J U D G M E N T

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal under S.374 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to the impugned judgment dated 15.04.2014 and the order on the point of sentence dated 26.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), Delhi in Sessions Case No. 113/2012 arising from FIR No.166/2012 Police Station Ashok Vihar, Delhi under Ss. 395/397/412//34/120B IPC whereby the appellant was convicted under S. 120-B read with S. 392 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, nine months and eight days and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week; and for offence under S. 392 read with S. 397 Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of S. 428 Cr.PC was granted to the appellant.

2. The prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 14.07.2012 on receipt of PCR Call vide DD No.14 PP Ex.PW5/A regarding robbery of Rs.3 lacs and gold items by four five robbers at A 32, Group WPIA, Second Floor, Ashok Vihar, Sub Inspector Ved Prakash (PW19) alongwith Ct. Babu Lal reached at the spot where they met the complainant Suresh Chand Aggarwal. He disclosed that on the point of knife he was robbed of Rs.3.35 lacs, two gold rings and a chain. On the basis of this statement, the FIR was got registered. During the course of investigation, the visuals of CCTV footage installed at the adjoining factory were seen on the basis of which the suspects were shortlisted and they were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court.

3. The charges for offences under Ss. 120B/395/412 IPC were framed against accused Hardesh Kumar, Samant Mandal @ Raju @ Bangali and Raj Kumar @ Kalu. Accused Raj Kumar @ Kalu was additionally charged for offence under Ss.

397 IPC.

4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses. The case of accused was one of denial simplicitor. Hepleaded innocence and alleged false implication in the case.

5. After scrutinizing the testimony of prosecution witnesses coupled with the circumstantial evidence, vide impugned judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Hardesh Kumar for offence under Ss. 411 and 201 IPC whereas accused Samant Mandal was convicted for offence under S.120B read with S. 392 and S. 411 IPC. Accused Raj Kumar (appellant herein) was convicted for offence under S. 120B read with Ss. 392 Ss. 392 and 397 IPC. It was further held that the appellant is also guilty of offence under S. 411 IPC. However, since the ingredients of S.411 IPC are covered within the offence of robbery as defined under S. 390 IPC as such no separate sentence was required to be awarded for the said offence. He was sentenced as mentioned herein above. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by one of the convicts – Raj Kumar @ Kalu.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have carefully perused the record.

7. The most material witness is the complainant – Suresh Chand Aggarwal (PW15), who unfolded that he is running the business of steel trading under the name and style of “Shri Durga Steel” from A-32,Group, 2ndFloor, WPIA, Ashok Vihar.On 14.7.2012 at about10:15 AM he came to his factory and kept a sum of Rs.3.35 lacs which he had brought from his house in the drawer of his table. While he was performing pooja in the factory, his servant came and started cleaning the factory. At about 10:45 AM, somebody knocked the door which was opened by his staff. Three boys entered inside the factory and compelled the staff to sit on the chairs and came in front of him. He inquired from them as to what was the matter, then one of them aged about 28-30 years told him that “