Delhi High Court
Avdhesh vs State on 4 March, 2014
$~R-9 to 12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ (i) CRL.A.948/2001
RAM JANAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.D. S. Rathore and Mr.
M.P.Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
+ (ii) CRL.A.957/2001
RAM NAYAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.D. S. Rathore and Mr.
M.P.Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
+ (iii) CRL.A.25/2002
RAM PARVESH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.D. S. Rathore and Mr.
M.P.Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CRL.Appeals 948/01; 957/01; 25/02 & 221/01 Page 1
+ (iv) CRL.A.221/2001
AVDHESH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.D. S. Rathore and Mr.
M.P.Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 04.03.2014
In the above-captioned four appeals, challenge is to common
impugned judgment of 13th September, 2001 vide which these four
appellants have been held guilty of the offence under Sections 392/397 of
IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act in FIRs No.454/1999 to
458/1999 registered at P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi.
At the final hearing of these appeals, with the consent of both the
sides, these four appeals were heard together and by this common order,
they are being disposed of together.
The facts giving rise to these four appeals as noted in the impugned
judgment are as under: -
"SI R.S. Meena recorded the statement of
complainant Kapil Suneja which when translate into English
will inter alia read as under: -
"I am residing on the above said address with my
CRL.Appeals 948/01; 957/01; 25/02 & 221/01 Page 2
parents and I am working in Loha Mandi, Narayana as a
Commission Agent. Today on 26.6.1999 after doing wok in
Narayana Loha Mandi, I was present opposite X-32,
Narayana Loha Mandi where my motor cycle No.DL-4SF-
5455, make "Yamha" was parked. At about 7.50 p.m. while
I was about to start my motor cycle and had kept a leather
bag hanging on my shoulder which contained Rs.40,000/- in
four bundles of currency notes of the denomination of
Rs.100/- each, a diary and some papers, four boys, namely,
Ram Janam s/o Rudal, Ram Nayan s/o Ram Milan, Avdhesh
s/o Nageshwar and Ram Parvesh s/o Prabhu Nath, whose
names and addresses I have learnt now, arrived there.
Accused Ram Parvesh took out a countrymade pistol and
pointed it out towards me. Accused Avdhesh brandished a
knife at me and stood opposite me. Accused Ram Janam
came to my left with an open knife and accused Ram Nayan
came to my right having an open knife. They told me to hand
over the money containing in the bag. Ram Par Parvesh
snatched away the bag kept by me on my shoulder forcibly
and they started running away from that place after giving
me threats. I raised a noise and chased these persons. On
hearing my cries, three police personnels also ran after
these four boys. Near A-43, Narayana Phase-II, the three
police personnels Gheraoed these boys, who brandished the
countrymade pistols and knives at them also but the police
personnels were able to overpower them. Accused Ram
CRL.Appeals 948/01; 957/01; 25/02 & 221/01 Page 3
Parvesh was having a countrymade pistol in his hand and
my bag; the other three were having open knives. In the
meanwhile, somebody rang up the police, whereafter you
have arrived. Accused Ram Parvesh, Avdhesh, Ram Janam
and Ram Nayan have been produced before you along with
my leather bag containing money. All these boys had
snatched away my bag after brandishing a Desi Katta and
knives on me. Action be taken against these four boys
according to law. My statement is correct.
Sd/-
Kapil Suneja."
Apart from deposition of complainant/first-informant-Kapil Suneja
(PW-2), there is evidence of patrolling team comprising of Constable-
Girdhari Lal (PW-4), Head-constable-Ramesh (PW-5), Constable-Ranjeet
(PW-6) and that of the Investigating Officer (PW-7) of this case, which
has been relied upon by trial court to convict these four appellants while
discarding their plea of sitting in a park and of being apprehended
therefrom and of being falsely implicated in this case.
At the final hearing of these appeals, it was contended by Mr.
