2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4558
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
KUNAL @ AKHTAR ALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A. 181/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Jahanvi Worah
For the Respondents: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State
The consistent testimonies of the victims establish the appellant's conviction for robbery, despite challenges on witness examination and evidence admissibility.
Headnote:This judgment assesses an appeal under Section 374(2) r/w Section 383 Cr.P.C. against a conviction under Sections 394 IPC r/w Section 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The case involved a robbery at knife point with injuries sustained by the victims. The court found the testimony of the complainant and witnesses consistent, upholding the lower court's findings despite arguments regarding the absence of certain witnesses. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original verdict.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of facts leading to the conviction. (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal filed under Section 374 (2) r/w Section 383 Cr.P.C., has been instituted seeking to assail judgment dated 09.10.2023 and order of sentence dated 05.12.2023 in Sessions Case No. 176/2022 arising out of FIR No. 862/2021 registered under Sections 394 /411 IPC at P.S.
Ranhola , Delhi.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 394 IPC r/w Section 397 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.15,000/-, which was directed to be paid as compensation as Rs. 5,000/- each to all the three victims and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 2 months; for the conviction under Section 25 (1B)(b) of Arms Act , he was further sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 2 months. All the sentences were directed to be run Signature Not Verified Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A. 181/2024 Page 1 of 7 concurrently. The benefit of Section 428 CrPC was also given to the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 07- 08.12.2021, DD No. 9A came to be recorded with the information that a thief has been apprehended and knife injuries have been inflicted. SI Rahul, the Investigation Officer (IO) along with HC Manoj visited the spot where they met Mehboob Khan, the complainant who handed over the appellant as well as the knife used in the commission of offence to the police who took them into custody. The complainant informed that he was robbed of Rs.200/- by the appellant at knife point. The money was also recovered from the right side pocket of the pant worn by the appellant. The complainant informed that his two sons namely Irfan Khan and Adil Khan were also injured and taken to DDU Hospital for medical examination. During the investigation, MLCs of the two injured persons were obtained and charge- sheet came to be filed under Sections 394 /397/411 IPC Charges were framed under Sections 394 /397/411 IPC and Sections 25 /27 of the Arms Act .
3. During the trial, the prosecution examined total 7 witnesses including the complainant as PW1 and his two sons Irfan Khan and Adil Khan as PW2 and PW3 respectively. Further, the MLC of the injured were proved through Dr. Himanshu Pandey and Dr. Manoj Bairwa, who were examined as PW4 and PW5 respectively. As noted above, SI Rahul, the IO and HC Manoj were examined as PW7 and PW6 respectively.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, contended that though the complainant asserted that at the time of the incident, his wife, daughter-in-law and grandson were also present however, neither their statements were recorded nor they were cited as Signature Not Verified Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A. 181/2024 Page 2 of 7 prosecution witnesses. It is next contended that though it has come in the statement of SI Rahul, the I.O. that the accused was also taken to the hospital for medical examination, however, his MLC was never collected and produced on record. Lastly, it is contended that it has not been established on record that the injuries suffered by the injured were caused by the knife.
5. The above contentions have been refuted by the ld. APP for the State who submits that the testimony of the complainant and the two injured are consistent, credible and reliable. He further submits that though appellant’s sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2024, however, he has remained incarcerated on account of him also being involved in another case being FIR No. 541/2018 registered under Section 302 IPC at P.S. Ranhola , Delhi and stated to be in judicial custody in the said case.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the Trial Court Record.
7. The complainant (PW1), during his testimony, deposed that on the intervening night of 07-08.12.2021, while he was sleeping outside his house, at about