Deepak vs State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 2369 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  RESERVED ON : 24th APRIL, 2014
                                   DECIDED ON : 9th MAY, 2014

+                        CRL.A. 300/2012

      DEEPAK                                             ..... Appellant

                         Through :    Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate.


                         versus



      STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI                      ..... Respondent

                         Through :    Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.


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

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellant - Deepak questions the legality and correctness

of a judgment dated 15.11.2011 in Sessions Case No. 153/10 arising out

of FIR No. 243/10 PS S.P.Badli by which he was held guilty under

Section 397 IPC and 27 Arms Act. By an order dated 22.11.2011, he was

awarded various prison terms which were ordered to operate concurrently.

2. Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the charge-

sheet were that on 14.08.2010 at about 08.15 P.M. near Siraspur

Gurudwara, main G.T.K. road, Delhi, he and his associate Pradeep @

Pappu in furtherance of common intention robbed the complainant -

Rajesh and deprived him of ` 2,200/- and mobile phone at knife point.

Information about the occurrence was conveyed to the police and Daily

Diary (DD) No. 45A (Ex.PW-3/A) was recorded at 08.20 P.M. The

investigation was assigned to SI Alok Bajpayee who with Const.Rajeev

went to the spot. He lodged First Information Report after recording

complainant - Rajesh's statement (Ex.PW-1/A). Statements of the

witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Both the accused

persons who were apprehended at the spot were taken to hospital for

medical examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet

was submitted against both of them; they were duly charged and brought

to trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses to substantiate the

charges against both of them. In 313 statements, they pleaded false

implication and denied their complicity in the crime without examining

any witness in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid.

It appears that co-convict Pradeep @ Pappu has not opted to challenge

conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied,

the appellant has preferred the appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

scrutinized the Trial Court record minutely. The occurrence took place at

around 08.15 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) No. 45A (Ex.PW-3/A) was recorded

soon after the incident at 08.20 P.M. where information conveyed to the

police was that two individuals had been caught hold with a knife near

Siraspur Gurudwara and they were involved in robbery. After recording

complainant's statement (Ex.PW-1/A), the Investigating Officer lodged

First Information Report in promptitude at 09.50 P.M. by sending rukka

(Ex.PW-1/A). In the complaint (Ex.PW-1/A), Rajesh gave detailed

account as to how and under what circumstances, he was robbed of his

mobile make virgin and cash ` 2,200/- at knife point by the appellant and

his associate and how they were apprehended at the spot and given

beatings by the public. Since the First Information Report was lodged

without any delay, there was least possibility of the complainant to

fabricate a false story and to implicate both the accused persons with

whom he had no prior acquaintance. In his Court statement, the

complainant proved the version without any deviation; identified the

appellant and his associate and assigned specific role to them in

committing robbery. He admitted that co-accused Pradeep @ Pappu was

known to him prior to the incident. He proved the recovery of the robbed

articles and knife from the appellant's possession. PW-2 (Rajnath), an

independent public witness, corroborated the version in its entirety. He

was able to apprehend with the assistance of the public both the assailants.

Both these witnesses were cross-examined at length. However, their

testimonies could not be shattered on material aspects. Appellant's main

contention was that he was falsely implicated at the behest of one Kaptan

Singh, a property dealer with whom a quarrel had taken place. Both PW-1

(Rajesh) and PW-2 (Rajnath) denied if any such quarrel had taken place

with Kaptan Singh or they had lodged false complaint against the accused

persons at his behest. The appellant and his associate did not give detailed

particulars about the alleged quarrel with Kaptan Singh. It was not

revealed as to when and on what account, the quarrel had taken place with

Kaptan Singh. No such incident was lodged by the appellant and his

associate with the police. It has come on record that Kaptan Singh has

influence in the area. There was no occasion for him to seek assistance of

the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant and his associate. In 313

statement, the appellant took conflicting and inconsistent defence and for

the first time came up with the plea that complainant - Rajesh was

acquainted with him. They took drinks together and due to scuffle, they

were falsely implicated in this case. No such suggestion was put or given

to the complainant and PW-2 (Rajnath) in the cross-examination. Nothing

has come on record that on that day the complainant had any conversation

prior to the incident with the appellant and his associate or all of them had

consumed liquor together. The appellant did not explain as to what led the

public to thrash him and his associate. Both the accused persons were

taken to Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and they were

medically examined. The complainant was not expected to falsely

implicate the appellant with whom he had no prior animosity. Despite

lengthy cross-examination, nothing material discrepancy could be elicited

to disbelieve the version narrated by him. Minor contradictions,

discrepancies and improvements highlighted by the appellant's counsel do

not affect the basic structure of the prosecution case. The complainant

categorically asserted that after he was put in fear of knife, he handed over

cash ` 2,200/-. All the relevant contentions of the accused persons have

been taken into consideration in the impugned judgment which is based

upon fair appraisal of the evidence and needs no interference. Non-

examination of independent public witness from the locality is not fatal as

both PW-1 (Rajesh) and PW-2 (Rajnath) are consistent about the identity

of the appellant and the role played by him in the incident. Recovery of

the robbed articles from the possession of the appellant further connects

him with the crime. False defence taken by the appellant in 313 statement

also additionally connects him with the crime. The minimum sentence

prescribed under Section 397 IPC is seven years which cannot be altered

or modified. Default sentence for non-payment of fine of ` 1,000/- is

reduced to SI for fifteen days instead of six months under Section 397

IPC. Sentence order is modified to that extent only.

4. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court

record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. A copy of the

order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 09, 2014 / tr