Table of Content
1. conviction for robbery established through prompt arrest and recovery. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defendant's arguments about evidence reliability and missing witnesses discussed. (Para 3 , 4)
3. witness testimonies support prosecution's case. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
4. court affirmed prosecution value despite absence of independent witnesses. (Para 7 , 9)

The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392 /397/411 IPC and sentenced as under:

“(a) Convict Afzal is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years offence punishable 392 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(b) Convict Afzal is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable 397 IPC.

(c) Convict Afzal is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable 411 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo SI for 1 month.

(d) Sentences and default sentences to run concurrently.

(e) Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C is extended to the convict.”

2. The facts in a nutshell, as per the case of the prosecution, are that on 27.06.2023 at about 6:30 AM, the complainant came from his native place in Uttarakhand and reached Anand Vihar bus stand to catch a bus to his place of work located in Kalkaji, Delhi. While he was waiting for the bus near EDM Mall, two boys approached him and asked him to lend his phone to make a call, stating that their phone was broken. On that pretext, they took him aside, and the appellant put a knife to his neck and took his mobile phone, while the other accused took out his wallet containing Rs.7,000/-, his ATM Card, and his Aadhar Card, and some other documents from his pocket. While they were attempting to flee, the complainant shouted “Chor Chor”, upon which Ct. Tej Pal, who was on patrolling duty, came to the spot and apprehended the appellant, from whose possession a knife and a blue-coloured Lava mobile phone were seized. The other accused managed to escape and could not be arrested. The charges came to be framed under Sections 392 /397/411/34 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment by contending that though the incident occurred on a busy street, neither CCTV Footage was recovered nor was any public person examined. Further, the FIR shows that it was registered at 8:48 AM, whereas the appellant was arrested at 7:30 AM.

4. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses in support of its case. The material witness, being the complainant/Darshan Bhatt, was examined as PW-1. His examination was conducted on 27.10.2023. He deposed that he was working as a labourer at Bikaner Sweets, Kalkaji. On the day of the incident, he was returning from his hometown in Uttarakhand and, while waiting near EDM mall to catch a bus for Kalkaji, two boys approached him and asked to lend his phone. He identified the appellant as the person who pointed a knife at his neck and threatened to cut him if he raised an alarm. In the meantime, the other accused took out his purse from the back pocket of his pants, which contained Rs.10,000/-, his Aadhar Card, ATM card, and other documents. He further stated that the appellant had taken out his mobile phone from the right pocket of his pants. When the accused tried to run away, he raised an alarm, upon which a policeman nearby apprehended the appellant, and the knife and mobile phone were recovered from his possession. He identified the mobile phone and his signatures on the seizure memos of the mobile and knife.

In cross-examination, the complainant was confronted with his statement recorded in the complaint, i.e., Ex. PW-1/A, wherein he had not mentioned that his purse contained Rs.10,000/-. A suggestion was put to him regarding the installation of CCTV cameras near EDM Mall, to which he claimed ignorance. He stated that he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document