Delhi High Court
Annamul vs State on 5 October, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
9.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277/2002
Date of decision: 5th October, 2010
ANNAMUL ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar,
Advocate (Amicus Curiae).
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, APP for
the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R (ORAL)
1. The appellant has not been served. As per report received from
the trial court, the appellant was released from jail after expiry of his
sentence and on payment of requisite fine imposed. In these
circumstances, I hereby appoint Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Advocate ,
who is present in the Court as Amicus Curiae.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 9th October, 2001 the appellant
has been convicted under Section 328/379/411 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short). By the impugned order
on sentence dated 27th October, 2001 the appellant was sentenced to
rigourous imprisonment of four years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and
in default undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence
under Section 328 IPC. There is no separate order of sentence for the
offence under Section 411 IPC.
3. As per the findings of the learned trial court, the appellant along
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277/2002 Page 1
with two others, including co-accused Imman-ud-din (who has been
declared as proclaimed offender) on 20th June, 1993 at about 12.45 a.m.
had administered drugs or intoxicated Raju, Sat Narain, Prem Chand,
Vidya Nand and Shivaji Paswan at the Delhi Main Railway Station and
had committed theft of their belongings.
4. Four out of the said five victims had appeared in the witness box
and testified that they were given biscuits and tea to eat at the Railway
Station by the appellant and two others and thereafter they became
unconscious. PW-2, Sat Narain had identified the appellant in the court
and he had also stated that his belongings including one wrist watch was
missing. He was taken to the hospital. PW-5, Prem Chand has repeated
the same allegations. Similarly, PW-4, Vidya Nand has stated that after
having biscuits and tea they felt giddiness and became unconscious.
They were then taken to the hospital. Thereafter, they found their
belongings attachi, cash, money, etc. were missing. Thus, PW-2, Sat
Narain, PW-4, Vidya Nand and PW-5, Prem Chand had identified the
appellant in the court. PW-3, Raju had stated that three persons had
given them tea and biscuits and drugged them. He could not, however,
identify and state whether the appellant present in the court was the same
person who had drugged them.
5. In addition to these three witnesses, we have evidence of PW-10,
Inspector S.S. Joshi and PW-11, Inspector Rajendra Singh, who were on
duty at Delhi junction on 20th June, 1993. PW-10, Inspector S.S. Joshi
has stated that about 12.30 a.m. at night they saw some passengers
sleeping at the platform but some persons were searching pockets of the
said passengers. He noticed that the two persons were feeling giddy and
were about to fall to the ground. In these circumstances, they became
suspicious and apprehended the appellant-Annamul and another person
Immamuddin. They were informed by others that the accused had
robbed them of their suitcase and belongings. Later on they came to
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277/2002 Page 2
know that their names were Sat Narain and Prem Chand. PW-11,
Inspector Rajendra Singh has stated that they over powered the
appellant-Annamul and Immamuddin (who as stated above, was declared
as proclaimed offender) and found five persons lying on the ground
almost in unconscious condition. On personal search, they recovered
one wrist watch and yellow powder wrapped in a piece of newspaper
from the possession of appellant-Annamul. The yellow powder was
sealed with the seal of RSP vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-7/A. The
victims were taken to the hospital and their statements were recorded in
the hospital.
6. The CFSL report Ex PW-PX placed on record relates to seven
samples. Three samples consist of the stomach wash of the three
victims, viz., Sat Narain, Prem Chand and one unknown. The stomach
wash was found to be containing Diphen Hydramine and Methaqualone
(Mandrax). Similarly, the yellow powder recovered from the appellant
was also found to be containing the same chemicals.
7. In view of the aforesaid evidence, I do not see any error in the
judgment convicting the appellant for offence under Section 328/379
IPC.
8. PW-3, Raju had also identified the wrist watch, which was stolen,
vide identification memo Exhibit PW-3/A. Offence under Section 411 is
also, therefore, established.
9. As noticed above, the learned trial court had sentenced the
appellant only under Section 328 IPC for rigorous imprisonment for a
period of four years. The said sentence under Section 328 IPC is
maintained. The offence under Section 379 IPC is punishable upto a
term which may extend to three years or with fine or both. Similarly,
offence under Section 411 IPC is punishable with a term, which may
extend to three years with fine or both. The punishment awarded to the
appellant under Section 328 IPC, as noticed above, is four years rigorous
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277/2002 Page 3
imprisonment. In these circumstances, no further direction for sentence
under Section 379 and 411 IPC is being passed as the appellant has
already undergone punishment of four years. The appellant is treated as
awarded and as having undergone the maximum sentence of 3 years
awarded in the said Sections.
10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
11. Learned Amicus Curiae will be paid Rs.5,000/- by the Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee for having rendered assistance.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
OCTOBER 05, 2010
VKR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277/2002 Page 4
