Delhi High Court
Rajesh @ Ramesh vs State on 15 July, 2015
Author: Ashutoshkumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 09.07.2015
% Date of Decision: 15.07.2015
+ CRL.A. 259/2011
PAPPU SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Chetan Lokur, Adv.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP.
SI Kamal Kumar, PS Okhla
Industrial Area.
+ CRL.A. 393/2011
RAJESH @ RAMESH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Mukesh Birla, Adv. with
appellant in person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP.
SI Kamal Kumar, PS Okhla
Industrial Area.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J:
1. Both the appeals have been heard and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. In Criminal Appeal No.259/2011 (Pappu Singh) by order dated
23.4.2015, Mr.Chetan Lokur was appointed as amicus curiae as the
appellant had appeared pursuant to the bailable warrants issued and
informed the Court about his poverty.
3. In Criminal Appeal No.393/2011 (Rajesh @ Ramesh) non bailable
warrants were issued on 23.4.2015 but the execution report is awaited.
4. Heard Mr.Chetan Lokur, amicus curiae.
5. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 11.1.2011 and 13.1.2011 whereby Learned
ASJ (Fast Track Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi) in Sessions
Case No.197/2005 (P.S.Okhla Industrial Area) convicted the appellant
under Sections 394/411 and 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo
RI for five years, fine of Rs.1000/- (in default of which SI for two
months) for offence under Section 394/34 IPC and SI for one year, fine
of Rs.500/- (in default of which SI for one month for offence under
Section 411/34 of IPC).
6. On 12.3.2005 when Head Constable Jasbir Singh (PW.7) and
Constable Sunil Kumar (PW.1) were on patrolling duty, they visited a
vegetable market where they met Constable Randhawa (PW.8) and
Krishan Kumar (PW.6). All the four named above, on reaching near Tata
Steel Factory, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, heard a commotion. Four
persons were found to be running away. Three out of them were
apprehended by the police officials whereas one was caught by members
of the public.
7. The aforesaid four persons were identified as the appellants and
one Ajay @ Buglesh and Kamal.
8. Ajay @ Buglesh, being of tender age was sent to the Juvenile
Court whereas Kamal Sharma died.
9. The aforesaid two appellants were put on trial.
10. From the possession of appellant Pappu (Appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.259/2011) one watch with a gold colour strap was recovered
and seized vide memo Exh.PW.1/B.
11. From Ramesh @ Rajesh (Appellant in Criminal Appeal
No.393/2011) one HMT watch, one Nokia mobile phone and a sum of
Rs.420/- was recovered and seized vide memo Exh.PW.1/C.
12. From the possession of the juvenile accused one knife was
recovered.
13. The disclosure statements of the accused persons including the
appellants were recovered (Exh.PW.1/G to G4).
14. Kaam Singh (PW.2) lodged a complaint (Ex.PW.2/A). He deposed
before the Trial Court that on 12.3.2005 at about 8.30 P.M while he along
with Nandan Singh (PW.3) were returning from work, they were
surrounded by four boys and were asked to hand over all their
belongings. He further deposed that he was assaulted by knife on his
cheek by one of the miscreants whereas appellant Rajesh divested him of
his purse from his back pocket which contained Rs.430/-. It was further
stated by him that appellant Rakesh took his mobile phone along with his
wrist watch. The other two boys, according to PW.2 caught hold of
Nandan Singh (PW.3) and divested him of his belongings including
Rs.350/- and a wrist watch. On raising alarm by PW.2 and Nandan Singh
(PW.3), police arrived and caught hold of the miscreants.
15. Similar statement has been made by Nandan Singh (PW.3)
associate of Kaam Singh (PW.2) who supported the prosecution version
that he and PW.2 were divested of their belongings by four accused
persons, two being the appellants.
16. The identification of the appellants thus stands established by the
deposition of PWs.2 and 3.
17. Kaam Singh (PW.2) was examined by one Dr.Amit and MLC was
prepared (Ex.PW.4/B). At the trial, Dr.Aman (PW.4) proved the MLC
prepared by Dr.Amit. The MLC of PW.2 discloses simple injury namely
laceration on the right cheek of PW.2.
18. During trial Krishan Kumar (PW.6), Head Constable Jasbir Singh
(PW.7), the first IO and ASI Satish Chand (PW.5) supported the
prosecution version with respect to the appellants having been
apprehended, their disclosure statements and the recovery of looted
articles.
19. On behalf of the appellants, learned amicus curiae argued that
there were material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs.2 and 3 with
regard to the manner of commission of crime. Kaam Singh (PW.2) in his
cross examination deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO in
the police station whereas the consistent case of the prosecution is that
the FIR was recorded at the spot where his statement was taken by the
IO.
20. It was further submitted that the recovery from one of the co-
accused Buglesh is doubtful in as much as PW.2, in his cross
examination did not state anything specific as to the recovery of the
knife.
21. From the deposition of the witnesses, the identification of the
aforesaid two appellants stand fully established. The recovery of the
looted articles also testifies to the fact that the articles were not planted
upon them.
22. From the perusal of the record it appears that initially charges were
framed under Sections 394/397 and 411 of the IPC but the Trial Court on
finding that Section 397 was not made out against the appellants as
neither of them were armed with any weapon much less any deadly
weapon, acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 397 of the
IPC.
23. Be it noted that the knife was recovered from Buglesh (Juvenile).
24. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections
394/411 of the IPC. No interference is required with respect to the
conviction of the appellants.
25. From the records it appears that the appellants have remained in
jail for one year. Considering the fact that the appellants were of young
age at the time of commission of the crime, the sentence imposed on the
appellants appears to be harsh.
26. The sentences imposed on the appellants is, therefore, modified to
the period which they have already undergone.
27. Considering the economic strata of the appellants, the payment of
fine is also waived. In the interest of justice, the sentence of the
appellants is modified accordingly.
28. The appeal is dismissed with the modification in sentence as
aforesaid.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
July 15, 2015
k
