Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
SONU – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A. 260/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Ms. Avantika Shankar, Ms. Prasanna
For the Respondents: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State
Credible witness testimony and evidence, including ballistic reports, can sustain conviction despite co-accused acquittals based on identification issues.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 392, 397, 120B - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 27 - Appellant convicted for robbery and related offenses - The appellant was sentenced to RI of 7 years and fine for his involvement in robbery, corroborated by witness testimony and ballistic reports - Key testimonies emphasized that identification of co-accused does not invalidate the conviction of the appellant. (Paras 1, 13, 14, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 428 - Sentences run concurrently - Appellant’s requests for acquittal were dismissed based on substantial evidence. (Paras 1, 4, 16)
Facts of the case:
Prosecution's case details a robbery where complainant was shot at, and appellant was apprehended with evidence linking him to the crime, including witness and ballistic corroboration.
Findings of Court:
The injured witness's testimony was found credible, substantiating the appellant's guilt, despite the acquittal of co-accused based on identification issues.
Issues: Whether the acquittal of co-accused impacts the appellant's conviction; credibility of witness identifications during trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the credibility of the injured witness and other evidence sufficed for conviction, and minor discrepancies did not invalidate the prosecution's case.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction basis and proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant convicted for robbery with corroborating evidence. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments on identification and reliability. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's findings on evidence credibility. (Para 13) |
2. The brief facts as noted by the Trial Court are as under:-
“2. Prosecution’s case is that on 18.03.2013 Kishori Lal Sharma (complainant) along with his officials were counting money in their office. Some persons knocked the door. On opening 04 persons armed with weapon forcibly entered the room and demanded to deliver money. Kishori Lal Sharma objected on which accused Sonu fired upon him. He raised alarm. Accused persons picked up complainant’s Rs. 1.5 lakhs and fled. Accused were chased and accused Sonu with bag containing pistol was apprehended on the spot. Robbed money of Rs.1.5 lakhs slipped from the accused in the gali which was picked up by Pankaj and given to victim’s brother. Kishori Lal was taken to hospital. Police arrived on the spot. Accused Sonu was arrested, Rs.1.5 lakhs and bag with pistol and other articles were seized. Accused had used Scorpio car to come and flea from the spot. On disclosure of accused Sonu, other two accused were arrested and Scorpio used in the offence was recovered. Accused Sonu refused TIP. Accused Devi Ram was correctly identified at TIP by witness Pankaj. TIP of Parmod Pal was not conducted as according to prosecution he had remained sitting in the Scorpio Car. Blood sample of victim was obtained. Opinion in regard to nature of injuries of victim was obtained. Exhibits were sent to FSL. Call details of mobile phone relating to accused were obtained. FSL report was received and filed in Court.”
3. On completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed and the charges were framed against the present appellant as well as two other accused namely Devi Ram and Parmod Pal under Sections 395/397/120B IPC . The appellant Sonu was additionally charged for the offence punishable under Sections 25 /27 Arms Act. The prosecution examined 27 witnesses in total. The material witnesses being, the complainant Pankaj Kumar (PW-2), the injured Kishori Lal Sharma (PW-3), Surender Sharma (PW-5) and Rajender Shah (PW-6). The MLC of the injured was proved through testimony of Dr. Manisha Chadha, CMO, Delhi Heart and Lung Institute (PW-4) and Dr. Manish Kumar Gupta, Consultant Department of General & Laparoscopic Surgery, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (PW-15). The ballistic report was proved through Dr. N. P. Waghmare, Assistant Director (Ballistics), FSL Rohini, Delhi (PW-24) and Dr. Puneet Puri, Senior Scientific Officer, Ballistics, FSL Rohini, Delhi (PW-25). The FSL report on the exhibits seized was proved through Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, Delhi (PW-26).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that neither the complainant Pankaj Kumar nor the alleged eyewitness Rajender Shah supported the prosecution case inasmuch as both of them have not identified the appellant as one of the accused who had entered the premises and fired the gunshot. As per the prosecution case, one Kapil was also present at the spot, however, he was not examined. It is next contended that the case of the prosecution and in particular, the testimony of the injured was disbelieved on the involvement of the other two co-accused Devi Ram and Parmod Pal who were acquitted. As such, the judgment of conviction against the present appellant also deserves to be set aside.
5. The contentions are refuted by the learned APP for the State, who submits that though the complainant has not identified the appellant, he has proved vital facts of the incident. It is further contended that the testimony of the injured conclusively proves the presence and identity of the appellant who was apprehended and arrested from the spot, and the acquittal of the co-accused persons was on the ground of their non-identification in TIP proceedings.
6. The complainant Pan
