Sanjay @ Bishal vs State
2004 Latest Caselaw 916 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chopra, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 397 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide orders dated 22nd December, 2000 had convicted the appellant under Section 397 I.P.C. Vide orders dated 22n d December, 2000, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo S.I. for one month. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the Trial Court records. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that on 7th April, 1998, at about 12.00 in the noon, the complainant, Shaji was traveling in a bus. When the bus stopped at Jamrudpur red light, the appellant placed a knife on the neck of the complainant a nd removed Rs.500/- from his pocket. The complainant raised a noise and tried to catch hold of the accused. The appellant, however, gave a knife blow on his right shoulder and thereafter got down from the bus and started running. A constable, Rakesh K mar, and some other passengers chased him and succeeded in over-powering him. From his possession, a knife was recovered. An F.I.R. was registered, the appellant was arrested and after necessary investigations, the appellant was challaned.The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case PW-6, Shaji and PW-11, Constable Rakesh Kumar, are the most material witnesses.PW-6, Shaji is the complainant. He fully supported the prosecution case by deposing that on 7th April, 1998 at 12.00 noon when he was traveling in the bus, the appellant placed a knife at his neck and took out Rs.500/- from his pocket. When he raised noise, the appellant inflicted injury on his right shoulder and thereafter got down from the bus. He was, however, over-powered by the police. He identified the appellant as the person who had robbed him and caused injury with a knife. In his cross-ex mination, he stated that the accused had got down from the bus and ran with the open knife in his hand. He also added that there were three-four other persons also with the appellant who had covered him. According to him, the appellant could not be cap ured in the bus as he was having a knife. According to him he had raised cries but could not capture the accused as he was not in a position to do so. According to him, the appellant had tried to snatch his watch also. He denied the suggestion that he knew the appellant from before or that the appellant had given him a loan of Rs.5,000/-. According to him, the money could not be recovered from the appellant as he had passed it over to his accomplices. He had seen the accused passing over the mone to his accomplice. According to him, police had given beatings also to the appellant after arresting him. PW-11, Constable Rakesh Kumar, also corrobated the testimony of PW-6 and deposed that on the date of incident at about 12.50 P.M., a bus stopped near him and the driver informed him that one person had received knife injury in the bus. At that time, the appellant came out of the bus from the front gate with an open knife in his right hand. He tried to run away but this witness chased him and apprehended him along with knife. He also gave message to the Police Post, Amar Colony. The I.O. as well as P lice Control Room Van came there to whom the appellant was handed over along with the knife. He identified the appellant as the person who was apprehended by him. This witness was not at all subjected to cross-examination. The learned Trial Judge after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant was the person who had robbed PW-6 of Rs.500/- at the point of knife and caused him injury also. This Court finds no good grounds on record for taking a different view. Not only that PW-6 and PW-11 have supported the prosecution case in its entirety, the appellant was apprehended even at the spot along with a knife and as such there are no reasons to entertain any doubt about the prosecution ca e that the appellant had robbed PW-6 at the point of knife. The fact that the robbed amount was not recovered from the appellant is of no consequence for the reason that PW-6 has explained in his cross-examination that the appellant was accompanied by so e other accomplices also to whom he had passed over the money. Under the circumstances, the impugned conviction of the appellant is not liable to be interfered with. Coming to the question of sentence, this Court finds that the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 397 I.P.C. is seven years imprisonment. The appellant has been awarded R.I. for seven years and has been imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The sentenc e is, therefore, neither excessive nor harsh and does not call for any interference. This appeal has no merit and as such is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly.