Surender vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 323 Del

$~R-14
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.A.520/2001

      SURENDER                                            .....Appellant
                            Through:     Mr. Ajay Verma, DHCLSC panel
                                         lawyer
                            versus

      STATE                                                ..... Respondent
                            Through:     Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional
                                         Public Prosecutor
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                            ORDER

% 17.01.2014

Appellant herein upon being tried in FIR No. 134/1996 under Sections 392/397/412 of IPC and in FIR No.135/1996 under Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act both registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Delhi has been convicted for the offence under Section 397 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Vide impugned judgment he has been awarded minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 397 of IPC and he has been also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Substantive sentences are to run concurrently.

The factual matrix of this case noticed in the impugned judgment is as under: -

"The case of prosecution in brief is that on 16.3.96 SI Samarjeet Singh was present at Peshwa Road Mandir Marg, CRL.A.520/2001 Page 1 T-Point and at about 8.25 P.M. one public person came who had not disclosed his name, and informed that police that near the sharab theka at Gole Market, on policewala had caught hold of one Badmaash and on receiving this information SI alongwith HC Balbir Singh reached near the sharab theka at Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg near Doctor lane. At the same time, ASI Lakhan Singh alongwith his staff also reached there and they found that complainant Kishore Kumar Gupta had caught hold of Surender Kumar alongiwth one dagger. One purse containing Rs.70/- and driving licence and TSR No.DL-1RB 4140 were recovered. ASI Lakhan Singh conducted the proceedings regarding recovery of chura, and SI took into possession TSR No.DL- 1RB 4140. The purse of the complainant, driving licence and Rs.70/- were also taken into possession. Statement of Kishore Kumar Gupta was recorded and in his statement he stated that he is a scooter driver and on 16.3.96 at about 5 a.m., he was waiting for passenger outside ISBT. The accused whose name he came to know later on as Surender Kumar, came and asked him to take him to Punjabi Bagh and when they reached there, the accused made him to roam here and there, then he asked him to go to Moti Nagar and when he reached Moti Nagar, he asked him to drop him near flats of Willington. Then, complainant told the accused Surender Kumar that he has to return the vehicle to the owner and hence, he cannot go there but when he requested CRL.A.520/2001 Page 2 him to drop at Moti Nagar and from there he requested to take him to Willington then complainant denied but on his request he took him to Moti Nagar. At about 7.45 A.M., they reached near Shankar Road, Petrol Pump and the accused on the pretext of urinating, stopped the scooter and when he came back, he took out on e chura and put it on his neck and threatened him to kill and thereafter he took out his raxine purse which was in front pocket of his shirt, and containing driving licence and Rs.70/-. Thereafter, he pushed him on one side and took his TSR and ran away toward RML hospital. He tried to request the drivers of other vehicles to help him but no one stopped their vehicle and in between one constable Sat Parkash came on motor cycle and stopped the same at his request and he disclosed about the occurrence to the constable and thereafter he sat on the motor cycle with him and chased the TSR. They came via Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital to Gole Market and when they reached little ahead of Gole Market, near Bhagat Singh Marg near the sharab theka, the police constable put the motor cycle in front of the TRS and stopped him. Surender got down from the scooter and threatened him to kill them. Const. Sat Parkash took out his revolver and aimed it on Surender Kumar and thereafter he controlled the accused. Thereafter, chura and purse alongwwith TSR was taken into possession by the police. The case under Section 397 IPC was registered."

CRL.A.520/2001 Page 3 Trial court has relied upon the evidence of complainant (PW-1) and of police witnesses to convict appellant. The challenge to the impugned conviction and the sentence awarded by learned counsel for appellant is on the ground that appellant was apprehended by the police of Chankyapuri Police Station, New Delhi prior to this incident and has been falsely implicated in this case and the alleged recoveries have been planted upon appellant, who has already remained behind bars in this case for a period of about 4 ½ years. It was contended that in the absence of any corroboration to the testimony of complainant, benefit of doubt deserves to be granted to appellant.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State supports the impugned judgment and points out that the arguments now raised in this appeal stands contradicted by the stand taken by appellant in the appeal wherein he has asserted that he had hired a TSR from ISBT on his returning from Kriya Ceremony at his native place and complainant had taken appellant in his TSR by a longer route to make more money and when appellant had objected, a quarrel had taken place with the complainant and thereafter, he has been falsely implicated in this case.

Both the sides have been heard and with their assistance, the evidence on record and impugned judgment is scrutinized and thereupon, I find that the testimony of constable-Sat Parkash (PW-5), who had apprehended appellant remains unassailable. In view thereof, no dent is caused in the prosecution version as the plea of false implication taken on behalf of appellant is otherwise also not plausible in the facts of the instant case. The deposition of complainant/first informant is found to be

CRL.A.520/2001 Page 4 unimpeachable. There is no substance in this appeal.

After having gone through the evidence on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting any interference in this appeal. Since minimum sentence has been already awarded to appellant, therefore, there is no scope of any leniency being shown on the quantum of sentence. While entertaining this appeal, the substantive sentence awarded to appellant was suspended vide order of 14th November, 2003 upon appellant furnishing bail-bonds. With the dismissal of this appeal, the bail-bonds furnished by appellant in this appeal are cancelled and trial court is directed to ensure that appellant is taken into custody so that he is made to suffer the unexpired sentence awarded to him.

Trial court be apprised of this order forthwith. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.

                                                         (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
JANUARY 17, 2014
s




CRL.A.520/2001                                                        Page 5