Crl.A.No.29/2016 Page 1 of 6

$~R-53

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CRL.A. 29/2016

MANOJ KUMAR

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey,

Advocate with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik,

Advocate

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with SI

Amit Kumar, PS Burari

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1.

Manoj languishes in jail because vide verdict dated November 19,

2014, he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section

380/452/398 IPC. Charged for the offence punishable under Section 411

IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act, 1959, he has been acquitted of the two.

The reason is that the prosecution has not proved the notifications

concerning knives and daggers, possession whereof would be an offence.

The offence under Section 411 IPC probably has not been held to be made

out by the learned Trial Judge because the stolen property was recovered at

the spot itself. I find there is no discussion in the impugned judgment

concerning the offences punishable under Section 411 IPC and the Arms

Crl.A.No.29/2016 Page 2 of 6

Act, but the reason for not convicting the appellant appear to be as

aforenoted.

2.

Vide order on sentence dated November 21, 2014, for the offence

punishable under Section 398 IPC, Manoj has been sentenced to undergo RI

for 7 years and pay fine in sum of `1,000/-; in default to undergo SI for 7

days. For the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC he has been

sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and pay fine in sum of `2,000/-; in

default to undergo SI for 7 days. For the offence punishable under Section

452 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and pay

fine in sum of `2,000/-; in default to undergo SI for 7 days.

3.

It was 12:00 noon. The date was March 12, 2014. Shiv Kumar PW-7

reached his shop at Main Market, Sant Nagar, from where he used to sell

hardware and paint. He saw the gate of his godown broken and appellant

removing an iron frame and a flex board, which was fixed outside the

godown. The iron pipe on which the board was fixed had been removed.

Shiv Kumar stopped the appellant who took out a knife and demanded

money. Shiv Kumar became nervous and raised an alarm. Appellant ran.

Public gathered. The appellant was apprehended at the spot.

4.

A call was made over the police helpline No.100. SI Rambir Singh

PW-8 posted at PP Jharoda, PS Burari was passed on the information. He

went to the spot. HC Kailash PW-2 and Ct.Sanjeev PW-3 had already

reached the spot and had taken custody of the appellant. A knife, Ex.P-1

was seized from the appellant. Its sketch Ex.PW-3/B was drawn up. The

drawing shows that the knife is akin to a dagger.

5.

SI Rambir Singh recorded the statement Ex.PW-4/A of Deepak

Aggarwal PW-4, the son of Shiv Kumar who had reached the spot in the

Crl.A.No.29/2016 Page 3 of 6

meanwhile, soon after his father had reached the spot in which it is recorded

that when he reached the spot the public had apprehended the appellant and

his father said that this was the man whom he saw running away from the

shop. Based on the statement the FIR Ex.PW-1/A was registered at PS

Burari by ASI Satpal PW-1.

6.

The statement Ex.PW-4/A of Deepak Aggarwal records aforesaid

facts including appellant being apprehended and endorsement Ex.PW-8/A

beneath the statement by SI Rambir Singh also records said fact. In view

thereof I find unimpeachable evidence of the appellant being apprehended at

the spot and knife Ex.P-1 recovered. As regards the stolen property, since it

was a flex board which appellant had removed, obviously he h