S.D.S. Rathore, Advocate, that he is representing all the four appellants
and except appellant-Ram Janam, remaining three appellants are
rickshaw pullers whereas appellant-Ram Janam is a labourer and they
used to work in Loha Mandi in Naraina, Delhi and that they are innocent
and have been falsely implicated in this case.
On merits, it was contended on behalf of appellants that the solitary
evidence of complainant-first informant (PW-2) does not establish the
CRL.Appeals 948/01; 957/01; 25/02 & 221/01 Page 4
prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant-first
informant (PW-2) is unable to identify as to from which accused the
leather bag was recovered. It was pointed out by learned counsel for
appellants that complainant-first informant (PW-2) even does not disclose
in his evidence as from which of the accused persons, knives (Ex.P-9, P-
10 and P-11) were recovered. Lastly, it was submitted by learned counsel
for appellants that in view of aforesaid major discrepancy in the
prosecution version, its corroboration was essential and despite
availability of public witness, no public witness has been joined in this
case, which renders the prosecution case doubtful and entitles appellants
to acquittal.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State had
supported that impugned judgment and had submitted that appellants
were arrested at the spot and so, the question of their false implication
does not arise at all and the discrepancy pointed out in the evidence of
complainant-first informant (PW-2) is of no consequence for the reason
that on aforesaid aspects, there is evidence of patrolling team comprising
of Constable-Girdhari Lal (PW-4), Head-constable-Ramesh (PW-5),
Constable-Ranjeet (PW-6) and that of the Investigating Officer (PW-7) of
this case. Thus, it was submitted that the prosecution case stands firmly
proved and there is no substance in these appeals.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the evidence on
record, impugned judgment and the material on record, I find that it
stands firmly established from the evidence of Constable-Girdhari Lal
(PW-4), Head-constable-Ramesh (PW-5), Constable-Ranjeet (PW-6) and
that of the Investigating Officer (PW-7) of this case that appellants were
CRL.Appeals 948/01; 957/01; 25/02 & 221/01 Page 5
chased by the aforesaid patrolling team and they had managed to
overpower appellants and in the spot proceedings, a country-made pistol
was recovered from the possession of appellant-Ram Parvesh alongwith
bag (Ex.P-1) containing bundles of currency notes (Ex.P-2 to P-5)
totalling to `40,000/- and from remaining three appellants-Avdhesh, Ram
Janam and Ram Niwas, three button-dar knives were recovered which
were seized by police.
During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for appellants
could not point out any infirmity or lacuna in the deposition of aforesaid
three witnesses i.e. Constable-Girdhari Lal (PW-4), Head-constable-
Ramesh (PW-5) and Constable-Ranjeet (PW-6) which establishes
prosecution case and so inability of complainant-first informant (PW-2)
to point out from which of accused persons the knives in question were
recovered, becomes inconsequential. Since it is a case of spot arrest and
recovery of the incriminating articles, therefore, appellants have to
probablise their defence of their being falsely implicated in this case,
which they have failed to do.
The deposition of complainant-first informant (PW-2) establishes
the charge under Section 397 of IPC against appellant-accused persons as
this witness has deposed in no uncertain terms of appellant-accused
persons had aimed their respective weapons i.e. country-made pistol and
the knives at him while robbing him. Recovery of the weapons of offence
and the looted amount of `40,000/- stands firmly proved from the
evidence on record. The conviction of appellant-accused persons for the
offence in question is well deserved as impugned judgment does not
suffer from any fatal lacuna.
CRL.Appeals 948/01; 957/01; 25/02 & 221/01 Page 6
In view of the aforesaid, finding no substance in these appeals, they
are dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellants is hereby affirmed.
During the pendency of these four appeals, the substantive sentence
awarded to appellants was suspended. Trial court is directed to ensure
that appellants undergo the unserved sentence in this case.
These four appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 04, 2014
s
CRL.Appeals 948/01; 957/01; 25/02 & 221/01 Page 7
