Delhi High Court
Anil vs State, Nct Govt. Of Delhi on 23 April, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 21st APRIL, 2014
DECIDED ON : 23rd APRIL, 2014
+ CRL.A. 361/2012 & CRL.M.B.No. 343/2014
ANIL ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Baljeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE, NCT GOVT. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. The present appeal is directed to challenge the legality and
correctness of a judgment dated 07.09.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions
Judge in Sessions Case No. 47/2010 arising out of FIR No. 170/2010 PS
Ranjit Nagar by which he was held guilty under Sections 392/397 IPC and
25/27 Arms Act. By an order dated 26.09.2011, he was sentenced to
undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 1,000/- under Sections 392/397
IPC; RI for three years with fine ` 250/- each under Sections 25/27 Arms
Act.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-
sheet was that on 01.09.2010 at about 08.10 P.M. near Gopal Dairy,
Pandav Nagar, the appellant robbed complainant - Mohd. Naushad of his
wallet containing ` 2,700/- and I-card of his wife at knife point. The
appellant was apprehended at the spot and the robbed articles were
recovered from his possession. The Investigating Officer lodged First
Information Report after recording complainant - Mohd. Naushad's
statement (Ex.PW-1/A). Statements of the witnesses conversant with the
facts were recorded. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet
was submitted against the appellant; he was duly charged and brought to
trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses to establish his guilt. In
313 statement, he denied complicity in the crime and pleaded false
implication. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the record. The occurrence took place at around 08.10 P.M.
Statement of the complainant was recorded and FIR was lodged in
promptitude by sending rukka (Ex.PW-2/B) at 10.00 P.M. In the
complaint, Mohd. Naushad revealed that when he was going to purchase
articles and reached near Gopal Dairy, Pandav Nagar, he was robbed of
his wallet containing ` 2,700/- and I-card of his wife at knife point by
Anil. When he raised alarm, he was caught hold by police officials who
were on patrolling duty. The robbed articles and the knife were recovered
from his possession. While appearing as PW-1, Mohd. Naushad proved
the version given to the police without any variation. He identified Anil to
be the assailant who had robbed him after putting him in fear at knife
point. In the cross-examination, he denied that the appellant was known to
him prior to the incident. Despite lengthy cross-examination, no material
contradiction could be elicited or extracted to disbelieve him. PW-2 (SI
Sohan Lal), PW-3 (Ct.Pavinder Kumar) and PW-5 (Ct.Pankaj) deposed
about the apprehension of the accused at the spot and the recovery of the
robbed articles and the knife from his possession. Their statements are
consistent. No ulterior motive was assigned to them for falsely implicating
the appellant. The appellant took inconsistent and conflicting defence. In
313 statement, he admitted that the complainant was slapped by him
because he (the complainant) used to sell drugs to his nephew and was
involved in several cases. However, the appellant did not examine any
witness in defence to prove if the complainant was involved in any
criminal case or that he used to sell drugs to his nephew. He even did not
examine his nephew in defence to prove sale of any drugs to him. The
appellant did not lodge any complaint against the complainant for selling
drugs. No such suggestion was put to the complainant in the cross-
examination. Suggestion was put to him that he used to tease a girl in the
locality and the appellant was falsely implicated as he had objected to it.
Again, the name of the girl to whom complainant used to tease was not
disclosed. The girl was not examined in defence to substantiate the
allegation. Contradictory suggestion was put to PW-3 (Ct.Pavinder
Kumar) denying his presence at the spot. Altogether different suggestion
was put to PW-5 (Ct.Pankaj) that the appellant was falsely implicated at
the instance of the complainant as he used to object the running of illegal
video game parlour by him. Apparently, defence put to witnesses is
inconsistent and conflicting and deserves outright rejection. Nothing has
come on record to infer if the complainant was acquainted with the
appellant prior to the incident or had any extraneous consideration to
falsely implicate him in the incident. Minor inconsistencies regarding the
time taken to conduct proceedings etc. highlighted by appellant's counsel
are inconsequential and are not enough to shake the basic structure of
prosecution case.
4. In the light of above discussion, appeal filed by the appellant
is dismissed as unmerited. Pending application also stands disposed of.
Trial Court record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order. A
copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2014 / tr
