Anil @ Billota vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2012 Latest Caselaw 2289 Del

*                  THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CRL.REV.P. No.3/2012

                                           Date of Decision: 10.04.2012

Anil @ Billota                                       ...... Petitioner

                           Through:    Mr. Lokesh Garg & Mr. V. Singh,
                                       Advocates.

                                 Versus

State Govt. of NCT of Delhi                         ...... Respondent

                           Through:    Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the
                                       State.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA


M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This is a revision petition preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No.56/2011 affirming the judgment dated 07.09.2011 passed by the learned MM, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence under Section 392/34 IPC.

2. An FIR No.127/2010 was registered on 29.09.2010 against the petitioner and three other co-accused persons on the complaint of the

complainant, Daya Shankar Pandey wherein it was alleged that on the same day at around 8.15 P.M. when the complainant was going towards New Delhi Railway Station, the petitioner along with his three associates surrounded him and forcibly snatched Rs.2200/- cash from the inner pocket of his pant. It was further alleged that on seeing three Policemen, the complainant raised alarm and the four accused persons were chased and apprehended by the three Policemen and recovery of cash was made. On completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Section 392/34 IPC before the Trial Court and charges were framed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case and the petitioner was convicted along with other co-accused persons on 07.09.2011. The petitioner went in appeal against the order of conviction and the Appellate Court maintained the findings of the Trial Court and upheld the order of conviction. Hence the present appeal.

3. The judgments of lower courts are challenged on the ground that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of public witnesses inasmuch as PW-1, Daya Shankar Pandey (complainant) stated in his cross-examination that the cash was recovered from the possession of the accused whereas PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 deposed in examination-in-chief that the cash was recovered from the other co- accused, Rajesh. The next ground taken up by the counsel for the petitioner is that PW-1 deposed in cross-examination that the paper work was done in the police station, whereas the other public witnesses deposed that the paper work was done at the spot of the incident, which

creates doubt regarding the incident. It has also been submitted that the Appellate Court has not appreciated the fact that the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 was recorded in the absence of the petitioner without declaring him PO and his trial was separated from the other co- accused in the present case which amounts to violation of the provisions of Cr.P.C. and hence the trial was vitiated. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has submitted that the public witnesses examined by the prosecution have corroborated the fact of entire incident and there is no requirement for the interference in the judgments of the lower Courts.

4. From the perusal of the impugned judgments, it is evident that apart from the complainant, Daya Shankar Pandey (PW-1), five other witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of which three were the Constables who apprehended the accused persons and the other two were Police officials returning after attending a PCR call. The complainant and the three Constables were the eye witnesses of the incident and have clearly narrated and corroborated the entire incident in their examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination and had correctly identified the accused persons in Court. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that there was discrepancy in the statement of complainant and other public witnesses regarding the fact of recovery of money, cannot be accepted as all the four accused were charged under Section 392/34 IPC and it is not material that he did not name the petitioner, but instead stated that the money was recovered from the accused persons. Also in his deposition, the complainant had clearly

stated the specific role of the petitioner in the offence committed.

5. The next contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of the complainant that the paper work was done at the Police Station and as per the other witnesses the same was done at the spot, creates doubt regarding the incident, is untenable as the accused persons were caught red-handed by the Police officials while committing the offence and were chased and apprehended by them. The police station is very near to the spot of the incident and it is very likely that the paper work was done on the way to the police station and completed on reaching the police station. Be that as it may, such a minor discrepancy in the statements cannot be made a valid ground for dismissing the prosecution case, especially when the witnesses have unequivocally supported the prosecution case in its entirety and there was no motive on the part of either the complainant or the Police officials to falsely implicate the petitioner in the case.

6. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the trial was conducted without following the Code of Criminal Procedure, is untenable as it is evident from the record that the petitioner was out on bail at the time of recording of evidence and was absenting himself from the court proceedings on the previous three dates and did not appear despite issuance of NBW. Consequently, the Trial Court was constrained to separate the trial of the petitioner from the other remaining three accused persons. Further, it can be seen that the counsel for the petitioner made a signed statement before the learned

MM that he does not wish to recall PW-2 to PW-5 and the evidence of PW-1, Daya Shankar Pandey was recorded in the presence of the petitioner. Hence, there is nothing on record to draw an inference that the trial was conducted in violation of the provisions of Cr.P.C.

7. In view of the above discussion, I find no strength in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgments of the lower Courts.

8. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

April, 10, 2012 ss/skw