a delay of eight days in lodging the First Information Report, but the same was not explained by the prosecution. No test identification parade was conducted to identify the accused by PW2. It is his further submission that the recovery of the material objects could not be established by the prosecution. It is lastly submitted that as there is no evidence to show that the knife alleged to have been recovered from the accused falls within the description of the term ‘arm’ under the Arms Act, the accused also cannot be convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

6. Per contra, the learned public prosecutor for the State would submit that the delay has been properly explained by PW2 who