Vikash vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 1375 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               RESERVED ON : 18th March, 2013
                               DECIDED ON : 20th March, 2013

+                        CRL.A. 1370/2012

      VIKASH                                      ....Appellant
                   Through :   Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate.

                               versus

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

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellant- Vikash challenges judgment dated 27.09.2011

in Sessions Case No.124/2010 arising out of FIR No. 163/2007 PS

Welcome, by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable

under Sections 392/394 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. Vide order dated

29.09.2011, sentence for RI seven years with total fine ` 10,000/- was

imposed.

2. On 06.03.2007, at about 04.00 P.M., at Road No.65, Pilli

Mitti, Janta Colony, Delhi, the appellant was beaten by public and his

custody was handed over to the police. Allegations against him were that

he and his associates Yusuf Ali @ Pakistani (since acquitted) and Yusuf

(since dead) committed robbery on the person of complainant- Satya

Prakash and deprived him of Nokia phone and cash ` 250/-. The appellant

also caused injuries to complainant Satya Prakash with knife while

committing robbery. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. In his

313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false implication. Learned

counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the

evidence properly and was in error to convict him with the aid of Section

397 IPC. The prosecution witnesses have given inconsistent version

whether the accused was found in possession of the knife and it was used

in committing robbery. Counsel pointed out that PW-5 (Const.Mehfooz

Ali) was not sure if the appellant had blood stained knife when his

custody was handed over. The complainant is not a reliable witness as his

testimony was disbelieved qua co-accused and it resulted in his acquittal.

No blood was found on the knife. No independent public witness was

associated. Learned APP urged that cogent and reliable testimony of

complainant is corroborated by medical evidence.

3. Crucial witness is PW-1 (Satya Prakash) on his statement

(Ex.PW-1/A), PW-7 (ASI Ali Ahmed) lodged First Information Report

without inordinate delay at 05.00 P.M. after the incident took place at

04.00 P.M. The victim proved the version given to the police at the first

instance without variation. He categorically deposed that on 06.03.2007

after alighting from bus on route No.213 at Tentwala School Jafrabad,

when he was going to Shivaji Park and reached near Ganda Nala

Tentwalal School at 04.00 P.M., the accused and his two associates

forcibly stopped him. They attempted to snatch his mobile phone and

money. When he resisted, one of them caught hold of him, the other tried

to stab him on his neck. He, however, sustained a stab wound on his right

cheek. The third assailant removed his mobile phone and ` 250/- from the

front pocket of his shirt. When he raised alarm, the three assailants started

running towards Janta Colony. The appellant was apprehended with knife

at the spot. He identified him to be the assailant who inflicted injuries with

the knife. He also identified his blood stained shirt Ex.P-2. In the cross-

examination the counsel did not put any material question to discard or

disbelieve his version. The material facts deposed by him remained

unchallenged and uncontroverted. The accused did not deny his

apprehension at the spot. He also did not challenge recovery of knife and

infliction of injuries to the victim. The complainant was not acquainted

with the accused and had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate him in

this incident. No prior animosity was assigned to him in the cross-

examination. His oral testimony is in consonance with medical evidence.

MLC (Ex.PW-6/A) was prepared on 06.03.2007 at 06.20 P.M. when the

victim was taken to GTB Hospital by Const.Mehfooz Ali. One incised

wound 4 x 0.5 cm was found on his right cheek. PW-6 (Dr.Prashant

Nigam) medically examined the victim. The accused did not opt to cross-

examine him. It corroborates complainant's version that injuries were

inflicted with knife on his right cheek during robbery. Forensic Science

Laboratory examination report (Ex.PA) reveals that blood was detected on

knife (Ex.P-1) and shirt (Ex.P-2). It further reveals that human blood of

'A' group was found on shirt (Ex.P-2).

4. PW-2 (Const.Pawan Kumar) deposed that the appellant was

beaten by public and his custody was handed over. He had a knife Ex.P-1

seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. Again, the accused did not cross-

examine him. PW-5 (Const.Mehfooz Ali) also deposed about handing

over the accused with blood stained button actuated knife. PW-7 (ASI Ali

Ahmed) deposed on similar lines. No material discrepancy has emerged in

their cross-examination to doubt their version. The accused did not give

plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances proved against

him. He did not offer any explanation as to how and under what

circumstances, he was apprehended at the spot or why he was given

beating by the public. Minor contradictions highlighted by counsel are

inconsequential. The Court has no valid reasons to disbelieve the

testimony of the injured victim. The conviction of the appellant is based

upon fair appraisal of evidence and no interference is called for. The

prosecution was able to prove that while committing the robbery the

appellant used the deadly weapon i.e. knife and caused injuries to the

victim. It is noted in the judgment that the appellant was involved in four

different FIRs for different offences and had no clear antecedents. On that

score, the appellant deserves no leniency to modify order on sentence.

5. In the light of above discussion, the appeal lacks merits and

is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are maintained.

The Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 20, 2013 tr