* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 24th APRIL, 2014
DECIDED ON : 9th MAY, 2014
+ CRL.A. 300/2012
DEEPAK ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. The appellant - Deepak questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 15.11.2011 in Sessions Case No. 153/10 arising out of FIR No. 243/10 PS S.P.Badli by which he was held guilty under Section 397 IPC and 27 Arms Act. By an order dated 22.11.2011, he was awarded various prison terms which were ordered to operate concurrently.
2. Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the charge- sheet were that on 14.08.2010 at about 08.15 P.M. near Siraspur Crl.A.No. 300/2012 Page 1 of 6 Gurudwara, main G.T.K. road, Delhi, he and his associate Pradeep @ Pappu in furtherance of common intention robbed the complainant - Rajesh and deprived him of ` 2,200/- and mobile phone at knife point. Information about the occurrence was conveyed to the police and Daily Diary (DD) No. 45A (Ex.PW-3/A) was recorded at 08.20 P.M. The investigation was assigned to SI Alok Bajpayee who with Const.Rajeev went to the spot. He lodged First Information Report after recording complainant - Rajesh's statement (Ex.PW-1/A). Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Both the accused persons who were apprehended at the spot were taken to hospital for medical examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both of them; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses to substantiate the charges against both of them. In 313 statements, they pleaded false implication and denied their complicity in the crime without examining any witness in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. It appears that co-convict Pradeep @ Pappu has not opted to challenge conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.
Crl.A.No. 300/2012 Page 2 of 6
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have scrutinized the Trial Court record minutely. The occurrence took place at around 08.15 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) No. 45A (Ex.PW-3/A) was recorded soon after the incident at 08.20 P.M. where information conveyed to the police was that two individuals had been caught hold with a knife near Siraspur Gurudwara and they were involved in robbery. After recording complainant's statement (Ex.PW-1/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report in promptitude at 09.50 P.M. by sending rukka (Ex.PW-1/A). In the complaint (Ex.PW-1/A), Rajesh gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, he was robbed of his mobile make virgin and cash ` 2,200/- at knife point by the appellant and his associate and how they were apprehended at the spot and given beatings by the public. Since the First Information Report was lodged without any delay, there was least possibility of the complainant to fabricate a false story and to implicate both the accused persons with whom he had no prior acquaintance. In his Court statement, the complainant proved the version without any deviation; identified the appellant and his associate and assigned specific role to them in committing robbery. He admitted that co-accused Pradeep @ Pappu was known to him prior to the incident. He proved the recovery of the robbed Crl.A.No. 300/2012 Page 3 of 6 articles and knife from the appellant's possession. PW-2 (Rajnath), an independent public witness, corroborated the version in its entirety. He was able to apprehend with the assistance of the public both the assailants. Both these witnesses were cross-examined at length. However, their testimonies could not be shattered on material aspects. Appellant's main contention was that he was falsely implicated at the behest of one Kaptan Singh, a property dealer with whom a quarrel had taken place. Both PW-1 (Rajesh) and PW-2 (Rajnath) denied if any such quarrel had taken place with Kaptan Singh or they had lodged false complaint against the accused persons at his behest. The appellant and his associate did not give detailed particulars about the alleged quarrel with Kaptan Singh. It was not revealed as to when and on what account, the quarrel had taken place with Kaptan Singh. No such incident was lodged by the appellant and his associate with the police. It has come on record that Kaptan Singh has influence in the area. There was no occasion for him to seek assistance of the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant and his associate. In 313 statement, the appellant took conflicting and inconsistent defence and for the first time came up with the plea that complainant - Rajesh was acquainted with him. They took drinks together and due to scuffle, they were falsely implicated in this case. No such suggestion was put or given Crl.A.No. 300/2012 Page 4 of 6 to the complainant and PW-2 (Rajnath) in the cross-examination. Nothing has come on record that on that day the complainant had any conversation prior to the incident with the appellant and his associate or all of them had consumed liquor together. The appellant did not explain as to what led the public to thrash him and his associate. Both the accused persons were taken to Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and they were medically examined. The complainant was not expected to falsely implicate the appellant with whom he had no prior animosity. Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing material discrepancy could be elicited to disbelieve the version narrated by him. Minor contradictions, discrepancies and improvements highlighted by the appellant's counsel do not affect the basic structure of the prosecution case. The complainant categorically asserted that after he was put in fear of knife, he handed over cash ` 2,200/-. All the relevant contentions of the accused persons have been taken into consideration in the impugned judgment which is based upon fair appraisal of the evidence and needs no interference. Non- examination of independent public witness from the locality is not fatal as both PW-1 (Rajesh) and PW-2 (Rajnath) are consistent about the identity of the appellant and the role played by him in the incident. Recovery of the robbed articles from the possession of the appellant further connects Crl.A.No. 300/2012 Page 5 of 6 him with the crime. False defence taken by the appellant in 313 statement also additionally connects him with the crime. The minimum sentence prescribed under Section 397 IPC is seven years which cannot be altered or modified. Default sentence for non-payment of fine of ` 1,000/- is reduced to SI for fifteen days instead of six months under Section 397 IPC. Sentence order is modified to that extent only.
4. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 09, 2014 / tr Crl.A.No. 300/2012 Page 6 of 6