Deepak @ Rohit vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 846 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                RESERVED ON : February 12, 2014
                                DECIDED ON : February 13, 2014

+                         CRL.A. 1444/2011

       DEEPAK @ ROHIT                                  ..... Appellant
                    Through :          Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate.

                          versus

       STATE                                           ..... Respondent
                          Through :    Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
                                       SI Manu Kumar, PS Pandav Nagar.

        CORAM:
        MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Deepak @ Rohit is aggrieved by his conviction under Section

392 read with Section 397 IPC by a judgment dated 23.11.2010 in

Sessions Case No.112/10 arising out of FIR No.185/10 registered at

Police Station Pandav Nagar. By an order dated 25.11.2010, he was

awarded RI for seven years with fine `500/-.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, as projected in the charge-

sheet was that on 30.05.2010 when complainant-Rakesh Kumar was

travelling in a private bus, at about 1.45 p.m. at bus stand, Block 13,

Trilok Puri, the appellant and his associate (not arrested) in furtherance of

common intention robbed him of `4,000/- and a mobile phone make

Nokia by using a knife and inflicted injuries to him. On his raising an

alarm, the appellant was apprehended by the public at some distance and

given beatings. Lalit Kumar ( (PW-4) made a telephone call at 100 and

the police machinery came into motion by recording Daily Dairy (DD)

No.16A (Ex.PW-8/A), at 13.59 hours at Police Station Pandav Nagar.

The investigation was assigned to SI Krishan Pal who with Const.Munesh

Kumar went to the spot. The victim was taken to Lal Bahadur hospital,

Khichripur, Delhi and was medically examined. The investigating officer

lodged First Information Report after recording victim's statement

(Ex.PW-1/A). Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were

recorded. Efforts were made to find out the appellant's associate but in

vain. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the

court; the accused was duly charged and brought to trial. The trial resulted

in the conviction for the offences mentioned previously.

3. Appellant's counsel urged that it was a case of mistaken

identity as the appellant was apprehended at a distance of 200-300 meters

away from the bus in which the complainant was travelling. The

complainant had only a fleeing glimpse of the culprit and was not in a

position to identify and recognize him. No robbed article was recovered

from his possession. MLC of the accused whereby he sustained head

injuries was not placed on judicial file. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor urged that the complainant and PW-4 (Lalit Kumar) have

implicated the appellant who was arrested at the spot and without valid

reasons, their reliable testimony cannot be discarded or doubted.

4. The appellant was apprehended at a short distance after he

alighted from the private bus in which he and his associate were travelling

soon after the incident by the public when complainant raised an alarm.

The occurrence took place during day-time at about 01.45 p.m. on

30.05.2010. The complainant was not only robbed of his mobile and cash

`4,000/- but was also injured. Apparently, he had ample and sufficient

opportunity of seeing the accused with whom he had direct confrontation

and there was no chance of mistaken identity. In the statement (Ex.PW-

1/A) given to the police at the first instance, the complainant gave detailed

account of the occurrence and identified Deepak @ Rohit (the appellant)

to be the assailant who was caught hold by public immediately after the

incident. In his Court statement, he fully proved the version given to the

police and identified the appellant for robbing him of `4,000/- and mobile

and also causing injuries with a knife on his person when he was present

at the front door of the bus to get-down at bus stand 13 Block, Trilok Puri.

He further deposed that the robbed articles were handed over by the

appellant to his associate who succeeded to flee the spot. In the cross-

examination, no material discrepancies emerged to disbelieve the version

narrated by the complainant. Nothing was suggested to him that it was a

case of mistaken identity. PW-4 (Lalit Kumar), complainant's companion

in the bus, also corroborated his version and identified the appellant as

one of the assailants who had committed robbery and caused injuries to

PW-1 (Rakesh Kumar). The ocular testimony is in consonance with the

medical evidence. MLC (Ex.PW-2/A) records arrival time of the patient

at the hospital as 02.45 p.m. PW-2 (Dr.O.S.Tomar) medically examined

the patient vide MLC (Ex.PW-2/A) and found one incised wound on the

back buttock upper part. The nature of injuries was ascertained as

'simple' by PW-3 (Dr.Jugal Kishore Goyal). Non-recovery of the robbed

articles is not vital as the prosecution case from the very inception was

that the appellant after committing robbery, handed over the robbed

articles to his associate who was able to flee from the spot. Though the

appellant was given beatings by the public, it is not clear as to what was

the nature of injuries sustained by him. No reasons were asked from the

Investigating Officer in the cross-examination as to why the MLC of the

appellant was not placed on record. In 313 statement, the accused did not

give plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances appearing

against him and took conflicting and inconsistent defences. In the cross-

examination, he put suggestions that he was lifted from his house and

falsely implicated in this case. However, in the statement under Section

313, he alleged that he was apprehended from outside Chand Cinema,

Kalyan Puri when he was not in his senses after consuming smack and

had fallen on the road. He also claimed that due to beatings by the police,

he admitted his involvement in the case. This version does not inspire

confidence as nothing was suggested to the investigating officer regarding

the beatings given by the police. PW-1 and PW-4 had no prior animosity

to falsely identify and recognize him as one of the assailants. The findings

of the trial court are based upon fair appraisal of the evidence and warrant

no interference.

5. The appeal is unmerited and is dismissed. Trial Court record

be sent back forthwith. A copy of the judgment be sent to the

Superintendent Jail for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE February 13, 2014/sa