Delhi High Court
Akram @ Chiti vs State on 22 March, 2010
Author: S.L.Bhayana
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Crl. Appeal No. 556/2009
Date of Decision: 22.3.2010
Akram @ Chiti ... Appellant
Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, Advocate
Versus
State ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest?
S. L. BHAYANA, J.
By this order I shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant u/s
374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by learned ASJ, Karkardooma,
Delhi dated 29th April 2009 and order on sentence dated 30th April 2009
wherein learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable u/s 392 IPC read with section 397 IPC. The appellant was
sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years for the offence
punishable u/s 392 IPC read with section 397 IPC and also to pay fine of
Rs. 2000/- and in default of the payment of fine he shall further to
undergo SI for two months for the said offence.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.12.2004 the
complainant Neena Ahuja made a report to the police that she had gone
to board a bus route No. 720 from Hans apartment. She boarded the bus
No. DL-1P B- 1810. After 2/3 minutes one boy entered into the bus and
he came near her. He took out a knife and put the open knife on a finger
of her hand and snatched her mobile phone bearing No. 9871474514 of
Airtel make Nokia Model 8250 and also snatched her hand bag of black
colour of small size containing stationary, cash of Rs. 100/-, I-Card of her
college Vidhya Bhawan. That boy also threatened her to give whatever
she had otherwise he would stab her. She raised alarm on which
accused got down from the bus and the bus was also stopped. She
chased the boy for some distance. The said boy was chased by two
policemen who were present in the area. Two policemen apprehended
the accused whose name was Akram @ Chiti and from his possession
mobile phone of the complainant was recovered. The aforesaid
accused was carrying an open knife. These articles were taken into
possession by the police. On the statement of the complainant FIR
bearing No. 585/2004, u/s 392/397 IPC, P.S. Krishna Nagar, Delhi was
registered. The police also challaned one more accused namely Abdul
in this case. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 10
witnesses. Thereafter evidence was closed by learned APP for the State.
Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and
the entire incriminating evidence was put to them which they denied
and pleaded innocence. They did not lead any evidence in defence.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution
has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused
Akram @ Chiti. He has stated that conductor of the bus Ishwar Singh/
PW-6 has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was declared
hostile and was cross examined by counsel for the State. Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that Ishwar Singh, PW-6 was present
at the time of incident and therefore he is liable to be acquitted.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is one DD
entry No. 20A dated 19.12.2004 which is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D. This
DD entry falsifies the case of the prosecution. It shows that accused was
not arrested at the spot as stated by the prosecution. I have gone
through Ex. PW-1/D and there is nothing in the DD entry No. 20A to
suggest that accused was not apprehended at the spot. This is a
telephonic information given to the police by someone which was
reduced into the writing. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that in the statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C.
before court the appellant has stated that he is innocent and he was
falsely implicated in this case. He has further stated that he has been
falsely implicated by the police as they wanted to solve their case and
the complainant has identified him only at the behest of the police
officials. I have gone through statement of the accused recorded u/s 313
Cr.P.C. This is the defence of the accused which does not find support
from the evidence on record and no benefit can be given to the accused
of the statement made by him u/s 313 Cr.P.C. I have gone to the
statement of the witnesses. PW-2, Neena Ahuja, is the star witness of the
prosecution and she is also the complainant. She has categorically
stated before the Court that on the date of incident she had taken bus of
route 720 from Hans Apartments in order to go to Shakarpur. The bus
started and after 2-3 minutes all of a sudden bus was stopped meanwhile
a boy entered into the bus and he came near her. He took out a knife
and put the open knife on her finger and snatched her mobile phone
bearing No. 9871474514 of Airtel make Nokia Model 8250 and also
snatched her hand bag of black colour of small size containing
stationary, cash of Rs. 100/- and also I-Card of her college Vidhya
Bhawan. That boy also threatened her to give whatever she had
otherwise he would stab her. She raised alarm on which the assailant got
down from the bus. She chased the boy for some distance and two
police officials who were present there also chased the boy and the boy
was apprehended by the police. She has identified the accused and
stated that the accused is the same person who had snatched mobile
phone from her. I have also gone through the cross examination of the
witnesses but there is no serious discrepancy pointed out by the counsel
for the appellant which could discredit the credibility of the witnesses.
In the cross examination she has maintained that accused Akram is the
same person who had snatched mobile phone and one hand bag from
her. PW-4, Mahabir Singh has deposed that on 19.12.2004 he was
posted at P.S. Krishna Nagar. On that day he along with Ct. Vijender was
on patrolling duty. He has supported the case of the prosecution. He has
further deposed that he along with Vijender had chased the accused and
apprehended him and from his possession mobile phone was
recovered. They also took from his possession knife which the accused
was carrying at the time of offence. I have gone through the testimony of
Vijender Kumar, PW-5 and testimony of PW-4 Mahaveer Prasad and
Neena Ahuja. I have gone through the statement of Sompal, driver of the
bus. He has supported the version given by PW-2, Neena Ahuja and
other two eye witnesses. I have gone through the cross examination of
all these witnesses but no discripancy has been pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellant which could discredit the credibility of these
witnesses. All the witnesses aforesaid have supported the case of the
prosecution. They have categorically stated that Akram and none else
had robbed Neena Ahuja at the point of knife of her mobile phone and
hand bag. Learned trial Court has acquitted accused Abdul as none of
the witnesses has identified Abdul in this case. I find that the learned
trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant in this
case.
There is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.
March 22, 2010 S.L. BHAYANA, J.
kb
