Chunman @ Akash vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2012 Latest Caselaw 6914 Del

$~12
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRL.A. 270/2012

%                    Judgment reserved on 29th November, 2012
                     Judgement delivered on 4th December, 2012

       CHUNMAN @ AKASH                           ..... Appellant
                   Through:           Mr. Ravi Chaturvedi, Adv.

                    versus

       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                      ..... Respondent
                     Through:         Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

A.K. PATHAK, J.

1. Appellant has been convicted under Section 392 IPC and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with

fine of `1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple

imprisonment for one week by the Trial Court.

2. That is how appellant is before this Court by way of present

appeal.

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded, is that on 9th March, 2009 at

about 08:45 pm complainant-Mangal along with his friend Shyam

was returning home; when they reached near Bharat Nagar liquor

shop within the jurisdiction of police station Ashok Vihar appellant

along with his accomplice intercepted them, took out

complainant's purse from his pocket and when he resisted

appellant's accomplice showed him a knife. Complainant raised

alarm and apprehended the appellant with the help of public

persons. Complainant informed the police by making a call at

number 100. Investigating Officer arrived there and arrested the

appellant. Subsequently, accomplice of appellant was also

apprehended pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant.

However, he has been acquitted since he was not identified by the

complainant and the eye-witness Shyam, thus, his role need not to

be discussed in this appeal of the appellant.

4. Complainant was examined as PW6; whereas his friend

Shyam was examined as PW7. A perusal of statement of PW7

shows that he did not support the prosecution case with regard to

the identity of appellant. However, a perusal of his overall

statement shows that he has affirmed the happening of occurrence

that took place on 9th March, 2009 at about 9 pm near Bharat Nagar

liquor shop. According to him, two-three persons gave beatings to

the complainant PW6. He even identified the purse of PW6 which

was robbed along with election identity card and currency notes

kept in the said purse. PW6 has supported the prosecution story to

the extent that appellant had forcibly snatched his purse along with

one boy; but he did not identify the co-accused in Court as the

same person who was accompanying the appellant. He has

deposed that on 9th March, 2009 at about 08:45- 9:00 pm he had

gone to Bharat Nagar liquor shop to buy a bottle of beer along with

his friend Shyam; while they were returning one boy came there

and snatched his purse containing `400/-, election identity card and

photograph of 'Sai Baba'. When he offered resistance the one

another boy came there and thereafter both of them beat him up.

On his raising alarm, some public persons gathered there and

apprehended one of them, that is, the appellant. He has identified

the appellant in Court correctly. He also admitted his signatures on

his statement Ex.PW4/B, recorded by the Investigating Officer.

5. As per PW6, appellant was apprehended at the spot. This

version has been duly corroborated by the police officials who had

reached the spot on receiving the information. PW2 HC Mazid

Khan, who was posted in Police Control Room, had received the

information about snatching incident. He passed on this

information to the local police. He has deposed in Court in this

regard. PW3 HC Ram Avtar had received the information from

PW2 Mazid Khan and recorded DD Entry 24 Ex.PW3/A and has

deposed to this effect. PW8 ASI Pradhuman Kumar Sharma was

handed over Ex.PW3/A for investigation and he reached the spot

along with PW5 Const. Vinod. PW 8 has deposed that when he

reached at the spot PW6 and PW7 were present there along with

appellant. A purse containing `400/-, photograph of 'Sai Baba' and

election identity card was also handed over to him. PW8 has

further deposed that PW6 told him that the appellant had robbed

his purse. PW6 further stated that one boy, who had shown a knife

to him had succeeded in escaping; while appellant was

apprehended by the public. PW4 HC Naresh was on patrolling

duty in the area and had also reached the spot. He has also deposed

that when he reached the spot he found PW8 ASI Pradhuman

Kumar Sharma and PW5 Const. Vinod were already present there.

PW6 Mangal and PW7 Shyam had apprehended one boy, namely,

Chunmun (appellant) and were present there. All these witnesses

have identified the appellant in Court. PW5 Const. Vinod has also

corroborated statements of PW4, PW6 and PW8 on this point.

Presence of appellant at the spot and his consequent arrest lends

credence to the statement of PW6 regarding snatching of purse by

the appellant and his apprehension, which fact has, otherwise,

remained unshattered in his cross-examination; even though he was

declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State on some other points, that is,

with regard to the use of knife and identity of co-accused.

6. Trial Court has found the above evidence sufficient enough

to conclude that it is the appellant who had robbed the

complainant-Mangal. I do not find anything wrong in the approach

of the trial court and the view taken by trial court is in consonance

with the well settled principles of law with regard to scrutiny and

acceptance of the statements of witnesses.

7. There is no law that statement of a witness who had been

declared hostile and cross-examined by the public prosecutor on

certain points has to be brushed aside and/or discarded in toto.

Even statement of a hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent

to which it supports the prosecution version of the incident. In

Sandeep versus State 2012 VII AD (Delhi)39, a Single Judge of

this Court has held that the examination-in-chief as well as cross-

examination of a witness is admissible insofar as it supports the

case of the prosecution. It is settled law that the evidence of hostile

witnesses can also be relied upon by the prosecution to the extent

to which it supports the prosecution version of the incident. The

evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the

records. It remains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to

base the conviction of the accused upon such testimony, if

corroborated by other reliable evidence. In Anil Rai versus State of

Bihar JT 2001 (6) SC 515, Supreme Court has held that the mere

fact that the Court gave permission to the public prosecutor to

cross-examine his own witness by declaring him hostile does not

completely efface the evidence of such witness. The evidence

remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base

conviction upon his testimony, if corroborated by other reliable

evidence. In this case, PW6 Mangal has been consistent with

regard to robbing of his purse containing `400/-, election identity

card and photograph of Sai Baba by the appellant and his

apprehension at the spot as also arrival of the police officials who

subsequently arrested the appellant, inasmuch as, recording of his

statement and registration of FIR. PW4 HC Naresh, PW5 Vinod

and PW8 ASI Pradhuman Kumar Sharma have fully corroborated

PW6 on the point of appellant being present with PW6 when they

reached at the spot, inasmuch as, recovery of robbed purse.

8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view, that the trial

court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 392 IPC,

therefore, conviction of appellant under the said provision is

upheld. As regards sentence awarded to appellant is concerned

same also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the offence

committed by him and, in my view, it requires no interference.

9. Appeal is dismissed.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

DECEMBER 04, 2012 ga