* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 03.12.2024 Pronounced on : 23.12.2024 + CRL.A 717/2024 VICKY @ DEEPAK .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gautam Khajanchi and Ms. Aditi Kukreja, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State with SI Mayank PS Kalyanpuri, Delhi.

+ CRL.A. 952/2024 & CRL. M(BAIL) 1701/2024 JAMES .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Vaishnav Kirti Singh, Advocates.

versus THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI.....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State with SI Mayank PS Kalyanpuri, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been instituted against the judgement of conviction dated 23.04.2024 and order on sentence dated 10.07.2024 passed by Principal District & Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.A 717/2024 & CRL.A. 952/2024 Page 1 of 9 in the case arising out of FIR No. 532/2021 registered under Sections

392/397/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act at P.S. Kalyan Puri, Delhi.

Vide the impugned judgement, the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 392/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years, with fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default whereof, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

2 months.

Additionally, the appellant/Vicky @ deepak was also convicted for offences under Section 397 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and 4 years respectively, with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in the latter conviction, in default whereof, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also given to both the appellants.

2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the complainant, one Daya Ram, a taxi driver had on 27.09.2021 around 4.15 pm stopped his vehicle by the side of the road to relieve himself when he was attacked by the appellants. While the appellant/James allegedly grabbed hold of his neck, the appellant/Vicky pointed a knife to his stomach and robbed him of his Samsung A6 mobile phone and Rs.1200 in Cash. This incident was witnessed by one Safi Alam Khan, a Civil Defence personnel, who intervened and upon seeing him, the appellants ran away from the place of the incident. Safi called the PCR. On the next day, on basis of information given by secret informer, police went to Jhuggis of 19-20 Block, Kalyanpuri where the appellant/Vicky was apprehended. The robbed mobile phone was recovered from him and the knife used in the commission of offence was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.A 717/2024 & CRL.A. 952/2024 Page 2 of 9 also recovered at his instance from his home. The eyewitness Safi, was also present with the police and identified the appellant/Vicky. In his disclosure statement, Vicky stated that the appellant/James was the other person involved in the commission of offence. Later, when the appellant/James was arrested in relation to another case being FIR No. 534/2021, during investigation, his involvement in the present case was detected. He was identified in judicial TIP by the complainant on 14.01.2022. Charges were framed under Sections 392/34 IPC against the appellant/James and under Section 392/397 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act against the appellant/Vicky.

3. In trial, a total of 8 witnesses were cited by the prosecution to prove its case. The complainant namely Daya Ram was examined as PW5. Safi Alam Khan, the eyewitness was examined as PW2. The other witnesses were formal in nature, who deposed relating to various aspects of investigation. On the other hand, the accused persons, in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. claimed innocence and false implication.

4. Learned counsel for appellant/Vicky submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the said appellant was never subjected to a TIP and