Delhi High Court
Pawan Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 21 September, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 10th September, 2010
Date of Order: 21st September, 2010
+ Crl. Appeal No. 289/2004
% 21.09.2010
Pawan Kumar ... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
By this appeal, the appellant has assailed order dated 10 th
March, 2004 convicting the appellant under Section 392/397 IPC and the
order dated 15th March, 2004 sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 5
years under Section 392 IPC and RI for 7 years under Section 397 IPC along
with fine. The prosecution case before the learned Sessions Judge was that
the appellant on a knife point, robbed complainant of the money which he was
having in his pocket. The complainant was put under the fear of knife and the
contents of his pocket which contained cash of ` 470/-, a driving licence and
some visiting cards were robbed on the night of 13th September, 2003, when
the complainant was proceeding towards his house from Jhandewalan Mandir
where he had gone after closing his shop. The appellant was known to the
complainant since he was living in the same mohalla and from the list of
cases being faced by the appellant it appears that the appellant has been
indulging into similar acts earlier also. The appellant was apprehended after a
little chase by the patrolling party of the police who got attracted towards the
appellant on hearing shouts of "Bachao Bachao". The appellant after arrest
was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital for his medical examination
where he was found giving smell of alcohol in his breath, there was no injury
on the body of the appellant
2. The complainant, i.e. victim of this armed robbery appeared as
PW-5 and testified on the lines of his complaint. He stated that accused
Pawan Kumar i.e appellant was known to him and robbed him of his money
on knife point. The suggestion given to the witness was that he falsely
implicated the appellant because he (complainant) was a police informer.
However the fact that complainant was having a shop and after closing the
shop was proceeding towards his home was not denied. He testified that
accused/appellant was apprehended within 3-4 minutes of the incident. The
other witnesses who supported the prosecution version were the police
officials who happened to reach the spot after the incident on hearing cries of
the complainant and apprehended the accused. The learned trial Court after
appreciating the evidence of complainant and the other witnesses came to the
conclusion that the offence against the appellant stood proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
3. The Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant in this
case was falsely implicated with the help of the complainant, who was a police
informer, because the mother of the appellant had made a complaint against
some police officials at PS Anand Parbat. This argument was considered by
the trial Court as well and it was found that the police officials against whom
the complaint was made by mother of the appellant had already been
transferred from PS Anand Parbat and were no more working there.
Moreover, the complainant had not shown to have any enmity against the
appellant to falsely implicate in a case. The complainant knew the appellant
from before and looking at the antecedents of the appellant, he would have
been more fearful in falsely implicating the appellant.
4. The other ground taken by the Counsel for the appellant is that
the story of the prosecution that appellant started running towards police party
was unbelievable. He submitted that no person after committing crime would
rush to the police party. It is proved from the MLC of the appellant that he
was drunk at that time. The incident is of 13 th September, 2003 of around
10.30 pm. The appellant was examined by the doctor on 14 th September,
2003 at about 5.15 am and still smell of alcohol was coming from the
appellant i.e. after about 7 hours of incident the appellant breath was still
giving smell of alcohol so it can be easily inferred that the appellant was
almost drunk at that time and in that drunkenness he had robbed the
complainant on knife point and after robbing him he started running. It is a
matter of chance that police party was also coming from the opposite direction
it is not necessary that the appellant started running in that direction on seeing
the police party. However, he crossed the police party and he was chased
and then caught. I therefore find no force in this argument.
5. After perusal of the judgment of the trial Court I find that the trial
Court had rightly convicted the appellant. The guilt of the appellant was
proved beyond reasonable doubt by the complainant. There was no doubt
about the identity of the appellant. The amount robbed by the appellant was
recovered. The recovery has been proved. In view of this, I find no force in
the appeal. The appeal is hereby is dismissed.
September 21, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
