SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(All) 1382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manoj Kumar Gupta, Rajendra Kumar-IV, JJ.
Dinesh Alias Babali – Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. -2194 of 1996, 2222 of 1996
Decided On : 23-6-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.Sachan,Rohan Gupta, A.A.Ansari,Sunil Kumar Dubey
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 394, 412, 307 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Robbery – Attempt to Murder – Appeals against conviction - Complainant entered his house and found his wife locked inside bathroom - She told complainant that appellant and his two accomplices, came to their house and sounded call bell - As soon as she opened door, all three barged into house, throttled her neck, squeezed her mouth and by showing knife, put her under fear of instant death/hurt and asked her to hand over keys and valuables - When she refused, she was locked in bathroom and they looted goods and household articles - After sometime, they heard sound of car of complainant and ran outside - It later transpired that they had taken away VCR, tape recorder, wrist watch, video cassettes, pocket transistor, camera, foreign currency worth Rs. 200/- There were abrasion and contusion marks on neck of his wife - Held, The recovery of stolen goods from the houses of appellants is a major consideration in recording findings against them. However, no recovery of any good or any other incriminating material was made from the accused Islam. The prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 had only seen the third robber running towards nalla. He was also not known to complainant or other witnesses. His alleged identification in police lockup becomes doubtful without any other evidence to corroborate his involvement in robbery - Since one of offence committed is punishable with imprisonment for life, consequently, none of beneficial provisions of Act get attracted to facts of instant case - He has no other criminal incidents - There is no evidence that they constitute a threat to society. Consequently, court opinion that a lenient view deserves to be taken while sentencing them - Appeals partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

These two appeals seek to assail the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants under Section 394, 412 IPC in Session Trial No. 207 of 1995. All the three appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment for committing offence under Section 394 IPC, whereas Dinesh alias Babali (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2194 of 1996) and Asghar (Appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 2222 of 1996) have also been convicted under Section 412 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The sentences were to run concurrently.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 13.7.1992 at around 8 PM, Dr. B.R. Bhatnagar (the complainant) returned to his house by car from his clinic near Aradhana Cinema. He was accompanied by his friend Vikram Kulshrestha. As soon as they reached near the house, they saw three persons coming out of the house of complainant. One of them Dinesh alias Babali (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2194 of 1996), was known to them being son of Chaukidar Amar Singh. The other two were also clearly seen in streetlight and headlight of car. They were carrying bundles in their hand and they ran towards the nalla. The complainant and his companion raised alarm and as a result whereof, ChaukidarBabu Ram and other persons of the locality came out. They also saw the culprits and tried to catch them, but they succeeded in running away. The complainant entered his house and found his wife Nirmala Bhatnagar locked inside the bathroom. She told the complainant that Dinesh alias Babali and his two accomplices, came to their house at 07:30 PM and sounded the call bell. As soon as she opened the door, all the three barged into the house, throttled her neck, squeezed her mouth and by showing knife, put her under fear of instant death/hurt and asked her to hand over keys and valuables. When she refused, she was locked in the bathroom and they looted the goods and household articles. After sometime, they heard the sound of the car of complainant and ran outside. It later transpired that they had taken away VCR, tape recorder, wrist watch, video cassettes, pocket transistor, camera, foreign currency worth Rs. 200/-. There were abrasion and contusion marks on the neck of his wife. The criminals had left behind a shirt spotted with blood and a chappal. The FIR (Ext. Ka-4) relating to the said incident was got registered by Dr. B.R. Bhatnagar on 13.7.1992 at 09:05 PM.

3. On the same date, the Investigating Officer tried to search the named accused and his accomplices. On 14.7.1992, he prepared a fard of the chappal and shirt left behind by the criminals at the place of occurrence (Ext. Ka-6). On 16.7.1992, the named accused and his two accomplices were arrested. All the three accused were identified in police lockup by the complainant and his wife and Vikram Kulshrestha. The police thereafter, at the pointing out of Asghar, reached his house. He took out key which he had concealed under a brick. He opened the lock of the almirah and handed over the stolen VCR. It was duly identified by the complainant and his wife. A fard (Ext. Ka-2) was prepared in respect thereof. Thereafter, on the same date, they went to the house of Dinesh alias Babali and at his pointing out, succeeded in recovering tape recorder, watch and foreign currency from his house. These articles were also duly identified as the goods stolen from their house. A fard in respect thereof (Ext. Ka-3) was duly prepared. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, submitted a charge sheet against all the three accused under Section 394, 412, 307 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order to prove the prosecution case and bring home the charges against the accused, examined the complainant Dr. B.R. Bhatnagar as PW1, his wife Smt. Nirmala Devi as PW2, his friend Vikram Kulshrestha as PW3, S.I. Devendra Kumar Sharma as PW4 and S.I. Arun Kumar Singh as PW5. All of them supported the prosecution case.

4. The accu

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top